How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sross112]

33 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

2 hours ago, sross112 said:

If in the place of the RA the UA would have been wrecked before the heavies even engaged them, the military formations would have been defeated and the country taken in a couple weeks.

This one right here is what I am not sure of.  So let’s take this war and transplant it to a fictional country but the Opposition are backed and supported by China.  Chinese ISR and smart weaponry, unmanned…the whole she bang.

We play our A-game and do Gulf War part deux all heavy and electrified.  So first things I like to think we would establish operational conditions but in a decade that is going to get harder and harder as counters to a lot of our systems continue to develop…because China.

I'm with you, but I was talking about this conflict in particular. The UA without western ISR, support and smart weapons didn't stand a chance against a western invasion and probably still could have held the RA but I'm not so sure. The ISR to me is the number one thing that allowed the UA to keep the RA in check. 

If we move to the transplanted future war you reference:

36 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

But let’s just assume we do a better job of it in-country.  Well none of that solves for Chinese ISR outside the country and into space unless we really want to automatically widen the conflict - eg what would our reaction be if Russia started hitting western ISR assets outside Ukraine?

So what?  Our opponents in this proxy-Chinese country still have access to hi resolution multi-spectral ISR being fed to them in real time.  We, being the mighty west are 1) big, 2) hot and 3) hungry.  We are easily visible from space, our logistics tail is larger than the RAs in this war and we are more vulnerable to shortages because everything we have burns energy like nuts.  Our opponent may also very well start asymmetric hits outside their country that look a lot like Russian depots spontaneously exploding over the last 9 months as well.

 

2 hours ago, sross112 said:

C4ISR is king. You have to have it and you have to counter your enemy's. This is the deadliest thing to your surprise, maneuver and mass.

With you again. If you can't deny the enemy their big eye ISR your mass, maneuver and surprise are in trouble. Especially if yours is less capable than the enemy's. Like in the current war, pretty sure the RA ISR for the big picture is lacking in comparison to the west and it really shows in the deep strike abilities to find and hit important targets. In the future war you will have to mask somehow, disperse greatly or defeat theirs. In a proxy war it poses the same conundrum we have at present for Russia. They are being killed by the ISR but they can't take it out without going to war with a much more dangerous foe. 

So going forward to the next war the number one priority should be figuring out the solution to this. Dan's thermal defeating chameleon ponchos and vehicle skins would be great but not sure where those are in the timeline. 

Fighting in an environment with ISR parity to western abilities, especially in a proxy setting where taking out the other side's isn't possible, becomes a much more dangerous game. Your diffused mass theory is probably the only way to go to be able to keep losses down and yet be able to hit with the heavies when and where needed. Otherwise it is just a game of who kills the other side faster with long range stuff. Or the other option of going much, much lighter and dispersed. Relying on the fog eating snow or basically light mobile forces relying on heavy supporting fires from long range. 

54 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Air power.  It is a fundamental assumption we have air supremacy in any war we will fight in the west.  To the point Canada abandoned air defence entirely as a capability.  Problem is that air superiority below 2000 feet is not a thing.  The RA is baking the air with EW and cannot keep UA UAS from seeing them and pooping HE on them.  If our opponent has cheap Chinese autonomous drone swarms with submunitions our multi-billion dollar air platforms are not going to matter.  And that is if we can even get those platforms into theatre.  SEAD is now every jerk with a MANPAD, which can hit up to 20+ thousand feet and is fed into all that Chinese ISR.

 

2 hours ago, sross112 said:

• Air Superiority. If either side could gain and maintain air superiority this would be a different war. SEAD/DEAD is very important. Manpads are great but they don't help much against JDAMs from 30,000 feet. 
• Drones. We need way more drones down to the squad level and we need to be able to counter drones effectively at all levels. This is truly a new dimension to the air superiority contest and needs to be addressed.

Absolutely. We need to figure out how to gain the low altitude air supremacy and counter the swarms, etc. One of the big things coming out of this for the future wars and we need to be ready. No argument there. 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Indirect fires.  Last I checked, western hardware is allergic to MLRS as the Russians.  So if our opponent has highly dispersed but integrated deep precision strike capability they are hard to find, while we very definitely are not.  Our fuel and ammo is on trucks too and Chinese HIMARs hiding in a barn linked into persistent ISR we can’t do anything about is going to make us run out of gas…and we will do it faster do to consumption rates.

 

2 hours ago, sross112 said:

• PGMs kill. Arty, MRLS and missiles that miss their targets are a waste of time, money and effort. A very large percentage of your ordinance needs to be one shot - one kill. The old tactic of saturation used by the RA is exponentially less effective and very wasteful.
• Range. Your ISR bubble has to extend beyond that of the enemy and you need to be able to kill them at a longer range than they can kill you. If you want to shut down their long range fires, logistics and command you need to be able to hit them accurately from a long way away.

Yep. If they have the good ISR your heavies need to be moving or out of range. Even dispersed really isn't a defense, they just need to rotate the launcher a bit before firing the next missile. ISR kills.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Anti-armor/vehicle.  So our opponent in this fictional war is armed with a whole bunch of Chinese Javelins and NLAWs etc.  Dispersed they can hit us at nearly 3kms, fire and forget.  They also have one-way loitering munitions…again all hooked into that ISR problem.  Our hot, heavy and concentrated heavy formations are going get hit effectively at really long ranges.  “Ah but we will have APS which will sweep those pesky ATGMs from the air”.  Ok, assuming they don’t do sub-munitions, decoys and a raft of work arounds, sure.  Next question: are we mounting APS on our entire logistics tail?  Because we are back to it getting seen and hammered.

This means your no man's land just got a lot wider too. Javelins are hell on armor, but they also work really good on bunkers, buildings, even infantry in the open. Back to if you can see it (ISR), you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it. In the future as these and similar systems become more ubiquitous even the dispersed light forces are going to have to  figure out how to operate and survive against them.  

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Urban areas.  We have been extremely lucky that all our opponents (Iraq) were dumb enough to mostly meet us in the open.  An urban fight soaks up our western advantages really fast.  An opponent who has time to prepare and is set up to defend home urban areas is going to really hurt us badly…and we are also back to logistics support to that urban fight.  I have no idea what a modern or near future urban fight is going to look like with unmanned in the mix but “easier” does not spring to mind.

I'd say that Fallujah is a pretty good example of modern urban assault from western forces. Ugly and brutal for sure. The unmanned thrown into it would definitely make it even worse. Mostly from the low level ISR provided but also from HE or similar type stuff. Takes us back to needing to find the counter for drones as that will be added to the prerequisites of starting the assault without taking unacceptable losses.

 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

So what?  Well western superiority is challenged in this scenario, on more than one level.  Assuming we can get enough forces, and if we go the traditional route we are going to need a LOT of our forces, keeping them in the fight is going to be incredibly hard.  This will be sticking a steel gauntlet hand up to the shoulder in a beehive.  You would need to armor the entire length of the arm and you are still going to get stung badly as the bees get in behind things.

The cost is very high as casualties in this scenario are going to be a shock.  I am not sure we can even sustain let alone win urban combat.  As you note, the insurgency, if we make it that far, is going to make the last ones look adorable in comparison. The political calculus for this in the west makes my head swim.

 

2 hours ago, sross112 said:

• Stockpiles. Ours are insufficient. This is a small war and munitions are being consumed at a rate that most western countries couldn't sustain. How would we expect to fight a big war with what we have?
• Size matters. Our militaries are too small. Sure, Chechnya doesn't stand a chance, but when we look at Ukraine and what it would take to seize and hold it even the US military is too small. Probably good enough for defense but how would we expect to fight and win against a large country?

Agreed. The biggest place we need more is definitely infantry. All the way from the front line to the rear areas you are going to need lots of them for your fog in the front and the security of the rear. I still don't think we should throw away the heavy formations, I just think that they aren't going to be a spearhead in the future war you lay out. They will come into play after everything else is shaped for the determined assaults on hard points or countering enemy mass. Like you are saying though, a shift from contemporary thinking and application. 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

In short, I see a side in this war that fights along the same approaches we do - and it isn’t the one that is winning.  “Ya but we will do a better job” makes me really nervous as I am not sure what “a better job” really looks like given some of these trends.  We may have stalled later.  We may have pulled it off with fewer casualties and taken ground faster but I am not sure terrain matters when there is an urban fight at the end of a rainbow and you are getting hit along the entire length of your operational system.  I like to think we could have isolated the country from its strategic support but that is not a sure thing either.  I would be willing to bet that even with the western powers in place of the RA the war would last longer and be far bloodier than anything we have seen since Korea.  To the point I am not convinced success is guaranteed if we continue to play be our current rule set.

In the west, in some circles, I am seeing echoes of the European powers as they observed the US Civil War - “interesting but of course we do things better”…which they believed right up to 1914.  If we are smart we will be op researching this thing to death and binning all our assumptions until they are confirmed or denied one way or the other.

I think I said way back in this thread that everyone needs to think twice, reassess, and then think again before they wage an offensive war against any substantial adversary from here on out. I also said that nations really need to look at what they need. If they will definitely only be fighting a defensive war then the Finnish model is probably the best example out there. If they feel they are going to need to occupy a neighbor or two they will definitely need to think about a different and much bigger force structure. 

I agree with the vast majority of what you have said, especially with the we need to be smart and research all the possibilities to death. Definitely think there needs to be expansion of light forces as well. However I don't think heavy forces are dead or that they should be dismissed. I think it all depends on the war you are fighting. I'd much rather try to stop the North Korean Army with a few heavy ABCTs than a Task Force Smith.

 

[dan/california]

" The Russian state continued to renege on financial promises to Russian citizens, further degrading morale and trust in the state apparatus.[58] Putin acknowledged in a televised press meeting that there are delays in receiving salaries in some oblasts"

Above from ISW

Why in the bleep can the Kremlin not even get organized to print money to pay the army? I know that causes big problems eventually, but not paying the army is going to cause big problems in weeks, not months. Just don't get it?!

Edited December 1, 2022 by dan/california

[dan/california]

13 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Lololol

 

 

14 hours ago, Kinophile said:

I saw that flat trajectory. Tank? Hitting something 'splodey? 

 

 

Worth pointing out that this 105mm is firing low angle with not a lot of concern about counter-battery fire. This would perfectly explain the incoming fire in the thermal video of the platoon position getting disassembled. 

[Beleg85]

Clip of what appears to be failed Russian infantry probing attack. Perhaps worth to see in the context of Combat Mission.

Also, Podolyak seems to wither away at least some doubts about Ukrainian casualties. 10-13 k. KIA...seems rather low to me considering the scale. Curiously, this seems to be a response to last European/US "slips" regarding amount of sustained casualties.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-has-lost-between-10000-13000-soldiers-war-official-2022-12-01/

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Beleg85

[Bulletpoint]

10 hours ago, Huba said:

Does the "Western level" even exist in near-peer conventional war setting?

Europe and North America have become used to fighting wars with an incredible difference in technology and resources, in their favour.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Bulletpoint

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Europe and North America have become used to fighting wars with an incredible difference in technology and resources, in their favour.

To be fair, we have paid Trillions for the privilege, but their may be a painful technological turnover in progress for the incumbent tech leaders.

 

[Beleg85]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Europe and North America have become used to fighting wars with an incredible difference in technology and resources, in their favour.

Yup. One of things that future near-peer warfare will need to adjust is lack of immediate Helicopter medevac close to warzone. There was an  interview rich in details with one Polish-Ukrainian volunteer serving as a battlefield medic for several months in Kherson region (perhaps I'll summarize it one day). He insisted that despite much better level of medical services on UKR side, they are still behind NATO. One of reasons was that in this and future wars with enemy well equipped with AA weapons fast flying medevac becomes a problem- Ukrainian side is short of helis anyway, but Russians theoretically could fare much better, if not the fear for UA Manpads.

Thus system of intermediate selection points and deep-behind-the lines hospitals resembling WWII needs to be established, with often unarmoured UA ambulances driving like crazy almost directly at trenches and trying to take wounded out of hot zone asap. Of course Russians tend to shoot at them, so reportedly lossess even among civilian medics do occur (now they are almost completelly replaced by combat volunteers, who are often the same civilian health workers just in uniforms and after basic training).

Perhaps even NATO fighting similar war would need to forget about hot zone evacuation like often precticized in Afghanistan.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Beleg85

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, Beleg85 said:

Yup. One of things that future near-peer warfare will need to adjust is lack of immediate Helicopter medevac close to warzone. There was an  interview rich in details with one Polish-Ukrainian volunteer serving as a battlefield medic for several months in Kherson region (perhaps I'll summarize it one day). He insisted that despite much better level of medical services on UKR side, they are still behind NATO. One of reasons was that in this and future wars with enemy well equipped with AA weapons fast flying medevac becomes a problem. Thus system of intermediate selection points and deep-behind-the lines hospitals resembling WWII needs to be established, with often unarmoured ambulances driving like crazy almost directly at trenches and trying to take wounded out of hot zone asap. Of course Russians tend to shoot at them, so reportedly lossess even among civilian medics do occur (now they are almost completelly replaced by combat volunteers, who are often the same civilian health workers just in uniforms and after basic training).

Going to be one of the first applications for unmanned ground vehicles. Since all it has to do is follow a couple of way points and not crash. 

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/germany-will-transfer-14-themis-unmanned-ground-vehicles-to-ukraine/

Better than bleeding out in a muddy trench, probably. Yet another case of this being Spain 1937.

 

[dan/california]

 

[Fenris]

Amusing clip.  Next gen attack rodents have gotten loose from the biolabs.

 

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, sross112 said:

However I don't think heavy forces are dead or that they should be dismissed. I think it all depends on the war you are fighting. I'd much rather try to stop the North Korean Army with a few heavy ABCTs than a Task Force Smith.

The issue with ISR as that we really have only seen the tip of the iceberg.  We are still using pretty large expensive platforms; however, as the internet of things and "everything is a sensor", along with battlefield ISR nets, swarms and whatever they come up - all plugged into ever-increasing processing power, and whatever AI turns into - the "eyes everywhere" battle is going to become just about unavoidable: the death of surprise.  We will not be able to fully blind an opponent and as such our options are going to compress.  As you note - going into a war with ISR parity is bad news and things are getting more symmetric as technology gets smarter, smaller and cheaper.

I do not think heavy is dead at all.  I do think it will 1) become re-purposed - e.g. tanks in the indirect fire role, matter of time until someone figures out a PGM indirect fire tank round, and/or 2) more specialized and saved for critical moments in operations - modern version of storm troops if you will. 

If anything is truly screwed I think it might be medium.  As visible as heavy without the survivability.   I think we are looking at a force rebalance, away from a heavy core with outer cordon of medium and a sprinkling of light.  Heavy will be held back like the cave troll in LOTR, medium is likely going to hybridize towards light, and light will take on more prominence - IF the trends from this war remain consistent.

There is a problem with anti-mass/corrosive warfare/denial warfare - it is slow. We are talking about fast precision attrition, but it is still slower than manoeuvre tempo-wise.  It is very effective against dumb mass, we have seen this in this war several times now.  But what happens when two dispersed forces meet each other - fog eating fog?  We are likely going to see long drawn out affairs until one side gains enough advantage and then thing will go quick.   Slow is not good and costs a lot, but in the emerging environment I am not sure what else will work.

So long as we keep our heads up, eyes out and do not let the weight of military culture and pressure from industry drag us down there is opportunity to re-define modern warfare on our terms.  I would much rather have the Chinese or whoever playing catchup to us than the other way around.

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by The_Capt

[chrisl]

4 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Clip of what appears to be failed Russian infantry probing attack. Perhaps worth to see in the context of Combat Mission.

Also, Podolyak seems to wither away at least some doubts about Ukrainian casualties. 10-13 k. KIA...seems rather low to me considering the scale. Curiously, this seems to be a response to last European/US "slips" regarding amount of sustained casualties.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-has-lost-between-10000-13000-soldiers-war-official-2022-12-01/

 

Now imagine the UA guys have VR goggles that are spatially registered.  They'd get overlays of the locations of the russians as they're sneaking up, even when completely out of LOS, so they can either accurately launch a few grenades out of the trench or wait presighted for them.  Or the UA guys could just have left a UGV there and gone back to smoke cigarettes and watch om TV while the russians sneak up on it while it tosses grenades precisely in their midst.

The UGV will be battery operated, so it won't have much thermal profile when it's not moving or shooting, and it will be dressed in local vegetation.

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, Fenris said:

Amusing clip.  Next gen attack rodents have gotten loose from the biolabs.

 

I know people who have attached cameras to the heads of rats.  

Pointed in at their brains.  

Putting cams on rats for ISR would be a lot easier.

[chrisl]

59 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The issue with ISR as that we really have only seen the tip of the iceberg.  We are still using pretty large expensive platforms; however, as the internet of things and "everything is a sensor", along with battlefield ISR nets, swarms and whatever they come up - all plugged into ever-increasing processing power, and whatever AI turns into - the "eyes everywhere" battle is going to become just about unavoidable: the death of surprise.  We will not be able to fully blind an opponent and as such our options are going to compress.  As you note - going into a war with ISR parity is bad news and things are getting more symmetric as technology gets smarter, smaller and cheaper.

I do not think heavy is dead at all.  I do think it will 1) become re-purposed - e.g. tanks in the indirect fire role, matter of time until someone figures out a PGM indirect fire tank round, and/or 2) more specialized and saved for critical moments in operations - modern version of storm troops if you will. 

If anything is truly screwed I think it might be medium.  As visible as heavy without the survivability.   I think we are looking at a force rebalance, away from a heavy core with outer cordon of medium and a sprinkling of light.  Heavy will be held back like the cave troll in LOTR, medium is likely going to hybridize towards light, and light will take on more prominence - IF the trends from this war remain consistent.

There is a problem with anti-mass/corrosive warfare/denial warfare - it is slow. We are talking about fast precision attrition, but it is still slower than manoeuvre tempo-wise.  It is very effective against dumb mass, we have seen this in this war several times now.  But what happens when two dispersed forces meet each other - fog eating fog?  We are likely going to see long drawn out affairs until one side gains enough advantage and then thing will go quick.   Slow is not good and costs a lot, but in the emerging environment I am not sure what else will work.

So long as we keep our heads up, eyes out and do not let the weight of military culture and pressure from industry drag us down there is opportunity to re-define modern warfare on our terms.  I would much rather have the Chinese or whoever playing catchup to us than the other way around.

 

The only purpose of heavy will be to transport energy for the light - it will be hosed in a fight, so it has to stay hidden, like a queen bee or ant.  But rather than the workers bringing food, they'll come to it to refuel/recharge.  It might be part of the long range transport for the light things, like an aircraft carrier for aircraft, but it won't be part of the fight.  Heavy HE will come from long range, guided all the way in by the network of gnats (or rats with cameras).  The heavy core probably won't be necessary for integration - most of the swarm will have enough compute on board to do networked coordination, like a flock of crows, with maybe a few swarm members having some extra compute on board to do some of the integration.

[sross112]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

6 hours ago, sross112 said:

However I don't think heavy forces are dead or that they should be dismissed. I think it all depends on the war you are fighting. I'd much rather try to stop the North Korean Army with a few heavy ABCTs than a Task Force Smith.

The issue with ISR as that we really have only seen the tip of the iceberg.  We are still using pretty large expensive platforms; however, as the internet of things and "everything is a sensor", along with battlefield ISR nets, swarms and whatever they come up - all plugged into ever-increasing processing power, and whatever AI turns into - the "eyes everywhere" battle is going to become just about unavoidable: the death of surprise.  We will not be able to fully blind an opponent and as such our options are going to compress.  As you note - going into a war with ISR parity is bad news and things are getting more symmetric as technology gets smarter, smaller and cheaper.

I do not think heavy is dead at all.  I do think it will 1) become re-purposed - e.g. tanks in the indirect fire role, matter of time until someone figures out a PGM indirect fire tank round, and/or 2) more specialized and saved for critical moments in operations - modern version of storm troops if you will. 

If anything is truly screwed I think it might be medium.  As visible as heavy without the survivability.   I think we are looking at a force rebalance, away from a heavy core with outer cordon of medium and a sprinkling of light.  Heavy will be held back like the cave troll in LOTR, medium is likely going to hybridize towards light, and light will take on more prominence - IF the trends from this war remain consistent.

There is a problem with anti-mass/corrosive warfare/denial warfare - it is slow. We are talking about fast precision attrition, but it is still slower than manoeuvre tempo-wise.  It is very effective against dumb mass, we have seen this in this war several times now.  But what happens when two dispersed forces meet each other - fog eating fog?  We are likely going to see long drawn out affairs until one side gains enough advantage and then thing will go quick.   Slow is not good and costs a lot, but in the emerging environment I am not sure what else will work.

So long as we keep our heads up, eyes out and do not let the weight of military culture and pressure from industry drag us down there is opportunity to re-define modern warfare on our terms.  I would much rather have the Chinese or whoever playing catchup to us than the other way around.

Having the best picture of your opponents ISR will be the big question to answer going forward. As their capabilities will determine your options. I think that almost everyone will have the tactical level drones in varying numbers and capabilities moving forward but not that many will have the high altitude and space based eyes that can give real time reliable targeting info. Of course it is getting cheaper to get the space based recon with the private assets for rent nowadays so there may be more countries with it than we think. 

I like your vision for heavies. It was a few weeks ago that it was posted on here where a UA tank scored a tank kill using indirect fire. So if the infantry has the ability to kill any vehicle at ranges up to 4km then the heavies need to stay more than 4 km from the FEBA. Like you said, using PGMs and indirect fire to support the light forces and take out identified targets while staying on the move and alive. I wonder if it is smart to ever commit them. However a breach is made (fog eating snow attrition through a line maybe) is it a good idea to throw the heavies through in order to wreak havoc? I think there still has to be times for speed of action even though the vast majority of the time it will probably be slow attrition.

Would the corrosive warfare always be slow though? Again, the UA is missing pieces and also does not have enough of the pieces they have. Up to maybe 24 HIMARs now? If you had several Bn's of tubes, rockets and then air power in the mix with the western numbers I'd think the speed would be faster than what we are seeing. Same pattern of slow then fast, just a more compressed timetable. Maybe air power will be even more key now as the ISR isn't as much of an issue for them.

[Battlefront.com]

20 hours ago, JonS said:

Yeah, it's a bit hard to make sense of that comment in the article.

Given that Ukraine has a LOT more than 80 guns in total, I interpret it as them being able to conduct single-target concentrations with up to that many guns at a time. 80x 122mm guns unloading 5 rounds each on a target ... mmm ... maybe 400m x 400m? Something like that. Everytime they managed to do that, another Russian company was having a very bad day.

So:-

Not: only two arty bdes at Kyiv.

Instead: of however many arty bdes Ukraine had at Kyiv they were, at times, able to concentrate the fire of two of them onto the same target.

 

Edit: Of course, on 24/25/26 Feb there may literally have been just two bdes in the area.

This all sounds right to me, however there's another element you didn't mention... choke points.  The terrain in the area discussed by RUSI did not offer the Russians anything even close to freedom of action.  There were a few narrow paths they had to travel in order to advance and the Ukrainians appear to have been more than capable of directing fire against them whenever the Russians attempted to utilize one of the routes.  The piles and piles of concentrated burned out wrecks seem to confirm this is exactly what happened.

As JonS pointed out, if you can wreck a whole mechanized company within a few minutes, and do it repeatedly a couple of times a day, you don't need a bazillion tubes to destroy a bunch of BTGs.  You just need a few dozen that are always operational directed by great ISR.  That will do the trick.  Pretty much the PGM effect without having PGMs.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Figures that one of the most interesting conversations about theory and reality seen here in weeks is when I'm on the road and am unable to do more than skim.  Looks like I'm going to have some serious catching up to do this weekend

Steve

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The issue with ISR as that we really have only seen the tip of the iceberg.  We are still using pretty large expensive platforms; however, as the internet of things and "everything is a sensor", along with battlefield ISR nets, swarms and whatever they come up - all plugged into ever-increasing processing power, and whatever AI turns into - the "eyes everywhere" battle is going to become just about unavoidable: the death of surprise.  We will not be able to fully blind an opponent and as such our options are going to compress.  As you note - going into a war with ISR parity is bad news and things are getting more symmetric as technology gets smarter, smaller and cheaper.

I do not think heavy is dead at all.  I do think it will 1) become re-purposed - e.g. tanks in the indirect fire role, matter of time until someone figures out a PGM indirect fire tank round, and/or 2) more specialized and saved for critical moments in operations - modern version of storm troops if you will. 

If anything is truly screwed I think it might be medium.  As visible as heavy without the survivability.   I think we are looking at a force rebalance, away from a heavy core with outer cordon of medium and a sprinkling of light.  Heavy will be held back like the cave troll in LOTR, medium is likely going to hybridize towards light, and light will take on more prominence - IF the trends from this war remain consistent.

There is a problem with anti-mass/corrosive warfare/denial warfare - it is slow. We are talking about fast precision attrition, but it is still slower than manoeuvre tempo-wise.  It is very effective against dumb mass, we have seen this in this war several times now.  But what happens when two dispersed forces meet each other - fog eating fog?  We are likely going to see long drawn out affairs until one side gains enough advantage and then thing will go quick.   Slow is not good and costs a lot, but in the emerging environment I am not sure what else will work.

So long as we keep our heads up, eyes out and do not let the weight of military culture and pressure from industry drag us down there is opportunity to re-define modern warfare on our terms.  I would much rather have the Chinese or whoever playing catchup to us than the other way around.

 

Outstanding post as always, was out of likes. I would just re-emphasize that this is Spain 1937, a whole lot of things have just hatched, we have not met the grown up versions yet. The exception to that statement is the performance of NASSAMS and Iris-T. I don't think their effectiveness bodes well for the future of manned aircraft. I realize the Chinses stuff isn't as good, but they are surely taking notes and trying like bleep to steal the relevant tech.

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

Now imagine the UA guys have VR goggles that are spatially registered.  They'd get overlays of the locations of the russians as they're sneaking up, even when completely out of LOS, so they can either accurately launch a few grenades out of the trench or wait presighted for them.  Or the UA guys could just have left a UGV there and gone back to smoke cigarettes and watch om TV while the russians sneak up on it while it tosses grenades precisely in their midst.

The UGV will be battery operated, so it won't have much thermal profile when it's not moving or shooting, and it will be dressed in local vegetation.

A classic case of our only seeing the bay version. The integration Chrissl describes is probably crawling around a proving ground now. 

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

I know people who have attached cameras to the heads of rats.  

Pointed in at their brains.  

Putting cams on rats for ISR would be a lot easier.

Rats are already pretty good at finding mines. imagine if each one had its own AI minder in a little backpack with treats dispenser to keep it motivated.

30 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Having the best picture of your opponents ISR will be the big question to answer going forward. As their capabilities will determine your options. I think that almost everyone will have the tactical level drones in varying numbers and capabilities moving forward but not that many will have the high altitude and space based eyes that can give real time reliable targeting info. Of course it is getting cheaper to get the space based recon with the private assets for rent nowadays so there may be more countries with it than we think. 

I like your vision for heavies. It was a few weeks ago that it was posted on here where a UA tank scored a tank kill using indirect fire. So if the infantry has the ability to kill any vehicle at ranges up to 4km then the heavies need to stay more than 4 km from the FEBA. Like you said, using PGMs and indirect fire to support the light forces and take out identified targets while staying on the move and alive. I wonder if it is smart to ever commit them. However a breach is made (fog eating snow attrition through a line maybe) is it a good idea to throw the heavies through in order to wreak havoc? I think there still has to be times for speed of action even though the vast majority of the time it will probably be slow attrition.

Would the corrosive warfare always be slow though? Again, the UA is missing pieces and also does not have enough of the pieces they have. Up to maybe 24 HIMARs now? If you had several Bn's of tubes, rockets and then air power in the mix with the western numbers I'd think the speed would be faster than what we are seeing. Same pattern of slow then fast, just a more compressed timetable. Maybe air power will be even more key now as the ISR isn't as much of an issue for them.

I swear they were working on a program for the Abrams a decade ago, and then decided they didn't want to give the tanks the artillery's job. They might be about to change their minds. Was this discussed in the forum way back when? I can't think of where else I would have been talking about this that long ago.

Just to ramble a bit more, the current Abrams fire control system would have all the data wouldn't it? So for the tank it would be almost entirely a software problem. The is even a data link in the lastest version to program the new programmable distance bursting round. So it would only take a round designed for the purpose, and some software. Could they use the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1156_Precision_Guidance_Kit that already exist for 155 ammo? I mean there is no such thing as a small development program, but this doesn't seem like huge one. It might make a nice bridge to a new generation of vehicles designed with the lessons of this war in mind.

[FancyCat]

U.S is possibly looking into persuading Qatar and Oman into letting Ukraine have their NASAMS while more are made to backfill their orders. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/01/raytheon-air-defense-ukraine-middle-east-00071687

 

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, FancyCat said:

U.S is possibly looking into persuading Qatar and Oman into letting Ukraine have their NASAMS while more are made to backfill their orders. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/01/raytheon-air-defense-ukraine-middle-east-00071687

 

This outstanding news, and evidence people are doing their jobs. 

[chrisl]

2 hours ago, sross112 said:

Having the best picture of your opponents ISR will be the big question to answer going forward. As their capabilities will determine your options. I think that almost everyone will have the tactical level drones in varying numbers and capabilities moving forward but not that many will have the high altitude and space based eyes that can give real time reliable targeting info. Of course it is getting cheaper to get the space based recon with the private assets for rent nowadays so there may be more countries with it than we think. 

Spaceborne ISR is still very limited to a small set of countries.  Partly because the technology that's needed is very export restricted by the countries that have it - Russia was in a better position than almost any other country to compete and was still limited to film-drop imaging into the late 2010's.  China has quite a lot of assets in space, but it doesn't look like it even is at the performance of what's commercially available for rent yet.  The benefit to them, despite the lower performance, is that they own it and it can't be shut off by another country that the commercial satellite operator might be based in.

And there's probably not much that isn't at least roughly known to amateur satellite watchers, and well known to major space powers.  It's very hard to hide satellites.  You might hide one from amateurs satellite watchers for a little while, but the orbital debris people will notice it pretty quickly and then there will be a bunch of telescopes with adaptive optics looking at it to figure out what it does.  If it's optical it's pretty easy to figure out its performance if you know its size and orbit, and if it's an active radar you can figure out its performance limits from what it's radiating.  And that's from the ground.  If you've got a bunch of your own stuff in space you can get a pretty good look, unperturbed by atmosphere.

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

Rats are already pretty good at finding mines. imagine if each one had its own AI minder in a little backpack with treats dispenser to keep it motivated.

And sometimes everything in the world falls into place at once.  This ad was just recently posted for an NYC rat Czar.  It's a must-read  Imagine someone creative enough to conscript the rats into minesweeping in Ukraine.

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, chrisl said:

And sometimes everything in the world falls into place at once.  This ad was just recently posted for an NYC rat Czar.  It's a must-read  Imagine someone creative enough to conscript the rats into minesweeping in Ukraine.

Fascinating, one more little step down this tangent. 

The single best thing they have ever tried for killing rats in New York was was throwing chunks of dry ice down every hole they could find. The CO2 just asphyxiated them. Now here is the kicker, despite the fact they were using FOOD GRADE CO2, the EPA made them stop. Because CO2 is not an approved pesticide, you can't make this stuff up. And no i am not applying. 

 

[paxromana]

42 minutes ago, chrisl said:

And sometimes everything in the world falls into place at once.  This ad was just recently posted for an NYC rat Czar.  It's a must-read  Imagine someone creative enough to conscript the rats into minesweeping in Ukraine.

Russia already has one ... and its not working out well for them

[dan/california]

47 minutes ago, chrisl said:

And sometimes everything in the world falls into place at once.  This ad was just recently posted for an NYC rat Czar.  It's a must-read  Imagine someone creative enough to conscript the rats into minesweeping in Ukraine.

https://apopo.org/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAvqGcBhCJARIsAFQ5ke4rAg0LDV6eqnUPazm4wluw8IOwsoqnoxVYZU2ZEF8xnd_ZozMd2ucaAhJ9EALw_wcB&v=7516fd43adaa

Just to clarify, the rats exist., it is some larger than average African species, and they mark mines with a good success rate. I just want to give them electronic minders...

 

Edit: Ukraine might want to start a breeding program...

Edited December 2, 2022 by dan/california