Comment by lysace
6 hours ago
This field moves so quickly. Is this mostly pork or a strategic "they won't be useful, but building up development and production capacity is the goal" kind of thing?
Edit: Foreign perspective: Saab (Sweden) is pitching drones as a service (DaaS?) to Sweden as a way to enable short development cycles, similar to those in Ukraine, while minimizing waste due to purchasing bureaucracy.
I don't think it's pork. Drones have proven their usefulness on the modern battlefield, and those million drones probably cost about as much as about a squadron of F-22s. In a battle between a million drones and 10 F-22s, I'd bet on the drones.
I do think that they're making a mistake by considering drones as ammunition rather than as ammunition delivery vehicles. Because the next phase of the conflict, after both sides have a million drones, comes down to who has better software. If one side has a million drones and the other side is stuck with traditional military hardware like tanks and helicopters and fighter jets, the side with a million drones wins, just like how in WW2, if one side had an aircraft carrier and the other side had a fleet of battleships, the aircraft carrier won. But as soon as both sides started having aircraft carriers, things like the quality of the pilots and planes started mattering. Same here - once you have drone parity, the side with the better software wins.
> In a battle between a million drones and 10 F-22s, I'd bet on the drones.
This is not how militaries work. Military forces exist to complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. Combat is literally the ultimate team sport. A world full of drones still has a need for F-22s or similar. Just with proper short-range air defenses around their airfields.
It's not who has the coolest piece of gear; it's who can employ everything and everyone they have in the most effective fashion to accomplish the goal of national leadership.
I don't disagree, but economies also function on tradeoffs. At some point you have to decide whether you allocate the productive capacity of the economy to F-22s or to drones. That "most effective fashion" changes as the technology level of the economy changes.
nostrademons says >" In a battle between a million drones and 10 F-22s, I'd bet on the drones."<
Timing!
F-22s could destroy drone factories, drone manufacturers' supply chains, factories, etc. A million drones don't just appear in the air battle-ready. And vice-versa.
So it boils down to timing and finding the right tool for the job.
However it's certainly easier to spread drone manufacturing out. And multiple sources for the same part versus F-22s convoluted and highly specialised supply chain.
Turns out when you don't have a human in an aircraft that you need to keep alive, you can get away without a lot.
I Ukraine would have had 10 F-22s with munitions and supply chain the war would have ended long ago.
Ukraine could go through 1M drones in 2-4 months. This isn’t a strategically meaningful stockpile. I think this is just to address our military technology deficit and get drones into training exercises and evaluate vendors. I don’t expect the US to ever again produce any weapon systems at scale beyond policing operations.
Yes, if they are capable enough. I get the feeling they iterate very quickly there. Is that compatible with US procurement procedures?
Companies like Anduril Industries and Skydio are quickly advancing in this field. I think they will be billion dollar companies eventually solely based off their drone tech.
Anduril already raised at a $30B valuation
hell yeah. they are making a ton of awesome things.
Little of column A, little of column B.
The only way you don't see the value of drones is if you were knocked into a coma in January 2022 and just woke up. The US can make good weaponry if it keeps the usual bureaucratic shitheadery and cronyism to a manageable level. Only time will tell if that plays out.