[Goose]

Narrative [Ref 5] discusses (among many other interesting things) the Ukrainian "Baba Yaga heavy bomber drones".  These heavy lift multirotor drones were derived from the Ukrainian-built R-18 agricultural drone and are still in use. These drones carry a maximum payload of 30 kg. The article references carrying 6 mortar shells (presumably 81 mm at 4.5 kg each). They have subsequently been supplemented by similar drones built in other countries. These newer drones span a payload range from 15 kg to 30 kg.

 

Narrative [Ref 6] discusses the employment of these drones, in this case a Vampire drone. The following quote is IMO very significant

For accomplishing any kind of mission, the drone can carry up to a maximum of 15 kg, although in practice, the effective payload is up to 12 kg. The "combat radius" is 8 to 12 km for a sortie to the designated point and back. The tactic is simple: reconnaissance units deploy smaller quadcopter camera drones to find targets, then a Vampire crew is called on the spot to deliver a strike.

 

The difference between the 8 km range and the 12 km range is undoubtedly payload and, to a lesser extent, speed. These narratives provides a good context for how these drones operate and is definitely worth reading. How literally accurate they are is unknown. Citing the DJI Matrice 300 as a "Baba Yaga" is pretty suspect. By spec, it has a 2.7 kg payload. OTOH the source has no obvious biases and reports on both Ukraine and Russian drone production and performance. Both references are IMO very much worth reading.

 

The Vampire is a Ukrainian product. Ukraine has aggressively demonstrated it intends to participate in the commercial drone market. The two multirotor drones shown are similar to other commercial offerings. The larger one was verbally indicated to have a 15 kg payload capacity. There were some more detailed internet presentation that strangely I can't find anymore. Make me wonder a bit.

 

Equally importantly, Ukraine has demonstrated that it fully intends to preserve its access to the DJI drones it now uses. Ukraine claims that it has purchased 60% of the drones DJI constructed in its entire history. Ukraine also claims it still has significant access to Chinese drones and drone components. This is accomplished through "front companies" to evade Chinese export restrictions. No way to know how true that may be now or going forward.

 

The special case of the Ukrainian "Dragon" drone is included in this section because it uses a multirotor drone and is a unique application. I have included some extra explanatory material in this section. This material is intended to explain the real benefit of these drones. The focus of most internet articles is IMO misdirected.

 

Wikipedia describes the mechanics of the weapon. The primary use of the drone is to set fires in the foliage that shelters Russian troop concentrations. There are several examples in this narrative. As one can see the spread of the thermite is significant. Being hit by the falling metal is indeed a terrifying thought. It can indeed affect morale. However that is a very secondary effect of this weapon. The fires it starts can destroy any personnel or equipment in the area. At the very least the Russian troops will be deprived of cover and vulnerable to other weapons. Remaining in the area of fire and smoke is probably impossible. Ordnance present in the area can be detonated directly by the thermite or by the resulting fire, although it may just burn vigorously instead.

 

There are discussions of dropping thermite through open hatches of tanks. Ukraine reports from a height of 80 meters the CEP of solid explosive weapons is about 3 meters (while the drone is stationary). Therefore the ability to reliably hit an object the diameter of a tank hatch (while moving) with a stream of liquid metal that is dissociating in the air is very questionable. However, if you drop a lot of it, some will fall into an open hatch. It certainly will cause damage, but whether that damage leads to a secondary fire/explosion is far from certain. A much more serious threat is that the thermite will inevitably hit the much larger area of Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) favored by Russian tanks. The ERA won't explode. It can (in theory) only be set off by shock. It will however burn real well and real hot. The tank will undoubtedly be rendered unserviceable, along with anyone still in it.

 

 A video of this exact event may be found here. This article contains a discussion of how the tank was destroyed. There is also a discussion of using napalm on tanks. It is worth reading. Napalm is an ideal weapon to start forest fires and to destroy armored vehicles. It also flows well into trenches. However it has a low specific gravity. A drone can't enough of it (due to volume constraints) to be effective over a wide area.

 

If an anti-personnel incendiary weapon is desired for drone use, Willie Peter (WP) is a much more effective choice. It explosively ignites spontaneously in air and spreads fragments widely, none of which can be extinguished. A 3 meter CEP is just fine :-). It also creates a toxic thick smoke. 30 kg of WP is a lot. Unfortunately it probably will not start a forest fire, at least not nearly as well as thermite will. WP cannot be manufactured without special equipment. Lots of Ukraine's drone ordinance is artisanal. Given how the Ukrainians store their drone munitions (last picture in Ref 4), I don't think WP would be a good choice :-).

 

Russia did not start the war using multirotor drones. They eventually emulated what Ukraine was doing to some extent. There isn't a lot of data available about this on the Internet. There are quite a few articles about Russian fixed-wing drones. From that I concluded Russia wasn't really that interested in multirotor drones initially. They are now.

[Goose]

Narrative [Ref 5] discusses (among many other interesting things) the Ukrainian "Baba Yaga heavy bomber drones".  These heavy lift multirotor drones were derived from the Ukrainian-built R-18 agricultural drone and are still in use. These drones carry a maximum payload of 30 kg. The article references carrying 6 mortar shells (presumably 81 mm at 4.5 kg each). They have subsequently been supplemented by similar drones built in other countries. These newer drones span a payload range from 15 kg to 30 kg.

 

Narrative [Ref 6] discusses the employment of these drones, in this case a Vampire drone. The following quote is IMO very significant

For accomplishing any kind of mission, the drone can carry up to a maximum of 15 kg, although in practice, the effective payload is up to 12 kg. The "combat radius" is 8 to 12 km for a sortie to the designated point and back. The tactic is simple: reconnaissance units deploy smaller quadcopter camera drones to find targets, then a Vampire crew is called on the spot to deliver a strike.

 

The difference between the 8 km range and the 12 km range is undoubtedly payload and, to a lesser extent, speed. These narratives provides a good context for how these drones operate and is definitely worth reading. How literally accurate they are is unknown. Citing the DJI Matrice 300 as a "Baba Yaga" is pretty suspect. By spec, it has a 2.7 kg payload. OTOH the source has no obvious biases and reports on both Ukraine and Russian drone production and performance. Both references are IMO very much worth reading.

 

The Vampire is a Ukrainian product. Ukraine has aggressively demonstrated it intends to participate in the commercial drone market. The two multirotor drones shown are similar to other commercial offerings. The larger one was verbally indicated to have a 15 kg payload capacity. There were some more detailed internet presentation that strangely I can't find anymore. Make me wonder a bit.

 

Equally importantly, Ukraine has demonstrated that it fully intends to preserve its access to the DJI drones it now uses. Ukraine claims that it has purchased 60% of the drones DJI constructed in its entire history. Ukraine also claims it still has significant access to Chinese drones and drone components. This is accomplished through "front companies" to evade Chinese export restrictions. No way to know how true that may be now or going forward.

 

The special case of the Ukrainian "Dragon" drone is included in this section because it uses a multirotor drone and is a unique application. I have included some extra explanatory material in this section. This material is intended to explain the real benefit of these drones. The focus of most internet articles is IMO misdirected.

 

Wikipedia describes the mechanics of the weapon. The primary use of the drone is to set fires in the foliage that shelters Russian troop concentrations. There are several examples in this narrative. As one can see the spread of the thermite is significant. Being hit by the falling metal is indeed a terrifying thought. It can indeed affect morale. However that is a very secondary effect of this weapon. The fires it starts can destroy any personnel or equipment in the area. At the very least the Russian troops will be deprived of cover and vulnerable to other weapons. Remaining in the area of fire and smoke is probably impossible. Ordnance present in the area can be detonated directly by the thermite or by the resulting fire, although it may just burn vigorously instead.

 

There are discussions of dropping thermite through open hatches of tanks. Ukraine reports from a height of 80 meters the CEP of solid explosive weapons is about 3 meters (while the drone is stationary). Therefore the ability to reliably hit an object the diameter of a tank hatch (while moving) with a stream of liquid metal that is dissociating in the air is very questionable. However, if you drop a lot of it, some will fall into an open hatch. It certainly will cause damage, but whether that damage leads to a secondary fire/explosion is far from certain. A much more serious threat is that the thermite will inevitably hit the much larger area of Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) favored by Russian tanks. The ERA won't explode. It can (in theory) only be set off by shock. It will however burn real well and real hot. The tank will undoubtedly be rendered unserviceable, along with anyone still in it.

 

 A video of this exact event may be found here. This article contains a discussion of how the tank was destroyed. There is also a discussion of using napalm on tanks. It is worth reading. Napalm is an ideal weapon to start forest fires and to destroy armored vehicles. It also flows well into trenches. However it has a low specific gravity. A drone can't enough of it (due to volume constraints) to be effective over a wide area.

 

If an anti-personnel incendiary weapon is desired for drone use, Willie Peter (WP) is a much more effective choice. It explosively ignites spontaneously in air and spreads fragments widely, none of which can be extinguished. A 3 meter CEP is just fine :-). It also creates a toxic thick smoke. 30 kg of WP is a lot. Unfortunately it probably will not start a forest fire, at least not nearly as well as thermite will. WP cannot be manufactured without special equipment. Lots of Ukraine's drone ordinance is artisanal. Given how the Ukrainians store their drone munitions (last picture in Ref 4), I don't think WP would be a good choice :-).

 

Russia did not start the war using multirotor drones. They eventually emulated what Ukraine was doing to some extent. There isn't a lot of data available about this on the Internet. There are quite a few articles about Russian fixed-wing drones. From that I concluded Russia wasn't really that interested in multirotor drones initially. They are now.