How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[kimbosbread]

39 minutes ago, Kraft said:

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

Correct. If there was a will, there would be a way… but that would require a will to be present.

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

Correct. If there was a will, there would be a way… but that would require a will to be present.

Which is whatever is after crazy making.

 

[Vet 0369]

On 4/8/2024 at 4:13 PM, Beleg85 said:

This little CSS Merrimack will only need to find its USS Monitor now...

Sorry my friend, but it was the CSS Virginia that fought the USS Monitor. It can be very confusing to those who haven’t studied the American Civil War (including most Americans) but it is very understandable because of how the battle has been recounted since the day it occurred.  The Merrimack was a U.S. Navy ship that was burned by the Confederacy at the start of the war. It burned to the waterline. The Confederates raised the hull of the ship, and rebuilt it from the hull up. They then Commissioned the ship the “CSS Virginia.” To this day, I hear U.S. Historians refer to “the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack,” and they are wrong. 
 

your comparison was dead on though!

[cesmonkey]

I wonder if we could speculate now on what the U.S. could give to Ukraine that would make the most difference, both to stabilize the battlefield short term and maybe turn things around a bit by next January, assuming an aid package of some sort finally arrives at Biden's desk to sign in early May?

Patriot missiles and what else?

[dan/california]

23 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

I wonder if we could speculate now on what the U.S. could give to Ukraine that would make the most difference, both to stabilize the battlefield short term and maybe turn things around a bit by next January, assuming an aid package of some sort finally arrives at Biden's desk to sign in early May?

Patriot missiles and what else?

155, GMLRS, ATACMS. Bradleys. All of these have been proven to work, they just need a ton more of them. NASSAMS and missiles for it. Then put real money and technical effort behind Ukraines drone programs. Last but most certainly not least  would be more training, preferably measured in months, not weeks.

 

[cesmonkey]

New update from General Oleksandr Syrskyi:
https://t.me/osirskiy/650
 

Quote

The situation on the Eastern Front has significantly worsened in recent days. This is primarily due to the significant intensification of the enemy's offensive actions after the presidential elections in the Russian Federation.

The enemy is actively attacking our positions in the Lymansky, Bakhmutsky directions with assault groups with the support of armored vehicles. In the Pokrovsky direction, he is trying to break through our defenses using dozens of tanks and BMPs.

This is facilitated by warm, dry weather, which has made most of the open areas of the area accessible to tanks. Despite significant losses, the enemy is increasing its efforts by using new units on armored vehicles, thanks to which it periodically achieves tactical success.

Therefore, the first day of my work in the area of the operation is dedicated to this direction and to taking all the necessary measures to stabilize the situation, increase the effectiveness of our troops' actions and inflict maximum losses on enemy units.

Based on the results of listening to the conclusions regarding the nature of the enemy's actions, decisions were made aimed at strengthening the most problematic areas of the defense by means of EW and air defense. Also, stocks of drones of all types, anti-tank missiles were replenished, additional reserves of forces and means were moved.

The question of achieving technical superiority over the enemy in high-tech weapons arose again.
Only this will give us the opportunity to defeat the larger enemy and create conditions for intercepting the strategic initiative.
The second serious problem is to improve the quality of training of military personnel, primarily of infantry units, so that they can make maximum use of all the capabilities of military equipment and Western weapons.

First of all, the solution of this task depends on the command of the Ground Forces, which has returned in full from the area of hostilities.

The results of my work will be taken into account in the training plans of the troops and governing bodies.

Of course, he honored the best warriors with awards and valuable gifts.
In personal communication with our servicemen, they discussed the current situation, as well as ways to solve all problematic issues. We are aware of the real scale and degree of threat from the enemy and are ready to take adequate and effective actions.

We continue the work.
Glory to Ukraine!

 

[TheVulture]

For those who remember the British 'Dragonfire' anti-drone laser test from January, Grant Shapps (UK defence secretary) is now talking about possibly delivering it to Ukraine relatively soon.

It's timeline was originally aiming to be in service 2032 (assuming it can be made to work adequately). The time line was accelerated to 2027, because I'm sure it's possible to finish R&D 5 years sooner just because politicians have decided.  Now Shapps is saying it may be delivered to Ukraine even sooner than that because a system that is 70% done next year is better then one 99.9% done in 3 years.

More realistically, Ukraine needs any air defence it can get,  and the system gets to be tested heavily in real conditions, which will probably improve design iteration. So I guess we'll see whether it can become a meaningful and cost effective anti-drone system or whether its a white elephant.

Edit to add: whatever the rationale behind the decision making,  announcing it now has a lot more to do with timing of domestic and European politics, and the content of the announcement likewise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68795603

Edited April 13 by TheVulture

[Butschi]

18 hours 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

 

As @chrisl noted, the terms autonomous and automated are getting increasingly murky these days and pretty much depend on context.

Your definition of autonomous, "no communication with a human" would also fit a system where e.g. a room has lots of cameras hanging from walls and ceiling, connected to a computer. The computer controls a bunch of miniature or real cars which themselves are totally stupid. Both are existing scenarios, so the definition is not wrong. But probably not what we would mean or want in the context of drone warfare because you still have the line of communication with the controller who just happens to not be a human.

Then there is edge computing where you have sensors in the vehicle and do some lightweight (pre-) computing there but rely on a central server for everything else. Probably also not what we want.

In addition you can have fully independent systems that gain additional capabilities by communicating with each other or (centralized) infrastructure. Think autonomous vehicles that can do cooperative maneuvers that would otherwise require LOS, for instance.

In autonomous driving we would usually want fully independent systems but that is more for safety considerations.

A real drone swarm is a totally different concept, I think. Of course it could fit the "classic" definition "independent but with (sort range) communication among all the swarm members". But one could also imagine a single system, as you suggest, that consists of many parts and distributes computing etc. between the different members. That would have really interesting features as it could become more "intelligent" the more members (and thus computing power) it has and so dynamically do more or less complicated stuff.

[TheVulture]

Also from the department of over-cooked advertising spiel on British drones and lasers, BAE and Sentinel Unmanned recently announced they'd done the first successful firing or a class IV laser from a drone, which makes it sound like they've mounted some high power laser weapon on a drone, but turns out to be a laser target designator for guiding precision munitions.

In know we've discussed in the past the tendency for military procurement to take a concept like a $500 drone used for spotting and produce a $50,000 drone to do the same job better, but not 100x better. This longreach drone looks to fit that description: https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/longreach----a-groundbreaking-elevated-targeting-capability

And look how many important sounding acronyms they get in to the key features list:

• Multi-role platform
• Static and covert loiter capability
• CLASS IV NATO (STANAG 3733) Compliant Laser Designator with SEESPOT and laser rangefinder
• Compatible with precision strike weapons including APKWS® and Brimstone™
• Suitable for targeting indirect fires
• Advanced situation awareness, STANAG 4609
• Target recognition & tracking
• AES256 Link Encrypted
• MESH enabled – radio agnostic
• ATAK integrated
• SATCOM integrated
• Precision landing
• Autonomous mission capability
• In-built safety features including emergency parachute
• Hardened for operations in GNSS-challenged environments

Looks cool though...

Edited April 13 by TheVulture

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, TheVulture said:

Also from the department of over-cooked advertising spiel on British drones and lasers, BAE and Sentinel Unmanned recently announced they'd done the first successful firing or a class IV laser from a drone, which makes it sound like they've mounted some high power laser weapon on a drone, but turns out to be a laser target designator for guiding precision munitions.

In know we've discussed in the past the tendency for military procurement to take a concept like a $500 drone used for spotting and produce a $50,000 drone to do the same job better, but not 100x better. This longreach drone looks to fit that description: https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/longreach----a-groundbreaking-elevated-targeting-capability

And look how many important sounding acronyms they get in to the key features list:

• Multi-role platform
• Static and covert loiter capability
• CLASS IV NATO (STANAG 3733) Compliant Laser Designator with SEESPOT and laser rangefinder
• Compatible with precision strike weapons including APKWS® and Brimstone™
• Suitable for targeting indirect fires
• Advanced situation awareness, STANAG 4609
• Target recognition & tracking
• AES256 Link Encrypted
• MESH enabled – radio agnostic
• ATAK integrated
• SATCOM integrated
• Precision landing
• Autonomous mission capability
• In-built safety features including emergency parachute
• Hardened for operations in GNSS-challenged environments

Looks cool though...

So this is why I think artillery is not really going anywhere.  Let’s say China (or the US) come up with a snazzy APS system that can stop all strike drones cold.  A system like this can still standoff 10kms+ and light up traditional conventional units.  No tech exists to create a massive bubble of protection for small UAS out that far and if it did ground warfare itself would be changed forever regardless.  So this system plus precision artillery, plus strike drones, plus next-gen ATGMs creates an enormous denial pressure on the future battlefield.  The cost to even try to maneuver goes up exponentially.  The losses will be very high compared to previous wars for doing the same tactical action.  As both artillery and drone ranges get longer we are going to see an entire over-the-horizon battle before real people even get near to each other.

[Carolus]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-thanks-germany-new-patriot-system-critical-time-2024-04-13/

 

Germany will transfer a Patriot battery and additional missiles to Ukraine "immediately" (so, soonish).

[Battlefront.com]

16 hours ago, Kraft said:

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

This is unfair and inaccurate, I think.

It seems pretty clear to us that nobody in the West wants Russia to collapse or use nukes.  The latter being very obvious, the former being a bit more nuanced.  With that in mind, aid to Ukraine has been curtailed to some extent in order to avoid either possibility, though it seems the risk is tilted more towards avoiding collapse rather than a nuclear war merely because collapse seems to be more likely than a nuke exchange.

Because of this, all Western governments are trying to shape their aid to Ukraine to avoid these two situations.  We may not agree with the thinking or at least the risks, however that doesn't mean it's wrong.  The only way to know for sure is to abandon caution and see where that takes us.  The stakes are very high for that sort of gamble, therefore at the very least I understand the need to be deliberate about what form the aid takes.

And that gets us to where we are now.

If the Biden Admin got what it wanted when it wanted it, Ukraine would be awash in weapons and ammo of the types that it's been receiving for many years (even prior to this war).  The *ONLY* reason this is not happening is because of the minority of the House Republicans who have their reasons for opposing it.  The Biden Admin is expending a lot of political capitol to make this happen, including putting a strain on reelection possibilities this year.

Therefore, it is illogical to suggest that the Bide Admin is doing nothing significant now because it doesn't have the will.  It clearly does.  So the logical answer to why A or B or C isn't being done is that there's some other reason it isn't happening.  Perhaps it's outright illegal.  Perhaps stocks are already over drawn.  Maybe there's behind the scenes negotiations and Johnson has said "if you try doing an end run around us we'll stop negotiating".  Or some combo of all of these and others.

The fact of the matter is the only reason why billions in aid isn't flowing into Ukraine right now is because of one single person; Speaker Johnson.  Nobody else is to blame for this, not even Trump.  Johnson has made his own decisions for himself that he's going to thwart the will of the people and the will of the majority in Congress.  Which is why I would do away with the Speaker's authority to decide what gets voted on if I had my way.

Steve

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, TheVulture said:

For those who remember the British 'Dragonfire' anti-drone laser test from January, Grant Shapps (UK defence secretary) is now talking about possibly delivering it to Ukraine relatively soon.

It's timeline was originally aiming to be in service 2032 (assuming it can be made to work adequately). The time line was accelerated to 2027, because I'm sure it's possible to finish R&D 5 years sooner just because politicians have decided.  Now Shapps is saying it may be delivered to Ukraine even sooner than that because a system that is 70% done next year is better then one 99.9% done in 3 years.

More realistically, Ukraine needs any air defence it can get,  and the system gets to be tested heavily in real conditions, which will probably improve design iteration. So I guess we'll see whether it can become a meaningful and cost effective anti-drone system or whether its a white elephant.

Edit to add: whatever the rationale behind the decision making,  announcing it now has a lot more to do with timing of domestic and European politics, and the content of the announcement likewise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68795603

Well they have many billions on developing laser weapons, they might as well put the current iteration in Ukraine, and see if it actually works

26 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So this is why I think artillery is not really going anywhere.  Let’s say China (or the US) come up with a snazzy APS system that can stop all strike drones cold.  A system like this can still standoff 10kms+ and light up traditional conventional units.  No tech exists to create a massive bubble of protection for small UAS out that far and if it did ground warfare itself would be changed forever regardless.  So this system plus precision artillery, plus strike drones, plus next-gen ATGMs creates an enormous denial pressure on the future battlefield.  The cost to even try to maneuver goes up exponentially.  The losses will be very high compared to previous wars for doing the same tactical action.  As both artillery and drone ranges get longer we are going to see an entire over-the-horizon battle before real people even get near to each other.

And this is why it probably won't, but at this point it makes sense to try. 100% agree that an almost entirely unmanned battle at the leading edge will be first, and perhaps nearly decisive going forward.

Going out of town for a week, hopefully coming back to good news on the funding.

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, TheVulture said:

For those who remember the British 'Dragonfire' anti-drone laser test from January, Grant Shapps (UK defence secretary) is now talking about possibly delivering it to Ukraine relatively soon.

It's timeline was originally aiming to be in service 2032 (assuming it can be made to work adequately). The time line was accelerated to 2027, because I'm sure it's possible to finish R&D 5 years sooner just because politicians have decided.  Now Shapps is saying it may be delivered to Ukraine even sooner than that because a system that is 70% done next year is better then one 99.9% done in 3 years.

More realistically, Ukraine needs any air defence it can get,  and the system gets to be tested heavily in real conditions, which will probably improve design iteration. So I guess we'll see whether it can become a meaningful and cost effective anti-drone system or whether its a white elephant.

Edit to add: whatever the rationale behind the decision making,  announcing it now has a lot more to do with timing of domestic and European politics, and the content of the announcement likewise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68795603

This is definitely a WTF?!? situation right here.  I don't know what to make of this other than a massive boondoggle by the defense industry to drag out development in order to make more money over time.  But even assuming this is the case, shaving 5 years off of something that was only recently started?  That doesn't make much sense.

As for Shapps saying 70% is better than 99.9%, that's not logical for most weapons systems most of the time.  Usually there is some sort of minimum threshold for working at all, and I don't see how they could have sped up the most important bits of this system and the less important bits are what will take another 3 years.  Generally the less important bits are the things that can be sped up, not the core.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, cesmonkey said:

New update from General Oleksandr Syrskyi:
https://t.me/osirskiy/650
 

 

Every time I read these (thanks for making sure we see them!) I think that Zelensky made the right move to put Syrskyi in charge.  Ukraine needed a noticeable shift in how this war is being communicated after hopes of dealing Russia a major territorial setback last summer didn't happen.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

I’d love to rag on Imperial Drone Laser Excelsior, but I feel like that’s just cruel and unusual.

So let’s talk about realistic, 6-36 month CUAS systems, specifically defense against Orlan-10 and the like, which I think is the number 1 ISR threat from the Russians. The numbers, as I understand them:

• Unit cost of $50-150k. The solution needs to have a marginal cost of that or less for 99% hit probability. Even if you save targets worth a lot more, the proliferation of cheap drones means your solution needs to be as cheap.
• Service ceiling of 5km, but it sounds like they are often deployed around 1-2km.
• 150kmh top speed, sounds like cruise speed is 120kmph or so
• Size is about 2m x 2m.
• Control link is around 1GHz, not sure about video but I assume it’s 2+GHz (or maybe analog!?)
• My assumption is omnidirectional antennas from photos; I doubt Russia has the capability to produce cheap variable directionality (sp?) antennas. China probably though, but still not that cheap.
• Has a waypoint mode and active mode, presumably latter is used more.
• Can use another Orlan-10 as relay.

As we discussed many pages ago, a little MOLLE mounted frequency detector is cool, but probably won’t detect one of these guys. I think what you need is either:

• A decently sensitive antenna on the ground, briefcase sized maybe that can scan and detect ISR drones without need for an operator (other than having power).
• A fixed wing drone that silently listens for signals, kind of like a Rivet Joint, but not expensive. If you are flying at 2-3km, no reason you need that much in terms of big fancy antennas. A few SDRs is probably enough, especially if you are hunting a noisy relay.

I think the second one is the better solution for ISR drones, as it could protect a larger area of front, especially if it’s static, and we aren’t talking about a big drone necessarily. It doesn’t need cameras, it doesn’t need a big fancy transmitter, just some SDRs and associated antennas for passive listening, and some loiter time. The second, probably the better long term solution as you deal with smaller, cheaper and more numerous drones (coexists with first though).

So what happens if you detect an Orlan-10 20-40km away? How do you shoot it down, cheaply. How do you ensure you have a weapon close enough to engage? Ideally, once you detect the damn thing you’d like to be able to shoot it down within 3-4 minutes.

• One could build a lightweight missile that fits on the EW drone, but this imposes a constraint I think of max engagement range of 15km or so, because otherwise the munition will be too big. Max speed needs to be around 200kmh, or slower with some sort of sprint capability. I don’t think a big warhead is needed; just create a cloud of splinters. If the EW drone is cheap enough, maybe you pack them dense enough up high. Diamond Age it is. For example, if these things are re-useable and cheap (ie last 2-3 days for $50k cost), and you basically pack your 40km front with 10 of these in the air at once, you just don’t need as much range.
• Loitering munition that can take signals from EW drone, and “transform” into sprint mode by shedding wings and engaging a solid rocket motor. But you need more of these, and they need to be deployed somehow, and are likely disposable. Maybe you launch of package of ISR drones and interceptors off your Hilux in tubes, and they provide 2-4 hours of coverage with say 40km front with 3 minute interception time  covered with 1 EW drone and 6 interceptors.
• Go full Diamond Age, with EW drone and interceptor being one and the same, which might be cheaper, and just pack the front densely, denying ISR drones the chance to operate. This means re-useability and/or cheapness. It’s much hunch this is the best long term bet.
• Ground based launcher, which means it needs longer range, and you might need several of them. You aren’t as constrained in terms of weight, which means solid rocket boosters and thus high speed. A point defense solution seems like it’s gonna have to be developed, but I think it might be an evolutionary dead end compared to loitering interceptors.

For terminal guidance, I think radar + SDR + optics are needed. I don’t think we can assume near future ISR drones will have much radar signature, if any. Maybe projecting a laser grid like Starstreak and correlating that with what the SDR and AWACS drone say? Or just SDR homing and camera???

EDIT: I say this with the perspective of what I think I, a software engineer specializing in distributed systems, but with some EE/embedded experience, and few friends with a good mix of EE and software could do in our garages, or at a cabin with 100 acres of flying range.

EDIT2: Could one use quadcopters within 2km range or less to intercept an Orlan-10 at 1km altitude 1km away? Some of those little racing/speed optimized drones can go quite a bit faster than 150kmh, so you stand a decent chance of intercept I guess. That seems like the absolute cheapest solution, though it provides the least coverage/range.

Edited April 13 by kimbosbread

[FancyCat]

Maybe it’s just me but sure, Russia is losing material but they are adapting within the confines of their mission, and their mission is to advance no matter what, not in pursuit of a military goal per say but to demoralize the West and Ukraine. Things like the FABs, the destruction of energy infrastructure, sure, high cost for Russia, but in pursuit of an objective. Is it the wrong objective? If we agree that Russia loses if the war persists and costs mount, sure, the pursuit of western demoralization and cease of support is much better goal than a static frontline where Ukraine can enjoy the ability to rearm, train and prepare their own offensives. 

Which is why I find the lack of any kind of U.S response to be foolish. Thing is, even if Western responses are calculated not to prevent Ukrainian military victory, we are nearing territory of Ukrainian defeat, of western fatigue mounting or to be specific, Russian view of western fatigue mounting. Token aid packages are essential to at least emphasize U.S involvement and signaling. 

Still, the steps taken by Europe, France, Germany, Poland, Finland, and the rest of NATO are to be applauded. I just wish the U.S would at least signal something. A recent Hawk missile package is good, but more is needed.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Mick Ryan's take on the war after returning from Ukraine.

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/ukraine-war-how-check-russia-s-momentum

Russia is now a more dangerous adversary than it was two years ago. This calls for change in how the war is fought.

There is a compelling and urgent need for NATO to change from a “defend Ukraine” policy to one of “defeat Russia in Ukraine”. At the same time, Ukraine needs to develop and share with its supporters its theory of victory. One official in Kyiv told me there is no clear vision of how Ukraine will win. A new Ukrainian theory of victory must be a foundational element of any revised Western strategy.

[Battlefront.com]

OpEd piece touting the shift in NATO member spending since Putin launched this war.  As we've mentioned many times over, this gets chalked up as yet another "loss" for Russia.  It's inconceivable that Putin wanted NATO to be stronger as a result of invading Ukraine, yet that's what happened:

https://thehill.com/opinion/4591043-norways-announcement-is-a-reminder-that-defense-spending-is-a-nato-success-story/

Steve

[Haiduk]

Drone wars - UKR FPV intercepts Russian recon drone similar to DJI Matrice-30

 

[Haiduk]

Russian BUK destroyed, probably in Kherson oblast

 

[Haiduk]

Situation near Chasiv Yar still very difficult. Russians a day ago captured SW part of Bohdanivka village and tried to approach eastern part of Chasiv Yar, named "Canal" (esat from Siverskyi Donets - Donbas canal) from the north. 93rd brigade organized counter-attack, which allowed to push Russians back from the town, but all attempts to regain positions in Bohdanivka failed. Now Russians changed the vector of attacks and try to advance on Kalynivka in order to attack main part of Chasiv Yar from the north 

 

Edited April 13 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

Ukrainian aviation has struck Luhansk machine-build plant with two Storm Shadows. This plant alrerady was hit about year ago. 

Aftermath of the strike. Probably repair base or vehicle stand was there. Probably General Staff will report later aboyt this strike

 

[LongLeftFlank]

On 4/12/2024 at 3:48 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Small arms ammo?  That's checkers, not chess! And no, I will not king you.

Steve

(Allegory, not history... perhaps)

One famous King who played the game of 'King', of chess, was the Persian Pad-Shah Shapur II, who was taught it by his wazir. The wazir was the better chess player, but the King was always the winner of the game.
The King attained victory by the ingenious device of overturning the chessboard at a crucial point of the game and declaring himself winner. This showed an imagination of the sort that the wazir did not have; and it was for this reason that Shapur was the King, and the wazir would never be anything but wazir.
- R.A. Lafferty

[Haiduk]

Good news. But we need much more. It's unknown what exact Patriot gives Germany - whole battery or launcher(s). UKR previously lost two M901 launchers on Donbas.