Alright, then, first of all: Thank you, both Tom and Don, for your reports. They make it so much easier to get a proper picture and to ignore the sensational media reporting.
Additionally two questions regarding drones came to my mind over the last weeks:
1. Why do we not see airburst FPV drones agains “soft targets”? I’d imagine shrapnel grenade should be much more efficient if detonated four meters above the ground, but also destroying Orlans or Zaras should be easier.
2. Are there any informations about the production numbers of Orlans and Zaras?
I don't know the specific about these drones: How easy they are to handle or produce, what the cost is, etc. My best guesses on why we don't see more are they don't make many of them and/or they're effective in the published videos but maybe there are a lot of ineffective efforts that are not publicized.
Thank you, this makes sense, handling issues were my guess as well.
The picture in the article is interesting, it is the actual first airburst drone I have seen, were it was fully intended – at several other, I was not sure, if they did not actually hit something accidently.
Airbursts are more deadly than ground bursts. A lot of the explosive power and shrapnel of mortars and artillery shells is lost in ground bursts. If you look at the battles in forests, detonations because of trees that cause airbursts caused a lot more casualties than ground detonations in WW2.
It's one of the reasons why the UK and US developed the proximity fuse. When they succeeded in 1943 they didn't use it in Europe because a fuse on unexploded ordinance would let Germany reverse engineer it. So they only used it at sea- it's the main reason US naval AA fire was so deadly- and on isolated island campaigns, where Japan had no chance of recovering and sending fuses back to the home islands. They were first used in Europe during the Battle of the Bulge. The shells had been on standby in Europe. Given the danger of the battle and the belief that Germany would be destroyed before they could reverse engineer it, Eisenhower approved the use of artillery shells with proximity fuses. They devastated German formations in the open.
Neither Ukraine nor Russia uses proximity fuses. A 155 mm shell used to cost the US $800 but with the expansion of production lines they now cost about $2500 each and in Europe the cost rose from $2000 to $8500. Proximity fuses cost about $1000, but they make the shell that much more effective. I've seen images of mortars exploding 20 meters from Ukrainian troops and no one is wounded. That wouldn't be the case in airbursts.
DPICM is a little different. A 155 mm shell has 88 submunitions that detonate on the ground (with a 2% dud rate). Each submunition has a burst radius of 3 meters. This makes it much more deadly to personnel and equipment than a standard HE shell unless you're really close to the HE detonation point.
So it's the same with drones. Airburst drones are much more effective against a group of infantry in an area than contact detonation drones. Contact detonation drones are much more deadly to whatever it hits than airburst drones.
Some news about F-16. Only a dozen pilots can train in the Arizona school at a time, but the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium and Denmark plan to transfer over 80 jets.
As a Norwegian I should know, But I am not really sure, couldnt the Ukrainians be trainedin some of the abovementioned countries? Do they need to go to Arizona? Norway has both bases and airspace for training and if we are giving away the planes why not train? Might be zombie politics of course, or do F16 pilots have to be trained in Arizona?
Thank you for your valuable information, here are some details on pilot training in France, the first 10 started in March. They should begin their more specific training on F16 in another country in August.
As a Norwegian i have noticed that we dont tell anyone how we contribute until it is delivered. But if we dont train pilots i would in some way i would tink our leadership incompetent.
Once again, thanks for the update. You said that Tom reported a 25 percent malfunction rate on the glide bombs. That’s a ridiculously high number. But of course the remaining 75 per cent are bad enough. However what is the dud rate at the North Korean grenades? Any guess would be that it’s much higher. And I also guess that the grenades do explode in the pieces and is probably kuddling orcs employing them. When Russia has tp placate North Korea and beg of their shoddy ammunition you know they don’t have as much as they would like to.
The remaining 75 percent of the glide bombs is bad enough. There was a period when they also seemed to be gaining in accuracy but in the every changing cycle of EW, their accuracy seems to be degraded lately.
In 2010, North Korea shelled a South Korean island and half the shells fell short when they should have been in range. Ukraine is also reporting a 50% dud rate and occaisional explosions within the gun itself. I don't know how their determining these numbers but it tracks with the island shelling. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/shells-03042024144934.html
Russia only produces 50 barrels a year. With the 3 million shells they produce (122/152mm) and the potentially 3 and 5 million shells that North Korea sent, Russia is going to have trouble firing that ammo at some point in the future.
Yes. It's a finite source that will run out. Most of their replacement vehicles are refurbished from storage. Most of those stored vehicles will be gone by the end of 2025.
Les tengo que informar que no se entregarán ningún Super Etendard, fue una noticia falsa que pasó por los medios de mí país y después se difundió rápidamente al resto del mundo, no hay ninguna confirmación de tal entrega, tampoco se enviaron los dos Mi-171E, todavía siguen almacenados en mí ciudad, Quilmes, al sur de Buenos Aires.
Lo único confirmado es de entrega de comida (como si nos sobra).
No comments, this week?
Alright, then, first of all: Thank you, both Tom and Don, for your reports. They make it so much easier to get a proper picture and to ignore the sensational media reporting.
Additionally two questions regarding drones came to my mind over the last weeks:
1. Why do we not see airburst FPV drones agains “soft targets”? I’d imagine shrapnel grenade should be much more efficient if detonated four meters above the ground, but also destroying Orlans or Zaras should be easier.
2. Are there any informations about the production numbers of Orlans and Zaras?
One more time: Thank you very very much!
I've published a few airburst drone videos. I've seen maybe a dozen. Here's one: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/28853
I don't know the specific about these drones: How easy they are to handle or produce, what the cost is, etc. My best guesses on why we don't see more are they don't make many of them and/or they're effective in the published videos but maybe there are a lot of ineffective efforts that are not publicized.
Thank you, this makes sense, handling issues were my guess as well.
The picture in the article is interesting, it is the actual first airburst drone I have seen, were it was fully intended – at several other, I was not sure, if they did not actually hit something accidently.
Airbursts are more deadly than ground bursts. A lot of the explosive power and shrapnel of mortars and artillery shells is lost in ground bursts. If you look at the battles in forests, detonations because of trees that cause airbursts caused a lot more casualties than ground detonations in WW2.
It's one of the reasons why the UK and US developed the proximity fuse. When they succeeded in 1943 they didn't use it in Europe because a fuse on unexploded ordinance would let Germany reverse engineer it. So they only used it at sea- it's the main reason US naval AA fire was so deadly- and on isolated island campaigns, where Japan had no chance of recovering and sending fuses back to the home islands. They were first used in Europe during the Battle of the Bulge. The shells had been on standby in Europe. Given the danger of the battle and the belief that Germany would be destroyed before they could reverse engineer it, Eisenhower approved the use of artillery shells with proximity fuses. They devastated German formations in the open.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33RhuzUrx_A
Neither Ukraine nor Russia uses proximity fuses. A 155 mm shell used to cost the US $800 but with the expansion of production lines they now cost about $2500 each and in Europe the cost rose from $2000 to $8500. Proximity fuses cost about $1000, but they make the shell that much more effective. I've seen images of mortars exploding 20 meters from Ukrainian troops and no one is wounded. That wouldn't be the case in airbursts.
DPICM is a little different. A 155 mm shell has 88 submunitions that detonate on the ground (with a 2% dud rate). Each submunition has a burst radius of 3 meters. This makes it much more deadly to personnel and equipment than a standard HE shell unless you're really close to the HE detonation point.
So it's the same with drones. Airburst drones are much more effective against a group of infantry in an area than contact detonation drones. Contact detonation drones are much more deadly to whatever it hits than airburst drones.
Some news about F-16. Only a dozen pilots can train in the Arizona school at a time, but the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium and Denmark plan to transfer over 80 jets.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/13/ukraine-allies-clash-over-f-16-training-00163205
As a Norwegian I should know, But I am not really sure, couldnt the Ukrainians be trainedin some of the abovementioned countries? Do they need to go to Arizona? Norway has both bases and airspace for training and if we are giving away the planes why not train? Might be zombie politics of course, or do F16 pilots have to be trained in Arizona?
US and Denmark are currently training pilots. France and Romania will soon train pilots. I don't know why the training isn't more widespread. https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-f16-fighter-jet-training-nato-france-russia-1914109
Thank you for your valuable information, here are some details on pilot training in France, the first 10 started in March. They should begin their more specific training on F16 in another country in August.
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/manifestations-en-ukraine/reportage-six-mois-pour-etre-prets-a-combattre-la-formation-des-pilotes-ukrainiens-sur-le-sol-francais-avance_6608001.html
It's great that they keep some secrets.
It had remained confidential until the parade of journalists and television crews in recent days.
:(
As a Norwegian i have noticed that we dont tell anyone how we contribute until it is delivered. But if we dont train pilots i would in some way i would tink our leadership incompetent.
Doing, not telling is fine.
Argentinian MiG-17s or Mil-17?
Thank you for your posts.
That was a typo, sorry: Agentina sent two Mi-17s.
Once again, thanks for the update. You said that Tom reported a 25 percent malfunction rate on the glide bombs. That’s a ridiculously high number. But of course the remaining 75 per cent are bad enough. However what is the dud rate at the North Korean grenades? Any guess would be that it’s much higher. And I also guess that the grenades do explode in the pieces and is probably kuddling orcs employing them. When Russia has tp placate North Korea and beg of their shoddy ammunition you know they don’t have as much as they would like to.
The remaining 75 percent of the glide bombs is bad enough. There was a period when they also seemed to be gaining in accuracy but in the every changing cycle of EW, their accuracy seems to be degraded lately.
In 2010, North Korea shelled a South Korean island and half the shells fell short when they should have been in range. Ukraine is also reporting a 50% dud rate and occaisional explosions within the gun itself. I don't know how their determining these numbers but it tracks with the island shelling. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/shells-03042024144934.html
Russia only produces 50 barrels a year. With the 3 million shells they produce (122/152mm) and the potentially 3 and 5 million shells that North Korea sent, Russia is going to have trouble firing that ammo at some point in the future.
Thanks. I know I am clutching at straws, but in a war of attrition these things matter.
War is an accumulation of details. Every little bit matters.
According to one particular analysis, based on photographic evidence Russia's been stripping barrels off old artillery, especially towed guns.
Yes. It's a finite source that will run out. Most of their replacement vehicles are refurbished from storage. Most of those stored vehicles will be gone by the end of 2025.
Thanks Don I found the reports informative, I thank you for all the work that goes into these
Thank you very much, Don.
Les tengo que informar que no se entregarán ningún Super Etendard, fue una noticia falsa que pasó por los medios de mí país y después se difundió rápidamente al resto del mundo, no hay ninguna confirmación de tal entrega, tampoco se enviaron los dos Mi-171E, todavía siguen almacenados en mí ciudad, Quilmes, al sur de Buenos Aires.
Lo único confirmado es de entrega de comida (como si nos sobra).
"A Russian warblogger says that an Su-57 prototype was heavily damaged and is not worth repairing..."
No, he says that it might not be worth repairing because it is a prototype (non-combat version), not because it was heavily damaged.