Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[Overbom]

What military value of that island represents to use several drone and ammunition for that ships ?

Pretty cheap IMO. You would have to calculate the cost per hour of flight, should be at high 3 digits, and then add the expenditure of 2 small munitions (about $50k each).

So we could say that the cost is about $100k for destroying 2 Russian Navy patrol boats, which have a minimum of 2-3 crew each. I have read that the Black Sea fleet only has (had..) 6 such boats. That means a minimum of 4 people dead, and 1/3 of that ship type in the Black Sea fleet is gone for only $100k (which is also most probably funded by the US)


So, coming back at your initial question, the cost of using these drones to destroy these 2 patrol boats is essentially nothing in comparison to what they have managed to do

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1315947168306360321

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Overbom]

Those boats only have machine guns. The drone missiles can easily outrange them.

What would you consider as a good countermeasure? Would a couple of MANPADs for the crew (+ maybe a datalink) be an affordable solution for these kinds of threats. Or simply, just a bigger shipborne gun to be able to reach out in longer ranges

Given that the future is increasingly seem to be filled with more drones, it would be a good idea to have a cheap upgrade for patrol boats to somewhat counter (or at the very least, to not be a sitting duck) these low-tech drones

 

[Gloire_bb]

Would a couple of MANPADs for the crew (+ maybe a datalink) be an affordable solution for these kinds of threats.

Manpads won't reach gliding munitions carrier.

 

[Stealthflanker]

Well the best cover would be air cover. Fighter jets or anything with air-to air missiles. Or even another drone tasked for such if "cost" is a consideration. Air platform offers the best overall Line of sight and thus performance compared to ground based SAM's.

The "measure" of cost or maybe "cost per shot" itself is also something arguable.. Is it wise to only counts for the cost of the missiles ? How about the launching platform ?

 

[gelgoog]

I am not sure how much those boats cost but I doubt they are that expensive to begin with. But yes the missiles should be a lot cheaper.

The defense? The Russians should put an IADS bubble around that area.
For example an S-350 system should have enough range to cover the entire region.

If Russia needs to, they can also send a Karakurt class corvette via the Russian canal system from the Baltic into the Black Sea I think.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As you can see it should fit. And at least one of those ships has Pantsir-M. Not that they should need to since they have a couple of Admiral Grigorovich frigates around the Black Sea I think.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Well the best cover would be air cover. Fighter jets or anything with air-to air missiles. Or even another drone tasked for such if "cost" is a consideration. Air platform offers the best overall Line of sight and thus performance compared to ground based SAM's.

The "measure" of cost or maybe "cost per shot" itself is also something arguable.. Is it wise to only counts for the cost of the missiles ? How about the launching platform ?

You can’t have 24 hour air cover, not even with USAF. TB-2 could take off from regular roads.

I think the best countermeasure would be to detect and defeat the munition itself.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I think the best countermeasure would be to detect and defeat the munition itself.

Yep, current thinking for small craft is more towards softkill measures.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Also, just a photo.
Context aside, Ka-52 is arguably the best-looking modern helicopter.

 

[Stealthflanker]

The defense? The Russians should put an IADS bubble around that area.
For example an S-350 system should have enough range to cover the entire region.

Looks reasonable. with Best coverage seems achievable with system placed near the Helipad. Otherwise there is considerable coverage Gap. It can however be addressed by deployment of mast.

Other concern tho, presence of S-300 or S-350 and *static* in the island is a juicy target worth expending several Tochkas or massed suicide drone attacks. The island also seems to be uncomfortably -close- to shore where small suicide UAV like Switchblade can be used.

Also the logistical tail might be bit on the large size, as the vehicles for the system needs fuel for their gas turbine generators or external generator needs to be used.

But yeah Grigorovich might be adequate, especially if it comes with ARH guided 9M317MA. Still tho Surface based platform are limited by radar horizon.

You can’t have 24 hour air cover, not even with USAF. TB-2 could take off from regular roads.

I think the best countermeasure would be to detect and defeat the munition itself.

Well i'm thinking of some picket system tho. e.g 3-4 A-50U flying in shift for Black Sea region and having fighters in QRA. That's what i think will provide the best coverage against low fliers. Or actually try those things like Altius.

Defeating the munitions tho might be prohibitive for small platforms as it now have to carry the detection device.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Pretty cheap IMO. You would have to calculate the cost per hour of flight, should be at high 3 digits, and then add the expenditure of 2 small munitions (about $50k each).

So we could say that the cost is about $100k for destroying 2 Russian Navy patrol boats, which have a minimum of 2-3 crew each. I have read that the Black Sea fleet only has (had..) 6 such boats. That means a minimum of 4 people dead, and 1/3 of that ship type in the Black Sea fleet is gone for only $100k (which is also most probably funded by the US)


So, coming back at your initial question, the cost of using these drones to destroy these 2 patrol boats is essentially nothing in comparison to what they have managed to do

If you simplify the equation to the cost of missiles vs. destroyed targets yes, but if you consider that it is not a simple business excercise against the competitor but part of a bigger military activity then the assets,manpower and inteligence capability that used here missing from other places.
In that case you risk three of the last attack drone , valuable days of the crew and missiles for pointless targets, and during this time hundreds if not thousands of ukrainan troops die, and the capability of the ukrainan military decrease minut by minute.

Means attacking pointless targets decreasing the warfighting capability, and decrease the chance to win.


C'mon, Ukriane hasn't got any usable airforce, and the last air units used to attack patrol boats posing 0 danger to the troops and having 0 value in the conflict , at the same time the Russian aviation and artirelly pounding the defenseless ukrainan troops few hundred kms away?