Tux

I follow but I think there might be too many variables in play, at the moment.
Does your idea assume constant energy applied at the point of impact by two projectiles with different e-t curves or does it assume a constant effect applied to the target?
Do you want to keep the energy imparted to the projectile in order to get it to the target constant and just play with the shape of the e-t curve (launch signature vs. changing trajectory vs. "reserving energy for effect", etc.)?  Or do you want to minimise the energy absolutely (i.e. reduce the integral of the e-t curve)?

The why do we still hear this mantra coming out of western militaries today?  We had a MGen declare this exact statement at the opening of an Operational Symposium last month.  I have heard this mantra as the primary reason to have tanks for years now.
I agree entirely that history - and this war in particular - clearly demonstrate that 100 years of worrying about tanks has created a world where tanks are being hunted into extinction by a multitude of systems.  I also think we have a cultural block we cannot get past.

I like your thinking but maybe it's missing some dimensions (or maybe I'm misinterpreting you use of the phrase "option space").  Certainly, the goal of a weapon system is to deliver sufficient energy to a particular place at a particular time in order to destroy or degrade the enemy's will or ability to fight.  I'm not sure about the focus on kinetic, though.
How do you account for mines?  Zero energy-time curve until the point of explosion (analagous to the point of impact of the projectiles you describe) but I wouldn't consider them to have a particularly large "option space". How do you account for explosives, generally?  Two projectiles with identical energy-time curves apart from at the point of impact (i.e. one has an explosive warhead while the other does not)? Materials matter:  If two projectiles with identical energy-time curves are made of hardened steel and tungsten, respectively, there are conditions involving armour plate which will cause the former to shatter on impact while the latter does not.  This means the latter has a larger option space (i.e. can be used to successfully attack certain targets which the other cannot)? Shapes matter:  two identical e-t projectiles but one is optimally shaped for target penetration while the other is not.  The better-shaped one has a larger option space? How would you account for a directed-energy weapon? I think maybe 'retaining maximal option space for as long as possible' (by which I assume you mean retaining the ability to manoeuvre and refine a targeting solution) helps humans to guide relatively small amounts of energy (kinetic and/or chemical) to enemy weak points, so probably adds efficiency to the energy applied in that sense.  In a lot of other scenarios though I think it takes a bit of a back seat versus the nature of the projectile itself.

I like your thinking but maybe it's missing some dimensions (or maybe I'm misinterpreting you use of the phrase "option space").  Certainly, the goal of a weapon system is to deliver sufficient energy to a particular place at a particular time in order to destroy or degrade the enemy's will or ability to fight.  I'm not sure about the focus on kinetic, though.
How do you account for mines?  Zero energy-time curve until the point of explosion (analagous to the point of impact of the projectiles you describe) but I wouldn't consider them to have a particularly large "option space". How do you account for explosives, generally?  Two projectiles with identical energy-time curves apart from at the point of impact (i.e. one has an explosive warhead while the other does not)? Materials matter:  If two projectiles with identical energy-time curves are made of hardened steel and tungsten, respectively, there are conditions involving armour plate which will cause the former to shatter on impact while the latter does not.  This means the latter has a larger option space (i.e. can be used to successfully attack certain targets which the other cannot)? Shapes matter:  two identical e-t projectiles but one is optimally shaped for target penetration while the other is not.  The better-shaped one has a larger option space? How would you account for a directed-energy weapon? I think maybe 'retaining maximal option space for as long as possible' (by which I assume you mean retaining the ability to manoeuvre and refine a targeting solution) helps humans to guide relatively small amounts of energy (kinetic and/or chemical) to enemy weak points, so probably adds efficiency to the energy applied in that sense.  In a lot of other scenarios though I think it takes a bit of a back seat versus the nature of the projectile itself.

I think you might be getting at energy efficiency.
A creepy-crawly mine first of all adds energy to the curve, so the integral is larger:  the mine's creepiness (motors, power source, etc.) adds mass to the mine and the mine therefore requires more energy to manufacture and deploy and then uses more energy during its 'attack phase' (creeps towards the target vs. staying still and blowing up).  However, let's say your dumb mine can destroy anything up to an MBT which drives over the top of it.  Now, if you reduce the mass of the warhead to compensate for the mine's added creepy energy, you might end up with a mine that doesn't use any additional energy but can kill anything up to an MBT (let's say it knows how to hit weak spots) that drives within 100m of it.  You have a larger option space by using your energy more efficiently while not necessarily having reduced the integral of your energy-time curve. Again, explosives in the example I gave don't reserve energy, they add it.  If two ballistically-identical projectiles strike a target with the same KE, one with an HE warhead and one without, the explosive one will deliver more energy to the target.  That potentially translates into a larger option space while not changing the integral of the pre-impact e-t curve. noted noted Noted and agreed.  However let's combine this one with your drone launch/ missile launch/ 155 firing examples:  the energy spikes you describe at the launch of each projectile (and for use of the DEW) are energy wastage.  Generally the more power you need to apply to a projectile the harder it will be to avoid losing large amounts to waste heat, light and sound.  That waste heat, light and sound is the signature that the enemy may detect.  A lot of it is easier to detect and tells the enemy that a powerful launch system is at the location of the signature.  If you can apply energy more gradually (i.e. apply less power) then your energy losses will reduce and, if you can do that without a loss of lethality in terms of finding, hitting and destroying the target then your overall energy efficiency has improved and you're onto a winner. I think that's where the advances in weapons that we see today stem from: they use energy more efficiently.  modern, small and light-weight electronics, computing and ISR allow drones to attack enemy weak spots with unprecedented precision and reliability.  The fact that they can hit weak spots means less energy needs to be applied in order to destroy the enemy.  Drones (airborne and seaborne) can therefore carry smaller warheads at lower speeds (which also helps with targeting reliability, when controlled by a slow-thinking human being).  Less mass accelerating more slowly to a lower attack velocity means much less powerful launch systems (if any) and so launch signatures (energy loss) are basically not there for the enemy to detect.

I think you might be getting at energy efficiency.
A creepy-crawly mine first of all adds energy to the curve, so the integral is larger:  the mine's creepiness (motors, power source, etc.) adds mass to the mine and the mine therefore requires more energy to manufacture and deploy and then uses more energy during its 'attack phase' (creeps towards the target vs. staying still and blowing up).  However, let's say your dumb mine can destroy anything up to an MBT which drives over the top of it.  Now, if you reduce the mass of the warhead to compensate for the mine's added creepy energy, you might end up with a mine that doesn't use any additional energy but can kill anything up to an MBT (let's say it knows how to hit weak spots) that drives within 100m of it.  You have a larger option space by using your energy more efficiently while not necessarily having reduced the integral of your energy-time curve. Again, explosives in the example I gave don't reserve energy, they add it.  If two ballistically-identical projectiles strike a target with the same KE, one with an HE warhead and one without, the explosive one will deliver more energy to the target.  That potentially translates into a larger option space while not changing the integral of the pre-impact e-t curve. noted noted Noted and agreed.  However let's combine this one with your drone launch/ missile launch/ 155 firing examples:  the energy spikes you describe at the launch of each projectile (and for use of the DEW) are energy wastage.  Generally the more power you need to apply to a projectile the harder it will be to avoid losing large amounts to waste heat, light and sound.  That waste heat, light and sound is the signature that the enemy may detect.  A lot of it is easier to detect and tells the enemy that a powerful launch system is at the location of the signature.  If you can apply energy more gradually (i.e. apply less power) then your energy losses will reduce and, if you can do that without a loss of lethality in terms of finding, hitting and destroying the target then your overall energy efficiency has improved and you're onto a winner. I think that's where the advances in weapons that we see today stem from: they use energy more efficiently.  modern, small and light-weight electronics, computing and ISR allow drones to attack enemy weak spots with unprecedented precision and reliability.  The fact that they can hit weak spots means less energy needs to be applied in order to destroy the enemy.  Drones (airborne and seaborne) can therefore carry smaller warheads at lower speeds (which also helps with targeting reliability, when controlled by a slow-thinking human being).  Less mass accelerating more slowly to a lower attack velocity means much less powerful launch systems (if any) and so launch signatures (energy loss) are basically not there for the enemy to detect.

I like your thinking but maybe it's missing some dimensions (or maybe I'm misinterpreting you use of the phrase "option space").  Certainly, the goal of a weapon system is to deliver sufficient energy to a particular place at a particular time in order to destroy or degrade the enemy's will or ability to fight.  I'm not sure about the focus on kinetic, though.
How do you account for mines?  Zero energy-time curve until the point of explosion (analagous to the point of impact of the projectiles you describe) but I wouldn't consider them to have a particularly large "option space". How do you account for explosives, generally?  Two projectiles with identical energy-time curves apart from at the point of impact (i.e. one has an explosive warhead while the other does not)? Materials matter:  If two projectiles with identical energy-time curves are made of hardened steel and tungsten, respectively, there are conditions involving armour plate which will cause the former to shatter on impact while the latter does not.  This means the latter has a larger option space (i.e. can be used to successfully attack certain targets which the other cannot)? Shapes matter:  two identical e-t projectiles but one is optimally shaped for target penetration while the other is not.  The better-shaped one has a larger option space? How would you account for a directed-energy weapon? I think maybe 'retaining maximal option space for as long as possible' (by which I assume you mean retaining the ability to manoeuvre and refine a targeting solution) helps humans to guide relatively small amounts of energy (kinetic and/or chemical) to enemy weak points, so probably adds efficiency to the energy applied in that sense.  In a lot of other scenarios though I think it takes a bit of a back seat versus the nature of the projectile itself.

UK trying to cover all the bases as Lord Cameron visits Mar-a-Lago, Biden administration officials, and Members of Congress, presumably the ones swallowing the Russian propaganda that need convincing.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-cameron-donald-trump-us-aid-ukraine-russia-war-h3w687nkb
As for Russian propaganda, some comments from rational Republicans in Congress on that subject:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4579289-intel-chair-turner-absolutely-true-russia-propaganda-infected-us-congress/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/06/when-top-republican-says-russian-propaganda-has-infected-gop/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Not that this is any great surprise, but it is refreshing to hear at least some Republicans calling out their colleagues for promoting misinformation.
For The Times and WaPo, I have subscriptions, but I think you still get a certain number of free looks per month without a subscription. If you can't and really want to read them, PM me and I may be able to "gift" the article to you.

Dave
 

So, I've been thinking and reading, and want to advance a thesis for folks to hammer apart. It's a combination of @The_Capt's language of option spaces with battlefield physics. Maybe this is well known, but it's new to me. Here it goes.
The goal of a weapon system is to deliver kinetic energy (in the physics sense) to a particular place at a particular time. Let's gloss over how you pick that place and time (which is in its own revolution right now). You could think of each weapon system as having an energy-time curve that represents how much energy the killing bits have at a given moment. A couple of exampled:
1. A (ancient, thrown; not modern AT) javelin. The tip has very low energy until thrown. Steep curve (maybe < 1s) to get to maximum energy when just released, gradual decrease in energy as it follows a ballistic trajectory (maybe 5s), then it delivers its energy to the target.
2. A naval artillery shell. The case fragments have low energy while in magazine. Very alarmingly steep curve (< 1s) to get to very large maximum energy when exiting barrel. Gradually losing energy during long ballistic flight (30s+). Loses huge gobs of energy penetrating deck armor (< 1s). Shell explodes imparting large kinetic energy to fragments and gasses delivering energy to target.
3. An air launched cruise missile. The warhead has low energy on runway. Jet engines being to gradually impart both kinetic and gravitational potential energy (minutes to hours). The turbojet motor lights imparting a steady stream of kinetic energy as the missile travels (minutes to hours). The warhead explodes imparting large kinetic energy to fragments and gasses delivering energy to the target.
4. A grenade dropping drone. The drone takes off using the minimal energy necessary. It cruises to the target area using the minimal energy necessary for level flight. Grenade falls, explodes imparting kinetic energy to fragments and gasses delivering energy to the target.
Here's my thesis: the flatter the energy-time curve (i.e. the slower its area integral grows), the larger the option space for the weapon, and consequently the harder it is to defend against the weapon. Additionally, the flatter the energy-time curve, the smaller the signature of the weapon system, and the less it attracts counter fires.
I think we're seeing this dynamic in all theaters and modes of warfare in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians are putting on a master class in developing weapon systems that retain maximal option space for as long as possible. It's just precision that is changing the battlefield dynamic, it's weapons that retain their option spaces much longer than even a decade ago.

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.

Yeah, he obviously doesn't know the history of Afghanistan or Czechoslovakia/Hungary or he would be making that comparison not Iraq 2003. He kinda says that if war was a computer game you could save-scum your way to a flawless victory against impossible odds. But he doesn't say how. 
War is about mistakes - you can't run a "what if" scenario based on your side running a flawless campaign with perfect knowledge of both thr enemy and yourself

Oh for principled leaders like this today… certainly not a loser in my opinion 
 

I keep wondering what you have to do wrong to get assigned to drive one of these. I also find it hilarious that they make them drive around by themselves. "It will all be fine, we promise", also" don't get closer than one kilometer to any friendly unit". 

It's ironic that you exactly prove your point by posting an outrage-farming video by someone with a clear political bias watching a video by someone else with a political bias (who misrepresents what people say and asks leading questions) rather than actual data. I will not discuss US politics as I am not American, it is off-topic and it will just lead to a ****-show, so consider this post in the vein of how to form evidence-based opinions, which has been a central point of discussion over the past few pages.
Here is an actual study on this topic. Note how they outline their methodology and openly discuss the limitations of the study. You are also free to decide for yourself if these are meaningful when spread out over the entire population (though you would really need to look more closely at local situations given the way the electoral system works).
WHO LACKED PHOTO ID IN 2020?: An Exploration of the American National Election Studies

The thing is all falsehood goes through the first two stages, as well.  Unfortunately some even makes it to the third, even if only to a minority of people…
Come to think of it, the reason we value the scientific method and rational argument is because it forcibly applies the first two stages to information and so we hope that only truth makes it to the third.
Perhaps Schopenhauer should have added the word “thankfully” in there, somewhere.

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.

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.

Yes! In fact that's one of the clearest signs that you're looking at a dictatorship rather than a true democracy. Democratic elections are competitive. Elections in single-party democracies* (a.k.a. dictatorships) are not competitive, and are really only conducted at all in order to provide the appearance of democratic legitimacy.
*A single-party democracy either only allows one party to run, or may allow other parties to run as straw-men but will only ever allow one party to win. Almost all modern dictatorships are single-party democracies. They provide an advantage over classic dictatorships if you are the dictator since you get a little extra legalistic justification for your rule, without ever really challenging your rule.

I think there’s probably an interesting discussion to be had about how best to respond to a threat to a system which many people feel frustrated with or even disenfranchised from entirely.  However I also think there’s a time and a place for that discussion and it probably ain’t while allies are fighting an existential war of defence on their own territory, almost explicitly for the right to try and join the threatened system.
War has a funny way of punishing equivocal responses and that cannot be the fault of those who are attacked.

The story that's being presented is that a weapon developed as early as the 1970's has been used hundreds of times without being discovered. That is an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof. I was around pre and post Cold War and I can assert with some confidence that what the USG knew about secret programs before the wall came down was far more complete than it realized. This would literally be a unique case. 
On the technical side, I would strongly encourage reading Cheryl Rofer's article I posted above. There are very basic limitations in modern physics that powerfully militate against a directed energy weapon being capable of doing what is asserted. Again, we can't entirely rule it out but that claim is even more extraordinary than the one in the paragraph above. It needs equally extraordinary proof.
There is a powerful urge around this town to assume things that are not yet in evidence...driven in many cases by extremely faulty logic. One prominent claim is that the Biden administration is afraid to confront Russia. I would love to query the tens of thousands of dead mobiks at the hands of American materiel ask them if they concur. Somehow I doubt it.
So...I would say don't rule it out but the evidence so far is that while we know the Russians were up to something we don't have anything but circumstantial evidence so far. I, of course, do not expect such a prudential view will be the majority view around this town.

People, people, please.
It is perfectly reasonable important to ask ourselves sometimes: how do we know the world is actually a spheroid?
We all assume it is, but have you experienced it yourself? Humans are wrong with their assumptions about the world more often than they are right, did you consider this?
Now, you might have a thread full of possible hints towards a spheroid planet, and you have discussed it amongst yourself, to the best of your ability determining it does a lot look like it might be spheroid - with some people hoping that it turns out spheroid and others open that it isn't qhen things go wrong. But what if all of you are just subject to a well-known phenomenon of mass hallucinations, which especially affects those of low IQ, such like the people who are not myself?
And it gets worse when people are in a group for anlong time. They tell to each other that the world must be round, but what do they use? Physics? Optics? Geometry?
Do you know how many times these fields have been re-written again and again? By people in authority no less, who are well-known to be conspiratorial liars whenever you don't watch their fingers closely.
You might now wonder where my questions are going, but really, where would all you people end up if not someone like me, with one year of high-school philosophy under my belt, didn't engage you with aimless sophistry?
This is my last and only post. Have a good night everyone.
(You expected me to wish you a good day? Expectations subverted again sheeple! I will now leave to look at Hunter Biden's leaked nudes.)

I think there’s probably an interesting discussion to be had about how best to respond to a threat to a system which many people feel frustrated with or even disenfranchised from entirely.  However I also think there’s a time and a place for that discussion and it probably ain’t while allies are fighting an existential war of defence on their own territory, almost explicitly for the right to try and join the threatened system.
War has a funny way of punishing equivocal responses and that cannot be the fault of those who are attacked.

I find reading walls of naked opinion (when it even gets that far) as tedious as the next person, so I don’t mean this to sound at all like a rebuke:  however I would argue that it’s important for a forum such as this one, which prides itself on trying to be a rational and open-minded place, to at least engage with dissenting views for those first few rounds that may be necessary to determine whether they are trying to contribute in good faith, or not.  Some people just honestly aren’t aware how to express themselves constructively or struggle to isolate coherent streams of thought if they have a lot going on in their heads at once.  That doesn’t necessarily mean they have nothing of value to add, likely thought that admittedly does seem in many cases.

Ok, so looking at the actual poll, this is typical media/political spinning. The headline conveniently leaves out that 70% think that the US should either continue or increase aid to Ukraine with the only split being whether it is given with or without oversight. 
The actual question (question 4 of the poll) was "How much of a role do you believe the US should have in helping to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war?" 71% responded with either a major role or a minor role by combining the two choices. The question was not what the headline above says and neither was the answer. Later on question 7, 69% respond that they support the US urging Ukraine to negotiate a settlement to the war. Maybe that is because most people want wars to end? 
In the end a typical poll with wishy-washy questions that can be interpreted to the will of whatever political slant one wants.
edited to add link to poll: https://quincyinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Quincy-Institute_rev-tabs.pdf

I think there’s probably an interesting discussion to be had about how best to respond to a threat to a system which many people feel frustrated with or even disenfranchised from entirely.  However I also think there’s a time and a place for that discussion and it probably ain’t while allies are fighting an existential war of defence on their own territory, almost explicitly for the right to try and join the threatened system.
War has a funny way of punishing equivocal responses and that cannot be the fault of those who are attacked.