How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[TheVulture]

3 minutes ago, Jiggathebauce said:

So Prig was upset that Putin wasn't talking to him for months, but Putin couldn't get Prig to talk to him this past weekend? Someone's lying.

Controversial opinion, but it is possible that Putin, Prigoszhin and Lukaschenko are all less-than-reliable narrators

[sburke]

4 hours ago, DesertFox said:

Yup, deliberate.

 

 

satire aside it does look deliberate and sadly a Ukrainian in the employ of the GRU may have provided the target. 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-says-caught-sleeper-agent-153820369.html

[strac_sap]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I seriously doubt that it would.  Napalm has little blast pressure as it is basically gelled gas.  So now we are down to heat.  Surface laid mines might get scorched, if you hit really lucky maybe even detonate a few.  But buried mine systems would pretty be much immune.  Napalm is pretty hot but doesn’t really last that long.

It isn’t a question of either/or dumb mines or UGS-mine systems, it is both.  A UGS-mine system could effectively close lanes after a breach has an occurred.  Also UGS allows for far more effective use of EFPs as they can be sighted dynamically.  Smart mobile mines in combination with dumb mines is likely where this is going.  Add in small UGS with ATGMs with layers of UAS overhead and you get into a pretty hard denial scenario. 

The idea of dropping munitions from planes to clear minefields was always a nonstarter in the past, for a number of reasons. As a new combat engineer private in the US army I remember watching a video (VHS I think) of Iraqi positions before deploying and the DoD wanted recommendations on how to breach them. Afterward I told the lieutenant we should just do a B-52 strike to clear a path. He didn't respond. The airstrikes were always too inaccurate and the ground could be impassible to vehicles.

There are two different ideas here that should be clarified: breaching a minefield and clearing a minefield. Frankly both are scary.

The explosives in mines is very stable, and the fuse is the key to setting it off. (when fatigued and stupid we would toss explosives around in really unsafe ways, but here I still am) So to actually clear a mine explosive needs to be placed directly on/next to it or it needs to be physically removed. Both of these require the mine to have been discovered by the persons doing the clearing. And then you have to be in the minefield doing stuff like, pop and drops, ring mains and line mains.

To breach the minefield the mines simply need to be moved out of the way. This is where MICLICs and bangalore torpedoes come in, vehicles with plows, and maybe airstrikes if they can be precise and not destroy the ground rendering movement impossible. They are expected to blow the mines out of the way, and if they detonate them that's good. But not expected. So napalm could work if it was hot enough to ignite the fuses. Otherwise it would be very poor as it would not push the mines out of the way.

I appreciate these discussions about the more modern state of mines and mine clearing, especially drones. My heart breaks to see the density of the minefields that are being laid. This will takes many years to clear and the cost to the locals will likely be extraordinary. Perhaps more and better automated mine clearing is the key, I feel like we have neglected this like many things as we thought these wars were a thing of the past.

[Jiggathebauce]

21 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

From the Independent (UK newspaper owned by Alexander Lebedev, and these days of dubious reliability IMHO. Caveat emptor) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-putin-wagner-group-latest-news-b2365501.html:

Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko said he persuaded Vladimir Putin not to “wipe out” Wagner mercenary chief Yevgeny Prigozhin, in response to what the Kremlin cast as a mutiny.

While describing his Saturday conversation with Putin, Lukashenko used the Russian criminal slang phrase for killing someone, equivalent to the English phrase to “wipe out”.

“I also understood: a brutal decision had been made (and it was the undertone of Putin‘s address) to wipe out” the mutineers, Lukashenko said, according to Belarusian state media.

“I suggested to Putin not to rush. ‘Come on,’ I said, ‘Let’s talk with Prigozhin, with his commanders.’ To which he told me: ‘Listen, Sasha, it’s useless. He doesn’t even pick up the phone, he doesn’t want to talk to anyone’.”

 

10 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

Controversial opinion, but it is possible that Putin, Prigoszhin and Lukaschenko are all less-than-reliable narrators

Of course, but I find it interesting that Luka would choose to portray Putin as this out of ideas, failing strongman who can't get his caterer to answer a phone call...

[Jammason]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

To their credit, many are now the leading voices for slowing down, regulating, or even banning certain AI technologies.  There was a recent defection of the "AI Godfather" from Google and a horde of his peers signing a letter:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65452940

Unfortunately, it might be too little too late.

Steve

The call for a slowdown, if heeded, will only widen the gap between those who want to use these technologies responsibly and those who see them as tools for massive influence operations. Do you think (Prigozhin's!) IRA will ever stop extending and employing AI to further their agenda, which broadly entails stoking division in the West (particularly within the US), and more specifically & recently weakening support for Ukraine?

Tim Snyder (The_Capt, and others) remind us that wars are usually won not by breaking the enemy's army, but by breaking or at least severely bending their political system to a point where the powers that be call "no mas". When viewed in this light, AI technologies will have more to do with the winning of future wars (perhaps even this one?) than drones or smart landmines or unblock-able positioning system technologies. 

And remember the authoritarian playbook: You don't necessarily need people to believe what your selling, you just need to flood the zone with enough  that people no longer believe in the notion of truth. With truth out of the picture, it just becomes a matter of getting you to pick a side, and you'll defend it no matter the cognitive dissonance.

[Beleg85]

Slowly, more details are emerging of the mutiny (not military topic, but worth reading by F.Rustamova):

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/06/28/we-were-called-in-for-a-meeting-and-handed-weapons-how-the-russian-elites-survived-the-prigozhin-rebellion-a81682

Other sources writes that Wagnerites managed t o bypass many blockades in their road to Rostow and ultimatelly Moscow due to simply bribing right people.

Also gossips of Beast Rabban gen. Siergey Surovikin being detained seem to be real in the end. Very interesting.

[kluge]

1 hour ago, kraze said:

In fact I'd bet making a quality deepfake that looks believable enough for the masses is already far beyond where it gets into diminished results territory. After all russians tried to do a deepfake of Zelenskyy back in February of 2022 if you remember - it looked horribly uncanny and we are talking government with enough budget that has militarized IT.

This may be true today but it won't be true tomorrow. Algorithms that can create believable deepfakes already exist. It's just that they are limited by the fact that they take a large amount of computing resources to run.

But Moore's Law states that computing power doubles every two years. At that rate of exponential growth, it won't be all too long before computer chips are powerful enough that a smartphone-sized device will be able to create the video we all just saw. And at that point it will be trivial for a government with access to supercomputers to put out videos that look an order of magnitude more believable.

So it's not a question of whether or not it will happen- it's entirely a question of when it will happen, and it is almost certainly going to happen within our lifetimes.

 

[Harmon Rabb]

Turkish made Ada class corvette.

[dan/california]

Quote

More generally, the longer the war drags on, the weaker Putin’s regime will become. When bad guys are fighting each other instead of attacking the good guys, it is good news for the good guys. Anything that weakens Putin is good for Ukraine. It is as simple as that. Those who do not want to see a Russian state collapse should be pushing Putin to stop the war now. Those, like Xi Jinping, who want Putin to remain in power, should also be pushing Putin to end the war as soon as possible.

The foreign policy blob seems to be splitting right down the middle on this one.

[Taranis]

https://youtube.com/shorts/-TAmZ8Cm-7g?feature=share

 

[benpark]

I'm now fixated on the mine issue, so thank you for the detailed assessment strac-sap. The lack of systems to deal with the densities we are seeing the Russians use is an impetus for some quick changes. That, or clear the other side of the mine-fields completely. The Soviet army certainly understood their stopping power, so these mined areas are doing the work of entire battalions of missing Russian troops.

The majority of the mines we are seeing used in Ukraine seem to be fused to pressure-activated from above, exploding when something around 3-5lbs. (an insanely low number) presses upon it. If this weren't directly-applied pressure (which seems the most desirable method to demine) - How much (if any) pulsed air pressure from above a mine/mines would need to be exerted to fire off anything under a cone of something like an intense audio burst?

Traditional demining vehicles seem to slow in the new world of human mayhem. My cocktail-napkin demining rig would be 3 (or more) drones, each with some type of audio emitter, moving in tandem across a mined area to clear it. Something of this sort could solve the issue of most clearer mechanical damage, and would not really need any on-board armaments (aside from the audio emitter). Remote detonation from above also removes the need for terrain-conforming rollers. Drones have proven to be tough to knock out, and could be swarmed for big fields or areas that are under observed fire. It could also be ominous sounding as all get out. Or ridiculous, depending on soundtrack.

Edited June 28, 2023 by benpark

[strac_sap]

12 minutes ago, benpark said:

I'm now fixated on the mine issue, so thank you for the detailed assessment strac-sap. The lack of systems to deal with the densities we are seeing the Russians use is an impetus for some quick changes. That, or clear the other side of the mine-fields completely. The Soviet army certainly understood their stopping power, so these mined areas are doing the work of entire battalions of missing Russian troops.

The majority of the mines we are seeing used in Ukraine seem to be fused to pressure-activated from above, exploding when something around 3-5lbs. (an insanely low number) presses upon it. If this weren't directly-applied pressure (which seems the most desirable method to demine) - How much (if any) pulsed air pressure from above a mine/mines would need to be exerted to fire off anything under a cone of something like an intense audio burst?

Traditional demining vehicles seem to slow in the new world of human mayhem. My cocktail-napkin demining rig would be 3 (or more) drones, each with some type of audio emitter, moving in tandem across a mined area to clear it. Something of this sort could solve the issue of most clearer mechanical damage, and would not really need any on-board armaments (aside from the audio emitter). Remote detonation from above also removes the need for terrain-conforming rollers. Drones have proven to be tough to knock out, and could be swarmed for big fields or areas that are under observed fire. It could also be ominous sounding as all get out. Or ridiculous, depending on soundtrack.

@benpark First thing is where did that number of 3-5 lbs come from? It is so extraordinarily low it can't be correct. Even tilt-rod fuses for AT mines were in the teens of pounds I think. My memory fails but our AT mines had fuses in the hundreds of pounds. Toe poppers had low weight fuses but the explosives content was nothing.  I am very curious about this, and it would make it both more dangerous for people, but maybe easier to clear using overpressures.

Edited June 28, 2023 by strac_sap
punctuation

[Yet]

'the dam breach removed all mines.' 

 

of course that power was huuuge!, but wasnt it maybe overkill?

Is water engineering (monitor, hydraulic mining or even opening a small reservoir, redirecting a small river) being used in the army specifically as a method for demining? like having a big (armored) watercanon blowing away the dirt on a downhill slope.

depending on wateravailability and slope it could be carried out on a (small) distance from the actual minefield. Even if the mines are too heavy, they can at least be made visible. Theoretically it might work under the right circumstances. And of course a monitor is a target. but not less so than a Leopard I imagine. 

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Yet

[benpark]

That did seem very low, so maybe the audio route isn't viable, unless there is some resonant frequency/vibration method possible from directly above.

What would be the pressure amount most of the mines would need for activation for most anti-personal mines?

[cesmonkey]

 

[Haiduk]

42 minutes ago, benpark said:

The majority of the mines we are seeing used in Ukraine seem to be fused to pressure-activated from above, exploding when something around 3-5lbs.

As pressure-type AP mines Russians widely uses PFM "petal" mines, which set remotely and can have time of life before self-destruction in 1-40 hours (PFM-1S) or w/o self-destruction (PFM-1). This mine has 40 g of HE with pressure reaction in 5-25 kg. Explosion of this mine usually caused hevay inguries of the feet, often with tearimg off whole feet or it part. 

But that what we could see on video it were likely PMN types (PMN-1/2/3/4). Unlike PFMs, which lays on surface, PMN can be set manually under surface. It has plastic case, so usual metal detector is useless. 

PMN-1 has 200 g of HE and 8-25 kg of reaction, PMN-2 - 100 g and 15-25 kg (increasing resilience against explosive demining), PMN -3 is later modification of PMN-2 with self-destruction up to 8 days and electronic detonator, which makes this mine much more stable to explosive demaining. Newest PMN-4 has 50 g of HE.

PMN-2 mine

PMN4 mine

PMN mines, especially PMN-1 causes tearing off the leg or both legs up to knees, what we could see on video.

PMN mines also have a name "black widow" and black humor PMN abbriveation decoding "Bring My Legs"

Edited June 28, 2023 by Haiduk

[JonS]

6 hours ago, DesertFox said:

Yup, deliberate.

 

I'm not sure that a talking head who is paid to make stuff up is an entirely reliable source?

[DesertFox]

8 minutes ago, JonS said:

I'm not sure that a talking head who is paid to make stuff up is an entirely reliable source?

Ask these clowns

 

 

[Butschi]

3 hours ago, kraze said:

After all "AI" (in reality it's just a glorified finite state machine) can only iterate on what humans do.

Um, no.

a) A finite state machine and what is nowadays considered AI are technology-wise very different things.

b) AI can already do certain things far better than humans, so "can only iterate on what humans do" is factually wrong.

I really don't like the term AI btw. It's a marketing word and much too broad a term. What is usually meant is a form of machine learning based on neural networks. NNs are not very new but in recent years (5-8?) computing on GPUs, vastly increased availability of training data and certain specific improvements (regularization, better non-linearities, improved architectures, etc.) have really transformed the field. What we are seeing now is developing so rapidly that things we considered sci-fi last year are entirely within the realm of possibility this year.

[strac_sap]

 

 

40 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

As pressure-type AP mines Russians widely uses PFM "petal" mines, which set remotely and can have time of life before self-destruction in 1-40 hours (PFM-1S) or w/o self-destruction (PFM-1). This mine has 40 g of HE with pressure reaction in 5-25 kg. Explosion of this mine usually caused hevay inguries of the feet, often with tearimg off whole feet or it part. 

But that what we could see on video it were likely PMN types (PMN-1/2/3/4). Unlike PFMs, which lays on surface, PMN can be set manually under surface. It has plastic case, so usual metal detector is useless. 

PMN-1 has 200 g of HE and 8-25 kg of reaction, PMN-2 - 100 g and 15-25 kg (increasing resilience against explosive demining), PMN -3 is later modification of PMN-2 with self-destruction up to 8 days and electronic detonator, which makes this mine much more stable to explosive demaining. Newest PMN-4 has 50 g of HE.

PMN-2 mine

PMN4 mine

PMN mines, especially PMN-1 causes tearing off the leg or both legs up to knees, what we could see on video.

PMN mines also have a name "black widow" and black humor PMN abbriveation decoding "Bring My Legs"

Okay, these look like modern mines, difficult to detect and will self-destruct after a certain time, with a certain failure rate. This is what doctrine for the US was supposed to look like (end of cold war) and we were moving toward all surface laid mines.

But these are not:

Clearly old Soviet designs, maybe with anti-handling devices (booby traps). 

45 minutes ago, benpark said:

That did seem very low, so maybe the audio route isn't viable, unless there is some resonant frequency/vibration method possible from directly above.

What would be the pressure amount most of the mines would need for activation for most anti-personal mines?

I assume the old Soviet mines are like ours: AT mines in the hundreds of pounds, AP mines in the tens of pounds. Outliers include tilt-rod and trip-wire fuses, which will be lower. The new mines seem to be in the tens to low hundred pounds. Conversion is 2.2 lbs per kg. (using lbs as lb-mass rather than an actual force)

So pressure from sound waves would not work, even extremely loud speakers don't produce that kind of overpressure. Low frequencies would be better to give the pressure time to act (Work=Force times distance) But again, you need to have enough force acting for enough time to depress the fuse.

As for flooding, the human issues there are too large, and then it would just redistribute the mines. Someone would still need to go through and pick them up, or blow them in place. Especially difficult are those modern mines that don't auto-destruct. What a mess.

Edited June 28, 2023 by strac_sap
changed us to "the US" to clarify

[buena]

1 hour ago, benpark said:

I'm now fixated on the mine issue, so thank you for the detailed assessment strac-sap. The lack of systems to deal with the densities we are seeing the Russians use is an impetus for some quick changes. That, or clear the other side of the mine-fields completely. The Soviet army certainly understood their stopping power, so these mined areas are doing the work of entire battalions of missing Russian troops.

The majority of the mines we are seeing used in Ukraine seem to be fused to pressure-activated from above, exploding when something around 3-5lbs. (an insanely low number) presses upon it. If this weren't directly-applied pressure (which seems the most desirable method to demine) - How much (if any) pulsed air pressure from above a mine/mines would need to be exerted to fire off anything under a cone of something like an intense audio burst?

Traditional demining vehicles seem to slow in the new world of human mayhem. My cocktail-napkin demining rig would be 3 (or more) drones, each with some type of audio emitter, moving in tandem across a mined area to clear it. Something of this sort could solve the issue of most clearer mechanical damage, and would not really need any on-board armaments (aside from the audio emitter). Remote detonation from above also removes the need for terrain-conforming rollers. Drones have proven to be tough to knock out, and could be swarmed for big fields or areas that are under observed fire. It could also be ominous sounding as all get out. Or ridiculous, depending on soundtrack.

My 2 thoughts about the mines issue:

1. Water cannons. Would they have enough pressure to trigger the fuse?

2. Bypass the mines. Parachute drops, air insertion of SF. Would that work?

[Butschi]

16 minutes ago, buena said:

Parachute drops

I'm no expert on the topic but I guess if there are defenders around, dropping onto a hot LZ is something you don't want to do. For the last two days the US Army has been training parachute drops right next to my office (good show every time they do it, except when... see below). When I see those not very subtle CH-47s approach, spewing out those not very subtle chutes, I tend to think that all it takes is a guy with a Stinger and some more with MGs for good measure, and the CO has a lot of letters to write. In fact, cars on nearby roads, trees and defective parachutes have already taken their toll...

Edited June 28, 2023 by Butschi

[dan/california]

https://twitter.com/search?q=go1 robot dog&src=typed_query&f=top

The harder I look at even the dumb mine problem, lets leave next generation smart mines for another day,the more a I think it has to be a small robot solution.

My current back of the envelope theory would be to have a fairly capable robot dog, or UAV, mark the mines as stealthily as possible, and then have small army of the cheapest possible robots go kamikaze on the marked mines at the time of the assault. $1000 dollars per mine to get a breach in combat conditions works out to be a reasonable number when you aren't having to risk really expensive hardware or people to get it done.

My math says that even if each mine took its own $500 dollar robot, a ten meter wide lane thru a field half a kilometer deep, with a mine density of 1 mine per square meter, cost $2,500,000. That is better than break even if you assume every breach using current tech cost you one one armored vehicle. If each robot could lay a a few charges before parking on the last mine in its assigned series cost would come down that much more.

The twenty or thirty years we spent thinking we would never have to do this again are proving expensive.

[strac_sap]

12 minutes ago, buena said:

My 2 thoughts about the mines issue:

1. Water cannons. Would they have enough pressure to trigger the fuse?

2. Bypass the mines. Parachute drops, air insertion of SF. Would that work?

2. is easiest: Even if successful the parachute drop or helicopter assault would need to be supplied quickly, and that would require breaching the minefield to send in vehicles. Someone mentioned this in this thread earlier. Also, imagine the losses in helicopters and transport aircraft given modern air defenses. I suspect it wouldn't be possible in Ukraine.

1. Do you mean a combat breach, or after the war is over? It likely would not set off the old AT mines no matter what, but could expose them. But would require a whole new armored vehicle with a powerful hose, even out of combat.

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, strac_sap said:

The idea of dropping munitions from planes to clear minefields was always a nonstarter in the past, for a number of reasons. As a new combat engineer private in the US army I remember watching a video (VHS I think) of Iraqi positions before deploying and the DoD wanted recommendations on how to breach them. Afterward I told the lieutenant we should just do a B-52 strike to clear a path. He didn't respond. The airstrikes were always too inaccurate and the ground could be impassible to vehicles.

There are two different ideas here that should be clarified: breaching a minefield and clearing a minefield. Frankly both are scary.

The explosives in mines is very stable, and the fuse is the key to setting it off. (when fatigued and stupid we would toss explosives around in really unsafe ways, but here I still am) So to actually clear a mine explosive needs to be placed directly on/next to it or it needs to be physically removed. Both of these require the mine to have been discovered by the persons doing the clearing. And then you have to be in the minefield doing stuff like, pop and drops, ring mains and line mains.

To breach the minefield the mines simply need to be moved out of the way. This is where MICLICs and bangalore torpedoes come in, vehicles with plows, and maybe airstrikes if they can be precise and not destroy the ground rendering movement impossible. They are expected to blow the mines out of the way, and if they detonate them that's good. But not expected. So napalm could work if it was hot enough to ignite the fuses. Otherwise it would be very poor as it would not push the mines out of the way.

I appreciate these discussions about the more modern state of mines and mine clearing, especially drones. My heart breaks to see the density of the minefields that are being laid. This will takes many years to clear and the cost to the locals will likely be extraordinary. Perhaps more and better automated mine clearing is the key, I feel like we have neglected this like many things as we thought these wars were a thing of the past.

This has to be US terminology.  In Canada breaching is essentially creating a safelane that can be trafficked by F through B echelons.  “Clearing” is getting rid of the entire minefield and is part of a larger demining program.  Breaching can be done by hand - but don’t forget anti-handling triggers,  mechanically (rollers, ploughs and flails) or explosively.  

A breaching operation of any covered minefield ranks pretty high on the risk meter because you are basically trying to push entire mech formations through some pretty narrow defiles where the ground will explode on either side.

Given how this war has gone so far and with the levels of ISR at play I would honestly be looking at manual breaching ahead of an assault.  Done at night by dispersed sappers or pioneers and you may have a better chance of getting through.  That or go explosive hard.  Line charges and rollers - very high profile but probably the fastest way to go.