3 ms·

This seems superficially reasonable, but it looks like the TB2 Bayraktar was used to bomb the fuel depot in Bryansk less than two weeks ago and that's 150km in

by ch4s3 5y ago

This seems superficially reasonable, but it looks like the TB2 Bayraktar was used to bomb the fuel depot in Bryansk less than two weeks ago and that's 150km into Russia. They seemed to have used the TB2 the other day on Snake Island. As of a week ago there had been 6 internationally confirmed incidents where a Tb2 was shot down. They were known to have had at least 20 when the war started and have received more sense. So it doesn't seem like they've disappeared at all. So one can only assume that either Russia's air defense isn't as good as everyone thought, they aren't using it effectively, or the drone is harder to shoot down as operated than people thought.

robonerd 5y ago
> So one can only assume that either Russia's air defense isn't as good as everyone thought, they aren't using it effectively, or the drone is harder to shoot down as operated than people thought. All of the above I bet.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  That's what seems to be the case, but I don't know enough to really make sense of it.
- juanani 5y ago
bpodgursky 5y ago
> So one can only assume that either Russia's air defense isn't as good as everyone thought I think a big risk here is thinking that only Russia is less competent than advertised. My guess is that 90% of professional militaries (at least those without a LOT of active recent combat) are Potemkin villages wholly incapable of operating as advertised. Against any of those militaries, things which really should not work, frequently will work fine.
stult 5y ago
It's a very solvable problem though. At least for countries other than Russia, which might not be technically nimble enough to adapt mid-conflict and under a strong sanctions regime. S-300s/S-400s/Buks and the somewhat rarer western equivalents like the Patriot system just aren't designed to target something flying that slow with that small of a radar cross section. That doesn't mean the drones aren't reasonably easy to detect and target, just that the targeting systems need to be fine-tuned a little. I doubt NATO would have this problem, not only because Turkey is part of NATO but because US tactics would probably be more effective against similar drones. We rely on fighters to establish air superiority more than SAMs, while the Russians do the opposite. Worst case scenario, F-15s/16s/22s/35s can use cannons and pilots are more adaptable than radar systems. I also suspect that the F-35's sensors at least are far superior to whatever the Russians are relying on. I am also somewhat suspicious of the reports we have heard about them striking deep within Russian territory. Not because I doubt their veracity, but because I am certain we are not getting all of the relevant information. I wouldn't be surprised to find out if there was some supplementary SEAD (suppression of enemy air defense) going on that Ukraine and its western allies are remaining tight lipped about. It wouldn't shock me to find out that NATO has some clever trick for blinding Russian SAM radar in a way that the Russians haven't figured out yet. The Russians would never ever admit the existence of such a capability publicly because it would totally destroy demand for their military exports, and NATO wouldn't want to tip their hand in anyway that would give the Russians an opportunity to adapt.
- gpderetta 5y ago
  The problem is that I think it is very hard for a modern fighter jet to engage a slow and low drone with a cannon. Probably it is easier with missles, but not very cost effective. Probably anti-drone drones or some sort of CIWS is going more effective.
  - stult 5y ago
    I mentioned cannons as the absolute worst case option in case US air-to-air missiles suffer from the same issues as Russian SAMs appear to, and from the perspective of extant US capabilities that could be adapted and rapidly fielded for immediate use. My ultimate point being that we're just way better positioned to handle these drones right now and into the near future than the Russians are or will be.
gpderetta 5y ago
The problem with using AA against drones is that saturating an area with very cheap drones is a great way to depleting the AA resources, as the Armenians unfortunately found out.

by ch4s3 5y ago

robonerd 5y ago

> So one can only assume that either Russia's air defense isn't as good as everyone thought, they aren't using it effectively, or the drone is harder to shoot down as operated than people thought. All of the above I bet.

ch4s3 5y ago
That's what seems to be the case, but I don't know enough to really make sense of it.
juanani 5y ago

bpodgursky 5y ago

> So one can only assume that either Russia's air defense isn't as good as everyone thought I think a big risk here is thinking that only Russia is less competent than advertised. My guess is that 90% of professional militaries (at least those without a LOT of active recent combat) are Potemkin villages wholly incapable of operating as advertised. Against any of those militaries, things which really should not work, frequently will work fine.

stult 5y ago

It's a very solvable problem though. At least for countries other than Russia, which might not be technically nimble enough to adapt mid-conflict and under a strong sanctions regime. S-300s/S-400s/Buks and the somewhat rarer western equivalents like the Patriot system just aren't designed to target something flying that slow with that small of a radar cross section. That doesn't mean the drones aren't reasonably easy to detect and target, just that the targeting systems need to be fine-tuned a little. I doubt NATO would have this problem, not only because Turkey is part of NATO but because US tactics would probably be more effective against similar drones. We rely on fighters to establish air superiority more than SAMs, while the Russians do the opposite. Worst case scenario, F-15s/16s/22s/35s can use cannons and pilots are more adaptable than radar systems. I also suspect that the F-35's sensors at least are far superior to whatever the Russians are relying on. I am also somewhat suspicious of the reports we have heard about them striking deep within Russian territory. Not because I doubt their veracity, but because I am certain we are not getting all of the relevant information. I wouldn't be surprised to find out if there was some supplementary SEAD (suppression of enemy air defense) going on that Ukraine and its western allies are remaining tight lipped about. It wouldn't shock me to find out that NATO has some clever trick for blinding Russian SAM radar in a way that the Russians haven't figured out yet. The Russians would never ever admit the existence of such a capability publicly because it would totally destroy demand for their military exports, and NATO wouldn't want to tip their hand in anyway that would give the Russians an opportunity to adapt.

gpderetta 5y ago
The problem is that I think it is very hard for a modern fighter jet to engage a slow and low drone with a cannon. Probably it is easier with missles, but not very cost effective. Probably anti-drone drones or some sort of CIWS is going more effective.
- stult 5y ago
  I mentioned cannons as the absolute worst case option in case US air-to-air missiles suffer from the same issues as Russian SAMs appear to, and from the perspective of extant US capabilities that could be adapted and rapidly fielded for immediate use. My ultimate point being that we're just way better positioned to handle these drones right now and into the near future than the Russians are or will be.

gpderetta 5y ago

The problem with using AA against drones is that saturating an area with very cheap drones is a great way to depleting the AA resources, as the Armenians unfortunately found out.