Chinese MALE, HALE (and rotary, small, suicide) UAV/UCAV thread

[by78]

Right before in this thread is already a mothership drone which can probably act as a relay for better signalling. For the same weight as a rifle+ammo and stabilisation(6kg). You can fit up to 8 FPV with a 40mm grenade warhead. Gun on drones never made much sense to me.

A drone carrying machine gun is meant for laying down suppressive fire in coordination with infantry on the ground. The elevation gives it an edge in that role.

 

[tankphobia]

A drone carrying machine gun is meant for laying down suppressive fire in coordination with infantry on the ground. The elevation gives it an edge in that role.

Exploding FPVs are also plenty good for suppression, see heavy use of vehicle mounted grenade launchers in US convoys in mid east. If anything FPVs are even more effective in this role because the opposing side knows they will be accurate.

 

[by78]

Exploding FPVs are also plenty good for suppression, see heavy use of vehicle mounted grenade launchers in US convoys in mid east. If anything FPVs are even more effective in this role because the opposing side knows they will be accurate.

I don't think you and I are on the same page about what suppressive fire is and what it's meant to accomplish. Suppressive fire is used to pin down the enemy, to provide cover/opportunities/buy time for your own squad members to tactically advance/retreat to wherever they need to be next. Suppressive fire often needs to be laid down for long durations and therefore requires significant volumes of munitions to be expended. That can't be done effectively with (automatic) grenade launchers, because the rate of fire is not high enough, not to mention the weight of the grenades required for suppressive fire would be far above what is practical to carry by infantry on foot, to say nothing of the cost of grenades vs bullets.

 

[tankphobia]

I don't think you and I are on the same page about what suppressive fire is and what it's meant to accomplish. Suppressive fire is used to pin down the enemy, to provide cover/opportunities/buy time for your own squad members to tactically advance/retreat to wherever they need to be next. Suppressive fire often needs to be laid down for long durations and therefore requires significant volumes of munitions to be expended. That can't be done effectively with (automatic) grenade launchers, because the rate of fire is not high enough, not to mention the weight of the grenades required for suppressive fire would be far above what is practical to carry by infantry on foot, to say nothing of the cost of grenades vs bullets.

How would a drone carry enough ammo for effective suppressive fire? In almost all photos shown so far it's a single 30 Rd mag even if you go full sized box magazine it would still need frequent reload to be a true suppressive platform.

The mere threat of a FPV hovering over should already have a suppressive effect on troops below, there's plenty of footage out there of troops cowering simply from the sound/visual of a FPV. Since mission duration is limited by battery life, both platforms are basically equal in suppression, with the mothership being likely more lethal against hard points.

 

[by78]

How would a drone carry enough ammo for effective suppressive fire? In almost all photos shown so far it's a single 30 Rd mag even if you go full sized box magazine it would still need frequent reload to be a true suppressive platform.

The drone in my original post that started this discussion is capable of carrying 300 rounds of ammo for the belt-fed QJY-201. That is more than enough for suppressive fire from a single firing point, especially when used in conjunction with suppressive fire from others on the ground.

The mere threat of a FPV hovering over should already have a suppressive effect on troops below, there's plenty of footage out there of troops cowering simply from the sound/visual of a FPV. Since mission duration is limited by battery life, both platforms are basically equal in suppression, with the mothership being likely more lethal against hard points.

You're exaggerating. The footage out of Ukraine that I've seen are mostly of drones dropping grenades to clear trenches of unsuspecting combatants and to take out vehicles, not of laying down suppressive fire. There is plenty of combat footage out of Ukraine that show ground infantry employing tried-and-true tactic of advancing under cover fire. In other words, although primitive drones dropping a handful of grenades have been proven useful in some scenarios, there is simply too much hype. The Ukrainians would be the first to tell you that, given how poorly they've been doing.

 

[tankphobia]

A 300 Rd magazine will still be limited by a 30 minute battery life.

You're re exaggerating. The footage out of Ukraine that I've seen are mostly of drones dropping grenades to clear trenches of unsuspecting combatants and to take out vehicles, not of laying down suppressive fire. There is plenty of combat footage out of Ukraine that show ground infantry employing tried-and-true tactic of advancing under cover fire. In other words, although primitive drones dropping a handful of grenades have been proven useful in some scenarios, there is simply too much hype. The Ukrainians would be the first to tell you that, given how poorly they've been doing.

I don't mean the grenade dropping drones. I mean the kamikaze UAVs. The primary purpose of bomber esq UAVs is to kill or destroy enemy equipment, where kamikaze UAVs are more multi role. You can see from a large range of footage from first person to third that the moment FPVs are sighted/heard, the demeanor of troops rapidly change to defensive. Even a near miss will sap any will to advance under fire since a concussion from a explosion is far more debilitating than suppressive rifle fire.

Russia is not advancing because of how good they are at using their machine guns, but rather turning cities into rubble such that any defender popping their heads out would get blown up, i.e suppressive fire via artillery.

 

[by78]

A 300 Rd magazine will still be limited by a 30 minute battery life.

Where did you get the idea that the drone needs to loiter for 30 minutes continuously?

I don't mean the grenade dropping drones. I mean the kamikaze UAVs. The primary purpose of bomber esq UAVs is to kill or destroy enemy equipment, where kamikaze UAVs are more multi role. You can see from a large range of footage from first person to third that the moment FPVs are sighted/heard, the demeanor of troops rapidly change to defensive. Even a near miss will sap any will to advance under fire since a concussion from a explosion is far more debilitating than suppressive rifle fire.

And a reusable drone carrying a machine gun won't have the same psychological impact as a kamikaze UAV? Money doesn't grow on trees. It's a lot cheaper and more flexible to have a drone that can be used over and over again and has the ability to mount different payloads than to have a single-use suicide drone. If you have two options, both being adequate for the fire suppression role, but option A is reusable, multi-role, and cheaper in the long run, and option B is a one-trick pony and one-use throwaway, choose option A.

 

[valysre]

My two cents: a gun on a flying drone taking occasional pot-shots at a high angle relative to the cover the enemy is positioned behind is more useful than a single exploding drone.
The tactical advantage of a gun mounted on a drone is instant 20m+ elevation advantage (albeit for a single gun). That is incredible. Imagine fighting in a sparsely foliaged field. The suppressing fire of the drone flying 20m above you is equivalent to bringing a whole apartment building with you to the field, and then sticking one of your own guys on top of it. Even better, because the vantage point can fly around. It puts the enemy under much more stress than your own group's ground-based suppressing fire.
A human-guided grenade is pretty neat, but its utility over the course of an engagement is nothing compared to a gun aboard a drone.

 

[by78]

Clearing trenches.

 

[AssassinsMace]

You see all these rifle looking drone jammers meaning they have to be directed at the drone to work so why don't they have night-vision/FLIR drones? They're putting assault rifles on flying drones. Why not a sniper rife? People coming out in the cover of night. You can have a sniper rifle loitering on high picking people off.