I think the thing that surprises me here is the composite panel.
I suppose that from the PoV of the Iranians this is a high-tech weapon the performance of which is optimised, whereas I perceived it as a kind of saturation weapon, one which I expected to be made of plywood.
These drones are designed for long range saturation attacks. I think the choice of composites is quite reasonable. Plywood means sacrificing range and decreasing reliability.
To be honest I think it is hard to judge. I definitely think the manufacturer sees this as a disposable saturation weapon and I don't believe the choice for composites would have been made lightly.
As far as tanks go I would guess that already most of the interior is taken up by tanks and using plywood would only reduce the potential range.
I have two additional considerations: Durability and manufacturing process.
Shaping plywood means machining, granted it isn't the most high precision process, but mould construction might also be more feasible if labor is cheap, but usable machinery is difficult to obtain in quantity.
Yes, and I suppose my mistake might to think that that something is a saturation weapon necessarily, or disposable, necessarily conflicts with it being something other than a weapon designed for mass-scale minimum-cost production.
I suppose this is Iran's equivalent of Tomahawk.
Plywood can also be bent with heat. There's a thing called a 'high frequency plywood bending press'. But these thin parts probably make more sense if they're made of fibre-reinforced plastic.
I don't think consequences on range would be so bad, but what really matters is probably cycle rates and cost.
Firstly, cloning a industry leading servo is no easy feat if the end result is within striking distance but the price is significantly less.
Secondly, internally, the clone motor appear to be superior on paper since it's using a brushless motor versus the original who's spec sheet says it's a carbon brushed motor, but that's just a speculation since until we can benchmark them side by side it's impossible to say exactly.
Cloning that servo seems like it would be much more difficult than just buying them through a 3rd party, which is something that Iran and now Russia are practiced at.
If they were built in Iran or Russia, they would likely need to import components in any case. Why not just import the completed product?
Well, I suspect like most drone components the clone is manufactured in China? And it probably used a lot of the same supplier parts as the real one. That is sort of how it goes I think in China.
I will take "stupid things that bother you for no good reason" for 200.
kamikaze drone is perhaps the most ridiculous term that has popped up in the last few years.
I despise it for at least two reasons.
1. Kamikaze was terminology specifically used to describe a "human" not a machine guiding themselves terminally into the target. this is what made it so horrifying.
2. If that is a 'sighs' kamikaze drone. why is the aim-9 sidewinder not one? by which I mean we already had perfectly good term to describe this sort of device. why not use it. It is a guided missile.
I think there is great value in distinguishing between low cost single use drones and cruise missiles. Conflating them seems stupid, they have totally different operational uses and characteristics.
> I think there is great value in distinguishing between low cost single use drones and cruise missiles.
You can still do it by saying e.g. "low cost cruise missile".
> they have totally different operational uses and characteristics.
Such as? Shaheds are used for similar goals as e.g. Tomahawks missiles.
I think a problem with insisting on this dichotomy is that we will see more in-between missiles - e.g. Shahed 238 is a development of Shared 136 with a jet engine. Is it a drone or a missile and why?
Linguistically speaking UAVs seem closer to manned aircraft, so the fact that TV guided missiles and 'kamikaze' drones offer similar capabilities is more of a 'convergent evolution' thing.
One of the things that I think make them different is that UAVs are expected to be able to wait in the area of operations after being launched (how they do it? It differs between models).
But I agree that using the word Kamikaze specifically is a bit weird.
From the second wiki page "It is not to be confused with a different word, a religious term, written and pronounced differently, Shaheed (Arabic: شهيد šahīd, plural: شُهَدَاء šuhadāʾ; female: šaheeda), meaning "martyr"."
I suppose that from the PoV of the Iranians this is a high-tech weapon the performance of which is optimised, whereas I perceived it as a kind of saturation weapon, one which I expected to be made of plywood.