How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Lieutenant Ash]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/putin-nightmare-as-houthi-rebels-attack-tanker-carrying-100-000-tonnes-of-russian-oil/ar-BB1q860e?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=922132c4effa482ca7ae45643b78b66b&ei=105

Whoops, guess the Houthi's didn't get the memo!

[Kinophile]

5 minutes ago, holoween said:

Why do you need an IFV for carrying drones?

If you can do everything with drones then putting them on a m113 equivalent gives you the same combat power for far cheaper.

IFVs aren't going anywhere for a good while. 

But, I agree that a vehicle drone carrier would be required organically. Provide refill to the IFV drone CAPs and also platoon coverage. Fill  with drones and keep it back a bit. 1 per 2-3 IFVs. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, Lieutenant Ash said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/putin-nightmare-as-houthi-rebels-attack-tanker-carrying-100-000-tonnes-of-russian-oil/ar-BB1q860e?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=922132c4effa482ca7ae45643b78b66b&ei=105

Whoops, guess the Houthi's didn't get the memo!

Talk about biting one of the fingers on the hand that feeds you!

Oh, and thanks for another reminder that the Times of India is a venue for Kremlin propaganda.  At least I was subjected to linked videos of ridiculous claims put out by the Kremlin and rebranded as "reporting" by Times of India.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

36 minutes ago, holoween said:

Why do you need an IFV for carrying drones?

If you can do everything with drones then putting them on a m113 equivalent gives you the same combat power for far cheaper.

Yeah I think an m113 analog with some armor tiles seems like a good baseline. No reason you can’t have vertical launch tubes for drones and missiles.

Forget the tank, how does a Bradley compare in terms of combat power with an m113 that has 100 drones with Javelin-equivalent warheads available to launch?

[cesmonkey]

 

 

 

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

The issue with FPVs is not that they're cheap flying munitions but that they're very  controllable from a safe distance, ie indirect networked threat that can hit the static weak points of a platform at will. 

Current defenses are static (armor), passive (camouflage) or limited dynamic (APS)  but all are limited to the vehicle body itself, ie against direct material threats. The box is made stronger and tougher with each iteration but its still just a dumb metal box getting punched in the face, ear,  kidneys, etc. 

The vehicle must be able to organically protect itself outside itself. 

A platform mounted Drone CAP unit, slaved to the vehicles Defensive AI OS, might not require radar/emissions. Say 9 drone package mounted on the top of a Bradley-type - 3 in air at all times, 3 immediate reserve, and 3 charging/final back up. Automatic response, layered networked and autonomous defense without human intervention. Minimal additional logistics burden. 

Going full naval warfare and bubbles is interesting, but I wonder what exactly the 3 drones flying in the air are actually doing? A sensor package? Trying to shoot down another drone?

The question boils down to how much notice do you need for one of more of your drones to reliably intercept an enemy drone nearby? Assuming the enemy drone isn’t emitting, I imagine you’ll have less than 5 seconds… is that enough, assuming you can get your drones anywhere inside a 25m radius bubble around your vehicle in 3 seconds.

EDIT: I’m thinking you might need a lot more drones. Any not to just have an entire defensive swarm? I’m reminded of Neal Stephenson’s flying chains.

Edited July 17 by kimbosbread

[The_Capt]

35 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

 

 

 

This right here.  Even if we re-establish battlefield symmetry there is no reason to keep humans forward if we do not have to. The “good old days” actually creates significant human costs that directly impact political will. So sidestepping this and ensuring the other side does the human dying while our side is mostly machines, is going to be the plan one way or the other. 

[FancyCat]

Quote

Payments to Russian military servicemen and their families over the last 12 months amounted to around *8%* of all federal government spending, a study has found

The sum in question is equivalent to 1.5% of Russia's GDP

 

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

Going full naval warfare and bubbles is interesting, but I wonder what exactly the 3 drones flying in the air are actually doing? A sensor package? Trying to shoot down another drone?

The question boils down to how much notice do you need for one of more of your drones to reliably intercept an enemy drone nearby? Assuming the enemy drone isn’t emitting, I imagine you’ll have less than 5 seconds… is that enough, assuming you can get your drones anywhere inside a 25m radius bubble around your vehicle in 3 seconds.

EDIT: I’m thinking you might need a lot more drones. Any not to just have an entire defensive swarm? I’m reminded of Neal Stephenson’s flying chains.

Acting as Both eyes and hands, I assume. The capability is inherent. 

Also, I'm very unconvinced that DF is going away in favour of missiles any time soon. Both will exist, albeit swapping primacy 

I suspect only a real peer war will force a Bradley Replacement that's a true reimagining of the IFV. I wonder what Ukraine would build, right now? They can access the entire EU MIB. Why not put out fast track RFP for an entirely new approach that fundamentally incorporates drones? 

There's proven platforms that could form the base. Something new that responds directly to the changed nature and tracks forward to further changes could actually be be that forbidden word: game-changer... 

 

Edited July 17 by Kinophile

[Ts4EVER]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

 

This kind of spending is dangerous in that it fosters inflation. The German currency was utterly worthless by 45 due to all the military spending.

[cesmonkey]

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

 

Holy crap.  I mean, sure, we've all seen the numbers out of context and gone "wow", but 1.5% of GDP is what many NATO countries spend on their entire military force, including acquisition of hardware.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

Well those look very safe

[ArmouredTopHat]

Its honestly nuts if this sort of loss level is anything consistent on a wider scale. 

[dan/california]

15 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Its honestly nuts if this sort of loss level is anything consistent on a wider scale. 

Does this mean half the casualties are not getting paid out?

[ArmouredTopHat]

9 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Does this mean half the casualties are not getting paid out?

Would not surprise me

[Billy Ringo]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Holy crap.  I mean, sure, we've all seen the numbers out of context and gone "wow", but 1.5% of GDP is what many NATO countries spend on their entire military force, including acquisition of hardware.

Steve

1.5% of GDP that adds zero economic, production or manufacturing value.  Complete waste. 

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Acting as Both eyes and hands, I assume. The capability is inherent. 

Also, I'm very unconvinced that DF is going away in favour of missiles any time soon. Both will exist, albeit swapping primacy 

I suspect only a real peer war will force a Bradley Replacement that's a true reimagining of the IFV. I wonder what Ukraine would build, right now? They can access the entire EU MIB. Why not put out fast track RFP for an entirely new approach that fundamentally incorporates drones? 

There's proven platforms that could form the base. Something new that responds directly to the changed nature and tracks forward to further changes could actually be be that forbidden word: game-changer... 

 

The biggest weakness of DF is range. LOS at ground level is rarely longer than a couple-three kms.  Given the engagement ranges we have seen in this war that is really becoming point blank.  Now point blank engagements will definitely happen but are likely to be the exception not the rule.  In fact if one side does have to rely on DF more, they are probably losing.

My sense is that DF is no longer going to be the primary focus of land warfare - in fact it really has been on the downward slope for some time…artillery anyone? Over the horizon fires are likely going to emerge as the primary engagement spaces.  So if one has all the best DF in the world it won’t do much good when an opponent is seeing, fixing and hitting with precision at 15 kms. Some have expressed doubt that 15km engagement ranges are reliable…to which we point to the mountain of evidence in this war.  In fact engagement ranges are likely to extend further as more and more systems take advantage of gains in C4ISR.

None of this means “no DF” anymore than we can count on “no bayonets”.  But the focus of competition is in the long range spaces, not the 3km and below spaces.  If you are down to 3000m or less then either your system is badly eroded or you have been surprised.  Neither are good metrics. Urban combat may be the last bastion of DF but after having watched enough FPVs flying through doors, drainpipes and windows…I have my doubts.

[holoween]

4 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

Yeah I think an m113 analog with some armor tiles seems like a good baseline. No reason you can’t have vertical launch tubes for drones and missiles.

Forget the tank, how does a Bradley compare in terms of combat power with an m113 that has 100 drones with Javelin-equivalent warheads available to launch?

If you have 100 javelin equivalent drones youre not carrying infantry or your vehicle is massive. In the first case you cant do the bradleys job and in the second youre probably off worse.

It also depends entirely on how effective those drones can be countered. in ukraine right now it could do well simply because thats better drones than they mostly have. how its going to look in a few years we dont know.

[kimbosbread]

19 minutes ago, holoween said:

If you have 100 javelin equivalent drones youre not carrying infantry or your vehicle is massive. In the first case you cant do the bradleys job and in the second youre probably off worse.

Maybe 100 is ambitious. Let’s say 49 of them: 1x Javelin tube weighs 35lbs with missile; missile is 5” diameter, so we can assume packing a bunch of these together will not add a lot of width per missile, let’s say another 3” per, so 8” fully packed width.

A 7x7 container of missiles will be 4.5 x 4.5 x 4ft, and weighs 1700-1800lbs based on the above assumptions.

M113 is ~9ft wide and 15ft long and weighs 12 tons, so we’d take up maybe half the passenger compartment, maybe less depending on how we packed things. That’s not too bad, honestly. What if you stuck the container on the roof instead, entirely out of the passenger compartment? Maybe angle the tubes slightly so it’s only 3ft tall?

Also, this is with a big, heavy missile. FPVs are substantially smaller and lighter, and have better range, though occupy a bit move volume likely.

Edited July 17 by kimbosbread

[ArmouredTopHat]

10 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Not really, the IFV in the West seems to be the response to BMP-1, that is to the situation, when the enemy's mechanised infantry vehicles stopped being sitting ducks during the armour fight and suddenly there appeared thousands of additional semi-viable anti-armour combatants by virtue of their AT-3 and HEAT ammunition for the 73 mm gun. I believe it is the anti-armour capability which drives the cost of IFV's up, with the ATGM mounts, thermals, stabilisers, etc. Adding a rudimentary turret with an autocannon just to suppress the trench being assaulted by dismounts or the attackers during an ambush would be much cheaper than what happened to IFVsin reality.

For any IFV to be rated especially good at its job, its usually a requirement to have some sort of ATGM capability, if only to provide something that can be used at very long range against moving /tough targets. Same for thermals and stabilisation. We really dont need to be looking at the British Warrior and going 'Yeah we want more of that'. Warrior lacks such features yet was not really that much cheaper on a per unit cost basis. (It was pretty much the same price of a Bradley in the 1980s at least, despite lacking everything that makes the Bradley so especially great. Its only upside was decent protection)

To put this in perspective, the new Boxer is anywhere from between 3-5 million per unit. Vehicles in general are just more expensive, cannon or not. (Ajax is even worse) The solution here is for NATO adopting a family of vehicles based on the same chassis to cheapen costs. Essentially NATO standard but even stricter. 

All those fancy things might be expensive, but they vastly improve the performance of the vehicle far above their cost. A platoon of vehicles equipped with stabilisers, thermals and ATGMs are going to trounce a company of vehicles with just a basic autocannon bolted onto them. 

Edited July 17 by ArmouredTopHat

[Haiduk]

Left bank bridgehead epic, lasting from October 2023 to July 2024 is finished.

Not officially yet, but it comimg soon. The decision to evacuate troops was made about two weeks ago. UKR TG "46th brigade" writes, Zelenskyi during own visit to Odesa on 7th of July awarded soldiers, which turned back from bridghhead. But as it usually happened, several soldiers remained "forgotten" on left bank. 

More and more talks appearing that left bank opearion it was idea of Sodol and he was a curator of this opearion. Only hystorians after the war maybe can give the answer either it worth or not, even though this operation, of course attracted some Russian troops and several Russian regiments were badly battered in attempts to throw our troops to the river.

Soldiers say the time of operation beginning was choosen not very good - in late autumn and winter it was too hard to cross the multiple small rivers. They also say they successfully pushed back Russians and could expand bridghead further, but Russians just leveled most part of Krynky to the ground with KABs and artilelry and even changing positions to other part of this super-long village (11 km) anyway finished in the same way. In June 2024 the bridgehead was guarded by several dozen soldiers, dispersed by small position in completely ruined houses. 

According to information, which received UKR journalist investigators team "Slidstvo.info" from National Police, during bridgehead defence sicnce October 2023 to the end of June 788 Ukrainain servicemen are counted as MIA and are wanted (in Ukriane all missed during the war persons - militaries or civilians anyway wanted by police). Also according their information 262 servicemen were killed on left bank and their body were recovered and burried in Ukraine.

So, during 9 months of left bank operation UKR troops lost there 1050 soldiers

On the photo - typical view of Krynky

 

Edited July 17 by Haiduk

[cesmonkey]

Quote

Translated from Ukrainian by Google
"His commanders tell me: calm down, put a candle, he died, and I'm a bitch, not a mother, to put a candle when I don't know if my child is alive," says Mrs. Lyubov, Yevhen Smulskyi's mother, through tears with the call sign "Smurf". Yevgeny is 23 years old, he volunteered for the war. He served as a combat medic, before the war he worked in an ambulance. The last time Yevhen called his mother was on April 9. And in June, his relatives received official news that he had gone missing in Krynk.

This village is the only one on the left bank of the Kherson region where the Ukrainian military managed to gain a foothold. During the defense of the settlement, hundreds of families received reports that their sons, husbands, fathers and brothers had disappeared there.

@StankoNastya
 spoke with the military who held Krynky, as well as with relatives of soldiers who went missing there. Read more at the link

 

[poesel]

1 hour ago, Billy Ringo said:

1.5% of GDP that adds zero economic, production or manufacturing value.  Complete waste. 

Hmm, not so fast. That is money that goes to military servicemen or their relatives. Most of them are very poor, so they will (have to) spend most of it. Since you can't use the rouble internationally for anything, that money will be spent in Russia, raising the GDP.

If everyone has money, the prices would go up - in a capitalistic country. But Russia isn't one, and prices are controlled (at least I assume so). That sooner or later leads to a situation where wares are cheap, but they are simply not available. Then you only get stuff if you know someone or you have something to trade. I guess all readers from former east bloc states know this situation very well.

Can you do this forever? Of course not. Else, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War with its superior economic system. Last I checked, it didn't.

But: that system doesn't make too many people unhappy. Sounds hard to believe if you have a capitalistic background. But many of my former East-German compatriots that lived through those times would happily switch back to that (while somehow forgetting about the not so splendid sides of the GDR).

TL;DR: giving people a relative ****load of money does break the system in the long term but works short & midterm.

[holoween]

37 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Maybe 100 is ambitious. Let’s say 49 of them: 1x Javelin tube weighs 35lbs with missile; missile is 5” diameter, so we can assume packing a bunch of these together will not add a lot of width per missile, let’s say another 3” per, so 8” fully packed width.

A 7x7 container of missiles will be 4.5 x 4.5 x 4ft, and weighs 1700-1800lbs based on the above assumptions.

M113 is ~9ft wide and 15ft long and weighs 12 tons, so we’d take up maybe half the passenger compartment, maybe less depending on how we packed things. That’s not too bad, honestly. What if you stuck the container on the roof instead, entirely out of the passenger compartment? Maybe angle the tubes slightly so it’s only 3ft tall?

Also, this is with a big, heavy missile. FPVs are substantially smaller and lighter, and have better range, though occupy a bit move volume likely.

For a javelin warhead at 8.4 kg youre looking for quite a large drone in comparison to an rpg7 warhead at 1-1.5kg. At that point you stop being fast and manouverable with rotors very quickly so at best making it a drone buys you some range. And far worse at that point making it a drone rather than a missile doesnt end up saving you a whole lot of money either. Some recon drones + something like s spike lr2 does everything far better and depending on the opponents countermeasures it might even end up cheaper per kill. And at that point you also dont need to carry that many weapons.