How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, chris talpas said:

It’s what keeps us grounded.

May I be the first to groan at that?  Well, no point in asking as I just did.  Grooooooan.

(with a little big of chuckle mixed in)

Steve

[chrisl]

6 hours 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.

Even in some of the early videos of drone operators they were deploying their antennas far from where the operators were located.  Because the antenna does provide a return address.  

But you're right that antennas are cheap enough that they can just leave a bunch scattered around and o from antenna to antenna.  You wouldn't want to leave an antenna and go back to it - someone probably already has the targeting worked out for your location by the time you get back.  But you can have assistant drone crews that go some time after the drivers bug out (but not right away, in case there's artillery or counter-drone on the way) and relocate the antennas.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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.

So what you are saying is all the Ukrainian sources we've read that attributed their ability to hold out to drones alone are insulting themselves?  And the Russian sources that corroborated this position were insulting themselves too? 

Did you fail to read the recent posted statement from a Ukrainian unit, when asked about artillery shell supply now, that they are quite pleased with it because they previously had ONE SHELL per day per gun?  Was this officer being insulting?

Would you have found it insulting if these same sources said that Ukraine managed to hold on because of tanks?  I doubt it.

The fact is that any strategic level assessment is going to have nuances and uneven cases to examine.  However, trends within that assessment should be evident.  And the evidence is that prior to this winter Ukraine relied heavily on artillery to keep the Russians at bay.  The evidence is that during this winter drones largely took over when shell supplies dwindled to levels too low to be strategically effective.

This is not just a couple of people on this Forum saying this, it is coming from multiple sources on both sides of the fight, borne out by subject matter experts.

It is not insulting to acknowledge what those sources say, it is insulting to dismiss them because they conflict with your personal point of view.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

27 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

So what you are saying is all the Ukrainian sources we've read that attributed their ability to hold out to drones alone are insulting themselves?  And the Russian sources that corroborated this position were insulting themselves too? 

Did you fail to read the recent posted statement from a Ukrainian unit, when asked about artillery shell supply now, that they are quite pleased with it because they previously had ONE SHELL per day per gun?  Was this officer being insulting?

Would you have found it insulting if these same sources said that Ukraine managed to hold on because of tanks?  I doubt it.

The fact is that any strategic level assessment is going to have nuances and uneven cases to examine.  However, trends within that assessment should be evident.  And the evidence is that prior to this winter Ukraine relied heavily on artillery to keep the Russians at bay.  The evidence is that during this winter drones largely took over when shell supplies dwindled to levels too low to be strategically effective.

This is not just a couple of people on this Forum saying this, it is coming from multiple sources on both sides of the fight, borne out by subject matter experts.

It is not insulting to acknowledge what those sources say, it is insulting to dismiss them because they conflict with your personal point of view.

Steve

Even with those shell shortages (which varied greatly from day to day) they were still working day in day out (we literally saw regular footage of UA arty strikes, including GMLRs), same as the infantry, same as the vehicles. Supply constraints is not the same as being out of ammo entirely. The same several hundred thousand strong military force was fighting and holding its ground. The point is that we should not ignore that in favour of drones being the sole reason for the UA holding fast. The big shift was drones doing a lot more heavy lifting and that is of course important to realise, but its clearly expedient when what the UA really needs are more vehicles and artillery. I would be curious to know what the ratio with everything now that supply has increase for shells again. 

Either way, done arguing this point with either you or Capt.

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

49 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

I would happily challenge this, but you literally told us to stop talking about it. I felt like I was pushing it just with my last post on the matter. 

As for rudeness, its fine to refute my points. Its something else to declare them entirely wrong (While also completely twisting their points) and 'fantasy' and that I am in fact incapable of realising otherwise, especially when you have made some glaring errors in your own time, like the F-35 nonsense that clearly show your own position has some flaws. Yet I did not call your points fantasy or complete rubbish, merely misinformation. 

You can win an argument without being insulting about it. 

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[chrisl]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

 

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.
 

The math supports that Ukraine has moved from a traditional (and heavily soviet influenced) artillery-based doctrine to a drone based special delivery doctrine.   Largely because they quite literally used up all the 152 west of the Russian border and most the 155 that anybody was willing to spare.  

They're replacing it with plans to build at least 1M drones in 2024.  While few of the drones have more explosive power than an RPG7 or maybe four M77 bomblets, the precision of delivery makes up for it.

Some statistics that showed up some large number of pages ago suggested that it takes fewer than 10 drones (and likely fewer than 5) to produce 1 russian casualty.  And the drone drivers get more and more experienced because they're at much lower risk than if they were in a trench at the front edge, or even crewing a gun that needs a clear path to shoot.  

So at 100K drones/month, and an efficiency somewhere between 2 and 10 drones/casualty, they can inflict somewhere between 10K and 50K casualties/month on Russia. Even at the low end, drones are causing a significant number of russian casualties.  It's also consistent with the transition we've been seeing of fewer Ukrainians in trenches defending against assaults, or clearing russians out of trenches, and more Russians getting blown up in convoys in drone attacks far from the front lines.  If drones were costly to Ukraine, we wouldn't be seeing lots of videos of drones chasing individuals.  Or a drone being used to destroy a single abandoned PKM.  Or sent as self propelled grenades to clear out blind holes in trenches.

They have a *way* smaller logistical tail than a similar amount of combat power in artillery, tanks, or aircraft.  A suitcase full of drones that weighs less than a single 155 shell (not including propellant) has combat power comparable to somewhere between 10 and 50 conventional 155 shells.  And the drones just need to travel with a battery charger and some coax to run their antenna far away, rather than an M777 and a truck load of propellant bags.

Until someone comes up with effective counter drone and gets it into the field, drones are going to continue to make traditional maneuver elements obsolete at a rapid rate.

 

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

The math supports that Ukraine has moved from a traditional (and heavily soviet influenced) artillery-based doctrine to a drone based special delivery doctrine.   Largely because they quite literally used up all the 152 west of the Russian border and most the 155 that anybody was willing to spare.  

They're replacing it with plans to build at least 1M drones in 2024.  While few of the drones have more explosive power than an RPG7 or maybe four M77 bomblets, the precision of delivery makes up for it.

Some statistics that showed up some large number of pages ago suggested that it takes fewer than 10 drones (and likely fewer than 5) to produce 1 russian casualty.  And the drone drivers get more and more experienced because they're at much lower risk than if they were in a trench at the front edge, or even crewing a gun that needs a clear path to shoot.  

So at 100K drones/month, and an efficiency somewhere between 2 and 10 drones/casualty, they can inflict somewhere between 10K and 50K casualties/month on Russia. Even at the low end, drones are causing a significant number of russian casualties.  It's also consistent with the transition we've been seeing of fewer Ukrainians in trenches defending against assaults, or clearing russians out of trenches, and more Russians getting blown up in convoys in drone attacks far from the front lines.  If drones were costly to Ukraine, we wouldn't be seeing lots of videos of drones chasing individuals.  Or a drone being used to destroy a single abandoned PKM.  Or sent as self propelled grenades to clear out blind holes in trenches.

They have a *way* smaller logistical tail than a similar amount of combat power in artillery, tanks, or aircraft.  A suitcase full of drones that weighs less than a single 155 shell (not including propellant) has combat power comparable to somewhere between 10 and 50 conventional 155 shells.  And the drones just need to travel with a battery charger and some coax to run their antenna far away, rather than an M777 and a truck load of propellant bags.

Until someone comes up with effective counter drone and gets it into the field, drones are going to continue to make traditional maneuver elements obsolete at a rapid rate.

 

And Ukraines drone supply is good enough that they send a second one to dispatch people that are already obviously wounded. Because apparently zinc coffins are the only way to reason with the Russians. By the way what is world price of zinc doing....?

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

The math supports that Ukraine has moved from a traditional (and heavily soviet influenced) artillery-based doctrine to a drone based special delivery doctrine.   Largely because they quite literally used up all the 152 west of the Russian border and most the 155 that anybody was willing to spare.  

They're replacing it with plans to build at least 1M drones in 2024.  While few of the drones have more explosive power than an RPG7 or maybe four M77 bomblets, the precision of delivery makes up for it.

Some statistics that showed up some large number of pages ago suggested that it takes fewer than 10 drones (and likely fewer than 5) to produce 1 russian casualty.  And the drone drivers get more and more experienced because they're at much lower risk than if they were in a trench at the front edge, or even crewing a gun that needs a clear path to shoot.  

So at 100K drones/month, and an efficiency somewhere between 2 and 10 drones/casualty, they can inflict somewhere between 10K and 50K casualties/month on Russia. Even at the low end, drones are causing a significant number of russian casualties.  It's also consistent with the transition we've been seeing of fewer Ukrainians in trenches defending against assaults, or clearing russians out of trenches, and more Russians getting blown up in convoys in drone attacks far from the front lines.  If drones were costly to Ukraine, we wouldn't be seeing lots of videos of drones chasing individuals.  Or a drone being used to destroy a single abandoned PKM.  Or sent as self propelled grenades to clear out blind holes in trenches.

They have a *way* smaller logistical tail than a similar amount of combat power in artillery, tanks, or aircraft.  A suitcase full of drones that weighs less than a single 155 shell (not including propellant) has combat power comparable to somewhere between 10 and 50 conventional 155 shells.  And the drones just need to travel with a battery charger and some coax to run their antenna far away, rather than an M777 and a truck load of propellant bags.

Until someone comes up with effective counter drone and gets it into the field, drones are going to continue to make traditional maneuver elements obsolete at a rapid rate.

 

See this is exactly what I mean.

Useful information that makes a fair point without the whole 'your wrong' confrontation that I despise. This is exactly what I came here for. I can respect Chrisl's points a lot more and actual feel compelled to accept them even if I still feel there is room for potential innovation for the defence / counter. Big thumbs up. 

As a question, do we know where the UA are sourcing the RPG-7 warheads? Are they making them in house or is that reliant on importation?  I have heard a mix of things from different sources but surely they have some sort of supply given the vast expenditure of munitions. Hopefully there is no risk of them running dry on that front as it would be pretty lethal.

 

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

The math supports that Ukraine has moved from a traditional (and heavily soviet influenced) artillery-based doctrine to a drone based special delivery doctrine.   Largely because they quite literally used up all the 152 west of the Russian border and most the 155 that anybody was willing to spare.  

They're replacing it with plans to build at least 1M drones in 2024.  While few of the drones have more explosive power than an RPG7 or maybe four M77 bomblets, the precision of delivery makes up for it.

They do still produce 152 (Though we have no idea in what amounts, barely enough it seems) Do we have a source of the production numbers of drones outside of the government itself? Not doubting it but its a very bold projection on the surface of it. Have they setup any training to take advantage of the increasing availability? A lot of the effort still seems a little adhoc which concerns me. 

 

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

Some statistics that showed up some large number of pages ago suggested that it takes fewer than 10 drones (and likely fewer than 5) to produce 1 russian casualty.  And the drone drivers get more and more experienced because they're at much lower risk than if they were in a trench at the front edge, or even crewing a gun that needs a clear path to shoot.  

So at 100K drones/month, and an efficiency somewhere between 2 and 10 drones/casualty, they can inflict somewhere between 10K and 50K casualties/month on Russia. Even at the low end, drones are causing a significant number of russian casualties.  It's also consistent with the transition we've been seeing of fewer Ukrainians in trenches defending against assaults, or clearing russians out of trenches, and more Russians getting blown up in convoys in drone attacks far from the front lines.  If drones were costly to Ukraine, we wouldn't be seeing lots of videos of drones chasing individuals.  Or a drone being used to destroy a single abandoned PKM.  Or sent as self propelled grenades to clear out blind holes in trenches.

This is all entirely true and I do not refute it one bit. It is very much a good thing for Ukraine and its clear the drones are doing a lot and giving them an advantage in what would otherwise be a very tough fight indeed. I again would be very interested to see how much damage the drones are doing when matched with everything else (I imagine its a high proportion on certain areas of the front, we know it is In Kharkiv and I agree with Steve on that one.) 
 

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

They have a *way* smaller logistical tail than a similar amount of combat power in artillery, tanks, or aircraft.  A suitcase full of drones that weighs less than a single 155 shell (not including propellant) has combat power comparable to somewhere between 10 and 50 conventional 155 shells.  And the drones just need to travel with a battery charger and some coax to run their antenna far away, rather than an M777 and a truck load of propellant bags.

Until someone comes up with effective counter drone and gets it into the field, drones are going to continue to make traditional maneuver elements obsolete at a rapid rate.

Also very true, though I would argue arty still has plenty of uses where it is better than a drone (explosive power and effect on concentrations for instance. My only point here is that drones do have that major constraint from jamming and the occasional Russian with a shotgun, something with a 155 shell does not care much about at all (or a tank round for that matter!) I would love to get constant figures on the jamming effects, we see from sources that Ukraine constantly fiddles with its frequency settings and sometimes enjoys times where the jamming is far less effective. 

A point that is overwhelmingly a perk for drones is that Ukraine can build them in a dispersed manner far more easily, so no amount of Russian deep strikes will hurt it in any measurable amount. This is a crucial advantage that must be conceded as a major plus. 

If had to be less certain on something, its the effect on manoeuvre. Traditionally methods of manoeuvre could very well be dead -currently- , it certainly seems heavily constrained for both sides at the moment. It might still have applications in the event that areas of defence collapse on either side (mines might still be a major hurdle though)

If Ukraine gains a heavy advantage in drones, do you think they could perform an offensive that could potentially enable a more fluid form of warfare again? (The concern from last time was it that was mines and helos that were the major problem for Ukraine back then, something that FPVs dont really account for) Would something like like the western front collapse of WW1 be possible where mobile warfare suddenly became the norm?

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[holoween]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

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.

Comparing the publically available data between the IDF and UA is not exactly straight forward.

The ukrainian units regularly posting videos get additional funding from donations brought in by the videos so they are heavily incentivized to publish as much as possible. They also have an easy time creating the videos from the drones video stream.

The IDF like practically all militaries doesnt want their troops filming so anyone creating videos is at risk of getting in trouble. They also have to put a dedicated camera on the vehicle and have to have it running at the correct time.

So even if fpv hitting a tank and aps intercepting a munition happened exactly the same ammount wed expect to see far more evidence of it publically of the former. So id suggest some caution when disregarding certain things purely based on posted video evidence.

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

3 minutes ago, holoween said:

Comparing the publically available data between the IDF and UA is not exactly straight forward.

The ukrainian units regularly posting videos get additional funding from donations brought in by the videos so they are heavily incentivized to publish as much as possible. They also have an easy time creating the videos from the drones video stream.

The IDF like practically all militaries doesnt want their troops filming so anyone creating videos is at risk of getting in trouble. They also have to put a dedicated camera on the vehicle and have to have it running at the correct time.

So even if fpv hitting a tank and aps intercepting a munition happened exactly the same ammount wed expect to see far more evidence of it publically of the former. So id suggest some caution when disregarding certain things purely based on posted video evidence.

 

This is kind of what I have been trying to point out. There is absolutely a media bias in favour of FPVs / drones in general due to the fact that having a camera unit on your disposable munition makes it so easy to film. We get a lot less stuff from HIMARs for example (certainly not every launch) yet we know they are doing fantastic work on the whole. Hell we know that some Ukrainian units barely film their actions at all while others like the 47th are especially prolific. Its why we see a lot of Bradley IFV footage but not a lot of say Marder 1 or CV90.

[chuckdyke]

Like photos in the JPEG format are no longer admissible as evidence and videos are heading the same way. Its purpose is not only to present facts but also misinformation. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

Its things like this that are probably influencing M1E3 quite heavily right about now. The original M1 chassis was simply not designed for this sort of threat. Its why tanks so obviously need a redesign from their cold war purposes. 

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

As a question, do we know where the UA are sourcing the RPG-7 warheads? Are they making them in house or is that reliant on importation?  I have heard a mix of things from different sources but surely they have some sort of supply given the vast expenditure of munitions. Hopefully there is no risk of them running dry on that front as it would be pretty lethal.

They do still produce 152 (Though we have no idea in what amounts, barely enough it seems) Do we have a source of the production numbers of drones outside of the government itself? Not doubting it but its a very bold projection on the surface of it. Have they setup any training to take advantage of the increasing availability? A lot of the effort still seems a little adhoc which concerns me. 
 

My impression is that an infinite number of RPG7 warheads were made, and they're not fired at nearly as high a rate as 152, so there are probably still an infinite number around.  And really, saying "RPG7 warhead" should be read as "any old shaped charge with a fuze".  There have been zillions made, they're cheap and don't take nearly the manufacturing resources of 152 or 155.  Anybody who can make or source explosives can make a basic shaped charge, and if you always get to attack from the top you don't need a lot of penetration.

Sure, they still make 152.  And 155 too, but nobody in the west anticipated an artillery war - the US makes artillery, but is mostly focused on precision air delivery.  Ukraine can shoot a month's production of 155 in a couple days, and of eastern European 152 even faster - the efficiency of artillery is extremely low.  It's good for leveling fields of attackers who are mostly smart enough now to not gather in artillery friendly bunches.

Edited July 11 by chrisl

[chrisl]

 

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

 

Also very true, though I would argue arty still has plenty of uses where it is better than a drone (explosive power and effect on concentrations for instance. My only point here is that drones do have that major constraint from jamming and the occasional Russian with a shotgun, something with a 155 shell does not care much about at all (or a tank round for that matter!) I would love to get constant figures on the jamming effects, we see from sources that Ukraine constantly fiddles with its frequency settings and sometimes enjoys times where the jamming is far less effective. 
 

The continued value of arty has also been discussed ad nauseam over the past 3500 pages, too.  You're about to conjure @JonS.

Artillery still has plenty of use, not least of which is delivering small drones long distances rapidly.  

But as things continue to develop, with ISR getting better (and I can assure you it's going to) and precision getting higher, the need to make a big bang 30 km from where you're standing is going to decrease.  In the limit of perfect ISR and infinite precision, the most munitions you need is equal to the number of targets you need to hit.  UAV usage is already approaching that much more than any weapon of the past century (except for nukes, where a few will get all your targets if you don't mind immense collatoral damage) without the side effects of nukes, or the logistics tail of armor, artillery, or crewed air.

[ArmouredTopHat]

6 minutes ago, chrisl said:

The continued value of arty has also been discussed ad nauseam over the past 3500 pages, too.  You're about to conjure @JonS.

Artillery still has plenty of use, not least of which is delivering small drones long distances rapidly.  

But as things continue to develop, with ISR getting better (and I can assure you it's going to) and precision getting higher, the need to make a big bang 30 km from where you're standing is going to decrease.  In the limit of perfect ISR and infinite precision, the most munitions you need is equal to the number of targets you need to hit.  UAV usage is already approaching that much more than any weapon of the past century (except for nukes, where a few will get all your targets if you don't mind immense collatoral damage) without the side effects of nukes, or the logistics tail of armor, artillery, or crewed air.

To ask a perhaps more interesting question then that I have sort of alluded to prior. Is it a guaranteed assumption that ISR is going to be better / perfect as time goes on? We have see Ukraine start to perform some rudimentary UAV interception with FPVs, does it not stand as a possibility that drones can be used to deny ISR as much as they enable it? Typically your medium to long range recon drone is not unduly expensive but neither is it cheap to the degree of an FPV, so a steady interception rate in theory is quite attritional. Could this same logic not also be applied to the shorter range drones in heavy use by both sides to the same effect? 

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[Grigb]

11 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

...does it not stand as a possibility that drones can be used to deny ISR as much as they enable it?

Yes, and we've already gotten to the point where it's part of warfare. UKR is just attempting to minimize the publicity around their interception units.

However, intercepting recon drones does not render tehm (recon drones) entirely irrelevant. Fighters did not invalidate bombers. SAMs did not invalidate airplanes. 

[Kraft]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

but not a lot of say Marder 1 [footage]

A tragedy in my opinion.

I hope I will see the day when it is officially added to Black Sea

[ArmouredTopHat]

6 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Yes, and we've already gotten to the point where it's part of warfare. UKR is just attempting to minimize the publicity around their interception units.

However, intercepting recon drones does not render tehm (recon drones) entirely irrelevant. Fighters did not invalidate bombers. SAMs did not invalidate airplanes. 

At which point the question is does that just become another aspect of air supremacy by denying air drone assets as much as you would planes. The question I have is how can we have an assumption of 'perfect' ISR when we could see the very platforms that enable its proliferation being used to constrain it? 

[chrisl]

34 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

To ask a perhaps more interesting question then that I have sort of alluded to prior. Is it a guaranteed assumption that ISR is going to be better / perfect as time goes on? We have see Ukraine start to perform some rudimentary UAV interception with FPVs, does it not stand as a possibility that drones can be used to deny ISR as much as they enable it? Typically your medium to long range recon drone is not unduly expensive but neither is it cheap to the degree of an FPV, so a steady interception rate in theory is quite attritional. Could this same logic not also be applied to the shorter range drones in heavy use by both sides to the same effect? 

ISR is already *way* better than you realize if you think drones will be able to do anything about it.  Their little propellors need to be able to push on air.  Have you read the second part of @dan/california's sig?  It's not hyperbole.

[ArmouredTopHat]

3 minutes ago, chrisl said:

ISR is already *way* better than you realize if you think drones will be able to do anything about it.  Their little propellors need to be able to push on air.  Have you read the second part of @dan/california's sig?  It's not hyperbole.

If were talking sats, are there not anti satellite weapons that need to be considered? Ukraine is perhaps unique in that such options are obviously off the table, but is that not likely to change down the line?

[ArmouredTopHat]

I know this was posted before but it really does show you how important the A-50s are to Russian air ops. No wonder Ukraine is doing all they can to down the others. 

[chrisl]

3 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

If were talking sats, are there not anti satellite weapons that need to be considered? Ukraine is perhaps unique in that such options are obviously off the table, but is that not likely to change down the line?

Also been discussed ad nauseam.  Russia actually tried and failed before the invasion to blind NATO by destroying one of their own in order to create enough debris to damage NATO satellites.  It didn't make any sense until a little research showed that Russia sucks at payloads and was launching satellites that dropped film capsules as late as ~2015.  The first electro-optic satellite the US launched was in 1976.  So Russia is 40 years behind, and probably has nothing functional.  China may share information with them, but if they are, it's not very quickly.

But asat weapons?  Sure, if you only need to take down one satellite.  If you only need to take down one you can even send a space truck and steal it.  But if you need to take down 50 or 300 it gets a lot harder. Planet has ~20 that do 50 cm on the ground, and ~100 that do ~3 m on the ground.  And they're just one of many companies.  There are at least a couple companies with SAR constellations.  And the business is just starting to wind up - everybody's been working on making launch cheap without planning what to launch.  We're only just starting to see people developing stuff to put on them.  And then there are governments.  Make a habit of taking out a government's satellites and they'll find way to make sure your launches never reach orbit to do the next one.

[ArmouredTopHat]

5 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Also been discussed ad nauseam.  Russia actually tried and failed before the invasion to blind NATO by destroying one of their own in order to create enough debris to damage NATO satellites.  It didn't make any sense until a little research showed that Russia sucks at payloads and was launching satellites that dropped film capsules as late as ~2015.  The first electro-optic satellite the US launched was in 1976.  So Russia is 40 years behind, and probably has nothing functional.  China may share information with them, but if they are, it's not very quickly.

But asat weapons?  Sure, if you only need to take down one satellite.  If you only need to take down one you can even send a space truck and steal it.  But if you need to take down 50 or 300 it gets a lot harder. Planet has ~20 that do 50 cm on the ground, and ~100 that do ~3 m on the ground.  And they're just one of many companies.  There are at least a couple companies with SAR constellations.  And the business is just starting to wind up - everybody's been working on making launch cheap without planning what to launch.  We're only just starting to see people developing stuff to put on them.  And then there are governments.  Make a habit of taking out a government's satellites and they'll find way to make sure your launches never reach orbit to do the next one.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are there not ground / air based anti sat weapons that allow you to bypass the whole issue of getting into space / orbit? I know the US performed a test interception in the 80s with Skybolt (In the most optimal of conditions if I recall) Surely those capabilities are /have been improved, or at least technology exists for it. 

This is not something I am too well versed in so I could be barking up the wrong tree here. 

[hcrof]

13 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but are there not ground / air based anti sat weapons that allow you to bypass the whole issue of getting into space / orbit? I know the US performed a test interception in the 80s with Skybolt (In the most optimal of conditions if I recall) Surely those capabilities are /have been improved, or at least technology exists for it. 

This is not something I am too well versed in so I could be barking up the wrong tree here. 

I am sure the big space powers (US, China) can shoot down satellites all day, possibly even faster than they can be replaced. The issue is that debris cloud starts to destroy everyone else's satellites too so they will be really upsetting their allies if they do it. Even China needs to consider what the EU would think if they accidentally destroyed a bunch of European sats in a Pacific war. 

So by the time you are destroying satellites it is effectively WW3. 

[chrisl]

27 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but are there not ground / air based anti sat weapons that allow you to bypass the whole issue of getting into space / orbit? I know the US performed a test interception in the 80s with Skybolt (In the most optimal of conditions if I recall) Surely those capabilities are /have been improved, or at least technology exists for it. 

This is not something I am too well versed in so I could be barking up the wrong tree here. 

If you want to hit something in space you have to get to space.  We’ve been arguing about whether directed energy has enough effective range to do drones.