How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Tux]

19 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

That does not mean I cant form my own opinions, or look at evidence scattered around that makes similar notions that I do.

I think this could be the key, mate.  No-one is saying you can’t form your own opinion but you do seem to have first formed an opinion (perhaps even due to valid doubts about how complete the available dataset is) and then looked for ‘scattered evidence’ that supports it.  That in itself doesn’t make your opinion wrong (and you’ll recall that your early input was well-received) but it does make it extremely frustrating to try and counter:  it was never formed on the basis of the preponderance of evidence in the first place so it becomes almost unfalsifiable.  And an unfalsifiable position is not conducive to a healthy discussion.

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I dont think they need the point proven when they have access to the testing sites and data that we dont that has probably convinced them of the need to invest into it on their next generation of vehicles.

You would get more data out of Ukraine in a month than currently exists in total. This really is a test for the military  industrial complex. If they want to spend a the better part of a trillion this way, they need to put their chips on the table right now. Not spend the next decade whining that if Ukraine had had this stuff they would have done better.

[Battlefront.com]

39 minutes ago, Jiggathebauce said:

Allow me to weigh on with a napkin paper idea - instead of putting APS on just the tank, what if you had dedicated unmanned platforms spread out in a battalion that carry multiple units of APS launchers on the top? Get enough of those spread out and you could have protection against at least several waves, enough to at least cover the unit if it needs to pull back 

The main problems with current APS are three fold:

1.  Expensive

2. Heavy

3. Easily detected as they have active sensors

It is entirely possible that someone will produce a new APS that puts out a better product in one or more of these categories, but the vulnerability coming from emissions is not likely going away.  In fact, it's likely going to be more of a problem (e.g. autonomous radar targeting UAS).

So imagine a whole network of significant sized and costing UGVs spread out to protect a force.  Now picture someone with a bunch of $50k hunter/killer drones operating amongst a swarm of cheap drones confusing the APS.  My money is on the expensive defensive solution becoming ineffective rather quickly.

Steve

 

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

I think this is the first footage I have seen of a potential automatic extinguisher at work. (thought it might just be the chad of a fellow on top putting it out himself, its hard to tell.)

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

5 minutes ago, dan/california said:

You would get more data out of Ukraine in a month than currently exists in total. This really is a test for the military  industrial complex. If they want to spend a the better part of a trillion this way, they need to put their chips on the table right now. Not spend the next decade whining that if Ukraine had had this stuff they would have done better.

I do agree, though why would they want to test it in such an environment when they know it works already? Seems an expensive way to prove a point that does not need to be?

[dan/california]

Just now, ArmouredTopHat said:

I do agree, though why would they want to test it in such an environment when they know it works already? Seems an expensive way to prove a point that does not need to be?

And now we have the real point of disagreement...

[ArmouredTopHat]

21 minutes ago, Tux said:

I think this could be the key, mate.  No-one is saying you can’t form your own opinion but you do seem to have first formed an opinion (perhaps even due to valid doubts about how complete the available dataset is) and then looked for ‘scattered evidence’ that supports it.  That in itself doesn’t make your opinion wrong (and you’ll recall that your early input was well-received) but it does make it extremely frustrating to try and counter:  it was never formed on the basis of the preponderance of evidence in the first place so it becomes almost unfalsifiable.  And an unfalsifiable position is not conducive to a healthy discussion.

Fair enough, I admit that some of my arguments were made poorly and in haste due to replying to a lot of people, which certainly did not help. I think its for the best that Capt and I cease interacting certainly, I am just sad he had to do it in such a manner that is so antithesis to his otherwise sound judgement. He makes good points and its sad to see such behaviour in all honesty. 

My only defence to the scattered evidence thing is that this is not exactly an opinion exclusive to me. Could still be wrong for all I know. 

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[holoween]

9 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I do agree, though why would they want to test it in such an environment when they know it works already? Seems an expensive way to prove a point that does not need to be?

Yea thats not how this works

The issue is more the manufacturer has no incentive to send it to generate sales as theyre already coming and the governments dont because its new gear and we dont really sent much top of the line kit there

[ArmouredTopHat]

9 minutes ago, dan/california said:

And now we have the real point of disagreement...

I mean I would love for it to be a reality if only to demonstrate how well such a system might perform (or not) Just feasibly its not going to happen when APS is very much emerging on NATOs own vehicles. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

45 minutes ago, Tux said:

Some interesting thoughts about why drones haven’t proliferated in Gaza, thanks.

Can we flip that question onto one of drones’ proposed counters: if Trophy has worked reasonably well for the IDF over the last decade (plus) why are we only seeing a few other countries carrying out ‘independent assessments’ and neither Ukraine or Russia seeming to show any real interest?

Is it actually very difficult to adapt APS to counter UAVs (they’ve had more than a year to be trying) or do they not think it’s worthwhile for some other reason?

Russia did have quite a bit of interest in an APS system, though I suspect the unit cost for Arena was too great for proper investment which goes in line with Russian tank upgrade programs in general (and god knows if the project even actually functioned knowing what we know about the intricacies of Russian corruption in such affairs) It was a bit of a surprise to see no active attempt to use Arena in any capacity though, which suggests the system might be less complete than we assessed. 

Ukraine needs the tanks / vehicles before even considering getting improved methods of protection. Right now they have to make some hard choices with what they get with aid. I do wonder if its ever come up in their aid requests though. 

As for other countries, the interest has been there for a while (Especially from the US) though I imagine it was a bit of bureaucratic slowness and desire to extensively test that has delayed what has to be acknowledged as an expensive upgrade (even if its so very critical for modern survivability) Had these countries been involved in conflict more actively we probably would have seen a much greater rush towards acquiring such systems. 

The last point is a really interesting question to which I honestly dont know about its viability. Its certainly worth exploring I would say. 

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

[Battlefront.com]

41 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I do not disagree with this, but that does not mean my opinion gets to be discarded so callously and an insinuation made that I am doing this as part of an 'agenda'. The whole affair reeked of intellectual gatekeeping and its just not very nice.

Context is important.  This is not how you were treated when you first arrived.  What you see is the result of the frustration with how you choose to debate, exasperated by growing tired of having to re-examine issues that, collective, we've moved on from.  The bar for reopening "shape of the Earth" conclusions should be high otherwise we'll just get stuck in a rut.  Patience with helping you understand why you were falling short of that standard is why we got to where we got to.

41 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

II am just a guy who happened to study military history at university and have a great interest in the subject. I dont work for a military company or government, I have literally no stake in this. I was just interested in a forum from a series game I like to play that seemed to be on the ball (And tolerated no Russian disinformation). Yet Capt decided to make a wild assumption and announce it publicly to that affect in a way that is frankly quite childish. It was simply unnecessary.

Its just more than a little bit insulting when people who I have been following react so caustically to my opinion while also misreading my points and proceed to do the intellectual equivalent of flipping the table despite me saying multiple times I agree on a lot of points and find their notions insightful. I put a lot of time in replying in detail as much as I could to people, so forgive me if I am a little jaded when someone decides to pull a stunt like that. It was not what I expected from this forum to put it simply. 

I will grant you that expressions of frustration aren't technically necessary, but they don't come out of thin air either.  I find it difficult to scold frustrations unless they cross a thicker line than offending the receiving party.

To your credit, I have not had any reason to warn you there would be ramifications for continuing to post here.  This sets you apart from some of the other incidents of frustration, must recently a sad episode with a long time Ukrainian poster.

41 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I have literally deferred my opinion several times on subjects. I have asked questions knowing that people have better answers than I do. That does not mean I cant form my own opinions, or look at evidence scattered around that makes similar notions that I do. Certainly doesn't mean certain people here get to discard opinions because they dont agree on them.

And this is why you are still here with zero warnings.  You are obviously drawing from a well of knowledge, but unfortunately it's a bit dated.  It's perfectly fine if you need some time to catch up to where the rest of us are, in fact I think most people here rather enjoy helping people understand how absolutely incredible this period of time is in military history.  Because... yeah, this is quite something to be around to witness.  And I mean that in a scary way.

So what I would recommend to you is be a bit more humble.  Presume that some of your opinions about the way things work need either updating or adjustments for context.  Look at the discussions here as a way to explore that instead of presuming the rest of us have gotten off track and your mission is to bring us back to Earth.

In particular, I would like you to entertain the following evolving "truths" we have collectively taken from the war so far:

1.   all previous concepts of warfare, especially maneuver and naval, are in flux at a fundamental level.  This is not just because of unmanned systems, though they tend to be the glue that holds many of the other things together.

2.  the economics for fighting wars has dramatically changed to the point that supremacy can no longer be bought by throwing large amounts of money at it.

3.  the West's long standing concerns about low rates of military and critical civilian infrastructure have been shown to be understated, not overstated.

4.  all legacy systems should have their future value reexamined in light of what is happening in Ukraine.  It should be presumed, with certainty, that some very familiar concepts need to be either significantly modified or retired.

5.  do not look to the establishment (military, industrial, and government) for the best solutions.  They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for a variety of very logical reasons.  In fact, I would go so far as to presume every expensive system that is proposed isn't worth pursuing.

6.  We are entering into a totally new world of cheap and plentiful AI, robotics, remote sensing, and delivery system.  Anything that is being proposed today that isn't taking these things into consideration is likely not something worth pursuing.

Those are just a few of the areas I am suggesting you think more about as you read and post here.  At the very least presume that the majority of us believe most of this most of the time in most circumstances.  The more you find yourself bucking them... well... the more likely we'll continue to see expressions of frustration with you.

41 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

This could of all been avoided with an agree to disagree notion, which I also put forward. 

We tried this and it didn't work out so well.  We simply can't have someone constantly voicing unsupported doubts as that forces us away from where the conversation should go and gets us into exactly the situation we're in now.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

In particular, I would like you to entertain the following evolving "truths" we have collectively taken from the war so far:

1.   all previous concepts of warfare, especially maneuver and naval, are in flux at a fundamental level.  This is not just because of unmanned systems, though they tend to be the glue that holds many of the other things together.

2.  the economics for fighting wars has dramatically changed to the point that supremacy can no longer be bought by throwing large amounts of money at it.

3.  the West's long standing concerns about low rates of military and critical civilian infrastructure have been shown to be understated, not overstated.

4.  all legacy systems should have their future value reexamined in light of what is happening in Ukraine.  It should be presumed, with certainty, that some very familiar concepts need to be either significantly modified or retired.

5.  do not look to the establishment (military, industrial, and government) for the best solutions.  They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for a variety of very logical reasons.  In fact, I would go so far as to presume every expensive system that is proposed isn't worth pursuing.

6.  We are entering into a totally new world of cheap and plentiful AI, robotics, remote sensing, and delivery system.  Anything that is being proposed today that isn't taking these things into consideration is likely not something worth pursuing.

The thing is...I broadly agree with all of this to varying degrees!

I think the frustration comes from taking slightly different paths that inevitably lead to similar outcomes? Or maybe just a bit of classic miscommunication and misunderstanding combined with some devils advocate. I know I struggle with that at times, especially when 'overloaded' so to speak. For that I apologise.

I honestly must appreciate your effort in taking the time to respond. 

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[Battlefront.com]

31 minutes ago, holoween said:

Yea thats not how this works

The issue is more the manufacturer has no incentive to send it to generate sales as theyre already coming and the governments dont because its new gear and we dont really sent much top of the line kit there

And more importantly, manufacturers who already have orders (or hope to have orders) are disinterested in having their products fail in a real world environment.

If I were General Dynamics or BAE the very last thing I would want to do, as a corporate officer, is send anything to Ukraine.  The potential for doing harm is far greater than doing good.

A case in point are the various squad level EW "guns" we saw rushed to Ukraine at the beginning of the war.  These were made by fairly small companies who could have massive contracts coming in if they could prove their products effective.  High stakes gamble and, from what we can tell, they were found to be impractical under field conditions.  They would also be useless against autonomous, semi-autonomous, or "military grade" UAS.

So yeah, there's definitely some evidence that private industry should be very leery of getting their products "tested".

Now, if I were a responsible military officer, I would be sending that stuff over to Ukraine and see how well it goes before purchasing any more of it.

Steve

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Now, if I were a responsible military officer, I would be sending that stuff over to Ukraine and see how well it goes before purchasing any more of it.

Absolutely.  The only problem might be maintenance.  We really have no idea what the bill is on keeping these systems in the field…but that might be a test in itself.  Why have neither the RA or UA prioritized these systems? Even as test beds? Probably export controls or some sort.

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The thing is...I broadly agree with all of this to varying degrees!

I think the frustration comes from taking slightly different paths that inevitably lead to similar outcomes? Or maybe just a bit of classic miscommunication and misunderstanding combined with some devils advocate. I know I struggle with that at times, especially when 'overloaded' so to speak. For that I apologise.

I honestly must appreciate your effort in taking the time to respond. 

I think we better understand each other now and that's a good thing!  Although I've expressed some frustration towards you, I recognize that you're no dummy and (with a few tweaks) all will be right as rain.

BTW, I received my degree in history as well.  So there's that

Steve

[hcrof]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The main problems with current APS are three fold:

1.  Expensive

2. Heavy

3. Easily detected as they have active sensors

It is entirely possible that someone will produce a new APS that puts out a better product in one or more of these categories, but the vulnerability coming from emissions is not likely going away.  In fact, it's likely going to be more of a problem (e.g. autonomous radar targeting UAS).

So imagine a whole network of significant sized and costing UGVs spread out to protect a force.  Now picture someone with a bunch of $50k hunter/killer drones operating amongst a swarm of cheap drones confusing the APS.  My money is on the expensive defensive solution becoming ineffective rather quickly.

Steve

 

 

Another problem (possibly my biggest problem) with APS is how fragile the radars are - both in the sense of physical damage but also presumably in the maintenance required. 

One illustrative example is the fact that they don't bother putting lots of shots in the APS because by the time you have blown up one or two incoming missiles your radars are likely wrecked anyway. This can be exploited by sending in (just) 2 drones: one claymore type anti-personnel drone that explodes just outside of the intercept range to damage the radar, then the second HEAT one can attack without risk of interception - kind of like a tandem charge attack. 

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

What has baffled me is why Hamas isn't using COTS drones in large numbers.  I haven't been following the Gaza war much at all (I don't have the time or mental bandwidth), but I can only recall one instance where a grenade was dropped by drone on a bunch of IDF tankers that were out in the open sitting around eating or socializing.

Given how cheap and effective drones are, I'm scratching my head as to why they seemingly aren't in widespread use.  I presume the urban nature of the battlefield does no favors to maintaining signal, but I don't think it would be serious enough to preclude large scale adoption.

Steve

This is an odd one. Is it that they cannot get a hold of them? Hamas is isolated but Hez should have full access. And they have to be watching Ukraine as well. Of course they could be just over the horizon.

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

Absolutely.  The only problem might be maintenance.  We really have no idea what the bill is on keeping these systems in the field…but that might be a test in itself.  Why have neither the RA or UA prioritized these systems? Even as test beds? Probably export controls or some sort.

Yes, and if I were the officer in charge of evaluating it I would cut the systems all kinds of slack when it comes to that.  But only so much.  I'd put a lot of faith in the Ukrainians using anything that seemed useful, so if they didn't use it... well...

Steve

[hcrof]

Just now, The_Capt said:

This is an odd one. Is it that they cannot get a hold of them? Hamas is isolated but Hez should have full access. And they have to be watching Ukraine as well. Of course they could be just over the horizon.

I think there is a bit of that, but also I believe we underestimate how much "knowhow" has been accumulated in Ukraine by both sides that has not yet spread out beyond the conflict. Drones, especially in a EW environment, are hard and require lots of practical and theoretical expertise to make work right now.

Of course that will change as the technology matures, as it always does...

[ArmouredTopHat]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think we better understand each other now and that's a good thing!  Although I've expressed some frustration towards you, I recognize that you're no dummy and (with a few tweaks) all will be right as rain.

BTW, I received my degree in history as well.  So there's that

Always nice to talk to a fellow history graduate! 
 

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

So yeah, there's definitely some evidence that private industry should be very leery of getting their products "tested".

Now, if I were a responsible military officer, I would be sending that stuff over to Ukraine and see how well it goes before purchasing any more of it.

To be fair, for all we know there could be something going on. We are not always privy to what either countries or defence companies are up to. The Fins have proven this with how they were pretty clandestine on what they sent as aid, and it took a while to surface even with all the video cameras around. 

7 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Another problem (possibly my biggest problem) with APS is how fragile the radars are - both in the sense of physical damage but also presumably in the maintenance required. 

This is honestly a very fair point and explains why the IDF put coverings on them. I know Trophy had to be pretty carefully designed so that the explosions did not hit the tank with its own defensive munition. Its a complication that must be considered if the whole idea is to be judged viable I imagine. 

I read up on some anecdotal stuff about Arena having similar issues to Drozd in that testing resulted in damage to the vehicle using Arena, or friendly vehicles adjacent to it. (Which harks on my theory that Arena is probably not actually close to combat ready) This is something that Trophy seems to have less issue with (at least on the surface when seeing pairs of Merkevas operate)

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Beleg85 said:

Curiosuly, Putin is reportedly very alergic to every Chinese presence there, even if it supports his official narrations of new rising anti-western block.

Very interesting..... my first thought when I saw your comment above is that maybe Lukashenko is looking to be friends w the biggest bully he can find to try to keep the extortionist neighbor bully from killing him.  

[ArmouredTopHat]

You can sort of see the difference in application of force Trophy and Arena use and see why there might be problems with the latter. (Its a little amusing that they put a protective screen between the tank and the munition being intercepted!) Just look at the size of that explosion...

I certainly would not want to be anywhere near an Arena equipped tank that is for sure, Steve's point about collateral certainly seems very justified in Arena's case. 

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, holoween said:

It should in principle also be possible to get it to shoot down FPVs by adjusting its code. Now I wouldnt rely on it alone as the debris from intercepted drones can still damage the radars so if youre getting attacked 10 times you might intercept the first 5 but then youre probably done. But as a layer in the defense it can do quite a bit.

I think that counter-drone, drones are a must. Sure invest in PD but without layered flying defence any ground force is done.  And even if you can APS everything, one has to protect logistics lines.  And then if one can protect logistics lines, one has to try and protect from ISR.

My advice is to go lighter but frankly after watching Russian soldiers getting hunted down in a drainpipe 15 grid squares away, I am not even sure that will work.

[A Canadian Cat]

Please don't take offense - none is intended but at the same time I recognize you both might not like to hear what I'm about to say. I'm just offering an observation that you can do with what you wish.

3 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think we better understand each other now and that's a good thing!  Although I've expressed some frustration towards you, I recognize that you're no dummy and (with a few tweaks) all will be right as rain.

BTW, I received my degree in history as well.  So there's that

Always nice to talk to a fellow history graduate! 

Just form observing both of you (one of you for years : - ) you both seem like the type that feels a need to get in the last word. That can be a very hard thing to deal with when you disagree. As I am sure you can reflect you both had opportunities where you could have said, to your self, "there is nothing new in that comment so I don't need to respond" but frequently you both did the opposite.

When no one has had time to reflect or digest more information and may make adjustments to their positions and also has a strong desire to have the last word you can get some serious around and around we go arguments going on.

[ArmouredTopHat]

6 minutes ago, A Canadian Cat said:

Please don't take offense - none is intended but at the same time I recognize you both might not like to hear what I'm about to say. I'm just offering an observation that you can do with what you wish.

Just form observing both of you (one of you for years : - ) you both seem like the type that feels a need to get in the last word. That can be a very hard thing to deal with when you disagree. As I am sure you can reflect you both had opportunities where you could have said, to your self, "there is nothing new in that comment so I don't need to respond" but frequently you both did the opposite.

When no one has had time to reflect or digest more information and may make adjustments to their positions and also has a strong desire to have the last word you can get some serious around and around we go arguments going on.

I think you are spot on honestly. I know I am very much guilty of last wording debates and need to work on it. No offense taken in the slightest. 

Edited July 11 by ArmouredTopHat