How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

More good news!  A new prisoner exchange just happened.  Some of the prisoners were from Chernobyl and Snake Island, which means they were held for about as long as they could be.  Also fighters from Mariupol.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-and-ukraine-exchange-pows-for-the-first-time-in-months-bodies-of-fallen-are-also-swapped/ar-BB1np6lE?cvid=d417c670096946ecbb890d13fa1d659d&ei=32

Steve

[Kraft]

Seems like (atleast) the urban positions in Krynki have been abandoned, possible units are moving north to stabilize there.

Edited May 31 by Kraft

[Battlefront.com]

36 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Have any armed versions gone to Ukraine? I am genuinely curious how they might be using them. Or indeed what units they are assigned to and how they are controlled and used. It still seems to be very niche / improvised at the moment.

The only info I've seen is that since the war started a total of 15 THeMIS UGVs have been given to Ukraine for trials.  They are all unarmed variants, at least a publicly disclosed.  I think it's a reasonable assumption that armed ones have been used as well, but that would be really touchy because Estonians would likely have to be on the ground in the frontlines for those.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/themis-ugvs-successful-in-ukraine-as-local-development-approaches/

The only armed UGVs I've seen were definitely improvised.  But the fact that some clever guys back in Lyvov can put something together relatively quickly should tell you something.  Nobody could do that with a tank.

36 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I do try and keep myself updated on the whole, and while Milrem is very much taking the initiative here, its still a far cry from large scale integration of armed UGVs for doctrinal purpose. To me, half the reason we are seeing so many improvisations and innovations from Ukraine is because they literally do not have other options available and so have to get creative. (This is not a bad thing on its own, just more a reality of things really)

And this has been my point all along.  Your initial position was about how difficult it is to get the established industrial base to switch over.  Like the fossil fuel industry, they have little incentive to switch to less complicated, less expensive, and perhaps more capable alternatives to what they currently make their money off of.  Until, that is, circumstances change and the militaries catch wind that something like that exists.

Again, I'll point out that we're already seeing this with UAV and USV systems.  Now they are both in full swing and new systems are coming online regularly and, in the case of Ukraine's, going right to the front.  They are figuring out how to use them and how to organize on the fly.  They aren't waiting for 5 years of study.

Why do you think armed UGVs are going to be an exception?

36 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I do try and keep myself updated on the whole, and while Milrem is very much taking the initiative here, its still a far cry from large scale integration of armed UGVs for doctrinal purpose. To me, half the reason we are seeing so many improvisations and innovations from Ukraine is because they literally do not have other options available and so have to get creative. (This is not a bad thing on its own, just more a reality of things really)

Did you have a look at the Uran 9 stuff I linked earlier?

Yup.  The list of problems reads like an accounting of Russia's traditional areas of weakness.  If we took development woes with Armata we would conclude that nobody could make an unmanned turret or an APS system.  All Russia's problems with UGVs tell me is that Russia has problems with UGVs.

The radio signal issue is something that Western systems will struggle with to some extent.  Physics being a common barrier and urban being the worst possible case for radio comms.  I fully expect Western equivalents would do much better, but still have issues.

Steve

[Haiduk]

29 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Personally I would expand it all the way to Tagenrog Airbase

Already done. 27th of May. Albeit not airbase, but aircraft repairing plant. Type of used wepon is unknown.

Taganrog airbase is not so "populated" by jets. Baltimor airbase in Voronezh oblast is very fat target, but has strong EW and SAM protection.

 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

More good news!  A new prisoner exchange just happened.  Some of the prisoners were from Chernobyl and Snake Island, which means they were held for about as long as they could be.  Also fighters from Mariupol.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-and-ukraine-exchange-pows-for-the-first-time-in-months-bodies-of-fallen-are-also-swapped/ar-BB1np6lE?cvid=d417c670096946ecbb890d13fa1d659d&ei=32

Steve

Some look little better than the survivors of the WW2 concentration camps, tough.

[FancyCat]

Every MRAP in the U.S used by law enforcement should be forcibly requisitioned/recalled and sent to Ukraine.

Linked from tweet: https://t.me/ButusovPlus/10740

Quote

Video of a Ukrainian MaxxPro MRAP surviving multiple UAV and mortar strikes in the Chasiv Yar area.

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/05/31/a-lighter-high-tech-abrams-tank-is-taking-shape/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tw_dfn

Seems the US have scrapped further upgrades to current line M1A2s and are now going for an M1E3 with some interesting adjustments. Lower weight and a mandatory APS system strike out to me in particular. I wonder if they will go with an autoloader as they imply. Would be quite the radical shakeup.

Curious to see what other modifications they go for, as well as considerations for a more drone filled battlefield. 

Edited May 31 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

45 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup.  The list of problems reads like an accounting of Russia's traditional areas of weakness.  If we took development woes with Armata we would conclude that nobody could make an unmanned turret or an APS system.  All Russia's problems with UGVs tell me is that Russia has problems with UGVs.

The radio signal issue is something that Western systems will struggle with to some extent.  Physics being a common barrier and urban being the worst possible case for radio comms.  I fully expect Western equivalents would do much better, but still have issues.

I mean I can entirely believe its just the Russians having issues entirely of their own making instead of it being an issue with the concept, though we kinda need more combat data overall on this subject. I am just concerned that Syria was giving them such trouble with interference when it pales in comparison to the amount of electronic warfare going on in Ukraine at the moment. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

25 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Every MRAP in the U.S used by law enforcement should be forcibly requisitioned/recalled and sent to Ukraine.

Linked from tweet: https://t.me/ButusovPlus/10740

 

Ironically I saw my first one on the highway yesterday headed north.  Brand new condition, no plates or markings, and no idea where it was headed.  Must be a State Police asset as the next city big enough to have one is on the other side of the border.  The_Capt, they're coming for you!

I have a friend who spent his deployment time in Afghanistan blowing and cutting MRAPs up after the surge went home.  Cheaper to destroy them than to move then back, recondition, store, and maintain.

Steve

[MikeyD]

M1E3 (formerly Abrams-X) is basically Armata. Autoloader, unmanned turret, the crew side-by-side in hull front, festooned with remote this-and-that. And Armata was basically the US TTB test program from 1980.

[ArmouredTopHat]

21 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

M1E3 (formerly Abrams-X) is basically Armata. Autoloader, unmanned turret, the crew side-by-side in hull front, festooned with remote this-and-that. And Armata was basically the US TTB test program from 1980.

I feel its unfair to call it an Armata when that's a byword at this point for wunderwaffe projects that will never actually be produced after literally decades of arsing around. The Americans can and will produce M1E3 if they want to. 

Also, what source did you have for the crew being all in the hull? I cant find much on that specifically outside of the autoloader component. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I mean I can entirely believe its just the Russians having issues entirely of their own making instead of it being an issue with the concept, though we kinda need more combat data overall on this subject. I am just concerned that Syria was giving them such trouble with interference when it pales in comparison to the amount of electronic warfare going on in Ukraine at the moment.

I don't think it's just a Russian problem.

_________

The reliability of UGVs’ communication systems is key in any scenario, according to Otsus.

“If you’re in the middle of an operation and urgently need situational awareness but the UGV loses connection or sends an error signal back, then the use-cases in which they can be operated are limited,” he said.

Although in open-road scenarios, most systems performed relatively well and completed them without relying excessively on manual options, the situation grew more complex in forested areas.

For example, Rheinmetall and a Czech University of Defence team reported on both days that the GPS signal was weaker in wooded settings, even though participants were allowed pre-load ten waypoints in their vehicles’ navigation software ahead of time.

“The trees, especially on the second day, were acting as a sort of wall for the platforms’ sensors, making it more difficult for them to find the best route."

https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2023/07/06/the-military-robots-are-coming-at-some-point/

[JonS]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Also fighters from Mariupol

It'd be interesting to hear what they make of the way the war is being carried out. I assume they've been more or less in an info black hole since capture, and ... well, everything is very very different now.

Edited May 31 by JonS

[Battlefront.com]

45 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I don't think it's just a Russian problem.

Yup, as I said a few pages ago the communications complications are definitely an issue for everybody due to the laws of physics being rough on signals.  However, I very much doubt that Russians are employing systems that are on a par with the US. 

45 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The reliability of UGVs’ communication systems is key in any scenario, according to Otsus.

 

“If you’re in the middle of an operation and urgently need situational awareness but the UGV loses connection or sends an error signal back, then the use-cases in which they can be operated are limited,” he said.

Although in open-road scenarios, most systems performed relatively well and completed them without relying excessively on manual options, the situation grew more complex in forested areas.

For example, Rheinmetall and a Czech University of Defence team reported on both days that the GPS signal was weaker in wooded settings, even though participants were allowed pre-load ten waypoints in their vehicles’ navigation software ahead of time.

“The trees, especially on the second day, were acting as a sort of wall for the platforms’ sensors, making it more difficult for them to find the best route."

https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2023/07/06/the-military-robots-are-coming-at-some-point/

Very interesting.  The trials were for a fully autonomous vehicle in difficult environments.  And as we've discussed already with things like self driving cars, we're a ways away from fully autonomous ground anything.  As the article points out, there's a lot of challenges.

However, from a military perspective I don't think this is too much of a problem for the near future use of UGVs.

For a variety if reasons, UGVs (of the THeMIS type and below) are not going to be some sort of autonomous agents operating far and wide without Humans a largely.  If this is an accepted limitation, then the solutions become far easier than they might otherwise be.  Specifically tailoring the means of autonomy and communications to the needs of a particular task.

A cargo UGV that needs to go from immediate rear to the front will typically use the most direct and/or favorable path.  This means roads or fields, not dense forest.  Navigational systems like GPS, visual reference points, and even self driving AI can assist in getting the UGVs from A to B autonomously will likely work fine in those conditions.  And if not, an operator can pilot the lead vehicle and the rest can follow using short range signals or teathers.

Once the UGV gets to the front the decision of what to do with it there can be tailored to the environment.  Rainy, dense vegetation, etc. might mean that the soldiers on that end have to guide the vehicles more directly (see below) or simply use an alternative such as unloading and moving the stuff by hand/cart, employing a local traditional manned vehicle as a ferry, etc.

The options for guiding a UGV directly are established and the THeMIS supports several methods.  One is to have an operator walk with the vehicle, behind or in front works better than to the side, to guide it with more precision.  This can be done by signals that are more-or-less LOS and short range, or it can be done by tether.  The operator can be right up next to the vehicle or dozens of meters distant.  Theoretically hundreds of meters distant, but that's not practical for most circumstances.

Other things can be employed such as UAVs flying over to provide situational awareness or to act as comms relays.  NATO militaries are very used to this sort of thing, so it really isn't a big deal for them.  Network centric comms continue to improve as well.

This demonstration video from two years ago shows some of the methods in use:

The thing is the closer a UAV gets to a combat situation, the more likely autonomy won't be a good idea anyway.  And when acting in the "close support" role, guess what that means?  Infantry will be CLOSE   So again, the idea that UGVs need to be able to go from Tallinn to Moscow on their own is silly.  Though after Prig's run to Moscow I think it might not be that difficult

Steve

[MikeyD]

Abrams-X, at least. Note three crew hatches in hull, no crew hatches on turret. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

7 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Abrams-X, at least. Note three crew hatches in hull, no crew hatches on turret. 

Isn't M1E3 an entirely different vehicle instead of a technology demonstrator? 

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Isn't M1E3 an entirely different vehicle instead of a technology demonstrator? 

But it seems that's what the M1E3 is being based on.  Maybe.  It doesn't appear anything is set in stone yet:

"Although, as noted, the Army has not articulated formal
M-1E3 program requirements, reportedly both weight
reduction and a hybrid electric power drive are seen by the
Army as essential features and are being prioritized in order
to reduce logistical requirements"

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12495

And now I'm wound up again   The US taxpayers are expected to spend $3b just to figure out what the next Abrams will be and the who knows how many billions to build and field the things.

Imagine what $3b in R&D money into UGVs would produce, then imagine how much less money would be spent to implement whatever they came up with, then how much less to support them.

Grr.

Steve

[dan/california]

9 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Isn't M1E3 an entirely different vehicle instead of a technology demonstrator? 

 

Quote

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/05/31/a-lighter-high-tech-abrams-tank-is-taking-shape/

This seems to be the most recent news on the Abrams upgrade. They are raising the possibility of unmanned turrets, autoloaders and a different engine. The only thing commit to is in integrated, highly capable APS, and new electronic architecture that makes everything play nice together. They say are aiming for sixty tons, but refuse to commit.

Edit: and I agree with Steve they ought to cut bait on the whole thing. It is like planning new battleships in 1939.

Edited May 31 by dan/california

[MikeyD]

Here's some E3 'concept vehicle' shots. Very Armata-like sheetmetal cladding. It looks like 30mm autocannon was moved to the coax position/

Edited May 31 by MikeyD

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm extremely curious about the armor configuration. Will they retain the traditional front-heavy design or distribute it all-around?

I also think they should stop calling it M1 Abrams.

[ArmouredTopHat]

10 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I'm extremely curious about the armor configuration. Will they retain the traditional front-heavy design or distribute it all-around?

I also think they should stop calling it M1 Abrams.

They will have to cut armour in some respect, even with a reduced crew and smaller vehicle, especially if they want to up armour areas that are usually susceptible to drones. Its possible with a capable APS system certainly. 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

https://elbitsystems.com/pr-new/elbit-systems-awarded-37-million-contract-to-supply-iron-fist-aps-for-upgrading-u-s-armys-bradley-ifvs/

 

 

Quote

https://www.twz.com/land/this-is-the-armys-new-m2a4e1-bradley-that-features-iron-fist-protection

The army seems to be committed to a full brigade of Bradley's with Iron Fist as well.

 

21 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Here's some E3 'concept vehicle' shots. Very Armata-like sheetmetal cladding. It looks like 30mm autocannon was moved to the coax position/

Clearly they have decided that Iron Fist is the bet they are making going forward. Somewhere between four and eights shots doesn't seem like enough in the current environment.

Edited May 31 by dan/california

[ArmouredTopHat]

5 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

 

 

The army seems to be committed to a full brigade of Bradley's with Iron Fist as well.

 

Clearly they have decided that Iron Fist is the bet they are making going forward. Somewhere between four and eights shots doesn't seem like enough in the current environment.

If Iron Fist is reloadable in the field it might not be so bad. Big if though. 

Still, APS is very important to have. 

[Battlefront.com]

This is madness.  The US government is going to spend $3b and take SEVEN YEARS to just figure out what it wants this thing to be.  We've just been having a discussion about time.  Let's take ArmouredTopHat's view that it will take 10-15 years for UGVs to come into their own.  That's about the time the first M1E3s come off the assembly line, provided they finish on time and on budget (two hugely unlikely circumstances).  Even if they do, they'll have maybe 3-8 years in service  before UGVs can, potentially, kick their arses (along with other unmanned and weapons systems).

So far the only coherent argument I've seen in support of MBTs vs. UGVs is that "UGVs aren't ready yet".  That's it.  So if that's the absolute best argument, then the logical solution is to invest heavily in UGVs and put something into maintaining MBTs in the short term with the understanding that they are a dead end.

Man, and I was having such a good day today too

Steve

[Offshoot]

5 hours ago, Kraft said:

Seems like (atleast) the urban positions in Krynki have been abandoned, possible units are moving north to stabilize there.

There were comments a few(?) weeks ago that Russians had abandoned positions on the left bank. Is this what you are referring to? Or are you saying the Ukrainians have abandoned the positions? As well, the Magyar unit has left the Kherson region for Kharkiv oblast. Maybe the pickings were too slim in Kherson now and they have gone to fuller hunting grounds.