• EROLoLICON@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow that’s so cool. We are really in the future. We can even watch a POV of a exploding drone sitting confortably on the toilet.

  • Tug@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Small targets are incredibly hard to see, it’s usually easier to see the wake rather than the unit itself. Even more so at night.

    • Ondergetekende@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the target doesn’t displace much volume (i.e. Is light or going slow) there is no wake. Also, when most of the volume is deeper under water, there will be no wake (but the increased drag will result in a more audible drone, especially under water).

  • Generic_Handel@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Countries of the world are going to have to start rethinking their military budgets, large ships, tanks, and equipment are now just expensive targets for relatively low cost drones.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Laser weapons are usually the answer to swarm drone attacks, the ammunition is free and the rate of fire is huge. But as far as I know, a good naval version hasn’t been fielded yet. And even then, drones would be able to attack during storms, since the rain scatters the beam.

    responding to @Generic_Handel@kbin.social

  • Dreyns@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do they have a port they can rely on nearby or do they need to bring it far ?

    • Skua@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems like it was practically in Novorossiysk when it was hit anyway, which was going to be Russia’s new Black Sea base until they invaded Crimea. I assume the lights visible behind the ship in the video are the city

        • Skua@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It probably didn’t, but taking it out of action means it’s not a threat for the time being and Russia still has to pay to repair it. That’s a good result for Ukraine when it cost them zero Ukrainian lives and just one tiny skiff with a remote control system and some explosives

          • Dreyns@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ohh yes absolutly !!! But i’t be nice if it would’ve been a fatal blow to this ship !

    • ODuffer @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because you need a submarine. This is ‘easier’, certainly if you don’t have a sub. Also a MK48 costs $894,000, and has a payload of 293kg. This drone packed 450kg for I imagine a fraction of the cost.

  • lolrightythen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Any word on the effect it had on that ship? To put a warship like that out of commission in any capacity would be a colossal win in terms of resources alone.

    Ukraine is awe-inspiring. I wish them nothing but peace and regeneration.

    And Puck Futin. And anyone else that causes harm to common folk either foreign or abroad.

    Not a rare sentiment - but it’s worth sharing.