How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours 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. 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. 

Well... to be fair to this system, it is capable of using the RWS to take on targets as well.  Which makes sense given the tracking system should be able to feed info to more than just one weapon.

The big problem with using lasers is, as was stated in the article, cool down time.  Available energy is also a significant issue.  Another potential problem is how long the laser needs to splash a target before it can take it out.

Theoretically lasers are the correct platform for taking out UAS.  In reality, though, even if the technical limitations are overcome I doubt the cost will come down enough to make it widely used.  Which means, research should continue in other directions that don't have the huge hurdles to overcome and can be employed on a large scale.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The Pentagon says the Russians have hit the 600,000 casualty mark.  And throughout this war the US has been a bit more conservative about Russia losses, so IMHO this is probably the minimum that Russia has suffered so far.

To put this into perspective, the US military suffered about 450-500k KIA in all of WW2.  That was 4 years fighting on two fronts against enemies that had forces in the millions.  Yes I know it's KIA vs. total casualties, but the fact these two numbers are even close to each other is astonishing.

On the bright side... it's about half of what the Soviets lost taking Berlin, so by that comparison they're doing great!

Steve

[billbindc]

22 minutes ago, JonS said:

It has ever been thus

Also...special relationships are all well and good but the biggest and baddest guys on the block understanding the crucial importance of your independence is a much better guarantee. 

[dan/california]

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.

And we should start with a really nice naval smart mine/uuv/??? that looks exactly like every other rock on the bottom. And then we should put about ten thousand of them on the the bottom of the Taiwan straight. Where hopefully they will quietly rust out in a century or so without ever being activated. 

Edited Tuesday at 03:12 AM by dan/california

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

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.

It may be the wrong way to go but what's the right way if we're not giving up on offense and need something fielded within 5 years? Distributed synthetic mass probably is the future but it's mostly conceptual right now.

Quote

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.

True, but air superiority can solve a lot of problems and the US military is spending 2 trillion dollars to ensure they have it. Granted, other nations may not have the luxury of that assumption, especially if Trump gets elected.

[ArmouredTopHat]

9 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

It may be the wrong way to go but what's the right way if we're not giving up on offense and need something fielded within 5 years? Distributed synthetic mass probably is the future but it's mostly conceptual right now.

True, but air superiority can solve a lot of problems and the US military is spending 2 trillion dollars to ensure they have it. Granted, other nations may not have the luxury of that assumption, especially if Trump gets elected.

I have yet to see Capt address the fact that his concept of 'perfect' ISR is far from reality, certainly with the conflict in Ukraine. We have seen plenty of times how gaps in the line have been exploited both in terms of defences and ISR capability. Despite the proliferation of drones its far from perfect. 

He keeps talking about being able to spot everything from space without detailing what exactly that means. If the front is so readily plastered in recon capability then why do both sides get ambushed so frequently? Some attacks are certainly spotted early on and suffer accordingly, but plenty either arrive on objective or even get close before even being spotted. 

Coupled with the fact we are seeing the effects of Ukraine actively working to deny drone ISR via fpv drone (And that seems to be escalating) and I think that ISR could very well be more constrained in the future compared to now, if their counter is just as readily available if not cheaper than many of its forms. We see this with cheap FPVs blowing up Orlan-10s and similar drones, which might be cheap for a fixed wing UAV, but they are significantly more expensive compared to a single FPV. 

Edited Tuesday at 03:31 AM by ArmouredTopHat

[Carolus]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DroneCombat/s/IpUOAopNQn

 

Russia releases first proof of American intervention in Ukraine. 

[CHARLIE43]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

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.

I suppose you could take the tanks and IFV's and chop them into little pieces and spread them out, too (UGVs). But all of this is synthetic. An organic mass would still be needed (humans love to plant flags, win hearts and minds.. and stuff). I'm afraid that when all is said and done, "no-man's land" has only been extended out past 100m. And then the next quest for the gap bridging begins in earnest, even though cheap and synthetic allows for an even longer protraction to the inevitable solution.

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

It may be the wrong way to go but what's the right way if we're not giving up on offense and need something fielded within 5 years? Distributed synthetic mass probably is the future but it's mostly conceptual right now.

If you are America, starting putting tungsten rods into orbit, because you can (and freedom). And take out their satellites (or hack them, potentially).

For everybody else’s ground forces, I think the near term is the autonomous upgrade of what we have now:

• Loitering fixed-wing propellor driven munitions that can discriminate between various types of targets, including going hunting trains, all by themselves, and make them in several sizes/effective ranges
• Autonomous hex/quadcopter drone bombers for closer range work
• Autonomous fixed-wing interceptors, guided by ground-based radar
• Robotic, fully autonomous crewless-served weapons for defending positions (or remote controlled, at least)

Then add thermal ghillie suits to the infantry, and more MRAPs/IFVs that have a low logistic footprint and are easy to camouflage. No point in mortars or artillery if you can just drop 10-20kg HE with extreme precision on whatever you want to within 100km of the front line. There’s probably a lot of mileage to be gained in deception, sabotage and cyberware.

For a navy, I’m really not sure how to protect a ship against a near-term drone swarm; it should run out of ammunition pretty fast. I guess going semi-submersible is the only way, but in the next five years probably only China and ROK could manage to field ships like that.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I have yet to see Capt address the fact that his concept of 'perfect' ISR is far from reality, certainly with the conflict in Ukraine.

He has, many times directly and indirectly.

ISR doesn't have to be picture perfect 100% of the time to have a decisive impact.  All it needs to be is "good enough".  We are seeing that in this war every single day.  Is Ukraine's ISR perfect?  No.  But when was the last time Russia mounted a Battalion sized attack and didn't lose the whole battalion?  How many company sized attacks have been wiped out?  Cripes, just look at the losses in Oryx!  Ukraine hasn't caused all those losses through sheer firepower and/or dumb luck.

The situation for Russia would be even worse if Ukraine had sufficient ground forces and munitions.  In fact, it is likely correct to say that the only reason Ukraine is able to do as much with so little is because it has the ISR to know when and where to use its limited resources.  They don't lob 50 shells at what they think is a company sized attack... they lob 50 shells exactly because they KNOW it is a company sized attack.  They don't lob 50 shells at where they think the attacker might be, they lob 50 shells exactly where they KNOW them to be.  And for everything else, they get FPV attacks.

Nothing in this world is ever going to be 100% successful at what it is designed to do.  However, "perfect" is achievable in that you can have a capability that is sufficiently able to achieve exactly what it sets out to achieve.  The capabilities, at least, can be "perfect" even if they are not always applied perfectly.  It's like a sniper rifle with all the bells and whistles.  It is the "perfect" weapon for hitting a small target at 1000m without any collateral damage and large expense.  Whether the sniper always hits the target is a secondary issue.

Steve

[chrisl]

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I have yet to see Capt address the fact that his concept of 'perfect' ISR is far from reality, certainly with the conflict in Ukraine. We have seen plenty of times how gaps in the line have been exploited both in terms of defences and ISR capability. Despite the proliferation of drones its far from perfect. 

He keeps talking about being able to spot everything from space without detailing what exactly that means. If the front is so readily plastered in recon capability then why do both sides get ambushed so frequently? Some attacks are certainly spotted early on and suffer accordingly, but plenty either arrive on objective or even get close before even being spotted. 

Coupled with the fact we are seeing the effects of Ukraine actively working to deny drone ISR via fpv drone (And that seems to be escalating) and I think that ISR could very well be more constrained in the future compared to now, if their counter is just as readily available if not cheaper than many of its forms. We see this with cheap FPVs blowing up Orlan-10s and similar drones, which might be cheap for a fixed wing UAV, but they are significantly more expensive compared to a single FPV. 

If you move something the size of a bicycle wheel in an area of interest, someone at Planet Labs will know within an hour.

If you move a Big Gulp in the open in an area of interest, someone in a government will probably know within less than half a day.

If you move something between those two sizes, there are various satellites that will detect it in time scales of hours, depending on the size and how interested people are in the region you're in.  Clouds and night won't help you much, because there's more and more commercial SAR out there.

And then there are aircraft.  Low flying quadcopters, intermediate altitude fixed wing, high altitude long duration robotic fixed wing.  Long duration crewed fixed wing outside the theater with sidelooking radars that can look into the theater.  Aircraft bristling with antennas like the hellraiser dude sucking up and analyzing all the RF in a region.  And that's just the some of the commercial & stuff known from OSINT.

 

[KT13UA]

"превосходство в воздухе может решить множество проблем" - згоден повністю. Нажаль для нас це стало однією з причин втрати Авдіївки.. страшніше за каб нічого і ніколи не бачив. Йому всеодно ти у бліндажі або у погребі, йому навіть прямого влучання не завжди потрібно.......  Бувало таке що на Степове/ Бердичі падало в день до 100шт. А на АКХЗ ще більше....

[chuckdyke]

Always funny when people don't bother to translate. See how effective Google is. "превосходство в воздухе может решить множество проблем" - згоден повністю. Нажаль для нас це стало однією з причин втрати Авдіївки.. страшніше за каб нічого і ніколи не бачив. Йому всеодно ти у бліндажі або у погребі, йому навіть прямого влучання не завжди потрібно.......  Бувало таке що на Степове/ Бердичі падало в день до 100шт. А на АКХЗ ще більше....

"Air superiority can solve a lot of problems," I agree completely. Unfortunately, for us, this was one of the reasons for the loss of Avdiivka. I've never seen anything worse than Kab. He doesn't care if you're in a dugout or in a cellar, he doesn't always need even a direct hit.......  It happened that up to 100 pieces fell on Stepove/Berdychi per day. And at Avdiivka Coke there are even more....

[Doc844]

I'm still a little behind on this thread so I'm not sure if the WW1 debate has been put to bed bed, apologies if I'm lighting a fire again.  However I do think there are a couple of important points to bring up in regards to Germanys surrender.  Firstly, as has been brought up by Steve and a few others, strategic collapse seems to be going slow then it's not, it just speeds up inexorably.  There were a number of massive stressors being applied, blockade, war weariness, retreats etc.  It never is just one thing that causes it, it's always the culmination to the boiling point and all acting on each other.  Secondly and this does seem to get overlooked.  German leadership did not want to face fighting the war on German soil.  The country was already an economic mess throw in a massive rebuild if they had let the war be fought on German territory and that was just not a juice that was worth the squeeze.  Could Germany have fought on and possibly fought the allies to a standstill, yes I believe so, but the margins for German success would have been bloody thin and even after all that I believe Germany would have come apart at the seams anyway.  Just my 2 cents on how I view those last few months of WW1.

 

Just want to emphasise that continuing the war on German soil played a large part in the decision making to surrender.

Edited Tuesday at 08:12 AM by Doc844

[KT13UA]

55 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Всегда смешно, когда люди не удосуживаются перевести. Посмотрите, насколько эффективен Google.  "Превосходство в воздухе может решить множество  проблем " - згоден повністю. Нажаль для нас это стало одним из причин, связанных с Авдиевкой.. хуже за то, что никто и никто не бачив. Если вы всегда будете в блиндаже или в погребе, то вам будет прямо вторжение не завжди дорого....... Бувало таке что на Степове/Бердичи упало в день до 100шт. А на АКХЗ будет больше....

"Превосходство в воздухе может решить много проблем", полностью согласен. К сожалению, для нас это стало одной из причин потери Авдеевки. Хуже Каба я ничего не видел. Ему все равно, в блиндаже ты или в подвале, ему не всегда нужно даже прямое попадание....... Бывало, на Степное/Бердичи в день падало до 100 штук. А на Авдеевском КХЗ их и того больше....

strange, it seems like I wrote the text through a translator... that means I made a mistake somewhere. It's not very convenient for me via phone. but I'm glad that it amuses you. thanks for the comment.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, KT13UA said:

strange, it seems like I wrote the text through a translator.

I wrote through the translator too, yes, it is not perfect yet. 

[KT13UA]

3 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Я тоже писал через переводчик, да, он пока не идеален. 

++

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, KT13UA said:

Я тоже писал через переводчик, да, он пока не идеален. 

Correct but we are off topic. So I stop now thanks for the attention. 

[The_Capt]

8 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

It may be the wrong way to go but what's the right way if we're not giving up on offense and need something fielded within 5 years? Distributed synthetic mass probably is the future but it's mostly conceptual right now.

True, but air superiority can solve a lot of problems and the US military is spending 2 trillion dollars to ensure they have it. Granted, other nations may not have the luxury of that assumption, especially if Trump gets elected.

If we field what you are proposing in 5 years it will already be obsolete. In 5 years we are likely looking at fully autonomous swarms in the air and on land. We will see the concepts of distributed mass already in motion, likely starting with light forces.

As to air superiority…I really want someone to explain to me what that looks like and how we do it in 5 years. It keeps getting tossed out like a prayer in these discussions. How do we SEAD for MANPADs mounted a small VTOL drones? This means systems like Starstreak could reach 30k feet. How do we deny enemy ISR from the air when they have it in space? How do we detect every IAD in every bush. How do we cleanse the air column of every bird sized enemy drone with a camera?

The US is spending 2 trillion on it and likely will wind up right where we are now…mutually denied and parity environments. So what? Well we stop pretending it is 1991 and plan for the fight in 2031. Design the force that can best fight in that environment. As to offensives…well history has shown that primacy eras are not something we can “will” our way out of. We have to live through them. What will it take to shift back to Offensive primacy? Good question…one worth spending 2 trillion on.

Edited Tuesday at 11:20 AM by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

6 hours ago, CHARLIE43 said:

I suppose you could take the tanks and IFV's and chop them into little pieces and spread them out, too (UGVs). But all of this is synthetic. An organic mass would still be needed (humans love to plant flags, win hearts and minds.. and stuff). I'm afraid that when all is said and done, "no-man's land" has only been extended out past 100m. And then the next quest for the gap bridging begins in earnest, even though cheap and synthetic allows for an even longer protraction to the inevitable solution.

I think “no man’s land” may have been extended out to 10000m. We definitely are going to need squishy humans in the future of warfare. Their configuration and roles are the parts up for grabs. 

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

He has, many times directly and indirectly.

ISR doesn't have to be picture perfect 100% of the time to have a decisive impact.  All it needs to be is "good enough".  We are seeing that in this war every single day.  Is Ukraine's ISR perfect?  No.  But when was the last time Russia mounted a Battalion sized attack and didn't lose the whole battalion?  How many company sized attacks have been wiped out?  Cripes, just look at the losses in Oryx!  Ukraine hasn't caused all those losses through sheer firepower and/or dumb luck.

The situation for Russia would be even worse if Ukraine had sufficient ground forces and munitions.  In fact, it is likely correct to say that the only reason Ukraine is able to do as much with so little is because it has the ISR to know when and where to use its limited resources.  They don't lob 50 shells at what they think is a company sized attack... they lob 50 shells exactly because they KNOW it is a company sized attack.  They don't lob 50 shells at where they think the attacker might be, they lob 50 shells exactly where they KNOW them to be.  And for everything else, they get FPV attacks.

Nothing in this world is ever going to be 100% successful at what it is designed to do.  However, "perfect" is achievable in that you can have a capability that is sufficiently able to achieve exactly what it sets out to achieve.  The capabilities, at least, can be "perfect" even if they are not always applied perfectly.  It's like a sniper rifle with all the bells and whistles.  It is the "perfect" weapon for hitting a small target at 1000m without any collateral damage and large expense.  Whether the sniper always hits the target is a secondary issue.

Steve

We saw that leaked US brief a few hundred pages back. It mistakenly left units on the map it shouldn’t have. The US had resolution at Kursk down to platoon level, for both sides. As you note, ISR is not perfect but it is good enough to detect and create target data for platoon/company level operations. This likely also explains why we almost never see tanks operating with more than 1 or 2 (beyond RA suicide rushes). And why we heard reports of troops dismounting kms back and walking into the line last year.

And let’s all remember the ISR on display in this war is donate and likely last-gen. Does anyone think it will be lower resolution in 5 years? Which way is the wind blowing?

[KT13UA]

53 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Правильно, но мы не по теме. Так что я остановлюсь, спасибо за внимание. 

I agree. We've strayed from the topic. Thanks for the recommendations.

[Silentkilarz]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/14/europe/north-korea-russia-ukraine-military-zelensky-intl/index.html

 

So if he gets to bring his friends UKR gets to bring theirs right? Someone call European Texas and let them join.

Edited Tuesday at 01:37 PM by Silentkilarz

[acrashb]

8 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

For a navy, I’m really not sure how to protect a ship against a near-term drone swarm; it should run out of ammunition pretty fast. I guess going semi-submersible is the only way, but in the next five years probably only China and ROK could manage to field ships like that.

Semi-submersible already has a counter, dual-domain drones:

Watch an amphibious drone fly—then swim | Popular Science (popsci.com)

[KT13UA]

1 hour ago, Silentkilarz said:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/14/europe/north-korea-russia-ukraine-military-zelensky-intl/index.html

 

So if he gets to bring his friends UKR gets to bring theirs right? Someone call European Texas and let them join.

Buddy, I have no doubt that in the States, Western Europe, there will be many volunteers who will want to help us directly by participating in combat operations. We are now, with great honor, shoulder to shoulder, holding back the enemy with volunteers from America, Canada, Germany, the Baltics, Latin America... but, I'll be honest, first of all we need to sort out our "problems" that are really hindering the adequate conduct of combat operations. And then think about attracting friends from other countries.