How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[ArmouredTopHat]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Name me one, even one, real world engagement where a Western armed APS tank defended against a top attack munition.  You can't because it hasn't happened.  So until that happens you can not conclude, with *ANY*, degree of certainty that the top attack threat has been neutralized by APS.  And yet we're going to spend billions on making heavy, expensive, slow rate of production things heavier, more expensive, and slower rate of production.

Trophys claimed effectiveness has held up so far with everything from RPG-7s to Kornets. The top attack defending capability is there but apparently classified so I cannot say with certainty if it can do so or not. But given its current track record I would say its pretty likely. This is a system that we have a lot of evidence to show works pretty consistently. Its not like top attack munitions travel any faster than say a Kornet. 

I dont understand this utter disgust of APS honestly. Its literally going to save peoples lives and works as intended. It certainly stands that it needs more development to become a cheaper prospect for sure, but its value is undeniable. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Nobody is missing that.  We were here discussing it as it happened and it was repeatedly pointed out as a major reason for Russia's plans failing.  However, the plan couldn't have been carried out with more infantry because they simply did not have it.

We also have seen what's happened since then and it's only confirmed the premise that the quality and quantity of dispersed kill capabilities is proving to be too much for armored formations.  As Watling said in the previously linked presentation, he doesn't think that a NATO force would have done any better at Vuhledar.  That was an engagement where the Russians had the proper ratios of infantry.  They still got slaughtered.

The_Capt's point, specifically, is that even if Russia tripled, even quadrupled, it's infantry it still would have gotten mauled.  With weapons that can kill out to several KMs there just isn't enough infantry possible to do force protection.

The counter point is that Ukraine did not have thousands upon thousands of long range anti tank weapons. Most of these ambushes were done at point blank range with things like NLAW or RPGs, which are very much on the shorter range end of things.

I personally find that we can deride the Russians further for failing to plan this properly. Saying that if they had more infantry they would of still failed is very much conjecture and also irrelevant. The point is they did not due to shoddy planning and preparation at a time when they should of had every advantage. That initial invasion window was the best point in time for true mechanised warfare and the Russians were simply incapable of waging it. That to me is the real failure. 

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Trophys claimed effectiveness has held up so far with everything from RPG-7s to Kornets. The top attack defending capability is there but apparently classified so I cannot say with certainty if it can do so or not. But given its current track record I would say its pretty likely. This is a system that we have a lot of evidence to show works pretty consistently. Its not like top attack munitions travel any faster than say a Kornet.

I will say this again.  Name me ONE example of APS defeating a top attack weapon.  You can not, therefore you can not conclude that it will work "as advertised".

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I dont understand this utter disgust of APS honestly. Its literally going to save peoples lives and works as intended. It certainly stands that it needs more development to become a cheaper prospect for sure, but its value is undeniable. 

Because it's an expensive bandage on a gaping chest wound.  The funds that go into that should be going into something else that has more promise of giving our forces the capabilities they need to succeed in the future.

I don't think we should be investing in a brand new, expensive saddle to put on a dying horse.  It is not going to win the race it's been entered into.

Of course I understand why you are so insistent upon talking it up, because without it even you'd have to admit that the tank is dead.  So admitting that APS doesn't substantially change the challenges that tanks face in the future is very problematic for your position.  Whereas for me, the APS *at best* takes away some of the overwhelming reasons to get rid of the tank, but fundamentally doesn't change my argument at all.  I can take or leave the APS and the "tank is dead" argument is still effectively as strong.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

2 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Trophys claimed effectiveness has held up so far with everything from RPG-7s to Kornets.

Yeah, so those are classic threats, but I don’t get how Trophy is going to deal with the most common we see going forward: FPV drones, moving anywhere from 0.5 m/s to 100 m/s, from an angle and height, with several attacking at once.

Moreover, how many drones can it defeat in a row? If Ukraine will chase down a single soldier with a few drones, or a tank with 5+… does Trophy have enough ammo?

A near future upgrade that’s going to render radar-based APS worthless: Drones deploying a cloud of chaff around them as they attack the target. There’s no really good answer to this.

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, ArmouredTopHat said:

The counter point is that Ukraine did not have thousands upon thousands of long range anti tank weapons. Most of these ambushes were done at point blank range with things like NLAW or RPGs, which are very much on the shorter range end of things.

NLAW is not a point blank weapon and there were plenty of Javelins being used at the time.  Plus, no nation on Earth has enough infantry to protect logistics in such a deep drive.  None.

Just now, ArmouredTopHat said:

I personally find that we can deride the Russians further for failing to plan this properly. Saying that if they had more infantry they would of still failed is very much conjecture and also irrelevant. The point is they did not due to shoddy planning and preparation at a time when they should of had every advantage. That initial invasion window was the best point in time for true mechanised warfare and the Russians were simply incapable of waging it. That to me is the real failure. 

You should go back and read the informed discussions we had here at the time this invasion was playing out.  We covered it then and we covered it probably a dozen times since then.  In particular the point that Russia made the best plan they could given the resources they had.  The failure was thinking Ukraine would collapse.  It's the same mistake Germany made when invading the Soviet Union.

Regardless, you are side stepping that Russia has properly resourced many attacks since the initial invasion and all have gone very poorly.  Quantity of infantry doesn't seem to be a major factor.  That's not so much conjecture as it is paying attention.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

I will say this again.  Name me ONE example of APS defeating a top attack weapon.  You can not, therefore you can not conclude that it will work "as advertised".

We can make a logical assumption based on its prior performances which clearly show that the Trophy system and its developers are not exactly fibbing about their capabilities. Unlike Russian arms development companies we can actually take their word for it. Certainly I would imagine Trophy would not be under such active consideration from numerous countries if it did not include top attack protection.

Why are we even arguing this? We dont doubt drone swarm capability being a potentially potent thing despite it never being used in reality. Is it really hard to imagine that Trophy has this capability despite being a living breathing system in active use? Are the Trophy designers just lying for funsies?

 

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Because it's an expensive bandage on a gaping chest wound.  The funds that go into that should be going into something else that has more promise of giving our forces the capabilities they need to succeed in the future.

I don't think we should be investing in a brand new, expensive saddle to put on a dying horse.  It is not going to win the race it's been entered into.

Of course I understand why you are so insistent upon talking it up, because without it even you'd have to admit that the tank is dead.  So admitting that APS doesn't substantially change the challenges that tanks face in the future is very problematic for your position.  Whereas for me, the APS *at best* takes away some of the overwhelming reasons to get rid of the tank, but fundamentally doesn't change my argument at all.  I can take or leave the APS and the "tank is dead" argument is still effectively as strong.

I view it like any other weapons development: If its something critical to perform the role then its needed. Its like taking a tank and going into combat without composite / ERA armour, you are just asking for trouble. APS is just one development among many that seek to protect vehicles and its getting tiring that we ignore all of these developments despite it literally being a natural progression. 

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

4 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Yeah, so those are classic threats, but I don’t get how Trophy is going to deal with the most common we see going forward: FPV drones, moving anywhere from 0.5 m/s to 100 m/s, from an angle and height, with several attacking at once.

Moreover, how many drones can it defeat in a row? If Ukraine will chase down a single soldier with a few drones, or a tank with 5+… does Trophy have enough ammo?

A near future upgrade that’s going to render radar-based APS worthless: Drones deploying a cloud of chaff around them as they attack the target. There’s no really good answer to this.

We touched upon this several pages ago, but APS developers are now looking into including FPV as part of the threat inventory trophy can deal with, specifically using their sensors to slave a top mounted turret / RWS system onto them. If it works it means cheap disposal without a major addition to the system, while preserving the Trophy rounds themselves for heavier threats. 

https://www.twz.com/tank-active-protection-systems-could-be-used-shoot-down-drones

Edited Wednesday at 03:56 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

NLAW is not a point blank weapon and there were plenty of Javelins being used at the time.  Plus, no nation on Earth has enough infantry to protect logistics in such a deep drive.  None.

Ukraine did not have a huge amount of Javelin launchers prior to 2022, certainly not enough for widespread proliferation. We are talking several hundred at most, though they obviously received more after the invasion. While it was mentioned a fair bit, the NLAW and other shorter ranged options like Panzerfaust 3 were far more prevalent. Also much easier for infantry to be quickly introduced to and use in the field. Plenty of footage of Ukrainian squads running around with all sorts in those first few months. 

https://www.rferl.org/a/javelin-missile-delivery-ukraine-us-confirmed/29200588.html

NLAW is very much considered a short range anti tank solution, its optimal range is around the 600m mark. It reaches out further than other weapons of its class but its not designed to hit stuff miles away. 

Also, that sounds like a planning and execution issue (Ie Russian failure) to me. Perhaps with more realistic objectives and actual infantry compliments in their BTGs the Russians would have performed better. But they did not and here we are. 

*Edit* Some searching tells me Ukraine had just under 80 Javelin launchers prior to the war and 500ish missiles. Just before the war, Ukraine received around two thousand NLAWs.

Edited Wednesday at 04:19 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[dan/california]

58 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I think the point is that precision is not always a guarantee in an increasingly high tech battlefield with plentiful jamming and other countermeasures in the works. I suppose part of it goes back to the West's overwhelming reliance on precision instead of deep stocks, we really do need to dabble with both rather than relying so heavily on the former. 

What you need is massive stocks OF precision weapons, and the less precise ones that are proven to work. The cost of things like smart artillery shells has to be brought down, the West can't afford to order this stuff in penny packets anymore. We have to pay for the construction of factories that can turn this stuff out at reasonable per piece prices, even if the up front cost is excruciating. That goes for everything from ATACMS class missiles to the autonomous kill bots that are replacing FPV drones as we watch.

The list of older things that have absolutely proven to work unfortunately involves telling the Amnesty International types to find something better to do with their time. Because the two things that have absolutely proven to work in this war are cluster munitions, and land mines. You simply can't have to many of either.

Edit: And mines that be delivered by artillery, don't forget those, need a few million rounds.

43 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Nobody is missing that.  We were here discussing it as it happened and it was repeatedly pointed out as a major reason for Russia's plans failing.  However, the plan couldn't have been carried out with more infantry because they simply did not have it.

We also have seen what's happened since then and it's only confirmed the premise that the quality and quantity of dispersed kill capabilities is proving to be too much for armored formations.  As Watling said in the previously linked presentation, he doesn't think that a NATO force would have done any better at Vuhledar.  That was an engagement where the Russians had the proper ratios of infantry.  They still got slaughtered.

The_Capt's point, specifically, is that even if Russia tripled, even quadrupled, it's infantry it still would have gotten mauled.  With weapons that can kill out to several KMs there just isn't enough infantry possible to do force protection.

Steve

See below

40 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Trophys claimed effectiveness has held up so far with everything from RPG-7s to Kornets. The top attack defending capability is there but apparently classified so I cannot say with certainty if it can do so or not. But given its current track record I would say its pretty likely. This is a system that we have a lot of evidence to show works pretty consistently. Its not like top attack munitions travel any faster than say a Kornet. 

I dont understand this utter disgust of APS honestly. Its literally going to save peoples lives and works as intended. It certainly stands that it needs more development to become a cheaper prospect for sure, but its value is undeniable. 

See below

35 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The counter point is that Ukraine did not have thousands upon thousands of long range anti tank weapons. Most of these ambushes were done at point blank range with things like NLAW or RPGs, which are very much on the shorter range end of things.

I personally find that we can deride the Russians further for failing to plan this properly. Saying that if they had more infantry they would of still failed is very much conjecture and also irrelevant. The point is they did not due to shoddy planning and preparation at a time when they should of had every advantage. That initial invasion window was the best point in time for true mechanised warfare and the Russians were simply incapable of waging it. That to me is the real failure. 

But this conversation is not about how Russia blew it in March 2022, it is about what happens next. Because the NEXT attempt at shock and awe, whoever does it, is going to face whatever FPV drones evolve into in truly massive quantities. I would argue that makes the supply route problem almost infinitely worse. even with current tech a small team can can deploy drones from five to ten kilometers, and with very little signature. Next gen they will be able to scatter drones on random warehouse roofs or whereever, and launch the the next day. Next gen for purposes of this conversation might be a year, BTW.

Edited Wednesday at 04:22 PM by dan/california

[Carolus]

I feel like a good emulation of the modern battlespaceif playing CM is one player choosing a classic mech force and the other player spending 70% of his points on the helicopters from the USMC with the door gunner carrying a missile launcher (and mines).

Player one moves forward as usual, player two places two dozen fire areas across the map. 

Click play and see vehicles randomly blowing up all over the map.

Now assault.

We will see basically what the Russians are trying: using "Move fast" to get across the map to the objective as quickly as possible, area firing wildly at every branch that moves against the wind every turn, infantry scrambling to dismount one action square from the obective and jumping into the building / trench, and 3 seconds later the APC goes up in flames under the sound of a helicopter engine while the four surviving demoralized attackers duke it out with the three air support missoning defenders in the structure in CQC, repeat.

Edited Wednesday at 04:27 PM by Carolus

[Vanir Ausf B]

31 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 Because it's an expensive bandage on a gaping chest wound.  The funds that go into that should be going into something else that has more promise of giving our forces the capabilities they need to succeed in the future.

I don't think we should be investing in a brand new, expensive saddle to put on a dying horse.  It is not going to win the race it's been entered into.

...

Whereas for me, the APS *at best* takes away some of the overwhelming reasons to get rid of the tank, but fundamentally doesn't change my argument at all.  I can take or leave the APS and the "tank is dead" argument is still effectively as strong.

If we concede that the tank is dead then is not the IFV and APC also dead by the same measure? What about infantry? 

The challenge for planners isn't getting rid of the tank, it's remaking the ground forces top to bottom into something fundamentally different. That may be the correct path but it's not a cheap one or without it's own risks.

BTW, Trophy can reliably intercept top attack munitions in Black Sea and I presume in CM Professional, so the growing popularity of that bandage is probably your fault

 

[chrisl]

45 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

We touched upon this several pages ago, but APS developers are now looking into including FPV as part of the threat inventory trophy can deal with, specifically using their sensors to slave a top mounted turret / RWS system onto them. If it works it means cheap disposal without a major addition to the system, while preserving the Trophy rounds themselves for heavier threats. 

https://www.twz.com/tank-active-protection-systems-could-be-used-shoot-down-drones

APS will become a stack of expensive band-aids that keep getting pasted over each other (eventually getting in each other's way) to deal with cheap and effective counters.  It's arguably useful as a last-ditch point defense for vehicles that are behind the first several layers of defense to address anything that leaked through. But for a vehicle on the front line facing a swarm of drones and ATGMs it's not going to help.  Meanwhile the drone driver has many kms of dirt armor between themselves in their mom's basement and the victim vehicles.

Edited Wednesday at 04:40 PM by chrisl

[ArmouredTopHat]

7 minutes ago, chrisl said:

APS will become a stack of expensive band-aids that keep getting pasted over each other (eventually getting in each other's way) to deal with cheap and effective counters.  It's arguably useful as a last-ditch point defense for vehicles that are behind the first several layers of defense to address anything that leaked through. But for a vehicle on the front line facing a swarm of drones and ATGMs it's not going to help.  Meanwhile the drone driver has many kms of dirt armor between themselves in their mom's basement and the victim vehicles.

This seems a strange argument to make. What determines a system designed to be a defence as a band aid? Does this mean that defences a ship mounts to protect against cheaper ASMs are the same thing? Do we remove chaff and flare countermeasures from planes because they are getting ever more complex to defeat smarter missiles? APS has been literally proven very effective against ATGMs. Trophy is expensive yes, but that is perhaps to be expected from a first gen iteration of the system. Isn't spending money to prevent an even more expensive piece of kit going up in smoke a worthy purchase? Does that not actually save money long term in the event of conflict?

APS being modified to include anti FPV capability does not stand to be that complicated or expensive to do, it does not require additional systems outside of a potential RWS system (which a lot of tanks mount anyway) Its literally using that is already there to help the tank detect and destroy drone munitions. It should absolutely be viewed as a last resort defence, but that does not take away its value. I would rather have less vehicles that can survive numerous ATGM strike attempts than most of my tanks being destroyed any time of the week. Its hard to perform your mission function when you are cooking off. 

[hcrof]

17 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

This seems a strange argument to make. What determines a system designed to be a defence as a band aid? Does this mean that defences a ship mounts to protect against cheaper ASMs are the same thing? Do we remove chaff and flare countermeasures from planes because they are getting ever more complex to defeat smarter missiles? APS has been literally proven very effective against ATGMs. Trophy is expensive yes, but that is perhaps to be expected from a first gen iteration of the system. Isn't spending money to prevent an even more expensive piece of kit going up in smoke a worthy purchase? Does that not actually save money long term in the event of conflict?

APS being modified to include anti FPV capability does not stand to be that complicated or expensive to do, it does not require additional systems outside of a potential RWS system (which a lot of tanks mount anyway) Its literally using that is already there to help the tank detect and destroy drone munitions. It should absolutely be viewed as a last resort defence, but that does not take away its value. I would rather have less vehicles that can survive numerous ATGM strike attempts than most of my tanks being destroyed any time of the week. Its hard to perform your mission function when you are cooking off. 

I think a lot of the difference of opinion here is coming from what sort of scenario we consider the tank (or other vehicle) to be in. In a CM style battle the APS will be super useful and allow you to be much more aggressive with your tanks, while reducing attrition. 

But a tank is spending 99% of it's time behind the front line. It might drive to an assembly point, wait for the right moment, then drive to engage the enemy. During that whole time, which might be hours, it can be under indirect fire or drone attack or whatever. And all of its support vehicles too. So even if it defeats 95% of threats with it's expensive and heavy APS and armour it will be neutralised one way or another before it even has a chance to apply utility to the battlefield (i.e. shoot stuff). 

Agreed that this affects all vehicles, but tanks tend to be particularly expensive and fuel hungry. A wheeled APC not so much (ideally). 

[kimbosbread]

49 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

If we concede that the tank is dead then is not the IFV and APC also dead by the same measure? What about infantry? 

The basic question as always is “How do I defend or seize territory?”. Up to this point in history, the answer is “Infantry”.

The entire purpose of all the other weapons, communication and intelligence systems are to enable this holding or seizing of territory.

If an APC means soldiers surive to seize territory, that’s great. However, what we are seeing is infantry walk on foot because mech near the front attracts drones like flies to a big juicy poo.

If you have something better to hold territory with, for example smart mines or air-dropped smart gun turrets, maybe you don’t need as much infantry?

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I really think you are missing just how bad it was for the Russians to have so little dismounts on hand. They could not even begin to properly secure gains or screen their vehicles effectively, or respond to ambushes properly. We literally saw this in motion with videos of ambushes happening at point blank range. This happened more than enough times to clearly be a systemic issue. 

If they had their intended compliments of infantry, then they could of at least began to properly fight and attrite the infantry repeatedly doing these ambushes at such short range, which would of preventing follow-up units from being hit in the same way. Combat tends to happen at quite shorter ranges than one might expect.
 

 

 

I do not disagree that the RA had counted on one war but got another.  Nor that the lack of dismounts and infantry hurt them as the BTG got pulled into a fight it was poorly designed for.

However, my point still stand...how many infantry are enough?  Further, this lens really misses how badly positioned and spread out the UA was along a front over 2000km long at the opening of this thing.  They were thin and strung out as well, in fact it was likely a core planning factor for the RA.

Read this for an idea of just how chaotic and close run a thing the fight was:

https://chacr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/BAR-187-compressed.pdf

My point is that trying to clear ambushes along 100km when the ambushers can stand off 5000m instead of 500-1000m makes a major difference.  Once you add range the infantry bill goes up dramatically.  And the UA was not optimized for this sort of work in those initial days.  They were plugged in and had effective ISR but they were caught wrong footed north of Kyiv.

My problem with "well the RA needed more infantry" is that it does not recognize that the RA were going to need an unsustainable amount of infantry...and so would we.

How does one screen a Combat Team when the effective small team threats are now 5km out?  How about 20kms out with NLOS Spike? I am not sure why people keep thinking that we can somehow screen against this.  Or maybe they do not understand what screening and defile drills really mean.  It means dismounts screening and sweeping ahead of vehicles in close terrain to sweep AT teams and protect vehicles and armor. OK...so what is "close terrain" when an ATGM or FPV team can see, fix and hit at 5-10kms?

The reality is that ISR and range have changed the game.

 

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The reality is that ISR and range have changed the game.

And the cost for a good enough version of both is falling through the floor. The cost of the countermeasures is increasing exponentially, at least so far.

Edited Wednesday at 06:06 PM by dan/california

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I think the point is that precision is not always a guarantee in an increasingly high tech battlefield with plentiful jamming and other countermeasures in the works. I suppose part of it goes back to the West's overwhelming reliance on precision instead of deep stocks, we really do need to dabble with both rather than relying so heavily on the former. 

So the answer to a dramatic increase of smart precision weapons on the battlefield...the result of which we are seeing daily on this board...it to hang onto older technology and lean into dumb mass?

After we saw just how badly mass dumb fires performed at Severodonetsk?  I mean the RA turned fields into the moon and gained inches.  Why would we go this way...that is not pragmatic in the least. 

The smart play is to mass produce precision weapons.  If we can produce millions of cellphones why can't we produce millions of smart munitions?  I mean it is 2024 here, AI is being added as a free update in Windows.  The UA on a shoestring is holding off a force much larger with hundreds of thousands of FPVs being produced in peoples garages.

There is conservative, and there there is regressive.  Why on earth would we spool up dumb artillery stocks after this war?  We should definitely ramp up production, but of precision and smart systems.  Mass precision beats everything.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

This seems a strange argument to make. What determines a system designed to be a defence as a band aid? Does this mean that defences a ship mounts to protect against cheaper ASMs are the same thing? Do we remove chaff and flare countermeasures from planes because they are getting ever more complex to defeat smarter missiles? APS has been literally proven very effective against ATGMs.

You keep coming back to this and frankly it is not true.  We did this dance already.  The IDF are getting some use out of them in a very different context and even then their use was pretty limited.  APS has never really been tested in a full on peer conventional war with this many ATGM and UAS being thrown around.  I think cherry picking IDF examples and then inflating that to "very effective" as a wide metric is unfounded.

I have to say that your position is really, really conservative here.  You seem to paint a picture where defensive systems will re-balance the battlefield, to the point that smart and precision weapons are going to lose effectiveness and we will need to go back to dumb munitions.  You are putting a lot of hope on vehicle paint, APS, EW and SEAD - to the point that we are really supposed to take a lot of this on faith without any real proof - this is the antithesis of pragmatic.  The proof is all pointing the other way, yet you are proposing an almost retrograde approach.

I mean we were making gains in thinking about C2 nodes and cores of clouds.  Next gen vehicles as low profile, highly dispersed and largely there to be platforms for unmanned.  We were rethinking infantry roles and how to integrate UGVs...it was good stuff.  But now we are back to this?

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

We can make a logical assumption based on its prior performances which clearly show that the Trophy system and its developers are not exactly fibbing about their capabilities.
 

Wow.  So why do we have billion dollar ships that were certified ready and are now being talked about being scrapped long before their supposed lifetime use?  I suppose all those things with the F-35 are imaginary too?

I will say this one more time and only one more time... APS is *NOT* battle proven against top attack weapons.  It is *NOT* battle proven against drones.  You can dance around that as much as you like, but the reality is we have NO evidence that APS will significantly address the problems that tanks face today, not to mention in the near future.

And it is just a bandaid.  The real problems with tanks is that they are too are too heavy, too expensive, too slow to produce, too heavy on logistics, to easily spotted with ISR, and too easily killed by the array of capabilities already on the field today.  And more lethal and inexpensive ones are coming out every month.

Selectively arguing theory against broad based objective reality isn't really a way to win a debate.

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Why are we even arguing this? We dont doubt drone swarm capability being a potentially potent thing despite it never being used in reality. Is it really hard to imagine that Trophy has this capability despite being a living breathing system in active use? Are the Trophy designers just lying for funsies?
 

Drones are living, breathing, systems in active use.  Swarms exist.  Combining swarms with what is already killing tanks left right and center is not very difficult to imagine being more effective.

Trophy, on the other hand, has shown no real world ability to defend against top attack munitions.  We also have very good reason to doubt that APS can function in a threat environment that includes drones explicitly designed to interfere with APS tracking.

But it keeps coming down to this... the APS won't solve all of the tank's problems.  The tank is dead for reasons that APS can not solve for.  So even if APS works perfectly it isn't going to change the equation other than distract billions of funding in the wrong direction.

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I view it like any other weapons development: If its something critical to perform the role then its needed. Its like taking a tank and going into combat without composite / ERA armour, you are just asking for trouble. APS is just one development among many that seek to protect vehicles and its getting tiring that we ignore all of these developments despite it literally being a natural progression.

So what was the natural progress of the battleship using your logic?

Steve

[Letter from Prague]

In other news:

Slovak defense minister says sending fighter jets to Ukraine was 'treason,' files criminal complaint

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/slovak-defense-minister-says-sending-fighter-jets-to-ukraine-was-treason-files-criminal-complaint/ar-BB1o6Ong

Trump advisers envision a ‘radical reorientation’ in which Washington takes a back seat to Europe — and cuts a deal with Putin over Ukraine.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/02/nato-second-trump-term-00164517

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

I will say this about ArmouredTopHat... the more we tussle, the more he convinces me that the tank is dead.  As in 100% convinced, whereas before I was only 90% convinced. 

Steve

[MHW]

The New York Times just ran an article about the shifting place of the US-run GPS constellation (gift link–it's mostly an interactive visualization), relative to competing GNSSes from the EU, Russia, and China, and presented against increasing volumes of GNSS spoofing and jamming. I hadn't realized exactly how far the Chinese BeiDou system had come. It is now global in coverage, and it has more satellites in orbit than GPS, although I'm not sure what the significance of satellite counts is.

China has built a ground-based alternative positioning system, with coverage across the country and out into surrounding areas. A little more digging reveals that this is an e-Loran solution. 

Also of note: the article acknowledges the vital role of timing in GPS/GNSS, and even talks about the services as ways of distributing precise time, which is a wise take.

[Astrophel]

22 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

In other news:

Trump advisers envision a ‘radical reorientation’ in which Washington takes a back seat to Europe — and cuts a deal with Putin over Ukraine.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/02/nato-second-trump-term-00164517

 

 

Can't imagine Trump taking a back seat anywhere over anything.

After Trump started supporting the new funding for Ukraine his poll numbers jumped.  Trump will have noticed.

Edited Wednesday at 06:49 PM by Astrophel

[The_Capt]

22 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I will say this about ArmouredTopHat... the more we tussle, the more he convinces me that the tank is dead.  As in 100% convinced, whereas before I was only 90% convinced. 

Steve

My major issue is just how inaccurate his information is at times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)  First off the limitations are well known and listed.  The system has been operationally used maybe a couple dozen times in its history with the IDF in largely an insurgency environment.  Yet it is “operationally proven and highly effective”.  If we tried to make case for FPV strikes in Ukraine on 24 instances over the course of this entire war no one would even take us seriously.

And then there is the “it wasn’t Javelins”. Ukraine had over 5500 of those systems by May ‘22, hell they had the whole St Javelin thing.  There were dozens of Javelin strike videos…but long range ATGMs remain largely “untested”?  Yet, again, Trophy is the next best thing based on two dozen examples over nearly ten years.

 https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/gearscout/2022/05/12/javelin-missile-made-by-the-us-wielded-by-ukraine-feared-by-russia/

We have hundreds of videos, personal solider accounts and analysis on this forum on the impact of ISR and precision weapons on the battlefield in Ukraine…but they are all just “a fad” and we should go back to mass producing dumb rounds.

EW, which can be effective will not do a thing for fully autonomous systems = fully autonomous is a mirage, despite numerous evidence it is accelerating, including one on my freakin desktop right now. UGVs are next century..again regardless of mounting evidence and that we have video of them in use in Ukraine.

And none of this…absolutely none of this, solves for the core issue that has been nearly universally recognized - C4ISR and ranges have changed everything.  We should spend billions to keep a direct fire gun with an effect range of about 3000m alive, yet a three man Spike NLOS team can reach out and strike at 25kms.  We saw a couple FPV teams stop a Russian tank company cold, but that was because the Russians did  it have enough infantry…to clear treelines out to 5000m+.

I am starting to think this is some sort of Chinese Info Op. 

Edited Wednesday at 06:51 PM by The_Capt