Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2

[moustachebandit]

CrutyRammers said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

CrutyRammers said:

Presumably the issue here is that they're hard to see. If you've got proper AA set ups and radar and whathaveyou, they probably are easily countered. But if you daren't turn on your AA radar or jammer because you'll be spotted and attract a load of loitering munitions and/or artillery fire, maybe that all goes out of the window. Or maybe they're only using them where there is no defence, to pick off odd units here and there.

I think it'll prove the opposite. Swarms of cheap, semi autonomous drones could be very very hard to counter.

In daylight a few blokes with binos and a shotgun could do damage. So in daylight this is just another symptom of Russia's lack of infantry.

Stationary/slow + fragile + low aren't feeling like desirable qualities in aircraft.

Plus the damage is being done by artillery in this war - the only reason it feels like drones are significant is because the footage ends up online.

I could be wrong, I often am.

Well I'm guessing you've not done much shooting with a shotgun These are generally flying above effective shotgun range, which isn't really very far. You've also now taken a guy away from each squad to watch the sky all the time. It's the lack of air superiority as said above, which in turn means they can't use their own air defence radars. Slow and fragile they are, but if they are also unseen, then that doesn't really matter. As for artillery, well they appear to be using drones as spotters for it. We've also seen them directing infantry in urban environments to great advantage. I'd be surprised if we don't see more formalised versions for those tasks in future.

I did read that DJI had been providing the Russians with Aeroscope which allows the Russians to track DJI drones in the air and also target operators on the ground. There are also claims that DJI has provided the Russians with an enhanced version of Aeroscope with increased range, whilst the Ukrainian access to Aeroscope has experienced a number of issues and failures.

I honestly dont know anything about commercial drones but if the claims are right then DJI might find their market shrink quite dramatically in the next few years?

In the same way we cant rely on counties like Russia for energy, we shouldn't rely on China for our technology especially when the company who controls the technology is essentially government run and can weaponise it to their advantage.

[Sway]

mondeoman said:

"tank regiment" defence is one thing, but what's going on in UKR is single number dispersed tanks and artillery being taken out by drones, at night. Hence each tank requiring its own close support defence system, be that a bloke with a shotgun and IR goggles that can scan 360, or a stand-alone automated system.
EIther way it adds substantially to the overhead for the aggressor.

That's down to how Russia are using their kit.

Which is very different to how 'we' use similar kit.

Remember, a lot of what Ukraine is doing in terms of tactics is down to the training by certain NATO nations over the last few years... There's also a lot of 'amusement' in the Russian tactics.

[mondeoman]

Arnold Cunningham said:

I am fascinated by the possibilities presented by "commodity" drones - with cheap, mass produced hardware. All the clever stuff goes into the software or base station. Can see this war could change the nature of warfare quite substantially.

A trench - useless if you can fly a swarm of disposable drones over it on khamikaze missions. And I use the word swarm on purpose - small, cheap, lightweight. Flown as part of a single unit, not individually.

If each disposable drone becomes the bomb.... hundreds of grenade size munitions suddenly appearing overhead and dropping on you. Jam them and they drop anyway, shot them and hit the rotors, they drop on you anyway.

[pingu393]

speedy_thrills said:

The next step on those small drones dropping anti-tank munitions should be to impart rotation along the central axis just before dropping them. The initial aerodynamic instability (wobbling) as they start to fall is likely costing them some vital accuracy.

Too complicated. Just offset the fins. It worked for Tallboy and Grand Slam

[FourWheelDrift]

speedchick said:

McDonalds are giving up in Russia

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61463876

Already started, rotate the M sign, add a line and you've get a new logo.

[mondeoman]

moustachebandit said:

I did read that DJI had been providing the Russians with Aeroscope which allows the Russians to track DJI drones in the air and also target operators on the ground. There are also claims that DJI has provided the Russians with an enhanced version of Aeroscope with increased range, whilst the Ukrainian access to Aeroscope has experienced a number of issues and failures.

I honestly dont know anything about commercial drones but if the claims are right then DJI might find their market shrink quite dramatically in the next few years?

In the same way we cant rely on counties like Russia for energy, we shouldn't rely on China for our technology especially when the company who controls the technology is essentially government run and can weaponise it to their advantage.

I thought that DJI were quite pissed off that both sides were using their drones for warfare, but that was a while back, so maybe their allegiance has changed..
Either way, RU dont seem to be taking advantage of this advantage if it exists.

[vonuber]

Ukrainian airforce is still up and about:




And also here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uqne8c/u...

Interesting we are starting to see a lot more videos of them now.

[BikeBikeBIke]

mondeoman said:

"tank regiment" defence is one thing, but what's going on in UKR is single number dispersed tanks and artillery being taken out by drones, at night. Hence each tank requiring its own close support defence system, be that a bloke with a shotgun and IR goggles that can scan 360, or a stand-alone automated system.
EIther way it adds substantially to the overhead for the aggressor.

I chose shot gun, I nearly wrote catapult. The point is a drone is a really slow, really crap aeroplane. As things stand this doesn't require a high tech solution.

An infantryman guarding a tank in wartime doesn't seem a big additional demand. I assume normal procedure is to guard tanks?

...but don't take bloke with a gun too literally. My point is long term this is a lesser problem than a missile or a jet or even an artillery shell.

Of course, drone technology could improve.

[Evanivitch]

Lethal anti-drone technology is all about Airburst fuze munitions. Usually in 30mm and 40mm calibres. The UK already adopted an Airburst capable gun in the AJAX CT40 weapon system, which was also supposed to be on Warrior WCSP before it was cancelled.

The manufacturers CTAi have even developed a new round that is improved for aerial targets like drones and helicopters.

Thales call it the RapidFire system.

https://youtu.be/LCFWUFWh3Io

[BikeBikeBIke]

vonuber said:

Ukrainian airforce is still up and about:




And also here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uqne8c/u...

Interesting we are starting to see a lot more videos of them now.

Geopolitics Decanted just pointed that out. The Ukraine Airforce is back in the saddle over the last week or so.

[Evanivitch]

mondeoman said:

"tank regiment" defence is one thing, but what's going on in UKR is single number dispersed tanks and artillery being taken out by drones, at night. Hence each tank requiring its own close support defence system, be that a bloke with a shotgun and IR goggles that can scan 360, or a stand-alone automated system.
EIther way it adds substantially to the overhead for the aggressor.

You're assuming from each video that there's no other units with a few hundred metres or even a couple of km that would be part of the air defence bubble.

[vonuber]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Geopolitics Decanted just pointed that out. The Ukraine Airforce is back in the saddle over the last week or so.

Have to say, don't care how crap it is now but I've always loved the Mi-24.

[98elise]

TTmonkey said:

98elise said:

You're imagining something that doesn exist, yet the fully automated gun systems to shoot them down has existed since the 80's.

If cheap means you can send 1000's, then the response is to fit a bigger magazine to your gun system. Fire rate for a Phalanx system is 4500 rounds per minute.

Other systems have programmable explosive rounds with lots of fragments to create clouds of projectiles.

Drones are great, but being unsophisticated and slow makes them vulnerable.

However, to counter this…. The Phalanx/CIWS type weapons only holds 1500 odd rounds in its drum. So a few bursts and it needs refilling. It will need to fire multiple rounds at each target to destroy it…. So would soon be swamped with a drone swarm. It also uses its own outgoing rounds to walk fire onto targets and correct aim…. So it expends hundreds of rounds to hit a fast flying target. Obviously static drones are simple but the small suicide drones are low and fast.

It also costs millions and needs a team to set up and maintain. And paints its own radar signature so needs protecting from anti radiation missile attack.

Any good for defending a few tanks in some woodland in Ukraine…. Not really. Not cost effective and not really suitable for mobile operations. Used to defend bases and ships, yes, very good, usually.

Also, useful at sea where the radar can see for miles but on land, terrain and woodland are going to hinder targeting. It would have to be very close to the tanks to protect from a small drone. So you would need hundreds of them in Ukraine because of the huge battle front, and they cost millions.

Not something you are going to deploy to protect some grunts in an old tank in the middle of nowhere.

And didn’t stop their flag ship being hit by two missiles either.

Phalanx is just an example of the technology, and a 40 year old technology at that.

Rheinmetall Oerlikon are doing some clever stuff with their AHEAD fragmenting rounds, and automated turrets/mounts that can equally be sat on a ship or trailer.

I just don't see unsophisticated drones as game changers. They are just a new way of delivering things that go bang, and will be met with equal counter measures.

I know nothing of tank warfare though, my experience is in ship defences.

[Sway]

As an aside - I have a healthy complete fear of helicopters. Bloody stupid things.

However, and maybe this is the child that watched 'Airwolf' in me - but proper attack helis are fking cool bits of kit...

[eharding]

BikeBikeBIke said:

I chose shot gun, I nearly wrote catapult.

Good job you didn't propose a set of nunchucks and a magnifying glass - that would really have blown your credibility.

Brilliant concept though - everyone else buttoned up inside their vehicles, and one poor herbert standing outside straining his ears in the darkness for the vanishingly faint sound for drone motors a couple of hundred feet up, and the last thing he hears is the whistle of a mortar round as the drone operator drops one directly on him to kick things off.

[deadtom]

Evanivitch said:

Lethal anti-drone technology is all about Airburst fuze munitions. Usually in 30mm and 40mm calibres. The UK already adopted an Airburst capable gun in the AJAX CT40 weapon system, which was also supposed to be on Warrior WCSP before it was cancelled.

You seem to know your stuff and no doubt know this already, so the following is more for the benefit of the wider conversation rather than you personally, but that's exactly the sort of munition that the Gepard* fires, which (unless this has changed and I missed it) is on it's way to Ukraine as we speak.

A few Gepards would certainly be a very effective way to further diminish whatever drone capability the Russians currently have.

• this thread moves mega fast so the last reference to these is probably 100 pages back by now, but they look like this:

Edited by deadtom on Monday 16th May 13:13

[vaud]

eharding said:

Brilliant concept though - everyone else buttoned up inside their vehicles, and one poor herbert standing outside straining his ears in the darkness for the vanishingly faint sound for drone motors a couple of hundred feet up, and the last thing he hears is the whistle of a mortar round as the drone operator drops one directly on him to kick things off.

Don't even need to kill the spotter - an injured soldier is far more of an overhead/liability.

[Sway]

deadtom said:

Evanivitch said:

Lethal anti-drone technology is all about Airburst fuze munitions. Usually in 30mm and 40mm calibres. The UK already adopted an Airburst capable gun in the AJAX CT40 weapon system, which was also supposed to be on Warrior WCSP before it was cancelled.

You seem to know your stuff so the following is more for the benefit of the conversation at large rather than informing you personally, but that's exactly the sort of munition that the Gepard* fires, which (unless this has changed and I missed it) is on it's way to Ukraine as we speak.

A few Gepards would certainly be a very effective way to further diminish whatever drone capability the Russians currently have.

• this thread moves mega fast so the last reference to these is probably 100 pages back by now, but they look like this:

My "extensive military experience" (playing Battlefield on the PlayStation) tells me that these are also very good in semi-urban environments against infantry within buildings too.

Was always good for 'clearing an objective' of pesky troops with manpads.

[98elise]

Sway said:

As an aside - I have a healthy complete fear of helicopters. Bloody stupid things.

However, and maybe this is the child that watched 'Airwolf' in me - but proper attack helis are fking cool bits of kit...

Helicopters are dangerous things. They don't want to stay in the air, or fly in a straight line. Most of the pilots work is stopping it crashing

[eharding]

vaud said:

eharding said:

Brilliant concept though - everyone else buttoned up inside their vehicles, and one poor herbert standing outside straining his ears in the darkness for the vanishingly faint sound for drone motors a couple of hundred feet up, and the last thing he hears is the whistle of a mortar round as the drone operator drops one directly on him to kick things off.

Don't even need to kill the spotter - an injured soldier is far more of an overhead/liability.

Ahhh - so the drone has the nunchucks then? I like your thinking.