Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

[boatgeek]

You would have to rig some thing to hold then drop it, not hard if you have the stuff to do it.

They often don’t even do that for the cheaper FPV drones. They just fly them one way into the target and sacrifice the drone in the explosion. The DJI drones are cheap enough and the targets are expensive enough that it’s a worthwhile use of resources even if only 20% of the drones make it to the target.

Ukraine does drop some ammunition on relatively static targets, but commonly use one-way drones for moving targets or targets it would be hard to fly back out of.

 

[Banzai88]

But they make the sort of drone that you fly at the park, not the exploding ones.

More than sufficient.

 

[Titan II]

But they make the sort of drone that you fly at the park, not the exploding ones.

You would have to rig some thing to hold then drop it, not hard if you have the stuff to do it.

You my want to consider reading the DJI website before making such statements. They make one you can buy that has a 66 to 88 pound payload capacity, and already has a release mechanism. It is not your typical park flyer.

 

[NTP2]

You my want to consider reading the DJI website before making such statements. They make one you can buy that has a 66 to 88 pound payload capacity, and already has a release mechanism. It is not your typical park flyer.

Wow! What next a 88 pound piece of metal to drop?

 

[John Kemker]

Wow! What next a 88 pound piece of metal to drop?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/404291298430?chn=ps

 

[SolarYellow]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/404291298430?chn=ps

Pretty sure I've seen both of those in the latest ACME catalog. Wile E's order is probably just lost in USPS hell.

 

[NTP2]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/404291298430?chn=ps

I was thinking a Tungsten cube and you could put a bomb joke as the text!

Ps what would you put?

 

[teepot]

There are hundreds of You Tube videos of Ukraine using drones. Some FPV drones with RPG warheads. There is also a bomber drone that carries four bombs and has thermal cameras. It a large drone. They fly over the Russians looking for heat. Either people or hardware. Take a look at some of the videos. I watch some every day.

On another note. We have started bombing th bad guys in Syria and Iraq. 85 targets, 125 bombs over 30 minutes. Included B1's. Reports say this is just the beginning. I saw the first report about 5pm PDT.

 

[Peartree]

And yesterday a swarm of drone boats took out a Russian missile corvette. The first boats took out the propeller in the rear and the maneuvering thrusters (I think) in the front, then following boats hit amidships with one driving right into the hole opened by a previous boat. This finally triggered a secondary explosion of the ships stored ammunition, it rolled over, and went to the bottom with all hands (40-45 persons). Although they believe that some crew nembers may have gotten off the ship, no rafts were deployed and rescuers arrived too late to save them from the frigid water.

 

[tsmmiller]

And yesterday a swarm of drone boats took out a Russian missile corvette. The first boats took out the propeller in the rear and the maneuvering thrusters (I think) in the front, then following boats hit amidships with one driving right into the hole opened by a previous boat. This finally triggered a secondary explosion of the ships stored ammunition, it rolled over, and went to the bottom with all hands (40-45 persons). Although they believe that some crew nembers may have gotten off the ship, no rafts were deployed and rescuers arrived too late to save them from the frigid water.

I posted the video tweet on it post #7,217. I've watched it numerous times. Just now watching it again you can see a hit on the far side of the ship at around the 25 second mark that I hadn't noticed before.

 

[boatgeek]

And yesterday a swarm of drone boats took out a Russian missile corvette. The first boats took out the propeller in the rear and the maneuvering thrusters (I think) in the front, then following boats hit amidships with one driving right into the hole opened by a previous boat. This finally triggered a secondary explosion of the ships stored ammunition, it rolled over, and went to the bottom with all hands (40-45 persons). Although they believe that some crew nembers may have gotten off the ship, no rafts were deployed and rescuers arrived too late to save them from the frigid water.

I am guessing that they were aiming for something else forward other than maneuvering thrusters. Once the main propeller shafts are shot, the ship is more or less dead in the water. It could maybe turn slowly with the thrusters, but not enough to throw off the drone boats' aim. Reasonable targets up forward include magazines, large storage or berthing spaces (makes the ship sink faster), or auxiliary machinery (if you take out all of the fire and bilge pumps, the ship is dead from flooding or fire).

 

[teepot]

I saw the video too. What surprised me was it looked like the ship was firing at the drone boat with small arms. The splashes were small. I would have thought that the ship had their equivalent of .50 cals on board.

 

[Greg Furtman]

Here's a pretty good video about the attack & sinking of the 'Ivanovets.'

 

[KenECoyote]

I saw the video too. What surprised me was it looked like the ship was firing at the drone boat with small arms. The splashes were small. I would have thought that the ship had their equivalent of .50 cals on board.

You'd expect that, but I didn't see any on the ship in the above video.

I don't know anything about them, but perhaps they were designed more as long range attack operating far from the front lines and usually protected by other vessels? I'd also assume usual active operation is to have all personnel inside for when they fire the missiles?




Finally perhaps the smaller guns shown above weren't designed to aim so low towards the water.

 

[teepot]

You'd expect that, but I didn't see any on the ship in the above video.

I don't know anything about them, but perhaps they were designed more as long range attack operating far from the front lines and usually protected by other vessels? I'd also assume usual active operation is to have all personnel inside for when they fire the missiles?
View attachment 629054
View attachment 629056
View attachment 629055

Finally perhaps the smaller guns shown above weren't designed to aim so low towards the w

oops. should have read the last line before I said the same thing.

 

[KenECoyote]

oops. should have read the last line before I said the same thing.

Great minds!

I find this almost a repeat of history, similar to how aircraft carriers made battleships outdated because suddenly they could more easily be attacked from the air. Ships during WWII (especially aircraft carriers) quickly learned that they needed many more anti-aircraft guns added (especially with Kamikaze planes... manned explosive craft) otherwise they're sitting ducks.

The naval drones appeared surprisingly slow compared to hobby fast electric boats, which can turn on a dime and zip around like mad - I'd think it'd be much, much more difficult shooting one of those. However, I'd guess for the drones shown, they have to balance out speed with going long distances while carrying explosives.

 

[Reinhard]

You'd expect that, but I didn't see any on the ship in the above video.

I don't know anything about them, but perhaps they were designed more as long range attack operating far from the front lines and usually protected by other vessels? I'd also assume usual active operation is to have all personnel inside for when they fire the missiles?
View attachment 629054
View attachment 629056
View attachment 629055

Finally perhaps the smaller guns shown above weren't designed to aim so low towards the water.

The two smaller guns above are AK-630M CIWS, the Russian equivalent of the Phalanx CIWS. It's minimum elevation is -12°, so it can also engage surface targets. In theory, this system should make short work of the comparably slow drones. However, even the heavier armed Moskva (6 AK-630M systems in addition to SAM systems) failed to defend itself against the subsonic Neptune missiles that sunk it.
I'm not aware of the reason why they didn't engage successfully. For comparison, when the Iraqis accidentally attacked the USS Stark, the Phalanx CIWS was in standby, but considering that the Russians had every reason to expect an Ukrainian attack, I wouldn't expect them to deliberately let their guard down.

Reinhard

 

[rocket_troy]

Great minds!

I find this almost a repeat of history, similar to how aircraft carriers made battleships outdated because suddenly they could more easily be attacked from the air. Ships during WWII (especially aircraft carriers) quickly learned that they needed many more anti-aircraft guns added (especially with Kamikaze planes... manned explosive craft) otherwise they're sitting ducks.

Just a bit of trivia there: it was the (wooden deck) US aircraft carriers in WWII that were particularly vulnerable to Kamikaze attack. Interestingly, the Brits weren't too worried about them as their decks were solid steel IIRC. The Kamikazes would smash into it and later be effectively swept away with no damage to the astonishment of visiting US naval command.

TP

 

[Peartree]

Things are getting a bit heated in the wake of the recent interview. As a result, I'm pressing "pause" on this thread and locking it for a while. At some point I hope thar it can return to a discussion of current events and not a political tit-for-tat.

 

[Boom289]

Russia has captured Avdiivka, what to expect next!

 

[Peartree]

Russia has captured Avdiivka, what to expect next!

And lost more troops (estimated to be over 50,000) doing so, over the span of only a few months, than they did in the ten years that they were in Afghanistan. Also for comparison, this is only slightly less than the 58,000 troops that the U.S. lost over 20 years in Vietnam.

 

[Peartree]

Reminder: This is a "current events" discussion of the war in Ukraine. Please refrain from turning it into a political discussion (as much as possible) or the mods will be forced to lock it again.

 

[boatgeek]

Russia has captured Avdiivka, what to expect next!

Russia was able to capture Avdiivka primarily because the Ukrainians ran short of ammunition. What happens next depends greatly on whether the US restarts ammunition supplies, particularly artillery shells.

 

[teepot]

I'd comment but it would be political, so I won't.

 

[boatgeek]

I'd comment but it would be political, so I won't.

Yeah, I rewrote that last comment about four times.

 

[kuririn]

I notice in recent videos that the Ukraine military seems to be using FPV and Kamikaze drones now to attack Russian tanks.
No doubt due to the shortage of artillery rounds.
I hope they get the ammo they need!

 

[Peartree]

I notice in recent videos that the Ukraine military seems to be using FPV and Kamikaze drones now to attack Russian tanks.
No doubt due to the shortage of artillery rounds.
I hope they get the ammo they need!

They've been doing that for two years but yeah, they're doing it more because it conserves ammunition.

 

[Peartree]

Last weeks news, Denmark voted to send their entire national stock of artillery pieces and ammunition to Ukraine. Basically, they said, "Why do we need it? Do we expect to be invaded by Germany or Sweden?"

And today, Hungary finally voted to accept Sweden into NATO which now becomes the 32nd full member of that alliance.

 

[NTP2]

the Europeans are giving them almost everything I wonder if they could get US weapons to them by acting as a middleman? Or would that violate their agreement with us?

 

[PhilC]

the Europeans are giving them almost everything I wonder if they could get US weapons to them by acting as a middleman? Or would that violate their agreement with us?

I guess its a question of whether US government would accept an end user certificate on those terms. I suspect not.