[HN Gopher] Transformer stockpiles and power grids come under th...
___________________________________________________________________
Transformer stockpiles and power grids come under threat
Author : programd
Score : 41 points
Date : 2022-12-30 18:44 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| a9h74j wrote:
| I've seen scattered comments that Russia has not yet targetted
| the highest-voltage transformers in Ukraine, for which
| stockpiling spares (as reported here) might not apply.
| simplyaccont wrote:
| There is difference between "not targeted" and "failed to blow
| up". 80% to 90% percent of missiles that russia shoots are
| intercepted, at which point you don't know what was their final
| destination. I guess more high value targets (like highest
| voltage transformers) have better air defense perimeter.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Citation needed on 80%+
|
| That seems excessively high.
| simplyaccont wrote:
| ok. will correct myself. after air-defense systems were
| beefed up over past month, it's more like 70% + https://pre
| view.redd.it/46tie6kaw29a1.jpeg?width=1280&format...
| ljf wrote:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64114784
|
| From Dec 29th attack:
|
| Ukraine's military said 69 missiles were launched, with air
| defences intercepting 54 of them.
|
| So 78% - I've not looked to see how normal or not that is,
| perhaps you can?
| simplyaccont wrote:
| it's cruise missiles. "slow" flying. people take them out
| even with MANPADs and German Gepards. somewhat "easy"
| target. If russia were to start shooting ballistic
| missles, it will be harder.
| booi wrote:
| imo unlikely they resort to those. ballistic missiles are
| a lot more expensive, malfunctions or mistakes could
| bring NATO into the war and at the very very least, will
| invite significant missile defense systems from other
| countries into Ukraine. It would be a mistake..
|
| Now that I think of it, Putin might not give af
| simplyaccont wrote:
| They do shoot Iskanders, which are short range ballistic.
| But they are running out of them. This is Ukranian
| estimations of russian stocks of various types of
| missiles that are currently been used for bombing Ukraine
| https://preview.redd.it/oa9z2mdhlv8a1.jpeg?width=1600&for
| mat...
| sofixa wrote:
| They took out the Tochkas from the reserves months ago,
| the Iskanders have probably already run out.
| simplyaccont wrote:
| They use tochkas only near the front line I believe. Not
| enough range to hit main targets deeper inside Ukraine.
| They also claim that there is no tochkas in use in
| russian army, despite plenty of evidence.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Which makes perfect sense, because Russia wants Ukraine's
| energy generation/transportation infrastructure.
| trebligdivad wrote:
| Some of the international power links are HV DC now; is there any
| opportunity to do the same inside large countries to avoid some
| of the largest transformers?
| fffrantz wrote:
| This would not solve the issue and might even worsen it.
|
| HVDC converter stations are absolutely massive and necessary to
| interconnect the HVDC line with the rest of the AC grid, making
| them larger targets than even the largest autotransformers
| (i.e. 750kV to 330kV like they seem to have in Ukraine).
| Karliss wrote:
| If openinframap can be trusted, there are quite a few HVDC
| lines across India and China already, some in US, Canada and
| Brazil. It's not just the international underwater cables that
| use them. Not sure if avoiding large transformers is sufficient
| reason for using HVDC lines. HVDC conversion stations still
| need big transformers in addition to giant semiconductors and
| other high power electronic components which aren't exactly
| cheap or widely available either.
| NickNameNick wrote:
| Hvdc systems still have transformers on the AC side.
| fffrantz wrote:
| Just to give more context, transformers can be enormous (as high
| as a 3 storey building, weighing hundreds of tons when loaded
| with all their necessary oil) and as such, their shipping is an
| endeavor in itself.
|
| The TSO I work at has started to switch to in-place building,
| where all the components are shipped to the final destination and
| the transformer is assembled directly in the substation.
|
| Also, lead times are apparently really long since everything is
| custom made.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Does the U.S. consider it to be a provocation too far to equip
| Ukraine with weapons systems that can strike these Russian
| missile batteries in Russia? It is ridiculous that we are tacitly
| tolerating this war by Russia but apparently we are afraid they
| will nuke us or someone.
| derriz wrote:
| I've wondered this also. I could understand the initial
| reluctance for western powers to supply such weapons. But the
| complexion of the war, it seems to me, has changed considerably
| with most Russian long range weapon fire now directed at
| civilian targets. This Russian tactic must constitute a war
| crime and so I feel the case for supporting the defence against
| these weapons is much stronger.
| simplyaccont wrote:
| Most of russian launched missiles are either airborne or
| launched from ships in Black Sea or Kasipan Sea. Also a bunch
| of iranian drones.
|
| The "only" land missile batteries in russian is S300 in
| Belgorode area that shoot at Kharkiv direction.
| jeffbee wrote:
| That only tangentially answered the specific form of the
| question. Why not equip Ukraine with anti-aircraft weapons
| that can threaten aircraft over Russia or anti-ship weapons
| that can harass targets in the Black Sea?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > That only tangentially answered the specific form of the
| question. Why not equip Ukraine with anti-aircraft weapons
| that can threaten aircraft over Russia
|
| Russian ALCMs have ranges of over 1,000 miles, and are
| launched from bombers that fly from bases hundreds of miles
| from Ukraine. There are no surface-to-air missiles that can
| shoot them down in flight from Ukraine.
|
| Ukraine is attacking the bombers _on the ground_ with their
| own Tu-141 drones converted to cruise missiles.
|
| The only thing that can practically be shot down in flight
| (short of a sufficient air combat capability to challenge
| control of airspace over Russia, which isn't happening
| short of a general war with the West, sending equipment to
| Ukraine won't do it) are the missiles themselves, which is
| why Ukraine _is_ being supplied systems like Patriot and
| NASAMS.
|
| > or anti-ship weapons that can harass targets in the Black
| Sea?
|
| Ukraine's domestically-developed land-launched Neptune
| missile has longer range to the US's longest-range
| dedicated anti-shipping that currently have a surface
| launch system, and only slightly shorter range than the
| ATACMS, which isn't AFAIK, designed for anti-shipping use
| but might be pressed into such use, or the LRASM, which is
| currently only integrated with certain US air platforms.
| The only thing the US might be able to transfer that would
| provide this coverage is the just-introduced Maritime
| Strike Tomahawk, which I gather there are very limited
| numbers of in US service.
| simplyaccont wrote:
| they shoot missiles from strategic bombers from hundreds
| miles away. caspian sea is even further (like thousand
| miles). Anti-aircraft systems or anti-ship "coast defence"
| systems do not work at those distances. Ukraine did bomb
| strategic bombers air-base that is around 350miles away, a
| couple of times recently, what made them relocate planes
| further away.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Does the U.S. consider it to be a provocation too far to
| equip Ukraine with weapons systems that can strike these
| Russian missile batteries in Russia?
|
| Maybe. I would not rule out that the real rationale is that
| limiting the scope of escalation of assistance serves the
| purpose of giving room to escalate further _without_ crossing
| some point beyond that which would cross what it _actually_
| sees as "too far".
|
| Also, Ukraine _has_ a (limited) domestic deep strike capability
| using Tu-141 jet drones converted to cruise missiles, which it
| has used to strike deep into Russia at strategic bomber bases
| from which Russia has been launching attacks.
|
| > It is ridiculous that we are tacitly tolerating this war by
| Russia
|
| I'm not sure I'd describe it that way; while on the one hand we
| are limiting the kind and scope of assistance to Ukraine, and
| _not_ directly intervening, the arms lift to Ukraine is pretty
| much unprecedented in anything post-WWII where we _aren't_
| directly engaged. This doesn't seem to be "tacit toleration" of
| Russia's war.
| goalieca wrote:
| Certain media is reporting strikes on airbases that are bombing
| civilian infra as "escalation". There's definitely no shortage
| of people who believe Ukraine having territorial sovereignty is
| too hardline for negotiations.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Yes the US has publicly stated they are avoiding delivering
| weapons which could be used to strike inside Russia.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Yes the US has publicly stated they are avoiding delivering
| weapons which could be used to strike inside Russia.
|
| Which is strictly untrue; weapons the US has supplied already
| _can_ strike inside Russia (and get the ability to strike
| further inside Russia as Ukraine has retaken territory.)
|
| It is likely that if, any real criteria regarding where it
| can strike is being used, its something like "systems that
| would be an advantage over other alternatives available to
| Ukraine only (or primarily) in strikes into Russia".
|
| It's also possible that that's a PR position covering a
| different set of calculations with regard to weighing the
| desire to provide Ukraine superiority while limiting the
| acceleration of the escalatory spiral and preserving visible
| options for retaliatory escalation short of general war to
| deter new Russian provocations.
| vkou wrote:
| Yes, it does, just like Russia considers it a provocation too
| far to strike Ukraine's warmaking industry. Because that
| industry is located in NATO countries.
|
| Also, Ukraine striking Russia would erode international support
| for it, and be a fantastic domestic propaganda opportunity for
| Russia.
|
| There is no situation in which doing so would be to Ukraine's
| advantage. It can only win the war by destroying Russia's will
| to fight, it cannot win it by destroying it's means to fight.
| ummonk wrote:
| There are also options for asymmetric tit for tat escalation
| that Russia could take. E.g. there are numerous militias in the
| Middle East that would happily accept high-end Russia weaponry
| to attack American troops.
| [deleted]
| NickNameNick wrote:
| Do the Russians have any equipment to spare?
|
| They already repatriated an s300 battery from Syria back to
| Russia.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-30 23:01 UTC)