How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Offshoot]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I picture a flowchart where every single if/then scenario eventually leads to autonomous as the counter.

Claimed to be one of the first videos of an autonomous targeting drone. Certainly the EW looks to affect the video feed relatively far from the target, but we don't know for sure that the drone that hits the target is the same as the one at the start of the video. Either it's legit, was an incredibly lucky hit despite the EW, or the video has been edited to make it look like it is autonomous.

 

Edited March 20 by Offshoot

[Haiduk]

4 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

or the video has been edited to make it look like it is autonomous.

Serhiy Sternenko issued this video as first example of autonomous aiming and announced 50 millions UAH fundrising for these drones. For this day a half of money already was donated.

[Haiduk]

Thanks, Netherlands!

 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/03/20/might-russia-run-out-of-big-guns

Its armed forces may be out-shelling the Ukrainians—but they are wearing out their artillery

 

The Economist seems to think Russia only has a about a years worth of barrels left, and new production isn't even making a dent.

[Offshoot]

15 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Serhiy Sternenko issued this video as first example of autonomous aiming and announced 50 millions UAH fundrising for these drones. For this day a half of money already was donated.

Do you have a direct link for the fundraiser?

Edited March 20 by Offshoot

[Kraft]

59 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Do you have a direct link for the fundraiser?

Monobank for the specific fundraiser: https://send.monobank.ua/jar/5eBaMvoanU

General:

Bank card 5375411215349155

Private 5168745030910761

PayPal sternenkopaypal@gmail.com

[LongLeftFlank]

5 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Except that Russia's (rather, Siberia's) share of global metals needed to achieve the carbon transition is roughly comparable to its share of hydrocarbons.

...Unless you believe in stuff like deep sea mining, or take a giant hit off the Green Hydrogen bong.

But we're at risk for drifting OT. None of this is going to show up in time to change the outcome of the current war.

My other comment is that oil and LNG are both likely to be comparatively cheap for the next few years [I'm in the business, so I should know better than to say things like that, of course lol].

For example, Japan and Korea, traditional 'price takers' are both now looking to resell huge amounts of surplus LNG they contracted for, likely into Southeast Asia, if necessary subsidising the new power plants that will burn it.

None of this is great news for the planet, but not great for Putin either, plus the Chinese have got him by his undersized ntz at this point.

P.S. If you haven't read Daniel Yergin's 'The Prize', it is well worth it.

Sorry, as I said the energy/metals thing is marginally OT (though probably better than US politix right now), but check these out as a case in point for how deep a hole the West needs to dig itself out of in terms of manufacturing capacity. The headlines speak for themselves:

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/chinas-making-more-cheap-wind-and-solar-kit-than-the-world-knows-what-to-do-with-the-timing-couldnt-be-worse/2-1-1609984

“Cyclical overcapacity is a feature across the Chinese economy, from steel to lower-end semiconductors,” said clean energy research specialist BNEF in a new report. “But today’s surplus of clean-tech manufacturing is unprecedented.”

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/dont-get-hooked-on-chinese-batteries-after-quitting-russian-gas-europe-warned/2-1-1519960

https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/unfair-and-a-security-threat-dont-be-tempted-by-half-price-chinese-wind-turbines-warns-european-industry-chief/2-1-1518733

(And keep in mind ALL the leading turbine manufacturers in the world except GE were European, up to about 3 years ago. They are all now going bankrupt/exiting and/or having quality problems as they had to cut so many corners to compete on price with Envision, Minyang, etc.)

****

...So when we talk here about 'flooding the zone' with a bazillion cut-price drones, or antidrone-drones, or anti-antidrones, just *who* is in the position to walk that talk at this moment?

Very important to be realistic about this. Because whatever Ukraine and its allies innovate on the battlefield is being studied and copied, in real time.

Now whether Russia can effectively employ a bazillion cut rate drones or wevs, we can discuss. But I wouldn't answer that one with a hard No either....

 

Edited March 21 by LongLeftFlank

[Kinophile]

Sounds like this will only maintain the current number,, replacing lost/ damage 

 

[Kinophile]

Heh

 

 

[LongLeftFlank]

(&*^%!! editor wiped out my post)

Over on the defensive side of the mass production macroequation, check this whacky stuff out.

https://ktla.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/695626991/micobs-3d-printed-bunkers-shine-at-bharat-shakti/

And sure, you'd want this stuff underground wherever possible. But sometimes it won't be possible, in which case I might take a pillbox, or even a glorified pot lid, over what that Ukie commander called a 'bald hole'.

Note that one high volume manufacturing sector where the West (EU and USA) have NOT yet totally given away the store is higher end polymers and petrochemicals. So in contrast to my gloomy prior post, this could be a good place to catch up, innovating prefab substitutes to match China's knockoff/assembly behemoth.

@dan/california, one good reason to accelerate the carbon transition may well be that humanity finds much higher value things to do with hydrocarbons than burning them (yeah, microplastics, but we're doomed any which way)

 

https://www.archdaily.com/1014542/worlds-first-ever-3d-printed-mosque-opens-in-jeddah-saudi-arabia

Edited March 21 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Haiduk said:

K-2 battalion of 54th mech.brigade again in action and makes us happy with own exellent videos. 

Here is a video how K-2 battalion HQ controls and manage process of the battle - 6 of Russian armor moved through Zolotarivka village (Siversk direction) on positions of 1st mech battalon of 54th brigade. Combined operation of mortars and artillery of 54th brigade (participated 120 mm mortar, D-30 howitzer and MT-12 with indirect fire) and FPV team of 118th TD brigade. Russian column was destroyed on AT-mines and arty fire. 5 pieces of armor were immobilized, one tank withdrew and was hit by FPV, but survuived. Disembarked infantry was eliminated by grenade frops from Mavics and by small arms of infantry - total 42 ememy infantrymen

 

It's interesting that we started this war totally impressed with how artillery could be better directed by drone.  In this video I'm reminded how ineffective artillery is, compared to drones, against fast moving targets no matter how well directed it might be.

Steve

[chrisl]

55 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

It's interesting that we started this war totally impressed with how artillery could be better directed by drone.  In this video I'm reminded how ineffective artillery is, compared to drones, against fast moving targets no matter how well directed it might be.

Steve

Two of the things I've usually considered an advantage of artillery over drones is speed of arrival and saturation.  But that was sort of based on relatively small numbers of drones, where one spotter could call in a ton of artillery to arrive from 40 km away in a few minutes.  But if there's enough spotting you can put a cloud of FPVs up in the path of an arriving convoy and pick them off like that, one by one.  It mitigates some of the range and arrival speed limits.  And they seemed to have plenty of FPVs to pick off the vehicles, and close enough range that they didn't have to get them in the sky in advance.  What they really need is enough of them with enough range to destroy the rear echelons and reinforcements before they even get close. 

[dan/california]

8 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Two of the things I've usually considered an advantage of artillery over drones is speed of arrival and saturation.  But that was sort of based on relatively small numbers of drones, where one spotter could call in a ton of artillery to arrive from 40 km away in a few minutes.  But if there's enough spotting you can put a cloud of FPVs up in the path of an arriving convoy and pick them off like that, one by one.  It mitigates some of the range and arrival speed limits.  And they seemed to have plenty of FPVs to pick off the vehicles, and close enough range that they didn't have to get them in the sky in advance.  What they really need is enough of them with enough range to destroy the rear echelons and reinforcements before they even get close. 

The interview I quoted earlier said they typically engaged Russian vehicles about five kilometers from the front lines, and that they rarely even made into firing positions. If you had to use a Javelin the drone guys were having an off day. 

Edit: I think this goes under heavy mechanized forces being obsolete unless someone come up with drone countermeasures that have so far been notable by their absence.

 

Edited March 21 by dan/california

[Battlefront.com]

17 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Two of the things I've usually considered an advantage of artillery over drones is speed of arrival and saturation.  But that was sort of based on relatively small numbers of drones, where one spotter could call in a ton of artillery to arrive from 40 km away in a few minutes.  But if there's enough spotting you can put a cloud of FPVs up in the path of an arriving convoy and pick them off like that, one by one.  It mitigates some of the range and arrival speed limits.  And they seemed to have plenty of FPVs to pick off the vehicles, and close enough range that they didn't have to get them in the sky in advance.  What they really need is enough of them with enough range to destroy the rear echelons and reinforcements before they even get close. 

Yup.  Aside from all the other logistical advantages over artillery, the fact is that a gunner is going to have to get pretty damned lucky to hit a specific fast moving vehicle first shot.  FPV?  Well, that's what they are made to do.

The question CM gamers can ask themselves is... if CM presented you with a situation like the K-2 video of a fast moving armored column of 6 vehicle, which response option would you rather have?

• an artillery piece with 50 rounds of ammo and a spotting drone
• a drone team with 10 FPVs and a spotting drone

I know all else being equal I'd go with the FPV option.

For sure artillery still has a lot of usefulness on the battlefield that drones can't yet match, but in some instances (like fast moving vehicles) drones clearly are the better choice.  Provided it isn't very windy, pouring rain, snowing like crazy, or -25 C

Steve

[chrisl]

41 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup.  Aside from all the other logistical advantages over artillery, the fact is that a gunner is going to have to get pretty damned lucky to hit a specific fast moving vehicle first shot.  FPV?  Well, that's what they are made to do.

The question CM gamers can ask themselves is... if CM presented you with a situation like the K-2 video of a fast moving armored column of 6 vehicle, which response option would you rather have?

• an artillery piece with 50 rounds of ammo and a spotting drone
• a drone team with 10 FPVs and a spotting drone

I know all else being equal I'd go with the FPV option.

For sure artillery still has a lot of usefulness on the battlefield that drones can't yet match, but in some instances (like fast moving vehicles) drones clearly are the better choice.  Provided it isn't very windy, pouring rain, snowing like crazy, or -25 C

Steve

the smart choice makes for a not very fun scenario...

Bad weather drones is just a matter of time.  They'll end up larger to deal with rain and wind, but for -25C you just have to bake them in the fire like potatoes and keep them wrapped in foil and a sweater as you send them off.

[Offshoot]

More auto-targeting drones, including going after moving targets. In the first case, however, it switches targets at the last moment.

 

[hcrof]

8 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

(&*^%!! editor wiped out my post)

Over on the defensive side of the mass production macroequation, check this whacky stuff out.

https://ktla.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/695626991/micobs-3d-printed-bunkers-shine-at-bharat-shakti/

And sure, you'd want this stuff underground wherever possible. But sometimes it won't be possible, in which case I might take a pillbox, or even a glorified pot lid, over what that Ukie commander called a 'bald hole'.

Note that one high volume manufacturing sector where the West (EU and USA) have NOT yet totally given away the store is higher end polymers and petrochemicals. So in contrast to my gloomy prior post, this could be a good place to catch up, innovating prefab substitutes to match China's knockoff/assembly behemoth.

@dan/california, one good reason to accelerate the carbon transition may well be that humanity finds much higher value things to do with hydrocarbons than burning them (yeah, microplastics, but we're doomed any which way)

 

https://www.archdaily.com/1014542/worlds-first-ever-3d-printed-mosque-opens-in-jeddah-saudi-arabia

The links are broken for me but I am very skeptical about building  bunkers with 3d printing - and I say this as someone who designs structures, sometimes against explosions. If plastics are involved multiply that by 10. 

[chrisl]

45 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

More auto-targeting drones, including going after moving targets. In the first case, however, it switches targets at the last moment.

 

Looks like it probably hit the vehicle anyway - the second one looks like it's coming in right behind and the vehicle from the first one is on fire, so it switches to follow the one on the road.  

[Offshoot]

7 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Looks like it probably hit the vehicle anyway - the second one looks like it's coming in right behind and the vehicle from the first one is on fire, so it switches to follow the one on the road.  

Yeah, the auto-translate says that inertia carried the drone into the grad. Given both cases of changing target, I'm curious if the software has been tuned to prioritise moving targets and if that is a good thing (e.g. breaking off to chase a soldier rather than going after the high-value vehicle). And also, if this is the case and they become more common, what contraptions the Russians will come up with to try and spoof the drones - cope-cages could be joined by cope-carousels or carriage footmen.

[Carolus]

1 hour ago, Offshoot said:

Yeah, the auto-translate says that inertia carried the drone into the grad. Given both cases of changing target, I'm curious if the software has been tuned to prioritise moving targets and if that is a good thing (e.g. breaking off to chase a soldier rather than going after the high-value vehicle). And also, if this is the case and they become more common, what contraptions the Russians will come up with to try and spoof the drones - cope-cages could be joined by cope-carousels or carriage footmen.

MRA - Mobik Reactive Armor.

[Butschi]

56 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Yeah, the auto-translate says that inertia carried the drone into the grad. Given both cases of changing target, I'm curious if the software has been tuned to prioritise moving targets and if that is a good thing (e.g. breaking off to chase a soldier rather than going after the high-value vehicle). And also, if this is the case and they become more common, what contraptions the Russians will come up with to try and spoof the drones - cope-cages could be joined by cope-carousels or carriage footmen.

Assuming something smart at work here is probably over-interpreting the videos. The simple explanation for the first video is that the system got distracted by some dirt pattern (doesn't look like it's targeting the guy running) and in the second case the fire made the vehicle look different than the images the system was trained on.

Not saying the system can't be that smart, just that we humans tend to interpret more into those things than there is in reality. More often than not it's a bug, not a feature.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

It's interesting that we started this war totally impressed with how artillery could be better directed by drone.  In this video I'm reminded how ineffective artillery is, compared to drones, against fast moving targets no matter how well directed it might be.

Steve

For a couple of months already Kofman has been commenting about drones being one more thing which is more helpful on the defence than on the attack. This may be one element of it, the attackers being the side which moves more.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, Offshoot said:

Given both cases of changing target, I'm curious if the software has been tuned to prioritise moving targets and if that is a good thing (e.g. breaking off to chase a soldier rather than going after the high-value vehicle).

Very likely. Giving priority to the moving targets is the basic overkill avoidance logic. 

12 minutes ago, Carolus said:

And also, if this is the case and they become more common, what contraptions the Russians will come up with to try and spoof the drones - cope-cages could be joined by cope-carousels or carriage footmen.

 Don't think so - logically, the first step is recognition of the shape of soldier or vehicle, moving vs non moving comes into play when there are several things of the right shape to chose between. The most cost-effective camouflage would probably be breaking up the shape

[Butschi]

10 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

The most cost-effective camouflage would probably be breaking up the shape

Anything that makes the target look less like the training images. I guess we are going to see camouflage that is taylored to fool AI not humans. Adversarial attacks were all the rage a few years back, e.g. images modified in way that they look more or less identical to humans but entirely different to AI.

[The_Capt]

38 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

For a couple of months already Kofman has been commenting about drones being one more thing which is more helpful on the defence than on the attack. This may be one element of it, the attackers being the side which moves more.

Did he say why?  To my mind it may appear the case right now because the defensive side of this war is employing them better and at greater scale.  I cannot think of a reason why fast, highly mobile highly precise firepower is not useful on offence as well as defence.  The problem is likely more one of scale.  For offensive operations one needs concentrations of drones that we have not seen to break a defensive position. Offensives have always come with higher risk because one has to move, the offset has been tempo, mass and speed.  I think that we need new concepts of how drones fit into those three in order to solve for modern offensive operations.

In simpler terms, drones appear to support defence better right now because we are conducting offensive operations in a way that does not work on the modern battlefield.  We need to fix that.