How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Can we please lay off beating on our brother Erwin at this point? I think people made their points on the merits, let's turn down the ad homs.
...For those who forgot life before Feb 2022, he's put a *gigantic* amount of effort into this community.

I remember life before Feb 2022 and part of that memory extends to Erwin's behavior on this Forum.  At least he's consistent.  But yeah, time to move on.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

49 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

As much as I would love this all to be true, due to the Western innovators' need to raise funds, the Chinese are now able to beat (and undercut) any newly commercialised Western product into mass production by stealing all the required IC under a guise of investor due diligence.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/owners-china-based-company-charged-conspiracy-send-trade-secrets-belonging-leading-us-based

And this is not the TU-144 'Concordski' or Yak-36 'Forget'er' we are talking about any longer. The 'knockoff' products of companies like Xiaomi (which I can get out here in Asia, as well as in Europe) are increasingly comparable to their Western originals in reliable functionality, if not always in service life.

Again, as much as I'd like for that not to be true, we must be realistic about this.....

Yup.  Though I still agree with Holien's primary point, which is that China isn't getting as much out of this war as the West is.  China already knows very well what Western tech and techniques can do as it's been on full display for 20 years of warfare.  Sure, we didn't really see what massed use of things like Javelin would do to a mechanized force, but man... it really doesn't take a savant to figure that one out.

On the other hand, I think both China and the West have taken the same lesson from this war.  And that is whatever each thinks it can do probably won't work.  Or at least won't work as well.

China has the bigger problem because all this mess is showing that defense is waaaaaay easier than offense.  Since China isn't prepping for a defensive war, but an offensive one, that's got to be causing some heartburn amongst senior Chinese military planners.  My guess is they previously thought they had a plan to defeat Taiwan faster than it could be reinforced, now they are wondering if they can take Taiwan out at all.  Not to mention fast.

Steve

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup.  Though I still agree with Holien's primary point, which is that China isn't getting as much out of this war as the West is.  China already knows very well what Western tech and techniques can do as it's been on full display for 20 years of warfare.  Sure, we didn't really see what massed use of things like Javelin would do to a mechanized force, but man... it really doesn't take a savant to figure that one out.

On the other hand, I think both China and the West have taken the same lesson from this war.  And that is whatever each thinks it can do probably won't work.  Or at least won't work as well.

China has the bigger problem because all this mess is showing that defense is waaaaaay easier than offense.  Since China isn't prepping for a defensive war, but an offensive one, that's got to be causing some heartburn amongst senior Chinese military planners.  My guess is they previously thought they had a plan to defeat Taiwan faster than it could be reinforced, now they are wondering if they can take Taiwan out at all.  Not to mention fast.

Steve

An offensive war where there won't be relatively easily repaired railroads, or dirt roads through vaguely screened areas.  But instead everything has to move over air or sea, where it's *really* easy to get a high signal-to-noise ratio for targeting, unless the owner of the target has spent F-35 money on being invisible. 

[Battlefront.com]

20 minutes ago, chrisl said:

An offensive war where there won't be relatively easily repaired railroads, or dirt roads through vaguely screened areas.  But instead everything has to move over air or sea, where it's *really* easy to get a high signal-to-noise ratio for targeting, unless the owner of the target has spent F-35 money on being invisible. 

Yes, the biggest thing that China has to fear is Taiwan learning from Ukraine how to sink a naval force without a navy or air force.  I'm imagining the Russian navy charging at Taiwan like a Russian meat assault on Avdiivka with about the same result.

Steve

[Carolus]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, the biggest thing that China has to fear is Taiwan learning from Ukraine how to sink a naval force without a navy or air force.  I'm imagining the Russian navy charging at Taiwan like a Russian meat assault on Avdiivka with about the same result.

Steve

And considering the Chinese Navy training quality, they will be as bad in repsonse to these unusual small threats as the BSF.

The only problem will be that while Taiwan sits under a constant barrage of missiles while its fleet of surace drones is in range of every major Chinese port, the American government will tell the Taiwanese government not to attack the ports in order to prevent any unnecessary escalation and please not complain so much about its civilians- there is a football game scheduled on TV after all.

(I woke up with some gall today, it will pass.)

[Carolus]

Magyar drone slips into a crack in the brickwork and brings a house down.

In case someone wondered where urban combat and fortifications are heading.

[LongLeftFlank]

8 hours ago, Kinophile said:

https://thediplomat.com/2024/04/what-chinese-navy-planners-are-learning-from-ukraines-use-of-unmanned-surface-vessels/

Ukraine USV lessons are being absorbed worldwide... 

Actual, actual....

FSRU Marshal Portovyy out of Kaliningrad (whose pipeline has not been cut off) offloads its cargo at sea to LNG tanker Cool Rover. Which ships the contraband gas to buyers who care less about its provenance than its price.

If [unnnamed Formites] want to act 'wised up' (woke?) about 'strategic global resources', perhaps focus on the stuff that actually moves the needle on balance of trade today.

That would (still) be stuff the belligerents can put in a pipe or a ship or a train and send where it gets the highest price.

Los!

Edited April 9 by LongLeftFlank

[photon]

So, I've been thinking and reading, and want to advance a thesis for folks to hammer apart. It's a combination of @The_Capt's language of option spaces with battlefield physics. Maybe this is well known, but it's new to me. Here it goes.

The goal of a weapon system is to deliver kinetic energy (in the physics sense) to a particular place at a particular time. Let's gloss over how you pick that place and time (which is in its own revolution right now). You could think of each weapon system as having an energy-time curve that represents how much energy the killing bits have at a given moment. A couple of exampled:

1. A (ancient, thrown; not modern AT) javelin. The tip has very low energy until thrown. Steep curve (maybe < 1s) to get to maximum energy when just released, gradual decrease in energy as it follows a ballistic trajectory (maybe 5s), then it delivers its energy to the target.

2. A naval artillery shell. The case fragments have low energy while in magazine. Very alarmingly steep curve (< 1s) to get to very large maximum energy when exiting barrel. Gradually losing energy during long ballistic flight (30s+). Loses huge gobs of energy penetrating deck armor (< 1s). Shell explodes imparting large kinetic energy to fragments and gasses delivering energy to target.

3. An air launched cruise missile. The warhead has low energy on runway. Jet engines being to gradually impart both kinetic and gravitational potential energy (minutes to hours). The turbojet motor lights imparting a steady stream of kinetic energy as the missile travels (minutes to hours). The warhead explodes imparting large kinetic energy to fragments and gasses delivering energy to the target.

4. A grenade dropping drone. The drone takes off using the minimal energy necessary. It cruises to the target area using the minimal energy necessary for level flight. Grenade falls, explodes imparting kinetic energy to fragments and gasses delivering energy to the target.

Here's my thesis: the flatter the energy-time curve (i.e. the slower its area integral grows), the larger the option space for the weapon, and consequently the harder it is to defend against the weapon. Additionally, the flatter the energy-time curve, the smaller the signature of the weapon system, and the less it attracts counter fires.

I think we're seeing this dynamic in all theaters and modes of warfare in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians are putting on a master class in developing weapon systems that retain maximal option space for as long as possible. It's just precision that is changing the battlefield dynamic, it's weapons that retain their option spaces much longer than even a decade ago.

Edited April 9 by photon

[The_Capt]

36 minutes ago, photon said:

Here's my thesis: the flatter the energy-time curve (i.e. the slower its area integral grows), the larger the option space for the weapon, and consequently the harder it is to defend against the weapon. Additionally, the flatter the energy-time curve, the smaller the signature of the weapon system, and the less it attracts counter fires.

Ok, but doesn’t your second example invalidate your thesis?  A naval artillery shell does not appear to have a flat energy-time curve but of all your examples it is likely the hardest to defend against. In fact ballistic weapons appear to be the hardest to counter and none of them have what I think you are describing as a flat curve.

Energy is definitely part of all this but I think how that energy is translated into effect is the core idea you appear to be driving at (we should leave aside effects for now as that is a pretty complicated concept in its own right).

[Tux]

15 minutes ago, photon said:

So, I've been thinking and reading, and want to advance a thesis for folks to hammer apart. It's a combination of @The_Capt's language of option spaces with battlefield physics. Maybe this is well known, but it's new to me. Here it goes.

The goal of a weapon system is to deliver kinetic energy (in the physics sense) to a particular place at a particular time. Let's gloss over how you pick that place and time (which is in its own revolution right now). You could think of each weapon system as having an energy-time curve that represents how much energy the killing bits have at a given moment. A couple of exampled:

1. A javelin. The tip has very low energy until thrown. Steep curve (maybe < 1s) to get to maximum energy when just released, gradual decrease in energy as it follows a ballistic trajectory (maybe 5s), then it delivers its energy to the target.

2. A naval artillery shell. The case fragments have low energy while in magazine. Very alarmingly steep curve (< 1s) to get to very large maximum energy when exiting barrel. Gradually losing energy during long ballistic flight (30s+). Loses huge gobs of energy penetrating deck armor (< 1s). Shell explodes imparting large kinetic energy to fragments and gasses delivering energy to target.

3. An air launched cruise missile. The warhead has low energy on runway. Jet engines being to gradually impart both kinetic and gravitational potential energy (minutes to hours). The turbojet motor lights imparting a steady stream of kinetic energy as the missile travels (minutes to hours). The warhead explodes imparting large kinetic energy to fragments and gasses delivering energy to the target.

4. A grenade dropping drone. The drone takes off using the minimal energy necessary. It cruises to the target area using the minimal energy necessary for level flight. Grenade falls, explodes imparting kinetic energy to fragments and gasses delivering energy to the target.

Here's my thesis: the flatter the energy-time curve (i.e. the slower its area integral grows), the larger the option space for the weapon, and consequently the harder it is to defend against he weapon. Additionally, the flatter the energy-time curve, the smaller the signature of the weapon system, and the less it attracts counter fires.

I think we're seeing this dynamic in all theaters and modes of warfare in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians are putting on a master class in developing weapon systems that retain maximal option space for as long as possible. It's just precision that is changing the battlefield dynamic, it's weapons that retain their option spaces much longer than even a decade ago.

I like your thinking but maybe it's missing some dimensions (or maybe I'm misinterpreting you use of the phrase "option space").  Certainly, the goal of a weapon system is to deliver sufficient energy to a particular place at a particular time in order to destroy or degrade the enemy's will or ability to fight.  I'm not sure about the focus on kinetic, though.

1. How do you account for mines?  Zero energy-time curve until the point of explosion (analagous to the point of impact of the projectiles you describe) but I wouldn't consider them to have a particularly large "option space".
2. How do you account for explosives, generally?  Two projectiles with identical energy-time curves apart from at the point of impact (i.e. one has an explosive warhead while the other does not)?
3. Materials matter:  If two projectiles with identical energy-time curves are made of hardened steel and tungsten, respectively, there are conditions involving armour plate which will cause the former to shatter on impact while the latter does not.  This means the latter has a larger option space (i.e. can be used to successfully attack certain targets which the other cannot)?
4. Shapes matter:  two identical e-t projectiles but one is optimally shaped for target penetration while the other is not.  The better-shaped one has a larger option space?
5. How would you account for a directed-energy weapon?

I think maybe 'retaining maximal option space for as long as possible' (by which I assume you mean retaining the ability to manoeuvre and refine a targeting solution) helps humans to guide relatively small amounts of energy (kinetic and/or chemical) to enemy weak points, so probably adds efficiency to the energy applied in that sense.  In a lot of other scenarios though I think it takes a bit of a back seat versus the nature of the projectile itself.

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, Tux said:

I like your thinking but maybe it's missing some dimensions (or maybe I'm misinterpreting you use of the phrase "option space").  Certainly, the goal of a weapon system is to deliver sufficient energy to a particular place at a particular time in order to destroy or degrade the enemy's will or ability to fight.  I'm not sure about the focus on kinetic, though.

1. How do you account for mines?  Zero energy-time curve until the point of explosion (analagous to the point of impact of the projectiles you describe) but I wouldn't consider them to have a particularly large "option space".
2. How do you account for explosives, generally?  Two projectiles with identical energy-time curves apart from at the point of impact (i.e. one has an explosive warhead while the other does not)?
3. Materials matter:  If two projectiles with identical energy-time curves are made of hardened steel and tungsten, respectively, there are conditions involving armour plate which will cause the former to shatter on impact while the latter does not.  This means the latter has a larger option space (i.e. can be used to successfully attack certain targets which the other cannot)?
4. Shapes matter:  two identical e-t projectiles but one is optimally shaped for target penetration while the other is not.  The better-shaped one has a larger option space?
5. How would you account for a directed-energy weapon?

I think maybe 'retaining maximal option space for as long as possible' (by which I assume you mean retaining the ability to manoeuvre and refine a targeting solution) helps humans to guide relatively small amounts of energy (kinetic and/or chemical) to enemy weak points, so probably adds efficiency to the energy applied in that sense.  In a lot of other scenarios though I think it takes a bit of a back seat versus the nature of the projectile itself.

Ooo these are good ones.  For example, not all explosives are created equal.  Also, what do we mean by “options”.  Mines actually have significant options potential before they are placed. - they can be placed pretty much anywhere, even underwater.  But once laid and in their lowest energy state and over the longest period of time of their employment, they do indeed have very little options left; basically explode or not.

So there are pre-deployment options and post-deployment options on the table.  Here we likely could introduce metrics of agility and flexibility, which are more likely a function of size, shape and material, as well as potential energy.

[photon]

10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, but doesn’t your second example invalidate your thesis?  A naval artillery shell does not appear to have a flat energy-time curve but of all your examples it is likely the hardest to defend against. In fact ballistic weapons appear to be the hardest to counter and none of them have what I think you are describing as a flat curve.

Energy is definitely part of all this but I think how that energy is translated into effect is the core idea you appear to be driving at (we should leave aside effects for now as that is a pretty complicated concept in its own right).

So, I'd suggest that naval artillery shells are the easiest weapon system to defend against (of those available to navies). We developed a great system for defending against them more or less as soon as they appeared: steer into the splashes. Because all of the energy is imparted to the shell at once (in the barrel), you can predict, with great certainty, where the shell will go and when it will arrive where. It's option space for where it delivers its effect totally collapses at the time of firing. You have some large number of seconds to be not-there. Now, if you're at a range where that number of seconds is way too small, you're boned. But the size of the lethality sphere for naval artillery is well understood, so don't be there.

Compare that to a SeaBaby, where the travel energy is imparted very gradually. It has a much larger option space much later in its travel. That makes is much harder to avoid and so far, to interdict; Could a current generation CIWS even see a Sea Baby at the speeds it's moving? How do you separate it from the background noise?

 

[holoween]

5 minutes ago, photon said:

So, I'd suggest that naval artillery shells are the easiest weapon system to defend against (of those available to navies). We developed a great system for defending against them more or less as soon as they appeared: steer into the splashes. Because all of the energy is imparted to the shell at once (in the barrel), you can predict, with great certainty, where the shell will go and when it will arrive where. It's option space for where it delivers its effect totally collapses at the time of firing. You have some large number of seconds to be not-there. Now, if you're at a range where that number of seconds is way too small, you're boned. But the size of the lethality sphere for naval artillery is well understood, so don't be there.

Compare that to a SeaBaby, where the travel energy is imparted very gradually. It has a much larger option space much later in its travel. That makes is much harder to avoid and so far, to interdict; Could a current generation CIWS even see a Sea Baby at the speeds it's moving? How do you separate it from the background noise?

 

add a guidding kit to the naval shell and that suddenly doesnt work any more.

Time between weapons employment and effect seems to better predict defensibility

[photon]

10 minutes ago, Tux said:

1. How do you account for mines?  Zero energy-time curve until the point of explosion (analagous to the point of impact of the projectiles you describe) but I wouldn't consider them to have a particularly large "option space".
2. How do you account for explosives, generally?  Two projectiles with identical energy-time curves apart from at the point of impact (i.e. one has an explosive warhead while the other does not)?
3. Materials matter:  If two projectiles with identical energy-time curves are made of hardened steel and tungsten, respectively, there are conditions involving armour plate which will cause the former to shatter on impact while the latter does not.  This means the latter has a larger option space (i.e. can be used to successfully attack certain targets which the other cannot)?
4. Shapes matter:  two identical e-t projectiles but one is optimally shaped for target penetration while the other is not.  The better-shaped one has a larger option space?
5. How would you account for a directed-energy weapon?

I think maybe 'retaining maximal option space for as long as possible' (by which I assume you mean retaining the ability to manoeuvre and refine a targeting solution) helps humans to guide relatively small amounts of energy (kinetic and/or chemical) to enemy weak points, so probably adds efficiency to the energy applied in that sense.  In a lot of other scenarios though I think it takes a bit of a back seat versus the nature of the projectile itself.

Ok - those are all really good questions. Let me try and tackle them.

1. I have no idea. They're some sort of boundary case. But the creepy-crawly mines that @The_Capt has occasionally described seem like an attempt to save some of the time-energy curve to the last possible minute.

2. So, I'd say that what explosives to is they reserve available energy to be applied much later in the time-energy curve. With explosive weapons, the shell itself is not the thing that delivers effects, but the fragments and gasses. By retaining that energy until late, you can choose when to apply it for maximal effects. Think solid shot vs. mechanical time vs. proximity fusing for anti-aircraft guns. If you have a reserve of chemical energy to convert to kinetic, you can apply it in a much more precise and effective way.

3. Agree. My theory doesn't speak to this.

4. Agree.

5. So, a pulsed directed energy weapon would have (functionally) a zero time-energy integral, because the time to target is effectively instantaneous. If you need to hold the beam continuously, your time-energy integral will be large, you'll have a huge signature, and it's counter-fire time.

It's both retaining maximum option space as long as possible, and minimizing the time-energy integral to minimize signature. The launch of a drone is a lot harder to detect than the launch of a missile, which is itself harder to detect than a 155 firing. The much larger energy spike for the 155 means the whole system has to be much larger (to contain and direct that energy). The more gradual energy spike for the missile means you can use a smaller system to launch it. The effective non-existent energy spike for the drone means the launching system is basically non-existent.

[photon]

Just now, holoween said:

add a guidding kit to the naval shell and that suddenly doesnt work any more.

Time between weapons employment and effect seems to better predict defensibility

Right - so what you're doing there is reserving some energy to apply later in the time-energy curve. And as we've seen, even a small amount of reserved energy greatly improves precision and lethality.

[Ultradave]

UK trying to cover all the bases as Lord Cameron visits Mar-a-Lago, Biden administration officials, and Members of Congress, presumably the ones swallowing the Russian propaganda that need convincing.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-cameron-donald-trump-us-aid-ukraine-russia-war-h3w687nkb

As for Russian propaganda, some comments from rational Republicans in Congress on that subject:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4579289-intel-chair-turner-absolutely-true-russia-propaganda-infected-us-congress/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/06/when-top-republican-says-russian-propaganda-has-infected-gop/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Not that this is any great surprise, but it is refreshing to hear at least some Republicans calling out their colleagues for promoting misinformation.

For The Times and WaPo, I have subscriptions, but I think you still get a certain number of free looks per month without a subscription. If you can't and really want to read them, PM me and I may be able to "gift" the article to you.

Dave

 

Edited April 9 by Ultradave

[The_Capt]

37 minutes ago, photon said:

So, I'd suggest that naval artillery shells are the easiest weapon system to defend against (of those available to navies). We developed a great system for defending against them more or less as soon as they appeared: steer into the splashes. Because all of the energy is imparted to the shell at once (in the barrel), you can predict, with great certainty, where the shell will go and when it will arrive where. It's option space for where it delivers its effect totally collapses at the time of firing. You have some large number of seconds to be not-there. Now, if you're at a range where that number of seconds is way too small, you're boned. But the size of the lethality sphere for naval artillery is well understood, so don't be there.

Compare that to a SeaBaby, where the travel energy is imparted very gradually. It has a much larger option space much later in its travel. That makes is much harder to avoid and so far, to interdict; Could a current generation CIWS even see a Sea Baby at the speeds it's moving? How do you separate it from the background noise?

 

Hmm, not sure this tracks. They can be made less efficient through defensive manoeuver but naval warfare simply added volume.  Up until modern missiles they were the primary weapon system for ships of the line.  We still put them on ships for a reason.  A/C took primacy due to range, even thought they lost volume.  Missile offset with range and accuracy.

So naval gunnery expanded its options spaces through volume of fires effectively.  Firing many salvos to reduce defensive options.  This is how Jutland happened. 

Just pulling these metrics together - range, energy-time, composition, accuracy, volume, agility.  These are looking at lot like modern military High Level Military Requirements (HLMRs). To my mind these are the framework for an options space.

Precision as "small energy at the right time"  of "smart energy" really resonates.

[photon]

19 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Hmm, not sure this tracks. They can be made less efficient through defensive manoeuver but naval warfare simply added volume.  Up until modern missiles they were the primary weapon system for ships of the line.  We still put them on ships for a reason.  A/C took primacy due to range, even thought they lost volume.  Missile offset with range and accuracy.

So naval gunnery expanded its options spaces through volume of fires effectively.  Firing many salvos to reduce defensive options.  This is how Jutland happened. 

Just pulling these metrics together - range, energy-time, composition, accuracy, volume, agility.  These are looking at lot like modern military High Level Military Requirements (HLMRs). To my mind these are the framework for an options space.

Precision as "small energy at the right time"  of "smart energy" really resonates.

So, I'm genuinely curious why we still put naval guns on ships. I'd wager that there were individual minutes in some of the battles near Guadalcanal in which more shells were fired than have been fired in anger in the last fifty years. Am I wrong about that? I'll have to drag out Morison, but some of our radar equipped semi-auto six-inch cruisers fired a couple thousand shells per engagement (to the great annoyance of the fleet sustainment and logistics commands).

A good thing to compare is high level bombers with dive bombers. Both had range, but the dive bombers could apply energy to the weapon (laterally) very late in the time-energy curve. It was easy to dodge the high level bombers, not so much the dive bombers.

If you offered Jesse Oldendorf the choice between his battlewagons and a half dozen SeaBabys per enemy ship at Leyte, he's be crazy to pick the battlewagons. And if you offered that choice to the folks doing sustainment, they'd knock sense into anyone even considering the battlewagons.

You're right about volume of fire ameliorating the bad time-energy curve of naval gunnery. Look at the price of expanding that option space through volume of fires, though: huge logistical tail, vulnerable ships (big magazines), giant shoot-me-here sign when applying fires. And we've seen the Russians go for a replay of that in the artillery fight in Ukraine with modest (?) success.

[Tux]

27 minutes ago, photon said:

Ok - those are all really good questions. Let me try and tackle them.

1. I have no idea. They're some sort of boundary case. But the creepy-crawly mines that @The_Capt has occasionally described seem like an attempt to save some of the time-energy curve to the last possible minute.

2. So, I'd say that what explosives to is they reserve available energy to be applied much later in the time-energy curve. With explosive weapons, the shell itself is not the thing that delivers effects, but the fragments and gasses. By retaining that energy until late, you can choose when to apply it for maximal effects. Think solid shot vs. mechanical time vs. proximity fusing for anti-aircraft guns. If you have a reserve of chemical energy to convert to kinetic, you can apply it in a much more precise and effective way.

3. Agree. My theory doesn't speak to this.

4. Agree.

5. So, a pulsed directed energy weapon would have (functionally) a zero time-energy integral, because the time to target is effectively instantaneous. If you need to hold the beam continuously, your time-energy integral will be large, you'll have a huge signature, and it's counter-fire time.

It's both retaining maximum option space as long as possible, and minimizing the time-energy integral to minimize signature. The launch of a drone is a lot harder to detect than the launch of a missile, which is itself harder to detect than a 155 firing. The much larger energy spike for the 155 means the whole system has to be much larger (to contain and direct that energy). The more gradual energy spike for the missile means you can use a smaller system to launch it. The effective non-existent energy spike for the drone means the launching system is basically non-existent.

I think you might be getting at energy efficiency.

1. A creepy-crawly mine first of all adds energy to the curve, so the integral is larger:  the mine's creepiness (motors, power source, etc.) adds mass to the mine and the mine therefore requires more energy to manufacture and deploy and then uses more energy during its 'attack phase' (creeps towards the target vs. staying still and blowing up).  However, let's say your dumb mine can destroy anything up to an MBT which drives over the top of it.  Now, if you reduce the mass of the warhead to compensate for the mine's added creepy energy, you might end up with a mine that doesn't use any additional energy but can kill anything up to an MBT (let's say it knows how to hit weak spots) that drives within 100m of it.  You have a larger option space by using your energy more efficiently while not necessarily having reduced the integral of your energy-time curve.
2. Again, explosives in the example I gave don't reserve energy, they add it.  If two ballistically-identical projectiles strike a target with the same KE, one with an HE warhead and one without, the explosive one will deliver more energy to the target.  That potentially translates into a larger option space while not changing the integral of the pre-impact e-t curve.
3. noted
4. noted
5. Noted and agreed.  However let's combine this one with your drone launch/ missile launch/ 155 firing examples:  the energy spikes you describe at the launch of each projectile (and for use of the DEW) are energy wastage.  Generally the more power you need to apply to a projectile the harder it will be to avoid losing large amounts to waste heat, light and sound.  That waste heat, light and sound is the signature that the enemy may detect.  A lot of it is easier to detect and tells the enemy that a powerful launch system is at the location of the signature.  If you can apply energy more gradually (i.e. apply less power) then your energy losses will reduce and, if you can do that without a loss of lethality in terms of finding, hitting and destroying the target then your overall energy efficiency has improved and you're onto a winner.

I think that's where the advances in weapons that we see today stem from: they use energy more efficiently.  modern, small and light-weight electronics, computing and ISR allow drones to attack enemy weak spots with unprecedented precision and reliability.  The fact that they can hit weak spots means less energy needs to be applied in order to destroy the enemy.  Drones (airborne and seaborne) can therefore carry smaller warheads at lower speeds (which also helps with targeting reliability, when controlled by a slow-thinking human being).  Less mass accelerating more slowly to a lower attack velocity means much less powerful launch systems (if any) and so launch signatures (energy loss) are basically not there for the enemy to detect.

[photon]

6 minutes ago, Tux said:

Again, explosives in the example I gave don't reserve energy, they add it.  If two ballistically-identical projectiles strike a target with the same KE, one with an HE warhead and one without, the explosive one will deliver more energy to the target.  That potentially translates into a larger option space while not changing the integral of the pre-impact e-t curve.

Really appreciate your comments. So, here I'm thinking about HEAT and APFSDS rounds. Their time-energy curves look really different.

For APFSDS, the object that delivers the effect is the arrow, it receives all its kinetic energy as it leave the barrel. It gradually loses energy in flight - your note that much of that energy is waste energy is right on - until it transfers the kinetic energy to the armor of whatever you're shooting at.

Compare that to HEAT. the object that delivers the effect is the copper liner of the shell that's (at the last possible moment) formed into a penetrator. At firing, the shell can have much less kinetic energy because it's carrying with it a reserve of chemical energy that, at the last second, gets converted into kinetic energy in forming the penetrator.

So the energy for the same(ish) effect is distributed differently along the energy-time curve, and for the HEAT shell, much of the energy is provided to the actual penetrator when it is literally touching the target. Because of that, as you rightly note, you have much less waste energy, so less signature. And it's more controllable, so you can use fins and whatnot to steer it in the terminal phase (like the modern Javelin).

Does that make sense? I might need to draw some of what I mean.

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, photon said:

So, I'm genuinely curious why we still put naval guns on ships. I'd wager that there were individual minutes in some of the battles near Guadalcanal in which more shells were fired than have been fired in anger in the last fifty years. Am I wrong about that? I'll have to drag out Morison, but some of our radar equipped semi-auto six-inch cruisers fired a couple thousand shells per engagement (to the great annoyance of the fleet sustainment and logistics commands).

A good thing to compare is high level bombers with dive bombers. Both had range, but the dive bombers could apply energy to the weapon (laterally) very late in the time-energy curve. It was easy to dodge the high level bombers, not so much the dive bombers.

If you offered Jesse Oldendorf the choice between his battlewagons and a half dozen SeaBabys per enemy ship at Leyte, he's be crazy to pick the battlewagons. And if you offered that choice to the folks doing sustainment, they'd knock sense into anyone even considering the battlewagons.

You're right about volume of fire ameliorating the bad time-energy curve of naval gunnery. Look at the price of expanding that option space through volume of fires, though: huge logistical tail, vulnerable ships (big magazines), giant shoot-me-here sign when applying fires. And we've seen the Russians go for a replay of that in the artillery fight in Ukraine with modest (?) success.

I think we still do because of the slippery concept of effects.  The primary purpose of employing weapons systems is not to destroy or damage - the main purpose is to deliver an effect.  The effect of a naval gun is the threat of damage more than the damage itself.  This can shape the battlespace by forcing an opponent to manoeuvre or avoid certain conditions.

The reason for all that volume of fires was more than simply to kill other ships.  It was to get them to do what we wanted to do.  So the employment of all this energy is to create effects options spaces, which I suspect may be much more complicated than energy-time.

For example in your dive bomber example, the dive bomber has both fewer and greater effects options depending on when and where that dive occurs.  In the dive, they have very limited targeting effects flexibility coming in at those speeds, less after weapons release.  But before final attack the very presence of dive bombers creates an effect - ships must be looking up, AD manned and ready, and at speed to avoid.  Add sirens and one can get a psychological effect.

These options are less about the energy over time being applied, they are about the potential energy being applied.  The potential energy of those bombers is higher earlier, which creates options spaces.  Once committed, those option spaces appear to shrink.   

[Kinophile]

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-armed-forces-of-ukraine-hit-russian-unmanned-mining-system/

[chrisl]

1 minute ago, Kinophile said:

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-armed-forces-of-ukraine-hit-russian-unmanned-mining-system/

So that's almost @The_Capt's creeping mines.  Put each deployable mine on a string and put springs instead of explosive charges in the bottom of each tube, along with a little motor to wind the strings back and you're there.

[holoween]

7 minutes ago, photon said:

Really appreciate your comments. So, here I'm thinking about HEAT and APFSDS rounds. Their time-energy curves look really different.

For APFSDS, the object that delivers the effect is the arrow, it receives all its kinetic energy as it leave the barrel. It gradually loses energy in flight - your note that much of that energy is waste energy is right on - until it transfers the kinetic energy to the armor of whatever you're shooting at.

Compare that to HEAT. the object that delivers the effect is the copper liner of the shell that's (at the last possible moment) formed into a penetrator. At firing, the shell can have much less kinetic energy because it's carrying with it a reserve of chemical energy that, at the last second, gets converted into kinetic energy in forming the penetrator.

So the energy for the same(ish) effect is distributed differently along the energy-time curve, and for the HEAT shell, much of the energy is provided to the actual penetrator when it is literally touching the target. Because of that, as you rightly note, you have much less waste energy, so less signature. And it's more controllable, so you can use fins and whatnot to steer it in the terminal phase (like the modern Javelin).

Does that make sense? I might need to draw some of what I mean.

And yet between the 2 HEAT shells are being phased out in favour of time fuzed HE while APFSDS is being retained.
Thats because HEAT doesnt have the required effect against MBTs and is significantly less accurate then APFSDS.

[photon]

1 minute ago, holoween said:

Thats because HEAT doesnt have the required effect against MBTs and is significantly less accurate then APFSDS.

I'd be really curious what fraction of tank kills in Ukraine are caused by what. Has that started emerging yet? It seems like tank-on-tank fights are very rare? And often at absolutely suicidal ranges where well thrown rocks and sticks would penetrate armor?