chrisl
-
Posts
2,081 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by chrisl
-
-
25 minutes ago, JonS said:
The gun is just the delivery system. The ammo is the weapon, and the weapon lends itself to mass production is a significant way. Artillery ammunition is practically the poster child for mass production.
Artillery ammo is pretty logistically heavy, but then mass scale UAVs are going to be INCREDIBLY logistically bulky. The supply chain isn't particularly delicate or particularly long - at least no more so than any other military log chain.
Drones reduce the mass of steel that you have to haul around that's only there to make the ammo survive the launch, even if you assume the same number of drones as artillery shells. They also precision deliver the HE so that you need less of it. So instead of 50 kg of shell and propellant, you've got 17 kg of R18 drone+5 kg explosive, so there's a factor of 2.5 per munition, and you don't need a big 4200 kg launch system.
But if you get 1 kill for every 10 drones (reasonably consistent with how Ukraine is doing) vs 1 kill for every 200 artillery shells, the drones get another factor of 20. You can make all the shells be PGMs, but then they need a spotter (drone), maybe a targeting laser (on a drone) and the shells are basically just drones with longer range and limited maneuverability because they're ballistic. I'd be more inclined to stuff autonomous drones into 155 mm shells to get the extra range, then let them fly around and do their precision autonomy thing far away from any friendlies.
-
10 hours ago, TheVulture said:
I wonder how much the F-4 Vietnam experience plays in to this (I'm probably mis-remembering the aircraft involved - apologies if so - and possibly this is one of those 'truisms' that turns out to be an urban myth or at least not quite as simple as usually described). The F-4 was initially designed without a gun / cannon, since it had air-to-air missiles that would supposedly render the gun obsolete - anything dangerous would be destroyed by missiles (or destroy the F-4 by missiles) before they ever got close to gun range. Turns out that the anti-air missiles didn't perform as reliably as hoped, and they did find themselves in dogfighting range without a gun to fall back on.
New versions were quickly developed that did have a gun, and all US planes since then, including the F-35 which is very much meant to not be a dogfighter, still carry a gun, because the cost of including it is relatively small, and the downside of not having one if you happen to find yourself in a situation where it's the best option is comparatively large.
And for modern naval vessels packing a single 5" gun, I imagine if things got hot they'd get used much like the guns on WWII era submarines. For an isolated, unarmed ship (or small hostile scout vessel) they wouldn't want to use their equivalent of a missile (a torpedo), especially for small targets that might not even trigger it. They'd sneak up and cut loose with the deck gun (or guns, sometimes they had a 20 mm and/or .50 cal too). Sometimes you need to be able to deliver an explosion from moderate range and don't need a whole missile for it.
-
12 hours ago, Tux said:
Imo you're one order away from the truth, here: the hard requirement is the effect (including the type of effect). You'll probably need to transport an object to the target to cause the effect but that's not the start.
Again, I think you're one dimension away: you want to "delay the collapse of the weapon's time and space option space" not necessarily as long as possible but at least until the point at which the target can no longer avoid being hit and there is therefore no longer a need to re-target. The rifle bullet is fine if fired from close range. The FPV drone is stuffed if the target drives away from it at 100km/h. What matters isn't the energy profile of the weapon system per se but its relationship to the intended target.
If you start from an intended effect, you can decide what the best target will be and what the best type of effect would be (chemical, kinetic, phonic, electromagnetic, etc.). You can then work out the best way to apply that effect to that target (i.e. the type of warhead) in order to achieve the intended overall effect (I'll google synonyms for "effect" in a minute, don't worry). The mass, volume and fragility of the selected warhead will be the main things that dictate the achievable energy-time curves for your weapon system. Then you can start worrying about things such as launch signatures or changing trajectories post-launch and whether you can realistically do anything about those things.
I've already written about the "as long as possible" point but you mention retaining energy here and that's important. Retaining energy is physically expensive and should always be seen as a compromising factor. All else being equal you want to retain as little energy as necessary after launch in order to achieve your desired effect at the target.
I think you're still one dimension away, too. You're starting from "How does my thing work, what can I shoot it at".
From a battlefield perspective, the problem is more of "what am I facing and how do I keep it from getting anywhere near me". And then you develop the ISR and precision to vaporize anything you don't like that acts like it wants to get to close based on what's out there. In doing all of that you're constrained by conservation of energy, but there's a lot of room to work with if you start before anything gets you into its range.
-
12 hours ago, holoween said:
Because its true.
Sounds paradoxical but isnt. If youre thrown into a random combat situation and have to deal with a tank and get to choose one weapon system to deal with it youll always choose a tank. Because it can do the job at any distance in any weather condition any EW and air defense situation in very short time.
But tanks cant be everywhere and in a lot of specific circumstances other weapons are more effective and importantly widespread.
What? No.
I want a radio.
A tank is only good if it sees the other tank first and can get the first shot off and has a sufficiently good targeting system to get a 1st-shot kill, and the range is short enough that the other tank doesn't get a round in the air ensuring the near simultaneous death of both tanks.
No thanks.
With a radio I can hide in a little hole and call my friends who deliver action at a distance to make the tank go away without the guys inside ever knowing I'm there.
But I don't even want to let things get that far. I'm a geek, I enjoy the comforts of my home office. I'll take space-based ISR for $1000, Alex. And the questio to the answer is "What do I have to build so nobody will bother trying to sneak up on me, lest they end up suffocating in a cubic mile of popcorn, and they know it?"
(edit: and I see @The_Capt ninja'd me on this. I need to try to keep more caught up.)
-
12 hours ago, Tux said:
Cultural block, 100%. Once a weapon system has achieved such an exaggerated cultural profile the system itself almost becomes a psychological heuristic towards achieving the effects associated with its success. As far as I can see it gets even worse once people start assuming they want to apply certain effects because that's what their favourite weapon system can do, because then you've blinded yourself to the possibility of the system's obsolescence.
It takes time and energy to occasionally reconsider what effects you want to apply and then work backwards to establish the best way to actually achieve that. It always blows people's minds when you do it well, though.
I think what photon is admirably trying to do is observe the new, successful weapon systems in Ukraine and, instead of just deciding that "dronez rule every1 must has dronez!", extract the secret sauce of their success in more general, physical terms.
Unfortunately I (so far) think that the e-t profile and/or integral of same is a red herring; I think it's an emergent property of weapon systems that are able to lean into precision vs. brute force, rather than a deterministic property that can be used to decide the effectiveness of a weapon.
I think the first couple paragraphs of your response are a version of the "XY problem" that's usually a form of: non-expert asks expert "how do I do X" or "can you help fix my thing that's supposed to do X", when the only reason they're doing X in the first place is that they really want to do Y and X is the only way they know how to do it. An expert will tell them how to do X. A system engineer will poke at their brain for a while to understand why they want to do X and figure out that the real goal is Y, and there are three other ways Z, A, and B to do Y that are all more effective and less hassle.
I don't think the energy thing is a red herring, so much as system energy comes in complicated ways. Energy arguments are very useful in all sorts of things, including physics based sensors, function of biological systems, logistics, and weapons systems. For a given volume you can pack in some amount of energy if you're working with readily available sources - petrochemicals, batteries, and high and low explosives are probably the main ones here. How you choose to spend that energy is a discriminator among systems.
Artillery, for example, uses most of it in two big (and short) bangs - one of propellant to get the shell moving, and another to make a mess at the other end. But with modern ISR, electronics, sensors, and control systems you can use some of the energy of that initial propulsion bang to maneuver the shell in the air - either to extend its range or to fine guide itself to a target. But you have to be careful spending that, because every maneuver to change direction costs you some of that energy. Hypersonic missiles have the same limitation - sure, they go stupid fast. But every time you try to change direction of something going that fast you have to stick a finger out in the wind and use up some of that energy (and speed). And the maneuvering cost is very non-linear in how fast you're going, so a just few maneuvers at high speed gets very expensive. And pretty soon you just look like another dumb glide or ballistic missile and get shot down by some borrowed Patriot system.
-
5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I strongly suspect - even thought it is still quoted as a mantra - that this war is demonstrating that the best thing to kill a tank is not another tank. It would appear that artillery, ATGMs and FPVs are winning that particular argument quite well on their own.
And those are all effective now vs 50 (or even 30) years ago because of precision targeting combined with maneuverability after launch. Two of them (artillery and FPVs) are BVR, and we'll probably start seeing BVR tank-on-tank using drones to provide the direction shortly over the horizon, like Apache Longbows, and similar with ATGMs, limited by how much propellant it's reasonable to make infantry haul around on their backs.
-
1 minute ago, Kinophile said:
So that's almost @The_Capt's creeping mines. Put each deployable mine on a string and put springs instead of explosive charges in the bottom of each tube, along with a little motor to wind the strings back and you're there.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
Yup. Though I still agree with Holien's primary point, which is that China isn't getting as much out of this war as the West is. China already knows very well what Western tech and techniques can do as it's been on full display for 20 years of warfare. Sure, we didn't really see what massed use of things like Javelin would do to a mechanized force, but man... it really doesn't take a savant to figure that one out.
On the other hand, I think both China and the West have taken the same lesson from this war. And that is whatever each thinks it can do probably won't work. Or at least won't work as well.
China has the bigger problem because all this mess is showing that defense is waaaaaay easier than offense. Since China isn't prepping for a defensive war, but an offensive one, that's got to be causing some heartburn amongst senior Chinese military planners. My guess is they previously thought they had a plan to defeat Taiwan faster than it could be reinforced, now they are wondering if they can take Taiwan out at all. Not to mention fast.
Steve
An offensive war where there won't be relatively easily repaired railroads, or dirt roads through vaguely screened areas. But instead everything has to move over air or sea, where it's *really* easy to get a high signal-to-noise ratio for targeting, unless the owner of the target has spent F-35 money on being invisible.
-
1 hour ago, Offshoot said:
Is this normal? In both instances it looks like over 20 personnel disembark from a single vehicle. I didn't know you could even fit that many on a tank. From recent videos the Russians have lost a lot of equipment over the past weeks, so are men plentiful but vehicles not so much now?
It looks like they have the armored clown car bug from CM:BO.
Please fix or do somefink!
-
1 hour ago, Kinophile said:
Within reason there are only two players in this fight who are actually implementing battlefield developments.
Even Western weapons are only provided as-is, with the ZSU doing the additional original work in implementation.
WRT Drones Russia is really only a copycat of UKR cutting edge TTP.
We're at the very, very beginning. As far as I've seen so far, both sides are doing all this with a very conventional sensor set (Vis/IR cameras and GPS, mostly) and and haven't really ventured into RF or chemotaxis. And we've seen only tiny bits of autonomy where it looks like it's "last 100 meters" kind of autonomy, more than "deny this volume indefinitely". There have been a few US/European demos of RF-chasing drones. Once those sensors and autonomy get more widely distributed it's going to be massive swarms of drones against drones.
-
1 hour ago, poesel said:
I guess this is the AI part: an optical system that can track the tank with a camera. Probably the operator needs to point out the target once and then it is autonomous. No amount of EW can defeat that (unless you can fry the drone with microwaves).
And the lead tank was basically screaming "shoot me first! shoot me first!" on every frequency. Anything using its radio for target homing instead of communication will make a beeline toward it. So if it wasn't an optical/AI drone, it could have been an anti-radiation drone.
-
1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:
Yup, totally. Last night I was with a friend who just had a heart attack. His wife is an ER nurse (amongst other things). She was telling us how difficult it is to detect certain types of heart attacks even though the patient is saying "I'm having a heart attack". What they do is take it on faith, do all kinds of things one should do for a heart attack patient, and then eventually something will show up on a test. And no, I can't remember the medical jargon for that type of attack. All new terms for me, so in one ear and out the other.
Another reminder of the detection limitations of diseases are things like Lupus and early onset MS. For the most part they are diagnosed based on symptoms, not on lab results and scans. There are things like cancer variants which can only be identified through genetic markers which, if you're lucky, someone has already discovered.
This is no fault on the medical establishment at all. They shouldn't be expected to know everything and they definitely can't know what they don't know much about. Or perhaps anything about in the case of some top secret Soviet/Russian tech, chemical, or bio capability.
Steve
MS is still basically a cipher. Unbelievably mysterious and bizarrely correlated to the latitude where you grew up.
Biology is insanely complicated. I spend a lot of time among physical scientists who fancy themselves to be doing biology research (a description that fits me a lot of the time, too). Many of them don't have any hands on bio experimental experience and you end up with people who think that easy (and solved) things are impossible, and that things that are currently well beyond our knowledge and available data are trivial. And that's in research labs where you can isolate questions reasonably well. Doctors are basically working with horribly complicated systems that are hard to understand and have huge variations when functioning normally, and can break in a unbelievable number of obscure ways.
-
5 hours ago, The_Capt said:
- Urban operations. We can see from Gaza a few hints. UAS definitely have an impact but dense urban operations may actually provide a break from the ISR problem. UAS don’t appear to be able to navigate a complex building internally but that will likely change. My sense is urban operations may remain more in line with how we understood it before the war. It may be one area that is shifting slower. Of course I might be totally wrong on this one.
Getting good RF in buildings can be a pain. It's why I still have a desk phone at work - I'm in the middle of a building and my cell reception sucks there (though VOIP mostly mitigates that now, so I could probably let it go). Cell reception sucks in my house that isn't even all that large and is all wood, but is surrounded by hills and trees and things. And that's with trying to get reception. Effective drones much beyond the entryway of buildings is still DARPA Grand Challenge territory. They'll get there, and probably sooner than we think, but that's where you really need to have a lot of autonomy. Even if you have decent reception in the building sometimes, it can easily disappear in good sized regions and you need the drone to be able to take care of itself without comms and not be taken out by a bunch of curious cats.
-
6 hours ago, dan/california said:
I can tell you from painful personal experience that you can be bleeping near crippled from long COVID while every test they can think to run comes back negative. On some level Havana Syndrome is same kind of the same thing.
That's the thing about diseases and medicine in general.
Doctors are usually pretty good about telling whether you're alive or dead. Usually. In between is an extremely sliding scale, and if you can feed yourself and make to the bathroom on your own most of the time a lot of doctors will say you're fine. Even if you won the a Nobel prize the previous week.
And the problem with biological damage in general is that we have terrible resolution on a lot of things, and things at very tiny scales can matter a lot in how your body functions. Other tiny things (like a virus) can do microscopic damage and then be cleared from your system so they're undetectable. But you're still messed up because maybe a whole bunch of capillaries aren't acting the way they're supposed to. Or your clotting system is doing weird intermittent things in your organs. Or some intermediate chemical process that people have mostly ignored, except for maybe one poorly paid graduate student, is completely broken and we won't learn that it matters for another decade. But there's nothing chemically or macroscopically detectable (at least not without slicing you into thin sections, which would probably annoy you) because your body cleared out the actual virus a long time ago. To get a sense of how tiny things can be and matter: at peak covid there was probably about 10 (or maybe a few tens) total kilograms of virus on the entire planet. Biology is complicated stuff.
-
35 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:
I was thinking more about locomotive hunting the other day with drones. Maybe it’s easier to just drop anti-tank mines with an accelerometer on them on the track? But you need to get the damn mine over there anyway.
You might get away with advance laying AT mines a few times, but eventually they'd start running smaller vehicles (service locomotives, or even trucks with train wheels) pushing a sacrificial train car or two (maybe with a very low plow, too) ahead of the trains. It would certainly slow things down, but not necessarily bring it to a halt.
But drones that drop AT mines just a short way in front of the moving train? You'd take advantage of the extemely long stopping distance and make it a lot harder to sweep the tracks. And maybe easier than hitting the moving locomotive.
-
57 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:
Well, the 'Limited Contingent of Soviet Forces in Afghanistan' was ultimately forced out when their air supplied FOBs became untenable.
The biggest kick in the ntz will come though when Ivan's rail network goes down. Shoulda been done long ago, IMHO, by any means necessary, but as the pros remind us, easier said than done.
The Ukrainian drone hordes will be the most effective thing for finally restricting the rail network, but I suspect they still have to deal with range limitations. Taking out track is very temporary - it's not hard lay new segments of track quickly. But taking out locomotives and leaving a pile of rolling stock on the track adds some complication. Locomotives are also something you could attack very effectively with a not-very-clever autonomous drone if you need to hit them beyond effective RF control range.
-
43 minutes ago, Joe982 said:
Civilian airliners in the air can be scanned globally by anyone with a phone. Ukrain cannot hit one by mistake.
Via ADS-B?
It's not perfect. In an area where there aren't a lot of ground receivers feeding your map you're dependent on them being picked up by Iridium. And depending on what system you're using to watch aircraft, the lag between transmission and display can be anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes.
And the easy defense for russia is to squawk civilian airliner codes so that whoever wants to shoot at them would need visual confirmation to have confidence that it's not.
-
4 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:
Except that terrorist acts aren't committed with a specific reaction in mind. Terrorist acts are committed with a specific goal in mind.
Oftentimes the reactions are very predictable and pretty obviously the goal of the attackers. The Shoe Bomber and the Underwear Bomber are examples of that. The two guys who got caught trying to blow things up may have thought that they were going to damage something and kill a bunch of people, but whoever set them up wasn't expecting that. Neither one of them was going to damage anything - they were set up to get caught hiding explosives in ways that would cause the US and much of the world to inflict all sorts of disruption on itself. Had they actually blown up the aircraft over ocean it's likely that the root cause would have never been found. But by under-arming them and making sure they got caught, they gave the DHS another thing to freak out over and add ineffective disruptions to try to mitigate. That would have failed the goals of whoever set them up. The reaction to both of those was entirely predictable and we still disrupt our air travel to try to detect copycats to this day.
-
10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
This video clearly demonstrates the futility of trying to hide once it's clear they know where you are. Because wherever you go to hide, they'll know that's where you are. In the case of this video, these guys put themselves into a perfect place to die. They stood a much better chance of surviving if they kept moving. At least up to a point, because you can't keep moving forever. The presumption that you can is the underlying flaw of maneuver warfare.
Steve
It's the modern military version of "you can't outrun motorola", and it's the kind of thing anybody who's watched broadcast TV in Los Angeles is familiar with. Somebody in a car is trying to get away from police and as soon as the helicopters show up it's over, but they usually drag it out for another couple hours on live TV thinking they can get away. Followed by a police helicopter and 3-4 news choppers, all with searchlights and Vis/IR cameras. Replace the helicopters with 2-3 overwatch drones and the squad cars with a half dozen FPV munition drones and it's Ukraine.
-
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
So this is where “AI hype” has led us. Note: this is using the broadest definition of AI. Many would simply call it non-human processing power. The combination of ISR, communication and precision has been the driver of this current “tactical crisis” - which has resulted in operational stalemate, strategic/political anxiety and industrial strain.
What I do not know is how deep this will go. Can it be solved in this war? Or is this enduring new reality? My best guess is that more weaponized AI in the form of a forward unmanned envelop is the answer, but that is not proven. We need to really see proof that “mass precision beats everything”.
Most of the people I know who do this stuff tend to call it "Machine Learning" rather than AI. It helps avoid getting caught in the AGI hype and is more accurate.
Precision mass will beat dumb mass and leave less of a mess (in every respect) to clean up. Star Trek covered this - the endpoint came to basically rolling dice and then each side would send the number rolled into the people shredder. Leading eventually to the better solution of "just don't get into it"
-
1 hour ago, Kraft said:
Almost happened last year, FPV targeted missile dumping chopper but missed helicopter by ~100 meters as it couldnt catch up with the speed.
And for FPVs to take out a helicopter you don't need a lot of bang. If you can get ingested into a turbine or hit the rotor hub you can make their day a lot less pleasant.
-
4 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:
Is that not a Batman movie plot point?
Man, life does imitate art.
It's a pretty obvious solution. I suggested it as an app that people can run on their phones way back in Fall 2022. It's the same as locating a radio transmitter with multiple receivers, but using sound waves instead of radio waves. Sound has a lot shorter range and detectors aren't nearly as sensitive as for radio, so you need a whole lot more of them.
-
7 hours ago, The_Capt said:
I really don’t see that stopping an FPV with an RPG round strapped to it coming in at 80kph. And it definitely won’t do a damned thing against this little monster:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914714000348
We really haven't seen much in the way of standoff EFPs dropped-from/carried-on drones yet, have we? A former USAF tech development guy I know thinks the CBU-97/BLU-108 is the greatest thing since sliced bread for dealing with armor.
The Javelin packs something similar into a missile transport, but the rocket equation makes it kind of big to haul around. Drones give up the Javelin's speed for range, stealth, and smaller mass and could become an even bigger AT nightmare with sensor fuzed EFPs (either as FPV suicide drones or as EFP taxis with multiple warheads).
-
On 3/23/2024 at 3:17 PM, Kinophile said:
Once again proving that everything is funnier when there's a duck involved, no matter how unfunny it is at its core.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Sure, but if I can deliver it up close and personal with a drone, I need a whole lot less frag, too. And I can deliver it like a pizza through the door of your dugout.