comment: >
  
  it's kinda shitty to use "kamikaze" and "suicide" type wording.
  just call them "single use"
context: Think of it as low cost alternative to GPS artillery.  It is slow and it can be shot down but it is cheap and accurate. >
  
  Not particularly effective though. Even if you crash it in a trench your only getting 1 or 2 casualties.  The effect on moral will be rough, but so is just having a hand grenade fall out of the sky and land in your foxhole >
  
  its a price per kill style calculation, and it still adds up well.
  some of these drones are worth less than what russia promised(but ofc doesnt) pay the family of killed troops. even so, a 100k HIMARS missile for 20 vatniks vs a 5k or less drone for an individual... hell, iv heard of suicide drones potentially being 1k or less if the explosives are avaliable... basically a body for a mortar shell
  so use both, have the loitering drone watch the 'single use drone' impacts, and drop its grenades where needed after + command now knows exactly what damage was done. >
  
  Oh it's certainly cheaper than blanketing an area in artillery, but I doubt it's cheaper than the grenades and bombs their dropping from similar drones, which can return and rearm.
  I'm assuming their using different drone models for these missions >
  
  i think the difference is the grenade droppers are larger quad copters hovering in place while the suicide drones are more a model airplane coming in fast and boom. smaller faster targets
  then again, its all speculation on my part, im no drone expert. but switchblade style drones are far more difficult to defend against in their terminal stage >
  
  The other part is also a drone is harder to retaliate against. Artillery can be identified for counter battery fire.  A guy with a laptop is much harder to spot >
  
  i saw a vid early on of a Ukrainian drone operator with a chinese drone. they dropped it in the middle of a field, started it n fuckin legged it cause aparently china had given russia access to its drone tracking data... either way. drone did its thing, lands in field again, they pick it up. 4 hours later arty strike on that field... cause ofc, russia is top down only and it takes forever for info to go up n commands to come down >
  
  Sounds like they should just land it by some Russian troops without suiciding it. They will artillery themselves. >
  
  Sounds to me like they need to let some hackers play with the tracking modules. I'm betting someone out there can get it to provide a false location return. How many Russian ammo dumps do you think they could get the Russians to blow up before they notice? >
  
  War sure is fucking scary these days >
  
  If drone warfare reduces the casualty count, it might be the least-bad alternative. >
  
  Spoiler: it doesn't. It just makes it easier to view the opposition as inhuman from 30,000 ft. >
  
  Sure, instead let's give the men on the ground ptsd and make it 1000 times more dangerous cause ethics /s
  dumbest argument against drones ever.. >
  
  The weaponization of drone tech has come way sooner than I had expected, time sure flies. >
  
  What do you mean, this has been around for at least 2 decades. Many more if you get a bit lose with the definition of ‘drone’ >
  
  Memories are shockingly short on Reddit. People were in an uproar when weaponized drones were being used by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. >
  
  Well ya, when used against civilians inadvertently >
  
  Are you suggesting that the US military should actually target threats instead of random groups of parents and children? >
  
  They could be future terrorists. Gotta be proactive. >
  
  Wedding party hit. 20% of survivors take up arms against the West in their grief and anger 
  I fuckin knew it! Terrorists! >
  
  Imagine some poor mobilized Russian stepping into a battlefield only to have a hundred switchblade drones just slamming into the battlefield all around him. There's no one to shoot at, nowhere to run, no direction, no cover, and it just goes on and on and on and on. Yeesh. >
  
  …but Putin said they were winning though… >
  
  Russia has been using kamikaze drones for a while now. So have you imagined some poor mobilized Ukrainian stepping into a battlefield only to have a hundred switchblade drones just slamming into the battlefield all around him? There's no one to shoot at, nowhere to run, no direction, no cover, and it just goes on and on and on and on. >
  
  They use them sparingly and try to hit equipment with them. They’ve taken out a few artillery pieces and barely nicked a couple others, done next to nothing on troops. 
  Switchblades so far have been pretty accurate at killing troops, they just need a bigger warhead to be more effective. >
  
  I'm honestly surprised that Ukraine has not been given enough kamikaze drones to have them in the air 24/7.
  it's by far the best weapon on the battlefield >
  
  yeah I think it's just difficult to understand the scale of the war and how quickly the weapons or drones in this case get dispersed and used up. there's no unifying threads on drone related news from either side. we know Ukraine has an elaborate drone program, or programs. we know piles and piles of various types are donated and adapted for use. and yet we still see stories like this that make it seem like they're only just getting started with them. but we've been seeing these stories the whole war. >
  
  Well, that's a brand new sentence. >
  
  'Charity fundraising' sounds pretty wholesome. 
  '1000 unit kamikaze drone fleet' on the other hand... >
  
  Giving Ukraine the ability to protect themselves is wholesome. >
  
  Until after the war end and weapons end up in the black market. 😬 >
  
  Of which there is no guarantee and still wouldnt be as bad as a russian victory >
  
  Anyone knows if there’s a way to donate specifically for kamikaze drones? >
  
  it's kinda shitty to use "kamikaze" and "suicide" type wording.
  just call them "single use" >
  
  At the end of the day, the only difference between a "kamikaze drone" and a cruise missile is size, I guess. >
  
  Guessing the drone can circle the combat area until a target is chosen, then strike immediately; while a missle isn't launched until the target is already determined. >
  
  Yes, that’s why kamikaze drones are also called “loitering munitions.” >
  
  Someone needs to put up a no loitering sign up just to prevent this from happening. >
  
  Just paint them white to avoid loitering charges. >
  
  Why doesn’t Ukraine simply purchase more Switchblades?! >
  
  Switchblades are likely pretty expensive because they need to be easily portable. Ukraine has a fairly well defined, static-ish front line, so they can smash together something larger from bits off hobbyking/wish.com and transport them in vehicles to that front line. >
  
  Yeah, seems that a Switchblade 300 is $6,000. >
  
  And in all the videos claiming to be switchblades, we don't see many big payoffs.  I can't tell if that is because it is a weapon developed recently when US focus was to target individuals and avoid bystander/civilian deaths or operator error or the weapon shown isn't actually that system. >
  
  Good point and also there is the switchblade 600 that seems to have upgraded and newer capabilities. Although again with pricing- I do wonder how much each unit of the 600 costs >
  
  Title gore. >
  
  This must be the first time the words "kamikaze" and "charity fundraising" are used in the same sentence. >
  
  Seeing the words ‘kamikaze’ and ‘charity fundraising’ in the same sentence is peak r/brandnewsentence >
  
  Well, rain hell then! >
  
  Please.Stop.Saying.Kamikaze.Drones
  THEY ARE MISSILES, THEY DO NOT SACRIFICE THEIR LIFE >
  
  Just because it functionaly does the same thing as a missile doesn't make it a missile. They are fundamentally different in design. It's like saying a mortar and an artillery gun are the same thing. >
  
  My point is that using the word "Kamikaze" has a big weight on the imaginary of common people. Press should not use these words as synonims. >
  
  I usually don't give to charities as a lot of the big ones have become bloated and have lost their way. 
  This though. This is a fabulous one. >
  
  Make drone footage of target impact available to donors and watch the money flow in >
  
  Maydar’s army of birds will soon be in the air.
  Well done to those of you who donated! >
  
  Finally a charity I can get behind. >
  
  That's not a sentence I'd expect to read on a regular basis. >
  
  So if they could be piloted by ai and the other side developed anti drone drones also piloted by ai everyone could just stay home until one side ran out of money. War in the new century.. >
  
  Never thought I would see the word "Kamikaze" & "Charity" in the same sentence. >
  
  Wow, I can get a tax write off for someone killing someone 1000's of kilometers away from me with a suicide drone, what level is this? >
  
  Cool. Mayb our billions in tax dollars can stay local now >
  
  For the most part we have been sending aid packages of existing, 2-3 generation old hardware, built by american defense contractors, with american union labor that have been sitting unused for years to decades. If you want to complain about tax dollars you need look no further than the $800B annual defense budget. Not that it'll get you anywhere because most of those funds are being spent on...yes you guessed it, big dollar defense contracts employing american union labor, paying american troop salaries, VA medical care, GI education bills funding american universities [and for-profit scam schools]. Regardless, it's still mostly being spent [wasted] domestically. 
  If we do ship some of the mothballed hardware that was sitting around collecting dust to someone who's going to use it in defense of their sovereign territory against an invading army from the same country that has been waging an information war against us for the last 20 years? Yeah, I support that. >
  
  How come Palestinians aren’t being given drones >
  
  Most of you are totally missing the primary target for suicide drones, it isn't individual soldiers.  Ideal targets would be artillery crew targeted by trying to set of the munitions around the gun, ammo dumps, trucks, fuel storage, communications arrays, command posts, radar installations, MlRS, anything high value or where a smaller boom has the potential of setting off a big boom.  Troops are always going to be more vulnerable to an airburst than to a direct energy transfer like a suicide drone is going to deliver. >
  
  WWIII LET'S FUKN GOOOO. UKRAINE IS NOTHING BUT A PAWN FOR THE WORLD STAGE. CAN'T WAIT FOR CHINA TO JUMP TAIWAN AND GET WWIII ROLLINNNN >
  
  Can't wait for the videos >
  
  I feel like we're not far from the time when you can do fundraisers for lethal drones, and award the batch of donors for any given drone a video of it killing people. Like I'm pretty sure this is something that is going to happen on a real calendar day in the future. >
  
  They used to do that on SignMyRocket.
   For $2,000 they'd wrote your message on a grenade and drop them on Russians till they got a kill then send you the video >
  
  Yep. Used to be like $50 but they got so many orders they had to up the price :/ >
  
  We used to just call them guided missiles >
  
  Yeah, but these are only guided. >
  
  Should be 3,000 amirite, r/NCD? >
  
  As a drone owner, hearing of drones being used like this makes me flabbergasted because of how much they cost. Wouldn't it make them reusable to put latches and timers on the explosive load and just drop it, so the drone can at least be salvaged? Maybe just leave enough of an explosive to make the drone unusable and unsalvageable if it gets shot down. >
  
  Flying into something at speed is easier than flying over to drop something from a height. The expectation is that the drones will get shot down, so the best case scenario is dropping one bomb before getting hit. >
  
  You'd still have that option, though. You would also have the option to fly into something, autorelease on proximity, then see if your drone can escape intact before a short delayed trigger. It's just gives it more options and the possibility to focus on reuse when you are out of the way of supply lines. >
  
  I am fairly certain military experts are across what is the most effective strategy. >
  
  Sorry, I wasn't aware I was responding to one of them...
  If an argument is made and it has flaws, they are going to be pointed out. >
  
  Your first commented was that you're "flabbergasted" by the policy mentioned in the article. This comment was a continuation of your point in which you continue to support your idea so I chose to respond here. >
  
  How do you donate? >
  
  I swear we had a name for things that could fly themselves to a location and then explode. >
  
  Fuck it, sell the naming rights to individual drones. And if it is legal, camera feed of the drone's last moments. I'd pay to see drony mcdroneface's kill cam. >
  
  Can I sponsor a drone 😊 >
  
  "Kamikaze drone fleet" and "charity" being in the same sentence is, wild >
  
  “Kamikaze drone” is such a dumb term for “slow missile”.
  Glory to Ukraine though. >
  
  It’s because it’s using drone technology rather than missile technology. >
  
  “Charity” is a bold choice of word >
  
  So you all are left wing war mongers? 100% of you would avoid Frontline service in any war but you discuss the the finer points of warfare like it's a sport. >
  
  
  So you all are left wing war mongers? 
  
  Supporting a nation that has been invaded by a country run by an evil scumbag is not "left wing war mongering."
  The sooner you understand that, the sooner people will stop laughing at you. >
  
  Nothing makes me hope for the future like crowdfunding war. >
  
  That’s been going on for over a century at least - much likely far longer. >
  
  This is the weirdest charity I’ve ever heard of. Shouldn’t it be like charity for sick children? >
  
  Well it is going to stop children from dying.... >
  
  Anyone click this looking for a donation link and not finding one? >
  
  Charity for death. Nothing about that headline is ok. >
  
  I have a hard time believing kamikaze drones are in any way cost effective. Spending all of that money and energy to to make the thing airworthy and controllable just to smash it into things? Better to arm them with conventional munitions for repeated sorties. >
  
  You would need to double the range (so it could come back) which would introduce some complications. Also the price is relative; drones are much cheaper than cruise missiles and have more control for better targeting. >
  
  Nazis give other nazis money to kill more nazis. It's an MIC wet dream playing out in real time. >
  
  It’s is fascinating how Ukrainian are using the internet to raise fund and interest toward their war effort. Never once before we found shelling signing, making tags out of destroy tanks, and NAFO memes. >
  
  Kamikaze drone fleet created with charity money is one dystopian sentence I did not care to experience in my lifetime >
  
  Why is the Bayraktar on the cover im pretty sure that’s not a kamikaze drone >
  
  I thought the same.  Totally different machines. >
  
  Tora tora tora >
  
  Lets get this up to 100,000 and rock a nation >
  
  Fuck em all to death! >
  
  Couple of things.
  One, the article doesn't mention anything about an ETA for Wendy's rooms can be expected to make it to the battlefield. It's a big difference if they're in stock somewhere and can be purchased right away or if they're going to have to go into production and be delivered at some future date. They need these systems now not one or two years from now.
  Two, why in the world are they having to raise these funds through donations? The US alone has sent over $100 billion with more scheduled soon. Maybe all that is not actually making it to Ukraine, some is humanitarian but a huge chunk is for weapons too. >
  
  The donations go directly to units who spend them on what they need right now. Like portable gas heaters, civilian FLIRs, drone components.
  Donate to official government ones if you wish, it's of course of great benefit to the war effort. But for a frontline Bakhmut unit, getting a $10,000 they can immediately turn into suicide drones is very useful. They currently have factories mass producing them but it's still a unit level thing where they're using funds given directly to them. >
  
  Weapons manufacturers go kaching! >
  
  Best name ever for drones tbh. >
  
  First donation from America. >
  
  I remember playing one of the first Call of Duty’s that featured drones thinking it’s some sci-fi bullshit lmao because back then they weren’t prevalent >
  
  Drones from charity should be donated to russia by force >
  
  War + tech crowdfunding, humanity at its best lol >
  
  Future Reddit fundraiser >
  
  Fuck, why are we telling them. Unless it’s a fugazi >
  
  Kamikaze charity fundraising >
  
  JAGGA JAGGA! >
  
  Lol if i donate enough can i get my name put on the drone and get the video after >
  
  The drone is a wonder of manufacturing, cost and quality.  Using a drone as a missile is a bit expensive in most cases. However, they've managed to manufacture this thing as cheaply as possible and then to weaponize it in multiple ways is pretty innovative. My biggest thing is that they can afford to throw these away by blowing them up and all the electronics makes it very innovative >
  
  ... holy poop. >
  
  It becomes a mass drone test field. >
  
  Now we've been reduced to a GoFundMe war? >
  
  Send them to Moscow and see how quick Putin changes his tone? >
  
  Doesn't surprise me, that drone swarm on crimea had a purpose, even if all drones were intercepted. They should develop a cheap decoy version that gets mixed in with the armed versions, to the Russian AA missile, it's all the same.
  I'd bet that future counter offensives would make wide use of these swarms to saturate an air defense (exhaust their supply) and/or unmask radar for fighters to hit them with HARM. >
  
  Good. Start flying them into Russian apartment blocks.  The Russians that are authorizing and firing misiles and artillery into Ukraine citizens housing are never going to face justice. Time for some tit for tat. >
  
  I guess that is a good charitable cause.. it is so strange what we find ourselves supporting during a war.. >
  
  Now make them go about 800 km >
  
  Believe it when I see it. >
  
  So is that where our $125 Billion of USA aid is going, or does the Pentagon still not know. >
  
  Is there a GofundMe site for this war yet? Would make sense considering how desperate Zelensky is for endless cash. >
  
  Cocaine is expensive, so We have to understand him. >
  
  I don't see value in using the word kamikaze in things not including human self-sacrifice. 
  Our planes are equipped with kamikaze missiles.
  My gun shoots kamikaze bullets. >
  
  It’s because a drone has a use other than destruction. A drone can do lots of things but it is being ‘sacrificed’ as a weapon of war, whereas a missile or bullet has only one destructive purpose. >
  
  By charity fundraising, they mean "America just sent us another 1000 switchblades" >
  
  You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about >
  
  I’m sure it must seem like that, to someone with your knowledge. >
  
  So they are literally throwing the money away…..  ohhhhh I get it, that makes it so much easier to steal all the money and act like you did something with it… >
  
  By your logic, the only thing they should get is guns and vehicles without ammo or fuel. Because those things are "thrown away" >
  
  My logic is get new politicians all the way around…. Where do you think the money is really going??? Really? >
  
  To the war unless you can prove otherwise. >
  
  How will they do that if russia took out their power grid? >
  
  This is unlikely. The invaders need the power grid themselves, to power the electronics they're using in the invasion.
  Same reason they haven't taken out the telecommunications grid - Russia needs it as well. >
  
  That headline would have been perceived a lot more differently a century ago >
  
  Swarm inbound >
  
  Where can I donate?  It’s hard sometimes to be sure I’m donating to a legitimate place. >
  
  Go fund me is an amazing thing >
  
  Why not invent a machinegun drone to take out soldiers hiding in trenches ? >
  
  Because improvised grenade drones work better. >
  
  I've seen those as they very slowly sneak up to their target, but imagin a fast moving drone coming as a surprise attack like a flying soldier - should be tested at least >
  
  Wait till the opposition do the same. Or worse. >
  
  fucking humans can never play nice. >
  
  Oh yeah well I like to spend gifted money on really nice houses that are on fire that burn completely to ground and then I set up a tent on the rubble and then donate it to the homeless until someone takes it from me do to me not paying my property taxes. Beat that Ukraine >
  
  Which charity to donate to...Oxfam or Ukraine military. 🤔 >
  
  Think of it as low cost alternative to GPS artillery.  It is slow and it can be shot down but it is cheap and accurate. >
  
  Not particularly effective though. Even if you crash it in a trench your only getting 1 or 2 casualties.  The effect on moral will be rough, but so is just having a hand grenade fall out of the sky and land in your foxhole >
  
  its a price per kill style calculation, and it still adds up well.
  some of these drones are worth less than what russia promised(but ofc doesnt) pay the family of killed troops. even so, a 100k HIMARS missile for 20 vatniks vs a 5k or less drone for an individual... hell, iv heard of suicide drones potentially being 1k or less if the explosives are avaliable... basically a body for a mortar shell
  so use both, have the loitering drone watch the 'single use drone' impacts, and drop its grenades where needed after + command now knows exactly what damage was done. >
  
  Oh it's certainly cheaper than blanketing an area in artillery, but I doubt it's cheaper than the grenades and bombs their dropping from similar drones, which can return and rearm.
  I'm assuming their using different drone models for these missions >
  
  i think the difference is the grenade droppers are larger quad copters hovering in place while the suicide drones are more a model airplane coming in fast and boom. smaller faster targets
  then again, its all speculation on my part, im no drone expert. but switchblade style drones are far more difficult to defend against in their terminal stage >
  
  The other part is also a drone is harder to retaliate against. Artillery can be identified for counter battery fire.  A guy with a laptop is much harder to spot >
  
  i saw a vid early on of a Ukrainian drone operator with a chinese drone. they dropped it in the middle of a field, started it n fuckin legged it cause aparently china had given russia access to its drone tracking data... either way. drone did its thing, lands in field again, they pick it up. 4 hours later arty strike on that field... cause ofc, russia is top down only and it takes forever for info to go up n commands to come down >
  
  Sounds like they should just land it by some Russian troops without suiciding it. They will artillery themselves. >
  
  Sounds to me like they need to let some hackers play with the tracking modules. I'm betting someone out there can get it to provide a false location return. How many Russian ammo dumps do you think they could get the Russians to blow up before they notice? >
  
  War sure is fucking scary these days >
  
  If drone warfare reduces the casualty count, it might be the least-bad alternative. >
  
  Spoiler: it doesn't. It just makes it easier to view the opposition as inhuman from 30,000 ft. >
  
  Sure, instead let's give the men on the ground ptsd and make it 1000 times more dangerous cause ethics /s
  dumbest argument against drones ever.. >
  
  The weaponization of drone tech has come way sooner than I had expected, time sure flies. >
  
  What do you mean, this has been around for at least 2 decades. Many more if you get a bit lose with the definition of ‘drone’ >
  
  Memories are shockingly short on Reddit. People were in an uproar when weaponized drones were being used by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. >
  
  Well ya, when used against civilians inadvertently >
  
  Are you suggesting that the US military should actually target threats instead of random groups of parents and children? >
  
  They could be future terrorists. Gotta be proactive. >
  
  Wedding party hit. 20% of survivors take up arms against the West in their grief and anger 
  I fuckin knew it! Terrorists! >
  
  Imagine some poor mobilized Russian stepping into a battlefield only to have a hundred switchblade drones just slamming into the battlefield all around him. There's no one to shoot at, nowhere to run, no direction, no cover, and it just goes on and on and on and on. Yeesh. >
  
  …but Putin said they were winning though… >
  
  Russia has been using kamikaze drones for a while now. So have you imagined some poor mobilized Ukrainian stepping into a battlefield only to have a hundred switchblade drones just slamming into the battlefield all around him? There's no one to shoot at, nowhere to run, no direction, no cover, and it just goes on and on and on and on. >
  
  They use them sparingly and try to hit equipment with them. They’ve taken out a few artillery pieces and barely nicked a couple others, done next to nothing on troops. 
  Switchblades so far have been pretty accurate at killing troops, they just need a bigger warhead to be more effective. >
  
  I'm honestly surprised that Ukraine has not been given enough kamikaze drones to have them in the air 24/7.
  it's by far the best weapon on the battlefield >
  
  yeah I think it's just difficult to understand the scale of the war and how quickly the weapons or drones in this case get dispersed and used up. there's no unifying threads on drone related news from either side. we know Ukraine has an elaborate drone program, or programs. we know piles and piles of various types are donated and adapted for use. and yet we still see stories like this that make it seem like they're only just getting started with them. but we've been seeing these stories the whole war. >
  
  Well, that's a brand new sentence. >
  
  'Charity fundraising' sounds pretty wholesome. 
  '1000 unit kamikaze drone fleet' on the other hand... >
  
  Giving Ukraine the ability to protect themselves is wholesome. >
  
  Until after the war end and weapons end up in the black market. 😬 >
  
  Of which there is no guarantee and still wouldnt be as bad as a russian victory >
  
  Anyone knows if there’s a way to donate specifically for kamikaze drones?