hcrof
-
Posts
1,124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hcrof
-
-
48 minutes ago, holoween said:
Ok so only 15 times less effective rather than 30 times. And it isnt available while the Skynex system is already active i ukraine.
Where it would obviously have value would be for point defense on stuff like supply trucks because carrying a 30mm isnt really feasable there.
good thing your read the articles you post
or maybe not
Not a chain gun its gas/recoil operated. And no its not strange at all. The IFV shoots stuff the infantry has problems with. Thats its main job. That can be other infantry at longer range, combat vehicles or aircraft/helicopters.
And for full FPV swarms you add in these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyranger_30 and EW. So for a mixed company you have 11 30mm guns that can get directed by the AA vehicle to engage incoming drones. And yes that probably isnt perfect but still a whole lot better than anything else even demonstrated so far.
I wonder if it is better to have a single radar on all the shooting vehicles and have them cover one arc each rather than have a single point of failure on a dedicated AD vehicle, but I like the concept - by swarming your vehicles (which can also direct drones at incoming targets too) you can have a terrifying amount of AD Power without expensive and short ranged point defense vehicles.
-
8 hours ago, The_Capt said:
To my mind, and TTPs back me up on this, the role of the primary weapon system to make the primary role of the vehicle possible. A 30mm chain gun is designed to provide direct fire support to infantry in an all arms team approach. So if you double hat that gun it is going to be pulled in two directions at once. Further it will be exploited by the enemy. So this platoon of Boxers go in on an assault and half of them are pointing at the incoming FPVs. That means the platoon has halved its firepower support in its own survival. This is why we put AA guns on the top of vehicles in the first place. The main gun should be focused on the primary mission, not its own self-preservation, that is what secondaries are designed for. The coax on the tanks was originally designed to blast off close in infantry assault. This was not a job for the main gun.
Or you introduce another set of platforms entirely and have them provide close in support. Problem here is that ups the logistics and ISR bill because you now have more vehicles. So, yes, I am suggesting a C-UAS RWS as well, or put it on a cheap support platform and take those risks. If a Boxer platoon has their main guns worried about FPVs on an assault they won’t be doing wha those guns were designed for in the first place - supporting the infantry on the last mile.
So I think we are coming into this with different assumptions. In my mind vehicles are small with minimal crew, so they can only support one weapon system. On the other hand you have more vehicles.
Whether it is an APC with a single MG or my novel tank with a 40mm, there is not enough space, operators or weight allowance for a secondary RWS just for drones.
On the other hand we both agree on a drone CAP providing primary drone defence, and I would argue to maximum coordination between vehicles and drones to deal with incoming threats.
To your point on pressing an assault while being attacked by drones, the majority of the offensive and defensive is being done by your own drones. The vehicles are there to mop up and I would have reserve vehicles on drone overwatch (more platforms) while others shoot up treelines.
-
21 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:
I completely fail to see why radar return is suddenly an important factor? Tanks aren't exactly stealth vehicles to begin with, and adding a few fairly small additional objects is hardly going to add anything to what's already an extremely conspicuous radar target.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree at this point. It is up to defence procurement to buy APS or not and how widely they choose to distribute it across platforms.
I wanted to clarify my point above though since I did not include my assumptions behind it. An armoured vehicle will never be invisible to radar, but it can be inconspicuous. If you keep it small, clean and with some multi spectrum camouflage it might be difficult to distinguish between it and a truck or van on radar. At that point you are able to disguise your intent a lot better than a 80tonne MBT with add-on kit everywhere and which lights radar/lidar up like a Christmas tree.
-
36 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:
Artillery shells, even guided ones, are hardly a new threat.
Both the NLAW and new TOWs are top attack, but not diving in from high. Rather they come flying in horizontally, just a few feet above the tank. Even current APSs can absolutely deal with that, they just have to be reprogrammed to intercept projectiles which they currently would ignore thinking they are going to miss high. And if you steer an FPV drone into a Stuke like dive attack, it's just going to spin out of control. There's a reason all those films show them attacking in quite shallow angles.
What you or I "see being the future" is very subjective and doesn't mean a whole lot as far as debates go.
You can't have your cake and eat it. If you're going to go overboard with absurdly slow attacks, you:
A, fail to catch up with the target
B, won't hit it with enough energy to detonate the munition
C, will be flying so slow that you'll give people plenty of time to spot the drone and shoot it downThe real problem is that you're downplaying the ability of modern technology in a manner which would befit Pierre Sprey. AESA based APSs are literally at the point of detecting and classifying bullets: if that's something they're starting to become capable of, they probably won't have much of a problem detecting and classifying a geriatric drone moving slower than a glacier.
I am not denying the tech is there, I am just saying it is impractical. To have hemispheric coverage how many aesa radars do you need? And how many shooters? One for each side so 5?
So now find space for them amongst your smoke dischargers, antennas, sights, hatches, main weapon, storage etc. Great, now you can't really use ERA because all surfaces are covered in stuff. And your radar return is huge because you are covered in spiky bits of metal.
But let's go further. You need to maintain 5 radar sets and 5 shooters. They might get damaged by tree branches. They might get damaged by small arms fire. They might randomly stop working at the worst moment. We have already talked about EM emissions but what about the danger to infantry and soft skin vehicles nearby?
I think they are impractical, unless you are defending a patriot radar or something.
Edit: and to be clear, it might even be worth it if APS could defend against all threats reliably, but they defend against a subset of threats most of the time (according to the manufacturer). And they cost a lot of money.
-
17 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Mainly because we want the main gun focused on direct fires support, not waving around in the air at bird sized drones. It is too much gun that we may need elsewhere...assuming we get within direct fire range of course. A smaller, cheaper point defense gun would make far more sense, in combination with a whole lot of other stuff. My other issue with the big ol 30mm is its weight but maybe we could work around that.
My view is that you have one primary weapon system on a vehicle and that is the one with your fancy upgrades. Yes you can add a coax and a missile tube slaved to the main sight but are you suggesting a RWS with high grade optics and stabilisation on top of it as well?
If your vehicle has a 50 cal, that is what shoots the drones (although I am a little skeptical about it's effectiveness) if it has a 30mm than that shoots the drones. (The nice thing about a 30mm is it can also get the Mavic/orlan types as well as the imminent fpvs).
The gun, as you point out, is just one layer of the survivability onion. I don't think it needs to be a dedicated system.
-
41 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:
No, you don’t seem to get it. For point defense, you want a much smaller, lighter and cheaper weapon with plentiful ammo. A giant 30mm turret is not going to provide cheap defense. You can’t mount this turret on any small vehicles, and it’s a big giant target that is hard to hide, and it won’t be able to do anything about the purpose built combat drones that will pop and fire NLOS munitions like Brimstone once their picket drones get downed.
Air defense is a series of bubbles, and for 200m-2km, a lightweight fast moving munition makes a lot more sense, and will likely be cost-competitive with 35mm smart shells (not to mention the whole stupid turret). See China Lake’s poverty missile for $5k with a 1lb warhead at 5lb weight, or any FPV drone being used in Ukraine. For longer range, we already have missiles.
If Rheinmetall was so confident, they should build a bunch and send them to the front lines, or ship one to the US where we have test ranges that are as big as entire EU countries, and go against a few Ukrainian drone operators. But no, they built a 90s weapon for a 2030s fight.
But a 30mm does a lot more than just drone defense. It primarily shoots infantry and light armour and would be present on the vehicle anyway. rheinmetall are offering a small upgrade to allow it to act as part of the defence onion against drones. If it performs more or less as advertised why is this a bad thing?
-
7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
The idea of an automated turret is not a bad one but this was a clear BS demo as it manages to shoot down drones flying in a neat little line. In reality they are going to come in fast and low from every direction. That Boxers turret will be spinning like mad. Or we will see a ground formations like B17s blazing away in all directions. Better than nothing but not the solution.
Agreed - we need more than a controlled demo to know this is mature tech. Also agreed that it can get overwhelmed - the drone CAP should be the first line of defense and the turret should catch anything that makes it through. They key is to share information between the drone CAP swarm and the vehicle to make sure they cooperate efficiently (and you don't shoot your own drones)
-
9 minutes ago, holoween said:
1. there are limitations on what you can do on a peacetime range in germany.
2. the primary attack method for fpv drones is diving in from the rear https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1blpv80/collection_of_ukrainian_fpv_drone_attacks_on/
not a whole lot of terrain masking there.
3. even if this was the absolute max extend of this upgrade its still infinitely better then the current best in ukraine atm which is desperate riflefire.
4. you keep going on about automation and how its going to transform the battlefield. and when you see a demo of a remote controlled turret automatically engaging drones with the gunner only really giving the go ahead for the weapons to engage you turn around and dismiss it. way to stay consistent.
5. this is an upgraded puma turret so not exactly something specifically dedicated against drones.
I actually think this is a good system - not perfect but easily integrated into existing vehicles. I also wonder how easy it would be to spot and engage ATGMs - a javelin travels quite high so would be easier to spot than a normal atgm that may be lost in background clutter. I think a computer vision system could watch for a launch signature than automatically fire at the missile and/or the launcher.
-
4 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:
Such as?
Currently, it's pretty much the Javelin which does that, and that's anything but cheap. FPV drones certainly don't; they're commercial off the shelf things. Crash dive those straight down and they'll lose control.
There's very likely a bunch of "in coming years" weapons around which will... but AESA radars in APS both already exist and are already fielded, so no issue pointing those skyward.
What if the ATGMs all fail?
Why would that be an issue? Only rather outdated APSs rely on doppler radar, so low speeds are unlikely to be a problem.
What we are seeing from Ukraine is highly curated propaganda footage.
Most personnel and vehicles are not engaged in combat at any given time. Even a tank on the frontline might perhaps dig a hole to park in and cover itself with thermal netting and a cope cage (in hindsight, those might not have been as dumb as we judged them to be (assuming that they weren't actually designed with ATGMs as opposed to FPV drones in mind)). Even discounting jamming and active air defences adapted to FPV drones and other loitering munitions in mind, that'd already be a very different target to hit compared to a tank out in an open field.
If we're to be very realistic here, the AFVs we do see being destroyed in these videos are almost always ones moving around in open terrain at daytime. That may be an indication that they're already quite difficult to target with drones when parked up in defensive positions.
Artillery delivered munitions, the Chinese javelin copy, NLAW, the new TOW and any copies the Chinese might make, drone drops and fpv drones can all easily do top attack and that is just the stuff off the top of my head. In fact I see line of sight attacks being the minority of attacks in the future.
As for very slow, if you don't have a lower limit on speed for your APS it will fire at birds and oncoming street signs. But dropped munitions and FPV drones can come in slower than a bird. So you add more bells and whistles to try and reduce the false positive rate and your cost and processing power just went up again.
-
29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
The primary issue with APS is not detectability, the system is already on a large hot vehicle made of metal. The primary issue is that there are too many ways to counter it with cheaper technologies. First method is to simply do multiple attacks at one and overwhelm the system. With ATGMs that was much harder, with FPVs not so much. Second is to use submunitions on terminal attack, or EFP for standoff. Then there is good old artillery, no APS is going to stop an artillery shell - let alone a SMART type round. And then there is the fact one needs APS on everything, both fighting vehicles and logistics.
APS is likely going to be one element of a suite of defences but in the end I have significant doubts that it will be able to re-establish battlefield symmetry. The major problem with our current mech based conventional tactical system is that it is under conditions where the enemy can be wrong many times (cheap many) and we can only be wrong few (expensive few). This extends beyond land warfare and into the air and sea as well.
To add to this, APS takes a lot of space and weight to a vehicle, as well as costing a lot. And as discussed the protection is not comprehensive.
This might be worth it if you are protecting a key asset but trying to equip every vehicle in the fleet is not a good use of resources IMO.
I lean towards having more, cheaper platforms with ERA on all surfaces to stop small HEAT rounds. If you take a big hit from an ATGM I would rely on redundancy so the vehicle can self-extract. One advantage of hybrid electric vehicles which I think can be exploited (other than low noise, heat and fuel consumption) is the fact that it is redundant. Lose the engine and your batteries can get you out of there, lose one motor and the motors on other wheels still work etc. similarly, an advantage of modular vehicles is compartmentalisation: a fire in one compartment will not necessarily destroy the vehicle.
-
So I think we are getting to the limits of this debate - which is good! At the end of the day we don't have a good way of testing out each others assumptions, which are not that far apart. I hope there is some section in the various NATO militaries which are having the same debate but actually have the resources to game it out properly.
So to comment on your summary:
15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:To summarize, your proposal, my critiques are:
- Does not demonstrably show how these new tanks/tank platoon will perform any better than what we already have. You are far too vague on how mobility-survivability-visibility will be optimized for the future battlefield. It appears you are advocating a "free lunch" concept. I am not seeing net competitive advantage here against an opponent that can deny terrain with todays technology let alone tomorrows.
On this I will refer to Jack Watlings "Arms of the future". He does not emphasise drones nearly enough (the book might be different if written today), but I do largely agree with his concept of highly distributed operations with deception at its core for ground vehicles. But we agree that drones are everything - I just think the vehicles are also needed to mop up what the drones miss and enable you to get boots on the ground.
Quote- I see some very significant engineering challenges in: armor, engine/power pack and drive trains. You also are proposing some very complex and advanced ISR and targeting equipment, but I think these are well developed elsewhere so porting them over is likely a lesser concern.
I think you overestimate how complex I am going for. I am looking for a state-of-the-art communications and networking system, built around hardware which is unexceptional. You scoff at 4 tracks but farmers have been using them for years - electric motors can easily drive them independently just like a 4WD Prius (or a tractor frankly). The rubber tracks also drastically reduces the maintenance requirements, and are very easy to change since they are so much lighter than regular track. The weapons are all 1970s tech with some modern ammunition.
Quote- Tactically, this system does not solve for the Denial Asymmetry we are seeing. It is waiting for another system to solve that problem so it can then do what it is designed for. Problem is that whatever system can solve for Denial Asymmetry will also likely be able to do what these tanks can, so there is real risk of redundancy.
I think the denial asymmetry will weaken somewhat with countermeasures such as anti-drone drones and better use of dazzlers on satellites etc. It won't go away to what it was before though, so the big armoured column is dead: distributed operations are king.
Quote- It is a very expensive redundancy risk. An F35 comes in at roughly $83 million per platform. A modern M1A2 Sep 3 comes in at around $24 million. What you are proposing will likely be in this league of costs. And for this we get a 105mm HE gun, a 40mm gun, a drone platform and C-UAS platform that needs a significant C-ISR and C-UAS enterprise to survive, let alone thrive. To my mind if we can build that C-ISR/C-UAS enterprise we can put this firepower and mobility on much cheaper extant platforms.
- Operational costs will also be very significant. Maintenance of complex systems such as these will drive a much higher logistics load, at best it will likely be the same as the one we currently have, which we know is too heavy. Your hybrid electric idea is actually being fielded (https://www.army.mil/article/254124/army_advancing_first_hybrid_electric_bradley) and on a 30 ton chassis. This will reduce fuel requirements (by 20%) but these are still combustion engines with the heat and sound vulnerabilities. I would shoot to get logistical burden down to that of an MRAP, at which point this tank platoon becomes competitive. Again though, I am not sure why I need a tank here when this engine on a high mobility light armor vehicle is already in reach.
When you mentioned cost last time, I added a few thoughts to the other thread. If these platforms come in at $24M each then I agree my concept doesn't work. I think we both agree on the need for attritable land systems.
See above on complexity too. I think all platforms should get simpler, but all-MRAPs limits your cross country options a lot. Getting bogged down while moving is a death sentence. MRAPs can be part of the mix for sure but mostly for reserve formations, but not your peacetime army IMO.
Quote- Offsets/Risk. An opponent could neutralize this entire system with existing cheap and readily available systems. ATGMs, indirect fires, UAS/UGV and mines, carrying loads of stand-off EFP and/or smart submunitions are likely going to counter this proposed system at a small fraction of comparative costs. Given the low density of production of this new tank platoon, driven by costs, means an opponent can be wrong many times but our forces can only be wrong a few times, perhaps once. This system would likely be niche and used rarely, much like low density specialized engineering vehicles. We could find ourselves in a scenario where they are on a critical path but this would not be the norm, nor should it be.
Noted, but putting all your eggs in one drone-shaped basket also invites risk. I think we need to try and look beyond a "drones beat everything" concept for a few more years yet. We should heavily invest in drones as much or even more than the Ukrainians do, but they are still looking for armoured vehicles as well.
-
10 minutes ago, poesel said:
About APS: the current generation of these systems is there to fight of incoming missiles or even grenades. Would an APS designed to combat incoming drones not be much easier? And why are we not seeing this?
I'm talking about drones that come AT you. That makes detection much easier. The range of that system needn't be that large. I can only guess here, but 20m would be enough to spoil any warhead.
That's a shotgun on a swivel mount paired with a bunch of sensors (acoustic, visual, short range radar).
Am I overlooking something, why we don't see such things?
I think you can optimise for slow drones or fast missiles, but doing both at the same time across the whole hemisphere of the tank is incredibly complex. Its probably possible, but you would not have much space on the vehicle for anything else! To make it reliable you also need to have your radar switched on which is like shining a giant "shoot me" sign across the battlefield.
I think APS is a dead end technology - far too much trouble for what it is worth.
-
32 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Ok, the punchline - it is all connected and can be processed in real time. Having a bunch of ISR systems in isolation of stovepiped is going to leave lags and gaps. Having an integrated network all plugged into together gives us what we are seeing in Ukraine - no gaps and near real time, all the time. Further one cannot simply take out one set of sensors because the others cover off. “Well food and ammo is still arriving” well yes it is but Ukrainian soldiers are also disembarking and walking in the last 5kms because pushing vehicle too close is very dangerous. Oryx shows the number of logistics vehicles the RA has lost.
We essentially have an illuminated battlefield right now and it is not going anywhere. This has pushed forces to spread out and be highly distributed. Every time a side concentrates forces they are spotted and engaged - we have seen this on both sides repeatedly. Basically a side needs to either erode or remove an opponents ISR, or someone run out of munitions for anything to work. Currently tanks are staying back kms and providing indirect fire support or pulling forward for sniping (and often dying doing so).
So I think we will have to disagree on that one. Watching videos of stuff getting blown up in Ukraine makes one think that everything is being watched all at once, and to an extent it is, but how much processing power is required to simultaneously watch thousands of km2 is a level of detail to pick up something within a few minutes?
At the end of the day it is a numbers game, but if your vehicle is not exposed for very long it is less likely to be picked up until it is too late. And if you have pushed forward your drone bubble to suppress enemy ISR, combined with dazzling satellites and long ranged hits on your expensive long range drones then the enemy is left with a degraded picture of operations which you can exploit.
And tell me how many tanks and IFVs the Ukrainians have lost from hit and run sniping operations? Enough to stop them from doing it? Hit and run works - speed and suppression of enemy ISR is key.
QuoteWell first of all using civilian traffic as cover for military operations is unethical and illegal. Vehicles “getting stealthier” is hand waving. You are talking about taking a 30 ton mass of metal that runs on small explosions - pushing exhaust out, with a high EM and acoustic signature on top of that. And we are talking ten years from now. The new tank platoon would be challenged to survive now, let alone in ten more years of ISR development. Your new tank platoon does not solve for the ISR problem. It is focused on solving for the drone problem - which frankly I am not seeing either. Adding “more armour where FPVs hit” is counterintuitive because FPVs can hit anywhere. That would be why Russian are putting barns over their tanks. Regardless unless your new tank platoon is invisible it is still going to suffer the same issues the current tanks have - easily detectable once they are put into any concentration.
What I am saying is to you run vehicles in ones and twos on normal roads, not run concentrated convoys. Like what both sides are doing in this war. Are you suggesting that you need to clear all civilian traffic off the roads for hundreds of km behind the front line just because military vehicles also use that space?
And I used the word swarm a lot for a reason. I said any attack will also be in small dispersed groups with a lot of decoys to provide the same effect. The use of 105mm tanks, mobile mortars, long range ATGMs and drone carriers allows fires to be concentrated, not vehicles.
And "adding more armour" means redistributing it away from the front arc to make vehicles more resistant to indirect fire and drones while maintaining mobility. Like what the Russians are doing, but in a way that actually works. And the hybrid electric system keeps it cold and quiet until the shooting starts.
QuoteI have heard this before and it still does not make sense to me. If you are able to “sanitize” an area large enough and create a bubble able to stop enemy drone swarms, then what so we need tanks or heavy vehicles for? Simply keep “sanitizing” and pushing this bubble. Why introduce heavier forces? Ah yes, choke point and hard points. But you already have the resolution to find, fix and destroy down to individual ATGM teams and small bird sized UAS…what possible choke point and hard point can still remain with that level of superiority?
Now as you outrun your bubble or it begins to fail you will run directly into an opponents new bubble. Your tanks will be detected and engaged over the horizon, and denied until you can create another bubble superiority. So what was the point of the tanks?
Thinking that drones can clear 100% of enemies in an area is magical thinking. And every CM player knows that just an infantry squad with some javelins can wreck an attack. Which is why you need some weapons and sensors to take with you to deal with them. And drone carriers to recreate a drone bubble at the moment your main one collapses.
QuoteYour new tanks are really just the repackaged old ones. And do not to appear to really address the environmental shifts that are impacting them. They are still highly visible to this new environment. They are heavy and hot, even with a new fancy paint job and track configuration. They still need a long heavy logistics tail. And their range for direct fires is too short. The only contribution I can see is perhaps as support platforms to keep pushing that bubble but there may be other cheaper ways to deliver this. I simply do not see you new tank platoon doing any better on an RA minefield problem than what we already have, unless we build an entirely new offensive system able to do a lot of what you are describing, but at that point we really do not need a tank anymore.
You are talking like the new tanks are not the most radical reinvention of the platform since the late 1930s? Like they dont swarm with platoons 20km apart but still providing mutually supportive fires? Like they are not bringing their own air support with them?
And millions of mines across thousands of km of territory is unlikely to be a problem in the opening moves of a future war. We need to solve that problem certainly, but that is a problem for year 2 of a war, not year 1.
-
A note on cost, since it is an important point. In my view these platforms are attritable so they have to be cheaper than current vehicles (especially since you have doubled the number of platforms in a platoon).
The small size and weight allows you to use commercial truck engines. Hybrid-electric drive and composite tracks reduce maintenance costs. I think you could make compromises to things like how many high end sensors are required per platform since you can send drones for a closer look at stuff. I also think you could simplify things like barrel stabilisation on the 105mm tank to save cost and weight since drones and missiles can be used when the vehicle is moving.
Overall I see these tanks costing a comparable amount to a high-end IFV like a CV90, but less than a modern MBT. The bulk of your forces would be using cheaper APC platforms. True IFVs would still be viable (Bradleys and CV90s seem popular in Ukraine) but I am not sure the cost/benefit ratio works in their favour.
-
Link to an explanation on how all of the above can be used on a larger scale:
-
6 hours ago, The_Capt said:
A better tank is like a better sword in WW1.
You accuse me of oversimplification then say this! I hope I don't need to explain that this is obviously not correct.
So lets talk about ISR. I can't believe I am on this side of the debate for once but it does not allow you to identify everything within x km of your front line in y amount of time. I will break it down into several broad types:
- Ground based sensors carried by troops: very high detection rates within 2km of FLOT, but falls of rapidly after that
- Ground surveillance radars mounted on vehicles or aircraft: will detect all movement up to 150km from the platform but cannot identify what is moving.
- Attritable drones flying over enemy forces: can be anywhere up to maybe 50km from FLOT. Will detect with quite high confidence up to 1km from the platform but falls off rapidly after that. Can be directed to "check something out" but can be lost.
- Space based platforms: effectively infinite range but slow refresh times. Overall low chance of detection if you dont know what you are looking for, but you can look at everything at once so those low probabilities start to add up over time.
As we see in Ukraine, sometimes a Ukrainian helicopter gets blown up on the ground like 50km from the front after being there for a few minutes, but yet food and ammo get to the trenches and casualties get out - using vehicles.
So I don't thing we need to go so far as to say everything is dead if it goes near the front line so we should all resort to quadbikes - that is devolution and it would be irresponsible to open the next war like that (if that is actually true then there are plenty of civilian quadbikes around to allow you to adjust quickly).
Instead, vehicles need to: get stealthier, get in and out of the grey zone quickly, blend into civilian traffic on radar (i.e. dispersed) and be prepared to take casualties. They also need to stay mobile, even if damaged, since a static vehicle is a burning vehicle very quickly.
So your force needs to make almost every vehicle based on a cheap common platform. Realistically we are looking at 8x8 vehicles and/or my electric skateboard concept from the other thread. Crew should be minimised and the number of hulls maximised, with modular systems so you can reconfigure damaged vehicles as needed. Tanks would remain a specialised arm held in reserve until needed.
So we know what defanse looks like already from Ukraine, what does a the new offense look like? First a lot of random vehicle movements and radio transmissions, including from quadbikes with radios and radar reflectors to introduce ambiguity. Then you sanitise an area with drones and artillery and all your vehicles (mostly APC based, but with those quadbikes still cluttering up enemy sensors) coalesce into a swarm that looks like the Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive, protected by a bubble of defensive drones and mobile air defense. My novel tanks are introduced as part of the swarm to deal with key chokepoints such as villages/towns/bridges but platoons can be quite distributed since they have such long ranged weapons. Most of the destruction is caused by drones, with long range artillery and mobile mortars/105mm tanks able to concentrate fire quickly where required. As you start to outrun your own 155mm guns and supporting drone bubble, the drone carriers and 105mm tanks start to take over the heavy lifting. Eventually you run out of steam - your troops in APCs dig in and all the vehicles withdraw.
UGVs can be part of that mix but they have to be able to keep up with the fast moving swarm of the advance - in the near future I see them doing a "recon by boom" role, acting as the vanguard of the attack. But they can be directly controlled from another platform (see my Hunter/Killer concept from the other thread), not necessarily fully autonomous.
-
30 minutes ago, JonS said:
In a static situation, which is essentially what we are seeing now, then sure. But if you're going forward then - assuming that "combined arms" is still a thing - then the tanks are going to be a lot closer.
Sure, if you are talking about a concealed atgm or something that fires on your lead vehicle then that vehicle or formation had better respond quicker than indirect fire can provide. It was because of that I was trying to solve the tank problem since we all know that just a few modern weapons need to survive the initial bombardment/drone saturation to make an advance have a very bad day.
I am convinced you can't hide a whole modern tank platoon but you might miss a cleverly concealed single vehicle or potentially dozens of javelins in foliage or buildings (especially urban). And they just need to slow you down enough for indirect fire to arrive so you need to have strong local overmatch to keep momentum.
-
11 minutes ago, JonS said:
The thing I wonder about fully autonomous (well, ok; one of the things I wonder about with fully autonomous) is how much it's going to slow down the OODA loop. If I have a bunch of fully autonomous drones tooling around at the FEBA, they're likely working on yesterday's or last week's targeting data. When a new target pops up today, NOW, it's going to take a lot longer to get a fully autonomous drone squadron up and at 'em than calling up a gun battery or a friendly tank platoon to sort the problem out.
So I agree a gun battery is likely to have faster effects on target, but a tank platoon needs to have line of sight on your target and has a max range of 3km or so. The grey zone in Ukraine is 20km wide so it is very unlikely that they will be in the right place at the right time.
-
9 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Sure but we already have tactical reach out to 20kms, why do we need to put it on heavy metal? In urban combat why won’t these be steel coffins like tanks are now? What I am not seeing is fundamentally how these are going to improve survivability or firepower beyond what can be delivered now. Quads are fast but vulnerable…now how many quads with ATGMs can I buy for the cost of a single platoon of this new armor?
What this system would offer is mobility and maybe better than what we have now, but that is offset by the fourth tent in the pole - visibility. Next-gen ISR is going to see these well out from contact, they are massive metal targets that have to sit back 10-20kms providing long range fires…which is exactly what MBTs are doing in this war.
As to unmanned, the major shortfall in western thinking is “signal”. Fully autonomous systems are already today’s technology. They are only going to accelerate over time for the exact reason your new tank system is supporting: because full autonomy can defeat the systems we keep using, better and cheaper. There is no “maybe” on UGVs, not after this war. Once air and ground fully autonomous systems are in the field, and here we are talking months, maybe a few years, not decades, then this entire system is obsolete; unless you can uncrew the entire thing and make it lighter, smaller and more distributed. The future is to fight like the fog, not the snow.
Finally, I am still not sure on the armoured fist requirement. If we have swarms that can sanitize and area, why do I need to send armor to punch when I can send more drone swarms? Out of all those vehicles in that package, maybe the armored drone platform has some traction. Put a defensive drone swarm around it and maybe you have a hands-back C4ISR platform with some speed and survivability doing AWAC/JTAC type battle space management of fully autonomous unmanned systems.
Otherwise this still looks like a better hammer, but my sense is that the time of the hammer is over. We are moving to a time of needles.
So I better understand what you are saying now - you are going "all in" drones and think that the full range of autonomous systems will be here so fast that it is not worth investing in an intermediate platform. At this point none of us know the future but personally I would hedge: the current generation of land vehicles are all '80s vintage concepts with some add-ons bolted on, which are effectively obsolete already, and I think we need a replacement platform.
I agree fully autonomous flying drones are just around the corner, butcompanies like Anduril are already demonstrating a way to put up a protective bubble to deny/degrade enemy drone ISR within a certain area. This does not eliminate the drone threat, but it does increase the cost so they may not be as permanently dominant as they are today. Instead, you would need to fight for drone superiority and use that window of opportunity to defeat the enemy (i.e. put boots on the ground somewhere).
UGVs are both much, much harder to automate than UAVs and also much more reliant of very comprehensive automation. Personally I don't see it happening in the next 10 years. Even if you can make UGV that can handle unpredictable muddy terrain at night, then identify a target which is extremely well camouflaged (see below) can you do this without sucking kWatts of power and draining the battery in just a few hours? I see that technology supplementing crew performance in crewed vehicles for a while before it hits the big time (i.e. aim assist, automatic flagging of potential threats, route suggestions etc.).
And are the novel tanks so hot and easy to see? With Multi-spectral camouflage (Barracuda), rubber tracks, electric drive within 20km of the front line and movement at night to hide the dust cloud you are going to be hard to spot and hear (remember you also have your own drone bubble up to counter enemy drones). Yes radar can identify something moving, but you can move a bunch of dumb UGVs (or quadbikes) with radar reflectors at the same time to conceal your intentions.
Better not to be stuck in 2035 with a bunch of guys with ATGMs and a wishlist for UGVs that have not arrived yet.
I am not saying it is 100% the correct answer (I am just a desk jockey in a civilian job) but its fun to game it out!
-
12 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Ok. I guess my first question is “what does this really give us?” I like the idea of mixed potent light tanks but these are still 1) highly visible, 2) will have long logistics tails and 3) very expensive - you specifically are porting tech from F-35s (eg transparent hulls). So for all that money we get:
- a 105 direct fire gun
- a 40mm gun
- ATGMs
- and a drone control platform
The problem immediately is that I can get all that effects-wise with distributed light infantry, PGMs and drone swarms at much less cost and far harder to see and hit. We just had a video of the drone control platform being four guys in a basement. The direct fires support is already being replaced by PGM artillery and FPVs…and ATGMs are..well already man-portable. Why stick them on a heavy vehicle when I can simply put them on fast dismounts all over the place? I can put them on a quad bike for mobility. Or better yet a UGV.
To my mind this is a novel re-think of the system that assumes we still need the overall system to deliver effects when it is becoming clear we really don’t. I do not see how this new tank platoon is going to fare much better in say 10 years. Drones will be fully autonomous by then with new forms of stand-off attack. ISR will be even more ubiquitous. PGMs will be everywhere. These are lighter than current MBTs but still are 30t hot steel that rely on ground movement and direct fire. This kind of looks like trying to invent a better horse in 1918.
I appreciate the feedback. Yes they are expensive but they are not just a direct fire platform - they are equally strong at indirect fire and with drones and 105mm they can engage enemies up to 20km away. Its just they can also splat anything with direct fire if required, especially in urban combat.
Maybe UGVs will become effective, maybe not. They have terrible issues with control signals which are pretty physics limited and full autonomy is hard... As for quad bikes - not very good at attacking as the Russians like to show us.
I am not saying this will be used by itself - a drone swarm will sanitise a zone like a tac nuke, and this will be the armoured fist to punch through anything that survived (supported by much cheaper wheeled APCs, mortar vehicles and drone carriers that I described in the same thread). Importantly, the platoon has tools to create its own bubble of denial so it can potentially "do Manoeuvre" without getting zapped by drones. If UGVs work, then everything is obsolete, but we could build these tanks with todays tech.
-
Some thoughts on how to do tanks here:
I believe that the tank needs to change a lot, but with my concept they can become relevant again. They are smaller, more lethal and bring their own drone swarm...
Edit - haha Probus, I think I just answered your question the moment you asked it!
Edit 2 - hit me with your criticism everyone - I am interested if you can pick holes in my design.
-
Novel Tank Doctrine
The platoon may have 7-8 platforms, with 15-18 crew, compared with a modern tank platoon consisting of 4 MBTs with 16 crew. The suggested mix is three 105mm, three 40mm and 1-2 Drone Carriers. The platoon CO and XO are located in the Drone Carriers for maximum situational awareness.
The platoon manoeuvres with Lead vehicles and Reserve vehicles support them from defilade. Should a Lead vehicle be damaged (likely not immobilised), it may retire for repairs or continue to fight as a Reserve vehicle.
In the example shown, a reduced platoon spots an enemy tank in a hull down position using a drone operated by vehicle F. D is 12km away but uses indirect fire to engage the enemy, forcing them to move. A and B are already aware of the enemy and also effectively have three or four spotters per vehicle, supplied by Reserve vehicles C and E in defilade: this allows them to quickly spot and destroy it with direct fire.
The platoon moves forward, while F continues to survey the wreckage. Two enemy crew bail out once the platoon is out of sight but this is observed and F uses a OWA drone to finish them off.
The enemy sends a drone swarm to engage the platoon. They fly low and are not spotted until A and B receive multiple hits. B is saved by the ERA but A suffers damage to its ATGM and one of its tracks is destroyed. E and F launch a counterswarm which automatically track and kinetically impact the enemy drones. A and C activate radar, sharing data with the counterswarm and engaging targets cooperatively with airburst ammunition. A and C then swap positions in the formation so the damaged A becomes a Reserve vehicle.
Compared with a modern platoon of MBTs, the Novel Platoon is able to bring more firepower to the enemy at any given time, spot more effectively and defend itself better against drones, mines and artillery. At the same time it is more mobile, flexible, offers indirect fire support/counterbattery options, the vehicles are harder to spot and they have equal crew protection. No it can't slug it out with a platoon of MBTs at 1000m, but those MBTs would be toast before they even spotted the Novel Platoon.
-
I did it... I finally have a concept for how tanks can evolve to stay relevant on the modern battlefield. The tank purists are going to have a heart attack but I am not inspired by current "next-gen" tanks like the Abrams-X etc. They just clean up an existing design and add some APS, without solving any of the fundamental issues facing modern tanks: they are too easy to spot and engage with indirect fire (artillery, drones, ATGMs). They also immobilise rather easily from mines and artillery, and are way too hard to recover before they are destroyed. Finally, they have a heavy logistical footprint, and are very difficult to transport over long distances.
Novel Tank
A tank designed to provide mobility, armour and direct/indirect fire. Emphasis on crew protection and defence against immobilisation. Each vehicle has two crew members facing rear: vehicles act in pairs and "share" crew., for example while spotting or for maintenance. Target weight is <30 tonnes with weight reduction due to the small size, and focus on protection to the hull (crew, engine) over the turret. This small size and weight also allows road transport by commercial trucks over long distances (or two per tank transporter). The formation is mobile, flexible, very high firepower, resilient to damage and has integrated ISR and drone protection.
Note that while the design is optimised for peer level conflict in Europe, it can also be transported across islands in the pacific or engage in counter-insurgency roles. It is also extremely good at urban combat, due to its high elevation gun, small size and resistance to RPGs from all angles - the HESH round is just a bonus.
Armour: Front hull protected against MBT fire, front turret against high calibre autocannons. All other surfaces (including top) to resist FPV drones and dropped submunitions (ERA will likely be required). The turret is modular and compartmentalised from the hull: if it is destroyed, the hull can still move and communicate. The small size and selective armour placement means the weight is relatively low.
Mobility: a hybrid diesel-electric system with four independently driven rubber-composite tracks. Loss of one track does not immobilise the vehicle and the electric drive allows for silent running/overwatch.
Crew vision: both crew members have duplicate controls and may see through any sensor, including the transparent hull. Crew from nearby platforms may also use the sensors for maximum situational awareness from key vehicles in the formation. Should the vehicle become blinded, the crew can drive backwards from their rear-facing position using glass vision blocks. Note the controls and situational awareness borrows a lot from the F-35 concept as well as future "loyal wingman" programmes.
-
I think anyone asking Ukraine to rely on drones for victory has missed that the gap in drone use efficiency has closed considerably . They are still better but the Russians have got competent, and have greater numbers.
Even if they crack drone autonomy I hope they are able to take advantage of it quick because the Russians might not be far behind.
I believe the Ukrainian path to victory is now 100% on the russian home front, not victory on the battlefield. Unfortunately it won't be quick...
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by hcrof
I think both those numbers are too expensive. I heard a dumb 155 round is $3000 now due to supply issues but normally $1200. A fpv drone is as low as $300 but it is unclear if that includes the munition. If not add maybe $150 for a PG7 round