War in Ukraine: thread feedback session open unttil Saturday (i'll regret this)

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > War in Ukraine: thread feedback session open unttil Saturday (i'll regret this)

«‹›275 »

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

nimby posted:

The counter is going to be drone-hunter drones. Armed with something that can disrupt the capability of the target drone to fly, until the attack suicide drones get better defences and it'll set off a new type of arms race. I'm not sure if we'll see something like it in the current war, but future conflicts are going to have to have them.

The drone could be bigger because it doesn't require as much stealth to defend a region, so maybe it carries a bunch of nets to tangle up the target drone. Or it's got a sawblade attached for aerial robot wars.

That sounds expensive and difficult to engineer. I suspect the answer is more likely going to be autocannons with a combination of optics, lasers, and radar.

They're inexpensive. Even complicated parts such as self-destructing rounds only cost a few dollars: far cheaper than even $20K USD Iranian guided drone-bombs.
They're ubiquitous. Lots of platforms can fire 30mm shells, and modern turrets are lightweight enough to be put onto light trucks (e.g. the US JLTV).
Ballistics are fast enough (though I've read it's apparently very hard to get firearms past about 1200m/sec).
Guided missiles are still too expensive. These Iranian drones are basically just $20K guided missiles built with off-the-shelf parts. It's hard to get cheaper than that with another guided missile.
Autocannons could be integrated with a network of sensors, though I imagine there's still a lot of work to do here.

We'll continue to see big, expensive platforms such as Patriot, S-400, etc. for intercepting high-end ballistic missiles, manned aircraft, etc. But I don't think you'll need that much for DJI drones or $20K flying bombs going a couple hundred kph.

On a related note, I think the US Army's Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program has some anti-drone potential. I haven't seen a single thing mentioned in any of the official literature, but they're literally putting a fire control computer onto a platform with an 800m range. 6.8mm is a large enough caliber to knock down small drones such as the DJIs.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 19:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 22:42

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

Nenonen posted:

There's a possible solution, and it's nothing high end - just place anti-drone posts with heavy machine guns and listening posts around cities and other targets like it's 1940 again. The drones are not particularly fast and a hit from a 12.7mm DShK is going to break it up real good. The issue is that you need people to keep their eyes and ears open for them all day long, but you could quickly train auxiliary air defense troops without much trouble and no need to tie front soldiers down to do it. At least it would be more effective than policemen opening fire with AK's.

The issue with older technology gun-based AA are the bullets: they fall down somewhere. Modern CIWS use self-destructing bullets, though, so with modern munitions something like you describe may become both viable and necessary.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 19:10

Pinky Artichoke: Apr 10, 2011; Dinner has blossomed.

Owling Howl posted:

The main problem with the Iranian drones is that they are cheap and plentiful. Practcally just an MC engine strapped to a fiberglass fuselage and some electronics for control. They seem to exploit a gap in AA capabilities that haven't been developed to deal with that type of threat. AA has been focused on fast and expensive missiles or planes - not swarms of aerial mopeds. It's not sustainable to shoot down a $5.000 drone with a $100.000 missile especially if you can produce the drones faster than the AA missiles. You're kinda hosed whether you shoot it down or not.

I don't think there's really a counter to it. The only thing Ukraine and allies can do is make a similar program and use it against Russia. If Ukraine could bootstrap their own program they could strike further behind the lines without ATACMs.

Perun talked in his most recent video about how the things available to respond to these drones cost orders of magnitude more than the drones and are far less plentiful. Which leads me to think that part of the plan (in as much as Russia demonstrates "planning") with these things is to exhaust Ukraine's available AA resources and planes, both softening the country up for Russian air operations *and* getting Ukraine further into the poo poo economically. In addition to the regular thing of just killing civilians rather than military targets whenever possible.

nimby posted:

The counter is going to be drone-hunter drones. Armed with something that can disrupt the capability of the target drone to fly, until the attack suicide drones get better defences and it'll set off a new type of arms race. I'm not sure if we'll see something like it in the current war, but future conflicts are going to have to have them.

These things are slow enough that a dude in a Cessna with a rifle could take them out as long as he's careful to avoid the shrapnel.

Something like those fireworks display drone swarms with a little explosive charges instead of pretty lights would probably do really well for cheap if they're deployed in the right general direction/altitude for an incoming Shahed grouping. Kind of like an aerial mine field with an operator.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 19:10

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

If the US ends up sending P-51 Mustangs to Ukraine to shoot down these Iranian drones...(okay, okay, I'm done now...)

# ? Oct 17, 2022 19:13

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

Ynglaur posted:

That sounds expensive and difficult to engineer. I suspect the answer is more likely going to be autocannons with a combination of optics, lasers, and radar.

They're inexpensive. Even complicated parts such as self-destructing rounds only cost a few dollars: far cheaper than even $20K USD Iranian guided drone-bombs.

They're ubiquitous. Lots of platforms can fire 30mm shells, and modern turrets are lightweight enough to be put onto light trucks (e.g. the US JLTV).

Ballistics are fast enough (though I've read it's apparently very hard to get firearms past about 1200m/sec).

Guided missiles are still too expensive. These Iranian drones are basically just $20K guided missiles built with off-the-shelf parts. It's hard to get cheaper than that with another guided missile.

Autocannons could be integrated with a network of sensors, though I imagine there's still a lot of work to do here.

We'll continue to see big, expensive platforms such as Patriot, S-400, etc. for intercepting high-end ballistic missiles, manned aircraft, etc. But I don't think you'll need that much for DJI drones or $20K flying bombs going a couple hundred kph.

On a related note, I think the US Army's Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program has some anti-drone potential. I haven't seen a single thing mentioned in any of the official literature, but they're literally putting a fire control computer onto a platform with an 800m range. 6.8mm is a large enough caliber to knock down small drones such as the DJIs.

My hot take is that normal infantry fighting vehicles are going to end up with DP-style mounts like escort ships did in WWII. Everything modern is carrying 25-40mm guns that will have programmable ammunition. You "just" have to network them in to an integrated sensor network to figure out what to shoot. I don't mean expressly-designed things like M-SHORAD, I mean the ability for an M-SHORAD like system (or even just a sensor-only platform) to provide targeting data to an AFV in proximity to enable that AFV to shoot down the drone. Radar coverage is easy; range is hard and this solves some problems. Everything is getting networked anyway.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 19:30

ummel: Jun 17, 2002; <3 Lowtax; Fun Shoe

Good news on the POW front.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_ua/status/1582059724706820097

# ? Oct 17, 2022 19:38

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

My hot take is that normal infantry fighting vehicles are going to end up with DP-style mounts like escort ships did in WWII. Everything modern is carrying 25-40mm guns that will have programmable ammunition. You "just" have to network them in to an integrated sensor network to figure out what to shoot. I don't mean expressly-designed things like M-SHORAD, I mean the ability for an M-SHORAD like system (or even just a sensor-only platform) to provide targeting data to an AFV in proximity to enable that AFV to shoot down the drone. Radar coverage is easy; range is hard and this solves some problems. Everything is getting networked anyway.

I agree, and I'd be amazed if the OMFV requirements didn't include something like this. The M1A2SEPv3 (wow that's a mouthful...) apparently have "smart" munitions. My laments in 2003 for lack of a simple HE round were later met by a bunch of different rounds that never quite just acted as "just punch through this concrete wall and then explode". US tanks are going back to two rounds: a DU-based SABOT, and a general-purpose "smart" round that can act like HE, HEAT, or proximity detonation.

I'd imagine shrinking that down to even 40mm autocannon doesn't make sense on its own, but many of the engineering lessons could be used.

These capabilities are unfortunately years away, at least at any sort of scale, and so are unlikely to help Ukraine in the short- to mid-term. Good operational art is causing your enemy to have an untenable number of dilemmas. Large numbers of guided drone-bombs is one that Russia is presenting to Ukraine, but I think if Ukraine continues to focus their guided munitions on Russian military targets they'll cause Russia to have more unresolved dilemmas than the one.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 19:45

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

Various DoD suppliers already got it down to 25mm air-burst programmable rounds, which is probably all you need and has added benefits of being able to be fused to explode above fighting positions. That plus some kind of armor penetrator is almost certainly sufficient.

But yeah, none of this is going to help the AFU in the near term.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 20:01

PederP: Nov 20, 2009

As I mentioned earlier, the military is more than capable of countering lovely and slow drones. While there is very much an arms race going there (including the cost-efficiency perspective), that's not the problem Ukraine is facing right now. The Iranian drones are not going to turn the tide on the various counter-offensives and key battle zones.

The drones being used against civilian targets is the problem - and the solutions that work in a rational military setting don't translate directly to protecting civilians (and various economic targets).

It's the same thing with the cruise missiles - Russia is unable to leverage them for significant strategic gain at this point due to quantity, accuracy, poor Russian leadership, and improved Ukrainian AA. But they can very much make those missiles a weapon of terror against civilian targets.

Countering that is not a military-industrial challenge. During a war it is simply not feasible to fully counter terror tactics such at these. Ukraine is doing a good job at it, though. Not having civilians killed in this fashion is why humanity created stuff like the Geneva Conventions and the UN. The solution cannot be technological - it also has to be political. But sadly, we see (and that was also the case before this war) that too many government and people simply don't care enough about preventing war crimes. and prosecuting the perpetrators thereof.

The next war is also going to have atrocities committed. There will not be a technological solution to this problem. What came before, what crimes and what laxities, is a point that just leads to a dead horse. But this war should remind the people of the west that atrocities and war crimes must not be tolerated, regardless of the alignment, geography, culture, race, religion and creed of the involved parties. I am not optimistic about this - judging by the international reactions to the recent rekindling of the Azerbaijan-Armenia war.

Countries show varying propensity towards war crimes and I believe Russia is one of the countries which has a systemic problem with this far in excess of most other countries (because all crimes are not equal). Given that I do not believe the international community will be able to accomplish much to prevent war crimes - the solution to the current problem is cultural and institutional self-betterment of Russia. Even without the nuclear deterrent making it impossible, the track record is not entirely great on enlightenment through conquest and occupation.

In other words, these drone attacks against civilians happen because Russia considers them acceptable. Technology can mitigate, but never prevent, that problem. Deterring Russia from invading other countries is the real solution. Second-best is making sure those countries win quickly and decisively.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 20:26

Qtotonibudinibudet: Nov 7, 2011; Omich poluyobok, skazhi ty narkoman? ya prosto tozhe gde to tam zhivu, mogli by vmeste uyobyvat' narkotiki

madeintaipei posted:

Semi-related:

During the 1960's an Alaskan bush pilot decided to mount twin 12ga. Browning Auto-5 autoloading shotguns upside down beneath the wings of his light airplane to hunt wolves. By all reports, this was very effective (right up until the ATF went ape poo poo on him as mounting weapons to a vehicle is a major no-no).

At that point, you're looking at such a sturdy firing platform that you'd be better off using a tiny helicoper and some dude or dudette hanging out the door with whatever cheap Turkish semi-auto shotgun can be scrounged up. Fly in circles above suspected drone flight level, circle down to meet the target, blast it with 1,300fps tungsten goose fuckers, gain altitude, rinse and repeat.

If we're talking about silly kinetic solutions. Which we are.

is this considered a technical

# ? Oct 17, 2022 20:30

Barrel Cactaur: Oct 6, 2021

Ynglaur posted:

That sounds expensive and difficult to engineer. I suspect the answer is more likely going to be autocannons with a combination of optics, lasers, and radar.

They're inexpensive. Even complicated parts such as self-destructing rounds only cost a few dollars: far cheaper than even $20K USD Iranian guided drone-bombs.

They're ubiquitous. Lots of platforms can fire 30mm shells, and modern turrets are lightweight enough to be put onto light trucks (e.g. the US JLTV).

Ballistics are fast enough (though I've read it's apparently very hard to get firearms past about 1200m/sec).

Guided missiles are still too expensive. These Iranian drones are basically just $20K guided missiles built with off-the-shelf parts. It's hard to get cheaper than that with another guided missile.

Autocannons could be integrated with a network of sensors, though I imagine there's still a lot of work to do here.

We'll continue to see big, expensive platforms such as Patriot, S-400, etc. for intercepting high-end ballistic missiles, manned aircraft, etc. But I don't think you'll need that much for DJI drones or $20K flying bombs going a couple hundred kph.

On a related note, I think the US Army's Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program has some anti-drone potential. I haven't seen a single thing mentioned in any of the official literature, but they're literally putting a fire control computer onto a platform with an 800m range. 6.8mm is a large enough caliber to knock down small drones such as the DJIs.

The problem is the cpe of most mounted platforms has to compete with size, speed, and cost. What you really need is a way to have programmable fuse ammunition that doesn't cost as much as a car each round or to get any proximity fuse to work right on small targets. Those will let you hit small drones without using enough ammunition to level a small military base. Gun ballistics isn't easy, having a rifle you can get 1st shot cold barrel accuracy off of and follow that up with back to back shots that are just as good takes the kind of effort people put into actual babies. Full on marksmen practical marry the drat rifle. Nco Joe who has to spend most of his time fixing the feeder is not building a Marksman's log of the gun, at best every time he swaps the barrel he zeros the sights again for full auto hot.

Or do something wacky like the variable exit velocity air fuel cannons the DARPA tries to get to work with anything other than muzzle loading and to not violently explode on penetrating hits every decade or so.

Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Oct 17, 2022

# ? Oct 17, 2022 20:38

PederP: Nov 20, 2009

VSOKUL girl posted:

is this considered a technical

I don't know if this has, or something similar has been shared yet:

It really isn't very well-defined when something is a drone. This chart doesn't even include propulsion, control/AI systems and reusability. Boats and ships, tanks and X-fighting vehicles, drones and airborne weapon systems. The problem is the tendency to attribute the attributes of an instance to the entire category or another instance. I wonder which war will end up with the premature death of the drone being proclaimed as the anti-drone 'javelin' becomes the hero of the information theatre of said war.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 20:40

Pinky Artichoke: Apr 10, 2011; Dinner has blossomed.

PederP posted:

In other words, these drone attacks against civilians happen because Russia considers them acceptable. Technology can mitigate, but never prevent, that problem. Deterring Russia from invading other countries is the real solution. Second-best is making sure those countries win quickly and decisively.

Teaching Russia to be nice, or if necessary quarantining it, would be nice, but it's not exactly timely. It also gets into John Bolton territory if Russia is not voluntarily cooperative.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 20:52

Orthanc6: Nov 4, 2009

PederP posted:

I don't know if this has, or something similar has been shared yet:

It really isn't very well-defined when something is a drone. This chart doesn't even include propulsion, control/AI systems and reusability. Boats and ships, tanks and X-fighting vehicles, drones and airborne weapon systems. The problem is the tendency to attribute the attributes of an instance to the entire category or another instance. I wonder which war will end up with the premature death of the drone being proclaimed as the anti-drone 'javelin' becomes the hero of the information theatre of said war.

I don't think anything can kill the "drone" because drones are, as you say and the chart shows, so varied in role and design that there will never be one tool that reasonably gets the job done against all of them. A high-end AA weapon that can take down Predators would be useless against drone subs. Jamming does nothing if the thing has good enough AI to either RTB or even complete the mission independently on loss of comms.

The Main Battle Tank is a much more rigid concept and we're seeing that the "death of the tank" is a lot more to do with improper tactics than conceptual limits of the vehicle.

Brings up another rhetorical oddity. Suicide drones like Switchblades and Shahed are missiles, the only difference is propulsion method which allows them to loiter rather than just take the shortest path from launcher to target. So we call them "loitering munitions", even though cruise missiles might spend more time crossing the longer range to their targets. We could call them sky torpedoes, they have similar guidance options and use propellers.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 20:57

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

I think the major difference between cruise missiles and loitering munitions is that when you fire a cruise missile, you fire it at a specific, predetermined target. When you fire a loitering munition, you can fire it without a target and select a target later.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 21:25

madeintaipei: Jul 13, 2012

Ynglaur posted:

The issue with older technology gun-based AA are the bullets: they fall down somewhere. Modern CIWS use self-destructing bullets, though, so with modern munitions something like you describe may become both viable and necessary.

Time for our irregularly scheduled public service announcement:

I trust y'all are smart enough to figure this one out on your own, but just in case...

Please, do not shoot anything into the air, even pellets and BBs*. poo poo goes up, poo poo comes down and with more force than you'd expect. Even a comparatively dinky pistol round will do damage at over a mile distance. Know what is behind what you are shooting at.

*exceptions made for birdshot. Either you're at a clays range with set firing arcs, or you've planned that out while hunting birds. You planned that out right? No excuses with the state of digitized maps nowadays.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 21:29

KillHour: Oct 28, 2007

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

I think the major difference between cruise missiles and loitering munitions is that when you fire a cruise missile, you fire it at a specific, predetermined target. When you fire a loitering munition, you can fire it without a target and select a target later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

# ? Oct 17, 2022 21:29

Qtotonibudinibudet: Nov 7, 2011; Omich poluyobok, skazhi ty narkoman? ya prosto tozhe gde to tam zhivu, mogli by vmeste uyobyvat' narkotiki

to be clear, i was talking about the makeshift bush pilot anti-wolf plane, not the drones

IIRC one of the small local museums i went to around Denali had one of the guns

# ? Oct 17, 2022 21:30

PederP: Nov 20, 2009

Orthanc6 posted:

I don't think anything can kill the "drone" because drones are, as you say and the chart shows, so varied in role and design that there will never be one tool that reasonably gets the job done against all of them. A high-end AA weapon that can take down Predators would be useless against drone subs. Jamming does nothing if the thing has good enough AI to either RTB or even complete the mission independently on loss of comms.

The Main Battle Tank is a much more rigid concept and we're seeing that the "death of the tank" is a lot more to do with improper tactics than conceptual limits of the vehicle.

Brings up another rhetorical oddity. Suicide drones like Switchblades and Shahed are missiles, the only difference is propulsion method which allows them to loiter rather than just take the shortest path from launcher to target. So we call them "loitering munitions", even though cruise missiles might spend more time crossing the longer range to their targets. We could call them sky torpedoes, they have similar guidance options and use propellers.

Great post. I agree that nothing will kill the "drone" - I also believe the death of tank has been proclaimed rather prematurely. I was just musing about the drone being declared obsolete at some point in the future due to a specific doctrine or class of drones being eclipsed by circumstance and/or technology.

I suspect at some point we'll probably see the extremely expensive manned aerial fighters made obsolete by unmanned vehicles (or something else) - and in general the line between manned and unmanned vehicles might become more fluid.

Anyways, regarding the current war, it will be interesting afterwards to see a proper analysis of the impact made by drone technology. The propaganda potential has proven massive, and I'm sure the recon impact in particular is large, but as for the armed drones (and 'missile-drones') it is very hard to pierce the fog of war and get a proper picture of their impact.

Pinky Artichoke posted:

Teaching Russia to be nice, or if necessary quarantining it, would be nice, but it's not exactly timely. It also gets into John Bolton territory if Russia is not voluntarily cooperative.

I am not proposing any particular solution, nor advocating an invasion of Russia (on the contrary, I think that is obviously not possible). I just wanted to point out that some problems are primarily human in origin and simply cannot be solved with technology. War crimes and atrocities is a problem humanity will need to solve at a social, political and cultural level - not purely through technology. That's not an endorsement of or excuse for war crimes. Nor is it a nihilistic rejection of trying to do something on a technological and geo-political level right now. But we need to realize Russia will use these tactics with the current regime - and plan accordingly.

PederP fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 17, 2022

# ? Oct 17, 2022 21:33

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

OddObserver posted:

An-2?

I have to heartily support all An-2-based solutions, I love that plane so much. We stan a Ukrainian legend.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 21:43

Fragrag: Aug 3, 2007; The Worst Admin Ever bashes You in the head with his banhammer. It is smashed into the body, an unrecognizable mass! You have been struck down.

Are these Iranian drones more akin to a V1 or a V2 rocket? At what point are we going to dust off the old Bofors gun and proximity fuse ammunition?

# ? Oct 17, 2022 22:35

spankmeister: Jun 15, 2008

Fragrag posted:

Are these Iranian drones more akin to a V1 or a V2 rocket? At what point are we going to dust off the old Bofors gun and proximity fuse ammunition?

Neither but if you'd have to pick one it's more like a V1

# ? Oct 17, 2022 22:36

Tuna-Fish: Sep 13, 2017

Ynglaur posted:

<snip many good reasons>

One to add is that the sensors and FC computer you need have recently gotten very cheap. For example, if you want a mm-wave radar, the kind of performance that about a decade ago cost a high five-figure sum is now available on a single IC that's mass-produced for a few bucks per chip. This is because they are proliferating in a multitude of civilian applications, and the kind of volumes they see there are ridiculously higher than any military use could support, which have lead to miniaturization, efficiency, and really low prices.

Not that long ago, if you wanted a radar-guided aa gun, the most expensive part was the sensors and other electronics. These days, the most expensive part is probably the gun itself.

Fragrag posted:

Are these Iranian drones more akin to a V1 or a V2 rocket? At what point are we going to dust off the old Bofors gun and proximity fuse ammunition?

Closer to a V1, but much crappier. V1 was kinda fast for it's time, at ~600km/h. The Shahed-136 drones that Russia is using top out at like 180km/h.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 23:21

madeintaipei: Jul 13, 2012

VSOKUL girl posted:

to be clear, i was talking about the makeshift bush pilot anti-wolf plane, not the drones

IIRC one of the small local museums i went to around Denali had one of the guns

Neat! IIRC, they were upside down because the trigger mechanism had to be simple, and he used Auto-5's because they don't really care about orientation to function correctly and have a 5 round mag (+1) a piece. And, like, there are tons of Auto-5's, licensed copies, or outright clones around.
Long-recoil, best recoil.

But, yes. Structurally and in practice, technically a technical.

I'm just trying to get the Ukrainian shotgun sports Olympians into a place where they can be most effective.

# ? Oct 17, 2022 23:52

The Lone Badger: Sep 24, 2007

Barrel Cactaur posted:

Or do something wacky like the variable exit velocity air fuel cannons the DARPA tries to get to work with anything other than muzzle loading and to not violently explode on penetrating hits every decade or so.

Don't those sometimes violently explode when fired as well?

# ? Oct 18, 2022 00:08

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Tuna-Fish posted:

Closer to a V1, but much crappier. V1 was kinda fast for it's time, at ~600km/h. The Shahed-136 drones that Russia is using top out at like 180km/h.

I don�t know. A V1 was really primitive in terms of targeting. The Germans were kind of aiming it in a general direction and hoping it would hit something. The Shahed-136 might be slow, but that speed helps make it difficult to counter cost-effectively and it unfortunately seems to have no problems finding targets.

# ? Oct 18, 2022 02:22

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

madeintaipei posted:

But, yes. Structurally and in practice, technically a technical.

So...a flying tank. Non-structurally, and non-doctrinally that is.

Eric Cantonese posted:

I don�t know. A V1 was really primitive in terms of targeting. The Germans were kind of aiming it in a general direction and hoping it would hit something. The Shahed-136 might be slow, but that speed helps make it difficult to counter cost-effectively and it unfortunately seems to have no problems finding targets.

We had the same tactical risk in South Korea in the 90s and early 2000s. North Korea had several low hundreds of wooden prop planes which could carry a handful of soldiers. Their operational plan were they to invade South Korea would be to fly these over and drop off those handfuls of soldiers, who could cause significant confusion in rear areas: delaying reinforcements, sabotaging communication lines, etc. The planes were an issue because they have almost no radar signature, not enough of a heat signature for heat-seeking missiles to work, and fly slowly enough that apparently it would be tricky for a modern jet to use its gun on them. Doable, still, but difficult, and enough of them would get through it would be a problem.

# ? Oct 18, 2022 03:01

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Ynglaur posted:

The planes were an issue because they have almost no radar signature, not enough of a heat signature for heat-seeking missiles to work, and fly slowly enough that apparently it would be tricky for a modern jet to use its gun on them. Doable, still, but difficult, and enough of them would get through it would be a problem.

AN-2�s have an astonishingly large radar signature and run hot as the sun. They are slow and can fly quite low, that part is true.

It�s a total myth. Giant airplanes cannot be invisible with one weird trick like wooden wing spars.

E: While I�m here every single C-RAM engagement costs a few thousand dollars in ammo, not counting the equipment, fuel, and troops.

# ? Oct 18, 2022 03:05

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

mlmp08 posted:

AN-2�s have an astonishingly large radar signature and run hot as the sun. They are slow and can fly quite low, that part is true.

It�s a total myth. Giant airplanes cannot be invisible with one weird trick like wooden wing spars.

E: While I�m here every single C-RAM engagement costs a few thousand dollars in ammo, not counting the equipment, fuel, and troops.

Huh, well I'll be damned. Maybe they just told us that so that we'd take local security more seriously. :shrug:

# ? Oct 18, 2022 03:06

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

They might go unnoticed if low and slow just like a huge honking helicopter might, but there�s nothing inherently sneaky about an AN-2. I can see being worried they could be used in a similar role as a Chinook, just slow vs vertical takeoff/landing.

# ? Oct 18, 2022 03:12

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Another dawn is breaking in Kyiv, and it's still Ukrainian. :unsmith:

# ? Oct 18, 2022 05:23

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

Owling Howl posted:

The main problem with the Iranian drones is that they are cheap and plentiful. Practcally just an MC engine strapped to a fiberglass fuselage and some electronics for control. They seem to exploit a gap in AA capabilities that haven't been developed to deal with that type of threat. AA has been focused on fast and expensive missiles or planes - not swarms of aerial mopeds. It's not sustainable to shoot down a $5.000 drone with a $100.000 missile especially if you can produce the drones faster than the AA missiles. You're kinda hosed whether you shoot it down or not.

I don't think there's really a counter to it. The only thing Ukraine and allies can do is make a similar program and use it against Russia. If Ukraine could bootstrap their own program they could strike further behind the lines without ATACMs.

Old fashioned gun AA systems like the gepard should work

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard

Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Oct 18, 2022

# ? Oct 18, 2022 05:41

OAquinas: Jan 27, 2008; Biden has sat immobile on the Iron Throne of America. He is the Master of Malarkey by the will of the gods, and master of a million votes by the might of his inexhaustible calamari.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1582088204592742400

You get the feeling that UA needs to wrap this up before the end of 2024, because the next crew isn't gonna be pro-ukraine in this fight.

# ? Oct 18, 2022 05:59

golden bubble: Jun 3, 2011; yospos

https://twitter.com/arawnsley/status/1582148487092707329
https://twitter.com/Kameron49843998/status/1582155470231379969

# ? Oct 18, 2022 05:59

Qtotonibudinibudet: Nov 7, 2011; Omich poluyobok, skazhi ty narkoman? ya prosto tozhe gde to tam zhivu, mogli by vmeste uyobyvat' narkotiki

Deteriorata posted:

Another dawn is breaking in Kyiv, and it's still Ukrainian.

ah, the sunken city of zaporizhzhia

how the hell do you have two жs in a row anyway

# ? Oct 18, 2022 06:38

Rocko Bonaparte: Mar 12, 2002; Every day is Friday!

Ynglaur posted:

If the US ends up sending P-51 Mustangs to Ukraine to shoot down these Iranian drones...(okay, okay, I'm done now...)

Ehh with stuff like the Super Tocano being used as strike aircraft, this shows a demand for simpler, slower, and cheaper aircraft. The problem I personally see with it is that's fine for rear guard kind of stuff, but not for the front line. I think for Kyiv that a problem with how close it is to the border. Elsewhere, I wouldn't be surprised if we hear about a little putter plane being used to knock out a drone during all this.

# ? Oct 18, 2022 07:20

Antigravitas: Dec 8, 2019; Die Rettung fuer die Landwirte:

golden bubble posted:

https://twitter.com/arawnsley/status/1582148487092707329
https://twitter.com/Kameron49843998/status/1582155470231379969

That's pretty close to the statement of Germany that Ukraine is receiving data from German spy satellites, but it's okay, you can't directly use high resolution SAR images as targeting data since there's a few hours transmission and processing delay.

# ? Oct 18, 2022 07:48

fatherboxx: Mar 25, 2013

https://twitter.com/kolezev/status/1582235935822925824?t=fd-7jOL3H-lkM84v80wtyA&s=19

Regarding the shooting among Russian soldiers - turns out one of the shooters was not even a Russian citizen, but a migrant worker from Moscow who decided to make some "easy" money on war and enlisted.

Kinda puts the declared mobilization pause in Moscow in context since mayor Sobyanin was a proponent of recruiting volunteers among migrants.

# ? Oct 18, 2022 08:08

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

https://twitter.com/maria_avdv/status/1582259557434527744

Zhytomyr population is 260k, for context.

# ? Oct 18, 2022 08:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 22:42

Cable Guy: Jul 18, 2005; I don't expect any trouble, but we'll be handing these out later...; Slippery Tilde

fatherboxx posted:

*snip*

Regarding the shooting among Russian soldiers - turns out one of the shooters was not even a Russian citizen, but a migrant worker from Moscow who decided to make some "easy" money on war and enlisted.

Kinda puts the declared mobilization pause in Moscow in context since mayor Sobyanin was a proponent of recruiting volunteers among migrants.

This report implies that he may have been nabbed by the mob-gang on his way home from his job at a Moscow restaurant...
https://twitter.com/Peter__Leonard/status/1581932930070257665

A machine translation of the linked article posted:

Radio Ozodi, with the help of users, identified one of the Tajiks killed in the Belgorod training camp, and he is Ehson Aminzoda (Ehsoni Tajiddin), a 24-year-old citizen of Tajikistan. A source close to the investigative authorities of Russia also confirmed the news in an interview with Radio Ozodi. He also provided us with a list of all those killed in the Belgorod training camp, mostly Russian citizens. According to him, another killed Tajik is 23-year-old Mehrob Rahmonov.

The attack on the Belgorod training camp took place on October 15. Russian officials called it the work of two citizens of the Commonwealth of Independent States and a "terrorist attack", but did not name any country.

Relatives of Ehson Aminzoda (Ehsoni Tajiddin) say, "he worked in a restaurant based on a patent and had no intention of going to the war in Ukraine." They said that he "disappeared" on October 10 near the Lublino metro station in Moscow, and the news of his death was reported by Russian authorities on October 16.

Tajiddin Aminzoda, Ehson's father, who works in the government of Khatlon region, confirmed the news of his son's death in a phone call on October 17, but said that his mental state does not allow him to talk about his son.

Firuz Aminzoda, brother of Ehson Aminzoda, told Radio Ozodi from Moscow on October 17 that he went to Russia seven months ago and worked in a restaurant.

"My brother did not have Russian citizenship and worked with a patent. Now I was called to the Military Prosecutor's Office. We don't know how he appeared in Belgorod. My brother was not a terrorist, nor did he have such thoughts. He was an ordinary immigrant who wanted to work and build his life," he added.

Aminzoda said that last Sunday, October 10, after work, his brother said he was going to visit his friends, and that's why his phone went off. He said that his brother "was not a bigoted person".

A friend of Ehsan, who did not want to be named, told Radio Ozodi that he never intended to go to war and wanted to earn money as soon as possible and go to Tajikistan to marry his lover.

"We were all in shock. We were looking for him and we thought he might have gone to an acquaintance or to Tajikistan. We wanted to announce that he was missing. He didn't have extreme views and was like other young people. If he was very religious, he would be in a restaurant. did it work?" -- he said.

The attack on the Belgorod training camp happened on October 15 this year, and the Russian authorities called it the work of two citizens of the Commonwealth of Independent States and a "terrorist attack".

Oleksiy Arestovych, adviser to Volodymyr Zelenskyi, President of Ukraine, said that the attackers were from Tajikistan and opened fire on their colleagues after a dispute over religion.

Tajik authorities say that they are investigating the involvement of citizens of the country in the attack on Belgorod. The press office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan wrote in a letter to Radio Ozodi on October 17, "the embassy in Moscow is trying to determine the involvement of citizens of Tajikistan in the incident."

According to the Ministry of Defense of Russia, 11 people were killed and 15 people were injured in this incident. They were invited to the Russian army as part of the basej campaign (mobilization, mobilization, mobilization of reserve forces).

Edit: I also read somewhere in this thread or the GBS one that the attack was a result of an instructor or officer calling Mohammad a coward, but I can't seem to find that.

Edit 2: In fact a machine translation of the tweet you posted implies he was nabbed by mobilizers...

quote:

Tajik Radio Liberty has identified a soldier who shot his colleagues in the Belgorod region. This is Ehson Aminzoda, an ordinary migrant, he worked in a Moscow restaurant, he was not going to war, he did not have Russian citizenship. Apparently, they took it during a raid.

...and links to a russian version of the same article.

So uh.... there's that.

Cable Guy fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Oct 18, 2022

# ? Oct 18, 2022 09:06

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > War in Ukraine: thread feedback session open unttil Saturday (i'll regret this)

«‹›275 »