How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Kinda modern version of grape shot.  I like where the idea is going but claymores are pretty short range (around 100ms).  The balls tend to give up energy pretty quickly.  The bigger the explosives, the bigger the ball bearing, which actually makes range issues worse.  And airburst frag mortar or somesuch would also be an idea.

I am a big fan of incendiaries at sea - it hits naval pers deeply in their psyche and has for centuries. 

The fact that those surface drones can get within small arms range is already a sign of a local defence failure on the part of the Russian ship.

In theory workable, but the wake beside a ship would make it fairly difficult. Better to specialize the platforms- assault v support. Better is an organic FPV drone. Best by far is a USV drone carrier with 10+ FPVs running stand-off assaults on the defending crew and search lights. Blind the crew, you sink the ship.

Also, I suspect there's a mothership/relay drone in play for these current attacks.

[Anthony P.]

4 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

If I were russian I would invest in fast, small patrol tank/boats with shilka quad 23mm turrets that would hunt in front of the big ships. Highly agile that would be impossible to hit with naval drones. 

For equipment, maybe radar, maybe night vision, definetly a big spotlight.

You saying that makes this whole thing feel very reminiscent of the early torpedo boats: small brand new boats threaten the existing warships with the notion of swarm attacks by many small, cheap vessels carrying serious ordnance.

Torpedo boat/kamikaze craft destroyers become a whole new, significant all around ship in any serious navy's arsenal.

[Anthony P.]

4 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

In theory workable, but the wake beside a ship would make it fairly difficult. Better to specialize the platforms- assault v support. Better is an organic FPV drone. Best by far is a USV drone carrier with 10+ FPVs running stand-off assaults on the defending crew and search lights. Blind the crew, you sink the ship.

To be fair, I did mention some kind of tilt sensor to avoid that issue. The drone operator hits the big red button, but it doesn't trigger the explosive but rather the drone's tilt sensor which sets it off when fairly level.

Very likely the entire notion is just overkill, or too specific for the poor state of the Russian navy. I can only imagine that navies with actual budgets which don't see ships built or even just overhauled after the end of the Cold War as extravagant luxuries will ensure that drone point defence features things like FLIR, .50 cal and 20/30mm autocannons on stabilised mounts in actual gun positions rather than exposed walkways, and the like.

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

To be fair, I did mention some kind of tilt sensor to avoid that issue. The drone operator hits the big red button, but it doesn't trigger the explosive but rather the drone's tilt sensor which sets it off when fairly level.

Very likely the entire notion is just overkill, or too specific for the poor state of the Russian navy. I can only imagine that navies with actual budgets which don't see ships built or even just overhauled after the end of the Cold War as extravagant luxuries will ensure that drone point defence features things like FLIR, .50 cal and 20/30mm autocannons on stabilised mounts in actual gun positions rather than exposed walkways, and the like.

This brings up what we are not seeing.  Smoke.  Treated it can obscure thermals.

[Anthony P.]

That's a good one! I did play around with the idea of accompanying drones with "just bright as all hell" fireworks to ruin "Yuri with an RPK's" natural night vision in cases like these but felt that again, probably too niche for the Russian navy.

Airbursting smoke grenade launchers though could be useful against navies which have slightly more technologically advanced defences than "Yuri".

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

So much of war is about projecting dilemma. So load up surface unmanned with air self loitering munitions. Make it a surface/air attack.

And throw in a torpedo or two, even light ones. A ship  manoeuvering violently at full speed to avoid a surface drone will not hear anything on its sonar, active or passive. A stealthy carrier drone able to release a torpedo within several kms off the target would be a perfect crime.

[The_Capt]

35 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

And throw in a torpedo or two, even light ones. A ship  manoeuvering violently at full speed to avoid a surface drone will not hear anything on its sonar, active or passive. A stealthy carrier drone able to release a torpedo within several kms off the target would be a perfect crime.

You know someone is going to invent some small little underwater beasty that can plant a limpet mine, hell it will be the limpet mine...sheesh, glad I never went into the Navy.

[sross112]

How about throwing something like Javelins on a Sea Baby? Stand off range up to 4 km. Fire and forget so no need for a bunch of fancy  gun stabilizers. Way lighter than the MG and accompanying ammo. A couple platforms launching 4 to 6 from a couple klicks out hitting the bridge and weapons points before the suicide boats roar in for the kill.

Then maybe a small torpedo version. Smaller torpedo design for a range of a couple km. Like a mini unmanned PT boat without the need to approach into the small arms range and can be used again if it survives. 

Another thought watching these with our conversation on water obstacles is using these unmanned water platforms for logistic support and even casevac supporting bridgeheads. They would present fast small targets, have really good range and decent payload capacity. Could solve for supporting light forces with bunches of these whereas the heavy forces always need the bigger boats or bridges.

[Battlefront.com]

22 minutes ago, sross112 said:

How about throwing something like Javelins on a Sea Baby? Stand off range up to 4 km. Fire and forget so no need for a bunch of fancy  gun stabilizers. Way lighter than the MG and accompanying ammo. A couple platforms launching 4 to 6 from a couple klicks out hitting the bridge and weapons points before the suicide boats roar in for the kill.

Then maybe a small torpedo version. Smaller torpedo design for a range of a couple km. Like a mini unmanned PT boat without the need to approach into the small arms range and can be used again if it survives. 

Another thought watching these with our conversation on water obstacles is using these unmanned water platforms for logistic support and even casevac supporting bridgeheads. They would present fast small targets, have really good range and decent payload capacity. Could solve for supporting light forces with bunches of these whereas the heavy forces always need the bigger boats or bridges.

This would work great for calm sea conditions.  The Javelin's CLU can already interface with a remote platform, so it's really not that difficult to conceive of how this could work.  The problem is you need the platform to be relatively motionless to get a good lock and due to its firing signature also a fairly steady platform when the missile is launched.

One thing that might nix the idea is the Jav's soft launch physics.  I'm not sure how much boost the missile can get over water.  There's a big difference in jetting against solid land and jetting against water.  The missile's guidance system is made with certain assumptions and going outside the boundaries could mean a significant failure rate.  As much as 100%.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Omnomnomnom the war eats it's children...

 

But wait... Russia has unlimited ability to keep fighting this war, right?  I mean, this must be 1 of 10 such yards and the others aren't even touched yet, right?  I'm sure I read something like that.

The second to last picture with just a few guns sitting out there... gotta wonder how bad they were to have been passed on until the very end.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

It appears that you have not kept up on this war.  We are not seeing a "few recon drones spotting" -  which will still be a serious problem with this sort of SHORAD system because LOS (with camera magnification) is much father than these systems can likely reach.  We are starting to see drones being employed en masse on the sorts of scales that these systems cannot deal with. They are not solely being used for recon, but now strike.  Production is reaching massive scales (e.g. reports of 100k per month).

This is not "perfect so we shouldn't bother", it is "expensive and not useful for the environment."  We have gone down this path before and wind up getting into trouble every time - let's send tanks to a COIN fight...anyone?  Massed UAS are not a SHORAD problem, or at least one it can solve.  But that wont stop big business from trying to convince us otherwise.

Here is a scenario - 100 FPVs being driven by 10 crews with repeaters.  These are not even fully autonomous, which we know is coming.  They are EW hardened but we can even accept 50% attrition, so now 50 FPVs are coming in and attacking a position.  These large SHORAD systems now need to track and engage small fast moving UAS capable of treetop and below.  Assuming you have submunitions (which there is no evidence of), and each missile can engage 5 drones effectively - hell give them 100 percent; based on the photos, 5 Coyote systems needed to counter this one attack.  Ok, doesn't sound too bad.  Except for the fact that these FPVs are not working alone.  They are linked into supporting fires.  So as soon as those Coyotes start firing they are going to get lit up and engaged by PGM indirect fires.  But these are trained crews and are scooting, so maybe you only lose half of them, lets say 2 out of 5.

So how many Coyotes do we have in a Bde?  Because the enemy has another 150 FPVs...for todays attack alone.  You basically need to stick one or two in every platoon...fantastic, exactly what Raytheon wants.  And here is the thing...it will not work.  First problem will be clutter.  The enemy will fill the sky with all sorts of junk to toss off detection.  Fire control and coordination will be a nightmare.  And now on a battlefield where everyone is whispering for fear of getting picked up by sound detection, we are going to have dozens of these missiles firing off all over the place.  So we have solved the recon UAS problem by making ourselves visible from freakin space.  And finally sustainment; the enemy is losing ammunition, we are losing platforms.  We cannot keep that up over any period of time.  Like other high end western equipment, we will run out and politicians will never sign off on massive "what if" production capacity.

But let's put this all aside or the moment, this approach will not only be challenged by current reality, it will not solve for what is coming next. UAS are going to get cheaper and more distributed.  They will combine with UGVs so you can lay them like mines and suddenly have them pop up a few meters away.  Drone swarms will be in the hundreds with EFP and launchable sub-munitions of their own.  So while we are investing billions in SHORAD as a solution, we are going to find out it was a half-measure, at best. 

We are so addicted to big, few and expensive platforms, that our solution to their possible extinction on the battlefield is, more big expensive platforms.

So what is the solution?  Cheap and many.  I want a C-UAS weapon that fits under the barrel of a rifle like a GL but has a 1-2 km range and high Pk - so better than a shotgun.  I want UAS, that hunt and kill other UAS.  I want direct fire support on lighter unmanned platforms that do not drink a swimming pools worth of gas per km, and are big and hot. I want infantry that can carry more, move faster and go for days without resupply.   What I do not want are more big, loud expensive platforms to protect my already big, loud and expensive platforms.

Well said.  This reminds me of when I was young and had some significant debt.  My mom suggested I not go to the movies so as to free up some money.  Sure, the $10 spent on the movies could certainly pay down my debt, but was that really going to help solve my problem?  Nope.

These sorts of expensive, very limited utility solutions are not good because they come at an opportunity cost for things that could make a much better impact on the problem.  "Well, it does some good so why not?" isn't a bad question, but the answer "because a 10% solution takes the funding away from a 90% solution" should put that question to rest.

I have been extremely critical of these expensive counter systems for years now.  They don't achieve much and they cost vastly more than solutions that likely would do a much better job.

Back in the day when a group might manage to spend years getting the resources together to maybe launch one attack with a half dozen drones is long behind us.  Any one of us is just one Amazon delivery away from having that capability.

Steve

[Thomm]

28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There's a big difference in jetting against solid land and jetting against water.

Where does this come from, if I may ask?

The Javelin uses a small launch rocket motor for its soft-launch start.

That should work in a vacuum, also, shouldn't it? Or without any obstacle behind it.

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, Kinophile said:

How long before... 

We see HMGs mounted on seababies, raking those CIWS during attacks? 

 

 

1 hour ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

And throw in a torpedo or two, even light ones. A ship  manoeuvering violently at full speed to avoid a surface drone will not hear anything on its sonar, active or passive. A stealthy carrier drone able to release a torpedo within several kms off the target would be a perfect crime.

 

58 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

You know someone is going to invent some small little underwater beasty that can plant a limpet mine, hell it will be the limpet mine...sheesh, glad I never went into the Navy.

 

57 minutes ago, sross112 said:

How about throwing something like Javelins on a Sea Baby? Stand off range up to 4 km. Fire and forget so no need for a bunch of fancy  gun stabilizers. Way lighter than the MG and accompanying ammo. A couple platforms launching 4 to 6 from a couple klicks out hitting the bridge and weapons points before the suicide boats roar in for the kill.

Then maybe a small torpedo version. Smaller torpedo design for a range of a couple km. Like a mini unmanned PT boat without the need to approach into the small arms range and can be used again if it survives. 

Another thought watching these with our conversation on water obstacles is using these unmanned water platforms for logistic support and even casevac supporting bridgeheads. They would present fast small targets, have really good range and decent payload capacity. Could solve for supporting light forces with bunches of these whereas the heavy forces always need the bigger boats or bridges.

Everything discussed would be some level of improvement in sea drone capability, but it is a combination of drones launching torpedoes, and drone becoming torpedoes that will cause the real nightmares. I propose two types of sea drone, The first carries torpedos that home on the ships propellers and at least make it slow down, if not stop. The second type of drone, carrying much larger explosive charges then submerges and make the final few kilometers under water and sets off several hundred kg under the keel. With the ship already slowed they don't have to be crazy fast.

[The_Capt]

41 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This would work great for calm sea conditions.  The Javelin's CLU can already interface with a remote platform, so it's really not that difficult to conceive of how this could work.  The problem is you need the platform to be relatively motionless to get a good lock and due to its firing signature also a fairly steady platform when the missile is launched.

One thing that might nix the idea is the Jav's soft launch physics.  I'm not sure how much boost the missile can get over water.  There's a big difference in jetting against solid land and jetting against water.  The missile's guidance system is made with certain assumptions and going outside the boundaries could mean a significant failure rate.  As much as 100%.

Steve

Another option would be to go NLOS, like the Spike.  That system can be fired blind and acquire the target in flight.  One already has a rebroadcast platform on the unmanned boat.  These systems also tend to have longer ranges.

[Carolus]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Back in the day when a group might manage to spend years getting the resources together to maybe launch one attack with a half dozen drones is long behind us.  Any one of us is just one Amazon delivery away from having that capability.

Steve

2031: Jef Bezos declares himself absolute sovereign of the territory conquered by his private army while a drone swarm forming his gigantic floating head in the sky announces his laws and wishes to a confused population.

 

Did I spoil the next CM title? CM:Amazon Rising?

[hcrof]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Another option would be to go NLOS, like the Spike.  That system can be fired blind and acquire the target in flight.  One already has a rebroadcast platform on the unmanned boat.  These systems also tend to have longer ranges.

Or a salvo of cheap(?) vampire missiles with a drone mounted laser guiding them onto all the squishy bits like radars and aiming systems for ciws. If the ship pops smoke to protect from that then it has just blinded itself to the real threat of the kamikaze boats. 

Edited March 6 by hcrof

[hcrof]

and a video from the Sergei Kotov attack. Looks like the ship spotted them at least a few hundred meters out but they may have approached from behind a civilian ship. The Sergei Kotov is retreating from the drones while shooting (with a deck gun?) but the drones are faster. I wonder how stabilised the deck gun is?

Edit: rewatched with sound and that doesn't sound like a deck gun - maybe another RPK over the rail which explains why they can't hit anything!

Edited March 6 by hcrof

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, hcrof said:

and a video from the Sergei Kotov attack. Looks like the ship spotted them at least a few hundred meters out but they may have approached from behind a civilian ship. The Sergei Kotov is retreating from the drones while shooting (with a deck gun?) but the drones are faster. I wonder how stabilised the deck gun is?

Edit: rewatched with sound and that doesn't sound like a deck gun - maybe another RPK over the rail which explains why they can't hit anything!

Cripes that is deep in the backfield.  No need to lob missiles at the bridge, hit the piers with these things.

[Battlefront.com]

35 minutes ago, Thomm said:

Where does this come from, if I may ask?

The Javelin uses a small launch rocket motor for its soft-launch start.

That should work in a vacuum, also, shouldn't it? Or without any obstacle behind it.

This was just me wondering how much of a difference the launch surface makes in terms of the guidance software's parameters.  The soft launch isn't an issue as that's no different over water or over ground.

There might be no difference in performance over water vs. over land, I'm just pointing out that there could be.  Highly engineered products don't tend to respond well when significant parameters are changed.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Cripes that is deep in the backfield.  No need to lob missiles at the bridge, hit the piers with these things.

They already did that   Russia's counter measures (nets, most likely) seem to have negated the ability to repeat that sort of attack.  Ships at sea can't be netted, so once again we find a drone counter that's effective in some circumstances and not at all in others.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

Re claymores/grape, think bigly please. Just stick some autonomous quads on the boat (a few extra kg), and launch them when you are with 1km of target and have them hit the bridge or crew served weapons or people shaped heat sources on deck (or lifeboats).

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

They already did that   Russia's counter measures (nets, most likely) seem to have negated the ability to repeat that sort of attack.  Ships at sea can't be netted, so once again we find a drone counter that's effective in some circumstances and not at all in others.

Steve

Totally missed that.  Of course every counter has weaknesses.

[kimbosbread]

27 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Or a salvo of cheap(?) vampire missiles with a drone mounted laser guiding them onto all the squishy bits like radars and aiming systems for ciws. If the ship pops smoke to protect from that then it has just blinded itself to the real threat of the kamikaze boats. 

That’s expensive. Easier to have the drone be semi-submersible, with an electric motor for last km propulsion. And then have a few drones attack on the surface, while the underwater ones either attack from other side, or wait in the path of where the ship is expected to move, kind of like a dynamic mine.

If the drone was submersible, you could do a very neat trick and go full Shamu and have it jump out of the water. Imagine having a Sea Baby jump on top of your VLS as it pops up from 50m down.

[holoween]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

It appears that you have not kept up on this war.  We are not seeing a "few recon drones spotting" -  which will still be a serious problem with this sort of SHORAD system because LOS (with camera magnification) is much father than these systems can likely reach.  We are starting to see drones being employed en masse on the sorts of scales that these systems cannot deal with. They are not solely being used for recon, but now strike.  Production is reaching massive scales (e.g. reports of 100k per month).

The typical drone attacks tend to be:

At least 1 (usually more like 3+-1) spotting drone to find targets in the first place and to allow coordinating

When a target has been found the fpv drones get send out to attack usually limited by operators. Depending on target and availability arty and drone bombers are also used.

Where SHORAD helps significantly here is in pushing back those spotting drones or shooting them down.

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

This is not "perfect so we shouldn't bother", it is "expensive and not useful for the environment."  We have gone down this path before and wind up getting into trouble every time - let's send tanks to a COIN fight...anyone?  Massed UAS are not a SHORAD problem, or at least one it can solve.  But that wont stop big business from trying to convince us otherwise.

The tanks in COIN is funny to me because ive seen them or more exactly IFVs be highly useful and well worth their money.

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Here is a scenario - 100 FPVs being driven by 10 crews with repeaters.  These are not even fully autonomous, which we know is coming.  They are EW hardened but we can even accept 50% attrition, so now 50 FPVs are coming in and attacking a position.  These large SHORAD systems now need to track and engage small fast moving UAS capable of treetop and below.  Assuming you have submunitions (which there is no evidence of), and each missile can engage 5 drones effectively - hell give them 100 percent; based on the photos, 5 Coyote systems needed to counter this one attack.  Ok, doesn't sound too bad.  Except for the fact that these FPVs are not working alone.  They are linked into supporting fires.  So as soon as those Coyotes start firing they are going to get lit up and engaged by PGM indirect fires.  But these are trained crews and are scooting, so maybe you only lose half of them, lets say 2 out of 5.

So as per this scenario the SHORAD would be able to deal with an attack that otherwise has the potential to take out an entire battalion. So even taking your scenario at face value that seems like great value.

This also Throws up a dilema. If youre defending against an attack do you attempt to attrit the air defense first which means the attack might go through mostly unharmed by your supporting fires or do you focus on the attack itself which leaves the air defense free to do its job.

 

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So how many Coyotes do we have in a Bde?  Because the enemy has another 150 FPVs...for todays attack alone.  You basically need to stick one or two in every platoon...fantastic, exactly what Raytheon wants.  And here is the thing...it will not work.  First problem will be clutter.  The enemy will fill the sky with all sorts of junk to toss off detection.  Fire control and coordination will be a nightmare.  And now on a battlefield where everyone is whispering for fear of getting picked up by sound detection, we are going to have dozens of these missiles firing off all over the place.  So we have solved the recon UAS problem by making ourselves visible from freakin space.  And finally sustainment; the enemy is losing ammunition, we are losing platforms.  We cannot keep that up over any period of time.  Like other high end western equipment, we will run out and politicians will never sign off on massive "what if" production capacity.

So we bring FPV drones and SHORAD and our enemy brings just FPV drones. As per your example we lose a few vehicles while they lose a battalion. This seems like a reasonably sustainable attrition rate.

And as per your scenario you dont need 2 per platoon but more like a platoon per battalion so 15 vehicles per brigade.

This entire calculus also get a whole lot better once you actually enable your normal vehicles to engage drones aswell which isnt that much of a problem either.

It gets even better when you include your own drone operators hunting down enemy drone operators and fire support.

 

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

But let's put this all aside or the moment, this approach will not only be challenged by current reality, it will not solve for what is coming next. UAS are going to get cheaper and more distributed.  They will combine with UGVs so you can lay them like mines and suddenly have them pop up a few meters away.  Drone swarms will be in the hundreds with EFP and launchable sub-munitions of their own.  So while we are investing billions in SHORAD as a solution, we are going to find out it was a half-measure, at best. 

We are so addicted to big, few and expensive platforms, that our solution to their possible extinction on the battlefield is, more big expensive platforms.

UAS at the current capability will become cheaper. Those for military use will become more expensive.
Want them hardened against EW? Thats another hundred bucks for each.

Want them with more than a few km range and still good payload? You just doubled the price.

And all that is only necessary because you introduce countermeasures.

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So what is the solution?  Cheap and many.  I want a C-UAS weapon that fits under the barrel of a rifle like a GL but has a 1-2 km range and high Pk - so better than a shotgun.  I want UAS, that hunt and kill other UAS.  I want direct fire support on lighter unmanned platforms that do not drink a swimming pools worth of gas per km, and are big and hot. I want infantry that can carry more, move faster and go for days without resupply.   What I do not want are more big, loud expensive platforms to protect my already big, loud and expensive platforms.

Your ideal counter uas weapon simply doesnt work with physics.

For ballistic weapons youre looking for a 30mm gun with a good fire control system so a few tons at least.

For directed energy weapons you need the emitter itself and a power supply to sustain it aswell and thats another few tons.

For infantry to carry more, move faster and go longer without resupply you need an external powersource. The most effective way to provide what you want is to give the infantry a vehicle. And if youre thinking exoskeletons then you might aswell forget about cheap in the first place.

 

And while im not trying to understate the effectiveness of drones and i absolutely see them as a vital part of combat there are ways to mitigate their effect.

Starting from low level simply having someone as a dedicated air observer to spot drones and getting them a shotgun or mg on an aa tripod gives a slight chance to deal with them.

Provide each vehicle with a weapon capable of shooting down drones. Already starting btw

Get some dedicated SHORAD vehicles for more effective fire and to protect vital points

 

[Carolus]

8 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

If the drone was submersible, you could do a very neat trick and go full Shamu and have it jump out of the water. Imagine having a Sea Baby jump on top of your VLS as it pops up from 50m down.

Jump up? 

I assume the problem with submersible drones is signal range under water. It would need a snorkle with an antenna. 

But I am also sure I remember reading that one thing ships really don't like is an explosion underneath the keel.

If you can go below water with 100kg of explosives, don't jump. Just hit it from below.

Unless you rocket jump over the safety net of a bridge, of course.