How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[billbindc]

57 minutes ago, chrisl said:

I don't spend time with drones, but I do spend time using the "wrong" type of batteries in things.  It's possible that the drones are all on low battery, or it could be that they're using batteries that run at a little lower voltage than whatever the drone was designed for.  There are lots of batteries that are "direct substitutes" with slightly different chemistries that run at lower cell voltages.  Some devices care a lot and won't work, while other devices just say "low battery" from the time you put it in to the time it runs out.

Super interesting. Thank you. 

[chrisl]

7 minutes ago, zinz said:

 

Sure driving faster is not keeping you completely safe. But that was not my point. The counter measures you suggested certainly work but are making the whole targeting process a lot more complicated. The relative speeds and distances mean that being able to go faster on the road does matter. 

Said everybody who ended up live on Los Angeles TV for a two hour car chase before ending up spreadeagled on the hood of their car.

[FlemFire]

9 minutes ago, chrisl said:

You need to read further back in the thread.  EW is at best a stopgap against drones, because autonomy is also advancing rapidly, and if they don't need a two way comm link, EW does nothing for defending against them. 

 

A stopgap suggests there is further development to be made. Glad we agree.

[kimbosbread]

And here I thought the mention of SAT was gonna lead into an interesting dicussion of formal methods for ISR…

[Kinophile]

59 minutes ago, sburke said:

ahh but not quite there.  Behold Capt while I propose a truly revolutionary development.  We have so many many people who clearly aren't using their brains and so... we take ze brains of zee people not needing them and put them into zee drones!  We have literally tens of millions and zooo much better if ze brain is right zere in zee drones, no?

Literally what I think they did with Windows 10.

[chrisl]

1 minute ago, kimbosbread said:

And here I thought the mention of SAT was gonna lead into an interesting dicussion of formal methods for ISR…

You mean like HUMINT at cocktail parties?

[The_Capt]

37 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Tactical drones have gone through a few generations of development in those two years and we're still seeing nothing to counter them.

It doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's not an easy problem and it has to be cheaper and more plentiful than drones.  

We have been watching the unmanned space accelerate for over a decade now.  The bottom line, no matter what arm chair experts are saying, is that this is an emerging competition not simply a blip where we will go back to having assumed dominance.  It is lazy and dangerous to consider this a "blip" when all evidence is pointing in the other direction.

In the end, strike is one thing but it is the C4ISR implications that are really bending things.  I can now see that AFV 15kms out as it is trying to form up to attack, which means I can hand off the actual strike to any number of possible shooters - artillery, NLOS ATGM/loitering, conventional direct fires, or UAS.  The fact that these UAS can strike with effect too is just the icing on this particular cake.

But hey, this guy who clearly has it all figured out tends to do these drive bys every now and again. 

[chrisl]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

We have been watching the unmanned space accelerate for over a decade now.  The bottom line, no matter what arm chair experts are saying, is that this is an emerging competition not simply a blip where we will go back to having assumed dominance.  It is lazy and dangerous to consider this a "blip" when all evidence is pointing in the other direction.

In the end, strike is one thing but it is the C4ISR implications that are really bending things.  I can now see that AFV 15kms out as it is trying to form up to attack, which means I can hand off the actual strike to any number of possible shooters - artillery, NLOS ATGM/loitering, conventional direct fires, or UAS.  The fact that these UAS can strike with effect too is just the icing on this particular cake.

But hey, this guy who clearly has it all figured out tends to do these drive bys every now and again. 

And the ISR is going to get more bonkers, too.  Be glad you can retire to an island with a bunch of cheesy DVDs from the 80s.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

ahh but not quite there.  Behold Capt while I propose a truly revolutionary development.  We have so many many people who clearly aren't using their brains and so... we take ze brains of zee people not needing them and put them into zee drones!  We have literally tens of millions and zooo much better if ze brain is right zere in zee drones, no?

Yes, but who did those brains vote for....hmm?  Stick some brains into a drone and you will get highly uninformed opinion on a given target, followed by very long exposition on crack social theories while your drone argues with you.

[FlemFire]

5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

We have been watching the unmanned space accelerate for over a decade now.  The bottom line, no matter what arm chair experts are saying, is that this is an emerging competition not simply a blip where we will go back to having assumed dominance.  It is lazy and dangerous to consider this a "blip" when all evidence is pointing in the other direction.

In the end, strike is one thing but it is the C4ISR implications that are really bending things.  I can now see that AFV 15kms out as it is trying to form up to attack, which means I can hand off the actual strike to any number of possible shooters - artillery, NLOS ATGM/loitering, conventional direct fires, or UAS.  The fact that these UAS can strike with effect too is just the icing on this particular cake.

But hey, this guy who clearly has it all figured out tends to do these drive bys every now and again. 

 

I do "drivebys" because I travel for work. I don't have constant time available to make repeating, incorrect prognostications about a war such as you do. You've been wrong about plenty, but the certainty that a newfound technology will not be matched by counter-measures is the lowest of assertions. Please direct me to a single military advancement not named an intercontinental ballistic missile which has perpetually remained as nakedy powerful as it* was at its first introduction.

Edited February 20 by FlemFire

[Kinophile]

4 minutes ago, FlemFire said:

 Please direct me to a single military advancement not named an intercontinental ballistic missile which has perpetually remained as nakedy powerful at was at its first introduction.

Artillery. And its more powerful and dangerous than ever.

First Use < Modern

But hey, expert opinions, I bow to them.

Edited February 20 by Kinophile

[FlemFire]

Just now, Kinophile said:

Artillery. And its more powerful and dangerous than ever.

But hey, expert opinions, I bow to them.

 

Is that why artillery tubes held an adjacent-evolution to point upward at planes in the sky? Try again.

[poesel]

14 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Sleeping indeed. I'm convinced there's a sick 'master plan' behind all this, which was thought out in Moscow and Peking. We can expect a lot more 'conflicts' and 'incidents'. Cold War all over again.

China would never ever do anything that jeopardized international waterways. This would directly cut into their trading revenue and they would bleed themselves.

 

9 hours ago, Grigb said:

New information is Putin statement that the pipe is actually in fully operational condition and can start working shortly.

Even if Putin wouldn't for once been lying and the pipe were operational tomorrow: a pipe has two ends and one end is closed. And it won't open again (at least not for natural gas).

Germany has long term contracts with other suppliers. We don't need Russian gas anymore. Even if it were politically possible to buy Russian gas again, it would take years before we would. That ship has sailed, working pipeline or not.

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

I don't spend time with drones, but I do spend time using the "wrong" type of batteries in things.  It's possible that the drones are all on low battery, or it could be that they're using batteries that run at a little lower voltage than whatever the drone was designed for.

Drones of this size usually use Lithium-polymer (Lipo) batteries. Fully charged, they have 4.2V. If you care about the longevity of your batteries, you don't discharge them below 3.5V. If you go below that, you get a  'low battery' alarm (the threshold is of course adjustable).
If you don't care (and you don't for kamikaze drones) then you can suck them dry. But if the voltage gets too low, your control electronics will fail. Much of these electronics run at 3.3V so 3V is really close to the edge of losing the drone.

[Kinophile]

Your criteria was name a weapon system that is more powerful now than when first introduced, with the prior-held premise that ICBMs are the only system to hold that distinction.

Artillery was first used in Medieval ages, sorta worked and now causes more casualties in war than any other heavy system (drones are not quite there yet but definitely hold serious potential and I'm not counting lighter weapons like rifles as we;re talking ICBMs etc. Apples to apples and all that).

Ipso facto, your premise, of ICBMs being the only weapons system that has remained

Quote

as nakedy powerful at was at its first introduction

is patently wrong on two counts - they aren't (artillery is just one example) and artillery has gotten more powerful since its first introduction.

Edited February 20 by Kinophile

[billbindc]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

We have been watching the unmanned space accelerate for over a decade now.  The bottom line, no matter what arm chair experts are saying, is that this is an emerging competition not simply a blip where we will go back to having assumed dominance.  It is lazy and dangerous to consider this a "blip" when all evidence is pointing in the other direction.

In the end, strike is one thing but it is the C4ISR implications that are really bending things.  I can now see that AFV 15kms out as it is trying to form up to attack, which means I can hand off the actual strike to any number of possible shooters - artillery, NLOS ATGM/loitering, conventional direct fires, or UAS.  The fact that these UAS can strike with effect too is just the icing on this particular cake.

But hey, this guy who clearly has it all figured out tends to do these drive bys every now and again. 

The fallacy that you are pointing out is one we see with cold fusion, self driving cars, etc. I can't count the amount of times in the last 10 years in which someone says "Well, Silicon Valley (or VC money, or the USG, or China...take your pick) is going all in on X so it's certain to be resolved". That's not how it works. Challenges of that scale and complexity don't just evaporate with money and attention...especially in a case like drones where the challenge hasn't even reach the capabilities we can already see coming around the next iterative bend. 

The blithe dismissal of the issue with a blank assertion that big militaries with enormous physical and mental investment and successful track records in old ways of making war reminds of me a certain application of élan vital with a result that's more than likely to be similar.

No thanks. 

[FlemFire]

Just now, Kinophile said:

Your criteria was name a weapon system that is more powerful now than when first introduced, with the prior-held premise that ICBMs are the only system to hold that distinction.

Artillery was first used in Medieval ages, sorta worked and now causes more casualties in war than any other heavy system (drones are not quite there yet but definitely hold serious potential and I'm not counting lighter weapons like rifles as we;re talking ICBMs etc. Apples to apples and all that).

Ipso facto, your premise, of ICBMs being the only weapons system that has remained

is patently wrong on two counts - they aren't (artillery is just one example) and artillery has gotten more powerful since its first introduction.

 

Perhaps I should not have used poetic language. Gotta cut to the quick with you jokers: yes, in terms of raw firepower, there are countless weapons which have "gotten more powerful" than they were at first introduction. Thank you for this observation.

 

"as nakedy powerful as it* was at its first introduction."

 

Let me explain what this means.

Artillery used to stand on fields out in the open blasting away at enemies. It was the undoubted queen of the battlefield. You could put it wherever you wanted and the people suffering its presence could only sit there and watch it work. Now, on this very page, we're discussing drones. One of the main benefits of drones is that it can hunt down and destroy artillery. So you're telling me that artillery is as nakedly powerful, i.e. just brazenly dominating the battlefield, now as it was at release, in the very SAME discussion where we're talking about the rise of a literal counter-artillery weapon. 

 

Artillery had a very good run at dominance, make no mistake, but it ended with the airplane which could hunt and destroy; the parity of the battlefield evened out, and continued to as more and more assets arrived and the diversity of material and technology only expanded. The entire point is that no military weapon has the same advantages as it does when it first arrives. People devise ways to either defang it or even remove it entirely. That is a FACT. You're basically arguing that we've a weapon on our hands that will exist in its advantaged position in perpetuity when, quite literally, not a single weapon in all of military history has done this. You're arguing for the suspension of the entire narrative on warfare.

[Fenris]

So, anyway.... RU still on the attack.  Footage of successful local defence west of Avdiivka.

And the same near Vuhledar 

 

UKR  unable to strike RU as they form up

Looks like UKR still have some arty ammo available around Robotyne though

 

And Krynky has fallen!  Apparently.

More on why the above is doing the rounds

 

Edited February 20 by Fenris

[Kinophile]

Pretty certain that I, personally, am arguing nothing of the sort. 

I suspect you're leaning into a point that is a little obvious but also adjacent to the common discussion here. We're all pretty certain that there will be a counter of some sort, or an evening-out as you put it, but it's not apparent yet what that will be. My sense is that it'll be an equally novel system of systems rather than a particular weapons platform, but even that will be fluid and malleable. 

There's a critical difference with Drones to all other prior weapons systems, no? The integration of ever smarter and more autonomous software. Bombs that can think is pretty hard to defeat with a non- thinking system. Plus, the the entry barrier to developing BTCT is getting lower every year, conversely speeding up the development spiral to quite possibly beyond what a slow-moving state actor keep up with. 

[chrisl]

41 minutes ago, FlemFire said:

Please direct me to a single military advancement not named an intercontinental ballistic missile which has perpetually remained as nakedy powerful as it* was at its first introduction.

How about aircraft?  And they've only gotten more powerful if you have money.

Space-based ISR? 

[FlemFire]

2 minutes ago, chrisl said:

How about aircraft?  And they've only gotten more powerful if you have money.

Space-based ISR? 

 

Please see my other response.

 

 

34 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The fallacy that you are pointing out is one we see with cold fusion, self driving cars, etc. I can't count the amount of times in the last 10 years in which someone says "Well, Silicon Valley (or VC money, or the USG, or China...take your pick) is going all in on X so it's certain to be resolved". That's not how it works. Challenges of that scale and complexity don't just evaporate with money and attention...especially in a case like drones where the challenge hasn't even reach the capabilities we can already see coming around the next iterative bend. 

The blithe dismissal of the issue with a blank assertion that big militaries with enormous physical and mental investment and successful track records in old ways of making war reminds of me a certain application of élan vital with a result that's more than likely to be similar.

No thanks. 

 

You act as if this is a step factor from something leaving nonexistence to coming into existence altogether. Comparing it to "cold fusion" reminds me of a certain not paying attention because drones already exist. The tech is already present to be iterated upon.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Pretty certain that I, personally, am arguing nothing of the sort. 

I suspect you're leaning into a point that is a little obvious but also adjacent to the common discussion here. We're all pretty certain that there will be a counter of some sort, or an evening-out as you put it, but it's not apparent yet what that will be. My sense is that it'll be an equally novel system of systems rather than a particular weapons platform, but even that will be fluid and malleable. 

There's a critical difference with Drones to all other prior weapons systems, no? The integration of ever smarter and more autonomous software. Bombs that can think is pretty hard to defeat with a non- thinking system. Plus, the the entry barrier to developing BTCT is getting lower every year, conversely speeding up the development spiral to quite possibly beyond what a slow-moving state actor keep up with. 

 

I just said that when the counter-measures come it will leave those militaries without that higher access further behind the curve. We don't know how fast it will evolve or in what directions, but the counter-measures will come because they always have. Literally. Non-debatable. When they do, just like with pretty much all modern technology, those who do not have the proper access will be ever further behind the curve. If you thought US-Iraq in '91 was bad, picture it with one side flying swarms of drones over those sands. For whatever reason, this notion led to some haywire response from Capt and now people are acting like we're locked into a deathmatch with drones from here on out. This is the sort of, dare I say, "blithe" mode of thinking made by people who thought to a certainty strategic bombers would just end wars outright.

[Kinophile]

12 minutes ago, FlemFire said:

 This is the sort of, dare I say, "blithe" mode of thinking made by people who thought to a certainty strategic bombers would just end wars outright.

Quite the fun contribution. Folks such as yourself often come in hard and fast, guns cocked, hard words loaded for all the softie thinkers in here. 

Always fun to watch the blaze-out. 

"On he flared..." 

 

[FlemFire]

If you wish to continue thinking counter-measures won't come, that's your business. No point in going in circles and cluttering up the thread for others just be weirdly contrarian about how military technology and adaptation works.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, FlemFire said:

 

I do "drivebys" because I travel for work. I don't have constant time available to make repeating, incorrect prognostications about a war such as you do. You've been wrong about plenty, but the certainty that a newfound technology will not be matched by counter-measures is the lowest of assertions. Please direct me to a single military advancement not named an intercontinental ballistic missile which has perpetually remained as nakedy powerful as it* was at its first introduction.

So what exactly have I been wrong about?  Further how have I been so wrong that my professional credentials as to the future trajectory of warfare is in question?  And further more where have you been "right" in contrast whereby you credentials and judgement should outweigh my own.  Shall we hold a community vote?

Name one Revolution in Military Affairs that did not dramatically shift military power balances globally?

Edited February 20 by The_Capt

[billbindc]

50 minutes ago, FlemFire said:

You act as if this is a step factor from something leaving nonexistence to coming into existence altogether. Comparing it to "cold fusion" reminds me of a certain not paying attention because drones already exist. The tech is already present to be iterated upon.

Effective systemic theater countermeasures to FPV drones do not in fact exist yet regardless of what performative bs you spew on this forum. 

(Brace yourselves boys for a quick assertion-fest featuring nets, shotguns and furious handwaving.)

[cesmonkey]

Retired General Wesley Clark weighs in again:

He holds nothing back in criticizing the failures in the American response from before the war to the present.

Edited February 21 by cesmonkey