They can't put out the kind of rate of fire that artillery can (well, not without a lot of operators being dedicated to them), but it's also a lot easier for a guy launching a drone to hide than it is an artillery piece.

I still think, though, that a big factor in low-end drones playing the role they are right now is because the state of air defenses targeting them isn't fantastic. My suspicion is that that is going to change, and it's likely going to, over the long run, favor the counter-UAS side rather than the UAS operator. That is, I don't dispute the statement that he's making about the battlefield today, but I'm not necessarily sold that that's where it's going to be over the long run. My guess is that there'll also be some be back-and-forth; at the very least, having some longer-range platform deploy shorter-range quadcopter things; as far as I know, that's not currently being done.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Gepards take them down just fine and apparently Rheinmetall is frankensteining Skyranger turrets onto Leopard 1 chassis -- MBT-wise the Leo1 isn't really combative any more but tons are available, also, Ukraine has already plenty of those chassis and knows how to service them. The Skyranger is a definitive upgrade over the Gepard's cannon and targeting, it can take down whole swarms. Also: New are actually getting built, noone's going to build a new production line for Gepards.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

It’s easier to jam a signal than it is to transmit.

My fear is the technology to automate target acquisition is already present and will become standard before the technology to jam the operator comes to bear properly.

Which is fine, because another approach to EW against the drone comes into play but it’s the automated target acquisition that scares me the same way nukes do.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 1 points 11 months ago

They do work well in conjunction with arty, as spotters.