How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Holien]

1 hour ago, Rokko said:

To put things into perspective: At this rate they would fully burn through the September 2022 mobilization of 400'000 (w/ change) in 480 days, i.e., by the end of next January.

I would call that a false perspective. 

You do realise Ukraine doesn't have to "burn through" all the mobilisation to make significant gains?

[Huba]

It looks like M2 in Ukrainian service will be called „Kitty Cat” (I do not dare to suggest another name, commonly used for both cats and ladyparts). UA are really good with social media and I love witty videos they usually post - but this one is just too much 

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Huba

[Rokko]

10 minutes ago, Holien said:

I would call that a false perspective. 

You do realise Ukraine doesn't have to "burn through" all the mobilisation to make significant gains?

I mean obviously it is not like kill the 400'000, then go home and have a victory parade, but it highlights the severity of Russia's manpower problems. With rates like this they will have to recruit/mobilize more than 300'000 men every 12 months, just to have anyone at all manning trenches.

[Splinty]

16 minutes ago, Huba said:

It looks like M2 in Ukrainian service will be called „Kitty Cat” (I do not dare to suggest another name, commonly used for both cats and ladyparts). UA are really good with social media and I love witty videos they usually post - but this one is just too much 

 

This former Bradley crewman loves it!

[womble]

1 hour ago, hcrof said:

Not necessarily true, another crew member can take over gunners duty if the link goes down, albeit at reduced effectiveness. Hopefully that is just temporary and the tank can return to 100% when the link goes back online. 

Edit: a driver is the only crew member who absolutely has to be there if the link goes down or the vehicle gets stuck. All other crew can be moved to another vehicle to make the tank smaller/lighter/cheaper

How effective were the 2-man tanks of WW2? I know technology can take some of the load off, but the enemy's use of it adds pressure at the same rate. If the link goes down and there is a driver in the tank, they're going to be too busy bugging the hell out to be able to spare any attention for offensive operations, cos they've probably been made and focused on by some EM beam that'll fry their eyes if they poke their head out the hatch (not that they're going to; it's just an illustration of the intensity of attention they'll be under at that point).

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

I'm probably not qualified to say much on air defenses. But the Javelin is thoroughly at #1. It just locks on to a heat signature. It doesn't make any decisions about whether or not to lock on to a particular heat signature.

We can pretty much already do what you described for tank FCS (well, not the next iteration part about lining up multiple targets, yet). Modern tank FCS uses automatic target tracking, in which all the gunner has to do is lock on to the target and make the decision to fire. The FCS does all of the rest of the work. So modern tank FCS is also thoroughly at #1. It does all of the work in figuring out how to get the round to the target, while the gunner does all of the work of deciding what is a target and when to kill it. Which is a pretty optimal division of labor honestly. Let the computers do what's easy for computers and let the humans do what's easy for humans.

The I would argue the the Javelin is doing quite a bit more than that, given its ability to stay locked on with radically changing view aspects and target maneuvers.

Next generation tank FCS Should enable things like passing the view from the commanders sight, or a remote drone view, to the gunners station. The gunner pre approves all four targets in a specified order, and tells the FCS to fire the instant it can bear on the target. Thus the tank could emerge from essentially complete cover and fire four rounds at four preselected targets, and be reversing back into cover in less than thirty seconds to assess. Of course next level is for the platoon commander to be able to set this up for four tanks at once. So you would be looking at 16 rounds going down range in thirty seconds with no double targeting. It would make a heck of a show when they crested the ridge.

[JonS]

2 hours ago, hcrof said:

Edit: a driver is the only crew member who absolutely has to be there if the link goes down or the vehicle gets stuck. All other crew can be moved to another vehicle to make the tank smaller/lighter/cheaper

How/why do you imagine it would be cheaper?

[Huba]

27 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The I would argue the the Javelin is doing quite a bit more than that, given its ability to stay locked on with radically changing view aspects and target maneuvers.

I'd say that Brimstone is much nearer to the ultimate "drone swarm" idea, compared to the Javelin. What it doesn't do (AFAIK) is communication between missiles. But it can be salvo launched, with each missile having been assigned a search box and autonomously looking for and engaging it's own target (according to the pre-programmed target type), and employs a sophisticated algorithm to deconflict the kill zone, avoiding multiple missiles hitting the same target.
My private pet idea is to have 6 to 10 of these as submunitions in a cruise missile, to allow stand off attack against airfields. It's one thing to defend against cruise missile, and another against a swarm of 30 supersonic ATGMs, each being smart enough to identify and destroy a multi-milion dollar aircraft.

Also, Brimstone is by far the coolest heavy ATGM, as proven by the Exhibit A below:

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Huba

[JonS]

25 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The I would argue the the Javelin is doing quite a bit more than that, given its ability to stay locked on with radically changing view aspects and target maneuvers.

Its maintaining the lock in very clever ways, but it isnt choosing what to lock on to. That's quite a big step - the first is 'just' a physics problem. The second requires all sorts of analysis and decision making

[Centurian52]

4 minutes ago, womble said:

How effective were the 2-man tanks of WW2? I know technology can take some of the load off, but the enemy's use of it adds pressure at the same rate. If the link goes down and there is a driver in the tank, they're going to be too busy bugging the hell out to be able to spare any attention for offensive operations, cos they've probably been made and focused on by some EM beam that'll fry their eyes if they poke their head out the hatch (not that they're going to; it's just an illustration of the intensity of attention they'll be under at that point).

Actually technology is getting to a point where a 2 man tank will be perfectly effective. The problem with 2-man tanks in WW2 was that the commander was overworked. He had to command the tank, spot targets, aim and fire the gun, and load the gun. One man was trying to be commander, loader, and gunner. Technology has eliminated most of that workload. Obviously the job of the loader could be automated since the 60s. But automatic target tracking is just about to a point where the job of the gunner can be automated as well. As I've said before, a human still needs to be in the loop because AI is still too stupid to be trusted with target identification and selection. But it can make all the targeting calculations and fire on a target that has been designated by a human.

Part of the job of the commander is already to look for new targets while the gunner is busy engaging the last target. And with modern hunter-killer systems the commander is already expected to slew the turret towards the next target for the gunner to engage, while he then goes back to scanning for new targets. With a modern 2-man tank concept a commander would just be modifying his old job description, so that instead of slewing the turret when he spotted a target, he would mark it for the FCS, which would then automatically engage and destroy it (human makes the targeting decisions, computer makes and executes the targeting calculations). With both the loader and gunner roles being automated, the commander of a modern 2-man tank would be no more overworked than the commander of a WW2 5-man tank.

The only downsides to this approach is that you have one less pair of eyes looking for targets, and you have one less pair of hands to assist in maintenance. The maintenance workload could probably be solved with some organizational changes, since there is no reason you couldn't have additional maintenance personnel in a unit that aren't necessarily tank crew (although perhaps they could be reserve tank crew, in case of casualties, sickness, leave, etc...).

[Centurian52]

50 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The I would argue the the Javelin is doing quite a bit more than that, given its ability to stay locked on with radically changing view aspects and target maneuvers.

I simplified a bit. But my point is that it isn't making decisions about what to target.

50 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Of course next level is for the platoon commander to be able to set this up for four tanks at once.

Now there's an idea. Basically the ground warfare equivalent of what we're expecting for 6th gen fighters, in which the core manned platform is basically just the command center for a swarm of unmanned platforms (basically each 6th gen fighter will function like an entire wing of 4th or 5th gen fighters). The concept is called manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T), and it is an excellent solution for harnessing what AI can currently do, while keeping humans in the loop to compensate for what AI can't yet do.

Under this concept the only manned platform in a tank platoon would be a core command vehicle, which may not even be all that tank-like, since its job is to be a command center for the unmanned tanks. I think we're still a couple generations away from seeing MUM-T implemented for ground warfare. The next generation of tanks will probably be closer to the 2-man tank concept I outlined in an earlier post (every tank will be manned, just less manned).

Edited May 2, 2023 by Centurian52

[DesertFox]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

It looks like M2 in Ukrainian service will be called „Kitty Cat” (I do not dare to suggest another name, commonly used for both cats and ladyparts). UA are really good with social media and I love witty videos they usually post - but this one is just too much 

 

Pussy Galore would fit, as in 007 Goldfinger...both beautiful and deadly.

Edited May 2, 2023 by DesertFox

[DesertFox]

34 minutes ago, JonS said:

The second requires all sorts of analysis and decision making

The quick and dirty way to solve that would be an analogon to an IFF system. If it isn´t emitting a friendly signal it will be dead in no time.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Splinty said:

This former Bradley crewman loves it!

Oh, who didn't see this post coming?

Seriously though, my wife will be seeing this video soon and I think she'll love it too, though for the kitty cat reasons.

Steve

[hcrof]

42 minutes ago, JonS said:

How/why do you imagine it would be cheaper?

In my mind a smaller, lighter tank is cheaper. Not just in metal but also in logistics, transport etc. 

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I simplified a bit. But my point is that it isn't making decisions about what to target.

Now there's an idea. Basically the ground warfare equivalent of what we're expecting for 6th gen fighters, in which the core manned platform is basically just the command center for a swarm of unmanned platforms (basically each 6th gen fighter will function like an entire wing of 4th or 5th gen fighters). The concept is called manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T), and it is an excellent solution for harnessing what AI can currently do, while keeping humans in the loop to compensate for what AI can't yet do.

Under this concept the only manned platform in a tank platoon would be a core command vehicle, which may not even be all that tank-like, since its job is to be a command center for the unmanned tanks. I think we're still a couple generations away from seeing MUM-T implemented for ground warfare. The next generation of tanks will probably be closer to the 2-man tank concept I outlined in an earlier post (every tank will be manned, just less manned).

This is something that many FPS games have built into it.  You, the central character, get assigned a bunch of NPCs that fight along with you.  They are autonomous to the extent they can position themselves in relation to terrain and you, they can fire and reload their weapons as needed, they can pass along spotting information, etc. I'm sure some allow the NPCs to take direction from the player, certainly that happens in other types of games.  It definitely works.  In a real world setting it would work too, though it still is a little ways away (driverless cars are getting us closer).

Steve

[Eric Statkevicus]

4 hours ago, IanL said:

The last piece of the puzzle that is defiantly not ready yet is identifying enemy vs friendlies.

Steve is right if you setup an autonomous drone in an area you know there are no friendlies all is good. If there is a chance the guys running for cover into the bunker (to refer back to the footage that started this) then you do not want an AI drone choosing to target or not.

RFID microchip implants, max range 500 meters, existing tech (anyone with a dogs since late 90's can vouch, including myself, albeit at lower range).  Tell the locals that if you don't want to get hit by our AI powered drone swarm, come to the local watering hole to receive your free implant.

[NamEndedAllen]

4 hours ago, sburke said:

if the Ukrainian military manages to take back territories and claim battlefield victories “with the help of weapons from the U.S. and Europe,” Russia’s losses will be understandable—after all, they were up against the “entire West.”

In that case, the sources said, the Russian military will also be seen as having “pulled through.”

8 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Two men trying to remind folks why Ukraine retaking Crimea is not optional but necessary.

Something tells me Ben Hodges and Jan Lipavský would get along just fine

Putting together the alleged new Putin propaganda advice manual quoted here that details what to say if Ukraine’s offensive  is (or isn’t) successful, with the increasing weight of expert analysis - Ben Hodges, @The_Capt - that Crimea is the necessary key to defeating Russia, we can be excused for thinking that in the event, Putin will not order the use of tactical nukes. If the manual is not fake news, it certainly sounds as if the Russian public and perhaps the Western Allies as well are being prepped for a potential Russian off ramp, soft landing. Liberating Crimea is a big stretch - if it is fought to a long and bitter conclusion. But a premature loss blamed loudly in public on NATO and the US (and of course ultimately the British Overlords!), followed by an evacuation in the interest of saving lives blah blah blah…that puts the ball in Ukraine’s and the West’s court. Time for a cease fire and peace talks? Starting figuring out the political fate of the occupied Donbas?? 

Long shot speculation: Might China have suggested something like this in their recent talks with both parties?  

[Fenris]

Interesting (if true and correct) translated statement distributed from doomsayer Girkin.  I noted this UN resolution the other day, a little surprised at some of those voting yes rather than the usual abstentions.

If you read the entire tweet, there's this bit at the end.

EDIT: This is a statement is not from Strelkov (he only forwarded it) but from Colonel Viktor Imantovich Alksnis, a former Duma state deputy.

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Fenris

[dan/california]

21 minutes ago, Eric Statkevicus said:

RFID microchip implants, max range 500 meters, existing tech (anyone with a dogs since late 90's can vouch, including myself, albeit at lower range).  Tell the locals that if you don't want to get hit by our AI powered drone swarm, come to the local watering hole to receive your free implant.

You are inadvertently pointing out the difference between The War in Ukraine, and the various counterinsurgencies the U.S. has been involved in for the last twenty years. There simply are not any meaningful number of civilians in no man's land between the Russian and Ukrainian positions in in and around Bakmuht. The problem is telling the difference between friendlies and enemies when both sides are covered in the exact same mud, and in many cases using the the same or similar gear.

[JonS]

1 hour ago, DesertFox said:

If it isn´t emitting a friendly signal it will be dead in no time.

Except that if it IS emitting a signal it will also be dead in no time. You've just invented red-force-tracking, except the beneficiary is the enemy, not us.

Edited May 2, 2023 by JonS

[JonS]

58 minutes ago, hcrof said:

In my mind a smaller, lighter tank is cheaper. Not just in metal but also in logistics, transport etc. 

Less $$ in steel, yes. But a whole lot more IT and 'systems' -> beaucoup dollaz

[Kinophile]

https://mwi.usma.edu/an-unerring-sense-of-locality-ukraine-and-the-future-of-armored-warfare/

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, Fenris said:

Interesting (if true and correct) translated statement distributed from doomsayer Girkin.  I noted this UN resolution the other day, a little surprised at some of those voting yes rather than the usual abstentions.

If you read the entire tweet, there's this bit at the end.

EDIT: This is a statement is not from Strelkov (he only forwarded it) but from Colonel Viktor Imantovich Alksnis, a former Duma state deputy.

 

This is the latest warning from Girkin that Russia might break apart.  I think he's said it more explicitly than the innuendo of this statement, but I don't have anything specific to reference.  For sure he's not optimistic about how the war is going:

Steve

[sburke]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is the latest warning from Girkin that Russia might break apart.  I think he's said it more explicitly than the innuendo of this statement, but I don't have anything specific to reference.  For sure he's not optimistic about how the war is going:

Steve

What?!  It is all going according to plan!