I mean... well, I'm an atheist, so can't say I really know everything about Easter holidays, and related celebrations. But, does that come together with drinking really immense volumes of alcohol, where you are living?
Though I've seen them calling for it I think in recent years. I think I've seen them calling for planet wide nuclear war in order that they may build their paradisical pure 'ukraine'.
I believe the suggestion is that opiates may have something to do with that. They could have something to do with difficulties in text comprehension, too.
You don’t know whether or not Ukraine planned a full scale invasion of Russia. But you have heard it… and you have heard about plans to nuke the whole planet to build their paradise state. I don’t know what people you listen to. But I suggest that you think a little bit when somebody tells you tall stories. Regarding point 1, Ukraine attacking full scale. Ukraine is less than a third relative to Russia. Leaving aside the question of why they should do it, they obviously couldn’t do it. Regarding nuking the planet… well Ukraine doesn’t have any nukes. And apart from that how could you have a paradise state when the rest of the planet was nuked? So, I suggest that you don’t listen to all tall stories you heard. And don’t spread them either, or we might believe you are a total idiot.
Your post is an ad hominem. I'll have nothing to do with such people beyond telling them that fact, as I'm doing here. Beyond this we're done. You can indulge your childish personal animosities in some other direction.
'... full scale invasion of Russia..' is your intepretation, not something I ever said. This is the enormous error of putting words in someone else's mouth sometimes known as constructing a straw man. An infantile and egregious error indicative of sloppy logic, shallow understanding, careless discipline.
'.... doesn't have any nukes..' is again a total misapprehension. The bald fact you don't deserve having spelled out for you is that their leading lunatic called for nuclear arms and did it with the intent of using them, we can well believe. And he called for nuclear attacks on Russia. Such attacks would invite immediate response in kind from Russia. Such response from Russia would call for immediate response from that other well known pair of lunatic states: usa and uk. This was frequently discussed at the time and known to everyone but yourself.
'...paradise state... Logical stupidities, paradoxes, mean nothing to the kiev ukrainian mentality as is widely, frequently and consistently demonstrated in more than one way. The principle way being the repeated call to fight to the last man. How do you win a victory when you are all dead? Another instance is their repeated mantra that they are repelling an invasion when in fact they stand on land they invaded in '14. And so on.
I suggest you go back to playing with your toys if they let you have any and stay out of my face with your impertinence.
My post is ad hominem…. And yours not? But. You say that a full scale invasion of Russia wasn’t mentioned by you? But in an earlier post you said: «The full scale invasion was the one planned by kiev that was forestalled.» So yes, I think you mentioned a full scale invasion by Kiev. Regarding nukes, well Kiev doesn’t have any. Which you also agree to, since you refer to Zelensky aking for nuclear arms. Which would balance out Russias threats of nuking him. And there have been enough of threats, some subtle and some not so subtle. (Also towards Europe.) Regarding who started the war, it was Russia, in 14. (Got the year right, must congratulate you.) But of course this means nothing to you, and there will be no answers because you will not have anything to with such people… good. Keep your promise and ignore me. Looking forward to it, but you can’t you know. Very well. You are so far out that I find you amusing. Keep up showing us all what kind of man you are.
This whole investment falls apart with as soon as RF figures out how to hit B reliably. Off the top of my head, it could be adding a booster or air launch to the lancet, or adding "FPV" style guidance to a shahed or introducing a new UAV that can travel 100-120km, or creating units consisting of EW+smerch+Orlan to hunt B, or etc etc. The fundamental problem with the concept is that B has to be survivable within the kill zone (bc physics and LOS). As has been amply shown in this war, "shoot and scoot" is not a viable survivability tactic even for artillery which only stays in one position for minutes not a half hour+ like B has to.
This architecture is plausible for a short period of time, after which B become prey and the investment will be wasted. If the comms have to be wireless, the B comm node has to be either at an altitude that's unreachable by SAMs/AA missiles (space), or it has to be on the ground and hardened/camouflaged.
My solution to the B problem is much cheaper and simpler - fiber optic guided drones are already in mass production. Increase length of fiber to 20/30 km, and use drones to pull fiber from B to the front line. They will be hard to spot and easily/cheaply replaced in minutes. Make B a series of hardened and camouflaged bunkers.
They can also use non-fiber optics drone to carry the fiber optics cable. Or drag it behind a supply vehicle.
And the entire existance of B and C is then redundant, as fiber optics are meant to connect long distances so if they connect it from A to B (which is a bit harder due to the front being close) they can connect it to anywhere in Ukraine. But realistically they just need to reach the nearest big town which is likely to already have broadband connection.
All of which is why nobody expected Starlink to be successful in the first place, and why there are almost no direct competitors. It solves a non-existing problem unless you live too far from civilization to have a broadband cable to your personal island.
My logic for using drones is that cables will be broken on a regular basis, so it's cheaper/safer to fly a drone out to the LOC than to drive a truck. I should have been more clear that the fiber is not permanent infrastructure but cheap and quickly replaceable. If I were to go for more permanent installation, then burying cat 6 would be much better, not least bc when it gets broken it can be repaired.
Yup I got what you're saying - circumstances may not allow for a person or slowly and carefully truck to drag a cable over the ground, or dig holes to bury it to make it more durable. But I guess it will be a case-by-case basis, with the drones being the option for the most dangerous zones.
My point was more that further behind, where the danger is less, buried cable (whether fiber or cat6) is the obvious solution, reliably connecting the front the same way most populated places all over the world are connected.
I don't get it. What's stopping Ukraine from doing it the old-fashined way - pulling 2-3 optics cables to the frontline from the nearest settlement. That's what optics are supposed to do and do well - connect two ground-level nodes, cheaply and reliably. And having more than one cable provides redundancy if something happens to the first one due to rushed placement.
Something optics are not supposed to be used for? Connecting land operator to an aerial drone, potentially getting stuck in every tree and obstacle along the way. If THAT is somehow working, then surely optics will handle just fine with something much more similar to the simple task they were originally created for.
And yes, that also does not solve the question of how do you provide secure broadband connectivity to a drone deep behind enemy lines, but let's face it - satelites are obviously the only solution to this particular problem, and that's almost cheating, eploiting the other side's lack of, or reluctance to use anti-satelite weaponry. What satelites are not supposed to be used for is to be an extremely expensive alternative to optic cables.
And just to be clear, Starlink is unlikely to be providing a truly secure communication channel, and Ukraine most definitely does not need one. Having secure communication over non-secure channel is nowadays a standard feature, that's why "the cloud" is a thing - applications have no problem being hosted remotely as their communication has unbreakable encryption that can safely be used over the Internet.
So what? You need a bit more cable, you need redundancies, and you need to replace it more often. Surely not an easy task but not comparable to delivering provisions and ammunition to the front or building fortifications under fire. And definitely a bit more trouble than just getting Musk's magic box, but cheaper and more reliable than the setup described in the article and also well worth the investment once the magic box stops working.
How will you solve the problem of dynamically changing positions, especially for UAV teams? How to protect cables from damage, especially when crossing roads? Maybe it's feasible for some tasks, but I think the general scalability is far from good.
- prepare the backup positions in advance, with cables included. Or quickly use a drone to carry a cable ad-hoc, as suggested in another comment. Or place a lot of wireless routers randomly accross the front that cover most places you're likely to need access. These things will just become missle magnets but they don't need to be at your position, and they're cheaper than the drones that will destroy them. This problem only concerns A to B connectivity which is indeed the hardest part.
- it's not that easy to damage these cables, as Russian usage for drone connectivity illustrates. A vehicle driving over them on a dirt road is likely to just bury them in the ground, as their coating is tougher than the ground underneath.
In practice, preparing backup positions is not as easy as it seems, because there is always some kind of concurrency for positions between different units and circumstances are very unpredictable. Fiber optics can also get wrapped around wheels, and in dry weather they can just break. WiFi points above the ground can be quickly destroyed by FPVs. If damage occurs very often, it will simply paralyze the work of UAV teams. So I am very skeptical about this solution in practical field.
I don't have the technical knowledge to assess this but it seems like you're proposing that Ukraine develop a whole new system to replace Starlink. How long would that take? What is your view of commercial alternatives to Starlink e.g. Eutelstat? Are the Starlink terminals Ukraine already has useable only with Starlink or could they be adapted to work with other platforms e.g. Eutelstat?
I agree that the idea seems to be to replace Starlink. But this can be done piece by piece I think and as far as I can see you don’t have to remove Starlink immediately.
While this solution is being developed, I think other Starlink concurrents will grow enough. And Starlink terminals cannot be used other then with its parent system.
The whole architecture has a weak spot: B nodes are few and when your opponent targets/destroys them, you are out of luck.
Also, nodes C are within reach of an air-to-air missile like the R-37. Why not sidestep node B and transmit directly to space, like Starlink and Oneweb?
It was not a russian 'full scale' invasion. The full scale invasion was the one planned by kiev that was forestalled.
Kyiv planned an invasion of Russia?
I mean... well, I'm an atheist, so can't say I really know everything about Easter holidays, and related celebrations. But, does that come together with drinking really immense volumes of alcohol, where you are living?
Russian geopolitical calculus:
1. If you feel you're under threat, throw the first punch
2. You are always under threat
I don't know. Did they?
It is not a suggestion I made.
Though I've seen them calling for it I think in recent years. I think I've seen them calling for planet wide nuclear war in order that they may build their paradisical pure 'ukraine'.
I believe the suggestion is that opiates may have something to do with that. They could have something to do with difficulties in text comprehension, too.
You don’t know whether or not Ukraine planned a full scale invasion of Russia. But you have heard it… and you have heard about plans to nuke the whole planet to build their paradise state. I don’t know what people you listen to. But I suggest that you think a little bit when somebody tells you tall stories. Regarding point 1, Ukraine attacking full scale. Ukraine is less than a third relative to Russia. Leaving aside the question of why they should do it, they obviously couldn’t do it. Regarding nuking the planet… well Ukraine doesn’t have any nukes. And apart from that how could you have a paradise state when the rest of the planet was nuked? So, I suggest that you don’t listen to all tall stories you heard. And don’t spread them either, or we might believe you are a total idiot.
Your post is an ad hominem. I'll have nothing to do with such people beyond telling them that fact, as I'm doing here. Beyond this we're done. You can indulge your childish personal animosities in some other direction.
'... full scale invasion of Russia..' is your intepretation, not something I ever said. This is the enormous error of putting words in someone else's mouth sometimes known as constructing a straw man. An infantile and egregious error indicative of sloppy logic, shallow understanding, careless discipline.
'.... doesn't have any nukes..' is again a total misapprehension. The bald fact you don't deserve having spelled out for you is that their leading lunatic called for nuclear arms and did it with the intent of using them, we can well believe. And he called for nuclear attacks on Russia. Such attacks would invite immediate response in kind from Russia. Such response from Russia would call for immediate response from that other well known pair of lunatic states: usa and uk. This was frequently discussed at the time and known to everyone but yourself.
'...paradise state... Logical stupidities, paradoxes, mean nothing to the kiev ukrainian mentality as is widely, frequently and consistently demonstrated in more than one way. The principle way being the repeated call to fight to the last man. How do you win a victory when you are all dead? Another instance is their repeated mantra that they are repelling an invasion when in fact they stand on land they invaded in '14. And so on.
I suggest you go back to playing with your toys if they let you have any and stay out of my face with your impertinence.
My post is ad hominem…. And yours not? But. You say that a full scale invasion of Russia wasn’t mentioned by you? But in an earlier post you said: «The full scale invasion was the one planned by kiev that was forestalled.» So yes, I think you mentioned a full scale invasion by Kiev. Regarding nukes, well Kiev doesn’t have any. Which you also agree to, since you refer to Zelensky aking for nuclear arms. Which would balance out Russias threats of nuking him. And there have been enough of threats, some subtle and some not so subtle. (Also towards Europe.) Regarding who started the war, it was Russia, in 14. (Got the year right, must congratulate you.) But of course this means nothing to you, and there will be no answers because you will not have anything to with such people… good. Keep your promise and ignore me. Looking forward to it, but you can’t you know. Very well. You are so far out that I find you amusing. Keep up showing us all what kind of man you are.
Thank you for thi interesting peace.
This whole investment falls apart with as soon as RF figures out how to hit B reliably. Off the top of my head, it could be adding a booster or air launch to the lancet, or adding "FPV" style guidance to a shahed or introducing a new UAV that can travel 100-120km, or creating units consisting of EW+smerch+Orlan to hunt B, or etc etc. The fundamental problem with the concept is that B has to be survivable within the kill zone (bc physics and LOS). As has been amply shown in this war, "shoot and scoot" is not a viable survivability tactic even for artillery which only stays in one position for minutes not a half hour+ like B has to.
This architecture is plausible for a short period of time, after which B become prey and the investment will be wasted. If the comms have to be wireless, the B comm node has to be either at an altitude that's unreachable by SAMs/AA missiles (space), or it has to be on the ground and hardened/camouflaged.
My solution to the B problem is much cheaper and simpler - fiber optic guided drones are already in mass production. Increase length of fiber to 20/30 km, and use drones to pull fiber from B to the front line. They will be hard to spot and easily/cheaply replaced in minutes. Make B a series of hardened and camouflaged bunkers.
Good analysis.
They can also use non-fiber optics drone to carry the fiber optics cable. Or drag it behind a supply vehicle.
And the entire existance of B and C is then redundant, as fiber optics are meant to connect long distances so if they connect it from A to B (which is a bit harder due to the front being close) they can connect it to anywhere in Ukraine. But realistically they just need to reach the nearest big town which is likely to already have broadband connection.
All of which is why nobody expected Starlink to be successful in the first place, and why there are almost no direct competitors. It solves a non-existing problem unless you live too far from civilization to have a broadband cable to your personal island.
My logic for using drones is that cables will be broken on a regular basis, so it's cheaper/safer to fly a drone out to the LOC than to drive a truck. I should have been more clear that the fiber is not permanent infrastructure but cheap and quickly replaceable. If I were to go for more permanent installation, then burying cat 6 would be much better, not least bc when it gets broken it can be repaired.
Yup I got what you're saying - circumstances may not allow for a person or slowly and carefully truck to drag a cable over the ground, or dig holes to bury it to make it more durable. But I guess it will be a case-by-case basis, with the drones being the option for the most dangerous zones.
My point was more that further behind, where the danger is less, buried cable (whether fiber or cat6) is the obvious solution, reliably connecting the front the same way most populated places all over the world are connected.
I don't get it. What's stopping Ukraine from doing it the old-fashined way - pulling 2-3 optics cables to the frontline from the nearest settlement. That's what optics are supposed to do and do well - connect two ground-level nodes, cheaply and reliably. And having more than one cable provides redundancy if something happens to the first one due to rushed placement.
Something optics are not supposed to be used for? Connecting land operator to an aerial drone, potentially getting stuck in every tree and obstacle along the way. If THAT is somehow working, then surely optics will handle just fine with something much more similar to the simple task they were originally created for.
And yes, that also does not solve the question of how do you provide secure broadband connectivity to a drone deep behind enemy lines, but let's face it - satelites are obviously the only solution to this particular problem, and that's almost cheating, eploiting the other side's lack of, or reluctance to use anti-satelite weaponry. What satelites are not supposed to be used for is to be an extremely expensive alternative to optic cables.
And just to be clear, Starlink is unlikely to be providing a truly secure communication channel, and Ukraine most definitely does not need one. Having secure communication over non-secure channel is nowadays a standard feature, that's why "the cloud" is a thing - applications have no problem being hosted remotely as their communication has unbreakable encryption that can safely be used over the Internet.
It's vastness and Russian glide bombs on the villages.
So what? You need a bit more cable, you need redundancies, and you need to replace it more often. Surely not an easy task but not comparable to delivering provisions and ammunition to the front or building fortifications under fire. And definitely a bit more trouble than just getting Musk's magic box, but cheaper and more reliable than the setup described in the article and also well worth the investment once the magic box stops working.
The glide bombs are coming before an attack. If cables are cut, you can't communicate at the point of the highest vulnerability.
How will you solve the problem of dynamically changing positions, especially for UAV teams? How to protect cables from damage, especially when crossing roads? Maybe it's feasible for some tasks, but I think the general scalability is far from good.
- prepare the backup positions in advance, with cables included. Or quickly use a drone to carry a cable ad-hoc, as suggested in another comment. Or place a lot of wireless routers randomly accross the front that cover most places you're likely to need access. These things will just become missle magnets but they don't need to be at your position, and they're cheaper than the drones that will destroy them. This problem only concerns A to B connectivity which is indeed the hardest part.
- it's not that easy to damage these cables, as Russian usage for drone connectivity illustrates. A vehicle driving over them on a dirt road is likely to just bury them in the ground, as their coating is tougher than the ground underneath.
In practice, preparing backup positions is not as easy as it seems, because there is always some kind of concurrency for positions between different units and circumstances are very unpredictable. Fiber optics can also get wrapped around wheels, and in dry weather they can just break. WiFi points above the ground can be quickly destroyed by FPVs. If damage occurs very often, it will simply paralyze the work of UAV teams. So I am very skeptical about this solution in practical field.
What about the visibility of point A to enemy signals intelligence? Do you need some kind of directional antennas at point A to mitigate that effect?
Directional antennas would be a part of the solution for A, but not for B.
I don't have the technical knowledge to assess this but it seems like you're proposing that Ukraine develop a whole new system to replace Starlink. How long would that take? What is your view of commercial alternatives to Starlink e.g. Eutelstat? Are the Starlink terminals Ukraine already has useable only with Starlink or could they be adapted to work with other platforms e.g. Eutelstat?
I agree that the idea seems to be to replace Starlink. But this can be done piece by piece I think and as far as I can see you don’t have to remove Starlink immediately.
While this solution is being developed, I think other Starlink concurrents will grow enough. And Starlink terminals cannot be used other then with its parent system.
Thank you for this analysis. But isn’t point C at risk from anti air attacks?
It is always placed far enough away and that is why B is needed. B is most vulnerable
What about to keep A, B and replace C and D with Eutelsat?
The whole architecture has a weak spot: B nodes are few and when your opponent targets/destroys them, you are out of luck.
Also, nodes C are within reach of an air-to-air missile like the R-37. Why not sidestep node B and transmit directly to space, like Starlink and Oneweb?