How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, JonS said:

Huh. Curious.

I've been working under the assumption that you're a fan of The Golden Rule.

And yet, here you are, demanding that others not do unto you as you regularly do unto them.

Assumption: shattered.

Oh my, you will of course back that up. Or is this another drive by?

Miscommunications are understandable. Reducing my analysis and assessment to an absurd level, when I in fact never stated it, is not. 

And considering how many times you have painted me with the "UAS orgy" brush, I am not sure you are in a position to be quoting Golden Rules or feigning vapors. Normally, I am willing to write it all off for forum rumble follies, but that last one was pretty egregious and frankly becoming a trend that needed to be addressed. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

26 minutes ago, JonS said:

Huh. Curious.

I've been working under the assumption that you're a fan of The Golden Rule.

And yet, here you are, demanding that others not do unto you as you regularly do unto them.

Assumption: shattered.

Its funny to see that from the same guy who loudly declared me to be a stooge of Rheinmetall and blocked me because I dared offer another opinion. 

Rules for thee and not for me I suppose. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:45 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

Meanwhile: SK is not pleased at all. 

This could very well all turn out to Ukraine's advantage, as South Korea has significant capabilities it could offer should they escalate support. Its artillery arsenal alone is significant, alongside their missile technology. South Korea is also quite generous with technology sharing as well, as seen with the Polish acquisition of K2. The west has sent missiles, but not the ability to manufacture them. South Korea would likely hold no such qualms based on their previous actions. 

I suspect they are sensing real opportunity here that western arms companies have been too timid to take advantage of. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:49 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[cesmonkey]

 

 

[poesel]

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Well you see, ISR signatures depend a lot on the levels of energy being pushed out into the environment. So it will depend on several factors. The power of the laser, its frequency of use and what it is standing next to. You clearly are having trouble understanding that any target on the battlefield is not "hard or easy" to detect, they have a dynamic profile based on numerous factors. So, if this were some monster high energy laser popping off every few seconds...that would make it easier to detect. If it is low energy dazzler system hiding in a bush on its own, only firing and then quickly relocating...it will be much harder to detect. Better?

A bit condescending, isn't it? Now we get into semantics, but of course detection probability is not either 0 or 1. It is a number in between. It is not unreasonable to apply the word 'hard' to p < 0,1 and "easy" to p > 0,9 for example.
That number may change depending on the action of the unit. But I have never implied otherwise.

 

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I made viable assumptions based on what the article actually said. The article is clearly weak and misleading in some places. We should probably wait for more information.

I don't think you did, and this is why I challenged your assumptions.

 

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

You definitely mis-cited me and it sounded deliberate. It is an Internet game when you don't have any actual facts. You inferred that I am proposing that every vehicle on the battlefield can be seen "from space". As I described in the response above...it depends. A platform continually pumping out EW energy is going to light up like a light bulb. A sky gun, or worse troop of them, blazing away at 50 drones swarming them, are also going to get lit up very quickly. Hell, a troop of tanks pumping out heat and noise are going to have a tough time of it. But this does not mean every motorcycle or single vehicle hiding in a treeline is going to be seen from space - that is projecting absurd hyperbole to try and discredit my stated opinions.

It was your idea to place the laser (in this discussion) on the ground, not mine. Before that, we talked about plane to missile or plane to plane action.

If you are already being attacked by 50 drones, you don't need to be afraid to give away your position by firing your laser.

And a 1,6kW laser - even if it would only produce heat - has less than a tenth of the IR signature of a motorcycle. Of course, there is also the vehicle that carries the laser.

For a better understanding, take the hp of your car. Multiply it by 0,72 and you have kW.
The 1,6kW laser is equal to a machine with 2,2hp. Compare.

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

But based on your questions about ISR; I do not think it was malicious or slanderous. I will retract that accusation. I think it was simple ignorance on your part. If our view of battlefield detection boils down to a digital "easy or hard" than you are likely missing the subtle nuances, possibly posed by the language barrier. In that case, I encourage you to go out and do some study on the subject.   

I think I already used condescending, and I'm too lazy to find a thesaurus for another word, so you just get that again.

I have a professional understanding of IR emissions in civil applications.
That detection is digital, is you putting words in my mouth.
What we discuss here is physics, no language barrier.
And I have in fact studied the subject.

There is a language barrier insofar as that I cannot come up with the proper words for a finish without being overly insulting. So I won't.

[CHARLIE43]

On FPV drones, I wonder if anyone has done experiments with using simple laser pointers to blind them. They got so bad with people pointing them at aircraft, the FAA made it illegal.

Lot more than just one, but it seemed to work.

 

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, CHARLIE43 said:

On FPV drones, I wonder if anyone has done experiments with using simple laser pointers to blind them. They got so bad with people pointing them at aircraft, the FAA made it illegal.

Lot more than just one, but it seemed to work.

 

 I suspect, and I grant you only suspect, that this has proven to be an excellent way to get a mortar shells dropped on you, or worse, prticuraly in an environment like Ukraine where there is almost never just one drone.

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

 I suspect, and I grant you only suspect, that this has proven to be an excellent way to get a mortar shells dropped on you, or worse, prticuraly in an environment like Ukraine where there is almost never just one drone.

What if its a swarm of drones doing the laser pointing? Would be cheap as hell given you only need a tiny drone capable of mounting a laser pointer.

Or just mount laser dazzlers on every vehicle around to dazzle any drone that does not survive an IFF check. 

[CHARLIE43]

11 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 I suspect, and I grant you only suspect, that this has proven to be an excellent way to get a mortar shells dropped on you, or worse, particularly in an environment like Ukraine where there is almost never just one drone.

Well, I suppose that it would only be a good idea if you have already been spotted and are being chased by one of those detonating thing-a-ma-bobs. At which point you blind it and then get hammered by arty anyway. IDK, just a thought.

[Kraft]

1 hour ago, poesel said:

than you are likely missing the subtle nuances, possibly posed by the language barrier

Hey, I reserve that right

--------------------

155th, after initial assault success in Kursk, cutting a large portion of km2 control, and as standard for this unit PoW executions, an overextention led to a successful counterattack and encirclement which consumed more than just what is mentioned in the picture.

Some captured claim to be convicts forced to fight, though probably to not be held accountable for their crimes.

Edited Tuesday at 10:57 PM by Kraft

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, poesel said:

A bit condescending, isn't it? Now we get into semantics, but of course detection probability is not either 0 or 1. It is a number in between. It is not unreasonable to apply the word 'hard' to p < 0,1 and "easy" to p > 0,9 for example.
That number may change depending on the action of the unit. But I have never implied otherwise.

Your exact question was “so which is it? Easy or hard?” In English this pretty clearly speaks to a position of absolutes. Further I was supposed to somehow decide on one in order to answer the question. That was your question. I tried to answer an overly simplistic question with a nuanced answer…and you appear to have taken insult. Again this could be language barrier but when you pose a question in such a way you are leaving little room for nuance. This is not a sign you have deep understanding.

2 hours ago, poesel said:

I don't think you did, and this is why I challenged your assumptions.

Ok, you are free to disagree but my assumptions were based on that article. The only assumption I made outside of it was 10kms…do you have a better assumed range of engagement? We could leave it open but in the end the article pretty clearly stated incorrectly that this system could destroy 100% of incoming missiles. My point was that if this were true, it would then be a considerable threat to AC themselves. You then took us on a weird journey of laser technology to somehow render such a system harmless to AC (“barely peel the paint”). This is a major assumption you made which I challenged…and frankly still challenge….given the information we had based on that article.

2 hours ago, poesel said:

It was your idea to place the laser (in this discussion) on the ground, not mine. Before that, we talked about plane to missile or plane to plane action.

If you are already being attacked by 50 drones, you don't need to be afraid to give away your position by firing your laser.

And a 1,6kW laser - even if it would only produce heat - has less than a tenth of the IR signature of a motorcycle. Of course, there is also the vehicle that carries the laser.

For a better understanding, take the hp of your car. Multiply it by 0,72 and you have kW.
The 1,6kW laser is equal to a machine with 2,2hp. Compare.

I am not sure what your point is here. I am not arguing that 1.6kw is low energy. In fact that was my primary factor in determining that it would be hard to detect. Being swarmed by drones in the future may well indicate already being detected. Unless of course the drones are fully autonomous and act like landmines. Regardless, you are definitely supporting my position with all this…thank you, I guess.

2 hours ago, poesel said:

I think I already used condescending, and I'm too lazy to find a thesaurus for another word, so you just get that again.

I have a professional understanding of IR emissions in civil applications.
That detection is digital, is you putting words in my mouth.
What we discuss here is physics, no language barrier.
And I have in fact studied the subject.

There is a language barrier insofar as that I cannot come up with the proper words for a finish without being overly insulting. So I won't.

Hey look, you posed the question “Easy or hard?” This demonstrates to me a lack of how detection works on the modern battlefield. I do not doubt your civilian qualifications here at all. It is their application to military problems which is lacking in my opinion. You threw an accusation at me that somehow I claimed a single low energy laser could be “seen from space”. This is simply not true. I suspect you did so because you are somewhat challenged in understanding the modern battlefield. From your question all detection is “easy or hard” in your opinion. Ok, tried to explain and now understand that you don’t fully understand. No shame in this. Go forth and get smarter on the subject, I know I will try on my end. [Aside: didn’t you accuse me of getting huffy when someone points out one of my gaps in knowledge? Ironic?]

Edit: We have probably done this enough on the main thread. If you want to follow up, I suggest we do this thru DMs.

Edited Tuesday at 11:42 PM by The_Capt

[JonS]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Oh my, you will of course back that up.

A start point would be that post.

For further examples, try here;

"considering how many times you have painted me with the "UAS orgy" brush, I am not sure you are in a position to be quoting Golden Rules or feigning vapors."

I'm not 'feigning vapours.' I'm telling you; I see how you distort and trivialise and misrepresent myself and others. I will continue to apply the golden rule, and treat you how you treat others.

You're a smart guy, but I'm not convinced you're smart enough to realise that you arent the only smart one here.

Edited Tuesday at 11:47 PM by JonS

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, JonS said:

A start point would be that post.

For further examples, try here;

 

So your evidence is this last exchange and the entire Hot Thread..all 3800 plus pages and the hundreds of posts I have done during this war? Well once again your superior debating skills have won out. The precision and concise summary of your position is truly breathtaking. 

Why don’t we unpack your contributions to this thread while we are in a reflection mood? Hmm, let’s see….quippy drive bys, a few inflammatory passes and of course that certain “too cool for school” charm. Here is a crazy idea, why don’t you use your experience and knowledge to help others understand this war better. Do some research, provide citations and facts and give some solid analysis. There is an enormous amount of misinformation out there and people with your expertise can help with that. Or, you know, you can keep heckling from the cheap seats…you do you.

 

[The_Capt]

30 minutes ago, JonS said:

I'm not 'feigning vapours.' I'm telling you; I see how you distort and trivialise and misrepresent myself and others. I will continue to apply the golden rule, and treat you how you treat others.

You're a smart guy, but I'm not convinced you're smart enough to realise that you arent the only smart one here.

Ah, a follow up. Hmm, well I like to think I try and give everyone a fair chance. Not sure where or how I misrepresented you specifically. I am as guilty as any with respect to strawmen…let he who has not throw the first hay bale.  Not sure what your quest for forum justice is all about.

I am well aware I am not the only smart person on this thread. I continue to learn from others all the time. My patience for unsupported opinion or loud voices weak on facts is low, I freely admit that one. I also have zero patience for outright mis/dis information thrown about to prop up opinion and special interest.

Here is a neat idea. Why don’t you go back thru the thread and count the number of times I have provided citations. I am a fan of facts, or at least as close as we can get to them. If someone wants to come on this thread and promote weak positions while offering little to no actual factual evidence to back it up…well I am definitely going to call them on it. Some stubbornly defend their opinions and continue to in a vacuum of facts, and I am more than willing to call them on that too.

What I do see is a small collection of disgruntled folks who have come on strong while being weak on actual evidence. I have called them on it and held their feet to the fire for their weak analysis and assessment. Some of these people now have an axe to grind. Feeling it necessary to come out of the woodwork to take sniper shots at me in some sort of weird evening of a score. My advice to all of them is 1) get over yourself, this is a bigger moment in history than your personal ego, 2) go do a better job of sourcing evidence and build a better argument, 3) don’t start with a conclusion and work backwards to evidence, do it the other way around. Use the evidence to build a conclusion. 4) good analysis creates the best questions…bring your questions.

I have lost count of the number of people on this thread who have done exactly this. Or they bring an observation and ask for clarification. This is good and mutually supporting discourse. But what we see is someone walking in here with “Well here is wot I think!” They get pushback. And then get all sulky because their personal opinion doesn’t hold water. 

Here is the thing about smart. I am smart enough to know that smart makes smarter. If I can help people understand this war better. Access better sources of information. Provide better perspectives and wider viewpoints. We are all getting smarter. But for some this is not about learning, it is about being right. There is no “right” here. This war is off the map, highly unpredictable and producing phenomena no one predicted. Good Lord, I have been wrong in all this as much as anyone. I did not believe Ukraine would last a week, let alone 2 and half years. I did not believe Russia would tolerate the eye watering losses and still be able to prosecute this war. I had no idea UAS and ISR would evolve this quickly in this war. Nor did I predict just how definitive denial would be. FFS what happened to the Black Sea Fleet is baffling.

So for those who want to suck their thumbs and pout at being caught out in being wrong…welcome to the club. Get over yourselves and try and keep up.  

[JonS]

23 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ah, a follow up.

Aye.

For two reasons - I'm writing on my phone which is an utter pita, especially for compositionally-complex posts. Plus this screen is a bit broken so there is a dead patch making composing posts even more frustrating :mad: In addition to that, I generally consider my posts to be works in progress - I often go back to fix spelling, fix grammar, improve sentence construction, amplify or clarify points, and so on. Thats why almost all my posts have the 'editted' tag. Including, now, this one

It's just a personal quirk, and not an attempted gotcha.

Edited Wednesday at 01:04 AM by JonS

[nposborn]

Boy do I love me some combat mission gaming discussions 

[Battlefront.com]

OK, has everybody worked whatever the Hell that was out of their respective systems?

As a related aside, "putting words in my mouth" is a common problem with complex topics being done by rapid fire written posts.  Most are honest misinterpretations or misunderstandings, not malicious attempts to win an argument that isn't even the thing being discussed (you know, what politicians do in debates).  It would be good for people to keep that in mind, as I've seen some of the people complaining about it now having done it to me (and others) not too many pages ago.  It's annoying for sure, but a correction and/or clarification is more useful than making a big deal about it.

Steve

[TheVulture]

The UK and Germany have signed a new defence co-operation agreement (the 'Trinity House Defence Agreement'). Notable features (some of which are clearly set up with Russia in mind) include:

• New Rheinmetal plant to manufacture artillery barrels to be built in UK
• A "broad range of collaborative defence projects across air, land, sea, space, and cyber domains"
• Cooperation on protecting critical underwater infrastructure, such as the seabed cables in the North Sea, through joint exploration of new undersea surveillance technologies
• German P-8 Poseidon aircraft will periodically operate out of RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland to help monitor and protect the North Atlantic
• Various other projects on maritime drones and "maritime uncrewed air systems", long range strike capabilty (to exceed the range and precision of Storm Shadow)

 

Not specifically Ukraine relevant, but definitely some future planning for the UK and Germany based on developments in Ukraine and in a shared interest in defending interests in the North Sea against Russian interference.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-and-germany-sign-trinity-house-defence-agreement/

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

Spectacular direct hit on a Russian tank via M777, which then drives straight into a deep crater. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

Pretty interesting dataset that maintains the trend of FPVs being especially lethal to abandoned vehicles to prevent recovery. Absurd IFV losses in particular. 

Most artillery losses being inflicted by FPV drones is also an interesting datapoint. 

Edited Wednesday at 09:12 AM by ArmouredTopHat

[Carolus]

Slow progress on the economic front, the Western blockade having more leaks than a sieve, but progress is made nonetheless.

 

[Lieutenant Ash]

Putin hosts 36 global leaders at Brics summit

04:30 , Alisha Rahaman Sarkar

China’s Xi Jinping, India’s Narendra Modi and other world leaders arrived yesterday in the Russian city of Kazan for a summit of the Brics bloc of developing economies that the Kremlin hopes to turn into a rallying point for defying Western influence in global affairs.

For Russian president Vladimir Putin, the three-day meeting also offers a powerful way to demonstrate the failure of US-led efforts to isolate Russia over its actions in Ukraine.

Kremlin foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov called it “the largest foreign policy event ever held” by Russia, with 36 countries attending and more than 20 of them represented by heads of state.

The alliance that initially included Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa has expanded rapidly to embrace Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Turkey, Azerbaijan and Malaysia have formally applied to become members, and a few others have expressed interest in joining.

Observers see the Brics summit as part of the Kremlin’s efforts to showcase support from the Global South amid spiraling tensions with the West while expanding economic and financial ties.

Meeting of Axis powers, sorry, BRICS, to further plans for world domination.

[Lieutenant Ash]

Turkey has quietly stopped the export of certain Western-made goods to Russia that could be used in weapons production, according to the Financial Times, citing anonymous sources familiar with the situation.

Turkish customs officials are now preventing the shipment of more than 40 categories of U.S.-origin "battlefield goods" to Russia.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/turkey-secretly-stops-exports-of-key-military-goods-to-russia/ar-AA1sLVAO?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=3f737c14d5624273b8939873d7bc5ab3&ei=195

Sanctions are tightening on Russia.

[Lieutenant Ash]

Poland has ordered the closure of one of Russia’s consulates and expelled its staff, citing Moscow’s involvement in sabotage and cyberwarfare activities.

In a statement, Poland’s foreign ministry announced that Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski had revoked permission for the Russian consulate in Poznań to operate.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/poland-expels-russian-diplomats-and-shuts-consulate-over-sabotage-plot/ar-AA1sLour?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=b7cff19cd1ed49b788b4ea260275720c&ei=24

Diplomatic consequences for Russian sabotage attempts in Poland.

[poesel]

12 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Your exact question was “so which is it? Easy or hard?” In English this pretty clearly speaks to a position of absolutes. Further I was supposed to somehow decide on one in order to answer the question. That was your question. I tried to answer an overly simplistic question with a nuanced answer…and you appear to have taken insult. Again this could be language barrier but when you pose a question in such a way you are leaving little room for nuance. This is not a sign you have deep understanding.

Ok, you are free to disagree but my assumptions were based on that article. The only assumption I made outside of it was 10kms…do you have a better assumed range of engagement? We could leave it open but in the end the article pretty clearly stated incorrectly that this system could destroy 100% of incoming missiles. My point was that if this were true, it would then be a considerable threat to AC themselves. You then took us on a weird journey of laser technology to somehow render such a system harmless to AC (“barely peel the paint”). This is a major assumption you made which I challenged…and frankly still challenge….given the information we had based on that article.

I am not sure what your point is here. I am not arguing that 1.6kw is low energy. In fact that was my primary factor in determining that it would be hard to detect. Being swarmed by drones in the future may well indicate already being detected. Unless of course the drones are fully autonomous and act like landmines. Regardless, you are definitely supporting my position with all this…thank you, I guess.

Hey look, you posed the question “Easy or hard?” This demonstrates to me a lack of how detection works on the modern battlefield. I do not doubt your civilian qualifications here at all. It is their application to military problems which is lacking in my opinion. You threw an accusation at me that somehow I claimed a single low energy laser could be “seen from space”. This is simply not true. I suspect you did so because you are somewhat challenged in understanding the modern battlefield. From your question all detection is “easy or hard” in your opinion. Ok, tried to explain and now understand that you don’t fully understand. No shame in this. Go forth and get smarter on the subject, I know I will try on my end. [Aside: didn’t you accuse me of getting huffy when someone points out one of my gaps in knowledge? Ironic?]

Edit: We have probably done this enough on the main thread. If you want to follow up, I suggest we do this thru DMs.

I'll ignore the drivel and stick to the facts that are relevant to this thread.

Military and civilian physics are the same.

The system as advertised in the article will have a very limited range of probably hundreds of meters. This could be extended by using a more powerful laser, but whoever designed this has most likely put in some thoughts on diminishing returns and chosen this power. From this, physics dictates what it can do or not, even if we don't know the specifics of the system.

Measuring IR is a bit like collecting water in buckets (each bucket a pixel). You wait a while, measure the water level (thereby deriving the energy), empty the buckets and repeat. The laser has much more specific power than natural sources (including jet engines) from radiation. This will immediately fill all buckets, effectively blinding the sensor. It is possible, that the laser even permanently damages or destroys the sensor.
If the missile looses track during that time, it is defeated.

Against aircraft directly, distance is the most problematic. In modern air battles, the opponents seldom have each other in viewing distance.
Let's assume we somehow ended up in a close up dogfight.
Could the laser blind the pilot? If he looked into it with the naked eye, the answer is probably yes. But, IIRC, blinding weapons are forbidden, and the pilot has a canopy and a visor. Any of them could (can?) block IR.
Apart from the pilot's eyes, only the IR sensors on the IR missiles are susceptible to IR blinding.

In a ground role, this system would be much less useful. The range would limit it to objects flying <1000m (a guess). Then you need to find and track that object with precision (at this point, you could as well use a kinetic weapon to destroy it). Then the object needs to have an IR sensor which needs to look halfway into your direction.
May be useful but makes you very detectable. Normal digital cameras are very good at detecting IR (try to point a remote IR into your camera, and you will see the red point).

I don't have to add anything more to this discussion. But at least I learned something new about laser optics.

 

P.S.:  IR sensors are relatively old tech. Giving the recent improvements in image recognition, I wonder how soon we will see missiles that track in visible light.