So have we basically returned to medieval times where nations just raid each other?Has open warfare been outclassed? There's no point to holding territory first anymore, you basically drone or missile the enemy's infrastructure untill they can no longer out-produce you and only then do you invade. Armies and drone swarms do not seem to go well hand-in hand like artillery or air assaults and i imagine the third world will see more of these on-off drone matches as they don't threaten the military juntas those nations rely on. The civilians are the ones that matter and assemble the drones now, and they can't really use those against the government like with guns
>>65472643>you basically drone or missile the enemy's infrastructure untill they can no longer out-produce???????The allies genocided the axis powers during carpet and firebombing operations under the excuse they were trying to hit infraestructure and industryI think your propagandized view of history got challenged but nothing changed
>>65472643>has open warfare been outclassedno, and drones are not the end all be all weapon that normalfag media is making them out to be.the current reason for their dominance is they're a relatively new problem and large-scale development for counters has only very recently gotten funding.most of these drones are very slow, very fragile, and very cheap, and consequently they can also be intercepted by things that are very slow and very cheap, rather than all the things we currently have developed for countering very advanced threats.drones will stay a useful part of the battlefield but they are going to start getting seriously countered in the next 10 years by a whole host of differnet technologies which will kind of put a damper on the advantages they currently have (being cheap, accurate and easy to make)
yeah warfare will be static this time for sure
>>65472666Nope. Why do I have to repeat this again and again: DRONES ARE NOT ALIVE. THEM GETTING 90% SHOT DOWN WHILE ONLY 10% GETS THROUGH IS STILL PROFITABLE. You can't have this attrition rates for B-17s or F-35s. It DOESN'T MATTER FOR DRONES. Commanders can take risks that they wouldn't dare with manned vehicles. Leaders can wage wars without worrying about dead or captured pilots. The country that can continuously produce more drones will win, regardless of strategy or tactics. Just crude pummeling bombing campaigns. The counter to drones is more drones. Putting guns or lasers or missilles on vehicles to counter drones is ineffective and cost inefficient. Plus you will lose human crews unless those vehicles are unmanned...meaning they're drones too. Drones have changed warfare like gunpowder did. We are in the age of AI robotic swarm armies in the air, land and sea. The age of manned warfare is ending and will go the way of cavalry charges and sword duels.
>>65472749>n-nopeyes.>w-why do i have to repeat my lies over and over again?you really don't have to, because nobody asked, dronenigger.>b-but muh attrition ratesdrones are so slow and easy to intercept with the purpose built defenses like microwave guns that this doesn't matter, dronenigger. you can send wave after wave and all of that infrastructure will be completely pointless if they cannot achieve saturation of the front, one or two vehicles in an assault being taken out by a drone is not enough.>the country that can continuously produce more drones will winwrong, the country that wins will win, you can tell those people who just occupied your country with maneuver warfare all about your ebin manufacturing capabilities but they don't really care because they never even gave you the chance to use them.>p-putting guns or lasers or missiles on vehicles to counter drones is ineffective in my fantasy land, stop encroaching on my fantasy land!nobody cares, dronenigger, cheap and slow shit gets countered by other cheap and slow shit hitting it, or just straight up getting their electronics fried.>b-but your land vehicles will be unmanned so they're technically drones!that's cute cope but it won't really change much about how mobile warfare is going to be carried out, there will simply be less casualties.>d-drones have changed warfare like gunpowder didwrong, they're certainly not a nothingburger, but droneniggers like you constantly comparing them to a paradigm shift is the height of idiocy.>robotic swarmuseless in actual warfare because their intra-drone communications will get spoofed by EW, ukraine has shown that there's a pretty hard limit to how many drones you can actually operate at the same time in one area before channels get way too crowded and electronic warfare gets way too easy.you're suffering from main character syndrome, take it easy dronenigger.
>>65472661Bomber Harris did nothing wrong it was just the weapons of the time.
>>65472666automated SPAA when?
>>65472749LolLmaoBehold Caucasian sorcery.
>>65472643>Has open warfare been outclassed?The tl;dr is that you have to identify, mark and set up observable metrics to measure the efficacy of your bombing campaign first. Otherwise it's just shit flinging while making monkee noises.That has always been the problem of aerial warfare and that isn't going to change.>>65472749The kind of drones that capture the imagination mainly compete with artillery while the kind of drones OP is talking about are cruise missiles (which are expensive), UAVs (which aren't survivable if your opposition isn't a wedding reception) and ballistic missiles (which are also expensive).As an alternative to artillery, drones will eventually reach a tipping point where they'll become more expensive than launching the shells through their designated pipe. Plus, intercepting artillery shells is a lot harder than shooting down drones.But Ukraine doesn't have artillery while they can still assemble drones. So that's what they do.
>>65472840Is this a bot?
>>65472870yeah
>>65472749>The country that can continuously produce more drones will winWhat if the opponent uses their strategic bomber force to neutralize drone large-scale drone production after asserting air dominance with its fighters and attack craft?
>>65472758>drones are slow and you can only use so many before the channels interfere with each other too much This is so true and also an unchanging fact. A thousand years from now infantry units will be laughing that once people thought drones, which are really slow guys, could be used for war. Based anon being all smart
>>65472888but why would you risk your pilots and planes when you cloud produce millions of drones and achieve the same result instead ? the US biggest losses in iran literally occurred because they lost one F15 and had to sacrificed a bunch more planes to rescue the WSO they also loss tankers needed to refuel their combat aircraft.
>>65472870>>65472878I had to solve a captcha to post this stuff. No idea what's botty about the post.
>>65472661>The allies genocided the axis powers during carpet and firebombing operations under the excuse they were trying to hit infraestructure and industryWtf based.
>>65472749>B-17s What did he mean by this>Comparing attrition rates of one way munitions to attrition rates of manned aircraftWhat could he have possibly meant by this
>>65472924The captchas are getting fucking ridiculous. I had to give an email address, point to which jumping cartoon animal out of the lineup is bouncing the highest and then fill out 5 of the retarded 4chan captchas twice in a row before it even let me request the one needed to hit post. Is a bot wave hitting /k/ or something?
>>65472938It's still easy to phone post. Meanwhile, I can't even post from the PC because 4chan says>you've been ranged banned due to abuseor something. Doesn't make sense when I'm using the home wifi to post.
>>65472938It's cause you're a seething turdskin shill. When your MAC isn't constantly getting raped it's either a 1 question problem or not required. I had a one problem captcha to reply
>>65472911Because achieving air dominance and destroying production and command nodes prevents the enemy drone threat from materializing in a large scale organized manner capable of seriously threatening ground, naval, and air forces.
>>65472758The solution to network saturation / jamming is to move more / all of the decision making onto the drone itself, which is in motion now. That doesn't address getting fried with a beam of course, but emitting energy like that also makes you an easy target too Ukraine is also eroding away at the taboos about autonomous weaponry killing humans without oversight. So it'll be easier even for developed nations with wishy washy governments like the UK and US to fund and deploy groups of drones in the loitering munition flavor that need little or no return comms to do their mission
>>65472943>>65472944>MAC>whining about range banniggers go read a book about internet
>>65472969that is not the point the USAF / IAF gained air supremacy on the first day, they still spend weeks bombing target risking planes and crew, they could have avoided that with mass drone strikes.
>>65473039For static targets, usually hardened, missiles work better. For moving targets, the cheap drones you're thinking of don't work at all.
>>65473039And you need a real air force to crush the enemy drone units and production.
>>65472944>>65472943I had to do that from a phone
>>65472643>There's no point to holding territory first anymore, you basically drone or missile the enemy's infrastructure untill they can no longer out-produce you and only then do you invadeBomb the shit out of them before you charge in is a good strategy, yes, drones don't really change that. Drones aren't going to do the entire job for you any more than missiles will, eventually you will have to get dudes in there if you want to actually get anything done. And that's assuming the enemy lets you sit back and chuck drones at all of their critical infrastructure at your leisure.
>>65472643Bronze age actually. Since a lot of this manufacturing requires a lot of resources from abroad to be shipped into your place. Since mining them is usually super dangerous and destructive to your own place.Can't have muh drones or rockets without precious and rare earth metals after all.
>>65472987>is to move more / all of the decision making onto the drone itself, which is in motion nowand then because the drone is complex, requires custom hardware and is more expensive you go ahead and put a jet engine and more fuel and a bigger warhead on it to make better use of it.then you make it launchable from planes or ground trucks.and then you realize that you've already had the exact same thing in service decades before you were pushed to develop your "long range strike drone".
>>65472661>The allies genocided the axis powers during carpet and firebombing operations under the excuse they were trying to hit infraestructure and industryIt didn't happen but should have.
>>65475211Not really, stuff like this exists off the shelf today and an can run models locallyhttps://www.modalai.com/collections/all-fpv-components/products/voxl-2-mini?variant=44246380577072The push to run AI in cell phones and such will continue to improve and commodify such capability. The actual executive logic is very simple, the heavyweight stuff is perception and navigation and those are here in an "80%" capacity as of like 4 years ago
>>65472749You are brown.
>>65472758Thirdies BTFO
>>65475926>muh AIas if image recognition wasn't unreliable garbage that fails against basic olive drab paint let alone camo before that.
