How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

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.

The other thing that needs a big chunk of that two trillion is how to deal with Kessler Syndrome. If the U.S. gets in a real war with Russia an/ or China they are almost certainly going to say bleep it and smash enough satellites to start the chain of self catalyzing destruction of more or less everything in low earth orbit.

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Doc844 said:

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.

Thanks for that, even though the WW1 discussion is (for now) back in the closet   However, you jogged my memory to point out something that was lightly touched upon during the lively WW1 debate... national interests vs. selfish interests.  I'll use Germany as the example and then relate it to Russia.

In WW1 Germany the professionals were largely in charge, in WW2 ideologues were in charge.  When the professionals figured out that they had tried everything to win, and victory was just not feasible, they tried to do the "responsible" thing and end the war before Germany was totally destroyed and occupied.  In WW1 they were successful because they were calling the shots, in WW2 they weren't successful because ultimately they weren't in control (July 44 they tried, again, to change that without success).

What we are seeing with Russia, now, is the professionals are not in charge and the national character of Russia doesn't give us much hope that there is the equivalent of July 44 in the making.  We're stuck with this war not ending until Russia is completely and totally destroyed.  Not because the West is vindictive, but because that's what Putin has decided.  Even if the war ended tomorrow because Ukraine saw no hope of continuing, Russia will still be destroyed.

I said it days before the invasion... Putin's decision to invade Ukraine was a regime ending decision.  Since then, though, it's become a Russia ending decision.  Whatever comes out of this war will look a lot more like Germany post 1945 than Germany post 1918.

Steve

[Letter from Prague]

I think Russia can still get a win - if Trump gets into power (whatever the election result might be) and if he uses full might of the United States to force Ukraine to capitulate and if he uses that might to force Europe to stop support and reestablish relations with Russia.

There's a lot of various groups (both true fascists, various populists and people who care nothing but money) in Europe to want to jump on that, and money would again flow into Russia.

That would get Putin something that looks like a win from his PoV, and such Russia would probably hold as long as he is alive. Long term, not so much.

Those are however some pretty big ifs, that are not certain to come to pass.

Edited Tuesday at 04:41 PM by Letter from Prague

[Battlefront.com]

42 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

I think Russia can still get a win - if Trump gets into power (whatever the election result might be) and if he uses full might of the United States to force Ukraine to capitulate and if he uses that might to force Europe to stop support and reestablish relations with Russia.

We've had this discussion before   There is no "win" possible for Russia at this point.  I'd say there wasn't even one possible back in 2022.  The Russian economy is overextended and nothing is going to stop it from crashing.  Not even the lifting of some sanctions, which Trump has promised to do.  The loss of so many workers is also not going to be fixed by Trump throwing Ukraine under the bus.  The damage to its global financial relationships won't be fixed either, because Capitalists have no reason to move back into Russia after the Russian state took so many of its assets.  So on and so forth.

Sure, Trump throwing Ukraine under the bus will produce a better outcome for Russia than under various other scenarios, but a "win"?  No.  Not by any objective definition can Russia hope for that.

Steve

[Letter from Prague]

It's semantics (*) but as long as Putin = Russia, win for Putin is win for "Russia". The citizenry might be f-d but that is nothing new but it is the citizenry who seems to be fully ok with Putin = Russia, based on their reactions to stuff.

Meaning I agree fully on the facts, I'm just in a "this rotten dying world can never be good" mood.

________

(*): my favorite real quote: Friend1: "Every discussion will eventually turn to semantics." Friend2: "That depends on what you mean by discussion." (yes, they were drunk)

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

It's semantics (*) but as long as Putin = Russia, win for Putin is win for "Russia". The citizenry might be f-d but that is nothing new but it is the citizenry who seems to be fully ok with Putin = Russia, based on their reactions to stuff.

Meaning I agree fully on the facts, I'm just in a "this rotten dying world can never be good" mood.

________

(*): my favorite real quote: Friend1: "Every discussion will eventually turn to semantics." Friend2: "That depends on what you mean by discussion." (yes, they were drunk)

Funny quote!

But this isn't really a win for Putin either.  The best guess we have as to why Putin is doing this is to be seen as Russia's second Peter The Great.  Instead, he is likely going to be seen as the destroyer of Russia.  Whatever concessions he might get out of Ukraine will be temporary.

Even if this is not the motivation of Putin, it is quite possible that things will fall apart in Russia to such an extent that he may lose his life because of it.

So, again, however this war ends it is not the final say on how the overall war will be evaluated.  Many historians believe the "victors" in WW1 didn't really win that war as much as they did set themselves up for the second World War.  By contrast, nobody who can be taken seriously believes the Allies were anything other than "victors" of WW2.  Even the Cold War that came after doesn't have much of an impact on that evaluation.

Steve

[KT13UA]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Мы уже обсуждали это раньше   . На данный момент для России невозможна никакая «победа». Я бы сказал, что в 2022 году ее вообще не было. Российская экономика перенапряжена, и ничто не остановит ее от краха. Даже отмена некоторых санкций, которую Трамп обещал сделать. Потеря стольких рабочих также не будет исправлена тем, что Трамп подставит Украину. Ущерб ее глобальным финансовым отношениям также не будет исправлен, потому что у капиталистов нет причин возвращаться в Россию после того, как российское государство забрало так много ее активов. И так далее и тому подобное.

Конечно, если Трамп подставит Украину, это принесет России лучший результат, чем при других сценариях, но «победа»? Нет. Ни по какому объективному определению Россия не может на это надеяться.

Стив

You know, I really want everything to be as you said. Namely, that there will be no victory for Russia. 2022 is probably the best thing I've seen in terms of the entire nation fighting. Absolutely everything. What do we have now? Well, for example, despite all those sanctions, Russia has become a military industry, and despite all the help and investment, roughly speaking, we have not. While we were told that we were fighting homeless people, in fact, the enemy was learning and very quickly, the counteroffensive... This is, excuse me, total crap.... I know what I'm talking about because I took part in it in the area west of Ugledar: Novodonetskoye, Kermenchik, Novosilka... the Marine Corps was wiped out.  I won't even mention Rabotino..... Avdeevka.... a city that could have been held quite easily if our great leaders had really wanted it, and the government hadn't renamed the streets in Avdeevka a couple of weeks before we had to leave it... now we're in the Pokrovsky direction... the direction we held for almost half a year in Stepovoye and Berdychi, while fortifications were being built behind us... but the enemy decided to go head-on and act cunningly.  he found out that Ocheretnoye was being held by a unit that was mostly recruited from those forcibly mobilized and entered the city (where there was absolutely everything to hold it) without a fight.... well, and then you probably know the rest... how can we win when the best soldiers who voluntarily came at 22 or earlier are still fighting to this day without rotations or rest at the end of their strength?, how can we win where in the rear it is fashionable to be a "dodger" and not a defender of your country?, how can we win when we spend 1.5 thousand hryvnia on a Russian prisoner, and 800 hryvnia on a military academy cadet?, where a soldier, when he loses a limb, is happy because he knows that for him this "circus" is over (about the soldier's jackpot below the knee, this is a whole separate story) and I can go on for so long....... sorry if I disappointed anyone with this... on this forum I can say by accident.  my son is 12 years old and plays combat mission and graviteamtactics and he asked me to look for mods. when I came here I couldn't help but read what you think about this war. I apologize again

Edited Tuesday at 07:04 PM by KT13UA

[Battlefront.com]

32 minutes ago, KT13UA said:

You know, I really want everything to be as you said. Namely, that there will be no victory for Russia. 2022 is probably the best thing I've seen in terms of the entire nation fighting. Absolutely everything. What do we have now? Well, for example, despite all those sanctions, Russia has become a military industry, and despite all the help and investment, roughly speaking, we have not. While we were told that we were fighting homeless people, in fact, the enemy was learning and very quickly, the counteroffensive... This is, excuse me, total crap.... I know what I'm talking about because I took part in it in the area west of Ugledar: Novodonetskoye, Kermenchik, Novosilka... the Marine Corps was wiped out.  I won't even mention Rabotino..... Avdeevka.... a city that could have been held quite easily if our great leaders had really wanted it, and the government hadn't renamed the streets in Avdeevka a couple of weeks before we had to leave it... now we're in the Pokrovsky direction... the direction we held for almost half a year in Stepovoye and Berdychi, while fortifications were being built behind us... but the enemy decided to go head-on and act cunningly.  he found out that Ocheretnoye was being held by a unit that was mostly recruited from those forcibly mobilized and entered the city (where there was absolutely everything to hold it) without a fight.... well, and then you probably know the rest... how can we win when the best soldiers who voluntarily came at 22 or earlier are still fighting to this day without rotations or rest at the end of their strength?, how can we win where in the rear it is fashionable to be a "dodger" and not a defender of your country?, how can we win when we spend 1.5 thousand hryvnia on a Russian prisoner, and 800 hryvnia on a military academy cadet?, where a soldier, when he loses a limb, is happy because he knows that for him this "circus" is over (about the soldier's jackpot below the knee, this is a whole separate story) and I can go on for so long....... sorry if I disappointed anyone with this... on this forum I can say by accident.  my son is 12 years old and plays combat mission and graviteamtactics and he asked me to look for mods. when I came here I couldn't help but read what you think about this war. I apologize again

I don't disagree with what you a said, but it's only part of the "big picture".  Ukraine and Russia are separate nations and have separate futures.  Russia's is doomed to failure, no matter what happens in Ukraine.  Ukraine's future is still uncertain, though it has a lot of friends while Russia has very few.

Historical analogies are always difficult and imprecise, however there are plenty of examples that are useful.  Germany defeated France in 1940?  Yes.  Did Germany win the larger war?  No, it was utterly destroyed.

Putin had many reasons to invade Ukraine.  One of them is that the Russian economy was already in trouble and Putin thought that taking over Ukraine would "buy some time" before things fell apart.  The invasion did the exact opposite.  All the old problems of the Russian economy still exist and have been made far worse.  Failure is the most likely outcome and the last time Russia's economy failed was when the Soviet Union collapsed.

The Russian war economy you mentioned is coming at the expense of everything else.  Just like Germany's war economies in WW1 and WW2.  Looking impressive and being impressive are not the same thing.  It's like someone showing up at a casino with a large amount of money and people thinking "wow, that guy is made of money!" when in fact the guy borrowed all that money using his house and car for collateral.  To be successful the guy has to leave the casino with a lot more than he came in with.  Possible?  Sure.  Likely?  No.  The likely result is he loses all the money, the house, and the car.

Putin gambled on a quick end to Ukraine and that did not happen.  He borrowed heavily from Russia's future to correct for this epic mistake, yet it is still not enough.  No matter what happens in this war, Russia has lost and lost big.

Steve

[Lethaface]

On 10/10/2024 at 9:54 PM, ArmouredTopHat said:

Lastly, just to prevent any further derailing, here is a nice little read by the guy I keep refering to that covers the evolution of WW1 historiography. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/psiyav/a_brief_summary_of_the_development_of_ww1/

The TLDR is that there is a pretty big overhaul in historiography on the subject, which has gone from the lions led by donkeys, to learning curve to the current line of thinking that really shows innovation and development in a nuanced way. It is really high time we put the caricature of first world war generals that made unimaginative attack after unimaginative attack from media representation to bed. 

There are parallels we can certainly draw from this to the current conflict as well. 

To be honest this big overhaul in historiography sounds like a big pile of warm feces in my ears. A small example could be the third battle of Ieper, which really shows the forward learning curve in how to bring men to the slaughter in new innovative ways featuring glaring temporary local results, as was to be expected from previous endeavours. It was very imaginative in some ways, like the RU meat assaults. /s

That's not to say that nobody learned any lesson. But calling a pointless assault a pointless assault, or a horse a horse, doesn't need any historiographical resplaining. 
At least we learned a lot about psychology and Tolkien picked up some great idea's along the road.

Edited Tuesday at 08:01 PM by Lethaface

[KT13UA]

45 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I don't disagree with what you a said, but it's only part of the "big picture".  Ukraine and Russia are separate nations and have separate futures.  Russia's is doomed to failure, no matter what happens in Ukraine.  Ukraine's future is still uncertain, though it has a lot of friends while Russia has very few.

Historical analogies are always difficult and imprecise, however there are plenty of examples that are useful.  Germany defeated France in 1940?  Yes.  Did Germany win the larger war?  No, it was utterly destroyed.

Putin had many reasons to invade Ukraine.  One of them is that the Russian economy was already in trouble and Putin thought that taking over Ukraine would "buy some time" before things fell apart.  The invasion did the exact opposite.  All the old problems of the Russian economy still exist and have been made far worse.  Failure is the most likely outcome and the last time Russia's economy failed was when the Soviet Union collapsed.

The Russian war economy you mentioned is coming at the expense of everything else.  Just like Germany's war economies in WW1 and WW2.  Looking impressive and being impressive are not the same thing.  It's like someone showing up at a casino with a large amount of money and people thinking "wow, that guy is made of money!" when in fact the guy borrowed all that money using his house and car for collateral.  To be successful the guy has to leave the casino with a lot more than he came in with.  Possible?  Sure.  Likely?  No.  The likely result is he loses all the money, the house, and the car.

Putin gambled on a quick end to Ukraine and that did not happen.  He borrowed heavily from Russia's future to correct for this epic mistake, yet it is still not enough.  No matter what happens in this war, Russia has lost and lost big.

Steve

If you do not agree that Russia has a chance to win in general, then I will not even argue with you. I also think that regardless of whether it will be us or someone else, sooner or later this people who like to unleash wars in states that are obviously smaller and weaker, someone will punish. Here I think this will definitely happen. If you do not agree with what I said about our theater of military operations, and our big mistakes in these actions, then I will not argue either. Since this is the same as if I say that I know better what is happening in the kitchen at your home, given that you are there now.

[Battlefront.com]

41 minutes ago, KT13UA said:

If you do not agree that Russia has a chance to win in general, then I will not even argue with you. I also think that regardless of whether it will be us or someone else, sooner or later this people who like to unleash wars in states that are obviously smaller and weaker, someone will punish. Here I think this will definitely happen. If you do not agree with what I said about our theater of military operations, and our big mistakes in these actions, then I will not argue either. Since this is the same as if I say that I know better what is happening in the kitchen at your home, given that you are there now.

I did not challenge you on the mistakes Ukraine has made.  There have been many.  But the fact remains that Ukraine is still fighting a country many times larger and one that most experts in 2022 thought would easily win.  Logically Ukraine is doing some things pretty well, otherwise there is no explanation why Russian troops did not happily rape and pillage their way to Lviv.

It is certain that if Russia could invade other neighbors it would.  That is what Russian history, long ago and recent, shows us.  However, wanting and being able to are two very different concepts.  I can not think of a single neighboring country that is in any near-term risk of being invaded by Russia even if Russia doesn't collapse and/or break apart.  The West needs to help make sure that Russia is not a long term risk either.

Steve

[Hapless]

When there was some news a little while back of Russian soldiers in Kursk driving into Dragons Teeth they weren't expecting, I just assumed it was poor coordination with other Russians throwing up obstacles.

But on the other hand...

I guess still probably not, depending on the lifting capacity of the drones and the weight of the Dragon's Tooth. Realistically it's got to be more profitable using them to lay mines or drop grenades, but shenanigan opportunities are obviously abundant.

[Vanir Ausf B]

10 hours ago, The_Capt said:

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.

A VTOL drone hauling a MANPAD would be detected long before it got close enough to launch.

But I'm not going to repeat things I have said that you are going to disagree with anyway. Instead I will post a RUSI paper on the subject so you will at least have something new to disagree with

Protecting the Force from Uncrewed Aerial Systems

The question for Western land forces, which this paper aims to address, is how to extend C-UAS coverage across the relevant tactical echelons within a manageable cost and personnel burden, and in a short period of time. C-UAS defence is a minimum requirement to operate sustainably on the battlefield today; it is a problem that cannot be left to be dealt with as part of an abstract ‘future force’ concept.

Edited Tuesday at 09:26 PM by Vanir Ausf B

[Battlefront.com]

An interesting perspective on what Kadyrov's "blood feud" means in traditional Chechen ways:

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/10/15/kadyrovs-blood-feud-is-a-new-escalation-in-his-power-play-a86695

Steve

[Fenris]

After seeing one with a 105mm on the back, now this MLRS, is there there anything a Humvee can't do?

Quote

The mobile MLRS RAK-SA-12 on the Humvee base is in operation for firing somewhere there by the Pomsta brigade

 

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

A VTOL drone hauling a MANPAD would be detected long before it got close enough to launch.

But I'm not going to repeat things I have said that you are going to disagree with anyway. Instead I will post a RUSI paper on the subject so you will at least have something new to disagree with

Protecting the Force from Uncrewed Aerial Systems

The question for Western land forces, which this paper aims to address, is how to extend C-UAS coverage across the relevant tactical echelons within a manageable cost and personnel burden, and in a short period of time. C-UAS defence is a minimum requirement to operate sustainably on the battlefield today; it is a problem that cannot be left to be dealt with as part of an abstract ‘future force’ concept.

only third of the way through it, but this RUSI paper is mandatory reading.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

A VTOL drone hauling a MANPAD would be detected long before it got close enough to launch.

But I'm not going to repeat things I have said that you are going to disagree with anyway. Instead I will post a RUSI paper on the subject so you will at least have something new to disagree with

Protecting the Force from Uncrewed Aerial Systems

The question for Western land forces, which this paper aims to address, is how to extend C-UAS coverage across the relevant tactical echelons within a manageable cost and personnel burden, and in a short period of time. C-UAS defence is a minimum requirement to operate sustainably on the battlefield today; it is a problem that cannot be left to be dealt with as part of an abstract ‘future force’ concept.

I have already read it. I read a lot of the RUSI stuff. 

Not sure wha it’s going to detect and engage this beast before it can get a shot off:

This sort of pop-and-fire system is going to be really hard to detect early enough to engage.

Regardless, my point stands, air superiority in the future is going to get harder and more costly. To the point that we can no longer assume it. A2/AD systems are getting smaller, cheaper and smarter. We have see this in Ukraine and it is going to get worse before it gets better:

https://static.rusi.org/SR-Russian-Air-War-Ukraine-web-final.pdf

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/september/air-denial-lessons-ukraine

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/airpower-after-ukraine/air-denial-the-dangerous-illusion-of-decisive-air-superiority/

You brought up air superiority as a key condition for effective manoeuvre in a UAS environment….

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:56 PM by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, dan/california said:

only third of the way through it, but this RUSI paper is mandatory reading.

It suffers from what more than a few on this thread are also stuck on…we cannot deal with drones in glorious isolation of what is happening on the rest of the battlefield. The drone-proof brigade they propose is going to be incredibly “loud”. It is giving off an insane amount of energy with all these various systems blasting and burning the sky. So when the enemy has deep strike smart-ICM or artillery delivered smart mobile mines, having a unit light itself up is asking to get it destroyed by other systems. This is a dilemma, solve one problem and you make another worse.

It is a desperate, and very likely doomed attempt, to bubble wrap out existing capability as a solution to the shift in warfare we are seeing - they tried the same with battleships.

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

It suffers from what more than a few on this thread are also stuck on…we cannot deal with drones in glorious isolation of what is happening on the rest of the battlefield. The drone-proof brigade they propose is going to be incredibly “loud”. It is giving off an insane amount of energy with all these various systems blasting and burning the sky. So when the enemy has deep strike smart-ICM or artillery delivered smart mobile mines, having a unit light itself up is asking to get it destroyed by other systems. This is a dilemma, solve one problem and you make another worse.

It is a desperate, and very likely doomed attempt, to bubble wrap out existing capability as a solution to the shift in warfare we are seeing - they tried the same with battleships.

Still reading, and I don't disagree with you. I really read it as a desperate short term play to make current forces usable for long enough to build a whole new everything. FORCE 2035, or whatever they call it needs to be done from a clean sheet of paper with the assumption that those ATGM/MANPAD carrying heavy quad copters are the least of what is coming. I think a lot of people are edging close to blind panic about what happens if the next war starts much before that. As you know far to well military industrial complexes do not turn on a dime. Some attempt to extend the utility of legacy forces is inevitable. Of course every dollar spent doing that is one you can't spend starting fresh. It is another one of those nasty dilemma things.

We should try to sneak as many things that will have long term utility into the short term fixit package as we possibly can. Drones that can kill other drones, and passive detection capabilities being examples A and B.

And now I have MORE to read, this can be a losing game...

[cesmonkey]

 

[dan/california]

8 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

 

There is, to put it mildly, some disagreement about the efficacy of laser/DEW based solutions. The thing I am almost certain of though is that they are not going to work as an add on to existing vehicles. They need to much power, and to much cooling. A ground up vehicle design with an electric drive system that could divert the full wattage of engine to the laser at need, and a truly massive bank of pumps and radiators to provide liquid cooling of the whole system would at least solve some the obvious problems we already know about. Of course that merely entitles us to find out about all the problems we DON"T know about, expensively.

 

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Still reading, and I don't disagree with you. I really read it as a desperate short term play to make current forces usable for long enough to build a whole new everything. FORCE 2035, or whatever they call it needs to be done from a clean sheet of paper with the assumption that those ATGM/MANPAD carrying heavy quad copters are the least of what is coming. I think a lot of people are edging close to blind panic about what happens if the next war starts much before that. As you know far to well military industrial complexes do not turn on a dime. Some attempt to extend the utility of legacy forces is inevitable. Of course every dollar spent doing that is one you can't spend starting fresh. It is another one of those nasty dilemma things.

We should try to sneak as many things that will have long term utility into the short term fixit package as we possibly can. Drones that can kill other drones, and passive detection capabilities being examples A and B.

And now I have MORE to read, this can be a losing game...

So my guess is that UAS are going to diversify. We are going to see larger standoff ISR, closer in ISR, FPV strike, fully autonomous strike of various types. Flying ATGM and MANPADS which provide stand off. Then as these systems get smaller and smarter, someone is going to essentially create a flying cluster munition that can act like a landmine. It will lay dormant, low power, until triggered and then swarm at close ranges. Think this with cluster sub-munitions and targeting AI:

These little buggers can hit just about anywhere and cripple or damage. We would need to put chain link fence around every vehicle. Or some super laser that can zap 20 of these out of the trees in seconds as they close in the last 50 meters.

RUSI’s ideas would work in COIN or small war against an opponent who we can still dominate in other domains. But against a peer opponent the problem is the core of what we consider manoeuvre capability - tanks and IFVs. They are too expansive, too heavy, too hot and now layered with lasers and guns all blasting at drones in the trees. RUSI’s ideas are going to drive the costs of these vehicles through the roof so that means fewer of them when we need more,

We need new ideas, not ways to try and keep our old ones alive for another few years.

And all this is before UGVs make a serious appearance in 5-10 years. China is watching this war. It is seeing Ukraine survive and defend well past what they should have been capable of. They are taking notes and are going accelerate investment into systems they believe will offset US dominance. Anyone wanna take a guess what those will consist of? So dreams of this being a “10+ year problem” are just that…dreams.

[dan/california]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So my guess is that UAS are going to diversify. We are going to see larger standoff ISR, closer in ISR, FPV strike, fully autonomous strike of various types. Flying ATGM and MANPADS which provide stand off. Then as these systems get smaller and smarter, someone is going to essentially create a flying cluster munition that can act like a landmine. It will lay dormant, low power, until triggered and then swarm at close ranges. Think this with cluster sub-munitions and targeting AI:

These little buggers can hit just about anywhere and cripple or damage. We would need to put chain link fence around every vehicle. Or some super laser that can zap 20 of these out of the trees in seconds as they close in the last 50 meters.

RUSI’s ideas would work in COIN or small war against an opponent who we can still dominate in other domains. But against a peer opponent the problem is the core of what we consider manoeuvre capability - tanks and IFVs. They are too expansive, too heavy, too hot and now layered with lasers and guns all blasting at drones in the trees. RUSI’s ideas are going to drive the costs of these vehicles through the roof so that means fewer of them when we need more,

We need new ideas, not ways to try and keep our old ones alive for another few years.

And all this is before UGVs make a serious appearance in 5-10 years. China is watching this war. It is seeing Ukraine survive and defend well past what they should have been capable of. They are taking notes and are going accelerate investment into systems they believe will offset US dominance. Anyone wanna take a guess what those will consist of? So dreams of this being a “10+ year problem” are just that…dreams.

China theoretically could go all in on a drone heavy force and try to create  a window of opportunity for aggressive actions on its part, while the West takes to much time talking down legacy stake holders and "AI is BAD" groups, among other things. It is just dilemmas all the way down.

Even if someone with a full level of understanding of the problem was put in charge of it tomorrow, with a massive budget, and almost unlimited authority to wrangle existing stakeholders, it would be dilemmas all the way down. And to put it mildly we aren't going to get that, unfortunately. Not until an actual Top Tier Western military gets it head handed to it, at least once, by a "New Model Army" to bring back a very old phrase. 

Edited Tuesday at 11:46 PM by dan/california

[CHARLIE43]

Can't seem to embed it right but,

 

Edited Wednesday at 12:33 AM by CHARLIE43

[hcrof]

3 hours ago, Hapless said:

When there was some news a little while back of Russian soldiers in Kursk driving into Dragons Teeth they weren't expecting, I just assumed it was poor coordination with other Russians throwing up obstacles.

But on the other hand...

I guess still probably not, depending on the lifting capacity of the drones and the weight of the Dragon's Tooth. Realistically it's got to be more profitable using them to lay mines or drop grenades, but shenanigan opportunities are obviously abundant.

Unless that dragons tooth is made of polystyrene that video is 100% fake