The_Capt Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 22 minutes ago, Carolus said: At £10 per shot and a range of 7 miles with pinpoint accuracy, when will we see this used as an anti-infantry weapon? 7 miles is far more than even an experienced sniper can reliably shoot. Imagine singing off the antennas of vehicles as they assemble for an assault. Yes, the beam can be traced back with thermal sensors, but any weapon platform is eventually exposed when it starts firing. Imagine this capability against a non-peer enemy and pinging off Mujahedin on a hill. I strongly suspect this will be a static or navy system. I am also pretty sure "10 pound per shot" is the typical creative accounting that goes on in the industry. Does that cost include development, project costs, unit cost and sustainment costs? If so, how many shots were calculated over the life of the system to come down to that number? We get this all the time - "A modern naval warship for just pennies a day!" Sure, if you amortize over a century. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nastypastie Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, Hapless said: Complete and utter failure is a bit harsh- the defenders lost 400,000 men and voluntarily abandoned the whole area because they believed it was untenable. There's an interesting perspective element here though re the current the conflict- who won the Battle of Sievierodonetsk? The side that got punished the most or the side that was evicted? A pyrrhic victory is still a victory... right? Unless it's the other side. It can be a tactical victory AND a strategic defeat. Depends on the war aims of the parties involved. There have been plenty of those in history. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Per the DPRK conversation, it seems like it would be strange choice for Kim to sell all of his arty stockpiles to Russia if he were planning on engaging in a full on conquest of the RoK: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVulture Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 26 minutes ago, The_Capt said: I strongly suspect this will be a static or navy system. I am also pretty sure "10 pound per shot" is the typical creative accounting that goes on in the industry. Does that cost include development, project costs, unit cost and sustainment costs? If so, how many shots were calculated over the life of the system to come down to that number? We get this all the time - "A modern naval warship for just pennies a day!" Sure, if you amortize over a century. I'm pretty sure they are only counting the cost of electricity per shot. Once you factor in the cost of the system, expected lifetime, running and crewing costs etc., its going to go up considerably. It's just a good headline number at a time when the British press is talking about whether it makes sense to use a £10M missile to intercept a houthi drone in the red sea. And I strongly suspect this has been sent to the press now as a response to that scenario, mostly for political lobbying and funding purposes. So take it all with a hefty dose of cynicism, that this isn't an objective view of capability, but a political marketing push. But it does show (if there's any truth to it at all) that a laser system that might be able to deal with drones cost effectively isn't completely insane, and might be achievable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) 4 hours ago, The_Capt said: Anyone picked this one up yet? https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/a-ukrainian-drone-attack-on-an-oil-depot-inside-russia-causes-a-massive-blaze-officials-say-1.6733097 I expect the Canadian representative to the UN to soon call on Ukraine to wage this war with carbon neutrality I think it sort of got lost in the reporting about the less successful Strike in St Petersburg. This points out both the bad job a lot of media is doing on Ukraine now, and the importance of sheer volume in a drone strike campaign. Launching attacks alike this at five refineries or military important factories every day, or even every week, and properly destroying one of them is still a huge success for Ukraine. Doubly so since it makes Russia put air defenses nearly everywhere west of the Urals. 1 hour ago, The_Capt said: I strongly suspect this will be a static or navy system. I am also pretty sure "10 pound per shot" is the typical creative accounting that goes on in the industry. Does that cost include development, project costs, unit cost and sustainment costs? If so, how many shots were calculated over the life of the system to come down to that number? We get this all the time - "A modern naval warship for just pennies a day!" Sure, if you amortize over a century. I am sure you are correct about the accounting, and being a naval system mostly, lets call it a ship sized system. But lets take a reasonable worst case. If it is actually 10,000 dollars a shot, but can knock down a drone every ten seconds, I am just guessing on the numbers fwiw, it would still be a massive bargain compared to the million dollars missiles we are shooting at Houthi drones this week. That would be cheap enough that defending against a low level but long term harassment campaign was doable. Even if some piece of the system burns out after a thousand shots, that is a lot of "ammunition" compared the at most a couple of hundred missiles in vertical launch cells that is standard now. Edit:Crossposted with The_Vulture. 1 hour ago, billbindc said: Per the DPRK conversation, it seems like it would be strange choice for Kim to sell all of his arty stockpiles to Russia if he were planning on engaging in a full on conquest of the RoK: I don't think rational military planning is the metric here. It is a question about Kim's state of mind. I also don't completely rule out that the Russians gave North Korea some critical missing technology for their missiles as payment for all that ammunition. So maybe Kim thinks his missies are far more capable that they were two years ago. Edited January 19 by dan/california 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 8 minutes ago, TheVulture said: But it does show (if there's any truth to it at all) that a laser system that might be able to deal with drones cost effectively isn't completely insane, and might be achievable. At sea and for static installations I think it is possible. In land warfare, I seriously doubt it. Building a system that can 1) carry that much energy and use it effectively, 2) not get spotted and have mobility to mitigate being nailed by other systems and 3) can spot and zap a bird sized drone while doing 1 & 2 - is not likely anytime soon. And if we could, as was mentioned...why not shoot enemy solders with it? I still think the best bet C-UAS is another UAS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) https://mil.in.ua/en/news/france-will-produce-dozens-of-caesar-acs-for-ukraine/ Edited January 19 by Kinophile 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 For the last day, the “Baltic Jammer” out of Kaliningrad has been messing with navigation across Europe. There are more NATO/US sigint platforms up than I’ve seen in a long time. Not sure what exactly, but something’s up. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 3 hours ago, Hapless said: Complete and utter failure is a bit harsh- the defenders lost 400,000 men and voluntarily abandoned the whole area because they believed it was untenable. There's an interesting perspective element here though re the current the conflict- who won the Battle of Sievierodonetsk? The side that got punished the most or the side that was evicted? A pyrrhic victory is still a victory... right? Unless it's the other side. I think it depends entirely on how the war ends. If it ends with Russia effectively keeping everything it took for the next 20 years, then "victory". However, if the costs of taking territory contributes to Russia not having the strength to hold onto the territory it took... then I'd think of it differently. Which is why I've repeatedly joined in with the chorus here singing the hymnal "It Ain't Over Until It's Over" in multipart harmony. We could very well be seeing the famous "one more victory like that and we'll have lost the war" playing out before our eyes. Impossible to say until the war is actually over in a way that settles the matter for a few decades. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 3 hours ago, TheVulture said: Intriguing report of the British MoD successfully testing an anti-drone laser system - called DragonFire, because the MoD is the best at chosing names for weapon systems - that is quoted at cost around £10 per shot with a 7 mile range. Although obviously there are questions about how close to reality those claims are and how well it would translate to battlefield conditions in practice. Could be battefield ready "in 5 years". Paywalled article from the Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/laser-weapon-aerial-target-porton-down-xzzwn00ls Free to view archived version: https://archive.is/ArNai The Beeb also covered this: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68031257 Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 6 hours ago, The_Capt said: The "whole area" was about 6 miles, at a cost of 600k allied troops - this is a harsh business. "Utter" in relation to its stated aims. The Somme was a case study in the military phenomenon of progressive unreality. Something the RA currently knows a lot about. It was a bit more than 6 miles after they pulled back to Hindenburg 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said: The Beeb also covered this: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68031257 Steve Aiming that sucker in a smoke filled, dynamic environment is going to be the trick. I somehow doubt it's going to be a hand-held, platoon-level asset. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 4 hours ago, billbindc said: Per the DPRK conversation, it seems like it would be strange choice for Kim to sell all of his arty stockpiles to Russia if he were planning on engaging in a full on conquest of the RoK: The Rooskies must be burning out barrels like nobodies business. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) This night UKR UAVs struck Russian "Rosneft" oil storage in Klintsy, Briansk oblast. Local administration claimed AD shot down two UAVs, the third "was supressed by EW, but when was falling dropped ordnance, causing fire". Well, indeed in result of attack four oil tanks are in the fire to this time Edited January 19 by Haiduk 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 12 minutes ago, JonS said: The Rooskies must be burning out barrels like nobodies business. That's something else I've been wondering about actually. Are the Russians getting barrels too? If not, how bad is their arty at hitting within a kilometer or so of where they aim it? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 How shifted east the spotting zone of A-50 radar, since these planes now forces to fly over Krasnodar region, not over Azov sea. Red arc is current spotting range. Within spotting range A-50 can see all aircraft in the air, all missile launches, large troops formations on march or on deployment 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 4 hours ago, dan/california said: I am sure you are correct about the accounting, and being a naval system mostly, lets call it a ship sized system. But lets take a reasonable worst case. If it is actually 10,000 dollars a shot, but can knock down a drone every ten seconds, I am just guessing on the numbers fwiw, it would still be a massive bargain compared to the million dollars missiles we are shooting at Houthi drones this week. That would be cheap enough that defending against a low level but long term harassment campaign was doable. Even if some piece of the system burns out after a thousand shots, that is a lot of "ammunition" compared the at most a couple of hundred missiles in vertical launch cells that is standard now. I mean ... if we're just making up numbers to fit a narrative and pre-conceived biasses ... sure? Why not? But what if a turret installation costs US$1B per, each ship requires two to cover 360°, each shot costs $500k, cycle time is 15 minutes, and a $100M component burns out after 8 shots. I mean, we're just guessing and making up numbers, right? So these ones are totes valid too, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 UKR drone operator spotted with thermal camera wounded UKR soldier in grey zone. Because of evacuation team can't reach him, operators in next fly dropped him hot tea and a note "Pal, drink it and crawl follow the drone". They pointed him a way back. Soldier was resqued 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) There are dozens of issued videos (and how much remained unknown) how Russian soldiers in hopeless situations shoot dead or blew up by grenades themeselves, but this is something new. If you lost own rife, empty of grenades and havn't a knife, you have... harness of Esmarch! Looks like this thing on modern battlefield suitable only to choke out yourslef... Albait this is almost most painless method. You just fall asleep and since 5-10 minutes you reach no return point. Edited January 19 by Haiduk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) Quote https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/01/05/artis-debuts-vehicle-active-protection-that-tackles-threats-from-above/ WASHINGTON — Defense contractor Artis is unveiling an active protection system it says addresses a gap the U.S. Army and other forces are looking to fill: the defense of attacks from above. The army is still thrashing around looking for an APS that justifies its price tag and logistical burden. 23 minutes ago, Haiduk said: UKR drone operator spotted with thermal camera wounded UKR soldier in grey zone. Because of evacuation team can't reach him, operators in next fly dropped him hot tea and a note "Pal, drink it and crawl follow the drone". They pointed him a way back. Soldier was resqued Brilliant! 30 minutes ago, JonS said: I mean ... if we're just making up numbers to fit a narrative and pre-conceived biasses ... sure? Why not? But what if a turret installation costs US$1B per, each ship requires two to cover 360°, each shot costs $500k, cycle time is 15 minutes, and a $100M component burns out after 8 shots. I mean, we're just guessing and making up numbers, right? So these ones are totes valid too, right? Allow me to rephrase, assuming it can do what I laid out above, ten seconds per target, a thousand shots before the whatever the critical piece is burns out, and ten thousand dollars per shot. Allow me to also stipulate fifty million per turret, and you need two per ship. That would still be a system worth buying, because with something that works at least that well large warships are just not going to be a thing. The Houthi's have been firing between five and twenty five drones/missiles at a time. The Navy seems to be able to deal with that with existing systems, albeit expensively. Sometime very soon, someone, somewhere is going to launch two hundred of the bleeping things, and at that point current ships missile magazines simply are not big enough. So there really are two choices, figure out a drone defense that can handle truly large scale attacks, or get used to a world where no surface warship is much bigger than a rigid inflatable outboard. I have mostly come to agree with The_Capt that just isn't a solvable problem for tanks/ifvs. I think armies can adapt to that world. Just given the realities operating in the open ocean, it much less clear to me that navies can adapt to an all small platform world. Edited January 19 by dan/california 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) Russian milblogers as far as more than month or two ago began to complain UKR troops more and more have been hunting for drone teams, not sparing even HIMARS to hit their mobile or stationery control posts or deployment points. And in last three weeks losses of drone operators became very large. This have a sense - we can't shot down or supress all drones, but can affect the source of their launch. Yesterday our marines eliminated very bold Russian drone team in Krynky. The leader of this group was milblogger and owner of TG "Moisey | Reports from the front". Russians claimed his team hit about 400 UKR soldiers with drones and destroyed many boats and vehicles. Unknown how much this data is overestimated or not, but this was some sort of their "Magyar" analog, but in much less local scale. His group was tracked and destroyed likely with thermobaric charge mounted on FPV. But maybe ammo dump for their drones theer was in their house. The moment of Moisey group elimination If I already meant "Magyar" some words about him. His unit is again making level-up - now - it will be 414th separate UAV battalion, which will include not only recon and strike drones of different classes, but also SIGINT/ELINT unit as well as EW unit to track enemy drone teams, enemy drone in the air and supress them by EW systems. "Magyar" claims after this upgrade this unit can maintain 100 km of frontline with firm ELIINT/EW and strike support of troops. This will be first unit of such type in the world. Edited January 19 by Haiduk 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 The fat drone with HE charge ruins a a brick house, probably occupied by Russian troops. Drone unit "Signum" of 93rd mech.brigade 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Old good drone-dropping from 5th assault brigade - next attempt of Russian small assault groups to advance toward Ivanivske (Bakhmut area) was repeleld. About a platoon has taken out by drone-dropping 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, JonS said: It was a bit more than 6 miles after they pulled back to Hindenburg Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 I look forward to using bucket trucks in future CM games 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.