How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Grigb]

20 hours ago, chrisl said:

This is really just a question of current availability/prevalence of drones and is only going to get worse, not better. 

Not really. Drones now operate in a fairly permissive environment due to a lack of effective countermeasures. In the future, there will be more drones, but there will also be substantially more effective countermeasures. Drones are already under pressure from the current generation of jammers. The drones flying above the battlefield are no longer simply commercial drones. They have been significantly modified to decrease the effects of jamming. However, jammers are being adapted to bypass drone anti-jammer systems as well.

So, it is not like there will be more drones, so drone attacks will be more powerful. It is more complicated than that. 

 

20 hours ago, chrisl said:

As has been pointed out many times (by Steve most recently), you have to get the tanks to the front edge intact, and we're seeing the combination of ISR and drones taking out whole platoons and companies of armored vehicles on their way to the front.

You've seen best case example. You were not shown worse-case examples, and you were not given proper context.

Let's take for example infamous Tonenkoe assault

Looks impressive, isn't it? Looks like drones annihilated large armored column that was trying to reach UKR positions. Let's cross check it with RU sources. Quote from RU Nat volunteer who serves as infantry instructor there.

Quote

Regarding the photos with the damaged armor that the enemy posted on March 31, the information is as follows: there was no epic attack with one massive armored fist. this wasnt the first nakat and our losses did not happen in one day, and there is also enemy vehicles with crosses [there]...The video is really an example of one of our unsuccessful attacks.

The beginning was very competent. We conducted combined fire preparation with [good] coordination between the branches of the armed forces. The artillery was working closely [with assault troops] and in parallel [VKS] were working good with bombs. Also, the artillery threw up [a lot of] smoke, plus the attacking vehicles put up a smoke screen. In general, during the first assault, the armor have done everything with minimal losses, the infantry was delivered normally.

During subsequent assaults, that lasted until lunch, the fire support was decreased dramaticly to [a level of] rare fire, and the smoke was no longer fired, and it was then when sensitive losses started to occur. AFVs were going in batches of 2-3 vehicles about once an hour, but just one was able to return. Fortunately, at least, most of the losses of the vehicles were on the way out, i.e. in most cases they managed to unload the infantry [safely].

Spotted Enemy weapons were - anti-tank mines, lone tank ambush, [infantry] ATGM. At the same time, our vehicles suffered the main losses from kamikaze drones (I do not know what our vehicles had for drone suppression).

An interesting detail. The drive of the last batch of three vehicles was without losses: arrived, did the job, dismounted the infantry, returned back. I would cautiously assume that these regular visits could eventually overload the enemy's [drone] strike capabilities, but [we] could not  develop success due to the grinding [down] of [our] the armored vehicles.

There is a lot to digest but the most significant point is that, although it being presented as an example of drone capabilities in stopping massed armored assaults, the reality was much different. Drones were unable to stop the RU armored attack from overrunning UKR forward positions with minimal losses but were able to grind down majority of RU AFVs.

Interestingly there was UKR tank but it also failed to stop RU assault. Why I do not know - we have very little information. However, given the description RU used several waves with several troop carries instead of one major assault. Hunting these carriers is not something lone tank in ambush can do effectively. They needed Brad to do it. It is job of Brad to maneuver in Grey zone and hunt all the troop carriers. 

 

20 hours ago, chrisl said:

And technically it's not really a drone problem so much as an ISR problem - the vehicles are going to get spotted very early and hit with something (drones, artillery, HIMARS, ATGM) before they can get into their own effective range. 

That's why you hit ISR capabilities first. You cannot eliminated them. You can temporally degrade them enough to create tactical opportunity to exploit. We know it becasue it was done.

 

20 hours ago, chrisl said:

And those "something"s are all much more accurate than they used to be, and often at much lower risk/exposure to their users than AT weapons used to be.

Drones are two-way streets. As a result, the ubiquity of drones has made classic  AT weapons more risky to use. Lone UKR Brads that move around the Grey Zone are not alone. They are supported by drones that form a protective bubble against AT weapons.

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Can your toy look inside underground dugout and detect how many men are there? 

Not yet, but if that became a regular thing instead of an anomaly, then yes they could.  Ground sensors have been around since WW2 and likely before.  In a threatened sector could easily be deployed and would be impossible to counter as they would be small and themselves undetectable.  They could be masked, however, by vibrating the ground while digging is going on.  That is not practical.

We have talked endlessly about the risk of taking the wrong lessons from wars and the dangers that come from that.  We have tried to examine the peculiarities of this particular war to see what is and isn't likely to apply to other wars.  Tunnels are the sort of thing that will be specific to long, protracted, static warfare.  It needs to be paid attention to, but I don't think it's enough to be overly concerned about from a doctrinal standpoint.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Not really. Drones now operate in a fairly permissive environment due to a lack of effective countermeasures. In the future, there will be more drones, but there will also be substantially more effective countermeasures. Drones are already under pressure from the current generation of jammers. The drones flying above the battlefield are no longer simply commercial drones. They have been significantly modified to decrease the effects of jamming. However, jammers are being adapted to bypass drone anti-jammer systems as well.

So, it is not like there will be more drones, so drone attacks will be more powerful. It is more complicated than that. 

We've had several very long, very technically detailed, discussions about where C-UAS is headed and have continually concluded it is already moving, rapidly, to AI piloted systems.  That denies C-UAS it's current most effective capability and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it.

With AI piloted UAS the C-UAS systems are going to have to rely upon kinetic solutions.  As part of our routine discussions about this we've gone into great detail about what the practical limitations are for those and the already established ways to counter the systems that are currently being contemplated.

The conclusion we've collectively come to, repeatedly, is we're scared as Hell about where this is going.  Not just state on state warfare, but where non-state actors and "lone wolves" can take this technology.  We are already seeing this play out in Yemen.  We also are learning the would-be-Trump assassin used a drone as part of his planning.

Steve

[Grigb]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

We have talked endlessly about the risk of taking the wrong lessons from wars and the dangers that come from that.  We have tried to examine the peculiarities of this particular war to see what is and isn't likely to apply to other wars.  Tunnels are the sort of thing that will be specific to long, protracted, static warfare.  It needs to be paid attention to, but I don't think it's enough to be overly concerned about from a doctrinal standpoint.

I'm not talking about tunnels. I'm talking about underground dugouts. Underground dugouts are bread and butter of the current war. 

Keeping most of the people in dispersed dugouts or beneath overhead/thermal cover can easily deceive casual observers, even satellites. Then you instruct a handful of people to move forrad at random intervals along irregular pathways to various forward dugouts. The casual observers will notice nothing but a few of guys here and there.

In a few days, there will be a few companies in forward dugouts, with satellite observershaving little idea what is going on.

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Grigb said:

I'm not talking about tunnels. I'm talking about underground dugouts. Underground dugouts are bread and butter of the current war. 

Keeping most of the people in dispersed dugouts or beneath overhead/thermal cover can easily deceive casual observers, even satellites. Then you instruct a handful of people to move forrad at random intervals along irregular pathways to various forward dugouts. The casual observers will notice nothing but a few of guys here and there.

In a few days, there will be a few companies in forward dugouts, with satellite observershaving little idea what is going on.

Oh!  Well, yes  

The ability to dig in deep and protected along a massive front and deep into the rear is something that needs to become a part of Western doctrine.  Currently Western doctrine gives this very little attention because the presumption was wars it fought would be short and on the move.  Afghanistan and Iraq proved that to be incorrect, but the establishment seems to have written those off as "anomalies".  If they also write off Ukraine as an "anomaly" then I'd argue they have it wrong.  Maneuver warfare now seems to be the "anomaly" and everything else some degree of "normal"

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

40 minutes ago, Grigb said:

You've seen best case example. You were not shown worse-case examples, and you were not given proper context.

Let's take for example infamous Tonenkoe assault

When we've examined assaults like this it's been pretty clear that we're looking at the aftermath of many attacks each with their own peculiarities.  This was true even when we examined the debris of the 47th Mech's armored breaching attacks, Russia's defeat at Vuhledar, or even as far back as Russia's infamous 2022 river crossings. 

Speaking for myself only, I always take this perspective when I examine debris on the battlefield and modify it only when there is documentation of a single event mass slaughter.  Of which we have, indeed, seen evidence of.

Steve

[sburke]

huh... yeah pretty much my only comment.

Russian military intelligence officer injured in Moscow car bomb attack, Kommersant says (yahoo.com)

[ArmouredTopHat]

Captures my thoughts on the Boxer modularity pretty much exactly. Really not a fan of that sort of modularity. 

[hcrof]

19 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Captures my thoughts on the Boxer modularity pretty much exactly. Really not a fan of that sort of modularity. 

The advantage is that any subcontractor can make a module for the back so in theory it helps local industry and allows you to upgrade the platform very easily, while allowing mass production of the drive platform. 

Whether that is worth the extra weight and expense is unclear though!

[kimbosbread]

10 hours ago, holoween said:

You go from 1kg munition to 3kg munition just using the rpg7 tandem warhead. And suddenly your drone sits at 6-8kg rather than 2-3. At that point youre just getting an atgm thats worse in every way but possibly max range and price.

Range and price are huge, but the training is also very straightforward, and cheap. And it can hover, land and wait, etc. So you are saying better in all the ways that actually matter.

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

As to Kofman, he is an academic who is making a lot of bank on speaking gigs at military symposiums - just saw him at one of ours this Spring.  He knows where his bread is buttered and does not want to become a “drone nutter” in the eyes of the community currently paying for his thoughts.

100%.

A warfare simulator that includes the state of the art with drones and mines, as well as adding tweaks for near future weapons- autonomous NLOS drones, spider mines- might sell well.

[dan/california]

42 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Captures my thoughts on the Boxer modularity pretty much exactly. Really not a fan of that sort of modularity. 

Did we learn NOTHING from the littoral combat ship fiasco?

[MikeyD]

"I honestly don't understand this concept"

I recall in the early-mid 1980s military industry publications were chock full of 'concept vehicle' articles and this swap-out cabin concept was one of them. There were also the crew-in-hull concept, the heavy APC concept, the remote overhead turret concept. Its actually a surprise how many of those concept drawings turned into real vehicles 30-40 years later. 

 

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Grigb said:

I'm not talking about tunnels. I'm talking about underground dugouts. Underground dugouts are bread and butter of the current war. 

Keeping most of the people in dispersed dugouts or beneath overhead/thermal cover can easily deceive casual observers, even satellites. Then you instruct a handful of people to move forrad at random intervals along irregular pathways to various forward dugouts. The casual observers will notice nothing but a few of guys here and there.

In a few days, there will be a few companies in forward dugouts, with satellite observershaving little idea what is going on.

You are making an excellent argument for being good at trench warfare under the all seeing eye. But if this is what you have to do to make a battalion level, maybe, attack? Then some combination of new technologies has changed the battlefield utterly.

This is more speculative, but I think you are underrating the ability of AI/machine learning to process surveillance data going forward. It seems entirely doable to have a computer system keep track of every detected movement. IF it can do that, it is trivial to have it keep track of how many people/vehicles/ect have moved into and out of a given area. This would cause this sort of of slow concentration to stand out pretty clearly. The systems may not be there yet, but it is certainly where they are trying to go. And this is vastly easier in a situation like Ukraines where there is just not much civilian activity in the most contested areas.

[Battlefront.com]

59 minutes ago, hcrof said:

The advantage is that any subcontractor can make a module for the back so in theory it helps local industry and allows you to upgrade the platform very easily, while allowing mass production of the drive platform. 

Whether that is worth the extra weight and expense is unclear though!

There are so many theoretical advantages with modularity.  I am a huge fan for the concept.  The problem comes in with the execution and keeping "mission creep" from degrading the positives.  There has been some of that with the Boxer program.

The major advantage is that the basic vehicle is 100% identical (theoretically!).  You can go out into a minefield and lose whatever you lose, take the expensive package on the back and stick it on a new ride.  This is huge because you never know which vehicles you're going lose or have otherwise non-functional.

Currently if you have the suspension blown off your very rare ISR vehicle and not off your common IFV, you're screwed out of ISR.  With the modular approach you kick all the infantry out of one of your IFVs, take the IFV box off the back, take the ISR box off the back of the damaged vehicle, and swap.  Boom!  You now have your ISR vehicle back in service within hours.

Even better, you have a couple of spare chassis in reserve so you don't have to kick the infantry out of anything.

So yeah, conceptually modular is absolutely an excellent way to go.  The bugger has always been figuring out how to make it work with the reality that someone always wants a change made for something to do something else that the other things can't do and bugger the whole thing up.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There are so many theoretical advantages with modularity.  I am a huge fan for the concept.  The problem comes in with the execution and keeping "mission creep" from degrading the positives.  There has been some of that with the Boxer program.

The major advantage is that the basic vehicle is 100% identical (theoretically!).  You can go out into a minefield and lose whatever you lose, take the expensive package on the back and stick it on a new ride.  This is huge because you never know which vehicles you're going lose or have otherwise non-functional.

Currently if you have the suspension blown off your very rare ISR vehicle and not off your common IFV, you're screwed out of ISR.  With the modular approach you kick all the infantry out of one of your IFVs, take the IFV box off the back, take the ISR box off the back of the damaged vehicle, and swap.  Boom!  You now have your ISR vehicle back in service within hours.

Even better, you have a couple of spare chassis in reserve so you don't have to kick the infantry out of anything.

So yeah, conceptually modular is absolutely an excellent way to go.  The bugger has always been figuring out how to make it work with the reality that someone always wants a change made for something to do something else that the other things can't do and bugger the whole thing up.

Steve

I feel the concept would work a lot better if Boxer had been adopted by more NATO countries...though I am still concerned that the price tag of Boxer is so high because of that modularity. 

[holoween]

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

How many crewman on a gun team?  How many on the logistics train?  How many to maintain the system? How much does a gun and ammo weight? There is no way an FPV squad with support takes up as many men and resources as a single gun…even the fancy new automated ones.  Kofman just came up with a laughable UAS “shortfall” and there seems to be a lot of that going around.

3 for the arty piece, 2 for the supply truck for mlrs and himars and they can get their mines almost 40km far. We also know that ukraine already used them very successfully.

What the drones are great for and actually do is mining in the grey zone where engineers have a hard time placing and clearing mines.

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Now your point on warhead weight is valid.  The problem is that none of these warheads were specifically designed for the UAS, and none of these UAS were specifically designed for warfare.  I suspect both of those issues will be solved pretty damned quick.

“Max range and price”…oh is that all?  

Compare a Spike LR2

Were looking at roughly 100k per missile, ir and daylight seeker, lock on after launch, 5.5km range, tandem warhead.

If youre running a proprietary drone youre essentially switching the propulsion from a rocket motor to a battery pack and rotors and the comms link from wire to radio. Sure it might be a bit cheaper but not an order of magnitude and getting the atgm mass produced for wartime is also going to drop the cost quite a bit.

 

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

Range and price are huge, but the training is also very straightforward, and cheap. And it can hover, land and wait, etc. So you are saying better in all the ways that actually matter.

FPVs are typically raised once a target has been spotted, the fly to where it was, find it and destroy it. They dont usually go and search for target themselves. And there a modern atgm is going to massively outperform them.

[kimbosbread]

Modular is great for weapons interfaces: VLS, turrets, etc. Sensors probably too.

For the entire body of the vehicle, I dunno. The amount of weight and size added is kind of nuts. I think it is better to focus on modular components as much as possible.

[holoween]

45 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There are so many theoretical advantages with modularity.  I am a huge fan for the concept.  The problem comes in with the execution and keeping "mission creep" from degrading the positives.  There has been some of that with the Boxer program.

The major advantage is that the basic vehicle is 100% identical (theoretically!).  You can go out into a minefield and lose whatever you lose, take the expensive package on the back and stick it on a new ride.  This is huge because you never know which vehicles you're going lose or have otherwise non-functional.

Currently if you have the suspension blown off your very rare ISR vehicle and not off your common IFV, you're screwed out of ISR.  With the modular approach you kick all the infantry out of one of your IFVs, take the IFV box off the back, take the ISR box off the back of the damaged vehicle, and swap.  Boom!  You now have your ISR vehicle back in service within hours.

Even better, you have a couple of spare chassis in reserve so you don't have to kick the infantry out of anything.

So yeah, conceptually modular is absolutely an excellent way to go.  The bugger has always been figuring out how to make it work with the reality that someone always wants a change made for something to do something else that the other things can't do and bugger the whole thing up.

Steve

Noone is really changing stuff in the field even if it can theoretically be done. The big advantedge to this modularity is in developing variants.

With the attachments and connections between the driving module and the mission module anyone can simply develop a mission module and have it fit or develop a driving module and it can fit any mission module. Just look at the ammount of mission modules developed for the boxer chassis. This variety would be very difficult for a normal vehicle.

There is also newer driving modules. there is a tracked module developed and the normal driving module has received a new standard recently to make it more capable.

[kimbosbread]

13 minutes ago, holoween said:

Compare a Spike LR2

Were looking at roughly 100k per missile, ir and daylight seeker, lock on after launch, 5.5km range, tandem warhead.

If youre running a proprietary drone youre essentially switching the propulsion from a rocket motor to a battery pack and rotors and the comms link from wire to radio. Sure it might be a bit cheaper but not an order of magnitude and getting the atgm mass produced for wartime is also going to drop the cost quite a bit.

Spike launcher is 14kg, each missile is another 14kg. Wikipedia says more recent unit cost is $250k, though obviously like you said, that could decrease.

You are correct that you are trading rocket propulsion for battery pack and rotors (and possibly a rocket booster). I think for comms, everything is rapidly going autonomous so that’s a non-issue, so with that you get way more range than your stubby-finned missile that produces no lift. The ability to loiter and wait or hunt for targets is not to be underestimated.

That’s your tradeoff- slower but can go farther, and can loiter. Same tradeoff we make with cruise missiles vs ballistic missiles. Drone or not has nothing to do with it.

EDIT: I’m referring to fixed wing UAS here, but an FPV obviously gives us other tradeoffs.

 

Edited July 24 by kimbosbread

[FancyCat]

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

How many crewman on a gun team?  How many on the logistics train?  How many to maintain the system? How much does a gun and ammo weight? There is no way an FPV squad with support takes up as many men and resources as a single gun…even the fancy new automated ones.  Kofman just came up with a laughable UAS “shortfall” and there seems to be a lot of that going around.

Now your point on warhead weight is valid.  The problem is that none of these warheads were specifically designed for the UAS, and none of these UAS were specifically designed for warfare.  I suspect both of those issues will be solved pretty damned quick.

“Max range and price”…oh is that all?  

it's not just 4 guys in a team with a bunch of drones tho, isn't there a long supply line of programmers, production lines, companies, capital? a lot of drones is directly or indirectly western funded.

 https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/06/ukraine-drone-industry-russia-war-regulation/

[Grigb]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

You are making an excellent argument for being good at trench warfare under the all seeing eye. But if this is what you have to do to make a battalion level, maybe, attack?

I was talking about battalion level attack - that's why you bring you companies to forward dugouts. At appropriate time they walk out of these dugouts and you can start surprise attack. 

Now, I am not advocating for trench warfare. I am simply telling RU tricks they use to overcome ever present prying eyes. 

 

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

This is more speculative, but I think you are underrating the ability of AI/machine learning to process surveillance data going forward. It seems entirely doable to have a computer system keep track of every detected movement. IF it can do that, it is trivial to have it keep track of how many people/vehicles/ect have moved into and out of a given area. This would cause this sort of of slow concentration to stand out pretty clearly. The systems may not be there yet, but it is certainly where they are trying to go. And this is vastly easier in a situation like Ukraines where there is just not much civilian activity in the most contested areas.

Well, I believe it is not feasible right now but we will need to develop it in future. AI tools are crucial. Warfare has become exceedingly complex, and we need whatever support we can get to be able to act efficiently. The same AI system may easily operate in reverse, advising us on how to maneuver our own troops in order to confuse enemy observation. 

[kimbosbread]

8 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

it's not just 4 guys in a team with a bunch of drones tho, isn't there a long supply line of programmers, production lines, companies, capital? a lot of drones is directly or indirectly western funded.

 https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/06/ukraine-drone-industry-russia-war-regulation/

FPVs are really simple. It’s analog video, and some OSS flight control stuff. And then some engines and batteries and cameras stuff from china, some chips and antennas, a 3d printed (or handbuilt) frame. That’s it, plus whatever RPG warheads or mines you happen to have handy (or dildos in a pinch, apparently).

No machinists, machine tool salespeople, lobbyists, forklift drivers etc. No solid rocket motors. No fancy sensor package.

Obviously America in our superiority over the rest of the planet makes things more complicated, but your basic quadcopter or fixed wing RPG-carrying FPV is basically hobbyist kit that with off-the-shelf components.

If you want to go a step further, you add a backyard turbojet (which is totally within the realm of a hobbyist), and you start having very serious long-range capability for absurdly cheap.

[Grigb]

12 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

it's not just 4 guys in a team with a bunch of drones tho, isn't there a long supply line of programmers, production lines, companies, capital? a lot of drones is directly or indirectly western funded.

 https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/06/ukraine-drone-industry-russia-war-regulation/

Yes. There must be battalion level workshops for quick repairs/modification and then there are rear areas workshops for rebuilding and extensive modification and finally production workshop/programmer studios.

[dan/california]

7 minutes ago, Grigb said:

I was talking about battalion level attack - that's why you bring you companies to forward dugouts. At appropriate time they walk out of these dugouts and you can start surprise attack. 

Now, I am not advocating for trench warfare. I am simply telling RU tricks they use to overcome ever present prying eyes. 

 

Well, I believe it is not feasible right now but we will need to develop it in future. AI tools are crucial. Warfare has become exceedingly complex, and we need whatever support we can get to be able to act efficiently. The same AI system may easily operate in reverse, advising us on how to maneuver our own troops in order to confuse enemy observation. 

We may be doing a bad job of agreeing with each other. What I am trying to say is that working around the

 

8 minutes ago, Grigb said:

ever present prying eyes. 

Is the overriding dictate of all front line operations. That is a big deal, war changing. The way this forces you to operate makes attacking slow, expensive, and unlikely to create a large breakthrough quickly.

I agree with everything else you have said

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I feel the concept would work a lot better if Boxer had been adopted by more NATO countries...

That can be said for a lot of systems.  Imagine if every country adopted the same tank with local production, for example.  This would mean local jobs, economy of scale, and production redundancies.  And yet...

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

though I am still concerned that the price tag of Boxer is so high because of that modularity. 

There are very few instances where getting a bunch of new features winds up costing less than having fewer.  Modularity almost always INITIALLY costs more than specialized platforms.  But over the lifetime of the vehicles it could wind up costing less.

Regardless, the modular design is intended to provide features that dedicated systems can not provide.  As I described above, those features are extremely good.  Cost is absolutely important (I harp on it all the time, of course), but I would rather pay more for the pros of modularity than spend less and not have them.

Steve