The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
If 2,000 troops are calling a hotline, it might be a slight morale problem — I think Ukraine is clear, the measurement is number of calls not surrenders — I am only citing this source in response to @Feanor.
Hence why I called it out as misleading. What's the conversion rate?

But that is not what I said. In fact, in my prior post 5 of 5, I deliberately avoided citing a number and source because it can’t be verified.

I don’t care what Ukraine says. I think you are responding to Ukrainian claims not mine.
I'm definitely responding to Ukraine's claims that got repeated by the twitter account you quoted, I definitely don't see you making those claims.

Claims of mass surrender should be easy to backup with photos. Insinuating a mass surrender is happening or is imminent while providing no evidence and deceptively talking about call numbers is propaganda, just the clever kind. Technically true but misleading to anyone who isn't carefully reading, paying attention, and aware of the overall context.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The media makes so much noise about a few Iranian made suicide drones used in Ukraine but they are not the top manufacturer of this class of munitions, when compared to IAI, Elbit, or UVision.
The reason they made so much 'noise' is because it was an interesting development; the fact that Russia had to turn to Iran. We also don't know if it was only ''a few''. The Ukrainians have said they have no idea of the numbers and if all the reports [including by the Ukrainians and British MOD] which have filtered out on so called strikes are true; then it's more than ''a few''.

but they are not the top manufacturer of this class of munitions, when compared to IAI, Elbit, or UVision.
In terms of quality or sophistication they aren't comparable to much more expensive kit produced by the likes of IAI, Elbit, or UVision but that's immaterial if they can do the job they were intended to. Iran has demonstrated a clear ability to mass produce inexpensive relatively unsophisticated UASs and loitering munitions which do the job required of them in operational circumstances which don't necessarily call for higher end systems.

The Israeli manufacturers call this class of weapons, loitering munitions. Loitering munitions are in a category of their own. It is misleading to simply label them as drones. They are more akin to a smart missile.
Indeed. There is a general agreement amongst many watchers that there is a distinction between ''UASs''/''UAVS''/''drones'' and ''loitering munitions''; that ''loitering munitions'' occupy a separate category.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
In terms of quality or sophistication they aren't comparable to much more expensive kit produced by the likes of IAI, Elbit, or UVision but that's immaterial if they can do the job they were intended to. Iran has demonstrated a clear ability to mass produce inexpensive relatively unsophisticated UASs and loitering munitions which do the job required of them in operational circumstances which don't necessarily call for higher end systems.
1. And what is the job of these Iranian drones? Attacking Ukrainian civilians in cities in the rear? It’s just a terror weapon.

2. Russian ISR is not good enough for fast moving forces or even the Ukrainian brigade HQs, co-located nearer the front — these Iranian made loitering munitions are being mostly launched from a fixed base in Crimea but their route to Ukrainian cities are now predictable — which reduces success rate.

3. At launch, NATO ISR, SIGINT & COMINT would have detected these Russian launched drones — the flight routes are now, more or less known. Ukraine can preposition SAMs along the route now — what we seeing in Ukrainian cities are leakers.

4. At some point, Team Biden will be under pressure to give Ukraine the means to destroy the base where Iranian drones are being launched from in Crimea — the West & Isreal has the tech, ISR and weapons to kill or minimise this threat — they just don’t want to give it away to Ukraine for fear of escalation. It is cold blooded but I believe that Team Biden wants to keep some leverage on the Russians by not sending everything asked for.

5. Western military of use loitering munitions in general, is an attempt to reduce possible civilian collateral damage or conduct a re-attack when a target has moved. Whereas Iran makes these drones to help its proxies and Russia attack civilian targets.

6. I just wish you would be more direct about the real purpose of Russia’s use Iranian made drones to cause harm to civilians.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
why I called it out as misleading. What's the conversion rate?
Pro Russian telegrams full of claim of mass surrender of Ukranian when they're being routed from Lysychans'k. Now condition reverse, the Ukrainian claim similar thing when they routing Russians. Similar thing, both occasion also shown by 'videos' as 'prove'. Those proves by both sides on mass surrender also not shown actual big mass surrender (the kind we see Argentinian did in Falkland as example, or Iraqi did in desert Storm).

That's why I said before both are master liars. Master liars does not mean everything they said is good lies. Even crude lies can still be used to manipulate their target segment. Doesn't mean they have to be believable to everyone, as long as it serve the purpose on propaganda and fog of war manipulation.

The Western public perhaps most of them will not believe anything Russian put. However if they manage to get a fifth of Western public believe on them or have doubt on their media or government on Ukrainian causes, then it is already serve the purpose. Looking how the US independent online sources shown doubt on Biden's claim on this war (on Ukrainian behalf), I say probably a fifth is not far fetch in US alone.

So similar thing I believe happen in Russian public that have doubt on Putin's administration due to Ukrainian propaganda enhance by Western ones. Perhaps it's also a fifth of Russian population. Considering some Russian that running away to avoid conscription (in more autocratic country), perhaps a fifth also not too far fetch.

This war going to move to next stage, with Russian annexation. Some in West will 'glee' with Russian set backs. However remember not two months ago the Ukrainian that are being retreating.

Perhaps the months of preparation with Western help already shown the results. However doesn't mean the Russian not doing their own counter preparation after recent set backs. The truth is, this war already shown roller coaster change of Fortune in the fields.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
And what is the job of these Iranian drones? Attacking Ukrainian civilians in cities in the rear? It’s just a terror weapon.
They've also apparently been used to hit military targets; as these links mention.



Western military of use loitering munitions in general is to reduce possible civilian collateral damage .
Whether it's with loitering munitions or armed UASs; with regards to civilians casualties; it's often the intel; the C2 in place and other factors; rather than the actual system; which results in civilian casualties. A good example would be the Kabul strike which the Pentagon initially denied [some claimed it was Taliban and IS disinformation] but later acknowledged the tragedy and said it was a result of intel error and other factors. As the author of ''Kill Chain: Drones and the Rise of High-Tech Assassins'' also explains; at times when looking a screens; UAS operators can't differentiate between armed individuals and unarmed civilians despite the high tech billon dollar technology.

Western military of use loitering munitions in general, is an attempt to reduce possible civilian collateral damage. Whereas Iran makes these drones to help its proxies and Russia attack civilian targets.
Iran initially made those loitering munitions for its own needs and the needs of its proxies. How the Russians utilise what they buy is up to the Russians; irrespective of how we feel about civilian casualties; which I condemn; irrespective of who's responsible and whether it was intentional or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Iran initially made those loitering munitions for its own needs and the needs of its proxies. How the Russians utilise what they buy is up to the Russians; irrespective of how we feel about civilian casualties; which I condemn; irrespective of who's responsible and whether it was intentional or not.
Law abiding countries normally accept at least some responsibility for how their weapons are used. If their customers use them to commit war crimes, at the very least they should stop sales.

It's been obvious from very early on that Russia was committing war crimes in Ukraine. Iran can't pretend it didn't suspect there was a high possibility of weapons it supplied being used to commit further crimes. Rather, given the Iranian regime's poor treatment of its own citizens I expect it knew what was happening/likely to happen but didn't care.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
What separates established manufacturers like Elbit and IAI from the low cost alternatives like Bayraktar series and Iranian UAS and loitering munitions, is the 80/20 equation.

The established, do 100%. The low cost, does 80% of the product for 20% of the cost/time.

If the intention is to fill up gear quickly against an inferior foe, like Azerbaijan vs Armenia, then the low cost options make more sense. Hence why Azerbaijan keeps a mix of both high end systems and low end systems.

But those missing 20% are what's going to make the difference vs a peer. They'll decide if your drones get downed en masse via jamming, or not. Or whether you can maintain comms over range.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

STURM

Well-Known Member
at the very least they should stop sales. .
Like how Her Majesty's government stopped sales [they were suspended for a brief period] to the UAE and Saudi when it became apparent their kit was resulting in civilians deaths and that civilian infrastructure was intentionally being targeted? BTW remember Biafra? Or like how Egypt continues to be able to receive kit from Uncle Sam and is the 2nd largest recipient of U.S. aid [after Israel] despite being led by a government which came to a power in a coup and has a well documented history of human rights abuses?

What governments are supposed to do and what they actually do can be profoundly different.

I expect it knew what was happening/likely to happen but didn't care.
Well cheers for pointing that out but of course it knew. Ultimately, it sold the UASs/loitering munitions because it was in its interests to do so; needed the revenue and enabled a way to get something else back from the Russians. Is it right? No but the decision was not on whether the Iranian are angels [nobody is].

But those missing 20% are what's going to make the difference vs a peer. They'll decide if your drones get downed en masse via jamming, or not. Or whether you can maintain comms over range.
Agreed but whether in Armenia, Libya [the Turkish KORAL was effective] or the Ukraine have we actually seen a situation where UASs which are ''missing that 20% are getting downed en masse via jamming''? What we have seen are clear instances where EW has some bearing on the ability of UASs to perform but it has never reached a stage where EW plays a pivotal role in denying UASs the ability to perform. Is there anything to say for sure that UASs which have the ''100%'' would do better in similar operational circumstances?
 
Last edited:

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Like how Her Majesty's government stopped sales [they were suspended for a brief period] to the UAE and Saudi
Yes, exactly like when the sales were stopped. They resumed after a review concluded (rightly or wrongly) that use against civilian targets were isolated instances.

The whole point is that the UK at least considered the issue. I except Iran will not care one jot, which makes it partly responsible.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
Like how Her Majesty's government stopped sales [they were suspended for a brief period] to the UAE and Saudi when it became apparent their kit was resulting in civilians deaths and that civilian infrastructure was intentionally being targeted? Or like how Egypt continues to be able to receive kit from Uncle Sam and is the 2nd largest recipient of U.S. aid [after Israel] despite being led by a government which came to a power in a coup and has a well documented history of human rights abuses?

What governments are supposed to do and what they actually do can be profoundly different.
I would argue that it is a balance between a value based system versus an interest based systems.

We are deceiving ourselves (and being naive) if we claim that a country like the UK and the US operates and adheres to those values absolutely in their policies, especially in those areas like arms deals. But I would grant that they at least make an attempt to do so, even if the record is chequered as you pointed out.

That, in my opinion separates them from countries like North Korea or China where their policies are strictly and absolutely interest based.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Whereas Iran makes these drones to help its proxies and Russia attack civilian targets..
I have no idea thus I will not presume but I know that quite of few of the targets were military; not civilian targets.



just wish you would be more direct about the real purpose of Russia’s use Iranian made drones to cause harm to civilians.
I can't be direct about something I'm uncertain about. Sure Russia has used them against civilian targets but it has also used them against non civilian targets. Is there any firm indication that Russia bought them for the sole or main purpose of hitting civilian targets?

I would argue that is a balance between a value based system versus an interest based systems.
Indeed and a times interests takes precedence over values.

We are deceiving ourselves if we claim that a country like the UK and the US operates and adheres to those values absolutely in their policies, especially in those areas like arms deals. But I would grant that they at least make an attempt to do so, even if the record is chequered.
I get what you're driving at but I would argue that at times they only give the impression they're attempting to do so because ultimately interests takes precedence; irrespective if it's a liberal Western democracy; a country with a fledging democracy or an established authoritarian state.
 
Last edited:

koxinga

Well-Known Member
I get what you're driving at but I would argue that at times they only give the impression they're attempting to do so because ultimately interests takes precedence; irrespective if it's a liberal Western democracy; a country with a fledging democracy or an established authoritarian state.
If we take such an approach, we would have to throw a country like the UK/US into the same bucket as North Korea or China. Even the harshest cynic on West liberalism would been hard pressed to make such an association.

I'm not fan of their ideas by any means and I get turn off by naive Westerners expressing shock at how/why Ukraine / India / voted at the recent UNHCR resolution on Xinjiang, but I have no problems with their basic motivations.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I'm not equating the U.S. with the likes of North Korea. What I am saying is that democracies [like non democracies] will always put interests before values. They might express outrage over the actions of others and genuinely try to fix something but at times it can be mere window dressing because ultimately national interests comes first. BTW I'm not anti Western or pro Eastern [whatever that means]; merely anti hypocrisy and anti double standards.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
I'm not equating the U.S. with the likes of North Korea. What I am saying is that democracies [like non democracies] will always put interests before values. They might express outrage over the actions of others and genuinely try to fix something but at times it can be mere window dressing because ultimately national interests comes first. BTW I'm not anti Western or pro Eastern [whatever that means]; merely anti hypocrisy and anti double standards.
Democracies don't always put interests before values. There are several examples of democracies putting values before interests. Not as often as I would like to see, but you are wrong in stating that it never happens.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
you are wrong in stating that it never happens.
Well I'm wrong then. Ta for pointing it out. BTW putting interests before values is not always such a bad thing; especially when there various dynamics at play; dynamics which can have a long term detrimental impact if not handled or assessed well.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Agreed but whether in Armenia, Libya [the Turkish KORAL was effective] or the Ukraine have we actually seen a situation where UASs which are ''missing that 20% are getting downed en masse via jamming''? What we have seen are clear instances where EW has some bearing on the ability of UASs to perform but it has never reached a stage where EW plays a pivotal role in denying UASs the ability to perform. Is there anything to say for sure that UASs which have the ''100%'' would do better in similar operational circumstances?
1. It's down to components and algorithms. For example a cheap comms suit would require a higher signal to noise ratio at the antenna to understand a message, making it more susceptible to noise jamming.

2. Or it would have a cheap omnidirectional antenna that receives all signals equally, while an expensive one might use jam-suppressing AESA that allows it to fly in dangerous airspace.

3. High end INS (Inertial Navigation System) can be quite expensive, and only high quality ones can allow for operation in GPS-denied airspace.

4. High end optics in conjunction with AI can allow for navigation via terrain.

5. I am familiar with certain unmanned-centric units in the IDF, and from their operations it's apparent that these investments are necessary, because otherwise you'll be paying much more for the mission failure.

6. And if regional enemies can pose a threat and necessitate such investment, so can countries like Russia.

7. In the end, you send out the drone on a mission. Be it strike or just recon (or non lethal effects), what you need first and foremost is the confidence you'll succeed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

STURM

Well-Known Member
Thank you for the detailed explanation.

If I understand you correctly [please correct me if I'm wrong]; if we take the Ukraine as an example; if it was not operating TB2s and instead was operating higher end UASs; they would have been less susceptible to Russian EW?

You mentioned the Azeris having both high and low end UASs; I assume Hermes would be high end and the TB2 low end. Anyway what they operated I think was also dictated by what they could buy and from whom. They couldn't; buy armed UASs from Israel [it confirmed only recently that it has armed UASs, something others have known for a while now] and given their relationship with Turkey it was natural that they'd buy TB2s. What is interesting to find out is why the Azeris didn't get Anka. In Operation Spring Shield [like Libya, Syria was the UAS laboratory for Turkey] the TB2/Anka combo was quite successful; both complementing each other.
 

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
1. And what is the job of these Iranian drones? Attacking Ukrainian civilians in cities in the rear? It’s just a terror weapon.
Who is in command of designating the targets for the Iranian drones ? Is it field commands, or a higher level command element ?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Democracies don't always put interests before values. There are several examples of democracies putting values before interests. Not as often as I would like to see, but you are wrong in stating that it never happens.
The Royal Navy campaign against the slave trade was a prime example of values before interests, as was the abolition of slavery in the sugar colonies.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Part 1 of 2: Shaping ops, Intelligence & C4SIR

Who is in command of designating the targets for the Iranian drones ?
1. I don’t know, as I have only a limited idea of Russian C4ISR systems. It’s likely to be one of the Russian Army’s District Col. Generals.
2. The Kerch Strait rail bridge has been cut at the exact moment a Russian train is passing. Ukrainian shaping operations has begun. The offensive by Ukrainian forces in Kherson in Southern Ukraine suggests Ukrainian forces intend to eventually converge on Crimea. But this could be part of their design for taking back Crimea, or part of a deception operation to distract from other areas. Because of this, we may see Russian redeployments in the south, which will unveil other opportunities to exploit.
(a) The desire to leave Crimea will be probably be greater and soon become a flood as it is no longer out of Ukrainian intelligence and targeting reach. Lack of confidence in Putin and his military will grow. U.S. Lt. Gen. (retired) Ben Hodges said: “Once Ukrainians are able to get HIMARS or other rocket launching systems within range and they start putting a rocket on Russian bases in Crimea, then it is just a matter of time.”​
(b) U.S. Lt. Gen. (retired) Mark Hertling agreed that Ukraine would seek to take back the peninsula in Ukraine’s south, which was seized and annexed by Vladimir Putin’s forces in 2014. While he said the battle would be extremely tough, it would have US backing: “If Ukraine decides to go and retake Crimea — and I think they eventually will — the US government has said we will support the actions of Ukraine anywhere they want to go.”​
(c) As Clarkson has noted, Ukraine's military intelligence services blended ruthlessness of Soviet traditions with NATO techniques and an Israeli way of seeing the world.​
(d) Happy Birthday, Putin! There is a giant candle for you. The amount of explosive required to drop the Kerch Strait rail bridge is more than a large team of special forces personnel could carry — the fact that the train was carrying fuel, would held drop the bridge span eventually. It will take truck loads of explosives and it must be aimed at the right points of the bridge span. Given that it’s 3 spans that fell, it is very unlikely that a single truck bomb did that.​

Is it field commands, or a higher level command element ?
3. I suspect it is not useful to think this way given how primitive some aspects of the Russian C4 system is — they are not a data centric army — they are a command push army. But at the same time, each of the Russian Army’s District Col. Generals have command over certain EW and ISR assets that are only allocated at the national level in other systems.

4. On 8 Oct1973, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a major counterattack on Egyptian positions in the Sinai spearheaded by three armored brigades — I don’t think we will see such large scale battles again — because the Arabs will not dare to meet the IDF in battle in 2022. Israeli commanders in 1973 had expected to repeat their rapid 1967 victory over the Egyptians, but they were disappointed. IDF’s intelligence failed to predict that the Egyptian forces would employ new tactics and weapons, especially the Soviet-made AT-3 Sagger anti-tank missile, to repel the Israeli attack with heavy losses.

(a) In the US C4 system, power/authority usually resides with Corps commander (in 2022), who commands the divisions in the battle space — the Corps commander decides where scarce joint assets are allocated in the various divisions. The Russian BTG Commanders are far better in some areas but not so great in others.​
(b) A US BCT would have more sophisticated embedded C4 systems but less organic EW assets. The way information is pushed down to battalion commanders, commanding a battle group, in the Western C4 system is way different from the Russians. See post #5,196 as this discussion follows from that discussion.​

5. Unless we are fighting a war in Korea, where the ultimate authority needs to be at an Army level (eg. 8th Army) — the US military does not usually need an Army level command.

6. The Koreans don’t want to transfer OPCON because investing in such a system with the amount of Corps they have is expensive. The Koreans have 8 Corps commanders — their Army is on the scale of the Indian Army and the money the Koreans spend on C4 on these 8 Corps is larger than the Malaysia’s total tank budget in its entire raise, train and sustain cycle. The Korean joint command are elephants in the room; to them, the divisions of lesser armies just look like ants.

7. In a lesser Western style C4 system, power/authority usually resides with Division commander, who commands the brigade in the battle space — the Division commander decides where scarce joint assets are allocated in the various brigades.
(a) A number of sense and strike systems are now able to push useful data of UAV feed from a division asset to inform the FAC or Scout platoon commander (whose teams are flying lower level UAVs), for their situational awareness.​
(b) I don’t think we should think or measure the Russians on our yardstick — the amount of information pushed to a modern Company Commander in a ABG, would be a dream for a Russian BTG Commander — the Russians, at times, literally don’t know where some of their troops are in their retrograde ops. Whereas, a Company Commander, with a modern C4 system, will know the location of each of his platoons — through blue force tracker.​
 
Last edited:
Top