How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[ArmouredTopHat]

58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Having just listened to this excellent video, I'm wondering how closely you thought about what he said.  For starters, he clearly spelled out a use case (current and future) for the attack helicopter, but he explicitly wondered how it would be kept within sensible budgetary priorities given that there are other systems that offer either a) better cost value or b) more robust results.  And on top of that, he made the general case that defense spending is all about tradeoffs because there isn't enough money available to fund everything a nation wants and/or needs.  These are arguments you have routinely rejected when applied to tanks, instead insisting that since tanks aren't totally pointless that they can't be questioned and also directly stating that the solution to constrained budgets is to increase the budgets.

More generally, though, everything Perun said about attack helicopters is applicable to the discussion of heavy armor, in particular MBTs.  Everything.  In fact, if I got a transcript of Peron's video I could swap out weapons system names and pretty much recreate the same argument that the TankIsDead™ folks have made here so many times already.

In fact, I would go on to say that the only significant difference between attack helicopters and heavy armor is that the former is far worse than the latter in terms of failure to perform its role and the cost associated with maintaining the capability.  Put another way, attack helicopters have suffered an obvious bullet to the head, heavy armor only a major chest wound.  Chest wounds are not great, but certainly it's better than a bullet to the head.

If this were about tanks you would be holding up the Polish example as the correct one, as you did with the Dutch budget to theoretically buy tanks.

Well, I'm at least glad for the fact that we agree that AttackHelicoptersAreDead™

Steve

P.S.  the video has some VERY interesting data summaries of the failures of Excalibur and ground launched small diameter glide bombs.  Faithful readers of this thread have already seen these topics touched on, but now there is some more data to absorb

I found the main takeaway was that the Kursk operation has revealed not a single case of a KA-52 (Or Russian attack helicopter in general) actually destroying any equipment (that is visually confirmed) Which is a drastic difference from just a year ago where they were actually doing something against the previous Ukrainian attack. This is very much unusual given this should be an environment that in theory would be ideal for said helicopters to operate in as a fast response measure.

Compare this to tanks operating in Kursk and they are pretty reasonably featured in most engagements. They have use / roles to perform and are doing so. Attack helicopters in comparison are absent. This to me suggests that unlike a tank, the environment has become so uncertain / unfriendly to helicopters that they cant even perform their useful role in any meaningful capacity (and even suffered losses from manpads in the process)

Attack Helicopters take the primary downsides of a tank (being even more expensive) but have increasingly nothing to show for it, while tanks are being actively used to at least reasonable effect in the meantime to perform a variety of roles. There are plenty of assets that can provide what an attack helicopter provides as you say (long range ATGM fire chief among them) Whereas nothing quite provides the firepower, armour or mobility of a tank in ground combat I would argue. 

To me it seems quite obvious that the Helicopters roles can and are being supplemented, while nothing quite does that for tanks (yet) To conclude, its certainly crystal clear to me at least that Attack Helicopters are likely not long for this world when it comes to conventional peer to peer warfare. The fate of the tank seems much less certain to me.

I would love to see an updated video from Perun on the subject to be honest. 

Also, entirely agree on that data summary stuff, shows that not all precision is created equally certainly! Those later stats of Excalibur go a long way to explain why they are not being shipped anymore. Has there been any sign of supplying the version of Excalibur that has a laser guidance component? Or would this require NATO ISR?

In addition, I found the data on the BMP to BMD destruction / annihilation rates utterly fascinating, as it indicates just how important even some basic protection is to vehicles. I would love to see how those stats match up to Western hardware, with tanks thrown in as well. My hypothesis would be the western kit is even harder to catastrophically destroy, which would support the common assumption that these vehicles are safer. 
 

[sburke]

The second-largest economy in the world just raised its retirement age. American workers should take notice. (yahoo.com)

All is not well in the middle kingdom

Quote

 

The Chinese government, in one fell swoop, approved two measures to prop up that country’s wobbly retirement system: an increase in the retirement age and a hike in the number of years workers must labor in order to qualify for a monthly pension.

This change was announced Friday by the country’s legislature, following “a sudden announcement earlier in the week that it was reviewing the measure,” AP reported, citing China’s state broadcaster.

 

 

[sburke]

18 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

To me it seems quite obvious that the Helicopters roles can and are being supplemented, while nothing quite does that for tanks (yet) To conclude, its certainly crystal clear to me at least that Attack Helicopters are likely not long for this world when it comes to conventional peer to peer warfare. The fate of the tank seems much less certain to me.

Luke, come to the dark side!

[ArmouredTopHat]

18 minutes ago, sburke said:

Luke, come to the dark side!

[MikeyD]

China increased retirement age from 60 to 63. America should take note because our Social Security full retirement age is now up to... 67?

[Eug85]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/09/13/ukraine-wants-12-viper-attack-helicopters-spurned-by-slovakia/

Meanwhile, despite their supposed irrelevance on the battlefield, Ukraine wants to buy American helicopters intended for Slovakia

[Eug85]

Another look at Russian propaganda. Here the  Western-oriented film "Russians at War" is compared with a typical propaganda film for domestic use, aimed at attracting volunteers to the army. A number of similarities and characteristic techniques used in these films are noted

Edited Monday at 06:12 AM by Eug85

[chrisl]

6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Exactly.  And this is why it is sooooooo important to not live in a parallel universe on these sorts of issues.  Russia does and it isn't working out well for them. 

The obvious path to go down is unmanned systems.  A skilled operator 5km back from the front certainly will feel a lot better about breaching a minefield than being in ANY armored vehicle that exists today or is on the drawing board for the next 20 years of use.

By dispensing with the Human element in breaching the equipment can be produced less expensively and in greater numbers than the best manned equivalents. 

I can see combining UAV recon using ground penetrating radar or heat mapping to plot where known mines are on a precisely detailed 3D terrain model, feed that data to an AI, have it come up with an optimal solution, then send one of many breaching vehicles into the field wile covered by combined arms (including EW, counter drone warfare, etc.).

This can't be done if nations squander their resources on Ogres because thinking that's a good idea requires a high level of denial of reality.  And as I just said, denial is a really piss-poor planning tool.

Steve

If I can do all that (which is about as far into the future as Max Headroom), why would I bother with an expensive breaching vehicle that I can only afford a few of?  I could spend the same money on a several pallets of FlexiDrones^TM and install the mine clearing package on them back in my mom's basement, then transmit the locations of the target mines to the lot of them just before delivery to the breach.  Press "Go" and have the overwatch drones keep track of who blows up their mines and who doesn't, then send out a second wave to clean up.  It's not a lot different from a drone light show, except the drones are all carrying shaped charge detonator packages to blow up their target mines.  Way less subject to the single point failure mode of a small number of big expensive vehicles.

 

[sburke]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

China increased retirement age from 60 to 63. America should take note because our Social Security full retirement age is now up to... 67?

?  I think because of the overall threat to social security/medicare/affordable care.  you know like concepts of a plan for our safety net?

The point of posting it though was the issue China is having with its perceived social contract with its populace.  Between destroying their savings in their housing bubble and then hitting their social safety net......

Edited Monday at 06:39 AM by sburke

[panzermartin]

5 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

that Attack Helicopters are likely not long for this world

I have to say that mini attack helicopters (aka drones) have dominated the field. So in a sense the unmanned helicopter is the king of the battlefield right now. Maybe we will see see more small unmanned multi platforms soon that will replace the role of a helicopter. (Can carry radar /optics +multiple weapons ) 

[Butschi]

8 hours ago, poesel said:

I never played any of these games. At that time in the 80s those ‚war games‘ were shunned. Only crazy militarists would play that. If you didn’t live in a big city you would never have seen something like that. Even then it was unlikely. Access to porn was much easier.  

So true. Well, you could get those small plastic soldiers. But real war games? Board games were about playing with the family. At some point I managed to grab Axis&Allies in a shop in the Netherlands. We were a bunch of weirdos playing that every Friday. Those were the days.

[JonS]

3 hours ago, chrisl said:

If I can do all that (which is about as far into the future as Max Headroom),

What ... 20 minutes?

 

Edited Monday at 09:38 AM by JonS

[The_Capt]

8 hours ago, sburke said:

@poesel @The_Capt

Umm I think you guys actually agree with one another.......  maybe take a moment and reread what you have both written, make allowances for sarcasm and umm   yeah.

We really aren’t. Poesel is arguing that “the Boar” makes a lot of sense from a strictly technical standpoint. My point is that one cannot make an assessment for a strictly technical standpoint as all this”technical” is directly linked to battlefield requirements. AKA “where this new piece of kit will fit into the system”. Based on that assessment this monster makes little sense.

And if you are saying we cannot employ sarcasm, well then half the fun of this forum has been murdered.

[The_Capt]

7 hours ago, sross112 said:

Is it? Or is it just dead in Ukraine? I asked a few days ago about maneuver being possible under air superiority or supremacy, but no one picked up the discussion. If one side is able to gain air supremacy, doesn't that negate the constraints that are keeping maneuver in a box? 

If the USAF suddenly got the go ahead to support the UA with everything they had and took away the RA denial of airspace and cleared the skies of the RuAF, would the UA be able to go mobile? Wouldn't it be pretty much the same as a Desert Storm at that point? Pound them at will for however long you deem necessary. Take out every piece of arty, AA and logistics that can be found. At that point, how is the maneuver stopped?

Serious question and I'd like those of you that can educate me to chime in and do just that. Thanks in advance.

A good question. Under supremacy, possibly. Superiority…tougher. With longer ranges and better ISR air controls will have to cover a much larger area. For example, local air superiority cannot be a 10 x 10km box, or even a 100 x 100km box because an opponent  with wide scope hi res ISR and long range weapon systems will still be able to strike. SEAD is now a 500 x 500km box to try and make an area dark and suppressed enough to allow for freedom of manoeuvre.

Next problem, air superiority and supremacy includes the entire column. From 3ft to 50,000 (above and into space really). One would need to deny and control UAS altitudes, along with everything above that, This is damn near impossible right now, and not just in Ukraine. UAS are extremely cheap and can be massed produced. EW will only go so far, and it has serious drawbacks. Further, as levels of full autonomy kick in, EWs advantages wane. And then there is ISR. Beyond UAS and tactical system, we have high altitude, very high altitude and space based. All cheaper to produce and project than in the past. One would need to blind these systems or NLOS strike such as long range artillery or missiles will still have real time fixes on targets…unless you can clear a really big box.

Lastly, we have AD. This war is having an air defence revolution really. Air denial has obviously gone up dramatically. The combination of IADS, higher altitude and longer range MANPADS, and UAS are making life impossible for aircraft. Russia, who had a very large fleet, is relegating their air power to stand off strikes. CAS is 100km out and limited by its strike distances. Further the trend for these systems is lighter, cheaper and plugged into the ISR architectures.  So SEAD is going to get very difficult in the future, perhaps impossible against some opponents.

Add that all up and we get into uncomfortable scenarios. If we are facing a low tech opponent with very limited resources, we might be able to achieve air supremacy or superiority…think Sudan. But if that opponent receives support from another great power, like China or Russia, our costs are going to skyrocket. The next war is most likely going to be a western intervention into a third party nation that China or Russia decides to support much like we are supporting Ukraine. A reverse proxy war, if you will. We are going to be severely challenged and will likely face high risks and losses to do what we were able to do for low risk/cost even ten years ago in this situation.

To summarize, in a peer on peer conflict, air supremacy is likely a pipe dream. Air superiority is going to extremely costly. We would be better off preparing to fight in air denied environments from the start. This of course will mean that we need to adapt manoeuvre to that environment. And we are back to force compositions.

[Sgt Joch]

4 hours ago, Eug85 said:

Another look at Russian propaganda. Here the  Western-oriented film "Russians at War" is compared with a typical propaganda film for domestic use, aimed at attracting volunteers to the army. A number of similarities and characteristic techniques used in these films are noted

Again, I don’t know what all the fuss is about that film or why Ukrainians so desperately want to prevent people from seeing it. People can watch it or not watch it and make up their own mind about it without someone telling them what they should feel about it beforehand.

Personally I have no interest in seeing it, not because I think it is Russian propaganda, but because I think it will probably be boring.

Making a huge fuss about it is the wrong strategy, it actually makes people want to see it since it is now “controversial”. 

[Eug85]

33 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

Again, I don’t know what all the fuss is about that film or why Ukrainians so desperately want to prevent people from seeing it. People can watch it or not watch it and make up their own mind about it without someone telling them what they should feel about it beforehand.

Personally I have no interest in seeing it, not because I think it is Russian propaganda, but because I think it will probably be boring.

Making a huge fuss about it is the wrong strategy, it actually makes people want to see it since it is now “controversial”. 

Not all people in the West sit on military forums and are interested in the war in Ukraine. It is precisely these people that such propaganda is aimed at. A good example is the United States: at the beginning of the war, the influence of Russian propaganda on Americans was minimal. And most Americans supported Ukraine, but there was a part of Americans who did not care. But after two years of Russian propaganda spread through bought American influencers, the number of Americans who have a negative attitude towards aid to Ukraine has increased significantly. This is clear evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda.

[Eug85]

While the effectiveness of propaganda is not always obvious to ordinary people in the West, it is obvious to FSB officers. After all, they have been practicing it on their own population for decades. Russian television and a number of Internet bloggers are directly connected to the special services and receive funding for good reason. Otherwise, Putin would simply not have allocated significant funds for propaganda.

[Sgt Joch]

17 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

Not all people in the West sit on military forums and are interested in the war in Ukraine. It is precisely these people that such propaganda is aimed at. A good example is the United States: at the beginning of the war, the influence of Russian propaganda on Americans was minimal. And most Americans supported Ukraine, but there was a part of Americans who did not care. But after two years of Russian propaganda spread through bought American influencers, the number of Americans who have a negative attitude towards aid to Ukraine has increased significantly. This is clear evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda.

And?…Ukraine says it is fighting for “democracy’, but it wants to tell people what to think and what to watch? That does not sound very “democratic” to me. 

I will let you know what I think about the film after I watch it.

p.s. - there are many reasons why people do not support the war or want an end to it that have nothing to do with “ Russian propaganda”.

Edited Monday at 11:44 AM by Sgt Joch

[Eug85]

13 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

And?…Ukraine says it is fighting for “democracy’, but it wants to tell people what to think and what to watch? That does not sound very “democratic” to me. 

I will let you know what I think about the film after I watch it.

p.s. - there are many reasons why people do not support the war or want an end to it that have nothing to do with “ Russian propaganda”.

If we follow your logic, then Ukraine is an undemocratic country, since Russian propaganda is banned there, right?

[Eug85]

According to Russian media, Russia will increase the number of its armed forces by 180 thousand people by December, and their total number will be almost 2.4 million people.

[Eug85]

In response to the Ukrainians using FPV drones to shoot down Russian reconnaissance drones, the Russians began using camouflage paint to reduce the visibility of their drones against the ground. The Russians are very good at adapting to rapidly changing war conditions.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:

Again, I don’t know what all the fuss is about that film or why Ukrainians so desperately want to prevent people from seeing it. People can watch it or not watch it and make up their own mind about it without someone telling them what they should feel about it beforehand.

Personally I have no interest in seeing it, not because I think it is Russian propaganda, but because I think it will probably be boring.

Making a huge fuss about it is the wrong strategy, it actually makes people want to see it since it is now “controversial”. 

There's entire libraries on the subject of the harm of propaganda and why it needs to be combated.  The primary reason is that the vast majority of people are dumb as a sack of hammers and yet their opinions matter.  In democracies it is because they can vote.  In autocratic systems it is because they are convinced things could be worse and so they should stick with what they have.

The problem with films like these is they are pretending to be things they are not.  If the film makers said, up front and all over the place, "we were paid by the Russian government to tell the Russian side of the conflict and that our end product was dependent upon the Russian government's approval" that would be fair enough.  But it doesn't and therefore it is deliberately pretending to be objective, or at least leaving the impression that it is.

That is what most people call lying.

If most people were informed and/or inherently intelligent enough to know they are being lied to, then that would be fine.  But the fact is they do not.  The more inherently slanted their view of the world is, the more easily misled they are through confirmation bias.  In fact, you should think back to 2014 and recall your positions regarding what was really going on in Ukraine.  There's a written record of it and, from your perspective, it did not age very well.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

11 hours ago, billbindc said:

Routh is a fantasist, loon and liar. Follow the thread...from June: 

"Loon" is too kind of a term for someone like this, and "crazy" is no longer PC, so I think we should say something like "Routh is someone with a mental disability who is currently in a state of mental health crisis".  Unfortunately, in the US it often takes shooting at someone to get treated for mental health conditions such as this.

I always marvel at how "nut jobs" (oops) like this manage to get this far in life simply from the perspective of being independent of state care.  It takes money to eat and have a place to live.  What did this guy do to pay for those critical services all this time?  The article doesn't say anything about that other than he might have had some sort of shop in Hawaii (a SUPER EXPENSIVE place to live)

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

FT article (playwalled, I think) mostly about the Kursk front.

https://www.ft.com/content/a22f7d1f-605b-42fc-ac76-98f59b5497a6

 

Quote

“The Ukrainians have also stopped bringing in new reserves . . . they’ve started to move around less and to dig in more instead,” a person close to the Russian military establishment told the FT

"Apart from a few marine brigades, we didn’t bring any good new reserves there,” the person close to the Russian military establishment said. “We scraped them together from all over the place.”

Leviev’s team saw indications that units from Russia’s 51st Parachute Airborne Regiment and the 155th Marine Brigade, as well as at least eight tanks, had been involved in the counter-attack. But Russian and western analysts agree that the forces Russia has gathered there are not enough to retake the area in full. The operation this week “seems like it was just a ‘probing’ of the Ukrainian defence line”, Leviev said.

A senior Ukrainian military intelligence official said Russia had so far committed 38,000 men, including assault brigades redeployed from southern Ukraine, but the counter-attack was “still not large-scale”. It would need to send in more of its battle-hardened assault brigades to make more than “tactical” gains, the official added.

Officials say (Ukrainian) mobilisation is on track, but that it would take another three months before the newly-trained troops could make an impact on the battlefield, the head of the defence committee of Ukraine’s parliament, Oleksandr Zavitnevych.

 

 

Edited Monday at 02:15 PM by Vanir Ausf B

[billbindc]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

"Loon" is too kind of a term for someone like this, and "crazy" is no longer PC, so I think we should say something like "Routh is someone with a mental disability who is currently in a state of mental health crisis".  Unfortunately, in the US it often takes shooting at someone to get treated for mental health conditions such as this.

I always marvel at how "nut jobs" (oops) like this manage to get this far in life simply from the perspective of being independent of state care.  It takes money to eat and have a place to live.  What did this guy do to pay for those critical services all this time?  The article doesn't say anything about that other than he might have had some sort of shop in Hawaii (a SUPER EXPENSIVE place to live)

Steve

He had a roofing company at one point which does not surprise me. Every project I've been involved in has involved the kind of grandiose fantasizing you normally only see in a certain kind of politics.