Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2
Discussion
98elise said:
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 f
king 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 However, and maybe this is the child that watched 'Airwolf' in me - but proper attack helis are f
king cool bits of kit... 
Actually, maybe that was the reason for the 'wonky' flightpath...
Every day is a school day...
Drones appear on radar at about 1mile range and each type will have a different signature. Couple that with one of the above gun thingies and that gives you what you need to protect your tanks and artillery. 1 set every 2 miles to give effective cover along a front / over an encampment.
Interesting.
Drones appear on radar at about 1mile range and each type will have a different signature. Couple that with one of the above gun thingies and that gives you what you need to protect your tanks and artillery. 1 set every 2 miles to give effective cover along a front / over an encampment.
Interesting.
Sway said:
Derek Smith said:
Every new weapon that changes the course of battle is soon out of date when counter-measures are introduced. The problem is super-sophistication. All this technology costs and one country just having a plethora of drones means that their potential enemies have to either buy expensive counter-measure or start being nice to one-another.
Escalation is always expensive.
The countermeasure to cheap drones can also be cheap...Escalation is always expensive.
Drones are relatively hard to detect from the perspective of radar, visual, thermal imaging etc. Whilst they can absolutely be detected by radar, the range at which most of these can achieve detection against things like smaller commercial drones isn't really that far (1-3 miles). You can see from plenty of the footage coming out of Ukraine how hard they are to identify visually. They're easier to detect and deny via control-based means like RF analysis (most are 2.4GHz and 5GHz), but lots can do automated pathfinding these days, and approaches like FHSS make them harder to track and jam (most decent commercially sized drones will implement frequency hopping and employ strong encryption).
Once you spot one, they're probably pretty easy to hit at the shortish ranges were talking here...but hit with what? Are you really going to throw a 100 rounds 30mm HE-frag burst in the general direction of a $200 drone? I'm not sure the economies of scale work out long-term if every drone you bring down costs you 10x its value in ammunition.
Edited by HM-2 on Monday 16th May 13:21
HM-2 said:
Sway said:
Derek Smith said:
Every new weapon that changes the course of battle is soon out of date when counter-measures are introduced. The problem is super-sophistication. All this technology costs and one country just having a plethora of drones means that their potential enemies have to either buy expensive counter-measure or start being nice to one-another.
Escalation is always expensive.
The countermeasure to cheap drones can also be cheap...Escalation is always expensive.
Drones are relatively hard to detect from the perspective of radar, visual, thermal imaging etc. Whilst they can absolutely be detected by radar, the range at which most of these can achieve detection against things like smaller commercial drones isn't really that far (1-3 miles). You can see from plenty of the footage coming out of Ukraine how hard they are to identify visually. They're easier to detect and deny via control-based means like RF analysis (most are 2.4GHz and 5GHz), but lots can do automated pathfinding these days, and approaches like FHSS make them harder to track and jam (most decent commercially sized drones will implement frequency hopping and employ strong encryption).
Once you spot one, they're probably pretty easy to hit at the shortish ranges were talking here...but hit with what? Are you really going to throw a 100 rounds 30mm HE-frag burst in the general direction of a $200 drone?
Tough call for the Russians who think men are disposable but smart bombs aren't used in case someone else needs one later.
eharding said:
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.
If the attacker chose to kill an individual over a vehicle that potentially saves a $40 million tank and four lives. 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.
. ..but anything you use to detect and kill drones can be destroyed so, once again, it's not a novel problem.
Use of drone over enemy trenches
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfHeflPHrTo
Warning. Not gory, but not for the squeamish...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfHeflPHrTo
Warning. Not gory, but not for the squeamish...
HM-2 said:
Once you spot one, they're probably pretty easy to hit at the shortish ranges were talking here...but hit with what? Are you really going to throw a 100 rounds 30mm HE-frag burst in the general direction of a $200 drone?
It's not the value of the ammunition vs the value of the drone that's important though surely? It's the value of the ammunition vs the cost of the men and equipment that the drone is targetting.If your £1000s of ammunition save you 4 lives and a £5 million tank, that's well worth it.
mondeoman said:
HM-2 said:
Sway said:
Derek Smith said:
Every new weapon that changes the course of battle is soon out of date when counter-measures are introduced. The problem is super-sophistication. All this technology costs and one country just having a plethora of drones means that their potential enemies have to either buy expensive counter-measure or start being nice to one-another.
Escalation is always expensive.
The countermeasure to cheap drones can also be cheap...Escalation is always expensive.
Drones are relatively hard to detect from the perspective of radar, visual, thermal imaging etc. Whilst they can absolutely be detected by radar, the range at which most of these can achieve detection against things like smaller commercial drones isn't really that far (1-3 miles). You can see from plenty of the footage coming out of Ukraine how hard they are to identify visually. They're easier to detect and deny via control-based means like RF analysis (most are 2.4GHz and 5GHz), but lots can do automated pathfinding these days, and approaches like FHSS make them harder to track and jam (most decent commercially sized drones will implement frequency hopping and employ strong encryption).
Once you spot one, they're probably pretty easy to hit at the shortish ranges were talking here...but hit with what? Are you really going to throw a 100 rounds 30mm HE-frag burst in the general direction of a $200 drone?
Tough call for the Russians who think men are disposable but smart bombs aren't used in case someone else needs one later.
1) Are the measures to detect and disrupt these drones actually available? Lots of people selling you things to do it says yes, but IIRC there's little evidence of their real world efficacy.
2) Does Russia actually possess the capability to effectively detect and disrupt drones in the current conflict? I would say no, based on the available evidence.
3) Is there any interest in Russia acquiring this capability, and can they do it meaningfully quickly to limit the effectiveness of these attacks? Er...pass.
deadtom said:
HM-2 said:
Once you spot one, they're probably pretty easy to hit at the shortish ranges were talking here...but hit with what? Are you really going to throw a 100 rounds 30mm HE-frag burst in the general direction of a $200 drone?
It's not the value of the ammunition vs the value of the drone that's important though surely? It's the value of the ammunition vs the cost of the men and equipment that the drone is targetting.If your £1000s of ammunition save you 4 lives and a £5 million tank, that's well worth it.
deadtom said:
HM-2 said:
Once you spot one, they're probably pretty easy to hit at the shortish ranges were talking here...but hit with what? Are you really going to throw a 100 rounds 30mm HE-frag burst in the general direction of a $200 drone?
It's not the value of the ammunition vs the value of the drone that's important though surely? It's the value of the ammunition vs the cost of the men and equipment that the drone is targetting.If your £1000s of ammunition save you 4 lives and a £5 million tank, that's well worth it.
I have two, the standard grey ones are really hard to spot in the air - remember CAA rules say you have to keep in in view at all times...
120m height limit and even then you won't see a grey mini
HM-2 said:
That presumes you care about either, which I'm not sure Russia do.
granted.I was thinking of this from the standpoint of what it means for the future of warfare generally, but yes in this instance I agree with you, the Russians appear now, as in WWII, to simply not care about losses of men and materiel.
HM-2 said:
I'm not sure the economies of scale work out long-term if every drone you bring down costs you 10x its value in ammunition.
Google the amount the US spent in bombs and ammo to kill ? thousand Viet Cong and NVA troops.I recall reading something silly like it was the equivalent of 1 MILLION rounds of ammo per kill...
Ammo is a LOT cheaper to lose than people and tanks...
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 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
The latest medium calibre weapons use a programmable fuze to detonate at the right range, and might only fire half a dozen rounds at most to achieve the hit.
mondeoman said:
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.
Yes.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...
One of the few 80's shows that really stands the test of time - you can watch it today and it still looks pretty good, unlike Streethawk & Knight RiderHowever, and maybe this is the child that watched 'Airwolf' in me - but proper attack helis are f
king cool bits of kit... TTmonkey said:
Russian commanders executing their own wounded soldiers on the front line has been alleged by Russian POWs today.
Expendable.
Disgusting. The interviews with Russian POWs is extremely interesting. A picture is beginning to form. Few knew they were going to war any more than a day beforehand, some not even until deployment into combat.Expendable.
Command use the troops like cannon fodder, keep them in the dark, threaten them if they refuse orders or try to retreat. POWs are saying that wounded were returned to front line if they could still stand and hold a weapon. Troops were ordered to fire on (obvious) civilians and were threatened or even shot/grenade if they refused. Some soldiers resorted to suicide.
The truth is getting out. The RA and Russian media are powerless to stop the nation from finding out what has happened.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff