The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[koxinga]

These munitions are changing the nature of combat. We saw loitering munitions used by Azeri forces devastate the Karabakh separatists, and their Armenian allies. It was then widely predicted that in a larger war they would be too expensive and too few. Initially this proved correct. Russian forces trying to advance into Kiev used loitering munitions, a few of them. But they were far too few to make a real difference. However as the conflict has dragged on they have become far more widespread. FPV drones, the baby brother of the loitering munition has rapidly outpaced the loitering munition on the battlefield, due to being cheaper. While they have drastically less range and are vulnerable to EW, they are still very cheap and effective when they land. The question of their future remains open, but things like this are likely to be part of it;

From what I have seen in this conflict, there are a couple of reasons why these FPV drones are effective.

While vulnerable to EW, the anti-drone EW systems today are mostly directional. If you can't spot the drone fast enough either via electro-optics or battlefield radar, you can't really direct your jammer to the drone's incoming path/direction.

In any case, both sides seems to be operating in small units. Most the strikes are against standalone or isolated vehicles, where they are operating without the protection of any EW systems. Given the fluid nature of the battlespace, some of these strikes are conducted by teams behind the supposed lines and thus catching their targets unaware.

 

[rsemmes]

Exclusivo RTP. Zelensky afasta negociações diretas com Moscovo e cedências territoriais

Em entrevista exclusiva aos enviados especiais da RTP, Cândida Pinto e David Araújo, o presidente ucraniano Volodymyr Zelensky garantiu que a moral dos soldados se mantém elevada, que o avanço no terreno tem sido constante e que necessita de 160 caças F-16. Afastou ainda qualquer possibilidade...

www.rtp.pt

Zelensky says that UKR needs 160 F-16 so that RU cannot win air supremacy. He doesn't mention logistics, nor mechanics, nor pilots, nor AAD; only that "it will be difficult to have them in operation at the beginning of the next year". I don't think that (give me, give me, give me) is a winning strategy.
I am thinking of Croatia's war against Serbia, the offensive years later. How many years and investment would UKR need for that? Would UKR win that new war? Is "carry on and hope" the only option?

 

[rsemmes]

"There is evidence"... what's the evidence? He links to telegram post which links to another telegram post which links to another telegram post, which merely makes the claim.
That is Feanor, post 5627.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

While vulnerable to EW, the anti-drone EW systems today are mostly directional. If you can't spot the drone fast enough either via electro-optics or battlefield radar, you can't really direct your jammer to the drone's incoming path/direction.

You also have to apply the correct jamming method to a drone. If they're trying to jam a drone that uses mil-std comms, they won't be doing much. I don't know the availability, but I do know that mass produced mil-std comms for light drones exist.

 

[Larry_L]

Zelensky is getting serious about corruption. He is pushing a law that would equate corruption wit treason, and a prominent blllinare has been arrested for that.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696885077752365123

Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky detained on suspicion of fraud and money laundering

Arrest of one-time ally of President Volodymyr Zelenskiy comes as Kyiv attempts to crack down on corruption

www.theguardian.com

 

[koxinga]

You also have to apply the correct jamming method to a drone. If they're trying to jam a drone that uses mil-std comms, they won't be doing much. I don't know the availability, but I do know that mass produced mil-std comms for light drones exist.

Mil-std comms is a very loose term.

If it is just to prevent the data from being intercepted or the hijack the channel, yes, encryption, FH techniques will help. But the purpose of jamming is to disrupt and interfere with the communications between the drone and the operator (man-in-the-loop). Once comms between drone and operator is disrupted, the drone either crashes or goes a default, return-home/safe landing model.

So in this case, it is pure brute force, high powered jamming is used. It is also why directional is more preferred (antenna theory/radiation patterns).

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Mil-std comms is a very loose term.

If it is just to prevent the data from being intercepted or the hijack the channel, yes, encryption, FH techniques will help. But the purpose of jamming is to disrupt and interfere with the communications between the drone and the operator (man-in-the-loop). Once comms between drone and operator is disrupted, the drone either crashes or goes a default, return-home/safe landing model.

So in this case, it is pure brute force, high powered jamming is used. It is also why directional is more preferred (antenna theory/radiation patterns).

When I say mil-std my intention is any comm suit designed for military uses on drones, rather than just some hardened case or mil spec interfaces as some like to put for example on civilian laptops.
From my understanding, proper drone defense systems that for now are not yet entirely man portable, use complex jamming methods. Noise jamming is indeed primitive, and in many cases it's not going to affect a drone much, particularly if it uses an electronically steered antenna.

I mention this because last week I saw a Twitter post about Russians complaining about their jamming guns being useless against drones. I have serious doubts about these guns malfunctioning because they're extremely simple.
Now, you can't just fit mil-std comms on any drones so I assume those sent into Russia proper may receive such protection.
In the long run Ukraine should prioritize modifying comms on all drones because deploying them as-is is a major OPSEC risk as at least those drones I'm familiar with are constantly transmitting the operator's coordinates.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I'm seeing reports of rain season coming up in Ukraine. Theoretically it should make it difficult for a defender because trenches are flooded. Attacker will also have difficulty driving through mud. But I'm insufficiently educated to make a guess.

Is there any particular advantage either side will get through the course of a rain season? Should Ukraine exploit this and attack less dug-in Russians? Will Ukraine instead slow down and avoid sending in forces it may be unable to rescue/recover?
If Ukraine slows down, can Russia exploit this to build additional defenses?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Russian Shahed/Geran drone reportedly fell in Romanian territory.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698622152306528747

I wanted a more reliable source but could not find a tweet that contained both a description of the event and Romania's diplomatic response.


This technically permits it to request activation of Article 5, if the report is true.
Should it be done? I believe so. There is no definition of the level and type of participation by any NATO ally, so activation could allow them to maintain the status quo but give them some added flexibility should they decide on a change of course.
I believe passing on this opportunity would be a mistake for this reason.
However I do not believe that such an action would warrant a direct military response.

EDIT:
Could not find a non-Ukrainian source until now. Reuters reports Romania denies this incident occurred.

Ukraine says Russian drones hit NATO member Romania, Bucharest denies report

Ukraine said on Monday Russian drones had detonated on the territory of NATO member Romania during an overnight air strike on a Ukrainian port across the Danube River, but Bucharest denied its territory had been hit.

www.reuters.com

 

[rsemmes]

Russian Shahed/Geran drone reportedly fell in Romanian territory.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698622152306528747

I wanted a more reliable source but could not find a tweet that contained both a description of the event and Romania's diplomatic response.


This technically permits it to request activation of Article 5, if the report is true.
Should it be done? I believe so. There is no definition of the level and type of participation by any NATO ally, so activation could allow them to maintain the status quo but give them some added flexibility should they decide on a change of course.
I believe passing on this opportunity would be a mistake for this reason.
However I do not believe that such an action would warrant a direct military response.

EDIT:
Could not find a non-Ukrainian source until now. Reuters reports Romania denies this incident occurred.

Ukraine says Russian drones hit NATO member Romania, Bucharest denies report

Ukraine said on Monday Russian drones had detonated on the territory of NATO member Romania during an overnight air strike on a Ukrainian port across the Danube River, but Bucharest denied its territory had been hit.

www.reuters.com

Is it a "request" or are we going to start WW3 immediately?, because I don't think escalation is such a good idea and "limited" intervention usually goes "unlimited"; Vietnam, for example (we could say Indochina too).
Could Poland have requested activation of Article 5 against Ukraine when one of its missiles landed in Poland? Is it an error when it doesn't suit our interests? Some errors are more errors than others? If the report is correct.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Is it a "request" or are we going to start WW3 immediately?, because I don't think escalation is such a good idea and "limited" intervention usually goes "unlimited"; Vietnam, for example (we could say Indochina too).
Could Poland have requested activation of Article 5 against Ukraine when one of its missiles landed in Poland? Is it an error when it doesn't suit our interests? Some errors are more errors than others? If the report is correct.

NATO has a general command which is already involved in assistance operations to Ukraine. I think if they were prone to recklessness we'd have seen its consequences by now.
The notion that article 5 activation somehow translates into WW3, or even any form of direct military action, has no solid basis as it assumes a level of recklessness that we haven't witnessed to a sufficient degree.
I've seen claims that an American strike against Iranian assets, or any deep strike in Russia, or a while ago even just involvement in Syria, as catalysts for another world war. All turned out to be false, thankfully.

I also edited the post in case you missed. The report was denied by Romania and no evidence was provided to support the Shahed strike report.

 

[vikingatespam]

Is it a "request" or are we going to start WW3 immediately?, because I don't think escalation is such a good idea and "limited" intervention usually goes "unlimited"; Vietnam, for example (we could say Indochina too).
Could Poland have requested activation of Article 5 against Ukraine when one of its missiles landed in Poland? Is it an error when it doesn't suit our interests? Some errors are more errors than others? If the report is correct.

Article 5 activation (which I doubt will happen outside of some extreme RU stupidity) could trigger much more subtle responses. For example, NATO members declaring that they will shoot down any RU missiles within x miles of their borders so as to prevent further RU accidents (again, presuming the drone hitting ROM soil is even true).

 

[John Fedup]

Article 5 activation (which I doubt will happen outside of some extreme RU stupidity) could trigger much more subtle responses. For example, NATO members declaring that they will shoot down any RU missiles within x miles of their borders so as to prevent further RU accidents (again, presuming the drone hitting ROM soil is even true).

As per an earlier post, the drone didn’t enter Romania but agree, any missile approaching a NATO border should be intercepted before it crosses.

 

[rsemmes]

NATO has a general command which is already involved in assistance operations to Ukraine. I think if they were prone to recklessness we'd have seen its consequences by now.
The notion that article 5 activation somehow translates into WW3, or even any form of direct military action, has no solid basis as it assumes a level of recklessness that we haven't witnessed to a sufficient degree.
I've seen claims that an American strike against Iranian assets, or any deep strike in Russia, or a while ago even just involvement in Syria, as catalysts for another world war. All turned out to be false, thankfully.

I also edited the post in case you missed. The report was denied by Romania and no evidence was provided to support the Shahed strike report.

I saw the edit and I was reading the news afterwards. I cannot see why an error/escalation cannot happen this side of the hill. You believe "it should be done", I don't.
vikingatespam: "(which I doubt will happen outside of some extreme RU stupidity)". I doubt it too, but we are dealing with humans.
Zelensky kept talking about the RU missile, we may still hear more noise about this no-attack. I still think some errors are more errors than others.

 

[Vivendi]

Now that Sweden's NATO membership is expected to be approved when the Turkish parliament next convenes (not until October, I've read), it could make sense to investigate the possibility of supplying any older Gripen that could be spared. They'd suit Ukraine's operating environment well.

The question is, where to get them from? If there are any stored, overhauling them for Ukraine seems a good idea. Those leased to Czechia will become available when Czechia starts getting F-35, but that won't happen tomorrow.

I wonder if Sweden really would need to keep all their current Gripen C/Ds after becoming NATO members. History seems to indicate that the most effective deterrent against Russian attack is NATO membership (e.g., the Baltics have not been attacked despite having no fighter jets, very limited armed forces in general, and a geography that "begs to be invaded" from the East). Personally I think Sweden should be able to manage without some (14-20?) Gripen C/D once they become members, and while waiting for Gripen E production to ramp up. Maybe the Swedes will disagree to this -- they have been neutral/nonaligned for almost 200 years and perhaps need some time to digest what it means to become a member of the world's strongest and most successful military alliance.

 

[Vivendi]

Great news from Germany, Diehl is ramping up production of both IRIS-T missiles and IRIS-T air defense systems.

400-500 IRIS-T missiles will be produced annually from 2024, and 8 air defense systems in 2025. I have seen some indications that also Kongsberg is working on ramping up production of NASAMS but not found any concrete numbers yet.

German arms maker Diehl to ramp up production of IRIS-T air defence system | Reuters

 

[swerve]

I wonder if Sweden really would need to keep all their current Gripen C/Ds after becoming NATO members. History seems to indicate that the most effective deterrent against Russian attack is NATO membership (e.g., the Baltics have not been attacked despite having no fighter jets, very limited armed forces in general, and a geography that "begs to be invaded" from the East). Personally I think Sweden should be able to manage without some (14-20?) Gripen C/D once they become members, and while waiting for Gripen E production to ramp up. Maybe the Swedes will disagree to this -- they have been neutral/nonaligned for almost 200 years and perhaps need some time to digest what it means to become a member of the world's strongest and most successful military alliance.

Sweden has quite a lot of space for its air force to defend. It's bigger than Germany, the UK or Italy.

 

[StobieWan]

I *think* Sweden has some cabs they ordered to keep the line hot, but honestly, right now, just send them anything F-16 shaped - the last thing the Ukrainians need is another spares and training chain to keep running.

 

[Feanor]

One of the things I wonder is why the US hasn't really turned on the spigot. The US is sitting on gigantic stockpiles of old kit that could be refurbished and sent to Ukraine (including F-16s). Presumably the intent is to force Europe to contribute more to their defense and to have them realize why they need to do that. However Ukraine is short on almost everything, and losing kit at a massive rate. The question remains open whether they will even win. Yet we're not seeing those resources get tapped in real quantity.

 

[Vivendi]

Sweden has quite a lot of space for its air force to defend. It's bigger than Germany, the UK or Italy.

True, but:

1. in the short term, Russia hardly has the capacity to attack Sweden due to the war in Ukraine
2. when Sweden becomes NATO member, as noted above, NATO membership probably becomes a more important deterrent than the Gripens. Russia understands the significant cost of moving even just one inch into NATO country.
3. Also, imagine a scenario where Sweden has a reduced number of Gripen and tension is rising in the region -- NATO can then easily send additional fighter jets from other NATO countries to Sweden, if there is a need. Just like fighter jets are sent to Iceland if tension is increasing around Iceland.
4. Unlike e.g. the Baltics, Russian land forces are kept at a distance from Sweden due to the Baltic Sea, which will become a NATO lake when Sweden joins. Poland just ordered 4 additional land based NSM batteries, and Finland, and also Sweden have significant anti-shipping capabilities. Russia can always attack Sweden with long range missiles, but to what end? Are they willing to risk WW3 to do what exactly? Snake Island would be peanuts compared to what would happen to Russia if they tried to grab e.g. Gotland after Sweden becomes NATO member.