How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

11 minutes ago, Huba said:

New weapons package from the US. HAWK refurbishment is IMO the most important item on this list. I couldn't find any confirmation if US still has some in it's inventory - there were suggestions that all were scrapped. Luckily, this seems not to be the case.
1100 drones is a rather massive number too. And there's only one place to use these boats I guess - just announcing them puts pressure on the RU.

And on tanks:

Poland still should have around 300 T-72s in various stages on disrepair, other countries might have some too. I guess it's much easier to acquire such vehicles, compared to operable ones.

that is some really good news.  That's a lot of tanks!  UAVs, blah blah blah, what good are they compared to tanks? 

And the boats -- that's very interesting.  I wonder if UKR is considering possibility later of crossing river behind RU lines -- would be raids?  would be bridgehead?  Very interesting.   At least would cause RU to spend forces to man a river line along Dnieper after Kherson falls.  

Speaking of after Kherson falls, it does open up opportunities.  All those troops on right bank are suddenly free to go to Melitopol front, or Svatove, or Bakhmut or wherever.  RU will also get some troops back but those will not have most of their heavy weapons -- and how many will be returning is still unknown.  Maybe UKR will make DanCA happy & will open a drive on Minsk 

[Huba]

3 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

that is some really good news.  That's a lot of tanks!  UAVs, blah blah blah, what good are they compared to tanks? 

And the boats -- that's very interesting.  I wonder if UKR is considering possibility later of crossing river behind RU lines -- would be raids?  would be bridgehead?  Very interesting.   At least would cause RU to spend forces to man a river line along Dnieper after Kherson falls.  

Speaking of after Kherson falls, it does open up opportunities.  All those troops on right bank are suddenly free to go to Melitopol front, or Svatove, or Bakhmut or wherever.  RU will also get some troops back but those will not have most of their heavy weapons -- and how many will be returning is still unknown.  Maybe UKR will make DanCA happy & will open a drive on Minsk 

Regarding the last part - I was wondering if increased troops density along the shorter front would be more advantageous for Ukrainians or for Russians? Especially in the Zaporizhya sectore, where RU logistics are really strung compared to Ukrainian. With ISR advantage, PGM firing artillery, and perhaps soon some DPICM rockets, I'd say it might become a true meat grinder for RU. Perhaps @The_Capt would care to to give an opinion on that?

Edited November 4, 2022 by Huba

[danfrodo]

meanwhile, this feller is asking the question of where RU is suffering all the casualties that UKR claims (and I get that UKR may be overstating RU casualties by a large amount)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/11/4/2133545/-Ukraine-update-Where-are-all-the-Russians-dying

edit:  even if we cut UKR claims by 50% the RU losses in men & gear is still enormous

Edited November 4, 2022 by danfrodo
addition

[Zeleban]

 

[dan/california]

12 hours ago, sross112 said:

I'm going to use the US military as a reference. I think that guns are the best bet because of a few factors, some of which you also mention. APS or a modified APS like system that can slave the existing guns is probably the most workable in the near future. The plethora of guns on automated turrets would most likely allow this with very little hardware and software additions and basically any gun now serving a remote turret is more than capable of destroying a drone albeit at differing ranges. The 25mm bushmaster is going to be able to kill drones further away than a 240. 

The vehicles are already networked and digitally connected so the big leap would be a sensor package that is looking for drone type targets and keeping everything on the same page. Your thought is great and would work well but it is probably a lot easier and faster to field sensor packages onto the existing forces than it is to generate an entire new mesh web. In the future that will probably be needed but I don't think we will see anything like that for awhile. In the meantime I'm betting it is back to guns.

If any new platform is added then there needs to be a choice made between reducing your combat power by removing existing vehicles and replacing them with the new laser/AA asset or adding additional vehicles to your TO&E and coming up with the extra personnel to man and support them. If you use what is currently available there shouldn't be much change to formations and just adding capability. 

The other problem with the with both the lasers and the sensor drone screen is that they need to be able to maneuver with your elements. So they need to be fast and have the endurance to keep up all day long. If they don't have those then you have deprived yourself of battlefield mobility and that is one less thing your enemy has to do. Then if you aren't mobile you need to be more worried about arty PGM's (as illustrated in this conflict) and I don't think lasers or drones will be knocking artillery rounds out of the sky any time soon. 

I do completely agree that we are going to see a new layer of conflict with both sides fighting for air superiority at the low level with drones. Kind of like a USAF mini-me. Air superiority drones will definitely be part of the near future and will play a very important role but I'm betting it will be more along the lines of gaining and maintaining control of that layer of the air war than it will be about defending individual units, if that makes sense. It will have the same net result of normal air superiority where it defends the units in the AO or theater or whatever space you maintain superiority over, but will be fought at more of the air campaign level and not by individual ground units deploying their own fleets. 

More than likely I am wrong and things won't work out exactly as I see them, but this is just my take and how it makes sense to me with where technology is and how we tend to fight. The squad, platoon, company and BN are going to have a bunch more recon drones available and probably combat support drones as well. The control of the airspace above the battlefield will be mostly done by others and will just be another box on the combined arms list that needs to be checked. The US Army Drone Corps will cover from the ground up to a few thousand, the USAF will take it from there to the top of the atmosphere and then the Space Force will secure "To Infinity and Beyond!!!!"......

 

 

11 hours ago, sross112 said:

Never heard of Hammers Slammers. Any good? Will need a new book in a couple days so if you recommend it I'll pick it up.

The other thing that I think might be something to watch for will be along the lines of what others have said with sensor networks and AI control will be gun networks for area denial. Something like a couple guys in a semi with a flatbed carrying a dozen remote turrets and a skid steer for easy emplacement. All the turrets battery operated and solar fed connected to the sensor network and spread out around a stationary target like a bridge or power plant or along a known approach vector. The guys put them in place, maintain them, feed them and move them as needed but otherwise controlled by AI or someone higher up the network. Something between a .50 and 30mm, maybe 20mm PIVADS style?

Then for sensor packages just use small drones. Have a couple dozen or more for each system that all launch and head out 3 or 5 or however many km's is reasonable and find a place to land. Tops of trees, buildings, wherever you want them to and then have them switch into a passive mode or motion/sound detectors. Could also probably stay active and charged with solar since they wouldn't take much juice once landed. 

This thread and all the wonderful ideas and insight into different areas really keeps me thinking a lot about the future of war fighting. The speed at which we are going to see things evolve in the next few years is probably going to be stunning. Crazy scary but stupid cool at the same time.

From the wikipedia page

Interlude: Table of Organisation and Equipment, Hammer's Regiment[edit]

List of units in the Slammers. These include the Regimental headquarters with the command staff and the Regiment's Fire Central fire control computer, which can take control of any vehicle-mounted powergun that bears on a target, usually airborne, and eliminate it; the training battalion that turns recruits into soldiers of the Regiment; the supply and support battalion; the Regiment's artillery batteries; the infantry, mounted on battery-powered single person hovercraft called skimmers; the combat car companies; and of course the regimental fist, the Slammers' tank companies. It also includes the Regiment's field police company, the "White Mice," mounted on combat cars and commanded by the dedicated and deadly Major Joachim Steuben, thought of by some in the know as Hammer's personal hatchetman.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It is good military sci fi. I don't think the physics are particularly well done, but he lays them out, sticks to them, and tells pretty good stories. The air defense bits really do track perfectly with the current discussion. Technology resolves such that big capital platforms with VERY large energy sources can just clear the skies more or less completely. It is obviously and unanswered question if that is how it is going to go in the real world.

 

 

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

This looks like a great conversation on UAS, I wish I could add a lot more but have been on the road agin.  I would offer that you are all describing a defensive system that would be successful, at least for awhile, in protecting what I assume is a “capital core” that looks like an all arms manoeuvre team - so mech infantry, tanks, engineers and artillery in support.

Problem with this is at least twofold.  First is the cost and complexity of the defensive system - it is huge in both dollars and data bandwidth.  AI/ML support is a must, as has been noted, but the ability to essentially counter a lethal cloud in order to protect that “capital core” will end up costing more than core itself.  You would also have to add on some sort of c-indirect fire capability in this Iron Dome++ net system.  

Ok, but you do get the traditional conventional heavy capital core back on the battlefield with enough survivability to be able to perform its original function - firepower and manoeuvre.  Or will it?  As far as I can read (and apologize if I missed this) this highly complex and costly protection system (also consider we will need an offensive system to do the same to the enemy) can fend off fully autonomous UAS swarms or at least give a force a fighting chance.  But what about UGS?  What about UGS hybrids?  What about sub-surface systems.  I am talking about a minefield that can move itself in front of an advancing land carrier-like group - because you are going to be able to see it for space - lie entirely dormant until the capital core is basically on top of it, and then autonomously attack that core from multiple dimensions with zero notice?  So we have mines that will scuttle across the ground and attack from below. UGS mines that can pop up and do direct kinetic attacks from offset range. UGS mines that can become UAS and smart attack from above basically from under the feet of the capital core.

None of this is even close to science fiction at this point, hell I am not sure it is even Horizon 3.  My point is that at this point I am not sure the “tank is dead” because the entirety of vehicle based manoeuvre could be dead in this environment.  A sophisticated APS system could be like putting armour on a horse in 1914.  There will come a point when trying to keep our traditional conventional capital core alive stop making sense…so what? We reinvent firepower and manoeuvre.  

The cloud becomes “the core”.  People are simply systems within that cloud, likely dismounted and disaggregated, or virtual - we need the brain forward, not the trigger finger anymore. 

One the unanswered questions is how much can you trust the machines, and how far forward do the first squishy parts of the machine need to be. The answer to that question maters a great deal for overall system design. So does the development path of small UGVs. Mine, sensor, or shooter, it all comes down to how well does UGV hardware work.  The forward edge of battle in a decade or two might be competing lines of UGVs the size of a small dog. 

Then there comes the question of defending ANY capital system, at ANY depth. Is this doable or not? Again the answer is somewhat up in the air. But this war has proven that if the the other side has effective drone directed artillery, and you don't, it is all over but the dying.

5 hours ago, Billy Ringo said:

A few random and simplistic comments from the non-military contingent that might be worthy of consideration, or not:

1. At some point, the cost of both the offensive and defensive components of this future battlefield as described in the last few posts is going to limit the number of participants.   Like--China and the US and that's about it and, at some point, even those two may not have deep enough pockets. Other countries may be able to craft components but not an entire battlefield arsenal.  Is it possible we've reached the point where pure financial considerations halt and/or limit what can be developed, tested and deployed in battle even if those weapons are known to be game-changers?

2. As Capt just mentioned, the undersea naval aspect of mass deployed weapons is a game changer.  What if Taiwan simply mined the Taiwan Straits with massive and diverse underwater mines/torpedoes that could be maneuvered strategically?  (Which may be already in place.)

3. How would a mass of drones handle a series of thermo barbaric or electro-magnetic blasts?  Could a swarm be taken en masse instead of trying to nail each one individually?   Could either of those techniques be used over an enemy's location before drones are launched to electronically disable them?

 

As always, a HUGE thanks to all the participants on this forum---amazing and informative content.

 

Winning looks expensive, until you add up the cost of losing. Losing is currently costing the Russians something like two complete BTGs a DAY. Not to mention that they are eight months into what was supposed to be a three day war. You can discuss the consequences of getting conquered with the citizens of Mariupol, if there are any of them alive come spring.

57 minutes ago, chrisl said:

The capital core provides two things: Energy storage and strategic direction.  And maybe the drone swarm can collectively manage the strategic direction part, like a flock of waterfowl, but that's probably further off unless we start hybridizing the drones with waterfowl (it all comes back to the birds...)

But really, it's all about precision vs. mass of energy transport (even now).  Low speed energy transport is maneuver: you're moving men and weapons and sensors into position using a lot of energy distributed over all of them and spending it slowly.  When they shoot at something you're moving a bunch of stored energy faster, with the speed variable depending on bullet/artillery shell/rocket and, for anything bigger than a bullet, with a bunch of stored chemical energy inside to be released *very* rapidly with a bang.  So fast energy use is firepower.  Those units also use energy to communicate.  And the problem of all modern civilization is really how do you get enough energy to where you want it to do what you want to do - there are limits to how densely we know how to pack it to make it useable for different applications (food, liquid fuel, battery chemistry, fission, fusion).

We have easily knowable targets on how energy efficient the drones have to be.  I'm totally guessing, but I suppose an active, competent infantryman needs to consume 5000-10000 kCal/day depending on size and activity level, and not including shooting anything or comms beyond shouting.  If you don't put that in regularly he becomes less and less useful until he becomes fertilizer.  But a skinny, lazy one on watch might need only 2000 kCal/day, if you can manage to organize your forces like that.  You can split a squad down to individual elements that use that much, but no further.  

But suppose I make 5 sensor drones that each have average consumption of 400 kCal/day - they maybe use most of it on day one locomoting to their station, then they just sit and observe, compute occasionally, and transmit. Not so different from my battery powered security camera system has fist-sized HD cameras that I only have to charge every 3-4 months if there's a lot of activity.  And they communicate everything they see back to a hub that uses much more energy (writing the data costs a lot more than transmitting it or computing with it).  So I can probably replace an infantryman on watch with a lot more than 5 of those AVs (and I'm using AV for autonomous vehicle to apply to air/ground/subsurface/subspace/teleport/whatever).  The thing they don't do is shoot back, but the "attack" version would probably need to carry chemical propellant and a small number of projectiles.  For a battlefield environment they might use lasers for optical comm - you can transmit data with a *much* lower power laser than to toast something. And if you stop feeding them a while they become as useless as the infantryman who you starved into fertilizer, but unlike him you can revive them by changing or charging the batteries.

And you can continue along that line for the various offensive AVs. We already have a baseline of energy transport and consumption so we need to make them at least that energy efficient.  And that's why I refer to the capital core as the "Drone Carrier" or "AV Carrier" like a modern aircraft carrier - just like today with getting MREs and ammo to the infantry, you have to get batteries and ammo to the AVs.  The things that you get from using AVs instead of people is a) you mind a lot less if a cheap AV is killed, and b) you can distribute that energy consumption into smaller and smaller units.  Artillery shells get smarter and smarter and you use the "bang" of the initial propellant charge to get them close to the target, where they communicate on who gets to blow up who at the other end (this was already in development in the 1990s)

A civilian analogy is deep sea (~10 km depth) science exploration.  I can't really send people that deep to do detailed observations and manipulation of small things. I also can't make a single precision AV (say the size of a housecat) that can go from the surface all the way down to the interesting spot on its own - it costs too much energy and the environment in between is too unpredictable. But I can have a ship on the surface burning bunker fuel (Main Capital Core) that manages a small fleet of large AVs that are each the size of a small car (Secondary Capital Cores A through F), and each of them can carry and supply a dozen smaller AVs the size of housecats or large fish (AVs A(i through xii) through F(i through xii)).  The ship goes out to sea to supply energy regionally, the large AVs go to somewhere near target sites, and the small AVs go back and forth between the precision target sites and the intermediate AVs to recharge and dump data.  Because the fish don't really organize to fight back they don't have to spend a lot of energy on autonomous defense, but if the fish had guns, I'd use some fraction of them to protect the core, some to fight the fish offensively, and a few to get the data.

So the tank isn't "dead" so much as it sits further back and is more of an AV tender, much like an aircraft carrier is mostly an airplane tender/floating airport.  

It's just the UA version of pineapple chicken.

To get a video for TikTok.

SO much of this question comes down to how trustworthy the communication network for small drones is? If we commit 100% to the low mass, all small drone plan, and the bad guys crack the network, the outcomes are POOR. I still think we are going to see $100,000 ghillie suits for actual soldiers, but as with everything else in this discussion that needs rigorous testing. The importance of red teaming all of these developments HARD is impossible to overstate. ChrisSL mentions communicating by lasers instead of radio. Can this be blocked by some sort of fancy smoke round? All tye questions go on forever. But again the penalty for being wrong is being eight months into a three day war with ~75,000 KIA

Lock some engineering graduate students and some grizzled special ops guys in building somewhere and tell them if they can come up with a way to break the new toys the get a million each, and six months vacation. Because the other side will.

Edited November 4, 2022 by dan/california

[MikeyD]

Earlier in the year Ukraine was having great difficulty getting around Russian electronic countermeasures. TB-2 drone attack videos all but disappeared. Each time they killed or captured a Russian ECM vehicle it was celebrated as a victory. elsewhere on this (very long) thread I believe someone mentioned Ukrainian small tactical drones are good for about  6 missions before something happens to them.

[womble]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

...$100,000 ghillie suits...

I've been meaning to mention for a while, another RPG source for such future combat inspirations... Traveller (specifically Classic Traveller, Little Black Book 4, Mercenary) had this concept included in the late 70s. The suit had coolant loops built into it, which dumped their (and thus the user's radiated) heat via canned refrigerant gas. Or you could use a "hose" like a water-cooled MG that could lead back into defilade (not so much use for defeating overhead observation) or a convenient heat sink like a stream or pool. Seems like a totally doable technology, though bulky... similar clothing tech has been used for warming for many years.

IIRC (my copy of the book is in storage) the Combat Environment Suit included the requisite ballistic body armour and a sealable environment for NBC protection and could function (due to its seal and the thermoregulation abilities built in) as a spacesuit for a limited time, if provided with breathing gases.

[Haiduk]

7 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Insane video. Trying to figure out order of commands for this ballsy Ukrainian AT soldier in CM engine...Move Fast-Pause-Target-Move fast

In CM1 this was "follow vehicle"

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Earlier in the year Ukraine was having great difficulty getting around Russian electronic countermeasures. TB-2 drone attack videos all but disappeared. Each time they killed or captured a Russian ECM vehicle it was celebrated as a victory. elsewhere on this (very long) thread I believe someone mentioned Ukrainian small tactical drones are good for about  6 missions before something happens to them.

There is another Sci Fi series that posits that various countermeasures are so effective that ground combat is conducted with only the simplest possible firearms, because anything with a chip or a battery just stops working. I think that is the Dosai series. Great books conceptually but not the best flow to the actual writing.

[dan/california]

10 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

In CM1 this was "follow vehicle"

A "fire one missile command" would go a LONG way.

[Battlefront.com]

Yet another example of Russians abandoning vehicles when something goes wrong.  Three vehicles, first one gets hit, second and third ones stop and everybody bails out leaving them for Ukrainian gunners to get around to blowing up.

Steve

[dan/california]

Is anybody else having issues with embedded videos today?

[Haiduk]

Russian Lantset loitering munition can be real headache for our troops. Lantsets have 1kg (Lantset-1) or 3 kg (Lantset-3) warhead depending on task. Warheads can be HE or HEAT.

Probably, first M109 damaged only, but obviously has taken out of action for long time

Rare video of attack on UKR naval forces with Lantset, due to their range it can be in Ochakiv-Mykolaiv area

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Haiduk

[dan/california]

A real counter to this

1 minute ago, Haiduk said:

Russian Lantset-2 loitering munition can be real headache for our troops

Probably, first M109 damaged only, but obviously has taken out of action for long time

Rare video of attack on UKR naval forces with Lantset-2, due to their range it can be in Ochakiv-Mykolaiv area

 

A real counter for this thing needs to become a top of the list action item!

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, danfrodo said:

meanwhile, this feller is asking the question of where RU is suffering all the casualties that UKR claims (and I get that UKR may be overstating RU casualties by a large amount)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/11/4/2133545/-Ukraine-update-Where-are-all-the-Russians-dying

edit:  even if we cut UKR claims by 50% the RU losses in men & gear is still enormous

The big thing with Russia is that for many, many months it's launched dozens of small scale attacks per day, every day, spread out along the whole front.  20 attacks a day with even 10 casualties per attack is 200. 

This is aside from whatever major fighting is going on, Ukrainian strikes, big smack downs (like river crossings, barracks HIMARS'd, etc.). and the massive thousands of casualties they suffered in the first month of the war.  Averaged out I don't think it's hard to imagine another 300 average daily casualties.

There's been roughly 240 days of combat since the war started.  If we presume an average of 500 total casualties per day, that's 120,000 of all types.  That's not an unbelievable figure IMHO.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Is anybody else having issues with embedded videos today?

Seems to happen from time to time.  When it happens to me a simple page refresh always fixes it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Probably, first M109 damaged only, but obviously has taken out of action for long time

The first one looks like a write off to me.  Flame appears to have come out from under the turret ring.  All the fancy fire control systems are probably cooked.

The second part of the video shows the superior quality of the Ukrainian soldier.  Two soldiers ran back to help their comrades who were still in the vehicle.  All 6 survived well enough to run away before the ammo cooked off.

The Lancet videos show us something interesting.  Remember earlier in the war the Russians had great difficulty showing videos of traditional loitering munitions hitting targets.  But suicide drones, on the other hand, seem to be far more effective.  This should not be surprising for those of us in the Russia Sucks™ club.  Loitering platforms require precision missiles and guidance systems.  Suicide drones, on the other hand, require neither.  This puts suicide drones within Russia's military capabilities, especially with sanctions in place.  Precision missiles on a larger and more sophisticated UAV platform?  Not so much.

Steve

[Haiduk]

Last night Russians decided to change direction of attacks on Pavlivka and attacked from flanks - from controlled by them Mykils'ke on the east and form the area of UKR-controlled Prechystivka village on the west. Locals reported about heavy clashes. Due to absence of Russian victorious reports, looks like their outflanking maneuver also failed. 

Though. we have next videos from there:

UKR Omega specail force detachment of National Guard captured slightly damaged T-80BVM, belonged to Russian 155th naval infantry brigade

Russian marines from 155th brigade had really bad days near Pavlivka....

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Suicide drones, on the other hand, require neither.  This puts suicide drones within Russia's military capabilities, especially with sanctions in place.

All electronic components, TV guidance, thermal matrix for them have foreign origins. Russia can't produce modern electronic components. I've seen that Lantset-1 was crashed as far as in July and was under research, but I didn't see reports about it parts origins like for Iranian drones

Edited November 4, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

All electronic componencts, TV guidance, thermal matrix for them have foreign origins. Russia can't produce modern electronic components. I've seen that Lantset-1 was crashed as far as in July and was under research, but I didn't see reports about it parts origins like for Iranian drones

For sure, but the ability to obtain parts needed for a suicide drone is much easier than precision missile and platform.  Less components, less sophistication.   Much easier to adapt dual use components for crashing something than hitting a moving target 1000m+ distant.

Steve

[kraze]

10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Because if he is sick, very sick, this means uncertainty within the regime.  Uncertainty + stress = change.  Nobody here thinks that Putin dying won't make Russia a happy and friendly place on Earth, but it matters.  Things could get worse, they could get better, they might stay about the same.  We won't know until after it happens.

Yeah, no   First of all, it seems he's been sick for at least a year if not several.  Cancer is not always treatable, especially not pancreatic cancer.  I live near the best cancer treatment centers in the world and I've known people that died not too long after getting their diagnosis.  In other cases people survive, but they are effectively invalids.

Western medicine is great, but there's plenty of diseases it can't do much about.  If Putin has a "bad case" of a nasty type of cancer, I doubt he'd make it more than 5 years.  And as I said, we don't now how much time is already on his clock (if he has it).

Therefore, the questions remain... is Putin really sick?  If so, what does he have?  And if he has something, what stage is it at?  I think there's enough evidence to suggest that he is definitely sick with something, so it really comes down to what does he have and how far along is it.

Steve

putin dying natural death, even if from cancer, will be extremely anti-climactic though.

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, kraze said:

putin dying natural death, even if from cancer, will be extremely anti-climactic though.

Oh, I don't know.  I had the misfortune to experience someone dying of stomach cancer.  Even on bags full of morphine, the pain was awful.  I'm not sure I'd wish that on anybody, though Putin does come to mind as an exception.

What won't likely be anti-climatic is the end of Putin's regime.  However he dies, things are going to get "very interesting" in Russia.  Putin's regime 10 years ago would have likely transitioned fairly painlessly to someone else, like most Soviet Premiers.  This transition is going to be quite messy.  Perhaps death of Stalin type messy, perhaps death of Nicholas II messy.  Whatever it is, messy is more likely than neat.

Steve

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

Russian Lantset loitering munition can be real headache for our troops. Lantsets have 1kg (Lantset-1) or 3 kg (Lantset-3) warhead depending on task. Warheads can be HE or HEAT.

There was discussion among military commentators that Russians probably could hoard those Lancet videos for several weeks and then release them all at once, to reinforce propaganda effect.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Beleg85

[NamEndedAllen]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/xq-58a-valkyrie-flies-longer-higher-heavier-in-recent-test 

To date, the U.S. Air Force is the only known entity to have purchased Valkyries, and has been using a growing fleet of these drones to support various research and development and test and evolution efforts. The most well known of these is Skyborg, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) led project centered on the development of an artificial intelligence (AI) driven "computer brain" and other associated technologies that could be integrated into various types of drones with high degrees of autonomy.

As Kratos notes here, the XQ-58A's ability to operate autonomously in a 'radio silent' mode has potential benefits when it comes to penetrating through or at least evading threats. It of course also enables the drone to continue its mission or at least attempt to safely return to base in an environment where the threat of electronic warfare jamming is high, something at the U.S. military, among others, expects to be the case in virtually any future high-end conflict. A swarm of such drones would have the additional benefit of being able to operate a distributed 'mesh' data-sharing network to provide additional resiliency against electronic warfare attacks and to cooperatively act as a team.

….

Kratos' press release also noted that this particular test flight was in support of an AFRL effort called Autonomous Collaborative Enabling Technologies (ACET), which "is focused on developing Autonomous Collaborative Platforms (ACP) such as Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA)." CCA is part of the Air Force's over-arching Next Generation Air Dominance(NGAD) future air combat initiative, and is expected to revolve around multiple tiers of uncrewed platforms with high degrees of autonomy intended to work together on various levels with crewed aircraft to perform a host of different missions, as you can read more about here. NGAD also includes work to develop a stealthy crewed sixth-generation combat jet, as well as advanced sensors, weapons, engines, networking and battle management systems, and more, all of which will form a new air combat 'ecosystem' whole.

 

[kevinkin]

"When it comes to neutralizing drones, there are three approaches: jamming, hacking and what is euphemistically called the ‘kinetic’ approach. In addition to static jammers, portable jamming equipment already exists on the battlefield. Battelle’s Drone Defender looks a little like a rifle, but what it fires is radio waves, which work as jamming signals. According to the company, it is capable of knocking out the control signals sent by pilots to drones, as well as GPS signals, so the drone will not be able to follow a pre-set path."

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-to-stop-a-drone-attack/

There are two other factors: the fight over the supply chain to limit the numbers and capabilities of drones to the fewest possible nation states. This will be incomplete as we have seen Iran supply Russia. But has to be tried. Another factor is jamming of guidance - either based on satellite or the operator. Given Inertial Guidance is fire and forget (from what I understand), swarms of drones can arrive and fall fairly accurately even with no GPS and nothing really to jam or hack in the air. Maybe the basic flight controls. So as a last resort, there are kinetic systems to destroy a mass drone attack. Western navy's have been studying this problem. Good news is that they have studied it for years re: ASMs and came up with various solutions like the Phalanx. But given enough in-comings, the air defense will become saturated and some missiles (or drones) will get through even if the crew is trained and attentive. Once again, the successful solution to a problem is a layered multi faceted approach that is ever evolving as the attacker continually tries to gain advantage over the defender. You have to believe that NATO thinks Ukriane can weather the drone storm and it will not have lasting impact on the war. Otherwise, I hope the technology is being transferred now. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by kevinkin