Die NATO sollte die traditionelle Feuerkraft nicht durch „Drohnen“ ersetzen
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/nato-should-not-replace-traditional-firepower-drones
Von AcanthocephalaEast79
Die NATO sollte die traditionelle Feuerkraft nicht durch „Drohnen“ ersetzen
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/nato-should-not-replace-traditional-firepower-drones
Von AcanthocephalaEast79
21 Kommentare
Beware of the drone-sexuals like Musk. He wants the US military to dump traditional firepower in favor of drones because that’s his one trick, invest in nascent industries that are heavily subsidized by the government.
[here is a good interview with the guy who wrote the article ](https://youtu.be/JFkJj3Eh27k)
This is sort of like saying to a larger country without airforce that they shouldn’t replace their entire army with airplanes. While this is true, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t invest more to their airforce. NATO is currently lagging behind on drones when comes to Russia and it would be a disadvantage in future war.
What about having both?
No military relies on one weapon system, combined arms cover the others’ shortcomings. Drones are an essential supplement.
No absolutely correct, you’ll need both a robust drone system AND a traditional method of delivering the most powerful of munitions.
No such things as a Wunderwaffe. I doubt anyone serious is keen on replacing traditional firepower with drones, but complement it.
Both sides in Ukraine are reliant on drones in part because they don’t have much better at short notice.
How about a jet, shooting drones?
Like Ukraine had a choice and like NATO had huge investments and capabilities in drone warfare.
No single serious pure combat drone/autonomous weapon is even planned (apart submarine to my knowledge).
There’s only the Predator which is a counter insurgency platform.
All weapon program are primarily classical manned platforms that are “optionally unmanned” (meaning it was just after the fact) controlling “drone swarms”.
Meaning an already overwhelmed guy being a target in the sky will have to manage 5 other unmanned platforms in real time. Makes absolutely no sense and is just hype to pretend there still be pilots in 2050…
Like Ukraine had fpv pilots doing that from helicopters close to the frontline, totally ridiculous.
IMO, this is a counter attack from the pilot lobby feeling their time is coming to an end and want to pass one last manned program until their retirement.
Like the Ukranians, drones of all kinds needed to be combined with traditional weapons to destroy as much enemy value (mean, weapons, infrastructure) as possible with minimum cost and risk.
We shouldn’t replace it but we should be developing a hell of a lot more than we are
I think it is kinda epic that Russia has the capabillities tonsend 2000 drones a day to Ukraine. It is just convenient rampant overkill. Of course NATO should should produce a fuckton of these
There is place for both, but drones are already stupidly cost effective and it`s just a 2 year old technology. Not prioritizing it will be a huge mistake.
Thing about drones is it’s not the drones, it’s the machines that make the drones that nato needs to invest in. You don’t want to sit on big inventories of drones. Just enough to do recon and test special missions. But when the fighting starts, be prepared to pump up drone manufacture fast. And get them to where they are needed .
Autonomous drone manufacturing systems, build, deploy and destroy.
Any General with more than two braincells would know that
There simply is no counter measure to drones now. There will be, and when There is, airplanes will still fulfill a vital role.
It’s very seldom that things in militaries actually get replaced, like the bow or the horse.
I am convinced that smart people within our Miltaries are NOT modeling the next conflict after Ukraine. That War is an anachronistic outlier.
I can not imagine any scenario where NATO soldiers are sitting in trenches for years on end.
NATOs main strategy of total air dominance remains the best strategy going forward. Might not be 100% effective against Terrorists hiding in caves or amongst civilians, but in any symmetrical conflict it’s the way to go. (it’s also the best approach for Western militaries, where boots on the ground and casualties are a lot more sensitive than in autocracies which have the luxury of just throwing people into the meatgrinder)
What are China or Russia going to do when their facilities, ports and energy infrastructure gets taken out? You cant achieve that with Drones on a big enough scale.
Especially when the enemy sits on the other side of the World or if you’re fighting over territory far away from either sides homeland.
ESPECIALLY if you’re talking naval Engagements that happen over thousands of miles. You are not gonna do much with a bunch of FPVs.
I mean let’s hope it never happens, but if a conflict over Taiwan breaks out, you will not see any resemblance to what happens in Ukraine right now.
They are both tools in rhe military toolbox and both support each other.
It’s easy to think that everything could be replaced by drones, but doesn’t work that way.
I don’t think they are going that way. NATO’s doctrine is „superior air power“ and that leads to fast moving battlefields – nothing like the stagnation and defensive trench / drone warfare that is happening in Ukraine.
So in essence, there if the tactic is successful, there won’t be large scale need for small or even medium size drone warfare on the scale it is happening in Ukraine (hundreds of thousands of drones used each year to kill one to few soldiers at a time).
We replaced, in result we destroyed half of black sea flotilla and FPV helped to reduce casualties, but yeah traditional firepower is a base.