> For extra fun, add some other code to "look for plane-like objects to crash into", but now you're approaching dangerous territory of "What if a civilian 737 happens to be boarding at this airfield"...

Civilian 737 boarding airfield where Russia keeps strategic nuclear bombings? Russians would shoot them down faster than any drone could get them.

>Civilian 737 boarding airfield where Russia keeps strategic nuclear bombings?

I'm not sure if the Tu-95 is hosted at any joint-use airports, but joint-use themselves airports are not uncommon. Pskov is joint-use, Ukraine launched a smaller-scale attack on some Il-76s there a couple years back. The scenario that an attack on legitimate target aircraft could be happening metres away from civilian aircraft is realistic.

It's not a problem when Russia, Israel, USA, or other nations attacks civilians, because of a military reason. Why it will be a problem in this case?

Because whether or not they're justified in doing so, Ukraine has made it clear that they have no interest in targeting civilians. They've been incredibly surgical and precise in their attacks. Unbelievably so, honestly.

Whichever way this war ends you can be sure there will be lone Ukrainian terror attacks on Russia for next 50 years. People will not forgive.

There has never been a way where civilians are not attacked.

Because the makeup men don’t like Ukraine

It's a military airfield, so no civilian 737 there. There seems to be a video from the drone, meaning some kind of connectivity was present with or without autopilot.

Reportedly it was just running over local mobile internet connectivity. The attack was over so quickly they would likely not even have time to shut it down.

They did more than crash at coordinates, they targeted specific parts of the different aircraft.

> What if a civilian 737 happens to be boarding at this airfield

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

Good old non-AI radar-guided missile launched by human crew of Russians.

It's strange - blocking GPS is typical around military sites. So, assume the drones were hard-coded to zero a location - they couldn't do it, as GPS would be blocked. They had to be piloted. Interesting.

Inertial navigation is a thing though. Your smart phone has a very capable accelerometer for a short flight.

Error propagation makes inertial navigation only useful over short distances.

In addition to the other reply, it might have been done with CV. Identify landmarks to get bearings, drop bomb on thing that looks like airplane.

Saw something saying they trained them on old Soviet planes at a military museum

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/53784

Only need one camera drone capable of identifying targets. And just tells another drone to bomb it.

Cameras are incredibly cheap though. There's basically no reason not to put them on everything.

Or can “paint it” with an infrared laser point and then the drone can use simple sensors to guide itself to the target.

..in theory. In practice, building such a complex system in a fail safe way is not that easy.

"in a fail safe way" goes out the window in wartime.

I meant safe for the mission, not for any innocent souls around..

Still only need one camera drone if a human is spotting targets.

In theory. In practice you would not allow a single camera drone to be the single point of failure of a mission with such lengthy and risky planning, and dire consequences.

They had a limited amount of drones in those containers they needed to make them count. My money is on operators.

I understand that you’re probably just gonna reply with “still only need one camera”

…but if GPS is jammed, and there’s only one camera per fleet, how exactly are the other drones supposed to navigate towards the spotted targets unless they’re all equipped with cameras?

One camera drone can see if another drone is on target.

So the old “use a single unreliable 2D instrument to coordinate multiple fast-moving projectiles in three dimensional space” approach.

You are just continuing to spout nonsense.

Camera drone hovers above target and kamakazi drone intersects the line between camera and target, and drops.

You are just continuing to spout nonsense. All of the drones have cameras. Using a single designated camera drone is a stupid idea, overly complex and completely unnecessary.

I think the problem is an assumption that people are too stupid to grasp their brilliant idea.

That being said, having all drones equipped with cameras could enable a more robust version of what they’re talking about:

If uplink with human operators is lost, but short-range comms between drones exist, they could use their video feeds to autonomously coordinate amongst themselves.

So now the camera is pointed at the target? How is it checking that the other drones are headed in the right direction? And the personnel on the ground? They're just chillin' waiting for those other drones to come intersect with the stationary spotter drone's line of sight?

You are raging, and your thinking has ceased.

We've had two years of footage of drones being flown over tanks, and bombs dropped directly down into them.

No one is arguing the merits of drone warfare.

We have two years of footage from Ukraine, where camera-equipped drones are launched from a several miles away at most, and where there are networks of pilots and support specialists to assemble and launch more drones in case of (frequent) failure.

I don’t think it’s wise to wager the success of a 6-month mission deep in enemy territory on a plan with a single point of failure, especially when the alternative is equipping each drone with < $100 cameras.

But sure, you’re clearly the better thinker.

`I understand that you’re probably just gonna reply with “still only need one camera”`

Your first response was disrespectful. Probably because you are young and immature. Grow up.

Fair. Sorry about that.

lmao what? You want to loiter with a camera drone to guide other drones to target? How would that work if neither drone knows where it is (drones had no GPS lock, it's a fact, not a speculation)?

They knew where they started from. Know where the target is relative to the start point.

> Know where the target is relative to the start point.

How? Without GPS, it's navigation capabilities lower than V-2 rocket.

You need to read a bit more on autonomous systems and navigation, it will surely tame your hubris. Everything is simple if you don't understand it.

You have never written autonomous navigation systems.

I have in fact. For space applications. An now I will stop replying to what is seemingly a stubborn, clueless 16 year old.