>>542198177
why not drones that drop flaming submunitions? you could just light the whole landscape on fire and burn out troops

>>542198177
>>542198456
My drone designs are so advanced that aliens would shit themselves

>>542198687
I have ideas for drones that would even blow your mind. But they're too destructive to reveal.

>>542198687
My shits are so advanced that aliens would drone themselves.

>>542198456
Smoke is cover dummy. Both drone operator and infantry are glad the landscape isn't on fire

>>542198456
>>542198785
>>542199239
Worse, it would only work as a terror weapon setting forests on fire. Once a battleground is scorched and contested, fire drones have no fuel to burn. I suspect your other ideas are share-quality. When are gunship drones coming anyway? It's a good position for sniping.

>>542199761
Many battlegrounds are all forest or brush. Just drop the flame upwind of the enemy, bam.

>>542199840
only works once per battlefield, a shock weapon aka gimmick

>>542200392
After you burn out all the trees and cover and strructures it's not really even worth fighting over.

>>542200483
you legally should be 18 to post here

This is a 1pbtid slide thread

Please learn to spot these threads and do better.

>>542200614
What's left?

No cover, structures, etc? You have to pick somewhere with something to fight from.

>>542200825
Utilizing fuel lying around on the ground is just not a scalable strategy or a good idea. Trenches and defensive structures would be unaffected by this drone and you'd need regular explosives, why not just produce more explosive drones? Why not make poison gas drones if the objective is to instill terror?

>>542200825
>>542201014
I'm not explaining this well enough. Picture yourself in a command post planning the deployment of these weapons. Explosive drones of various caliber can be deployed almost anywhere, but fire drones need a whole different map of burnable fuel. If someone steps away from burnable fuel, the drone doesn't hurt them. The level of specialist deployment isn't merited by the offensive capabilities.

>>542201111
>a whole different map
no, no, this map is 90% of maps, the only map you can't burn is a rain forest in the wet season, or a desert or glacial landscape (or water)

even a tundra will burn in the summer if it's dry

>>542201111
checked though, i think you're fighting the last war

using terrain and fire as a weapon is old doctrine, ancient sun-tzu stuff

>>542201512
>>542201547
your little drone is not capable of setting turf on fire, it's a scale problem. You can directly kill dozens for the same energy this would waste inconveniencing them.

>>542201593
>your little drone is not capable of setting turf on fire, it's a scale problem.
Snakes, just drop those snakes, that'd do and they're already in compressed pill form. Shit they probably form the core of some types of munitions already.

>>542201729
the energy contained in a snake or even a series of snakes won't start a wildfire in a normal forest, a grass fire sure. Burning turf is out. Meanwhile vehicles, structures, and stepping away from the burning material are all impervious.

>>542201822
>the energy contained in a snake or even a series of snakes won't start a wildfire in a normal forest
No no, not like randomly dropped anyway... but "select all squares containing chimneys" and suddenly you have trained the drones to target them. Or, for instance, places where brush is built-up and dry.

Indepentent electro-optical targeting for drones, I mean automatic, can identify these targets no doubt. But yeah if they're just scattering them randomly it's not gonna work except for certain environments.

Using weather and terrain as force multipliers is as old as war itself. It's in the Bible.

>>542201937
so again you have a highly specialized weapon that only works on certain ground with the wind and weather in your favor. What's your other idea

>>542201986
>highly specialized weapon that only works on certain ground with the wind and weather in your favor
Nah you're underestimating the potential impact. Drones that can seek out and target say, structures, dry timber, moving vehicles, and even people, all automatically, they are coming and / or here (we have no way of knowing what X-class tech is being used in Ukraine).

When it comes to burning out areas, you can see it happen sometimes in Ukraine today. If you use that NASA fire watching sat's web page, lance firms, you can see it happen sometimes in Ukraine, who is doing it? I dunno. But it seems like there is fallow land and lots of hedgerows and that's where the fight is, they're not just slugging it out house to house I don't think. That and underground... lots underground there.

>>542202126
You're NGMI with that sense of scale. Run a mile sometime, or something. Setting land on fire for no reason is indeed cartoonishly evil, but explosives are more effective whether or not they are "auto targeting". The reliability of starting a fire on a given patch of land, assuming it isn't paved or devoid of vegetation, is not enough to ever use it as a weapon. Just carry the killing energy onboard your drone.

>>542198177
That's just a missile with helicopter blades for propulsion instead of rockets you big dumb doodoo head.
Wait until they get the idea to use small zeppelins to litter battlefields with munitions and bomblets over a long period of time.

>>542202303
>*not enough to ever use it as a weapon against people
it would work against crops

>>542202374
minelaying grad munitions do exist

>>542202417
And yet we don't really hear about those.
How come?
....I suppose they lack the "pop" of a hand guided killbot.

>>542202584
it's like 1970s level technology, anyone over 35 will start nodding off if you mention landmines of any kind, even though these ones are really cool

Russians have a grad launched mine that waits for a vehicle to drive by before jumping 100 feet in the air and firing back down at the target. Kind of redundant with drones but still cool