ArmouredTopHat

It really makes me wonder at what point do units get fed up enough to stop enabling this abandonment. 

Recently, I came upon unofficial Lessons Learned for RU tankers.The most of it was written by Captain Obvious, however there are a few Combat Mission-related sections @Battlefront.com
The document is titled Tips from seasoned tankers from the Union of Tankers of Russia. AFAIK, RU MOD does not conduct studies or analyses (or send them to combat units). So, RU Nat volunteers (like this union) try to fill the void. This is for T-72 tank (all modifications). Dated Feb 2023

Fun part
Comment:
Looks like RU tankers believe Mango or Svinets cannot penetrate the frontal armor of Leo 2A4 (except weak spot) ATGMs like Kornet are not very common. RU tankers believe even these missiles struggle to penetrate both frontal and side Leo 2A4 armor (or maybe do not cause enought damage). They hint that they see Leo 2A4 as a Wonder tank (Tiger/Panther) that T-72 cannot easily defeat head-on, just as T-34 could not easily defeat head-on Tiger/Panther.

This is what I mean about needing to call the Russian bluff and smack them hard. They will just get more and more emboldened as their desperation increases. It needs to be made clear that if so much as a whiff of responsibility is found that something valuable of theirs is going to explode. 

This is what I mean about needing to call the Russian bluff and smack them hard. They will just get more and more emboldened as their desperation increases. It needs to be made clear that if so much as a whiff of responsibility is found that something valuable of theirs is going to explode. 

This is what I mean about needing to call the Russian bluff and smack them hard. They will just get more and more emboldened as their desperation increases. It needs to be made clear that if so much as a whiff of responsibility is found that something valuable of theirs is going to explode. 

You reminded me of this meme @FancyCat

I think the F-35 program is pretty interesting, because if the stealth works as well as it should (and we have some evidence from Israel it does, but not a lot), it is a genuinely transformative.
If Ukrainians has 100 F-35s, which could fly and drop smart bombs, not only over the frontline but also hundred kilometers into Russia, because they are untargetable to Russian air defence, the war would look very different.
If the stealth doesn't work as well as it should, then it is still good upgrade from F-16 or whatever due to the networked sensors and unmanned integration, but not as good and maybe not worth the money.

I think you need to stop thinking that I am defending a status quo when literally talking about future weapon systems. How does that even make sense?
 
Can we stop being so rude with the language please? Calling peoples ideas fantasy despite them being rooted in reality is a little grating. There is no reason to be this abrasive. I would appreciate a little more decorum and it would improve your points quite a bit.

We have used far more destructive weapon systems in such environments and view them as an acceptable risk for collateral. You are talking about bullets being fired in a warzone where there are already plenty of bullets and artillery being flung around in most warzones. Presumably an autonomous system would have safeguards to ensure that a person is not shot instead of a drone. Surely the same limitations are going to be put into drone munitions using swarm tactics to prevent friendly fire when operating in an area filled with friendlies? 

All of this ignores the primary point that drone based interceptors are going to be a primary means of defence. 
 
ERA is not exactly great when it comes to collateral yet its used heavily anyway. We have long since adopted basic ideas such as keeping dismounted infantry away from a vehicle, the same principle applies here. Ukraine fires tens of thousands of rounds into the sky against shaeds with a variety of weapons to down them. Those bullets also come down eventually. Collateral happens but the sad reality is that its part of the war. Is your argument really that because someone might get shot by accident the whole effort is worthless? I could argue collateral being a problem for offensive swarm drones but I dont use it as an argument that their whole enterprise is a waste of time. 
 
Ok I am sorry but pointing to a video of some drones doing a preprogramed show routine with fancy lights is nothing near an autonomous swarm system designed to hunt and kill a variety of targets on a battlefield. Your telling me I am making stuff up but the fact of the matter is there is no lethal drone swarm system in service and there is unlikely to be one for a while yet. 

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/swarm-clouds-on-the-horizon-exploring-the-future-of-drone-swarm-proliferation/#:~:text=In May 2021%2C Israel used,to the Israel Defense Forces.

The closest we have had is this, and its entirely non lethal system. 

https://bluehalo.com/bluehalo-selected-for-u-s-army-next-generation-c-uas-missile/

There are lethal systems in the works, but in the case of the US, the very same system is now being selected as a C-UAS role. So defence swarms are likely to be fielded in combat at the same time as offensive ones. Either way its still very early days for swarms. 
Again, you are taking the example of a big expensive / static systems that were designed to down anti ship missiles in the 80s and applying it to new designs being made in the last decade. Of course a CIWS is big and expensive. No one is suggesting we plaster one of those onto everything. 

https://battle-updates.com/small-calibre-solutions-for-c-uas-systems-by-julian-nettlefold/

There are a plethora of promising systems literally in existence that could become very promising with the appropriate development. All the ingredients already exist and people are actively cooking with them. These systems are only going to get cheaper and more prolific. 
 
A swarm operating has to communicate with others in its group in some way, otherwise what is stopping the entire group from hitting one target instead of many more efficiently? How else is the swarm supposed to receive orders or be managed on the battlefield? If the system is entirely autonomous that implies a lot of hurdles have been jumped. Most envision a lot of 'autonomous' systems to still be managed in some way shape or form by humans. Because AI does in fact have limitations that can constrain. 

Of course, that would apply to a autonomous PD system as well, but if its integrated into a manned vehicle it literally has the crew to manage it.
The point of something smaller and cheaper PD wise would be that you could in fact stick it onto every vehicle. an RWS system is not all that expensive compared to overall vehicle costs and certainly nothing like the cost of something like CIWS. The primary idea remains that a drone based interception system would still be handling the majority of incoming. Add a greater redundancy to logistics and a means for them to defend themselves, plus constrained enemy ISR that makes it harder for them to locate your logistics in the first place and its not unreasonable to assume this whole system is possible. 
 
Even a fully autonomous system will be noisy and easily found on a thermal or IR system. 
For humans maybe. 
Drones started out pretty expensive, plenty still are. Why are we assuming a potential pd system has to have the cost of a CIWS? Why do drones get to evolve as a system but nothing else can?
Perhaps if you were to be a little less condescending about what remains a largely theoretical possibility of what future warfare might look like we could have a better debate on it.  

I have been busy so only able to partly lurk the updates overhere and elsewhere. I have an observation on the whole tank is dead topic (linked to the infantry screening, density and Russia's CA capability assessments) which I felt like sharing.
Not to light a fire under it again, but imo there are separate area's of interest which keep continuing to mingle in discussions. 
A) One has a perspective of analysis in order to explain the current war and how things happened the way they did -afterthoughts and analysis which will continue for a couple of decades when more info becomes available.
B - Another has a perspective of 'where to go next' and how to get there (policy and vision development, incl doctrine & procurement). Lets call it future strategy.
C) The last perspective is operational as in what to do with what we have now / are doing at the moment? Do you throw all tanks in the bin and send the crew home, replacing them with what exactly?
This is perhaps not a complete or completely accurate list, but the answer to 'the tank is dead' isn't going to answer any of the problems in those area's of interest. A) doesn't decide that. And while A B and C should ideally be 'in sync' chronologically, we are now in a quantum position where everything is happening at the same time and that causes friction. Interesting friction, but it's good to keep in mind that the answer to whether 'the tank is dead' might be different for all area's but not necessarily logically incoherent. The correct question to ask oneself is 'what issue is actually on the table?'.
Imo the 'battlefront doctrine' is mostly inside B spectrum. 

Theres ~3 hours of guaranteed electricity per day in Kyiv, with 60-70% of the infrastructure gone at this point.
It is worse in regions closer to the frontline, I'd say the goal is nearly complete, so they are going to the next lowest priority which is hospitals.
Interception rate has been decreasing since 2024, the last attack was roughly 50% interception.
In winter there will not be enough generators to supply every town and village with one and these local gathering spots will be a big target for russian strikes. 

Realistically, they probably couldn't do that. Transformers are much smaller targets than refineries, so hitting them with Ukrainian domestic weapons would not work very well, and striking into Russia with Western weapons is forbidden.
edit: also the West would probably freak out if Ukraine targeted "civilian infrastructure". I already heard enough complaints about the oil infrastructure being attacked.

Well let me at least make an attempt. This missile is the way to knock back the glide bomb problem. It is the only even vaguely viable way of doing that I have seen, and Ukraine needs it YESTERDAY. 

Seems it was not the only medical facility hit in Kyiv today either. 

This really does seem pretty intentional, outside of a malfunction on the guidance. 

Here's Ander's summary of the war right now for those who might have missed it
 
 

I suggest to opening up a tank dedicated thread

F-35 had plenty of time to cook, and 4th gens in service are already approaching the end of their service spans even with extensive upgrades. You really cant string out the lifecycle of those platforms much longer, especially in an environment that's increasingly hostile to them. 

UAS was simply not viable in the roles they wanted F-35 to perform, and wont be for a while yet. I envision the US will be complimenting F-35s with UCAVs down the line as a replacement to 4th gens to make up numbers.

 
 
People can be right and wrong on different matters. If your concerned about sources have some more. Note how literally every pilot who flies them think they are fantastic and literally better than anything else in the air. 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35-might-be-best-fighter-jet-ever-208703#:~:text=In terms of avionics%2C the,and advanced electronic warfare capabilities.

https://www.businessinsider.com/test-pilot-f-35-demands-more-than-great-flying-skills-2023-11

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/f-35-cheaper-gripen-czech-republic-says

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/it-only-gets-better-stealth-f-35-becoming-more-powerful-and-affordable-204360
Because congress is filled with idiot politicians who are fed a lot of misinformation on military matters and have a record of cutting anything that costs money without examining why. You only have to look at the Bradley fiasco to understand that. (Yeah turns out that whole movie about it was a bit of a lie)

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-mangled-myths-dogging-the-f-35/

If you actually ask the pilots flying these things, you will know that the plane is a genuine winner and is revolutionary in its effect on the airspace and has more than justified its cost. NATO air exercises are really quite good and pit planes in pretty realistic scenarios, and F-35 has proven itself in them, especially the Red Flag exercises that literally threw everything and the kitchen sink at F-35 to test its capabilities. This is not some MIC scam that everyone is in on, the platform works and works damn -well- at its job, far better than any adversary can. Why do you think the Chinese have been trying so hard to steal its secrets?

Yes, UCAVs are probably going to be a feature of the future, I dont deny that, but its a good way from it just yet. There is not much out there drone wise that has the radar and the ability to sling AMRAAMS at targets whilst being stealthy though. Any UCAV capable of doing so is going to be expensive, perhaps as much so as a 4th gen, you need similar equipment to do so. You cannot strap a Meteor missile onto a civilian drone and expect it to work like an RPG-7 warhead. 

The fact of the matter is that the cost of F-35 per unit is going down over time, as is the maintenance costs as more are produced. You picked a strange hill to die on when it comes to a badly managed military project. A decade ago this perhaps might have been more in doubt but now that F-35 is in active service (and actual combat) and has worked pretty much flawlessly, there can be no more doubt as to such a platform being the way forward for manned air platforms. 

I found an excellent channel from a T-64 crew fighting in Ukraine. Sorta shows what they get up to with both direct and indirect fire. We should bear in mind that things like FPVs are not turning every single vehicle to scrap just yet. The first video in particular highlights how useful a direct fire capability can be and how ATGMs can be mitigated by short, effective fire missions. 
 
This particular video seems to feature them doing indirect fire in particular, quite accurate too at that. 
 
Really do like the extended footage that shows the reasonable amount of thought the tankers are putting with regards to moving around, firing for short periods of time then moving. They even show a load of videos with them maintaining the vehicle between runs. The tank crew has been in combat since 2022, largely with T-64 it seems like. Not bad for such an old tank!

The Littorals were an utter disaster and serve as a far better example of a bad procurement and how role / capability creep can be crippling. They also are a cautionary tale of how modular designs are not always the best option. I still dont know why the hell they were built in the first place.

You will note how no one outside of the US was lining up to buy them. 

A further note on this as well:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/06/27/massive-cost-estimate-for-fighter-program-is-misleading/?sh=48f7cfab6625

The whole 2 trillion thing is frequently misleading. (That cost is literally for half a CENTURY of service) Using the same metrics, its going to cost America over four times that in order for them to maintain their far less capable 4th gen inventories. If you want to go after wastes of money, go after A-10s or something that currently serve no purpose at all in a near peer / peer environment with any modicum of air defence. 

I found an excellent channel from a T-64 crew fighting in Ukraine. Sorta shows what they get up to with both direct and indirect fire. We should bear in mind that things like FPVs are not turning every single vehicle to scrap just yet. The first video in particular highlights how useful a direct fire capability can be and how ATGMs can be mitigated by short, effective fire missions. 
 
This particular video seems to feature them doing indirect fire in particular, quite accurate too at that. 
 
Really do like the extended footage that shows the reasonable amount of thought the tankers are putting with regards to moving around, firing for short periods of time then moving. They even show a load of videos with them maintaining the vehicle between runs. The tank crew has been in combat since 2022, largely with T-64 it seems like. Not bad for such an old tank!

A little bit of misinformation about the F-35 here, which I dont blame you because the program has received a lot of unfair flak.  

F-35 is actually -cheaper- currently than a number of 4th gen platforms to buy these days, and that cost ratio only becomes more favourable when you factor in the older age of a lot of those 4th gen platforms, which get more expensive every year to run. Its also by far the cheapest stealth platform by any metric. 

Jets in general are pretty expensive to operate but F-35 mitigates those costs due to the scale of its production. We talked about how the west needs to improve on its production scales? The F-35 shows that super high end platforms can be made much more economical when produced at a proper scale. The project itself was a remarkable achievement of multinational development.

F-35 gets a lot of controversy but it has actually enjoyed less accidents per flight hour than most US jets when you actually look at the long term data. Its had far less accidents than F-16s, F-15s or other legacy platforms per 100k flight hours, just compare the accident rates from F-35 to F-16, which in itself is an excellent jet. F-35 has had less mishaps per flight hour than pretty much any US Jet in service, and a lot less deaths. 

https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Aircraft Statistics/FY21_F-35.pdf

https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Aircraft Statistics/F-16.pdf

Its a same case for readiness rates, which people often cite. Readiness rates are in fact in line with other jets in service, which always tend to be low in peacetime. Look up the readiness rates of Israeli F-35s (that have been running ops for most of this year with zero issue, including scuffles with Russian AD based in Syria) and you will find they have had no real sustainment problems

The high development cost is worth it for the capabilities as well. Why do you think everyone is trying to buy them? 5th gen planes utterly slaughter 4th gens in pretty much every combat exercise (Were talking 20-1 kill ratios), and F-35s can act as major force multipliers to less capable planes with its sensor integration. If you want to do anything outside of extreme BVR and bomb tossing then you simply need that stealth capability and battlefield sensor mastery against a near peer/ peer opponent. They truly are terrifying pieces of kit that are the right direction when it comes to mastery over BVR air combat. Making over a -thousand- 5th gens is no mean feat either. In most metrics the program has been a monumental success. 

There is a reason people are buying them, because they are quite simply the best and for a paying customer, quite affordable. Its really not a good example if you want to point out bad procurement policy. 

https://lexingtoninstitute.org/the-f-35-is-the-safest-and-most-capable-fighter-the-u-s-military-has/

 

Okay refuting my points is one thing. Comparing me to a flat earther or MAGA is another, just because I dare to have a different opinion than you. Saying my opinion is 'worth' nothing is pretty damn insulting and I am more than a little startled by this. 

I wont lie, I am little disappointed given I valued your input quite a bit. 
 
I never said this. I openly WONDERED why it was the case smoke was not used. I did not say it was because both sides 'do not know how to'. I am honestly more than a little tired of this attitude that because I point something out it automatically means that either side are not doing it properly. Stop it.

I wanted to debate more on this forum because I genuinely found the environment refreshing. I still do for the most part. I am getting tired of being told 'my argument sucks' or my argument boiling down to 'Russia sucks'. I want to learn and hear other viewpoints, not have people constantly deride my counter points because they happen to go against what you think. I have said it so many times that I agree on several points. That you cannot even give me the courtesy of at least being polite is honestly getting annoying at this point. 

I am arguing the status quo by saying vehicles need to change and that drone based interceptors are likely going to be the major aspect of defending against drone munitions going forward? Sure. Okay. Pointing out that tanks have a role, or that perhaps such extreme changes might not be so predictable due to potential counters is not my saying everything is fine carry on. Please understand that just once, I have tried to make it clear several times. Stop acting like I am some deep rooted conservative who thinks that drones are a temporary fad. 
 
Then you need to either stop debating with me or figure out how not to so frustrated from a differing opinion, because being so rudely treated is not why I am here. If I want to argue with people I will go on twitter and fight the genuinely brainless. Just because I have a different opinion that is still broadly supportive of the idea that war is and will change should not be getting you and others so wound up. I came here to debate with reasonable people, not be told to shut up and that my argument actually sucks. Its not a good way to change peoples minds. I dont pretend to be some sage who predicts everything, but neither do I expect to be treated as if I am incapable of thinking properly. 
 
I think I will just agree to disagree here. This is a wildly speculative scenario in the first place and its literally pointless to argue it when we can just make up any potential solution. I could point out how you rarely see infantry in and around armoured vics (Unless they are riding on them) or are caught dismounting in Ukraine, so the assumption that a PD system would be ineffective just because of friendly fire risk seems unlikely, at least to me. 

Because as I keep saying, complicating a kill chain as much as possible is so much better than relying on one means of interception, especially when dealing with such a potentially versatile threat. PD that can serve as an RWS in most situations but is optimised for drone munition intercept as a last resort without compromising on the vehicle role seems sensible here and very much worth the money. If it reduces vehicle losses by a certain metric then its absolutely worth it, because no matter what we say about the tank, vehicles in general are not going to disappear overnight. 
 
Could you be so kind as to specify what fully autonomous lethal system you are talking about here, the only thing I can think of is the AI on some FPV drones that allow a terminal approach which is not exactly a standardised thing yet, nor is it fully autonomous. the only thing I could find was potentially Turkish Kargu-2 being used in 2020 in fully autonomous mode. (Not in Ukraine)
 
I have literally given you numerous articles to potential ideas and solutions, so to say there is 'nothing' on hand is just a bald faced lie. The same swarm drone company making offensive drones has literally been tasked to make counter drones as well. 

I'm not sure why the link is not working https://battle-updates.com/small-calibre-solutions-for-c-uas-systems-by-julian-nettlefold/ But this covers the wide range of different RWS systems that are actively signing contracts to do with Ukraine and are all meant for counter UAS. So please stop telling me there is no other solution or that point defence / gun counter UAS stuff is fantasy when that is literally a lie.
 
Just as there are significant problems with actually designing practical fully autonomous systems. Could you actually provide a source that shows how close these swarm drones are to practical deployment? Because a lot of what I read seems a little whishy washy on the subject. Have they been featured in any major NATO exercise?
 
Concluding confidently that there is ' no counter' two years into a war that is probably going to last a fair bit longer seems foolishly premature, especially when there are active potential counters in the works. Gun based and otherwise. The only legitimate conclusion is that CURRENT systems are clearly not going to cut it against drone munitions at scale and there needs to be evolution to counter systems....which is exactly what is happening. Its pure arrogance and conjecture to declare something is a dead end before widespread practical solutions are not even being used at scale yet. 

Far right in france did quite a bit worse than expected, which is a small relief.