Russia set a new “record” by deploying nearly a thousand Shahed (Geran-2), Gerbera, and other types of drones against Ukraine in a single day.This was reported by the Ukrainian Air […]

How much money did russia burn in that attack? …and for what? To train Ukraine to be the best at air defense out of any nation on earth? This will never win the war for russia, no matter how many they send at Ukraine. This is a bullshit strategy meant to buy time.

edit I just did a back of the envelope calculation, russia spent probably at least ~50 million usd in drones alone in this attack not to mention the cost of logistics and staging, is this really a “cheap” strategy?

What did the ~50 million do for russia in terms of building true power? This is just desperate terrorism.

  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyzOP
    43·
    3 days ago

    10,000 * $50k = $500 million

    Why do people’s brains go mush when thinking about this. That would be a STUNNINGLY inefficient way to spend half a billion dollars on a military. All you get is a shitty one time capability to commit terrorism. There is no army, no resusable weapons platforms no highly skilled and trained personnel. Every single cent of that $500 million is a sunk cost with an impact that potentially evaporates the day after it is used.

    Anything else you spend that $500 million on militarily is going to have a longer term impact.

    That doesn’t mean drones don’t have a role to play in military force structures, obviously they have a huge role, but this idea they are economically efficient needs to die yesterday. Do the math yourself, it doesn’t work out in favor of drones.

    Production of shaheds isnt cheaper than investing in a traditional military of equal capability, shahed production is FAR more expensive and one time use than building a traditional military force. Note though I include a highly trained FPV pilot and infantry fighting force under a “traditional” military force as FPV drones truly are disposable instead of costing as much as a midrange automobile in the case of shaheds.

    As a resistance fighter would you rather have a one time use shahed or another Hilux?

    With the shahed strategy the munition becomes so expensive it is all that can be afforded, which is the opposite reason Ukraine began using drones themselves.

    The advantage of shahed production and use is it requires relatively low skilled labor with a low technical barrier for entry for production lines. That is it other than being easy to spatially disperse attacks with (but then they lose their potency as a swarm).

    https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/shahed_136_really_cost_20_50k_iran_sold_them_to_russia_for_200_300k_in_2022_actual_price_far_higher-17764.html

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      9·
      3 days ago

      Meanwhile Russia sends more than that against Ukraine in the year, they sent almost 1/10th of that in ONE day and you’re thinking it’s a waste?

      The point is to saturate air defences and take out military targets. Russia is being stupid with their drones and often going after Civilian targets, but clearly sending 948 didn’t do much damage because Ukraine had enough air defence.

      If you saturate it, more drones get through and more damage happens.

      So instead of this attacks $47 million and only 2.1 million doing damage, you could get a much higher bang for your buck from the initial assault. That initial assault would also weaken the enemy so the remaining attack would be more efficient.

      Edit: I mean, look at the US and partners… they spent billion(s?) in a couple days being unprepared for drones.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyzOP
        5·
        3 days ago

        The point is to saturate air defences and take out military targets. Russia is being stupid with their drones going after Civilian targets, but clearly sending 948 didn’t do much damage because Ukraine had enough air defence.

        They are sending the drones after civilian targets because their military is too dysfunctional to put that pressure on the frontline where they actually need it to win, so russia resorts to indiscriminate terrorism to try to paper over that fact.

        Russia has not saturated Ukraine’s air defenses. Quite the opposite. Now russia has a serious problem in that the more Ukraine invests in counters to shaheds the more powerful Ukraine gets and the more powerful diplomatic ties they forge with other countries seeking the same capability. Crucially air defense requires a vast array of skills, technologies and expertise all of which will benefit Ukraine’s economy long into the future and in contexts that far extend beyond simple brute war and violence.

        The same goes for maritime security and USVs.

        Russia on the otherhand has invested a huge chunk of its economy into the dead end of flying bombs that are only useful for terrorism.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          6·
          3 days ago

          The point is OTHER NATIONS are not prepared for it.

          Russia saturating OTHER NATIONS air defences this way would be catastrophic if done properly.

          Only Ukraine is in a position to defend against it properly and come out the winner in $ terms.

          • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyzOP
            21·
            3 days ago

            You still aren’t addressing the problem that no amount of shaheds/flying bombs, no matter how great, can project even a gram of true power. All they do is kill, maim, temporarily break and terrify. That is NOT the same as projecting military power.

            Shaheds don’t “invade”, that implies a sense of permanence on the battlefield they don’t possess, they don’t even really “fight”, all they do is “murder”.