Tux

Quoting this note only because it's the most recent one to touch on the naval warfare discussion and I wanted to add some thoughts to that.
On ideas for near-term development of Ukraine's naval drones:
The aim is to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war on the sea.  That will almost always mean that your target is the enemy ship, not the crew.  At the moment exposed enemy crew members are not effective at preventing USV attacks.  If you can get close to a ship you are therefore much better off pressing home a direct attack on said ship than you are trying to blow grapeshot into the face of some rube balancing an MG on the railings.  This will remain the case until exposed crewmembers become a significant threat to your attempts to approach the ship (unlikely to ever happen imo) or until you are able to kill so many crew, so efficiently as to make it a better way of neutralising the ship than sinking it (ditto). Modern warships are already pretty focussed on mitigating the dangers presented by enemy warships, ASMs and torpedoes - those are obviously well-established as primary threats.  To my mind then there is not much to be gained in terms of lethality by having USVs try to replicate those types of attack.  The Ukrainians' current success is being achieved by threading the eye of the needle between their drones not being torpedoes, ASMs or warships but having features of all three:  They are operator-guided and can see their targets from long distances like a warship or a missile and they cause damage on the waterline like various torpedoes or missiles can.  The fact they attack on the surface also means they are too low down for conventional anti-ASM defences to effectively target but they are too small and agile for anti-ship weaponry to hit reliably, either. Given the above, I think it's only a matter of time before this capacility gap slams shut and effective countermeasures to the current generation of Sea Baby-type drones are popularised (although whether the Russians will be the ones to do so seems bafflingly uncertain).  I've mentioned previously that I do think deployable netting/fencing could be an interim solution which could completely neutralise the current threat or at least significantly increase the number of successful attacks required to damage or sink a vessel. Longer term, I agree that naval drones will become platforms for torpedo-type weapons (correctly noted already as basically the best way to sink something otherwise designed to float).  Do we think future navies may start by looking to populate the oceans perhaps even exclusively with torpedo-toting, submersible drones?  Presumably they may spend time at the surface to charge batteries, cruise more efficiently and/or to communicate but what combat advantages, if any, would a drone have on the surface if there is no part of it that needs to breathe?
Even further hence, I wonder whether the ideal future naval drone might be capable of both flight and submersible operations?  Flight could be used for faster travel and to escape from enemy torpedoes; submersion would grant concealment, energy-efficient loitering, etc.  You then of course need to start on a 'torpedo' design that can follow a target into the air and potentially back underwater again.  Get a few of these machines fighting each other close to shore and you've got yourself a hell of a show, if nothing else!

Following on from this thread, do we have any ideas why we're not seeing more evidence of HARM-type UAVs, yet?  LARDs ("Light Anti Radiation Drones"), if you will?  From what I can tell it shouldn't be particularly complicated to make a drone which takes off and flies towards (and then into) the strongest local source of radiation at a frequency of your choosing?
Wouldn't such a design be equally capable of attacking enemy EW or other enemy emitters (soliders with radios, FPVs, etc.)?

Quoting this note only because it's the most recent one to touch on the naval warfare discussion and I wanted to add some thoughts to that.
On ideas for near-term development of Ukraine's naval drones:
The aim is to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war on the sea.  That will almost always mean that your target is the enemy ship, not the crew.  At the moment exposed enemy crew members are not effective at preventing USV attacks.  If you can get close to a ship you are therefore much better off pressing home a direct attack on said ship than you are trying to blow grapeshot into the face of some rube balancing an MG on the railings.  This will remain the case until exposed crewmembers become a significant threat to your attempts to approach the ship (unlikely to ever happen imo) or until you are able to kill so many crew, so efficiently as to make it a better way of neutralising the ship than sinking it (ditto). Modern warships are already pretty focussed on mitigating the dangers presented by enemy warships, ASMs and torpedoes - those are obviously well-established as primary threats.  To my mind then there is not much to be gained in terms of lethality by having USVs try to replicate those types of attack.  The Ukrainians' current success is being achieved by threading the eye of the needle between their drones not being torpedoes, ASMs or warships but having features of all three:  They are operator-guided and can see their targets from long distances like a warship or a missile and they cause damage on the waterline like various torpedoes or missiles can.  The fact they attack on the surface also means they are too low down for conventional anti-ASM defences to effectively target but they are too small and agile for anti-ship weaponry to hit reliably, either. Given the above, I think it's only a matter of time before this capacility gap slams shut and effective countermeasures to the current generation of Sea Baby-type drones are popularised (although whether the Russians will be the ones to do so seems bafflingly uncertain).  I've mentioned previously that I do think deployable netting/fencing could be an interim solution which could completely neutralise the current threat or at least significantly increase the number of successful attacks required to damage or sink a vessel. Longer term, I agree that naval drones will become platforms for torpedo-type weapons (correctly noted already as basically the best way to sink something otherwise designed to float).  Do we think future navies may start by looking to populate the oceans perhaps even exclusively with torpedo-toting, submersible drones?  Presumably they may spend time at the surface to charge batteries, cruise more efficiently and/or to communicate but what combat advantages, if any, would a drone have on the surface if there is no part of it that needs to breathe?
Even further hence, I wonder whether the ideal future naval drone might be capable of both flight and submersible operations?  Flight could be used for faster travel and to escape from enemy torpedoes; submersion would grant concealment, energy-efficient loitering, etc.  You then of course need to start on a 'torpedo' design that can follow a target into the air and potentially back underwater again.  Get a few of these machines fighting each other close to shore and you've got yourself a hell of a show, if nothing else!

For sure, a MW Emitter presents a target, but anything doing anything on a battlefield presents a potential target, no? That can't be a priority criteria for platform selection, can it? If we follow that logic, well...
Are you assuming a single platform approach, where the loss is quickly felt and is significant? But I think we're on the same page that any c-uas system must be as equivalently redundant and easy to scale up in numbers as the UAS its countering. Not equivalent in actual numbers but proportional (eg Pacific war, where the eventual AA Cruisers were vastly outnumbered by planes, but their own numbers were sufficient.). 
Skynex systems etc are nice but are thinking from a decade ago. Future skynex need to be mounted on golf cart/minivan sized UGVs, and as plentiful. The same would go for any Microwave Emitters.
Is it also not a factor of exposure time? The length of time the emitter needs to sweep a particular patch of sky vs hostile response time. It doesn't need to be a Big Fat & & Hot - it can be small, light and hot. Then it's hot for a while but can then displace. While it's doing so another one of it's kind lights up.
Running a Christmas lights style op of these networked UGV-MW could keep a sky volume clear, sustain losses, and open/close holes for friendly UAS to pass through, help identify counter measures by their own losses,  etc. 
This is just spitballing, sure. But everything has a signature vs effect tradeoff. The fact of a temporary hot signature does not negate the platform if it's effect is useful, esp at scale and can be maintained.

Quoting this note only because it's the most recent one to touch on the naval warfare discussion and I wanted to add some thoughts to that.
On ideas for near-term development of Ukraine's naval drones:
The aim is to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war on the sea.  That will almost always mean that your target is the enemy ship, not the crew.  At the moment exposed enemy crew members are not effective at preventing USV attacks.  If you can get close to a ship you are therefore much better off pressing home a direct attack on said ship than you are trying to blow grapeshot into the face of some rube balancing an MG on the railings.  This will remain the case until exposed crewmembers become a significant threat to your attempts to approach the ship (unlikely to ever happen imo) or until you are able to kill so many crew, so efficiently as to make it a better way of neutralising the ship than sinking it (ditto). Modern warships are already pretty focussed on mitigating the dangers presented by enemy warships, ASMs and torpedoes - those are obviously well-established as primary threats.  To my mind then there is not much to be gained in terms of lethality by having USVs try to replicate those types of attack.  The Ukrainians' current success is being achieved by threading the eye of the needle between their drones not being torpedoes, ASMs or warships but having features of all three:  They are operator-guided and can see their targets from long distances like a warship or a missile and they cause damage on the waterline like various torpedoes or missiles can.  The fact they attack on the surface also means they are too low down for conventional anti-ASM defences to effectively target but they are too small and agile for anti-ship weaponry to hit reliably, either. Given the above, I think it's only a matter of time before this capacility gap slams shut and effective countermeasures to the current generation of Sea Baby-type drones are popularised (although whether the Russians will be the ones to do so seems bafflingly uncertain).  I've mentioned previously that I do think deployable netting/fencing could be an interim solution which could completely neutralise the current threat or at least significantly increase the number of successful attacks required to damage or sink a vessel. Longer term, I agree that naval drones will become platforms for torpedo-type weapons (correctly noted already as basically the best way to sink something otherwise designed to float).  Do we think future navies may start by looking to populate the oceans perhaps even exclusively with torpedo-toting, submersible drones?  Presumably they may spend time at the surface to charge batteries, cruise more efficiently and/or to communicate but what combat advantages, if any, would a drone have on the surface if there is no part of it that needs to breathe?
Even further hence, I wonder whether the ideal future naval drone might be capable of both flight and submersible operations?  Flight could be used for faster travel and to escape from enemy torpedoes; submersion would grant concealment, energy-efficient loitering, etc.  You then of course need to start on a 'torpedo' design that can follow a target into the air and potentially back underwater again.  Get a few of these machines fighting each other close to shore and you've got yourself a hell of a show, if nothing else!

Hi,
As a Swede I thought today would be a good day to stop lurking for a bit and drop a comment. Been playing cm for 20 years and following this forum for a long time.
Thank you all for contributing to this thread, checking it daily. Always a good source for news and discussion, so much knowledge and experience gathered is hard to get elsewhere. 
I always was all for our countrys neutral stance combined with a strong Defense but last decade has of course swayed us all in Sweden a bit. I have my background in the army, cv90. Seeing us finally start to retake our capabilities regarding defense is good.
Anyways thanks for having us in the club I guess (why am I thinking about brothers Marx)?
Carl 

In reality there is a larger ISR architecture picking up targets and handing them off to FPV crews.  Drones are not sent out blindly hunting targets, the do need to fix them and engage, however you are putting too much stock in this “spotting” drone theory.  The UA is putting up hundreds of tac UAS, all with cameras and onboard ISR.  That is a LOT of SHORAD to “push back”.  Further, FPVs are “first person” they already have targeting ISR on board.  If the spotters do get pushed back do you really think they are going to call off the attack.  No, we need a C-UAS system that can push back all UAS, not just select spotters.
Really, do share.  What COIN operation were you in where tanks were of any use?  I challenge IFVs but we needed to be in some armor but they demonstrated 1) they could kill our IFVs and 2) they were not deterred by them.  Use of heavy mech in COIN has been a classic western screw up and I have Afghanistan to prove it.
You are completely missing the larger lesson here.  It is not about the tactical problem of that single attack.  Sure you have saved the Bn…right up until the next wave…and the one after it…and the one after that.  We will run out of 30 million dollar systems firing million dollar missiles well before they are going to run out of FPVs that cost 10k.  Buying “The Battalion” an extra morning of life is meaningless if we spent all our money on that system because they will still be dead by nightfall.  I think Steve put is best - spending 90% of funding on a 10% solution is a sure fire track to losing.
As to dilemma, I was being extremely generous in my example.  None of these AD systems have proven sub-munitions and I would bet beer money right now that it is single missile to single target.  An opponent flying 100 FPVs is going to target both AD and fighting vehicles.  Further they are going to do it a longer ranges, over the horizon.  
What?  So our enemies are complete idiots?  They can’t possibly come up with c-UAS systems.  Hey here is a crazy idea…how about an opponent that invests in cheap c-UAS out of other UAS?  So while we are feeling good about our multi-billion dollar SHORAD program they are killing all our FPVs and blasting our SHORADs away too?  Once the Bde reserve of our fancy SHORAD are dead we are naked while they still have a system.  Why?  Because they invested in lower cost technology they could mass produce.
You are pulling numbers out of your @ss here.  These features will drive per unit cost up but economies of scaling will drive them down.  They already have.  We won’t have economies of scale for that SHORAD system because it costed billions in development and to manufacture a limited manufacturing run and the political level is only going to give us so much money.
Physics has nothing to say that any of these ideas are impossible in this universe.  Energy density, weight and processing power are the limiting factors and they are all trending towards smaller lighter.   My ideal c-UAS weapon is another UAS - not sure how physics are denying these as we are already seeing them.  As to a small infantry point defence weapon I am pretty sure we can invest billions in that and come up with something better than what is being pitched.  Hell 40 mm airburst rounds might have a better point defence chance.
There are but bigger, heavier and more expensive is not the way to go.  That video has a single Boxer blasting away at single (white) drones.  On the battlefield in Ukraine there are hundreds.  This is a much bigger issue than a few shotguns and a multi-million dollar SHORAD system.  We are likely going to have review a lot more than “better AD”.  FFS, that War on the Rocks article is citing that 50% of T90 losses have been due to FPVs.  We had another report of an entire Russia tank company stopped cold by 5 FPV crews.
The ISR alone these things are pumping out has been noted as making it impossible to manoeuvre.  So we had better get with the program in the West.  Air spotters, shotguns and MGs are not going to do this.  Our opponents are watching this very carefully and do you not think they are going to be investing very heavily in this space?
You want The_Capt’s prescription for the unmanned problem space:
- Rethink c-unmanned.  It is not a “problem” we need to manage, it is a major shift in how wars are going to be fought.  Best way to find and kill a small unmanned vehicle will very likely be another small unmanned vehicle.  Invest heavily into UAS and UGVs suited to detecting and killing other unmanned systems on the outer envelop of controlled battle space.
- Re-think ISR.  We need to learn how to live on a completely illuminated battlefield.  This means that deception, silencing and blinding need to become major campaign themes and not sprinkled on operations.  They need to become central and drive what is possible on operations.
- Rethink conventional capability and organization.  Lose the weight, lose the heat, lose the tail.  We can bubble wrap our F echelon in multi-million dollar SHORAD but it won’t do squat for the B echelon.  We have long vulnerable logistics tails that are carrying too much weight.  We need to dump the weight and offset with precision and do it quickly.  No sacred freakin cows here either.  We need dispersion and speed.  And we will need a C2 construct that supports this.
- Re-think manoeuvre.  We are very likely facing a major doctrinal shift in western warfare.  This love affair with Manoeuvre Warfare as “the solution” is likely over.  We need to face the realities of attritional warfare and the capacity implications that will have.  This will drive us towards cheaper many because we cannot sustain attrition warfare with what we have right now.  Manoeuvre is not going away but it will need to be earned.  We will need to win attrition in order to manoeuvre.
- Re-think Denial.  This is not a transitory annoyance, it is a projected condition.  It is proving decisive in this war and very likely will in the next.
- Re-think C4.  Data is a resource more important than gas.  We need to see the modern battlefield as a competitive data, information and knowledge environment.  We need to stop going to war to validate what we already know and accept that things are evolving very quickly.  
- Re-think fundamental principles of warfare - Mass, Surprise, Manoeuvre and Offensive are all up for grabs right now.  We need to understand what these mean in a modern context and stop assuming we know what they mean.  Mass alone is changing in definition which is going to break our current doctrinal frameworks.
There that is a start.  My point being that this is an about a lot more than SHORADs and shotguns.  This is about sustaining and gaining military options in the face of a highly accelerating evolution on the battlefield.  Or, you know, we could spend a few billion on another AD system and get back to business as usual.

Well, not quite....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_net#Second_World_War
There's definitely some kind of useful ness there. Hell, trawling a net behind the ship (boomed out about 10m) could easily screw with the stern attacks.

Versus these current USVs, the nets dont even need to be below water more than a foot or two - the contact is made by the prow of the boat, so above waterline mostly but with dips into the wake possible it could hit below. However all videos so far on all ships show the holes centered above the waterline, so it must be rare for the prow to dip low enough.
Copium nets are a-coming...
 

Jump up? 
I assume the problem with submersible drones is signal range under water. It would need a snorkle with an antenna. 
But I am also sure I remember reading that one thing ships really don't like is an explosion underneath the keel.
If you can go below water with 100kg of explosives, don't jump. Just hit it from below.
Unless you rocket jump over the safety net of a bridge, of course.

Capt,
Simple answers is all people want...
Make peace - Simple problem solved
Send more tanks - Simple problem solved 
Capt keep up the good work - it ain't simple...
 

Seriously and @squatter can look here too.  For anyone advocating Ukraine pursuing peace negotiations or suing for peace - easy to say but no one in this camp has provided a coherent theory of what that would look like right now.
Let’s say “Ok, you guys are right. Ukraine is out of options here. There are no viable way for Ukraine to continue to prosecute this war.”  Ok, so what?  What would peace negotiations look like?  How exactly do you guys see these “peace negotiations” happening.  Every time I ask this question I get some hand waving but no one has yet to unpack just how any peace negotiations could end up in anything but weakened western influence and a more vulnerable Ukraine that Russia is going to exploit.  What peace negotiation, that Russia is going to accept - while, as we are continually reminded, Russia is still capable of waging offensives to take ground?  What possible leverage does the west or Ukraine have in guaranteeing Ukrainian independence and security.  Is Russia going to offer reparations?  How about war crimes prosecution?  Is Russia going to give up an inch of ground it has taken?  Are they going to push for recognition of Crimea and Donbas as Russian provinces.
This is what is so disingenuous about this line of advocacy - at best it is delusional liberal left “let’s give peace a chance”.  At worst is it far right BS designed to program failure into this entire war so that their presidential candidate can be “right all along”.  In both cases the idea of peace negotiations right now is an empty coffin where actual ideas on this war go to die.  We may very well need a negotiated end-state in this war, but suing for peace now, while on the back foot is going to embolden Putin and his regime…and is exactly what they are looking for in order to promote themselves “Look we brought them all to their knees”.
But let’s open the floor.  Please walk us through what a peace process would look like right now.  Let’s stop sideline heckling on won’t work and tell us what you think will work.

Ach - how have I missed Germany bashing day. Seufz...
Actually, yes. The parliament. Which is, for historical reasons, the way it is in Germany. The government can only petition the parliament to go to war. You would need a two-thirds majority which the current government doesn't have. Then that needs to be approved by the second chamber, too.
We made quite sure one person cannot start a war from Germany again.

Well, yes. Is there somewhere else you think it should rest?

So, is this silly hypothetical sub from Russia, or is it unknown. Because right now all you have is Schrödinger's sub ... which might not even have been a sub, let alone a Russian one. And that isn't a good basis for anyone to be declaring war over.

Gents, I can try to explain why the decision is like it is and I can give my opinion on what I think b the NATO treaty does or does not oblige an ally to do. If you just want to vent steam and do another round of (irrational) Germany bashing, look for someone else.

Though Germany position is... well, Germany position, the overall EU situation is not that bad in the long term (it's bad in short term).
I'm slowly summarizing RU Opposition economist Milov's recent report on the Russian economy. He stated that he recently visited the European Parliament and spoke to several EU MPs. There are both bad and good news:
Bad news - EU is politically bickering around Ukraine assistance, also faster work (for example enforcing sanctions) is not possible due to democratic bureaucracy of EU parliament. And it is unlikely to improve in the short term. Good news - EU core politicians know the seriousness of war and about their bickering and slowness problem. They are committed to resolve it in the long term (long term means around year). He cited an example: he was privately told that the EU needs to recruit 50 professionals to successfully stop Russia from dodging sanctions. However, this requires passing money through EU democratic procedures, which is extremely lengthy owing to the politicking of MPs from various nations. But eventually, the EU will hire them and cut RU off. In a year.

For some reason, only the tactical or strategic reasons for this or that Russian action are always assessed, but the moral and psychological reasons are completely ignored. For example, why does Russia need to seize Avdeevka or Bakhmut. Or why Russia is so persistent in hunting for Western armored vehicles.
The capture of Avdeevka had a significant moral and psychological impact on both the Russian or Ukrainian population, and on Western citizens. The Russians received a morale boost from the fact that they were able to take an impregnable fortress that had resisted for 10 years, which indicates an improvement in their army. Ukrainians and Westerners received a decrease in morality, for the same reasons. It's the same with Western military equipment. The demonstration of even a single burning Abrams or leopards helps to reduce the faith of Western people in the invincibility of their military equipment.
But most importantly, the voices of those who are against sending Western equipment to Ukraine are sounding louder and more convincing. This is precisely the goal that the Russians are pursuing. To deprive Ukraine of Western support is the main goal of both Avdiivka and the possible capture of Robotino. Pay attention to the number of defeatist articles in the world's media after each such event. It would not be surprising if Russia sponsors such articles, increasing the moral effect of these events and further reducing Western support for Ukraine.
You have all discussed a lot here about the influence of this or that type of weapons supplied to Ukraine on the course of hostilities. ANY type of weapons supplied to Ukraine has a significant impact on the war. On the one hand, it shows Ukrainians that they are not alone in their struggle and significantly improves their morale. On the other hand, it shows the Russians that the West is not going to leave Ukraine without help in the face of the aggressor and that the end of the war is still very far away, which means they will have to continue to pay in blood and significant inconvenience for each newly captured senseless piece of land.

I might be able to believe number 1 was possible if this wasn’t a literal AWACS that got shot down - it was the air defence system!
I’m going with number 3.  The people videoing it comment on how low the aircraft is flying and modern MANPADS can reach pretty high up in any case.

Recently, I noticed that my UKR listening skills have improved noticeably. With the aid of translators and some effort, I can watch and translate UKR videos. So, let check the following interview with UKR AFV expert (former AFU tank officer)
 
 

Perhaps: "Delboyism"?
Derrick "Del-boy" Trotter, British classic sitcom icon, cockney who sells stolen goods:

EDIT: He even claims to support Chelsea.

I don't spend time with drones, but I do spend time using the "wrong" type of batteries in things.  It's possible that the drones are all on low battery, or it could be that they're using batteries that run at a little lower voltage than whatever the drone was designed for.  There are lots of batteries that are "direct substitutes" with slightly different chemistries that run at lower cell voltages.  Some devices care a lot and won't work, while other devices just say "low battery" from the time you put it in to the time it runs out.

And so, it begins.
 
[edit:  dammit, Capt!]

Hopefully they'll be sending live ones.

You made a claim and were asked to back it up. How else should it work?
 
Nobody denied that the pipe wasn't blown as is still intact. Solid facts, as you say. Your conclusion was what was challenged.
But we don't have to. Sorry, but that is the established way of debating and gaining knowledge. The one who makes a claim has to back it up. Not the one who challenges the claim. You can make up your own rules but then please don't expect to be taken seriously.
While your facts are solid, they are not conclusive for the claim you make. For once, it is not Putins pipeline but a Russian-German joint venture.  I am not a conspiracy theorists but my government profited at least as much from the blown pipeline as Russia. In fact Russia didn't really profit much at all. The situation before was much more in their favor because Russia was able to blacknail Germany with gas deliveries and thus divide our society. Giving in to Russian blackmailing was an actually heatedly debated solution at that time.
Sure, I'd still count Russia among the prime suspects just for their demonstrated preference to do things others find unreasonable. I'd even say they are one of the likelier suspects. But they are not the only one and your facts are not suited to shorten that list.
That's a) whataboutism. We were discussing your claim, not someone else's. Your claim doesn't get any more credible by someone else making a claim he doesn't prove. And b) I don't discuss with the Russian public in general, I discuss with specific persons on this forum, so that's not a valid point. But if any Russian came here and made the claim the US were behind the blown pipelines I'd ask him to back up his claim, too.
 
Call me pseudo intellectual, again, but that is yet another rhetoric method aimed at discrediting a person's opinion instead of actually arguing his points. You are constructing a false dilemma here: A position is either fair judgement or pro Russian bias. This is false because obviously there can be a lot in between and also outside of that spectrum (for instance I could just be biased towards my line of argumenatation instead of making a fair judgement and still come to the same conclusion). But this way you make it look like everyone who doesn't share your view must be on the Russian side. Which of course discredits the person without having to deal with their points.