How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

So this post, and this excellent book...

 

Quote

https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Origins-of-Victory-Audiobook/B0BZQCPLL1?ref=a_library_t_c5_libItem_B0BZQCPLL1_3&pf_rd_p=80765e81-b10a-4f33-b1d3-ffb87793d047&pf_rd_r=D4RTS4GTHJFB7KS7TFF5&pageLoadId=J0wshuVf1yD9E8rR&creativeId=4ee810cf-ac8e-4eeb-8b79-40e176d0a225

have made me put something together. The Pentagon and I believe the rest of the worlds defense establishments have spent decades and many billions of dollars trying to achieve something useful with "smart" aircraft dropping dumb bombs instead of more expensive PGMs. Drones are the first and only thing that has ever achieved a CEP that is not  measured in football pitches. I realize the loss rates on the drones are so high they practically are PGMs, but I still think the concept has merit. And if a $50,000 octo-copter can deliver deliver six or eight 120mm mortar shells before it gets knocked out, it is still an unbelievable bargain in terms of most other PGMs cost.

 

[Hapless]

Looks like they have been hitting the Kerch birdge with naval drones:
 

[Kraft]

2 hours ago, Hapless said:

Looks like they have been hitting the Kerch birdge with naval drones:
 

Im no civil engineer, why only 2?

I assume there are enough drones in reserve to send more than that. With more damage, repairs become a lot more difficult and every subsequent hit applies its energy on a weakend structure, causing possibly irreparable (in our timeframe) damage that would kill that bridge for good or am I mistaken?

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Kraft

[kevinkin]

5 hours ago, dan/california said:

And if a $50,000 octo-copter can deliver deliver six or eight 120mm mortar shells before it gets knocked out, it is still an unbelievable bargain in terms of most other PGMs cost.

One thing to consider: the US is putting money into systems that will prevent their troops from being part of continental scale carnage in the first place.  Don't forget the kits the US can place on old dumb bombs are cost effective too. The US is readying the force for a war parents are willing to send their kids into. If the US is using UAVs to drop mortar rounds as part of trench warfare they have already lost. However, in the hands of bad actors and emerging nations, tactical UAVs are frightening as terrorist weapons due to their low cost and ease of use. I think they might have a role with special ops. But not as part of a field unit deployed for linear fighting. This might be the one case where throwing money at the problem is actually the right strategy for the one county that can print money at will. 

[kevinkin]

12 hours ago, agusto said:

Although i have no time to play CM anymore with 2nd kid on its way and a fulltime++ job, i still like to come here sometimes for info on how the Ukraine war is going. It's often more recent and detailed than CNN/BBC, including better analysis and discussion lol. You guys should launch a news platform.

We have all been there and this is an very efficient way to keep up on the war in detail. This thread is usually 12-24 hours ahead of the mainstream news and even ISW. 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Kraft said:

Im no civil engineer, why only 2?

I assume there are enough drones in reserve to send more than that. With more damage, repairs become a lot more difficult and every subsequent hit applies its energy on a weakend structure, causing possibly irreparable (in our timeframe) damage that would kill that bridge for good or am I mistaken?

 

There's two schools of thought on something like this.  The first is it causes more disruption to constrain something rather than shut it off completely.  Thinking goes that if you shut it off completely then they will have no choice but to find an alternative which might turn out to be more difficult to shut off.  Disrupting, on the other hand, means they are less likely to seek an alternative and instead rush to fix what is broken.  That means the enemy continues to use the existing system and thereby accepting a guaranteed worse result than it had before the degradation.  Devil you know sort of thing.

The other school of thought is that shutting something down completely is the way to go because any alternatives the enemy might come up with aren't as likely to be better (in one or more ways) to the point where there might not be a viable alternative.  The result might wind up being overall better than before, but not necessarily any better than the first option.  There's more unknowns, especially how to turn off whatever the replacement might be.

We saw Ukraine go through a phase of deliberately damaging Russia's ability to keep the Kherson bridgehead supplied when they obviously could have done a lot more.  In that situation, at least, it seems they chose the first option.  In this situation it is still unclear.  Unlike Kherson, where we knew they had plenty of HIMARS, we don't know how many more boats they have at the ready.  So this attack could be what they could manage at this time, not a deliberate choice.

Another possibility is they wanted to do more damage, thought they sent what was needed to do that, but came up short.  The Russians are likely to beef up defenses on the bridge so another attack might not be as successful.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

8 hours ago, dan/california said:

And if a $50,000 octo-copter can deliver deliver six or eight 120mm mortar shells before it gets knocked out, it is still an unbelievable bargain in terms of most other PGMs cost.

That’s what I was saying a few pages ago. For all accounting fans out there, the number that matters is cost per casualty. Sure 155mm isn’t expensive, but you need the tube, the trained crew etc and it quickly becomes very expensive.

1 hour ago, kevinkin said:

[Tactical UAVs will not be used] as part of a field unit deployed for linear fighting. This might be the one case where throwing money at the problem is actually the right strategy for the one county that can print money at will. 

I disagree. You are thinking FPV drones, and less smartification of all weapons systems. Drone is not the right term- loitering guided munition is better. What happens when we replace mortar rounds and AGL rounds with something capable of homing in on individual targets? Why do you need sniper rifle if you can have a small FPV drone (either guided manually or beam riding or autonomous)? Again, cost per casualty. Cheap smart weapons pushed down to the squad level will have big impact on that number. Similar to manpads and shoulder launched ATGMs, but much much cheaper. Why do you need a javelin when an FPV drone is small fraction of the price (even if you add thermal, or make autonomous)? What happens when a squad is armed with 10x of these, because they are lighter and cheaper than ATGMs? It’s no longer a single tank or two in danger- they can wipe out an entire armored column.

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

There's two schools of thought on something like this.  The first is it causes more disruption to constrain something rather than shut it off completely.  Thinking goes that if you shut it off completely then they will have no choice but to find an alternative which might turn out to be more difficult to shut off.  Disrupting, on the other hand, means they are less likely to seek an alternative and instead rush to fix what is broken.  That means the enemy continues to use the existing system and thereby accepting a guaranteed worse result than it had before the degradation.  Devil you know sort of thing.

That’s my assumption. Maintenance for most things is most of the overall cost over the lifetime of the thing.

With the Kerch Bridge, you gotta imagine that’s a priority for civil engineers over all sorts of other useful things around the warzone or in Russia that they could be doing instead. Better focus on the bridge, and maybe even kill a few.

[Beleg85]

Russian top loves displaying Western-made spoils of war. I think it is 3rd such exhibition within a month; details of captured vehicles also appear daily on Russian TV channels.

 

[kimbosbread]

Re autonomous guidance, vs human in the loop for guided munitions.

Obviously autonomous will win; I think there are 2 key reasons:

1. EW degrading guidance signal.
2. Only so much room in spectrum for guidance signals, especially at range (probably why not many drones is same immediate area at same time)
3. Don’t broadcast a signal people can used to find you or at least know you are around.

Without even talking about a drone swarm, if you want the equivalent of time-on-target, you just won’t have enough spectrum (2) to get everybody having a clear signal, or will need to limit the number of simultaneous munitions used.

Once EW comes into the picture, that all goes out the window. You could use a chained laser link over other drones, but that seems highly impractical and very hard to implement.

Edited August 16, 2023 by kimbosbread

[kevinkin]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

Why do you need sniper rifle if you can have a small FPV drone (either guided manually or beam riding or autonomous)?

I do understand your point but are you thinking the assault gun (and just about everything else) will be replaced by flying munitions? It's too soon to tell if drones can be defeated and made irrelevant. Fire arms have been used since the early  16th century. Note the post above by re: EW and autonomous guidance. Even that has issues related to command and control, friendly fire etc.. But it's all fascinating. The US has to be prepared. In the end however, the US rather fight a war where its expensive stuff can safely defeat inexpensive stuff a third world nation and get sort of off the self. They would not want to deal with IEDs (or the flying equivalent) ever again. 

[poesel]

One reason not to drop Kerch Bridge maybe that it makes retreating easier. Having a way out lessens the resolve of the defenders. IIRC that's from Sun-Tzu, so nothing new.

Actually, the Russians should drop that bridge as soon as push comes to shove in Crimea.

[mosuri]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

There's two schools of thought on something like this.  The first is it causes more disruption to constrain something rather than shut it off completely.  Thinking goes that if you shut it off completely then they will have no choice but to find an alternative which might turn out to be more difficult to shut off.  Disrupting, on the other hand, means they are less likely to seek an alternative and instead rush to fix what is broken.  That means the enemy continues to use the existing system and thereby accepting a guaranteed worse result than it had before the degradation.  Devil you know sort of thing.

The other school of thought is that shutting something down completely is the way to go because any alternatives the enemy might come up with aren't as likely to be better (in one or more ways) to the point where there might not be a viable alternative.  The result might wind up being overall better than before, but not necessarily any better than the first option.  There's more unknowns, especially how to turn off whatever the replacement might be.

We saw Ukraine go through a phase of deliberately damaging Russia's ability to keep the Kherson bridgehead supplied when they obviously could have done a lot more.  In that situation, at least, it seems they chose the first option.  In this situation it is still unclear.  Unlike Kherson, where we knew they had plenty of HIMARS, we don't know how many more boats they have at the ready.  So this attack could be what they could manage at this time, not a deliberate choice.

Another possibility is they wanted to do more damage, thought they sent what was needed to do that, but came up short.  The Russians are likely to beef up defenses on the bridge so another attack might not be as successful.

Steve

There's also the simple possibility that they tried with more but it didn't work. The drones might have reliability issues, being a new tool, or EW jamming might make them inoperable. Not sure how much kinetic interception Russia is capable of doing at night.

Reminds me of the various midget submarine operations in WW2. Sometimes spectacular results, sometimes damp squibs.

[Beleg85]

Oh, well...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-former-top-commander-in-ukraine-gennady-zhidko-dies-after-long-illness

 

[dan/california]

4 hours ago, kevinkin said:

One thing to consider: the US is putting money into systems that will prevent their troops from being part of continental scale carnage in the first place.  Don't forget the kits the US can place on old dumb bombs are cost effective too. The US is readying the force for a war parents are willing to send their kids into. If the US is using UAVs to drop mortar rounds as part of trench warfare they have already lost. However, in the hands of bad actors and emerging nations, tactical UAVs are frightening as terrorist weapons due to their low cost and ease of use. I think they might have a role with special ops. But not as part of a field unit deployed for linear fighting. This might be the one case where throwing money at the problem is actually the right strategy for the one county that can print money at will. 

As Russia has demonstrated beyond disastrously, for them, you cannot assume a three day war plan will work out. The enemy gets a vote.  Furthermore it is worth actually planning to support possible proxies in a fight like the one in Ukraine, as opposed to relying on having enough last generation stuff lying around In National Guard depots to get your sides proxy  force trough the crisis, barely. It isn't possible to just wish away the hard grinding business of a real fight.

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, kevinkin said:

I do understand your point but are you thinking the assault gun (and just about everything else) will be replaced by flying munitions? 

I think increased computing power means lot of formerly dumb munitions will be replaced by smart munitions (not necessarily flying), and the delivery systems will get progressively simpler (think HIMARs where it’s a truck with a crane and pod of rockets).

• A regular rifle, probably not for ranges with 400m
• Sniper rifle, especially for the 1.5km range? Absolutely. You can now push out a few more km, there’s no noise on launch, less marksmanship training, lighter weight, etc.
• ATGMs? Absolutely. You don’t need a fancy rocket with special top attack modes for $200k when for $10k you can get the same or better capability (including any attack profile you wish to program in, as you aren’t limited to the flight profile enabled by a solid rocket booster, ie fly over and attack from the other side). Plus less weight, less launch signature etc.

[kevinkin]

15 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Furthermore it is worth actually planning to support possible proxies in a fight like the one in Ukraine, as opposed to relying on having enough last generation stuff lying around In National Guard depots to get your sides proxy  force trough the crisis, barely. It isn't possible to just wish away the hard grinding business of a real fight.

I don't think proxies will received the best US technology and will just have rely on stuff the country is willing to have fall into enemy hands. We can't even get old F-16s into Ukraine. It's difficult because the US today would not stomach the losses we are seeing in Ukraine. So it might have to be a lighting war fought by US personnel with better tech against older tech given full authority to win and win fast. Or last least get to a negotiated solution that is in US interests. 

[sburke]

33 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Oh, well...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-former-top-commander-in-ukraine-gennady-zhidko-dies-after-long-illness

 

a long illness.. is that a way of expressing that the window was above the 8th floor?

[dan/california]

There was an addendum to the range safety lecture, "Packing everyone into this barn for a range safety lecture is going to get us all killed..."

Edited August 16, 2023 by dan/california

[kevinkin]

6 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

replaced by smart munitions

Got it. But be careful along the way since you should never rely on one type of weapon that could, for example, be jammed or defeated by methods to be developed. 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

19 minutes ago, sburke said:

a long illness.. is that a way of expressing that the window was above the 8th floor?

Or that he was dying long enough to say the traditional last words of Russians who die of natural causes or suicide: "Comrades, don't shoot, I too am a Communist". Nowadays it has probably been updated to "a Putinist".

[Vet 0369]

2 hours ago, poesel said:

One reason not to drop Kerch Bridge maybe that it makes retreating easier. Having a way out lessens the resolve of the defenders. IIRC that's from Sun-Tzu, so nothing new.

Actually, the Russians should drop that bridge as soon as push comes to shove in Crimea.

Absolutely dead on! One should always leave an escape route open unless you are trying to force a surrender of the force. The decision all depends on the opponent’s propensity to surrender when faced with insurmountable odds. This is why we train to gain access to the highest floor we reach, through different means. When you drive the opponent up, it traps them and most will fight like cornered rats. When you drive them down from above, they will even risk automatic weapons fire to escape from the lowest floors.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Vet 0369

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

There was an addendum to the range safety lecture, "Packing everyone into this barn for a range safety lecture is going to get us all killed..."

Very similar to sniper practice range. Bold target if they struck sniper course. Location - near the village Prymorske, Kherson oblast (seashore, 61 km south from Kherson ) 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Haiduk

[Vet 0369]

1 hour ago, Beleg85 said:

Oh, well...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-former-top-commander-in-ukraine-gennady-zhidko-dies-after-long-illness

 

Probably drank some plutonium tea.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Vet 0369
Typo

[Haiduk]

It's claimed Russian Strela-10 after Switchblade 600 hit. SOF operators have good opinion about this drone of the same class as Lancet, but unlike Russians we have too few of them. According to Wiki manufacturer of Switchblades in October 2022 could produce only 2000 drones annually, but planned increase this number up to 6000. 

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Haiduk