How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

19 minutes ago, JonS said:

An easy-ish way for the US and NATO to deal with drones would be to simply accept that its isn't practically solvable and therefore anything and everything under ~2,000' is to be shot down/destroyed.

Yes; that would mean denying themselves the use of drones. But given their dominance in all other domains of conventional warfare, denying drones to both sides would be a net benefit.

Except for the part where shooting down drone swarms is nearly impossible with todays technology.  And while you are blazing away at every bird, bug and flying squirrel for kilometres you are going to be visible from 53 miles west of Venus.  So you had also be able to shoot down every mortar, artillery shell and sub-munition that is going to be lobbed at the Serbian New Year’s Eve party your ground forces have become.

Short of air burst nukes we do not possess an realistic ability to clear millions of cubic meters of sky.

Edited November 1, 2023 by The_Capt

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, JonS said:

An easy-ish way for the US and NATO to deal with drones would be to simply accept that its isn't practically solvable and therefore anything and everything under ~2,000' is to be shot down/destroyed.

Yes; that would mean denying themselves the use of drones. But given their dominance in all other domains of conventional warfare, denying drones to both sides would be a net benefit.

Right, but what to use to shoot them down?  That's a couple Billion Dollar question.  Drones for ISR are only going to get smaller and have even more capabilities to avoid detection, so this problem is going to get even harder to solve.

What your comment made me think of is that US and NATO should assume that no matter what they do they will lose a great deal of their existing armored systems in even a very short ground conflict against a range of adversaries.  This should inform future purchase decisions, such as not buying $5m tanks that might get blown up thousands of KMs away from the frontline on day one.

It's kinda like Soviet tank production in WW2.  They understood that the average tank wasn't going to last more than one or two engagements, so they weren't all that concerned about improving the technical and manufacturing qualities.  It is one of the reasons they won the war.  The Germans took the opposite approach and it is one of the reasons they lost the war.

To paraphrase many a WW2 sycophant... the Germans had the coolest tanks, small arms, and uniforms.  They pioneered ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, guided bombs, night vision, and many other things.  They were the first to put armored maneuver, submarine warfare, and tactical air support into mass scale practice.  And yet... they lost the war.  Badly.  There were many reasons for it, but inefficient, costly, overly complex, and HIGHLY vulnerable industrial production was a decisive factor.  Can't put mechanized warfare into practice if all you have left are bicycles stolen from the Dutch.

Steve

[Kinophile]

32 minutes ago, sburke said:

Not sure that is entirely accurate.  The French in Algeria had a somewhat different perspective.  In their view Algeria, particularly Algiers was French.  You've probably watched it but if you haven't you should - I visited there for work a few years back and the cab driver was taking me around to some of the sights like the milk bar.  He seemed excited to find someone who knew some of the specific history.  The company warned us however that we were not to go into the Casbah.

 

I've watched it of course,  multiple times. It's superb. 

But you're sorta proving my point - they didn't not identify as capital A,  Algerian,  but as (overseas) French, in Algeria. The native Algerians themselves did not identify as French and certainly the French Settlers did not view them as such. 

With NI the "settler"  population is now so established abd integrated that it cannot be view as an imposed community -  its now part of a modern Northern Ireland as a sociopolitical construct. 

Im really curious about the current socio-political context of the Donbass. 

[JonS]

The "-ish" is important. By ceding that airspace as no-man's land (no-man's air?) you at least avoid that whole iff dilemma to the engineering simplicity of "if it flies, it dies." Granted, you are still left with the considerable problem of doing the actual swatting.

Ceding the space possibly also opens up techniques that wouldn't be viable for a "theirs, but not ours" approach. (broad spectrum jamming? Fishing drift nets suspended from balloons?)

Edited November 1, 2023 by JonS

[Carolus]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

 

I want to add that North Korea generally does not anything in terms of foreign policy without the approval of China.

So China is using its puppet / proxy to support Russia directly with military aid.

Real shame about this trade. With conservative firing, this is 1000 days of Russian artillery usage. Even if they are not as accurate or contain some duds, that is still dangerous for the Ukrainian in the trenches and fields, and, of course, wears out the compromised Western observers.

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, Carolus said:

I want to add that North Korea generally does not anything in terms of foreign policy without the approval of China.

So China is using its puppet / proxy to support Russia directly with military aid.

Real shame about this trade. With conservative firing, this is 1000 days of Russian artillery usage. Even if they are not as accurate or contain some duds, that is still dangerous for the Ukrainian in the trenches and fields, and, of course, wears out the compromised Western observers.

Not to downplay the problems this new supply to Russia brings to the table, but it isn't 1000 days of Russian artillery usage.  At more recent rates, they've been expending about 10,000 shells per day.  500,000 shells means about 50 days worth of ammo.  Even if they halved that amount, it's still only 100 days worth.  Last year they were firing 20-60 thousand per day.

Sometime last week ISW weighed in on this issue and they concluded that the amount of shells coming in from other sources is unlikely to give Russia a new capability.  It will, instead, help them not lose their reduced artillery capabilities that they would otherwise lose.

It is also important to note that all of these shells are "dumb".  Russia needs additional supplies of "smart" rounds to keep up with need and I'm not sure it is going to get them.

Steve

[chuckdyke]

4 hours ago, Kinophile said:

That was a colonial war. 

War :A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. The English language doesn't differentiate. 

[Battlefront.com]

OK, let's knock off the semantics about irrelevant and off topic stuff.

Steve

[Carolus]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Not to downplay the problems this new supply to Russia brings to the table, but it isn't 1000 days of Russian artillery usage.  At more recent rates, they've been expending about 10,000 shells per day.  500,000 shells means about 50 days worth of ammo.  Even if they halved that amount, it's still only 100 days worth.  Last year they were firing 20-60 thousand per day.

Simple explanation: I made an error by 1 digit. 

It was very late, please don't give me PT, sergeant.

[Lethaface]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Right, but what to use to shoot them down?  That's a couple Billion Dollar question.  Drones for ISR are only going to get smaller and have even more capabilities to avoid detection, so this problem is going to get even harder to solve.

What your comment made me think of is that US and NATO should assume that no matter what they do they will lose a great deal of their existing armored systems in even a very short ground conflict against a range of adversaries.  This should inform future purchase decisions, such as not buying $5m tanks that might get blown up thousands of KMs away from the frontline on day one.

It's kinda like Soviet tank production in WW2.  They understood that the average tank wasn't going to last more than one or two engagements, so they weren't all that concerned about improving the technical and manufacturing qualities.  It is one of the reasons they won the war.  The Germans took the opposite approach and it is one of the reasons they lost the war.

To paraphrase many a WW2 sycophant... the Germans had the coolest tanks, small arms, and uniforms.  They pioneered ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, guided bombs, night vision, and many other things.  They were the first to put armored maneuver, submarine warfare, and tactical air support into mass scale practice.  And yet... they lost the war.  Badly.  There were many reasons for it, but inefficient, costly, overly complex, and HIGHLY vulnerable industrial production was a decisive factor.  Can't put mechanized warfare into practice if all you have left are bicycles stolen from the Dutch.

Steve

Lol nicely put. (Ps we have finally overcome that national tragedy).

[Lethaface]

7 hours ago, JonS said:

The "-ish" is important. By ceding that airspace as no-man's land (no-man's air?) you at least avoid that whole iff dilemma to the engineering simplicity of "if it flies, it dies." Granted, you are still left with the considerable problem of doing the actual swatting.

Ceding the space possibly also opens up techniques that wouldn't be viable for a "theirs, but not ours" approach. (broad spectrum jamming? Fishing drift nets suspended from balloons?)

I imagine two powers going to war with loads of antiground drone swarms expecting to find a lot of enemy afv etc, only they just encounter enemy drones in mid air along the border and don't have any means of engaging the other apart from ramming perhaps; the drone stare wars.

 

[Lethaface]

Another drone recollection gathering interrupted by a party pooper ;-). 

[Kraft]

I wonder when the western armies will start to manufacture them en masse and not in tiny quantities, if at all

Edited November 1, 2023 by Kraft

[Kinophile]

5 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

War :A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. The English language doesn't differentiate. 

A bit confused, Tbh. You identified it as a religious war, but it wasn't. English does differentiate,, with literally that phrase. 

 

EDIT: Woops just saw Steve's post. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Kinophile

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, Kinophile said:

it as a religious war

Can you read? Steve suggested we stay on topic. 

[Kinophile]

Sigh

 It's always "fun" to play Who Gets The Last Word In Before Admin Shuts It Down. 

Go on, have at it. I cede the field. Enjoy your imaginary trophy. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Kinophile

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

I imagine two powers going to war with loads of antiground drone swarms expecting to find a lot of enemy afv etc, only they just encounter enemy drones in mid air along the border and don't have any means of engaging the other apart from ramming perhaps; the drone stare wars.

 

A next wars could possibly begin with drone infiltration over a period of time, to lie quiescient until activated.

When other side gets aggressive and sends its drones across the border the hidden drones activate and strike behind that attack wave at support, C4,  political and civilian nodes,  disrupting the war from the start. 

China, for example,  could emplace drones in DC (directing them from China itself or elsewhere) and if attacked, send the drones against Congress, targeting voting members.

Hell,  the next coup d'etat attempt anywhere would be smart to use this approach. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Kinophile

[Grey_Fox]

9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Except for the part where shooting down drone swarms is nearly impossible with todays technology.  And while you are blazing away at every bird, bug and flying squirrel for kilometres you are going to be visible from 53 miles west of Venus.  So you had also be able to shoot down every mortar, artillery shell and sub-munition that is going to be lobbed at the Serbian New Year’s Eve party your ground forces have become.

Short of air burst nukes we do not possess an realistic ability to clear millions of cubic meters of sky.

I like how drones are cheaper than bullets in this scenario.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Grey_Fox

[Lethaface]

9 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

A next wars could possibly begin with drone infiltration over a period of time, to lie quiescient until activated.

When other side gets aggressive and sends its drones across the border the hidden drones activate and strike behind that attack wave at support, C4,  political and civilian nodes,  disrupting the war from the start. 

China, for example,  could emplace drones in DC (directing them from China itself or elsewhere) and if attacked, send the drones against Congress, targeting voting members.

Hell,  the next coup d'etat attempt anywhere would be smart to use this approach. 

Could very well be a thing indeed. I bet most military bases deep in countries have lax defenses against (military operation volume) drones, as of yet that is. But I also expect some instances like the British Imperial army faced in North America. Where native-american / independence fighters refused to 'stand in line and fight' against the British regular troops, to the dismay of the British ;-). "This isn't fair" 

[poesel]

10 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Could very well be a thing indeed. I bet most military bases deep in countries have lax defenses against (military operation volume) drones, as of yet that is. But I also expect some instances like the British Imperial army faced in North America. Where native-american / independence fighters refused to 'stand in line and fight' against the British regular troops, to the dismay of the British ;-). "This isn't fair" 

It is much easier: you just park a trailer with a container which is filled with drones in a 20 km radius of your target. Unless you are in a desert, it won't be noticed until the rooftop opens.

[Tux]

8 hours ago, JonS said:

The "-ish" is important. By ceding that airspace as no-man's land (no-man's air?) you at least avoid that whole iff dilemma to the engineering simplicity of "if it flies, it dies." Granted, you are still left with the considerable problem of doing the actual swatting.

Ceding the space possibly also opens up techniques that wouldn't be viable for a "theirs, but not ours" approach. (broad spectrum jamming? Fishing drift nets suspended from balloons?)

As I mentioned a few pages back I think this is a good idea for the early years of the drone wars and I think the bestish solution for the next decade would be a cheap ‘fighter drone’ that autonomously homes in on airborne radio emitters and collides with them.  That at least forces the enemy to solve the ‘how to make an effective autonomous drone’ problem before they can harass your ground forces again. 

[Lethaface]

2 minutes ago, poesel said:

It is much easier: you just park a trailer with a container which is filled with drones in a 20 km radius of your target. Unless you are in a desert, it won't be noticed until the rooftop opens.

A while ago Youtube featured some corny movies about shipping containers full of tanks, cruise missiles, airplanes, etc being launched from trucks in an hypothetical invasion.

However for an attack with a bunch of Shahed type drones (or better), controlled from some industrial/office/urban area nearby, it doesn't seem that corny indeed. 

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, Kraft said:

I wonder when the western armies will start to manufacture them en masse and not in tiny quantities, if at all

When the policy makers have came up with a requirement and allocated funds. When that might be exactly is in the domain of tarot card layers I guess.

[The_Capt]

38 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

I like how drones are cheaper than bullets in this scenario.

It isn’t the bullets.  Drones are cheaper than the things firing all them bullets to sweep the sky clean.  And firing all said bullets at the Face of God is going to leave an ISR signature that will ensure retribution.  Same goes for lasers or EM.

It is classic military dilemma.  If I stay quiet my opponent will hunt and kill me with UAS.  If I blaze away at them, my opponents artillery will target and kill me.

[Grey_Fox]

18 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

It isn’t the bullets.  Drones are cheaper than the things firing all them bullets to sweep the sky clean.  And firing all said bullets at the Face of God is going to leave an ISR signature that will ensure retribution.  Same goes for lasers or EM.

It is classic military dilemma.  If I stay quiet my opponent will hunt and kill me with UAS.  If I blaze away at them, my opponents artillery will target and kill me.

Won't the command and control systems of these UAVs also have a fairly strong signature in order to burn through any EWAR?

Edited November 1, 2023 by Grey_Fox