We will be seeing FPV drones with 800km range soon
>>65260566thats gonna be a big drone
>>65260566>800km fiberlink
>>65260566Can optic fiber even work over 200km without a repeater?>inb4 under sea cablesThey have repeaters built into them.As for a drone it would have to be fixed wing and fuel to get close to that.
>>65260566>Fibre falls to the ground, across a road, truck drives over it an hour laterOver long distances and times, something is going to break the fibre. The probability is converging quickly towards 1.
>>65260718True but you can improve your odds by stringing it between trees / powerline when you cross roads.Farms are an unavoidable risk, between cattle and tractors if you cross enough farmland it's going to break.
>>65260566>FPV drones with 800km rangeThat's called a cruise missile>fiberLolLmaoNgmi
>>65260635YesBut it progressively gets less effective aa you need to make the beams either stronger or longer to cut past noise.Pic rel
>>65260779go on captain tactical genius, tell us why you know so much more than for example, the ukraine and russian militaries who have been using fiber lines for the last 3 years? what other gems of strategic knowledge would you like to impart? The heavier-than-air craft will never replace the dirigible in military use? Artillery will never match a concerted bayonet charge? black powder will never replace the crossbow? The technological superiority of the chariot?
Actually fuck it I'll just give you the source of the math(s)https://www.fiberoptics4sale.com/blogs/archive-posts/95047878-optical-fiber-maximum-transmission-distance-limited-by-attenuation-and-dispersion-without-amplifier
>>65260833Interesting, so they might need to run a shitty analog camera to get away with such a low bitrate but it can be done.
>>65260851Easier to convert to a lower bitrate/resolution than to use analogue anything in the modern era, unless you're using radio repeaters.
>>65260909They have been using low light (near IR) analog cameras on fiber quads for awhile, they are still orders of magnitude cheaper than digital.
>>65260926I said easier, not cheaper.I can't stand analog(ue)
>>65260955I guess I'm just use to it from my whoop, it's not like you can put an O4 on a 25 gram drone.
>>65260718pretty much.I thought maybe you could have a big carrier balloon with smaller balloons periodically detaching to support the cable. but you can probably use satellites and directional antennas for that.maybe Long range fast-boats or submarines?
>>65260779>fiber optic cruise missilethis shit must feel like a cocaine-induced fever dream for defense contractors
>>65260779>>65261948>fiber cruise missileIsn't that any wire guided ATGM?
>>65261958An ATGM goes out to a couple klicks tops, not 500km+
>>65260566very large dildo but i'm up for the challenge
>>65261970>klicksWhat are we, in Nam?
>>65262104FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME, DAVE, YES! I DON'T CARE HOW MANY OF THOSE SHROOMS YOU ATE, CHARLIE'S IN THE WIRE AND I NEED YOUR ASS ON THE FIRING LINE!
>>65262353Alright alright keep yer fucking panties onWho are we shooting at again?
>>65260566FYI, anything over ~100-150km is probably going to be impossible in the short term.Anything over 200km will probably take new technologies to be developed or matured far enough for commercialization and military use.Currently I'd expect ~80-100km maybe 150-175km over the next 2-3 years, but going beyond that will take time/development $$.
>>65260566India-tier littering
>>65260842NTA but Ukraine V Russia is pointless to even pay attention to as an American.>Wow! RC planes with dynamite are unbeatable for armies America circa 1980 could have walloped effortlessly!
>>65266411The main difference if the US was involved is they would get air superiority, the US has no suicide drone counter is service and would need to rush one into service like they did with MRAPs.Ironically the country best prepared for drone warfare is Germany because they kept their SPAA in service while everyone else retired them after getting SAMs.
>>65260842Read a fucking thread before you post, tourist scum.
