Norway just announced we will establish Ukrainian drone production here in Norway[1], in a strategic deal to bolster our defenses.
For one I'm pleased we're not that far behind the curve. We made a mistake going for the F-35 I think as well as some other recent large scale procurements, but hopefully we've learned from that now. We need smaller, cheaper systems that can be readily distributed, rather than a few expensive missile and drone targets.
That's all true, but one should not forget why is this happening. The only reason why these homegrown, kitchen-table innovation became so decisive (for both sides, Russians do the same thing) - is that neither side has a viable air force able to work in conditions of strong, multilayered integrated air defence system. If either side had it, it will have won the war and drones could be at best an annoyance factor, like in US-Iran war - control of the air lets one isolate the theatre making frontline supplies impossible and starve the opponent on frontline of munitions and fuel, letting the ground troops win easily.
What happens in Ukraine is a low-tech war between opponents who both don't have a viable air force and exhausted their "normal" weapons like tanks and artillery, and are thus forced to improvise. This is guerrilla warfare level, probably even on a worse level for Russians than for Ukrainians.
Only lesson to take from here: build electric interceptors for Shahed-like drones and stock them, probably add a range channel into them by using a simple 1-dimension doppler radar thus enabling head-on intercepts. Because the enemy that can't operate against US in the air (that is, every potential enemy on Earth), will try to use them or similar as the 'next best' alternative to a JDAM or a laser-guided bomb delivered by aircraft. The rest (so far) isn't important.
Norway just announced we will establish Ukrainian drone production here in Norway[1], in a strategic deal to bolster our defenses.
For one I'm pleased we're not that far behind the curve. We made a mistake going for the F-35 I think as well as some other recent large scale procurements, but hopefully we've learned from that now. We need smaller, cheaper systems that can be readily distributed, rather than a few expensive missile and drone targets.
[1]: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/whats-new/norway-and-ukraine-t...
That's all true, but one should not forget why is this happening. The only reason why these homegrown, kitchen-table innovation became so decisive (for both sides, Russians do the same thing) - is that neither side has a viable air force able to work in conditions of strong, multilayered integrated air defence system. If either side had it, it will have won the war and drones could be at best an annoyance factor, like in US-Iran war - control of the air lets one isolate the theatre making frontline supplies impossible and starve the opponent on frontline of munitions and fuel, letting the ground troops win easily.
What happens in Ukraine is a low-tech war between opponents who both don't have a viable air force and exhausted their "normal" weapons like tanks and artillery, and are thus forced to improvise. This is guerrilla warfare level, probably even on a worse level for Russians than for Ukrainians.
Only lesson to take from here: build electric interceptors for Shahed-like drones and stock them, probably add a range channel into them by using a simple 1-dimension doppler radar thus enabling head-on intercepts. Because the enemy that can't operate against US in the air (that is, every potential enemy on Earth), will try to use them or similar as the 'next best' alternative to a JDAM or a laser-guided bomb delivered by aircraft. The rest (so far) isn't important.