Slashdot Mirror
China's Bungled Drone Display Breaks World Record (bbc.com)
Chinese company EHang has broken the Guinness World Record for the most drones flown simultaneously, despite them failing to coordinate for a light show. The company programmed a fleet of 1,374 drones to fly in set patterns, "but failed to spell out the date and the record-setting number of drones," reports the BBC. From the report: The South China Morning Post called the event an "epic fail." The record was previously held by U.S. technology company Intel, which flew 1,218 aircraft at the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympic Games in February. Intel's show was pre-recorded before being aired during the opening ceremony, due to "possible freezing weather and strong winds." According to the South China Morning Post, EHang was paid 10.5 million yuan ($1.65 million) for the Labor Day performance in the north-western city of Xi'an. You can watch a video of the drone display here.
The word "drone" is used for two very different things.
Actual drones fly autonomously, and are normally fixed wing airplanes. Examples include the MQ-1B Predator, RQ-7B Shadow, and MQ-9 Reaper.
What this article calls "drones" are RC quadcopters. As the article mentioned, they were flown from by the ground, by radio, just like the RC planes that starting gaining popularity 80 years ago. Quadcopters are fun toys. Because of some fundamental physics, quadcopters get dramatically less efficient as they get larger. The concept works quite well for a toy three inches across. Efficiency drops as you approach the larger popular size, which is 250mm (10 inches) across. Once you get up to about a meter across you're hitting the practical limit. You CAN build one bigger, but it's performance and especially flight time completely sucks compared to a plane or helicopter of similar size. You're never going to put thousands of pounds of military equipment and weapons systems on a quadcopter; it just doesn't make sense.
Can a military use small, unmanned aircraft effectively? Absolutely, and that's been US military doctrine for most of the time since cruise missiles were developed in the 1970s, and especially since the Tomahawk in 1983. Several proposed new aircraft have been cancelled in favor of missiles, which can carry out the same mission at lower cost, in dollars and lives. The venerable B-52 can quickly carry TWENTY AGM-86 cruise missiles to within 1500 miles of the targets, anywhere in the world, and those missiles then autonomously fly the last 1,500 miles to their targets.
There's really little military need for small, low-performance aircraft to fly around in patterns. Generally, you want to get to the target and destroy it quickly. That's what missiles do. Other aircraft can loiter maintaining situational awareness, watching, then call the missile strikes. There's little need for the recon aircraft to also be the one to strike the target.
In some hostile airspace, against moving targets or targets you can't get good satellite views of, you sometimes want to look, then fire a weapon. For that you want fast, stealthy aircraft which carry enough armament to destroy the target in one strike. A large group of slow, non-stealthy toys, which carry no more than a hand grenade, isn't particularly useful.