How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[ArmouredTopHat]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So UGV are definitely behind their air counter parts, but things are moving faster than I think we appreciate:

The Chinese in particular have invested a lot of money on UGVs.  Like UAS they will likely need human pairing and start in narrower force employment but they are coming…and fast.  To my mind the UGV that scares me is basically a cheap smart mine.  We know mines still work, but mines with legs that can even just move a few hundred meters make them a complete nightmare.  Our entire breaching doctrine is built on mines being static. Even mobility of a few meters can break that.

If I was put in charge of this, I would develop a simple chassis that could be strapped onto existing dumb mines.  A chassis that gave levels of mobility and networked communication between the mins and a controller.  I don’t need them to walk to Moscow, I need them to walk a few dozen feet.  So when a very expensive breach goes off, I can reseed while the breach is happening - right behind the breaching vehicles.  This alone would break things because minefields essentially become autonomous and unbreachable. Safe lanes become impossible.  And one could produce and mount these systems on hundreds of thousands of existing mines.

And this is not even fancy like EFP or off route systems.  Let alone mounting a Javelin on a system, or pairing an FPV with a ground system (GFPV?). So while the challenges are different, in reality the bar is lower, not higher for UGVs.  They do not have the same load capacity restrictions.  They do not have the same 3D problems (ie have to fly).  But like FPVs we only need HE in the right place and time, and that they can do.

I do not know if UGV will happen at scale in this war.  My sense is, no.  But in a decade?  All bets are off.

I think we will see UGVs used in roles that are very unfriendly to people first more than anything, demining seems one of those areas where its a no brainer. Being able to rapidly clear mines without risk to your soldiers seems a very real and in demand need as todays conflict shows. 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/what-happened-when-russia-tested-its-uran-9-robot-tank-syria-182143

https://www.researcher-app.com/paper/8517551

I also dug into the Uran 9 a bit more and the issues which I feared did crop up quite a bit. (OF course the factory making them claim it was really good!)

• Signal issues seem to be frequent (Major concern when they were operating in Syria and not Ukraine with its plethora of interferences / EWAR)
• Terrain features messed with signals far more than flying drones. Buildings in particular seemed an issue.
• Control vehicle (Kamaz truck) had to get very close to maintain control (Not ideal in the Ukraine environment)
• remote control system only had effective range of 300-400 metres in most situations
• 'lag time' between inputs and actions was noted as a frequent issue even then.
• loss of control entirely was frequent (This one in particular seems especially not ideal for battlefield use. Lag in gaming is infuriating enough!)
• suspension issues on the chassis were also reported and limited operation time.
• problems acquiring and engaging targets at the specified range
• issues with the gun system.

As I maintain, we really are a decade a way from these things becoming more practical. 
 

Edited May 31 by ArmouredTopHat

[JonS]

9 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Even mobility of a few meters can break that.

Make your lane a couple of metres wider. Problem solved. Next?

I thought *you* were the ginger bear?

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

As I maintain, we really are a decade a way from these things becoming more practical.

A decade is a single institutional bound in defence.  It means investment decision on what we have in a decade are being made today.  A decade is very close…is my point.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, JonS said:

Make your lane a couple of metres wider. Problem solved. Next?

I thought *you* were the ginger bear?

Put two barrels on the stupid gun. Problem solved.  Next.

[ArmouredTopHat]

Just now, The_Capt said:

A decade is a single institutional bound in defence.  It means investment decision on what we have in a decade are being made today.  A decade is very close…is my point.

A decade before practicality in reality means probably another decade on top of that before you see vehicles in more widespread service, as typically a rule of thumb anyway. 

Given how long some countries are faffing around with vehicle procurement as it stands (Ajax is probably a great example) I can anticipate larger UGVs taking a proverbial age to get into service. 

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

A decade before practicality in reality means probably another decade on top of that before you see vehicles in more widespread service, as typically a rule of thumb anyway. 

Given how long some countries are faffing around with vehicle procurement as it stands (Ajax is probably a great example) I can anticipate larger UGVs taking a proverbial age to get into service. 

Not if they have Chinese script on the side.  I will put money on the bar China has UGVs integrated at scale within a decade.  Why?  Because we won’t.

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Not if they have Chinese script on the side.  I will put money on the bar China has UGVs integrated at scale within a decade.  Why?  Because we won’t.

China has its own issues regarding procurement, not to mention corruption problems. While they are not nearly as bad as Russia, they do like to chest beat about advanced technology while compromising more basic capabilities of their military. Also the fact of the matter is they fib a lot just like the Russians do about their actual capabilities. (All bling no basics Perun video is one to watch)

Edited May 31 by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

China has its own issues regarding procurement, not to mention corruption problems. While they are not nearly as bad as Russia, they do like to chest beat about advanced technology while compromising more basic capabilities of their military. Also the fact of the matter is they fib a lot just like the Russians do about their actual capabilities. (All bling no basics Perun video is one to watch)

And that is why I don't watch Perun as much anymore.  Nothing in open source is going to tell the tale of great power competition.  Common consensus within the community is that China is out front in unmanned.  That one is not really even a debate, but on that you will have to simply believe me, or not.

[Pete Wenman]

Given some of the discussion here over the last day or so, I thought I'd flag this unit in case some are unaware of it.

The UK Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade. It carried out it's first major exercise last year, and is something that was in development before 02/22. No doubt many of our talking points are being considered within its role which appears an attempt to break away from a COIN mentality and revert to dealing with peer threats.

Everyone is recce, everyone is strike. 

https://www.joint-forces.com/features/68290-scorpion-cyclone-1st-deep-reconnaissance-strike-bct

https://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2022/05/everyone-is-recce-everyone-is-strike.html

P

[ArmouredTopHat]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And that is why I don't watch Perun as much anymore.  Nothing in open source is going to tell the tale of great power competition.  Common consensus within the community is that China is out front in unmanned.  That one is not really even a debate, but on that you will have to simply believe me, or not.

Perun was referring to the Russians in this case, though he did comment on that recent Chinese scandal involving ballistic missiles. The governments in power in China and Russia are prone to these issues as a reality of nature. (Though evidently its a far greater issue in Russia as we have seen)

Edited May 31 by ArmouredTopHat

[cesmonkey]

 

[cesmonkey]

 

[cesmonkey]

 

[The_Capt]

27 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Perun was referring to the Russians in this case, though he did comment on that recent Chinese scandal involving ballistic missiles. The governments in power in China and Russia are prone to these issues as a reality of nature. 

And we are immune to defence spending boondoggles? Spend some time on the history of the western military industrial complex and the levels of outright thievery happening, going back to the 50s.

China is largely recognized as the global leader in UAS exports, and its internal capability development is in over drive, because we keep pointing at them while making angry gestures.

Based on how fast UAS have come up in a few short years, no credible modern military is going to push the UGV threat/opportunity out to 20 years.  This is not 1914, it is 1918 and everyone just saw what aircraft were capable of.  Some really conservative thinkers are still claiming the aircraft is a fad but western militaries are going to vote with their money.  They already have:

 https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2023/12/canada-acquiring-remotely-piloted-aircraft-systems-for-the-canadian-armed-forces.html

If the RCAF and the Government of this nation are finally willing to spend money on a military capability...well whatever we buy is probably at the end of its life cycle.  We are not late adopters, we are last adopters.  We are in an Unmanned Age already by virtue of the fact that Canada just jumped onboard - there is a Perun video for you.

https://www.army.mil/article/273594/army_announces_aviation_investment_rebalance

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/12/a-glimpse-into-the-future-of-warfare/

"We have all seen the prevalence of drones in combat, including in Ukraine and the Red Sea. So we are increasing funding for Australian drone and counter-drone capabilities. To make this happen, we are providing an additional $300 million over the next four years and $1.1 billion over the decade."

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/speeches/2024-04-17/launch-national-defence-strategy-and-integrated-investment-program#:~:text=We have all seen the,%241.1 billion over the decade.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/new-zealand-army-to-receive-new-unmanned-systems

So what is interesting about all of this is that these are rapid buys.  In many cases not forecasted 10 years ago.  For Canada, we did not even have them on the books in 2017.

This industry is going to go nuts after this war, and UGVs will go right along with it.  This is not a late 90s 2G flip-phone moment, it is a 2009 iPhone moment within defence.

Close out with this one:

"However, a force that is not aware of or equipped to counter UAVs risks ceding the enemy an insurmountable advantage in situational awareness, and suffering from a scale of precision effects that will prove crippling. Armies cannot, therefore, afford to be unprepared."

https://static.rusi.org/mass-precision-strike-final.pdf (and these guys are pretty tough on the subject)

No one is going to go into the next war and not ask "what about unmanned" as a primary consideration.  That sort of heat and light is going to drive UGV development at an accelerated rate.

Edited May 31 by The_Capt

[cesmonkey]

Germany allows Ukraine to use the weapons it supplied to be used to strike targets in Russia

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/zum-einsatz-gelieferter-waffen-an-die-ukraine-2289868
 

Quote

The Ukrainians are fighting for their country and their freedom. Many countries around the world are supporting them in this, politically, economically and with military equipment and weapons.

It is about the liberation of Ukrainian territory, and we have agreed with Ukraine that the weapons we supply will be used for this purpose in accordance with international law.
Together with our closest allies and in close dialogue with the Ukrainian government, we are continually adapting our support to the development of the war.

In recent weeks, Russia has prepared, coordinated and carried out attacks, particularly in the Kharkiv area, from positions in the immediately adjacent Russian border region.

We are jointly convinced that Ukraine has the right under international law to defend itself against these attacks.

To this end, it can also use the weapons supplied for this purpose in accordance with its international legal obligations, including those supplied by us.

 

 

[Eddy]

https://bsky.app/profile/noelreports.bsky.social/post/3ktrylofgvk2z

Quote

The United States sent a signal to Ukraine regarding permission to strike Russian territory with American weapons this morning, May 31. The message was sent through the military, Zelenskyi said in Stockholm during a joint press conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-0EREfMYJI

Looks like HIMARS and artillery, but not ATACMS.

Haven't heard anything about using Patriot to go after VKS inside of russian territory though.

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, hcrof said:

I think a lot of this discussion about tanks is people talking past each other since they are not speaking a common language.

I don't think so.  I think everybody means MBT when they get into a "the tank is dead" discussion.  I don't think anybody is thinking of SPGs, assault guns, or the sort of thing FCS was messing around with. 

What you're arguing in favor of is a REPLACEMENT for the MBT that isn't a MBT.  Therefore, you are fully arguing "the tank is dead".  The discussion you want to have, therefore, is "what should replace the MBT".  That definitely is a wide open question.

1 hour ago, hcrof said:

I was posting earlier about how I am skeptical about the utility of small UGVs and this video really makes my point:

Eh, no   What you just did was confirmation bias and convenient selective logic.  Allow me to demonstrate!

1 hour ago, hcrof said:

IThe problem is not that Russian engineering sucks (well maybe a little bit), they are simply too small. Yes they might be able to hit maybe 30km/h on a road, but as soon as they hit rough terrain they move at a geriatric pace and get stuck on a knee-high fold of ground (and this is the promotional video they released to the internet).

First, the Russians are famous for releasing idiotic stuff on the Internet.  Second, you don't think new US weapons systems have even worse things to show for themselves during development?  Or is it they are just smart enough to not let an enlisted man upload it to YouTube?  Third, the Internet is full of things like this:

 

1 hour ago, hcrof said:

If a UGV gets stuck, they don't have any way of extracting themselves. Because of this their off-road capability needs to be top notch so they can handle being driven badly over a crappy video link without bogging down.

Since when did tanks stop having problems with bogging down?  Tracked vehicles can get themselves stuck in all kinds of situations with Humans right there guiding them.  Look at the above video for some references, or just do a search for "abrams, stuck, mud" and you'll come up with classics like this:

https://www.wideopenspaces.com/how-to-get-a-60-ton-m1-abrams-tank-un-stuck-from-the-mud/

I also found an article from Business Insider that seems particularly relevant, but for some reason I can't get past an "Introductory Offer":

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-new-heavy-abrams-tanks-mud-experts-2023-10?op=1

I personally have used tracked vehicles with far better capabilities than a MBT and I've gotten them stuck before.  On trails.  It's amazing what a frozen log or an errant tree branch can do to running gear.

Aside from the selective logic in the negative, you are neatly omitting the benefits that come from small, light, and maneuverable.  My tracked vehicles, for example, do not require a 70T rated bridge or an entire bridging battalion for me to get across a water obstacle.  I live in the forest and I can tell you that no MBT could cross my land AT ALL without an engineer party clearing a path, yet my small tracked vehicle can to some extent and a smaller UGV would have no problems.

Then there's the whole logistics thing.  Would the infantry rather have 2 or 3 smaller and theoretically less capable vehicles that have a good chance of keeping up with them or 1 vehicle that isn't likely to be available to them at all, and if it is, highly limited in terms of where it can go.  Oh, and would the infantry rather be next to something that can't be heard 5km away or spotted easily by ISR?

I could go on and on and on and on with this.  It's like shooting fish in a barrel with a smooth bore 120mm cannon

 

To recap... let's try and not us selective logic for maintaining bias against UGVs (or anything else for that matter).  Good rule of thumb is to take a proposed standard and apply it to the thing you are defending first before applying it to the thing you're challenging.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

35 minutes ago, Eddy said:

https://bsky.app/profile/noelreports.bsky.social/post/3ktrylofgvk2z

Looks like HIMARS and artillery, but not ATACMS.

Haven't heard anything about using Patriot to go after VKS inside of russian territory though.

Famous episode opposite Kyiv last year apparently pissed off the US so much that Ukraine hasn't tried it again:

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-five-aircraft-bryansk-ukraine-patriot-air-defense-system-1810688

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

A decade before practicality in reality means probably another decade on top of that before you see vehicles in more widespread service, as typically a rule of thumb anyway. 

I know you can't respond to everything in detail, but I already addressed this.  UGVs are already here, so that 10 year window you speak of started 10 years ago.

I'll save you the bother of hunting for my post and responding to it because this is enough.  It is from today's news:

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/05/31/milrem-themis-drone-factory-estonia/

The private sector doesn't build factories with a production capacity of 500 vehicles a year unless it thinks it can sell at least that number.  Which indicates that you're not operating on the most current information about UGV development.

Steve

[LuckyDog]

[I'm way behind in posting - sorry most of this is a bit late] I've been considering the "why" of having a tank. Originally, the Messoptianian water carriers were to cross a shell-cratered, barbed wire-infested front line, cross any necessary trenches, and capture/rout/kill any enemy infantry. The "why" was to cause a breach in the front lines to enable a breakthrough. Not so different from today.

The issue is that we now perceive a tank as being a 60+ton frontally armoured beast focused on destroying other similar competition and killing infantry. We don't need a high-velocity gun to deal with other tanks - that is now handled way out of direct sight by drones, mines, and artillery. As Dan/CA said, this is not the tank we need now. The role can be performed by less demanding substitutes - more juice for the squeeze. Dare I say it - they perform it better, as it's too far for the enemy tank to hit friendly forces.

Is the IFV the new "tank"? Should it be smaller to make it more survivable? Can you carry the weapons needed to attack or defend, as well as ammo and energy for EW/APS/recharging drones? Should it carry infantry to deliver them? Should it even be used to attack a position or as a "bus" to deliver drones, rearm, and refuel them? The latter might be the reality with the new levels of ISR, in which case, how do you safely deliver infantry, or do we have specialized platforms? This is the new carrier fleet that we have discussed.

Do we need infantry? Can you occupy land with a drone force? If you want to control a population, do you need more than ISR (CCTV/Web Cams) that feed a remote drone control HQ that responds as needed? Is the PBI going the same way as the tank?

[Eddy]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Famous episode opposite Kyiv last year apparently pissed off the US so much that Ukraine hasn't tried it again:

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-five-aircraft-bryansk-ukraine-patriot-air-defense-system-1810688

Steve

I can understand why the US went nuts over this if the Ukrainians used Patriots inside russia against US wishes. However, I'd argue the facts on the ground have changed now.

Firstly, Ukrainian forces have been killed and territory has been lost because of the VKS's use of glide bombs. There is a need to use long range AA that hit targets in russia that didn't exist back in summer 2023.

Secondly, it's very difficult to argue it would be escalatory when it has already been done and didn't result in an escalation. Unless one wants to go down the rabbit hole of 'ah but this time it may be escalatory'.

Thirdly if the ban is in place as punishment for that incident, the Ukrainians have been punished enough (IMHO)

I really feel for the Ukrainian operation planning guys. There are some countries saying yeah you can use our stuff in russia. Some are saying you can use some of our stuff in russia. And others saying no you can't. Take F16s, the Dutch are saying whatevs and the the Belgians are saying 'don't use our stuff in russia'. Mission planning is hard enough without that added crap.

I can imagine a scene where a M777 crew are having to work out who provided a particular shell before they can decide whether it can be fired or not.

Anyway, rant mode off!

[Battlefront.com]

30 minutes ago, LuckyDog said:

[I'm way behind in posting - sorry most of this is a bit late] I've been considering the "why" of having a tank. Originally, the Messoptianian water carriers were to cross a shell-cratered, barbed wire-infested front line, cross any necessary trenches, and capture/rout/kill any enemy infantry. The "why" was to cause a breach in the front lines to enable a breakthrough. Not so different from today.

The issue is that we now perceive a tank as being a 60+ton frontally armoured beast focused on destroying other similar competition and killing infantry. We don't need a high-velocity gun to deal with other tanks - that is now handled way out of direct sight by drones, mines, and artillery. As Dan/CA said, this is not the tank we need now. The role can be performed by less demanding substitutes - more juice for the squeeze. Dare I say it - they perform it better, as it's too far for the enemy tank to hit friendly forces.

Is the IFV the new "tank"? Should it be smaller to make it more survivable? Can you carry the weapons needed to attack or defend, as well as ammo and energy for EW/APS/recharging drones? Should it carry infantry to deliver them? Should it even be used to attack a position or as a "bus" to deliver drones, rearm, and refuel them? The latter might be the reality with the new levels of ISR, in which case, how do you safely deliver infantry, or do we have specialized platforms? This is the new carrier fleet that we have discussed.

Do we need infantry? Can you occupy land with a drone force? If you want to control a population, do you need more than ISR (CCTV/Web Cams) that feed a remote drone control HQ that responds as needed? Is the PBI going the same way as the tank?

Yes, this is the crux of the matter.  Are there systems that can duplicate a MBT's ability to take out the enemy's MBTs?  For sure that's a yes.  Some are even superior to MBTs in some ways (I put the Javelin in that category).  But do we yet have something to duplicate the MBT's original role against fixed fortifications?  No, not yet.  However, we're seeing even MBTs struggle to fulfill that need in this war, as well as its traditional maneuver role. 

Which means we have a very expensive platform that is no longer very useful for what it was originally intended for nor the one it evolved into.  There's an adequate collection of substitutes for killing tanks without a tank (though it seems helicopters aren't likely in the mix any more), however so far there's no replacement for it's traditional maneuver capabilities.  The thing is, maneuver warfare generally is no longer feasible, therefore the tank is in good company in that sense.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

35 minutes ago, Eddy said:

I can understand why the US went nuts over this if the Ukrainians used Patriots inside russia against US wishes. However, I'd argue the facts on the ground have changed now.

Firstly, Ukrainian forces have been killed and territory has been lost because of the VKS's use of glide bombs. There is a need to use long range AA that hit targets in russia that didn't exist back in summer 2023.

Secondly, it's very difficult to argue it would be escalatory when it has already been done and didn't result in an escalation. Unless one wants to go down the rabbit hole of 'ah but this time it may be escalatory'.

Thirdly if the ban is in place as punishment for that incident, the Ukrainians have been punished enough (IMHO)

I really feel for the Ukrainian operation planning guys. There are some countries saying yeah you can use our stuff in russia. Some are saying you can use some of our stuff in russia. And others saying no you can't. Take F16s, the Dutch are saying whatevs and the the Belgians are saying 'don't use our stuff in russia'. Mission planning is hard enough without that added crap.

I can imagine a scene where a M777 crew are having to work out who provided a particular shell before they can decide whether it can be fired or not.

Anyway, rant mode off!

Absolutely.  Hopefully the Biden admin's next evolutionary policy change is to take all restrictions off of air defenses.

Steve

[Maciej Zwolinski]

11 minutes ago, LuckyDog said:

Originally, the Messoptianian water carriers were to cross a shell-cratered, barbed wire-infested front line, cross any necessary trenches, and capture/rout/kill any enemy infantry. The "why" was to cause a breach in the front lines to enable a breakthrough. Not so different from today.

The issue is that we now perceive a tank as being a 60+ton frontally armoured beast focused on destroying other similar competition and killing infantry.

That's because the role for which the tank was invented- breakthrough of a fixed front - is not the one it excels at. It has been quickly discovered, that breakthrough can be obtained by other means. However, the problem is what next. Once you are out of the enemy reserve trench and want to make ground, it really does not do to slow down to a crawl each time a HMG starts shooting in the vicinity. Serendipitously, the tank has turned out to be the thing that could reliably go forward in such circumstances. It was invulnerable/less vulnerable to the things that kill mobility of soldiers on foot or horseback- HMGs and indirect HE artillery fire, later also aircraft strafing and bombing (particularly deadly against cavalry). And (mines excepted) it could be destroyed only by things it could itself outfight, numbers permitting, and then continue on its merry rampage through the enemy rear. It made the exploitation possible again .

In that sense, it is less important whether we are talking strictly about tanks, IFVs or armoured cars. Functionally, tank had the role of the vehicle which can reasonably well shrug off indirect and machine gun fire,  move forward over lightly contested ground at speeds significantly higher than walking, and overcome moderate enemy resistance by the onboard weapons of itself and others inj its unit before moving again. Now there is no way to be reasonably protected from indirect fire because of the anti tank drones, while their reconnaissance cousins also improve the accuracy of artillery fire to the point that even ordinary HE can obtain direct hits. Also it is questionable if tanks alone can outfight any enemy, since even basic infantry platoons have several moderate-range, high-PK missiles each .

There is no vehicle currently which would fulfill the above described role. During the Kharkiv offensive, Ukrainians were exploiting the breaktrough in pick-ups, on quads and buggies. Not that they were the better vehicles for it it than tanks. But the additional level of safety that the tanks provided was not so much higher to warrant their enormous price tag.

[kimbosbread]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So UGV are definitely behind their air counter parts, but things are moving faster than I think we appreciate:

To my mind the UGV that scares me is basically a cheap smart mine.  We know mines still work, but mines with legs that can even just move a few hundred meters make them a complete nightmare.  Our entire breaching doctrine is built on mines being static. Even mobility of a few meters can break that.

If I was put in charge of this, I would develop a simple chassis that could be strapped onto existing dumb mines.  A chassis that gave levels of mobility and networked communication between the mins and a controller.  I don’t need them to walk to Moscow, I need them to walk a few dozen feet.  So when a very expensive breach goes off, I can reseed while the breach is happening - right behind the breaching vehicles.  This alone would break things because minefields essentially become autonomous and unbreachable. Safe lanes become impossible.  And one could produce and mount these systems on hundreds of thousands of existing mines.

I feel like that just wouldn’t be that hard to build:

1. A mesh network system that lets the mines work out their relative positions and quantities without needing to be overly chatty.
2. Some sensors to detect “we got breached yo” or sappers. 
3. Some compute power on the order of a ****ty smartphone
4. Batteries, maybe a solar panel if this gonna sit out there for a while.
5. Legs or tracks that let it slowly move a few feet.
6. If they need to dig themselves in again, that’s also tough.

 

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

A decade before practicality in reality means probably another decade on top of that before you see vehicles in more widespread service, as typically a rule of thumb anyway. 

In wars technology tends to advance more quickly. And in the run up to a war (as with China), there appears on all sides a large appetite to go for unmanned systems.