How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, Jammason said:

As someone who has used industrial lasers for fabrication, I'll repeat my skepticism about the effectiveness of lasers against drones -- too easy to harden against them, both with materials (ceramics) and cheap sensors & algorithms ("I'm getting warm, time to spin and fly chaotically to my target, while informing my mesh of the location of the threat")

I am also skeptical.  From the test videos I've seen the laser has to stay on a target for some amount of time to heat it up.  I doubt a laser would be able to track a drone that is deliberately behaving erratically as targeting systems rely upon analysis of trajectory.  If something can suddenly stop and drop 10m, I have a hard time believing the laser will stay on target.

The question is if the 300kw laser is strong enough to melt a rotor right away or if even those require the laser to hold onto the target for a second or two.  If it's instant, then that's probably enough to defeat a rotor drone.  Can't maneuver if you don't have rotors!

Steve

[paxromana]

28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

If it's instant, then that's probably enough to defeat a rotor drone.  Can't maneuver if you don't have rotors!

Yabbut ... what about a fixed wing drone with in wing ducted rotors capable of full up/down thrust selection to supplement the regular propeller ... purely and simply to provide the ability to 'jink' in such situations?

Should be easy enough to implement at less than the $gazillion cost of Lasers ...

[Bulletpoint]

Whatever happened to the "Freedom of Russia Legion"?

[The_Capt]

8 hours ago, dan/california said:

An anti drone drone must be harder to do than I think it is, or we would see them already. If one side fielded them en masse it would basically run the other one right off the battle field. This is so obviously true there must be a technical reason it hasn't happened yet. Why isn't there something that looks exactly like an Orlan 10 up there hunting Orlan 10s?

 

My guess it is the targeting.  Tracking, locking and hunting a small highly manoeuvrable object is a pretty high bar.  Basically trying to hit a magic bullet with a magic bullet.  Just because we have a similar system doesn’t mean we have the targeting capability to hit another drone.  And then one has to do it en masse. I have zero doubts that there are people working on this furiously.

This will set up an air power below 2000 feet arms race.  Counter counter UAS systems will then be developed.  I think a lot of people are starting to get that this is not War + Unmanned.  It is Unmanned Warfare.

[Nastypastie]

Not to mention current loiter times. With half hour endurance a unit is looking at needing 48 small drones to keep a single unit in the air doing CAP 24/7. More if you count lost time for takeoff and recovery.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Nastypastie said:

Not to mention current loiter times. With half hour endurance a unit is looking at needing 48 small drones to keep a single unit in the air doing CAP 24/7. More if you count lost time for takeoff and recovery.

A lot of incentive to solve the energy density problem of batteries:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/04/1066141/whats-next-for-batteries/?gad=1&gclid=CjwKCAjws9ipBhB1EiwAccEi1BVtyUUPriIA8d0KP2cg84dW41z0YN0FUllsukBpNjBKoZWhm2I20RoCHLoQAvD_BwE

This is much bigger than warfare and has eye watering levels of investment.  Time is distance.  So as loitering times lengthen, ranges are also going to stretch.  Time is options.  As loitering times increase so do the range of possible missions.  UGVs are waiting in the wings on this one too.

You best start believing in RMAs, Ms Turner…because you are in one.

[kimbosbread]

2 hours ago, Nastypastie said:

Not to mention current loiter times. With half hour endurance a unit is looking at needing 48 small drones to keep a single unit in the air doing CAP 24/7. More if you count lost time for takeoff and recovery.

Just use dinosaurs, solves the problem. Orlan-10 and similar have loiter time in excess of 12 hours. Don’t be like Amazon’s drone program and insist on electric-only.

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

My guess it is the targeting.  Tracking, locking and hunting a small highly manoeuvrable object is a pretty high bar.  Basically trying to hit a magic bullet with a magic bullet.

Yes, and no. Orlan-10 is pretty speed at 110mph. However, the current and next generation of these things aren’t maneuverable (especially the pusher prop ones), and have no capability to detect something targetting them.

Detecting, targetting and taking down these things without spending $1m is the real problem. You almost need something like an Orlan-10 itself that can loiter for a while and cover say a 40km square area, with some sort of micro missile optimized for cost and small targets, and a series of spectrum analyzers on the ground listening for control signals that are linked together.

Your air-to-air mini missile is not going to be expensive as far as real missiles go, but can you keep it under $50k? It needs to go in excess of 200mph (which has been done), and have 10km range, and have some sort of sensor head that can track the target. So yeah, that last one is the problem. Optical might not do it.

 

A book I recommend to everyone is “Sidewinder: Creative Missile Development” about how they developed Sidewinder on the cheapo.

[Battlefront.com]

The challenge of discussing unmanned systems is defining what the threat is.  State actor with resources measured in billions of Dollars?  State actor with limited resources, but still counting in the hundreds of millions of Dollars?  Non-state actors with access to resources equivalent of poorer states?  Non-state actors with significant resources?  Non-state actors with fairly tight budgets?  Lone wolves with lots of money?  Lone wolves with modest means?  Combinations of any of these?

Money = capability just as it always has, except that now a little money buy offensive capabilities that cost a LOT of money to defeat.  This has kinda been true forever (WW1 was started by a guy with a pistol), but now the offensive potential that a single person can wield for little money is expansive.

If I were in charge of addressing these challenges I would do three things:

1.  reject any proposed solution that cost more than 5x the threat it was intended to defeat

2.  ensure that any one proposed solution could deal with a wide range of unmanned threats, not specialized responses

3.  take up drugs and alcohol like a 1980s hair band rocker

Steve

[akd]

Mini-cope:

 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

Yes, and no. Orlan-10 is pretty speed at 110mph. However, the current and next generation of these things aren’t maneuverable (especially the pusher prop ones), and have no capability to detect something targetting them.

Detecting, targetting and taking down these things without spending $1m is the real problem. You almost need something like an Orlan-10 itself that can loiter for a while and cover say a 40km square area, with some sort of micro missile optimized for cost and small targets, and a series of spectrum analyzers on the ground listening for control signals that are linked together.

Your air-to-air mini missile is not going to be expensive as far as real missiles go, but can you keep it under $50k? It needs to go in excess of 200mph (which has been done), and have 10km range, and have some sort of sensor head that can track the target. So yeah, that last one is the problem. Optical might not do it.

I think the maneuverability is bad enough especially for the quadcopters.  It is the altitude.  These things can fly really low so line of sight is problematic from the ground.  If you put C-UAS drones above them, one now has to find and track the system against ground clutter.

Micro-missile might work, but I suspect a shotgun would too if one could get in range.  That or you simply go with ramming.  But as you note.  The solutions are pretty damned expensive, while the threat gets cheaper.

[Kinophile]

Remember what we discussed, about how to avoid detection? Underground was one option, little discussed. 

However:

 

[Baneman]

16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

...

Micro-missile might work, but I suspect a shotgun would too if one could get in range.  That or you simply go with ramming.  But as you note.  The solutions are pretty damned expensive, while the threat gets cheaper.

Surely if you can get close enough to ram, you could fire some sort of short range net over it.

But why not continue the WWI analogies that we've seen all over this conflict - get hordes of combat flight sim pilots to fly hunter drones. With some natty sensors to aid the Mk1 eyeball, that could be effective, since most of the target drones are looking at the ground, again, a la WWI observers who never saw who shot them down.

[Kinophile]

Zaporizhzhia isn't quiet... 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

28 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think the maneuverability is bad enough especially for the quadcopters.  It is the altitude.  These things can fly really low so line of sight is problematic from the ground.  If you put C-UAS drones above them, one now has to find and track the system against ground clutter.

This is the primary limitation of directed energy (laser) weapons... LOS is required between shooter and target.  This is bad enough for high flying targets, but for those that are skimming the treeline or BELOW treeline there will never be LOS.  We've all seen videos of quadcopters flying along roads or within sparse forest, so this is not a theoretical threat but a glaring reality.  Following along wadis and other topographical limitations is also super easy with FPV drones.

It's really not viable to have a $50m defense that can only engage targets in flat deserts or open seas.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

An example of why Lockheed Martin's defense system is already defeatable, just imagine a bunch of these armed with explosives looking for that big energy emitting defense system:

As someone who has done forest inventory ("cruising") using old school methods, let me just say that this drone capability is kick-arse!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... well, this YouTube channel obviously isn't a part of the Russian disinformation campaign:

https://www.youtube.com/@wardefense/videos

Steve

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is the primary limitation of directed energy (laser) weapons... LOS is required between shooter and target.  This is bad enough for high flying targets, but for those that are skimming the treeline or BELOW treeline there will never be LOS.  We've all seen videos of quadcopters flying along roads or within sparse forest, so this is not a theoretical threat but a glaring reality.  Following along wadis and other topographical limitations is also super easy with FPV drones.

It's really not viable to have a $50m defense that can only engage targets in flat deserts or open seas.

Steve

FFS, we saw one chase a guy around a freakin tree!  I am leaning heavily towards your Option 3.

[hcrof]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is the primary limitation of directed energy (laser) weapons... LOS is required between shooter and target.  This is bad enough for high flying targets, but for those that are skimming the treeline or BELOW treeline there will never be LOS.  We've all seen videos of quadcopters flying along roads or within sparse forest, so this is not a theoretical threat but a glaring reality.  Following along wadis and other topographical limitations is also super easy with FPV drones.

It's really not viable to have a $50m defense that can only engage targets in flat deserts or open seas.

Steve

To play devil's advocate, you don't need to hit the fpv drone (or it's autonomous successor) with a laser. It's probably good enough to hit the recon drone guiding it to the target, which will be by definition in line of sight. 

Having said that, if your enemy is willing to send autonomous drones to investigate radar returns then you are in big trouble because you can't hide a moving vehicle (or person really) from radar.

Jack Watling in his new book talks about using spoofing aand decoys to create "ambiguity" but while the book is excellent I don't think it really grapples with the concept of a lot of cheap autonomous drones hunting down anything that moves. 

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

FFS, we saw one chase a guy around a freakin tree!  I am leaning heavily towards your Option 3.

And we also just saw one playing peeping-tom in an urban area before entering the room and blowing up an ISR system.  Yup, drinking heavily and snorting lines off a hooker's backside seems to me just as likely to defend against drones as spending billions of Dollars.

4 minutes ago, hcrof said:

To play devil's advocate, you don't need to hit the fpv drone (or it's autonomous successor) with a laser. It's probably good enough to hit the recon drone guiding it to the target, which will be by definition in line of sight.

Right, except you don't need to have secondary spotting drones.  All you need to know is where the target is and a Human or AI can get a drone to that location without any aid.  Obviously the less mobile the target is the easier, but it's already pretty easy.

Spotting drones are mostly there for BDA and monitoring mobile targets, not targeting in and of itself.

4 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Having said that, if your enemy is willing to send autonomous drones to investigate radar returns then you are in big trouble because you can't hide a moving vehicle (or person really) from radar.

Jack Watling in his new book talks about using spoofing aand decoys to create "ambiguity" but while the book is excellent I don't think it really grapples with the concept of a lot of cheap autonomous drones hunting down anything that moves. 

As The_Capt just pointed out... we just saw a drone flying around individual trees to get a single soldier.  Not autonomous, but we all know that capability already exists.

 

Steve

[hcrof]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And we also just saw one playing peeping-tom in an urban area before entering the room and blowing up an ISR system.  Yup, drinking heavily and snorting lines off a hooker's backside seems to me just as likely to defend against drones as spending billions of Dollars.

Right, except you don't need to have secondary spotting drones.  All you need to know is where the target is and a Human or AI can get a drone to that location without any aid.  Obviously the less mobile the target is the easier, but it's already pretty easy.

Spotting drones are mostly there for BDA and monitoring mobile targets, not targeting in and of itself.

As The_Capt just pointed out... we just saw a drone flying around individual trees to get a single soldier.  Not autonomous, but we all know that capability already exists.

 

Steve

Autonomous drones can hunt stuff down within a defined "box" but the battlefield is still big and dispersed (even moreso when these capabilities exist) and batteries don't last forever. 

There will alway need to be a spotter system: acoustic and visual at short range and more active systems like drones and radar for longer range. Radar and drones can both be jammed or blown up but not 100% of the time, and in that window the attack drones are most dangerous. 

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And we also just saw one playing peeping-tom in an urban area before entering the room and blowing up an ISR system.  Yup, drinking heavily and snorting lines off a hooker's backside seems to me just as likely to defend against drones as spending billions of Dollars.

Right, except you don't need to have secondary spotting drones.  All you need to know is where the target is and a Human or AI can get a drone to that location without any aid.  Obviously the less mobile the target is the easier, but it's already pretty easy.

Spotting drones are mostly there for BDA and monitoring mobile targets, not targeting in and of itself.

As The_Capt just pointed out... we just saw a drone flying around individual trees to get a single soldier.  Not autonomous, but we all know that capability already exists.

 

Steve

Each one of those with a DPICM...and a pre-programmed grudge.  That is where this is going.

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Autonomous drones can hunt stuff down within a defined "box" but the battlefield is still big and dispersed (even moreso when these capabilities exist) and batteries don't last forever.

So you fill them with thousands of them.  Hell you deliver them via artillery and have them just sit like a minefield.  People are thinking "platforms", these are munitions.

Counter?  Cheap UGVs with swarms of their own.  Cloud fight out front before humans even get engaged.

[hcrof]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So you fill them with thousands of them.  Hell you deliver them via artillery and have them just sit like a minefield.  People are thinking "platforms", these are munitions.

Counter?  Cheap UGVs with swarms of their own.  Cloud fight out front before humans even get engaged.

I agree that they can be used en Masse but even the Russians don't shoot artillery at empty spots on the map just in case (at least deliberately). 

They need to be aimed at least vaguely in the area of a known or suspected target or even $500 drones will become uneconomic.

Edit: to expand, either the drones need to fly from a launch site, likely 10-20km away from the target, in which case they will be at the limit of their endurance just getting there so they can't search for too long. Or they are fired by artillery, but then they get more expensive and probably still have low endurance when they arrive. Remember they will have a fairly crude sensor and processor on them, so they will likely have to get very close to their target to spot it unless the target is a moving vehicle. That will increase search times and eat into endurance. 

Edit 2: also, a drone searching for a target is much easier to shoot down than one attacking.

Edited October 23, 2023 by hcrof

[Tenses]

I don't think that restraining yourself from using some of the tech and depending on solo drone swarm, be it bomber or fighter types is a wise thing. Lasers will still be revolutionary due to some of it's capabilities. It is always easier to track the target than actually hit it and with lasers this is actually the same thing. If the laser won't be able to track the drone, then I don't see how it can be hit by your "fighter drone", without major technological superiority. Of course it seems not feasible to deploy laser wall along the entire front and do it artillery/bomb/drone proof but still these systems(fighter drones and lasers) are not competing with each other, they are supporting and providing overall much better and robust solution.

Also in terms of costs be mindful that every successful employment of laser defense, when it shoots down multiple targets is bringing the cost per target down pretty fast. Deployment might be expensive but usage is dirty cheap. 

[sburke]

Russian population set to decrease by more than 7 million in next 2 decades (yahoo.com)

The one item in their projection I find questionable is an increase in life expectancy.  I'd actually think you'd see a decline as the overall social/economic situation continues to decline.

Quote

 

The population of Russia is predicted to decline from the previous census count of 146.45 million in 2021 to 138.77 million in 2046, Russia's Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) reported on Oct. 20.

The projection incorporates the results from the previous Russian census completed in November 2021, which included the close to 2.5 million population of occupied Crimea.

Rosstat's projection notably does not account for those who live in the four oblasts of Ukraine that were illegally annexed by Russia in September 2022.

Beyond the decrease in total population, Rosstat's projection also found a number of other predictions. The percentage of the Russian population reaching pension age in the 2040s will rise to almost 27% of the total population, while the teenage population will fall from 18.5% to 14.2%.

At the same time, life expectancy is projected to rise to 83 years for women and 75 years for men in 2045. As the population both markers, and those at pension age increasingly become a larger percentage of the country, it will almost certainly stretch the capacity of the state to provide for its population.

The low birth rate, with around 1.14 million newborns projected in 2027, will not be enough to offset the aging population.

Rosstat's projection also predicted an increase of almost 5 million immigrants by 2046, roughly about 200,000 per year.

The grim forecast does not mention the impact of Russia's war against Ukraine, which has caused hundreds of thousands of losses according to Ukraine's General Staff, as well as instigating a mass exodus of perhaps close to a million Russians from the country.

The war-related losses added to an already devastating Covid-19 pandemic, which hit Russia especially hard. Although Russia claimed that the official coronavirus-related death toll was around 388,000, The Economist estimated that the true figure was somewhere between 1.2-1.6 million.

Reversing the demographic trend has been a focus of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has sought to recruit the media and the church to help "raise the prestige of motherhood and fatherhood, to encourage people to have a good, healthy family, to strengthen our traditional values, including religious values."