How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

56 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

In conjunction with the increased hardware and software complexity required, this requirement to sustainably field swarming UAVs in large quantities over time means that fielding this sort of system as more than a ‘Night One’ theatre entry tool is likely to be uneconomical.

Uneconomical compared to what?

[billbindc]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Uneconomical compared to what?

Exactly. Nation-state resource allocation will upend analyses like this. 

[The_Capt]

13 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Exactly. Nation-state resource allocation will upend analyses like this. 

So just spitballing:

A platoon of M1A2 Sep V3 come in around $100M to just buy the platforms.  To this add logistical costs (fuels, parts and repair tail).  Force generation costs - training areas and exercises. Force projection costs (strat to op lift reqrs).  Pers costs - 16 crew, plus logistics, plus admin overhead.  And weird intangibles like route and bridge repair in training areas.

This all scales up very quickly.  A fully autonomous UAS swarm Bn may need a staff of 16 and a logistics tail but is not going to weigh roughly 300 tons that has to be transported and fueled.  Even at 1 million a pop, a hundred fully upgunned and militarized fully autonomous drones are starting to look pretty damned competitive against current “beyond-Night One” systems.

Edited April 12 by The_Capt

[kimbosbread]

5 hours ago, JonS said:

You mean like a strike package? …

Yeah, of course. That all sounds clever and sensible, especially since it's already proven doctrinal approach to getting aerial effects delivery systems into an AO.

It doesn't sound simple or cheap though.

For small drones, obviously due to weight concerns each will be specialized. As soon as you get a bit larger- I suspect 5-10kg is the minimum weight- you’ll get modularity. COTS sensors are remarkably cheap, and a lot of this can be simulated in software, and I feel like the cost of doing an actual field exercise will be brutally cheap. Just a bunch of bros and drones in a field, with a bunch of computers and antennas and beer.

5 hours ago, JonS said:

human autonomous, I suppose, but not machine autonomous. The point, and Tux noted, is that the purpose of autonomy is not to show off how l337 ur hax0rz are, but to preclude the need for comms which can be jammed, spoofed, and targetted.

Yeah, you minimize communication, and use IR, acoustic or laser links. 

20 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Uneconomical compared to what?

Yeah, I feel like $100m budget will get you plenty of compute and good software engineers who can build this for you. And you can be sure Israel and friends will be offering this software for $$$.

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, squatter said:

Seems like the general feeling on here is that autonomous weapons are the way forward. 

No-one here feel like we should be arguing for the abolition of autonomous weapons, or are you all already in the 'well the bad guys are gonna do it, so we should do it first' camp? (ie the 'race to the bottom' scenario)

I'm guessing you all caught this short film by the Future of Life Institute a few years back? 

 

 

2 hours ago, squatter said:

Yes of course that is true. But unmanned does not equal autonomous. And yes, of course autonomous weapons will offer huge advantages to those who employ them, but at what cost (see video I linked to above.)? Due to the cheapness and ease of manufacture of autonomous killer drones (once the tech has been developed), the implications of their use by bad actors are horrendous. 

The world did manage to get some level of control over nuclear proliferation (somewhat latterly and post-hoc) - should we not at aspire to learn the lessons from the successes and failures of nuclear non-proliferation and at least attempt to limit autonomous weapon development? 

If we don't then we are heading into an utterly terrifying world, and one most on here seem to have just shrugged and set off down the road towards at the first fork in the road. 

 

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The issue with fully autonomous is that it offers superiority for a deterministic system.  That driver will pretty much ensure any attempts at regulation/proliferation are going to fall apart.  Now if autonomous systems achieve the level of a WMD with a MAD component, perhaps.  But the best counter to stop fully autonomous weapon systems...are other fully autonomous weapon systems.  We already have this in maritime warfare with missiles and point defence systems.  The CWIS is entirely autonomous once someone flips the switch.  They can target and engage on their own.  Why?  Because a machine can react far faster than a manned gun.

I don't think it is a question of Warhawk shrugging, it is the recognition that the odds of regulation that 1) we can agree upon and 2) sticks, is simply very unlikely.  Nuclear proliferation is a bad example because the morale imperative is not why the major powers did it.  They did so they could exclusively remain the major powers.  The other examples really are somewhat historical anomalies that we are also likely to walk back from as wars become more existential in nature.  Probably the best example is bio or chemical weapons, but we also know that neither of these really stuck either.

Trying to outlaw weapons is like trying to outlaw warfare.  We believe we can because we think that war is solely a political extremity and we can use political legality to control a political mechanism.  The reality is that the nature of warfare we currently subscribe to is the 2nd generation.  The 1st generation was "war is an extension of survival by violent means." That is the older darker nature of warfare that Clausewitz all tried to forget...right up to the point it throws itself in our faces.  We live in a third generation nature of warfare - "viable violence to achieve political ends."  The introduction of nuclear weapons put us all in a box whereby we can only really wage warfare in a constrained manner.  Go too far and one faces mutual annihilation.  The problem is when 3rd generation collides with the first one. 

So I fully believe in and adhere to the Law of Armed Conflict.  I think we should definitely aspire to be better than we really are.  But I know an existential capability when I see it. And fully autonomous weapon systems are definitely on that list.

If I may attempt to summarize, you have to win the war to earn the privilege of making the rules. And if rejecting a new technology means you lose....

[chrisl]

6 hours ago, JonS said:

human autonomous, I suppose, but not machine autonomous. The point, and Tux noted, is that the purpose of autonomy is not to show off how l337 ur hax0rz are, but to preclude the need for comms which can be jammed, spoofed, and targetted.

yeah, right.  If it's all machines being autonomous with each other, they're autonomous.  

You might have a personal definition of autonomous that requires complete isolation, but it's not shared with the rest of the world.

[Battlefront.com]

48 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Yeah, I feel like $100m budget will get you plenty of compute and good software engineers who can build this for you. And you can be sure Israel and friends will be offering this software for $$$.

RUSI is usually right on the mark, but not with that commentary.  I think these guys are still conceiving of systems that can't be developed by anybody but General Dynamics, Raytheon, BAE, etc.  What they seem to be missing is high school teachers are already doing this sort of stuff with students on public and standard range private school budgets.  I know because I have a good friend in each environment.  Sure, they aren't building killer drones, but they are doing robotics that involve similar tech that 10 years ago would require an MIT level of education funding.

Aside from The_Capt's comparison of costs for a military (1x Tank Platoon vs. whatever we can think of for UVs) is only part of where this is headed.  The other is with groups like Hamas, AQ, and ISIS.  Think of how expensive it was to do the 9/11 attack or to have thousands of rockets to launch into Israel.  What do you think they are going to switch over to?  An autonomous swarm that is deliberately created to NOT care about who it kills is a no-brainer.  Unfortunately.

Steve

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Uneconomical compared to what?

You can achieve swarming with very limited neighbor-neighbor communication.  And if things are cheap to build you don't care all that much if it's not perfect.

Neither of them sits around all day with people who do nothing but think about how to build robots.  What we're seeing implemented in Ukraine has changed incredibly fast and is only going to get weirder faster.

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, chrisl said:

yeah, right.  If it's all machines being autonomous with each other, they're autonomous.  

You might have a personal definition of autonomous that requires complete isolation, but it's not shared with the rest of the world.

Correct.  And the dictionary sets that standard:

autonomous /ô-tŏn′ə-məs/

adjective

1. Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent.
   "an autonomous judiciary; an autonomous division of a corporate conglomerate."
2. Independent in mind or judgment; self-directed.
3. Independent of the laws of another state or government; self-governing.

Though to be fair, this is from American Heritage Dictionary.  Maybe Kiwi Heritage Dictionary has a different definition

For me, it's simple to draw the line.  As soon as the system ceases communicating with a Human, it is autonomous.  A Javelin missile is a great example.  It can't get itself anywhere, it can't position itself to fire, it can't select targets, and it can't make a decision to fire.  Therefore, it isn't a fully autonomous system.  But once it's fired, it is 100% autonomous.

One might quibble with the above definition of what "outside forces" actually is, though.  Personally, a swarm is a singular element of many individual parts.  Therefore, as long as no part of the swarm is communicating to something outside of the swarm, then it's autonomous.

Steve

 

[chrisl]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

RUSI is usually right on the mark, but not with that commentary.  I think these guys are still conceiving of systems that can't be developed by anybody but General Dynamics, Raytheon, BAE, etc.  What they seem to be missing is high school teachers are already doing this sort of stuff with students on public and standard range private school budgets.  I know because I have a good friend in each environment.  Sure, they aren't building killer drones, but they are doing robotics that involve similar tech that 10 years ago would require an MIT level of education funding.

Aside from The_Capt's comparison of costs for a military (1x Tank Platoon vs. whatever we can think of for UVs) is only part of where this is headed.  The other is with groups like Hamas, AQ, and ISIS.  Think of how expensive it was to do the 9/11 attack or to have thousands of rockets to launch into Israel.  What do you think they are going to switch over to?  An autonomous swarm that is deliberately created to NOT care about who it kills is a no-brainer.  Unfortunately.

Steve

We're all arguing this on a board that's dedicated to a wargame that has implemented at least some level of autonomy at the small unit level for 20 years.  And made it work in reasonable compute times for battalion sized swarms on computers that were nothing special.  The only thing it doesn't have is the physical sensor inputs, and those are pretty straightforward.  And it was all implemented by Charles and maybe a helper (I haven't kept up).  Charles himself might even count as an autonomous biocomputer, since he's really just a brain in a jar.

[billbindc]

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

RUSI is usually right on the mark, but not with that commentary.  I think these guys are still conceiving of systems that can't be developed by anybody but General Dynamics, Raytheon, BAE, etc.  What they seem to be missing is high school teachers are already doing this sort of stuff with students on public and standard range private school budgets.  I know because I have a good friend in each environment.  Sure, they aren't building killer drones, but they are doing robotics that involve similar tech that 10 years ago would require an MIT level of education funding.

Aside from The_Capt's comparison of costs for a military (1x Tank Platoon vs. whatever we can think of for UVs) is only part of where this is headed.  The other is with groups like Hamas, AQ, and ISIS.  Think of how expensive it was to do the 9/11 attack or to have thousands of rockets to launch into Israel.  What do you think they are going to switch over to?  An autonomous swarm that is deliberately created to NOT care about who it kills is a no-brainer.  Unfortunately.

Steve

This. The war in Ukraine is getting people thinking about it but the first terrorist attack on a city conducted by heat seeking, pattern recognition driven autonomous drones is going to galvanize the entire West.

[chrisl]

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Correct.  And the dictionary sets that standard:

autonomous /ô-tŏn′ə-məs/

adjective

1. Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent.
   "an autonomous judiciary; an autonomous division of a corporate conglomerate."
2. Independent in mind or judgment; self-directed.
3. Independent of the laws of another state or government; self-governing.

Though to be fair, this is from American Heritage Dictionary.  Maybe Kiwi Heritage Dictionary has a different definition

For me, it's simple to draw the line.  As soon as the system ceases communicating with a Human, it is autonomous.  A Javelin missile is a great example.  It can't get itself anywhere, it can't position itself to fire, it can't select targets, and it can't make a decision to fire.  Therefore, it isn't a fully autonomous system.  But once it's fired, it is 100% autonomous.

One might quibble with the above definition of what "outside forces" actually is, though.  Personally, a swarm is a singular element of many individual parts.  Therefore, as long as no part of the swarm is communicating to something outside of the swarm, then it's autonomous.

Steve

 

One thing that is sort of a fuzzy point of contention in robot-world is automated vs. autonomous.  

Something that operates on its own deterministically based on on predetermined responses to inputs and outputs is usually automated/automatic, rather than autonomous.  Even if they have a ton of conditionals (if this changes, do that thing) and closed loop control around setpoints they're usually considered "automated" but not "autonomous".  Factory machines do this.  Aircraft autopilots do this.  Once they get outside their programmed range they stop and wait or throw an error and ask for help.  

Autonomous is generally where you let the system loose in an environment where it doesn't necessarily have prior information about and let it sort out how to act.  Usually for autonomous systems you're giving fuzzier instructions and they wing it when they get outside their training.  Graduate students are like this, at least after their second year or so. Javelins might be on the borderline for this.  They're certainly automatic once you pull the trigger.  They may have some agency in how they get from trigger to bang.

[The_Capt]

46 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

RUSI is usually right on the mark, but not with that commentary.  I think these guys are still conceiving of systems that can't be developed by anybody but General Dynamics, Raytheon, BAE, etc.  What they seem to be missing is high school teachers are already doing this sort of stuff with students on public and standard range private school budgets.  I know because I have a good friend in each environment.  Sure, they aren't building killer drones, but they are doing robotics that involve similar tech that 10 years ago would require an MIT level of education funding.

Aside from The_Capt's comparison of costs for a military (1x Tank Platoon vs. whatever we can think of for UVs) is only part of where this is headed.  The other is with groups like Hamas, AQ, and ISIS.  Think of how expensive it was to do the 9/11 attack or to have thousands of rockets to launch into Israel.  What do you think they are going to switch over to?  An autonomous swarm that is deliberately created to NOT care about who it kills is a no-brainer.  Unfortunately.

Steve

I read the doc and RUSI actually hits some pretty salient points.  The mainstream thinking is that unmanned systems as we are talking about here are an addition to conventional warfare.  An emerging capability to be added to our extant capability portfolios and expenditures. Unmanned systems are an undeniably part of the future warfare military algorithms and focus should be on how to combine them best within our current approaches to create advantages.

I think this does not go far enough.  I believe that unmanned autonomous systems will emerge as the core pillar of a future military operational system.  We will then build the remaining systems, some legacy others also new, around these new unmanned capabilities.  We will fund and equip the unmanned forces first, along with C4ISR and PGM strike.  We will then need to figure out from the money left what to resources with respect to heavier conventional manned systems.  This takes the entire approach to force development and generation and flips it. More plainly, tanks will survive if they can demonstrate that they can shape, support and/or exploit the main unmanned battle…not the other way around as RUSI and others suggest.

This era we are in reminds me of the introduction of machine guns. Militaries of the day immediately brigaded them like cannons and relegated them to a support-to-infantry role.  The reality is that within a few short years the role of infantry was to protect the machine guns while they exerted firepower effect, and then the infantry would exploit that effect by taking and holding ground…so they could move up the machine guns.

[billbindc]

And just to give a sense of how early we are in this iteration of warfare, my great-great-grandfather witnessed the early use of proto machine guns at the Battle of Gaines Mill more than 150 years ago. Imagine where drones will be in 30. 

[photon]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

We will then build the remaining systems, some legacy others also new, around these new unmanned capabilities.

World War II at sea was a race to understand a similar shift. In the span of a few years we went from measuring naval power projection in "weight of battle line broadside" to "size of modern air wing". Heavy surface ships survived inasmuch as they were able to be useful to the air wing projection assets, which was mediumly, and then not so much.

That transition happened in less than a decade.

[Haiduk]

Two GUR UH-60 Black Hawks were involved in landing in Kozinka, Belgorod oblast in March

 

[Haiduk]

In pre-war times Ukraine have been conducted works of S-125 modernization and in 2021 at least two AD battalions had these systems - S-125M1 and S-125-2D1. One of them in composition of Air Forces, other in Naval Forces. After the war began likely in summer 2022 Poland handed over unknown number of own S-125 "Newa SC"

 

[Battlefront.com]

Agreed.  So that's really two points that RUSI is missing:

1.  The evolving unmanned capability is not expensive compared to legacy ones.  Making budgetary room for it won't be a burden on any Western country, especially not the more militarized ones.

2.  Eventually legacy systems will be scaled back and/or eliminated due to reduced battlefield utility, thus freeing up even more resources to put into unmanned.

Let's stop picking on artillery for the moment because everybody agrees it has some amount of future for ground forces well into the near future.  Instead, let's remind ourselves about the system we've many times over concluded is on its way out... the tank.

The_Capt calculated how much would be freed up by eliminating the purchase of a single tank platoon's worth of equipment, staffing, training, and logistics.  But that's not the full picture.  The military has two other ways to save besides not buying something new.

The first is to scale back what is already in hand.  I don't know what the carrying cost of keeping a tank platoon active is, but it's well into the millions per year.  In fact, a single Armored Brigade costs $263 million per year to keep up and running (see source below).  This does not include the costs associated with new hardware, from what I can tell. 

The US has 12 ABCTs plus 5 lower cost National Guard.  If the Army got rid of all ABCTs (which includes Bradleys) completely there would be $3.16 Billion freed up every year just in carrying costs alone.  That buys a LOT of drones.  Obviously that isn't going to happen, however it does show how much money is tied up in those systems that could be redirected to unmanned.  Even reducing the total count by a few tank battalions would free up a few hundred million per year.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

R&D and procurement of new/upgraded tank related stuff runs into huge numbers of billions over the course of a few years.  The failed FCS program had a budget of $512 BILLION in inflation adjusted Dollars.  Can you imagine that amount of money plowed into unmanned systems?  I can't, because I don't think the military industrial complex would be able to figure out how to request even a fraction of that.  Gold plated toilette seats and $1000 hammers wouldn't even get them to that amount.

Which is to say... money isn't a problem.  It's politics and small minded thinking that will hold back unmanned.

Steve

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2021-05/57088-AppendixA.pdf

[Haiduk]

Russian VKS received two new Su-35S

 

[Haiduk]

It's became knowingly Russia used new missiles to hit Trypillia thermal power plant in Kyiv oblast two days ago. Recently it was considered were launched cruise misiiles Kh-101 type only, but now remains of Kh-69 were found. 

 

Kh-69 it's a deep modernization of "air-surface" Kh-59M missile, turned it into compact mid-range cruise missile similar to Storm Shadow. Kh-69 in first time was introduced in August 2022 and on Dubai Airshow in 2023. The missile has GLONASS/GPS guidance and DSMAC. GLONASS antennas unit "Kometa-M" is shielded in lower semi-sphere for better protection from EW systems.

Kh-69 has a range 290-400 km and carries 310 kh warhead (so at least 100-120 kg HE). Most bad feature for our AD is extreme low altitude flight profile. The missile can fly on 25-70 m which makes it too hard target for timely spotting by radars. Kh-69 developed for perspective Russian fighter Su-57, but probably Su-30/34/35 also may carry this missile.

It's known about three episodes of Kh-69 usage: Feb 7 2024, Feb 18 2024 (launch from Su-57, but missile hit the empty place in the field) and Apr 11 2024 (Trypillia thermal power plant was destroyed)    

Probable Kh-69 layout in Su-57 fighter

Edited April 12 by Haiduk

[chrisl]

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

R&D and procurement of new/upgraded tank related stuff runs into huge numbers of billions over the course of a few years.  The failed FCS program had a budget of $512 BILLION in inflation adjusted Dollars.  Can you imagine that amount of money plowed into unmanned systems?  I can't, because I don't think the military industrial complex would be able to figure out how to request even a fraction of that.  Gold plated toilette seats and $1000 hammers wouldn't even get them to that amount.

Which is to say... money isn't a problem.  It's politics and small minded thinking that will hold back unmanned.

I work closely with the MIC and I can assure you that they'll find a way and won't be hurting for money.

As I recently told a project manager - There's no amount of money I can't find a way to spend.

[Haiduk]

Yesterday local authorities of Mordovia Republic made a statement two UAVs were intercepted over their region (it's between Moscow oblast and Volga river. Mordva is one of several finno-ugric nations on territory of Russia, which have several autonomous republics, but mostly they are completely assimilated, so kept own identity mostly in folk songs) As became knowingly UKR long-range drones attacked 590th separate radar node near Kovylkino village (680 km from Ukriane), having on armament 29B6 "Konteyner" over-the-horizon radar with range 3000 km. It's a single radar of such type in Russia. In Kovylkino is located the receiver of this radar and main control and signal processing equipment. Transmitter is located in 300 km in neighbour Nizhniy Novgorod oblast.

ASTRA OSINT group reported one drone allegedly hit the buildiong of former comamnd center. No casualties and serious damages. 

29B6 receiver site near Kovylkino:

How it looks - just a part of 144 masts

Edited April 12 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

IEA Warns Attacks on Russia Plants May Disrupt Diesel Market

The flurry of Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia’s oil refineries risks disrupting global markets for petroleum products, the International Energy Agency said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-12/iea-warns-attacks-on-russia-refineries-may-disrupt-diesel-market

Really? We are deeply concerned. 

Alas, today's night UKR drones couldn't reach Novoshakhtinsk refinery in Rostov oblast - local authorities claimed four drones were shot down/supressed. One fell down on territory of refinery, but didn't cause any significant damage

[FancyCat]

Between Speaker Johnson wanting border provisions to the Ukraine Israel package and Israel aid becoming more and more toxic....I would like the discharge petition to be tossed overboard and do a clean Ukraine bill but certainly at this point, I doubt we will get anything passed till at least summer.
Aid shipments even of the token kind are vital for signalling. We have Bradleys and M1s that let's be honest, aren't likely to be used in Asia, and it's most likely not going to be used in the Middle East anymore, it astounds me that marking them to near zero value is impossible, and whatever logistic concerns or what not exist, the Ukrainian soldier needs protection and the Ukrainian people need reassurance that their sons being sent to war are not being abandoned by the West.

[Kraft]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

it astounds me that marking them to near zero value is impossible

Its not impossible but it is not the goal of the Biden administration to make Ukraine win by military means.