billbindc Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: Yup. The thing is, Xi would not be happy to have NK start making deals with Russia on its own. I don't think there's any worry of that happening. Xi has all the levers of power to prevent it. So I expect we'll probably learn that China is backfilling NK artillery and missile inventories, much the way the US is backfilling its allies who provide stuff to Ukraine. And let the proxy war continue! Steve There is no evidence of that yet. What we do see is China trying to build up it's own. I would imagine that the DPRK can go to China if it needs restocking but that nothing is moving until Xi really decides he isn't going to make a try for Taiwan. Kim's stocks are also already pretty gigantic and what we are seeing in Ukraine seems like he's getting Russia to over pay for the clearance rack. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Its hilarious watching the Russian government officials get reduced to this level 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 I really do think people are onto something with the FPV counter UAV usage. This could really have a tangible effect on the battlefield. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said: I took it to mean "crew" with the gunner still under cover and the commander unbuttoned. We shouldn't put too much more thought into this. The report was vague, perhaps written by someone who doesn't know details very well, and finally translated by someone who probably doesn't know the details very well. Tough to know what's going on after all of that! Steve “Firing from a closed position” is indirect fire without LOS, used extensively in this war. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 This footage came out a few days ago, but it seems the Lancet was potentially destroyed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 35 minutes ago, akd said: “Firing from a closed position” is indirect fire without LOS, used extensively in this war. Oh, never thought of that. Could be why they are doing it…no point training for DF if these crews are going to be a “dumber artillery” (if that is possible…roll snare drum) lobbing shells into a grid square. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 38 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said: I really do think people are onto something with the FPV counter UAV usage. This could really have a tangible effect on the battlefield. So this is where the future of UAS symmetry lies to my mind. Not expensive centralized point defence or EW. A UAS CAP able to interdict kms out. Now we will have a battlespace of clouds akin to naval warfare. But unlike naval warfare there can be much higher distribution and dispersion. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 27 minutes ago, The_Capt said: So this is where the future of UAS symmetry lies to my mind. Not expensive centralized point defence or EW. A UAS CAP able to interdict kms out. Now we will have a battlespace of clouds akin to naval warfare. But unlike naval warfare there can be much higher distribution and dispersion. Could it not contain elements of both? Point defence exists on ships for a reason even if they have various layers of AD well before that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 6 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said: Could it not contain elements of both? Point defence exists on ships for a reason even if they have various layers of AD well before that. I agree, there needs to be a system where enemy drones are detected at a distance, then interceptors are sent to engage. But relying on one system alone is asking for trouble, so point defences can fill in any holes - even if it is *shudder* APS. I would prefer using the main gun of the vehicle, which is pointed in the right direction by a radar: either a small one on the vehicle or a larger one nearby. A second option would be point defence drones which I think are quite viable, if bulky. But optics alone to detect fpv drones or submunitions might not be very reliable so I think we need radars, dispute the risks of emitting all that energy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 4 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said: Could it not contain elements of both? Point defence exists on ships for a reason even if they have various layers of AD well before that. I think land PD and EW are a negotiated capability space moving forward. Difference between land and sea is that land is a frozen ocean. Firstly, at sea we have centralized capability on large platforms that can carry and move them in that environment. We can’t realistically have small four man FPV teams operating in blue water for weeks, we can on land. So the swarming dynamic is very different, as are the ranges. Terrain has become far more transparent on land but still exists, so short range swarming is still viable on land. PD will be under more strain on land by concentrated swarming that is much easier to build and project on land than at sea (theoretically). Also, one has to keep in mind our modern maritime warfare is also almost entirely theoretical. The problem with the western ways of warfare is that we have said these theories for so long that somewhere along the way they became doctrine, and then dogma. We have never tested land warfare in an environment like the one we are seeing but we go in with an assumption that manoeuvre and mission command will work. Why? Because we have taught and exercised them? We have very little actual combat operations proof. Very few examples of a highly charged ISR and ATGM environment of peer forces exist in the last 35 years. We point to the few examples (eg Persian Gulf) with extreme confirmation biases. Maritime warfare is even worse. Our entire carrier battle group concept has never been tested in a modern environment. Will those CWIS do a damned thing if we saw swarms of missiles and UAS/Vs? We “believe” they will but have little proof. So, I think we will see PD and EW continue in the land domain but I am not sure they are really value added until they are proven one way or the other under real operational conditions. Hell, we really do not know FPV success-vs-employment rates, we only have best guesses. What I am very allergic to is every high tech military company shilling “the solution” in order to siphon off the glut of defence spending heading in this entire direction, as opposed to actually solving for the problem. Massive 30mm guns all pointing and blasting at the sky is not about solving for c-UAS, it is about selling massive 30mm guns. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 18 minutes ago, hcrof said: I agree, there needs to be a system where enemy drones are detected at a distance, then interceptors are sent to engage. But relying on one system alone is asking for trouble, so point defences can fill in any holes - even if it is *shudder* APS. I would prefer using the main gun of the vehicle, which is pointed in the right direction by a radar: either a small one on the vehicle or a larger one nearby. A second option would be point defence drones which I think are quite viable, if bulky. But optics alone to detect fpv drones or submunitions might not be very reliable so I think we need radars, dispute the risks of emitting all that energy. The ideal system for PD would be using the APS radars to slave an RWS onto target for cheap and efficient disposal, seems to be like a simple evolution of APS while retaining anti missile capability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 5 hours ago, Holien said: Excellent information and gives a good insight, well worth a read... Thanks for the link Going to second this one, truly excellent article. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said: This footage came out a few days ago, but it seems the Lancet was potentially destroyed. Ukraine is cracking drone vs drone. If the Russians can't catch up tyhe effects are going to be LARGE. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolus Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Ukraine-kann-hochmoderne-Waffe-erwarten-article25026404.html Some news about long-term contracts between Ukraine and KNDS. - Ukraine will receive 78 Caesar from KNDS, production rate was increased from 2 to 6 per month Mentions Caesar has proven itself in the field thanks to easy operation, maintainability, long range and precision. - Ukraine will receive 54 RH-155 (same tube as PzH2000 but on a wheeled chassis) Lower range than Caesar, but mentions good precision of the system. Option for remote-controlled driving and firing exists via later upgrade, otherwise crew of 4 (commander, driver in front, gunner, loader in turret) 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said: This footage came out a few days ago, but it seems the Lancet was potentially destroyed. Think about the level of situational awareness and C4SIR this implies. A command center somewhere can see the entire airspace down to things the size of a Lancet, and divert and already in flight FPV drone to kill it. This is fully integrated air defense with FPV drones, the world just changed people, and this is before better, autonomous, engineered from scratch drones hit in mass. I repeat if the Russians can't match and or counter the effects will be LARGE. Also Ukraine, or whoever built this system for them, is going to have an order book it will take twenty years to fill. Edited June 19 by dan/california 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamEndedAllen Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 8 hours ago, zinz said: https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/nato-and-ukrainian-air-defences Excellent information. This section stuck out: “In a recent NATO wargame centered on the Kaliningrad-Belarus area, the ground forces were waiting for the air forces to provide the sorties needed to advance without severe losses and the air forces said they couldn’t operate in that environment with fourth generation fighters without suffering severe losses. It took three days of long-ranged ground and air strikes before the air forces could operate in an environment with acceptable losses. Even then, the ground forces had to move out on a moment’s notice because that window could close in 45 minutes. Two years ago, Russian dynamic targeting with air defenses was extremely poor. That isn’t the case now. Like the US and NATO, they hadn’t fought or been threatened by a peer or near-peer adversary in decades, and they did not maintain their cold war skill set. Meanwhile, they have remedied that shortcoming. The only asset the US has that can operate in an enemy air defense environment is the F-35. Suppression of enemy air defenses within a certain locality could create a pocket of air superiority that would allow fourth generation aircraft to protect and support ground forces, but theater-wide air superiority against an entity such as Russia is not a reality” 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 https://www.reddit.com/r/DroneCombat/comments/1djl2zq/ukraines_3rd_assault_brigade_drone_pilots_spotted/ This sub-reddit has a near infinity of drone footage, but this one stands out for its truly artful drone piloting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 20 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said: Excellent information. This section stuck out: “In a recent NATO wargame centered on the Kaliningrad-Belarus area, the ground forces were waiting for the air forces to provide the sorties needed to advance without severe losses and the air forces said they couldn’t operate in that environment with fourth generation fighters without suffering severe losses. It took three days of long-ranged ground and air strikes before the air forces could operate in an environment with acceptable losses. Even then, the ground forces had to move out on a moment’s notice because that window could close in 45 minutes. Two years ago, Russian dynamic targeting with air defenses was extremely poor. That isn’t the case now. Like the US and NATO, they hadn’t fought or been threatened by a peer or near-peer adversary in decades, and they did not maintain their cold war skill set. Meanwhile, they have remedied that shortcoming. The only asset the US has that can operate in an enemy air defense environment is the F-35. Suppression of enemy air defenses within a certain locality could create a pocket of air superiority that would allow fourth generation aircraft to protect and support ground forces, but theater-wide air superiority against an entity such as Russia is not a reality” This is very good. I think part of the problem is what we consider “air superiority”. So all of this is framed in terms of air superiority over 2000 feet. So we could technically achieve air superiority above 2000 feet but not have it below in the UAS space. So while our F35s are trying to support ground forces, those forces are getting swarmed by very low altitude, long range unmanned systems the F35 can do nothing about. Further, as ground based strike gets longer and longer in ranges, that higher altitude air cover umbrella now has to extend 100s of kms deep or enemy long range systems paired with unmanned ISR will still make life hell for ground forces. An F35 umbrella would have to be truly massive against a HIMARs-like system, a local pocket no longer really exists. So even pockets of conventional air superiority, which are about as we can do right now, are simply not enough anymore. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 3 hours ago, The_Capt said: Massive 30mm guns all pointing and blasting at the sky is not about solving for c-UAS, it is about selling massive 30mm guns. Despite my earlier statement I actually agree with this. I am sure skyranger et Al are very capable systems but they are likely very expensive with long range guns and powerful radars that can engage small targets 3km away. There is probably a place for that system but you can't have it on every vehicle or you will not have the mass required. 3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said: The ideal system for PD would be using the APS radars to slave an RWS onto target for cheap and efficient disposal, seems to be like a simple evolution of APS while retaining anti missile capability. This would be very nice. The thing is that I don't think you need 4 radars and 4 effectors for a "good enough" APS. You need 1 radar and 1 gun pointed in the right direction and if you have drone overwatch and mutually supporting vehicles then you can get that at (massive guess) quarter of the cost. APS was originally designed to counter suprise RPG attacks in urban areas so needed 360deg coverage with very fast reaction times. These days I think the life expectancy of a RPG operator will be short, even if they manage to get a shot off before getting spotted by a black hornet drone coming through the window. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zinz Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) Quote I saw an [interview](https://twitter.com/Dmojavensis/status/1803321231695028732) with an Ukrainian commander of PzH-2000 today. Here are some parts from it: * He thinks PzH2000 is the best howitzer: - armor (Panzer part of Panzerhaubitze) - well thought through layout to separate the crew from explosive components and preserve the crew in case the howitzer is hit. * He likes the arrangement of ammunition - can be still effectively used even in case of autoloader malfunction - explosive elements are thoughtfully hidden as deep as possible within the howitzer to minimize detonation chances even if the armor is pierced. * PzH2000 under his command survived three lancet hits (no details given) * Lancets / FPV against howitzers: - his opinion is that wheeled self-propelled arty (a la French Caesar or Ukrainian Bohdana) is not good due to abundance of reconnaissance drones: either towed or heavy armored tracked howitzers are much better. The towed arty must be dug in (including shelters for the crew made), and tracked heavy arty like PzH2000 already has adequate armor to protect against RU Lancets or cassette artillery fire. The wheeled arty has neither adequate armor, nor are they typically dug in. * Moving and camouflaging - very important. Also need to have dedicated crew to dig in / build an enclosure / camouflage / prepare positions for the arty (otherwise the crew will be exhausted if the crew does it all). Takes about 5 hours to prepare position (for PzH). * He mentions that only 5 PzH were damaged with no total losses. * An effective measure against Lancets is to always have 2-3 observers nearby a firing position preferably with signal spectrum analyzers. Also they built cover on their position (he calls it a "hole") with a steeped entry and covered it with tree branches so Lancet could not follow the vehicle there. Via https://reddit.com/comments/1djlp51/comment/l9c5cro Edited June 19 by zinz 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 9 minutes ago, zinz said: Via https://reddit.com/comments/1djlp51/comment/l9c5cro Interesting that the Caesar (also discussed) seems to attract such extremes of opinion. Some people love it as a sniper and some people think it is too vulnerable to drones. Good info! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimbosbread Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 hour ago, hcrof said: too vulnerable to drones I guess for the near-future, I’d want that to be more specific: Can something be destroyed by dropping a hand grenade, or an rpg round anywhere on it (or any improvised small munition)? How does this go against more-purposed designed munitions, ie anything with a Javelin warhead (Switchblade 600)? How resilient is the vehicle in general? Can it drive away after a hit? How well protected is the crew? And if you can’t do all this for a reasonable amount, it’s time to just move the capability to an UGV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danfrodo Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 some war stuff for today. An amazing long distance drone grenade drop into hatch. Russia losing a lot of artillery systems, allegedly. Hopefully soon we'll be all we be seeing are very old tubes firing very degraded old shells. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/6/19/2247343/-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-Russian-fuel-depot-still-burning-after-two-days?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web And we see the Strategic Genius has to go groveling to NK so he has something to fire from the tubes he still has. Hopefully NK is dumping some very low quality shells on them. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 A good sign. Quote 80% of Russian equipment and personnel that were stationed on the Russian border with Finland, have been transferred to Ukraine, a high-ranking Finnish military source confirms. Garrisons and military bases are almost empty. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 The placement of this DPICM is 10/10, Rembrandt level artistry. 3 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.