[Goose]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1748943717992628713?s=20

A night of presumed Ukrainian drone strikes across Russia. Russian media report that the Ust Luga oil and gas port near St Petersburg is on fire, and a hit on a plant making air-defense systems in Tula. Footage from Russian Telegram channels.

Ukrainian drone strikes on multiple strategic locations earlier today. Russia has concentrated their air defenses on the front, they remain vulnerable to low tech long range Ukrainian drones in their rear.

Russia has indeed transferred lots of their air defense from around the entire country to areas around Ukraine. There are some issues that make defense against this kind of attack almost impossible, no matter how the air defenses are distributed.

First, almost all air defense was designed to counter aircraft and (maybe) cruise missiles. Small drones were never considered a "problem". Even the Iranian Shahed 136 and similar were not "on the table". These drones are small targets with a relatively small radar cross section. They fly low and relatively slowly. Due to the radar horizon of ground based radars these drones need to pass close to the radar to be seen at all. Their low radar cross section and low speed (therefore low Doppler) make them very hard to detect. This reduces the air defense "long range detection" radius to about a 15 nm circle. They all become "point defense" weapons. Consider how many air defense weapons it would take to defend every "important" thing in a country like Russia or Ukraine if you have to be within a 15 mile radius of the radar. It is clearly impossible, especially with expensive systems like Patriot or the S-400. That is why the Gepard is in demand by Ukraine. It is small, relatively "cheap", and plentiful. It's radar isn't all that great, but given the geometry being the limiting factor, it is "serviceable". Still way too few such systems to really make a dent.

The only practical way to defend against such attacks is an AWACS that is looking down on the battle space and a bunch of aircraft forming a BARCAP. The AWACS has to turn down the lower limit of it's digital moving target indicator, but it can do that. It can then vector fighters to attack the low-flying drones. The low speed of the drones allows a single fast-mover to take out several of them across pretty widely spaced areas. Shades of WW II and the V-1. Very similar problem. It won't be much fun, flying close to the ground a lot, but it would work. Neither Ukraine nor (apparently) Russia has the wherewithal to do this.

The best countermeasure is of course a drone swarm, where the BARCAP becomes overloaded. However, launching such a swarm has it's own problems. 5 or 10 drones won't do it.

....

The fact they saw the tank only "very close" shows they didn't have info from the drone, the infantry they were supporting, or the other Bradley. They were surprised, and in a Bradley your job is to ensure it is the other way around.

I'm not sure I'd interpret his statement that way. They knew there was a Bradley that had engaged the tank beforehand, so they knew at least some information. I took it to mean they finally got visuals on the tank only at close range, after being ordered to engage it and knowing it's rough location. Certainly from the video of the engagement it does not look like they were surprised by the location of the tank.

The response I saw was the trained response to a "meeting engagement". You are possibly quite surprised but the training takes over. The point is that finally getting visuals at close range is exactly what a Bradley is not supposed to let happen. You have a better thermal sight than the T-90 has. You should see them first. Of course, stuff happens, but your skill as a Bradley operator is to make that not happen. Note that these Bradleys are not "scout tracks" (M-3). The training these guys got probably didn't emphasize detecting the enemy as a "primary" mission. However, that is how they are being used.

Definitely they were freaked out to engage a tank at close range though. I thought it was interesting the gunner credited his video game instincts with his success at blinding the tank with the HE rounds, knowing how and where to hit it.

The first Bradley wasn't a mobility kill, you could see it engage the tank and then leave the battle before the second Bradley came in to engage.

This 1st Bradley was the one that nearly got hit.

If he was fully intact, why did he leave? He was in no worse position than the second Bradly eventually was. It is generally considered that a Bradley running from a tank is in a worse position than one that stands and fights (assuming there is no nearby cover). Of course, one might wonder why the Russian Tank didn't just kill it. There may have been infantry nearby that we can't see in the videos.  That may have made the Russians nervous. They may not have wanted to run onto a Javelin or similar "trap".

The second Bradley I'm not sure was on the receiving end of any close shots from the tank.

IMO you are correct. I saw one apparent tank round that was well "short" and off line. A typical reaction from a tank crew that is caught in a meeting engagement and doesn't react appropriately. A big contrast to how the Bradley crew reacted. They were "on target" with their first round. Of course, they have a better sight :-). Seriously though, all the Russian crew needed to do is behave in a halfway professional manner, realize the Bradley can't kill them with 25mm, take a breath and blow them up. Obviously a very "bad" crew.

Here is a nice closer video of that part of the engagement where the 2nd Bradley is engaging with HE rounds. At the end you can see an ERA block catch fire and explode, Goose was correct this was not an active countermeasure.

https://x.com/GloOouD/status/1747741801451045078?s=20

For some reason the link doesn't work for me. I get a "not found". Would like to see it though!

....

And this seems pretty important for long term purposes.

 Remarkable Ukrainian success over the last few months: grain sea exports are closing in on pre-war levels.

Four companies are providing insurance including at least one British one. Rates have dropped from 7% to 1.25% of cargo value

https://x.com/DAlperovitch/status/174801...85417?s=20

I agree this is really great news, in so far as it is accurate. Given that a lot of grain is now going to the EU by rail and truck (thus the protests) I can't see how the sea shipments could reach "pre-war" levels, but even if they are close, that is great. The insurance rates tell the tale. When they drop to the world "mean", that will be even more impressive!

[Goose]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1748943717992628713?s=20

A night of presumed Ukrainian drone strikes across Russia. Russian media report that the Ust Luga oil and gas port near St Petersburg is on fire, and a hit on a plant making air-defense systems in Tula. Footage from Russian Telegram channels.

Ukrainian drone strikes on multiple strategic locations earlier today. Russia has concentrated their air defenses on the front, they remain vulnerable to low tech long range Ukrainian drones in their rear.

Russia has indeed transferred lots of their air defense from around the entire country to areas around Ukraine. There are some issues that make defense against this kind of attack almost impossible, no matter how the air defenses are distributed.

First, almost all air defense was designed to counter aircraft and (maybe) cruise missiles. Small drones were never considered a "problem". Even the Iranian Shahed 136 and similar were not "on the table". These drones are small targets with a relatively small radar cross section. They fly low and relatively slowly. Due to the radar horizon of ground based radars these drones need to pass close to the radar to be seen at all. Their low radar cross section and low speed (therefore low Doppler) make them very hard to detect. This reduces the air defense "long range detection" radius to about a 15 nm circle. They all become "point defense" weapons. Consider how many air defense weapons it would take to defend every "important" thing in a country like Russia or Ukraine if you have to be within a 15 mile radius of the radar. It is clearly impossible, especially with expensive systems like Patriot or the S-400. That is why the Gepard is in demand by Ukraine. It is small, relatively "cheap", and plentiful. It's radar isn't all that great, but given the geometry being the limiting factor, it is "serviceable". Still way too few such systems to really make a dent.

The only practical way to defend against such attacks is an AWACS that is looking down on the battle space and a bunch of aircraft forming a BARCAP. The AWACS has to turn down the lower limit of it's digital moving target indicator, but it can do that. It can then vector fighters to attack the low-flying drones. The low speed of the drones allows a single fast-mover to take out several of them across pretty widely spaced areas. Shades of WW II and the V-1. Very similar problem. It won't be much fun, flying close to the ground a lot, but it would work. Neither Ukraine nor (apparently) Russia has the wherewithal to do this.

The best countermeasure is of course a drone swarm, where the BARCAP becomes overloaded. However, launching such a swarm has it's own problems. 5 or 10 drones won't do it.

....

The fact they saw the tank only "very close" shows they didn't have info from the drone, the infantry they were supporting, or the other Bradley. They were surprised, and in a Bradley your job is to ensure it is the other way around.

I'm not sure I'd interpret his statement that way. They knew there was a Bradley that had engaged the tank beforehand, so they knew at least some information. I took it to mean they finally got visuals on the tank only at close range, after being ordered to engage it and knowing it's rough location. Certainly from the video of the engagement it does not look like they were surprised by the location of the tank.

The response I saw was the trained response to a "meeting engagement". You are possibly quite surprised but the training takes over. The point is that finally getting visuals at close range is exactly what a Bradley is not supposed to let happen. You have a better thermal sight than the T-90 has. You should see them first. Of course, stuff happens, but your skill as a Bradley operator is to make that not happen. Note that these Bradleys are not "scout tracks" (M-3). The training these guys got probably didn't emphasize detecting the enemy as a "primary" mission. However, that is how they are being used.

Definitely they were freaked out to engage a tank at close range though. I thought it was interesting the gunner credited his video game instincts with his success at blinding the tank with the HE rounds, knowing how and where to hit it.

The first Bradley wasn't a mobility kill, you could see it engage the tank and then leave the battle before the second Bradley came in to engage.

This 1st Bradley was the one that nearly got hit.

If he was fully intact, why did he leave? He was in no worse position than the second Bradly eventually was. It is generally considered that a Bradley running from a tank is in a worse position than one that stands and fights (assuming there is no nearby cover). Of course, one might wonder why the Russian Tank didn't just kill it. There may have been infantry nearby that we can't see in the videos.  That may have made the Russians nervous. They may not have wanted to run onto a Javelin or similar "trap".

The second Bradley I'm not sure was on the receiving end of any close shots from the tank.

IMO you are correct. I saw one apparent tank round that was well "short" and off line. A typical reaction from a tank crew that is caught in a meeting engagement and doesn't react appropriately. A big contrast to how the Bradley crew reacted. They were "on target" with their first round. Of course, they have a better sight :-). Seriously though, all the Russian crew needed to do is behave in a halfway professional manner, realize the Bradley can't kill them with 25mm, take a breath and blow them up. Obviously a very "bad" crew.

Here is a nice closer video of that part of the engagement where the 2nd Bradley is engaging with HE rounds. At the end you can see an ERA block catch fire and explode, Goose was correct this was not an active countermeasure.

https://x.com/GloOouD/status/1747741801451045078?s=20

For some reason the link doesn't work for me. I get a "not found". Would like to see it though!

....

And this seems pretty important for long term purposes.

 Remarkable Ukrainian success over the last few months: grain sea exports are closing in on pre-war levels.

Four companies are providing insurance including at least one British one. Rates have dropped from 7% to 1.25% of cargo value

https://x.com/DAlperovitch/status/174801...85417?s=20

I agree this is really great news, in so far as it is accurate. Given that a lot of grain is now going to the EU by rail and truck (thus the protests) I can't see how the sea shipments could reach "pre-war" levels, but even if they are close, that is great. The insurance rates tell the tale. When they drop to the world "mean", that will be even more impressive!