How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[ArmouredTopHat]

41 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

The article's a bit dated (almost 2 months ago) but it discusses the progress with laser defense in-service tests. Stryker Defender is not exactly being praised after 2 months in the field.

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05/army-soldiers-not-impressed-with-strykers-outfitted-with-50-kilowatt-lasers-service-official-says/

I would not call that dated, seems pretty relevant. I am personally pretty sceptical of lasers outside of static installations. A lot of effort for something that is going to be pretty bad at dealing with swarms. Not to mention it requires a dedicated vehicle that cant do much else. 

Edited July 7 by ArmouredTopHat

[sburke]

59 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

Sorry, you want room 12A next door...

 

no thread can't be improved with a dose of the Python.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I think you need to stop thinking that I am defending a status quo when literally talking about future weapon systems. How does that even make sense?

You are defending the status quo... which boils down to massive, expensive programs to protect outdated concepts of warfare while, at the same time, refusing to acknowledge that warfare has fundamentally changed.  Not just because some of us say so, but because subject matter experts are also saying so.  Plus, there is objective reality from Ukraine that those conclusions are based on. 

Let me put it this way.  Before this war I did not fully understand the threat of unmanned systems nor how absolutely unprepared the West is to deal with them.  This war is an eye opener, but only if you have your eyes open.

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Can we stop being so rude with the language please? Calling peoples ideas fantasy despite them being rooted in reality is a little grating. There is no reason to be this abrasive. I would appreciate a little more decorum and it would improve your points quite a bit.

I admit I am getting severely frustrated arguing with you.  It's like boxing against smoke.

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

We have used far more destructive weapon systems in such environments and view them as an acceptable risk for collateral. You are talking about bullets being fired in a warzone where there are already plenty of bullets and artillery being flung around in most warzones. Presumably an autonomous system would have safeguards to ensure that a person is not shot instead of a drone. Surely the same limitations are going to be put into drone munitions using swarm tactics to prevent friendly fire when operating in an area filled with friendlies?

All wrong.  Every single bit of this.  First, you have still not really thought through how the systems you're crowing about will work in real life.  If by some miracle a weapons system is developed and also effectively deployed to keep drones out of the sky (and that is fantasy), all the drones have to do is come in low or on the ground.  Cripes, we haven't even talked about all of the emerging threats from the ground!  Let's skip that for now and stick with UAS.

So, what would you do if you found that flying in at targets high in the sky was no longer feasible?  You'd come in from ground level as I have already stated several times.  And what happens then is the drones will get in close before they are detected because, excepting certain desert scenarios, there's lots of things to obstruct detection and even more for tracking.  Even if some magical form of sensors is invented to cut through all the ground clutter (and that is fantasy) to both detect and track incoming threats at ground level, then what?  Terrain clutter means they will likely get in close because now you also need clear LOF.  Perhaps mere meters in tight terrain.  Then what? 

The Phalanx type system just starts blazing away.  "Presumably an autonomous system would have safeguards..." is another sign that you haven't thought this through.  If a threat is within final approach already, do you really think the defense system will have the luxury of holding fire?  That's a really terrible assumption to make.  Further, what on Earth makes you think that the attacking munition would have any constraints?  It's deep in enemy territory, so why would it have to worry about friendlies?  Surely Russia has amply demonstrated that it doesn't care one iota about civilians or its own forces, so that just goes right out the window.

In fact, if I were programming UAS to attack I would explicitly leverage whatever my enemy's mindset.  If I were attacking Western forces I would deliberately try to cause friendly fire or holding fire situations.  I would get them to blow up civilians to defend their stuff or allow me to kill their stuff because they didn't.

This is pretty self evident and yet you don't appear to have thought it through.  Nor have you thought about UGVs or how dismounted infantry are supposed to survive.

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

All of this ignores the primary point that drone based interceptors are going to be a primary means of defence.

Then why spend billions on something that isn't likely to do much of anything?  Why not spend billions on something that is worth a damned?

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Ok I am sorry but pointing to a video of some drones doing a preprogramed show routine with fancy lights is nothing near an autonomous swarm system designed to hunt and kill a variety of targets on a battlefield. Your telling me I am making stuff up but the fact of the matter is there is no lethal drone swarm system in service and there is unlikely to be one for a while yet.

No.  No, no no no no no.  First of all, citing a per Ukraine War study from a nation that has obviously been caught with its pants around its ankles is not comforting.  In fact, it is more evidence of how screwed the West is right now.

Many people, some with first hand experience, have tried to explain to you that this is NOT A LONG WAYS OFF!  Many have also tried to explain to you why the established military is living in denial.  All of the ingredients to make a militarized swarm exist RIGHT NOW.  TODAY.  Fully autonomous individual capabilities are ALREADY being fielded in Ukraine.  There is no big leap to go from one to the other.  It's a slight jump, that's all.

On the other hand, NOBODY has a good answer for the UAS that are already in use.  You keep saying there is, but you can't back it up.  There isn't anything out there.  Not even the stuff you call "promising" looks even remotely practical.  People have repeatedly pointed this out to you, and yet... you hold to your belief system.  See first point in this post.

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

There are lethal systems in the works, but in the case of the US, the very same system is now being selected as a C-UAS role. So defence swarms are likely to be fielded in combat at the same time as offensive ones. Either way its still very early days for swarms.

And yet you are convinced that there's an answer to them.  I've already pointed out defensive counter UAS drones have some pretty significant physics problems working against them. 

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

There are a plethora of promising systems literally in existence that could become very promising with the appropriate development. All the ingredients already exist and people are actively cooking with them. These systems are only going to get cheaper and more prolific.

You have been asked, by several people several times, to name some of these.  If there is a "plethora" of them, that should be easy.  And yet you still haven't done so.  I don't know what that link you posted was supposed to show, but it's a dead link.

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Perhaps if you were to be a little less condescending about what remains a largely theoretical possibility of what future warfare might look like we could have a better debate on it.  

The threat from UAS is not theoretical, it is a reality and is the defining feature of the war in Ukraine more than anything else.  Another defining feature is the inability to effectively counter the threat from UAS.  Yet you want to argue as if the threat is theoretical and the defenses against it are not.  Which is why this is such a frustrating discussion.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

48 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You are defending the status quo... which boils down to massive, expensive programs to protect outdated concepts of warfare while, at the same time, refusing to acknowledge that warfare has fundamentally changed.  Not just because some of us say so, but because subject matter experts are also saying so.  Plus, there is objective reality from Ukraine that those conclusions are based on. 

I am arguing the status quo by saying vehicles need to change and that drone based interceptors are likely going to be the major aspect of defending against drone munitions going forward? Sure. Okay. Pointing out that tanks have a role, or that perhaps such extreme changes might not be so predictable due to potential counters is not my saying everything is fine carry on. Please understand that just once, I have tried to make it clear several times. Stop acting like I am some deep rooted conservative who thinks that drones are a temporary fad. 

 

48 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I admit I am getting severely frustrated arguing with you.  It's like boxing against smoke.

Then you need to either stop debating with me or figure out how not to so frustrated from a differing opinion, because being so rudely treated is not why I am here. If I want to argue with people I will go on twitter and fight the genuinely brainless. Just because I have a different opinion that is still broadly supportive of the idea that war is and will change should not be getting you and others so wound up. I came here to debate with reasonable people, not be told to shut up and that my argument actually sucks. Its not a good way to change peoples minds. I dont pretend to be some sage who predicts everything, but neither do I expect to be treated as if I am incapable of thinking properly. 
 

48 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

All wrong.  Every single bit of this.  First, you have still not really thought through how the systems you're crowing about will work in real life.  If by some miracle a weapons system is developed and also effectively deployed to keep drones out of the sky (and that is fantasy), all the drones have to do is come in low or on the ground.  Cripes, we haven't even talked about all of the emerging threats from the ground!  Let's skip that for now and stick with UAS.

So, what would you do if you found that flying in at targets high in the sky was no longer feasible?  You'd come in from ground level as I have already stated several times.  And what happens then is the drones will get in close before they are detected because, excepting certain desert scenarios, there's lots of things to obstruct detection and even more for tracking.  Even if some magical form of sensors is invented to cut through all the ground clutter (and that is fantasy) to both detect and track incoming threats at ground level, then what?  Terrain clutter means they will likely get in close because now you also need clear LOF.  Perhaps mere meters in tight terrain.  Then what? 

The Phalanx type system just starts blazing away.  "Presumably an autonomous system would have safeguards..." is another sign that you haven't thought this through.  If a threat is within final approach already, do you really think the defense system will have the luxury of holding fire?  That's a really terrible assumption to make.  Further, what on Earth makes you think that the attacking munition would have any constraints?  It's deep in enemy territory, so why would it have to worry about friendlies?  Surely Russia has amply demonstrated that it doesn't care one iota about civilians or its own forces, so that just goes right out the window.

In fact, if I were programming UAS to attack I would explicitly leverage whatever my enemy's mindset.  If I were attacking Western forces I would deliberately try to cause friendly fire or holding fire situations.  I would get them to blow up civilians to defend their stuff or allow me to kill their stuff because they didn't.

This is pretty self evident and yet you don't appear to have thought it through.  Nor have you thought about UGVs or how dismounted infantry are supposed to survive.

I think I will just agree to disagree here. This is a wildly speculative scenario in the first place and its literally pointless to argue it when we can just make up any potential solution. I could point out how you rarely see infantry in and around armoured vics (Unless they are riding on them) or are caught dismounting in Ukraine, so the assumption that a PD system would be ineffective just because of friendly fire risk seems unlikely, at least to me. 

48 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Then why spend billions on something that isn't likely to do much of anything?  Why not spend billions on something that is worth a damned?

Because as I keep saying, complicating a kill chain as much as possible is so much better than relying on one means of interception, especially when dealing with such a potentially versatile threat. PD that can serve as an RWS in most situations but is optimised for drone munition intercept as a last resort without compromising on the vehicle role seems sensible here and very much worth the money. If it reduces vehicle losses by a certain metric then its absolutely worth it, because no matter what we say about the tank, vehicles in general are not going to disappear overnight. 

 

48 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

All of the ingredients to make a militarized swarm exist RIGHT NOW.  TODAY.  Fully autonomous individual capabilities are ALREADY being fielded in Ukraine. 

Could you be so kind as to specify what fully autonomous lethal system you are talking about here, the only thing I can think of is the AI on some FPV drones that allow a terminal approach which is not exactly a standardised thing yet, nor is it fully autonomous. the only thing I could find was potentially Turkish Kargu-2 being used in 2020 in fully autonomous mode. (Not in Ukraine)
 

48 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

On the other hand, NOBODY has a good answer for the UAS that are already in use.  You keep saying there is, but you can't back it up.  There isn't anything out there.  Not even the stuff you call "promising" looks even remotely practical.  People have repeatedly pointed this out to you, and yet... you hold to your belief system.  See first point in this post.

I have literally given you numerous articles to potential ideas and solutions, so to say there is 'nothing' on hand is just a bald faced lie. The same swarm drone company making offensive drones has literally been tasked to make counter drones as well. 

I'm not sure why the link is not working https://battle-updates.com/small-calibre-solutions-for-c-uas-systems-by-julian-nettlefold/ But this covers the wide range of different RWS systems that are actively signing contracts to do with Ukraine and are all meant for counter UAS. So please stop telling me there is no other solution or that point defence / gun counter UAS stuff is fantasy when that is literally a lie.

 

48 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And yet you are convinced that there's an answer to them.  I've already pointed out defensive counter UAS drones have some pretty significant physics problems working against them. 

Just as there are significant problems with actually designing practical fully autonomous systems. Could you actually provide a source that shows how close these swarm drones are to practical deployment? Because a lot of what I read seems a little whishy washy on the subject. Have they been featured in any major NATO exercise?

 

48 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The threat from UAS is not theoretical, it is a reality and is the defining feature of the war in Ukraine more than anything else.  Another defining feature is the inability to effectively counter the threat from UAS.  Yet you want to argue as if the threat is theoretical and the defenses against it are not.  Which is why this is such a frustrating discussion.

Concluding confidently that there is ' no counter' two years into a war that is probably going to last a fair bit longer seems foolishly premature, especially when there are active potential counters in the works. Gun based and otherwise. The only legitimate conclusion is that CURRENT systems are clearly not going to cut it against drone munitions at scale and there needs to be evolution to counter systems....which is exactly what is happening. Its pure arrogance and conjecture to declare something is a dead end before widespread practical solutions are not even being used at scale yet. 

Edited July 7 by ArmouredTopHat

[chuckdyke]

And I thought that I was bad lol. We will find out with new BS Battlepack. 

[sburke]

55 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I'm not sure why the link is not working https://battle-updates.com/small-calibre-solutions-for-c-uas-systems-by-julian-nettlefold/ But this covers the wide range of different RWS systems that are actively signing contracts to do with Ukraine and are all meant for counter UAS. So please stop telling me there is no other solution or that point defence / gun counter UAS stuff is fantasy when that is literally a lie.

 

it is a sales pitch site.  I googled around trying to find more about Blacktalon and everything I saw (which wasn't much) was pretty much the same.  I couldn't find a single reference as to how this system is supposedly doing in practice despite one statement that they were in service in Ukraine.  Color me skeptical.

[ArmouredTopHat]

30 minutes ago, sburke said:

it is a sales pitch site.  I googled around trying to find more about Blacktalon and everything I saw (which wasn't much) was pretty much the same.  I couldn't find a single reference as to how this system is supposedly doing in practice despite one statement that they were in service in Ukraine.  Color me skeptical.

A site filled with various counter systems and detectors. Which kinda flies in the face of there 'being nothing in existence' 

Also just caught you were talking about that system I linked a page or so back. Are you suggesting its fake?

https://euro-sd.com/2024/02/articles/technology/36521/36521/

This article perhaps tries to get my point across better: That counter UAS is going to be a multi spectral environment that includes gun based options as well as drone. There is no single silver bullet solution.  

Particular highlight to MIDAS, which has a capacity to apparently down 16 drones with its weapon system.

Edited July 7 by ArmouredTopHat

[sburke]

9 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

A site filled with various counter systems and detectors. Which kinda flies in the face of there 'being nothing in existence' 

Also just caught you were talking about that system I linked a page or so back. Are you suggesting its fake?

https://euro-sd.com/2024/02/articles/technology/36521/36521/

This article perhaps tries to get my point across better: That counter UAS is going to be a multi spectral environment that includes gun based options as well as drone. There is no single silver bullet solution.  

Particular highlight to MIDAS, which has a capacity to apparently down 16 drones with its weapon system.

geez stop trying to interpret.  Can you find anything about that system in actual service?  I couldn't.  If you can, then please show it and perhaps change my opinion before slinging accusations.  I am skeptical when I see a sales pitch promising the moon and no practical demonstrated capability.  As to the article you cited above, you are talking a military procurement program (actually multiple programs).  Assuming they develop a set of systems that will function as they describe, production at scale done quickly isn't a hallmark of the MIC.  Right now we have the battlefield environment to try this stuff under real conditions.  Be nice if they could try to take advantage of that to see if we can't assist the UA now.

Nothing in that article describes how they'd expect to defeat ISR.  In my very unprofessional opinion, these specialist vehicles simply look like HVTs for PGMs. Kind of like Tunguskas now.

I think I actually posted something on the Thor system quite a few months back and the response I got was 'Man what a nice target".  

 

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

This is really the problem with the conservative position, they simply have not kept up with technological reality.  Finally, a lot of national information infrastructure is double purposed.  So “constraining ISR” crosses a line within LOAC. For example, say we want to deny communications to stop ISR.  We would likely have to also stop 911/medical services as well.  Cyber was supposed to provide options in these spaces but it is not able to produce results.

 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Surely Russia has amply demonstrated that it doesn't care one iota about civilians or its own forces, so that just goes right out the window.

So these deserve to be read together. Western forces really do try to follow the LOAC. We aren't going to blast every single civilian communication node in a country, knock out every single power station, and target all the  emergency response infrastructure/personnel. Oh did I forget stomping all over the civilian radio spectrum with jamming? I seem to recall the Russians blowing up the biggest dam in Ukraine, too. I really, really, hope we are not so deluded as to think anybody we are actually likely to be fighting wouldn't do all of those things from hour one. Triply so since Russia's failure to do those things on day one in Ukraine has cost it so very dearly.

No one in in the Axis of the Awful"(TM) is going even acknowledge the LOAC exist. Well except when they are trying get us to give up land mines, and cluster munitions. Oddly enough thosre are the two things besides drones keeping Ukraine in this war. I am suddenly starting to wonder where the funding for the autonomy is evil punditry is coming from?

[ArmouredTopHat]

24 minutes ago, sburke said:

geez stop trying to interpret.  Can you find anything about that system in actual service?  I couldn't.  If you can, then please show it and perhaps change my opinion before slinging accusations.  I am skeptical when I see a sales pitch promising the moon and no practical demonstrated capability.

I mean we see it pop drones so its at least seemingly something legit. Ill see what I can dig up. 

 

24 minutes ago, sburke said:

As to the article you cited above, you are talking a military procurement program (actually multiple programs).  Assuming they develop a set of systems that will function as they describe, production at scale done quickly isn't a hallmark of the MIC.  Right now we have the battlefield environment to try this stuff under real conditions.  Be nice if they could try to take advantage of that to see if we can't assist the UA now.

The point is that stuff is at least around, the building blocks are there. the MIC seem convinced that 30mm airburst is the way to go which is curious. I suppose they have more data on the matter than we do. Do agree that we should be testing more systems, though we know that in Syria a number of systems are being actively tested and some lessons learned. 

[dan/california]

59 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

A site filled with various counter systems and detectors. Which kinda flies in the face of there 'being nothing in existence' 

Also just caught you were talking about that system I linked a page or so back. Are you suggesting its fake?

https://euro-sd.com/2024/02/articles/technology/36521/36521/

This article perhaps tries to get my point across better: That counter UAS is going to be a multi spectral environment that includes gun based options as well as drone. There is no single silver bullet solution.  

Particular highlight to MIDAS, which has a capacity to apparently down 16 drones with its weapon system.

Quote

In June 2024, the JCO is due to host its next technology experiment at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. The exercise scenario is built around an adversary’s attempt to overwhelm US C-UAV defences through massed attacks by swarms of up to 50 UAVs, making it the largest scale demonstration of its kind. Given the scale of the attack, the exercise is expected to rely heavily on EW systems, said Col. Michael Parent, JCO acquisition chief who added, “Let’s face it, kinetic is challenged because we talked about [defeating] 20 to 50 [UAVs].”

The whole article is really good. I am VERY interested in how this test comes out. Although that may not be public for years. It seems like the most promising medium term solution, besides killing UAVs with other UAVs is high powered microwave systems. I am just wondering how well the could be countered with shielding, special semiconductors and so on. There is military grade stuff out there tat is rated to survive the EMP from actual nukes, but i have the impression it is screaming expensive. I also have some questions about the microwave systems effectively broadcast an enormous kill me sign very time they turn on. The kind of kill me sign that rates an Iskander or similar.

Edited July 7 by dan/california

[ArmouredTopHat]

In other news, the recent airfield Iskandar strikes are now being claimed to of been strikes on decoys. Whenever this is true or not remains to be determined. (The supposed strikes on Patriot stuff is unrelated)

Edited July 7 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

A rather specialised vehicle, but it does sort of indicate the trend we might be headed in, at least when it comes to the weapon station for drone disposal. The point being it is an existing RWS system being used for the task, the same as used by the US Army if I recall for Stryker and M1

*note that the 71 million is the package total, not individual cost*

Edited July 7 by ArmouredTopHat

[hcrof]

Steve, please stop being so rude. And both Steve and ArmouredTopHat - you know there is no prize for the last word in this right? Everyone else can read what you write and make up their own mind. Evidence, stated assumptions and developed reasoning are much more effective than sniping at each other with off the cuff arguments. Seriously. It should be an interesting debate but both of you please just wait a couple of hours and calm down before posting!

[poesel]

16 hours ago, Probus said:

  Why is Russia pouring this massive amount of resources and men into Ukraine? 

Because they can’t have the little Russians live a better life than the big Russians. That would be the end of Russia. 

Edited July 7 by poesel
typos

[ASL Veteran]

The best part about the fact that fully autonomous drone swarms will be a standard part of every military in the world in 2025 is that we will finally get a challenging AI opponent in Combat Mission for the next release.  Battlefront won't even need to make any tank models for the game either and that will be a huge savings in both time and money.

[The_Capt]

6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The threat from UAS is not theoretical, it is a reality and is the defining feature of the war in Ukraine more than anything else.  Another defining feature is the inability to effectively counter the threat from UAS.  Yet you want to argue as if the threat is theoretical and the defenses against it are not.  Which is why this is such a frustrating discussion.

This is really the heart of the problem.  The technology to counter multiple incoming drones effectively - to detect, track and engage, is directly linked to the technology to detect, track and engage the platforms that would carry this same c-UAS system. So effective fully autonomous PD is going to use the same technology as those fully autonomous UAS.  In fact the technology to stop all those small fast moving drones will need to be more robust and complex by virtue of the difference in target profile.  C-UAS is shooting at a small bird sized target, those UAS are shooting at a large metal vehicle.

So what?  The asymmetry in target profile creates asymmetry in targeting technological requirements.  One cannot say that the defensive technology is right around the corner yet offensive autonomous UAS/UGV are over the horizon…because they have shared technologies.  What is fundamentally different is the targets and those target profiles.  So if we invent a super guns system that can detect and effectively engage a drone swarm, we invent the same technologies to make those drone swarms more effective…and very possibly cheaper.

The problem this entire debate is that one side has an open loop - things are changing and we do not know how to adapt yet. The other is a closed loop. - things are changing but we do know how to adapt…make things like they were before.  So defensive technology looks promising, while offensive technology is “far off and risky”.  This is inconsistent and frankly makes no sense as both offensive and defensive share the same technological base.

We have seen the exact same thing happen before. The sensors and targeting technology for direct fire systems became and arms race with our opponents.  Soon we had all sorts of fancy optics and computers to make a first round hit. Then someone figured out we could put the same technology on a missile and the modern ATGM was born. It is far harder to stop an ATGM than it is for the missile to kill a vehicle.  Further the missiles can be wrong multiple times while the vehicle can only be wrong once.  “Ah but we have mighty APS!”  Sure but it uses the same technology base as the missiles themselves - sensor to shooter. So if we invent a super APS, we also invent the technology to make those missiles better in the overlaps.

One cannot choose which technology is going to have an impact, they all are.  The problem we are facing now is not one of asymmetric technology, it is of asymmetric vulnerability.  A small drone is small and low weight, so it is fast and can hide in environmental clutter.  It uses a lithium ion battery (most of them) so is relatively cool. It makes noise but low energy noise compared to background.  It is agile, because it is small and has high energy to weight. It is smart, mostly because we stick a human brain on it, but that is changing.  A military vehicle, pick any of them.  Is large - weighing tons, hot - see internal combustion and relatively slow and non-agile.  They are also very dumb and cannot operate without at least one human brain onboard. So based on simple physics - the vehicle is much harder to protect than the drone.  It is much easier to find and fix. And as we can see in thousands of examples in this war, they are easy to kill or at least damage. Now drones are too but they are also cheap and easy to mass produce, vehicles are not.

So what people, like ATH are chasing is battlefield symmetry.  At that point qualitative aspects such as training, morale and technology advantage matter. The problem is that we do not really know what battlefield symmetry looks like right now. We cannot simply pretend to erase what is happening - but some people are trying very hard to. We cannot pick from the menu of emerging technologies and only see that which will lead back to symmetry and ignore those that reinforce it - this is not how technology works. Miniaturization, low cost light computing power, sensors, energy storage and materials have created this situation.  And they are not going away, in fact they continue to accelerate. These trends are likely to drive asymmetric force development- the capability to defend and deny is higher than the ability to advance and attack. We have been here before.  But like last time, the technology to create communications, machine guns and artillery, also led to the same technologies to build lighter engines that made mech and airplanes possible.

What we do not know is what technology will bring symmetry back to the battlefield.  But history is pretty clear it is not going to be found in the past. We did not need a better protected horse…we needed a new horse. So we do not need better protected mech, we need new mech, or something that will do what mech used to do. The lesson from this entire discussion is not in finding a solution, it is in just how entrenched thinking can become.  If someone fields a super defensive system that can sway drones from the sky, blind ISR and make PGM imprecise…well we are back in business. The doctrines of the last 30 years still apply and we stand a chance at controlling the situation.  In short, I actually hope ATH is right…life would be so much simpler.  But I strongly suspect he is not.

The fundamentals are broken. Nothing he is pitching is a viable solution for this war, let alone the next one. The burden of proof is on his point of view, not mine.  We can see evidence of my viewpoint here on this board daily.  Mass is broken.  Mech is broken.  Offensive is broken. Surprise is broken. So if he wants to hang onto some vague future tech as able to solve all this, well I am going to need more than a corporate video…as I watch FPVs fly into a doorway.  He is selling hope, but I will need actual proof.  If APS is the answer, why is not working for either the UA or RA right now?  If sexy guns blasting at the sky are the answer, why are they not at the front end of mech assaults for either side right now?  In short until he can actually prove elements of his thesis in this war…well it remains hypothetical. While the observations we see daily are not.

I guess for me this got very easy suddenly - “hey that is great but unless it can solve for Tuesday in this war we can put it on the shelf next to jet packs and power armor”

[hcrof]

Ok, FPV drones. Here is my current take, apologies for the monster post but its a big subject, even ignoring smart artillery, NLOS ATGMs etc.

Lets start by laying out what I mean by an FPV drone:

Current FPV drones: $1000, 3 man crew (operator, navigator, technician), carries up to a 2kg PG7 warhead which can penetrate 250-500mm RHA. Analogue video feed and digital control signal. Artisanal. Unsafe. 5-10km range. Cant fly in bad weather or at night. Needs to be guided in by an ISR drone or sweep a known location like a road. 

Future FPV drones: $3-5000?, 2 man crew per swarm (commander, technician), On-board terminal guidance and swarming, automatic (pre-planned) route following. Similar warhead performance to now but with safety switch so drone can be returned. Assume more aerodynamic but efficiency cancelled out by more computing power requirements. 5-10km range. Cant fly in bad weather. Mass produced but with modular warhead, optics and control system. 

Note that I looked into EFP warheads The_Capt and unless you know something I don't, they don't seem realistic for this application. SMArt and BONUS seem to use 12kg(!) submunitions with worse penetration values than a 2kg PG7 warhead. 

So lets look at a scary drone swarm scenario: an AWACS aircraft picks up a group of moving vehicles 10km behind the lines and an orlan-type drone confirms it is a mixed battlegroup of tanks and IFVs. A swarm of 50 future FPV drones is launched from a lightweight trailer and dispatched to intercept. They navigate there using INS, with occasional updates from the controller on the actual target position. They travel above treetop height but when the attack is confirmed they split into 2 groups and most drop to 1-2m above the ground, with a few going high for situational awareness to coordinate the attack. The 2 groups attack from 2 different directions, timed to arrive at the same time. Since this is beyond the maximum return distance and therefore all drones will be expended anyway, groups of 3 attack each vehicle simultaneously, jinking to avoid fire and targeting tracks and other weak points. One of the 3 drones carries a claymore charge instead of a shaped charge to damage optics and radars from a distance before the 2 AP drones attack. Up to 16 vehicles can be disabled in this one attack which renders the whole battlegroup ineffective using about 250kg of munitions, costing maybe $250,000, with the logistics burden of moving a single trailer into position near the front lines. Artillery is then used to destroy the immobile damaged vehicles, generously say 5 shells per vehicle for 80 total (4000kg of munitions costing $320,000 from a battery of 40 tonne SPH). 

So lets use the defensive onion to try and stop this attack:

Don't be seen: Focus on deception and EW: target enemy orlan-type drones with roadrunner or FPV drones to avoid identification so whole swarms are wasted on decoys and spoofs. Effects need to be massed not platforms: move in small groups carrying long ranged weapons. Use indirect firing weapons. EW: jam video feed from ISR drones, jam controls to prevent them re-tasking (assume they are on autopilot for robustness), jam radar. Target AWACS with missiles and ground based radars with artillery. 

Don't be acquired: Smaller platforms using multispectral camouflage can use more terrain as cover. Fast movement to increase search times for drones and force them to repeatedly get updates from the controller (which can be jammed/targeted). Use cheap pickets to detect FPV drones from a useful distance possibly using acoustics or scanning for control signals. 

Don't be hit: Pop smoke upon acoustic detection of FPV-type drones. Shoot down incoming drones with APS, self defence using autocannons (pointed in the right direction via acoustics if needed) or defensive drones (note that defensive drones will always be lighter/cheaper/faster than offensive drones since they carry a smaller battery and payload). Use your own drones to find and hit the enemy drone launch platform. Smoke+radar+40mm canister shot from autocannons. Directed overpressure wave (think RPG backblast) to knock drones down at close range.

Don't be penetrated: Swap frontal protection for all-around protection and reduced weak spots. Reduce power requirements (weight) to make it easier to protect weak points like engine ventilation. Laser dazzlers to degrade FPV accuracy so they hit armour not weak spots. Reduce crew to reduce internal volume and increase average armour effectiveness. 

Don't be killed: Redundancy so the platform can still move and ideally operate when damaged by small FPV warheads (things like tracks are a weak point so fix that). Fewer humans on board. Spall liners, fire suppression, suspended seats. 

Maybe the onion above doesn't work at all, maybe it is super effective and all drones are eliminated, or maybe 1-2 vehicles are disabled and the mission continues. I don't think it is super clear cut either way and a lot of testing is required to work that out. Also this is just one scenario: maybe future FPVs are super effective against fixed defences like trenches as well as vehicles? What does that even mean for future warfare? 

In conclusion the situation is unknowable right now since we are still in 1916 and trying to figure this all out. While I lean towards drones having the advantage (especially when used in combinations with other systems to introduce dilemmas), there are lots of clever things you can do to blunt that edge and it also doesn't necessarily mean the death of manoeuvre. Remember too that the tank was only one tool of many that ended the stalemate in WW1; we will likely need tools other than drones in 2050. 

One thing I do know though, is that a) vehicles and tactics will have to change radically and b) the drone/counter drone battle will be likely be a whole new branch of warfare going forward. 

[Probus]

One thing I've notice we haven't talked about (at least recently) is for the drone operators to be targeted with some kind of HARM missile or drone.  What if we create a drone that *sniffs* out drone operators by focusing in on their narrow band width used to control the FPV drone?  If the drone is being controlled using satellite comms then fly another drone high to sniff the comms to the satellite.  Even if a system like this is only partially successful, its going to raise the pucker factor of the drone operators.  This is going to cause the transmit receive stations for the FPV drone operators to be displaced away from the drone operators, so maybe cluster munitions might also have to be involved. 

At some point these cluster munitions may become swarms of hunter/seeker drones looking for FPV operators. Dang this stuff gets complicated fast!  This would cause the FPV drone operators to start relying on more and more autonomous drones. 

It seems to me like autonomous drones are gonna be in our future, our nearer rather than later future and that scares the crap out of me.  The AI needed to control autonomous drone swarms is just something I don't want to see the human race developing for its own sake.

 

[Probus]

2 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

The best part about the fact that fully autonomous drone swarms will be a standard part of every military in the world in 2025 is that we will finally get a challenging AI opponent in Combat Mission for the next release.  Battlefront won't even need to make any tank models for the game either and that will be a huge savings in both time and money.

Yeah.  Tank models may just become target models or burned out battlefield flavor items... (somehow, I think not, but I don't know why I say this)

But if BFC wants to take on the challenge of making a CM:Drone Wars sim, it might just help us figure out the paths of how future drones will play their parts on the battlefield.  The battlefield may become so deadly that its just drones duking it out with one another.  Which is prolly something like what WWI veterans said about the machine gun and the tank.  And WWII veterans said about the bomb and other seemingly overwhelmingly deadly battlefield weapon systems.

The battlefield may be changing so quickly over the next decade or two that BFC will have to have a list a mile long of what drone system(s) are being used on the virtual battlefield or some kind of input gadget that lets the player input the stats of the drone being used and let the battlefield algorithms compute how it operates in game.

Or maybe BFC will say screw it and stick to expanding their WWII sims.  Who knows?  But my vote is still for Robert Heinlein's CM:Starship Space Lobsters. 

Edited July 7 by Probus

[hcrof]

Interesting visualisation of the depth of the front line:

Thats a huge distance to cross before you have broken through, and you will be under fire the whole time. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

55 minutes ago, Probus said:

One thing I've notice we haven't talked about (at least recently) is for the drone operators to be targeted with some kind of HARM missile or drone.  What if we create a drone that *sniffs* out drone operators by focusing in on their narrow band width used to control the FPV drone?  If the drone is being controlled using satellite comms then fly another drone high to sniff the comms to the satellite.  Even if a system like this is only partially successful, its going to raise the pucker factor of the drone operators.  This is going to cause the transmit receive stations for the FPV drone operators to be displaced away from the drone operators, so maybe cluster munitions might also have to be involved. 

At some point these cluster munitions may become swarms of hunter/seeker drones looking for FPV operators. Dang this stuff gets complicated fast!  This would cause the FPV drone operators to start relying on more and more autonomous drones. 

It seems to me like autonomous drones are gonna be in our future, our nearer rather than later future and that scares the crap out of me.  The AI needed to control autonomous drone swarms is just something I don't want to see the human race developing for its own sake.

 

This is a subject that has been touched upon fairly recently by citing frontline reports, from both sides, about how dangerous it is to be a drone operator these days.  IIRC it was a Russian source that said they have to remain mobile and move after each mission or they'll eat an artillery shell.

The only practical counters for the current drone tech involves various forms of EW.  Which is why we can be assured that partially autonomous UAS will increase in the short term and fully autonomous will be the norm for the future.  Any counter system that relies on EW will fail and therefore should only be fielded as an interim solution.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, sburke said:

it is a sales pitch site.  I googled around trying to find more about Blacktalon and everything I saw (which wasn't much) was pretty much the same.  I couldn't find a single reference as to how this system is supposedly doing in practice despite one statement that they were in service in Ukraine.  Color me skeptical.

I got that link to load after disabling my ad blocker.

Yes, that read like any other trade show summary.  Lots of slick sales pitches for systems that hope to find customers, but in the end few will.  People familiar with such shows may even note there are some that come every year and yet nobody is buying.

What I saw in this was promises by companies that if they are given enough money they can come up with at least partial solutions.  Adapting Kongsberg RWS is probably the most practical of everything I saw in there, but again... it has serious limitations which we've already discussed at length.  One that I did not see mentioned is the inability for these weapons to load C-UAS munitions on-the-fly.  That means having a dedicated C-UAS vehicle, which gets us back to the primary weakness of point defense which is that it can only defend a point.  No ability to defend a column from lateral attack in complex terrain, for example.

Steve

[paxromana]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is a subject that has been touched upon fairly recently by citing frontline reports, from both sides, about how dangerous it is to be a drone operator these days.  IIRC it was a Russian source that said they have to remain mobile and move after each mission or they'll eat an artillery shell.

The only practical counters for the current drone tech involves various forms of EW.  Which is why we can be assured that partially autonomous UAS will increase in the short term and fully autonomous will be the norm for the future.  Any counter system that relies on EW will fail and therefore should only be fielded as an interim solution.

Steve

I remember reading about German RDF prroblems in Crete ... the Resistance was tired of having German RDF vans pick up their signals and home in on the Radio Sets. So they ran wires from one set through to three aerials at the points of a triangle.

The German RDF vans would get the signal as coming from the centre of the triangle ... which is where the Radio Set was not.

I presume that this specific trick may not work against modern EW ... but running wire from the actual controller to a remote broadcast antenna would be a possible solution. Or you could have direct LOS low power microwave band or laser transmitters set up which, as I understand it, are virtually undetectable unless you happen to luck into the direct LOS of the transmitter-receiver link. 

I was a Company Sig in my Uni days and Signallers ran a lot of landline wire routinely. And that was in an Infantry Regiment (Battalion to non Commonwealth types) ... add some wire and some signallers to a Drone detachment and you have at least a potential solution?

Or is this too obvious?

Edited July 7 by paxromana

[kimbosbread]

Obvious, sure. Autonomy is so close that it’s not worth bothering with much, though. No radio emissions means more range, more battery life and all these other good things. And autonomy scales indefinitely: Train once, push update to all drones. You don’t need to train specialized drone operators. As someone put it, the role of the human on the battlefield will be JTAC.