ArmouredTopHat

Could we maybe dump the ad homs and the logic policing?

Note how the Ukrainians are pointing out that drones do not change the fundamentals of combined arms warfare even with their potency on the battlefield. 

When the most innovative pioneers of drone warfare in active combat are telling us this we should probably listen.

Do the Ukrainian forces benefit from equipment quality in any respect?

Thank you for the answer btw!

Yes but this discussion is about to become significantly more interesting.
The real war experience showed us that
Tanks  are significantly less useful on modern battlefields (due to overall vulnerability, lack of agility, high cost). To the point that they are no longer required and generally we can fight without them.  However, there are two specific cases (one is specific case of AT defense, another is specific case of infantry fire support) where High velocity High caliber gun mounted on the platform with heavy frontal armor will outperform other platforms be it artillery, ATGMs or drones. Both sides of the debate are right in some aspects but also both sides are wrong in other aspects. "Pro-tank" side overstates general utility and understates vulnerability of a tank. It is highly unlikely that tank would be as important as it was during Cold War. It is surely stay usefull and relevant as niche tool.   "Anti-tank" side correctly states all the issues with tanks but dramatically overhype drone capabilities. There are limits and these limits unlikely to disappear in future. Sure drone technology is improving but counter-drone is improving as well and it (and laws of physics and costs) put severe limits on drone capabilities in some cases. For such cases it is  beneficial to have small number of tanks around.  Short example - Drones as weapon are not guaranteed to halt a massed armor attack in time. Properly executed armored attack (mech infantry company + tank platoon) will overran forward platoon or company strong point. However, drones are expected to cause 70%-90% percent of losses during assault itself and right after. This is of the reasons RU can often force UKR from their forward defensive positions but rarely can force operational breakthrough. There are very few things that can stop 120mm NATO slug. And non of that can be found on RU tanks. Also NATO tank can throw one slug every few seconds and these slugs will hit RU tank in less than 2 second. Non of the drones can outperform that. So, if you want to save your forward infantry unit against surprise competent armor attack you will have to keep few tanks around.  Yes, some of you might claim that in future drone swarms will destroy armor column in seconds. My answer is No. It is fantasy that does not take in to consideration laws of physics, cost and C-UAS capabilities. End of story. Obvioulsy, my comment lacks detailed explanation. But I intentionally focused on making it short - my earlier comment about m113 and Brad's employment is currently 5 pages long and still requires some editing and insertion of links and photos. 

The footage is there, its just a matter of looking for it. They are getting plenty of use even defensively. 
 

 
Note how there is a wide acceptance that the role of the tank has changed (at least from soviet doctrine), yet its still viewed as immensely valuable on the battlefield with both direct and indirect fire. 

The tankers themselves indicate that their fires are often more accuracy than artillery, that and being able to fire brigade an area under attack more effectively. 

wow, that was nasty.  Yeah, PTSD for an entire nation.

I am waiting for the lend-lease halftracks to start showing up, should be any day now
 

The problem is, that we don't have working (and economic) anti-UAV systems. At least for the small ones like the FPV drones. As soon as someone comes up with one, we can start to mass produce. The R&D phase is always the most expensive one. It is also the one where you can't really predict how long it takes (which is the main line of friction between the engineers and management in those kinds of projects).
I don't like to give hints to the RA, but I doubt they will read this.
They really should have sawn off the shotguns. With this kind of long barrel at that distance the spread of the pellets is not much more than that of a slug.
I remember seeing a UA soldier running around with a sawn-off gun, but I don't think he shot on that video.

So, how much aid has Hungary not tried to veto thanks to previous existing good will and cooperation?
It required a special deal with Orban every single time.
How do we not know this is the direct result of Zelensky and EU partners negotiating with Orban on the next aid package, him throwing his veto into the ring again, and he thought the other side is just bluffing (just like the withholding of EU funds for Hungary), and now they showed their hand and actually had double aces?
You are interpreting this entirely as a semi-disconnected move when it could be just a direct result of ongoing talks as well. And now the ball is in Orban's field again. His negotiating position was weakened. Diplomatic good will was not wasted because there never was any.

Would love to see some concrete data on the Vampire system, seems a pretty cheap way to dispose of Geran type long range attack drones. (I presume the modified hydra rocket is somewhat cheaper than said munition)

Hopefully Ukraine gets more of these to deal with the recon drones behind their lines. 
 
 

Would love to see some concrete data on the Vampire system, seems a pretty cheap way to dispose of Geran type long range attack drones. (I presume the modified hydra rocket is somewhat cheaper than said munition)

Hopefully Ukraine gets more of these to deal with the recon drones behind their lines. 
 
 

Ukraine is going to be a cold and dark place this winter. Those that support Russia in doing this need to understand that actions have consequences.
Winter is coming...

The best the EU has managed so far with orban is to withhold some EU funds, and even that is not because of the toad blocking aid to Ukraine. About time someone sticks it to him for real.

I believe there is actually an ancient fable about this.
"But now we will both surely drown" said the Hungarian toad.
"Lol" said Budanov. "Lmao." And activated his jetpack.
 
Orban's full control of the media means he can already spin anything in any way. 
That won't make fuel prices go down. 
Now he will have to make a deal with someone else. These someones are countries with deep sea ports for tanker ships, like the Netherlands.
Ukraine just increased the diplomatic leverage of the EU over a Russian vassal while reducing Russian income. 
In any other situation we would call this a master stroke of a political maneuver. But because we are p---yfooting around a genocidal dictatorship, we focus on the negatives.

Biden stepping down
Joe Biden ends re-election campaign https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e5xpdzkd8o
MMM

Some very interesting technology demonstrators recently unveiled. Some very promising concepts on hand as well. Not the biggest fan of Redeffect as stated previously but he covers this stuff pretty well.

Certainly not all roses mind, some questionable role overlap of loitering munition capability / unnecessary 130-140mm guns. Still interesting to see what might be on hand and what defence companies are experimenting with with the whole concept of interchangeable main guns. 

Leclerc Evo is also apparently on the verge of being ready for production if its approved (its not actually a demonstrator unlike these other vehicles but a life extension program) We might see it within a few years in service if its accepted. Seeing the Panther turret being able to be fitted to a Leopard 2a4 chassis is also very interesting, certainly appealing when it comes to cost if you happen to operate leopard platforms and want to upgrade. 




Its also really interesting to see the emphasis on UAS protection at this point, meshed with APS. 

Video also shows some excellent test footage of 30mm air burst downing groups of drones, certainly seems like that is the system being chosen for counter drone on these platforms and for good reason. Though there are also some 7.62 platforms also being used. Both seem to be handling drones quite well when equipped with the appropriate detection platforms. Been trying to get my hands on more test footage. 

I'm also not convinced that drone manoeuvring really protects them from these systems either, looking at some test footage at least. These are fast moving drones jinking around and they are still being shredded. Interesting to say the least. Saturation seems the only real way to overwhelm the system. 

Really do think we might some some very effective C-UAS systems down the line within a few years. 

 

No, you are right. You forgot what we were talking about.
I'm not challenging your point, that vehicles should be cheaper, etc... I even very much agree to it.
I did challenge your point that you wrote that making more of one vehicle/machine/system/... will not bring its price down. That, and only that. No assumptions of complexity of that systems or marketability or whatever. Mass production will bring the price of everything down. And you can mass produce every physical thing (in this military context).
Best example for that is drones. You need a production line each for the microprocessor, GPS receiver, wireless chip, 3-axis sensor (*), camera sensor & motor controller. Then you need an assembly line to put all this on a PCB. You need to cast the case for the motors, wind its coils, produce and place the magnets and assemble it all. Oh, and the rotors and probably 100s of other bits and pieces I forgot. Definitely complex.
Yet, this is a very cheap, mass-produced device.
 
 
(*) Little fun fact: causality is a bitch, but the thing that made this current drone war possible is, of all things, the Nintendo Wii. The Wiimote had a 3-axis sensor, and the huge demand from Nintendo brought the prices down into hobbyist range. These put them on drones and made the public aware of them. That created demand, and now we have Mavic et al. Then private Bohdan put an RPG on it and the rest we know.

There are more than a few videos of the Bradleys in close cooperation with infantry, I would not say its exactly a rare thing. They really do seem to be used in a variety of roles, from transporting sections into combat to acting as 'fire brigade' units with the firepower to blunt attempted mechanised assaults. We see enough footage from the 47th to know they seem to be the vehicle of choice to go after the small assaults made on their line. We also know how quickly and efficiently the Bradley can deal with them. I dont see even a platoon of M113s with open top 50 cals doing the same thing. 

This is not to take away from FPVs or their effectiveness, but the infantry ultimately seem to appreciate what an IFV can do for them. I would argue the troops on the ground would probably prefer a Bradley to drones, if only so they dont have to walk everywhere! I think the solution is using both really.  Why cant they utilise both to their effective capacity?

As for losses, the 47th seems to be running them consistently despite losses and the modest number delivered. (Bulk of losses were during 2023 as well) This is after months on the field with a lot of FPVs and lancets in the air. I figured if the drones were so effective that there would be no vehicles left. Yet this seems not to be the case (though we of course dont know readiness numbers)

While a Sherman was not as over-engineered as a lot of German models, it was anything but just metal to metal, certainly not to the degree of a T-34 was in 1942. There was plenty of novel features in the tank that were advanced for the time, such as the electronics, radio equipment and the gyro stabilisation system (even if it was rarely used) 

The key difference was that American production was truly insane, taking the principles of automotive industry and applying them at scale instead of the artisan approach of the Germans. This mass production was of quality as well (look at the welding points of your typical Sherman vs a T-34 and you can see what I mean) The Americans were able to literally have their cake and eat it really. 

The point I am trying to make is that you can manufacture complex machines at a decent cost provided you scale appropriately. F-35 for instance is a great example of this. Bradley might be more complex than a Sherman, but at the same time our capacity to build complex machines has only increased. Our factories are more productive when pushed to the max ect. The difference is of course that NATO is not on a wartime footing, hence the 'lazy' production of current inventories. Small orders of vehicles ensures that the cost of these platforms are going to be expensive, as that cost per unit reflects the setting up of a production line and its investment more than simply paying for the vehicle itself. Its probably an attitude we need to change to ensure security in our time. We need to be thinking thousands of a certain platform to equip NATO forces really. 

I think the solution is what the Ukrainians are doing, which is obtaining a mix of vehicles to satisfy requirements (even if its not enough) 

I do have to disagree quite strongly that IFVs are not being used in their role though, the whole point of an IFV is to support the infantry with direct fire. That is literally what we see Bradleys do near all the time, either as a primary mission or part of unloading or loading infantry / supplies, something a light tank cannot do. This is not something that an APC can nearly as effectively either. 
 
Does not detract that Ukraine needs lots of Mraps and APCs as well of course!

But if your assaulting a position, you want an IFV for that firepower, accept no substitutes:
 
I simply cannot accept the argument that the IFV is not performing its role when it very much is on video. The cost is reflective of capability. 

Are we reading the same paper? It seems to me there's a lot to chew on in there if you're a fan of unmanned systems. It's just not all about the drones.
________
Thus, alongside the requirement to protect the force from stand-in observation, it is also necessary to be able to defeat enemy longer-range UAVs, either at low altitude but stood off up to 10 km, or at medium altitude above the MANPADS ceiling
While helicopters are expensive to operate and vulnerable in the face of Russian air defences, UAVs may offer a means to move pallets of food, water and ammunition forwards. Using uncrewed ground vehicles for breaching similarly offers the opportunity to widen and multiply the lanes through which supplies can pass. Uncrewed ground vehicle technology is not currently ideally suited to offensive obstacle breaching, because it is easily knocked out through damage to key sensors and often depends on remote control, while such breaching must be done either from close proximity to the vehicle or via fixed cable. Once behind the FLOT, however, such systems have significant potential, and experimentation in this space could mature the capability until it is able to support offensive breaching operations... Medical evacuation via UAV is more morally complex, but in many instances may improve the rate of survival considerably by allowing casualties to be recovered across complex or denied terrain to a medical facility in a hardened position where a better standard of care can be provided.
For offensive suppression, the utilisation of loitering munitions, provided with target coordinates by EW baselines, could enable strikes on operators of threat systems that are otherwise safe beyond line of sight of their targets. An equivalent to the Lancet-3M would be very useful for this. It would also require an uplift in the density of Ukrainian EW baselines at brigade level to identify enemy UAV operators and engage them.

Reading the RUSI report really feels like someone has joined the dots but they just don't want to say so explicitly. The emerging threats section seems so weirdly separate to the campaign summary it's easy to read all sorts of stuff between the lines.
Edit: the above sounds a bit conspiratorial: I think there was just disagreement among the authors about the role of drones or something, not anything sinister 

There are more than a few videos of the Bradleys in close cooperation with infantry, I would not say its exactly a rare thing. They really do seem to be used in a variety of roles, from transporting sections into combat to acting as 'fire brigade' units with the firepower to blunt attempted mechanised assaults. We see enough footage from the 47th to know they seem to be the vehicle of choice to go after the small assaults made on their line. We also know how quickly and efficiently the Bradley can deal with them. I dont see even a platoon of M113s with open top 50 cals doing the same thing. 

This is not to take away from FPVs or their effectiveness, but the infantry ultimately seem to appreciate what an IFV can do for them. I would argue the troops on the ground would probably prefer a Bradley to drones, if only so they dont have to walk everywhere! I think the solution is using both really.  Why cant they utilise both to their effective capacity?

As for losses, the 47th seems to be running them consistently despite losses and the modest number delivered. (Bulk of losses were during 2023 as well) This is after months on the field with a lot of FPVs and lancets in the air. I figured if the drones were so effective that there would be no vehicles left. Yet this seems not to be the case (though we of course dont know readiness numbers)

Tbh looking at the miniaturization of computing and how technologically we have advanced, I’ve been unable to really articulate it, so I appreciate this production discussion, but what prevents us from lowering the cost of anti-Uav systems thru sustained production? A lot of price tags for anti-uav stuff is based on lowered military budgets, lack of urgency, lack of needed production. I think it might be reasonable to say a restarted Gepard production would lower costs to be worth it.