• skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    For few hundred $ you get capability that formerly was only provided by ATGMs, and it’s several times lighter as well, not to mention increased situational awareness. Every military worth their salt will have to study it and countermeasures

    • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      for comparison Stugna-P costs $20k per missile, entire system is 100kg but in return it gets to target much faster and has enough penetration to drill through frontal armour of most tanks, basically guaranteeing mission kill in single hit. drones get to the target in minutes, not seconds and have to find weak spots, but greater maneuverability allows for this

      • The_v@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        I think drones overwhelming advantage is the range and terrain they are effective in. The ability to find and destroy a target that is moving behind cover is a huge advantage.

        How many videos have we seen of assaults moving up behind a tree line for cover. Artillery can stop these but hitting a moving target from miles away takes a lot of shells. Air support can take them out but they are vulnerable on today’s battlefield. Weapons like the Stugna-P require line-of-sight on the ground so they have to let them get closer.