Switchblade in Ukraine: 2.5 kg kamikaze drones with 10 km range

Switchblade kamikaze drones in Ukraine: 2.5 kg and 10 km of range

The tube rests on the ground like a small mortar. The operator launches from a control center, tracks the trajectory via GPS and live video, locks onto the target and gives the order. From that moment on, the device never comes back: it dives onto the marked point and destroys itself on impact. That is the Switchblade, and the United States has just committed 100 units as part of an additional $800 million weapons package for Ukraine. Manufacturer AeroVironment describes it as a "tactical missile system." The official label for the category is different: loitering munition.

Which models exist and how they differ

The Biden administration's announcement does not specify which version is heading to the front, and the difference matters. The Switchblade 300 is the small one: the manufacturer's spec sheet presents it as a portable high-precision missile, it fits in a backpack and its quiet engine allows it to go unnoticed. It weighs 2.5 kg, operates within a 10 km radius and can stay airborne for up to 15 minutes at a top estimulante ilegal of 160 km/h, with GPS and a camera sending live footage to the operator.

• Switchblade 300: 2.5 kg, 10 km range, up to 15 minutes of flight, 160 km/h and a small explosive payload.
• Switchblade 600: 54.4 kg, 40 km range, more than 40 minutes of flight, 180 km/h and an anti-armor warhead.

The jump between the two models is not cosmetic. The 600 is set up and ready to operate in 10 minutes, has enough power to disable armored vehicles and, according to its spec sheet, can attack distant targets without support from reconnaissance drones. The 300, on the other hand, needs someone to designate the terrain.

How is a kamikaze drone controlled?

Both models communicate with the operator through an encrypted digital data link that reduces the chances of interference and interception. The system also allows several drones to fly at once as a swarm against different targets. The operator sees the trajectory live via GPS and video, and the system's algorithms keep tracking moving targets. There is one detail that is often overlooked: there is a mechanism to abort the mission. If civilians appear on the scene or the target moves beyond the battery's range, the attack is called off.

What can the Switchblade be used against?

They are not built for the same purpose. The 300 carries a small explosive payload, the kind used against personnel or unprotected weapons —a mortar launcher, an exposed machine gun—. The 600 mounts an anti-armor warhead, which makes it suitable against vehicles. That is why much of the interest centers on whether the shipment includes the large model, capable of stopping armored vehicles, or only the small one. The question remains unanswered.

The debate: decisive weapon or toy to prolong the war?

Consensus breaks down as soon as their usefulness comes up. One camp argues that a hundred 2.5 kg units can eliminate personnel and lightly or unarmored vehicles, but they are not decisive weaponry: they are, in the phrase that keeps coming up, toys that prolong the conflict without tipping the balance. From the other side comes the reply that the value lies not in the number but in what can be blown up with them: warehouses, camps, ambushed tank columns, artillery. What is needed, that side says, is not surgical precision but volume of damage.

Another axis of discussion is the comparison with Russian equipment. It is argued that the one-way drones deployed by Moscow fail more often than desirable and that the junk sent to the front is worth less than the drone itself. The irony about loitering munition has weighed more than the celebration.

The industrial philosophy behind it

The issue goes beyond Ukraine. Some see in the shipment of cheap drones a paradigm shift: fighter jets from the eighties are still in service because the flight hour of the newest models costs a fortune, and unmanned vehicles are presented as the way to make the front cheaper. The underlying difference, the argument goes, is one of priorities: some prioritize the survival of the aircraft at enormous cost, others prioritize spending little at the expense of survival. The optimistic corollary —or dystopian, depending on your view— points to wars without human contact, armies of drones fighting each other.

Who makes money from a long war

In parallel, the dispute over where the money goes is more uncomfortable. It is argued that with arms shipments there is a clear business for the US industry —sales to NATO countries, more expensive gas— and that this pushes to prolong the conflict. The paradox being pointed out is not minor: while talk of nuclear threat continues, gas keeps flowing and the pipelines remain intact. Some see it as proof that escalation has limits. Others see it as proof that there was never any intention of touching the cables that really move the board.

The Switchblade 600 brochure, designed to be destroyed in a single use, boasts a rechargeable battery. It is a minor detail and sums up the state of affairs quite well: the technology advances, the sense of war does not.