Forum menu
Philips OBrien has it right, worth a read !
Yes, but no.
The drone in Philips' blog looks like a Gerbera, which is quite often a decoy (they make attack and surveillance versions too). They're cheap, maybe $10k on average, as compared to maybe $50k for a Geran-2
Ten drones, say, £300k tops, which is cheaper than a single Sidewinder AIM9X missile. Taiwan ordered 100 AIM9X in 2023, delivery by 2030 https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/a_hundred_missiles_by_2030_how_much_an_aim_9x_costs_in_money_and_time-6844.html
Russia plans to produce 2 million first-person-view (FPV) drones and 30,000 long-range and decoy drones in 2025 for its war against Ukraine, Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service (SZRU) spokesperson Oleh Aleksandrov told Politico on June 5. https://kyivindependent.com/russia-aims-to-produce-2-million-fpv-drones-in-2025-ukrainian-intelligence-says/
Poland will also remember how a stray Ukrainian missile killed two of their villagers in 2022; there's always a possibility of error
"Okay, Goose, going to guns" much cheaper but quite intensive and brings NATO aircraft much closer to Ukraine and all the grief that causes with Ukraine's AD in full-on mode.
NATO/EU/US will talk lots but do little, but what should they do now?
The time for action was in 2014 and they failed woefully then and they've continued to fail to prepare since then
PS, goodness knows where Wordl came from or my first attempt at this post that disappeared into WordPress hell 🙂
The number has risen to 20+ and you’re calling that an error!( FACEPALM) NATO needs to respond with an air umbrella covering a western Ukraine for demonstrable defence purposes - Putin has handed us this on a plate. We should take the opportunity- and gradually extend it to cover Kiev.
Or, NATO members could invoice Russia for the flight time and munitions expended for intercepting their drones, and costs for closed airspace, and then take the money from funds frozen within their banking systems from sanctioned individuals.
It does highlight that there needs to be a cheaper way to take out drones though, especially if Russian now is preparing thousands of them and could conceivably flood any traditional air defense network with decoys and FPV drones that cost a lot of expensive, hard to replace SAMs to intercept.
Mind you, they would also need pilots for the FPV ones and, if they lacked air defenses themselves, the pilots might find themselves vulnerable to normal kinetic munitions (if they were nearby themselves).
The number has risen to 20+ and you’re calling that an error!( FACEPALM) NATO needs to respond with an air umbrella covering a western Ukraine for demonstrable defence purposes - Putin has handed us this on a plate. We should take the opportunity- and gradually extend it to cover Kiev.
No, I'm calling the unnecessary use of missiles a waste that could lead to an error, as outlined^^
Phillips seems to be suggesting that we should spend precious resources on something that isn't a material threat, it's wasteful^^
And guess what—they did not even shoot all of this small number of Russian systems down—not at all. Tusk is admitting above that only those systems “that posed a direct threat” were shot down. https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/
The US and the EU have been weak on Russia since it invaded Crimea in 2014, which is the cause of problems now. Despite the best efforts of the US and UK, the EU didn't believe that Russia would invade the rest of Ukraine in 2022. Those critical dates were when action needed to be taken
An air umbrella for the NATO border with Ukraine faces difficulties, such as Hungary and Slovakia. Will PM Fico and Orban help? That leaves Poland and Romania as bases; Romania also has the Black Sea to patrol.
Will the US, Slovakia and Hungary allow their resources to be used? Let's be honest, the willing "west" is barely capable of supplying Ukraine's current AD needs, never mind the unwilling.
Can you square concentrating AD resources in two NATO countries in the southern half of NATO's border with Russia, and leaving the Baltic states, Finland, Norway and Sweden with reduced cover in the northern half of NATO's border with Russia? The total NATO border with Russia is 1600 miles, BTW, with reduced cover over a similar distance to that from Lands End to John O'Groats. Then you've got to move stuff back when you realise the error (over worse roads but with fewer cyclists 🙂 )
Russia won't bother with Poland, they'll go for the Baltic states who are precisely the ones to have small defence forces. They're valid targets for Russian imperialistic ambitions having been occupied by Russia from 1939-ish to 1990. NATO air forces from other countries have maintained a presence in the Baltic states since 2004 when they first joined NATO, do we strip their cover?
Or, NATO members could invoice Russia for the flight time and munitions expended for intercepting their drones, and costs for closed airspace, and then take the money from funds frozen within their banking systems from sanctioned individuals.
Belgium holds about $200bn in frozen Russian central bank reserves of an estimated $300bn total held in the EU/G7.
Only a week ago Belgian foreign minister Maxime Prévot expressed Belgium's opposition to releasing those funds because it would destroy the credibility of Belgium as a financial centre.
Interest rate donations only, I'm afraid
Starmer should be calling in the Russian ambassador for an ear bashing, debates in parliament, emergency NATO conference, refusing passage of Russian oil tankers - is any of this happening???
Tusk has "triggered article 4" of the NATO treaty, which from my basic understanding forces a special meeting of members to plan what to do next.
Not really much point in all NATO members doing it as it's already done.
this ex navy fella seems to think taking out a few S400's is the proportinate response:
and Mark Galeotti on what Russia is upto and what europe / us will do (tldw, not much):
One thing that's confusing me is out of '19' objects that were tracked, '3 or 4' that were deemed to be be a threat were shot down.
Why not shoot them all down as a matter principle?
Russia is likely testing polish air defence as much as it's using using thier airspace as a drone flight path.
Not shooting all or most of them down could well be interpreted as weak air defence?
Why not shoot them all down as a matter principle?
I'd assume they either
a) Lack the capability to get them all
b) Don't want to show their hand, therefore let Putin think they don't have the capability to get them all
c) Thought the potential risk of something going wrong if they hit the less threatening ones was too great
There are plenty of cheap options to tackle drones, Ukraine uses them nightly and seems to be capable of destroying 500+ in a night. NATO seems to be incapable of dealing with a mere 20 - that is pathetic. By doing more or less nothing we are sending Putin the wrong message yet again, just as we have done many times in the past.
that bloke in the torygraph also went full binners
There are plenty of cheap options to tackle drones, Ukraine uses them nightly and seems to be capable of destroying 500+ in a night. NATO seems to be incapable of dealing with a mere 20 - that is pathetic. By doing more or less nothing we are sending Putin the wrong message yet again, just as we have done many times in the past.
Totally agree... Given the current situation, any incursion into polish (or any EU /NATO airspace (unless it's obviously a lost passenger plane which just isn't going to happen) should be blown to bits as a default action.
Why wouldn't that be the case unless we simply don't have the capability?
should be blown to bits as a default action.
Why wouldn't that be the case unless we simply don't have the capability?
We simply don't have the capability. No one does to guarantee that none will get through if they are sent in quantity. The idea that you could easily shoot all drones down is wrong I'm afraid. If it was that easy neither Ukraine nor Russia would ever bother launching any. Some will get shot down, some will get through every time. Ukraine has a layered defence from blokes with rifles, old fashioned anti aircraft artillery, modern radar guided guns like the Geppard, SAAMs, Anti drone drones and fast jets with air to air missiles. And yet still a proportion get through. Same for those going the other way into Russia with all the AD resources they have. Even more challenging for Poland who although on heightened alert are a non-combatant (atm) and not really expecting an incursion on that scale.
There are technologies being explored to cheaply bring drones down, like high energy laser etc. But we are not there yet.
Why not shoot them all down as a matter principle?
Even if you could detect them on ground radar, the intercepting aircraft would still need to see them, their radar aquire them, lock and shoot them down It could be very dangerous depending on where they are to be launching sidewinders or firing guns over heavily populated areas vs what the drone will do (very little damage) if they crash on their own. Wartime would be different, but you can't just be firing live rounds or missiles over the countryside willy-nilly Plus AIM9s are hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Russians have long range air and ground launched missiles that the UK cannot match or shoot down. If they launched them at us, we'd literally have no defence - and no answer either.
Cheap drones, launched en masse are a disruptive technology on a par with the machine gun and tank in the first world war in their significance. They are keeping military planners all over the world awake at night and have turned planning assumptions and doctrine set in stone for decades on their heads.
Modern warfare now has changed immensely from just 4-5 yrs ago. As China showed off recently - they are investing heavily in various drones. From dog type land drones; `buddy` type drones to fly in support of fighter jets, and drone subs that can be surveillance or a smart torpedo.
Lots of experts are now saying the former high value assets like aircraft carriers would now be sitting ducks in active war zones.
I think its inevitable that more countries will acquire their own nuclear deterrence. Russia and the USA have proved there are no security guarantees from them anymore. Thats the big concern with Ukraine - if they are betrayed any further by USA and close to losing everything will they resort to catastrophic measures by going after a big Russian city.
There are plenty of cheap options to tackle drones, Ukraine uses them nightly and seems to be capable of destroying 500+ in a night. NATO seems to be incapable of dealing with a mere 20 - that is pathetic. By doing more or less nothing we are sending Putin the wrong message yet again, just as we have done many times in the past.
Totally agree... Given the current situation, any incursion into polish (or any EU /NATO airspace (unless it's obviously a lost passenger plane which just isn't going to happen) should be blown to bits as a default action.
Why wouldn't that be the case unless we simply don't have the capability?
Or maybe we tell Russia exactly what our capabilities are, and then waste both the element of surprise and valuable materiel
This is Russia probing our response. They don't care that we can shoot drones down, they want to understand whether we can detect them and at what distance. Having done that how do we react?
Do we communicate well (Ukraine apparently warned Poland), do aircraft from Netherlands, the US, Italy and Poland work well together. Can Italian AEWS systems work with Dutch F35s, etc?
What are the shortcomings and gaps to exploit?
Russia is also sending a message about their capabilities. They successfully deployed their first naval drone metres from the Romanian (NATO) border at the end of August to damage a Ukrainian naval ship. This month they'll field the Zapad exercises, which will feature Oreshnik missile and probably nuclear preparation/drills. And now they've used aerial drones
All three areas of battle. Something from space next? Well, Oreshnik had significant input from Roscosmos, Russia's space agency
This is also meant to frighten the politicians who tend to vacillate, and they've got plenty of those for them to choose from
Lots of experts are now saying the former high value assets like aircraft carriers would now be sitting ducks in active war zones.
You know that China - the same country that's investing in making drones, is also making aircraft carriers? While, I agree, there's lots of folks saying that they're vulnerable, they're also incredibly important strategic weapons. The US carriers individually carry more aircraft than most countries have in their entire air forces, and there's perhaps two countries that [tell us they] have the capacity to strike them. Those are pretty good odds.
Same with tanks, there's any number of videos on YouTube of talking heads declaring the death of tanks just on the strength of Ukraine's use of drones and piss-poor Russian tactics. Tanks in open countryside by themselves have always been vulnerable, you can't look at a few TicToc videos and come to sweeping conclusions like that.
Is the phallanx ship defence system be effective against a drone swarm attack?
I suspect it might be if it could be modified to fire proximity fused explosive rounds
Plus it would be dependant on the size and speed and number of incoming drones, and their ability to randomly manouver without hitting each other .
The attacking vector would also cause problems, be fine if the attack was within say 45' but if greater the time to reposition becomes an issue.
Be ace if the UKR could modify the Flamingo into drone mothership . Suddenly a whole load of opportunities open up to completely shut down large factories . probably be loads of issues with getting them out the door , running and in sequence at 500mph but its not beyond possibilty
Is the phallanx ship defence system be effective against a drone swarm attack?
I suspect it might be if it could be modified to fire proximity fused explosive rounds
I suspect it would be, but when used on ships it is a close in, last ditch defence system with a limited range. As such, unless you had very large numbers of them, each one could only protect a tiny piece of sky over Ukraine. I think the US did have some ground based versions but probably not in the numbers that would make a difference, even if they had the inclination to provide them, which I doubt.
The ammunition wouldn't need proximity fuzes which are not typically used on tiny 20mm projectiles due to payload constraints. The system is accurate enough to directly hit fast moving anti-ship missiles so slower drones wouldn't be a problem, although as said above only in a very small area.
The German Gepard is effectively the same thing. A radar guided multi-barrel autocannon, albeit in a larger calibre (35mm). However it is armoured, mobile, designed for land operation from the outset and available in sufficient numbers to make a real impact in Ukraine. I think Germany has provided 50 or 60 and despite the Swiss withholding ammo initially, they have been very effective.
Is the phallanx ship defence system be effective against a drone swarm attack?
AFAIK, it isn't capable of allocating a high enough number of targets simultaneously, unless it's a single figure "swarm".
It also has hard stops to prevent it blasting the ship to pieces, which as you say causes vectoring problems
There are developments to add laser weapons to the basic system which overcomes the need for huge quantities of ammunition (4500rpm)
A few bits of news:
Incursion into Poland as ‘Mistake,’ Drawing Sharp Rebuke From Allies
Poland rejects US president’s claim, with top diplomat saying: “No, that wasn’t a mistake.” Analysts tell Kyiv Post that Trump’s unwillingness to confront Moscow is a “fatal weakness” for NATO.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/59943
This contrasts sharply with the 3rd September meeting between President Trump and Poland's "President Nawrocki’s Wednesday visit to the US capital clearly demonstrates a very favorable political climate between him and Trump. One can conclude that the relationship is close, and the United States is interested in strong ties with Poland."
"The meeting agenda was dominated by issues of security and energy. Trump publicly declared that he does not plan to reduce the US military presence in Poland – on the contrary, he announced the possibility of its expansion.
“Poland is to serve as an energy hub for American LNG for Central and Eastern Europe. My contacts within the administration confirm that Poland is to become a key US partner for the next decade,” said Styczyński.
https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/59496
UK to produce anti-drone drone interceptor drones for Ukraine
The drone was designed by Ukraine along with British expertise, according to the British Ministry of Defence, with the UK planning to churn out thousands a month for Kyiv.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/59925
Importantly, this agreement will capitalise on Ukraine's experience to benefit the UK by "allowing sharing and joint development of intellectual property."
They also give the UK a credible anti-drone defence
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/groundbreaking-ukraine-tech-sharing-agreement-to-deliver-drones-and-support-jobs
German defense giant Rheinmetall to open ammunition plant in Ukraine
Defense Minister Denys Shmyhal held meetings with representatives of several leading defense companies while in London this week.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/59939
There's a bit of background to this one, which has been delayed by several months due to bureaucracy in Ukraine (according to Rheinmetall CEO, Armin Papperger) and/or Germany's history of not planning for the realities of building a working factory in a warzone where trips, slips and falls are less of a priority, e.g. KNDS Deutschland, another German arms company.
The ammunition plant was agreed in July 2024 followed in January by
"A senior NATO official has confirmed that there was a Russian scheme to kill Armin Papperger, the head of German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall." https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-official-confirms-russian-plot-kill-european-weapons-chief-armin-papperger/
There are developments to add laser weapons to the basic system which overcomes the need for huge quantities of ammunition (4500rpm)
The UK and others are putting a lot of effort into "directed energy systems" (high energy lasers) to defeat drones. Although the systems are high cost, and require high voltage electrical supply, the "ammunition" is extremely cheap and never runs out. These systems have a few technical hurdles to overcome, but have great potential in anti-drone warfare.
Is the phallanx ship defence system be effective against a drone swarm attack?
Ok, some realities. You'd be unsurprised to learn, I'm sure, that the US Navy, the Soviets back in the cold war and others has done extensive work on "How much explosives do you need to sink a US Navy super-carrier" and the answer is simple and complex at the same time. The general rule of thumb for large warships is the 'rule of cubes' Accordingly; cube root of a ship’s displacement in thousands of tons gives the number of thousand-pound warheads needed to sink it. Applying these rules to say the USS Eisenhower it would take somewhere at about 50-100 warheads to sink the carrier. All the US supercarriers have water tight bulkheads, they're probably unsinkable. The biggest danger to them is uncontrolled fire.
See HMS Sheffield in '82.The cube theory says that it should've taken about 1,600lbs of explosives to sink it, so that's at least 4 Exocet. In reality; the internal fire caught hold so fast they were overwhelmed after just one direct hit
More recently Moskva was hit by 2 Neptune missiles, again, according to the cube rule, it should've taken at least 6 to sink it. Again fire and badly stored ammunition appears to have done the hard yards in destroying the ship (and towing it back to port in bad weather)
So, could a drone swarm sink a US Super carrier? Probably not. You'd need to launch at the very least 20 drones capable of carrying multiple thousand pound warheads at it. So that's Reaper sized drones which has 6 hardpoints each with a 1500lb carrying capacity. None of them detected by the fleet of ship surrounding the carrier with electronics designed solely for that purpose, all of them get through and all of them hit the target. Any munitions smaller than that will of course have an impact, but are otherwise ust 'bouncing off the hull'
no doubt @chewkw will be along shortly with stories about Hypersonic missiles, but the same rules apply, it may be travelling v fast and be v undetectable, bit at the end of the day it's still a thousand pound warhead. You still need to hit the carrier multiple times, and given that the Atlantic fleet currently totals 5 carriers, even if you damage one, another will be along shortly. Same for the Pacific.
@nickc useful info as always, thanks. However I thought @singletrackmind was asking about it's possible adaptation for ground based air defence use against incoming Russian drones rather than it's designed use to protect ships? Or the ability of drones to sink ships. I may well have misunderstood him though!
Is the phallanx ship defence system be effective against a drone swarm attack?
The way that system works is it puts a wall of lead in front of any munitions approaching a ship, the radar and fire control system allow it to be positioned to lead targets.
It was designed to be used against objects moving along a flat/linear trajectory.
When the system was adapted for use as an anti-indirect fire system in Iraq it had limited success.
If drones were programmed to change position every 3-5 seconds, it would be as much use as tits on a fish.
Yep, I guess if you had a whole bunch of FPV drones and caught the ship by surprise and were able to get some through open bulkheads and doorways and you may even be able to destroy a plane or two, but it's going to be nuisance value at most, and you'll probs not get a second opportunity. But damage the ship so that it become inoperable? Just with drones? I wouldn't have thought so.
You can pack a load more explosives onto a sea faring drone instead. 450kg (pre-drones of course) did a right number on the USS Cole and took them 3 days to get the damage under control. An attempt to get a flotilla of sea drones on station at the same time as aerial ones causing havoc topside could cause trouble. Only need to take the ship out the action, not necessarily sink it
how do they get to the middle of the ocean?
On an aircraft carrier.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/05/china-builds-worlds-first-dedicated-drone-carrier/
450kg (pre-drones of course) did a right number on the USS Cole
USS Cole's displacement 6,800 (long) tons
USS Eisenhower's (for example) displacement 101,600 (long) tons
The Super Carriers are really big...
Yes you'd do some damage to the Eisenhower, but again, you need to get your sea-drone past the screen of support vessels that make up the carrier fleet. These things aren't impregnable of course, but you're going to need dozens of airplanes or missiles to even get close to doing enough damage to get it out of action.
Also each carrier has at least 4 Super Fudd (Hawkeye EC2) aboard, Most of their capability is secret (obvs) but they are believed to be able to track hundreds (possibly thousands) of targets, detect thousands more at ranges over 500kms and at the same time guide missiles at the 50-100 most lethal. These carriers aren't defenceless by any means
no doubt @chewkw will be along shortly with stories about Hypersonic missiles, but the same rules apply, it may be travelling v fast and be v undetectable, bit at the end of the day it's still a thousand pound warhead.
Hypersonic missiles you say? How many do you need?
What's the point of sending swam of drones when the hypersonic missiles can do the job more effectively?
In the near future the nearest US fleet can get to China is at Northern part of The Philippines, not even Guam as the staging ground.
USS Cole's displacement 6,800 (long) tons
USS Eisenhower's (for example) displacement 101,600 (long) tons
The Super Carriers are really big...
I’m fully aware of the size. Makes no difference though as putting a 40ft hole in the side of one would see if leaving the battlefield pretty sharpish. The embarrassment factor alone would be massive (due to the battle group as you mention)
when the hypersonic missiles can do the job more effectively?
Says who? they have issues with both navigation and maneuverability. At mach 10 (the re-entry speed of the Chinese DF-ZF system) you can only manoeuvre in the mid flight period, after that, it's set due to the extreme pressures, and when they re-enter the atmosphere at hypersonic velocities a plasma sheet develops which disrupts their communications.
There are two solutions to this. either they can slow down to supersonic speeds, but this wouldn't make their interception any more difficult than the missiles that current SAMs are designed to intercept. Or you can maintain hypersonic speeds and rely on INS, though this would mean that you can't target/hit maneuvering targets like aircraft carriers...
Makes no difference though as putting a 40ft hole in the side of one would see if leaving the battlefield pretty sharpish
If you get through the Carrier fleet, and both hulls of the carrier.
Again, think of the optics of a supercarrier with a 40ft hole in it. The press and public couldn’t care less about the number of hulls. It would embolden the enemy to try again, and be a massive headache back home.
No need to mention the carrier group again. Of course all of this assumes you’ve made it through that.
Again, think of the optics of a supercarrier with a 40ft hole in it.
Depends on the context. An actual shooting war with the Chinese is going be different than if the Houthis had managed it in all their attempts.
Why go for a hull when there's a line of ££££££££££ planes sat on deck....
No need, the US Navy are more than capable of doing it themselves
And time ticks on......it will soon be winter and Putin got his summer of inching forward , while Trump still dithers and wags his finger once in awhile as Putin twists his words and runs rings around him.
Will the long range weapons Ukraine are starting to produce seed discontent within the population of Russia or is Putins propoganda too clever to blame Europe?
Thanks for the input from people on here , i follow it closely.
while Trump still dithers and wags his finger once in awhile as Putin twists his words and runs rings around him.
It isn't so much that he's dithering, more that he's deliberately putting conditions on US sanctions that he knows that Europe can't/won't agree to.
“I am ready to do major sanctions on Russia when all NATO nations have agreed, and started, to do the same thing, and when all NATO nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA.”
Truth Social 13th September, which he describes as "A letter...to all NATO nations and the world"
As mentioned in posts on the previous page, he was supportive of both Hungary and Slovakia, but not Ukraine when Ukraine put the Druzhba pipeline out of action with drone strikes, writing "Viktor - I do not like hearing this - I am very angry about it."
The facts there are that neither Hungary nor Slovakia need to buy Russian oil via the Druzhba pipeline, they have EU-provided alternatives and they are the only two NATO countries that I'm aware of that buy oil from Russia. Ukraine does the job that Trump should approve of, but he doesn't
"...plus NATO, as a group, placing 50% to 100% TARIFFS ON CHINA, to be fully withdrawn after the WAR with Russia and Ukraine is ended, will also be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR. China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia, and these powerful Tariffs will break that grip."
Truth Social 13th September, which he describes as "A letter...to all NATO nations and the world"
The US put additional secondary tariffs on India, but haven't added secondary tariffs to China because he knows that it hurts US interests too much. If he won't do it, why would the smaller economies of Europe and NATO?
The US is showing no signs of sanctions on Russia over and above what existed under Biden, which naturally loosen with time as Russia finds workarounds.
Worse than that, the US has loosened sanctions on Belarus on buying aircraft parts,
In exchange, the US has said it will relieve some sanctions on Belarusian airline Belavia, allowing it to buy parts for its airplanes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c740mezey41o
Fifty-two prisoners have been released, including trade union leaders, journalists and activists, but more than 1,000 political prisoners remain in jail.
I don't normally bet, but don't be surprised if Aeroflot suddenly gets a supply of new parts via Belarus, while Belarus has a steady supply of new political prisoners to wring out yet more concessions
In contrast to my previous offerings that NATO shouldn't be wasting valuable missiles on Russian drones that don't pose a threat, is this from Romania.
NATO/EU/Romania/whoever made the decision not to shoot down a Russian drone that was in NATO airspace for 50 minutes before turning into Ukraine to kill and maim there. That is weakness and never should have been allowed.
They also had time to brief Ukraine's AD and either put up a helicopter with machine guns or engage with the fighter aircraft's guns to put an end to it, rather than waste an expensive missile and risk a friendly-fire incident