crazyinsane105 Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 7 hours ago, Soldier36 said: The first Ukrainian anti-submarine corvette "Hetman Ivan Mazepa" F211 entered sea trials, we previously talked about it. The ship was built according to the design of the Turkish Ada-class anti-submarine corvettes, project MILGEM. The ship is due to join the Ukrainian fleet in 2024; a total of two ships will be built at a cost of $256 million. The ship is armed with a 76 mm OTO Melara Super Rapid gun, two 12.7 mm Aselsan STAMP machine guns, a 35 mm Aselsan Gokdeniz anti-aircraft artillery mount and a MICA VC air defense system with 16 missiles. Anti-submarine weapons are represented by 324 mm torpedo tubes "Mark 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes". The ship is armed with Harpoon or Atmaca anti-ship missiles. Armament may change in the future. The ship has a speed of up to 29 knots, with a cruising range of 3,500 nautical miles, a cruising endurance of 10 days, with supplies of 21 days. It is possible to have an S-70B Seahawk helicopter. Displacement corvette "Getman Ivan Mazepa" 2300 tons, power plant - one gas turbine and two diesel engines. The ship's crew is 93 people. Quite surprised the Russians are even allowing the Ukrainians to field this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 (edited) 18 hours ago, seahawk said: Still it contains the loss to one plane and one HAS. And also requires accuracy. Given the relatively inexpensive nature of a HAS to an aircraft, everyone she building one right now. Edited July 7 by Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 (edited) There is a decent discussion here: Also some interesting Chinese HAS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gfXqsR-U1Q Edited July 7 by KV7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yama Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 12 hours ago, Perun said: I can't fully make out what happens on the video, but at least some of the objects shown seem to me as likely decoys. I doubt Ukrainians have Patriots there, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soldier36 Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 The Russian army has begun using the latest Irbis counter-battery radars. The station was developed in complete secrecy. Now there is no information or video on the Irbis station, the station is camouflaged and the radar is not shown. Reportedly, the Irbis station is better than previous models and can operate at a range of up to 150 km, while detecting even FPV drones; when they are detected, they turn on electronic warfare and use shotguns. The Irbis station records cannon and rocket artillery fire and transmits data to artillery units. The station can also record air targets, including UAVs. The station is housed on a Kamaz-6350 chassis and is equipped with an armored capsule that protects the crew from fragments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 (edited) 13 hours ago, KV7 said: There is a decent discussion here: He's got some good points, but I'm not sure his conclusion that the Russians will be unwilling to trade Zircon and Kinzhals 2:1 with F-35's, given that the missile might cost 1/15th to 1/25th the price of the aircraft. Edited July 7 by glenn239 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 NATO definitely does not harden its air bases enough, but on the other hand Zircon and Kinzhals are pretty thin on the ground as well. But the issue of cluster munitions and disposable UAVs is certainly a huge threat, as Ukraine has proved. The construction costs are, as noted, low. It makes no sense why NATO or Russia do not produce more shelters, if not of the NATO two meter standard, at least something thick enough to stop cluster munitions and UAVs. I think some kind of mid range shelter that can stop a cluster or UAV shaped charge munition but not a dedicated PGM hit is worth while. Something halfway between an unarmored hanger and a 2 meter concrete shelter. The Pacific is a different situation: it is often the case than construction services have to be brought in from the CONUS, so major constructure efforts are much more expensive there. That still is no excuse for not expanding and harding every airbase the US has access to, but it is a much different scenario than Europe where every single host country could easily construct whatever is needed without any major technical investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 11 hours ago, Josh said: NATO definitely does not harden its air bases enough, but on the other hand Zircon and Kinzhals are pretty thin on the ground as well. But the issue of cluster munitions and disposable UAVs is certainly a huge threat, as Ukraine has proved. The construction costs are, as noted, low. It makes no sense why NATO or Russia do not produce more shelters, if not of the NATO two meter standard, at least something thick enough to stop cluster munitions and UAVs. Shelters are a good idea. OTOH, what is not clear is missile production, other than that we know a hypersonic missile costs only a small fraction of an F-35 and does not require a pilot and heavy logistics support. The other thing the podcast did not address was the possibility of a MIRV'd conventional warhead to allow one hypersonic missile to hit more than one hardened shelter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 At the 11:20 mark of this video, a report of attacks conducted by insurgency forces inside Rumania against NATO logistics supporting Ukraine, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alejandro_ Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 The Russian military has begun to use a new tactic - using reconnaissance drones with their navigation turned off. Source: Ukrainian Air Force spokesman Colonel Yuriy Ignat on Radio Liberty Direct speech: "The enemy is using new tactical methods: launching a UAV without navigation, without a GPS signal. And this signal is turned on directly above the object that the enemy plans to reconnoiter and strike there with an Iskander. Thus, we also have to react to this situation. If someone thinks that nothing is being done - a lot of conversations have already been held and the task of somehow solving this problem has been set by the highest leadership." Details: According to the officer, the Defence Forces must introduce effective means of countering Russian reconnaissance drones. Ignat added that up to fifty UAVs fly along the front line every day, and certain types of drones can also reach the rear. Direct speech : "I would like to remind you that our "Shaheds" fly to the western borders. Therefore, it is far from the first time that we have heard of an "Orlan" flying into our rear, into the Poltava region. This is a problem that needs to be solved. They are currently looking for innovative solutions, they are already working on enemy reconnaissance drones, they are working with FPV drones, they are working with anti-aircraft drones, as they are called, and they are working quite successfully. I think that all the Defense Forces should also pay attention to this and introduce such means that are relatively cheap compared to spending missiles. Well, you need to have a missile, and missiles today perform a deterrent function. We are talking to you now, and dozens of UAVs - 30-40 - are flying along the front line... Sumy region, Kharkiv region, they generally conduct aerial reconnaissance there around the clock, where active military operations are taking place. It happens that drones fly deep into our territory. Yes, there are various means of counteraction: there are mobile fire groups, they can use fighter aircraft. There is already positive experience with the Yak-52 in the South, there are also electronic warfare systems." https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2024/07/8/7464639/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 I do not understand - GPS is a purely passive system. Why would turning it off decrease the signature of a UAV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 I think they mean turning off video transmission until they reach the target area; wouldn't be the first time journalists got one detail wrong that make the entire article look like bollocks. Anyway, cutting off the TV signal until you have reached the target area is an obvious move to reduce emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alejandro_ Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 3 minutes ago, Ssnake said: I think they mean turning off video transmission until they reach the target area; wouldn't be the first time journalists got one detail wrong that make the entire article look like bollocks. Anyway, cutting off the TV signal until you have reached the target area is an obvious move to reduce emissions. Maybe it means that the flight to the target area is done using an inertial navigation system, and when it reaches target area the GPS is turned on to calculate coordinates for Iskander strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyinsane105 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 14 hours ago, Josh said: NATO definitely does not harden its air bases enough, but on the other hand Zircon and Kinzhals are pretty thin on the ground as well. But the issue of cluster munitions and disposable UAVs is certainly a huge threat, as Ukraine has proved. The construction costs are, as noted, low. It makes no sense why NATO or Russia do not produce more shelters, if not of the NATO two meter standard, at least something thick enough to stop cluster munitions and UAVs. I think some kind of mid range shelter that can stop a cluster or UAV shaped charge munition but not a dedicated PGM hit is worth while. Something halfway between an unarmored hanger and a 2 meter concrete shelter. The Pacific is a different situation: it is often the case than construction services have to be brought in from the CONUS, so major constructure efforts are much more expensive there. That still is no excuse for not expanding and harding every airbase the US has access to, but it is a much different scenario than Europe where every single host country could easily construct whatever is needed without any major technical investment. Large scale drone and missile attacks can really dent the effectiveness of NATO air power, for a fraction of the cost of what is used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyinsane105 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 Just now, JWB said: How confident are we that the Russians don’t have large scale underground areas where equipment is being stored, and that hasn’t been touched yet? Only asking because Ukraine had extremely large underground stockpiles of arms which were unknown to most outside observers as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 If they were keeping it underground, its unlikely they had the pumps on. Underground storage is a not particularly promising way of looking after equipment, unless you park it in somewhere like a stone mine.The only place we made that work in the UK was around bath, and we closed all those storage sites in the 1980's because they cost an arm and a leg to maintain. Lets face it, they are rapidly burning thorugh their soviet legacy, and there wont be any more. From now on its going to be T55's and whatever they can get off north korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyinsane105 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 17 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: If they were keeping it underground, its unlikely they had the pumps on. Underground storage is a not particularly promising way of looking after equipment, unless you park it in somewhere like a stone mine.The only place we made that work in the UK was around bath, and we closed all those storage sites in the 1980's because they cost an arm and a leg to maintain. Lets face it, they are rapidly burning thorugh their soviet legacy, and there wont be any more. From now on its going to be T55's and whatever they can get off north korea. Though that’s what the Ukrainians did, they had a lot of salt mines. Not denying they are running out of equipment, but I am wondering if they do have underground sites we aren’t of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyinsane105 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 2 hours ago, Josh said: I do not understand - GPS is a purely passive system. Why would turning it off decrease the signature of a UAV? Ukraine is starting to field some advanced ECM equipment, specifically to jam GPS of Russian drones. The Russians may simply be countering this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now