How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[billbindc]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Just about the only sci-fi killbot behavior I don't see on the horizon in the very near future is something that can home in on DNA.  That's more akin to cold fusion in that experiments in the lab have shown it is possible to "sniff" DNA and analyze it (medical uses are pushing this), but miniaturizing it is probably still a ways off.  Not decades though

I think that underestimates the options radically. CO2 exhalation, sound, heat, movement, pattern would all work and the sensor suites coming on those fronts are going to be mindboggling. You won't need a swab to hit someone. Traffic and pattern, heartbeat, voice recognition, etc...mix them together and mission completion becomes entirely feasible in a civilian setting and in a warzone a no brainer. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

Oof

[chrisl]

35 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I think that underestimates the options radically. CO2 exhalation, sound, heat, movement, pattern would all work and the sensor suites coming on those fronts are going to be mindboggling. You won't need a swab to hit someone. Traffic and pattern, heartbeat, voice recognition, etc...mix them together and mission completion becomes entirely feasible in a civilian setting and in a warzone a no brainer. 

Smell, too. I wasn't kidding.  It would take a bit of work, but a lot of the technology is there and portable to do chemotaxis.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Lengthy paper on changes in Russian military structure and tactics in 2023 (I assume there will be a paper for 2024 at some point).

Quote

As a general trend, EW has since become distributed across the front line. These capabilities are less tied to vehicles or larger platforms, becoming smaller, cheaper, and more expendable like the UAS. Before the war, Russian EW systems were largely modernized versions of late-1980s Soviet equipment that employed tracked or wheeled vehicles. Emitters were tied to larger platforms, such as the Zhitel R330-Zh. Russian Zhitel systems proved effective, operating up to 30 kilometers (19 miles). They successfully disrupted GPS-guided munitions and impacted the accuracy of GMLRS Excalibur rounds, and joint direct attack munitions (JDAM).101 At the same time, over the course of 2022 and 2023, Russian forces lost at least twenty systems from the Zhitel family of EW, equivalent to the potential of several EW companies. Around fifteen of these were destroyed either in 2023 or early 2024, usually within 10 to 30 kilometers of the front line. Given the vulnerability of such systems to precision strikes and their visibility on the battlefield, Russian forces shifted to lighter platforms and dismounted the antenna from their vehicles.102 This exposed the antenna but not the platform itself. Pole-21 emerged as one of the best performing Russian electronic countermeasure systems, often deployed with the antenna detached, rather than being mounted on its large parent platform.

Assessing Russian Military Adaptation in 2023

[Vanir Ausf B]

US Army Chief of Staff Randy George on innovation and the future of the Army.
 

Quote

One scheme to tackle both challenges is what the army calls “transforming in contact”. It has picked three brigades—the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division in Kentucky, the Pacific-focused 2nd Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division in Alaska and the 3rd Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division in Germany—to serve as laboratories for innovation. The trio receive the newest kit and tech. They test it on exercises and give feedback on what works.

Documents setting out what a new weapon or system has to do have typically been long tomes, page after page of specifications that quickly go out of date. A new one for the army’s next command-and-control system amounts to a bureaucratic revolution: just five pages. General George recalls an instance where the army was told it would take six to eight months to get 20 new coolant-pump covers for Bradley armoured vehicles. It was able to 3D print them all in less than an hour—at 16 cents each. That capability is being pushed down to formations as small as brigades.

Despite all this, army insiders acknowledge that the present system is broken, constrained by suffocating Pentagon rules and rigid legislation. Take the example of first-person-view (FPV) drones, small, short-range attack drones used in massive quantities by both Russia and Ukraine to good effect. Why has the US Army been slow to produce these? Mr Miller notes that American law prohibits the Pentagon from buying components made in China. That has limited the supply of motors, speed controllers, antennae and video transceivers. The army has turned to American and European suppliers—the 82nd Airborne Division is cobbling together FPVs with legally compliant parts—but production is puny. “We’re talking handfuls,” he says.

 

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/09/29/the-us-armys-chief-of-staff-has-ideas-on-the-force-of-the-future

Edited Monday at 08:55 PM by Vanir Ausf B

[ArmouredTopHat]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1g387af/russian_military_intentionally_bombs_the_un/

Kherson really does seem like this conflicts version of the Warsaw uprising again, or at least what came after when the Germans levelled the place in pure spite. 

Its just petty attacks on civilians for the sake of it because it was liberated. (After the Russians declared it would always be Russian) Once again footage proudly broadcast from drone cameras like they are achieving something of military value as they bomb those who were supposed to be 'real Russians' in need of their protection. Truly disgusting. 

Edited Monday at 09:06 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[Vanir Ausf B]

A Stryker-mounted C-UAS system was successfully tested in a live fire exercise.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/10/14/leonardo-bluehalo-demo-counter-drone-system-on-army-stryker/

...

“Over two days of live fire activity, right after our initial testing, the system was 14 of 14 against small UAS within the constraints of the range,” Ed House, Leonardo’s senior director of business development for land systems, told Defense News. “Those were all defeated by the 26-kilowatt Locust laser weapon system that’s fully integrated on a modified Stryker.”

The flexibility to use multiple effectors and integrate a slew of payloads from several providers is one key feature of the effort, House noted. Also significant is the laser’s power source. Rather than operate from a battery like most directed energy systems, Leonardo and BlueHalo were able to integrated the Locust’s power system with the vehicle, eliminating the need for a battery recharge between cycles.

“The only limiting factor we have on this Stryker is thermal management, and that means that as long as we keep the laser cool, we can continue to engage over and over and over again,” House said. “When you add laser technology — directed energy — without a power limitation, you extend the magazine.”

[Fenris]

Quote

Putin has submitted a draft to the Russian State Duma for the ratification of a comprehensive strategic partnership between North Korea and Russia, state agency RIA writes. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Carolus said:

I visited another forum that follows the Ukraine War (pro-West, pro-Ukraine) and it was fascinating to see that they were discussing every single thing that Cap, Steve and some others have been warning against here.

"If Ukraine had more Western tanks..."

"If Russia and Ukraine knew how to do combined arms..."

"The West would do everything better..."

"If you would establish air supremacy..."

"Ukraine needs more tanks for a combined arms maneuver force..."

"Ukraine needs to finally create brigades for maneuver warfare..."

"The Ukraine war is just different from how the West would fight..."

"Russia and Ukraine didn't have the abilities for combined arms manoeveur warfare and that's why..."

"The fact that Western militaries are not radically changing their doctrine is proof that..."

 

And it goes on and on and on like this. Word for word, page by page.

It was disheartening. It was like they were not seeing battalion-sized assault groups going on suicide-runs while being observed in HD the whole way from their staging area to the TRP.

Ugh.  Not surprising, though.  People love reaching for easy answers instead of the difficult ones.  It's why those maddening ads we see that say "this one simple trick can do X".

Steve

[Carolus]

https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/10/13/cotton-fields-in-ukraine-yes-to-tackle-global-gunpowder-shortage/

 

Ukraine is growing cotton to help alleviate the gunpowder shortage. Europe now has its own potentially big cotton source in a friendly nation.

[Offshoot]

3 hours ago, chrisl said:

That's for a full genome of a person. You can do segments in much less time, and there sequencers that will fit in your pocket that do 400 bases/s.  The machine used in the linked article essentially uses a bunch of similar devices in parallel, because sequencing is very parallelizable.  The catch with the one that fits in your pocket is that you still need a human to paint a film with the protein pore over a tiny aperture.  People have been working for decades to try to make a solid state pore, but it won't happen any time soon - the protein pore is much more than just a hole that the DNA gets pulled through, and nobody can make a machine out of silicon on that scale.

You don't need a lot of sample (like sucking up skin flakes).  With PCR you can do single-cell sequencing, but the PCR machine also takes time and isn't tiny (though they are benchtop).  People use MinIons in the field to sequence things in bulk to measure the genetic diversity of a sample of water, a bacterial mat, or some other goo.

Yeah, the speed was just an indicator. The real problem for the proposed application (homing in on DNA) is that you would have to constantly sequence, analyse and reject extraneous DNA from other non-target sources until you had found enough loci to make a positive match to the target. You would then have to do this repeatably to follow the trail to the target. Not to mention you would need a prior DNA sample from the target to match to - perhaps that is why Putin carries his p**p home in a suitcase?

The other part of the problem, how to actually follow a trail, be it DNA or odor chemicals, is also being worked on - Olfactory Sensing and Navigation in Turbulent Environments

To make this more on topic, who knew that being trained in critical thinking or being media savvy would make you less inclined to support the military actions of Russia? Yay for science.

 

Edited Monday at 11:06 PM by Offshoot

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

A Stryker-mounted C-UAS system was successfully tested in a live fire exercise.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/10/14/leonardo-bluehalo-demo-counter-drone-system-on-army-stryker/

...

“Over two days of live fire activity, right after our initial testing, the system was 14 of 14 against small UAS within the constraints of the range,” Ed House, Leonardo’s senior director of business development for land systems, told Defense News. “Those were all defeated by the 26-kilowatt Locust laser weapon system that’s fully integrated on a modified Stryker.”

The flexibility to use multiple effectors and integrate a slew of payloads from several providers is one key feature of the effort, House noted. Also significant is the laser’s power source. Rather than operate from a battery like most directed energy systems, Leonardo and BlueHalo were able to integrated the Locust’s power system with the vehicle, eliminating the need for a battery recharge between cycles.

“The only limiting factor we have on this Stryker is thermal management, and that means that as long as we keep the laser cool, we can continue to engage over and over and over again,” House said. “When you add laser technology — directed energy — without a power limitation, you extend the magazine.”

I actually have to agree with Steve on this one in that I have some severe reservations about a specialised laser platform taking up an entire vehicle for a CUAS platform. I'm just not sure Laser tech is truly the solution here. Its cheap per 'kill', but you are paying a heck of a lot for a very specialised platform to begin with (far more than a gun based CUAS platform that could be potentially mounted on something like an IFV) Gun based systems can at least do some other things like shoot up infantry or light vehicles. A laser focussed system is too specialised (unless it can perhaps blind optics but this seems like a gratuitous waste for such a big expensive asset) 

I suppose there could be a great deal of usefulness in having such a vehicle for defending high value targets like Patriots, provided they can reliable track and hit recon UAVs. I am less convinced about the practicality of such a system on the frontline. Capability against swarm type munitions is also a consideration and concern. 

Edited Monday at 11:21 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[dan/california]

 

Quote

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ukraine-the-latest/id1612424182?i=1000673042009

An excellent interview with Mick Ryan

[cesmonkey]

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

51 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I actually have to agree with Steve on this one in that I have some severe reservations about a specialised laser platform taking up an entire vehicle for a CUAS platform. I'm just not sure Laser tech is truly the solution here.

The live fire test appears to have been for the laser specifically, but an interesting feature of the C-UAS DE Stryker is that it has three weapons integrated into the C-UAS system:

1. 26 kilowatt laser
2. 70mm laser-guided APKWS II rockets (4 in the magazine)
3. 30mm XM914 auto cannon on a RWS (can fire proximity-fused shells)

How these all work together is unclear, but it seems the idea is for the laser to complement the kinetic weapons by "extending the magazine".

[ArmouredTopHat]

7 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The live fire test appears to have been for the laser specifically, but an interesting feature of the C-UAS DE Stryker is that it has three weapons integrated into the C-UAS system:

1. 26 kilowatt laser
2. 70mm laser-guided APKWS II rockets (4 in the magazine)
3. 30mm XM914 auto cannon on a RWS (can fire proximity-fused shells)

How these all work together is unclear, but it seems the idea is for the laser to complement the kinetic weapons by "extending the magazine".

I do find that aspect quite interesting, though I again wonder if putting all the eggs in one basket in a single platform is viable, instead of adding systems to existing platforms for a more general defence that adds redundency. I suppose numerous weapon systems could mean a better capacity for dealing with swarms or large numbers of drones. US does seem very interested in the Stryker DE platform so I suppose we will see just how deep they go with it if it gets introduced into service. I recall someone posting some information about it earlier with regards to the troops reaction to using it in testing. 

I suppose the other big worry is how logistically the DE Stryker would fare. Lasers seem a technology that might not react well to being soaked in mud, sand or any sort of sustained exposure. At least I certainly feel there might be more failure points in such a system. How do they power the laser system? I presume its battery based?

[Vet 0369]

23 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Today I was reminded of the lawsuit against Oracle Systems for illegally tracking people's personal data and Internet use through their backend systems that nobody is even aware of being used.  They then sold that data.  And there's lots more where that came from.

You wouldn't even have to feed a predictive AI system that much information for it to make pretty good guesses at things that are routine for the target.  We Humans are creatures of habit and simplicity.  Work routine is the easiest thing to tap into because all you really need to know is where the person works and that's pretty much all one needs.  Oh, they work from home?  Well, even easier.

Anyway, you don't even need that.  All you need to do is hack into the person's phone and you will have a nice GPS beacon showing where the target is in realtime.

Even if there are some practical hurdles today, they aren't very high and can be jumped with the right incentives.

Battlefield killbots are even easier because they don't need to be so particular.

Steve

I’m pretty sure that the Secret Service is already developing systems to disrupt drone attacks of any type.

[Vet 0369]

21 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Case in point.  Politico just published an article detailing Iran's plans to assassinate one or more US officials who were responsible for the killing of Qassem Soleimani.  At the time of his killing there were analysts that felt his killing would have such consequences.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/11/iran-trump-assassination-plans-00183488

When you think about it, with all the murder and mayhem in this world, it's kinda amazing how rare it is that states deliberately kill members of their enemy's leadership, family, and/or friends.  Yet it is pretty easily done.  Now with drones, even easier.

Steve

 

Well, I’m pretty sure that the U.S. still has an Executive Order (E.O)prohibiting the assassination of foreign heads of state. Of course, an E.O. isn’t valid from one administration to the next unless it is signed by the incoming President. At this point in time I’m pretty sure it is still valid.

[Vanir Ausf B]

14 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I do find that aspect quite interesting, though I again wonder if putting all the eggs in one basket in a single platform is viable, instead of adding systems to existing platforms for a more general defence that adds redundency.

The details are fuzzy at this point but C-UAS is going to be layered. Roughly, the outer layer will be some combination of EW, acoustic sensors, and probably C-UAS loitering drones. The inner layer will be point defense-type weapons such as APS and hand-held C-UAS rifles, or high-powered microwave systems for fixed installations. Dedicated SHORAD units such as DE Stryker could be anywhere in those layers.

Quote

How do they power the laser system? I presume its battery based?

From the linked article:

Rather than operate from a battery like most directed energy systems, Leonardo and BlueHalo were able to integrated the Locust’s power system with the vehicle, eliminating the need for a battery recharge between cycles.

[acrashb]

8 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

Well, I’m pretty sure that the U.S. still has an Executive Order (E.O)prohibiting the assassination of foreign heads of state. Of course, an E.O. isn’t valid from one administration to the next unless it is signed by the incoming President. At this point in time I’m pretty sure it is still valid.

It is, or rather they are.  

Executive orders do not need to be re-signed by each incoming president. Once an executive order is issued, it remains in effect until it is either:

•     Amended,
•     Revoked by a subsequent executive order, or
•     Superseded by new legislation passed by Congress.

However, a new president can choose to issue their own executive orders to modify or revoke existing ones. This is a common practice when a new administration wants to change policies set by the previous administration.

The U.S. Executive Order prohibiting the assassination of foreign heads of state is known as Executive Order 11905. It was issued by President Gerald Ford on February 18, 1976.

This prohibition was later reinforced by Executive Order 12333, issued by President Ronald Reagan on December 4, 1981, which reiterated the ban on assassination.
 

[The_Capt]

15 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The details are fuzzy at this point but C-UAS is going to be layered. Roughly, the outer layer will be some combination of EW, acoustic sensors, and probably C-UAS loitering drones. The inner layer will be point defense-type weapons such as APS and hand-held C-UAS rifles, or high-powered microwave systems for fixed installations. Dedicated SHORAD units such as DE Stryker could be anywhere in those layers.

From the linked article:

Rather than operate from a battery like most directed energy systems, Leonardo and BlueHalo were able to integrated the Locust’s power system with the vehicle, eliminating the need for a battery recharge between cycles.

Said it before, will say it again…the problem is not drones, it is ISR. So we build this massive multi-layered system. It pumps enough energy that it can be seen from space. The thing is absolutely airtight on drones = “Yipee, let’s do old school manoeuvre again!!”.

Right up until the entire thing gets hammered by precision artillery, missiles and has mines tossed in front of it. And then there is the “small” problem of the logistics support system. Stretching out over 10s of kms, not only does that high energy layered system light up our LOCs, it has to be protected. The costs for this system are going to skyrocket…and still are going to get hit by fires other than drones.

So rather than rethink manoeuvre we instead are looking at trying to bubble-wrap an entire extant formation to protect it from drones, only to expose it to all sort of other counters.  And this is making a huge assumption that we can even create a layered system that won’t simply be overwhelmed by cheap drone swarms.

This is the wrong way to go. We need to rethink what manoeuvre means and how to deliver it. Not just keep piling more gear onto our current structures and capabilities.

[CHARLIE43]

How about deconstructing a force on the molecular level here and reconstructing it there? DNA and all that stuff, right? Surely nobody would expect that!

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, CHARLIE43 said:

How about deconstructing a force on the molecular level here and reconstructing it there? DNA and all that stuff, right? Surely nobody would expect that!

You are closer to a possible solution than you may think. What we are seeing is distributed synthetic mass. It is like basically taking a helicopter, breaking it into a thousand functioning pieces and spreading it across the battlefield. It sits there and pumps ISR data back to an C4 architecture. And when given a target can concentrate into a dense swarm that overwhelms defences.

So what? Well, create a manoeuvre element out of that. The problem with UAS is range and endurance. They can fly out to 10-15 kms but need a ground platform to carry them forward behind that. So we need light, fast, hard to detect (and cheap) ground platforms that can carry and support this synthetic mass. Link it into a C4 architecture that is plugged into all the deep precision strike and higher ISR and we now have “massed precision” capabilities that can manoeuvre. Build enough redundancy into the system - which we can do as now the unit costs are much lower - and we have a cloud of lethal effects that can move at operational scale.

Further, such a system would excel at corrosive warfare. The problem is pulling all of it together and making it work offensively. Ukraine has already demonstrated (repeatedly) it will work defensively, but have not solved for offensive…yet.

[alison]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Said it before, will say it again…the problem is not drones, it is ISR. So we build this massive multi-layered system. It pumps enough energy that it can be seen from space. The thing is absolutely airtight on drones = “Yipee, let’s do old school manoeuvre again!!”.

Right up until the entire thing gets hammered by precision artillery, missiles and has mines tossed in front of it. And then there is the “small” problem of the logistics support system. Stretching out over 10s of kms, not only does that high energy layered system light up our LOCs, it has to be protected. The costs for this system are going to skyrocket…and still are going to get hit by fires other than drones.

So rather than rethink manoeuvre we instead are looking at trying to bubble-wrap an entire extant formation to protect it from drones, only to expose it to all sort of other counters.  And this is making a huge assumption that we can even create a layered system that won’t simply be overwhelmed by cheap drone swarms.

This is the wrong way to go. We need to rethink what manoeuvre means and how to deliver it. Not just keep piling more gear onto our current structures and capabilities.

There is a website still alive from the good old days of the internet that discusses hard sci-fi concepts, and one part I remember in particular is "there ain't no stealth in space". Being an old page, I will link you to an anchor half-way down, but you can just scroll up to read the rest of our internet ancestors' ponderings on how to write a convincing military sci-fi novel when today's technology already makes subterfuge outside of cyber and information space very difficult.

https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#nostealth

I think a lot of what's in there is showing to be quite relevant to present-day ground warfare too.

What I'm trying to square this with is the common refrain that even the "small" patch of sea around my island home will be easily encircled by our friendly neighbor's rapidly-expanding navy, which will force a capitulation. If we can see them, can't we sink them? Or the fact that in the Ukraine conflict everybody knows where everybody else's bases are, but it still seems to take a lot of tries to actually get one to go boom. Meanwhile the world's most famous impenetrable missile defense system is apparently now so helpless that it needs to be reinforced by top-of-the-line kit. It's a lot of mixed messaging.

I fear the answer is whoever has the most ordnance wins, which doesn't bode well for us little guys who don't have a "special relationship" with the biggest, baddest dudes on the block.

Edited Tuesday at 02:32 AM by alison

[JonS]

20 minutes ago, alison said:

I fear the answer is whoever has the most ordnance wins, which doesn't bode well for us little guys who don't have a "special relationship" with the biggest, baddest dudes on the block.

It has ever been thus