How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Chibot Mk IX]

2 hours ago, Kinophile said:

So explain this Ka-52 issue to me.

We've been assuming that low level air attacks are doomed/limuted due to ground level MANPADS saturation,  yet there are consistent reports of helo problems for advancing UKR mech infantry and often from 10 km away. 

How can UKR close this tactical loop hole? 

It is worthy to mention this post

 

The issue of controversy remains unchanged since the introduction of the AH. The Ka-52 (or replace it with AH-1) is not likely to survive long in a strike mission over enemy-controlled territory due to the threat of MANPADS (or HMG and autocannon in the case of AH-1).

However, with a carefully prepared flight plan and by loitering around friendly-controlled zones in close coordination with ground forces, the Ka-52 (or AH-1) can take a keyhole position to overwatch the road that the attacking force must pass through, making it a formidable tank destroyer.

To counter this threat, Ukraine needs to target Russia's airfields and FARPs.

When the Ka-52s are in an ambush position, things can become more complex, particularly in terms of detection. Ukraine lacks AEW assets, but quadcopters equipped with thermal imaging capabilities could be helpful. Additionally, adopting a good CM gameplay tactics would be beneficial. put yourself in the shoes of the Russians, think where you would position your Ka-52.

If the airborne Ka-52 threat is detected, fire artillery, airburst artillery rounds and ICM should pose a significant threat to the Ka-52.

While it may not be confirmed if it is possible, utilizing FPV kamikaze drones could be fatal to a hovering Ka-52. It might be worth considering deploying a few FPV kamikaze drones to patrol the areas that have been identified as potential ambush sites.

 

what is range of switchblade again?  

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Chibot Mk IX

[dan/california]

31 minutes ago, Jiggathebauce said:

Have a totally left field question about helicopters: have there been recorded instances where air assets were hit by ground based artillery, out of pure coincidence and serendipity? Accidental reverse anti air, if you will?

Don't actually know of a case, but NATO has an enormously detailed and robust procedures to ensure that our artillery doesn't accidentally hit one of our own aircraft. The quality of the Russians manual, and the adherence to it would have to be considered questionable given their performance at almost everything else, but if they have done it they haven't admitted it. Getting hit by the other sides arty is pretty much just plain bad luck, and again I don't actually know of a case. 

Their have been at least a couple of cases in this war of Russians planes getting shot down by their own sides SAMs because the crews were twitchy and/or incompetent.

[kevinkin]

25 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Hang a sidewinder from one of the big drones.

I agree, if fixed wing multi-roles need to be used near the deck to keep choppers at bay, then they are being misused. But they could go after their forward bases. But even that is just a bit better.  I don't think HIMARS has the range to hit mobile bases whereby they forced those choppers far enough away from the front given the KH-52 combat radius. But it's pretty darn close. Interesting to look into further.  It really is another rendition of Shoot-and-scoot. You would think the HIMARS would have a mobility advantage. 

[Chibot Mk IX]

42 minutes ago, Jiggathebauce said:

Have a totally left field question about helicopters: have there been recorded instances where air assets were hit by ground based artillery, out of pure coincidence and serendipity? Accidental reverse anti air, if you will?

at least one recorded incident

Has an artillery shell ever hit an airplane? - Quora

 

[JonS]

45 minutes ago, Jiggathebauce said:

Have a totally left field question about helicopters: have there been recorded instances where air assets were hit by ground based artillery, out of pure coincidence and serendipity? Accidental reverse anti air, if you will?

http://www.c-7acaribou.com/album/photos/photo02.htm

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Undaunted said:

Vs choppers

How about drone?  Killer drones, drone + PGM/arty, drone mounted manpad?

This would take some doing, but theoretically it is possible given resources.  However...

I'm wondering if Ukraine is trying, or has tried, to ram Russia's helicopters with kamikaze drones.  That would certainly make things spicy.  FPV drones are fast enough to hit a helicopter head on, but not fast enough to catch up to one on the move.  So you would need to have a drone in the air in the right place at the right time explicitly to engage a helicopter, and that is probably why theory doesn't translate well into practical.

As for why Ukraine is having so much difficulty downing helicopters... it's all about altitude.  To hit something you need to see it.  If the enemy helicopter is using terrain masking techniques (as they definitely are), then the opportunity to visually spot a target is extremely compromised.  Things get worse from there.

The extremely difficult task of spotting the helicopter is then compounded by various preparations which take up time, which likely means by the time the MANPAD is ready to use the target is no longer available.

A Stinger (and I presume similar for other MANPADS) requires some work to get it activated and, once activated, it becomes a bit of a problem to deactivate.  It's not like a rifle where you can put it to your shoulder in a second and then decide if you're going to use it or not, and if not it's no problem. 

Even if all of this goes right, then the gunner has to achieve an IR lock on the target.  No lock, no launch.  This means the helicopter has to be hanging around within LOS long enough to not only see it, get the weapon prepped, but also have the system lock on.

Those are some pretty tough conditions for knocking a helicopter out of the sky.

Other forms of AD run into similar problems.  Aircraft are really the main threat to helicopters, and that's something Ukraine doesn't effectively have.

Steve

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

That's well-within Storm Shadow range. Not sure why it hasn't been hit.

 

It is a case study the minus of not using cluster munitions.The Storm shadow has a two stage war head that is heavily optimized for hardened targets like bunkers and the bridge pillars. if they are have finally found the brain cells to keep the choppers dispersed on the ground a Storm Shadow might only get one or two of them.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, JonS said:

http://www.c-7acaribou.com/album/photos/photo02.htm

Yup.  Note this sort of thing rarely happens mostly because everybody works very hard to avoid it.

Steve

[JonS]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup.  Note this sort of thing rarely happens mostly because everybody works very hard to avoid it.

Steve

Eh, big sky, small round. You'll be fine

It's probably instructive that the most recent event seems to be from 1967. Because, yes; A lot of effort goes into deconflicting the airspace.

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

However, with a carefully prepared flight plan and by loitering around friendly-controlled zones in close coordination with ground forces, the Ka-52 (or AH-1) can take a keyhole position to overwatch the road that the attacking force must pass through, making it a formidable tank destroyer.

I think this is another use of drones that hasn't really been discussed much.  Quadcopter has eyes on the target, that is relayed to the helicopter pilot, which means he knows EXACTLY where to fly to and what and where he's going to initiate engagement.  This means the pilot can keep very low to the ground except to engage.  Normally helicopters have to fly higher around the target area because of the need to spot something to hit.

NATO has another trick which is to have a ground unit illuminate a target with a laser.  In this case the spotter communicates to the helicopter where the target is and lets it know when it is lit up.  Helicopter pops up, fires in the rough area, and theoretically whatever is illuminated gets hit.

Either way, the case is that someone else is doing the spotting and target designation, the helicopter is merely there to blow it up.

Steve

[cesmonkey]

US-made MaxxPro mine-resistant armored fighting vehicles 'are almost indestructible,' Ukrainians say
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-mine-resistant-maxxpro-armored-fighting-vehicles-indestructible-ukraine-russia-2023-6

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, JonS said:

Eh, big sky, small round. You'll be fine

True, but does a pilot really want to risk "being that guy"?

3 minutes ago, JonS said:

It's probably instructive that the most recent event seems to be from 1967. Because, yes; A lot of effort goes into deconflicting the airspace.

This is something Russia has not had a lot of practice with, yet even they seem to be able to pull it off.  As you say, it's a big sky so there's lots of room for error.

Steve

[JonS]

12 hours ago, kevinkin said:

All good points. Do you think the immediate needs of Ukraine still fit a peace time training model? The effort is probably more concentrated compared the the number of bases and countries cited in the news conference. But maybe not. 

Well, the rest of the world *is* at peace. Sort of. Also, from what I've been able to discern, the training provided to Ukraine soldiers is not just the regular lessons run through Google translate. They appear to be really cut down and focussed on what they can use right now. So, not a lot on interoperability with the navy, for example, or on operations in mountains, jungles, or desert

Edited June 18, 2023 by JonS

[Sojourner]

CAL FIRE takes the drone threat seriously. When prosecuting a wildfire they pull out their air assets if a drone is spotted in the area.

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Guardian article. The drone operator interviewed says the offensive is going better than territorial gains would suggest, but acknowledges that Russian helicopters are a problem.

________

... despite the gradual progress so far, the group argue it is going better than the slow rate of village capture might suggest.

“Maybe it is not very obvious because we are not moving very fast, but we destroy equipment, tanks, everything,” says Spielberg.

Gennadiy also describes determined opponents, notably using some weapons for which his brigade had no effective counter. “There are constant attacks from helicopters, three or four times a day,” he says, describing the Russians’ deadly use of Ka-52 attack craft in and around the frontline, and admitting they are difficult to shoot down from the ground, eluding his own efforts on the battlefield.

_______

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/17/21st-century-warfare-ukraine-counteroffensive-frontline

This is something we discussed a few pages ago.  Taking of villages and ground is good evidence that Ukraine's making progress, but there's a lot more going on that is far more important.  Specifically respective casualties and degradation of capability to fight (this is true for both sides).  Yet we, the OSINT folks included, are not privy to it.  Whispers at best.

A perfect example of this was something like the Russians taking Popasna or Soledar.  At the time some people (especially pro-Russians) pointed to this and said "ah-ha!  Russia is finally making progress!  More territory will soon fall into their hands".  In reality they were not followed up by additional dramatic gains because the Russians involved were totally spent.  Gains came after, for sure, but slowly and at great cost.  Therefore, seizure of territory is not necessarily a good measure of how well an offensive is going.

Similarly, how many battles have we collectively studied in history where solid defenses, sometimes held for prolonged periods, just disappeared overnight?  Usually it was because the defenses turned out to be a lot weaker at the time than they appeared to be.  We saw this in Kherson last year when Ukraine wore down Russia's ability to defend and that obligated them to retreat before they suffered a collapse.

Steve

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think this is another use of drones that hasn't really been discussed much.  Quadcopter has eyes on the target, that is relayed to the helicopter pilot, which means he knows EXACTLY where to fly to and what and where he's going to initiate engagement.  This means the pilot can keep very low to the ground except to engage.  Normally helicopters have to fly higher around the target area because of the need to spot something to hit.

NATO has another trick which is to have a ground unit illuminate a target with a laser.  In this case the spotter communicates to the helicopter where the target is and lets it know when it is lit up.  Helicopter pops up, fires in the rough area, and theoretically whatever is illuminated gets hit.

Either way, the case is that someone else is doing the spotting and target designation, the helicopter is merely there to blow it up.

Steve

The latest models of the AH-64 also have a radar mounted above the rotor. So if they are having to do their own spotting that is literally all they have to expose. Of course that emits so it has positives and negatives. With drones to do the spotting/target designation I think it makes more sense for the choppers to be a much cheaper missile hauler than ~30-50 million dollar wonder weapons various countries have been building lately, and or are considering.

[chrisl]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think this is another use of drones that hasn't really been discussed much.  Quadcopter has eyes on the target, that is relayed to the helicopter pilot, which means he knows EXACTLY where to fly to and what and where he's going to initiate engagement.  This means the pilot can keep very low to the ground except to engage.  Normally helicopters have to fly higher around the target area because of the need to spot something to hit.

NATO has another trick which is to have a ground unit illuminate a target with a laser.  In this case the spotter communicates to the helicopter where the target is and lets it know when it is lit up.  Helicopter pops up, fires in the rough area, and theoretically whatever is illuminated gets hit.

Either way, the case is that someone else is doing the spotting and target designation, the helicopter is merely there to blow it up.

Steve

Longbow can just stick the radome above the treetops and leave the rest of of chopper below LOS.  Some versions can even pass target information to neighbors so the ones doing the shooting can stay low and fire based on data from the longbow.  Way too much power draw to pout on a drone- it would mean sending apaches.  Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

I also like the idea of using loitering drones- turbines and drones don’t mix, even if the drone is unarmed.  A few kg of HE with some tungsten balls down the intake can make a mess of the turbine.  Probably won’t take down the helicopter if it’s a twin engine (failures probably will be contained if the engine is designed well), but will be a mission kill and cost RU an expensive engine.

[dan/california]

13 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Longbow can just stick the radome above the treetops and leave the rest of of chopper below LOS.  Some versions can even pass target information to neighbors so the ones doing the shooting can stay low and fire based on data from the longbow.  Way too much power draw to pout on a drone- it would mean sending apaches.  Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

I also like the idea of using loitering drones- turbines and drones don’t mix, even if the drone is unarmed.  A few kg of HE with some tungsten balls down the intake can make a mess of the turbine.  Probably won’t take down the helicopter if it’s a twin engine (failures probably will be contained if the engine is designed well), but will be a mission kill and cost RU an expensive engine.

This is also an extremely good case for an autonomous system. There are no neutral/civilian helicopters over a war zone. If you know you aren't using any helicopters in a given box, a fully autonomous drone that just looked for anything with a rotor blade makes a ton of sense.

[kevinkin]

22 minutes ago, JonS said:

Well, the rest of the world *is* at peace. Sort of. Also, from what I've been able to discern, the training provided to Ukraine soldiers is not just the regular lessons run through Google translate. They appear to be really cut down and focussed on what they can use right now. So, not a lot on interoperability with the navy, for example, or on operations in mountains, jungles, or desert

I don't think we are training 100 odd UA trainees in Timbuktu to fire and maintain small arms. Given networks I suppose the US can claim all those bases for more specialized high value stuff. Maybe that's point and it's just semantics. 30+ bases sounds good in the press. But maybe it's the only way to get it done. No need to go further on this one. 

[MikeyD]

1 hour ago, Jiggathebauce said:

have there been recorded instances where air assets were hit by ground based artillery, out of pure coincidence and serendipity?

I recall in WWII, the battle for Bastogne, ground infantry got to witness the spectacle of a C3 Dakota cargo plane being hit by an artillery shell while in flight.

[kevinkin]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Taking of villages and ground is good evidence that Ukraine's making progress, but there's a lot more going on that is far more important.

I agree. Another question is whether the UA will use the "western" mechanized brigades in mass at the same time, or commit them piecemeal. If they use them at the same time in the about the same location, that will be pretty easy to pick up. Given their value, that would be great news. Meaning a break through has been made. If they are used piecemeal to expand advances to a few more villages, then that's trouble. I think the UA wants to use them in an exploitation role ideally. But along more than one axis. I guess given the coverage of the war, their use will present itself when it happens. 

[Grigb]

3 hours ago, Kinophile said:

So explain this Ka-52 issue to me.

We've been assuming that low level air attacks are doomed/limuted due to ground level MANPADS saturation,  yet there are consistent reports of helo problems for advancing UKR mech infantry and often from 10 km away. 

How can UKR close this tactical loop hole? 

I can be mistaken but what I see is long range ATGM shots at vehicles supporting UKR advance. Once vehicles starts getting hits the advance falters. There are Ru discussions that UKR switched from armor heavy pushes to lighter mrap/humvee pushes with armor support from long range.

2 hours ago, kevinkin said:

I read Afghans had a pretty good record using MANPADS vs Soviet choppers. Could the RA learned from that debacle?

I have an RU book about RU helicopters in Afghanistan. According to the book, the efficiency of MANPADs was not as great as hyped in the media. It was a great pain, but clearly not wunderwaffe. The most effective strategy to cope with MANPADs was to have stronger defensive countermeasures (they had some, but they were effective mainly against old MANPADs) and to hope that there were no British Javelins that ignored countermeasures.

Apart from the F16, the solution is to acquire the offspring of British Javelin - Starstreak, however given the long range, UKR need a large number of Stormers equipped with Startstreaks to detect Ka-52 ambush.

[Battlefront.com]

The most viable solution to the helicopter threat is the one noted many times above... keep smashing their bases.  We saw how effective this was in Kherson in 2022, where Russians kept losing helicopters to artillery and sabotage strikes.  They eventually had to pull them very far back.  HIMARS forced them even further back.  Storm Shadow should, theoretically, cause them even further discomfort.  So much so that it seems Russia is risking keeping them within Storm Shadow range because pulling them further back effectively takes them out of the fight.

We know Ukraine can hit the bases, so why isn't it doing so?  There's been no evidence that Russia has meaningful counter measures, so the risk of expending valuable munitions without a good chance of hitting doesn't seem to be the reason.  My guess it's another timing issue.

Bases are notoriously hard to keep out of action.  Right now Ukraine knows where they are, as the RU bloggers are moaning about.  If they hit one of the bases they will likely take some out of action, but not all.  The survivors will go somewhere else and Ukraine will have to figure out where.  Over time this could consume a lot of Storm Shadows.  Maybe they are thinking it is best to wait until the main counter offensive is underway (i.e. target rich environment) before they hit the bases.

Another thought is that Ukraine is using these early battles to figure out how to better deal with helicopter threats.  Bashing their bases now will disrupt this learning process.  If this is true, then it's a good indication that Ukraine doesn't think it's entirely helpless against helicopter attacks, rather it just hasn't found the right combination to counter them.

Whatever the case it, Ukraine appears to be "allowing" Russia to continue using helicopters.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

For helicopter detection just have a small fixed wing drone with some microphones and thermal and have it fly a preplanned route silently, and when it finds something phone home and start up the transmitter. Obviously you could strap some HE and frag to it, but you advance warning would already be a big deal.

[FancyCat]

If I am recalling, drone attrition is high, including due to EW, this may damper attempts to take out helicopters via suicide.