Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[TheAuthority]

2 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

TBOTE ?

The beginning of the end. But still, again I'll say.

Edited February 26, 2022 by TheAuthority
Damn you page break!

[bickster]

1 minute ago, TheAuthority said:

The beginning of the end. But still, again I'll say.

FFS

[magnkarl]

59 minutes ago, blandy said:

I saw your post the other day, speculating about GPS on the back of your mate’s info. I was going to type a reply, explaining why it wasn’t, based on what you posted, but thought it’d be too dull and specialist. I still think the same.

I don’t know of anything that could be switched off by a business to ground an aircraft. Stuff like WAAS for GPS, TIS, ground infrastructure for MLS, ILS, DME,VOR,..and a whole bunch of other TLAs (see, I told you - dull) all would impact usability adversely, but not actually ground planes.
With GPS, the US govt controls the system and while pretty much the whole world relies on it, they turned off Selective availability ages ago. But even If they were to dither the non military satellite data they’d screw everyone in that part of the world the same, including Ukraine.   Further the Russians have their own (worse) version, GLONASS, so….

All that said, airliners and cargo planes are not the stuff I work on, so there may be something I’m overlooking.

thanks for the info re Aeroflot’s fleet.

Isn’t there a real possibility that supplying i.e software licenses or tech support for onboard systems like auto piloting, gps and so on in the hundreds of Boeings in Aeroflots fleet is covered by sanctions? 

Edited February 26, 2022 by magnkarl

[fightoffyour]

 

[Panto_Villan]

8 hours ago, magnkarl said:

I wonder what the users on here who have been bigging up Putin’s army think now? The US would wipe the floor with this army.

At the start of the conflict I thought the most likely scenario was that the Russians overrun Ukraine but get a bloody nose doing it. I think on balance that's still the most likely outcome - but I'm much more optimistic than I was previously, and I think the best case scenario has improved dramatically. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the Russians might throw everything they have at the Ukrainians and not be able to take the country, and that it spells the end for Putin. Which would obviously be great.

However I don't think we're quite there yet. The US thinks Russia have only committed 50% of their massed forces into Ukraine so far, and most of those already in Ukraine are still in decent shape. Even those tanks stranded due to lack of fuel are only out of action temporarily unless there's any Ukranian forces close enough to put them out of action for good. It's perfectly possible that the Russians can still overwhelm the Ukranians with sheer numbers, or perhaps they'll change tack and disregard civilian casualties to make things easier for them and that might turn the tide. Perhaps they'll encircle the major cities and knock out the power and heating, and then just pummel the defenders into submission with artillery. Or perhaps they'll fail to take Kiev but succeed in taking one or more major cities like Mauripol, and the war ends with Ukraine remaining independent but having to give up a chunk of their territory.

An analyst on Twitter pointed out that three days into the 2003 Iraq war, US forces had been taken as POWs and there was media talk that the US was losing the war - but as we all know the military campaign ended up being an overwhelming success. It's not a foregone conclusion that the Russians can't still force a victory. But obviously they've performed far worse than I expected and the Ukrainians have also performed far better than I expected (even taking into account the fact I never thought they'd be pushovers).

Also, there's the possibility that Russia further escalates the situation - starts using low-yield nukes, for example, and demands the Ukrainians agree to cede certain territory otherwise they'll have their major cities obliterated. At the end of the day Russia has always had the ability to escalate the situation in a way that Ukraine can't necessarily answer, although obviously doing so would be very dangerous for Russia and increases Putin's chances of being deposed. But we still need to consider them a possibility.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that the poor performance of the Russian forces so far doesn't mean the more cautious among us were wrong to be cautious. No sane military planner would assume that the Russians would waste their paratroopers on unsupported helicopter landings in the first day of the war, or not get their supply lines sorted, etc. If your enemies make those mistakes then that's great, but you can't assume they will. That after this showing said I doubt NATO is too frightened of anything in Russia's arsenal besides its nukes right now.

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Yeah problem is he’s quite vague about it all so it’s probably me missing the waters a little … I know when a plane goes down or gets hijacked he has to lock down all the engine data so it can’t be tampered with ; so for MH370 he got the call once it became apparent something was wrong , that’s why I speculated GPS but it could be something  to do with waypoints or something , dunno truth be told , but potentially it’s something important … can’t be GLONASS related as he said only the French had an alternative 

More geekery, but the Malaysian airlines thing , normally airliners transmit their position every so many seconds to satellites, once out of range of ground radar, but the assumed bad party disabled it. I think subsequently it’s been made non disablable, so civil aircraft can be tracked all the time regardless of hijackers/ pilots selections, so remote crashes can be found. CSMUs/SLBs do send out signals after a crash, but only for so long as their batteries last.

Im not up with civil aviation to much of an extent, but can’t think of anything a company could disable (without access to a plane) which would render it incapable of being flown. I mean they’re limited to ground or satellite infrastructure and services basically and none of them render an aircraft inoperable, just degraded capability. Stuff like SSR transponders and other kit are a legal requirement for airspace integration, but they don’t stop you flying if you ignore the rules, though the consequences would be strong.

[Panto_Villan]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

More geekery, but the Malaysian airlines thing , normally airliners transmit their position every so many seconds to satellites, once out of range of ground radar, but the assumed bad party disabled it. I think subsequently it’s been made non disablable, so civil aircraft can be tracked all the time regardless of hijackers/ pilots selections, so remote crashes can be found. CSMUs/SLBs do send out signals after a crash, but only for so long as their batteries last.

Im not up with civil aviation to much of an extent, but can’t think of anything a company could disable (without access to a plane) which would render it incapable of being flown. I mean they’re limited to ground or satellite infrastructure and services basically and none of them render an aircraft inoperable, just degraded capability. Stuff like SSR transponders and other kit are a legal requirement for airspace integration, but they don’t stop you flying if you ignore the rules, though the consequences would be strong.

Interesting. What is it that you do?

[magnkarl]

2 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

At the start of the conflict I thought the most likely scenario was that the Russians overrun Ukraine but get a bloody nose doing it. I think on balance that's still the most likely outcome - but I'm much more optimistic than I was previously, and I think the best case scenario has improved dramatically. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the Russians might throw everything they have at the Ukrainians and not be able to take the country, and that it spells the end for Putin. Which would obviously be great.

However I don't think we're quite there yet. The US thinks Russia have only committed 50% of their massed forces into Ukraine so far, and most of those already in Ukraine are still in decent shape. Even those tanks stranded due to lack of fuel are only out of action temporarily unless there's any Ukranian forces close enough to put them out of action for good. It's perfectly possible that the Russians can still overwhelm the Ukranians with sheer numbers, or perhaps they'll change tack and disregard civilian casualties to make things easier for them and that might turn the tide. Perhaps they'll encircle the major cities and knock out the power and heating, and then just pummel the defenders into submission with artillery. Or perhaps they'll fail to take Kiev but succeed in taking one or more major cities like Mauripol, and the war ends with Ukraine remaining independent but having to give up a chunk of their territory.

An analyst on Twitter pointed out that three days into the 2003 Iraq war, US forces had been taken as POWs and there was media talk that the US was losing the war - but as we all know the military campaign ended up being an overwhelming success. It's not a foregone conclusion that the Russians can't still force a victory. But obviously they've performed far worse than I expected and the Ukrainians have also performed far better than I expected (even taking into account the fact I never thought they'd be pushovers).

Also, there's the possibility that Russia further escalates the situation - starts using low-yield nukes, for example, and demands the Ukrainians agree to cede certain territory otherwise they'll have their major cities obliterated. At the end of the day Russia has always had the ability to escalate the situation in a way that Ukraine can't necessarily answer, although obviously doing so would be very dangerous for Russia and increases Putin's chances of being deposed. But we still need to consider them a possibility.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that the poor performance of the Russian forces so far doesn't mean the more cautious among us were wrong to be cautious. No sane military planner would assume that the Russians would waste their paratroopers on unsupported helicopter landings in the first day of the war, or not get their supply lines sorted, etc. If your enemies make those mistakes then that's great, but you can't assume they will. That after this showing said I doubt NATO is too frightened of anything in Russia's arsenal besides its nukes right now.

If you’ve studied new Russian campaigns you would have realised that Russia has never faced an army like Ukraine’s since Germany in ww2. Ukraine has been hardened by 8 years of war in which they’ve fought Russians and Russian equipment. Russia has never fought the kind of equipment and spirit they are now facing.

Add US and NATO intelligence to the mix and Ukraine can strike where they want when Russia is busy trying to steamroll past them in slightly upgraded soviet tanks.

Russia has always struggled with supply lines, Ukraine is Europe’s second largest country.

[Genie]

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

FFS

LOL

[Follyfoot]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

LOL

IPN

[sidcow]

There are rumours The Russians are moving a lot of heavy duty indiscriminately destructive weapons to the front. 

The worry is the original plan was to take the cities relatively easily and relatively intact with little civilian losses and little damage to buildings.  As that plan seems to be failing rather than lose face Putin is prepared to flatten the cities with mass casualties. 

[sidcow]

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

LOL

GTFO 

[tonyh29]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

More geekery, but the Malaysian airlines thing , normally airliners transmit their position every so many seconds to satellites, once out of range of ground radar, but the assumed bad party disabled it. I think subsequently it’s been made non disablable, so civil aircraft can be tracked all the time regardless of hijackers/ pilots selections, so remote crashes can be found. CSMUs/SLBs do send out signals after a crash, but only for so long as their batteries last.

Im not up with civil aviation to much of an extent, but can’t think of anything a company could disable (without access to a plane) which would render it incapable of being flown. I mean they’re limited to ground or satellite infrastructure and services basically and none of them render an aircraft inoperable, just degraded capability. Stuff like SSR transponders and other kit are a legal requirement for airspace integration, but they don’t stop you flying if you ignore the rules, though the consequences would be strong.

Geekery is good  

It was denying access rather than disabling anything ( disabling was I think someone’s else’s suggestion /post ) maybe if it’s real-time flight data then it means they are flying blind and thus grounded on safety issues ?  … when I see him on Monday I’ll try and get clarification just for geekery’s sake  

[maqroll]

14 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

 

The Russian people might find this an opportune time to hit the streets en masse.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Isn’t there a real possibility that supplying i.e software licenses or tech support for onboard systems like auto piloting, gps and so on in the hundreds of Boeings in Aeroflots fleet is covered by sanctions? 

I’ve got a computer. It asked me to agree to stuff when I first powered it on. If I don’t connect it to the internet, there’s no way it can be remotely rendered inoperable by the maker.

There are no “keys” required for civil GPS, auto-pilot, etc in my understanding. Even if I’m wrong, I mentioned GLONASS, and while modern aircraft are fly by wire and computer controlled, like I said, no one is going to “kill” (remotely or otherwise, even if they could) FCS computers and crash an airliner.

File your flight plan, get assigned a Flight ID and callsign from local ATC and off you go. All the stuff like TIS (traffic information system) data, ADS-B in (a safe separation aid), GNSS data, Nav beacon data..all the rest, is nice to have (more than) and is considered an essential part of modern aviation and airspace integration, but it doesn’t ground the aircraft even if unavailable, though it renders operation untenable commercially, because no one would want to pay to go on a plane that doesn’t have all that and is “rogue”. But like I said I don’t believe it’s deniable to individual aircraft in the most part. It’s just easier to simply ban Russia’s Aeroflot and Air Siberia from nations airspace. No James Bond remotely turning off software imaginings.

If someone comes along and puts me right, I’d be interested, but this is all way too geeky for a football forum, not planetalk.

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Interesting. What is it that you do?

This kind of stuff. Avionics.

[chrisp65]

[Sid4ever]

13 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

IPN

ITSONPOVP

[SuperTed]

26 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

 

[maqroll]