How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Since we are talking about cyber wars, here is the latest news: The largest mobile operator in Ukraine, Kyivstar, has been subjected to a cyber attack. Since the morning, the mobile network has been unavailable for users of this operator. It is alleged that Russian intelligence services are behind this cyber attack.

Unfortunately, many financial and trade networks in Ukraine were associated with this mobile operator. For example, card payments in many retail chains have not worked since the morning. This attack created many problems for Ukraine.

As it turned out, this attack also hit the Russian soldiers on the front line. They also used the mobile operator Kyivstar, since Russian operators do not operate in Ukraine.

[Zeleban]

November is a month of significant advances in understanding the FSB

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, Tux said:

If you lose that [drone] race (or even fall behind) the consequences will be painful.  My point is that we/Ukraine should therefore be simultaneously trying to win that arms race and making plans for if they (even temporarily) lose it.

This x1000%

Which is why I feel the Ukes need to be 'pre-mining', mapping (for drone purposes) and burying hardened OPs (+EW jammers?) -- today -- to create an uninhabitable death zone c.50km deep, along more or less their entire current front, from Sumy to the Dnpr bend. Shortening that front (that is, ceding territory, however painful) if needed.

And yes, that will be an enormous effort; one I believe Russia is already undertaking below Donetsk.

[kimbosbread]

2 hours ago, Tux said:

Quite possibly, yes.  It should be easier to field RF-seeking kamikaze drinkers en masse than those autonomous drones though, no?  So my point is the current problem doesn’t seem impossible to address before autonomous becomes the norm.

RF-kamikazes still need some optical guidance if they are going after things on the ground. That’s why I proposed train hunting (and it’s cousin truck hunting) as good first steps. Known routes, easy objects to detect/hard to disguise.

2 hours ago, Tux said:

Even then autonomy doesn’t automatically buy immunity from RF-focussed hunting algorithms, assuming people will often want to receive a video feed from even fully autonomous drones. Otherwise how do you know whether they are effective?

The feedback loop is a really interesting problem. For all the military men out there, what’s the minimum that is acceptable?

If you are ok with a text message “I found a buk and am going to blow it up; here’s the gps coordinates check it on the next satellite pass” that is way less bandwidth than video plus can be sent from much further away on a lower frequency. A video feed is just so much more expensive in terms of power and emissivity and range.

[LongLeftFlank]

 

[Kraft]

16 hours ago, Butschi said:

Random video on the topic from youtube. Using terrain, flying complex maneuvers (as a swarm), staying on target even with temporary occlusion... already reality. Also: "just following and predicting target shapes from pixel data"... What do you think we humans do?

Extending range via relay drones is certainly an advantage but at some point remotely controlled drones will not scale vs swarms of fully autonomous drones - which of course could also use relays to communicate with each other.

Cost: software development, >100+euro for chips,.. for a drone that costs 500

Benefit? Last 10-20meter better performance, when drones usually already on their proper interception path

These drones are aquired using mostly donated money. If you get X euros from people per month, does it make sense to buy the more expensive ones, that maybe work 5% better but cost 20-30% more?, if you already dont have the funds to fill all the demand for the cheap ones?

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Kraft

[kimbosbread]

19 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Cost: software development, >100+euro for chips,.. for a drone that costs 500

The nice thing about software development is that although it is expensive, a bunch of people like me could help out from other countries, and we’re used to working in this model already. The whole point of the software industry is you build the software once, and everybody can immediately use it. Then you upgrade it with lessons learned, and it gets pushed out instantly. Doesn’t matter if there are 10 drones, or 10k.

19 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Benefit? Last 10-20meter better performance, when drones usually already on their proper interception path

For full autonomy, the benefit is not needing a radio link that artificially limits the range to <<< 40km and not being easily detected due to being a giant emitter.

For autonomy once target has been identified, the benefit is less load on the operator, and less suceptibility to short range jamming. That increases the amount of targets the operator can engage before needing to rest.

For thermal, the benefit has already been discussed ad nauseum.

19 minutes ago, Kraft said:

These drones are aquired using mostly donated money. If you get X euros from people per month, does it make sense to buy the more expensive ones, that maybe work 5% better but cost 20-30% more?, if you already dont have the funds to fill all the demand for the cheap ones?

Well, what if they worked 50% better, and has 4x the range?

[Tux]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

RF-kamikazes still need some optical guidance if they are going after things on the ground. That’s why I proposed train hunting (and it’s cousin truck hunting) as good first steps. Known routes, easy objects to detect/hard to disguise.

I think we’re talking at crossed purposes.  I’m talking about small, very cheap drones that have maybe 30mins’ endurance, detect RF signals being transmitted from anywhere at or above their altitude and attempt to collide with the transmitter.  They send a single pulse signal when on a collision course with and within, say, 300mm of a target, so you know that that target is likely hit.

The intention is that they scrub the sky clean of all drones that are sending out a signal (including your own, if IFF is too difficult, but that can be accounted for in when/where/how high you fly them).

If you find or manoeuvre yourself into a situation where empty skies would be to your advantage, launch 10 of these things and listen for the ‘I got one!’ pulses.  If you hear 10 pulses, launch another 10.  Rinse and repeat as appropriate.  Don’t want to wait?  Launch 100 and forget about them.

No need for optical guidance since they aren’t intended to attack ground targets.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Tux

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Tux said:

I think we’re talking at crossed purposes.  I’m talking about small, very cheap drones that have maybe 30mins’ endurance, detect RF signals being transmitted from anywhere at or above their altitude and attempt to collide with the transmitter.  They send a single pulse signal when on a collision course with and within, say, 300mm of a target, so you know that that target is likely hit.

The intention is that they scrub the sky clean of all drones that are sending out a signal (including your own, if IFF is too difficult, but that can be accounted for in when/where/how high you fly them).

If you find or manoeuvre yourself into a situation where empty skies would be to your advantage, launch 10 of these things and listen for the ‘I got one!’ pulses.  If you hear 10 pulses, launch another 10.  Rinse and repeat as appropriate.  Don’t want to wait?  Launch 100 and forget about them.

No need for optical guidance since they aren’t intended to attack ground targets.

Then of course an opponent is going to send out decoys to draw these c-UAS systems and try and opening up room for their own UAS to exploit.  Or if they go fully autonomous the UAS are not emitting, or are doing it in bursts so no signal to ping in on.

I am not saying it is a bad idea but I strongly suspect that the unmanned space is going to be a system-of-systems with layering, counters and counter-counters.  This will occur in both air and surface configurations.  I suspect that there will be an unmanned outer layer and engagement zone.  This zone will have to be negotiated and superiority established before the inner core can be engaged…to a point.  That inner core, which will likely be a manned and unmanned ground mix that are more likely designed to support and sustain the unmanned outer layer, will not look anything like the tactical formations we see today.  Firepower will have become fully distributed, a lethal mist.  So inner core will likely be more about being a C4ISR node.  It will have to be light and camouflaged or operational ISR will pick them up and kill them.

At this point land-air warfare really begins to look more like naval sub-surface warfare but one has to build and sustain the ocean while hiding within in it.  Is you can find an opponent and collapse their ocean/bubble, they are dead.  Shield systems will be key but I strongly suspect it may take time for them to catch up.

Now what is truly terrifying is what happens when one side wins and dominates, and then break through to civilian population centres?  That lethal mist against defenceless civilians is going to be ugly.

[Vet 0369]

4 hours ago, Zeleban said:

As it turned out, this attack also hit the Russian soldiers on the front line. They also used the mobile operator Kyivstar, since Russian operators do not operate in Ukraine.

And this highlights an issue that ii’ve been trying to understand since basically since the First Iraq war.

Why the hell are the Militaries all over the world allowing their members to carry their mobile communications in the field? I seem to remember a term “Signals Intelligence” that could gather a lot of information about units, dispersion, possible intentions, ad nauseam. If I remember correctly, Marines In the field in Vietnam were restricted to carrying only dog tags, Geneva Convention card, and possibly Military ID card (unsure about ID card). You couldn’t carry any money, notebooks, letters, or anything else that could be used for intelligence purposes.

For those of you who are still active or Reserve Military, any country, what are your current restrictions in the field on cell phones and such? To be honest, the answers could really terrify me.

[Butschi]

2 hours ago, Kraft said:

Benefit? Last 10-20meter better performance, when drones usually already on their proper interception path

I wasn't talking about just standard drones with enhanced targetting for the last meters. I am thinking of fully autonomous drones that you assign a patrol area on a map and that identifies targets all by itself. At the very least semi-autonomous drones that you point at a target from several kilometers away. I mean, why should that be possible, given that there are ATGMs out there that have this capability?

2 hours ago, Kraft said:

If you get X euros from people per month, does it make sense to buy the more expensive ones, that maybe work 5% better but cost 20-30% more?, if you already dont have the funds to fill all the demand for the cheap ones?

I don't know the exact calculus and I think neither do you. Apparently there are no such drones on the battlefield yet, so either they aren't available/don't exist or the cost/benefit ratio is not favourable enough, so far.

[The_Capt]

25 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

And this highlights an issue that ii’ve been trying to understand since basically since the First Iraq war.

Why the hell are the Militaries all over the world allowing their members to carry their mobile communications in the field? I seem to remember a term “Signals Intelligence” that could gather a lot of information about units, dispersion, possible intentions, ad nauseam. If I remember correctly, Marines In the field in Vietnam were restricted to carrying only dog tags, Geneva Convention card, and possibly Military ID card (unsure about ID card). You couldn’t carry any money, notebooks, letters, or anything else that could be used for intelligence purposes.

For those of you who are still active or Reserve Military, any country, what are your current restrictions in the field on cell phones and such? To be honest, the answers could really terrify me.

Yeesh, that is a loaded one.  Back in the late 90s cell phones were forbidden in the field, but troops still took them because our radios were old and had worse range.  There was a game of whack a mole trying to stop kids from bringing their phones…hilarity ensued.

Then we got into the COIN game and were being issued the damn things as soon as we got off the plane.  Local cell phones were standard issue as backup comms.  We have restrictions on what info we could send but in a COIN environment the risks were lower.

Now?  I imagine the clamp down is back but the proliferation of radios/comms systems is now down to each solider.  Everyone had PRRs overseas so EM-wise a western tactical unit lights up like a Xmas tree.  And this was before field networks that now can push data.  Now just about everyone has tablets, some that can be worn.  Every vehicle is a C4ISR platform and every UAS a node.

I saw some stuff a while back and basically they were working on a contained cell network that you take to the field.  So everyone is still going to have cell but it will be mil-cell.  The problem with civilian cell is that is largely open and unencrypted.  Open means you can geolocation and unencrypted means you can listen.  So how do we try and keep EM signature hidden?  I honestly don’t think we can.  Probably best to simply overwhelm with noise and encryption signal.  And this is before one even starts talking sat.

Regardless, cell/sat/wifi as part of the military landscape is here to stay.  Making it airtight and somehow hard to detect is going to be an ongoing challenge.

Edited December 12, 2023 by The_Capt

[poesel]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

So how do we try and keep EM signature hidden?

Noise. Produce enough fake emissions to drown the real ones.

Or, since we are back at WWI anyway, lay cables.

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, poesel said:

Noise. Produce enough fake emissions to drown the real ones.

Or, since we are back at WWI anyway, lay cables.

Actually both are viable solutions.  We make a lot of noise and make it harder to pull signal.  Or we find a way to communicate that does not balloon out all over the place...communication lasers spring to mind:

https://www.nasa.gov/communicating-with-missions/lasercomms/

[JonS]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

 Firepower will have become fully distributed, a lethal mist

Long before that point IFF on drones will become necessary. Otherwise instead of mist  eating snow, you're gonna have mist eating itself.

And once you have IFF, autonomous loses a lot of its advantage (ie the lack of transmit to detect), aaaaand we go around the loop again.

Edited December 12, 2023 by JonS

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

Long before that point IFF on drones will become necessary. Otherwise instead of mist  eating snow, you're gonna have mist eating itself.

And once you have IFF, autonomous loses a lot of its advantage (ie the lack of transmit to detect), aaaaand we go around the loop again.

How exactly is IFF supposed to work for autonomous systems that don’t emit signals?

I know nothing about sub warfare… how do our subs tell a hostile sub from another? Prop noise? Patrol routes? Hull colour?

[cesmonkey]

 

[JonS]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

How exactly is IFF supposed to work for autonomous systems that don’t emit signals?

That's the point. They're going to have to emit. If theres going to be hundreds or thousands of UAV roaming about in any given cubic km, doing strike, counter-strike, counter-counter-strike, etc, then if it's all fully autonomous then your counter-etc drones are going to spend a lot (most?) of their effort bringing down your own drones. Therefore some kind of IFF will be needed.

Subs probably do have a version of this problem, but its solved though generally low density, coupled with very tight control over patrol areas - when you are in your box, you're the only friendly in there, therefore anything else is bad guys by definition (or possibly neutral) so no need for active iff. Plus, of course, there's humans in the loop.

Edited December 12, 2023 by JonS

[cesmonkey]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3615582/biden-administration-announces-new-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

Quote

The capabilities in this package, valued at up to $200 million, include:

AIM-9M missiles for air defense;
Air defense system components;
Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
155mm and 105mm artillery rounds; 
High-speed Anti-radiation missiles (HARMs);
Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles;
Javelin and AT-4 anti-armor systems;
More than 4 million rounds of small arms ammunition; 
Demolitions munitions for obstacle clearing; 
Equipment to protect critical national infrastructure;
Spare parts, generators, maintenance, and other ancillary equipment.

 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

That's the point. They're going to have to emit. If theres going to be hundreds or thousands of UAV roaming about in any given cubic km, doing strike, counter-strike, counter-counter-strike, etc, then if it's all fully autonomous then your counter-etc drones are going to spend a lot (most?) of their effort bringing down your own drones. Therefore some kind of IFF will be needed.

Subs probably do have a version of this problem, but its solved though generally low density, coupled with very tight control over patrol areas - when you are in your box, you're the only friendly in there, therefore anything else is bad guys by definition (or possibly neutral) so no need for active iff. Plus, of course, there's humans in the loop.

Yup, IFF is going to be a major challenge.  Here is where laser comms may come into play or burst encrypted transmissions.  Another way to go may be low tech with patches and paint.  Managing EM signatures to control, versus autonomy is going to be a heated field.  Decoys and deception are major players.  And I would not want to be a human in the EW game because I will probably be on the top of the HVT list.

To make things even crazier one is going to have to silence a target before killing it in order to prevent an opponents system getting data on how then kill happened.  This will need to protect advantage and slow enemy adaptations.

However this “fog-eating-fog” (a term I just totally made up and am filing copyright) turns out, it will be deterministic in prosecution of warfare.

[JonS]

43 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

(a term I just totally made up and am filing copyright)

and I counter-claim prior art.

 

3 hours ago, JonS said:

Long before that point IFF on drones will become necessary. Otherwise instead of mist eating snow, you're gonna have mist eating itself.

And once you have IFF, autonomous loses a lot of its advantage (ie the lack of transmit to detect), aaaaand we go around the loop again.

3hrs >> 43 mins

[JonS]

51 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Here is where laser comms may come into play

you're talking about directional comms/directional antennae here, right? If you are in the direct, aimed LOS then you receive the message, but if not you wouldn't even know there *was* a message?

That could work with either light (ie, laser) or RF as the carrier, I think. I mean, directional RF comms has been around with microwave relays for ... decades? The tricksy thing with a bunch of UAV jinxing and jiving about is where do you even aim the transmitter. If the transmitter is on the UAV, then you could figure that out inertial or with GPS positioning buuuuut then you need servos and actuators to redirect the transmitting aerial on the hoof, or jinx the whole UAV around to the correct orientation every now and then to point at the receiving station.

If it's the ground control station then ... yeesh. Good luck tracking all those UAVs trying really hard to hide.

Edited December 13, 2023 by JonS

[dan/california]

47 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

However this “fog-eating-fog” (a term I just totally made up and am filing copyright) turns out, it will be deterministic in prosecution of warfare.

This is the important bit, if your fog wins, the only limitation on how fast you wipe the other side off the field is ammo availability. The West/NATO have to get this right, or someone is going to deal out a defeat we will have a VERY hard time dealing with in a few years.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

and I counter-claim prior art.

 

3hrs >> 43 mins

Similar but legally distinct.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

you're talking about directional comms/directional antennae here, right? If you are in the direct, aimed LOS then you receive the message, but if not you wouldn't even know there *was* a message?

That could work with either light (ie, laser) or RF as the carrier, I think. I mean, directional RF comms has been around with microwave relays for ... decades? The tricksy thing with a bunch of UAV jinxing and jiving about is where do you even aim the transmitter. If the transmitter is on the UAV, then you could figure that out inertial or with GPS positioning buuuuut then you need servos and actuators to redirect the transmitting aerial on the hoof, or jinx the whole UAV around to the correct orientation every now and then to point at the receiving station.

If it's the ground control station then ... yeesh. Good luck tracking all those UAVs trying really hard to hide.

So here a combination of burst transmission and laser comms may work.  Linking systems will be a challenge but they have roomfuls of bright college kids to work on that part.  If the UAS can point a camera it can point a laser.  They al ready have systems that can do complex obstacle avoidance.  Tracking friendly UAS must be possible.  it may need a low energy burst transmission to queue but then can marry up comms lasers.  In the end these little beasts will be emitting pretty low energy in complex terrain so I am sure someone can figure out how to make em hard to find while pinging each other.  It will become a hunt/hunting game to be sure.

Autonomy means only burst data will be required as the onboard brain can adapt and make decisions independently.  It lowers the requirement for links to humans and other systems.  I think we will see a hybrid of human links to a release point and then the thing will be told “kill box” and go fully autonomous.

I know they will overcome these issues because nations are going to spend billions on the problem after seeing what is happening in this war.  Hell put high frequency acoustic emitters and the damn things can chirp at each other like freakin bats.  (Bats eating snow…copyright).