poesel
-
Posts
4,323 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by poesel
-
-
I'd like to point out that the vote for the EU parliament ends this Sunday (which is tomorrow or today, depending on where and when you read this).
So it is much more interesting what European politicians will say and do next week than this week.
-
If this drone's prototype had been shown here, it would have been dismissed as not good enough because it is prone to easily get stuck in terrain. But sometimes something is enough, even if it only works in favorable circumstances.
Ukrainian ground kamikaze drone blows up Russian dugout.
-
Successful drone on drone attack:
Ukrainian FPV drone targeting Russian Orlan reconnaissance UAV. Several weeks ago. As said: "... the appearance of a full-fledged anti-drone complex based on FPV is only a matter of time. Although it is not easy, it will definitely happen."
-
21 minutes ago, FancyCat said:
If I'm not mistaken, we have U.S, Germany, Italy who do not approve using their weapons on Russian soil, U.K, Sweden, Finland, the Baltics? have approved their weapons to be used in Russia.
Just to cut short any further discussions about Scholz: Germany will only ever agree to the use of her weapons on Russian soil if all other allies have agreed to it.
Translation: 'all other allies' = USA.If that will change anything wrt to Taurus, I have no idea.
-
14 hours ago, dan/california said:
How long before an ATACMs class missile can deploy say ~50 of them? You would probably need a braking parachute on the warhead before they dispensed but there isn't anything impossible about that.
Why would you need to deliver a PGM with another expensive PGM to target?
Remember those wooden planes they had? (...some googling...)
Ok, just did the math here. ATACMs is just under $1,5M a pop. This cardboard plane costs $3k a piece.
https://www.sypaq.com.au/news/sypaq-awarded-logistics-drone-contract-by-army/
and could carry 2 drones. For the price of one ATACMs missile, you get 500 of these drones carrying 1000 drones.
The planes have some obvious pros & cons, but the redundancy & scalability are likely the biggest pros. -
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
This could be what is happening. The narrative could be "we found out how corrupt these guys were. Which explains how bad the state of the military is". In theory this shouldnt be a viable message because for 2+ years Putin has been singing their praise and bragging about how well the SMO is going. But this is Russia and Putin is the Tzar, so this sort of dot connecting is rather alien to their cultural makeup.
"We were always at war with Eurasia" - there is really no problem explaining that to the Russians, since the English guy wrote the handbook.
-
The solution to this 'billboard problem' is to fly a half circle around each target as standard practice. You might want to do that anyway to get a better attack angle.
Additionally, you train the model with pictures of tanks on billboards.
Btw, how long do you think would a billboard last on the battlefield?
-
37 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I am no expert either but EW has been around for decades, so a mature counter is struggling in this war. As to more fanciful EW (EMP blaster?). I have not seen any of this sort of tech nor does it really address fully autonomous unmanned. The cheap-many makes the most sense out of this but again if a UAS does not need transmission protocols to target and strike then basically we cutting a link back to an operator that isn’t there. As to the rest (eg hacking in flight), well if you can do that why not do the same for every other computerized and networked system on the battlefield? (which is basically everything.)
I haven't seen that tech in this war, either. But you dismissed EW for the next war, and I think this is too early to do.
Even if a drone is autonomous, you still might want to have a command channel to it, I refer to Dr. Strangelove for the mechanics of it, although the encryption mechanics have improved a bit since then.
But even a fully autonomous, no back-channel drone can still be fried by microwaves or blinded by a laser.But I have to concede the point that the importance of the necessity of a continuous radio connection to a drone will go down drastically. Hence, old-fashioned EW will lose its attack vector and become much less useful.
To answer the question of why not just hack the entire network? Because encryption on anything from mobile phone up is so hard that you need really, really much computer power to break it. OTOH, support for encryption on microcontrollers that usually fly those drones has been lacking. It just costs too many CPU cycles to do good encryption, and don't think about the video stream until you have specialized hardware.
But this, too, will go away in a few years, of course. The demand is there, so there will be products. -
Just happened to stumble over this video from a Ukrainian drone production workshop:
-
36 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Few points on EW - it has been effective in this war in eroding unmanned systems range and effects, but it likely won’t in the next one. First off EW is very “loud” as one is basically pumping a bunch of EM into atmo. These basically look like giant beacons to ISR designed to pick this up. So in a peer conflict where one side is not being starved of long range precision fires, EW systems are going to be hunted by other systems.
Hmm, not so sure about this part (I totally agree with the rest). Military drones are in their infancy and so is EW wrt to drones.
Devices that blast loudly to drown the spectrum are surely on the way out. But there are other ways. You could attack the transmission protocols and try to take over the drone. Or attack the video transmission to spy on the drone, or even fake it. Or put an EMP blaster on a drone and try to fry others. Or have cheaper EW emitters than the means to find and destroy them (economic attrition).
I'm no expert in this matter, but I think it is too early to dismiss EW.
-
11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Nope. The cost of production of a dumb 155mm shell is about EUR 3k, a smart one EUR 100k. FPV drones are somewhere around EUR 2k-3k and they are precision.
9 hours ago, zinz said:Any source for the FPV pricing? Hell a Mavic 3 costs 2000€ of the shelf and that is miles too fancy for a FPV drone. The correct price for the front line FPV drones that take out tanks and Infanterie which we all have seen so many times is most likely around 500€ if it's not sold by the military industrial complex.
If we talk about the kamikaze type drones, then we obviously go as cheap as possible. That would be at about $300 + warhead per drone. Not counting the equipment of the human drone controller.
Example:
First hit on amazonYou can easily build them yourself:
https://www.instructables.com/The-Ultimate-DIY-Guide-to-Quadcopters/And that is what Ukraine does for less than what Amazon would charge them. I guess they have been gold members at AliExpress for a long time.
From there the price goes up for longer range, more lift, better antenna, better camera or better ECM shielding.
-
22 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:
Well, it's not that no drone can attack in a steep dive. But as of now, most of these drones are commercially sourced drones and those aren't designed to tip over into steep dives.
Sorry, but no. They can dive. The maneuverability of these things is insane.
The reason they don't do dive attacks is that the camera is usually fixed in such an angle, that you can look forward when you fly forward. Since the copter has to tilt forward to fly forward, the camera needs to look up a few degrees.
Long story short: with these type of drones, you cannot look at your target if you do a StuKa attack. -
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Because it is a typical defense industry giving a false sense of security by showing an expensive system working in almost ideal conditions. Is it better than nothing? Sure, anything is better than nothing. But if the Boxer is driving down a road with real world terrain conditions, I don't see it doing much of anything against this:
I think it's a bit funny that you take this as an example. A bamboo forest is 'real world terrain', but let's fly this swarm in a fir forest for a laugh.
Impressive as this video is, it is a prepared demonstration, as is the Boxers'. We will never know how often they tried until they got one without a drone crashing.
The Boxer demo is nothing more than an ad. And we all have seen enough of those to know what the difference between an ad and reality is. Now, some here seem to think that everyone who says, that this update is a good thing, has fallen for it and thinks this is the new Wunderwaffe that will end the war.
Nope. I just think this is a good update to an existing system that makes it better. It will help in some situations and won't in others. That is all.
Btw.: for once the Germans did not totally overengineer something and just went with what was available, and yet you still don't like it...
-
34 minutes ago, hcrof said:
I actually think this is a good system - not perfect but easily integrated into existing vehicles.
Yeah, agree. I don't understand the hate here. Upgrading an existing system to fight an additional threat is quite economic, even if it is not perfect. If they could add that system to the Bradley, the Ukrainians would be pretty happy.
There's an accompanying article to the video here https://www.hartpunkt.de/drohnenabwehr-aller-truppen-rheinmetall-mit-neuem-ansatz/ (in German). According to it, the Bundeswehr has bought an undisclosed number of these systems.
It also has this tidbit of information about the use of radar:
"According to Michelson, the use of an active radar is necessary - despite its own radiation - because the data quality of one's own passive sensors is usually not sufficient for combat with a high probability of success. It can be assumed that drones will have fewer signatures in the future and will therefore be more difficult to detect passively." -
22 minutes ago, chrisl said:
Realistically, if you're generating any kind of periodic signal I can detect it and triangulate on it at a *much* larger range than you can usefully use it as a radar. All I need is a lock-in amplifier and a couple good clocks and I can work down at the background noise limit.
If radar detection & triangulation is that easy, I'm wondering why anyone in this conflict still has a radar dish?
-
3 hours ago, dan/california said:
This is where the defense department has to commit long term. They need to build specialized fabs that can do the specialized semiconductors the civilian market won't support, IN QUANTITY. Buying five hand built systems per year, produced by the modern equivalent medieval master craftsmen has to stop.
No need. These chips are produced in the millions. Only problem is that much of that happens on Taiwan. And the DoD seems to be committed to that already.
2 hours ago, chrisl said:A low power radar will always look like a beacon for a much longer range than it functions effectively as a radar. An enemy that knows you have them will just toss some sensor/munition package into the mix to fly into your radar until it's gone.
I guess you think about that kilowatt class, spinning things? But radar can also be very small. Take this for example (which is not suitable, because the range is only 12m - just for example):
http://hk-suntec.cn/en/product-8871-37864.htmlOutput power is 0.04W. If you can detect that, you can probably already see it with the naked eye.
Ok, I'm just saying, that such a system would be technically feasible and solve the el-cheapo quadcopter problem. But it doesn't exist, and so I'm either wrong or they are still fixing the bugs.
-
43 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
A shotgun equivalent of the US Navy's Phalanx seems feasible. The problem with this is like every other problem with AFVs these days... is there some combination of defensive systems that give a vehicle a reasonable chance of survival while still maintaining its ability to function? Then the separate question which is it even worth trying to do it?
Well, SPGs and rocket launchers have proven their worth in this war and will in the next, too. So protecting them seems worthwhile. At least against the current generation of drones, which can be made by any hobbyist.
But even if the next generation of military grade kamikaze drones are shielded against such a system, it would prevent the hobbyists in the next non-peer war from blowing up your expensive stuff.What I'm really looking for is a scaled down version of Skynex.
https://www.rheinmetall.com/de/produkte/flugabwehr/flugabwehrsysteme/vernetzte-flugabwehr-skynex
-
22 minutes ago, hcrof said:
I think APS is a dead end technology - far too much trouble for what it is worth.
I guess the Ukis would be very, very happy if they could put a 'Shotgun-APS' on every SPG & HIMARS they have, even if that only worked 50% of the time.
Btw: you missed the 'low power radar' part. No point in reaching out for kms if your weapon range is two digit meters.
-
About APS: the current generation of these systems is there to fight of incoming missiles or even grenades. Would an APS designed to combat incoming drones not be much easier? And why are we not seeing this?
I'm talking about drones that come AT you. That makes detection much easier. The range of that system needn't be that large. I can only guess here, but 20m would be enough to spoil any warhead.
That's a shotgun on a swivel mount paired with a bunch of sensors (acoustic, visual, short range radar).
Am I overlooking something, why we don't see such things?
-
About the future state of Ukrainian refugees in Germany & Poland.
TL;DR: even though the Ukrainian state won't give out new passports to males of military age, they can legally stay.
Both articles in Ukrainian:
https://www.dw.com/uk/solc-pracevlastovanim-ukraincam-u-frn-nicogo-ne-zagrozue/a-69054852
https://www.dw.com/uk/mvs-polsa-prodovzit-timcasovij-zahist-dla-ukrainciv-bez-pasportiv/a-68928882
-
25 minutes ago, JonS said:
In a static situation, which is essentially what we are seeing now, then sure. But if you're going forward then - assuming that "combined arms" is still a thing - then the tanks are going to be a lot closer.
If drone units get to be 'proper' military units, then a drone platoon is no more than two trucks: one with a 10" container with an openable roof which is filled with drones and their docking bays. This one has to drive into range.
And another truck with communication, command and drone operators. This one just needs to be in com range (by relay) to the drones. They don't need to move that much.
Tracked or wheeled, they can deploy as fast as any mechanized unit.A few billion $ will make a proper military grade equipment out of the hodgepodge setup we have now. Reaction time will be on par with artillery as you can start flying as soon as you know roughly where the target is. Artillery can't be stationary anymore, too.
-
Ok, we got 7 points from Ukraine in the ESC. That assures future German support.
-
My guess is that Russia gambles on a freeze in '25 and tries to grab as much territory for a better position in the bargain. The losses from the war don't bother Putin politically (and in every other aspect) so every additional square meter is a win for him.
Militarily, the Kharkiv thing doesn't make sense, but politically it does. If they could, they would create more similar areas. Unfortunately, Ukraine cannot respond in kind.
-
3 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:
Are they really? I thought that in order to be a legally recognised refugee one has to apply for the refugee status in the first safe country on the way, and there is no way to travel directly from the Ukraine to Germany
Yes, they are legal. Although, you are not wrong: what you describe is the normal procedure for asylum seekers. But Germany and other countries have decided to grant asylum to Ukrainians even though they came through another EU country.
Btw, this EU asylum system has been silly from day one. If you can only apply for asylum in the first EU state you enter, then all refugees will end up in the border states (Italy, Spain, Malta & Greece mostly). I have no idea how they were strong-armed or bribed into agreeing to that.
There are some rules changes in the works to evenly spread those refugees over the EU, but this is strongly opposed by some member states *cough* Poland Hungary *cough*, so I'm not sure where we are at right now.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
China has quite a large surplus in production capacity for solar panels. With the latest punitive tariffs on those in the US (IIRC) they will not be picky about whom to sell to.
Friend of mine got his panels installed by some Ukrainian guys. He bought the option for an isolator so that you can run the system independently if there is a blackout. The Ukrainians told him he was stupid to do so in Germany, whereas in Ukraine everyone had that.