How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Hapless]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

That is the question of this war.  I would add: and how much of this is applicable to all wars fought in the future?

Exactly. Is this WW1 or Iran-Iraq?

A step-change in warfare resulting in a tactical deficit that needs to be accomodated? Or the natural result of peer-to-peer conflict between industrialised states?

Maybe more to the point: if the US were to suddenly get involved, would they have the experience of having to learn the hard way like they did in WW1, or would they get a repeat of the Operation Praying Mantis curb-stomp?

[The_Capt]

13 minutes ago, Hapless said:

Exactly. Is this WW1 or Iran-Iraq?

A step-change in warfare resulting in a tactical deficit that needs to be accomodated? Or the natural result of peer-to-peer conflict between industrialised states?

Maybe more to the point: if the US were to suddenly get involved, would they have the experience of having to learn the hard way like they did in WW1, or would they get a repeat of the Operation Praying Mantis curb-stomp?

My honest guess - and it is a guess, as good or bad as anyone else’s- is that it would be a curb stomp but a far more costly one than we are used to. The US still has enough power to tip something like this over but the costs would have been extremely high, much higher than we have seen before.

Now US versus China in Chinas front yard? That one could get interesting - but I suspect the nuclear equation would kick in quickly. Two nations on the planet I would not want to play nuclear chicken with as we do with Russia: NK and China.

[hcrof]

1 hour ago, Fenris said:

Tend to agree.  Arms manufacturers will come up with something very complex, very expensive that under ideal conditions works flawlessly....  Then someone will velcro an explosive to something and it'll be useless as we've seen.  Without the pressure of actually being in the fight I'm pessimistic about what comes out in the short term.  I'd be more inclined to look at what solutions the Ukrainians are coming up with themselves for things that are practical.  But then I don't have any Rheinmetall shares in my portfolio

I was looking at counter-drones (I am calling them goalkeeper drones) last night and think they must be part of the solution but not the whole solution. The fastest FPV drones in the world right now travels at around the speed of a javelin missile and I guess is quite cheap, but has about 2-4minutes of flight time since it is pulling 9kW of power(!) from the batteries. That could be an effective and reusable drone/ATGM defence if they were targeted by an automated system but they are comparatively bulky so your magazine may be limited. 

An autocannon already on the vehicle, combined with a small radar is also effective and has a deep magazine, but only points in one direction at a time. I think a combination of the two would be most effective as they compliment each other. 

[Kinophile]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/world/europe/ukraine-destruction.html

Yeah, let's negotiate with these ****s. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

“We will build a better tank/IFV.  It will basically be the same one we had before but now wrapped in layers of protection (that will not solve the main issues) that will drive the costs of the vehicle by 2-3x”

The answer is a counter-system, not a more expensive platform.

The Russians are doing at least one thing better than the West.  Their "cope" counters are at least a heck of a lot cheaper, quicker to make, and probably no less effective.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

I’m surprised “Team APS” hasn’t just gone and claimed they’ll install anti-proton shield generators or some other ridiculous thing on every armored vehicle.

[The_Capt]

19 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

I’m surprised “Team APS” hasn’t just gone and claimed they’ll install anti-proton shield generators or some other ridiculous thing on every armored vehicle.

I think APS is part of a solution, but the problem is - as we just saw by Sumy - one has to put APS on everything.  No point having gold plated protection for mech/armor if the logistics are still running around in trucks with no protection.  We learned this in places like Iraq and Afghanistan bit no one wants to spend the kind of money that will be needed to upscale it to the levels we are seeing in this war.

There comes a point where our legacy systems just get too costly to try and keep in motion. 

[Harmon Rabb]

 

Ukrainian Front has been posting some cool videos and photos today.

[ArmouredTopHat]

50 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think APS is part of a solution, but the problem is - as we just saw by Sumy - one has to put APS on everything.  No point having gold plated protection for mech/armor if the logistics are still running around in trucks with no protection.  We learned this in places like Iraq and Afghanistan bit no one wants to spend the kind of money that will be needed to upscale it to the levels we are seeing in this war.

There comes a point where our legacy systems just get too costly to try and keep in motion. 

I feel like this is where larger UGVS might see some real mass use first. Using them for logistics frees up a lot of manpower and EWAR is less of an issue further behind the lines. Less need to protect them to the same degree as manned systems means a cheaper force overall that does not have to deal with many of the downsides of unmanned systems that currently exist. 

 

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

I’m surprised “Team APS” hasn’t just gone and claimed they’ll install anti-proton shield generators or some other ridiculous thing on every armored vehicle.

This seems a strange attitude to have when first generation APS systems have more than proven their value in combat. Next gen APS systems actually integrated with the vehicle from the start instead of being an add-on will only get better and cheaper, especially if armies are sensible enough to make them reloadable in the field. 

The cost is literally negligible when you consider an APS can save a vehicle that would otherwise be destroyed. The notion that the majority of missile threats can be somewhat reliably prevented from striking a vehicle is value enough, factor in potential dual role of FPV / loitering munition interception and you massively increase the value of a vehicle for a fraction of its cost. 

Whenever you believe in tanks or not, there -will- be manned systems of some sort on the field of battle for a long time yet, and they need every bit of protection possible. APS is literally a no brainer to not only saving vehicles and their cost but also the lives of the people crewing them. 

 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The Russians are doing at least one thing better than the West.  Their "cope" counters are at least a heck of a lot cheaper, quicker to make, and probably no less effective.

Steve

With the correspondingly wide array of varying results...not to mention some truly...questionable practises. 

Edited June 4 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

Animarchy making a fantastic point about the survivability of MaxxPros, or at least keeping their people alive inside. 

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

This seems a strange attitude to have when first generation APS systems have more than proven their value in combat.

Where? A quick internet search shows a lot of snazy tradeshow video and glossies but actual combat performance, even anecdotally, is really lacking.

I found one reference in an old 2014 analysis of the war int he Donbas, and it was Russian APS that were noted as being effective against AT5s - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316122469_Karber_RUS-UKR_War_Lessons_Learned

Beyond that we really have nothing but this war to draw upon and frankly APS has barely made an appearance.  APS did little in Afghanistan and Iraq as they were not designed for EIDs - nor are they designed for the flying IEDs we are seeing used at scale now.

And none of this takes into consideration where threat technology is headed with respect to sub-munitions and stand-off.  APS is a point defence system that is better than nothing right now, but we definitely are going to need to come up with something else.

[holoween]

16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Where? A quick internet search shows a lot of snazy tradeshow video and glossies but actual combat performance, even anecdotally, is really lacking.

I found one reference in an old 2014 analysis of the war int he Donbas, and it was Russian APS that were noted as being effective against AT5s - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316122469_Karber_RUS-UKR_War_Lessons_Learned

Beyond that we really have nothing but this war to draw upon and frankly APS has barely made an appearance.  APS did little in Afghanistan and Iraq as they were not designed for EIDs - nor are they designed for the flying IEDs we are seeing used at scale now.

And none of this takes into consideration where threat technology is headed with respect to sub-munitions and stand-off.  APS is a point defence system that is better than nothing right now, but we definitely are going to need to come up with something else.

Look to Israel.

They arent leading this tech for nothing and there have been several videos of aps intercepting rpgs/atgm at close range in urban areas.

[ArmouredTopHat]

42 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Where? A quick internet search shows a lot of snazy tradeshow video and glossies but actual combat performance, even anecdotally, is really lacking.

I found one reference in an old 2014 analysis of the war int he Donbas, and it was Russian APS that were noted as being effective against AT5s - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316122469_Karber_RUS-UKR_War_Lessons_Learned

Beyond that we really have nothing but this war to draw upon and frankly APS has barely made an appearance.  APS did little in Afghanistan and Iraq as they were not designed for EIDs - nor are they designed for the flying IEDs we are seeing used at scale now.

And none of this takes into consideration where threat technology is headed with respect to sub-munitions and stand-off.  APS is a point defence system that is better than nothing right now, but we definitely are going to need to come up with something else.

Israel has been making excellent use of Trophy on a wide scale and seem pretty damn satisfied with its performance. Plenty of footage around showing them intercepting all manner of projectiles pretty consistently. Its been reported to have intercepted relatively good ATGM systems such as Kornet as well, all the way back in 2014. The fact that numerous countries are planning to introduce the system seems to tell me that its capable enough for widespread service.
 

As for the Russians....well they claimed to have Arena working but the complete lack of any showing of the system tells me they were probably very much fibbing about that. Only hardkill APS we have seen in Ukraine is the freak T-80UM-2 that was destroyed a while back using the old Drozd system and I dont think it was even working. 

To me, it seems obvious that APS can be readily adjusted to deal with loitering munitions as well. If its capable of intercepting fast projectiles its more than capable of assessing and deleting a drone flying in as well. Could even see systems that include a lightweight 'shotgun' type weapon reserved for drone threats while the main system deals with rockets / missiles. 

Edited June 4 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

This one took a bit of digging but also appears to show the Kornet interception during combat. The technology has matured a lot since 2014 as well. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

In addition, the fact you can just put Trophy onto various tanks / armoured vehicles without major redesign is pretty significant, even if integrated APS systems are probably better for the future. The weight seems to be only downside of such a system but its got to be more efficient than just sticking more and more armour onto vehicles.  

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

In addition, the fact you can just put Trophy onto various tanks / armoured vehicles without major redesign is pretty significant, even if integrated APS systems are probably better for the future. The weight seems to be only downside of such a system but its got to be more efficient than just sticking more and more armour onto vehicles.  

 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I think APS is part of a solution, but the problem is - as we just saw by Sumy - one has to put APS on everything.  No point having gold plated protection for mech/armor if the logistics are still running around in trucks with no protection.  We learned this in places like Iraq and Afghanistan bit no one wants to spend the kind of money that will be needed to upscale it to the levels we are seeing in this war.

There comes a point where our legacy systems just get too costly to try and keep in motion. 

I think the logistics side of the equation is borderline impossible, but lets leave that aside for a moment. The first point I want to make is that the basic physics of drones make far more realistic testing/training possible. There is zero reason why you couldn't put a a plastic bottle full of yellow paint, with a glorified firecracker for a fuse,  on a drone a fly it at a buttoned up armored vehicle.

So here is my simple proposal, whatever glorified APS the defense contractors come up with has to meet Magyars Birds. If they can drive five miles on a test range with being painted bright yellow, then maybe we can discuss what to do about the trucks. My money is on Magyar.

[ArmouredTopHat]

4 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

I think the logistics side of the equation is borderline impossible, but lets leave that aside for a moment. The first point I want to make is that the basic physics of drones make far more realistic testing/training possible. There is zero reason why you couldn't put a a plastic bottle full of yellow paint, with a glorified firecracker for a fuse,  on a drone a fly it at a buttoned up armored vehicle.

So here is my simple proposal, whatever glorified APS the defense contractors come up with has to meet Magyars Birds. If they can drive five miles on a test range with being painted bright yellow, then maybe we can discuss what to do about the trucks. My money is on Magyar.

We have seen soldiers using shotguns to some effect against drones on the battlefield. Its really not a far cry to assume that a mounting for a shotgun type weapon that uses Trophy's detection system can do a decent job of defeating drones coming at it. 

I am sure we will see quite a bit of testing for such systems in the next few years given how prevalent FPVs are. 

[MikeyD]

APS radar automatically detecting and tracking a missile flying directly at you at 900 kph seems more straightforward than detecting and tracking something circling around you at 90 kph. The latter seems like it would be subject to more false signals, like a car driving past for example.

[ArmouredTopHat]

9 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

APS radar automatically detecting and tracking a missile flying directly at you at 900 kph seems more straightforward than detecting and tracking something circling around you at 90 kph. The latter seems like it would be subject to more false signals, like a car driving past for example.

I feel like it would be significantly easier given the sheer amount of time a system would have in order to accurately detect and validate a target prior to engaging. Trophy has literally microseconds to identify, validate and engage a missile and can do so with good confidence. Its plausible to do the same thing for a drone, especially if your using multiple sources of validation such as EM / Thermal as well as visual to prevent improper engagements. 

*Edit* I am not insinuating this is a current capability, I am suggesting that it could be done with relatively minor adjustments and development. Which seems a lot easier than making a separate system from scratch. 

Edited June 4 by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

49 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Israel has been making excellent use of Trophy on a wide scale and seem pretty damn satisfied with its performance. Plenty of footage around showing them intercepting all manner of projectiles pretty consistently. Its been reported to have intercepted relatively good ATGM systems such as Kornet as well, all the way back in 2014. The fact that numerous countries are planning to introduce the system seems to tell me that its capable enough for widespread service.
 

As for the Russians....well they claimed to have Arena working but the complete lack of any showing of the system tells me they were probably very much fibbing about that. Only hardkill APS we have seen in Ukraine is the freak T-80UM-2 that was destroyed a while back using the old Drozd system and I dont think it was even working. 

To me, it seems obvious that APS can be readily adjusted to deal with loitering munitions as well. If its capable of intercepting fast projectiles its more than capable of assessing and deleting a drone flying in as well. Could even see systems that include a lightweight 'shotgun' type weapon reserved for drone threats while the main system deals with rockets / missiles. 

Ok, but point of order.  As you have noted, we do not have broad reliable stats for FPVs in this war, only skewed social media reports.  How is this any different, except now for APS?  I have no doubt the IDF has seen some successes but it is a leap to "operationally proven for some time."  How many incidents?  Against which systems? In what context?

If the fact that "numerous countries are planning to introduce the system" is evidence enough, then we are truly in an unmanned apocalypse base on the investment announcements. 

It is also a leap to assign APS with loitering effectiveness as an FPV and ATGM are fundamentally different systems.  I mean this looks like "APS work great" if you are western power but "Russia Sux" in terms of the Ukraine War.

APS is frankly less tested than FPV by this point as tens of thousands, possible hundreds of thousands of unmanned systems have been used in this war.  APS employment globally is likely a fraction of fraction of comparable operational testing.

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Animarchy making a fantastic point about the survivability of MaxxPros, or at least keeping their people alive inside. 

Ukraine's junkyards of destroyed Russian vehicles would make it difficult to identify what they started off as being.  So yeah, quite a difference.  That and this is probably the bulk of the destroyed vehicles Russia captured.  They were obviously brought to this place for propaganda purposes.  Wouldn't it be great for Ukraine to put all of the destroyed Russian stuff in one field and take some drone footage of that?

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

Just now, The_Capt said:

Ok, but point of order.  As you have noted, we do not have broad reliable stats for FPVs in this war, only skewed social media reports.  How is this any different, except now for APS?  I have no doubt the IDF has seen some successes but it is a leap to "operationally proven for some time."  How many incidents?  Against which systems? In what context?

If the fact that "numerous countries are planning to introduce the system" is evidence enough, then we are truly in an unmanned apocalypse base on the investment announcements. 

It is also a leap to assign APS with loitering effectiveness as an FPV and ATGM are fundamentally different systems.  I mean this looks like "APS work great" if you are western power but "Russia Sux" in terms of the Ukraine War.

APS is frankly less tested than FPV by this point as tens of thousands, possible hundreds of thousands of unmanned systems have been used in this war.  APS employment globally is likely a fraction of fraction of comparable operational testing.

 

Oh you are entirely correct that we only have the Israeli perspective when it comes to consistent APS usage. I would say however that a decade of pretty extensive use coupled with pretty positive combat reports from both 2014 and more recently had made it clear that its a more than capable system that has made a major effect on the battlefield. 

I doubt Israel would not be trying to put it on not just every Merkava in service but also the Namers without the system clearly being of considerable value to them.

You are entirely correct that FPVs are obviously not something designed for an APS system to deal with. It is going to take time for such adjustments or redesigns to take place. It might not even be feasible for a variety of reasons. I feel like its going to be explored all the same though, for it seems a natural progression of a protection system against a very real and emerging threat to vehicles. I would not be surprised if Trophys engineers were not already examining the feasibility of such a capability very closely. 

As a sidenote, I think its entirely justifiable to go with the 'Russia sux' narrative when it comes to APS systems. They have been testing Arena for as long if not longer than Trophy and boasted frequently about its capability whilst showing it off all the time. Yet not a single vehicle has been verifiably outfitted with the device and used in combat despite a lot of talk about putting the system into mass use. Russia does have some very real strengths and capabilities but they also love to overstate capabilities in areas they clearly lack. Given the myriad of issues in Russian procurement for its next gen systems, its evident to me at least that the system clearly does not work or is disappointing in reality, or is simply far too expensive. Trophy in the meantime has not only been tested extensively but has been used successfully in combat for over a decade and is installed on hundreds of vehicles. The two are simply incomparable. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

We've had the "APS Magic" discussion many times and we're recovering the same ground again.  Not surprisingly, my opinion has not changed since the last time.

Spending more money, more resources, and more carrying costs on something designed to protect vehicles that have a questionable future on the battlefield is a bad idea.  Especially when those solutions apply only to a certain class of vehicles, not all.

As The_Capt put it, you don't need to kill a tank if it has no fuel or wasn't able to reload.  If the logistics can't be secured, then what's the point in all of this?

Which gets us back to how can we protect thousands of weight restricted vehicles from being blown up by UAVs costing as little as a few hundred USD?  All resources and attention need to be focused on that.

There is an old military axiom that you should not reinforce defeat is apt here.  The large heavy vehicles that are capable of fielding APS are a military dead end technology.  It needs to be recognized as such so that we don't waste time and resources trying to come up with poor solutions to protect something that is in need of a radical replacement.

My recent rant against the $3b the US is proposing to spend over 7 years just to figure out what the Abrams successor looks like is exactly the thing we should not be doing.

Steve

[The_Capt]

27 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Oh you are entirely correct that we only have the Israeli perspective when it comes to consistent APS usage. I would say however that a decade of pretty extensive use coupled with pretty positive combat reports from both 2014 and more recently had made it clear that its a more than capable system that has made a major effect on the battlefield.

I really do challenge this without more real world data.  And I am not sure how we are defining "major effect on the battlefield."  The IDF have not been in any peer-on-peer wars, all COIN/CT level stuff, even now in Gaza.  They have swatted some insurgency ATGM, ok, cool.  But that is not a "major impact on the battlefield" by any stretch.

And again, IDF mounting on their armored vehicles is not proof of anything really.  Militaries have long proud histories of investing in short-lifespan stuff.  I mean I suppose it proves that the IDF think they are worth it, for operations that the IDF are likely to face...in the past.  The IDF is not facing anything close to what we are seeing in this war.

27 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

As a sidenote, I think its entirely justifiable to go with the 'Russia sux' narrative when it comes to APS systems. They have been testing Arena for as long if not longer than Trophy and boasted frequently about its capability whilst showing it off all the time. Yet not a single vehicle has been verifiably outfitted with the device and used in combat despite a lot of talk about putting the system into mass use. Russia does have some very real strengths and capabilities but they also love to overstate capabilities in areas they clearly lack. Given the myriad of issues in Russian procurement for its next gen systems, its evident to me at least that the system clearly does not work or is disappointing in reality, or is simply far too expensive. Trophy in the meantime has not only been tested extensively but has been used successfully in combat for over a decade and is installed on hundreds of vehicles. The two are simply incomparable. 

To be honest, I do not think that this has anything to do with "sucking" and everything to do with costs and possibly the threats they have been facing.  We are again back to Russian performance being written off to "sucking" without any real proof one way or the other. We have no evidence of the poor performance of the system by design or faulty implementation.  

The costs of trying to outfit every vehicle may have simply been to high for the RA and impossible to sustain in a war of this intensity (possibly a lesson for us there).  Or perhaps it was the threat systems being used on those APS - it has been noted that current APS systems are not effective against top down attack, and the Javelin is reported to have very high Pk rates.

Russia may not suck, they just cannot sustain this FP capability, or it does not work well enough for them to try to do so.

As to Trophy's testing, well it is not zero but hardly definitive:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)

A few instances in 2011 and 2014, and maybe as much as a dozen in Gaza this last year.  Ok, this is a sign that in a low level insurgency they can perform and given that IDF vehicle losses are low, it likely indicates a high success rate. 

But that is not even close to "being used successfully in combat" as a general statement.  The lack of APS in the Ukraine War is telling us something and I refuse to simply write it off (again) as "Russia Sucks" - which has really appears to have become the go-to button whenever any phenomenon that does not fit western military "faith" emerges.

I am sure we will have APS in the future and systems to defeat it will continue to accelerate.  I also think that threat systems have the edge because any solution is going to change warfare regardless.  If we invent an APS that can detect multiple incoming threats, separating them from background scatter, chaff and spoofs.  And then effectively target those incoming threats and eliminate them...my next question is "why are we not pointing that technology at the enemy?"  We could effectively shoot the bolts off tires with that sort of resolution and targeting cycle speed. 

Same goes for c-UAS, any system that can see and effectively target a bunch of bird sized munitions coming in between trees at speed will change warfare forever.  Why?  Because if you turn that system on the offensive, nothing larger than a teenage squirrely is going to be detected and hit.

Edited June 4 by The_Capt

[ArmouredTopHat]

As a note to FPV usage in general, this is the first conflict that has truly demonstrated the value and potency of such system in widescale use. Against inventories of vehicles designed largely in the cold war its no surprise in many respects that FPV's have been so deadly. No one has really had to sit down and look at the reality as it stands on the battlefield to this degree before. 

I challenge the drone supremacy thinkers among us to think on this. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Historically new weapons or systems tend to be countered in some form of another, and we are only just at the starting point for weaponised drones. Is it not possible to consider that systems  could or will be designed in the future that heavily curtail drones? We already see plenty of systems in areas like EWAR that inflict pretty heavy losses on drone platforms, to me it feels a little strange to think that said systems will not evolve and be complimented by others, even as drones evolve themselves. I feel like the only certainty here is that there will be a race of sorts to be acted out, or just an extension of the rivalry between offensive and defensive systems that we have seen on vehicles since the first world war. 

Consider the following scenario. One nation goes all out on drones and unmanned systems while largely discarding manned vehicles, while another goes heavy on APS / drone killing technology on their own vehicles. Of course this is all entirely theoretical (I dont think anyone really can predict the future of warfare with any certainty) but just hear me out.

What happens if it turns out that a mass of new gen vehicles operating APS / drone countering systems are able to effectively deal with drones. Suddenly the other nation might be regretting getting rid of its tanks or manned mobile elements when its getting overrun by its enemy without a proper means to deal with them. 

I suppose the point I am trying (and likely failing) to make is that I am very wary of singular systems turning the whole system on its head, or assuming that other systems are going to remain exactly the same. Its obvious drones are going to be a very real and massive element on the battlefield, but I cant help but feel like systems currently in use will simply adapt like they do when any new fangled technology reaches the battlefield. 

I do apologise for the rambling.