How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, poesel said:

Given the limited range of lasers, I don't think that will ever be an issue.

Those lasers are defensive weapons. You shoot them at missiles coming directly at you and with all sensors looking at you. Blinding/destroying those sensors is comparably easy in that situation/orientation.
The same laser shot at the side of an aircraft will probably not even peel the paint off.

"The Ministry of Defence announced yesterday that new 'air protection lasers' had destroyed 100 per cent of their targets in a live firing trial in Sweden.

The Miysis system is capable of picking out incoming missiles, tracking them and firing a jamming laser with 'ultimate precision'.

'Threats are defeated faster than the time it takes to read this sentence,' the MoD said in a statement, heralding the success of pioneering tech produced in the UK.

Earlier this year the UK successfully tested its DragonFire laser directed energy weapon in Scotland, able to 'engage' and 'cut through' targets 'at the speed of light'."

So you are saying that a low energy jamming laser capable of hitting the nose of a missile coming at them at Mach 2.5+ would be unable to target the sensor systems of an aircraft moving at half that speed?

Of course if this low energy system is only hitting the sensors, can those sensors not also be protected relatively easily? Once they do that, these lasers would barely peel the paint on the side of a missile either then.

Any system that can track, target and engage/destroy a Sidewinder 10kms away, can do the same to an airplane from the ground. As can any super laser than can swat ballistics missiles. In fact such a system would become the premier AD system on the planet overnight as it blinds everything we have in the air.  

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Worth pointing out the that fifth generation fighters are made from fancy and delicate carbon fiber, with fancy and delicate stealth coatings. The counterpoint is that lasers diffuse over distance in the atmosphere, a lot. It remains to be seen where this balance shakes out. A laser breakthrough essentially obsoleting everything in the sky may not be likely, but it isn't completely out of the realm of possibility, either.

The article specifically mentions "jamming laser". If it can hit multiple missiles in the air moving 2-3 times the speed of sound, it can hit aircraft sensors as well. Even at an engagement range of 10-15 kms these things could mess up any fighter flying overhead. 

We could protect the sensors on the aircraft, but of course we could on the missiles as well.

[billbindc]

Russian leadership update: https://inmoscowsshadows.buzzsprout.com/1026985/episodes/15954930-in-moscow-s-shadows-171-the-invisible-and-invidious-sergei-korolev-perhaps-the-next-head-of-the-fsb

[mosuri]

7 hours ago, poesel said:

Shahed hunter drone:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/10/20/anti-drone-ukraine-iranian-kamikazes-russia/

And some vids:

 

The Shaheds are the first obvious first choice because they are large, relatively slow and Russia produces about 6000 of them per year.
But I don't see a reason those hunters won't be used against Zaras, Orlans etc... in the future.
The experience gained will be used to develop something against even smaller quads.

Live arms race.

Design reminds me of a recent "world's fastest drone" that was constructed by essentially a guy in a shed.

No shame in copying a good design!

Edited Monday at 05:24 PM by mosuri
edit: added video link

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/russia-ukraine-democracy-applebaum/680318/?gift=EfZj9ZzhPSMYFCY8XmoQ2ZTe0exbGPGE-NkZPf2nv6U&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

We can use some of these words once again. Many of those in Germany, and in Europe, who now call for pacifism in the face of the Russian onslaught are indeed “objectively pro-Russian,” to borrow Orwell’s phrase. Their arguments, if followed to the logical conclusion, mean that we should acquiesce to the military conquest of Ukraine, to the cultural destruction of Ukraine, to the construction of concentration camps in Ukraine, to the kidnapping of children in Ukraine. We are nearly three years into this war. What would it have meant to plead for peace in Nazi-dominated Europe in early 1942?

 

Link shuld work for everybody, I think...

 

[kimbosbread]

2 hours ago, acrashb said:

Which leaves, I think, Opportunity. Given Russia's ongoing aversion to direct NATO involvement, removing opportunity would mean that a state must belong to a strong defense alliance. Furthermore, this alliance should effectively signal that no opportunity exists—not even for a slice-and-hold strategy.

No, we need a long term strategy, and the strategy is called “Delenda est”. Every female Russian under 25 gets a visa to the west. Don’t announce it officially, but just toss out some rumors.

The beauty of this is there are no weapons needed, and Russia’s demographics are already catastrophic, but we could finish them off in a generation, permanently. Obviously we should be doing the same with Iran and China, as their demographics are similarly bad.

[JonS]

 

N/m ... interface shenanigans 

Edited Monday at 06:11 PM by JonS

[CHARLIE43]

8 hours ago, The_Capt said:

With all due respect to the General, NATO official views on Russia after this war are political. NATO as a military alliance is highly invested in Russia remaining a credible threat. There is significant funding being allocated to that threat from all nations, and no small drive from the US to pressure alliance members into more spending. For all that to make sense, Russia has to remain a major threat.

Keep in mind no small amount of Defence industry comes from a few key national players of which the US is the largest arms supplier on the planet by far. So there are national interests at play as well in this military funding drive:

https://www.statista.com/chart/18417/global-weapons-exports/

So what? Well when it comes to intent, clearly Russia will remain a threat. Even if we get a Putin switch out, the next regime is likely to remain disruptive and pushing back. Further the Russia that comes out of this war may very well become a Chinese satellite state, effectively becoming the western front in a bipolar global power struggle. As to capability, this is where things get a bit more complicated. Strategically, Russia still has a powerful Air Force and Navy (even with the neutering of the Black Sea Fleet) and let’s not forget its nuclear arsenal - even with this sh#tshow, Russia remains a Great Power.

Russia’s land forces are by far the most depleted and eroded by this war. Here the General is kinda playing along the line. The RA is gaining experience and adapting, but it is also hemorrhaging. We just saw a few posts where the casually rates were extremely high. One needs only to go over to Oryx to see the scrapyard the RA has become. Further, sanctions and economic pressures are making rebuilding of a viable land force harder (kinda the point). My best guess is the RA is a ten year problem for Russia to fix at this point, at least. And this is assuming they can muster the funds. So by the end of this war the Russian Army will not be “stronger”. It may very well be larger as more and more conscripts and recruits are pulled in, but its equipment losses are outstripping production and even refurbishment. The losses in experienced people is brutal (we have seen more than one report of drone specialist being fed into assaults) and will take time to replace.

So qualitatively the RA has been broken and will likely remain so for a decade. Quantitatively, it might grow “stronger” but that is kinda reaching. Is Russia going to remain a major threat for NATO - well that is kinda a foregone conclusion really because NATO really needs it to remain a major threat.

I'm confused here. If this is all true, and Russia is no longer a real threat to NATO for 10 years, and it's all completely political wasteful spending, wouldn't that actually give credence to Trump in his wanting to "draw down or defund NATO"? It's almost as if you're making his case for him in this aspect, unless I'm missing something.

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, CHARLIE43 said:

I'm confused here. If this is all true, and Russia is no longer a real threat to NATO for 10 years, and it's all completely political wasteful spending, wouldn't that actually give credence to Trump in his wanting to "draw down or defund NATO"? It's almost as if you're making his case for him in this aspect, unless I'm missing something.

Well it makes sense if one has Trump’s strategic acumen and focus - which is roughly that of an incontinent cocker spaniel.

So I did a long post on the realities of military force development a few pages back. Ten years is a single strategic bound. If Russia is going to be struggling to rebuild into a strategic threat…and they very likely will, then the race is one to make sure we have advantage for whatever direction that threat goes. That means planning and spending now to get the deterrence we need in a decade. Drawing down or defunding is exactly what ill informed politicians do to try and score short term points but sacrifice future strategic options.

So while we need to invest in defence, it has to be smart investment and put priority on agility and modularity. The problem now is the loudest voices are either advocating gutting the one alliance mechanism we know will work in ten years. Or we have the MIC mouthpieces flashing up sexy corporate videos showing us yesterday’s solutions for tomorrow…for twice the price!

Russia will need a decade to get off its back foot as far as conventional military threats in land warfare are concerned. But that doesn’t mean we can dial back and suddenly wake up in ten years ready to go. Trump probably knows this but doesn’t care because all he is chasing is the next term and will say whatever he thinks his base wants to hear. 

Edited Monday at 06:25 PM by The_Capt

[CHARLIE43]

10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well it makes sense if one has Trump’s strategic acumen and focus - which is roughly that of an incontinent cocker spaniel.

So I did a long post on the realities of military force development a few pages back. Ten years is a single strategic bound. If Russia is going to be struggling to rebuild into a strategic threat…and they very likely will, then the race is one to make sure we have advantage for whatever direction that threat goes. That means planning and spending now to get the deterrence we need in a decade. Drawing down or defunding is exactly what ill informed politicians do to try and score short term points but sacrifice future strategic options.

So while we need to invest in defence, it has to be smart investment and put priority on agility and modularity. The problem now is the loudest voices are either advocating gutting the one alliance mechanism we know will work in ten years. Or we have the MIC mouthpieces flashing up sexy corporate videos showing us yesterday’s solutions for tomorrow…for twice the price!

Russia will need a decade to get off its back foot as far as conventional military threats in land warfare are concerned. But that doesn’t mean we can dial back and suddenly wake up in ten years ready to go. Trump probably knows this but doesn’t care because all he is chasing is the next term and will say whatever he thinks his base wants to hear. 

Ah, when I saw General Cavoli's statement, three things came to mind.

1. It was as you said, merely a warning to perpetuate the ongoing inflated MIC spending.

2. He is privy to intelligence that the average consumer of info isn't and is making a warning of such.

3. It was the prequel to what may be his farewell address to NATO when the election is over.

[danfrodo]

50 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

No, we need a long term strategy, and the strategy is called “Delenda est”. Every female Russian under 25 gets a visa to the west. Don’t announce it officially, but just toss out some rumors.

The beauty of this is there are no weapons needed, and Russia’s demographics are already catastrophic, but we could finish them off in a generation, permanently. Obviously we should be doing the same with Iran and China, as their demographics are similarly bad.

That is so brilliantly evil, leave RU a country with no young women.  Hats off to you on this.  Practical?  I dunno, but it's really clever.

[danfrodo]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The dream combo at work with the 47th. Seems they are more confident with using their M1s now

Whether tanks are dead or not, who cares when we at least get works of art like this.  

On serious level, I am always amazed at how short range the fighting often is in this war, even with armor involved.  It's literally rock-throwing distance.

[ArmouredTopHat]

12 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Whether tanks are dead or not, who cares when we at least get works of art like this.  

On serious level, I am always amazed at how short range the fighting often is in this war, even with armor involved.  It's literally rock-throwing distance.

Its a frequent occurrence in modern warfare, even as weapons gain greater and greater range, there is always some degree of close combat, even with vehicles. As you say though the Ukraine was has featured an absurd amount of close in footage with vehicles, far more than what I figured would be the case. Hence why in my view its important to have assets such as tanks that are best suited for it instead of squishier vehicles. 

 

[sburke]

if you can't fix it with a hammer, it must be an electrical problem

clearly this guy wasn't an electrical problem

Quote

 

A Russian air force commander blamed for a lethal attack on a shopping centre in Ukraine has been found bludgeoned to death with a hammer.

Ukraine’s military intelligence said that it had assassinated Col Dmitry Golenkov, a senior officer in Russia’s 52nd heavy bomber regiment, with the “hammer of justice”.

Golenkov was said to be behind one of the most egregious attacks on a civilian target of the war. Images of a rocket striking the shopping centre, and its aftermath, were circulated widely.

Ukraine said on Monday: “A Russian Tu-22M3 pilot has been liquidated on the territory of the Russian Federation. His head was smashed with a hammer.”

A video, shot at night, showed Golenkov’s body lying face down in shrubland, with his head covered in blood. He had been carrying a white plastic bag.

From his base in the neighbouring region of Kaluga, Golenkov ordered bombing missions to be flown over Ukraine.

One of his targets was the central Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk in June 2022, an attack that killed 22 people.

The shopping centre was full of shoppers on a Saturday afternoon at the time of the attack. Ukrainian officials said that there wasn’t a military target in the area.

Golenkov was also accused of being involved in a bombing raid in January 2023 against Dnipro in Ukraine that killed 46 people.

 

Russian commander blamed for Ukraine shopping centre attack killed with hammer

[The_Capt]

45 minutes ago, CHARLIE43 said:

Ah, when I saw General Cavoli's statement, three things came to mind.

1. It was as you said, merely a warning to perpetuate the ongoing inflated MIC spending.

2. He is privy to intelligence that the average consumer of info isn't and is making a warning of such.

3. It was the prequel to what may be his farewell address to NATO when the election is over.

Could be all three to be honest. I am not sure what secret plans Russia has but laying back and slowly fading like the Ottoman Empire probably isn’t on the list. They will be making trouble again soon enough but it probably won’t be how we think right now.

[The_Capt]

23 minutes ago, sburke said:

if you can't fix it with a hammer, it must be an electrical problem

clearly this guy wasn't an electrical problem

Russian commander blamed for Ukraine shopping centre attack killed with hammer

And then there was that sub commander out for a jog. Oh my, perhaps Ukraine is doing a Phoenix program of their own in this one.

[dan/california]

43 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Could be all three to be honest. I am not sure what secret plans Russia has but laying back and slowly fading like the Ottoman Empire probably isn’t on the list. They will be making trouble again soon enough but it probably won’t be how we think right now.

As I ponder the ever closer relationship between Russia and China, I wonder if the debt Russia is running up might high enough that Xi can request direct Russian military help with Taiwan at some point. Russian subs helping to enforce a blockade come immediately to mind. As previously mentioned, the Chinese don't do anything for free.

 

Edited Monday at 08:13 PM by dan/california

[billbindc]

56 minutes ago, dan/california said:

As I ponder the ever closer relationship between Russia and China, I wonder if the debt Russia is running up might high enough that Xi can request direct Russian military help with Taiwan at some point. Russian subs helping to enforce a blockade come immediately to mind. As previously mentioned, the Chinese don't do anything for free.

 

That would not be a money decision.

[dan/california]

13 minutes ago, billbindc said:

That would not be a money decision.

No, not really, but it doesn't seem like an impossible situation either. They seem to be slowly but surely merging into an authoritarian blob. With North Korea and Iran as extra tumors.

[FancyCat]

On 10/18/2024 at 7:24 PM, The_Capt said:

Ok, and what are you basing this belief in? Russia has spent coming up on 600k casualties, likely 100k dead. They keep throwing resources and men at this problem well past the point we ever would. So what Western escalation are you talking about? What evidence do you have Russia will “back down” in the face of it? Further, what evidence do you have Russia might not simply escalate further in the face of Western escalation?

I mean your theory of success appears to be to shorten this war and force Russia into a favourable peace (for us and Ukraine). The main way to do this is through accelerating Western escalation. Yet at the same time you highlight Russian escalation. So beyond a really dangerous game of strategic chicken, what exactly are you proposing? Your strategy feels like threading one helluva dangerous needle without any real substantive lines.

And there are other way here other than “doves”. The US and West appear to be pursuing a slow compressing and containing strategy. You clearly are not a fan of this strategy, you have made this clear repeatedly. So, ok, what are we talking about here? How do we escalate Russia out of this thing while 1) keeping this war in a box and not have it escalate out of control, 2) not outstrip our own political will, and 3) not have Russia completely implode? 

My position is that you can not employ a sudden shock escalation and keep all three of those strategic elements in balance or in our favour. We don’t know the Russian redlines,  or do we know when they will blink. Based on what they have demonstrated in willpower to prosecute this war we already know that this will take a lot more than a few more tanks, ATACMs or even strikes into Russia. What escalation can scare Russia into tapping out, yet at the same time not drive them into full national mobilization and what comes next?

What I have seen from you in the past is a lot of hand waving on the strategic risks. A lot of “poo poo” on any idea that Russia may just dig in harder or push back in an escalation response we cannot handle. You paint a picture that if we just did X, Russia would tap out and come to the negotiating table meekly. You need to stop the chest thumping and hand waving and spell out what that looks like.

Quote

Apologies for the delay in responding, im putting it in quotes to hide the length. 

The main reason why I'm a proponent of Western escalation is when we look at the Russian position and their viewpoint for succeeding in Ukraine, we find that Russia is counting on 1. the West being deterred from supporting Ukraine due to risk of Russian escalation, 2. belief that Russia can outlast Ukraine and Western aid. 

I think it's important to emphasize why Putin invaded Ukraine in the manner he did, and the context around it, to recall that his invasion of Ukraine was beyond most foreign policy thinking, that it was designed to send a big message worldwide on Western decline, and that Putin regards the Ukrainian state as a minor entity, something for great powers to haggle over, and he definitely regards Western motivation on Ukraine to be weaker than Russian will to seize Ukraine. 

I do want to point out my viewpoint on Russian victory and Western victory is probably not of your own opinion, but the important thing for my viewpoint on the West achieving a victory is countering Russian narratives and Russian goals, that means whatever the damage to Russian economy, their military, the essential point for Western victory is achieving the goals opposing Russian goals, Ukraine needs to enter the EU, NATO, it needs to be able to get out of this conflict without being forced into a unfavorable deal by great power haggling vs their own decision making, the emphasis by the West on Ukraine leading on peace talks is in direct opposition to Russia and how its been acting via its own overtures, none of which are aimed at talking to Ukraine and are focused on great power negotiations. I also think that scenarios where Ukraine does not enter the EU or NATO are clear defeats for Ukraine and the West and still empower Russia in the degrading of the Western led international order (middle of the ground would be EU membership, no NATO, Ukraine keeps the military and ability for foreign support but NATO never enters Ukraine). I know you disagree, but moving on. 

Running back to Russian viewpoints, "How do we escalate Russia out of this thing while 1) keeping this war in a box and not have it escalate out of control, 2) not outstrip our own political will, and 3) not have Russia completely implode?"

I find this to be the wrong thing to ask as first, We should be asking, How do we tell Russia to give up on Ukraine? How do we emphasize that to Russia that the goal of seizing Ukraine is beyond their ability? (I know the West thinks its impossible, now its time to ask how do we convince Russia?) How do we empower Ukraine to the point where Putin and Russia understands that seeking peace is not about Ukraine but with Ukraine? Finally, we should ask how does Putin ensure the survival of his Russian state without the defeat of the West and Ukraine (as i defined above) and what can we do to make that the outcome of this conflict?

It is important to double back and consider again that Putin picked the most extreme, most escalating action via the full scale invasion of Ukraine, in picking the most extreme action and not something most analysts expected, like action in the Donbas, he has forced the West's hand, prior to the invasion, if I remember correctly, on the table was neutrality for Ukraine. This ladder the West and Russia are climbing since 2014, Russia made the first leaps, Russia made the biggest leap in 2022, the framing of the West being on the steering wheel entirely is eh, there's major nuance.  

Russia has been relying on Western disregard for Ukraine (since 2014 and 2022 especially their goals for seizing Ukraine are based on seeing Western indifference and deterrence to Russia), for Western motivation to weaken, for Western political tides to turn in their favor, for time itself to pass, their goals despite their most extreme action in 2022 has not lowered, not wavered despite many setbacks, despite all the restraint by the West and despite the significance of Ukrainian resistance, and increase in Western aid, it is approaching the time to ask, are we convincing Russia that Ukraine is out of their reach or are we prolonging their "delusion"? As for what could get Russia to that point?

Billion dollar question. As for the answers, they are varied, they all carry some form of escalation risk, they all carry some form of political cost for the West or Ukraine, but I disagree that Russia is close to imploding, more importantly, we shouldn't be asking if Russia will implode, we should be asking what Putin will do to avoid Russia imploding? The reason why I ask this is, why is Russia still pursuing these goals? Either he thinks they are more attainable than the West does, or hes stuck with these goals, I mean sure Putin can suggest Russian defeat will cause his overthrow, but their refusal to mobilize indicates there is rope for him to burn, it also indicates he may be overthrown for going too far in pursuit of victory instead of say, being overthrown for not going far enough. And there are incentives for the West to offer for Russia to concede Ukraine's entrance to the EU and NATO that would prevent economic ruin if the price is right. And frankly, its entirely in Putin's mindset to think the West would be able enough to lift sanctions whatever Ukraine's protests.

As for their appalling casualties as a indicator of their will to succeed and sacrifice resources, we need to balance it with the fact Russia is still basically using volunteers or reservists, shied away from draftees, their society isn't really screaming about the unfairness of the poor and minorities dying and sure government repression is occurring, but we are concerned with Russia imploding when we really should be more concerned with ensuring Ukraine is able to continue. Anyone have estimates on Russia's electric output vs expectation for winter? Will Russians freeze as a result of UKR drone attacks? Meanwhile, unless Ukraine has gotten better news, they are facing the winter with severe power shortages. 

Terror does not work sure, except terror worked well enough in Syria, worked well in Chechnya, a key aspect of their goals is based on Western decline in caring about what happens to Ukraine, and ignoring terror inflicted on Ukrainians is how Russia tells itself it will win. 

Now, im not saying we need to escalate and hit and quickly, my point is to emphasize that the West should be more thinking about how to end this, prolonging it is not in Western interests, now i think the 2024 election will be a essential factor, we may well see Russia concede their most delusional demands depending on the election outcome. It may be the play was always 2024 and if that fails, Russia will drop the most idiotic demands, if the expectation is another 4 years of Western aid. (In which case, maybe the Western strategy of caution worked out)

 

Edited Monday at 09:57 PM by FancyCat

[poesel]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

"The Ministry of Defence announced yesterday that new 'air protection lasers' had destroyed 100 per cent of their targets in a live firing trial in Sweden.

The Miysis system is capable of picking out incoming missiles, tracking them and firing a jamming laser with 'ultimate precision'.

'Threats are defeated faster than the time it takes to read this sentence,' the MoD said in a statement, heralding the success of pioneering tech produced in the UK.

Earlier this year the UK successfully tested its DragonFire laser directed energy weapon in Scotland, able to 'engage' and 'cut through' targets 'at the speed of light'."

So you are saying that a low energy jamming laser capable of hitting the nose of a missile coming at them at Mach 2.5+ would be unable to target the sensor systems of an aircraft moving at half that speed?

Of course if this low energy system is only hitting the sensors, can those sensors not also be protected relatively easily? Once they do that, these lasers would barely peel the paint on the side of a missile either then.

Any system that can track, target and engage/destroy a Sidewinder 10kms away, can do the same to an airplane from the ground. As can any super laser than can swat ballistics missiles. In fact such a system would become the premier AD system on the planet overnight as it blinds everything we have in the air.  

The quoted article gives no numbers apart from the 100% destruction rate. Was that 1/1 or 10/10? We don't know that and at what kind of targets they actually shot.
We also aren't told the engagement range, so I don't know from where you got the 10km from.

Since the system is compared to flares, I guess it is a much, much shorter range. Which makes sense if you factor in the dissipation of laser energy in the air and the difficulties of aiming at such a small target from a moving platform.

The article also doesn't mention the type of laser. But since you want to blind a missile with an IR seeker, an IR laser would make sense. Protecting the IR sensor from an IR laser would mean blocking IR - making the sensor useless.

About using that system against another plane: maybe if you are in a tight dogfight and the enemy sensor is pointed towards your laser. But are dogfights really a thing anymore (apart from movies)? I guess most is BVR now and pilots see each other only on the radar.

And ground based super lasers? Is that really a proposal from you? IIRC, you would predict instadeath by space ISR & drones for such an expensive stationary system.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

 

Ok, well you took a long road there…and still never really answered the question. I mean we agree on the strategic ends: Ukraine territorial integrity secured, entry into the Western sphere through both economic and military alliances - you forgot Russian reparations as a pre-condition to renormalization. We likely disagree on territorial end states and you glance off why. We may be able to convince Russia to give this all up if we Korean Peninsula this thing. If we are demanding Russia pull back to pre-2014 lines, that is simply a non-starter for Putin and likely a lot of Russians by this point. The amount of damage needed to be done to Russia in order to force a maximalist endstate would very likely mean a complete collapse of the Russian state by this point.

But you are still extremely vague on HOW. You have repeatedly expressed frustration at Western strategy. Often indicating that you think it too timid and slow. But you still have not outlined what right looks like. I think you are correct, we need to convince Russia that their maximalist ends for Ukraine are also unattainable. But how do we do that without escalating to a dangerous level? The only real way to make Ukraine totally unattainable to Russia is direct involvement by Western troops. Or more plainly put, we escalate this war outside of Ukraine’s control and take over direct opposition of Russia in-country.

But this could very well drive nationalism into Putin’s arms as from a Russian perspective this is exactly what they have been warned of. A totally mobilization of Russia with full population support is a bad case scenario. Any direct action, beyond raising the nuclear spectre, runs a serious risk of pulling into a major war with Russia, not by proxy but directly.  Even if I thought we could pull off a quick win (which I have reservations about) there is no political will for that sort of action. I doubt there is popular support for it either.

So every other variation of direct Western action is also likely off the table - no fly zones, Black Sea actions etc. We might get away with bilateral support and technical troop contributions, but so far no one has taken that step.

So what it left? Well pretty much what we are doing. Arming Ukraine and essentially backstopping their entire economy right now. We still have margins and can play with strategic strikes but we have an escalation ceiling. So what? Well you play the hand you have, not the hand you want. The strategy being pursued is pretty much the only one we have left. Contain, compress and outlast. We attrit and exhaust Russian will to a point they can come to terms with a ceasefire.

Seriously, really think this through, if you can come up with how we can escalate beyond what we are already doing and that will somehow convince Russia to toss it in…I am all ears. I know the easy answer is “give Ukraine all the guns” but Ukraine can only absorb and sustain so much. And as we are learning, our own capacity is limited.

I don’t think any major western power wants to “prolong this war”. It is extremely costly and high risk. Most parties in the West would much rather this whole thing went away. But there is no realistic way to end this war quickly. Russia is not going to suddenly realize it cannot possibly win if we only provide X. We can (and likely are) doing subversive stuff in the backfield but those things take time to stage and can still go sideways,

So here we are. A long war that is going to take endurance. No quick and easy way out. No shortcuts. We are one US election away from things going very poorly. If Harris wins we are more likely to see exactly what we are seeing now. Russia may see the light next year but they have definitely dug in their heels on this. 

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, poesel said:

The quoted article gives no numbers apart from the 100% destruction rate. Was that 1/1 or 10/10? We don't know that and at what kind of targets they actually shot.
We also aren't told the engagement range, so I don't know from where you got the 10km from.

Look up the Sidewinder, a good short range air to air missile. Max range is 25km, went with 10kms for a short range engagement well within its envelope. It is also giving benefit of the doubt on a low energy system. The AIM-120 has an operational range of 180kms and moves as Mach 4 but it would probably be unfair to ask a laser to go out that far.

14 minutes ago, poesel said:

The article also doesn't mention the type of laser. But since you want to blind a missile with an IR seeker, an IR laser would make sense. Protecting the IR sensor from an IR laser would mean blocking IR - making the sensor useless.

About using that system against another plane: maybe if you are in a tight dogfight and the enemy sensor is pointed towards your laser. But are dogfights really a thing anymore (apart from movies)? I guess most is BVR now and pilots see each other only on the radar.

And ground based super lasers? Is that really a proposal from you? IIRC, you would predict instadeath by space ISR & drones for such an expensive stationary system.

The article mentions “jamming lasers”, not sure what that is but apparently they “destroy” missiles. My point being any system that can hit the head of a short range air to air missile moving at Mach 2.5+ and “destroy it”, is likely also going to be able to hit the sensors onboard an aircraft. Hell with that resolution they could hit the pilot. You seem sure that somehow the aircraft would be protected, even though it flies much slower. My point being this system is going to likely make denial pressures worse, not better.

As to survivability, don’t be obtuse. As I have repeatedly stated current the ISR environment is lethal to any concentrations of forces. Concentrations above platoon level appear to create a signature that gets picked up and engaged well before it can produce results. This part is pretty much beyond debate. Further, having ground force units blazing away at the sky is a sure way to increase their detection probability.

A single or even two vehicle system firing whatever magic laser this thing is would be very hard to detect until they actually fire the thing. Even then, if it is very low energy but extremely precise it would be hard to detect. For anyone even remotely paying attention to this war the asymmetry of detection between forces that can deny, and forces required to breakthrough has been deterministic. And the Russians have thousands of dead to prove it.

In future, so we can keep the discussion civil, I would very much prefer it if you did not put words into my mouth. Particularly ones as grossly inaccurate as you just did.

[chrisl]

28 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Look up the Sidewinder, a good short range air to air missile. Max range is 25km, went with 10kms for a short range engagement well within its envelope. It is also giving benefit of the doubt on a low energy system. The AIM-120 has an operational range of 180kms and moves as Mach 4 but it would probably be unfair to ask a laser to go out that far.

The article mentions “jamming lasers”, not sure what that is but apparently they “destroy” missiles. My point being any system that can hit the head of a short range air to air missile moving at Mach 2.5+ and “destroy it”, is likely also going to be able to hit the sensors onboard an aircraft. Hell with that resolution they could hit the pilot. You seem sure that somehow the aircraft would be protected, even though it flies much slower. My point being this system is going to likely make denial pressures worse, not better.

As to survivability, don’t be obtuse. As I have repeatedly stated current the ISR environment is lethal to any concentrations of forces. Concentrations above platoon level appear to create a signature that gets picked up and engaged well before it can produce results. This part is pretty much beyond debate. Further, having ground force units blazing away at the sky is a sure way to increase their detection probability.

A single or even two vehicle system firing whatever magic laser this thing is would be very hard to detect until they actually fire the thing. Even then, if it is very low energy but extremely precise it would be hard to detect. For anyone even remotely paying attention to this war the asymmetry of detection between forces that can deny, and forces required to breakthrough has been deterministic. And the Russians have thousands of dead to prove it.

In future, so we can keep the discussion civil, I would very much prefer it if you did not put words into my mouth. Particularly ones as grossly inaccurate as you just did.

You can get a pulsed IR laser that will vaporize bits of rock with power from a dinky little 9V battery.  A rapid pulse rate could really make a mess of an array detector that's desigend to absorb IR.

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, poesel said:

The quoted article gives no numbers apart from the 100% destruction rate. Was that 1/1 or 10/10? We don't know that and at what kind of targets they actually shot.
We also aren't told the engagement range, so I don't know from where you got the 10km from.

Since the system is compared to flares, I guess it is a much, much shorter range. Which makes sense if you factor in the dissipation of laser energy in the air and the difficulties of aiming at such a small target from a moving platform.

 

45 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The article mentions “jamming lasers”, not sure what that is but apparently they “destroy” missiles. My point being any system that can hit the head of a short range air to air missile moving at Mach 2.5+ and “destroy it”, is likely also going to be able to hit the sensors onboard an aircraft. Hell with that resolution they could hit the pilot.

"Destroyed" is imprecise language by the article's author. The UK government press release uses the term "defeated", which is more accurate. Miysis is essentially an IR dazzler. Peak power draw is 1.3 kW. By way of comparison, the C-UAS laser on the DE Stryker is 26 kW, more than an order of magnitude difference. Given that I'd guess the range is fairly short.

The US Army already has a similar system (CIRCM) for it's helicopter fleet.

Edited Tuesday at 12:54 AM by Vanir Ausf B