The muj in Afghanistan found it very effective to hide from NV/IR under carpets.
The muj in Afghanistan found it very effective to hide from NV/IR under carpets.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to aircooled :
Thinking out loud, how effective are smoke grenades against modern infrared guidance?
Of course the problem is, now you can't see either.
According to Tom Clancy in Red Storm Rising, smoke is not effective at all.
Yeah, normal smoke does little, but there is thermal smoke that does block IR because the smoke contains special chemicals. Not super useful when trying to sneak across a field though. You might not be able to see someone inside or behind thermal smoke, but you certainly will see the smoke! e.g. not too stealthy, it will attrack a lot of attention.
A bit of a WWII note: The Germans made pretty effective use of smoke screens (not thermal because IR sensing wasn't a thing then) to block industrial targets from US bombers. The most effective block though was the rather bad weather that hit Europe later in the war. You have to wonder if that was helped along by the massive amount of pollutants created by the war. The 8th Airforce had a bit issue with getting good weather for bombing missions. They "solved" this problem by using radar guided bombing. I say "solved" because the early radars were less than precise. An Airforce study found that only 48% of bombs landed... with 5 miles of the target! You would barely hear a bomb drop 5 miles away! Yeah, that was realisticaly just random area bombing.
Below you can see an example of how much smoke was being produced. It also gives you an idea why the Nordon bombsite was not considered super effective. It's not that it wasn't accurate, it was... but you had to see what you were aiming at!
The Norden bombsight benefited from some truly great marketing.
Another prediction of doom for Russia (you know how those tend to go). Basically, the reduced oil prices are creating economic havoc and the current situation (Russian attacks) is essentially a bluff. He even has some comments on why they need to keep fighting and the dangers of a pause. He is a former Russian energy minister.
Of note is that Russia and China recently had high level meetings so they may have hooked up a new revenue stream (and potentially be more subject to Chinese influence?)
One other note I heard is that early in the war 80% of casualties were the result of artillery, now 80% of casualties are result of drone.
Artillery is going to be pretty horrible because with enough of it, there is almost no where to hide. Get a hit close enough... And of course the cacophony of the barrages. There is a reason there is something called "shell shock"
Drones have to be a different kind of hell. Ukraine seems to use a lot of FPV drones, so you have the approaching buzzing, while Russia seems to use a lot of the Lancet style which have the electric motor, but will approach more directly generally, but you can see / hear the one that is comming for you...
Hard to say which is worse.
In reply to aircooled :
"New kind of hell" indeed. I imagine a future in which [semi]autonomous drones by the millions are unleashed on a populace.
Don't mean to distract from this but regionally, sounds like things getting spicy south of Russia with India launching some air strikes into Pakistan.
In reply to johndej :
Yeah, and it looks like Pakistan managed to shoot down maybe two of the jets who launched the missiles. It's starting to get a bit hot over there.
All Pakistani Nationals Asked To Leave India In Next 72 Hours - All Visas Cancelled, Travel Banned
New Delhi: In a decisive and stern response to the brutal terror attack in Pahalgam that claimed 26 innocent lives, the Government of India has announced the immediate suspension of all visa services for Pakistani nationals.
Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India have inched closer to open conflict since the massacre last month, with India’s Hindu-nationalist government under intense pressure from its base to respond to the attack, in which gunmen killed 25 Indian tourists in a popular holiday spot.
In reply to aircooled :
Dude. This has the potential to be literally insane. Geopolitics in a world post-nuclear exchange is not something I care to ponder; every use lowers the bar for future use. Whoever can de-escalate this deserves much more credit than they will ever receive.
In reply to P3PPY :
I'm not especially concerned about this. India and Pakistan have a long history of small attacks and skirmishes, and even limited wars. A lot of this is posturing for domestic consumption, an expanded version of the Wagah border ceremony. Escalation is always possible, but I don't think either side is looking at this in those terms.
In reply to P3PPY :
Dude, did you watch "FBI" last night? You just described the plot of the show. AI enhanced semi-autonomous drone strikes on New York, the AI used facial recognition and a general location to seek and find individual targets. So not millions of drones, but still frightening enough and seemed plausible with current technology (well you know, in a hollywood sort of way). New kind of hell is an understatement.
In reply to 02Pilot :
To be fair, you also (pre-invasion) speculated that putin was posturing, that actually annexing eastern oblasts didn't serve his interests, that the EU would never agree to sanctions on russian energy, that russia wouldn't have started this without an exceptionally detailed invasion plan, that putin's actions were "a calculated escalation, not the actions of a madman", etc.
While I respect and value your input, there's been a pattern of underestimating the possibility and severity of action. Some of us up here in the nosebleed section are probably a little more nervous than you.
In reply to DarkMonohue :
Agreed - though I still contend Putin would have gained more internationally (but perhaps not domestically) at lower cost by leveraging the threat of war instead of actually invading, and in that case at that time Europe would not sanction Russian energy - but look at the facts on the ground. What are we seeing? A series of limited strikes against non-governmental targets (terrorist compounds, not military bases) in a disputed sector that has seen periodic skirmishes for decades (though some strikes were carried out beyond the boundary) and some light artillery exchanges. Pakistan claims to have shot down several Indian fighters and the Pakistani PM stated publicly that these shoot-downs were the "reply from our side to them". It doesn't sound like either side is especially interested in ramping this up, and their actions thus far bear this out.
DarkMonohue said:In reply to 02Pilot :
To be fair, you also (pre-invasion) speculated that putin was posturing, that actually annexing eastern oblasts didn't serve his interests, that the EU would never agree to sanctions on russian energy, that russia wouldn't have started this without an exceptionally detailed invasion plan, that putin's actions were "a calculated escalation, not the actions of a madman", etc.
While I respect and value your input, there's been a pattern of underestimating the possibility and severity of action. Some of us up here in the nosebleed section are probably a little more nervous than you.
Hear hear! You can attempt to rationalize after the fact, but not predict, the irrational actors. Hence my claim that realist thinking is bunk.
In reply to 02Pilot :
Last I read, Pakastan was giving the somewhat standard "We will respond to it at a time and place of our choosing" and "This provocation will not go unanswered".
At this point, they both are pretty well practiced at all sorts of conflict between the two that does not involve nukes, so, they can likely navigate this also.
BTW - Historically, India has bought Russian weapons and Pakistan western stuff. Nowdays, India builds some of it's own, still gets some Russian stuff (likely FAR less interesting in it now!) but is now sourcing stuff from France.
In reply to tuna55 :
Putin is not, by any reasonable definition, an irrational actor. Here's an article that goes into great depth from the Journal of International Political Theory - please note particularly the passage:
More often than not, the “rational actor assumption” of realism implies nothing more than the idea that states behave in an instrumental manner to achieve their desired goals. Many realists do not devote a lot of attention to unpacking the “rational actor assumption” apart from asserting that states make considered assessments about their external environments and act strategically to realize their interests. As Grieco (1997: 164–165) explains “state rationality, from a realist viewpoint, has at least three elements.” First, “realists assume that states are goal oriented.” Second, “realists assume that states have consistent goals. . .state preferences are ordered and transitive in the sense that if outcome A is preferred to B, and B is preferred to C, then A is preferred to C.” Third, “states are assumed by realists to devise strategies to achieve their goals” and “these strategies take into account the rank ordering by states of these goals.”
Likewise, Glaser (2010: 30) explains “acting rationally means that states are purposive actors that make at least reasonable efforts to choose the strategy that is best suited to achieving their goals. States are assumed to be able to identify and compare options, evaluating the prospects that they will succeed, as well as their costs and benefits.” In these examples, the use of words such as “rationality” or “rationally” are references to the “rational actor assumption.”
My analysis was that Russia would achieve optimal outcomes by threatening war and leveraging Western fears of it to extract maximum concessions at minimum cost and risk. Putin's analysis was that war was likely to have limited costs, while the expected gains were great, and that the outcome was not meaningfully in doubt. Both are rational calculations, even though they disagree on the preferred action.
aircooled said:BTW - Historically, India has bought Russian weapons and Pakistan western stuff. Nowdays, India builds some of it's own, still gets some Russian stuff (likely FAR less interesting in it now!) but is now sourcing stuff from France.
I'm still kind of in shock that India managed to lose <number> fighter jets, including a Dassault Rafale (India has just signed a $7.4 billion deal for 26 Rafales plus long term support, over $280 million per aircraft), during what was supposed to be some very low risk operation with long range standoff weapons. The maximum range of the PL-15 and HQ-9B systems used by Pakistan is estimated at 250-300km, and Indian stand off weapons like the Rudram-II have a range of 350km, ROCKS/Crystal Maze 2 has a max range of 250-300km. Surely you just fire and retreat? This should not have happened. It turns out that Pakistan seems to have been telling the truth about what they shot down at least.
In reply to aircooled :
Reports of drone attacks overnight from both sides. Traditionally, there tends to be a lot of ambiguous, incomplete, and often inaccurate information from the contested area - I suppose a combination of terrain and lack of infrastructure, combined with social media, contribute to this.
The real question here is who launched the drones, especially on the Pakistani side. Further, and perhaps most concerning, is that the Pakistani PM is in a somewhat tenuous political position, with much power lying with the army high command; in other words, the PM may have limited influence on events, at least as long as they are confined to this remote area. The army's messaging on this is a bit worrying, as they have framed their statements in such a way as to encourage further actions by independent terrorist groups, rather than directly threatening state action (the word "martyr" is used a lot in newspaper reports). However, the Pakistanis also confirmed that national security advisors from both countries were in contact overnight - this certainly speaks to a desire to avoid escalation beyond local conflict.
The biggest potential problem here is non-state action (renewed terrorism against India) that prompts an Indian military response. There are elements in these terror groups in Pakistan that would like to foment conflict; it remains to be seen how tight a leash the Pakistani military is able (and willing) to keep them on. Assuming there are no major terror attacks, I would expect tit-for-tat operations for a period of weeks to months, but confined largely to the contested area. Wider strikes at scale by either side could prompt some degree of escalation, but this would most likely be calculated messaging, not a prelude to open conflict.
red_stapler said:aircooled said:BTW - Historically, India has bought Russian weapons and Pakistan western stuff. Nowdays, India builds some of it's own, still gets some Russian stuff (likely FAR less interesting in it now!) but is now sourcing stuff from France.
I'm still kind of in shock that India managed to lose <number> fighter jets, including a Dassault Rafale (India has just signed a $7.4 billion deal for 26 Rafales plus long term support, over $280 million per aircraft), during what was supposed to be some very low risk operation with long range standoff weapons. The maximum range of the PL-15 and HQ-9B systems used by Pakistan is estimated at 250-300km, and Indian stand off weapons like the Rudram-II have a range of 350km, ROCKS/Crystal Maze 2 has a max range of 250-300km. Surely you just fire and retreat? This should not have happened. It turns out that Pakistan seems to have been telling the truth about what they shot down at least.
Don't discount the possibility the pilot (under-trained?) didn't know where they were/flew to the incorrect launch point OR they were seeing "red mist" and over-motivated...?
In reply to stroker :
I have significant doubts regarding the operational capabilities (training, intel, planning, etc.) of both Pakistan and India. The most advanced equipment in the world requires a very high standard of personnel to operate it effectively; both sides here have serious deficiencies in their organizations, from what I understand (this is not my area of expertise, so take that for what it's worth). It's easier to buy new stuff and accept seller's promises at face value (I think the Indians may have a few choice words for the French right about now) than it is to overcome decades of entrenched problems and inefficiencies in your own military.
In reply to red_stapler :
Some of the issue may have to do with the terrain where the strikes were... and it's pretty extreme. They apparently used cruise missiles (SCALP, essentially the same as the Storm Shadow) and guided bombs. I would suspect a SCALP could navigate these canyons, but if you are dropping a guided bomb, you might have to get into these canyons, and that is going to be a tough time. The strikes were somewhere in the area of the circled town:
Also in the side note area: The Houti's managed to get a missile through Israeli air defenses and the missile landed on an out road very close to Ben Gurion airport. The Israeli response was to obliterate the primary airport in Yemen. This might be an example of "mess around and find out", or "poke the bear enough..."
02Pilot said:In reply to tuna55 :
Putin is not, by any reasonable definition, an irrational actor. Here's an article that goes into great depth from the Journal of International Political Theory - please note particularly the passage:
More often than not, the “rational actor assumption” of realism implies nothing more than the idea that states behave in an instrumental manner to achieve their desired goals. Many realists do not devote a lot of attention to unpacking the “rational actor assumption” apart from asserting that states make considered assessments about their external environments and act strategically to realize their interests. As Grieco (1997: 164–165) explains “state rationality, from a realist viewpoint, has at least three elements.” First, “realists assume that states are goal oriented.” Second, “realists assume that states have consistent goals. . .state preferences are ordered and transitive in the sense that if outcome A is preferred to B, and B is preferred to C, then A is preferred to C.” Third, “states are assumed by realists to devise strategies to achieve their goals” and “these strategies take into account the rank ordering by states of these goals.”
Likewise, Glaser (2010: 30) explains “acting rationally means that states are purposive actors that make at least reasonable efforts to choose the strategy that is best suited to achieving their goals. States are assumed to be able to identify and compare options, evaluating the prospects that they will succeed, as well as their costs and benefits.” In these examples, the use of words such as “rationality” or “rationally” are references to the “rational actor assumption.”
My analysis was that Russia would achieve optimal outcomes by threatening war and leveraging Western fears of it to extract maximum concessions at minimum cost and risk. Putin's analysis was that war was likely to have limited costs, while the expected gains were great, and that the outcome was not meaningfully in doubt. Both are rational calculations, even though they disagree on the preferred action.
That nicely explains the crux of my disagreement with the entire realist position. People are not rational actors. Realists can rationalize things that have happened in the past, but they are hopeless to predict the future because it's all pretend. People don't act in rational ways ever.
In reply to tuna55 :
Who's trying to predict the future? Any political model attempts to better understand likely outcomes, either to generate policy recommendations or to better understand events as they occurred or are occurring. In the foreign policy field, realism and idealism (and other theoretical approaches) posit structural models and systems that are based on respective shared assumptions; neither claims infallible predictive capability. Both successes and failures of these schools of thought help to further refine the models, just as scientific theories are refined by both successful and failed experiments.
From your statement that "(p)eople don't act in rational ways ever", it seems your argument is not with realism, but with the fundamental premise that human (or state) behavior is understandable in any structural way. If we operate from that perspective, there's no basis for studying human (or state) behavior at all, as there is nothing to be gained by doing so. From that sort of pre-Enlightenment perspective, the world will remain a dark and mysterious place, and society will be necessarily understood solely from the narrow perspective of each individual alone, or through doctrine rather than exploration. I do not share this point of view.
You'll need to log in to post.
