Ukraine needs Patriot or an equivalent air to ground capability, but those are extremely expensive.
It sounds like the prop-driven shaheds were being intercepted with prop-driven drones piloted manually? I suppose that shows the relevant technology for guidance has been kept secret enough that it's not instantly being cloned, or is more expensive than human operators.
Well, the propeller interceptors worked - it forced the Russians to upgrade their attack drones to use jet engines, making them more expensive. Still an issue if they get through but also a question if they can do a big swarm the same way the could with the lawnmower engine type.
Also I expect similar Ukrainian adaptation using some sort of jet propulsion or even rocket assistance to counter them. Not to mention getting a jet powered response in the Russian direction.
Using a $2M PAC-2 or PAC-3 to stop a $100k drone is beyond idiotic.
Patriots and similar SAM/ABMs are best reserved for intercepting ballistic missiles rather than frittering them away pointlessly like the current US regime.
It just seems like everyone is re-inventing the tech of the 50s and 60s, but at a fraction of the cost by using a completely different set of parts, supply chains and cost structures. And massive eventual volumes.
My guess is the Ukrainians will put a rocket on their interceptor drones, and develop some sort of radar or heat seeking guidance system. Perhaps we'll end up with an interesting hybrid interceptor missile that uses electric propulsion for part of the journey?
In an economic battle, I continue wondering why Ukraine has interceptors which detonate instead of being armed with projectiles. High speed cameras and low latency bridgewire ignition, coupled with AI targeting should enable single shot targeting with high probability of success. Multiple reusable interceptors seems like a better solution than expendable. At the same build rate, the number of interceptors per incoming drone will grow over time, instead of maintaining equivalence.
I think the current interceptors are optimized for one way attack - just enough flight time to catch the target and detonate. Any extra systems (such as guns or recovery hardware) make the interceptor more expensive.
Also these kamikaze drones are not flying in huge flocks like WW2 bomber that tried to cover each other with machine guns - even if a gun armed interceptor shoots one down, it might not be able to intercept another during the raid.
Some bigger, L-39 sized jet drones on the other hand could be quite capable, possibly launching separate one-way interceptors on top of guns.
More moving parts would mean a much more complex system which would heighten maintenance cost and likely lower successful interceptions per working system significantly.
I'm sure the Ukrainians can draw two curves and see where they intercept
I've wondered the same thing. After watching the footage of some of these drone intercepts I realized the camera view interceptors are very erratic. My guess is that shooting a drone down from another cheap interceptor drone is just too difficult to do reliably. I understand that the cost of the interceptors are preferable than the cost of letting them hit their targets, and I understand that they are still an order of magnitude cheaper than the long-range Geran drones they are shooting down.
Given that they show footage of men shooting down similar drones from airplanes, perhaps they can eventually build a larger more stable platform with a more reliable aim using projectiles.
I also wondered the same until I saw that Rheinmetall produced that type of defense system you describe (I think in 2024 or so). And I think that except for Rheinmetall, nobody gives them this type of weapon (seems other countries have something similar), but it's probably a handful of them deployed in maybe very few locations.
I don't think it's that simple to build it, otherwise they would have all done it.
The problem with that is that behind the Rheinmetall brand name it's actually made by Switzerland's former Oerlikon before the Rheinmetall acquisition, and Switzerland doesn't sell military gear to countries currently at war due to its neutrality status. So for Ukraine it might as well be vaporware as they aint getting it (officially).
The original drone design was based on prop driven shaheed drones, which were both supplied directly by Iran as well as being manufactured (and further developed) in Russia.
Calling it a propaganda twist ignores how the thing came to be.
Ok, but Iran's Shahed drone design is not indigenous either, but based on a German drone design from the 1980s[1] which Germany never deployed because the Cold War ended soon after, but Iran found a use for such a design.
Everyone keeps iterating on someone else's previous work. That's how it works.
I figure this is to support the faith that Russia is running out of ordinance, which holds strong since the spring of 2022, when it was first proclaimed [1]. So Russia has to use Iranian drones and missiles, Korean shells, and even some tyres off Alibaba on their vehicles [2].
This is outdated, sensational misinformation. Ukraine has already tested a new type of unnamed high-speed interceptor (with a unique center crosshair icon) and has the video to prove it has taken down Geran-5.
What's difficult for Ukraine to stop is Geran-5 manufacturing that is expanding and going deep underground, and 1.6T RUB ($25B USD) will be invested in this sector this year.
Its really depressing watching Ukraine get ragged by a larger nation while all its neighbors sit on the sidelines and watch. Deploy troops to Ukraine it wont trigger nuclear war.
You have no other option, really. If you play chicken, you open yourself up to endless blackmail. If you're going to take a stand eventually, it's better to do it sooner than later, because if your adversary knows that you will eventually draw a line, allowing them to discover that line gradually encourages further pressure on you. Establishing the boundary early makes the threat more credible and reduces the incentive to test it.
Putin isnt going to nuke over a defensive deployment of troops. As long as they dont cross over into russia its not an escalation. He has already broken this line by bringing in NK troops and EU spec ops have broken this line by operating in ukraine the past 4 years.
Is not the whole plan to put troops as meat shields and hope that Russia will be afraid to attack them? So yeah, Putin won't nuke countries that deployed troops but those troops are going to become targets as same as Ukrainian troops and mercenaries are now. And then what? Send more troops? More of the same result. Retaliatory strike on Russia? Nuke.
The more people on a front the harder it is to push. Currently ukraine is covering the entire front on their own. Having NATO troops to reinforce their lines would allow them to rotate more often and would change the calculation for russia. Currently russia knows that there isnt many people on a front and it can be broken. If they knew that NATO was there adding another 500k active troops the calculation of attrition would be in ukraines favor.
If Ukraine and russia can bare the losses there is no reason why NATO cant.
You'd need the US and Turkey to send troops to get anywhere close to 500k. EU and UK might get 200k if they sent everyone capable.
> the calculation of attrition would be in ukraines favor.
I thought it already is, has not Zelensky recently said that Russia lost 1.6M vs Ukraine's 450k (and 700k vs 50k dead)?
>If Ukraine and russia can bare the losses there is no reason why NATO cant.
Very profound. I wonder if you can find not 500k but 5k NATO troops who could draw the borders of Ukraine or Russia on a map. Yet they will find no reason not to die over it? Okay.
France, Germany, UK alone have 500k + another 200k from poland. 500k doesnt mean you have to deploy 500k to ukraine. Just make it known that ukraine has that pool available to draw from. Even a deployment of 50k and equipment would change the tides significantly.
On the matter of attrition its not in ukraines favor at all. I follow it very closely and its closer to 1m to 1.5m. Russia can sustain far greater losses. They have a much deeper pool to draw from where as ukraine has already called up and drafted a lot of their able bodied men.
The propaganda makes it look closer than it is because we want to see ukraine winning but dont take that as thinking they dont need help.
That is a count of active military for 3 nations. A deployment would never consist of only "combat troops" so you are nitpicking to try and save your point.
Oh, I see. Hundreds of thousands of various bureaucrats, secretaries, and other kinds of "active troops", who "serve" 9 to 5 in an air conditioned office is what going to change the balance on the front. Go for it, I hope you succeed in persuading your government to send those.
There's no way western militaries would just add troops to the front. If we're fighting a war with Russia - regardless of where it is - it would be no holds barred. And just adding more troops to the front is not the way an advanced tech-heavy loss-averse western military would do it.
The only way western troops are deployed en-mass inside Ukraine is as a peace guarantee with some level of Russian agreement. The moment there's footage of British/French/German troops getting hunted down by drones, the public will be crying for direct strikes into Russia and it'll be WW3.
42 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 41.5 ms ] threadUkraine needs Patriot or an equivalent air to ground capability, but those are extremely expensive.
It sounds like the prop-driven shaheds were being intercepted with prop-driven drones piloted manually? I suppose that shows the relevant technology for guidance has been kept secret enough that it's not instantly being cloned, or is more expensive than human operators.
Also I expect similar Ukrainian adaptation using some sort of jet propulsion or even rocket assistance to counter them. Not to mention getting a jet powered response in the Russian direction.
Patriots and similar SAM/ABMs are best reserved for intercepting ballistic missiles rather than frittering them away pointlessly like the current US regime.
My guess is the Ukrainians will put a rocket on their interceptor drones, and develop some sort of radar or heat seeking guidance system. Perhaps we'll end up with an interesting hybrid interceptor missile that uses electric propulsion for part of the journey?
Also these kamikaze drones are not flying in huge flocks like WW2 bomber that tried to cover each other with machine guns - even if a gun armed interceptor shoots one down, it might not be able to intercept another during the raid.
Some bigger, L-39 sized jet drones on the other hand could be quite capable, possibly launching separate one-way interceptors on top of guns.
I'm sure the Ukrainians can draw two curves and see where they intercept
Given that they show footage of men shooting down similar drones from airplanes, perhaps they can eventually build a larger more stable platform with a more reliable aim using projectiles.
I don't think it's that simple to build it, otherwise they would have all done it.
Edit: it's called rheinmetall skyranger.
The problem with that is that behind the Rheinmetall brand name it's actually made by Switzerland's former Oerlikon before the Rheinmetall acquisition, and Switzerland doesn't sell military gear to countries currently at war due to its neutrality status. So for Ukraine it might as well be vaporware as they aint getting it (officially).
Calling it Shahed is a very weird propaganda twist.
Calling it a propaganda twist ignores how the thing came to be.
Everyone keeps iterating on someone else's previous work. That's how it works.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drohne-Anti-Radar
The latest jet drones being discussed in this article have nothing in common with Shaheds at all.
1. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1573535/russia-running-out-of-...
2. https://www.tyrepress.com/2022/03/are-tyre-issues-hampering-...
What's difficult for Ukraine to stop is Geran-5 manufacturing that is expanding and going deep underground, and 1.6T RUB ($25B USD) will be invested in this sector this year.
Given the relative sizes of the economies involved, that's still perfectly fine.
Next to the cost of the aviation program for providing the platform to launch those from, it likely hardly registers.
I’m not as eager as you are to test the resolve of Putin re: nuclear weapons. Once the button is pressed, the game is over for everyone.
If Ukraine and russia can bare the losses there is no reason why NATO cant.
> the calculation of attrition would be in ukraines favor.
I thought it already is, has not Zelensky recently said that Russia lost 1.6M vs Ukraine's 450k (and 700k vs 50k dead)?
>If Ukraine and russia can bare the losses there is no reason why NATO cant.
Very profound. I wonder if you can find not 500k but 5k NATO troops who could draw the borders of Ukraine or Russia on a map. Yet they will find no reason not to die over it? Okay.
On the matter of attrition its not in ukraines favor at all. I follow it very closely and its closer to 1m to 1.5m. Russia can sustain far greater losses. They have a much deeper pool to draw from where as ukraine has already called up and drafted a lot of their able bodied men.
The propaganda makes it look closer than it is because we want to see ukraine winning but dont take that as thinking they dont need help.
You seem to believe that the entire armed forces consists of combat troops. This explains your ideas very well.
The only way western troops are deployed en-mass inside Ukraine is as a peace guarantee with some level of Russian agreement. The moment there's footage of British/French/German troops getting hunted down by drones, the public will be crying for direct strikes into Russia and it'll be WW3.
Most Eastern European nations agreed on the first month of the war - Ukraine needs long-range weapons.
Russia must be stopped.