How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sburke]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

This is all fine if we want incremental improvement but if the environment suddenly becomes disrupted then this approach is very poor.  Worse the pace of technological change almost guarantees that we will be perpetually behind the curve. 
 

Funny, just finished reading 3 Body problem.  It spends a lot of time talking about species in the Universe - what it refers to as "the Dark forest".  Essentially it comes down to this - if you are contacted by another civilization, you don't respond and reveal your presence - instead you do your best to either hide or take them out as any truce goes out the window if one side makes a technological leap like figuring out travel at light speed.  It is a pretty dark view of the universe.

[The_Capt]

5 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Could innovation be improved upon? Sure, certainly when it comes to procurement contracts. Claiming Western institutions as monolithic entities with little capacity to change is a little silly though. There is a reason why they are at the head of the curve in pretty much all respects of warfare. We are already seeing active consideration from the Ukraine war with regards to future procurement, this is only going to get stronger in the next few years.

Well you are of course entitled to your opinion. After 36 years in Defence, including about 15 at the corporate coal face I think my data set is both of higher resolution and broader.  I have seen more resistance to change as the defining institutional theme for decades.  We took tanks to a COIN operation FFS.  As to being “ahead of the curve”…that is an assumption.  In fact it is the central assumption of conventional western military thinking. I challenge it. The events of this war challenge it.

In my corner we are sitting on essentially the same structures and capabilities we saw over 80 years ago with nothing much to back up the idea that they are superior.  You appear to have sidestepped a central point I have presented here - there is little to zero proof our way of warfare still works, let alone is “superior”.  We have canned exercises and training, on our own ranges  and training areas.  We have very little contemporary operational evidence…yet there is that assumption once again.  Entirely unfounded but ironclad.

5 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

An interesting example that is quite antithesis to your argument. The UK literally fully motorised its army in the 30s despite its lengthy cavalry heritage and in an environment of a tight budget and no conflict pressure. Cavalry units were entirely converted as well, going from horses to either motorised units or armoured cars. They recognised after the first world war that steel over flesh was the way to go and managed to significantly change the makeup of the armed forces despite some truly horrendous budget constraints. This was achieved in just over a decade following some experimental mechanised force usage in the 20s. In short, just one example of a military being quite capable of innovation that was later perfected by the Americans. I figured the experimental exercises most militaries do should be a good example of that in todays environment. 

This, is your example of military innovation?  Shifting away from cavalry after WW1? The signs that warfare had shifted to Defensive primacy were evident since at least the US Civil War, possibly the Crimea.  The signs that machine guns, fast firing indirect artillery and communications were conspiring to change warfare (much like C4ISR, precision and unmanned are doing today) were evident before 1914.  Then after a world war that dragged on for four years and cost over 20 million lives, due in large part to stasis on mass by those shifts up there, the antithesis to my position is armored car reform in the 20s and 30s?

How about the failures to shift before sacrificing millions of lives?  You know, the main job of the military - to fight and win wars as quickly as possible?  How did the UK military of 1910 fair on all that after mountains of evidence piled up over 50 years?  Go dig up the infantry manual from 1914 out of the UK and come back and tell us.

Here is the thing with your position - you set the bar far too low.  Militaries do three functions in liberal democracies at a grand strategy level: we carry out policy, we provide advice to policy and we protect the mechanism that generates policy.  Carrying out policy is aimed at the effective and efficient use of military power as a means to resolve irreconcilable collisions.  Advice to policy is making sure the political level is well advised on how to prosecute the war we are in, and prepare for the next one.

So if your metric is “hey look they got armored cars after WW1” as a measure of military innovation then you are willing to ignore the advise to policy that should have been generated before that war in order to avoid the grinding deadlock that murdered a generation.  Further, you are ok with the fact that those armored car units were still essentially deigned to move infantry and reconnaissance into trenches to stop bother attack on the continent.  France had more armor than anyone, but they employed them as mobile guns to defend massive pre-made trench systems.  Both UK and France were generating military advise to win the last war, not the one to their front.  They ignored lessons learned from Spain and what the Germans were doing, and stuck to infantry heavy defensive positions.  It cost France their nation, and damned near did the same for the UK.

I guess I am old and cranky but in my scorebook militaries have to do better than that.  They need to hedge far more aggressively than that.  And they can.  Airland Battle hung on capabilities and platforms that had not even been invented yet, but the US leaned into them.  If you want an anti-thesis, let’s at least pick the right one.  So militaries can innovate, dramatically.  The problem is their timing.  Seriously, go read Max Boots War Made New, it is all about RMAs and the actions reactions around them.  It may provide a better lens through which to view this war.

Edited Friday at 07:31 PM by The_Capt

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

Funny, just finished reading 3 Body problem.  It spends a lot of time talking about species in the Universe - what it refers to as "the Dark forest".  Essentially it comes down to this - if you are contacted by another civilization, you don't respond and reveal your presence - instead you do your best to either hide or take them out as any truce goes out the window if one side makes a technological leap like figuring out travel at light speed.  It is a pretty dark view of the universe.

The only thing you can trade is information.  Send them MSWindows - it's the information equivalent of smallpox-ridden blankets.

[ArmouredTopHat]

12 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

In my corner we are sitting on essentially the same structures and capabilities we saw over 80 years ago with nothing much to back up the idea that they are superior.  You appear to have sidestepped a central point I have presented here - there is little to zero proof our way of warfare still works, let alone is “superior”.  We have canned exercises and training, on our own ranges  and training areas.  We have very little contemporary operational evidence…yet there is that assumption once again.  Entirely unfounded but ironclad.

I would argue we have more evidence of it working than it not working.

 

 

16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

As to being “ahead of the curve”…that is an assumption.  In fact it is the central assumption of conventional western military thinking. I challenge it. The events of this war challenge it.

In my corner we are sitting on essentially the same structures and capabilities we saw over 80 years ago with nothing much to back up the idea that they are superior.  You appear to have sidestepped a central point I have presented here - there is little to zero proof our way of warfare still works, let alone is “superior”.  We have canned exercises and training, on our own ranges  and training areas.  We have very little contemporary operational evidence…yet there is that assumption once again.  Entirely unfounded but ironclad.

You say this as if its not being applied to everyone else. We are actively seeing just how badly the Russian approach to things has gone in Ukraine. This is the same approach China has in a lot of respects. If the west way of thinking has been challenged by this war, then does not that apply to everyone else in an even more severe fashion?

 

39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This, is your example of military innovation?  Shifting away from cavalry after WW1? The signs that warfare had shifted to Defensive primacy were evident since at least the US Civil War, possibly the Crimea.  The signs that machine guns, fast firing indirect artillery and communications were conspiring to change warfare (much like C4ISR, precision and unmanned are doing today) were evident before 1914.  Then after a world war that dragged on for four years and cost over 20 million lives, due in large part to stasis on mass by those shifts up there, the antithesis to my position is armored car reform in the 20s and 30s?

How about the failures to shift before sacrificing millions of lives?  You know, the main job of the military - to fight and win wars as quickly as possible?  How did the UK military of 1910 fair on all that after mountains of evidence piled up over 50 years?  Go dig up the infantry manual from 1914 out of the UK and come back and tell us.

Here is the thing with your position - you set the bar far too low.  Militaries do three functions in liberal democracies at a grand strategy level: we carry out policy, we provide advice to policy and we protect the mechanism that generates policy.  Carrying out policy is aimed at the effective and efficient use of military power as a means to resolve irreconcilable collisions.  Advice to policy is making sure the political level is well advised on how to prosecute the war we are in, and prepare for the next one.

So if your metric is “hey look they got armored cars after WW1” as a measure of military innovation then you are willing to ignore the advise to policy that should have been generated before that war in order to avoid the grinding deadlock that murdered a generation.  Further, you are ok with the fact she those armored car units were still essentially deigned to move infantry and reconnaissance into trenches to stop bother attack on the continent.  France had more armor than anyone, but they employed them as mobile guns to defend massive pre-made trench systems.  Both UK and France were generating military advise to win the last war, not the one to their front.  They ignored lessons learned from Spain and what the Germans were doing, and stuck to infantry heavy defensive positions.  It cost France their nation, and damned near did the same for the UK.

I guess I am old and cranky but in my scorebook militaries have to do better than that.  They need to hedge far more aggressively than that.  And they can.  Airland Battle hung on capabilities and platform ps that had not even been invented yet, but the US leaned into them.  If you want an anti-thesis, let’s at least pick the right one.  So militaries can innovate, dramatically.  The problem is their timing.  Seriously, go read Max Boots War Made New, it is all about RMAs and the actions reactions around them.  It may provide a better lens through which to view this war.

The nature of warfare in the last 100 years had changed so rapidly that I think its a little unfair to have an expectation for human beings to be able to not just keep up but outright predict future changes perfectly and ahead of time in an era of rapid technological progression. I dont disagree that we need to be better, but we should also have realistic expectations here. We as a species are kind of infamous for being capable of blistering change but also conservative sluggishness and we should bear that mind mind for any planning of this nature. I would argue that simply keeping ahead of the curve compared to others is 'good enough' and a far more realistic outcome to expect. I do agree that timing could be better though, but is that just a feature of our species that we need to factor in?

My example was simply a case where a nation that really did have better things to spend on after the scars of WW1 still innovated in a measure that had not been done before, despite not being at war. (more referring to the spending budget pre 1934 here)

[Battlefront.com]

38 minutes ago, chrisl said:

The only thing you can trade is information.  Send them MSWindows - it's the information equivalent of smallpox-ridden blankets.

Or they'd take a look at it and think "well, there's nothing to worry about".  And if that didn't do it, send them a bunch of Kardashian reality TV crap

Better yet, show them what we've done with the internet.  They'd come to the conclusion that any amazing leaps in technology by us would be used for porn, cats, and the unbelievable "unboxing" of bog standard consumer goods.

Yup, we are not destined to be any space faring species' rivals.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I would argue we have more evidence of it working than it not working.

I don't think so.  What we have evidence of is what is done and not what could have been done with a better incentive structure. 

I'll say this again.  The lack of innovation and solid cost effective solutions is a problem for all organizations.  The military is absolutely no exception.  In fact, I would say it's amongst the worst because they get obscene amounts of money and generally don't have to show any proof that it was well spent.  In fact, as we are seeing now, it's clear that it has NOT been well spent.  And their response?  "We need more money".

Steve

[dan/california]

 

Quote

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/defense-aerospace-report/id1228868129?i=1000660339391

 

This podcast is at least some evidence of hope that the military industrial complex is ingesting some of the lessons of Ukraine.There seems to be a delay in the development of the successor to the F22 while people try to figure if the idea makes sense anymore. It seems that the Air Force is beginning to realize that billion dollar platforms that they will never have even a hundred of are maybe not the way to go. 

Edited Friday at 06:25 PM by dan/california

[cesmonkey]

 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I would argue we have more evidence of it working than it not working.

Then present it. I have a passing familiarity with modern military history and I can find little proof of the western way of warfare being either tested or working as we have convinced ourselves.  We have not fought a war like Ukraine since Korea and that is being generous.

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

You say this as if it’s not being applied to everyone else. We are actively seeing just how badly the Russian approach to things has gone in Ukraine. This is the same approach China has in a lot of respects. If the west way of thinking has been challenged by this war, then does not that apply to everyone else in an even more severe fashion?

Well, yes it does apply to everyone…that is the point.  First off, Russia and China do not have “the same approaches”, however, most modern conventional militaries all have similar approaches in 2020s.  The Russian BTG and doctrine is not all that different from our own.  China has specifically moved to a Bde level capability focus.  So, yes, pretty much every modern military is going to be playing catchup.

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The nature of warfare in the last 100 years had changed so rapidly that I think its a little unfair to have an expectation for human beings to be able to not just keep up but outright predict future changes perfectly and ahead of time in an era of rapid technological progression. I dont disagree that we need to be better, but we should also have realistic expectations here. We as a species are kind of infamous for being capable of blistering change but also conservative sluggishness and we should bear that mind mind for any planning of this nature. I would argue that simply keeping ahead of the curve compared to others is 'good enough' and a far more realistic outcome to expect. I do agree that timing could be better though, but is that just a feature of our species that we need to factor in?

We spend trillions on defence in the western world, every year.  For that kind of investment “Hey, we are good enough, folks” is not good enough. Worse, militaries are capable of forward thought and keeping ahead of the curve - there is proof of that. The stakes in this business are about as high as they can get, “close enough for government work” is not professional. Ruthless testing, observation and competitive thinking is required and militaries have deep pockets and thousands of the best and brightest.

We will never be 100% right but we can do a damn sight better…always.  Modern militaries must always challenge their own assumptions, push themselves in training to failure and never assume the enemy is going to let you get away with a damned thing.  

Edited Friday at 07:00 PM by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, sburke said:

Funny, just finished reading 3 Body problem.  It spends a lot of time talking about species in the Universe - what it refers to as "the Dark forest".  Essentially it comes down to this - if you are contacted by another civilization, you don't respond and reveal your presence - instead you do your best to either hide or take them out as any truce goes out the window if one side makes a technological leap like figuring out travel at light speed.  It is a pretty dark view of the universe.

Good series. Very Chinese view of the world.  The Dark Forest is one answer to the Fermi Paradox. My issue with it is that it assumes human perception frameworks applied across possible galactic species.  While Darwinian pressure may be central to life on other planets (ie competition and survival of the fittest), there is no proof that other advanced civilization will come from the same location in the food chain as primates did. Nor is there a shortage of resources when we are talking these scales.

So, if we get a benign species as neighbours and they detect us, we cannot assume that we need to compete to survive.  I fact a species heading for Type I civ has more energy that it knows what to do with so why even pick a fight in the first place? The Dark Forest is projecting human paranoia on the rest of the galaxy.

For an alien species to want to attack us the only real impetus would be irrational.  Say for example we were convinced that an alien species worshipped a deity that demanded sacrifice and cleansing of non-believers. Then the Dark Forest starts to make a lot of sense.  But thank goodness irrationality in human affairs has gone away….he says uncomfortably on a forum about the Ukrainian war.

Edited Friday at 07:32 PM by The_Capt

[Carolus]

 

"Bring out the punt gun, Ihor, we have Russian drones to take down."

 

[Tenses]

Auterion autonomy kit lets attack drones fly through jamming

This is why I always saw EW as a dead end. Next stop full autonomy, if chosen to behave like that and everyone agree with possible consequences.

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, Tenses said:

Auterion autonomy kit lets attack drones fly through jamming

This is why I always saw EW as a dead end. Next stop full autonomy, if chosen to behave like that and everyone agree with possible consequences.

Yup.  And you have a lot of people here nodding their heads in agreement with you too

Anybody that is looking ahead 5 months, not to mention 5 years, needs to be thinking some form of autonomy for both offensive and defensive purposes.

Steve

[NamEndedAllen]

A friend who by employment wishes not to post publicly sent me these notes:

***** 

> Source - former Marine grunt with RF and drone experience who volunteered in Ukraine for drones >and infantry work for ?2? years - unclass/pub release talk at Connections wargaming conference,  > yesterday (27 June 2024).  Slides to be released eventually.
> Drones: 
> 
> Monthly expenditure rate across the front in excess of 14,000
> No such thing as having too many drones.
> 
> Don't rely on GPS; nice but usually jammed /and can kill you/ when your drone broadcasts the GPS coordinates of your control station.
> 
> Homemade are best because you can change frequencies most easily
> Scan for Russian jamming freqs and then use freqs they are not
> Can use freqs the FCC etc do not approve of 
> But - smaller numbers available
> 
> Modified commercial next best
> Lots and good quality
> Modify - physical and software - to
>      - broaden freq range
>      - set return bearings
>      - *turn off GPS reporting* both sides can pick up the info and then you die 
>      - They struggle with DJI updates that keep turning that back on 
>      - DJI wins on both price and quality, US firms need to catch up (acknowledged there is a severe labor cost disparity) 
> 
> Military/government done not useful
>    - Too expensive
>    - Too many Gucci features that fail
>    - Too hard to modify
>    - Often not tested for a warfare environment
> 
> Return on jam - Set return bearings for each leg of flight that bring it back into probable control.  Do not set to own position, can be pulled out of electronics if it crashes and/or provides line of bearing back to you.
> 
> Use terrain making of RF signal to mask drone and point of origin; fly at least 1 to 1.5 km at very low altitude before unmaking. 
> 
> Use analog signals not digital.  Digital more secure but it is either up or down.  Analog lets you feel your way into the jamming and plot out today's EW threat.
> 
> Flying drones into EW a lot like Cold War aircraft penetrating radar nets - such and weave around coverage and use masking etc.
> 
> Active jamming needs to be layered with more powerful systems rearwards overlapping with less powerful systems forward, in many layers. 
> 
> Active jammers get killed by home on jam drones.
> 
> Better to use passive sensing EW and patch it into other defenses for the kill. 
> 
> Drone and EW people need to start training with a strong course on radio and how it works. 
> 
> Drive vs drive combat is beginning.  Nets can work.  Sticks can work.  "Anything used violently can work ". Fancy cabins probably dumb.  Remember that shotguns exist and birdshot is cheap!
> 
> Drone recon - patch directly into artillery for control center (or mortar team for squad drones).  Then use comms to tell them to look when you have a target, they will decide what to do.
> 
> Future drones - motherships carrying recce/strike drones and providing signal repeater service 
> 
> If you are found you can expect a shell within 3 to 8 minutes.
> 
> James comment - We are in the equivalent of 1915 with drones - clearly useful and the wrapping of stones is just beginning.
> 
> Infantry stuff
> 
> Ammo expenditure is like in an FPS game.  "Is it is worth a bullet it is worth a mag" - shoot lots, shoot often, shoot if you suspect they are there.  Carried 12 mags up front plus 6 to 8 more less ready plus 2 cans of ammo to reload mags.
> 
> "Use grenades until the screaming stops"
> 
> Keep moving or the artillery will get you.
> 
> FPV drones are everywhere. 
> 
> Do not wear Gucci kit, it makes you a target.
> 
> All attacks are frontal assaults because of the continuous front.
> 
> 
> 
> Did not remember all the infantry commentary as well as the drone info.  Slideshow should spark more memory.
> 
> 
> Most interesting talk at Connections! 
> 
> 
> A few other notes-
> 
> Yamamoto overrode the results of the wargame on Pearl Harbor in 1941 (projected losses of "160% of Zeros" - direct quote from primary source) though the wargame may have lead to not doing the land invasion of Hawaii.
> 
> There are a lot of people who I know decently well, who are not alarmists, who are very seriously expecting World War 3 in the next decade at most and possibly in the next 2-3 years.  Some grim speculation on not if but when and which WMD will get massive use in Ukraine.  Chem & tac nukes are probable as desperation grows; bio too hard to deploy and control.  Tac nukes most effective but cross a bigger red line than nerve gas.  Nuke- or conventionally-pumped EMP may become a solution for drones (takes a lot of planning and coordination to avoid fratricide of own electronics).

[dan/california]

46 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

A friend who by employment wishes not to post publicly sent me these notes:

***** 

> Source - former Marine grunt with RF and drone experience who volunteered in Ukraine for drones >and infantry work for ?2? years - unclass/pub release talk at Connections wargaming conference,  > yesterday (27 June 2024).  Slides to be released eventually.
> Drones: 
> 
> Monthly expenditure rate across the front in excess of 14,000
> No such thing as having too many drones.
> 
> Don't rely on GPS; nice but usually jammed /and can kill you/ when your drone broadcasts the GPS coordinates of your control station.
> 
> Homemade are best because you can change frequencies most easily
> Scan for Russian jamming freqs and then use freqs they are not
> Can use freqs the FCC etc do not approve of 
> But - smaller numbers available
> 
> Modified commercial next best
> Lots and good quality
> Modify - physical and software - to
>      - broaden freq range
>      - set return bearings
>      - *turn off GPS reporting* both sides can pick up the info and then you die 
>      - They struggle with DJI updates that keep turning that back on 
>      - DJI wins on both price and quality, US firms need to catch up (acknowledged there is a severe labor cost disparity) 
> 
> Military/government done not useful
>    - Too expensive
>    - Too many Gucci features that fail
>    - Too hard to modify
>    - Often not tested for a warfare environment
> 
> Return on jam - Set return bearings for each leg of flight that bring it back into probable control.  Do not set to own position, can be pulled out of electronics if it crashes and/or provides line of bearing back to you.
> 
> Use terrain making of RF signal to mask drone and point of origin; fly at least 1 to 1.5 km at very low altitude before unmaking. 
> 
> Use analog signals not digital.  Digital more secure but it is either up or down.  Analog lets you feel your way into the jamming and plot out today's EW threat.
> 
> Flying drones into EW a lot like Cold War aircraft penetrating radar nets - such and weave around coverage and use masking etc.
> 
> Active jamming needs to be layered with more powerful systems rearwards overlapping with less powerful systems forward, in many layers. 
> 
> Active jammers get killed by home on jam drones.
> 
> Better to use passive sensing EW and patch it into other defenses for the kill. 
> 
> Drone and EW people need to start training with a strong course on radio and how it works. 
> 
> Drive vs drive combat is beginning.  Nets can work.  Sticks can work.  "Anything used violently can work ". Fancy cabins probably dumb.  Remember that shotguns exist and birdshot is cheap!
> 
> Drone recon - patch directly into artillery for control center (or mortar team for squad drones).  Then use comms to tell them to look when you have a target, they will decide what to do.
> 
> Future drones - motherships carrying recce/strike drones and providing signal repeater service 
> 
> If you are found you can expect a shell within 3 to 8 minutes.
> 
> James comment - We are in the equivalent of 1915 with drones - clearly useful and the wrapping of stones is just beginning.
> 
> Infantry stuff
> 
> Ammo expenditure is like in an FPS game.  "Is it is worth a bullet it is worth a mag" - shoot lots, shoot often, shoot if you suspect they are there.  Carried 12 mags up front plus 6 to 8 more less ready plus 2 cans of ammo to reload mags.
> 
> "Use grenades until the screaming stops"
> 
> Keep moving or the artillery will get you.
> 
> FPV drones are everywhere. 
> 
> Do not wear Gucci kit, it makes you a target.
> 
> All attacks are frontal assaults because of the continuous front.
> 
> 
> 
> Did not remember all the infantry commentary as well as the drone info.  Slideshow should spark more memory.
> 
> 
> Most interesting talk at Connections! 
> 
> 
> A few other notes-
> 
> Yamamoto overrode the results of the wargame on Pearl Harbor in 1941 (projected losses of "160% of Zeros" - direct quote from primary source) though the wargame may have lead to not doing the land invasion of Hawaii.
> 
> There are a lot of people who I know decently well, who are not alarmists, who are very seriously expecting World War 3 in the next decade at most and possibly in the next 2-3 years.  Some grim speculation on not if but when and which WMD will get massive use in Ukraine.  Chem & tac nukes are probable as desperation grows; bio too hard to deploy and control.  Tac nukes most effective but cross a bigger red line than nerve gas.  Nuke- or conventionally-pumped EMP may become a solution for drones (takes a lot of planning and coordination to avoid fratricide of own electronics).

GREAT POST!

[dan/california]

48 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

> Military/government done not useful
>    - Too expensive
>    - Too many Gucci features that fail
>    - Too hard to modify
>    - Often not tested for a warfare environment

This is the point about the Military industrial complex some of us are trying to make. There is better stuff coming out of Ukrainian garages.

[danfrodo]

Fun discussion here lately, y'all, thanks.

Some summary stuff here today.  I am sharing because of the interesting bit about RU soldiers in kherson region having to drink river water leading to cholera and typhoid outbreak.  It'd be like War of the Worlds, where a little germ destroys the invaders.....   Just need to get them all sick enough that UKR can actually make some real progress in the area.  So RU not providing water or at least water purification for its troops -- interesting indeed.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/6/28/2249326/-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-Reports-say-Ukraine-hit-Russia-s-S-500-air-defense-system?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, NamEndedAllen said:

> Can use freqs the FCC etc do not approve of 

The military needs a formal, thorough plan for this. These restrictions will last about five minutes in a real war, and the side that is better prepared will have a LARGE advantage

[ArmouredTopHat]

32 minutes ago, dan/california said:

This is the point about the Military industrial complex some of us are trying to make. There is better stuff coming out of Ukrainian garages.

In terms of FPV/loiter munitions, I would entirely agree. Switchblade seems grossly expensive for far less capability than a cheap FPV. 

Has there been any interest for mass produced FPV units anywhere in the West?

[ArmouredTopHat]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Then present it. I have a passing familiarity with modern military history and I can find little proof of the western way of warfare being either tested or working as we have convinced ourselves.  We have not fought a war like Ukraine since Korea and that is being generous.

Gulf War and Iraq war seem basic examples to highlight that Western way of warfare worked at a scale at least approaching the level of combat scale seen in Ukraine, if only briefly. The Gulf war seems especially apt because of the assumption of how bloody the war would be and the preparation that went into it. 

In terms of operations more relevant to recent developments in unmanned strike capability, US operations in Syria currently deal with a lot of drone attacks and they seem to be doing quite well and are learning a lot with regards to defending themselves against them. This podcast was really excellent and shows how actively the US at least is learning this stuff on the job. I think it might have been posted here already but my memory fails me. The US and indeed NATO in general do seem to be taking in a lot of notes right now about drones, we can expect some procurement of such capabilities soon enough I imagine given the interest shown, both for attack and defence. 

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/mwi-podcast-defending-against-drones/

 

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Well, yes it does apply to everyone…that is the point.  First off, Russia and China do not have “the same approaches”, however, most modern conventional militaries all have similar approaches in 2020s.  The Russian BTG and doctrine is not all that different from our own.  China has specifically moved to a Bde level capability focus.  So, yes, pretty much every modern military is going to be playing catchup.

It was a simplification of things, but broadly the Chinese developed a lot of their vehicles and technology / doctrine from the Russians / Soviets and so had similar approaches, though they are increasingly forging their own path as they develop, especially in the last decade or so. I would however note that it says a lot that the Chinese do not currently believe themselves to be a peer to peer adversary to the US and are specifically seeking to achieve that capability by 2050. This to me shows just how far ahead the US and NATO are, even at this point in terms of overall capability. (With some caveats)

https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2022/12/strategic-survey-2022-chinas-military-modernisation/

Also to note, the Russians pretty much gave up on the BTG concept and went back to basics with the makeup of their units owing to systemic issues with the organisation. I have not seen any evidence of them returning to it. The mess seems eerily similar to the Soviet experience in 1941 where they too had to go back to basics with their armoured force structures. Certainly the soviet era thoughts and practises still readily prevalent in the Russian army really did seem to hamper the idea of the BTG as well as other constraining factors. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/29/russia-largely-abandons-battalion-tactical-groups-ukraine-weaknesses/#:~:text=Russian forces have largely stopped,Defence (MoD) has said.

https://euro-sd.com/2022/11/articles/exclusive/26319/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-russian-battalion-tactical-group-concept/

 

Edited Friday at 10:46 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[danfrodo]

My oldest kid is visiting.  He said he was buying into the russian conspiracy theory that the west has had a long term plan to permanently destroy russia.  He said "yes, and the clever, scheming, long-game  western devils did it by installing Putin 20 years ago knowing he'd end up destroying the country thru corruption and war"

[LongLeftFlank]

18 hours ago, Offshoot said:

Russia are getting a head start, albeit unintentionally - Astronauts take cover as defunct Russian satellite splits into nearly 200 pieces

This! 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

It's theoretical, but you might not need nuclear EMP to effectively empty LEO of satellites. Enough tiny particles of whatever up there moving at crazy speeds could imprison our species on Earth for many decades. Again, theoretical. Until it isn't.

In which case @dan/california is onto something with balloons being the next best thing.... which might also explain those Chinese incursions a while back.

EDIT:  @acrashb preceded me on Kessler sphere.

Edited Friday at 11:55 PM by LongLeftFlank

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Gulf War and Iraq war seem basic examples to highlight that Western way of warfare worked at a scale at least approaching the level of combat scale seen in Ukraine, if only briefly. The Gulf war seems especially apt because of the assumption of how bloody the war would be and the preparation that went into it. 

In terms of operations more relevant to recent developments in unmanned strike capability, US operations in Syria currently deal with a lot of drone attacks and they seem to be doing quite well and are learning a lot with regards to defending themselves against them. This podcast was really excellent and shows how actively the US at least is learning this stuff on the job. I think it might have been posted here already but my memory fails me. The US and indeed NATO in general do seem to be taking in a lot of notes right now about drones, we can expect some procurement of such capabilities soon enough I imagine given the interest shown, both for attack and defence. 

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/mwi-podcast-defending-against-drones/

 

It was a simplification of things, but broadly the Chinese developed a lot of their vehicles and technology / doctrine from the Russians / Soviets and so had similar approaches, though they are increasingly forging their own path as they develop, especially in the last decade or so. I would however note that it says a lot that the Chinese do not currently believe themselves to be a peer to peer adversary to the US and are specifically seeking to achieve that capability by 2050. This to me shows just how far ahead the US and NATO are, even at this point in terms of overall capability. (With some caveats)

https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2022/12/strategic-survey-2022-chinas-military-modernisation/

Also to note, the Russians pretty much gave up on the BTG concept and went back to basics with the makeup of their units owing to systemic issues with the organisation. I have not seen any evidence of them returning to it. The mess seems eerily similar to the Soviet experience in 1941 where they too had to go back to basics with their armoured force structures. Certainly the soviet era thoughts and practises still readily prevalent in the Russian army really did seem to hamper the idea of the BTG as well as other constraining factors. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/29/russia-largely-abandons-battalion-tactical-groups-ukraine-weaknesses/#:~:text=Russian forces have largely stopped,Defence (MoD) has said.

https://euro-sd.com/2022/11/articles/exclusive/26319/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-russian-battalion-tactical-group-concept/

 

Stick to your (obsolete and doomed, DOOMED!!!! do you hear me?) guns, @ArmouredTopHat. 

Our Capt's bark is worse than his bite, and we all learn a lot from the ongoing discussion. Cheers!

[danfrodo]

52 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Stick to your (obsolete and doomed, DOOMED!!!! do you hear me?) guns, @ArmouredTopHat. 

Our Capt's bark is worse than his bite, and we all learn a lot from the ongoing discussion. Cheers!

@ArmouredTopHat  is doing an exemplary job of how to disagree while staying engaged in a positive way (I obviously lack this skill).  TheCapt smacks him down, again and again, and he gets right back up and picks up right where he left off and makes another reasonable argument.  This Dude might not be winning the debate, but he's making everyone check their own positions, which is great.

[LongLeftFlank]

Yeah, the comment was tongue in cheek. I come to praise the TopHat, for avoidance of doubt.

And I think he's on to something re 1991. Air power dominated and overmatched or not, Desert Storm was the 'prime time' test of AirLand Battle, which while designed for Fulda Gap, took very useful note of the learnings from the Arab-Israeli wars (and to a limited extent the Iran-Iraq war) and refined it for years in the NTC.

This was indeed something new for the Big Green Machine, not just Alamein with smart bombs.

Edited yesterday at 01:29 AM by LongLeftFlank