[dabigv13]

Interesting interview of the crew of the second Bradley

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status...ediaviewer

[dabigv13]

Interesting interview of the crew of the second Bradley

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status...ediaviewer

[Goose]

Interesting interview of the crew of the second Bradley

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status...ediaviewer

Great post! It added lots of insight to the incident. I did have to edit the link a bit to get it to work. Removed the mediaviewer part.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status...3990372669

Lots of good info can be extracted from this tweet. If one looks at the pictures of the Bradley, one notes immediately that while they have TOW missile launchers, it doesn't appear they are carrying the missiles. Certainly the attacking Bradley didn't use one, as there was snow in the back of the launcher. I found it revealing that the gunner said

I can 't express what it means to see a tank in the sights. In training, I said "God forbid I see a tank in the sights". It so happened that I did. And very close. There was another crew that came first. It didn't work out so we had to muster up the courage and go.

The training was correct. Good to know. The caption in the training probably was "If you see this, you know two things. The one thing you know for sure is that you have f***** up big time. The second thing you know is that you are probably going to die very soon". These guys were very, very lucky. The fact they saw the tank only "very close" shows they didn't have info from the drone, the infantry they were supporting, or the other Bradley. They were surprised, and in a Bradley your job is to ensure it is the other way around. They were just lucky the tank missed and wasn't even minimally well operated.

The most important factor is that it is always a mistake to be hunting tanks with a Bradley. It is an even bigger mistake if that was "the plan". The Bradley in question wasn't carrying infantry. It was being sent out with a crew of 2 to engage a tank. This was somehow SOP. Something is very, very, wrong here. If the Ukrainian unit had no tanks to support the infantry, one must ask why? Certainly the number of tanks provided by the west  was proportional to the number  of IFVs. This makes one worry about Ukraine's tactical organization. A "combined arms" team that is missing one of it's arms, isn't. Trying to substitute Bradleys for tanks isn't going to work. They aren't tanks.

What happened to the first Bradley? Is "didn't work out" a mobility kill or something else? It is OK to use Bradleys as "scouts" to locate enemy tanks, but not to fight said tanks. If you for some reason have to fight tanks with a Bradley, you need to use your ATGM and achieve surprise. A meeting engagement with your gun is normally suicidal.

That said, the AP rounds didn't "kill" the tank. No surprise there. Then there was "an issue" with them. Were they just ineffective or were they all expended? The gunner switched to HE in order to "clean off" the tank and blind it. That worked.  He was lucky to live long enough to have a chance to do it. At that point, the Bradley fought very well and very courageously.

Some other comments. While the maintenance trooper said Bradleys weren't design for Ukrainian cold, there were a bunch of them trundling right along. Undoubtedly not perfect, but it seems to work pretty well.

Second, notice that the Bradley commanders are riding on the outside of the Bradley on the way to the repair point. Same issue for years. You stay inside the vehicle. You can unbutton and stick your head out, but you NEVER ride on the outside. This is a holdover from Russian practice, where being inside the BMP was more dangerous than being outside :-). I had hoped this would be "trained out" of the Ukrainians.

Lastly, while the US has provided Strykers to Ukraine, we don't seem to see many articles praising how good they are. I think there are reasons for that. It would be nice to know the Ukrainian experience. Doesn't necessarily prove anything, but could be of interest :-).

[Goose]

Interesting interview of the crew of the second Bradley

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status...ediaviewer

Great post! It added lots of insight to the incident. I did have to edit the link a bit to get it to work. Removed the mediaviewer part.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status...3990372669

Lots of good info can be extracted from this tweet. If one looks at the pictures of the Bradley, one notes immediately that while they have TOW missile launchers, it doesn't appear they are carrying the missiles. Certainly the attacking Bradley didn't use one, as there was snow in the back of the launcher. I found it revealing that the gunner said

I can 't express what it means to see a tank in the sights. In training, I said "God forbid I see a tank in the sights". It so happened that I did. And very close. There was another crew that came first. It didn't work out so we had to muster up the courage and go.

The training was correct. Good to know. The caption in the training probably was "If you see this, you know two things. The one thing you know for sure is that you have f***** up big time. The second thing you know is that you are probably going to die very soon". These guys were very, very lucky. The fact they saw the tank only "very close" shows they didn't have info from the drone, the infantry they were supporting, or the other Bradley. They were surprised, and in a Bradley your job is to ensure it is the other way around. They were just lucky the tank missed and wasn't even minimally well operated.

The most important factor is that it is always a mistake to be hunting tanks with a Bradley. It is an even bigger mistake if that was "the plan". The Bradley in question wasn't carrying infantry. It was being sent out with a crew of 2 to engage a tank. This was somehow SOP. Something is very, very, wrong here. If the Ukrainian unit had no tanks to support the infantry, one must ask why? Certainly the number of tanks provided by the west  was proportional to the number  of IFVs. This makes one worry about Ukraine's tactical organization. A "combined arms" team that is missing one of it's arms, isn't. Trying to substitute Bradleys for tanks isn't going to work. They aren't tanks.

What happened to the first Bradley? Is "didn't work out" a mobility kill or something else? It is OK to use Bradleys as "scouts" to locate enemy tanks, but not to fight said tanks. If you for some reason have to fight tanks with a Bradley, you need to use your ATGM and achieve surprise. A meeting engagement with your gun is normally suicidal.

That said, the AP rounds didn't "kill" the tank. No surprise there. Then there was "an issue" with them. Were they just ineffective or were they all expended? The gunner switched to HE in order to "clean off" the tank and blind it. That worked.  He was lucky to live long enough to have a chance to do it. At that point, the Bradley fought very well and very courageously.

Some other comments. While the maintenance trooper said Bradleys weren't design for Ukrainian cold, there were a bunch of them trundling right along. Undoubtedly not perfect, but it seems to work pretty well.

Second, notice that the Bradley commanders are riding on the outside of the Bradley on the way to the repair point. Same issue for years. You stay inside the vehicle. You can unbutton and stick your head out, but you NEVER ride on the outside. This is a holdover from Russian practice, where being inside the BMP was more dangerous than being outside :-). I had hoped this would be "trained out" of the Ukrainians.

Lastly, while the US has provided Strykers to Ukraine, we don't seem to see many articles praising how good they are. I think there are reasons for that. It would be nice to know the Ukrainian experience. Doesn't necessarily prove anything, but could be of interest :-).

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-pushi...59093.html

Interesting article. The most interesting part, to me at least, is this quote"

Are the Americans paying attention? The US military notoriously dismantled the extensive EW infrastructure it had built up during the Cold War. It’s unclear that it’s rebuilding it – even as it observes the Ukrainian military fight its way back from the electromagnetic brink.

It isn't totally accurate to say the US has dismantled the extensive EW infrastructure left over from the cold war. The collection side and technical Elint, while not as robust as it was, is orders of magnitude better than what Russia has. Russia always considered EW important because they believed they couldn't fight the US air force "straight up". They needed ways to defeat the US attacks besides their own air force. It was critical to them. The US air force (and US Navy) eventually came to believe that they needed effective EA to penetrate the Russian IADS and lead the way for air strikes. We had a lot of equipment and trained people to do that, and were pretty good at it. However, no matter how good your SEAD plan is, and how well it is supported by EA, there will be casualties. The US solved this problem by building stealth aircraft. While both the F-35 and F-22 supposed have very good internal jamming capability (and from what little I know, IMO they indeed do), the intent is to not need it. This led to the US Navy and the US air force to de-emphasize EW.

The US Army never has been much interested in EW. That was obviously before drones became a significant part of the battle. The US air force hasn't been much interested in countering GPS jamming of our existing weapons. The newer weapons are all "jam resistant", and they work well in that regard. The problem is we still rely on a lot of old "stuff" (e.g. JDAMS) that have "cheap" GPS systems that are not jam resistant. The big value of the JDAMs is that their GPS add-on is "cheap". Modifying the add-on kits, if it is even possible, is not cheap. There are geometry problems that make it questionable it can be done. Belatedly, the US is building a longer range version of the HARM that can be used to target L band jammers.

Great, but it is expensive. What we (and Ukraine) need are home-on-jam drones that seek out GPS jammers. They are not that hard to build. They are much cheaper than HARMS. The don't need to "go fast" as the GPS jammers are generally not airborne. They are mostly truck mounted or "fixed" installations. Jammers are easy to "kill" because all you need to do is destroy the antenna. The antenna can't be behind armor or it won't radiate. Of course, we aren't doing the obvious. Go figure.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-pushi...59093.html

Interesting article. The most interesting part, to me at least, is this quote"

Are the Americans paying attention? The US military notoriously dismantled the extensive EW infrastructure it had built up during the Cold War. It’s unclear that it’s rebuilding it – even as it observes the Ukrainian military fight its way back from the electromagnetic brink.

It isn't totally accurate to say the US has dismantled the extensive EW infrastructure left over from the cold war. The collection side and technical Elint, while not as robust as it was, is orders of magnitude better than what Russia has. Russia always considered EW important because they believed they couldn't fight the US air force "straight up". They needed ways to defeat the US attacks besides their own air force. It was critical to them. The US air force (and US Navy) eventually came to believe that they needed effective EA to penetrate the Russian IADS and lead the way for air strikes. We had a lot of equipment and trained people to do that, and were pretty good at it. However, no matter how good your SEAD plan is, and how well it is supported by EA, there will be casualties. The US solved this problem by building stealth aircraft. While both the F-35 and F-22 supposed have very good internal jamming capability (and from what little I know, IMO they indeed do), the intent is to not need it. This led to the US Navy and the US air force to de-emphasize EW.

The US Army never has been much interested in EW. That was obviously before drones became a significant part of the battle. The US air force hasn't been much interested in countering GPS jamming of our existing weapons. The newer weapons are all "jam resistant", and they work well in that regard. The problem is we still rely on a lot of old "stuff" (e.g. JDAMS) that have "cheap" GPS systems that are not jam resistant. The big value of the JDAMs is that their GPS add-on is "cheap". Modifying the add-on kits, if it is even possible, is not cheap. There are geometry problems that make it questionable it can be done. Belatedly, the US is building a longer range version of the HARM that can be used to target L band jammers.

Great, but it is expensive. What we (and Ukraine) need are home-on-jam drones that seek out GPS jammers. They are not that hard to build. They are much cheaper than HARMS. The don't need to "go fast" as the GPS jammers are generally not airborne. They are mostly truck mounted or "fixed" installations. Jammers are easy to "kill" because all you need to do is destroy the antenna. The antenna can't be behind armor or it won't radiate. Of course, we aren't doing the obvious. Go figure.

[M T]

Nice little video (Jan 20) in the article just below the one Goose linked to with a drone taking out a Tor anti-aircraft system.  At 0:28, you can see how close a missile came to hitting the drone.  (And, apropos to Goose's post about EW, the video from the drone is showing "No GPS fix")

An August 2023 article indicates these cost $24M, and that 48 had been destroyed.  Another article that month, possibly Ukrainian, indicates 29 had been destroyed (both quoting Oryx numbers), and seemed to say this was a third of Russia's systems, and that Russia has ordered more.

Another December 2023 Ukrainian article says

Its primary function for the occupiers is countering Ukrainian drones,
...
It is worth noting that the Ukrainian military has recently targeted Russian air defense systems [destroying 5 S-400 systems]

Wow, a massive 1962-era missile was apparently used by Russia.  Reaching the bottom of the barrel?

[M T]

Nice little video (Jan 20) in the article just below the one Goose linked to with a drone taking out a Tor anti-aircraft system.  At 0:28, you can see how close a missile came to hitting the drone.  (And, apropos to Goose's post about EW, the video from the drone is showing "No GPS fix")

An August 2023 article indicates these cost $24M, and that 48 had been destroyed.  Another article that month, possibly Ukrainian, indicates 29 had been destroyed (both quoting Oryx numbers), and seemed to say this was a third of Russia's systems, and that Russia has ordered more.

Another December 2023 Ukrainian article says

Its primary function for the occupiers is countering Ukrainian drones,
...
It is worth noting that the Ukrainian military has recently targeted Russian air defense systems [destroying 5 S-400 systems]

Wow, a massive 1962-era missile was apparently used by Russia.  Reaching the bottom of the barrel?

[Goose]

Nice little video (Jan 20) in the article just below the one Goose linked to with a drone taking out a Tor anti-aircraft system.  At 0:28, you can see how close a missile came to hitting the drone. 

The missiles proximity fuse probably can't "see" the drone. Therefore the missile didn't go off. Hit to kill on such a small target is not a "feature" anyone has yet. Command detonation is a better option, but for that you need a good range estimate. Drone is probably too small for radar. LIDAR is an option. TOR doesn't have it.

(And, apropos to Goose's post about EW, the video from the drone is showing "No GPS fix")

An August 2023 article indicates these cost $24M, and that 48 had been destroyed.  Another article that month, possibly Ukrainian, indicates 29 had been destroyed (both quoting Oryx numbers), and seemed to say this was a third of Russia's systems, and that Russia has ordered more.

Another December 2023 Ukrainian article says

Its primary function for the occupiers is countering Ukrainian drones,
...
It is worth noting that the Ukrainian military has recently targeted Russian air defense systems [destroying 5 S-400 systems]

The TOR is NOT primarily intended to operate against "drones". The TOR has an optical tracking system that will work to some degree against drones. It is an "add-on" capability that was designed to operate against smaller targets or against targets that can counter the TORs acquisition radar (read anyone with a HARM). The problem is that small-mass targets that are mostly plastic will not trigger the missile's proximity fuse. A Bayraktar TB2 maybe would, but I wouldn't bet on it. A "quadcopter" definitely wouldn't. The Wikipedia entry points out several instances where a TOR was destroyed by a drone. To be fair, TORs are 1-0 vs 737-800s.

Wow, a massive 1962-era missile was apparently used by Russia.  Reaching the bottom of the barrel?

Maybe, but more likely they are just Russians. If they could launch a kitchen sink, they would :-) Did they need to do this? Did it accomplish anything? Doesn't matter, just do it.

[Goose]

Nice little video (Jan 20) in the article just below the one Goose linked to with a drone taking out a Tor anti-aircraft system.  At 0:28, you can see how close a missile came to hitting the drone. 

The missiles proximity fuse probably can't "see" the drone. Therefore the missile didn't go off. Hit to kill on such a small target is not a "feature" anyone has yet. Command detonation is a better option, but for that you need a good range estimate. Drone is probably too small for radar. LIDAR is an option. TOR doesn't have it.

(And, apropos to Goose's post about EW, the video from the drone is showing "No GPS fix")

An August 2023 article indicates these cost $24M, and that 48 had been destroyed.  Another article that month, possibly Ukrainian, indicates 29 had been destroyed (both quoting Oryx numbers), and seemed to say this was a third of Russia's systems, and that Russia has ordered more.

Another December 2023 Ukrainian article says

Its primary function for the occupiers is countering Ukrainian drones,
...
It is worth noting that the Ukrainian military has recently targeted Russian air defense systems [destroying 5 S-400 systems]

The TOR is NOT primarily intended to operate against "drones". The TOR has an optical tracking system that will work to some degree against drones. It is an "add-on" capability that was designed to operate against smaller targets or against targets that can counter the TORs acquisition radar (read anyone with a HARM). The problem is that small-mass targets that are mostly plastic will not trigger the missile's proximity fuse. A Bayraktar TB2 maybe would, but I wouldn't bet on it. A "quadcopter" definitely wouldn't. The Wikipedia entry points out several instances where a TOR was destroyed by a drone. To be fair, TORs are 1-0 vs 737-800s.

Wow, a massive 1962-era missile was apparently used by Russia.  Reaching the bottom of the barrel?

Maybe, but more likely they are just Russians. If they could launch a kitchen sink, they would :-) Did they need to do this? Did it accomplish anything? Doesn't matter, just do it.

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1748943717992628713?s=20

A night of presumed Ukrainian drone strikes across Russia. Russian media report that the Ust Luga oil and gas port near St Petersburg is on fire, and a hit on a plant making air-defense systems in Tula. Footage from Russian Telegram channels.

Ukrainian drone strikes on multiple strategic locations earlier today. Russia has concentrated their air defenses on the front, they remain vulnerable to low tech long range Ukrainian drones in their rear. 

....

The fact they saw the tank only "very close" shows they didn't have info from the drone, the infantry they were supporting, or the other Bradley. They were surprised, and in a Bradley your job is to ensure it is the other way around.

I'm not sure I'd interpret his statement that way. They knew there was a Bradley that had engaged the tank beforehand, so they knew at least some information. I took it to mean they finally got visuals on the tank only at close range, after being ordered to engage it and knowing it's rough location. Certainly from the video of the engagement it does not look like they were surprised by the location of the tank.

Definitely they were freaked out to engage a tank at close range though. I thought it was interesting the gunner credited his video game instincts with his success at blinding the tank with the HE rounds, knowing how and where to hit it.

The first Bradley wasn't a mobility kill, you could see it engage the tank and then leave the battle before the second Bradley came in to engage. This 1st Bradley was the one that nearly got hit. The second Bradley I'm not sure was on the receiving end of any close shots from the tank.

Here is a nice closer video of that part of the engagement where the 2nd Bradley is engaging with HE rounds. At the end you can see an ERA block catch fire and explode, Goose was correct this was not an active countermeasure.

https://x.com/GloOouD/status/1747741801451045078?s=20


....

And this seems pretty important for long term purposes.

 Remarkable Ukrainian success over the last few months: grain sea exports are closing in on pre-war levels.

Four companies are providing insurance including at least one British one. Rates have dropped from 7% to 1.25% of cargo value

https://x.com/DAlperovitch/status/174801...85417?s=20

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1748943717992628713?s=20

A night of presumed Ukrainian drone strikes across Russia. Russian media report that the Ust Luga oil and gas port near St Petersburg is on fire, and a hit on a plant making air-defense systems in Tula. Footage from Russian Telegram channels.

Ukrainian drone strikes on multiple strategic locations earlier today. Russia has concentrated their air defenses on the front, they remain vulnerable to low tech long range Ukrainian drones in their rear. 

....

The fact they saw the tank only "very close" shows they didn't have info from the drone, the infantry they were supporting, or the other Bradley. They were surprised, and in a Bradley your job is to ensure it is the other way around.

I'm not sure I'd interpret his statement that way. They knew there was a Bradley that had engaged the tank beforehand, so they knew at least some information. I took it to mean they finally got visuals on the tank only at close range, after being ordered to engage it and knowing it's rough location. Certainly from the video of the engagement it does not look like they were surprised by the location of the tank.

Definitely they were freaked out to engage a tank at close range though. I thought it was interesting the gunner credited his video game instincts with his success at blinding the tank with the HE rounds, knowing how and where to hit it.

The first Bradley wasn't a mobility kill, you could see it engage the tank and then leave the battle before the second Bradley came in to engage. This 1st Bradley was the one that nearly got hit. The second Bradley I'm not sure was on the receiving end of any close shots from the tank.

Here is a nice closer video of that part of the engagement where the 2nd Bradley is engaging with HE rounds. At the end you can see an ERA block catch fire and explode, Goose was correct this was not an active countermeasure.

https://x.com/GloOouD/status/1747741801451045078?s=20


....

And this seems pretty important for long term purposes.

 Remarkable Ukrainian success over the last few months: grain sea exports are closing in on pre-war levels.

Four companies are providing insurance including at least one British one. Rates have dropped from 7% to 1.25% of cargo value

https://x.com/DAlperovitch/status/174801...85417?s=20

[Goose]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1748943717992628713?s=20

A night of presumed Ukrainian drone strikes across Russia. Russian media report that the Ust Luga oil and gas port near St Petersburg is on fire, and a hit on a plant making air-defense systems in Tula. Footage from Russian Telegram channels.

Ukrainian drone strikes on multiple strategic locations earlier today. Russia has concentrated their air defenses on the front, they remain vulnerable to low tech long range Ukrainian drones in their rear.

Russia has indeed transferred lots of their air defense from around the entire country to areas around Ukraine. There are some issues that make defense against this kind of attack almost impossible, no matter how the air defenses are distributed.

First, almost all air defense was designed to counter aircraft and (maybe) cruise missiles. Small drones were never considered a "problem". Even the Iranian Shahed 136 and similar were not "on the table". These drones are small targets with a relatively small radar cross section. They fly low and relatively slowly. Due to the radar horizon of ground based radars these drones need to pass close to the radar to be seen at all. Their low radar cross section and low speed (therefore low Doppler) make them very hard to detect. This reduces the air defense "long range detection" radius to about a 15 nm circle. They all become "point defense" weapons. Consider how many air defense weapons it would take to defend every "important" thing in a country like Russia or Ukraine if you have to be within a 15 mile radius of the radar. It is clearly impossible, especially with expensive systems like Patriot or the S-400. That is why the Gepard is in demand by Ukraine. It is small, relatively "cheap", and plentiful. It's radar isn't all that great, but given the geometry being the limiting factor, it is "serviceable". Still way too few such systems to really make a dent.

The only practical way to defend against such attacks is an AWACS that is looking down on the battle space and a bunch of aircraft forming a BARCAP. The AWACS has to turn down the lower limit of it's digital moving target indicator, but it can do that. It can then vector fighters to attack the low-flying drones. The low speed of the drones allows a single fast-mover to take out several of them across pretty widely spaced areas. Shades of WW II and the V-1. Very similar problem. It won't be much fun, flying close to the ground a lot, but it would work. Neither Ukraine nor (apparently) Russia has the wherewithal to do this.

The best countermeasure is of course a drone swarm, where the BARCAP becomes overloaded. However, launching such a swarm has it's own problems. 5 or 10 drones won't do it.

....

The fact they saw the tank only "very close" shows they didn't have info from the drone, the infantry they were supporting, or the other Bradley. They were surprised, and in a Bradley your job is to ensure it is the other way around.

I'm not sure I'd interpret his statement that way. They knew there was a Bradley that had engaged the tank beforehand, so they knew at least some information. I took it to mean they finally got visuals on the tank only at close range, after being ordered to engage it and knowing it's rough location. Certainly from the video of the engagement it does not look like they were surprised by the location of the tank.

The response I saw was the trained response to a "meeting engagement". You are possibly quite surprised but the training takes over. The point is that finally getting visuals at close range is exactly what a Bradley is not supposed to let happen. You have a better thermal sight than the T-90 has. You should see them first. Of course, stuff happens, but your skill as a Bradley operator is to make that not happen. Note that these Bradleys are not "scout tracks" (M-3). The training these guys got probably didn't emphasize detecting the enemy as a "primary" mission. However, that is how they are being used.

Definitely they were freaked out to engage a tank at close range though. I thought it was interesting the gunner credited his video game instincts with his success at blinding the tank with the HE rounds, knowing how and where to hit it.

The first Bradley wasn't a mobility kill, you could see it engage the tank and then leave the battle before the second Bradley came in to engage.

This 1st Bradley was the one that nearly got hit.

If he was fully intact, why did he leave? He was in no worse position than the second Bradly eventually was. It is generally considered that a Bradley running from a tank is in a worse position than one that stands and fights (assuming there is no nearby cover). Of course, one might wonder why the Russian Tank didn't just kill it. There may have been infantry nearby that we can't see in the videos.  That may have made the Russians nervous. They may not have wanted to run onto a Javelin or similar "trap".

The second Bradley I'm not sure was on the receiving end of any close shots from the tank.

IMO you are correct. I saw one apparent tank round that was well "short" and off line. A typical reaction from a tank crew that is caught in a meeting engagement and doesn't react appropriately. A big contrast to how the Bradley crew reacted. They were "on target" with their first round. Of course, they have a better sight :-). Seriously though, all the Russian crew needed to do is behave in a halfway professional manner, realize the Bradley can't kill them with 25mm, take a breath and blow them up. Obviously a very "bad" crew.

Here is a nice closer video of that part of the engagement where the 2nd Bradley is engaging with HE rounds. At the end you can see an ERA block catch fire and explode, Goose was correct this was not an active countermeasure.

https://x.com/GloOouD/status/1747741801451045078?s=20

For some reason the link doesn't work for me. I get a "not found". Would like to see it though!

....

And this seems pretty important for long term purposes.

 Remarkable Ukrainian success over the last few months: grain sea exports are closing in on pre-war levels.

Four companies are providing insurance including at least one British one. Rates have dropped from 7% to 1.25% of cargo value

https://x.com/DAlperovitch/status/174801...85417?s=20

I agree this is really great news, in so far as it is accurate. Given that a lot of grain is now going to the EU by rail and truck (thus the protests) I can't see how the sea shipments could reach "pre-war" levels, but even if they are close, that is great. The insurance rates tell the tale. When they drop to the world "mean", that will be even more impressive!

[Goose]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1748943717992628713?s=20

A night of presumed Ukrainian drone strikes across Russia. Russian media report that the Ust Luga oil and gas port near St Petersburg is on fire, and a hit on a plant making air-defense systems in Tula. Footage from Russian Telegram channels.

Ukrainian drone strikes on multiple strategic locations earlier today. Russia has concentrated their air defenses on the front, they remain vulnerable to low tech long range Ukrainian drones in their rear.

Russia has indeed transferred lots of their air defense from around the entire country to areas around Ukraine. There are some issues that make defense against this kind of attack almost impossible, no matter how the air defenses are distributed.

First, almost all air defense was designed to counter aircraft and (maybe) cruise missiles. Small drones were never considered a "problem". Even the Iranian Shahed 136 and similar were not "on the table". These drones are small targets with a relatively small radar cross section. They fly low and relatively slowly. Due to the radar horizon of ground based radars these drones need to pass close to the radar to be seen at all. Their low radar cross section and low speed (therefore low Doppler) make them very hard to detect. This reduces the air defense "long range detection" radius to about a 15 nm circle. They all become "point defense" weapons. Consider how many air defense weapons it would take to defend every "important" thing in a country like Russia or Ukraine if you have to be within a 15 mile radius of the radar. It is clearly impossible, especially with expensive systems like Patriot or the S-400. That is why the Gepard is in demand by Ukraine. It is small, relatively "cheap", and plentiful. It's radar isn't all that great, but given the geometry being the limiting factor, it is "serviceable". Still way too few such systems to really make a dent.

The only practical way to defend against such attacks is an AWACS that is looking down on the battle space and a bunch of aircraft forming a BARCAP. The AWACS has to turn down the lower limit of it's digital moving target indicator, but it can do that. It can then vector fighters to attack the low-flying drones. The low speed of the drones allows a single fast-mover to take out several of them across pretty widely spaced areas. Shades of WW II and the V-1. Very similar problem. It won't be much fun, flying close to the ground a lot, but it would work. Neither Ukraine nor (apparently) Russia has the wherewithal to do this.

The best countermeasure is of course a drone swarm, where the BARCAP becomes overloaded. However, launching such a swarm has it's own problems. 5 or 10 drones won't do it.

....

The fact they saw the tank only "very close" shows they didn't have info from the drone, the infantry they were supporting, or the other Bradley. They were surprised, and in a Bradley your job is to ensure it is the other way around.

I'm not sure I'd interpret his statement that way. They knew there was a Bradley that had engaged the tank beforehand, so they knew at least some information. I took it to mean they finally got visuals on the tank only at close range, after being ordered to engage it and knowing it's rough location. Certainly from the video of the engagement it does not look like they were surprised by the location of the tank.

The response I saw was the trained response to a "meeting engagement". You are possibly quite surprised but the training takes over. The point is that finally getting visuals at close range is exactly what a Bradley is not supposed to let happen. You have a better thermal sight than the T-90 has. You should see them first. Of course, stuff happens, but your skill as a Bradley operator is to make that not happen. Note that these Bradleys are not "scout tracks" (M-3). The training these guys got probably didn't emphasize detecting the enemy as a "primary" mission. However, that is how they are being used.

Definitely they were freaked out to engage a tank at close range though. I thought it was interesting the gunner credited his video game instincts with his success at blinding the tank with the HE rounds, knowing how and where to hit it.

The first Bradley wasn't a mobility kill, you could see it engage the tank and then leave the battle before the second Bradley came in to engage.

This 1st Bradley was the one that nearly got hit.

If he was fully intact, why did he leave? He was in no worse position than the second Bradly eventually was. It is generally considered that a Bradley running from a tank is in a worse position than one that stands and fights (assuming there is no nearby cover). Of course, one might wonder why the Russian Tank didn't just kill it. There may have been infantry nearby that we can't see in the videos.  That may have made the Russians nervous. They may not have wanted to run onto a Javelin or similar "trap".

The second Bradley I'm not sure was on the receiving end of any close shots from the tank.

IMO you are correct. I saw one apparent tank round that was well "short" and off line. A typical reaction from a tank crew that is caught in a meeting engagement and doesn't react appropriately. A big contrast to how the Bradley crew reacted. They were "on target" with their first round. Of course, they have a better sight :-). Seriously though, all the Russian crew needed to do is behave in a halfway professional manner, realize the Bradley can't kill them with 25mm, take a breath and blow them up. Obviously a very "bad" crew.

Here is a nice closer video of that part of the engagement where the 2nd Bradley is engaging with HE rounds. At the end you can see an ERA block catch fire and explode, Goose was correct this was not an active countermeasure.

https://x.com/GloOouD/status/1747741801451045078?s=20

For some reason the link doesn't work for me. I get a "not found". Would like to see it though!

....

And this seems pretty important for long term purposes.

 Remarkable Ukrainian success over the last few months: grain sea exports are closing in on pre-war levels.

Four companies are providing insurance including at least one British one. Rates have dropped from 7% to 1.25% of cargo value

https://x.com/DAlperovitch/status/174801...85417?s=20

I agree this is really great news, in so far as it is accurate. Given that a lot of grain is now going to the EU by rail and truck (thus the protests) I can't see how the sea shipments could reach "pre-war" levels, but even if they are close, that is great. The insurance rates tell the tale. When they drop to the world "mean", that will be even more impressive!

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/GorillaOSINT/status/174807...18804?s=20

Here's that video in a different tweet.

.....

Ukrainian drone hitting Russian oil infrastructure

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1749...73135?s=20

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/GorillaOSINT/status/174807...18804?s=20

Here's that video in a different tweet.

.....

Ukrainian drone hitting Russian oil infrastructure

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1749...73135?s=20

[M T]

For watching for drones over large areas far from the front, would dirigibles be appropriate?  Fill it with sensors & comms, put most of the sensor crew on the ground.  It is a big, slow target for the enemy, but hopefully it can see far enough that it can trigger a response to a threat in time.

I'm guessing that satellites can't do the job, but I wouldn't know.

It would seem the limiting defensive factor against drones would be the aircraft or missiles that respond.  A few hundred partisans spread across enemy territory could keep them occupied.  It would be impossible to distinguish armed versus unarmed drones.

------

Regarding the tank-IFV incident, could the tank's ability to aim (sensor or actuator) have been damaged at the start?  Or could this crew have been thrown together with prisoners or inductees that didn't get proper training?   Warm bodies to put at the front?

[M T]

For watching for drones over large areas far from the front, would dirigibles be appropriate?  Fill it with sensors & comms, put most of the sensor crew on the ground.  It is a big, slow target for the enemy, but hopefully it can see far enough that it can trigger a response to a threat in time.

I'm guessing that satellites can't do the job, but I wouldn't know.

It would seem the limiting defensive factor against drones would be the aircraft or missiles that respond.  A few hundred partisans spread across enemy territory could keep them occupied.  It would be impossible to distinguish armed versus unarmed drones.

------

Regarding the tank-IFV incident, could the tank's ability to aim (sensor or actuator) have been damaged at the start?  Or could this crew have been thrown together with prisoners or inductees that didn't get proper training?   Warm bodies to put at the front?

[Goose]

https://x.com/GorillaOSINT/status/174807...18804?s=20

Here's that video in a different tweet.

That one works, thanks! I am not sure if it was reactive armor or some kind of active system that was hit and detonated. The explosion was pretty big for just one reactive armor tile. It may be that the storm of HE created a sympathetic detonation of many such tiles. Isn't supposed to happen, but I am pretty sure the Russians didn't test this scenario :-).

---

For watching for drones over large areas far from the front, would dirigibles be appropriate?  Fill it with sensors & comms, put most of the sensor crew on the ground.  It is a big, slow target for the enemy, but hopefully it can see far enough that it can trigger a response to a threat in time.

The US has used aerostats to monitor drug smugglers. https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/frontline-...-aerostats.  It turned out to be impractical. It would be very impractical in war because almost anything can knock down an airship. Also, the radars didn't have near the performance of an AWACS. That takes lots more electric power than an airship can easily generate.

I'm guessing that satellites can't do the job, but I wouldn't know.

You are correct, they cannot. For one, LEO satellites lack the necessary persistence. For another they don't have the required radar power or antenna gain. They can do a lot of things, but not this.

It would seem the limiting defensive factor against drones would be the aircraft or missiles that respond.  A few hundred partisans spread across enemy territory could keep them occupied.  It would be impossible to distinguish armed versus unarmed drones.

Somewhat true if you are talking "quadcopter" type drones. If you are talking drones like the Shahed 136 they are in general too big for partisans to obtain, hide, transport and operate. Quadcopters can only go a limited distance and do limited damage. Larger drones can go a very long way and do significant damage. These are worth shooting down if possible. Quadcopters generally are not, unless you are the one it is attacking :-). No matter how one looks at it, a few hundred Ukrainian partisans running around in Russia can do lots of damage. They needn't bother with drones of the "quadcopter" class. Planting large bombs works much better :-)


------

Regarding the tank-IFV incident, could the tank's ability to aim (sensor or actuator) have been damaged at the start?  Or could this crew have been thrown together with prisoners or inductees that didn't get proper training?   Warm bodies to put at the front?

Could be any of the above. However, judging by the way the tank was driven it seems clear that the driver at least wasn't very skilled. It may be his vision periscope was damaged in the first attack and he couldn't see. If it was really a T-90 it also may be true they had equipment problems. The gunsight and stabilization system may have not been working to begin with, even before they got hit in the first attack. All of the above seems probable in this case :-).

[Goose]

https://x.com/GorillaOSINT/status/174807...18804?s=20

Here's that video in a different tweet.

That one works, thanks! I am not sure if it was reactive armor or some kind of active system that was hit and detonated. The explosion was pretty big for just one reactive armor tile. It may be that the storm of HE created a sympathetic detonation of many such tiles. Isn't supposed to happen, but I am pretty sure the Russians didn't test this scenario :-).

---

For watching for drones over large areas far from the front, would dirigibles be appropriate?  Fill it with sensors & comms, put most of the sensor crew on the ground.  It is a big, slow target for the enemy, but hopefully it can see far enough that it can trigger a response to a threat in time.

The US has used aerostats to monitor drug smugglers. https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/frontline-...-aerostats.  It turned out to be impractical. It would be very impractical in war because almost anything can knock down an airship. Also, the radars didn't have near the performance of an AWACS. That takes lots more electric power than an airship can easily generate.

I'm guessing that satellites can't do the job, but I wouldn't know.

You are correct, they cannot. For one, LEO satellites lack the necessary persistence. For another they don't have the required radar power or antenna gain. They can do a lot of things, but not this.

It would seem the limiting defensive factor against drones would be the aircraft or missiles that respond.  A few hundred partisans spread across enemy territory could keep them occupied.  It would be impossible to distinguish armed versus unarmed drones.

Somewhat true if you are talking "quadcopter" type drones. If you are talking drones like the Shahed 136 they are in general too big for partisans to obtain, hide, transport and operate. Quadcopters can only go a limited distance and do limited damage. Larger drones can go a very long way and do significant damage. These are worth shooting down if possible. Quadcopters generally are not, unless you are the one it is attacking :-). No matter how one looks at it, a few hundred Ukrainian partisans running around in Russia can do lots of damage. They needn't bother with drones of the "quadcopter" class. Planting large bombs works much better :-)


------

Regarding the tank-IFV incident, could the tank's ability to aim (sensor or actuator) have been damaged at the start?  Or could this crew have been thrown together with prisoners or inductees that didn't get proper training?   Warm bodies to put at the front?

Could be any of the above. However, judging by the way the tank was driven it seems clear that the driver at least wasn't very skilled. It may be his vision periscope was damaged in the first attack and he couldn't see. If it was really a T-90 it also may be true they had equipment problems. The gunsight and stabilization system may have not been working to begin with, even before they got hit in the first attack. All of the above seems probable in this case :-).

[TrumpCard]

I appreciate the contributions on the details of weapons systems and on interpretation of videos of military engagements.  I'm not able to contribute anything in that domain.  I have, however, been reading updates about NATO enlargement and EU support for Ukraine.  

This one gives a hopeful note on EU funding, and I do think that aid will be forthcoming very soon:  
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/von...024-01-17/

This one gives a hopeful note on Swedish accession to NATO, though obstacles obviously remain in the way:
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articl...ay-sources

[TrumpCard]

I appreciate the contributions on the details of weapons systems and on interpretation of videos of military engagements.  I'm not able to contribute anything in that domain.  I have, however, been reading updates about NATO enlargement and EU support for Ukraine.  

This one gives a hopeful note on EU funding, and I do think that aid will be forthcoming very soon:  
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/von...024-01-17/

This one gives a hopeful note on Swedish accession to NATO, though obstacles obviously remain in the way:
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articl...ay-sources

[dabigv13]

Turkish parliament voted to approve Swedish accession to NATO

[dabigv13]

Turkish parliament voted to approve Swedish accession to NATO

[Hurlburt88]

good!  without reading an article, I ask what further obstacles remain?  Hungary?

[Hurlburt88]

good!  without reading an article, I ask what further obstacles remain?  Hungary?

[Goose]

Turkish parliament voted to approve Swedish accession to NATO

This is a very good thing indeed! One less thing to "go wrong". However, we shouldn't get carried away. Erdoğan still has to sign it. IMO he won't until the F-16 deal is approved by the Senate. I believe Erdoğan trusts Biden does indeed sincerely wants to make that happen. The problem is that so far the administration hasn't been able to deliver. Erdoğan isn't going to throw away his remaining leverage, IMO.

As far as Hungary goes, it is unclear what will happen. At one point in the past Orbán stated that Hungary would sign if Erdoğan did. Since that time, lots has happened and the relations between Hungary and essentially everyone have become much worse. I think the previous promise is no longer operative.

Along similar lines, the assurances given by Ursula von der Leyen that the Hungarian veto of Ukraine aid would be resolved very soon almost assures it won't be :-), IMO. https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-...d-demands/. Slovakia is now a part of the problem. This isn't going in the right direction. This dispute is intertwined with the Hungarian NATO position. I expect you can't get Hungary to separate the two.

[Goose]

Turkish parliament voted to approve Swedish accession to NATO

This is a very good thing indeed! One less thing to "go wrong". However, we shouldn't get carried away. Erdoğan still has to sign it. IMO he won't until the F-16 deal is approved by the Senate. I believe Erdoğan trusts Biden does indeed sincerely wants to make that happen. The problem is that so far the administration hasn't been able to deliver. Erdoğan isn't going to throw away his remaining leverage, IMO.

As far as Hungary goes, it is unclear what will happen. At one point in the past Orbán stated that Hungary would sign if Erdoğan did. Since that time, lots has happened and the relations between Hungary and essentially everyone have become much worse. I think the previous promise is no longer operative.

Along similar lines, the assurances given by Ursula von der Leyen that the Hungarian veto of Ukraine aid would be resolved very soon almost assures it won't be :-), IMO. https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-...d-demands/. Slovakia is now a part of the problem. This isn't going in the right direction. This dispute is intertwined with the Hungarian NATO position. I expect you can't get Hungary to separate the two.

[dabigv13]

Sweden will join NATO soon. Erdogan isn't going to do any more negotiating IMHO, the bill sailed through parliament with his whole party supporting and he personally has not been making noise about this for a while.

Hungary has to approve now, their legislature is on recess until February. Maybe Orban tries to hold out but I think they will approve eventually just like they did Finland. And if they don't, arms will be twisted. Matter of when not if.

[dabigv13]

Sweden will join NATO soon. Erdogan isn't going to do any more negotiating IMHO, the bill sailed through parliament with his whole party supporting and he personally has not been making noise about this for a while.

Hungary has to approve now, their legislature is on recess until February. Maybe Orban tries to hold out but I think they will approve eventually just like they did Finland. And if they don't, arms will be twisted. Matter of when not if.

[Goose]

Sweden will join NATO soon. Erdogan isn't going to do any more negotiating IMHO, the bill sailed through parliament with his whole party supporting and he personally has not been making noise about this for a while.

IMO you are correct. He is done negotiating. When and only when the US approves his F-16 upgrades, he will sign the approval. His position is inherently different than the one the US has. Once he has approved NATO membership for Sweden, he has no further leverage. There is no mechanism to reascend  approval. One "yes" ends the discussion. The F-16 deal is different. The senate can approve it and then change it's mind. Erdogan has one shot, and he isn't going to waste it. No reason he should.

Hungary has to approve now, their legislature is on recess until February. Maybe Orban tries to hold out but I think they will approve eventually just like they did Finland. And if they don't, arms will be twisted. Matter of when not if.

Maybe you are right. Lots of arms will be twisted. However, it depends a lot on the domestic political considerations. Both the EU and the US have no input there. It may be that Hungary will cave. IMO it is not clear that will happen. It may be stupid to us, but it may not be to them.

[Goose]

Sweden will join NATO soon. Erdogan isn't going to do any more negotiating IMHO, the bill sailed through parliament with his whole party supporting and he personally has not been making noise about this for a while.

IMO you are correct. He is done negotiating. When and only when the US approves his F-16 upgrades, he will sign the approval. His position is inherently different than the one the US has. Once he has approved NATO membership for Sweden, he has no further leverage. There is no mechanism to reascend  approval. One "yes" ends the discussion. The F-16 deal is different. The senate can approve it and then change it's mind. Erdogan has one shot, and he isn't going to waste it. No reason he should.

Hungary has to approve now, their legislature is on recess until February. Maybe Orban tries to hold out but I think they will approve eventually just like they did Finland. And if they don't, arms will be twisted. Matter of when not if.

Maybe you are right. Lots of arms will be twisted. However, it depends a lot on the domestic political considerations. Both the EU and the US have no input there. It may be that Hungary will cave. IMO it is not clear that will happen. It may be stupid to us, but it may not be to them.

[dabigv13]

Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary said on Wednesday that he would “continue to urge” Hungarian legislators to vote in favor of accepting Sweden as a member of NATO, a day after Turkey, the only other holdout, endorsed the Nordic nation’s entry to the military alliance.

The Turkish decision left Hungary isolated as the last country that has not yet approved NATO’s expansion. The Hungarian Parliament, which voted to accept Finland into the alliance last spring but left Sweden in limbo, is in winter recess and not currently scheduled to reconvene until Feb. 15.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/world...orban.html

[dabigv13]

Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary said on Wednesday that he would “continue to urge” Hungarian legislators to vote in favor of accepting Sweden as a member of NATO, a day after Turkey, the only other holdout, endorsed the Nordic nation’s entry to the military alliance.

The Turkish decision left Hungary isolated as the last country that has not yet approved NATO’s expansion. The Hungarian Parliament, which voted to accept Finland into the alliance last spring but left Sweden in limbo, is in winter recess and not currently scheduled to reconvene until Feb. 15.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/world...orban.html

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-envoy-sees...51769.html

It looks as if an agreement has been negotiated with Congress to not block the F-16 deal when Biden notifies them that the sale is approved. I do hope that the "deal" is solid, because if it is not dealing with Türkiye will become impossible. This is almost like an exchange of hostages, except that once Türkiye lets their hostage go, they can't  get it back. Congress can always change their minds. If you don't believe that, ask Pakistan.

We now have to see what happens in Hungary. Orbán has recently repeatedly stated he favors Sweden's admission. Unfortunately the party Orbán leads (Fidesz) isn't convinced. Orbán has in the past simply "run over" opposition in his own party. However, in this case it is unclear what Orbán really wants to happen. He may let the party take the blame for further delay. OTOH, it is difficult to see how this would benefit him. It probably depends on what his "base" wants to hear. We shall see.

There is some talk that Orbán wants to get a "sweetheart" deal with Sweden regarding the existing (and possibly additional) jet fighters. That may be the cost of admission.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swe...024-01-25/

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-envoy-sees...51769.html

It looks as if an agreement has been negotiated with Congress to not block the F-16 deal when Biden notifies them that the sale is approved. I do hope that the "deal" is solid, because if it is not dealing with Türkiye will become impossible. This is almost like an exchange of hostages, except that once Türkiye lets their hostage go, they can't  get it back. Congress can always change their minds. If you don't believe that, ask Pakistan.

We now have to see what happens in Hungary. Orbán has recently repeatedly stated he favors Sweden's admission. Unfortunately the party Orbán leads (Fidesz) isn't convinced. Orbán has in the past simply "run over" opposition in his own party. However, in this case it is unclear what Orbán really wants to happen. He may let the party take the blame for further delay. OTOH, it is difficult to see how this would benefit him. It probably depends on what his "base" wants to hear. We shall see.

There is some talk that Orbán wants to get a "sweetheart" deal with Sweden regarding the existing (and possibly additional) jet fighters. That may be the cost of admission.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swe...024-01-25/

[GK3]

Ultimately this is Yvonne’s call, but given the enormity of the situation, far be it for me to put the kibosh on the discussion, even though technically it is political.

If you are looking to a Stanford sports angle to it (aside from the analogies), there is this:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/looseshoulders/status/1497845117977182208?s=21[/tweet]

As for Putin, whether he wins or loses on the battlefield, he has already lost:
1) given Eastern European countries (plus Sweden and Finland) a strong rationale for joining NATO.
2) has exposed his army as a paper tiger
3) has done what US presidents going back three administrations have failed to do: get the European NATO allies to invest in defense
4) has convinced Europe to wean itself off Russian natural gas and will probably accelerate the transition from imported fossil fuels more generally
5) has devastated his country’s economy
6) has obliterated what was left of his reputation

It is heartbreaking that the Ukrainian people have suffered, and while I hope against hope that they repel the invaders, right now I am just praying that we can get to a cease fire to allow innocent civilians to evacuate.

BC

I'm not nearly as "optimistic" as you are regarding what this all has shown to date or what it will lead to in the future.
WAY too many wildcards, starting with the nut who invaded Ukraine - that's what a megalomaniac with absolute power (and no conscience) looks like.  Scary and unpredictable.

I don’t disagree with your take at all.  I think Putin has lost, but I don’t think that means that everything will turn out well for Western democracies.  In the best case scenario, it has brought misery and destruction to the Ukrainian people, a refugee crisis of 2 million and counting, a potential food crisis in countries that depend on Russian and Ukrainian wheat, higher energy prices for everyone and the potential of having to restart coal plants to make up for reduced gas.  And then there is the possibility of the conflict inadvertently widening, and even though I would consider this an unlikely event, that “megalomaniac with absolute power (and no conscience)” controls the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.

So, yeah, this qualifies as an L for everyone.

BC

An interesting article on Ukraine's drone attacks against Russian oil and gas industry.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambli...74ee632355

Makes one think about how many drones you can build for the price of one F16. The F16's are clearly needed, but the explosive growth of the drone segment of the Ukrainian military is significant. I would assume our military and that of our allies our paying attention to what is going on and what works and what doesn't.

[GK3]

Ultimately this is Yvonne’s call, but given the enormity of the situation, far be it for me to put the kibosh on the discussion, even though technically it is political.

If you are looking to a Stanford sports angle to it (aside from the analogies), there is this:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/looseshoulders/status/1497845117977182208?s=21[/tweet]

As for Putin, whether he wins or loses on the battlefield, he has already lost:
1) given Eastern European countries (plus Sweden and Finland) a strong rationale for joining NATO.
2) has exposed his army as a paper tiger
3) has done what US presidents going back three administrations have failed to do: get the European NATO allies to invest in defense
4) has convinced Europe to wean itself off Russian natural gas and will probably accelerate the transition from imported fossil fuels more generally
5) has devastated his country’s economy
6) has obliterated what was left of his reputation

It is heartbreaking that the Ukrainian people have suffered, and while I hope against hope that they repel the invaders, right now I am just praying that we can get to a cease fire to allow innocent civilians to evacuate.

BC

I'm not nearly as "optimistic" as you are regarding what this all has shown to date or what it will lead to in the future.
WAY too many wildcards, starting with the nut who invaded Ukraine - that's what a megalomaniac with absolute power (and no conscience) looks like.  Scary and unpredictable.

I don’t disagree with your take at all.  I think Putin has lost, but I don’t think that means that everything will turn out well for Western democracies.  In the best case scenario, it has brought misery and destruction to the Ukrainian people, a refugee crisis of 2 million and counting, a potential food crisis in countries that depend on Russian and Ukrainian wheat, higher energy prices for everyone and the potential of having to restart coal plants to make up for reduced gas.  And then there is the possibility of the conflict inadvertently widening, and even though I would consider this an unlikely event, that “megalomaniac with absolute power (and no conscience)” controls the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.

So, yeah, this qualifies as an L for everyone.

BC

An interesting article on Ukraine's drone attacks against Russian oil and gas industry.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambli...74ee632355

Makes one think about how many drones you can build for the price of one F16. The F16's are clearly needed, but the explosive growth of the drone segment of the Ukrainian military is significant. I would assume our military and that of our allies our paying attention to what is going on and what works and what doesn't.

[Goose]

An interesting article on Ukraine's drone attacks against Russian oil and gas industry.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambli...74ee632355

Makes one think about how many drones you can build for the price of one F16. The F16's are clearly needed, but the explosive growth of the drone segment of the Ukrainian military is significant. I would assume our military and that of our allies our paying attention to what is going on and what works and what doesn't.

Almost all militaries are paying attention. The problem is what conclusions should be drawn from what they see. The war in Ukraine has many very unique characteristics that may or may not be applicable to wars "in general". The world's militaries have a long history of preparing to re-fight the last war. When the next war comes, it is then substantially different from the war they prepared to fight. There is also a very long history of journalists writing articles about the impact of "new weapons" or "new tactics" that turn out to be totally misguided a month or so later.

Both Ukraine and Russia are using drones in many cases because they have no alternative weapons system they can deploy. In very few cases is the drone the "best" choice, but is the one they can build in quantity. Ukraine can certainly impose a "cost" on Russia to defend itself against these drone attacks. The idea that such defense is "impossible" is refuted by Ukraine's own efforts against the Shaheds. Russia can pretty easily defend the 5 "critical" ports, but they have to actually do it. That imposes a cost, and such defense is never perfect. That said, Ukraine hasn't built a "war winner".

[Goose]

An interesting article on Ukraine's drone attacks against Russian oil and gas industry.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambli...74ee632355

Makes one think about how many drones you can build for the price of one F16. The F16's are clearly needed, but the explosive growth of the drone segment of the Ukrainian military is significant. I would assume our military and that of our allies our paying attention to what is going on and what works and what doesn't.

Almost all militaries are paying attention. The problem is what conclusions should be drawn from what they see. The war in Ukraine has many very unique characteristics that may or may not be applicable to wars "in general". The world's militaries have a long history of preparing to re-fight the last war. When the next war comes, it is then substantially different from the war they prepared to fight. There is also a very long history of journalists writing articles about the impact of "new weapons" or "new tactics" that turn out to be totally misguided a month or so later.

Both Ukraine and Russia are using drones in many cases because they have no alternative weapons system they can deploy. In very few cases is the drone the "best" choice, but is the one they can build in quantity. Ukraine can certainly impose a "cost" on Russia to defend itself against these drone attacks. The idea that such defense is "impossible" is refuted by Ukraine's own efforts against the Shaheds. Russia can pretty easily defend the 5 "critical" ports, but they have to actually do it. That imposes a cost, and such defense is never perfect. That said, Ukraine hasn't built a "war winner".