Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Kinophile

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,359

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Kinophile

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Kinophile

    2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

     and not at all effective against autonomous drones with terrain scanning navigation (shielded, inherently doesn't need redundancies).  So if I had a billion Dollars to invest into something to defeat drones, I would not be focused upon EW.

    Is this quite accurate? Microwave emitters are a form of EW. Broader than lasers,  more of a zone/volume effect weapon, correct? Depending on the power, modulation and sustainment of the effect you can sweep the skies in a certain arc to fry all UAV, or focus on individual units to scramble and drop them. 

    Would Autonomy not be just as vulnerable to fried electronics as it is "invulnerable" to classic radio attack?

    Eg

    From The Crows Nest, podcast ep Feb 14th

    From The Crows Best, ep. Feb 28

    No shielding is perfect or invulnerable. Everything has a finite quality and bell curve of effectiveness., no? 

    As I always say, and my wife hates to hear:

    There's more than one way to skin a cat. 

    Of course, there's also this:

     

     

    1

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    20 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

    We all know what this...and don't try to deny it.  This is Sweden's inevitable march to global furniture dominance.  NATO spending will be siphoned to a blooming Swedish military office furniture line and reinforce the home market.  As we fight for the Global South, it is all just a cover for selling more "Bekväm" chairs.  It all ends with Sweden ruling our bums - or at least where we put them - like emperors

    By 2125 the entire world will be living on Swedish smart furniture on three different planets.  

    Sounds pretty good, tbh. 

    I, for one, welcome our future Svehdish Overlords - Hej! Hej! Hej! 

    1

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    57 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

    In this context my assumption would be that the Russian assets would be used as a form of collateral and since they mention 'Surety' then I would say as collateral vs a form of Surety bond (a bond is a form of loan - when you buy a corporate bond you are essentially loaning the issuing company money in exchange for an interest payment) sort of deal and since they mention reparations perhaps they could demand some form of reparations in exchange for getting their assets returned when this whole thing is finally over.  

     

     

    Yes, exactly. 

    0

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    26 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

    Not gonna lie, thats not really fast moving is it? i mean, some searchlights, more sailors, more crew mounted light guns, some patrol boats around, would that attack have failed? 

    I was thinking the exact same. Turning speed is.. Ok... Straight run speed... Is ok. 

    Bring on the kamikaze hydrofoils, I say. 

    These things could easily be hit by a ATGM, hell salvo-ing RPG7s would be useful. 

    I was noticing the LMG rounds seemed to ricochet off a lot. I'm sure some penetrated but the sloping form and hull thickness seems quite adequate. 

    What really did the trick here, I suspect, was a combination of the number of maneuvering USVs with the poor training /readiness of the ship and CIWS. 

    1

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    In reality there is a larger ISR architecture picking up targets and handing them off to FPV crews.  Drones are not sent out blindly hunting targets, the do need to fix them and engage, however you are putting too much stock in this “spotting” drone theory.  The UA is putting up hundreds of tac UAS, all with cameras and onboard ISR.  That is a LOT of SHORAD to “push back”.  Further, FPVs are “first person” they already have targeting ISR on board.  If the spotters do get pushed back do you really think they are going to call off the attack.  No, we need a C-UAS system that can push back all UAS, not just select spotters.

    Really, do share.  What COIN operation were you in where tanks were of any use?  I challenge IFVs but we needed to be in some armor but they demonstrated 1) they could kill our IFVs and 2) they were not deterred by them.  Use of heavy mech in COIN has been a classic western screw up and I have Afghanistan to prove it.

    You are completely missing the larger lesson here.  It is not about the tactical problem of that single attack.  Sure you have saved the Bn…right up until the next wave…and the one after it…and the one after that.  We will run out of 30 million dollar systems firing million dollar missiles well before they are going to run out of FPVs that cost 10k.  Buying “The Battalion” an extra morning of life is meaningless if we spent all our money on that system because they will still be dead by nightfall.  I think Steve put is best - spending 90% of funding on a 10% solution is a sure fire track to losing.

    As to dilemma, I was being extremely generous in my example.  None of these AD systems have proven sub-munitions and I would bet beer money right now that it is single missile to single target.  An opponent flying 100 FPVs is going to target both AD and fighting vehicles.  Further they are going to do it a longer ranges, over the horizon.  

    What?  So our enemies are complete idiots?  They can’t possibly come up with c-UAS systems.  Hey here is a crazy idea…how about an opponent that invests in cheap c-UAS out of other UAS?  So while we are feeling good about our multi-billion dollar SHORAD program they are killing all our FPVs and blasting our SHORADs away too?  Once the Bde reserve of our fancy SHORAD are dead we are naked while they still have a system.  Why?  Because they invested in lower cost technology they could mass produce.

    You are pulling numbers out of your @ss here.  These features will drive per unit cost up but economies of scaling will drive them down.  They already have.  We won’t have economies of scale for that SHORAD system because it costed billions in development and to manufacture a limited manufacturing run and the political level is only going to give us so much money.

    Physics has nothing to say that any of these ideas are impossible in this universe.  Energy density, weight and processing power are the limiting factors and they are all trending towards smaller lighter.   My ideal c-UAS weapon is another UAS - not sure how physics are denying these as we are already seeing them.  As to a small infantry point defence weapon I am pretty sure we can invest billions in that and come up with something better than what is being pitched.  Hell 40 mm airburst rounds might have a better point defence chance.

    There are but bigger, heavier and more expensive is not the way to go.  That video has a single Boxer blasting away at single (white) drones.  On the battlefield in Ukraine there are hundreds.  This is a much bigger issue than a few shotguns and a multi-million dollar SHORAD system.  We are likely going to have review a lot more than “better AD”.  FFS, that War on the Rocks article is citing that 50% of T90 losses have been due to FPVs.  We had another report of an entire Russia tank company stopped cold by 5 FPV crews.

    The ISR alone these things are pumping out has been noted as making it impossible to manoeuvre.  So we had better get with the program in the West.  Air spotters, shotguns and MGs are not going to do this.  Our opponents are watching this very carefully and do you not think they are going to be investing very heavily in this space?

    You want The_Capt’s prescription for the unmanned problem space:

    - Rethink c-unmanned.  It is not a “problem” we need to manage, it is a major shift in how wars are going to be fought.  Best way to find and kill a small unmanned vehicle will very likely be another small unmanned vehicle.  Invest heavily into UAS and UGVs suited to detecting and killing other unmanned systems on the outer envelop of controlled battle space.

    - Re-think ISR.  We need to learn how to live on a completely illuminated battlefield.  This means that deception, silencing and blinding need to become major campaign themes and not sprinkled on operations.  They need to become central and drive what is possible on operations.

    - Rethink conventional capability and organization.  Lose the weight, lose the heat, lose the tail.  We can bubble wrap our F echelon in multi-million dollar SHORAD but it won’t do squat for the B echelon.  We have long vulnerable logistics tails that are carrying too much weight.  We need to dump the weight and offset with precision and do it quickly.  No sacred freakin cows here either.  We need dispersion and speed.  And we will need a C2 construct that supports this.

    - Re-think manoeuvre.  We are very likely facing a major doctrinal shift in western warfare.  This love affair with Manoeuvre Warfare as “the solution” is likely over.  We need to face the realities of attritional warfare and the capacity implications that will have.  This will drive us towards cheaper many because we cannot sustain attrition warfare with what we have right now.  Manoeuvre is not going away but it will need to be earned.  We will need to win attrition in order to manoeuvre.

    - Re-think Denial.  This is not a transitory annoyance, it is a projected condition.  It is proving decisive in this war and very likely will in the next.

    - Re-think C4.  Data is a resource more important than gas.  We need to see the modern battlefield as a competitive data, information and knowledge environment.  We need to stop going to war to validate what we already know and accept that things are evolving very quickly.  

    - Re-think fundamental principles of warfare - Mass, Surprise, Manoeuvre and Offensive are all up for grabs right now.  We need to understand what these mean in a modern context and stop assuming we know what they mean.  Mass alone is changing in definition which is going to break our current doctrinal frameworks.

    There that is a start.  My point being that this is an about a lot more than SHORADs and shotguns.  This is about sustaining and gaining military options in the face of a highly accelerating evolution on the battlefield.  Or, you know, we could spend a few billion on another AD system and get back to business as usual.

    Well said. We're not going to beat fast, light and cheap with slow, heavy and expensive. Examples abound in history - battleships v airplanes being the closest example. 

    4

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, JonS said:

    I wonder how much fuel consumption of that ship was affected by the net. A loss of 1 knot might be ok. A loss of 1 knot AND a doubling of fuel consumption (and consequent wear and tear on the mechanicals) maybe not so much. OTOH, I suppose that still better than losing the ship.

    Depends how long you have it in the water, how deep, etc. These are torpedo nets so at least 6 feet down, but anti-USV (in current iteration) nets needn't be so deep, just trailing a foot or so below. Speed/fuel cost would be minor and a good trade off for a layer of passive defense.

    I'm really curious if the UKR Navy is applying any reverse lessons to its Turkish-built Ada class corvettes. One built and a 2nd under construction (possibly 4 total), but f-all use if they are not modified with the lessons from the slow killing of the BSF. 

    I do hope the GUR and VMS are talking...

    0

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    47 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

    Re claymores/grape, think bigly please. Just stick some autonomous quads on the boat (a few extra kg), and launch them when you are with 1km of target and have them hit the bridge or crew served weapons or people shaped heat sources on deck (or lifeboats).

    maritime katyushas FTW.

    0

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Kinophile

    34 minutes ago, Carolus said:

     But I am also sure I remember reading that one thing ships really don't like is an explosion underneath the keel.

    If you can go below water with 100kg of explosives, don't jump. Just hit it from below.

    Absolutely. Ships live and die by their keel state. Its literally their spine so once you stress, bend, fracture or generally **** with their keel then things go very screwy extremely quickly, especially in sea state 5+.

    1024px-Figure_5-_Wave_Height_of_Differen

    A usv with a 1T warhead that can handle SS5+ and hit the target head on, from underneath, as it mounts over a wave, could take out almost any ship. Not necessarily sink it outright (although definitely possible on smaller ships) but combined with the relentless ongoing wave action it could quickly escalate a nominally contained damage into a nightmare of propagating structural failure, from the keel up.

    Glub glub, bottom of the tub.

    1

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Kinophile

    46 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    They already did that :)  Russia's counter measures (nets, most likely) seem to have negated the ability to repeat that sort of attack.  Ships at sea can't be netted, so once again we find a drone counter that's effective in some circumstances and not at all in others.

    Steve

    41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

    Totally missed that.  Of course every counter has weaknesses.

    Well, not quite....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_net#Second_World_War

    Quote

    Torpedo nets were revived in the Second World War. In January 1940 the UK Admiralty had the ocean liner Arandora Star fitted out with steel booms at Avonmouth and then ordered her to Portsmouth where she spent three months testing nets of various mesh sizes in the English Channel. The net successfully caught all the torpedoes fired at them and reduced the ship's speed by only 1 knot (1.9 km/h), but in March 1940 the nets were removed.[11] In July the unprotected Arandora Star was sunk by a torpedo, killing 805 people.

    There's definitely some kind of useful ness there. Hell, trawling a net behind the ship (boomed out about 10m) could easily screw with the stern attacks.

    The_Royal_Navy_during_the_Second_World_W

    Versus these current USVs, the nets dont even need to be below water more than a foot or two - the contact is made by the prow of the boat, so above waterline mostly but with dips into the wake possible it could hit below. However all videos so far on all ships show the holes centered above the waterline, so it must be rare for the prow to dip low enough.

    Copium nets are a-coming...

     

    2

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

    Kinda modern version of grape shot.  I like where the idea is going but claymores are pretty short range (around 100ms).  The balls tend to give up energy pretty quickly.  The bigger the explosives, the bigger the ball bearing, which actually makes range issues worse.  And airburst frag mortar or somesuch would also be an idea.

    I am a big fan of incendiaries at sea - it hits naval pers deeply in their psyche and has for centuries. 

    The fact that those surface drones can get within small arms range is already a sign of a local defence failure on the part of the Russian ship.

    In theory workable, but the wake beside a ship would make it fairly difficult. Better to specialize the platforms- assault v support. Better is an organic FPV drone. Best by far is a USV drone carrier with 10+ FPVs running stand-off assaults on the defending crew and search lights. Blind the crew, you sink the ship.

    Also, I suspect there's a mothership/relay drone in play for these current attacks.

    0

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Kinophile

    24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

    So much of war is about projecting dilemma.  So load up surface unmanned with air self loitering munitions.  Make it a surface/air attack.  Air stuff pops up basically where you see those MGs blasting away, so maybe 500ms out.  CWIS and point defenses will get some but even 1 or 2 getting through will cause chaos - especially if one employs incendiaries.  Add in good ol MGs, decoys etc and you basically have a swarming solution for probably in a few million dollars.  The SK was worth 65 million plus crew and this approach would work on larger ships.  Basically the entry cost for strategic sea denial just plummeted.

    It seems the GUR /Navy is honing its platforms and tactics on a ladder of ship size. There's still more Roupucha to sink but perhaps the BSF is protecting them well enough with the SK equivalents. But now the Kotov is a man-made reef and the same basic tactics have worked again (immobilize,  then double tap amidships).I

    In a couple months I think we'll have a Black Week of the BSF, with its core strength decimated over several days. 

    ADD: That chart of the current BSF state shows that at least one ship has been sunk from the majority of classes, but only one class (ropucha) is has had multiple units sunk.

    This seems like a pattern, with the Ropuchas as the anomaly that proves the rule/thesis - that Budanov etc are building a library of TTP across the entire BSF classes. This doesn't mean they'll go for a large scale strike but that every class will have been studied, attacked and the results applied to the next attack, so that the GUR can be ready to attack any ship class that presents an opportunity. 

    TLDR: It's possible that these attacks are not so much shaping or opportunistic assaults as they are combat studies of the various classes and their crews. 

    0
×
×
  • Create New...