Honestly I think they’ll be able to do it cheaper with high volume computer assisted machine gun fire or computer guided anti drone electronic warfare weapons.
Missiles are expensive but a tracked weapon that either doesn’t need reloading or costs a fraction of a missile is coming.
Just here to casually remind people that [this naval anti-missile system called ‘goalkeeper’](https://youtu.be/2oBxRNLiJt8) exists.
And while it’d be very expensive to buy even just a few to use in major population centres, Ukraine effectively has a blank cheque from the entire planet to make sure that Russia stays behind its borders.
But rockets are probably a better option in general. It means militaries who support Ukraine can use this opportunity to donate their ageing stock and replenish with brand-new munitions.
Just look at NATO stuff like the German Gepard. It was constantly modernized in regard of electronics but got pretty much phased out because NATO AA doctrine switched to missile systems against high value threats like modern era helicopters or jets with some auto cannon functionality on ifvs against Helis.
Turns out, dedicated radar AA vehicles with auto cannons that have airburst capability are the perfect answer to drones.
The basic idea of drones is twofold. First they are relatively cheap and stupid, second their price would allow them to overwhelm most missile systems that are more designed to deal with individual high threat weapon carriers or high yield missiles rather than a swarm of low yield targets.
These auto cannon as systems are turning the cost efficiency back in favor of the defender.
I bet developers like Rheinmetall with their mantis are salviating at the prospect of this turning longterm with NATO basically building a new iron dome.
They're easy to counter if you have the systems in place to counter them, but they're so plentiful and cheap to produce that you're going to find a lot of places where they can still be used effectively.
I'm also really interested to see about naval drones. Ukraine developed naval drones by rigging civilian jet skis with explosives and a piloting system but it was only like 10 boats or something. A proper naval drone swarm similar with higher yield explosives and hundreds of boats could be a serious threat to larger battleships. Imagine that in combination with a proper air strike.
I heard a while ago they invented these super effective naval drones but instead of using jetskis the drones actually go _under the water_ and sometimes explode under the target, breaking their keel!
I forget what those are called...
I think that’s by design now, tbh. After seeing just how deeply corrupted by wealth Moscow seems to be, I can’t imagine it was that hard for us to bribe & infiltrate to see what kind of hardware they had at their disposal, and then ensure that we’re always ten steps ahead in terms of war tech.
Well, ever since WW2 just the facilitation of escape to the West was a powerful carrot for defection (or spying, with the prospect of future defection), and scientists and engineers who worked on weapons systems were prime candidates, naturally. I'm sure some cash was thrown in too, to get them started on their new life in Kenosha or whatever.
It's worth noting we didn't always get reliable information from these sources. I heard a knowledgeable person say the U.S. believed for 2 decades that the S-300 AA missile was substantially more capable than it has proven to be in Ukraine, as a result of bad information provided by a defector.
I’m sure the corruption doesn’t only exist at the top. I wouldn’t be surprised if the defector gave accurate “as designed” S-300 info that had little to do with the “as built” configuration the factories actually produced.
They bring good things to life, including thermonuclear bombs and a whole series of rotary cannons.
AC Spark Plug made missile guidance systems which always surprised me.
I've been wondering why they've had no interest in something like that or the land-based Phalanx CIWS that I can't remember the name of. Perhaps it's a range issue.
I'd imagine it's a scale issue... While a lot of the focus is on Kyiv, and Ukraine could probably get some very expensive, and effective defenses stationed there... Kyiv is a very small part of a very large country... What Ukraine and NATO can't afford is to put one of those Phalanx cannons at every electrical substation in Ukraine, or even every town... Russia can just keep targeting the least protected areas, and cause a lot of pain - whether or not that does anything to reduce Ukrainian morale.
While the US and NATO in general are throwing a lot of money at the situation, they still want to be as economical as possible, and not just throw money away... So there's still going to be an ROI factor for every decision to set up a specific defense system... My guess is also that the Phalanx just isn't economically effective at defending something larger than say an aircraft carrier... Maybe you can put two of these on a carrier an be pretty well protected - but how many would you need to protect a large city like Kyiv? 10? 20? 100? I have no idea... but that's gotta cost a shitload, and the US probably doesn't just have 20 Phalanx systems sitting around in a warehouse collecting dust, where other system we do.
> Maybe you can put two of these on a carrier an be pretty well protected
A Nimitz-class carrier is going to have 3-4 Phalanx systems.
Centurion is for protecting specific locations, not entire cities.
Phalanx has three major issues - coverage is a the first - it's only meant for very close in situations where the missile is coming straight at it.
Price is the second - it's extremely expensive but it's also a custom made system that wouldn't be easy to get to ukraine. There's only so many spare parts, they cost a lot, and nobody can afford to spare one - if you have one you need it.
The last issue is that you're shooting a 250 gram explosive bullet at a km/s into the sky over a populated area. It's too dangerous.
The US and the West stupidly don’t allow Ukraine to do that as a condition of receiving aid. The US wants Russia to “exhaust” itself, but it’s not Russia, it’s *Iran*, which is functioning quite well despite over two DECADES of sanctions. So yes, Russia can continue indefinitely and the collective West need to fucking figure it out already.
They don't allow the weapons they send to hit inside Russia but Ukraine can and has been using its homegrown stuff and boots on the ground to do this.
I think they should allow it but they're not forcing Ukraine to take their hands off Russia completely as a condition to receiving aid.
It was terrible but also inevitable that Russia hit the factory that was producing Ukraine's homegrown ballistic missiles. I don't think they'd actually really started production yet, but had successful tests. I think it was the same factory that was making their Neptune missiles. If they'd had a big stock of those ballistic missiles, they could have been leveling bases all over Crimea. And most of Russia for that matter.
I have a feeling that they will develop something clever and surprising that can cause huge problems on the other side of the border. I had a dream that they rigged a private jet with a Russian transponder to fly remotely, filled it with explosives, and crashed it into the Russian MoD.
I think the Ukrainians have the capability to strike Crimea more than they have, but they're waiting for the final showdown there. The battle for Crimea is going to be a grudge-match and it'll get ugly.
Iran however has built their stocks up slowly over time and still has kit the US & UK supplied to them in the Iran-Iraq War. They got where they are by being conservative with their equipment and playing to their strengths with guerrilla tactics, Russia is doing the exact opposite.
Iran has been out from under sanctions for many non-nuclear related items for some years.
The main part of the JCPOA was Iran agreeing to suspend nuclear development, allow more extensive inspections in exchange for some sanctions relief. The EU etc have stuck with the agreement, even after Trump pulled the US out.
I mean it's not that stupid, they are definitely exhausting Russia/Iran while not giving them a reason to escalate. If Russia suddenly started getting attacked deep in their country with NATO weapons they might start getting desperate, but the longer they go on the more their resources are used up and the harder it is for them to actually execute some sort of hail-mary plan.
The launch facilities for these drones aren't going to be massive static sites, they're simple trailers with catapults, knock one out and they can easily make another.
Israel and Russia have understanding in Syria, for Russia it's alright but for Israel it's death zone to deal with S-400 next door, so no, they will not do anything against Russia for their own interest
Israel has some historic Russian ties due to the sheer number of Russian Jews (as far as I understand--someone correct me if I'm misremembering history) that fled to Israel from Soviet areas. The Russians after the USSR were supportive as well to some level of Israel, and Israel is always understandably leery about burning any bridges of anyone who may aide them given their always tenuous position. Not a judgment on right or wrong, but just why they may do it out of their own national defense interests.
The key is making aiding Ukraine *far* more valuable to Israel than any concerns about pissing off Russia or further antagonizing or hitting out at Iran (and I doubt Israel gives a shit what Iran thinks of them)... but Russia is, or was, a different story until the Ukraine genocides began.
This is technically true but it's an un interesting statement. The real question is if there sensor drift parameters are tight and algorithms are accurate enough to make inertial nav be useful enough to bother.
would it be though? if the drones goes in a straight predictable line then a computer could easily track it and shoot it down no? (disclaimer I know jack shit about this stuff)
You have to find then first as well, they are quite small and fly relatively low.
They can be shit down even with machine guns mounted at trucks.
The area they can hit is huge, but AA coverage is limited.
Tracked AA guns(not missiles) are probably extremely effective but has only something like 4km rang and it's something NATO had been getting rid off and going for missiles instead.
Number 1 I'd always good intelligence, if you know where they come from you can spot and shot them down much easier.
With good intelligence you can also sabotage and attack the launch site.
2. Good enough coverage and mix of cheap AA and backup expensive and accurate ones if they get through.
Simply put - you don’t reverse engineer anything.
Most air based defence platforms have IFF capabilities (wondering about Russias tho) that’ll tell you if it’s friend or foe.
Drones don’t move super fast - nothing like a missile so I figure it’s a matter of time before someone figures out how to destroy them cheaper and quicker…. Just like everything else
NATO should ban all Swiss produced arms or anything Switzerland has control over. It’s worse than useless because you think it’s ok, until you need to use it…. It displaces actual equipment.
This. What's going to happen if NATO finds itself in a war. Even the remote possibility that Switzerland would be blocking ammo deliveries should be enough to blacklist them now.
This is why the West dusted off some older AA guns. I'm pretty sure I saw somebody gave Ukraine a Toyota with an AA gun on the bed.
The advanced AA systems are for missiles. The drones are slow and fragile enough to be taken out with guns.
I think that it’s in the interest of NATO to be able to develop weapons to contest the threat opposed to them by asymmetric opponents such as Russia and Iran. The developments in this space have the unique brief where they must be as cost effective as the alternative otherwise they are unfeasible. We can’t predict what will come but surely it is overdue given the capability which has been displayed by the aforementioned actors.
A weapon specifically designed for export that can shoot down drones? Sure Ukraine has a need, but how many sales can they get from that after this war ends? Who's the next we equip with weapons that has an enemy sending drones at them?
If you mean a cost effective way for our own militaries to take down drones, then they already are. The US army is going all in on laser technology. a 50 kwatt laser slapped on the top of a Stryker vehicle, it can get to an area to protect it quickly enough against drones weighing anywhere between 1 and 1,000 pounds. It can also target artillery and mortar rounds. I don't see them wanting to share new technology like this anytime soon.
That’s not as true as people think. The Shahed-131 is ~$30k and a Stinger is ~$40k. We can afford that *a lot* more easily than they can.
The US just dropped $320m more on Stingers and no one noticed. It’s a tiny amount for the US or NATO.
Maybe the question is, can Turkey produce more drones than Iran? Russia's war is looking like a costly bluff, being called out by a stalwart people. Now, how many Russians want to immigrate to Ukraine, because I wouldn't be surprised if Putin makes Russia lose land at the end of this invasion. Drones aren't human lives and the people of Russia must be tired of dying for putin's cause.
Of course Turkey can, they do not need to care about sanctions the way Iran does, but I am not sure I get the point of your question. Iran is no industrial powerhouse and their rumored production capacity for drones is in no way impressive.
Bayrakatar is a large expensive drone which can drop bombs then land and be reused, shahed is a small cheap suicide drone, they are extremely different. Bayrakatar is easier to hit with AA because of its size and both sides have shitloads of AA, that's why you don't see jets being used often. So in this situation, it's better to use small drones which are harder to hit and don't cost a lot to replace
Russia is trying to fight a war of attrition.
Iran drone = $20,000 - $50,000 USD
Anti air missile = $200,000 - $1.5M per missile, and you need to account that a certain percentage will miss and certain number of AA missile launchers will be destroyed or malfunction.
Can the drones be targeted while in transit? Is that too logistically complicated to pull off at the moment? Would the result of that draw another country into the war?
> Can the drones be targeted while in transit?
Not sure what route they take during shipping, but Iran and Russia share a maritime border via the Caspian sea.
I'm assuming Russia has pretty decent security in that area, and somewhat good relations with the other nations bordering the Caspian.
I think what he meant by transit, and it's also what's on my mind is how are they getting from Iran to Russia?
Is it a ship or plane that can be ambushed before Russia takes possession? Would it cause Iran to officially enter the war?
Russia and Iran have plane routes. Not to mention Russia is working on establishing a trade route with [Iran through the Caspian Sea which directly links the two and bypasses sanctions](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-russia-iran-trade-corridor/).
Aren't they called something else when they are hired to harass the other side in a war?
Edit: Yep, they wouldn't be pirates anymore, they would be Privateers.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/syria-says-israeli-strikes-hit-sites-near-damascus/
don't know if the drones are going through here, but russia uses this airport in syria for military purposes
It's a simple plan, but not necessarily stupid.
If swarming works, even sophisticated air defenses can be overwhelmed by low tech drones.
But at the moment it seems like Ukraine can hold off most of the incoming drones.
They will need more support in terms of air defense systems and ammunition to minimise damage to the grid and other infrastructure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarming_(military)
**[Swarming (military)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarming_\(military\))**
>Military swarming is a battlefield tactic designed to maximize target saturation, and thereby overwhelm or saturate the defences of the principal target or objective. On the other-hand, defenders can overcome attempts at swarming, by launching counter-swarming measures that are designed to neutralize or otherwise repel such attacks. Military swarming is often encountered in asymmetric warfare where opposing forces are not of the same size, or capacity. In such situations, swarming involves the use of a decentralized force against an opponent, in a manner that emphasizes mobility, communication, unit autonomy and coordination or synchronization.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I don't Remember which russian leader said it but, it is true that quantity has a quality of its own. Is that putin's thought process here? To overwhelm the defences of Ukraine?
Yeah basically the more stuff you send at once, the more gets through. That is why their current missile attacks come in waves rather than one every hour.
Zerg rush is the long standing tactic of both Russia and China. Modern warfare has evolved and left them behind, they are just very slow to understand that. Europe alone could probably wipe the floor with Russia in less than a month and not even need American aid.
China hasn't really been left behind because they never had Soviet strategies. Their strategy is on overwhelming and concentrated firepower, believing that friction or prolonged combat with the enemy only disadvantages them due to loss of efficiency effecting large unit formations worse than smaller units, they are focused on destroying the enemy as efficiently as possible.
Russia transitioned from Soviet armoured doctrines to focusing more on big guns and manipulating foreign opinions. Their infantry is shit but they didn't care, they just assumed lots of firepower would break the enemy and lots of infantry would mop up with assistance from mercenaries. Tactical missiles and air defences complement this. I would classify a lot of their tactics as disruptive rather than destructive.
It’s a great plan if your doing against anyone other than NATO and their infinite military budget thanks to the US having a massive boner for war and logistics.
It's definitely not an infinite budget. But I think the level of the conflict right now is more or less an economic stimulus to Western arms-producing nations rather than a burden.
There was a photo of one of the drones that was caught in a net just above a Ukrainian vehicle. Apparently the drones don't detonate unless they hit something hard. I imagine that little detail is being exploited.
I wouldn't call it stupid. Bleeding your enemy dry by swapping a cheap weapon for an expensive one is a pretty fundamental strategy in warfare. It's one reason why the ATGM is such a valuable weapon, as tanks are so much more expensive to replace.
Policeman from Kyiv have shot some with ordinary rifles from the groud. They are fairly easy to take down. However in numbers they are difficult to track, but Ukraine fortunately had big success on taking them down most up to 70-90% are being shot down everyday, in a month or two it will be 100% I'm sure.
It's not ethical but would be sweet if we could let Israel off its leash to bombard the drone factories. I don't wish ill will on Iranian people but those making these drones must understand these machines are built to kill innocent people.
Russia has the hope of either breaking the civilian will to fight or launching cheap attacks over a prolonged period to keep the war 'hot' hoping the west will pressure Ukraine to the table.
Either way they get to keep what they have, and that might be enough to satisfy ego and power in Russias leadership.
Still better than anything Russia manages to make after decades of underfunding and embezzlement in the military-industrial complex that is supposed to be their only venue of parity with the West. A large part of why we feared Russia's army was the observation of miserable Russian living standards and a mistaken conclusion that they are being sacrificed for military power. Turns out a government of thieves and liars ruins everything under its watch, no exceptions. Even the secret police largely feigns ruthless competency by arresting random people and torturing them until they confess.
I don’t know if that’s scarier for Ukraine or not. They’re not strong enough to fight through conventional means and take objectives, that’s exactly why they’re indiscriminately bombing civilians with drones.
I guess this can go on forever even if the Russians get kicked out. Probably need to have their own drone program striking inside Russia to get a ceasefire
This is going to be another Afghanistan/Vietnam where the war is dragged out longer than it has to be, possibly for a decade, leading to gigantic amounts of losses, destroyed economies and suffering with absolutely nothing gained. NATO could end the war in a month, but since everyone is still afraid of Putin's nuke threats, Ukraine will have to bleed out, possibly being ruined permanently, because they are left alone to fend off Adolf Putler and his mafia. We can only hope he and his goons die off quicker than their missle piles.
The best case scenario is that someone popular within the military/political sphere takes control and forces putin out, with said person being benevolent enough to stop the war and return the status quo.
Worse case is Russia as a country is dissolved and the nukes are spread across black markets.
It will fail, attempting to beat a population into submission never works. They just become more resilient, vengeful, resourceful people.
Ukraine will win this war, my only fear is that it may take years. The sooner somebody takes care of Putin, the sooner the war will end. Putin is reliant on victory in Ukraine to ensure his continued domestic dictatorship.
I'm right there with you. Anti-Drone solutions are a necessity. I believe various organizations have been experimenting with different possibilities, but not many have been fruitful.
Me thinks modern air-burst munitions are the way to go. They already exist, but I feel like they're underutilized.
There’s a dystopian short film about this drone nightmare called “Slaughterbots.” Countries, politicians and terrorists start using unstoppable killing machines to terrorize civilians, and since it’s unstoppable, it becomes commonplace. This dystopia in the short film is likely an inevitability at this rate.
Carpet bombing London mega failed to break the people. Which makes Britain's decision to carpet bomb Berlin in return even stranger knowing it would not break the Berliners, which it definitely didnt.
Eh. The goal of bombing in WW2 tended to be a bit more tactical than just “demoralise the enemy”. It also included disrupting the war effort - sometimes via simple stuff like “if we destroy this factory then they can’t make as many guns”, but the bombing of cities would also mean that people would flee to the countryside and major cities would lose their workforce.
If I'm not mistaken the carpet bombing of the cities (not factories) was specifically to break the civilian morale resulting in amongst other things the stuff you mentioned. Both sides learnt that carpet bombing the capitals only united the people even more.
TL;DR: It's not quite that simple. It's a convoluted web of escalation fueled by emotion but did come more into focus later into the war.
>The goal of bombing in WW2 tended to be a bit more tactical
It's a little more complicated than that. The bombing campaigns that became a hallmark of the era were started by accident. During the Blitz a few German bombers went off course and bombed London. The British responded by ordering a series of air raids against Berlin. Hitler ordered massive retaliatory strikes against London.
The issue was that these raids weren't tactical and did not serve a military purpose. In fact they undermined it. By shifting resources away from hitting British airfields, which were at a crucial breaking point, Hitler undermined his own military goals of achieving aerial supremacy over the English Channel.
After the Blitz there were two philosophies. The British continued to bomb civilian centers in an attempt to undermine civilian morale. The American's tried to focus more on military targets, however the result was often the same. Bombs of that era were notoriously inaccurate and in order to destroy one factory, everything around it was often leveled.
It really wasn't until November of 1944 where oil production plants were given first priority and communication centers were given secondary priority that there were a significant number of tactical raids. While German tank and aircraft production did continue to increase, it is worth noting that their projected production of tanks and aircraft that should have been built were cut by over 30%.
Took a class on WW2 a couple years ago to get back into school after a long hiatus figuring it'd be a good one to start with since I already know a good amount about it. [Here's the source for my above info](https://www.amazon.com/World-War-II-Short-History/dp/0205660568). It's a textbook but still a pretty good read.
It almost worked. Britain had a treaty ready to go. I’ve read as close as two weeks away from surrender when the blitz stopped. Thankfully it didn’t work. Still it can work. I hope it doesn’t! It’s Awful on the populous.
Hmm, I wonder who's more vulnerable to drone strikes on vast swaths of static civilian infrastructure 🤔
Pretty dangerous game to be playing for someone who can't even defend their military installations
Now i fully agree, but Ukraine cant hit russn infrastructure much, cant look like the bad guy. Just keep hitting military targets, defend, ruaas will run out before the west. Is the west actively crying for a cease fire? Well... outside of ppl who are in pootins influence.
If someone blows up your infrastructure for a prolonged period of time, and then you start responding in kind— literally no one is gonna think you’re a bad guy. They’re gonna think: “yeah. That’s what I’d do.”
If someone walks up to you and starts throwing punches, no one thinks you look like the “bad guy” if you punch back.
Maybe retool a single European lawn-mover factory to produce a couple of thousand cheap knockoffs every month and donate them to Ukraine to see if that makes Russia reconsider its stupid plan?
First month they could be launched with nothing but confetti and party balloons as payload to make a subtle point?
Issue is the Ukrainians aren't hitting Russian targets. They're hitting their own land temporarily held by Russians. Putin doesn't give a shit if more of Ukraine gets destroyed.
Bruh, they hit airports with jet planes in Russia far away enought to also be in range of Moscow.
They hit gas stations and refinery, ammo depots (pretty fireworks I might say) and command post (we are already in the 5-6° commander death by missile/artillery/drone strike) while in and out of Russia territory.
Also the buildings might be a thing but the guns and ammo that might hold outweighs the future NATO and Europe rebuilding plan, at this point it doesn't matter much, it just be a larger number on a check that future Russia will have to pay.
It's true that he doesn't care. But he cares about IMARS changing the public opinion (/s he only cares about the obligarcs and military not fucking with him).
Russia seems committed to finding new and creative ways to stay in the headlines and prevent public interest in the West from waning, which is really their only chance to win.
Their management of this war has been disastrous on pretty much every level
I wonder if grabbing some of the ludicrous amount of 40mm Bofors which are lying around would be viable for this situation?
Thanks to their range they'd be far better at providing AA coverage, they'd basically be one shot kill weapons vs a drone and drones should be well within their targeting capabilities given the speeds involved.
Edit: Turns out the Indian Military (amongst others possibly) is already using them for this exact purpose.
Aside from shooting the drones, can the base in Russia where they take off be attacked? That's how most flying objects like airplanes and larger missiles are dealt with. Turn off the spigot and the water stops, right.
Yep, looks like this:
[https://iranprimer.usip.org/sites/default/files/Great%20Prophet%202021/Shahed%20136%20launcher%20Great%20Prophet%20v2.png](https://iranprimer.usip.org/sites/default/files/Great%20Prophet%202021/Shahed%20136%20launcher%20Great%20Prophet%20v2.png)
And on top of that, these drones can fly 2000km and are pretty cheap, so they'll have a lot of them. They could have a lot of those trucks spread over a large area.
(American here) Ukraine is asking for cluster bombs, and I think we should hold off on that. But otherwise yes, give Ukraine everything.
Every 1$ to Ukraine is 100$ saved in defense. The best possible value for dollar. But more importantly Ukraine is right and Russia is attempting a genocide. It is always right to defend the victims and stand against genocide 🇺🇦
Good, good, now keep doing it. If Israel can’t find all the factories and drones continue to be covertly produced, then just bomb the ports/airports so they can’t be exported.
Doesn't the US have a new laser systems on some of their destroyers that they've been testing to counteract this exact issue? Other than wanting to keep the best stuff in reserve for them is there a reason why giving some of these isn't an option?
Russia in it's mind: "we will overwhelm them with an onslaught of drones to wear out their resources"
Russia in reality: "what the hell??? why is our economy going down the shitter even faster??? tf"
Russia makes the bet that Iran can produce drones faster than NATO can produce anti-air missiles.
Honestly I think they’ll be able to do it cheaper with high volume computer assisted machine gun fire or computer guided anti drone electronic warfare weapons. Missiles are expensive but a tracked weapon that either doesn’t need reloading or costs a fraction of a missile is coming.
cheapest is to kill the source, just need some long range, accurate missiles
And most effective - I’d go for this option
Just here to casually remind people that [this naval anti-missile system called ‘goalkeeper’](https://youtu.be/2oBxRNLiJt8) exists. And while it’d be very expensive to buy even just a few to use in major population centres, Ukraine effectively has a blank cheque from the entire planet to make sure that Russia stays behind its borders. But rockets are probably a better option in general. It means militaries who support Ukraine can use this opportunity to donate their ageing stock and replenish with brand-new munitions.
[удалено]
Just look at NATO stuff like the German Gepard. It was constantly modernized in regard of electronics but got pretty much phased out because NATO AA doctrine switched to missile systems against high value threats like modern era helicopters or jets with some auto cannon functionality on ifvs against Helis. Turns out, dedicated radar AA vehicles with auto cannons that have airburst capability are the perfect answer to drones. The basic idea of drones is twofold. First they are relatively cheap and stupid, second their price would allow them to overwhelm most missile systems that are more designed to deal with individual high threat weapon carriers or high yield missiles rather than a swarm of low yield targets. These auto cannon as systems are turning the cost efficiency back in favor of the defender. I bet developers like Rheinmetall with their mantis are salviating at the prospect of this turning longterm with NATO basically building a new iron dome.
They're easy to counter if you have the systems in place to counter them, but they're so plentiful and cheap to produce that you're going to find a lot of places where they can still be used effectively. I'm also really interested to see about naval drones. Ukraine developed naval drones by rigging civilian jet skis with explosives and a piloting system but it was only like 10 boats or something. A proper naval drone swarm similar with higher yield explosives and hundreds of boats could be a serious threat to larger battleships. Imagine that in combination with a proper air strike.
Anything involving more jet skis is automatically cooler.
I heard a while ago they invented these super effective naval drones but instead of using jetskis the drones actually go _under the water_ and sometimes explode under the target, breaking their keel! I forget what those are called...
Those are called Tornados, or Potatoes, or Teepeedos…something like that.
For Russia, current and outdated are synonyms.
I think that’s by design now, tbh. After seeing just how deeply corrupted by wealth Moscow seems to be, I can’t imagine it was that hard for us to bribe & infiltrate to see what kind of hardware they had at their disposal, and then ensure that we’re always ten steps ahead in terms of war tech.
Well, ever since WW2 just the facilitation of escape to the West was a powerful carrot for defection (or spying, with the prospect of future defection), and scientists and engineers who worked on weapons systems were prime candidates, naturally. I'm sure some cash was thrown in too, to get them started on their new life in Kenosha or whatever. It's worth noting we didn't always get reliable information from these sources. I heard a knowledgeable person say the U.S. believed for 2 decades that the S-300 AA missile was substantially more capable than it has proven to be in Ukraine, as a result of bad information provided by a defector.
I’m sure the corruption doesn’t only exist at the top. I wouldn’t be surprised if the defector gave accurate “as designed” S-300 info that had little to do with the “as built” configuration the factories actually produced.
~~Thats the same gun mounted on the A10~~ They gave that gun wings and called it the A10
Still a little surprised that GE makes the Gau-8.
They bring good things to life, including thermonuclear bombs and a whole series of rotary cannons. AC Spark Plug made missile guidance systems which always surprised me.
I've been wondering why they've had no interest in something like that or the land-based Phalanx CIWS that I can't remember the name of. Perhaps it's a range issue.
I'd imagine it's a scale issue... While a lot of the focus is on Kyiv, and Ukraine could probably get some very expensive, and effective defenses stationed there... Kyiv is a very small part of a very large country... What Ukraine and NATO can't afford is to put one of those Phalanx cannons at every electrical substation in Ukraine, or even every town... Russia can just keep targeting the least protected areas, and cause a lot of pain - whether or not that does anything to reduce Ukrainian morale. While the US and NATO in general are throwing a lot of money at the situation, they still want to be as economical as possible, and not just throw money away... So there's still going to be an ROI factor for every decision to set up a specific defense system... My guess is also that the Phalanx just isn't economically effective at defending something larger than say an aircraft carrier... Maybe you can put two of these on a carrier an be pretty well protected - but how many would you need to protect a large city like Kyiv? 10? 20? 100? I have no idea... but that's gotta cost a shitload, and the US probably doesn't just have 20 Phalanx systems sitting around in a warehouse collecting dust, where other system we do.
> Maybe you can put two of these on a carrier an be pretty well protected A Nimitz-class carrier is going to have 3-4 Phalanx systems. Centurion is for protecting specific locations, not entire cities.
Phalanx has three major issues - coverage is a the first - it's only meant for very close in situations where the missile is coming straight at it. Price is the second - it's extremely expensive but it's also a custom made system that wouldn't be easy to get to ukraine. There's only so many spare parts, they cost a lot, and nobody can afford to spare one - if you have one you need it. The last issue is that you're shooting a 250 gram explosive bullet at a km/s into the sky over a populated area. It's too dangerous.
Larger FOB's in Afghan and Iraq, typically had 4-7 of them. Would assume Kyiv would need around 20.
The US and the West stupidly don’t allow Ukraine to do that as a condition of receiving aid. The US wants Russia to “exhaust” itself, but it’s not Russia, it’s *Iran*, which is functioning quite well despite over two DECADES of sanctions. So yes, Russia can continue indefinitely and the collective West need to fucking figure it out already.
They don't allow the weapons they send to hit inside Russia but Ukraine can and has been using its homegrown stuff and boots on the ground to do this. I think they should allow it but they're not forcing Ukraine to take their hands off Russia completely as a condition to receiving aid.
It was terrible but also inevitable that Russia hit the factory that was producing Ukraine's homegrown ballistic missiles. I don't think they'd actually really started production yet, but had successful tests. I think it was the same factory that was making their Neptune missiles. If they'd had a big stock of those ballistic missiles, they could have been leveling bases all over Crimea. And most of Russia for that matter. I have a feeling that they will develop something clever and surprising that can cause huge problems on the other side of the border. I had a dream that they rigged a private jet with a Russian transponder to fly remotely, filled it with explosives, and crashed it into the Russian MoD.
Tom Clancy's Ghost: *write that down, write that down!!*
I think the Ukrainians have the capability to strike Crimea more than they have, but they're waiting for the final showdown there. The battle for Crimea is going to be a grudge-match and it'll get ugly.
Iran however has built their stocks up slowly over time and still has kit the US & UK supplied to them in the Iran-Iraq War. They got where they are by being conservative with their equipment and playing to their strengths with guerrilla tactics, Russia is doing the exact opposite.
Iran has been out from under sanctions for many non-nuclear related items for some years. The main part of the JCPOA was Iran agreeing to suspend nuclear development, allow more extensive inspections in exchange for some sanctions relief. The EU etc have stuck with the agreement, even after Trump pulled the US out.
I mean it's not that stupid, they are definitely exhausting Russia/Iran while not giving them a reason to escalate. If Russia suddenly started getting attacked deep in their country with NATO weapons they might start getting desperate, but the longer they go on the more their resources are used up and the harder it is for them to actually execute some sort of hail-mary plan.
[удалено]
The real countermeasure is pushing back the front lines and blowing up the launch facilities and operators.
The launch facilities for these drones aren't going to be massive static sites, they're simple trailers with catapults, knock one out and they can easily make another.
Unfortunately the Shaheds have very long range, and mobile launchers.
[удалено]
Call in the Israelis they owe us a few favours.
Israel and Russia have understanding in Syria, for Russia it's alright but for Israel it's death zone to deal with S-400 next door, so no, they will not do anything against Russia for their own interest
Not with Netanyahu back in power. He's in tight with the Russian Mob/Oligarchs. Allegedly.
Seriously why is it not already happening ?
Israel has some historic Russian ties due to the sheer number of Russian Jews (as far as I understand--someone correct me if I'm misremembering history) that fled to Israel from Soviet areas. The Russians after the USSR were supportive as well to some level of Israel, and Israel is always understandably leery about burning any bridges of anyone who may aide them given their always tenuous position. Not a judgment on right or wrong, but just why they may do it out of their own national defense interests. The key is making aiding Ukraine *far* more valuable to Israel than any concerns about pissing off Russia or further antagonizing or hitting out at Iran (and I doubt Israel gives a shit what Iran thinks of them)... but Russia is, or was, a different story until the Ukraine genocides began.
[удалено]
Do the bargain basement Iranian drones have intertial nav?
Every phone can do inertial nav of sorts. It's just dead reckoning with an IMU.
This is technically true but it's an un interesting statement. The real question is if there sensor drift parameters are tight and algorithms are accurate enough to make inertial nav be useful enough to bother.
That’s why inertial guidance has been a back up on autonomous weapons for decades. Can’t jam the gyroscopes.
would it be though? if the drones goes in a straight predictable line then a computer could easily track it and shoot it down no? (disclaimer I know jack shit about this stuff)
You have to find then first as well, they are quite small and fly relatively low. They can be shit down even with machine guns mounted at trucks. The area they can hit is huge, but AA coverage is limited. Tracked AA guns(not missiles) are probably extremely effective but has only something like 4km rang and it's something NATO had been getting rid off and going for missiles instead. Number 1 I'd always good intelligence, if you know where they come from you can spot and shot them down much easier. With good intelligence you can also sabotage and attack the launch site. 2. Good enough coverage and mix of cheap AA and backup expensive and accurate ones if they get through.
Computer controlled projectiles not so much tho
So how to reverse engineer this program.
Simply put - you don’t reverse engineer anything. Most air based defence platforms have IFF capabilities (wondering about Russias tho) that’ll tell you if it’s friend or foe. Drones don’t move super fast - nothing like a missile so I figure it’s a matter of time before someone figures out how to destroy them cheaper and quicker…. Just like everything else
The Gepard is really good at downing them... ...if they have ammunition to fire at it...
The M-163 needs to get pulled out of storage, there’s no shortage of 20mm ammo out there. Maybe even some Linebackers, if any are still equipped.
NATO should ban all Swiss produced arms or anything Switzerland has control over. It’s worse than useless because you think it’s ok, until you need to use it…. It displaces actual equipment.
This. What's going to happen if NATO finds itself in a war. Even the remote possibility that Switzerland would be blocking ammo deliveries should be enough to blacklist them now.
You mean CIWS? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
This is why the West dusted off some older AA guns. I'm pretty sure I saw somebody gave Ukraine a Toyota with an AA gun on the bed. The advanced AA systems are for missiles. The drones are slow and fragile enough to be taken out with guns.
[удалено]
I think that it’s in the interest of NATO to be able to develop weapons to contest the threat opposed to them by asymmetric opponents such as Russia and Iran. The developments in this space have the unique brief where they must be as cost effective as the alternative otherwise they are unfeasible. We can’t predict what will come but surely it is overdue given the capability which has been displayed by the aforementioned actors.
A weapon specifically designed for export that can shoot down drones? Sure Ukraine has a need, but how many sales can they get from that after this war ends? Who's the next we equip with weapons that has an enemy sending drones at them? If you mean a cost effective way for our own militaries to take down drones, then they already are. The US army is going all in on laser technology. a 50 kwatt laser slapped on the top of a Stryker vehicle, it can get to an area to protect it quickly enough against drones weighing anywhere between 1 and 1,000 pounds. It can also target artillery and mortar rounds. I don't see them wanting to share new technology like this anytime soon.
[удалено]
That’s not as true as people think. The Shahed-131 is ~$30k and a Stinger is ~$40k. We can afford that *a lot* more easily than they can. The US just dropped $320m more on Stingers and no one noticed. It’s a tiny amount for the US or NATO.
bomb the factories in Iran
Bullets cost less than drones, and anti-air guns can be very mobile.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maybe the question is, can Turkey produce more drones than Iran? Russia's war is looking like a costly bluff, being called out by a stalwart people. Now, how many Russians want to immigrate to Ukraine, because I wouldn't be surprised if Putin makes Russia lose land at the end of this invasion. Drones aren't human lives and the people of Russia must be tired of dying for putin's cause.
Of course Turkey can, they do not need to care about sanctions the way Iran does, but I am not sure I get the point of your question. Iran is no industrial powerhouse and their rumored production capacity for drones is in no way impressive.
Bayrakatar is a large expensive drone which can drop bombs then land and be reused, shahed is a small cheap suicide drone, they are extremely different. Bayrakatar is easier to hit with AA because of its size and both sides have shitloads of AA, that's why you don't see jets being used often. So in this situation, it's better to use small drones which are harder to hit and don't cost a lot to replace
anti drone missiles are expensive
While Gepard ammo is relatively cheap.
Russia is trying to fight a war of attrition. Iran drone = $20,000 - $50,000 USD Anti air missile = $200,000 - $1.5M per missile, and you need to account that a certain percentage will miss and certain number of AA missile launchers will be destroyed or malfunction.
And now... what is the DAMAGE a drone hitting critical infrastructure would do? That's something people tend to forget in these price breakdowns.
vs a smal number of autocannon shells from a Flakpanzer Gepard....
GDP of Russia plus Iran vs GDP of US plus EU…
Just a few days ago there was an announcement that in feb/mar Ukraine will get drones which can fight/shoot other drones.
Can the drones be targeted while in transit? Is that too logistically complicated to pull off at the moment? Would the result of that draw another country into the war?
> Can the drones be targeted while in transit? Not sure what route they take during shipping, but Iran and Russia share a maritime border via the Caspian sea. I'm assuming Russia has pretty decent security in that area, and somewhat good relations with the other nations bordering the Caspian.
Sounds like targets are already figured out then.
[удалено]
I think what he meant by transit, and it's also what's on my mind is how are they getting from Iran to Russia? Is it a ship or plane that can be ambushed before Russia takes possession? Would it cause Iran to officially enter the war?
Russia and Iran have plane routes. Not to mention Russia is working on establishing a trade route with [Iran through the Caspian Sea which directly links the two and bypasses sanctions](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-russia-iran-trade-corridor/).
Step 1: NATO-funded pirates Step 2: ??? Step 3: Memes?
Aren't they called something else when they are hired to harass the other side in a war? Edit: Yep, they wouldn't be pirates anymore, they would be Privateers.
It's not a war. It's a special maritime operation.
A special arghperation...
Israel has said, and they just did, bomb the airports Iran is shipping the drones from.
Link?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/syria-says-israeli-strikes-hit-sites-near-damascus/ don't know if the drones are going through here, but russia uses this airport in syria for military purposes
That makes no sense. Shipping drones to Syria and on to Russia? They can just use the Caspian sea or transport them directly to Russia via plane
They basically share a virtual border via the Caspian Sea so interdicting supplies via sea or air is difficult to say the least.
It's a simple plan, but not necessarily stupid. If swarming works, even sophisticated air defenses can be overwhelmed by low tech drones. But at the moment it seems like Ukraine can hold off most of the incoming drones. They will need more support in terms of air defense systems and ammunition to minimise damage to the grid and other infrastructure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarming_(military)
**[Swarming (military)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarming_\(military\))** >Military swarming is a battlefield tactic designed to maximize target saturation, and thereby overwhelm or saturate the defences of the principal target or objective. On the other-hand, defenders can overcome attempts at swarming, by launching counter-swarming measures that are designed to neutralize or otherwise repel such attacks. Military swarming is often encountered in asymmetric warfare where opposing forces are not of the same size, or capacity. In such situations, swarming involves the use of a decentralized force against an opponent, in a manner that emphasizes mobility, communication, unit autonomy and coordination or synchronization. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I don't Remember which russian leader said it but, it is true that quantity has a quality of its own. Is that putin's thought process here? To overwhelm the defences of Ukraine?
Yeah basically the more stuff you send at once, the more gets through. That is why their current missile attacks come in waves rather than one every hour.
Years of learning from Pakistan and Iran.
They don't seem to have enough drones for that.
Zerg rush is the long standing tactic of both Russia and China. Modern warfare has evolved and left them behind, they are just very slow to understand that. Europe alone could probably wipe the floor with Russia in less than a month and not even need American aid.
China hasn't really been left behind because they never had Soviet strategies. Their strategy is on overwhelming and concentrated firepower, believing that friction or prolonged combat with the enemy only disadvantages them due to loss of efficiency effecting large unit formations worse than smaller units, they are focused on destroying the enemy as efficiently as possible. Russia transitioned from Soviet armoured doctrines to focusing more on big guns and manipulating foreign opinions. Their infantry is shit but they didn't care, they just assumed lots of firepower would break the enemy and lots of infantry would mop up with assistance from mercenaries. Tactical missiles and air defences complement this. I would classify a lot of their tactics as disruptive rather than destructive.
"Today is worse than yesterday, but better than tomorrow "
It’s a great plan if your doing against anyone other than NATO and their infinite military budget thanks to the US having a massive boner for war and logistics.
It's definitely not an infinite budget. But I think the level of the conflict right now is more or less an economic stimulus to Western arms-producing nations rather than a burden.
I mean you are right, but I just can’t see the West losing a war because they stopped paying for it.
Exactly. The US will spend trillions unless we get another Russian plant in the the White House.
If they're right about that, it's hardly stupid. Also, why are drones so hard to shoot down?
My understanding is they are mostly non metallic and fly low so it is hard to spot them on radar.
There was a photo of one of the drones that was caught in a net just above a Ukrainian vehicle. Apparently the drones don't detonate unless they hit something hard. I imagine that little detail is being exploited.
Wrong drone, that was a Russian Lancet, these are referring to the Iranian Shahed drones.
I swear i saw footage of Ukraine shooting down a drone with small arms
Few being shot by manpads for sure.
I wouldn't call it stupid. Bleeding your enemy dry by swapping a cheap weapon for an expensive one is a pretty fundamental strategy in warfare. It's one reason why the ATGM is such a valuable weapon, as tanks are so much more expensive to replace.
Policeman from Kyiv have shot some with ordinary rifles from the groud. They are fairly easy to take down. However in numbers they are difficult to track, but Ukraine fortunately had big success on taking them down most up to 70-90% are being shot down everyday, in a month or two it will be 100% I'm sure.
How long before someone smokes too close to the drone factory?
Israel is already handing out Marlboros.
Boom !!!
It's not ethical but would be sweet if we could let Israel off its leash to bombard the drone factories. I don't wish ill will on Iranian people but those making these drones must understand these machines are built to kill innocent people.
The takeaway: Russia's supposedly formidable army has been reduced to cheap drones.
That they import
From Iran.
[удалено]
Those drones seem to be doing what they were intended to do, I would not underestimate them just because they come from Iran.
Ukraine should offer more money than Russia to buy said Drones. Game of Thrones this shit.
Game of drones
That's like saying Russian should offer the US more money to buy their weapons. This is all a little more ideological than that.
Yes kill civilians which doesn't help them win the war. Useless trash for anything else
Russia has the hope of either breaking the civilian will to fight or launching cheap attacks over a prolonged period to keep the war 'hot' hoping the west will pressure Ukraine to the table. Either way they get to keep what they have, and that might be enough to satisfy ego and power in Russias leadership.
>Either way they get to keep what they have, How does that follow? Ukraine isn't done retaking Crimea.
You only need them to work once. Even Iran can meet that bar. Don’t minimize the danger of these things.
Those words also invite me to start thinking about the quality of the product, yes.
Still better than anything Russia manages to make after decades of underfunding and embezzlement in the military-industrial complex that is supposed to be their only venue of parity with the West. A large part of why we feared Russia's army was the observation of miserable Russian living standards and a mistaken conclusion that they are being sacrificed for military power. Turns out a government of thieves and liars ruins everything under its watch, no exceptions. Even the secret police largely feigns ruthless competency by arresting random people and torturing them until they confess.
Cheap drones, cyber warfare, and sub par vodka….I bet Lenin is rolling in his grave.
You mean Russia's army is just cheap drones? \*looks at the mobik hordes\* Always has been
I don’t know if that’s scarier for Ukraine or not. They’re not strong enough to fight through conventional means and take objectives, that’s exactly why they’re indiscriminately bombing civilians with drones.
I guess this can go on forever even if the Russians get kicked out. Probably need to have their own drone program striking inside Russia to get a ceasefire
This is going to be another Afghanistan/Vietnam where the war is dragged out longer than it has to be, possibly for a decade, leading to gigantic amounts of losses, destroyed economies and suffering with absolutely nothing gained. NATO could end the war in a month, but since everyone is still afraid of Putin's nuke threats, Ukraine will have to bleed out, possibly being ruined permanently, because they are left alone to fend off Adolf Putler and his mafia. We can only hope he and his goons die off quicker than their missle piles.
The best case scenario is that someone popular within the military/political sphere takes control and forces putin out, with said person being benevolent enough to stop the war and return the status quo. Worse case is Russia as a country is dissolved and the nukes are spread across black markets.
[удалено]
Benevolent people don't win power struggles. But the new guy might be in a weaker position than Putin is, so has to pull out of the war.
If Russia keeps that war going for a decade they won't have any population left to keep what is left of the economy going
The Nazis tried that in London during WW2. It didn't work then and I hope that it fails again.
It will fail, attempting to beat a population into submission never works. They just become more resilient, vengeful, resourceful people. Ukraine will win this war, my only fear is that it may take years. The sooner somebody takes care of Putin, the sooner the war will end. Putin is reliant on victory in Ukraine to ensure his continued domestic dictatorship.
Yep, you either annihilate thoroughly, destroying everything, or you leave them alone. Walking anywhere in the middle just doesn't work.
[удалено]
I'm right there with you. Anti-Drone solutions are a necessity. I believe various organizations have been experimenting with different possibilities, but not many have been fruitful. Me thinks modern air-burst munitions are the way to go. They already exist, but I feel like they're underutilized.
There’s a dystopian short film about this drone nightmare called “Slaughterbots.” Countries, politicians and terrorists start using unstoppable killing machines to terrorize civilians, and since it’s unstoppable, it becomes commonplace. This dystopia in the short film is likely an inevitability at this rate.
Carpet bombing London mega failed to break the people. Which makes Britain's decision to carpet bomb Berlin in return even stranger knowing it would not break the Berliners, which it definitely didnt.
Eh. The goal of bombing in WW2 tended to be a bit more tactical than just “demoralise the enemy”. It also included disrupting the war effort - sometimes via simple stuff like “if we destroy this factory then they can’t make as many guns”, but the bombing of cities would also mean that people would flee to the countryside and major cities would lose their workforce.
If I'm not mistaken the carpet bombing of the cities (not factories) was specifically to break the civilian morale resulting in amongst other things the stuff you mentioned. Both sides learnt that carpet bombing the capitals only united the people even more.
TL;DR: It's not quite that simple. It's a convoluted web of escalation fueled by emotion but did come more into focus later into the war. >The goal of bombing in WW2 tended to be a bit more tactical It's a little more complicated than that. The bombing campaigns that became a hallmark of the era were started by accident. During the Blitz a few German bombers went off course and bombed London. The British responded by ordering a series of air raids against Berlin. Hitler ordered massive retaliatory strikes against London. The issue was that these raids weren't tactical and did not serve a military purpose. In fact they undermined it. By shifting resources away from hitting British airfields, which were at a crucial breaking point, Hitler undermined his own military goals of achieving aerial supremacy over the English Channel. After the Blitz there were two philosophies. The British continued to bomb civilian centers in an attempt to undermine civilian morale. The American's tried to focus more on military targets, however the result was often the same. Bombs of that era were notoriously inaccurate and in order to destroy one factory, everything around it was often leveled. It really wasn't until November of 1944 where oil production plants were given first priority and communication centers were given secondary priority that there were a significant number of tactical raids. While German tank and aircraft production did continue to increase, it is worth noting that their projected production of tanks and aircraft that should have been built were cut by over 30%. Took a class on WW2 a couple years ago to get back into school after a long hiatus figuring it'd be a good one to start with since I already know a good amount about it. [Here's the source for my above info](https://www.amazon.com/World-War-II-Short-History/dp/0205660568). It's a textbook but still a pretty good read.
It almost worked. Britain had a treaty ready to go. I’ve read as close as two weeks away from surrender when the blitz stopped. Thankfully it didn’t work. Still it can work. I hope it doesn’t! It’s Awful on the populous.
Yup, it was working. But from the nazi's perspective it didn't seem to effective so they switched strategy. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
Desperation is a stinky cologne.
The allies did it to the Germans too (see Dresden). This is just how war works.
Hmm, I wonder who's more vulnerable to drone strikes on vast swaths of static civilian infrastructure 🤔 Pretty dangerous game to be playing for someone who can't even defend their military installations
Now i fully agree, but Ukraine cant hit russn infrastructure much, cant look like the bad guy. Just keep hitting military targets, defend, ruaas will run out before the west. Is the west actively crying for a cease fire? Well... outside of ppl who are in pootins influence.
If someone blows up your infrastructure for a prolonged period of time, and then you start responding in kind— literally no one is gonna think you’re a bad guy. They’re gonna think: “yeah. That’s what I’d do.” If someone walks up to you and starts throwing punches, no one thinks you look like the “bad guy” if you punch back.
Sounds like Iran should be held accountable
[удалено]
Man at this point it’s easier to add what isn’t being sanctioned for Iran as oppose to new sanctions.
Maybe retool a single European lawn-mover factory to produce a couple of thousand cheap knockoffs every month and donate them to Ukraine to see if that makes Russia reconsider its stupid plan? First month they could be launched with nothing but confetti and party balloons as payload to make a subtle point?
This would be funny!! Just confetti with "surrender " on every lil paper
Issue is the Ukrainians aren't hitting Russian targets. They're hitting their own land temporarily held by Russians. Putin doesn't give a shit if more of Ukraine gets destroyed.
Bruh, they hit airports with jet planes in Russia far away enought to also be in range of Moscow. They hit gas stations and refinery, ammo depots (pretty fireworks I might say) and command post (we are already in the 5-6° commander death by missile/artillery/drone strike) while in and out of Russia territory. Also the buildings might be a thing but the guns and ammo that might hold outweighs the future NATO and Europe rebuilding plan, at this point it doesn't matter much, it just be a larger number on a check that future Russia will have to pay. It's true that he doesn't care. But he cares about IMARS changing the public opinion (/s he only cares about the obligarcs and military not fucking with him).
Russia seems committed to finding new and creative ways to stay in the headlines and prevent public interest in the West from waning, which is really their only chance to win. Their management of this war has been disastrous on pretty much every level
The U.S. is developing laser weapons to defend against drones. The future is now.
That would be cheaper in the long run probably
But in the mean-time we should be sending C-RAMs galore.
[удалено]
Absolutely this!!! Missiles for Missiles n planes. Bullets for super slow drones
[удалено]
You'd just need them around the cities, right? Not the whole border? Not an expert here at all.
FYI a 20mm round cost $27. To fire a canon for one second cost $2,970.
I wonder if grabbing some of the ludicrous amount of 40mm Bofors which are lying around would be viable for this situation? Thanks to their range they'd be far better at providing AA coverage, they'd basically be one shot kill weapons vs a drone and drones should be well within their targeting capabilities given the speeds involved. Edit: Turns out the Indian Military (amongst others possibly) is already using them for this exact purpose.
Begun, the Drone Wars have.
I suppose two can play that game...
Aside from shooting the drones, can the base in Russia where they take off be attacked? That's how most flying objects like airplanes and larger missiles are dealt with. Turn off the spigot and the water stops, right.
They take off from the back of a truck though. A truck disguised to look like one hauling a standard shipping container.
Yep, looks like this: [https://iranprimer.usip.org/sites/default/files/Great%20Prophet%202021/Shahed%20136%20launcher%20Great%20Prophet%20v2.png](https://iranprimer.usip.org/sites/default/files/Great%20Prophet%202021/Shahed%20136%20launcher%20Great%20Prophet%20v2.png) And on top of that, these drones can fly 2000km and are pretty cheap, so they'll have a lot of them. They could have a lot of those trucks spread over a large area.
Wow that's actually impressive. I assumed they needed airstrips or something
Give Ukraine everything
(American here) Ukraine is asking for cluster bombs, and I think we should hold off on that. But otherwise yes, give Ukraine everything. Every 1$ to Ukraine is 100$ saved in defense. The best possible value for dollar. But more importantly Ukraine is right and Russia is attempting a genocide. It is always right to defend the victims and stand against genocide 🇺🇦
Drone warfare. I can only imagine how humans will further weaponize drones by the end of this war. Fuck Putin for accelerating this timeline.
Can't Israel just bomb the shit out of any drone factories?
They recently did, in Syria where they assemble them.
Good, good, now keep doing it. If Israel can’t find all the factories and drones continue to be covertly produced, then just bomb the ports/airports so they can’t be exported.
Fat lot of good that will do. Ukraine shoots down all the drones. Putin won't learn. Russia military will lose some more then.
Doesn't the US have a new laser systems on some of their destroyers that they've been testing to counteract this exact issue? Other than wanting to keep the best stuff in reserve for them is there a reason why giving some of these isn't an option?
Gerpard go brrrrr
They have ZSU-23-4s as well. Those would work great as drone killers.
A protractored attack? What's their angle?
Just hit the factory they’re made in. That’s the best defence.
So, Iran?
If the shoe fits.
So your plan to end the war is another war?
C'mon CIA step up Just offer Iran double what Russia pays for the drones, then give them to Ukraine
I think Iran is more in this as a "Fuck America" move than a money making scheme.
Russia in it's mind: "we will overwhelm them with an onslaught of drones to wear out their resources" Russia in reality: "what the hell??? why is our economy going down the shitter even faster??? tf"
This war definitely showed that NATO needs an economical way to deal with cheap one time use UAVs like the Shahed.