ollie@lemmy.worldM to CombatFootage@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 years agoFootage of a Ukrainian naval drone reaching a Russian war ship, Olenegorsky Gornyk09110846.xyzvideomessage-square37linkfedilinkarrow-up1288arrow-down16file-text
arrow-up1282arrow-down1videoFootage of a Ukrainian naval drone reaching a Russian war ship, Olenegorsky Gornyk09110846.xyzollie@lemmy.worldM to CombatFootage@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 years agomessage-square37linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-squareHughJanus@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·3 years agoWhy wouldn’t they just use a torpedo?
minus-squareduffer @lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·edit-23 years agoBecause you need a submarine. This is ‘easier’, certainly if you don’t have a sub. Also a MK48 costs $894,000, and has a payload of 293kg. This drone packed 450kg for I imagine a fraction of the cost.
minus-squarepostmateDumbass@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·3 years agoTorpedo would have detonated under the keel, probably breaking it, instead of the side of the hull.
minus-squareduffer @lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-23 years agoCorrect. Looking at the ‘after’, it appears to have done a pretty good job though.
minus-squareJohnDClay@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·3 years agoCheaper and longer range
Why wouldn’t they just use a torpedo?
Because you need a submarine. This is ‘easier’, certainly if you don’t have a sub. Also a MK48 costs $894,000, and has a payload of 293kg. This drone packed 450kg for I imagine a fraction of the cost.
Torpedo would have detonated under the keel, probably breaking it, instead of the side of the hull.
Correct. Looking at the ‘after’, it appears to have done a pretty good job though.
Cheaper and longer range