Well I don’t think the ones Ukraine used this weekend work that way. Some, which have been used in the war, do, because they drop small bombs rather than being the bomb. Those bomb-dropping drones are used for antipersonnel attacks tho. I think you’d want the larger boom if you’re trying to destroy a vehicle.
Right, the ones in this attack were definitely on a suicide mission, because there wasn’t even anywhere for them to return to. Even there, though, you get economy in choice of targets. From some of the FPV that was released, you see drones flying over planes, looking at them and seeing that those planes were already on fire, and moving on to the next plane until they found one that wasn’t on fire yet.
Any weapon system has some chance of not destroying its target, and so if you want to destroy all of the targets, you have to use more weapons than targets. If, say, each one has a 50% chance of success, and you throw twice as many weapons as there are targets, then with dynamic retargeting like that, you’ll probably get all or most of the targets. If target choices are all set at once and you only get one volley, then without dynamic retargeting, the best you can do is allocate two weapons to each target, and you’ll get a quarter of your weapons wasted on already-destroyed targets, and a quarter of your targets surviving.
Interestingly enough, many Ukrainian drones, maybe the kind used in this attack, are probably cheaper than an artillery shell.
This article states that the average 155mm artillery shell costs $5,000.
So not only cheaper, but the drones give you recon/imagery/intel which shells never can, and sometimes survive the mission and can be reused. The only drawback is that they pack less destructive punch than a 155mm - but the precision way pays off.
And another go at the Crimea bridge
I agree.
Anyway, causing catastrophic damage to an airplane doesn’t require that much explosive. The amount of explosive in a typical anti-aircraft missile is quite smaller than a big artillery shell.
One thing I don’t think get mentioned is using drones and anti-aircraft.
Instead of explosives, put a steel rod in each drone and fly them at the jet engines. It’s like a bird strike, but worse. Even with high closing speeds, and large difference in actual speed, you don’t need to be precise. If you hit the canopy, or do any other damage, it works, too.
I think this would be quite harder than it might sound. A jet airliner is taking off at high speed and at trajectory. You’d have to aim-fly your drones so precisely that it catches the relatively small target (the intake of the turbofan engine of a 777 or A350, whatever) at just the right time, otherwise you miss it. But as you point out, hitting the other parts of the airliner would still be damaging too.
I don’t think FPV drones have the speed to intercept an aircraft like that. Looking online, they only travel at about 40 mph.
Perhaps just flying the drone (or drone carrying a steel rod) into the jet engine of a place sitting on the runway would do enough damage?
It’s not a speed thing. Birds don’t have the speed of jets, either.
The drones are at the end of the runway. You know where the plane will be, and the appx altitude. You just send the drones up in front. The ones that don’t hit, you recover and reuse.
My understanding is that the bombers that were attacked were in Siberia somewhere. Who exactly would have been able to recover any drones?
Different scenarios being discussed. The drones in Siberia were carrying explosives and/or incendiaries, and targeted planes parked on the ground. What @Just_Asking_Questions is discussing is a different, hypothetical, attack on a commercial airport.