[M T]

The article mentions utility against day-flying drones. What about IR detection of drones at night?  I always thought an internal combustion engine would be very easily spotted with IR. Only the gunner would need to use IR.

[M T]

The article mentions utility against day-flying drones. What about IR detection of drones at night?  I always thought an internal combustion engine would be very easily spotted with IR. Only the gunner would need to use IR.

[Goose]

The article mentions utility against day-flying drones. What about IR detection of drones at night?  I always thought an internal combustion engine would be very easily spotted with IR. Only the gunner would need to use IR.

The pilot would need IR to fly the gunner close enough to the drone to hit it. This could be accomplished by wearing NVGs. Unfortunately the "range" of such devices is on the order of 600 meters. This is "detection" range, not "recognition range". To actually look for drones at any distance one needs something like this : https://www.flir.com/products/ranger-hdc...rveillance. Finding a target with these types of FLIR is possible but not NEARLY as easy as during daylight. The narrow field of view makes initially detecting them difficult. They may indeed be very "bright" targets, but you have to notice them through a somewhat small aperture. I am pretty sure Ukraine looked at what was required and said "maybe later". Operating at night also greatly increases "losses due to operation". Just finding your way "home" across a darkened landscape can be a challenge. I imagine all navaids have been shut down. GPS may or may not be working, etc.

[Goose]

The article mentions utility against day-flying drones. What about IR detection of drones at night?  I always thought an internal combustion engine would be very easily spotted with IR. Only the gunner would need to use IR.

The pilot would need IR to fly the gunner close enough to the drone to hit it. This could be accomplished by wearing NVGs. Unfortunately the "range" of such devices is on the order of 600 meters. This is "detection" range, not "recognition range". To actually look for drones at any distance one needs something like this : https://www.flir.com/products/ranger-hdc...rveillance. Finding a target with these types of FLIR is possible but not NEARLY as easy as during daylight. The narrow field of view makes initially detecting them difficult. They may indeed be very "bright" targets, but you have to notice them through a somewhat small aperture. I am pretty sure Ukraine looked at what was required and said "maybe later". Operating at night also greatly increases "losses due to operation". Just finding your way "home" across a darkened landscape can be a challenge. I imagine all navaids have been shut down. GPS may or may not be working, etc.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-defea...27034.html

Covers the situation pretty well, nothing totally "new" here but the article is a good TL;DR summary. I do like his suggestion that the US send some older E-2s and F-16s to Ukraine. Hie suggestion to remove them from the boneyard and refurbish them is IMO misguided. We are currently retiring both F-16s and E-2Cs. Both are are still in production and very maintainable. No reason to "refurbish" anything.

The one thing in the document that is incorrect is the implication that Patriots are used to shoot down glide bombs. I am pretty sure that is not true. That would be very difficult and a waste of a very expensive and tactically valuable missile. Shooting down the launch aircraft is the way to go, and as that has happened. Presumably with more missiles available and no constraints on attacking into Russia it will happen more.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-defea...27034.html

Covers the situation pretty well, nothing totally "new" here but the article is a good TL;DR summary. I do like his suggestion that the US send some older E-2s and F-16s to Ukraine. Hie suggestion to remove them from the boneyard and refurbish them is IMO misguided. We are currently retiring both F-16s and E-2Cs. Both are are still in production and very maintainable. No reason to "refurbish" anything.

The one thing in the document that is incorrect is the implication that Patriots are used to shoot down glide bombs. I am pretty sure that is not true. That would be very difficult and a waste of a very expensive and tactically valuable missile. Shooting down the launch aircraft is the way to go, and as that has happened. Presumably with more missiles available and no constraints on attacking into Russia it will happen more.

[Treefence]

This seems like it could be a pretty big deal if it happens.  

https://www.ft.com/content/1c938d86-ab11...02bf9b4dda

[Treefence]

This seems like it could be a pretty big deal if it happens.  

https://www.ft.com/content/1c938d86-ab11...02bf9b4dda

[M T]

This seems like it could be a pretty big deal if it happens.  

https://www.ft.com/content/1c938d86-ab11...02bf9b4dda

Paywalled. Here’s a no-paywall reference to that article
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-...r-BB1p1bWv


Related from 3 months back 
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05/isra...s-step-up/

[M T]

This seems like it could be a pretty big deal if it happens.  

https://www.ft.com/content/1c938d86-ab11...02bf9b4dda

Paywalled. Here’s a no-paywall reference to that article
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-...r-BB1p1bWv


Related from 3 months back 
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05/isra...s-step-up/

[Goose]

This seems like it could be a pretty big deal if it happens.  

https://www.ft.com/content/1c938d86-ab11...02bf9b4dda

Paywalled. Here’s a no-paywall reference to that article
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-...r-BB1p1bWv


Related from 3 months back 
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05/isra...s-step-up/

I am just guessing that formally Israel will "sell" the slightly used Patriots to the US (diminishing the bill for the weapons we are supplying them) and then the US would transfer them to Ukraine. That way Israel can say with a straight face they didn't send weapons to Ukraine. Also guessing there was some serious quid pro quo going on from both Israel and the US. I really hope this happens. These Patriots aren't ideal anti-missile weapons but they can be relatively forward deployed and mess up the VKS pretty badly. The only bad thing about that would be it might convince the VKS they have to get serious about SEAD. Hopefully the war will end before that happens.

[Goose]

This seems like it could be a pretty big deal if it happens.  

https://www.ft.com/content/1c938d86-ab11...02bf9b4dda

Paywalled. Here’s a no-paywall reference to that article
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-...r-BB1p1bWv


Related from 3 months back 
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05/isra...s-step-up/

I am just guessing that formally Israel will "sell" the slightly used Patriots to the US (diminishing the bill for the weapons we are supplying them) and then the US would transfer them to Ukraine. That way Israel can say with a straight face they didn't send weapons to Ukraine. Also guessing there was some serious quid pro quo going on from both Israel and the US. I really hope this happens. These Patriots aren't ideal anti-missile weapons but they can be relatively forward deployed and mess up the VKS pretty badly. The only bad thing about that would be it might convince the VKS they have to get serious about SEAD. Hopefully the war will end before that happens.

[dabigv13]

Interesting footage from viewpoint of Russian likely special forces in Vovchansk. 

https://x.com/moklasen/status/1807176918317330857

Per open source maps, they are advancing from the edge of assessed Russian held territory to grey zone in Vovchansk. The lines have been static here for sometime, but interesting that Russia is still employing some of their best units here.

[dabigv13]

Interesting footage from viewpoint of Russian likely special forces in Vovchansk. 

https://x.com/moklasen/status/1807176918317330857

Per open source maps, they are advancing from the edge of assessed Russian held territory to grey zone in Vovchansk. The lines have been static here for sometime, but interesting that Russia is still employing some of their best units here.

[GK3]

I ran across an article on Russia and the war in Ukraine and found one paragraph pretty interesting.  I had never looked at the problem this way.  I would be interested in whether the theory holds any water.

https://theconversation.com/russias-econ...c%20growth.

The paragraph of interest is the one that war is one that Russia CANNOT AFFORD TO WIN. (my caps).  The thought that Russia got itself into a war that it cannot afford to win is a very unique view of the economic effect the war has on the Russian Economy. 

The artidle linked immediately below this paragraph is also interesting.  I would also be interested in opinions on whether the source of these documents, the "Conversation" can be considered at least a reasonably accurate source of thought on the problems. So much is written regarding this conflict, one loses track of which sources have any credence.

[GK3]

I ran across an article on Russia and the war in Ukraine and found one paragraph pretty interesting.  I had never looked at the problem this way.  I would be interested in whether the theory holds any water.

https://theconversation.com/russias-econ...c%20growth.

The paragraph of interest is the one that war is one that Russia CANNOT AFFORD TO WIN. (my caps).  The thought that Russia got itself into a war that it cannot afford to win is a very unique view of the economic effect the war has on the Russian Economy. 

The artidle linked immediately below this paragraph is also interesting.  I would also be interested in opinions on whether the source of these documents, the "Conversation" can be considered at least a reasonably accurate source of thought on the problems. So much is written regarding this conflict, one loses track of which sources have any credence.

[TrumpCard]

I don't have an opinion on the overall thesis that Russia "can't afford to lose," but I want to write a note on the means this article uses to measure growth.  GDP -- which is the worldwide standard for measuring economic growth -- is supposed to measure a country's productivity.  Not all productivity, however, is equal.  Countries want to be productive in ways that make people's lives better, such as by generating new and useful technologies or by manufacturing goods that people use or by growing more and better agricultural products.  A country still gets credit for GDP, however, even when the country focuses its productivity on manufacturing bombs and other things that don't improve lives.  Sometimes such investments in the military are necessary to preserve a country's way of life by deterring or defeating enemies who pose threats, but I do not see any reason that countries should think of an investment in the military as an end in itself.  These days, Russia is getting credit for economic growth when it pays soldiers to lie in frozen trenches, which isn't exactly the kind of "growth" that will make Russia a good place to live.  I don't know what would happen to Russia's economy if the government were to prevail against Ukraine, but I do know that a "forever war" would not be a good outcome for Russia.

[TrumpCard]

I don't have an opinion on the overall thesis that Russia "can't afford to lose," but I want to write a note on the means this article uses to measure growth.  GDP -- which is the worldwide standard for measuring economic growth -- is supposed to measure a country's productivity.  Not all productivity, however, is equal.  Countries want to be productive in ways that make people's lives better, such as by generating new and useful technologies or by manufacturing goods that people use or by growing more and better agricultural products.  A country still gets credit for GDP, however, even when the country focuses its productivity on manufacturing bombs and other things that don't improve lives.  Sometimes such investments in the military are necessary to preserve a country's way of life by deterring or defeating enemies who pose threats, but I do not see any reason that countries should think of an investment in the military as an end in itself.  These days, Russia is getting credit for economic growth when it pays soldiers to lie in frozen trenches, which isn't exactly the kind of "growth" that will make Russia a good place to live.  I don't know what would happen to Russia's economy if the government were to prevail against Ukraine, but I do know that a "forever war" would not be a good outcome for Russia.

[M T]

The question was raised about the trust one might have in a particular website. That is an appropriate concern over a site you aren’t familiar with. 

This BBC article
A Bugatti car, a first lady and the fake stories aimed at Americans
Highlights one apparently pro-Russian network spreading disinformation. (Nothing to do with the site that was asked about here)

in the face of the possibility of misinformation, especially around the claims by differing sides in a war, and now with ever increasing intentional disinformation, the BBC has instituted BBC Verify to validate asserted information. 

In this article, they report on how the disinformation is being spread, including by fake news sites. One of these is called “The Houston Post”. That was the name of the morning paper when I grew up but has been out of business for a long time. But before I saw this article, I would have thought it was a legitimate site, based on its name. 

The article points out some stories that try to associate US military spending and Ukrainian corruption but goes on to assert that they are also trying to influence elections. 


Btw, I like the term “information laundering”

[M T]

The question was raised about the trust one might have in a particular website. That is an appropriate concern over a site you aren’t familiar with. 

This BBC article
A Bugatti car, a first lady and the fake stories aimed at Americans
Highlights one apparently pro-Russian network spreading disinformation. (Nothing to do with the site that was asked about here)

in the face of the possibility of misinformation, especially around the claims by differing sides in a war, and now with ever increasing intentional disinformation, the BBC has instituted BBC Verify to validate asserted information. 

In this article, they report on how the disinformation is being spread, including by fake news sites. One of these is called “The Houston Post”. That was the name of the morning paper when I grew up but has been out of business for a long time. But before I saw this article, I would have thought it was a legitimate site, based on its name. 

The article points out some stories that try to associate US military spending and Ukrainian corruption but goes on to assert that they are also trying to influence elections. 


Btw, I like the term “information laundering”

[GK3]

The question was raised about the trust one might have in a particular website. That is an appropriate concern over a site you aren’t familiar with. 

This BBC article
A Bugatti car, a first lady and the fake stories aimed at Americans
Highlights one apparently pro-Russian network spreading disinformation. (Nothing to do with the site that was asked about here)

in the face of the possibility of misinformation, especially around the claims by differing sides in a war, and now with ever increasing intentional disinformation, the BBC has instituted BBC Verify to validate asserted information. 

In this article, they report on how the disinformation is being spread, including by fake news sites. One of these is called “The Houston Post”. That was the name of the morning paper when I grew up but has been out of business for a long time. But before I saw this article, I would have thought it was a legitimate site, based on its name. 


The article points out some stories that try to associate US military spending and Ukrainian corruption but goes on to assert that they are also trying to influence elections. 


Btw, I like the term “information laundering”

Thanks for the story link and comments.  I assume that the advances in AI have made misinformation and even more refined and potentially dangerous activity.
This NYT story highlights just how widespread the problem is: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/techn...roops.html

Clearly the popularity of certain social media platforms makes it easier.  It is from my point a problem we need to be really concerned about.  Too many people will believe anything that remotely supports their beliefs on particular issues and make no effort to find out if the information is correct.
When I think back to when I graduated from Stanford, you had nascent TV, printed materials like newspapers and magazines and AM/FM radio. No computers, no internet, at least accessible to the public.  Now the misinformation can be created and published almost instantly.  
Russia has a long history of using misinformation, originally just to control and manage their population. 
So I have to ask is the problem even manageable? I suppose you can take the approach of some countries and severely control internet access but I am not sure that even works any longer. 
It is indeed a brave new world.

[GK3]

The question was raised about the trust one might have in a particular website. That is an appropriate concern over a site you aren’t familiar with. 

This BBC article
A Bugatti car, a first lady and the fake stories aimed at Americans
Highlights one apparently pro-Russian network spreading disinformation. (Nothing to do with the site that was asked about here)

in the face of the possibility of misinformation, especially around the claims by differing sides in a war, and now with ever increasing intentional disinformation, the BBC has instituted BBC Verify to validate asserted information. 

In this article, they report on how the disinformation is being spread, including by fake news sites. One of these is called “The Houston Post”. That was the name of the morning paper when I grew up but has been out of business for a long time. But before I saw this article, I would have thought it was a legitimate site, based on its name. 


The article points out some stories that try to associate US military spending and Ukrainian corruption but goes on to assert that they are also trying to influence elections. 


Btw, I like the term “information laundering”

Thanks for the story link and comments.  I assume that the advances in AI have made misinformation and even more refined and potentially dangerous activity.
This NYT story highlights just how widespread the problem is: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/techn...roops.html

Clearly the popularity of certain social media platforms makes it easier.  It is from my point a problem we need to be really concerned about.  Too many people will believe anything that remotely supports their beliefs on particular issues and make no effort to find out if the information is correct.
When I think back to when I graduated from Stanford, you had nascent TV, printed materials like newspapers and magazines and AM/FM radio. No computers, no internet, at least accessible to the public.  Now the misinformation can be created and published almost instantly.  
Russia has a long history of using misinformation, originally just to control and manage their population. 
So I have to ask is the problem even manageable? I suppose you can take the approach of some countries and severely control internet access but I am not sure that even works any longer. 
It is indeed a brave new world.

[M T]

Ukraine calls them meat assaults: Russia's brutal plan to take ground
Nothing new to Cardboarders - Russia throwing wave after wave of people at well defended positions, losing 1200 a day.

Ukraine releases thousands of prisoners so they can join fight against Russia

Ukraine has taken the tactic of Russia but presumably not sending them in waves to get slaughtered. This was about 3000.  Total available is about 27,000.

[M T]

Ukraine calls them meat assaults: Russia's brutal plan to take ground
Nothing new to Cardboarders - Russia throwing wave after wave of people at well defended positions, losing 1200 a day.

Ukraine releases thousands of prisoners so they can join fight against Russia

Ukraine has taken the tactic of Russia but presumably not sending them in waves to get slaughtered. This was about 3000.  Total available is about 27,000.

[TrumpCard]

Some sweeping changes in the British and French governments over the last week or so.  Starmer says the UK's policies towards Ukraine won't change.  Bardella won't send French military trainers to Ukraine, but folks here have minimized the value of such aid anyway.  Bardella also won't send long range missiles to Ukraine, but again, that aid seems replaceable.  The bigger issues with France will be the extent of monetary aid and the extent of support for aid from NATO and/or the EU.  As far as I can tell, those are open issues, but if you all have seen statements from the new government, please do post them here.  Thanks!

[TrumpCard]

Some sweeping changes in the British and French governments over the last week or so.  Starmer says the UK's policies towards Ukraine won't change.  Bardella won't send French military trainers to Ukraine, but folks here have minimized the value of such aid anyway.  Bardella also won't send long range missiles to Ukraine, but again, that aid seems replaceable.  The bigger issues with France will be the extent of monetary aid and the extent of support for aid from NATO and/or the EU.  As far as I can tell, those are open issues, but if you all have seen statements from the new government, please do post them here.  Thanks!

[M T]

I’m concerned as well about Orban. I don’t know what powers the rotating presidency of the EU has. He has already shown he wants Russia to overtake Ukraine. 

Do you feel like we’re seeing the formation of a 21st century Axis powers?

[M T]

I’m concerned as well about Orban. I don’t know what powers the rotating presidency of the EU has. He has already shown he wants Russia to overtake Ukraine. 

Do you feel like we’re seeing the formation of a 21st century Axis powers?

[TrumpCard]

I’m concerned as well about Orban. I don’t know what powers the rotating presidency of the EU has. He has already shown he wants Russia to overtake Ukraine. 

Do you feel like we’re seeing the formation of a 21st century Axis powers?

Interesting question.  I don't think the Axis powers were much of an alliance until WWII started, and even then, they were not well coordinated.  The mutual assistance, but lack of full coordination, between several aggressive nations seems similar to what's happening now with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.  A key difference, however, is that Russia is the only country currently trying to take territory from a neighbor.  (China asserting control over parts of the South China Sea seems different in kind, but I acknowledge it may be a precursor to more aggressive acts in the future.)  If we see the other countries attacking a neighbor, then we'll know that we should have worried more.  (It does seem that we're always reacting to threats instead of preparing for them in advance.)

[TrumpCard]

I’m concerned as well about Orban. I don’t know what powers the rotating presidency of the EU has. He has already shown he wants Russia to overtake Ukraine. 

Do you feel like we’re seeing the formation of a 21st century Axis powers?

Interesting question.  I don't think the Axis powers were much of an alliance until WWII started, and even then, they were not well coordinated.  The mutual assistance, but lack of full coordination, between several aggressive nations seems similar to what's happening now with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.  A key difference, however, is that Russia is the only country currently trying to take territory from a neighbor.  (China asserting control over parts of the South China Sea seems different in kind, but I acknowledge it may be a precursor to more aggressive acts in the future.)  If we see the other countries attacking a neighbor, then we'll know that we should have worried more.  (It does seem that we're always reacting to threats instead of preparing for them in advance.)

[gocard14]

https://apnews.com/article/iran-navy-des...58c6fc3711

Interesting. An Iranian destroyer capsized/sank in port. I can think of several countries that would find this an appropriate response for enabling Houthis to disrupt global shipping.

[gocard14]

https://apnews.com/article/iran-navy-des...58c6fc3711

Interesting. An Iranian destroyer capsized/sank in port. I can think of several countries that would find this an appropriate response for enabling Houthis to disrupt global shipping.

[Goose]

https://apnews.com/article/iran-navy-des...58c6fc3711

Interesting. An Iranian destroyer capsized/sank in port. I can think of several countries that would find this an appropriate response for enabling Houthis to disrupt global shipping.

IMO this is a "We should be so lucky" situation. The "destroyer" in question was ancient and actually dangerous to all that sailed in her. She had recently been damaged yet again. I think the country that did it was Iran with their typical good seamanship and Naval practices :-).

[Goose]

https://apnews.com/article/iran-navy-des...58c6fc3711

Interesting. An Iranian destroyer capsized/sank in port. I can think of several countries that would find this an appropriate response for enabling Houthis to disrupt global shipping.

IMO this is a "We should be so lucky" situation. The "destroyer" in question was ancient and actually dangerous to all that sailed in her. She had recently been damaged yet again. I think the country that did it was Iran with their typical good seamanship and Naval practices :-).

[GK3]

https://apnews.com/article/iran-navy-des...58c6fc3711

Interesting. An Iranian destroyer capsized/sank in port. I can think of several countries that would find this an appropriate response for enabling Houthis to disrupt global shipping.

IMO this is a "We should be so lucky" situation. The "destroyer" in question was ancient and actually dangerous to all that sailed in her. She had recently been damaged yet again. I think the country that did it was Iran with their typical good seamanship and Naval practices :-).

Another article that is interesting, but you always have to wonder how accurate the conclusions are.  Russia running out of tanks?  Losses are exceeding their ability to build new and refurbish old ones?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/20...-storage/-

Since they seem to store all their old tanks out doors, and it seems reasonable to wonder how much maintenance they ever get, the articles conclusions may have some validity. 

This article concludes that most of Russian armor losses are now the result of FPV drones.  
https://kyivindependent.com/nato-ukraini...ian-tanks/
-
So how much do these losses limit Russia's offensive capabilities?

In the meantime, where are the F16's?  Are they going to have any airfields open that can handle them and keep them flying?  Can Ukraine properly defend their airfields?  Makes no sense to send those shinny new things to Ukraine have them land and then get blown up on the ground.

[GK3]

https://apnews.com/article/iran-navy-des...58c6fc3711

Interesting. An Iranian destroyer capsized/sank in port. I can think of several countries that would find this an appropriate response for enabling Houthis to disrupt global shipping.

IMO this is a "We should be so lucky" situation. The "destroyer" in question was ancient and actually dangerous to all that sailed in her. She had recently been damaged yet again. I think the country that did it was Iran with their typical good seamanship and Naval practices :-).

Another article that is interesting, but you always have to wonder how accurate the conclusions are.  Russia running out of tanks?  Losses are exceeding their ability to build new and refurbish old ones?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/20...-storage/-

Since they seem to store all their old tanks out doors, and it seems reasonable to wonder how much maintenance they ever get, the articles conclusions may have some validity. 

This article concludes that most of Russian armor losses are now the result of FPV drones.  
https://kyivindependent.com/nato-ukraini...ian-tanks/
-
So how much do these losses limit Russia's offensive capabilities?

In the meantime, where are the F16's?  Are they going to have any airfields open that can handle them and keep them flying?  Can Ukraine properly defend their airfields?  Makes no sense to send those shinny new things to Ukraine have them land and then get blown up on the ground.

[BostonCard]

And now something off topic even for this thread:

Ukrainian Yaroslava Mahuchikh broke the women's world high jump record:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6441725

The record has been around for 37 years.

BC

[BostonCard]

And now something off topic even for this thread:

Ukrainian Yaroslava Mahuchikh broke the women's world high jump record:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6441725

The record has been around for 37 years.

BC

[Goose]

https://apnews.com/article/iran-navy-des...58c6fc3711

Interesting. An Iranian destroyer capsized/sank in port. I can think of several countries that would find this an appropriate response for enabling Houthis to disrupt global shipping.

IMO this is a "We should be so lucky" situation. The "destroyer" in question was ancient and actually dangerous to all that sailed in her. She had recently been damaged yet again. I think the country that did it was Iran with their typical good seamanship and Naval practices :-).

Another article that is interesting, but you always have to wonder how accurate the conclusions are.  Russia running out of tanks?  Losses are exceeding their ability to build new and refurbish old ones?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/20...-storage/-

Since they seem to store all their old tanks out doors, and it seems reasonable to wonder how much maintenance they ever get, the articles conclusions may have some validity. 

This article concludes that most of Russian armor losses are now the result of FPV drones.  
https://kyivindependent.com/nato-ukraini...ian-tanks/
-
So how much do these losses limit Russia's offensive capabilities?

Almost not at all. The way this war is being fought isn't at all what tanks were designed for. Tanks are most useful, both offensively and defensively, when the battle is MOVING. In Ukraine, nothing moves very rapidly. Tanks are being used as protected mobile artillery that can get closer to the front than towed artillery. Not a great use of a direct fire weapon, but Russia is making do. These tanks aren't really using their stabilized sights and fast autoloaders to attack/repel enemy assaults. For that reason T-55s are just fine. If they can be turned into "runners" their guns and armor are adequate. They are more reliable without and autoloader to break. They wouldn't stand a chance against a Ukrainian Leopard, but that is not happening, so who cares? If one expects large losses of tanks, as Russia apparently does, using them in "funeral order" makes sense. They aren't going to last long anyway, so long-term reliability isn't important Dispose of the less useful ones first. The avoidance of fixing the autoloaders is a bonus.

That is also why the majority of losses are to FPV drones. Ukraine is often attacking tanks that are in reasonably static locations. They are often not "buttoned up" because "there is no need". It is also true that Russian tanks (like most tanks) are most vulnerable to "top attack". That is why an FPV drone using a weapon that isn't much bigger than an RPG round can kill them. It is no accident that all US anti-tank weapons designed since about 1980 have a top attack mode. It is also of note that the first "FPV Drones" used in war were the US Maverick missiles. Their TV guidance was quite dramatic. We saw the videos on TV all the time :-). Their 12 mile range is probably similar to the FPV drones Ukraine uses, although FPV drones have a much greater loiter time. OTOH the Maverick makes a much bigger "boom" :-). We fired over 5,000 Mavericks in the First Gulf War.

In the meantime, where are the F16's?  Are they going to have any airfields open that can handle them and keep them flying?  Can Ukraine properly defend their airfields?  Makes no sense to send those shinny new things to Ukraine have them land and then get blown up on the ground.

All good questions. IMO the F-16 effort has been more of a goat-rope than many of the "western" efforts in Ukraine. The US was never in favor of doing this and acquiesced under pressure from the Europeans. Clearly the USAF is not "all in". The number of trained pilots is certainly inadequate as of now. The Europeans thought it was a "great idea" but they then discovered they really didn't have what they said they had. Not looking good at all! As for the runways and facilities in Ukraine, time will tell. I am hoping the rumored transfer of the eight Patriot batteries from Israel is the answer to guarding at least two or three airfields. Patriots can do that. The can also defend themselves. Hopefully the only remaining threats will be ballistic missiles. Drones and cruise missiles will be the F-16s themselves responsibility. The Ukrainians sitting their equivalent of "alert 5" will not be bored. Failing that, a good shell game will be necessary. Either way, there will be losses, hopefully not pilots or maintenance people.

[Goose]

https://apnews.com/article/iran-navy-des...58c6fc3711

Interesting. An Iranian destroyer capsized/sank in port. I can think of several countries that would find this an appropriate response for enabling Houthis to disrupt global shipping.

IMO this is a "We should be so lucky" situation. The "destroyer" in question was ancient and actually dangerous to all that sailed in her. She had recently been damaged yet again. I think the country that did it was Iran with their typical good seamanship and Naval practices :-).

Another article that is interesting, but you always have to wonder how accurate the conclusions are.  Russia running out of tanks?  Losses are exceeding their ability to build new and refurbish old ones?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/20...-storage/-

Since they seem to store all their old tanks out doors, and it seems reasonable to wonder how much maintenance they ever get, the articles conclusions may have some validity. 

This article concludes that most of Russian armor losses are now the result of FPV drones.  
https://kyivindependent.com/nato-ukraini...ian-tanks/
-
So how much do these losses limit Russia's offensive capabilities?

Almost not at all. The way this war is being fought isn't at all what tanks were designed for. Tanks are most useful, both offensively and defensively, when the battle is MOVING. In Ukraine, nothing moves very rapidly. Tanks are being used as protected mobile artillery that can get closer to the front than towed artillery. Not a great use of a direct fire weapon, but Russia is making do. These tanks aren't really using their stabilized sights and fast autoloaders to attack/repel enemy assaults. For that reason T-55s are just fine. If they can be turned into "runners" their guns and armor are adequate. They are more reliable without and autoloader to break. They wouldn't stand a chance against a Ukrainian Leopard, but that is not happening, so who cares? If one expects large losses of tanks, as Russia apparently does, using them in "funeral order" makes sense. They aren't going to last long anyway, so long-term reliability isn't important Dispose of the less useful ones first. The avoidance of fixing the autoloaders is a bonus.

That is also why the majority of losses are to FPV drones. Ukraine is often attacking tanks that are in reasonably static locations. They are often not "buttoned up" because "there is no need". It is also true that Russian tanks (like most tanks) are most vulnerable to "top attack". That is why an FPV drone using a weapon that isn't much bigger than an RPG round can kill them. It is no accident that all US anti-tank weapons designed since about 1980 have a top attack mode. It is also of note that the first "FPV Drones" used in war were the US Maverick missiles. Their TV guidance was quite dramatic. We saw the videos on TV all the time :-). Their 12 mile range is probably similar to the FPV drones Ukraine uses, although FPV drones have a much greater loiter time. OTOH the Maverick makes a much bigger "boom" :-). We fired over 5,000 Mavericks in the First Gulf War.

In the meantime, where are the F16's?  Are they going to have any airfields open that can handle them and keep them flying?  Can Ukraine properly defend their airfields?  Makes no sense to send those shinny new things to Ukraine have them land and then get blown up on the ground.

All good questions. IMO the F-16 effort has been more of a goat-rope than many of the "western" efforts in Ukraine. The US was never in favor of doing this and acquiesced under pressure from the Europeans. Clearly the USAF is not "all in". The number of trained pilots is certainly inadequate as of now. The Europeans thought it was a "great idea" but they then discovered they really didn't have what they said they had. Not looking good at all! As for the runways and facilities in Ukraine, time will tell. I am hoping the rumored transfer of the eight Patriot batteries from Israel is the answer to guarding at least two or three airfields. Patriots can do that. The can also defend themselves. Hopefully the only remaining threats will be ballistic missiles. Drones and cruise missiles will be the F-16s themselves responsibility. The Ukrainians sitting their equivalent of "alert 5" will not be bored. Failing that, a good shell game will be necessary. Either way, there will be losses, hopefully not pilots or maintenance people.