Putin shuts down Black Sea grain deal. Now we'll see if the alternatives Ukraine has been developing with Romanian ports and the Danube Canal will suffice. There are a lot of countries, particularly in Africa, which will be in serious trouble without grain and vegetable oils from both Ukraine and Russia.

GRAIN

You'd have to think that was expected for some time now.

I bet if Ukraine uses their new homegrown anti-ship missle to sink a few Russian grain ships, Putin will find a way to renew that deal again.

Russia and Ukraine blame each other for the attack on the Crimean Bridge. It remains unclear who did it.

— Saint Javelin (@saintjavelin) July 17, 2023

Seriously? Is there a legit reason that Russia would attack it's own highly strategic bridge?

txags92 said:

---

I bet if Ukraine uses their new homegrown anti-ship missle to sink a few Russian grain ships, Putin will find a way to renew that deal again.

---

Or Turkey closes the straits to Russian ships?

aggiehawg said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I bet if Ukraine uses their new homegrown anti-ship missle to sink a few Russian grain ships, Putin will find a way to renew that deal again.

---

Or Turkey closes the straits to Russian ships?

---

I doubt the Turks are willing to do that.

Sappers can't clear paths through the minefields until the pre-sighted Russian artillery guarding them is sufficiently attrited. This is why the initial counterbattery battle Ukraine is steadily winning is so important.

"In the open fields of Zaporizhzhia in particular, where finding cover is difficult, commanders are exposing fewer soldiers in order to limit the number of casualties from heavy artillery."

SLOW GOING

txags92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I bet if Ukraine uses their new homegrown anti-ship missle to sink a few Russian grain ships, Putin will find a way to renew that deal again.

---

Or Turkey closes the straits to Russian ships?

---

I doubt the Turks are willing to do that.

---

Putin is going to Ankara next month. Erdogan is going to continue to deal with/play both sides.

agent-maroon said:

---

Seriously? Is there a legit reason that Russia would attack it's own highly strategic bridge?

---

He's making fun of people who never seem to be aware of the things Russia does... Like say the Nova Khakova Dam.

txags92 said:

---

I bet if Ukraine uses their new homegrown anti-ship missle to sink a few Russian grain ships, Putin will find a way to renew that deal again.

---

This would lead to significantly more problems diplomatically for the Ukraine. Maritime shipping may be a valid target but if that ship puts up a different flag, or the destination countries don't get it they can and will exert pressure on the EU for that. Better ways to do things.

74OA said:

---

Sappers can't clear paths through the minefields until the pre-sighted Russian artillery guarding them is sufficiently attrited. This is why the initial counterbattery battle Ukraine is steadily winning is so important.

"In the open fields of Zaporizhzhia in particular, where finding cover is difficult, commanders are exposing fewer soldiers in order to limit the number of casualties from heavy artillery."

SLOW GOING

---

The lesson learned here, to me, is that you need a mine clearing vehicle so heavily armored it can withstand ATGM's and artillery to clear a mine field while under fire, or something that can do it stealthily at night, like a small, remotely operated electric vehicle with a metal detector. Have it drive out and quietly mark mines or plant charges and blow them all after it retreats.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Sappers can't clear paths through the minefields until the pre-sighted Russian artillery guarding them is sufficiently attrited. This is why the initial counterbattery battle Ukraine is steadily winning is so important.

"In the open fields of Zaporizhzhia in particular, where finding cover is difficult, commanders are exposing fewer soldiers in order to limit the number of casualties from heavy artillery."

SLOW GOING

---

The lesson learned here, to me, is that you need a mine clearing vehicle so heavily armored it can withstand ATGM's and artillery to clear a mine field while under fire, or something that can do it stealthily at night, like a small, remotely operated electric vehicle with a metal detector. Have it drive out and quietly mark mines or plant charges and blow them all after it retreats.

---

I could definitely see the later. Building something so heavy that it could withstand ATGMs while doing mine clearing doesn't seem like it would work in Ukraine where there are really only 6 months of the year where you can use the tanks in a off road fashion.

Out of real curiosity, what makes it so hard beyond the obvious signal to noise issue? How much information do you get beyond, "There's something metal here"?

I disagree. I think a major lesson learned here is that you cannot base your entire war fighting strategy around the assumption of air superiority or the ability to operate over enemy held territory. We are very good at it, but it makes us extremely vulnerable. You still need to be able to operate and fight when air space is contested.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

I disagree. I think a major lesson learned here is that you cannot base your entire war fighting strategy around the assumption of sure superiority. We are very good at it, but it makes us extremely vulnerable. You still need to be able to operate and fight when air space is contested.

---

No such assumption exists as demonstrated by USAF's heavy spending on stealthy aircraft--specifically so it can operate effectively in future contested airspace against modern IADs. It wouldn't be spending those hundreds of billions if it just assumed it could do so already. Additionally, the Army and Navy's recent accelerated investment in longer range fires is insurance that we don't become solely dependent on airpower to reach at least partway into an enemy's rear.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Sappers can't clear paths through the minefields until the pre-sighted Russian artillery guarding them is sufficiently attrited. This is why the initial counterbattery battle Ukraine is steadily winning is so important.

"In the open fields of Zaporizhzhia in particular, where finding cover is difficult, commanders are exposing fewer soldiers in order to limit the number of casualties from heavy artillery."

SLOW GOING

---

The lesson learned here, to me, is that you need a mine clearing vehicle so heavily armored it can withstand ATGM's and artillery to clear a mine field while under fire, or something that can do it stealthily at night, like a small, remotely operated electric vehicle with a metal detector. Have it drive out and quietly mark mines or plant charges and blow them all after it retreats.

---

Can a heavy tank (say Abrams, Leopard 2) survive a top hit from a 152MM?

aezmvp said:

---

I could definitely see the later. Building something so heavy that it could withstand ATGMs while doing mine clearing doesn't seem like it would work in Ukraine where there are really only 6 months of the year where you can use the tanks in a off road fashion.

---

I always thought we needed some low cost remotely controlled "disposable" Skid Steers.

Let some 18 year olds see how far they can get.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Out of real curiosity, what makes it so hard beyond the obvious signal to noise issue? How much information do you get beyond, "There's something metal here"?

---

The main thing in AGC is trying to root out the size and shape of the Target of Interest or TOI in amongst all the clutter or background noise. If you know exactly what kind of mines they are using, at what depth and what orientation, and have a sample to test your equipment over, it gets easier. The smaller the sensor, the lower the resolution you will get though and the harder it will be to discern depth, size, and pick the object apart from surrounding clutter.

The easiest way to do it remotely is probably with a low flying drone, but trying to do it covertly limits the size of the sensor you can fly. UXO contractors routinely use aerial surveys with helicopter or drone mounted sensors to find target areas and such when doing range clearance, but those are not generally capable of picking out single items in high clutter areas. Even doing it with a small covert drone, you are still going to have to process the data you gather separately to pick the TOIs and then go back out to actually mark/destroy them. There is no current capability that I am aware of to identify likely items on the fly like that. I am not saying it isn't do able, but firing a line charge across it is probably cheaper and easier, but the downside is it telegraphs that you are coming and shows them where you plan to go ahead of time.

Satellite images of the Crimean bridge
Photo: "Maxar" pic.twitter.com/gqiw2kTel4

— MAKS 23 👀🇺🇦 (@Maks_NAFO_FELLA) July 17, 2023

Here is an article from 2021 showing the use of the White River Technologies Apex "one pass" AGC system mounted on a cart. It is designed to let you collect all the data you need in one pass and then process it against their TOI library to pick where to go dig for likely Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) matching what you are looking for. As you can see, the sensor is pretty large and bulky and would be a pretty easy target if you suspended it under a drone.

Dynamic 3D Electromagnetic Advanced Geophysical Classification (fasttimesonline.co)

Seeing rumblings that Russia is trying offensive movements in the Kupyansk direction.

https://t.me/TCH_channel/92959

Survive? Possibly. Come off undamaged, probably not. Top armor is thin. But it depends where the hit is precisely. Western tanks are designed to minimize the threat to the crew.

"Now a very powerful Russian group is concentrated in the Lyman - Kupyansk direction. More than 100,000 personnel, more than 900 tanks and 370 self-propelled guns" — Cherevaty

— MAKS 23 👀🇺🇦 (@Maks_NAFO_FELLA) July 17, 2023

100k troops?

Battle of the bulge?

74OA said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

I disagree. I think a major lesson learned here is that you cannot base your entire war fighting strategy around the assumption of air superiority. We are very good at it, but it makes us extremely vulnerable. You still need to be able to operate and fight when air space is contested.

---

No such assumption exists as demonstrated by USAF's heavy spending on stealthy aircraft--specifically so it can operate effectively in future contested airspace against modern IADs. It wouldn't be spending those hundreds of billions if it just assumed it could do so already. Additionally, the Army and Navy's recent accelerated investment in longer range fires is insurance that we don't become solely dependent on airpower to reach at least partway into an enemy's rear.

---

This is somewhat circular reasoning. Pouring billions into stealth technology and aircraft over the last couple of decades to ensure they could operate effectively in future contested air space against modern IAD began with the implicit assumption that they could and would, but the future conflicts of the past are today's. So yes, we built our current fleet around the assumption that we can and will establish air superiority. We don't assume that to be permanent, which is why we continue to invest in newer and better capabilities, but the assumption of the current and continued capability certainly exists.

On top of that, it isn't simply the ability to operate in the air, but on the ground. Planes are most vulnerable when they're parked, and stealth aircraft currently require a lot of maintenance and support, which means concentrating at large air bases. A successful long range strike on a forward airfield would be absolutely devastating to all operations.


Yes, the army and navy are accelerating their investment in long range fires, but they're kind of behind the 8 ball right now. They need those capabilities sooner rather than later, and it seems like the result of a late realization that we had become too reliant on air power against ill equipped adversaries.

With stuff like GLSDB and GMLRS they're basically getting the same effects as airpower as long as they get targeting information. What they're lacking from air power is deep strikes and anti air

txags92 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

"Now a very powerful Russian group is concentrated in the Lyman - Kupyansk direction. More than 100,000 personnel, more than 900 tanks and 370 self-propelled guns" — Cherevaty

— MAKS 23 👀🇺🇦 (@Maks_NAFO_FELLA) July 17, 2023

100k troops?

Battle of the bulge?

---

I am going to say there is zero chance the orcs have a group that large anywhere near Ukrainian lines without it getting hammered by HIMARs and other longer range munitions.

---

Cluster munitions away!!!!

Yes, call me skeptical, but there is NO WAY they put this together without western intelligence spotting it and handing that information off to Ukraine and without its presence being noted to the public following the war in significant detail as it assembled.

Airpower like CAS planes and attack helicopters allow quicker real time attacks than guided artillery, especially with TIC. Ukraine was and is getting torn up by the Russian KA52s, they were taking out tanks and other armoured equipment left and right. The KA52 is close to the Apache in terms of armaments which can carry up to 16 hellfire missiles. So you have 16 guided missiles that can lock tanks and take them out versus HIMARs that are much further away and do not have the same capabilities of hitting moving targets.

Also with a 30mm cannon you can take care of trenches a lot easier than with a standard HIMAR missile system. With the cluster munitions that Ukraine just received they have better chances of taking out embedded positions but not the same as a CAS plane or helicopter

Terminating the grain deal will have negative effects around the world.

UPDATES

Got it. That's kind of what I figured.