How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

46 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

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Totally missed that.  Of course every counter has weaknesses.

Well, not quite....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_net#Second_World_War

Quote

Torpedo nets were revived in the Second World War. In January 1940 the UK Admiralty had the ocean liner Arandora Star fitted out with steel booms at Avonmouth and then ordered her to Portsmouth where she spent three months testing nets of various mesh sizes in the English Channel. The net successfully caught all the torpedoes fired at them and reduced the ship's speed by only 1 knot (1.9 km/h), but in March 1940 the nets were removed.[11] In July the unprotected Arandora Star was sunk by a torpedo, killing 805 people.

There's definitely some kind of useful ness there. Hell, trawling a net behind the ship (boomed out about 10m) could easily screw with the stern attacks.

Versus these current USVs, the nets dont even need to be below water more than a foot or two - the contact is made by the prow of the boat, so above waterline mostly but with dips into the wake possible it could hit below. However all videos so far on all ships show the holes centered above the waterline, so it must be rare for the prow to dip low enough.

Copium nets are a-coming...

 

Edited March 6 by Kinophile

[kimbosbread]

2 minutes ago, holoween said:

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.

Maybe in 2024. I don’t think that’s an assumption we can make in 2025 and beyond. There’s a very real possibility spotting drones get distributed too, ie more of them, smaller, cheaper, passively watching vs an active emitter.

[kimbosbread]

15 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Jump up? 

As you ascend from depth, your buoyancy increases. If you add a little populsion and blow your tanks, you can really get quite far out of the water. That’s how you see killer whales and sharks jump 10+ ft out of the water.

15 minutes ago, Carolus said:

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

If it is electric for last km, it doesn’t need a snorkel. If it has last mile autonomy, it doesn’t need an antenna. But sure, a little periscope and antenna if you want FPV. WW2 tactics.

15 minutes ago, Carolus said:

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

Well yeah, that’s basically where this is of course headed.

[Kinophile]

34 minutes ago, Carolus said:

 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.

Absolutely. Ships live and die by their keel state. Its literally their spine so once you stress, bend, fracture or generally **** with their keel then things go very screwy extremely quickly, especially in sea state 5+.

A usv with a 1T warhead that can handle SS5+ and hit the target head on, from underneath, as it mounts over a wave, could take out almost any ship. Not necessarily sink it outright (although definitely possible on smaller ships) but combined with the relentless ongoing wave action it could quickly escalate a nominally contained damage into a nightmare of propagating structural failure, from the keel up.

Glub glub, bottom of the tub.

Edited March 6 by Kinophile

[Kinophile]

47 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

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).

maritime katyushas FTW.

[holoween]

4 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Maybe in 2024. I don’t think that’s an assumption we can make in 2025 and beyond. There’s a very real possibility spotting drones get distributed too, ie more of them, smaller, cheaper, passively watching vs an active emitter.

Sure the exact number may vary but the basic principle will stay the same for quite some time.

The reason is that drones have limited payload so if you invest it into a warhead you simply dont have the capacity to also get great range and great cameras.

Well unless you dont care about size and price. If you make it large enough you can have all you want but thats expensive.

So getting a bunch of drones with long flighttime and great optics to recon and then once targets are found direct the attack drones on them is going to allow for greatest effect.

If the attack drones have to find their own target they would end up with far shorter range because they would have to be able to make a return trip if they dont find anything or be lost entirely.

Also getting cued only from friendly units once in contact would be less effective since the enemy now cant be engaged before getting to engage himself.

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Maybe in 2024. I don’t think that’s an assumption we can make in 2025 and beyond. There’s a very real possibility spotting drones get distributed too, ie more of them, smaller, cheaper, passively watching vs an active emitter.

This is the key point here that I think Holoween is missing and what The_Capt is pointing out.  And that is these big expensive systems that are just coming online now are, at MOST, a semi-effective defense for a very limited range of targets.  That's already not a great way to go about defending assets today, but it is DEFINITELY going to not work going forward. 

Drone swarms are here already (commercially) and will soon be reality on the battlefield.  Traditional defenses, even the ones that cost millions of Dollars each, WILL NOT DO JACK SQUAT against them.  So why invest in something that does not work great now and will not work at all in the very near future?  It is stupid, especially because those systems steal resources away from systems that could provide much better effective counters.

It's been a while since this video has been linked here, but it's worth doing again:

 

Putting aside the physics problem of how much explosives is in each one of these drones and the Hollywood real time identification BS, the basics of this attack have been possible for several years now.

Steve

[JonS]

25 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Well, not quite....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_net#Second_World_War

There's definitely some kind of useful ness there. Hell, trawling a net behind the ship (boomed out about 10m) could easily screw with the stern attacks.

Versus these current USVs, the nets dont even need to be below water more than a foot or two - the contact is made by the prow of the boat, so above waterline mostly but with dips into the wake possible it could hit below. However all videos so far on all ships show the holes centered above the waterline, so it must be rare for the prow to dip low enough.

Copium nets are a-coming...

 

I wonder how much fuel consumption of that ship was affected by the net. A loss of 1 knot might be ok. A loss of 1 knot AND a doubling of fuel consumption (and consequent wear and tear on the mechanicals) maybe not so much. OTOH, I suppose that still better than losing the ship.

[Joe982]

5 hours ago, Kinophile said:

 

 

Loan?

What does that mean? 

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Joe982 said:

Loan?

What does that mean? 

My take on it is this sidesteps the thorny issue of liquidating Russian assets and taxpayers being upset about sending more money to Ukraine.  Personally, I like the idea.

Steve

[Kinophile]

9 minutes ago, JonS said:

I wonder how much fuel consumption of that ship was affected by the net. A loss of 1 knot might be ok. A loss of 1 knot AND a doubling of fuel consumption (and consequent wear and tear on the mechanicals) maybe not so much. OTOH, I suppose that still better than losing the ship.

Depends how long you have it in the water, how deep, etc. These are torpedo nets so at least 6 feet down, but anti-USV (in current iteration) nets needn't be so deep, just trailing a foot or so below. Speed/fuel cost would be minor and a good trade off for a layer of passive defense.

I'm really curious if the UKR Navy is applying any reverse lessons to its Turkish-built Ada class corvettes. One built and a 2nd under construction (possibly 4 total), but f-all use if they are not modified with the lessons from the slow killing of the BSF. 

I do hope the GUR and VMS are talking...

[dan/california]

1 hour 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.

 

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is the key point here that I think Holoween is missing and what The_Capt is pointing out.  And that is these big expensive systems that are just coming online now are, at MOST, a semi-effective defense for a very limited range of targets.  That's already not a great way to go about defending assets today, but it is DEFINITELY going to not work going forward. 

Drone swarms are here already (commercially) and will soon be reality on the battlefield.  Traditional defenses, even the ones that cost millions of Dollars each, WILL NOT DO JACK SQUAT against them.  So why invest in something that does not work great now and will not work at all in the very near future?  It is stupid, especially because those systems steal resources away from systems that could provide much better effective counters.

It's been a while since this video has been linked here, but it's worth doing again:

 

Putting aside the physics problem of how much explosives is in each one of these drones and the Hollywood real time identification BS, the basics of this attack have been possible for several years now.

Steve

I mean it is a Hollywood scene, but it does point out rather nicely that a true semi autonomous drone swarm is the ultimate expression of The_Capt's expression that massed precision beats everything. This is also true on the naval side, the Ukrainians are steadily sinking the Russian Black Sea Fleet with attacks of at most ten of these USVs. The USVs in question are McGyvered together from civilian off the shelf tech,  and 30 year old cold war leftovers. Imagine a cargo ship dispensing a couple of hundred or more of them just over the horizon as your naval task force is trying to transit a choke point like the Red Sea of the Straights of Malacca. Imagine they are better ones that can run almost or comepletely underwater.

[cesmonkey]

Another plea from bipartisan group of U.S. House members in support of Ukraine aid (and border reforms) via a press conference.

They are still trying.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?534060-1/bipartisan-members-news-conference-border-security-legislation

 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, holoween said:

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.

In reality there is a larger ISR architecture picking up targets and handing them off to FPV crews.  Drones are not sent out blindly hunting targets, the do need to fix them and engage, however you are putting too much stock in this “spotting” drone theory.  The UA is putting up hundreds of tac UAS, all with cameras and onboard ISR.  That is a LOT of SHORAD to “push back”.  Further, FPVs are “first person” they already have targeting ISR on board.  If the spotters do get pushed back do you really think they are going to call off the attack.  No, we need a C-UAS system that can push back all UAS, not just select spotters.

1 hour ago, holoween said:

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

Really, do share.  What COIN operation were you in where tanks were of any use?  I challenge IFVs but we needed to be in some armor but they demonstrated 1) they could kill our IFVs and 2) they were not deterred by them.  Use of heavy mech in COIN has been a classic western screw up and I have Afghanistan to prove it.

1 hour ago, holoween said:

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.

You are completely missing the larger lesson here.  It is not about the tactical problem of that single attack.  Sure you have saved the Bn…right up until the next wave…and the one after it…and the one after that.  We will run out of 30 million dollar systems firing million dollar missiles well before they are going to run out of FPVs that cost 10k.  Buying “The Battalion” an extra morning of life is meaningless if we spent all our money on that system because they will still be dead by nightfall.  I think Steve put is best - spending 90% of funding on a 10% solution is a sure fire track to losing.

As to dilemma, I was being extremely generous in my example.  None of these AD systems have proven sub-munitions and I would bet beer money right now that it is single missile to single target.  An opponent flying 100 FPVs is going to target both AD and fighting vehicles.  Further they are going to do it a longer ranges, over the horizon.  

1 hour ago, holoween said:

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.

What?  So our enemies are complete idiots?  They can’t possibly come up with c-UAS systems.  Hey here is a crazy idea…how about an opponent that invests in cheap c-UAS out of other UAS?  So while we are feeling good about our multi-billion dollar SHORAD program they are killing all our FPVs and blasting our SHORADs away too?  Once the Bde reserve of our fancy SHORAD are dead we are naked while they still have a system.  Why?  Because they invested in lower cost technology they could mass produce.

1 hour ago, holoween said:

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.

You are pulling numbers out of your @ss here.  These features will drive per unit cost up but economies of scaling will drive them down.  They already have.  We won’t have economies of scale for that SHORAD system because it costed billions in development and to manufacture a limited manufacturing run and the political level is only going to give us so much money.

1 hour ago, holoween said:

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.

Physics has nothing to say that any of these ideas are impossible in this universe.  Energy density, weight and processing power are the limiting factors and they are all trending towards smaller lighter.   My ideal c-UAS weapon is another UAS - not sure how physics are denying these as we are already seeing them.  As to a small infantry point defence weapon I am pretty sure we can invest billions in that and come up with something better than what is being pitched.  Hell 40 mm airburst rounds might have a better point defence chance.

1 hour ago, holoween said:

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.

There are but bigger, heavier and more expensive is not the way to go.  That video has a single Boxer blasting away at single (white) drones.  On the battlefield in Ukraine there are hundreds.  This is a much bigger issue than a few shotguns and a multi-million dollar SHORAD system.  We are likely going to have review a lot more than “better AD”.  FFS, that War on the Rocks article is citing that 50% of T90 losses have been due to FPVs.  We had another report of an entire Russia tank company stopped cold by 5 FPV crews.

The ISR alone these things are pumping out has been noted as making it impossible to manoeuvre.  So we had better get with the program in the West.  Air spotters, shotguns and MGs are not going to do this.  Our opponents are watching this very carefully and do you not think they are going to be investing very heavily in this space?

You want The_Capt’s prescription for the unmanned problem space:

- Rethink c-unmanned.  It is not a “problem” we need to manage, it is a major shift in how wars are going to be fought.  Best way to find and kill a small unmanned vehicle will very likely be another small unmanned vehicle.  Invest heavily into UAS and UGVs suited to detecting and killing other unmanned systems on the outer envelop of controlled battle space.

- Re-think ISR.  We need to learn how to live on a completely illuminated battlefield.  This means that deception, silencing and blinding need to become major campaign themes and not sprinkled on operations.  They need to become central and drive what is possible on operations.

- Rethink conventional capability and organization.  Lose the weight, lose the heat, lose the tail.  We can bubble wrap our F echelon in multi-million dollar SHORAD but it won’t do squat for the B echelon.  We have long vulnerable logistics tails that are carrying too much weight.  We need to dump the weight and offset with precision and do it quickly.  No sacred freakin cows here either.  We need dispersion and speed.  And we will need a C2 construct that supports this.

- Re-think manoeuvre.  We are very likely facing a major doctrinal shift in western warfare.  This love affair with Manoeuvre Warfare as “the solution” is likely over.  We need to face the realities of attritional warfare and the capacity implications that will have.  This will drive us towards cheaper many because we cannot sustain attrition warfare with what we have right now.  Manoeuvre is not going away but it will need to be earned.  We will need to win attrition in order to manoeuvre.

- Re-think Denial.  This is not a transitory annoyance, it is a projected condition.  It is proving decisive in this war and very likely will in the next.

- Re-think C4.  Data is a resource more important than gas.  We need to see the modern battlefield as a competitive data, information and knowledge environment.  We need to stop going to war to validate what we already know and accept that things are evolving very quickly.  

- Re-think fundamental principles of warfare - Mass, Surprise, Manoeuvre and Offensive are all up for grabs right now.  We need to understand what these mean in a modern context and stop assuming we know what they mean.  Mass alone is changing in definition which is going to break our current doctrinal frameworks.

There that is a start.  My point being that this is an about a lot more than SHORADs and shotguns.  This is about sustaining and gaining military options in the face of a highly accelerating evolution on the battlefield.  Or, you know, we could spend a few billion on another AD system and get back to business as usual.

Edited March 6 by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

59 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Well, not quite....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_net#Second_World_War

There's definitely some kind of useful ness there. Hell, trawling a net behind the ship (boomed out about 10m) could easily screw with the stern attacks.

Versus these current USVs, the nets dont even need to be below water more than a foot or two - the contact is made by the prow of the boat, so above waterline mostly but with dips into the wake possible it could hit below. However all videos so far on all ships show the holes centered above the waterline, so it must be rare for the prow to dip low enough.

Copium nets are a-coming...

 

Are these really practical for warships?  I mean the drag and weight alone seem problematic.  And how resistant would they be to tandem attacks?  

[The_Capt]

On the topic of the day: Unmanned.  Do we have a follow up on this?

"One more thing. A strategic issue. I have just signed a decree initiating the establishment of a separate branch of our Defense Forces – the Unmanned Systems Forces. This is not a matter of the future, but something that should yield a very concrete result shortly. This year should be pivotal in many ways. And, obviously, on the battlefield as well. Drones – unmanned systems – have proven their effectiveness in battles on land, in the sky and at sea. Ukraine has truly changed the security situation in the Black Sea with the help of drones. Repelling ground assaults is primarily the task of drones. The large-scale destruction of the occupiers and their equipment is also the domain of drones. The current list of tasks is clear: special staff positions for drone operations, special units, effective training, systematization of experience, constant scaling of production, and the involvement of the best ideas and top specialists in this field. This is a task for the army, the Ministry of Defense, and the government as a whole. And to ensure the necessary coordination in the Defense Forces, to ensure the proper level of planning and quality of logistics, the Unmanned Systems Forces will be established within the AFU. The relevant proposals will be submitted for consideration by the NSDC."

https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/pidpisav-ukaz-yakij-rozpochinaye-stvorennya-okremogo-rodu-si-88817#:~:text=Ukraine has truly changed the,also the domain of drones.

[FancyCat]

How much is NATO providing in terms of targeting and other support for these USVs? NATO AWACS have been a constant feature in the Black Sea, and while certainly we won't know the extent of their cooperation with UKR forces until post-war, i feel like ignoring their contribution of ISR undermines the nature and deployment of these drones, sure, they are "cheap" but backed by NATO satellites, NATO aircraft in the sky watching the Black Sea and none of that is cheap. 

[Kinophile]

Interesting if true. Would explain why SOF are in Africa. I never bought the Wagner storyline.

 

[Fenris]

Quote

Footage of a desperate attempt of the crew of "Sergey Kotov" patrol boat to avoid demilitarisation by Ukrainian unmanned surface drones in the Black Sea. The ship sank as a result of the strikes.

This clip is from a civilian ship that was nearby.  They spot one of the drones trailing the patrol boat before the clip ends.

Another clip, this time it shows what I'm guessing is the first impact

Apologies if this has been posted up thread.

Seeing the tail chase etc makes me wonder whether the ye olde smoke dischargers would help.  If the crew has been alerted, at least to make more difficult for the drone pilot to see what/where he's hitting, or don't modern boats have smoke anymore?  Have wondered the same with AFV's, the T series can dump smoke can't it?  Dump smoke and hide inside, at least make it more difficult for an FPV to hit the rear turret.

 

 

Edited March 6 by Fenris

[FancyCat]

Not gonna lie, thats not really fast moving is it? i mean, some searchlights, more sailors, more crew mounted light guns, some patrol boats around, would that attack have failed? 

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Not gonna lie, thats not really fast moving is it? i mean, some searchlights, more sailors, more crew mounted light guns, some patrol boats around, would that attack have failed? 

Yes probably, but everyone of those things represents time, attention, and resources that would have to been diverted from the suicide charges at Avdiivka, and the Czar was demanding Avdiivka NOW. So maybe now the Black Sea Fleet will get some competent help, but the drones are going to keep getting better, too.

[sburke]

12 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Yes probably, but everyone of those things represents time, attention, and resources that would have to been diverted from the suicide charges at Avdiivka, and the Czar was demanding Avdiivka NOW. So maybe now the Black Sea Fleet will get some competent help, but the drones are going to keep getting better, too.

meh  The Czar has probably given up on the fleet.  Dock them all and send their crews to the front!  

[Kinophile]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

In reality there is a larger ISR architecture picking up targets and handing them off to FPV crews.  Drones are not sent out blindly hunting targets, the do need to fix them and engage, however you are putting too much stock in this “spotting” drone theory.  The UA is putting up hundreds of tac UAS, all with cameras and onboard ISR.  That is a LOT of SHORAD to “push back”.  Further, FPVs are “first person” they already have targeting ISR on board.  If the spotters do get pushed back do you really think they are going to call off the attack.  No, we need a C-UAS system that can push back all UAS, not just select spotters.

Really, do share.  What COIN operation were you in where tanks were of any use?  I challenge IFVs but we needed to be in some armor but they demonstrated 1) they could kill our IFVs and 2) they were not deterred by them.  Use of heavy mech in COIN has been a classic western screw up and I have Afghanistan to prove it.

You are completely missing the larger lesson here.  It is not about the tactical problem of that single attack.  Sure you have saved the Bn…right up until the next wave…and the one after it…and the one after that.  We will run out of 30 million dollar systems firing million dollar missiles well before they are going to run out of FPVs that cost 10k.  Buying “The Battalion” an extra morning of life is meaningless if we spent all our money on that system because they will still be dead by nightfall.  I think Steve put is best - spending 90% of funding on a 10% solution is a sure fire track to losing.

As to dilemma, I was being extremely generous in my example.  None of these AD systems have proven sub-munitions and I would bet beer money right now that it is single missile to single target.  An opponent flying 100 FPVs is going to target both AD and fighting vehicles.  Further they are going to do it a longer ranges, over the horizon.  

What?  So our enemies are complete idiots?  They can’t possibly come up with c-UAS systems.  Hey here is a crazy idea…how about an opponent that invests in cheap c-UAS out of other UAS?  So while we are feeling good about our multi-billion dollar SHORAD program they are killing all our FPVs and blasting our SHORADs away too?  Once the Bde reserve of our fancy SHORAD are dead we are naked while they still have a system.  Why?  Because they invested in lower cost technology they could mass produce.

You are pulling numbers out of your @ss here.  These features will drive per unit cost up but economies of scaling will drive them down.  They already have.  We won’t have economies of scale for that SHORAD system because it costed billions in development and to manufacture a limited manufacturing run and the political level is only going to give us so much money.

Physics has nothing to say that any of these ideas are impossible in this universe.  Energy density, weight and processing power are the limiting factors and they are all trending towards smaller lighter.   My ideal c-UAS weapon is another UAS - not sure how physics are denying these as we are already seeing them.  As to a small infantry point defence weapon I am pretty sure we can invest billions in that and come up with something better than what is being pitched.  Hell 40 mm airburst rounds might have a better point defence chance.

There are but bigger, heavier and more expensive is not the way to go.  That video has a single Boxer blasting away at single (white) drones.  On the battlefield in Ukraine there are hundreds.  This is a much bigger issue than a few shotguns and a multi-million dollar SHORAD system.  We are likely going to have review a lot more than “better AD”.  FFS, that War on the Rocks article is citing that 50% of T90 losses have been due to FPVs.  We had another report of an entire Russia tank company stopped cold by 5 FPV crews.

The ISR alone these things are pumping out has been noted as making it impossible to manoeuvre.  So we had better get with the program in the West.  Air spotters, shotguns and MGs are not going to do this.  Our opponents are watching this very carefully and do you not think they are going to be investing very heavily in this space?

You want The_Capt’s prescription for the unmanned problem space:

- Rethink c-unmanned.  It is not a “problem” we need to manage, it is a major shift in how wars are going to be fought.  Best way to find and kill a small unmanned vehicle will very likely be another small unmanned vehicle.  Invest heavily into UAS and UGVs suited to detecting and killing other unmanned systems on the outer envelop of controlled battle space.

- Re-think ISR.  We need to learn how to live on a completely illuminated battlefield.  This means that deception, silencing and blinding need to become major campaign themes and not sprinkled on operations.  They need to become central and drive what is possible on operations.

- Rethink conventional capability and organization.  Lose the weight, lose the heat, lose the tail.  We can bubble wrap our F echelon in multi-million dollar SHORAD but it won’t do squat for the B echelon.  We have long vulnerable logistics tails that are carrying too much weight.  We need to dump the weight and offset with precision and do it quickly.  No sacred freakin cows here either.  We need dispersion and speed.  And we will need a C2 construct that supports this.

- Re-think manoeuvre.  We are very likely facing a major doctrinal shift in western warfare.  This love affair with Manoeuvre Warfare as “the solution” is likely over.  We need to face the realities of attritional warfare and the capacity implications that will have.  This will drive us towards cheaper many because we cannot sustain attrition warfare with what we have right now.  Manoeuvre is not going away but it will need to be earned.  We will need to win attrition in order to manoeuvre.

- Re-think Denial.  This is not a transitory annoyance, it is a projected condition.  It is proving decisive in this war and very likely will in the next.

- Re-think C4.  Data is a resource more important than gas.  We need to see the modern battlefield as a competitive data, information and knowledge environment.  We need to stop going to war to validate what we already know and accept that things are evolving very quickly.  

- Re-think fundamental principles of warfare - Mass, Surprise, Manoeuvre and Offensive are all up for grabs right now.  We need to understand what these mean in a modern context and stop assuming we know what they mean.  Mass alone is changing in definition which is going to break our current doctrinal frameworks.

There that is a start.  My point being that this is an about a lot more than SHORADs and shotguns.  This is about sustaining and gaining military options in the face of a highly accelerating evolution on the battlefield.  Or, you know, we could spend a few billion on another AD system and get back to business as usual.

Well said. We're not going to beat fast, light and cheap with slow, heavy and expensive. Examples abound in history - battleships v airplanes being the closest example. 

[Kinophile]

26 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Not gonna lie, thats not really fast moving is it? i mean, some searchlights, more sailors, more crew mounted light guns, some patrol boats around, would that attack have failed? 

I was thinking the exact same. Turning speed is.. Ok... Straight run speed... Is ok. 

Bring on the kamikaze hydrofoils, I say. 

These things could easily be hit by a ATGM, hell salvo-ing RPG7s would be useful. 

I was noticing the LMG rounds seemed to ricochet off a lot. I'm sure some penetrated but the sloping form and hull thickness seems quite adequate. 

What really did the trick here, I suspect, was a combination of the number of maneuvering USVs with the poor training /readiness of the ship and CIWS. 

[Kinophile]

10 minutes ago, sburke said:

meh  The Czar has probably given up on the fleet.  Dock them all and send their crews to the front!  

You laugh now... But...