Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There is an argument that all manned fighters are already obsolete thanks to the proliferation of cheap drones and that establishing air superiority is a very different task now.
 help



There is no such argument among people who actually know how this stuff works. Cheap drones might work pretty well for trench warfare in Ukraine but it's impossible to build a cheap drone that would be effective in a conflict with China over Taiwan. The distances alone mean that aircraft must be large just to get there, and thus not cheap regardless of whether there's a crew onboard.

Autonomous flight control software is still only able to handle the simplest missions. Maybe that will change in a few years but for now anything complex requires a remote pilot, and those communication links are very vulnerable.


No one worth listening to makes that argument.

Torpedo boats didn't make Battleships obsolete. Aircraft carriers did. Because they could do the same role but better.

AntiTank rifles didn't make tanks obsolete. Neither did anti-tank mines. Nor anti-tank rocket launchers, nor anti-tank artillery, nor really freaking good anti-tank missiles, nor anti-tank helicopters etc etc. Turns out, putting a box of steel around soldiers is pretty much always better. IFVs are even less survivable than a tank in all cases and they have only become more important and prominent because what capability they provide is what matters.

Artillery and Air power did not make the army obsolete. Air power did not make Artillery obsolete though the USA wanted that reality.

Submarines didn't make any boat obsolete.

SAM systems did not make planes obsolete. Hell, America decided the solution to missiles aimed at your planes was fly planes at the missile launcher! And it works because war is stupid.

"Cheap drones" only work against things that haven't yet adapted to cheap drones in the exact same way that Navy had to adapt to anti-ship missiles. With EW, those "cheap" drones get less cheap. With any sort of advancement in protection, those drones get less cheap. War is about achieving physical control, and you can't really do that with cheap drones. There's always back and forth in weapons systems. We still use bayonets in the right circumstances!

Cheap drones cannot establish air superiority, and certainly not air supremacy. Actual air combat drones are far more expensive, involved, and in development than quadcopters.

The primary power drones bring is ISR, making the entire battlefield utterly transparent, including at nighttime. That's insane, and really really bad for any of us who might be forced to fight in the future, as lethality to the average soldier is likely to go up.


That's really just X/Twitter conjecture. We don't see this argument substantiated in any modern air combat anywhere in the world.

There really is not, this argument was a total discredit of Elon Musks opinions on anything military. Case in point, Iran has been a major user of these drones yet they’ve been out of the game against an enemy with a real air force



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: