How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[ArmouredTopHat]

26 minutes ago, sburke said:

Gotta wonder what the Russians riding on top of that BTR were thinking.  I assume they were so out of comms they were thinking it was one of theirs.  

Friendly fire does exist on both sides quite a bit, no doubt exasperated by the fact that both sides use a lot of similar equipment. 

The ISR comments are simply pointing out that drones are not in fact scouring every inch of the battlefield to the point of omniscience, given both sides suffer this sort of thing (The Russians more due to them being on the attack more I guess.)
Doesn't necessarily mean a drone is not in the air, I expect the majority of the issues are communication / organisation based. We have certainly heard about this issue a lot from the Russian end of things where the drone units are not in proper contact with the units moving forward and thus they cannot benefit properly from the information said drone obtains. 

 

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Putting aside that the "wry" comment was tagged onto a video of Ukraine demonstrating omnipresent battlefield ISR,

Well, isn't that because there are plenty of engagements happening without a drone overhead watching them that obviously cant exist as a video for me to prove that point? Its not much comfort either to the Russians here either since they clearly did not know about those tanks. The fact the AFU have a drone in this instance is irrelevant, at least for the Russians that stumbled onto the tanks getting blown to pieces. 

I would honestly like to know the hard data on just how many engagements are overwatched by drones. I do suspect its very high as a %, but I also suspect that there is a lot of interference between the information a drone finds and the process of directing it to the appropriate forces on the ground. IE plenty of engagements where a drone might be watching, but it may not be provided useful information to the force on the ground for whatever reason. This might be especially true for less concentrated and more fluid areas of the line like at Kursk. We did see some AFU drone operators get warcrimed just a few days ago after being overrun by a mechanised attack, so clearly even they can be taken by surprise and not see EVERYTHING coming to them just yet. 

I do actually agree with Steve and others that battlefield management systems are probably an area that needs looking at a lot in order to better manage the surge of data that can be scoured from a battlefield these days. We really are getting to the point where providing soldiers with some sort of tactical UI (Or a minimap with processed information being displayed to them) could really help them out on the field. 

Edited Wednesday at 10:52 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[Vanir Ausf B]

10 hours ago, akd said:

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

 

Except in CM the bailed crew would close assault the tanks

[ArmouredTopHat]

Some interesting further observations of this encounter that I also found:

• The lead AFU tank is possibly disabled given it does not move at all. Mine damage perhaps?
• The BTR looks to have a bunch of people on the back, only three survive in any shape to stagger away. What on earth were they trying to accomplish?
• Its pretty obvious the BTR thinks the vehicles are friendly right until the last moment. 
• The fact that the tanks main gun tears the turret clean off and deposits it surprisingly neatly at the back of the vehicle probably means the inside crew of the vehicle are probably mangled beyond recognition. 
• You can see that the driver likely spotted the crazy Russian that runs close in front of the lead tank as you see the gun traverse in that direction after some lag time.
• The sheer closeness of this engagement suggests that even with the AFU having a drone overhead there was clearly some measure of surprise / unexpected encounter involved. Reminds me of the BTR vs Bradley encounter a few months ago. 
• I am at a loss for what round was actually fired, though I suspect it was a frag or heat round, given its typically what the tank gunners load by default, at least from the sources I have read. The front half of the BTR looks entirely wrecked which leads me to suspect its not a sabot round at least, which at that kind of range would have likely gone almost clean through. 
• The encounter shows the importance of good optics on a vehicle. I feel for the AFU who have to rely largely on their T-64 tanks, the majority of which have pretty old optics which are a little dated to say the least. Even the Russians here have at least on paper a pretty comprehensive advantage with their latest tanks with regards to optical and thermals. 
  
  
  
   

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:14 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[Fenris]

Translated quote from UKR man

Quote

Regarding the video, where the Russian armor goes straight to meet ours, which shoots it. In fact, drivers of armor (tanks, armored personnel carriers, etc.) are not at all safe from getting lost on the battlefield. So the story, when the armor goes under the direct fire of the enemy, is not surprising. All the more, it is not surprising that the armor can come close to the enemy, if the insignia is not visible, and this is a Soviet technique used by both armies. A banal mistake in the route, when it is necessary to move along a lace of fields/forest lanes, happens regularly. During the storming of Novooleksandrivka near Ocheretiny, Muscovites also wandered from time to time and found the right road only after a certain time. We have observed this several times.

Comments in the thread mention other similar instances of armour basically running into each other unexpectedly.

https://x.com/666_mancer/status/1846596033159352709

Edited Wednesday at 11:13 PM by Fenris

[ArmouredTopHat]

There have been a recent number of strikes against Russians training again. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

Achieving max realism right there...

[ArmouredTopHat]

Rare combat footage of Marders in action and under fire from ATGMs, RPGs and FPVs as they clear treelines. Vehicle also has some jammers mounted on the back. 

+1 for the Russian FPV drone cratering the ground and fizzling out with supreme ineffectiveness. 

Edited Wednesday at 11:26 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

7 km assumes equal elevation with the target, which is unlikely. Whatever the number may be it'll be small enough to require a target track in advance which is not a given with low observable aircraft. True, aircraft are hot. IRST has been around for decades and is situationally useful but it's not a magic bullet. For one thing you really do need an airborne detector. You stole one of my talking points regarding standoff. My general point is that if you can achieve a track of good enough quality to effectively use a MANPAD VTOL drone you should have other longer- ranged assets available.

As for ground manoeuver ect., I can only reiterate that the proposed solutions we have been discussing are focused on the RIGHT NOW time frame, hence "commercial off the shelf or military off the shelf" technology. This isn't Force 2040.

So I think you are missing what denial actually means. No one is going to take a $110 million dollar aircraft and play “trigonometry” with it. IR systems are not a magic bullet but again we are talking risk. There are about 1000 F35s on the planet. How much risk are you going to take with LOS IR tracked weapon systems that can deny up to 30k feet? As to “other long range systems” well the issue with these is that most are RADAR (but I think that is changing) which is exactly what the F35 is designed to work around. The combination of the two are what make for effective denial.

You also conveniently sidestepped my whole deep strike point, and firepower superiority as a core concept moving forward. Do you need more proof or explanation?

The RIGHT NOW solutions that are being presented are already obsolete - this is my central point. We are already seeing the denial effects I am describing. We are also seeing the C4ISR environment I am describing…in this war. To shove this off to “2040” is exactly why I am disagreeing. It will be the hallmark cry of all those who want to pretend this is not happening. They will propose the same solutions that do not address the realities we are facing today, let alone in 16 years.

Lastly, it is also clear that you do not understand how military force development works. If you want change in 16 years, you have to start today. We can quick buy a bunch of stuff to try and stop-gap, but that cannot become “the solution”. Further we cannot pour all the money into stop gaps at the expense of the future force or we will face a worse problem by 2040.

Rubbing chain guns and lasers on everything while hoping air superiority will sort itself out is not a viable course of action here. We need a full scale rethink or face being behind the curve. Hand waving and saying “Force 2040” is beyond conservative at this point, it is dangerous.

[cesmonkey]

 

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

Geez, let the fellers have some fun . Jimmy P got to run some nice country licks. I think they just wanted something less serious to play. Sure, it aint a zep classic, it's one of their weaker songs, but for it's genre it's just fine.

Perhaps I should have been more clear...I wanted to make it clear that Zep didn't suck because of Hot Dog. I meant they just sucked.

[Offshoot]

Zelensky unveils Ukraine's victory plan, says it's doable but 'depends on our partners'
 

Quote

 

The proposal is comprised of five points: an invitation to join NATO, a defense aspect, deterrence of Russian aggression, economic growth and cooperation, and post-war security architecture.

The plan involves three secret addenda that have been shared with international partners. David Arakhamia, the ruling party's parliamentary leader, said the classified parts would be presented to faction leaders.

"If the plan is supported, we can end the war no later than next year," Zelensky said in the parliament in the presence of Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi, military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov, and Western diplomats.

 

 

[akd]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Except in CM the bailed crew would close assault the tanks

That one guy thought about it, but then his morale broke.

[danfrodo]

32 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Perhaps I should have been more clear...I wanted to make it clear that Zep didn't suck because of Hot Dog. I meant they just sucked.

Bold take!  But I can see how zep's sound could grind on some folks nerves.  You are gonna get some hate mail I think 

[billbindc]

4 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Bold take!  But I can see how zep's sound could grind on some folks nerves.  You are gonna get some hate mail I think 

[Silentkilarz]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

Perhaps I should have been more clear...I wanted to make it clear that Zep didn't suck because of Hot Dog. I meant they just sucked.

 

[billbindc]

21 minutes ago, Silentkilarz said:

 

Elvis Costello likes to tell the story about walking with Iggy Pop...in an advanced state of inebriation...up to Robert Plant in the 1980's and snarling in disgust "Stairway to Heaven?". He felt bad about it later. Somewhere around 2005. 

(and yes, I'll get back on topic now)

 

Edited yesterday at 01:26 AM by billbindc

[LongLeftFlank]

7 minutes ago, billbindc said:

 "Stairway to Heaven?"

 

/returns to lurk

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, sburke said:

I was gonna give you the benefit of the doubt when you started with "someone says", then you followed it with "they are".  The level of disappointment is hard to measure, but I'll just assume living all the way up in bumfk wherever, you didn't get the opportunity to see the Dead while Jerry was alive. 

In fact I did.  It was also the first time I got high and I didn't even put anything to my lips.  I was just breathing.  That was fun, but despite that the show was boring.

So there

And Billbindc better watch it... I have a magic button to give heretics a vacation.

(in all seriousness, I am not a huge fan of Led Zeppelin.  I just happened to be listening to Hot Dog and remembering it's a dumb song).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The ISR comments are simply pointing out that drones are not in fact scouring every inch of the battlefield to the point of omniscience, given both sides suffer this sort of thing

Nobody says there's 24 hour subservience over every single square meter of the entire frontline.  But there's dense ISR in the areas where combat is active.  And there's no solution for this, because as an infantryman or vehicle driver you have to be lucky every single time whereas the enemy ISR/reaction combo only has to be lucky once.  The more ISR you have, the less lucky the ISR side needs to be.

 

4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Well, isn't that because there are plenty of engagements happening without a drone overhead watching them that obviously cant exist as a video for me to prove that point? Its not much comfort either to the Russians here either since they clearly did not know about those tanks. The fact the AFU have a drone in this instance is irrelevant, at least for the Russians that stumbled onto the tanks getting blown to pieces.

Says the man that posts a rare video of something involving heavy armor and makes sweeping, unsupported claims.

Obviously we are seeing only what is available to see.  However, we can also see the confirmed losses and the reports of generally no ground being taken despite horrendous losses.  Losses and lack of motion that has not been seen in any war I can think of since the end of WW1.  Since the combined arms are pretty much as they have always been, with vehicles that are functionally similar, it's pretty obvious that something DRAMATIC has changed.  To me it's pretty damned clear what the difference is.  If you don't think it's ISR, then I'm ears as to what you think it is.

4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I would honestly like to know the hard data on just how many engagements are overwatched by drones. I do suspect its very high as a %, but I also suspect that there is a lot of interference between the information a drone finds and the process of directing it to the appropriate forces on the ground.

There sure is.  And battlefield imperfections will always exist no matter what.  It's just a fact of life.  But this new ISR combined arms warfare only needs to be "good enough" for it to trash maneuver warfare and air supremacy.

Ask yourself this.  If this war is super deadly and static with a still maturing new concept of combined arms, what do you think it's going to be like in the future?

4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

We did see some AFU drone operators get warcrimed just a few days ago after being overrun by a mechanised attack, so clearly even they can be taken by surprise and not see EVERYTHING coming to them just yet.

Sure.  They could have screwed up in some way, made assumptions of their safety that weren't smart, been in the process of deploying, etc.  No matter how good something is, it won't be perfect.  Ever.  So this is an example of some poor bastards who came up unlucky, not a contradiction with the general success of ISR.

4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I do actually agree with Steve and others that battlefield management systems are probably an area that needs looking at a lot in order to better manage the surge of data that can be scoured from a battlefield these days. We really are getting to the point where providing soldiers with some sort of tactical UI (Or a minimap with processed information being displayed to them) could really help them out on the field. 

NATO forces have had such a thing for over 20 years in the form of Blue Force Tracker.  It's shortcomings have no doubt been shrinking over the years as tech has improved.  Integrating new ISR into the equation is very straight forward and likely doesn't require massive infrastructure investments.  As someone said many pages ago... software and modest hardware upgrades are real game changes for systems like this.

Steve

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

NATO forces have had such a thing for over 20 years in the form of Blue Force Tracker.  It's shortcomings have no doubt been shrinking over the years as tech has improved.  Integrating new ISR into the equation is very straight forward and likely doesn't require massive infrastructure investments.  As someone said many pages ago... software and modest hardware upgrades are real game changes for systems like this.

I'm specifically referring to something that is built into a soldiers helmet and allows them to 'see' things highlighted by friendly assets, say a tank or a bunker the moment they are spotted. Said painting of targets done largely autonomously to speed up the information flow and allow the fastest possible decisions from the soldiers on the ground. 

Pretty much something akin to video games with a hud or map. Would be more efficient than a drone operator directing them with potentially vague directions, or having to pull up a battlefield management system (or get into a vehicle with one for that matter) 

Of course, there are a wide array of potential issues with such a system, but it probably beats consistently wandering into things you shouldn't and dying uselessly. The Future combat systems program had such a premise before it was gutted, do you think we might see a return of such an idea?

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

There sure is.  And battlefield imperfections will always exist no matter what.  It's just a fact of life.  But this new ISR combined arms warfare only needs to be "good enough" for it to trash maneuver warfare and air supremacy.

Ask yourself this.  If this war is super deadly and static with a still maturing new concept of combined arms, what do you think it's going to be like in the future?

I'm not sure you can claim air supremacy as a concept is dead based on this war. The VKS was never going to achieve that capability wise (that was in doubt even before the war and it most certainly is now) and the Ukrainians certainly were not going to. Neither side prioritised their air forces or capability to the same degree as NATO countries (And Russia flat out lied about theirs)

Better save such a reservation when a force with serious air striking power is involved (with the capability to perform actual SEAD operations) I still strongly suspect that NATO airpower would utterly curb the Russian AD net in a conflict, I think its actually gotten significantly easier for NATO since the widespread introduction of 5th gen stealth platforms that are so damn dangerous in being able to approach and release munitions onto exposed air defence units (F-35 principally) We have seen the Russians struggle to defend their AD sites against the Ukrainians, and NATO has a LOT more means to strike said assets with relative impunity, not to mention detect them in the first place. 

Its not hard to imagine things getting seriously bad for the Russians when their AD network is crippled to the point where 4th gens can drop bombs on anything on the front, or gunships could start roving over treelines making life miserable for the average conscript. It would be a cascade failure akin to the gulf wars I suspect. 

I am also aware that this war might not necessarily dictate how other wars might be like, at least in entirety. I honestly believe the future could go in any number of directions depending on how countries respond to it. I personally think we might yet see a very dynamic phase at the end of this war when one side begins to break down. I can only hope its the Russians that suffer such a catastrophic breakdown.

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/4/2/army-hopeful-troubled-headset-program-is-finally-looking-up

The Army’s Integrated Visual Augmentation System program has faced numerous setbacks over the last few years, but the service still believes in the technology and is optimistic the latest version can unlock the transformational warfighting advancements the Army and developer Microsoft envision.

Based on Microsoft’s commercial HoloLens technology, the Integrated Visual Augmentation System, or IVAS, is meant to replace the Army’s current night vision and Nett Warrior situational awareness platforms, integrating their capabilities into a single mixed reality headset to improve soldier lethality and mobility.

 

Some version of the idea, and the program, never stopped. It hasn't exactly succeeded yet either. as you mentoned the potential advantages are large. But sorting the display, the comms, the weight, and, and... has never jelled.

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I'm specifically referring to something that is built into a soldiers helmet and allows them to 'see' things highlighted by friendly assets, say a tank or a bunker the moment they are spotted. Said painting of targets done largely autonomously to speed up the information flow and allow the fastest possible decisions from the soldiers on the ground. 

Pretty much something akin to video games with a hud or map. Would be more efficient than a drone operator directing them with potentially vague directions, or having to pull up a battlefield management system (or get into a vehicle with one for that matter) 

Of course, there are a wide array of potential issues with such a system, but it probably beats consistently wandering into things you shouldn't and dying uselessly. The Future combat systems program had such a premise before it was gutted, do you think we might see a return of such an idea?

I don't know when this will become a reality, but so far all attempts have been extremely expensive failures.  Soldiers don't take well to augmented reality because it interferes with actual reality.  And actual reality is what decides if you live or die.

If I were in charge I'd have a designator on something (helmet, wrist, gun, etc.) that the soldier can aim at something and then speak what that something is into an AI.  Think Siri or Alexa in camouflage

The real bugger is keeping the information relevant.  It's unrealistic to expect that soldiers will keep something in their sight just to track it.  It is also unrealistic to expect that information will never be duplicated.  Outdated and/or duplicated information is dangerous when it comes to basing decisions.  AIs can certainly help with a lot of this, but we Humans are unpredictable and so there's only so much they can do.

I know of what I speak since I basically design systems like this for a living.  Fortunately, for me, incorrect and confusing information is exactly what my systems are supposed to show   Meaning, I don't have to design something to track and clean conflicting data.  Plus, we have access to 100% accurate data so we don't need to verify/clean the data, we simply "cheat" by looking at where the other side's stuff really is.

The challenge of data management is less so with UAS because there's fewer assets sampling the data and, unlike soldiers on the ground, they can afford to monitor and provide continuous updates.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The real bugger is keeping the information relevant.  It's unrealistic to expect that soldiers will keep something in their sight just to track it.  It is also unrealistic to expect that information will never be duplicated.  Outdated and/or duplicated information is dangerous when it comes to basing decisions.  AIs can certainly help with a lot of this, but we Humans are unpredictable and so there's only so much they can do.

The other issue is potentially hostile infiltration of such a network, either via hacking or simply providing lots of 'interference' via decoys or otherwise that confuses the AI sorting all the information and renders the system as a whole less effective by providing lots of false returns, 'AI' as it currently stands is really not quite up to the task just yet. Any potential system will likely have a lot of humans in the management area to install at least some semblance of order amid the information chaos for decades to come. 

Also, you just know Soldiers are going to break such a system in the most imaginative ways possible. 

 

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And actual reality is what decides if you live or die.

Is there any practical system in play that serves as a bridge between AI managed battlefields systems / blue force tracker and a guy doing his best to guide some infantry down a trench via a radio as he spots with a drone?


 

Edited yesterday at 04:59 AM by ArmouredTopHat

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I'm not sure you can claim air supremacy as a concept is dead based on this war.

I made no such claim about air superiority, but for sure it is under serious threat.  Attack helicopters being the obvious one most in danger.  But expensive air superiority capabilities are definitely under threat.  Again, attack helicopters coming up short of justifications when UAS can do much of what they did, cheaper, easier, and in more places simultaneously.

The_Capt and Vanir are having a good discussion about other aspects of air superiority.

5 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Better save such a reservation when a force with serious air striking power is involved (with the capability to perform actual SEAD operations) I still strongly suspect that NATO airpower would utterly curb the Russian AD net in a conflict

I agree, though I'm not as sure about China.  Which is why I don't think the current concept of air superiority is wise to continue into the future.  As I said a number of posts ago, presume you'll lose something big, expensive, and hard to replace and wow... that really changes the design specs.

5 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I am also aware that this war might not necessarily dictate how other wars might be like, at least in entirety.

Sure, but a return to the way things were (or at least theorized to be) is less likely than likely.  Which is why I'm completely and utterly against making new investments in heavy armor.  I think it's a criminally insane waste of national resources.  I also think it puts lives at risk, because nothing screws up a soldier's chance of survival than to have the basic concepts fail when they are most needed.

From an airpower standpoint, I think we should be moving away from $100m manned aircraft and moving towards unmanned weapons platforms that can perform the same, or similar, roles without funding, production, and logistics holding them back.

5 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

 I personally think we might yet see a very dynamic phase at the end of this war when one side begins to break down. I can only hope its the Russians that suffer such a catastrophic breakdown.

By the time that happens, if it happens, the war will be over already.  I see no indications that either side has the ability to sustain anything resembling a maneuverist's wet dream.

Steve