mllaneza posted:

That's a very real thing the Ukrainians have to teach the rest of the world. Another notable development in the tactical usage of drones is at the squad-level. There is video of Ukrainian infantry clearing trenches with spotter drone support, the operator is on the squad's radio channel providing real time updates on enemy locations and activities. Imagine knowing for certain that you can safely take the next corner, or where to throw a grenade. Put 3-4 operators in a platoon's HQ section with a liberal supply of drones and your troops will be supernaturally effective.

Needless to say, using drones to spot for artillery is another game changer. That's just ridiculously effective.

Mr. Apollo posted:

Here’s a video from Reddit that says it’s from area “south of Robotyne” and was filmed “very recently”. The interesting thing is that a destroyed Challenger 2 is visible at the beginning of the video.

There’s no visible bodies or anyone getting wounded in the video. Just a burning Challenger 2 and a knocked out T-72. The vehicle the person filming is in takes some rocket fire but no one is injured.

https://reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/L0fHz8U4HS

The rest of the Combat Footage subReddit has some pretty gorey stuff so be careful what you click on.

The Artificial Kid posted:

Seems like a key question is are they driving past their own dead tanks on the way towards the enemy or away.

Mr. Apollo posted:

Here’s a video from Reddit that says it’s from area “south of Robotyne” and was filmed “very recently”. The interesting thing is that a destroyed Challenger 2 is visible at the beginning of the video.

There’s no visible bodies or anyone getting wounded in the video. Just a burning Challenger 2 and a knocked out T-72. The vehicle the person filming is in takes some rocket fire but no one is injured.

[Snip]

The rest of the Combat Footage subReddit has some pretty gorey stuff so be careful what you click on.

mlmp08 posted:

As a warning to others, the video linked in this post features an explosion next to the people filming and then a guy calling out in clear pain as they flee the area.

Mr. Apollo posted:

Oh, people said that he was just cursing that it was a close hit.

Ynglaur posted:

#freecinci

Moon Slayer posted:

Hey speaking of how drones are causing a huge shift in tactics, the New York Times as an apropos article on the US Navy:

Faced With Evolving Threats, U.S. Navy Struggles to Change

Granted almost every time someone has said "the age of x is over" in military history they've been wrong to some degree, I can't help but wonder if we're on the cusp of something similar to when naval aviation replaced ships of the line.

quote:

The Ministry of the Interior has detected and is working to neutralize and dismantle a human trafficking network operating from Russia to incorporate Cuban citizens living there, and even some from Cuba, into the military forces participating in war operations in Ukraine

Torrannor posted:

!

It would not surprise me if drones really were to revolutionize and obsolete some parts of the military.

That said, there's obviously a lot of inertia in the US military, plus interest groups defending their pet projects. I wonder whether China will be faster to update to the new reality.

bird food bathtub posted:

While there is certainly a ton of inertia (read: corporate grift) in US military acquisitions, I think declaring drones will make X obsolete is a bit premature. Drones are having their day in the sun right now because they're new(-ish OK?) and Ukraine is using them fantastically. Thing about war is that it tends to drive a lot of innovation on the side of people motivated by being not-dead. Everyone and their cousin's dog is going to be looking really, really hard at counter-drone techniques and equipment. If drones end up going all explodey or electronic-fizzle-y or whatever comes out the other side of this process, all the other ways of doing what drones are doing now will end up remaining important.

ethanol posted:

i know you all mean low cost attritional drones but it is amusing to read this in the context of the us having been floating predators and otherwise around for the better of the last 20 years

ethanol posted:

i know you all mean low cost attritional drones but it is amusing to read this in the context of the us having been floating predators and otherwise around for the better of the last 20 years

quote:

Only 3% of Ukrainian artillery-fire missions are smoke
missions. As demonstrated during the assault on the company position north of
Rivnopil, smoke can be extremely useful in confusing the enemy ground force
and obscuring assault actions. But smoke also has the effect of obscuring the
view from UAVs which higher Ukrainian echelons and command posts use to
coordinate activity and conduct combat management. Commanders persistently
prioritise maintaining their own understanding of the battlefield over laying
down smoke and concealing their personnel’s movements.

quote:

There is a long way to go, and a number of trials, before Trump gets back to the White House, and even if he does, his priorities will be elsewhere and his policies unpredictable. For the moment there is still a bipartisan consensus supporting Ukraine, but since stories began to appear in the US press about the counter-offensive faltering there has been more questioning about whether it is in American interests to support an indefinite war and whether more effort needs to be made to find a diplomatic solution to bring it to a close.

I am in no position to assess the state of American politics (Kori Schake did it for us here). Nor do I want to address all the twists and turns of conservative thinking on the war. There are some on the right – Tucker Carlson and Colonel Douglas MacGregor come to mind – who are anti-Ukraine and repeat Moscow’s talking points. Others just don’t want to spend money on another country’s war. The Heritage Foundation, once a bastion of hawkish views, and until recently ready to argue the case for supporting Ukraine, has acquired a new populist leadership that has started to lobby against the Biden administration’s budget requests, much to the dismay of some former conservative allies.

Many critics of the Biden Administration’s stance on Ukraine take care not to make excuses for Putin but they do take seriously his stubbornness and wonder whether it is the best use of American resources to sustain Ukraine’s fight. Because they insist on an unsentimental assessment of American interests they often identify as ‘Realists’.

One of the more vigorous and credible contributions to this strand of thought comes from Eldridge Colby, who served in the Pentagon during the Trump administration. I follow Colby on Twitter and it seems to me that he engages in arguments respectfully and politely, and so I will try to do the same.

Colby co-founded an outfit called the Marathon Initiative. According to its website, this Initiative reflects concern that:

‘America is entering an era of great power competition for which it is not prepared. How to secure American freedom and prosperity in this more competitive age is the organizing national security question of our time.

The mission of The Marathon Initiative is to develop the diplomatic, military, and economic strategies the nation will need to navigate a protracted competition with great power rivals.’

This reflects a common theme in Washington as the US tries to put the long counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan behind it. Now the big challenge of grand strategy is posed by the ongoing rivalry with China, and the possibility that it could turn into a full war, as much as the conduct of the Russo-Ukraine War.

quote:

Recent news from the front has been more positive for Ukraine, although there is still a long way to go and all gains are achieved at a high cost. It has long been evident that Putin’s strategy is to keep the war going for as long as possible in the hope that Western opinion will turn, though he also hoped that his own forces would do better in their offensives. Even before the start of Ukraine’s June offensive, as the scale of the military task came into view, there was a shift to a longer-term perspective. The focus now is on sustaining the war into next year and even beyond.

Recognising this and working how to cope over the long-term seems to me to be eminently realistic. To me ‘realism’ is a natural requirement for assessing international politics. It accepts the need to deal with the world as it is rather than how one wishes it to be, judging actions by their consequences rather than their motives, paying attention to hard factors of power, including armed force, and calculations of interests when working out strategies, avoiding wishful thinking and doubting appeals to the ‘better nature’ of foreign governments.

In this respect realism can support a variety of positions. It can see virtue in restraint and keeping clear of overseas entanglements but also explain why it is best to confront a state acting aggressively soon rather than later. It does not preclude trusting other governments because interests can be shared and alliances can enhance security. Nor need it be antithetical to idealism. There are great causes worthy of support. All that realism requires is that they are pursued with due regard for what is possible rather than simply what is desirable. It should encourage a grounded discussion about the risks and possibilities of alternative courses of action.

Unfortunately, the term has been appropriated by one position in the current debates, those most sceptical of supporting Ukraine, suggesting that those with a different view are by definition ‘unrealistic’. Colby and other self-declared Realists have taken to highlighting the military challenges faced by Ukraine, and reports about Russia’s ability to sustain its war efforts, as a blow to the Administration’s strategy. This even gets to the point where a lack of Ukrainian military progress is presented as vindication of the theory and one in the eye for liberal internationalists.

Yet these Realists, with a capital ‘R’, have no better idea about how to bring an early end to the war, other than making it impossible for Ukraine to continue. Even those convinced that a negotiation must come flounder when faced with the determination of Ukrainians not to given in to a cruel occupation and Putin’s demands that Ukraine agree the partition of its territory. In the current circumstances it is unavoidably difficult to explain when and how this war will end. Any attempt to do so would be a work of fiction. Wars are contests between two opposing wills. Nothing ever quite goes as smoothly as might be wished in military operations. This war has been through many twists and turns already. There are more to come.

quote:

How a parts shortage and corporate infighting hamper efforts to repair Ukraine's Leopard tanks

Observers warn delays in repairs could undermine Ukraine's war effort

High prices, corporate rivalries and a shortage of spare parts hobbled efforts this spring to set up a new repair facility in Poland for Ukraine's Leopard tanks — and in some cases have limited the usefulness of the donated Western vehicles, CBC News has learned.

Poland, Germany and Canada began discussions back in the spring to set up a maintenance hub for dozens of armoured vehicles donated to the embattled Eastern European country.

The sophisticated main battle tanks were touted in western capitals as a war-winning strategy — one that would help Ukrainians turn the tide and drive Russian troops out of the country.

An existing state-owned Polish defence contractor in the city of Gliwice, west of Krakow in southern Poland, finally began receiving battle-damaged Ukrainian Leopard tanks this summer. NATO officials also have talked about establishing another repair base even closer to the border with Ukraine, in Rzeszów.

But the Gliwice facility was slow to get started because of a shortage of spare parts for the in-demand weapons.

The Polish armaments firm operating the plant — Bumar Labedy SA, a division of the state-owned Polish Armaments Group — has pointed the finger at the German manufacturers of the Leopard 2: Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (which makes the chassis) and Rheinmetall (which makes the cannon).

The Polish firm claims the German companies' refusal to share the intellectual property rights for the various components caused the parts shortage and drove up the cost of repairs.

Gustav Gressel, a defence expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations who served in the Austrian army, said allied governments' efforts to get industry to speed up the pace of repairs have been "dysfunctional" to date.

'A quagmire'

He warned the situation could put Ukraine's war effort at risk.

"It's been quite a quagmire on multiple fronts, unfortunately," he said. "Personally, I thought that the war in Ukraine would actually make all these people a bit more solution-oriented in their thinking, because it's a war at our doorstep."

Half a dozen separate senior sources — Canadians, Ukrainians and European Union citizens working in the defence, diplomatic and business worlds who are familiar with the file but are not authorized to comment publicly — spoke to CBC News for this story.

CBC's request to interview Defence Minister Bill Blair was declined.

A number of countries, including Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Portugal and Poland, pledged earlier this year to donate Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.

More than 70 of them had been delivered as of August 2023, according to a recent report in Forbes Magazine which quoted a Ukrainian soldier. It's believed five were completely destroyed in this summer's counteroffensive and 10 others have been damaged.

Ukraine's allies also have pledged to donate older Leopard 1s.

Countries that operate the Leopard 2A4, including Canada, rely on a global pool of spare parts that has been quickly drained by the demands of the war, much like ammunition stocks. Manufacturers are struggling to restock the shelves.

That shortage has led to a "long turnaround time for [tank] repairs" in Poland, said Gressel.

"It's a problem because it decreases the availability [of the tanks] for Ukraine," he said. "It decreases the useful amount of time that Ukrainians have from a donated vehicle because it takes a long time to service."

A fight over IP

Bumar Labedy SA claims the German firms' refusal to share their IP prevents it from eliminating the backlog by making the parts itself. Gressel said the German firms have, in turn, accused the Polish firm of overcharging allies for the repairs.

"The Poles said the price tag is so high because the parts are so expensive and so rare, because now we have a much higher demand for spare parts," he said.

Both Bumar Labedy SA and Rheinmetall did not respond to requests for comment from CBC News, while an official with Krauss-Maffei Wegmann declined to speak about the matter.

Poland's ambassador to Canada focused on the positive this week, stating in an interview with CBC News that the allies are working to overcome obstacles.

"This hub in Gliwice is there because of the co-operation between Poland and Germany, between governments and businesses," said Witold Dzielski.

"We are happy that at this point there is interest from other allies in providing support to that facility. It is important for us to work together on such initiatives [that are] beneficial to the security of the region and beneficial to Ukrainians fighting for their freedom."

Even with the repair centre now open, some parts remain in short supply.

In a written statement, Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) acknowledged the shortage of spare parts affects Ukraine's allies as well.

Many Leopard 2A4 turret components are no longer in production and there are long lead times for many components, including engines, transmissions and optical parts.

"The war in Ukraine has led to European countries being prioritized in the supply chain, as the worldwide Leopard supply chain is refocusing its support towards orders of newer variants," said DND.

Allied defence ministers met in June to try to resolve the issue, Gressel said.

DND said Canada has been involved in discussions led by Germany and Poland and "the supply of spare parts to maintain and repair damaged main battle tanks is a critical point in these discussions."

The department said that when it donated eight Leopards 2A4s to Ukraine, the tanks came "with a limited supply of spare parts and ammunition, estimated at an approximate value of $5.1 million."

While Allied governments congratulated themselves last spring for cutting deals to get donated tanks to Ukraine, one defence expert in the United Kingdom said the hard work of keeping those armoured vehicles in the field under wartime conditions is just beginning.

Corporate infighting was predictable, says observer

"It's not a matter of where they've been delivered. It's a matter [of] they are being used and they need to be looked after," said Trevor Taylor of the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based defence and security think-tank.

He said allied nations should have anticipated the fight over intellectual property.

"Companies like to have as much to say as possible over how those vehicles are looked after," said Taylor, adding that defence contractors also have a vested interest — economic and legal — in how their products are used.

"In very simple terms, you know, when you buy a new car, if you don't get it serviced at the garage of the facility of the manufacturer, then your warranty disappears. It's that, on a bigger scale."

Nicholas Todd, of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, said that under most circumstances, companies are reluctant to part with their IP rights and prefer to remain in control — or to at least retain some control through licensing.

The idea of manufacturing a piece of military equipment and then leaving the servicing to someone else is an outdated business model, one that does not ensure an enduring revenue stream for the manufacturer, Todd said.

"More and more defence [primary contractors] are looking to do it themselves, and so the IP that they would have been more willing to share with third parties [in the past], they want to keep for themselves," Todd said.

Although the details have not been fully announced, Ottawa intends to put significant money into the Gliwice repair facility as a way of shoring up Ukraine's war effort and encouraging other allies to contribute.

Negotiations between Canada and Poland are ongoing "to formalize our contribution," DND said.

Djarum posted:

I feel especially in terms of Naval warfare you are about to see a change much like how the Aircraft Carrier made the Battleship obsolete. The days of having a few big ships will likely fall to the wayside of many smaller ships, more of them either unmanned or lightly manned. You could see dozens of smaller drone ships handling different aspects of fleet defense from anti-submarine, anti-air, early detection, etc all from a drone/mothership scenario. This would nullify tactics like the Iranian swarm as they wouldn't be able to get close enough to be able to attempt this before detection/destruction. Same with the Chinese mass anti-ship missile tactics as you can sacrifice air based drones to counter them on top of multiple walls of sea based anti-air/missile defenses before they come anywhere near a capital ship.

ethanol posted:

once you start talking about trying to overrun a phalanx and those dozens of anti-missile missiles on the carrier and its escort.. presuming you got close enough in the first place to not be already destroyed by their f18s... i think you're talking about extremely high cost drone systems (high cost because likely need to be moving very fast) not all that different from long range anti ship missiles

WarpedLichen posted:

quote:

Yet these Realists, with a capital ‘R’, have no better idea about how to bring an early end to the war, other than making it impossible for Ukraine to continue.

ethanol posted:

once you start talking about trying to overrun a phalanx and those dozens of anti-missile missiles on the carrier and its escort.. presuming you got close enough in the first place to not be already destroyed by their f18s... i think you're talking about extremely high cost drone systems (high cost because likely need to be moving very fast) not all that different from long range anti ship missiles

i say swears online posted:

you could maybe see things like passive mine-ship-drones that stay just under the surface of the water and start going after ships from a kilometer out, or submarine drones that can sit on the bottom of the ocean for years, waiting

i say swears online posted:

you could maybe see things like passive mine-ship-drones that stay just under the surface of the water and start going after ships from a kilometer out, or submarine drones that can sit on the bottom of the ocean for years, waiting


vvvv what's the amount of time a cruise missile can loiter, a couple minutes?

Mr. Apollo posted:

An article on issues surrounding Leopard 2 repairs.

- Lots of parts for the 2A4 model are no longer produced and the global pool of available parts is rapidly shrinking due to the war.
- The German companies want to retain control of the IP or license it and say the Polish companies performing the repairs are charging too much
- The Polish companies companies say they have to charge as much as they are because the parts are rare and expensive
- Canada intends to put "significant money" into the Polish repair facilities to help the situation and to encourage other allies to do the same

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-leopard-tanks-spare-parts-1.6953968

quote:

Bumar Labedy SA claims the German firms' refusal to share their IP prevents it from eliminating the backlog by making the parts itself. Gressel said the German firms have, in turn, accused the Polish firm of overcharging allies for the repairs.

quote:

This morning multiple RU channels reported a UA offensive around Novodonets'ke, Novomaiors'ke and yesterday there were reports about activity around Shevchenko.

Maera Sior posted:

I didn't see anything else related to accusations of overcharging. Are they implying that the German companies are refusing to send more parts because the Polish companies are overcharging? That's bizarre.

Mr. Apollo posted:

I think it’s more of a general complaint. Reading between the lines, it looks like the Polish companies say they have to charge a lot because they don’t have access to the IP and can only buy the parts from Germany instead of making some of them locally.

Djarum posted:

Less that, more this.

You can also have surface based drones with phalanx or the like as well. Small, cheap and disposable would be the key to it. Sure you can use a expensive missile or whatnot to attack them but when there are dozens out there the trade off is bad and you are wasting weapons that would be better off used for other purposes.

As for an air based anti-missile defense you don't need something fast for defense, you need something that can detect them and move into its path. It is the basics of anti-air weapons systems.

Where the big thing will be for drones in the future I feel is in defensive operations as it will make attacking a high value target much harder and more expensive in both arms and lives to accomplish. The mothership/drone concept has been bounded about in military industrial circles since the late 70s and we are about at the cusp of it becoming reality.

Telsa Cola posted:

Drones are not going to be able to intercept naval missiles. We have a hard enough time making missiles intercept missiles due to the speeds involved.

OctaMurk posted:

all this talk about drones has gotten us to reinventing sub-controlled torpedoes and loitering cruise missiles

Bug Squash posted:

I think it would be rear end backwards to stick an aegis on a drone ship. What we're seeing is the importance of systems being cheap and plentiful. The aim should ultimately be to produce a drone carrier that is so cheap that it's effectively disposable and defending it with an aegis system would be a farcical waste of resources.

Mr. Apollo posted:

I think it’s more of a general complaint. Reading between the lines, it looks like the Polish companies say they have to charge a lot because they don’t have access to the IP and can only buy the parts from Germany instead of making some of them locally.

Maera Sior posted:

I got that, but the article says "in turn" like it's supposed to be a rebuttal. Unless there's something that was pulled from the article, that's no rebuttal at all.

MikeC posted:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1699062036242817431.html

New activity on a previously dormant section of the front. Maybe the Ukrainians are making sure the Russians aren't robbing Peter to pay Paul at Robotyne.

ethanol posted:

3 more phalanxes per ship then. how many of these drones moving at 50 mph do you think we could shoot down or sink with one phalanx? it's like sending a fleet of ww2 propeller planes at the carrier and saying well its defenses are calibrated for fast moving objects so it can't hit them

edit: heck at that point you can even redesign the phalanx to be vastly cheaper, because it no longer needs to hit something moving at mach 3.