How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

26 minutes ago, hcrof said:

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

Absolutely hilarious though. It would also be a a brilliant move for an SOF/partisan group to steal a truck full if them and place them in the worst possible spot. But as is so often the case, there is no need to seek genius when you have vodka and stupidity on the other side.

Edited Wednesday at 12:59 AM by dan/california

[kimbosbread]

Yeah, I wanna second the point about drones not being in isolation, but rather a part of a larger system that includes other ISR and weapons systems, especially long-range artillery. Drones and autonomous systems may gobble up a larger share of the action, but as was said your silly laser has a cooling system that radiates a ****load of heat (remember cooling requires double the energy of heating), and that’s gonna be spotted pretty quickly.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

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:

 

I like how they have it on a thick chain, like Frankenstein's Monster.

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

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

Especially because these things can be moved into positions by ground or air, then have them do their thing from there. As a defensive weapon this is just the sort of thing offensive maneuver warfare does not need to see.

Now, take this thing and arm it with a couple of air-to-air missiles.  When the enemy aircraft is within range (ideally close enough it can't evade), pops up, goes to 10k feet in a minute or less, fires at the already identified target, waits a few seconds for the target to react, then fires the second one.

Good luck to the pilot having to deal with that situation.

Steve

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

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

Here's something we haven't explicitly stated in simple terms, but for sure have discussed pretty much every page.  See if you like this...

Instead of presuming something can be made survivable, and building to that goal, all new systems should be designed with the assumption that *IF* the system even manages to make to the battlefield it won't survive it's first mission.  If it does make it to the battlefield and survives its first mission, consider that a bonus and not a requirement

Think about all that flows from this concept.  Er, like everything.

Now I know what people might say about force protection systems.  I mean, who would want to design an infantry transport that is not expected to even make it to its forward deployment zone?  Nobody.  So you don't focus on a vehicle being able to remain mission capable against all threats, but instead design it to keep the Human elements safe from all threats.  Designing a "safe box" that is transported by something that is not expected to survive is vastly easier than trying to design a vehicle that can remain functional as a system.  With that design goal you can make lots and lots of cheaper vehicles to transport the "safe box" instead of having a single expensive one that isn't any more survivable.

Put another way, spend your limited resources on keeping your people safe, not keeping vehicles safe.

Steve

[Vlad]

https://suspilne.media/858583-vijskovi-kndr-vze-tikaut-z-pozicij-na-kordoni-iz-branskou-ta-kurskou-oblastami-dzerela/

According to this article, 18 soldiers from The Best Korea (TM) have left their positions near UA border. If true, Kim-Jong Pugsley would be proud.

Estimated number of North Koreans over there is about 3000.

Edited Wednesday at 02:57 AM by Vlad

[Carolus]

Assessment from Tataragami, posted here without agreement or disagreement.

 

Quote

I'll say what many might think but hesitate to voice: Ukraine is currently losing the war, and the trend is negative unless drastic measures are taken.

Debates over what constitutes loss or victory can be had, and yes, Ukraine’s survival so far is a big win. But even if Russia halts advances and goes on the defensive, we lack the resources to reclaim territories to the 2022 borders, let alone the 1991 borders. This is due to many factors: delayed mobilization, insufficient aid, weak sanctions enforcement, a lack of political will in the West, poor military decisions, delayed aid due to de-escalation concerns, and the sheer reality of fighting a country with four times our population, with superior numbers in almost all domains and one of the largest military industries, supported by regimes like North Korea, which contribute more than some European countries with far larger GDPs.

Manpower shortages are another issue, but that's a separate discussion. Ukrainian leadership bears a good part of the responsibility for these problems. Still, if the West can’t supply the 14 brigades Zelensky requested, why discuss drafting hundreds of thousands more? We need to completely re-arm way more existing brigades. Who’s going to pay for them? Let’s be honest - there’s little enthusiasm in the U.S. or Europe to fund this.

If Russia retains its occupied territories, it will undermine one of Europe’s core security principles: that borders cannot be redrawn by invading force. In 2014, Russia violated this order, leading to the 2022 invasion. This time, it’s not just Ukraine that will have failed - it’s Ukraine, the U.S., and Western Europe’s failure to defeat Russia.

Some might cite Finland's Winter War, as an example of what Ukraine should have done, but that war lasted three months and ended with Finland ceding territory, paying reparations in the form of machinery, and renting a port to the Soviets. Ukraine's demographics today are also very different: the 18-25 age group is among the smallest, a reality across modern Europe.

Unless Ukraine and the West create a serious plan to radically increase aid to support mobilization - where Ukraine commits to mobilizing more people on the condition that they are properly armed and trained, and the West provides robust air defense to intercept missiles as decisively as the U.S. does for Israel - Ukraine will lose the war of attrition. This will force unfavorable peace, and mass migration from Ukraine to other countries, setting a dangerous precedent, and making it look like the West lost to Russia in the eyes of the world, especially among the enemies of the West.

The worst-case scenario:

Ukraine and Russia freeze the current front line, turning the war into a low-intensity conflict. This forces Ukraine to maintain large forces along an extended "new border" with Russia. Socio-economic problems deepen, as Western aid is insufficient. Mass migration accelerates as people flee the possibility of another war. Political instability, weakening of the state, and a second Russian invasion

 

Edited Wednesday at 05:57 AM by Carolus

[Vanir Ausf B]

8 hours ago, The_Capt said:

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

Are you uploading this stuff directly to your brain Matrix-style? I'd have to check the time stamps, but I believe that report was published only a few hours prior to me posting the link here.

8 hours ago, The_Capt said:

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

 

Your right, that's going to be really hard to detect on or near the ground. But that works both ways. Looking at the product description, this is essentially an unmanned attack helicopter. It's intended to be used primarily against ground targets and other helicopters.

As with manned helicopters there's no reason you couldn't stick some IR missiles on it and try to shoot them at jets, but as with manned helicopters I doubt it would have much success. An F-35 moving at mach .9 would move through it's engagement envelope in 10-13 seconds depending on elevation difference and I don't think this thing has any means of even detecting the presence of an F-35. It would need to be cued onto the target by other assets that had the track. That's not impossible but I do feel there are more appropriate assets to engage jets.

Edited Wednesday at 07:04 AM by Vanir Ausf B

[Carolus]

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/impending-betrayal-ukraine

This article is warning against the wavering support for Ukraine in the West.

An end condition that either leaves Ukraine in security limbo or does not at least include some sort of apology, concession or reparation from Russia would be a devastating international signal if the West is willing to take that deal with the devil. Another war will likely follow.

Edited Wednesday at 07:32 AM by Carolus

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Are you uploading this stuff directly to your brain Matrix-style? I'd have to check the time stamps, but I believe that report was published only a few hours prior to me posting the link here.

Well I read fast because as a staff officer it kinda is a core requirement of the job. And the wonders of membership and alerts?

3 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Your right, that's going to be really hard to detect on or near the ground. But that works both ways. Looking at the product description, this is essentially an unmanned attack helicopter. It's intended to be used primarily against ground targets and other helicopters.

As with manned helicopters there's no reason you couldn't stick some IR missiles on it and try to shoot them at jets, but as with manned helicopters I doubt it would have much success. An F-35 moving at mach .9 would move through it's engagement envelope in 10-13 seconds depending on elevation difference and I don't think this thing has any means of even detecting the presence of an F-35. It would need to be cued onto the target by other assets that had the track. That's not impossible but I do feel there are more appropriate assets to engage jets.

The engagement envelop based on specs of a Starstreak is a 14 km circle. An F35 moving Mach 0.9 (1111 kph) will take about 47 seconds to clear that bubble. Next question: how much does an F35 cost compared to that pop-up VTOL missile carrier? A single F35 comes in at $110-135 million USD. Even if each of those missile carrying drones cost 2 million a pop, we can buy 50 for a single F35. With 50 of those systems one could build an A2/AD box 140 kms long and 70kms deep (5x10). An F35 will take about 3-4 mins to traverse that fence line. How are its odds looking now?

And while we are on the topic of layers - of course this would not be the only system an opponent would have. This would be one system of many. As to lasers, it is a lot easier to see and track an F35 with one than a bird sized Tac UAS. If I have a magic super laser, I am going to point it at that F35.  As to detection, well the F35 has stealth against radar but as we are seeing there is a lot more than radar out there. If we are talking about detecting UAS a foot or two across, a 13 ton 51 x 31 foot aircraft pushing out an ungodly amount of heat and sound is going to have a tough time of it. Hell in this day and age, that F35 will likely be tracked from takeoff, from space.

Now if you read over those articles I posted and do some research on next-gen AirPower, you are going to see the same trend we are seeing in Ukraine - standoff. For example, Chinese CAS is firing a PGM from about 100kms away. So air superiority is no longer about flying an F35 deep into an enemies backfield Tom Cruise-style, it is about deep fires superiority. An F35 firing a missile or glide bomb 100km away from my drone AD box.

So what we have is a competition to 1) see a target, 2) fix it in time and space with enough resolution to… 3) hit it with precision long range fires systems. All of this is happening over the horizon because if you need to get within a few kms of a target with an aircraft you are already in denied space. Deep fires superiority is more than aircraft of course, it includes long range artillery, missiles and UAS.  Defences against these systems are not zero but are seriously lagging. So what? As Russia has learned…there is no such thing as air superiority anymore. We have mutual denial and a weird naked parity in the deep fires space.

My point and underlying thesis is that the core of our ground manoeuvre effects can no longer be a suite of expensive, slow and easily detected platforms. Having that suite armed up with high energy C-UAS and blazing away at every seagull and sparrow is not going to help with this new reality, no matter how much money we spend on it. You are, of course, to explore and propose counter solutions but they should take into account the realities of the modern and near future battlefield.

[The_Capt]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's something we haven't explicitly stated in simple terms, but for sure have discussed pretty much every page.  See if you like this...

Instead of presuming something can be made survivable, and building to that goal, all new systems should be designed with the assumption that *IF* the system even manages to make to the battlefield it won't survive it's first mission.  If it does make it to the battlefield and survives its first mission, consider that a bonus and not a requirement

Think about all that flows from this concept.  Er, like everything.

Now I know what people might say about force protection systems.  I mean, who would want to design an infantry transport that is not expected to even make it to its forward deployment zone?  Nobody.  So you don't focus on a vehicle being able to remain mission capable against all threats, but instead design it to keep the Human elements safe from all threats.  Designing a "safe box" that is transported by something that is not expected to survive is vastly easier than trying to design a vehicle that can remain functional as a system.  With that design goal you can make lots and lots of cheaper vehicles to transport the "safe box" instead of having a single expensive one that isn't any more survivable.

Put another way, spend your limited resources on keeping your people safe, not keeping vehicles safe.

Steve

This matches my thinking from what we are seeing. If I could lay out some core principles of future land systems:

- Treat pretty much everything as expendable ammunition. As you note, assume it is not going to survive for long. Build capacity in cheap effective systems - achieve overmatch through depth, not very expensive capability density.

- Remove the human wherever you can. We are going to need humans forward, but minimize this as much as possible. We can see the effects of not doing this in an attritional struggle right now…not good. If we are heading into an Attrition phase of warfare, let the machines do the dying.

- Plan to fight in a fully illuminated, denied and parity environment. We cannot depend on massive overmatch in a peer conflict anymore.

- Fight smarter, not more expensive. There is an enormous amount of potential in cheap but clever systems. Big and expensive no longer can guarantee success. Smart also means leverage AI/ML better and faster - that is the future arms race. I think simulation will be core to this btw.

- Get over it. The trends we are seeing in Ukraine took at least 30 years to build. We need to stop fighting them and admit we need major rethinking. I really like that the US Army is designating experimental units, let’s hope they follow through. That all said, one also has to measure twice and cut once. I am not advocating “drone utopia” or radical unplanned force development movements. But realistically these are not our problem. Clinging to our current doctrine and capabilities too long is far more likely and the greater risk. 

- Firepower then Manoeuvre, not the other way around like we had built for. Massed precision superiority at range will be key.

If anyone can think of others jump on in.

[akd]

 

[akd]

And once again we get to experience CM in real life:

 

[billbindc]

5 hours ago, Carolus said:

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/impending-betrayal-ukraine

This article is warning against the wavering support for Ukraine in the West.

An end condition that either leaves Ukraine in security limbo or does not at least include some sort of apology, concession or reparation from Russia would be a devastating international signal if the West is willing to take that deal with the devil. Another war will likely follow.

There is a certain strain of maximalist thinking that's taking shape (see Tatarigami) that is quite at odds with reality. Russia doesn't need to apologize, concede or accept reparations for Ukraine to win this war and it isn't a devastating blow to international relations either. All that needs to happen is that the price Russia paid for the venture must be well above the perceived gains. And that is where we are already. Russia has wasted the stored fat of Soviet military power, it has crippled it's demographics, chained its economy to China and illustrated to everyone that its nuclear posturing is mostly just that. And Ukraine still stands making Russia pay an extraordinary premium for every meter gained.  

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, billbindc said:

There is a certain strain of maximalist thinking that's taking shape (see Tatarigami) that is quite at odds with reality. Russia doesn't need to apologize, concede or accept reparations for Ukraine to win this war and it isn't a devastating blow to international relations either. All that needs to happen is that the price Russia paid for the venture must be well above the perceived gains. And that is where we are already. Russia has wasted the stored fat of Soviet military power, it has crippled it's demographics, chained its economy to China and illustrated to everyone that its nuclear posturing is mostly just that. And Ukraine still stands making Russia pay an extraordinary premium for every meter gained.  

Ya, I am not really buying into "Victory = The Former Status Quo" either. While we should hold Russia's feet to the fire, I don't think renormalization is in the cards in our lifetimes. There is no going back to the way things were by this point. Some nations may go soft on Russia, and I have no doubt will try and trade with them after this is over. If political will in the West fails entirely and we do somehow renormalize with Putin's Russia, then the old status quo is dead anyway. 

Nope, whatever happens we have crossed a few Rubicons we can't go back over. Russia's defeat in this is pretty much assured - we have been saying this for over a year now. The final form of that defeat and deep it cuts remains unclear. The only way this gets spun is if Western support totally collapses, and Ukraine then also collapses. If Russia somehow drives back to Kyiv and makes it to the Polish border, it could claim a pyrrhic victory...but dear gawd what a cost. And the horror show that will follow in Ukraine under that scenario will basically ensure we do not renormalize with Russia regardless. 

[Lieutenant Ash]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/north-korean-troops-desert-frontline-days-after-arriving-to-support-russia-against-ukraine/ar-AA1sna8A?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=210abeff77a14977851fa7d435cc1278&ei=136

I sense a lack of enthusiasm amongst NK troops for dying in Ukraine.

[Lieutenant Ash]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/exposed-russia-s-false-troop-counts-unveiled-in-new-report/ss-AA1oqUld?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=210abeff77a14977851fa7d435cc1278&ei=162#image=10#comments

Report that suggests Russia is overstating the size of its army.

[danfrodo]

37 minutes ago, Lieutenant Ash said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/north-korean-troops-desert-frontline-days-after-arriving-to-support-russia-against-ukraine/ar-AA1sna8A?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=210abeff77a14977851fa7d435cc1278&ei=136

I sense a lack of enthusiasm amongst NK troops for dying in Ukraine.

It'd be rather ironic that the NK men sent to die in UKR would find instead a quick ticket to the west, though with great risk.  What I wonder about is the rules about return.  If an NK soldier wishes to defect, to not return, couldn't RU just say 'oh, and look, these 100 UKR soldiers wish to defect to RU' and never return them?  Could the NK soldiers, having been captured/surrendered, choose to stay?   I don't understand how it would work.  If they are eventually sent back to NK, they'll either be shot or enslaved as punishment.

[Vlad]

Returning them back may be counterproductive - they'll know they can't flee because if they do, they get back home and face punishment.

On the other hand letting them stay or return to South Korea may encourage them more to go AWOL, surrender and therefore either force someone else to guard them (that requires extra manpower) or force the Dear Leader to return them home.

[Nastypastie]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-16/ukraine-to-receive-aging-australian-abrams-tanks/104480368

Australia is handing over its inventory of 49 M1A1's now that the M1A2's are coming online.

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 hours ago, akd said:

And once again we get to experience CM in real life:

 

Something something perfect ISR should make this impossible, you should see that tank from space!

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, akd said:

 

Obviously fake.  They carry them nose up

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, akd said:

And once again we get to experience CM in real life:

 

There's an outlier for us all to remember when playing CM so as to not bother us with saying "the spotting system in CM is broken!"

What is that?  It looks like a BTR with a turret at the rear (but not a BTR-4, thankfully).  Or is that a MT-LB with a BTR turret stuck on the back?  The latter seems more likely except I think I can see wheels in the last few frames of the video.

Steve

[Carolus]

41 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I don't understand how it would work.  If they are eventually sent back to NK, they'll either be shot or enslaved as punishment.

Don't forget their families will likely be punished no matter if they return or not.

NK soldiers will likely be a low morale, low combat strength bunch, but still enough for recon-by-death and exhausting local ukrainian ammo reserves.

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, Carolus said:

Don't forget their families will likely be punished no matter if they return or not.

NK soldiers will likely be a low morale, low combat strength bunch, but still enough for recon-by-death and exhausting local ukrainian ammo reserves.

That is my thought.  NK will definitely do some really nasty things to their families and family is super important in Korean culture.  So I don't expect to see much in the way of defections from the NK troops even if the report of a couple dozen or so is accurate.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Something something perfect ISR should make this impossible, you should see that tank from space!

This is such a numbnuts response I am tempted to ignore it.  But it is... so numbnuts that I can't resist!

What is the point discussing things with you if a) you don't listen or b) you don't understand?  Just one page or two ago you said some other nonsense about absolutism and The_Capt not ever responding to how stuff like this happened.  I took the time to respond and you didn't debate it at all.  Then this crap.  Do you realize that you lose credibility when you do this sort of drive-by stuff?  It also makes you look rather petty.

So now for the response to your comment itself...

The capabilities you just derided are there because Ukraine obviously used them.  I mean, for f's sake we're WATCHING IT on a drone feed.  So the Ukrainians certainly spotted this errant vehicle and, probably, alerted the tank that it was coming.  Maybe that is why the tank was stopped in a totally exposed position in a field.  Speculation, of course, but it does fit with Ukraine's known capability for communicating info.

Now, obviously the Russians didn't have ISR working for it.  Maybe they knew the tanks were there but the driver thought he was one field over?  Or maybe they were on the way and the drone covering their sector got distracted or intercepted?  Or maybe it just was defective and fell out of the air?  More than likely it was simply a local commander sending forward a bunch of meat in an armored vehicle to find out where the Ukrainians were just because that's what Russians seem to like to do. 

Steve