How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_MonkeyKing]

Looking though Oryx data over time again: https://github.com/leedrake5/Russia-Ukraine

Keeping up suprisingly steady phase

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

An ambulance won't crash in flames if successfully targeted by electronic warfare, it'll just lose its GPS and radio.

MEDEVAC is one of the best uses of autonomous flight I can think of.  Short of an EMP type weapon, these drones could easily be completely impervious to EW.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Looking though Oryx data over time again: https://github.com/leedrake5/Russia-Ukraine

This is the only one that I found surprising.  I've thought Ukraine lost significantly fewer systems than Russia simply because Russia has so much more to lose than Ukraine and drone pilots have been specifically tasked with taking them out.  The trend lines, though, are going in the right direction with Ukraine leveling off and Russia going up at a steeper angle since this summer.

Steve

[billbindc]

This, all damn day: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2024.2309068

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Simcoe said:

I don't bring these up to celebrate one side or the other just to challenge viewpoints here.

That's fine and encouraged.  However, anybody can challenge anything.  Even the shape of our planet and if it really revolves around the sun.  The trick is to challenge based on a solid, fact based premise that is defendable in a debate with the people you are challenging.  Your pattern in this thread is well recognized as falling short, sometimes painfully short, of that standard.  Your posts about Avdiivka are not an exception to your track record.

Still, as we've said before, there is value in confronting weak and flawed challenges to the status quo because it does, at a minimum, obligate the side being challenged to review and potentially reassess their own positions.  Or to use a well used quote, "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger".  Which is the irony of your efforts... you are helping reinforce the status quo beliefs instead of challenging them.  Why?  Because those you are challenging go back and check the facts and return more convinced than ever that our understanding of the situation is sound and reasonable, while the challenges are not.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, billbindc said:

This, all damn day: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2024.2309068

Gee, do you mean stuff like this?

Quote

Conditions are not propitious for another major ground offensive in 2024. Our observations during field trips to Ukraine over the past year indicate that, to maximise Ukraine’s chances of eventual victory, Western countries need to recognise that the driving engine of Ukraine’s effectiveness has been a destruction-centred approach, resulting in high levels of attrition – that is, reducing an enemy’s capacity to fight by inflicting higher losses in personnel and materiel than one’s own side is suffering, which privileges firepower over mobility and direct attack or prepared defence over flanking action. Attempts at manoeuvre against a prepared defence have consistently floundered, especially in the absence of a decisive force advantage. While manoeuvre is still relevant on the battlefield, it will need a lot of help from attrition to bear fruit.

The West should focus on resourcing Ukraine’s ability to establish a decisive advantage in fires – meaning, typically, tube and rocket artillery, battlefield strike drones, long-range precision-strike systems and support by tactical aviation. No less important, the West needs to help Ukraine scale its capacity to employ units so that it can exploit that advantage in offensive operations. Western countries should also help Ukraine ramp up industrial production of those capabilities that provide the greatest advantages in an attritional war. The West will need to be appreciative of Ukrainian force structure and military culture, as well as the challenges posed by an increasingly mobilised military, which means avoiding the temptation to try to convert the Ukrainian military to a more Western, manoeuvre-centred way of fighting.

Obviously this is preaching to the choir here.

Steve

[Anthony P.]

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

MEDEVAC is one of the best uses of autonomous flight I can think of.  Short of an EMP type weapon, these drones could easily be completely impervious to EW.

GPS and the like could always be jammed. If Iran could "out EW" an RQ-170, it shouldn't be outside the realm of possibility that CASEVAC drones could be jammed, or possibly even highjacked (who in their right mind would shoot down a drone carrying your own wounded to prevent it from being captured?).

There's also the risk of "interceptor" drones being used to target them (moral and legal issues has hardly figured prominently in Russian decision making).

The main issue I see though remains the averseness people already demonstrate to setting foot in remotely/autonomously piloted cars without them even being under fire.

[Battlefront.com]

The anarchist/nihilists score a success with the killing of the Ukraine/Border deal:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4450891-senate-gop-will-block-border-deal-leaving-ukraine-in-limbo/

Steve

[Kraft]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The trend lines, though, are going in the right direction with Ukraine leveling off and Russia going up at a steeper angle since this summer.

It might be worth considering that the AA net on the front has become *thin*. Theres a reason it took a redeployed Patriot to reduce the uncautions nonstop over months glide bombing campaign, and russian air losses being mostly friendly fire for some time now.

Edited February 6 by Kraft

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

GPS and the like could always be jammed. If Iran could "out EW" an RQ-170, it shouldn't be outside the realm of possibility that CASEVAC drones could be jammed, or possibly even highjacked (who in their right mind would shoot down a drone carrying your own wounded to prevent it from being captured?).

GPS is not the only means of navigation, so again... EW can be completely countered except for an EMP type weapon.

The alternative to GPS is not ideal for most purposes, but for CASEVAC it works well.  The unit requesting support radios in their position, sends a runner, uses prearranged designated areas, etc.  The drone unit uses an app to determine where this is in terms relative to their own position and weather conditions.  This gives a heading and range.  With detailed maps it also gives 3D imaging of the path to take.  That is all stored in the brains of the drone and it goes off with the ability to get right to where it needs to be independent of GPS.

Cruise missiles have used this technology since WW2.  It's nothing new and it is currently in use.  The difference is what used to take a staff weeks to figure out can now be done in a few seconds/minutes by one person.

There's also increasing sophistication in identifying GPS "spoofing" and counter measures to jamming/spoofing.  This allows a drone to fly using GPS with great confidence and then reliably switch to a backup method when needed.

13 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

There's also the risk of "interceptor" drones being used to target them (moral and legal issues has hardly figured prominently in Russian decision making).

 

Sure, but see previous comments about how much easier it is to intercept a ground based method of MEDEVAC.  Way, way, way easier.

13 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

The main issue I see though remains the averseness people already demonstrate to setting foot in remotely/autonomously piloted cars without them even being under fire.

Wounded do not have a choice in how they are evacuated as they do how they get to work or for a night on the town, so this is a non-issue.  I suppose someone bleeding out and in enormous pain might insist on a certain death on the ground vs. possible life in the such a drone, but I think they would be the exception and not the rule to base larger decisions upon.

Steve

[cesmonkey]

 

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Kraft said:

It might be worth considering that the AA net on the front has become *thin*. Theres a reason it took a redeployed Patriot to reduce the uncautions nonstop over months glide bombing campaign, and russian air losses being mostly friendly fire for some time now.

Yes.  Part of Ukraine's leveling off is there aren't as many systems to hit as there were.  However, the same is probably true for Russia and yet their trend line is going up steeper than it has for some time now.

Steve

[billbindc]

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Gee, do you mean stuff like this?

Obviously this is preaching to the choir here.

Steve

Sure. But it's a very good thing this is being said by Kofman. Whatever his flaws, he's listened to in DC.

[billbindc]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The anarchist/nihilists score a success with the killing of the Ukraine/Border deal:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4450891-senate-gop-will-block-border-deal-leaving-ukraine-in-limbo/

Steve

The next round in the Senate will be a standalone Ukraine bill for $60 billion. That will almost certainly pass the Senate. The mask will fully come off when Johnson tries to stymie it at every turn. That might be just a bit too far for enough GOP House members. 

[LongLeftFlank]

40 minutes ago, billbindc said:

This, all damn day: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2024.2309068

[Leading in to summer 2023] mobilisation had helped refill personnel levels within the Russian military and yielded more than 70 additional motor-rifle regiments, among other units*.... Russia had enough reserves to rotate in airborne regiments by September and generated additional combat power sufficient to launch its own offensive in Avdiivka in October....

In most battles in Ukraine, each side has been able to range the other’s ground lines of communication, command and control, and forward logistics, with the lines often separated by a few kilometres. With rare exceptions, the combatants could not control the engagement via fires, resulting in attritional warfare that could last weeks or months....

Although fire control appears impractical, Ukraine could instead cultivate an expanded long range strike capability for targeting key supporting elements of the Russian war effort far beyond tactical depths.... They should not be viewed as a substitute for close battle, however. No matter how abundant, long-range strike capability is not likely to force a collapse of Russian positions without another ground offensive.... 

Russia has several material advantages. It is likely to retain an artillery-fire edge over the course of the year and beyond. Russia will also continue regenerating combat power, recruiting more than 10,000 troops per month. It will probably hold the strategic initiative along much of the 1,000 km front line and expand its strike campaign against Ukraine given increased production of drones and cruise missiles. 

* According to the Conflict Intelligence Team, a total of 123 military units were established, including 77 motor rifle regiments and 18 separate motor-rifle battalions. See ‘As Part of the Mobilization, More than 120 New Military Units Were Created in Russia. A Third of Those Called Up Were Sent to Personnel Units – To Make Up for Combat Losses’, Meduza, 5 October 2023 

Edited February 6 by LongLeftFlank

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

Not if they're unconcious perhaps, but otherwise the vast majority of human beings can very much be counted on to have opinions about being shoved into a windowless, remotely piloted aircraft.

Driverless cars and buses elicit much emotion from fellow motorists. No one is likely to agree to set foot on a remotely piloted airliner. To expect different with "CASEVAC-drones" is to assume that existing evidence will be reversed without for no real reason.

The risk calculation is very different when your other choice is bleeding to death in a muddy trench.

[zinz]

44 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

GPS and the like could always be jammed. If Iran could "out EW" an RQ-170, it shouldn't be outside the realm of possibility that CASEVAC drones could be jammed, or possibly even highjacked (who in their right mind would shoot down a drone carrying your own wounded to prevent it from being captured?).

There's also the risk of "interceptor" drones being used to target them (moral and legal issues has hardly figured prominently in Russian decision making).

The main issue I see though remains the averseness people already demonstrate to setting foot in remotely/autonomously piloted cars without them even being under fire.

Well what do you think those over the Dinipro in Krynky are thinking? There it's either by boat or not at all. Sure if you have the option to have someone care for the patient that's great. But we are talking about combat situations where getting out alive is what counts. 

As was already stated EW and jamming can be very much reduced and should not be a mayor problem from an engineering point of view. 

[Battlefront.com]

31 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Sure. But it's a very good thing this is being said by Kofman. Whatever his flaws, he's listened to in DC.

For sure!  I wasn't trying to be snarky or dismissive (this time), more affirming the sentiments here.  Especially that Ukraine should focus on deep strikes and attriting Russia's forces rather than retaking territory.

29 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The next round in the Senate will be a standalone Ukraine bill for $60 billion. That will almost certainly pass the Senate. The mask will fully come off when Johnson tries to stymie it at every turn. That might be just a bit too far for enough GOP House members. 

I dunno, each cycle there are fewer and fewer GOP House members that seem to care about what's good for the country vs. what's good for their populist base.  Ukraine has never been popular with the populists.

Steve

[Kinophile]

Literally, Wot Air Defence doin'? 

 

[Eddy]

38 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

what's good for the country vs. what's good for their populist base

Quick, dumb, question from a non-American - what pressures does a Republican Member of Congress face if they represent a safe Republican district, where they are almost guaranteed to be re-elected. Is it because they may face a primary from another Republican and get de-selected as the Republican candidate? Or is it party management within Congress? (Not taking sides here, same question applies to Democrat members). Basically, why do they feel the need to listen to their populist base?

In the UK, MPs are relatively rarely de-selected by their local constituency party other than when they've done something dodgy. The pressure to vote one way or the other mainly comes from party management within the House of Commons, by whipping, threats to careers, promises of jobs in Government etc. 

Edited February 6 by Eddy

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Kraft said:

It might be worth considering that the AA net on the front has become *thin*. Theres a reason it took a redeployed Patriot to reduce the uncautions nonstop over months glide bombing campaign, and russian air losses being mostly friendly fire for some time now.

Mostly friendly fire is a Russian through-line to imply UKR are incapable of higher level tech. There have been a few FF incidents but in reality it's mostly UKR. 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/tucker-carlson-vladimir-putin-interview-confirm/

American pundit Tucker Carlson, who is currently on a visit to Moscow, has announced he is interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

This must have been actively coordinated with Trump's efforts to sink the Ukraine aid bill.

[Jiggathebauce]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

 

This must have been actively coordinated with Trump's efforts to sink the Ukraine aid bill.

Hope tucker stays there and falls out of a window eventually 

[JonS]

4 hours ago, Simcoe said:

#1 As your map suggests. Avdiivka is the closest and it's not out of the question to fire a shell or two into Donetsk. Being that close allows for shorter range to guns or drones to conduct fire missions.

This ... is not really how fire support planning works. Not after the very coarse first-pass at terrain selection, anyway.

Edited February 6 by JonS

[Battlefront.com]

16 minutes ago, Eddy said:

Quick, dumb, question from a non-American - what pressures does a Republican Member of Congress face if they represent a safe Republican district, where they are almost guaranteed to be re-elected. Is it because they may face a primary from another Republican and get de-selected as the Republican candidate? Or is it party management within Congress? (Not taking sides here, same question applies to Democrat members). Basically, why do they feel the need to listen to their populist base?

In the UK, MPs are relatively rarely de-selected by their local constituency party other than when they've done something dodgy. The pressure to vote one way or the other mainly comes from party management within the House of Commons, by whipping, threats to careers, promises of jobs in Government etc. 

Not a dumb question.  The US has a quirk in its political DNA that in theory isn't a problem, but in reality it is increasingly killing the political system.

In the US we have "primaries" where candidates of a particular party go against each other in a vote amongst only registered members of that party (with a few exceptions).  The preferred candidate then goes on "the ticket" for the general election.  In theory this ensures the best, strongest candidate for the party is put forward for a vote by the entire electorate (county, state, or nation depending). 

In reality what happens is the most politically active members of the party vote in the primary and the rest yawn on their couch.  Increasingly the most radical of each party shows up to vote in the primaries and they tend to pick the candidates that tell them what they want to hear rather than a candidate that is fit for the job.  That's problem #1.

Problem #2 is that when the general election comes most of the electorate votes for the party and not the candidate.  This is how batpoop crazy people with an R after their name get elected.  It's because no matter how sane the other person might be, there's a D after their name and voting for that person is heresy.  The Democrats are no better, except that they don't have the populist streak that the Republicans have and therefore their candidates less frequently have that sort of baggage.  Democrats are also not very likely to be religious fanatics, which is another issue with American politics.

OK, so let's say that sensible Republican House Member X decides to do the right thing for the country and not the party and certainly not for an unelected individual that has a massive cult following.  Next election they get "primaried", which means knocked out before going to a general vote.  Many center leaning Republicans have figured this out and decided not to run because of this, others try and are in fact knocked out by radical candidates supported by the radical base that shows up to the primary.  Which means if Member X wants to keep his/her job, then it's all about voting in a way that the 5-15% of the US population views the world and that's that.

The House GOP, in particular, has also been extremely hostile to independent minded voting.  There's major retaliation against such members, not only within the House but also by the election arm of the GOP.  Independence is punished, not rewarded.  Which is ironic when you consider what the GOP claims it stands for.

Steve