I watched the second, longer, video in some more detail. It pretty much confirms all the things I was saying above, although it's presented from a Russian offensive perspective. (There's also a Russian propaganda element there too). I love how the guest repeatedly thanks the west for supplying all the military hardware to Ukraine which, in his words, affords them the opportunity to study it and figure out how to destroy it. Hint, hint, Sergey...that military tech we sent over was mostly obsolete stuff leftover from previous conflicts; trust me, it's not the latest stuff! But, the point remains, something the guest, Sergey, confirms over and over...military brass and leadership completely overlooked the drone threat, dismissing it as "toys" being used in the big boy battlefield. They were wrong. And, they still haven't embraced it fully, which explains why it's all these small startups who are getting all the drone business. This is true in the west also, military leadership just doesn't take the drone threat seriously. Maybe the are starting to now, but up to this point they've just dismissed it in favor of big heavy armor and aircraft. Why? Likely because there's way more profit in these types of systems, thus more room for massive graft and fraud which is a disease that knows no borders or ideological boundaries. I mean, just look at the "drones" of western militaries; they're HUGE!
I kind of chuckled a bit about the emphasis Sergey put on 'fiber optic' drones. What he was in essence saying was that Russia has all but surrendered to Ukrainian electronic countermeasures. They've fallen back onto using the fiber optic drones to go after the electronic countermeasures first, paving the way for their other drones to move in. I thought this was an interesting perspective, especially coming from an advanced military like Russia's. It also underscores just how difficult drones are to defeat, and just how much of a real threat they actually pose. Now, most of Sergey's dialog was geared toward the offensive use of drones, so he didn't spend a lot to time discussing the opposite side of the equation, defensive use. In any case, it's clear how much of a morale killer drones are for any military.
The big challenge (probably the biggest) is that you can't really defend 100% against drones without degrading your own offensive, and even defensive, capabilities in the process, sometimes seriously. The civilian population is also at risk. Someone can come up with systems which will provide 100% drone area denial, absolutely. However, in doing so, they would also paralyze the activities they are trying to protect from operating successfully (or at all). So, it's a double edged sword, and the worst part is...drones are cheap. With a few hundred thousand dollars of drones a person who knows what they are doing could effectively ground billions of dollars air assets. In the military there is a common saying, "force multiplier". There's lots of different ways to present the effectiveness of a force multiplier, but the most common is to express it as a ratio. For example, one troop armed with widget (x) will require a force of say (50) troops without that same widget to defend against it. The drone actually leverages this force multiplier concept almost exponentially. And this doesn't even take into account the mental toll drones impose on troop morale. So, a fighting force becomes progressively less effective over time due to the growing fear of being targeted by these devices. And if you stop to think for a moment about it, it's easy to understand why.
Historically, one of the most feared weapons on the battlefield is artillery (mortars, artillery, etc). It is feared so much because it's so random. One moment life is good, and the next moment there's a giant hole in the ground where your buddy was standing. If there's an artillery headed for your immediate area, one of the more common defensive tactics was to jump into a hole where a previous round struck as they seldom strike in the exact same spot twice. Now let's consider the drone. Unlike the arty round, the drone can move laterally, AND it can see you. So, you move, and it moves; you move again, and it moves again. It's like an angry hornet chasing you, but this 'hornet' is going to do a lot more than just sting you! When you think about it in that light, you can gain a better perspective. Put another way, with artillery the only intelligence is at the originating end, not the receiving end. With a drone the technology allows the intelligence to exist at the receiving end. That's a paradigm shift in terms of difference.
I kind of chuckled a bit about the emphasis Sergey put on 'fiber optic' drones. What he was in essence saying was that Russia has all but surrendered to Ukrainian electronic countermeasures. They've fallen back onto using the fiber optic drones to go after the electronic countermeasures first, paving the way for their other drones to move in. I thought this was an interesting perspective, especially coming from an advanced military like Russia's. It also underscores just how difficult drones are to defeat, and just how much of a real threat they actually pose. Now, most of Sergey's dialog was geared toward the offensive use of drones, so he didn't spend a lot to time discussing the opposite side of the equation, defensive use. In any case, it's clear how much of a morale killer drones are for any military.
The big challenge (probably the biggest) is that you can't really defend 100% against drones without degrading your own offensive, and even defensive, capabilities in the process, sometimes seriously. The civilian population is also at risk. Someone can come up with systems which will provide 100% drone area denial, absolutely. However, in doing so, they would also paralyze the activities they are trying to protect from operating successfully (or at all). So, it's a double edged sword, and the worst part is...drones are cheap. With a few hundred thousand dollars of drones a person who knows what they are doing could effectively ground billions of dollars air assets. In the military there is a common saying, "force multiplier". There's lots of different ways to present the effectiveness of a force multiplier, but the most common is to express it as a ratio. For example, one troop armed with widget (x) will require a force of say (50) troops without that same widget to defend against it. The drone actually leverages this force multiplier concept almost exponentially. And this doesn't even take into account the mental toll drones impose on troop morale. So, a fighting force becomes progressively less effective over time due to the growing fear of being targeted by these devices. And if you stop to think for a moment about it, it's easy to understand why.
Historically, one of the most feared weapons on the battlefield is artillery (mortars, artillery, etc). It is feared so much because it's so random. One moment life is good, and the next moment there's a giant hole in the ground where your buddy was standing. If there's an artillery headed for your immediate area, one of the more common defensive tactics was to jump into a hole where a previous round struck as they seldom strike in the exact same spot twice. Now let's consider the drone. Unlike the arty round, the drone can move laterally, AND it can see you. So, you move, and it moves; you move again, and it moves again. It's like an angry hornet chasing you, but this 'hornet' is going to do a lot more than just sting you! When you think about it in that light, you can gain a better perspective. Put another way, with artillery the only intelligence is at the originating end, not the receiving end. With a drone the technology allows the intelligence to exist at the receiving end. That's a paradigm shift in terms of difference.