(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
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. I've heard Ukrainians make the claim that almost every artillery mission they fire is drone observed/corrected because to do otherwise is a virtually complete waste of munitions and while I expect that the 'every' part is exaggerated, I don't doubt that that is basically the goal.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 01:18 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:30 |
|
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. Mr. Apollo fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Sep 5, 2023 |
# ? Sep 5, 2023 04:52 |
|
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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 05:47 |
|
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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 05:56 |
|
Based on western reporting, Ukrainian MoD statements, and general twitter chatter it does seem like they have broken through a part of the main Russian defensive line and are continuing to make progress there. Although they have breached the line, I do not think the Ukrainians are in the process of exploiting said breakthrough.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 07:35 |
|
e: wrong thread
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 09:24 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 13:59 |
|
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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 14:12 |
|
Mr. Apollo posted:Oh, people said that he was just cursing that it was a close hit. He's clearly in pain after that.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 14:19 |
|
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: 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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 14:28 |
|
Interesting news from Cuba. Apparently they aren't happy with Russia trying to recruit Cuban citizens to fight in Ukraine. So it's not just Russia's neighbours, it looks like, but possibly all 'legacy' allies. https://www.politico.eu/article/cuba-dismantles-russian-human-trafficking-ring-for-war-recruitment/ 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
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 14:40 |
|
Torrannor 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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 14:57 |
|
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. Plus this is a relatively resource-poor conflict between two sides unable to use air power and that can seldom afford to gather more than 3 or 4 armored vehicles and a few, often depleted platoons together. Drones are proving highly effective against isolated vehicles, but against larger units would probably be a lot easier to suppress. Particularly the short range from the operators and the need for noisy transmitters means those drone pilots are going to have very short life expectancy if either side has air support.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 15:30 |
|
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
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 15:43 |
|
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 Yeah, there is a whee bit of difference in how a 5 million dollar drone is used vs. a 3000 dollar one. 3 orders of magnitude () difference in cost is kinda a big deal.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 15:47 |
|
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 This specifically speaks for the US experience *with* using drones and how that clearly some of that knowledge has been shared with Ukraine.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 16:04 |
|
On the topic of drones and anti drone weaponry, I think the latest Rusi link had an interesting anecdote:quote:Only 3% of Ukrainian artillery-fire missions are smoke Other interesting things I saw: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-really-is-using-tires-to-protect-its-bombers-from-attack The drive speculates that tires are designed to counter infrared seekers that missiles use for terminal guidance. A good read on "Realists" and the argument to pivot away from Ukraine: https://samf.substack.com/p/american-grand-strategy-realism-and?r=15i4j0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email Excerpts: 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. 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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 16:27 |
|
I doubt drones make anything obsolete. Tanks didn't make infantry obsolete, or make cannons obsolete. They did result in new munitions for cannons (armor piercing rounds, etc.), forced infantry to change tactics, etc. Drones will be--are being--incredibly disruptive, but I don't see infantry, armor, artillery, reconnaissance, communications, command posts, etc. being relegated to obsolesence by them.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 16:32 |
|
More to the point, drone counters are still largely in their infancy. Specialised anti drone defences are being worked on, from EW to kinetic to DE. The state has not reached equilibrium yet and I would hesitate to make any grand proclamations about the shape of the future battlefield just yet (except to say that anti-drone systems will certainly be a vital part).
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 16:45 |
|
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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 16:49 |
|
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:How a parts shortage and corporate infighting hamper efforts to repair Ukraine's Leopard tanks
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 16:55 |
|
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. 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
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 17:00 |
|
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 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? i say swears online fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Sep 5, 2023 |
# ? Sep 5, 2023 17:06 |
|
all this talk about drones has gotten us to reinventing sub-controlled torpedoes and loitering cruise missiles
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 17:24 |
|
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. This sums it up really well, although I'd add that for some (not all, maybe not even most), this is a feature, not a bug.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 17:31 |
|
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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 17:37 |
|
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 Less that, more this. 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 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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 17:40 |
|
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 depends on the cruise missile and how far away from the target you are when you launch it, just the same as it would be for a jet powered kamikaze drone. because theyre the same thing
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 17:45 |
|
Mr. Apollo posted:An article on issues surrounding Leopard 2 repairs. 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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 17:58 |
|
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1699062036242817431.htmlquote:This morning multiple RU channels reported a UA offensive around Novodonets'ke, Novomaiors'ke and yesterday there were reports about activity around Shevchenko. 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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 18:07 |
|
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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 18:14 |
|
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. It's basically capitalim in action. Now governments are talking about how to best force everyone to work nicely together.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 18:17 |
|
Djarum posted:Less that, more this. 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
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 18:19 |
|
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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 18:26 |
|
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. 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. ethanol fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Sep 5, 2023 |
# ? Sep 5, 2023 18:38 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 18:45 |
|
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.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 19:19 |
|
MikeC posted:https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1699062036242817431.html Threatening Donetsk would be bad news for the Russians, and we can only hope this turns into another Kharkiv scenario.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 19:37 |
|
Regarding tech obsolescence, especially with regards to naval warfare, it's worth noting that while a lot of popular imagination gets stuck on the big changes that did prove decisive, ("Nimble cheap aircraft make big battleships obsolete!") there were a lot of technological advances that turned out to be dead-ends, or useful but only after the tech had matured a lot more, or useful but not as originally intended. For instance, during the Victorian period there was a point where navies seriously talked about and designed their ships to ram, under the argument that recent advances in both steam propulsion and metallurgy improving armor quality meant that guns were no longer an effective means of defeating enemy warships, and that the warship of the future was therefore a heavy, steam-powered ironclad designed to use its own sheer bulk to ram and sink enemy ships. Advances in armor-piercing shells and heavy guns revealed that vision of the future - based on the existing technology at the time - to be a wash. Zepplins, meanwhile, were at one point considered a decisive future weapon for naval scouting, utterly changing the face of naval warfare when admirals could know at all times where the enemy was without risking their forces in direct confrontation. Unfortunately it turns out that zepplins were overly sensitive to the weather and that aerial scouting could at times be unreliable about what exactly you're looking at. Later, Jacky Fisher himself, the reformer who prepared the Royal Navy for WW1, argued that the submarine would make big-gun battleships obsolete, when silent death could come from any quarter to sink the large, expensive lumbering dreadnoughts. As it turns out sonar and destroyer screens would make it difficult for a submarine to actually harm a capital ship in a battlefleet, at least not in decisive amounts that mattered, but submarines DID prove very effective at trade interdiction. And then again modern subs might genuinely be dangerous enough to be able to hunt capital ships on their own by now, after technology has advanced further. Drones can and likely will change the face of warfare, but it's worth keeping in mind that it's not always easy to predict HOW, and that declaring such and such a thing relegated inevitably to the dustbin of history may well be premature, especially if you haven't considered how countermeasures against new technology might be developed.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 19:45 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:30 |
|
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 You have it backwards. The aircraft carrier isn't going to go obsolete because a drone carrier could destroy it. Maybe a Nimitz and larger is effectively invincible, maybe not. But that probably won't be the deciding factor. I strongly suspect the aircraft carrier is going to go obsolete because a drone carrier will do it's fundamental role many many times cheaper, more flexibly, and be a riskable asset. The aircraft carrier is still going to exist because there is so much money invested in them, but their actual involvement in warfare is going to become very rare.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2023 19:45 |