How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[ArmouredTopHat]

20 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I found an interesting video that shows a Russian company strength attack at Hostre with footage from both sides that is combined for a chronological progression with maps included. Its an interesting watch that shows the broad development of an attack instead of snapshots. I fear the source might be Russian biased so its good to keep that in mind.

Some observations:

Drone effectiveness does seem to vary during the engagements, the initial attack is far less impacted by drones than the next day, where the drones have a better day and start picking off vehicles and destroying disabled ones over time. The dismounted infantry actually seem to suffer more here by the relentless drone drops than the vehicles themselves. (Presumably its easier for the AFU to fix and then send a drone bomber to the relatively static dismounted infantry than it is to hunt moving vehicles)

Artillery does seem to help at least in some respect to delaying the attack than the drones on that first day. They key point is that the drones need some degree of time to inflict their damage, and were incapable of stopping this particular attack on their own, let alone prevent it from reaching AFU lines. 

Mines still represent a primary issue for the attacking Russians, they can achieve surprisingly reasonable penetrations of the line when they clear them, even when moving in large convoy masses. Tanks do seem to help in particular on the first day, both to ensure the route is clear of mines via minerollers and to suppress and smoke up positions. (It was interesting to note the lead tank was mainly firing smoke shells it seemed at AFU strongpoints)

We should sadly bear in mind that not every Russian attack ends in disaster, and this was one of the larger ones that does seem to have at least pushed the line somewhat. 

Such footage does also indicate that the Russians can in fact mass strength to the company level without too much interdiction for its attacks, which at this scale seems quite appropriate for the scale of the engagement. Its also a healthy reminder that while the Russians have boatloads of problems, they are not fools and can and will execute attacks properly, at least on occasion. 

@Battlefront.com

I was curious to what your thoughts on this were as well, should you get the time!

[Lieutenant Ash]

Russia's central bank raises interest rate to 21% to fight inflation boosted by military spending

Russia’s central bank on Friday raised its key interest rate by two percentage points to a record-high 21% in an effort to combat growing inflation as government spending on the military strains the economy’s capacity to produce goods and services and drives up workers’ wages.

The central bank said in a statement that “growth in domestic demand is still significantly outstripping the capabilities to expand the supply of goods and services.” Inflation, the statement said, “is running considerably above the Bank of Russia’s July forecast,” and “inflation expectations continue to increase.” It held out the prospect of more rate increases in December.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/russia-s-central-bank-raises-interest-rate-to-21-to-fight-inflation-boosted-by-military-spending/ar-AA1sV28R?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=08771b3b770c4f169b7738d5e045282a&ei=9

Economic stresses ramp up.

[kimbosbread]

9 hours ago, dan/california said:

The Microsoft heads up display for individual soldiers(It has issues).

Hololens is ****ed (and was never good to begin with). All the good people went to Apple and Facebook, as Microsoft pays way less and is a generation or three behind on tech. I would be shocked in Anduril isn’t frothing at mouth to pick up the contract.

[kimbosbread]

16 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

We have even seen the Russians somewhat mitigate the USV drone attacks just by bothering to put helicopters up in the air with machine guns. Outside of the couple of jury rigged sam launchers there is not a whole lot the drones can do if they are caught. Unlike an FPV, the USVs are not exactly worth $500 either so they take some time to build and mass. 

I doubt undersea options would fare too well either, given the plethora of ASW warfare available to any competent sea power in both detection and destruction. Sea mines and massed ASM remain the biggest issue for fleets going forward more than drone attacks I think, the former being disturbingly stealthy without much in the way of counters besides specialised means, the latter being used to simply overwhelm PD networks at considerable range. 

So let’s say I can build USVs for $50k a pop that can dive down to 10m. I’m pretty sure this is doable at scale, because I’ve seen enough little hobby backyard pool subs that someone tossed together in a weekend with a 2L bottle, some pumps and an arduino. I’m assuming you can do the undersea version of what we are starting to see in the sky…

Helicopters won’t be able to spot them easily and ASW is expensive. And an USV can carry a lot more explosives than a little quadcopter. Meanwhile a heavy torpedo costs upwards of $4m.

[Lieutenant Ash]

Russia helping Houthi rebels strike British ships

Russia has been helping Iran-backed Houthi rebels target British and Western ships in the Red Sea, defence officials believe.

Houthi militants in Yemen have reportedly been using Russian satellite data as they increase drone and missile strikes on commercial vessels in response to the war in Gaza.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the data used to track ships was handed over through Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who were embedded with the Houthis.

The report indicates the Kremlin directly supported the militant group in its mission to disrupt one of the world’s biggest shipping lanes and marks a major escalation in Moscow’s involvement in fuelling instability in the region.

Since November last year, the Houthis have been targeting commercial vessels and military warships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, saying they are acting in solidarity with Gaza.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russia-helping-houthi-rebels-strike-british-ships/ar-AA1sUo8t?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=dbaac5c2ead549a18db657499208442c&ei=55

Speaking of the Houthis - everything is connected.

[kimbosbread]

11 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Exactly on point on the islands, especially Penghu, possession of  which would give China an unsinkable EW/ISR platform within 50kms of Kaohsiung and the most viable landing beaches.

While this puts China in a much more favorable tactical position, it means all their neighbors will guaranteed have nukes, so it makes the ultimate goal of taking Taiwan even more expensive.

11 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

However, I'm sure you'll agree that when you have an economy that is still largely export driven, getting in a naval war with your biggest customers outside your home ports, so that they 'quarantine' your shipments to pretty much everyone for a couple of years might not be the most brilliant strategy.

Yeah, that’s the conundrum. You are export driven, but your consumers will vanish in a puff of dollars.

The other things in the Penghu scenario is China’s opponents can start waging hybrid warfare, as part of the Penghu Libration Front or something, and sinking Chinese fighing vessles (with USVs) and generally forcing China to act in ways they’d prefer not to.

6 hours ago, omae2 said:

China's silk road  is a possible solution for this problem.  It will make it possible to export into the middle east and Europe or even using their ports to ship goods all over the world

No educated Chinese person I know believes. Maybe the party does, but I doubt it. OBOR hasn’t really panned out the way it was hoped; it’s just a subsidy for Chinese companies and a jobs program for young men at this point.

[ArmouredTopHat]

23 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

So let’s say I can build USVs for $50k a pop that can dive down to 10m. I’m pretty sure this is doable at scale, because I’ve seen enough little hobby backyard pool subs that someone tossed together in a weekend with a 2L bottle, some pumps and an arduino. I’m assuming you can do the undersea version of what we are starting to see in the sky…

Helicopters won’t be able to spot them easily and ASW is expensive. And an USV can carry a lot more explosives than a little quadcopter. Meanwhile a heavy torpedo costs upwards of $4m.

Your issue then is speed, if you want something with any degree of range you would be stuck at a slow speed. Warships would detect them easily enough and simply be able to...leave. Moving underwater at speed is quite a bit harder than on the surface. Subs have to have pretty hefty powerplants (often nuclear) and perfect shapes to achieve their higher speeds. 

At this point you might as well use a Torpedo. Heck, something like a USV that carries a single torpedo might honestly be a better proposition, the latter being far better suited for striking a fast moving warship that can defend itself. 

Modern depth charges also exist that are relatively cheap and would do the job of countering USVs. Some even can be helicopter dropped alongside sonar buoys. 

I really dont see a competent fleet struggling with this unless it put itself in a terrible position. 

Edited Friday at 03:58 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[Lieutenant Ash]

Putin allegedly asked Musk to turn off Starlink internet over Taiwan

Russian President Vladimir Putin asked Elon Musk to turn off his Starlink internet service to Taiwan as a favour to China, western security officials believe. Former U.S., European and Russian officials said the SpaceX founder had held intimate discussions with Putin, and has been in close contact since late 2022.

Two officials told the Wall Street Journal that Putin once asked Musk to stop supplying Taiwan with internet as a gesture towards Chinese premier Xi Jinping. Russia has looked to shore up its relations with China amid fallout from sanctions related to the war in Ukraine, extended to joint military drills and close trade links.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/putin-allegedly-asked-musk-to-turn-off-starlink-internet-over-taiwan/ss-AA1sUTv5?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=15e780c31dbe45f0a5a7ef2606e8fffd&ei=13#image=2

Speaking of Musk.

[dan/california]

53 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Meanwhile a heavy torpedo costs upwards of $4m.

They aren't cheap but compared to the cost of a ship it is peanuts. The thing we haven't seen YET, not least because the Ukrainians probably don't have any, is a heavy torpedo delivered by a surface, or underwater, drone. That increases the size of the area around the ship that has to be secured by a couple of orders of magnitude. 

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

They aren't cheap but compared to the cost of a ship it is peanuts. The thing we haven't seen YET, not least because the Ukrainians probably don't have any, is a heavy torpedo delivered by a surface, or underwater, drone. That increases the size of the area around the ship that has to be secured by a couple of orders of magnitude. 

 

Yeah, this is what scares me a lot more for Naval forces for the future. That or mines that can launch torpedos when they detect a ship. 

USVs are really something useful for a force that is otherwise unable to strike its targets with more effective solutions. That and they work a lot better against a navy that is a dumpster fire of problems. Given the Mosvka was destroyed by literally a pair of ASWs that had no right to hit it, it sometimes feels like just a handful of Western ships operating in the black sea could have crippled the entire Black Sea fleet given their dismal performance. 

Edited Friday at 04:39 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[kimbosbread]

52 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Your issue then is speed, if you want something with any degree of range you would be stuck at a slow speed. Warships would detect them easily enough and simply be able to...leave. Moving underwater at speed is quite a bit harder than on the surface. Subs have to have pretty hefty powerplants (often nuclear) and perfect shapes to achieve their higher speeds. 

At this point you might as well use a Torpedo. Heck, something like a USV that carries a single torpedo might honestly be a better proposition, the latter being far better suited for striking a fast moving warship that can defend itself. 

Modern depth charges also exist that are relatively cheap and would do the job of countering USVs. Some even can be helicopter dropped alongside sonar buoys. 

I really dont see a competent fleet struggling with this unless it put itself in a terrible position. 

Torpedoes have a max range of 50km or so (at least our heavy torpedoes), and are expensive.

USVs of the kind we are talking about are long range loitering munitions. By virtue of cost, you can put a bunch of them in an area. Think less torpedo, think more mobile minefield. With this kind of system, you can deny a large area of ocean… and you know where the enemy ships are, cause satellites. 

I’m not convinced making these things stealthy is hard. Make the 2-3m body out of concrete, and cover with a giant silicone condom and use a diesel-electric drivetrain, though maybe going full Nazi rocket fuel might be cheap enough for this kind of application?

EDIT: And obviously, they are a part of a system that includes other weapons, including long-range antiship missiles.

Edited Friday at 04:46 PM by kimbosbread

[kimbosbread]

5 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

That or mines that can launch torpedos when they detect a ship.  

Underwater bulk torpedo packs existed at least 30 years ago, though I am not sure if they are still used.

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Sea mines and massed ASM remain the biggest issue for fleets going forward more than drone attacks I think, the former being disturbThe distiction between sea mines , and underwater drones is about to get VEingly stealthy without much in the way of counters besides specialised means, the latter being used to simply overwhelm PD networks at considerable range. 

The distinction between sea mines, and underwater drones is about to get VERY blurry. There are an infinity of ways to give mines smart fuses. Then you ad just a little propulsion, and, and.... The other thing that has not been done much, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be, is putting the aforementioned heavy torpedo in a "smart" mine. So as soon as the right sonar trace came within a few kilometers, a very unpleasant welcoming committee is dispatched.

And in a full up war in the South China Sea the magazine depth problem is enormous. Doubly so because the depth of those magazines is not exactly secret. If a task force has a thousand vertical launch tubes, just send three waves of a thousand minimally adequate missiles.

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The costs of effectively shutting down a seaway is likely beyond most non-state actors, perhaps even if a capable state provides the hardware.  The open environment around a ship provides lots and lots of opportunities for detection and defense at a distance.  Countermeasures are also long, long established and proven effective.  Kinda the exact opposite of the land warfare.

This is not to say that individual attacks against individual ships couldn't be effective.  Even with proper military escorts it will be challenging, just like it was with the Somali pirates.  But just like with the Somali pirates, it complicates shipping instead of shutting it down.

Steve

 

Quote

 

https://www.worldcargonews.com/news/2024/09/suez-canal-traffic-has-dropped-66-maersk-claims/#:~:text=Since shipping companies rerouted around,supply chain disruptions%2C Maersk reports.

Suez Canal traffic has dropped 66%, Maersk claims

News 6 Sep 2024 by WCN Editorial

Since shipping companies rerouted around Africa, Suez Canal traffic has dropped 66%, causing port congestion and supply chain disruptions, Maersk reports.

 

Except that even the Houthi's minimum adequate capability has diverted two thirds of the traffic through the Suez canal around the Horn of Africa, at an enormous economic cost. I am not saying the U.S. Navy couldn't push any particular ship, or even convoy, through the Red Sea if it wanted to, but the threat doesn't have to be huge to be very disruptive.

As an aside, Not even God knows who or what is going to wind up running Sudan, or the pieces thereof, the Red Sea problem could get a LOT worse.

[dan/california]

25 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Given the Mosvka was destroyed by literally a pair of ASWs that had no right to hit it, it sometimes feels like just a handful of Western ships operating in the black sea could have crippled the entire Black Sea fleet given their dismal performance. 

There would be no need to commit warships to the shooting gallery that is the Black Sea, just set up basing for a carrier air wing in Romania for a week , and there wouldn't be anything left bigger than a rowboat.

[Vlad]

56 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

 Given the Mosvka was destroyed by literally a pair of ASWs that had no right to hit it, it sometimes feels like just a handful of Western ships operating in the black sea could have crippled the entire Black Sea fleet given their dismal performance. 

Franky, judging by the "performance" of the Black Sea Fleet, even a force like the Houthis would suffice to permanently turn the surface part of the fleet into submarines.

Western fleet would just eradicate them.

[ArmouredTopHat]

52 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Except that even the Houthi's minimum adequate capability has diverted two thirds of the traffic through the Suez canal around the Horn of Africa, at an enormous economic cost.

That is less about the Houthis destroying ships (its been a handful) and more insurance companies being unwilling to take the risk. Plenty of ships ran the gauntlet in the meantime. This is not a blockade and more of an inconvenience that some are simply not willing to risk. 

In the meantime, the Houthis have been utterly unable to even get close to hitting a Warship, much less damage / destroy it. Its not been from lack of trying either. 

Edited Friday at 05:55 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[dan/california]

20 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

In the meantime, the Houthis have been utterly unable to even get close to hitting a Warship, much less damage / destroy it. Its not been from lack of trying either. 

No, but they haven't had to hit one to make themselves a rather large problem. All the assumptions of global commerce assume things like shipping are are going to be seamless, predictable and cheap. When those assumptions break, it gets unpleasant quickly.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

Hololens is ****ed (and was never good to begin with). All the good people went to Apple and Facebook, as Microsoft pays way less and is a generation or three behind on tech. I would be shocked in Anduril isn’t frothing at mouth to pick up the contract.

Microsoft just announced they are discontinuing it and there's no announcement for a replacement.  Normally companies announce something if they have it before pulling the plug on the old one so... looks like for the time being they are out of the VR/AR business.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, MSBoxer said:

I am not bending over at all, nor am I defending Musk.  I am simply pointing out that it is wise to question any and all unsourced revelations close to an election.

FYI - I was unaware that Murdoch controls the Associated Press, The BBC and the NY Times.

Now, let's return to the topic of the conflict in Ukraine

What gives this more credibility is that it's coming from the Wall Street Journal.  Right leaning and, as far as I'm aware, not on an anti-Musk kick.  In other words, the timing of this info drop doesn't appear to be related to the elections per se.  Plus, it's entirely believable.  We even know, from Musk himself, that he's spoken to Putin directly and taken actions that Putin wanted.  Well documented.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

@Battlefront.com

I was curious to what your thoughts on this were as well, should you get the time!

Sorry!  I meant to

We know from ample sources that Russia does take ground. This video is showing one example of how that ground was taken on that particular day, but does not show how the ground was held on all the days before that.  We also don't have any idea what the circumstances were for the Ukrainians on that particular day... did Russia time their attack to a troop rotation (as they often try to do)?  Were the Ukrainian forces in that particular sector up to defending yet again?  Did they have shortages of resources needed to stop Russia from taking the ground this time vs. all the previous times?  Or did something just go really "right" for the Russian attack separate from Ukraine's variables?  We don't know.

What we do see is a pretty good example of how mechanized warfare is not 100% dead.  If an armored force can be assembled and pass through the gray zone without being significantly disrupted, then it is perfectly capable of overwhelming a defensive line that may be thin and/or under resourced.  And yet, still take some pretty significant casualties for taking a rather small settlement.

I'd be curious to know what the total Russian casualty and equipment losses were for taking this small town.  Even if this was the very first attack ever, the losses were still pretty disproportionate from the gain IMHO.

At the tactical level it seems that Ukraine suffered from an over reliance upon FPVs.  Sure, there was some artillery in play, but artillery is rarely effective at stopping a fast moving mechanized attack unless it is used en mas.  Where were the ATGMs to pick off the armor on its way in?  Where were the mortars and AGLs to keep the infantry from advancing?  It is hard to see evidence of it in the video montage.

One thing is very clear, though, and that is if you want to succeed in this particular threat environment you need to be prepared to "lose" several tactical engagements before "winning".  If column A clears 75% of a path to the objective before getting destroyed/disrupted, that might be good enough if column B can take it from there.  If losses and timing aren't really all that important, then this method will work.  Eventually.  Even in highly contested areas like Bakhmut and Avdiivka.  If either losses and timing are really important, well... not so good.

Steve

[Lieutenant Ash]

British man admits torching Ukrainian businesses for Wagner – but denies spying for Russia

A British man has admitted setting fire to a Ukrainian business in London while working for the Russian-based Wagner Group.

Dylan Earl pleaded guilty to orchestrating the arson attack at an industrial unit in Leyton, east London, on March 20.

He also admitted preparing an act of “serious violence” that could endanger the lives of the public.

Earl becomes the first person to be convicted under the National Security Act, which was introduced to target those working for hostile states within the UK.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/british-man-admits-torching-ukrainian-businesses-for-wagner-but-denies-spying-for-russia/ar-AA1sVDTh?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=7039a7ad1dca490292f3ba48b55fb485&ei=28

Useful idiot.

[Holien]

People will do lots of stuff for money.

Russia has plenty to spend...

[Letter from Prague]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

That is less about the Houthis destroying ships (its been a handful) and more insurance companies being unwilling to take the risk. Plenty of ships ran the gauntlet in the meantime. This is not a blockade and more of an inconvenience that some are simply not willing to risk. 

In the meantime, the Houthis have been utterly unable to even get close to hitting a Warship, much less damage / destroy it. Its not been from lack of trying either. 

 

2 hours ago, dan/california said:

No, but they haven't had to hit one to make themselves a rather large problem. All the assumptions of global commerce assume things like shipping are are going to be seamless, predictable and cheap. When those assumptions break, it gets unpleasant quickly.

Houtis are only capable of this because Russia and Iran keep supplying them. If those two countries get enough of their own trouble (or if Trumps wins elections and Russia and Iran want to give him an easy win), things can stabilize pretty quickly.

[Yardstick]

4 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

Hololens is ****ed (and was never good to begin with). All the good people went to Apple and Facebook, as Microsoft pays way less and is a generation or three behind on tech. I would be shocked in Anduril isn’t frothing at mouth to pick up the contract.

I would argue that IVAS main issue was end users. In my experience, the mixed reality training capability was an absolutely great tool for teams and squads. The integration of NVG/thermal optics and an FCS (FWS-I and FWS-CS) into a relatively compact, easy to use package was a force multiplier that brought the vision of Nett Warrior to reality.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, the groups that were selected to test and provide feedback were not necessarily the best we had to offer. This resulted in bad data. Again, that's just my opinion based on first hand observations and experience. Hololens, Microsoft, IVAS, etc are not the issue, the systems are good. 

That said, I don't think those systems would perform as well long term in a near-peer (and significantly degraded) environment like what we are seeing in UKR.

Edited Friday at 08:24 PM by Yardstick