Kiev Is Burning

[ink]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Multipolar world called. They want their 1914 back.

Well, yeah... It was kind of inevitable though, wasn't it? Having one hegemon in charge doesn't really suit us - humans, I mean.

Edited September 6 by ink

[ink]

44 minutes ago, sunday said:

This is the kind of absurd discussion resulting of interacting with people with too much free time in his hands and unwillingness to use it in useful matters.

This is an absurd discussion! But hey, this is tanknet.

[Roman Alymov]

7 minutes ago, ink said:

Terrifying and terrible.

Does anybody know if there's a theoretical/practical range limit for the signal travelling down a fiberoptic cable?

  Pro-Rus opinion about current situation with fiber-FPV drones

"About drones on optical fiber. The opinion is spreading that that is it, the era of radio is gone and now all progressive humanity will fly only on optics.
It's a little different.
Fiber-based drones are really insensitive to electronic warfare and are able to transmit high-quality video, which is important for searching for camouflaged targets, and also steer perfectly to the lowest altitudes regardless of the terrain.
But they also have disadvantages.
1. To date, the range of such drones is significantly inferior to the range of radio drones. The limitation is caused by the length of the fiber in the coil. Actually, the same story is with the ATGM: The bassoon, which has wire control, flies 2 km (upgraded by 4 km), and the Cornet, controlled by a laser, flies 10 km. 
2. The mass of the coil is high and takes away up to half the mass of the charge. On the other hand, the development of FPV drones is on the way to increase. If in the beginning everyone flew on fives (5-inch-frane drones - RA), then on sevens, then now 10' drones have become the norm, and 13' are stepping on their heels with might and main. As the size of the drones grows, the mass of the coil will have less and less influence.
3. Fiber-based drone control is special. If an ordinary FPGA is a motorcycle, then a drone on fiber is a tram. He is very limited in maneuvers, any movement, even backward, is fiber consumption. He cannot circle over the target like a regular fpv, he needs to enter along smoothed trajectories.
4. Fiber breaks take place. And with them, the loss of drones.
5. The price is significantly higher than a simple PPV.

Therefore, it is not necessary to talk about the wunderwaffen. It's just another kind of management system with its own advantages and disadvantages. It is more important to talk about creating drone forces that will have an internal fund of various drones on different control systems and it will be possible to distribute exactly the drone with the frequencies or fiber that is needed there in each direction. And do not dump out "what you were given" and fly as you want.
As well as centrally collect, analyze and take into account the experience of various areas in the work, and promptly share this experience with the troops. So that the UKR could not effectively use tactics for more than half a year until they familiarize literally every one of our operators with it." ( https://t.me/szagatin/4097 )

[ink]

4 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

  Pro-Rus opinion about current situation with fiber-FPV drones

"About drones on optical fiber. The opinion is spreading that that is it, the era of radio is gone and now all progressive humanity will fly only on optics.
It's a little different.
Fiber-based drones are really insensitive to electronic warfare and are able to transmit high-quality video, which is important for searching for camouflaged targets, and also steer perfectly to the lowest altitudes regardless of the terrain.
But they also have disadvantages.
1. To date, the range of such drones is significantly inferior to the range of radio drones. The limitation is caused by the length of the fiber in the coil. Actually, the same story is with the ATGM: The bassoon, which has wire control, flies 2 km (upgraded by 4 km), and the Cornet, controlled by a laser, flies 10 km. 
2. The mass of the coil is high and takes away up to half the mass of the charge. On the other hand, the development of FPV drones is on the way to increase. If in the beginning everyone flew on fives (5-inch-frane drones - RA), then on sevens, then now 10' drones have become the norm, and 13' are stepping on their heels with might and main. As the size of the drones grows, the mass of the coil will have less and less influence.
3. Fiber-based drone control is special. If an ordinary FPGA is a motorcycle, then a drone on fiber is a tram. He is very limited in maneuvers, any movement, even backward, is fiber consumption. He cannot circle over the target like a regular fpv, he needs to enter along smoothed trajectories.
4. Fiber breaks take place. And with them, the loss of drones.
5. The price is significantly higher than a simple PPV.

Therefore, it is not necessary to talk about the wunderwaffen. It's just another kind of management system with its own advantages and disadvantages. It is more important to talk about creating drone forces that will have an internal fund of various drones on different control systems and it will be possible to distribute exactly the drone with the frequencies or fiber that is needed there in each direction. And do not dump out "what you were given" and fly as you want.
As well as centrally collect, analyze and take into account the experience of various areas in the work, and promptly share this experience with the troops. So that the UKR could not effectively use tactics for more than half a year until they familiarize literally every one of our operators with it." ( https://t.me/szagatin/4097 )

That's interesting!

But I was asking about the signal because wire-laying might also be useful for ground-based 'drones'.

[Roman Alymov]

8 minutes ago, ink said:

That's interesting!

But I was asking about the signal because wire-laying might also be useful for ground-based 'drones'.

No idea, i thing the actual limitation is availability of fiberoptic "bins" produced in Chuna.

  Another video -  this time fiber-FPV vs. pro-Ukr BTR in treecover https://t.me/infomil_live/9850

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, ink said:

Hang on just a second please.

I don't remember saying that.

You stated,

 I meant that that is a danger if Russia is pushed to the point of collapse. In the ensuing chaos kind of deal.

You are saying two things. 

First, that the danger in "pushing Russia to the point of collapse" is not in and of itself of concern to us.  Only the possibility of a Russian collapse arising from the push is dangerous.  Otherwise, you would have mentioned that the act of pushing the Russians was potentially suicidal for NATO, and you didn't.. 

Second, that in the "ensuing chaos" there is a danger that the Russians will use nuclear weapons on themselves.

So, what you are saying, essentially, is that the same Russians that you think could nuke each other  or the Chinese in a civil war will not respond to being pushed by NATO by using nuclear weapons to win the war with Ukraine, this while their arsenal is on hair trigger all out launch if NATO goes for its gun.

Now, you say,

Quote

The speculation has gone too far, I reckon. The original.point was that Russia descending into chaos is dangerous. We don't need to get into the nitty gritty of exactly how it could be dangerous and for whom.

When the discussion was about the Russians nuking themselves, or the Chinese, or whatever that was, that's all interesting discussion.  But when Captain Obvious says that if the Russians are capable of doing that, then obviously they'll nuke Ukraine to win the war, suddenly you think the speculation has gone too far.

 

 

Edited September 6 by glenn239

[JWB]

Well disciplined army they are.

 

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The point is, the Russians might do anything upon losing to win the war,

Strikethrough and correction is a great feature.

[glenn239]

57 minutes ago, ink said:

Well that's probably a very reasonable and, in my opinion, commendable view. However, you must also recognise that those kinds of military adventures were part and parcel of the post-WWII and post-Cold War orders and that all Americans are, in a sense, indirect beneficiaries of that.

Will that now end?

I wouldn't bet on it but it's an interesting possibility.

While his desire to stay out of quagmire wars is longstanding and well received, Josh's capacity to remember that Israel could drag the US into one of those at any moment seems to oscillate between topics under discussion.

[JWB]

More well behaved young men.

 

[ink]

13 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

You stated,

 I meant that that is a danger if Russia is pushed to the point of collapse. In the ensuing chaos kind of deal.

You are saying two things. 

First, that the danger in "pushing Russia to the point of collapse" is not in and of itself of concern to us.  Only the possibility of a Russian collapse arising from the push is dangerous.  Otherwise, you would have mentioned that the act of pushing the Russians was potentially suicidal for NATO, and you didn't.. 

Second, that in the "ensuing chaos" there is a danger that the Russians will use nuclear weapons on themselves.

You certainly are in an argumentative mood, aren't you.

But here's the thing, I didn't say "on themselves".

In fact, I think the only target I mentioned was Vanuatu.

13 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

So, what you are saying, essentially, is that the same Russians that you think could nuke each other  or the Chinese in a civil war will not respond to being pushed by NATO by using nuclear weapons to win the war with Ukraine, this while their arsenal is on hair trigger all out launch if NATO goes for its gun.

Why "same Russians"? Presumably, in some sort of chaotic collapse of the Russian state, there's no predicting who would wield power sufficient to have control or a red button or two.

So, no, not same Russians. Unknown future Russians driven to potential desperation by the collapse of the state.

13 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Now, you say,

When the discussion was about the Russians nuking themselves, or the Chinese, or whatever that was, that's all interesting discussion.  But when Captain Obvious says that if the Russians are capable of doing that, then obviously they'll nuke Ukraine to win the war, suddenly you think the speculation has gone too far.

No, no, I was saying that all this going into detail about what would happen is too much speculation.

Surely, all that's sufficient for me to support my original point (and claim my £5) is:

(please pay close attention, I'm wording this very carefully)

*drumroll*

to show that the collapse of the Russian state is an event sufficiently chaotic and dangerous that even rabidly anti-Russian US foreign policy planners might (might, I say) want to take steps to avoid it.

[KV7]

2 hours ago, ink said:

Terrifying and terrible.

Does anybody know if there's a theoretical/practical range limit for the signal travelling down a fiberoptic cable?

In theory can go up to 100km or at a stretch a bit more or so before you need a repeater. But before such distances are reached, the spool will be massive and the cable will be at high risk of breaking.

[seahawk]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Strikethrough and correction is a great feature.

They do not need to do much. They have more manpower, are out producing the enemy by a large margin, are much more innovative, have much better weapons and have reliable international allies.

[ink]

1 hour ago, KV7 said:

In theory can go up to 100km or at a stretch a bit more or so before you need a repeater. But before such distances are reached, the spool will be massive and the cable will be at high risk of breaking.

Thanks KV, I figured it was sotlike that. Your good points about the spool notwithstanding, I think that should mean a mobile IED with, for e.g., a 20km range would then be possible... Though perhaps it's just the long work day I've had talking and it wouldn't make sense since you could also achieve better results with a missile.

[KV7]

18 minutes ago, ink said:

Thanks KV, I figured it was sotlike that. Your good points about the spool notwithstanding, I think that should mean a mobile IED with, for e.g., a 20km range would then be possible... Though perhaps it's just the long work day I've had talking and it wouldn't make sense since you could also achieve better results with a missile.

20km is not near the limit of what can be done.

Polyphem (though cancelled) and ALAS are in the ~60km class. Type 96 and basic FOG-MPM is more like 25 km or so, there apparently is some ER FOG-MPM variant with closer to 60km range.

 

[R011]

11 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Just listening to a rather good podcast called 'Battleground', which covers the Ukraine war and WW2 battles as well. The conclusion they have come to (im not sure what exactly their evidence for this is, but they do seem to have good sources), about the reason why the US has been so reluctant to ante up weapons, or approve deep strike (and actually condemned attacks on oil refineries) is, they are terrified that Russia will lose the war, and will thence split up into factions, which might go hammer and tongs with nuclear weapons.

Basically, they dont want Ukraine to win, because it might be bad. But they dont want Russia to win, because it might be bad. You can see the obvious problem with this thinking Im sure.

If this really is how the US State Department thinks, Im not really so surprised Afghanistan turned out to be such a disaster, because quite clearly they have been borrowing from Hunter Bidens stash before their late night brainstorming sessions.

The State Department and White House may indeed be that Machiavellian, but I suspect they're just indecisive and over-cautious.

[Roman Alymov]

6 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Not about surrender, but about Russian elite begging for surrender (in a form they would be able to sell to population as victory), and acting accordingly.  This efforts for negotiations  are harming war efforts and are causing numerous avoidable casualties.

P.S. From Colonel Kvachkov

"An amazing story. Zelensky and his masters have been preventing the Russian Federation from concluding shameful peace agreements for more than 2.5 years, in which most of Novorossiya will remain under the rule of the West (not to mention the rest of the Russian lands, including Lvov). As soon as Putin and his oligarchs reach the finish line of the agreement, something immediately happens that prevents them from signing the shameful Istanbul papers. Like, for example, the events in the Kursk region. After all, Qatar <deal> was already on the ointment. But no matter what, the Russian government, with the tenacity of a maniac, continues to pull its hands towards the sticky and dirty piece of paper of the agreement. 

Russia would be ready to return to the "Istanbul principles" on the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, but on the basis of new realities, Larov said today. 

Does anyone know of any historical example that would be similar to the negotiating mania of the current authorities?" ( https://t.me/donbass_skripnik/16223 )

[Roman Alymov]

Turret cam view of tank with mineplow clearing the way to Prechistovka west from Ugledar, note Starlink on the left side in bushes at 0:28 https://t.me/boris_rozhin/136447

[Roman Alymov]

Another fiber-FPV video https://t.me/infomil_live/9856

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ukrainians recapture New York!

 

[Josh]

On 9/4/2024 at 8:40 AM, glenn239 said:

And the doctrinal tools that are taking HIMARS out can and will be adapted against NATO airpower.  Guessing from recent reports, the Russians might be producing something like 5-10 Iskanders alone a day.  You can't fix stupid, but apparently you can vote him into the White House.

Russia is building over a thousand Iskanders a year? Oh do tell, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

[Stuart Galbraith]

16 minutes ago, Josh said:

Russia is building over a thousand Iskanders a year? Oh do tell, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

They turn them out like sausages....

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Russia is building over a thousand Iskanders a year? Oh do tell, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

It may not be thousands, but none the less Russia is lauching a large number of them regularly meaning production levels are quite high. 

Edited September 7 by TrustMe

[Josh]

58 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

It may not be thousands, but none the less Russia is lauching a large number of them regularly meaning production levels are quite high. 

They seem to employ them sporadically in their strategic bombardments and high value targets of opportunity. That they are having a lot more luck identifying the later recently (or at least they think they are) might simply mean more missiles reserved for that purpose are suddenly being used, not that production has dramatically increased in the last few months. Usage still seems to be predominantly single missiles against mobile targets or low single digits in strategic night time raids, which do not always include Iskanders.

Edited September 7 by Josh

[glenn239]

19 hours ago, seahawk said:

They do not need to do much. They have more manpower, are out producing the enemy by a large margin, are much more innovative, have much better weapons and have reliable international allies.

All the same, the Russians have no interest in a long war if a short one will suffice at reasonable cost, yet Putin is setting up for a long war.