How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sburke]

3 hours ago, dan/california said:

Also how long before the air to air drones don't have to do this the kamikaze way. This is the next step in the whole drone arms race. A big step, at that.

why up the expense if they are already effective as kamikaze?  What do you gain?  Making them more effective as kamikaze I could see, lock on capability or something like that, but why bother trying to add weight in the form of armaments?

[dan/california]

Estimates an Orlan cost $100,000, if you can kill them with ten thousand dollars suicide drones, instead of million dollar missiles with restricted manufacturing capacity that is a huge win. Couldn't find an estimate for a Zala in the time I had to look. I vaguely recall that they are more.

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, sburke said:

why up the expense if they are already effective as kamikaze?  What do you gain?  Making them more effective as kamikaze I could see, lock on capability or something like that, but why bother trying to add weight in the form of armaments?

Might not be a reason, but I would at least have a few people looking at it. If you could kill it with a some sort of recoilless shotgun set up, and the drone could carry five rounds. That would put your cost per kill down around ten bucks.

Heck for this application you could literally put two shotgun shells back to back in a barrel. it isn't like there is going to be anything behind it in normal usage. Literally just use a straight barrel with an electronic ignitor for the round. Identical mass and momentum in both directions

[sburke]

4 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Might not be a reason, but I would at least have a few people looking at it. If you could kill it with a some sort of recoilless shotgun set up, and the drone could carry five rounds. That would put your cost per kill down around ten bucks.

Heck for this application you could literally put two shotgun shells back to back in a barrel. it isn't like there is going to be anything behind it in normal usage. Literally just use a straight barrel with an electronic ignitor for the round. Identical mass and momentum in both directions

But now you have to aim and hit.  Plus added weight lowering range and loitering time.  Overall I think it is an attempt to make something that isn't needed.  Now if you could provide a capability where the operator could lock onto a target and then allow the drone to go autonomous, I think that would potentially increase the kill capability without an undue increase in weight.  It would also allow for less skilled operators to become more effective.

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, photon said:

This is the sort of tactical (rather than technological) innovation that the revolution in sensors produces. You can specialize not just things like "pilot", but things like, "last 50 feet pilot" and "overwatch pilot". And the training loop on that will be fast, because you can run real missions several times per day, much less simulated ones.

Absolutely.  Another aspect of unmanned systems that can't be easily matched, if at all, by manned systems.  You can also theoretically keep something in the air 24/7 with shift changes whenever you want.  "Yo, I have to go to the can.  Can you take over for 15 minutes?"  Can't very well do that sort of thing with manned systems.

The real innovation here is being able to spot and track the Russian fixed wing drones with sufficient precision to deploy a counter drone within its effective range.  That part is fairly easy As has been noted endless times here, the deployment can be as simple as a guy on a motorcycle.  No huge logistics tail that needs to be tamed in order for this to work.

Further, tying into the previous comment, the guy deploying the drone doesn't need to be the pilot.  If needed he can position a relay and the pilot can be safely tucked away in Lvov.  Or if that guy is busy, maybe the pilot in Odessa is free for a mission.  Or the guy in Kryvyi Rih.  Doesn't matter.  Think of all the logistics problems this solves.  Dispersed pilots who are located safely in the rear and yet can be used flexibly on a moment's notice no matter where the action is.  Oh, and it's a cheap capability to stand up and maintain.  But hey... let's by more $250m aircraft, eh?

Steve

[danfrodo]

55 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Absolutely.  Another aspect of unmanned systems that can't be easily matched, if at all, by manned systems.  You can also theoretically keep something in the air 24/7 with shift changes whenever you want.  "Yo, I have to go to the can.  Can you take over for 15 minutes?"  Can't very well do that sort of thing with manned systems.

Well, it's certainly very interesting to non-military folks to have 24/7 unmanned for some jobs.  I know because I do this now for a living.  Folks are very, very interested in this.

[hcrof]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Absolutely.  Another aspect of unmanned systems that can't be easily matched, if at all, by manned systems.  You can also theoretically keep something in the air 24/7 with shift changes whenever you want.  "Yo, I have to go to the can.  Can you take over for 15 minutes?"  Can't very well do that sort of thing with manned systems.

The real innovation here is being able to spot and track the Russian fixed wing drones with sufficient precision to deploy a counter drone within its effective range.  That part is fairly easy As has been noted endless times here, the deployment can be as simple as a guy on a motorcycle.  No huge logistics tail that needs to be tamed in order for this to work.

Further, tying into the previous comment, the guy deploying the drone doesn't need to be the pilot.  If needed he can position a relay and the pilot can be safely tucked away in Lvov.  Or if that guy is busy, maybe the pilot in Odessa is free for a mission.  Or the guy in Kryvyi Rih.  Doesn't matter.  Think of all the logistics problems this solves.  Dispersed pilots who are located safely in the rear and yet can be used flexibly on a moment's notice no matter where the action is.  Oh, and it's a cheap capability to stand up and maintain.  But hey... let's by more $250m aircraft, eh?

Steve

Watching the videos, the actual interception part seems pretty easy. And if you miss you can just try again, the FPV drone is so much more agile it can come in for as many passes as you need. 

Maybe the best system would be automated with the option of manual control if the computer misses a few times. 

But I am also of the opinion that a generic suicide drone is probably better than a specialized anti-drone platform if both can do the job equally well. It means you will always have one on hand and keeps logistics simple. $500-1000 is a lot more expensive than a $10 shotgun shell but how many fixed wing drones are you planning to take out anyway?

[Offshoot]

37 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Watching the videos, the actual interception part seems pretty easy.

I guess the trick is to approach in such a way that you are not seen on the target's camera so they can't start evasive maneuvers.

 

[hcrof]

27 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

I guess the trick is to approach in such a way that you are not seen on the target's camera so they can't start evasive maneuvers.

 

Also, you need to be out of the prop wash by the looks of things, so behind and from an angle is best. 

[poesel]

5 hours ago, sburke said:

But now you have to aim and hit.  Plus added weight lowering range and loitering time.  Overall I think it is an attempt to make something that isn't needed.  Now if you could provide a capability where the operator could lock onto a target and then allow the drone to go autonomous, I think that would potentially increase the kill capability without an undue increase in weight.  It would also allow for less skilled operators to become more effective.

 

59 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Watching the videos, the actual interception part seems pretty easy. And if you miss you can just try again, the FPV drone is so much more agile it can come in for as many passes as you need. 

Maybe the best system would be automated with the option of manual control if the computer misses a few times. 

But I am also of the opinion that a generic suicide drone is probably better than a specialized anti-drone platform if both can do the job equally well. It means you will always have one on hand and keeps logistics simple. $500-1000 is a lot more expensive than a $10 shotgun shell but how many fixed wing drones are you planning to take out anyway?

The economics of kamikaze vs recon drone are already very good (I guess at least 1:10), reusable is always better. Also, if the drone vs drone war really starts, kamikaze is always only 1:1.

Just take a look at what the guy below did (you need to scroll a bit into the video to see the shooting). Take a shotgun and remove everything but the chambers, hammer & spring. Or, as someone already mentioned here, loose hammer & spring and go electrical.
2 feet spread for 1 m range. You don't need to be a marksman to hit with that.
That is available tech, and now you have two shots on a reusable drone.
The biggest challenge I see is the recoil. You need to dampen that, or it will rip the drone apart.

Upgrade 1: make a purpose built chamber and ammo to save weight and optimize recoil.

Upgrade 2: auto- shoot - on the drone local software pulls the trigger as soon as the target aligns with the drone (after release from the pilot). Removes the round trip relay for the shooting.

I predict we will see something like that this year.

 

 

[hcrof]

39 minutes ago, poesel said:

 

The economics of kamikaze vs recon drone are already very good (I guess at least 1:10), reusable is always better. Also, if the drone vs drone war really starts, kamikaze is always only 1:1.

Just take a look at what the guy below did (you need to scroll a bit into the video to see the shooting). Take a shotgun and remove everything but the chambers, hammer & spring. Or, as someone already mentioned here, loose hammer & spring and go electrical.
2 feet spread for 1 m range. You don't need to be a marksman to hit with that.
That is available tech, and now you have two shots on a reusable drone.
The biggest challenge I see is the recoil. You need to dampen that, or it will rip the drone apart.

Upgrade 1: make a purpose built chamber and ammo to save weight and optimize recoil.

Upgrade 2: auto- shoot - on the drone local software pulls the trigger as soon as the target aligns with the drone (after release from the pilot). Removes the round trip relay for the shooting.

I predict we will see something like that this year.

 

 

That is a nice demo. I can see how you you do an electric recoilless version for a drone (no way a drone can take that recoil!). I guess the question then is if birdshot can reliably take out a slightly larger drone - it doesn't have much penetrating power in my (limited) experience so if you miss the propeller you might not kill it. Since quadcopters are all propeller they would go down easily but they would be harder to hit. 

Edited June 16 by hcrof

[poesel]

40 minutes ago, hcrof said:

That is a nice demo. I can see how you you do an electric recoilless version for a drone (no way a drone can take that recoil!). I guess the question then is if birdshot can reliably take out a slightly larger drone - it doesn't have much penetrating power in my (limited) experience so if you miss the propeller you might not kill it. Since quadcopters are all propeller they would go down easily but they would be harder to hit. 

The type of drones we talk about here are all small and light. They consist of wood and thin plastic sheets. So nothing that can be called armor. Birdshot would go right through it at this range. Btw, this is what I meant with purpose built ammo: the charge could be much smaller than in a normal shotgun since you don't need the range.

Apart from the propeller, there is so much on a plane that is a mission kill if it dies: control surfaces, electronics, fuel tank (neither battery nor gas like to be punctured), motor, radio, connecting tubes or rods - I guess if you manage to hit the body of a plane from behind with a shotgun-like round you will most certainly destroy something important.

And yes, recoilless would be the way to go.

Edited June 16 by poesel
typo

[hcrof]

1 hour ago, poesel said:

The type of drones we talk about here are all small and light. They consist of wood and thin plastic sheets. So nothing that can be called armor. Birdshot would go right through it at this range. Btw, this is what I meant with purpose built ammo: the charge could be much smaller than in a normal shotgun since you don't need the range.

Apart from the propeller, there is so much on a plane that is a mission kill if it dies: control surfaces, electronics, fuel tank (neither battery nor gas like to be punctured), motor, radio, connecting tubes or rods - I guess if you manage to hit the body of a plane from behind with a shotgun-like round you will most certainly destroy something important.

And yes, recoilless would be the way to go.

I know drones are not armoured but let's take an orlan 10 as an example. The body and wings are made of hard plastic (PVC?) maybe 2mm thick for stiffness. 

Those tiny birdshot pellets can penetrate maybe 15mm of flesh in my experience. I am not sure they can cause much damage even if they make it through 2mm of PVC but maybe someone with more shotgun experience can weigh in on this one. 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

10 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

eems Rheinmetall have some curious ideas with regards to what would otherwise be older / obsolete chassis. I certainly think such systems are going to be an immediate priority for many nations due to the conflict as at least a stopgap while considering long term solutions / force reorganisations. 

A dedicated anti-drone AA gun is a dead end IMHO. There are going to be too many drones. The only way to have some hope of battlefield effect if the anti-drone turret is the default one to be installed on, say, 80% IFVs so that the anti-drone action should becomes the primary task of most IFVs. Of course, the anti-drone  cannon retains some anti-vehicle and HE capability, just is not optimised for it (think of how German 20 mm FLAK was used during WWII). And the remaining 20% could get an automatic mortar or heavy ATGM turret. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

4 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

A dedicated anti-drone AA gun is a dead end IMHO. There are going to be too many drones. The only way to have some hope of battlefield effect if the anti-drone turret is the default one to be installed on, say, 80% IFVs so that the anti-drone action should becomes the primary task of most IFVs. Of course, the anti-drone  cannon retains some anti-vehicle and HE capability, just is not optimised for it (think of how German 20 mm FLAK was used during WWII). And the remaining 20% could get an automatic mortar or heavy ATGM turret. 

As I said, these are likely going to be stopgap measures introduced in the next decade while militaries figure out new force structures and find out ways to integrate Point defence on a wider array of vehicles. Its better to mix at least some degree of organic counter drone capability into existing units than doing nothing at all. Such platforms are already in existence and can be produced in the next few years. Certainly adding layers to drone defence cannot hurt. 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

9 hours ago, sburke said:

why up the expense if they are already effective as kamikaze?  What do you gain?  Making them more effective as kamikaze I could see, lock on capability or something like that, but why bother trying to add weight in the form of armaments?

You can try to increase the reusability also without adding specific armaments but by redesigning and hardening the body so that the kamikaze drone becomes a ramming reusable drone. E.g. give it a hardened prow, place optics further to the end and mount the propellers in push configuration, and it becomes much more likely to survive the crash,

[Haiduk]

12th National Guard brigade "Azov" claimed they finished first stage of opeation in Kreminna forest together with 1st National Guard brigade "Bureviy" - their several days tactical advance was successfull. 

Recently "Azov" command thanked US for decision to lift a ban for training and supply of "Azov" with American weapon. It was ridiculous really, when 3rd assault brigade - the part of "Azov" movement could use all toys, but "Azov" is not. This brigade could be much more effective and agressive in own operations on other important sections of frontline, but because now "Azov" is mostly infantry unit with small number of old Soviet BTRs and donated technicals and some HMMWVs, they forced to be a "jagers" fighting in the forest. 

Edited June 16 by Haiduk

[Letter from Prague]

 

Quote

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-ukraine-russia-war-threatens-cut-aid-election-2024/

Trump threatens to cut US aid to Ukraine quickly if reelected

 

 

I mean we kinda knew, but now he stated it outright.

I don't think NATO will survive 2025, nor will Taiwan.

[Haiduk]

20 hours ago, dan/california said:

 

 

DeepState clarifies, Russian troops on Vovchansk aggragate plant aren't in total encirclement. Kostiantyn Mashovets in own turn told Russians tried to cross Vovcha river from plant territory, but were repelled. In next days UKR trops conducted successfully assault of the street, along which Russians was coming to the palnt, and established positiosn ther preventing Russians from further accumulation of personnel there. But Russians had opportunity to supply garrson with water, food and ammo with drones (though in very small quantity). 

 

The chronology according to DeepState:

- Russsian diversion group sneaked on the plant in first days of attack on Vovchansk and could hold the ground here, so later Russians could accumulate forces there at least in main building and several industrial buildings.

- Since 20th of May Russians controlled the entrance to the plant through the Gorkiy Park, but it's unknown either UKR troops could cut off this rote up to 1st of June or not

- It's knowingly on 1st of June UKR machinegunners took control over approaches to the plant, so for Russians only drones remained for supply.

- On 6th of June five Russians tried to breakthrough to the plant, but only one could do that

- On 8th of June 15 Russians could breakthroug to the plant

- On 13th or 14th of June whole MTLB with reinforcement and ammunitions could breakthrougfh there

DeepState claims there is big delay in information around the plant in order to some general wasn't has a temptation to send our assault groups to storm the palnt.     

Judging on Russians attempts to breakthrough TO the plant, but not FROM the plant, their command put a task to hold the plant by any price. How much Russians are on the plant is unknown - some writes a platoon, some - 200, some even - 400. 

UKR aviation conducts airstrike on the plant with GBU-39 bombs

Reportedly first POWs from the plant or groups which tried to breakthrough there

 

Edited June 16 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, hcrof said:

I know drones are not armoured but let's take an orlan 10 as an example. The body and wings are made of hard plastic (PVC?) maybe 2mm thick for stiffness. 

Those tiny birdshot pellets can penetrate maybe 15mm of flesh in my experience. I am not sure they can cause much damage even if they make it through 2mm of PVC but maybe someone with more shotgun experience can weigh in on this one. 

Hit the propeller with almost anything and the bird will go down hard.  It is also handy that the engine behind the propeller is likely exposed and vulnerable to pretty much anything.

That said, disposable interceptors are the way to go.  Why?  Because that is the cheapest system which means it would be the most numerous.  What is needed is for dozens of these to be available within 10km (or so) of any section of front at any given point in time.  The 10km distance ensures there's something to put up in the air quickly and within range of the spotted ISR asset.  The quantity of drones allows for losses/misses and still having an ready supply for the next target while replacements are brought to the location.

Let's say a 1000km front covered by 24 interceptors every 10km.  That's 24,000 interceptors in inventory at any one time.  Anything that increases costs of these interceptors, therefore, has a massive cascading impact on the total cost of fielding the system.

The beauty of this system is that you don't need 100 new dedicated "UAS interceptor" units stood up and supported.  Instead, future fontline battalions will have their own organic UAS unit for all drone needs, including ISR and attack functions.  Having this unit travel with a suitcase full of interceptors is a no-brainer.  Especially because their ISR will already be tied into some sort of higher level network.

Steve

[Haiduk]

Aerial view of Bilohorivka and approaches, defending by 81st airmobile brigade. The section, undeservedly overlooked by media, but here is fu...g chalk hell and bipartisan meat grinder more that a year so far. Both sides sufferd heavy losses for small tactical gains, which they lost during short time and all start again and again. Here too hard to dig in because of massive chalk formations under thin layer of the soil. Russian milbloggers complain that "our comamnd is just finishing off remainms of LNR 2nd Army Corps in these suicidal assaults of Bilohorivka", but indeed UKR losses here also very high.

 

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

 

 

I mean we kinda knew, but now he stated it outright.

I don't think NATO will survive 2025, nor will Taiwan.

NATO will survive, I have no doubts.  First of all, let's remember that US Congress put in a safeguard explicitly to prevent Trump from withdrawing the US from NATO.  That did not exist before Trump because nobody thought it was necessary.

Second, even if Trump chokes off support for NATO, financially and from a leadership standpoint, the rest of NATO can still perform their core functions.  Since Europe understands the need for NATO, I expect they would take measures to preserve it's functionality until things could be sorted out within the US.

Even if NATO were to completely collapse, there's nothing preventing European countries entering into a new agreement along the lines of NATO.  It might even be advantageous for Europe to do this.

In fact, there is nothing preventing European nations from entering into a parallel treaty no matter what the status of NATO is.

Obviously none of this is optimal and it would be better if the US does not drive NATO into this situation because of one man's actions.

Steve

 

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Aerial view of Bilohorivka and approaches, defending by 81st airmobile brigade. The section, undeservedly overlooked by media, but here is fu...g chalk hell and bipartisan meat grinder more that a year so far. Both sides sufferd heavy losses for small tactical gains, which they lost during short time and all start again and again. Here too hard to dig in because of massive chalk formations under thin layer of the soil. Russian milbloggers complain that "our comamnd is just finishing off remainms of LNR 2nd Army Corps in these suicidal assaults of Bilohorivka", but indeed UKR losses here also very high.

 

Yes, I see mention of this section of front only occasionally, but it is clearly a hot section.  The large numbers of destroyed Russian vehicles certainly reinforces that idea!

Steve

[Haiduk]

12 hours ago, dan/california said:

Estimates an Orlan cost $100,000

This is whole complex. not a single plane. 

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

 

 

I mean we kinda knew, but now he stated it outright.

I don't think NATO will survive 2025, nor will Taiwan.

We haven't lost the election yet...