How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Grigb]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Welcome the future.

Able to chase individual soldiers into a drain pipe 15kms away.  At this rate I am not sure if Infantry are still viable, let alone freakin tanks.

This infantry unit lacked competent anti-drone defense. They got caught by one of the best (maybe even the best) UKR drone units.

 

1 hour ago, A Canadian Cat said:

Agreed. The operators may already be doing what I would suggest: broadcast from antennas that are on nice long cords so anyone successfully following the signals will just blow up some gear. 

Heck they could even have multiple antennas and if one gets hit pull out the next one. Or better yet when you bug out just leave it and setup in another location with antenna #2. Later send someone back for antenna #1, if its still there great use it for the next new location. You can even have it pre setup in the new location. The operators are only down for their travel time.

Yes. It is a standard operating procedure for some time. There is a problem though - it is not easy to hide a typical antenna. But it is relatively easy to destroy it with a drop. It is not a huge problem, but you do need a constant source of paint (different surroundings require different paint), camo net + other camo things (like fake tree branches) and discipline + time to do it. At this moment both sides struggle with it.

 

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, Grigb said:

This infantry unit lacked competent anti-drone defense. They got caught by one of the best (maybe even the best) UKR drone units.

=

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, Grigb said:

This infantry unit lacked competent anti-drone defense.

Ya, we argued about this for what felt like a hundred pages.  There isn't one was the majority opinion...with noted dissentions.

[Kraft]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Able to chase individual soldiers into a drain pipe 15kms away.

The video is quite something, he kept crawling from one end of the pipe to the other while the drone did peakeaboo on each end - until he sat down in the middle and it just flew in.

Then the 2nd one did too and that was that.

Edited July 10 by Kraft

[Grigb]

24 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

We need to bear in mind that a complaint about someone's experience might not be reflective of what is happening overall. 

They got the attention of the best UKR drone unit. But overall, their experience is not significantly different from other RU units (that lack competent-anti drone defenses). 

 

24 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

There are simply not enough FPVs to hunt every soldier on the battlefield (even if it might seem so for a squad receiving focussed attention from a skilled FPV team) .

RU like to quote following numbers:

• — 3-4 per one (!) of our fighter in the assault group when repelling our attack.
• — 6-10 per tank or BMP/APC.

I don't think that's for each part of the front line, but for all crucial ones, it looks like this. (read similar reports from different directions) 

24 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Nor is every vehicle in that 15km zone is being destroyed (though its a steady trickle)

The RU say they don't employ armored vehicles in the Kharkov direction because they are immediately destroyed by drones.

 

24 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

FPVs are certainly very much out there in terms of a distinctive weapon system, but I do wonder if they are actually doing most of the killing when both sides are still throwing a lot of artillery still at one another, let alone other weapons. Artillery from what I last read still seems to be doing most of the killing. (Im not sure if glide bombs count together with that) 

It's hard to tell, but according to RU, drones became prominent a few months ago. Overall, even if drones kill fewer people than artillery, they already have a similar, if not higher, impact on RU forces. 

[dan/california]

The drain pipe drone video, smart Russians would go home.

[Grigb]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ya, we argued about this for what felt like a hundred pages.  There isn't one was the majority opinion...with noted dissentions.

There are. But very-very few.

There are methods to defend against drones. They are well-known among Russian drone specialists. However, it is less of a technological problem and more of an organizational and human one, both of which are difficult for RU to address. Therefore, they are able to use these methods in a few units supported by a volunteer network but are unable to reproduce them throughout the whole army.

[Vanir Ausf B]

7 hours ago, dan/california said:

Thermal imaging systems especially, jet engines have all the same big, hot, signature problems that AFVs do times ten, if not a hundred. Someone is is going to figure out how to find that signal.

IRST (infrared search and track) has been around for decades and is a standard feature on all modern fighter aircraft that I know of.

Edited July 10 by Vanir Ausf B

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

We need to bear in mind that a complaint about someone's experience might not be reflective of what is happening overall. There are simply not enough FPVs to hunt every soldier on the battlefield (even if it might seem so for a squad receiving focussed attention from a skilled FPV team) . Nor is every vehicle in that 15km zone is being destroyed (though its a steady trickle)

FPVs are certainly very much out there in terms of a distinctive weapon system, but I do wonder if they are actually doing most of the killing when both sides are still throwing a lot of artillery still at one another, let alone other weapons. Artillery from what I last read still seems to be doing most of the killing. (Im not sure if glide bombs count together with that) 

We need to bear in mind that as of a few years ago this capability, in any quantity, did not exist.  That it exists now to the point where there's enough to hunt down individual soldiers, on a large scale (we've read and seen enough to know it is LARGE scale) is even more important.

Grigb's follow up where the Kharkiv forces have basically thrown in the towel on using vehicles is confirmed by other sources.  That underscores how pervasive drones are within this sector.  With that in mind...

For sure this sort of density and capability is not front wide.  That's not even up for debate IMHO.  But it is in various places when and where they need to be.  Magyar was quickly redeployed to the Dnepr where his unit ravaged the Russian defenders who, like the Kharkiv forces, complained bitterly that they couldn't do anything except shelter and hope they didn't get killed.  Then Magyar's unit was moved north and pretty much instantly had an impact on the battles there.

Warfare is never about uniformity across the whole front.  The Germans were able to take most of Europe with only a small portion of their force fully motorized.  Yet the small portion that was made a huge difference.  Even all the way up to the end of the war.

There's so much evidence to show that what Magyar is doing to the Kharkiv forces is not an anomaly, even if it is an outlier in terms of competence and resources.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

We need to bear in mind that as of a few years ago this capability, in any quantity, did not exist.  That it exists now to the point where there's enough to hunt down individual soldiers, on a large scale (we've read and seen enough to know it is LARGE scale) is even more important.

Grigb's follow up where the Kharkiv forces have basically thrown in the towel on using vehicles is confirmed by other sources.  That underscores how pervasive drones are within this sector.  With that in mind...

For sure this sort of density and capability is not front wide.  That's not even up for debate IMHO.  But it is in various places when and where they need to be.  Magyar was quickly redeployed to the Dnepr where his unit ravaged the Russian defenders who, like the Kharkiv forces, complained bitterly that they couldn't do anything except shelter and hope they didn't get killed.  Then Magyar's unit was moved north and pretty much instantly had an impact on the battles there.

Warfare is never about uniformity across the whole front.  The Germans were able to take most of Europe with only a small portion of their force fully motorized.  Yet the small portion that was made a huge difference.  Even all the way up to the end of the war.

There's so much evidence to show that what Magyar is doing to the Kharkiv forces is not an anomaly, even if it is an outlier in terms of competence and resources.

Steve

I'm not going to doubt Magyar's competency, though I am curious why their effectiveness is not quite shared on other units. Is it the size and scale or their operations or are they simply more prolific with their media presence? 

Again, I think we are getting an incomplete picture that is partially glimpsed through loss rate reporting. We know that at least 50% of FPV drones are lost on average, jamming is a major problem ect. We get a lot of footage of hits, not a lot of the misses / interceptions via shotgun / jamming ect. If the Russians are going to attack with penny packets of infantry of course they are going to get focussed with FPV drones. 3-4 drones per person becomes realistic when the squad is 8-10 people attacking at a time. 

The effectiveness is not to be doubted, but we should just keep in mind the fairly significant resources needed to achieve it (Ie a lot of drones expended and well trained / experienced operators seem to really help with hit rates)

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

51 minutes ago, Grigb said:

There are. But very-very few.

There are methods to defend against drones. They are well-known among Russian drone specialists. However, it is less of a technological problem and more of an organizational and human one, both of which are difficult for RU to address. Therefore, they are able to use these methods in a few units supported by a volunteer network but are unable to reproduce them throughout the whole army.

And then if you actually do defend against the drone….they drop arty on your head.  This is not even close to the first time we have seen this sort of report.  It is probably the most intense levels of UAS but we have seen reports and video that shows similar types of attacks pretty much from early on in this war.  What has been happening is the frequency and reactions.  I suspect this is due to UA drones production coming into full swing - they were not kidding when they said they could produce 100k per month.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

We need to bear in mind that a complaint about someone's experience might not be reflective of what is happening overall. There are simply not enough FPVs to hunt every soldier on the battlefield (even if it might seem so for a squad receiving focussed attention from a skilled FPV team) . Nor is every vehicle in that 15km zone is being destroyed (though its a steady trickle)

FPVs are certainly very much out there in terms of a distinctive weapon system, but I do wonder if they are actually doing most of the killing when both sides are still throwing a lot of artillery still at one another, let alone other weapons. Artillery from what I last read still seems to be doing most of the killing. (Im not sure if glide bombs count together with that) 

C’mon….seriously? You have held up a couple dozen Trophy uses by the IDF as “well proven operational effectiveness” and a few corporate videos as “proof of technological counters”.  We have seen stats of hundreds of vehicle strikes, and more than a few reports like this one. The UA really had nothing but FPVs to hold off the RA last winter, and they did. The RA has done more chicken cage building and weird add ons than we can count. And vehicles - including tanks - are being held back because to advance is nearly suicidal…and we have video of that as well.  Then we get a pretty vivid report of what is effectively human hunting at 15kms -just stop and think about the repercussions of that.  And you are still “well wait a minute”?  Hell, why not cry “fake news”?

Seriously, how much proof do you need? This is beyond critical thinking, this is sticking a head in the sand and living in denial. 

This is not a “blip” it is a sea change as far as warfare is concerned.

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

IRST (infrared search and track) has been around for decades and is a standard feature on all modern fighter aircraft that I know of.

Yes, but as I understand it is is mostly cued onto a target by radar, as opposed to searching the whole sky itself. A whole suite of technological improvements may be reaching the point where infrared search and track rates its own widebody jet platform. That is, if those platforms are still survivable at all. If I was the crew of the one working the Mariupol station I would have a pretty permanent negative outlook on my life expectancy. Russia doesn't have many of them left, and getting one or two more of them would have real strategic implications for the whole war. Budanov, and the entire Ukrainian airforce are quite aware of this fact.

[The_Capt]

55 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

We need to bear in mind that as of a few years ago this capability, in any quantity, did not exist.  That it exists now to the point where there's enough to hunt down individual soldiers, on a large scale (we've read and seen enough to know it is LARGE scale) is even more important.

Grigb's follow up where the Kharkiv forces have basically thrown in the towel on using vehicles is confirmed by other sources.  That underscores how pervasive drones are within this sector.  With that in mind...

For sure this sort of density and capability is not front wide.  That's not even up for debate IMHO.  But it is in various places when and where they need to be.  Magyar was quickly redeployed to the Dnepr where his unit ravaged the Russian defenders who, like the Kharkiv forces, complained bitterly that they couldn't do anything except shelter and hope they didn't get killed.  Then Magyar's unit was moved north and pretty much instantly had an impact on the battles there.

Warfare is never about uniformity across the whole front.  The Germans were able to take most of Europe with only a small portion of their force fully motorized.  Yet the small portion that was made a huge difference.  Even all the way up to the end of the war.

There's so much evidence to show that what Magyar is doing to the Kharkiv forces is not an anomaly, even if it is an outlier in terms of competence and resources.

Steve

The UA created an Unmanned Forces Branch, this is basically an unmanned service - https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/air/ukraine-conflict-ukraine-establishes-worlds-first-unmanned-force

What we are very likely seeing are the early days of them professionalizing these capabilities. So this force is just the beginning. Clearly these guys are elite based on their EW avoidance. 

Now enough of this “wait a minute” BS. The questions are 1) can the UA upscale this sort of performance and 2) at scale can it break the deadlock?  In this war.  We can leave the future to magical wizard 30mm guns and fairy dust, but in this war right here, will we see the UA break the deadlock if they can do this at higher scales?  Can they kick corrosive warfare back into gear? Because if they can, we might still have a ballgame.

Edited July 11 by The_Capt

[Vanir Ausf B]

15 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Yes, but as I understand it is is mostly cued onto a target by radar, as opposed to searching the whole sky itself. A whole suite of technological improvements may be reaching the point where infrared search and track rates its own widebody jet platform. That is, if those platforms are still survivable at all.

It can be directed from a radar track but that isn't a requirement. The EODAS on the F-35 is notable in that it scans everywhere all at once.

The exception to the scanning technique is the F-35's DAS, which stares in all directions simultaneously, and automatically detects and declares aircraft and missiles in all directions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AAQ-37_Electro-Optical_Distributed_Aperture_System

Edited July 11 by Vanir Ausf B

[dan/california]

Just now, Vanir Ausf B said:

It can be directed from a radar track but that isn't a requirement. The EODAS on the F-35 in particular is notable in that it scans everywhere all at once.

The exception to the scanning technique is the F-35's DAS, which stares in all directions simultaneously, and automatically detects and declares aircraft and missiles in all directions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AAQ-37_Electro-Optical_Distributed_Aperture_System

So gen 1 of a whole sky scan is already out there. My guess is that it will not be the last. I would love to know the power, weight requirements, and field of view of the F-35 system, but I suspect all of that is classified. It would be an ideal sensor package for a stealthy drone.

[Vanir Ausf B]

12 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I would love to know the power, weight requirements, and field of view of the F-35 system, but I suspect all of that is classified.

The field of view is 360°. I have no idea what it weighs.

[ArmouredTopHat]

 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Now enough of this “wait a minute” BS.

Pointing out that all might not be as it seems and that we have an incomplete dataset DURING AN ONGOING CONFLICT is not Bull**** and I would appreciate it if you stopped being so rude about it. I will not respond to you again if you continue to be this crass or downright dismissive.
 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

We have seen stats of hundreds of vehicle strikes, and more than a few reports like this one. The UA really had nothing but FPVs to hold off the RA last winter, and they did.

This is just not true at all. Stop acting like they had no shells at all, or ATGMs, or tanks, or infantry in the trenches. Did they rely more on FPVs just to constraints on artillery ammo? Absolutely. Was it the only thing holding back the Russians? Absolutely not. Ukraine still had to pay in blood for that moment of deprived aid. Assigning that heroic resistance just down to the drones is frankly insulting. They play a big part in things but are not the whole picture, as usual.

Gonna just paste this here from another forum because I am tired of saying the same thing again and again. I am not planning on returning to talk on the tank stuff given there was a request to stop talking about it. Even though people have since brought it up again:

"Regarding Ukraine and tank generations:
Both Russia and Ukraine employ old tanks, with modifications being rather ad-hoc and not an organized, modern technology-driven effort. Even the "new" Abrams, Leopard, and Challenger tanks are not really new. They're quite old, all of them, and even the most modern among them, at the year of their manufacture it could be argued that their development was lacking in scope. They are only considered "new" and better because western tech and doctrine allowed for higher quality equipment with higher survivability and ergonomics. But when it comes to dealing with an evolving threat, they were clearly not adapted, as such adaptations have to occur in parallel to the evolution of the threat, if not even preempt them. In this race, you have 2 armed forces racing for offensive technology while utilizing defensive equipment built for the threats of yesterday.

If we look at Gaza right now, we see that like Ukraine and Russia, Hamas (as does Hezbollah in Lebanon) too has drones of several types. In such environment jammers are less effective due to disruption of LoS by buildings, and the larger concentration of communications equipment limits the utility of noise jamming techniques. Yet we don't see footage like we do in Ukraine. No tanks blowing up, no drones chasing desperate troops. Nothing. IDF statistics put the number of total loss heavy AFVs at 2, with a total of 45 vehicles being hit, of which 38 needed repairs afterward. These are very low numbers for such intense fighting over 6 months and over 13,000 dead combatants on Hamas's side.
We've actually seen far more footage of Hamas running up to tanks, sticking charges on them, and running away, than drones. And it's not because they couldn't get their hands on drones.
The IDF were simply ready for such a threat. Within just a couple weeks they kitted out what was then said to be a brigade with drone hunting equipment, including the training necessary."

In short: drones are indeed massively  important but should not be viewed as a be all end all solution to everything. The fact that this opinion is somehow controversial is startling but hey ho. 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

We can leave the future to magical wizard 30mm guns and fairy dust

Its amazing how you decry things that are in early days when that's EXACTLY where drones were at the start of this war. We saw the evolution of civilian drones in recon roles, to grenade dropping, to FPVs (Though these had been seen before elsewhere) Yet were not allowed to point out that there might be counter developments made in place that could very well feature in this war? You consistently accuse me of narrow thinking, yet you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that someone smarter than either of us might come up with something credible just as they did with drones to begin with? Considering the matter closed as you think it is is literally the same head in the sand mentality you are accusing me of. I'm really getting to my limit with even taking the time to answer you when you continue to be this rude. 

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[chuckdyke]

13 hours ago, Carolus said:

Their replacements will be smaller, cheaper, lighter, but more numerous.

Like the Sherman in WW2 it was lighter and cheaper and there were a lot more of them. Nowadays tanks require a very skilled crew to man them and attrition warfare with them is not an option. Cheaper and lighter with no crew is the option I think. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

22 minutes ago, dan/california said:

So gen 1 of a whole sky scan is already out there. My guess is that it will not be the last. I would love to know the power, weight requirements, and field of view of the F-35 system, but I suspect all of that is classified. It would be an ideal sensor package for a stealthy drone.

I imagine its a big and expensive element of F-35, but the technology is now practical and in service. I can imagine it being utilised on a more wide scale, or at least its ideas of such in future platforms, both unmanned and otherwise. Its certainly the future for any air platform, despite what some Sprey advocates here might say

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

59 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

C’mon….seriously? You have held up a couple dozen Trophy uses by the IDF as “well proven operational effectiveness”

You claimed APS had no genuine demonstration of effectiveness in combat, which I disproved numerous times. I then made the reasonable assumption that based on the fact its been in service for over decade and the recent war performance that it should be classed as a well proven capability. What other criteria would there be?

Feel free to supply evidence of Trophy failing to work at your leisure and PM it to me. (The system not being on doesn't count) IDF have stated it has not been 100% though the reports are sketchy at best, yet they seem to be overall pleased with it. 

I wont respond to further Gaza war stuff as its not relevant in the first place. Just wanted to clarify someone mixing my words. 

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[chris talpas]

14 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Getting more Patriots is not going to guarantee that capability, unfortunately. The attack profile of Russian glide bombs is such, that in order to shoot down delivery aircraft, Patriots would have to be really close to the front, and vulnerable to Lancets, Iskanders, Orkans -  in fact all kinds of stuff. They could do some damage in ambush mode, but at a very significant risk.

Therefore I think that additional Patriot batteries are intended for another purpose, i.e  to protect more of Ukraine's interior, and they would be shooting down more arrows, just directed at other cities that Kiev or Odessa.

I’m not suggesting that shooting them from the sky is the only way to kill those archers.  Much like the escalation into launching strikes against Russian forces massing across the border have now become fair game, could one not declare air fields that have launched air strikes against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure in the last 1-3 months (pick a number based on your risk tolerance) are now allowable targets for western supplied weapons?  Naval platforms have been fair game and a number of missile platforms sits at the bottom of the Black Sea.

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

23 minutes ago, chris talpas said:

I’m not suggesting that shooting them from the sky is the only way to kill those archers.  Much like the escalation into launching strikes against Russian forces massing across the border have now become fair game, could one not declare air fields that have launched air strikes against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure in the last 1-3 months (pick a number based on your risk tolerance) are now allowable targets for western supplied weapons?  Naval platforms have been fair game and a number of missile platforms sits at the bottom of the Black Sea.

I entirely agree that a few Russian airbases need the ATACMS treatment. I really wish the Americans were not so spineless in this regard, and I am not hopeful for their future support either, at best we have a lukewarm support from Biden....or the whatever the hell insanity Trump will unleash. Either way we are really lacking that decisive US leadership that we have grown a little too dependant on. 

Can only hope the elections so far this year have set a trend...

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[chris talpas]

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Physics is a harsh mistress….

It’s what keeps us grounded.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

You claimed APS had no genuine demonstration of effectiveness in combat, which I disproved numerous times. I then made the reasonable assumption that based on the fact its been in service for over decade and the recent war performance that it should be classed as a well proven capability. What other criteria would there be?

Feel free to supply evidence of Trophy failing to work at your leisure and PM it to me. (The system not being on doesn't count) IDF have stated it has not been 100% though the reports are sketchy at best, yet they seem to be overall pleased with it. 

I wont respond to further Gaza war stuff as its not relevant in the first place. Just wanted to clarify someone mixing my words. 

The problem I have with you, and obviously The_Capt as well, is something I've already direct pointed out to you in our TankIsDead™ conversation.  And that is you have wildly different standards for evaluating data that conforms to your thinking than you do opposing it.

The_Capt's point, which you have not challenged BTW, is that you see a couple of molehill uses of Trophy and declare it's a smashing success.  The evidence that drones have changed modern warfare, on the other hand, is an entire mountain range by comparison.  And to this you don't say "open and shut case", but instead try to downplay it or even attempt to poke holes in the evidence that is pouring in.

It is not "rude" to point out this glaring difference in standards.  On the contrary, it is a valid criticism of how you conduct yourself in these sorts of debates.  To which you can either take a step back and question your own belief system or, as you have so far, become reflexively defensive.  I can't control how you respond, but expecting people not be critical of you when they feel it is justified isn't a great way to go IMHO.

Steve