Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_je1k3pm wrote



TazBaz t1_je1kwpx wrote

Cheap, though. These drones are not high tech, they’re cheap suicide drones.

Really they’re more like slow cruise missiles. Same function.


MofongoForever t1_je2bp4y wrote

And if the components are easy to source, Ukraine could set up their own manufacturing lines while western countries try and make it more difficult for Iran to get components. Fire off a dozen or so of these at a time to smoke out the SAM sites then hit those w/ more accurate GPS guided munitions once located.


herpaderp43321 t1_je2x1md wrote

To touch on your point while I agree to use em to smoke out SAM sites, depending on the cost you could just swarm the sam. The guided stuff should probably be used more on things that might suddenly move like tanks and what not.


usefulbuns t1_je2yxbl wrote

It makes me wonder why they don't mass produce drones with a highly visible radar signature and a higher speed to force Russia to expend as much of their SAM inventory as possible. Make them look like helicopters or fighter jets.


degotoga t1_je33lal wrote

Shahed isn’t really accurate enough to hit something the size of a SAM system.


stormelemental13 t1_je1sdnb wrote

Wooden propellers have been used for a long time. It's a sensible option, especially for a single use drone.


[deleted] t1_je1tjs9 wrote



Miraclefish t1_je2pgrq wrote

Why not? What's wrong with using a cheap, effective and highly proven material? They could likely purchase them easily.


RalphNLD t1_je1y170 wrote

Wood is a very light weight material though? The volumetric mass of wood is like half that of aluminium.

It's also cheap and abundant. Makes sense for a single-use drone from an embargoed county.


DJHellduck t1_je1zdce wrote

WW2 airplanes (like the spitfire) had wooden wings. It’s, cheap, light, and durable, so what’s the issue?


Shuber-Fuber t1_je21bhv wrote

Or the venerable Mosquito.

Airframe is almost all wood and cloth.


BasicLuxury t1_je1yz2j wrote

Article from 2003, but it does specifically mention wooden props for UAVs. You can run them into nets and recover the drone while only breaking a relatively cheap wooden prop.

I assume it's a similar problem WW2 Japan ran into. They tried cheapening and lightening kamikaze by removing the landing gear, but quickly found that if a plane couldn't find a target, then they would have to ditch, wasting the entire plane.

Note how these drones lack landing gear.

There's also other considerations mentioned in the article that may make wood better for this application, but I don't have information.


Joezev98 t1_je28p77 wrote

>Note how these drones lack landing gear.

Because they don't have to search for a target. The coordinates of energy infrastructure and civilian hospitals are well known.


BasicLuxury t1_je2ea2a wrote

Even being the Russian use case, Iran designed these as loiter munitions.


degotoga t1_je33wzt wrote

No, that’s not correct. They are more akin to cruise missiles than true loitering munitions. They are guided by GPS coordinate, not manually


elkmeateater t1_je3229o wrote

It keeps the weight down because the power plant is basically a moped engine.