Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 10-30-2022

This thread seems like a sober update on recent events on and off the battlefield:  https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1586715614202454016.

It acknowledges that neither side has made significant advances in the last few weeks, that Russia appears to be digging in its defenses on the right bank of the Dnipro, and that a lot of the battle right now is being fought over strategic issues like energy, infrastructure, and foreign aid/sanctions.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-30-2022

(10-30-2022, 11:53 AM)81alum Wrote:  Yes, Goose, you and I certainly see the war of movement and envelopment to offer the most promise for Ukraine.  As I understand it, the US and NATO adopted this combined arms war-of-movement strategy during and after WWII after the Germans more or less invented it.  The Soviet Union, however, during WWII and later did not fully embrace that doctrine--despite their spectacular success at Stalingrad.  And given that the Ukrainian military (until recently) has been more a product of Soviet doctrine than of Nato doctrine, is there simply a lag in military doctrine?  The Ukrainian success in the NE sure looked like it was designed to be a war of movement, but what is happening around Kherson does not.  I presume they really do want a Stalingrad and not a Verdun.

I don't think it is a "doctrine" problem as such. I think it is more a capability problem. NATO troops practice, practice, practice to fight to their doctrine. After 2014, Ukraine was adapting towards NATO style operations but had neither the budget nor the equipment to really adopt it. They had to get by with what they had. The war has greatly reduced their budget problem and the manpower problem, but in the middle of a war, they don't have time to practice and change their whole way of doing things. Their officers have to be re-trained as well, which is no mean feat even during peacetime. The Ukraine is fighting often using volunteers that have no training at all led by older troops that have only what they learned in their short UMS training years ago. There are lots of things this kind of force simply can't do. The Ukrainians are definitely "better" than they were at the beginning of the war, but they are still more a Warsaw Pact force than a NATO force. That said, some of the Warsaw Pact forces were damn good.

IMHO the Ukrainian success in the NE was very much a classical Russian approach with a bunch of Ukraine/NATO recon added. The Ukrainians found a real soft spot in the Russian defense line and exploited it, just like the Russians around Stalingrad shredded the Hungarian 2nd army and the Romanian 3rd and 4th army. The Hungarian 2nd army consisted of conscripts with minimal training defending a front that was entirely too long for them. Sound familiar? Same deal in the NE. The difference was that in Ukraine the Russians ran faster than the Hungarians did in WW II and had a place to run to. They also weren't being chased by an experienced and mobile Red tank army, but rather a very mixed group of partially trained Ukrainians. A lot of them got away. This was indeed a very important tactical victory for Ukraine, and may yet turn out to be a strategically important one if the Ukraine can continue the offensive. The main hope is that the continued Ukrainian advance in Donetsk/Luhansk may force Russia to call off their offensive operations near Bakhmut. If Ukraine can take Kreminna and Rubizhne, Russia will be in real trouble there. Unfortunately Russia is kind of holding on.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-01-2022

Ukraine has taken credit for the USV attack on the Russian Black Sea fleet.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-made-drones-carry-unprecedented-164100899.html

Unfortunately the relatively small warhead carried by these vessels is unlikely to do significant damage to a warship. Their warhead is about the same size as a lightweight torpedo (like the Mark 54). This kind of weapon is effective against a surface vessel only if it targets the screws/rudder area but otherwise, as they say, it "just scratches the paint". These USVs appear unable to do that. IMHO it might have been wiser for Ukraine to do a bit more development and make them acoustic homing weapons so they could wreck the propulsion systems. Otherwise, kind of wasted.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 11-01-2022

(11-01-2022, 11:23 AM)Goose Wrote:  Ukraine has taken credit for the USV attack on the Russian Black Sea fleet.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-made-drones-carry-unprecedented-164100899.html

Unfortunately the relatively small warhead carried by these vessels is unlikely to do significant damage to a warship. Their warhead is about the same size as a lightweight torpedo (like the Mark 54). This kind of weapon is effective against a surface vessel only if it targets the screws/rudder area but otherwise, as they say, it "just scratches the paint". These USVs appear unable to do that. IMHO it might have been wiser for Ukraine to do a bit more development and make them acoustic homing weapons so they could wreck the propulsion systems. Otherwise, kind of wasted.

I don't see the source for saying the warhead is about the size of a lightweight torpedo.  There were two versions of a pre-dawn video from the shore showing what appeared to be a very large explosion (both versions apparently from the same webcam).  Would that be this warhead that is ineffective on a surface vessel?  Also, there was a daytime video showing an isolated explosion in the Sebastopol harbor (with helicopter nearby) - same explosion as at the end of one of the videos linked in this thread.  The camera was about 2 miles away from the explosion (10 seconds until the boom) and local car alarms can be heard.  That seems bigger than a small warhead.  (Note, it wasn't clear whether this video was of a previously found USV that was towed out to be destroyed, or part of the drone attack.  I suspect the former so maybe it was added explosives to destroy the USV.)

I don't understand why one would want acoustic homing devices.  The USVs were clearly being steered by someone watching the video, but perhaps clumsily.  I presume that whatever units were involved in designing & building & executing this attack had people that knew where they wanted to strike the vessels.    (Would acoustic homing work against docked ships?  I doubt these USVs have much chance against the ships in motion.)

I haven't seen the video showing a "USV roaming between the docked ships inside the harbor".

The Russians shut down the webcams in Sebastopol after the attack.

------

In other news today, Russia is telling people to evacuate within 9 miles of the EAST bank of the Dnipro River.  I suspect that has less to do with humanitarian needs or even resettlement as it is intended to reduce the ability for the residents to report military positions or to engage in sabotage or insurgency.

I'm not sure that there is anything new in this report about US deliveries of NASAMS.  It does say that Raytheon delivered two to the US a few weeks ago, due to be in Ukraine by end of November.  It also indicate the US provided 1400 Stinger MANPADs.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 11-01-2022

(11-01-2022, 12:15 PM)M T Wrote:  I don't see the source for saying the warhead is about the size of a lightweight torpedo.  There were two versions of a pre-dawn video from the shore showing what appeared to be a very large explosion (both versions apparently from the same webcam).  Would that be this warhead that is ineffective on a surface vessel?  Also, there was a daytime video showing an isolated explosion in the Sebastopol harbor (with helicopter nearby) - same explosion as at the end of one of the videos linked in this thread.  The camera was about 2 miles away from the explosion (10 seconds until the boom) and local car alarms can be heard.  That seems bigger than a small warhead.  (Note, it wasn't clear whether this video was of a previously found USV that was towed out to be destroyed, or part of the drone attack.  I suspect the former so maybe it was added explosives to destroy the USV.)

I don't think anybody knows definitively the size of the warhead on these drone ships. They are large enough to carry a lot of explosives. Similar sized explosive motorboats were used by the Italians to sink the cruiser York in WW2. 

Do you have a source Goose?

Russia has had a few days to show some proof of life photos and we still have seen nothing.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-01-2022

(11-01-2022, 12:15 PM)M T Wrote:  

(11-01-2022, 11:23 AM)Goose Wrote:  Ukraine has taken credit for the USV attack on the Russian Black Sea fleet.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-made-drones-carry-unprecedented-164100899.html



Unfortunately the relatively small warhead carried by these vessels is unlikely to do significant damage to a warship. Their warhead is about the same size as a lightweight torpedo (like the Mark 54). This kind of weapon is effective against a surface vessel only if it targets the screws/rudder area but otherwise, as they say, it "just scratches the paint". These USVs appear unable to do that. IMHO it might have been wiser for Ukraine to do a bit more development and make them acoustic homing weapons so they could wreck the propulsion systems. Otherwise, kind of wasted.

I don't see the source for saying the warhead is about the size of a lightweight torpedo.

There are analysis on the web discussing the USV that previously washed up on the shore of Crimea. Based on it's appearance and relative size, there is pretty compelling evidence that the ones used in this attack were the same kind. The estimate is that a 100 to 200 lb warhead was about the maximum it could carry.

Quote:There were two versions of a pre-dawn video from the shore showing what appeared to be a very large explosion (both versions apparently from the same webcam).  Would that be this warhead that is ineffective on a surface vessel?  Also, there was a daytime video showing an isolated explosion in the Sebastopol harbor (with helicopter nearby) - same explosion as at the end of one of the videos linked in this thread.  The camera was about 2 miles away from the explosion (10 seconds until the boom) and local car alarms can be heard.  That seems bigger than a small warhead.  (Note, it wasn't clear whether this video was of a previously found USV that was towed out to be destroyed, or part of the drone attack.  I suspect the former so maybe it was added explosives to destroy the USV.)

100 lbs of explosive going off in the open makes a very big boom. For comparison an M107 155 mm HE shell contains 18.6 lbs of explosive. Very difficult to tell from a video of this type what the weight would be. The analysis based on buoyancy gives a more realistic limit. It also depends on where the warhead is carried. You want it near the front but that creates balance issues.

Unlike torpedos, these USVs don't go running around at 55 knots. For comparison, a MK-48 "heavyweight" torpedo weighs 3600 lbs and carries a 647 lb warhead. However, it doesn't even hit the ship. It goes under it and shatters the keel.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/07/17/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-a-mk-48-torpedo-breaks-your-keel-video/
The torpedo explodes under the ship in in-compressible water, creating a "water hammer". It literally shatters the ship, as you can see in the video. 
The USV can't do that because it's warhead is too small and it can't get under the ship. What it could do is destroy the rudder or screws. Otherwise, it won't do much. It is actually surprisingly difficult to sink a warship by making holes in it's side. You need a big warhead and you need to have it explode inside the target, not on contact.

Quote:I don't understand why one would want acoustic homing devices.  The USVs were clearly being steered by someone watching the video, but perhaps clumsily.  I presume that whatever units were involved in designing & building & executing this attack had people that knew where they wanted to strike the vessels.    (Would acoustic homing work against docked ships?  I doubt these USVs have much chance against the ships in motion.)

The acoustic homing device would not work on a docked ship. The Project 11356R frigate in the video dabigv13 posted was clearly under way. The infrared portion shows the exhaust stack glowing and she has a bone in her teeth. The acoustic homing would allow the USVs to home in on the screws. This may require the USV to speed up to catch the target, which undoubtedly would strain it's capabilities and can't be sustained for long. Manually steering it to do this would be difficult, especially with data link delay and the fact the ship is much narrower that it is long :-). Acoustic homing is reliable and ensures you hit the vulnerable part, not two meters away. With a small warhead, you need all the help you can get. Otherwise you get a big boom and lots of scared Russians, but not much damage.
------

Quote:I'm not sure that there is anything new in this report about US deliveries of NASAMS.  It does say that Raytheon delivered two to the US a few weeks ago, due to be in Ukraine by end of November.  It also indicate the US provided 1400 Stinger MANPADs.

Given the level of destruction in Ukraine I would have hoped for a more rapid response all along the line to the delivery of the NASAMS. No idea why it will take a month to get it there. IMHO this seems excessive, especially given the need.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 11-01-2022

(11-01-2022, 02:30 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(11-01-2022, 12:15 PM)M T Wrote:  

(11-01-2022, 11:23 AM)Goose Wrote:  Ukraine has taken credit for the USV attack on the Russian Black Sea fleet.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-made-drones-carry-unprecedented-164100899.html



Unfortunately the relatively small warhead carried by these vessels is unlikely to do significant damage to a warship. Their warhead is about the same size as a lightweight torpedo (like the Mark 54). This kind of weapon is effective against a surface vessel only if it targets the screws/rudder area but otherwise, as they say, it "just scratches the paint". These USVs appear unable to do that. IMHO it might have been wiser for Ukraine to do a bit more development and make them acoustic homing weapons so they could wreck the propulsion systems. Otherwise, kind of wasted.

I don't see the source for saying the warhead is about the size of a lightweight torpedo.

There are analysis on the web discussing the USV that previously washed up on the shore of Crimea. Based on it's appearance and relative size, there is pretty compelling evidence that the ones used in this attack were the same kind. The estimate is that a 100 to 200 lb warhead was about the maximum it could carry.

Quote:There were two versions of a pre-dawn video from the shore showing what appeared to be a very large explosion (both versions apparently from the same webcam).  Would that be this warhead that is ineffective on a surface vessel?  Also, there was a daytime video showing an isolated explosion in the Sebastopol harbor (with helicopter nearby) - same explosion as at the end of one of the videos linked in this thread.  The camera was about 2 miles away from the explosion (10 seconds until the boom) and local car alarms can be heard.  That seems bigger than a small warhead.  (Note, it wasn't clear whether this video was of a previously found USV that was towed out to be destroyed, or part of the drone attack.  I suspect the former so maybe it was added explosives to destroy the USV.)

100 lbs of explosive going off in the open makes a very big boom. For comparison an M107 155 mm HE shell contains 18.6 lbs of explosive. Very difficult to tell from a video of this type what the weight would be. The analysis based on buoyancy gives a more realistic limit. It also depends on where the warhead is carried. You want it near the front but that creates balance issues.

Unlike torpedos, these USVs don't go running around at 55 knots. For comparison, a MK-48 "heavyweight" torpedo weighs 3600 lbs and carries a 647 lb warhead. However, it doesn't even hit the ship. It goes under it and shatters the keel.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/07/17/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-a-mk-48-torpedo-breaks-your-keel-video/
The torpedo explodes under the ship in in-compressible water, creating a "water hammer". It literally shatters the ship, as you can see in the video. 
The USV can't do that because it's warhead is too small and it can't get under the ship. What it could do is destroy the rudder or screws. Otherwise, it won't do much. It is actually surprisingly difficult to sink a warship by making holes in it's side. You need a big warhead and you need to have it explode inside the target, not on contact.

Quote:I don't understand why one would want acoustic homing devices.  The USVs were clearly being steered by someone watching the video, but perhaps clumsily.  I presume that whatever units were involved in designing & building & executing this attack had people that knew where they wanted to strike the vessels.    (Would acoustic homing work against docked ships?  I doubt these USVs have much chance against the ships in motion.)

The acoustic homing device would not work on a docked ship. The Project 11356R frigate in the video dabigv13 posted was clearly under way. The infrared portion shows the exhaust stack glowing and she has a bone in her teeth. The acoustic homing would allow the USVs to home in on the screws. This may require the USV to speed up to catch the target, which undoubtedly would strain it's capabilities and can't be sustained for long. Manually steering it to do this would be difficult, especially with data link delay and the fact the ship is much narrower that it is long :-). Acoustic homing is reliable and ensures you hit the vulnerable part, not two meters away. With a small warhead, you need all the help you can get. Otherwise you get a big boom and lots of scared Russians, but not much damage.
------

Quote:I'm not sure that there is anything new in this report about US deliveries of NASAMS.  It does say that Raytheon delivered two to the US a few weeks ago, due to be in Ukraine by end of November.  It also indicate the US provided 1400 Stinger MANPADs.

Given the level of destruction in Ukraine I would have hoped for a more rapid response all along the line to the delivery of the NASAMS. No idea why it will take a month to get it there. IMHO this seems excessive, especially given the need.

A couple thoughts:

While a 200 pound warhead may not sink a ship, may not punching a hole in the side be sufficient to put it in dry dock for months of repairs, essentially removing it from the conflict?

Secondly, my impression has always been that the damage often comes less from the warhead and more from the fires caused by said warhead. Case in point, it only took 2 330 pound Neptune warheads to sink the Moskva, likely due to damage caused by the subsequent fires.

I also tend to agree that if the ships involved got off with light or no damage, the Russians would be posting video/photo evidence to proclaim the Ukranians ineffective.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 11-01-2022

(11-01-2022, 02:30 PM)Goose Wrote:  Given the level of destruction in Ukraine I would have hoped for a more rapid response all along the line to the delivery of the NASAMS. No idea why it will take a month to get it there. IMHO this seems excessive, especially given the need.

From the Pentagon brief this morning, the US will let Ukraine announce when it is there.  (My read is that it could already be there but it is up to Ukraine to decide when/how to, uh, announce it to the Russians (leaving them to think maybe it is already there.)  If I heard correctly, the briefer didn't answer the question about whether (Raytheon?) technicians would go into Ukraine to help set it up and maybe train how to use it.  Or whether training would be outside Ukraine.  My bet is they would be very hands-off about actually operating it.

There was a lot in the brief about inspectors (composed of embassy staff) that assure the items sent to Ukraine arrive there and are used for the war effort.  It sounded as though they were doing little more than validating the equipment exists at logistics warehouses before being sent to the front lines.

Ukraine reports "today [October 31] the enemy used 55 Kh-101 cruise missiles, a Kh-59 guided air missile, 22 S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, four Shahed-136 UAVs and a Lancet-3 UAV on civilian targets in Ukraine,"  Elsewhere, (Nov 1?) "Over the past day, Russian troops have launched four missile strikes and 26 air strikes, and opened fire with MLRS over 27 times."  On the other hand, "Over the past day, Ukrainian air forces have launched 22 strikes, hitting 19 enemy ammunition and military equipment clusters, and three air defense missile system positions. The Ukrainian anti-aircraft defense units shot down two Orlan-10 UAVs and six Shahed-136 UCAVs across different directions."  (All those reports are from Ukrainian sources. Note the discrepancy on the number of Shahed-136 UAVs.)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 11-01-2022

Quote:There are analysis on the web discussing the USV that previously washed up on the shore of Crimea. Based on it's appearance and relative size, there is pretty compelling evidence that the ones used in this attack were the same kind. The estimate is that a 100 to 200 lb warhead was about the maximum it could carry.

I'd be curious to read those.

These are some of the articles I read based on the device that had washed up but have not seen anything about the amount of explosives

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/09/ukraines-new-weapon-to-strike-russian-navy-in-sevastopol/

http://www.hisutton.com/Ukraines-New-Explosive-USV.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-01-2022

(11-01-2022, 02:55 PM)gocard14 Wrote:  A couple thoughts:


While a 200 pound warhead may not sink a ship, may not punching a hole in the side be sufficient to put it in dry dock for months of repairs, essentially removing it from the conflict?

While it is possible such damage would be done, it is improbable. The explosion would be at or near the waterline and probably have occurred outside the ship. It may flood a compartment, but since the ship is double-hulled (ships don't have torpedo bulges any more as a rule) probably not even that. Bilge pumps will just have to run all the time. It might mean there is a fuel tank or water tank you can't use or something like that. Worst case, trim the ship to roll it away from the hull breach, weld a plate over it, and you are good to go. If the USV breached the hull and then the explosion went of, the damage could be worse. However, in both cases if the ship needed to sustain operations it undoubtedly could. It is more like a "fender bender".

Quote:Secondly, my impression has always been that the damage often comes less from the warhead and more from the fires caused by said warhead. Case in point, it only took 2 330 pound Neptune warheads to sink the Moskva, likely due to damage caused by the subsequent fires.

Indeed that is the case with cruise missiles. However, it is apples and oranges. The missile hits the ship traveling 400 knots or more. It is well inside the ship before it explodes. Consider the Exocet hit on Sheffield:

Quote:"The Exocet that struck Sheffield hit her on the starboard side at deck level 2, travelling through the junior ratings' scullery and breaching the Forward Auxiliary Machinery Room/Forward Engine Room bulkhead 2.4 metres (7.9 ft) above the waterline, creating a hole in the hull roughly 1.2 metres (3.9 ft) by 3 metres (9.8 ft). Contemporary accounts suggested that the missile failed to explode, despite disabling the ship's electrical distribution systems and breaching the pressurised sea water fire main. The damage to the fire system severely hampered any firefighting response and eventually doomed the ship to be consumed by the fire."

It went through two compartments before it stopped, and it never did explode as such. Just residual fuel burning. Plenty of things to burn inside the ship. Not so much in the water outside it. The missile had tremendous kinetic energy due to its speed, which a USV doesn't have. Torpedoes can start fires inside the ship if they cause fuel lines to break or the like, but to do that they have to get well inside before they explode and/or have a BIG warhead (IJN type 93) The USV isn't going to do that.

Quote:I also tend to agree that if the ships involved got off with light or no damage, the Russians would be posting video/photo evidence to proclaim the Ukranians ineffective.

Could be. However, we also don't see pictures of the opposite, like we did with Moskva. Not sure what that means. Let's see if somebody posts a picture of the Frigate.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 11-01-2022

(11-01-2022, 03:37 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  

Quote:There are analysis on the web discussing the USV that previously washed up on the shore of Crimea. Based on it's appearance and relative size, there is pretty compelling evidence that the ones used in this attack were the same kind. The estimate is that a 100 to 200 lb warhead was about the maximum it could carry.

I'd be curious to read those.

These are some of the articles I read based on the device that had washed up but have not seen anything about the amount of explosives

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/09/ukraines-new-weapon-to-strike-russian-navy-in-sevastopol/

http://www.hisutton.com/Ukraines-New-Explosive-USV.html

The 2nd link suggests that the explosive would likely be similar to the Houthi boat, which is listed as a 454-lb hollow charge warhead from an anti-ship missile.
(Everybody is guessing at this point. One guess (100-200 lb) is probably as good as another (450 lb).)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-01-2022

(11-01-2022, 03:55 PM)M T Wrote:  

(11-01-2022, 03:37 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  

Quote:There are analysis on the web discussing the USV that previously washed up on the shore of Crimea. Based on it's appearance and relative size, there is pretty compelling evidence that the ones used in this attack were the same kind. The estimate is that a 100 to 200 lb warhead was about the maximum it could carry.

I'd be curious to read those.

These are some of the articles I read based on the device that had washed up but have not seen anything about the amount of explosives

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/09/ukraines-new-weapon-to-strike-russian-navy-in-sevastopol/

http://www.hisutton.com/Ukraines-New-Explosive-USV.html

The 2nd link suggests that the explosive would likely be similar to the Houthi boat, which is listed as a 454-lb hollow charge warhead from an anti-ship missile.
(Everybody is guessing at this point. One guess (100-200 lb) is probably as good as another (450 lb).)

Agree everybody guessing, but FWIW the picture of the Houthi boat is about twice the size (length) of the Ukrainian one. That would allow the Houthi boat to carry a significantly larger warhead. Another link (https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-forces-showcase-an-attack-on-russian-vessels-using-usvs/) unfortunately doesn't tell us much more about the warhead except that it is appears to use Soviet era bomb detonators. There is also a speed estimate which is actually pretty fast. This makes an attack on the rudder/screws easier. If they were really using StarLink to control it, that could be a problem for Elon.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 11-01-2022

Quote:Agree everybody guessing, but FWIW the picture of the Houthi boat is about twice the size (length) of the Ukrainian one. That would allow the Houthi boat to carry a significantly larger warhead.

We're all speculating, but FWLIW the Italian MT boat which Sutton estimates is similar size to the Ukrainian boat carried 700+lbs of explosives, and as I mentioned sunk a cruiser in WW2.

My hunch is that the ship did cause a lot of damage to the Makarov. If damage was insignificant or light Russia would have released pictures by now.

Even it didn't sink it, a USS Cole level of damage will still be significant. The Cole took over a year to repair, and I'm guessing Russia would take longer for something similar. Maybe longer if they mobilized the guys who'd be doing repairs.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 11-01-2022

Oh sh*t:  "Pentagon says Saudis believe Iran is prepping an attack on kingdom"  Possibly within 48 hours.

Russia invades Ukraine.  West implements sanctions on Russia.  Russian oil/gas is embargoed.  Allegedly Russia blows the Nord Stream pipelines.  Russia begins destroying energy infrastructure in Ukraine.  Iran starts supplying UAVs to Russia.

Now the Saudis believe Iran is about to attack them.  If you thought Ukrainian power facilities were sitting ducks for a few hundred missiles, imagine the pipelines and refineries in Saudi Arabia.  Take them out, and/or block the shipping of oil from Saudi Arabia, and we've got a problem for the West, starting this winter.   Even if Iran fails horribly, and Saudi Arabia wins, the damage could take many years to repair.   Russia would be in a stronger position from a war on Saudi Arabia..


I wonder how Iran is being paid by Russia?  Missiles, perhaps?

Both Ukraine and Saudi Arabia have important natural resources.  Ukraine has 5% of the world's mineral resources & has the 2nd largest coal reserve in Europe and 1.8% of the world's uranium.  Saudi Arabia has 22% of the world's oil reserves.

I really hope we aren't seeing the start of WW III.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-01-2022

(11-01-2022, 05:34 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  

Quote:Agree everybody guessing, but FWIW the picture of the Houthi boat is about twice the size (length) of the Ukrainian one. That would allow the Houthi boat to carry a significantly larger warhead.

We're all speculating, but FWLIW the Italian MT boat which Sutton estimates is similar size to the Ukrainian boat carried 700+lbs of explosives, and as I mentioned sunk a cruiser in WW2.

Indeed it did. However, if you examine how the MT boat functioned, it worked on an entirely different principle. It broke apart and dropped it's warhead into the water. After the warhead sank to an appropriate depth, it detonated, creating a "water hammer" as described for the MK-48 torpedo in my previous post. The USV used by the Ukrainians does not do this. It's detonators are in the bow and it explodes on contact with the target. No water hammer, much less damage.

Quote:My hunch is that the ship did cause a lot of damage to the Makarov. If damage was insignificant or light Russia would have released pictures by now.

Even it didn't sink it, a USS Cole level of damage will still be significant. The Cole took over a year to repair, and I'm guessing Russia would take longer for something similar. Maybe longer if they mobilized the guys who'd be doing repairs.

I wouldn't be as ready to read anything into lack of pictures of the ship. Where is it right now? I don't know. If it was damaged as bad as the Cole, it wouldn't be moving and if it were not against a pier it wouldn't be floating most probably. Given Russian damage control, it almost certainly would have sunk if it were at sea. The pictures show the USV hitting a moving Frigate. The Cole was hit by a 400 to 700 lb warhead molded into a shaped charge and held statically against the hull by the suicide bombers. It was not an EFP. Again, the USV can't do this. A shaped charge is capable of much, much more destruction than a free air explosion.

This is not to say it is impossible that the USV seriously damaged the frigate. It is however unclear how it could have done so without some kind of "special" explosive, which it doesn't appear it carried. If the frigate was sunk you would think we would have heard that from Ukraine. If she were in the yard or harbor at Sevastopol, it would have been seen by satellites (or just people's cell phones) by now I would think. So, where is she?

UPDATE: https://avia-pro.net/news/fregat-admiral-makarov-vpervye-posle-massirovannoy-ataki-dronov-zametili-v-portu-sevastopolya
This is an alleged picture of the frigate. It is impossible to verify the date it was taken, so I don't think this "report" changes anything. I will be impressed if/when we get a verifiable report frome somebody.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 11-01-2022

Quote:Indeed it did. However, if you examine how the MT boat functioned, it worked on an entirely different principle. It broke apart and dropped it's warhead into the water. After the warhead sank to an appropriate depth, it detonated, creating a "water hammer" as described for the MK-48 torpedo in my previous post. The USV used by the Ukrainians does not do this. It's detonators are in the bow and it explodes on contact with the target. No water hammer, much less damage.

My point was simply that a small boat the size of the Ukrainian USV perhaps could carry a larger warhead than the 100-200 lbs you stated. Still curious to see any other sources or analysis of the USV and its payload.

Regarding that photo of a docked frigate-

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/CovertShores/status/1587385523064258561?s=20&t=BWpaR30CqcCpy2BudMjUVA[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 11-02-2022

The frigate apparently is afloat and was at the dock yesterday.
https://twitter.com/AlbertoOlivie13/status/1587752488328888320/photo/1
The two ships of that class are in the same frame. (5.5 hours earlier, neither ship was in the same position. Only 1 ship of the class was docked, and it was on the other side of the greenish ship from the lower ship in this image.)

from https://twitter.com/COUPSURE

See also https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1586460379697348608

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 11-02-2022

Do any of you watch "Joe Blogs" on YouTube?

His latest video about the bottom falling out of Russian oil and gas revenues demonstrates Russia is being put in quite a vice economically, with fundamental realities set to crush its economy in a way you'd think would make it impossible to wage war.

The EU ban on Russian oil imports starts Dec. 5 and the G7 is close to setting a cap on Russian oil to be shipped in insured vessels to $63/barrel. This would give Russia enough profit to keep producing, but not enough to do much else, like fund war activities. Russia will claim it will shut down all oil production - yet another bluff and lie - to try scaring the world into loosening the vice Russia is in. The reality is they must continue finding places to send the oil or it will be backed up with inventory it might not be able to store, and they don't want to shut wells down because the cost of capping and starting them up is prohibitive. So Russia can whine all it wants, but it will have no choice but to sell at subsistence prices.

It sucks to see the west and NATO not step up efforts to go after Russia in Ukraine, but it seems the calculus from these governments is to slowly starve Russia of its ability to fund war or function domestically by significantly limiting its oil and gas revenue potential, given Ukraine is willing to fight like it is. It seems on the precipice of working very soon, like 2023 is going to be a really, really painful for Russians. Hard to imagine Putin surviving after losing a war that kills tens of thousands, sends the best minds out of the country, ages the population, and completely obliterates the Russian economy to the degree he will have done.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-02-2022

(11-02-2022, 05:15 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Do any of you watch "Joe Blogs" on YouTube?

His latest video about the bottom falling out of Russian oil and gas revenues demonstrates Russia is being put in quite a vice economically, with fundamental realities set to crush its economy in a way you'd think would make it impossible to wage war.

The EU ban on Russian oil imports starts Dec. 5 and the G7 is close to setting a cap on Russian oil to be shipped in insured vessels to $63/barrel. This would give Russia enough profit to keep producing, but not enough to do much else, like fund war activities. Russia will claim it will shut down all oil production - yet another bluff and lie - to try scaring the world into loosening the vice Russia is in. The reality is they must continue finding places to send the oil or it will be backed up with inventory it might not be able to store, and they don't want to shut wells down because the cost of capping and starting them up is prohibitive. So Russia can whine all it wants, but it will have no choice but to sell at subsistence prices.

It sucks to see the west and NATO not step up efforts to go after Russia in Ukraine, but it seems the calculus from these governments is to slowly starve Russia of its ability to fund war or function domestically by significantly limiting its oil and gas revenue potential, given Ukraine is willing to fight like it is. It seems on the precipice of working very soon, like 2023 is going to be a really, really painful for Russians. Hard to imagine Putin surviving after losing a war that kills tens of thousands, sends the best minds out of the country, ages the population, and completely obliterates the Russian economy to the degree he will have done.

Unfortunately dictatorships do not function under what most of us would consider rational rules. They often manage to continue under conditions that are intolerable in the mind of "rational" people. It is never wise to assume they will simply crumble, because they usually don't. They need to be "pushed". Let's hope this is an exception, but given that the Russian state has basically never been anything but authoritarian, there isn't a lot of historical support for the idea it will change on it's own.

---

(11-01-2022, 10:13 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  My point was simply that a small boat the size of the Ukrainian USV perhaps could carry a larger warhead than the 100-200 lbs you stated. Still curious to see any other sources or analysis of the USV and its payload.

Yes, it is probable the USV can carry a warhead larger than 100-200 lbs. However, the problem becomes weight and balance, like on an airplane. If you put say 400 lbs right up front in the bow, the analysis I was reading (which unfortunately I can't find again :-()  pointed out it would bury the bow in the water. If you moved it further aft, you could probably carry a larger payload. However, it appears that the engine was moved toward the middle of the USV for the same balance reasons. Realistically, this is all somewhat conjectural. We can't know, and since we don't actually know what kind of warhead it carried we can't know if direct contact with the target's side was important. If it was a shaped charge or EFP, it is, although such (normally missile) warheads are usually rammed into the target with much more force than the USV could probably generate. This is something that we may never find out.

We need to follow the trail of the Russian frigates. Unfortunately, it is rare to see them all in one place at the same time, so some combination of sightings that reveals their whereabouts (with transit speeds evaluated to eliminate ambiguities) will be necessary for us "mortals" to know where they all are. I suspect the US powers that be do actually know this, but they aren't saying.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 11-02-2022

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1587754247747149825?s=20&t=_orDuwVinEsAuC4NStr5FA[/tweet]

---