ArmouredTopHat

I really do wonder how long this can be tolerated for until something suddenly snaps.

We are literally seeing Ukraine smack down UAVs with FPV drones at a growing rate. The potential is there for unsustainable attrition of long range recon assets. 

Its possible that UAVs will have a lot more to worry about going forward if more dedicated counter systems come online that are even more efficient. 
 
I literally supplied a link showing a bunch of systems in that same post....

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

There is considerable interest in this right now. 

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.  

A few corrections Steve:
Preprograming drone paths means you cant hit moving targets. If you are attacking a target 5km away (quite short range), then your target might be 1-2km away by the time the drone arrives. Unless you are attacking a largely static target you have to guide it in. Allowing your drone to hop frequencies dynamically means it needs a milspec radio which is likely going to push your price and weight up a lot. If the drone has a fixed frequency then there is a chance of jamming or spoofing it, or just sending out defensive drones. I am no EW guy so I don't know how hard that is to do with future AI-based EW. 
On the other hand, target vehicles will have milspec radios that can transmit at very low power so intra-unit comms will generally fade into the background noise of the battlefield. 
On radars, an AESA radar can be detected if it is emitting but needs a pretty sophisticated detector since it is frequency hopping. A cheap drone will never find it. 
And AI piloted racing drones look fancy to a human eye but I would encourage you to look at the hard maths of what they can do when you assume they are carrying a heavy battery and warhead so have much slower accelerations. Doing an attack run limits how much they can manoeuvre even more since they are aiming at a target (which might be very small if they need to hit a weak spot). A large shotgun can absolutely take them out if aimed by AI, but only at very close range: over 100m or so you need airburst munitions or a defensive drone. 

His example was reasonable - it didn't assume predictable path so much as that newton's laws are still valid at the drone scale.  If a drone has a particular momentum at point (x,y,z,t) and maximum acceleration of a_max, there's a well defined limited volume available for it to occupy at some later point (x1,y1,z1,t1).  You just have to fill that volume of spacetime with stuff at a density high enough that at least one of piece of your shrapnel is guaranteed to intesect the volume occupied by the drone.
You're also correct that when it's danger close the drone can (and will) set you up to have some of your own guys in that second volume.  But he's merciless and will save the three guys in the PD vehicle over ex-PFC Conscriptovich standing outside having a smoke.

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

I really do wonder how long this can be tolerated for until something suddenly snaps.

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

So why does no one cancel such procurement if the tank is dead? Why has no one done so?

M1E3 was literally announced last year, it did not exist prior. SepV4 was cancelled in favour of it 

https://www.army.mil/article/269706/army_announces_plans_for_m1e3_abrams_tank_modernization

Because they literally made thousands and are now waiting for the M1E3 specifications to outlined for full production. They still make other M1 types for expert pretty much all the time. A lot of countries in the middle east literally use M1s quite heavily. Egypt alone has over a -thousand- of them. 
 
Belgrano was not a battleship but a light cruiser. 
Because they insist on using them wastefully. Most of said tanks are literally refurbed cold war tanks that really should not be upheld as outstanding examples of good tanks. 
Did you not see the recent submitted requirements for M1E3? The US is literally going to be building a new generation of tank within a few years with a lot of changes reflective of recent experiences. UK is building Chally 3. Germany is building a new Leopard. I could go on. 

 

The new British Defence Minister is already in Ukraine meeting with Zelensky:
 

Already seeing a growing emphasis on cheap detection towards drones now. The focus on hunting those much more expensive reconnaissance drones seems especially significant, Ukraine would benefit a lot from constraining that recon capability, if only to deprive Russia of targeting in the rear areas. 

Thread relevant:

This is where it will be heading towards imo. Or maybe only to be used defensively.

Such autonomous weapons have the capability of being very humane....or very inhumane. The thought of such smart munitions being programmed to specifically go for say children out of a potential target group as a weapon of terror is sickening to say the least.

It does make me wonder if the worlds powers will actually rule on limitations to such weaponry much in the same way as NBCs. 

Please note that I'm not arguing against this post and the conclusion of it. Just some details.
I can speak only for me, and I don't think defensive technology (as in counter drone PD) is right around the corner. I'm just saying it is possible. We may see it in this war depending on how long it lasts or in the next. When this technology comes, the drones will have to adapt.
We have seen the beginning of autonomous drones. This is a logical reaction to increasing EW. The first step in the arms race for this rather new type of weapon. Other steps will follow.
 
 
I haven't read everything, but that would be a really strange argument to make. Offensive drones already exist in the thousands.
I haven't seen anything against kamikaze drones except infantry shooting their rifles.
The battery will get merely warm. However, the motors are very hot. Quadcopters push a lot of amps through small engines.
There are designs for noise reduced propeller blades. Still, this will never be noiseless. And you emit in a certain frequency range you cannot change arbitrarily else your copter falls out of the sky. Good microphone + good filter and you can detect a quadcopter. I guess if something would exist that can shoot drones down, we would already see a microphone network in Ukraine.
 
I agree with the rest of the post and the conclusion.

Yes - sitting in a forest is probably the worst if you are attacked by a drone swarm (even if you had a defending swarm of your own). OTOH a desert is not drone country...
If we take Ukraine as test field, I guess it would be okish for the defender. Large open space between tree plants have not much cover for drones. But terrain is a bitch - we all know that.
A defender will need to think different about what angles of attack he needs to cover against drones in the future.

Ok, FPV drones. Here is my current take, apologies for the monster post but its a big subject, even ignoring smart artillery, NLOS ATGMs etc.
Lets start by laying out what I mean by an FPV drone:
Current FPV drones: $1000, 3 man crew (operator, navigator, technician), carries up to a 2kg PG7 warhead which can penetrate 250-500mm RHA. Analogue video feed and digital control signal. Artisanal. Unsafe. 5-10km range. Cant fly in bad weather or at night. Needs to be guided in by an ISR drone or sweep a known location like a road. 
Future FPV drones: $3-5000?, 2 man crew per swarm (commander, technician), On-board terminal guidance and swarming, automatic (pre-planned) route following. Similar warhead performance to now but with safety switch so drone can be returned. Assume more aerodynamic but efficiency cancelled out by more computing power requirements. 5-10km range. Cant fly in bad weather. Mass produced but with modular warhead, optics and control system. 
Note that I looked into EFP warheads The_Capt and unless you know something I don't, they don't seem realistic for this application. SMArt and BONUS seem to use 12kg(!) submunitions with worse penetration values than a 2kg PG7 warhead. 
So lets look at a scary drone swarm scenario: an AWACS aircraft picks up a group of moving vehicles 10km behind the lines and an orlan-type drone confirms it is a mixed battlegroup of tanks and IFVs. A swarm of 50 future FPV drones is launched from a lightweight trailer and dispatched to intercept. They navigate there using INS, with occasional updates from the controller on the actual target position. They travel above treetop height but when the attack is confirmed they split into 2 groups and most drop to 1-2m above the ground, with a few going high for situational awareness to coordinate the attack. The 2 groups attack from 2 different directions, timed to arrive at the same time. Since this is beyond the maximum return distance and therefore all drones will be expended anyway, groups of 3 attack each vehicle simultaneously, jinking to avoid fire and targeting tracks and other weak points. One of the 3 drones carries a claymore charge instead of a shaped charge to damage optics and radars from a distance before the 2 AP drones attack. Up to 16 vehicles can be disabled in this one attack which renders the whole battlegroup ineffective using about 250kg of munitions, costing maybe $250,000, with the logistics burden of moving a single trailer into position near the front lines. Artillery is then used to destroy the immobile damaged vehicles, generously say 5 shells per vehicle for 80 total (4000kg of munitions costing $320,000 from a battery of 40 tonne SPH). 
So lets use the defensive onion to try and stop this attack:
Don't be seen: Focus on deception and EW: target enemy orlan-type drones with roadrunner or FPV drones to avoid identification so whole swarms are wasted on decoys and spoofs. Effects need to be massed not platforms: move in small groups carrying long ranged weapons. Use indirect firing weapons. EW: jam video feed from ISR drones, jam controls to prevent them re-tasking (assume they are on autopilot for robustness), jam radar. Target AWACS with missiles and ground based radars with artillery. 
Don't be acquired: Smaller platforms using multispectral camouflage can use more terrain as cover. Fast movement to increase search times for drones and force them to repeatedly get updates from the controller (which can be jammed/targeted). Use cheap pickets to detect FPV drones from a useful distance possibly using acoustics or scanning for control signals. 
Don't be hit: Pop smoke upon acoustic detection of FPV-type drones. Shoot down incoming drones with APS, self defence using autocannons (pointed in the right direction via acoustics if needed) or defensive drones (note that defensive drones will always be lighter/cheaper/faster than offensive drones since they carry a smaller battery and payload). Use your own drones to find and hit the enemy drone launch platform. Smoke+radar+40mm canister shot from autocannons. Directed overpressure wave (think RPG backblast) to knock drones down at close range.
Don't be penetrated: Swap frontal protection for all-around protection and reduced weak spots. Reduce power requirements (weight) to make it easier to protect weak points like engine ventilation. Laser dazzlers to degrade FPV accuracy so they hit armour not weak spots. Reduce crew to reduce internal volume and increase average armour effectiveness. 
Don't be killed: Redundancy so the platform can still move and ideally operate when damaged by small FPV warheads (things like tracks are a weak point so fix that). Fewer humans on board. Spall liners, fire suppression, suspended seats. 
Maybe the onion above doesn't work at all, maybe it is super effective and all drones are eliminated, or maybe 1-2 vehicles are disabled and the mission continues. I don't think it is super clear cut either way and a lot of testing is required to work that out. Also this is just one scenario: maybe future FPVs are super effective against fixed defences like trenches as well as vehicles? What does that even mean for future warfare? 
In conclusion the situation is unknowable right now since we are still in 1916 and trying to figure this all out. While I lean towards drones having the advantage (especially when used in combinations with other systems to introduce dilemmas), there are lots of clever things you can do to blunt that edge and it also doesn't necessarily mean the death of manoeuvre. Remember too that the tank was only one tool of many that ended the stalemate in WW1; we will likely need tools other than drones in 2050. 
One thing I do know though, is that a) vehicles and tactics will have to change radically and b) the drone/counter drone battle will be likely be a whole new branch of warfare going forward. 

Steve, please stop being so rude. And both Steve and ArmouredTopHat - you know there is no prize for the last word in this right? Everyone else can read what you write and make up their own mind. Evidence, stated assumptions and developed reasoning are much more effective than sniping at each other with off the cuff arguments. Seriously. It should be an interesting debate but both of you please just wait a couple of hours and calm down before posting!

Because they can’t have the little Russians live a better life than the big Russians. That would be the end of Russia. 

A rather specialised vehicle, but it does sort of indicate the trend we might be headed in, at least when it comes to the weapon station for drone disposal. The point being it is an existing RWS system being used for the task, the same as used by the US Army if I recall for Stryker and M1

*note that the 71 million is the package total, not individual cost*

I mean we see it pop drones so its at least seemingly something legit. Ill see what I can dig up. 
 
The point is that stuff is at least around, the building blocks are there. the MIC seem convinced that 30mm airburst is the way to go which is curious. I suppose they have more data on the matter than we do. Do agree that we should be testing more systems, though we know that in Syria a number of systems are being actively tested and some lessons learned. 

A site filled with various counter systems and detectors. Which kinda flies in the face of there 'being nothing in existence' 

Also just caught you were talking about that system I linked a page or so back. Are you suggesting its fake?

https://euro-sd.com/2024/02/articles/technology/36521/36521/

This article perhaps tries to get my point across better: That counter UAS is going to be a multi spectral environment that includes gun based options as well as drone. There is no single silver bullet solution.  

Particular highlight to MIDAS, which has a capacity to apparently down 16 drones with its weapon system.

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. 

In other news, the recent airfield Iskandar strikes are now being claimed to of been strikes on decoys. Whenever this is true or not remains to be determined. (The supposed strikes on Patriot stuff is unrelated)