What happens in 2025? / new tactics- new technologies

[DRG]

Tactics on the battlefield always evolve or in this case, are rediscovered. It is more noticeable with drones because its' use is evolving so quickly

They discovered quickly in WW1 that the light bombers needed fighter support and the Ukrainians have simply applied that lesson to the new tech

[MarkSheppard]

Speaking of evolution; right now, the gangs in Haiti are using drones in a method similar to Hamas during the first few days of the Gaza War; i.e. for recon and to drop grenades onto the Haitian police.

Moving off Haiti and onto Israel v Hamas in Gaza...

Apparently one of the reasons we haven't seen a lot of drone footage from Gaza of Hamas v. Israel since the first few weeks of this (current) war is because the IDF brought up a lot of EW equipment once they came under attack from drones and managed to achieve a modicum of electronic warfare superiority.

Moving off drones...

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/...rmy-no-2-says/

EXCLUSIVE: Strykers with 50-kilowatt lasers in CENTCOM for experiment, Army No. 2 says
By ASHLEY ROQUE on March 01, 2024 at 10:05 AM

“Is it 100 percent ready? Is it going to work perfectly? Probably not but we're going to learn from it,” Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Mingus told Breaking Defense.

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. — Early last month, the US Army sent four Stryker-mounted 50-kilowatt laser prototypes to the Middle East for real-world testing that includes facing down dust particles, the service’s new vice chief, Gen. James Mingus, revealed to Breaking Defense.

“It’s a prototype, but we want to experiment in a live environment,” Mingus said Wednesday in his first interview since being sworn in as the vice-chief in January. “Is it 100 percent ready? Is it going to work perfectly? Probably not, but we’re going to learn from it.”

At a breakfast in February, Army Chief Gen. Randy George said the US Central Command (CENTCOM) region is aligned to receive new counter-unmanned aerial systems (C-UAS) as part of his new “transforming in contact” push where users, developers and testers can converge and provide feedback. Part of that initiative seemingly includes the Directed Energy Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (DE M-SHORAD) prototype that integrates a 50-kilowatt laser onto Strykers to down class 1 to 3 aerial drones and incoming rockets, artillery and mortars. (Kord Technologies was tasked with integrating an RTX laser onto combat vehicles.)

Four of those prototypes arrived in CENTCOM’s area of operations in early February, and the service has begun initial testing activities but not live-fire ones. Once they do, Mingus surmised that it may take several months to process observations that could fuel tech maturation and acquisition decisions.

“Our high-energy lasers are so susceptible to weather. That’s why I think this is going to be a great laboratory because anytime there’s a dust storm, anytime there’s that kind of thing, it starts to alter the physics of the light particles that actually shoot that beam,” he said.

One question the service is looking to answer is just which class of lasers is right for the threat set, instead of people simply getting enamored with the power difference between 300-kilowatt lasers versus 50-kilowatt ones. Specifically, Mingus wants more answers about the directed energy value per square centimeter.

“You may have a 50-kilowatt laser, [but] at 10 kilometers can you put at least four kilowatts in a centimeter square because … that’s what you need to burn through a quarter inch steel plate?” he asked. “But that’s really hard to get … from a big beam to get the small portion of it on the exact spot to be able to burn at that high intensity and any kind of dust particle or that starts to disrupt that.”

If this experiment series proves fruitful, it could help the service decide if that 50-kilowatt class laser is the right fit, or if it should maybe spend more time looking at a 28-kilowatt option.

At the same time, service leaders are also keeping an eye on logistics concerns associated with keeping high-energy weapons up and running on the battlefield, where higher tech replacement parts aren’t in plenty. But because the DE M-SHORAD system is still a prototype and not mass, this round of testing is not representative of the exact challenges soldiers will face on the battlefield since the supply chain remains “shallow.”

“We knew that, but we thought that it was still worth pushing them over there,” he added.

The proliferation of aerial drones on the battlefield in places like Ukraine and in the Red Sea — to include loitering, one-way attack ones — is accelerating a push to develop and field new defense weapons to down them. CENTCOM, in particular, has in recent months contended with dozens of attacks on US installations in Iraq and Syria — as well as a drone attack in Jordan that killed three American soldiers — though those attacks have taped off since the fatal incident.

While Pentagon leaders note the need for such weapons, they are also grappling with the per-kill cost of launching kinetic interceptors that can be in the millions of dollars.

If directed energy ones like the DE M-SHORAD prove fruitful in mass, it offers a window for significantly lowering that per-unit kill price point and/or providing commanders with a mix of kinetic and directed energy C-UASs to use depending on the threat set or weather conditions.

[Isto]

Not sure is it appropriate to comment on this thread on this subject. But somehow i see Energy Weapons, especially Laser weapons of something that might not stand the test of time. There might be a timeframe they excell, but that timeframe might stay short as others adapt to their use.

It can be as easy, than just coat the missile with a material, that either absorbs or mirrors the beam away in some way.

For example, if you shoot Laser beam to mirror, what happens ?


So the production of Laser Weapons, can be very expensive and time consuming. When the counter can be very cheap, easy and simple. So in the end, can very much be, that it is not worth it.

But the Air Burst munition for example, that use kinetic projectiles that can track the missile and change direction in the air, exploding to hundreds of pellets before hitting the target, even one pellet enough to possible neutralize the target. Can be shot on rapid fire rates like 300 rounds per minute on 40-50mm platform and something like 120 rounds a minute with 76mm platform, and 90 rounds a minute with 127mm platform or the likes. Which can become the Mainstay for any Infantry Fighting Vehicle (An Airburst fully automated CIWS turret that tracks and destroys missiles, drones, loitering munitions automatically offering close range air defence to troops, artillery, supply and so).

The smaller calibers can even be installed to a tank. For example, a future thank contains 2 x 25mm CIWS turrets with AirBurst munition in both sides of turret. And for why not, also can transport infantry similar than IFV (like Merkava can) and function as Artillery shooting guided munitions.

No matter what kind of missiles, drones or loitering munitions you develop in the future, the AirBurst munition is always relevant against them because it uses Kinetic Energy to destroy the target.

This is the route Italy Army have chosen. They go the Autocannon route, and are heavily invested in AirBurst type of munitions. You can see this in their Navy too. When others install few turrets in their Ships, Italy instals 4 in each ship (3 in front, and one in back so, that at certain angle, they can all fire at same direction). The largest of these can be used to shoot guided munitions further away than 120 kilometers. So especially in that Mediterranean area, those turrets have a high threat range to ships too, can be used to Shore Bombardment instead of missiles, and can be used to effectically neutralize any missile Threats to the ships. The munition is also way cheaper to produce than missiles, and you can take more of them on the ship than missiles. Lets say opposing ship have 80 missiles, they can very well have 8 000 munitions available against them and they are effective on neutralizing any missile threats, as they track the missile, and change course in the air, exploding on front of target to smaller pellets on rapid fire rate. It is a new development, the AirBurst (OTO Melara) and Vulcano rounds are new. Germany uses the similar type of munitions, but they emphasis on smaller caliber (35mm Millenium Gun) combined with Missile Defence (IRIS-T) - SkyGuard.


So for example. What can a tank like i described achieve ?

It can support the troops with Guided Artillery fire. It can protect itself and the troops with AirBurst CIWS munitions from any aerial threats. It can transport the troops. So if needed, you could only produce them and they can do everything you need (Air Defence, Artillery Support and Transporting the Troops). You can only produce one platforms, and just spam it.

If you want higher caliber air defence, you can make dedicated 76mm Air Burst Autocannon unit, that can be operated by 2 persons. And when parked somewhere on standby (automated), the crew can get out and do not even need to be within the vehicle, as it is fully automated. Italy already uses this approach, and it is operational.


For these reasons. I would not invest on Laser equipment. I would invest on Autocannons. How i see things (and i suppose, how Italy sees it). Automated Autocannons is the platform for the future, and the development of Seek and Destroy algorithm for the Guided Artillery and Autocannon munitions in Low and Mid Range. That is the most Cost Effective way.

You do not need Drones or Loitering Munitions, if you have Guided Munitions. Guided Munitions are always superior to Drones, and you only use Drones because you are out of Guided Munitons, or do not have the option to acquire them. If you could choose as a commander, you would of course always choose a Guided Munition or Missile over Loitering Muniton or Drone because their properties are superior.

The Seek and Destroy Algorithm: can even be very simple. It only need to function Offline (as in high EW environment) and be able to confirm than target, seek and destroy (independently offline after the launch).

It is also a matter of Logistics. You need less storage space and less Maintenance. When you have less platforms with Motors, less Missiles (platforms with Motors) and so on.

Having stored enough Guided Rounds. Makes you very powerful player in the military scene. And they will be relevant now and forever. This will never change. (if they are Offline Guided).

(And if needed, can possibly be coated against Laser Weapons).


These Properties:

1. Is able to Seek and Destroy targets independently without Outside Guidance.

2. Is coated against Laser Weapons.

Then what you do, when opponent pummels endlessly with this kind of munition and you invested on Laser Defence, which is not functional against them. And your EW does nothing ?

And then when you launch your small supply of expensive Missiles to them, they get destroyed by high volume of Guided Air Burst Munitions which is a mainstay for even the most basic of troops.


It sounds very fancy and futuristic to speak of High Tech Laser Weapons and Autonomous Platforms. But in the end can very much be, that they achieve nothing and the direct approach is way more Efficient.

The only AI you really need is Seek and Destroy Algorithm.


The Rail Gun development i see as something that would be relevant. But the problem for it consuming too much energy to be practical may never be fixed, and there might never be new energy sources. The Cold Fusion probably, consumes more energy than produces because the laws of physics dictate so meaning, that most likely it can never be used as an Energy Source.

I also feel like, that certain Thresholds have been achieved in Technology Development on certain areas. That cannot be broken. The Laws of Physics dictate so, and the challenge is to fine tune the existing techniques rather than, find new ones as very possibly (in some cases), the new techniques are not there if the Laws of Physics cannot be altered.

Foe example, the technique for CIWS was originally introduced in the 70's (if i remember right) trough Phalanx CIWS, and stays relative for a long time to come. The challenge have been to fine tune it. But include modern Air Burst munition to the original Phalanx CIWS code, and it will be very effective even without changing the direction of the munitions in the air, what the current algorithm and development can achieve.

Still, even the oldest Phalanx CIWS have not outdated yet, and probably never will.

Of course the original Phalanx CIWS could not use the Air Burst munition without Update. But the Update for it would probably be very minor. The same with the guided Air Burst. It is probably not a major update for the Program, but a major update for the Ammunition it uses.

[MarkSheppard]

Originally Posted by Isto

It can be as easy, than just coat the missile with a material, that either absorbs or mirrors the beam away in some way.

They give a specific power figure in the above article (4 kW/cm2) and a specific penetration figure at 10 km (quarter inch steel plate = 6.35mm)

The 122 mm OF-462 artillery shell has a wall thickness of about 17mm

LINK to drawing

60 to 80mm mortars have a wall thickness of about 12mm

81mm mortar drawing

60mm mortar drawing

A large commercial aircraft like the 747/Airbus/etc has about 2 to 4 mm skin thickness in aluminum; while ballistic missiles differ -- Titan II ICBM had a maximum skin thickness of 6~mm; while the Titan III Space Launch Vehicle went up to 12~mm to support heavier payloads on top.

[Aeraaa]

A very interesting article about the way drones shape the battlefield in Ukraine:

https://warontherocks.com/2024/03/dr...onary-fashion/

[MarkSheppard]

Babe, new drone specialized type just dropped!

Russians have started to deploy FPS and battlefield UAS using fiber optics guidance

https://twitter.com/clashreport/stat...36910943613005

New Russian Russian FPV drone with a coil of thin fiber optic cable over 10 kilometers long.

The drone transmits digital, real-time video over a 10.5km spool of fiber-optic cable.

This kind of drone is almost impossible to stop with EW.

[DRG]

The only way to simulate that in the game is to give a drone a very high EW value.

That would be better suited to scenario work as I doubt these are going to become really common

[MarkSheppard]

Russia is now using semi or powered glide bomb kits.

Basically normal FAB bombs with pop out wings and GPS guidance; and in some cases, a small turbojet to extend range.

It's how they were able to take Avdiivka -- by dropping 100~ of them each day.

This way, they can drop them from 60-70 km away, and stay out of range of Ukrainian SAMs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...orce-avdiivka/

In an account posted on the social media site Telegram during the battle, Maksym Zhorin of Ukraine’s 3rd Separate Assault Brigade described how 60 to 80 of the glide bombs were crashing into his area every day. “These bombs completely destroy any position. All buildings and structures simply turn into a pit after the arrival of just one.”

Since January, Russian airstrikes across the front line have routinely exceeded 100 a day, with nearly 160 occurring four days before Avdiivka fell, he said.

Big difference over the last few months of Russian glide bomb use is that instead of 250 kg bombs as a base... it's now 1500 kg (!!!)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2511360.html

The FAB-1500 (ФАБ-1500) is the latest iteration. It includes 675kg of explosives, can be fired from between 40km and 70km away from its target, and has a destruction radius of 200 metres. It has been nicknamed the “building destroyer” by Russian war bloggers.

[MarkSheppard]

Back to lasers:

https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/statu...66050308551008

Britain showed the results of the DragonFire combat laser.

It is reported that the photos of the British government laboratory of defense equipment shows the results of the laser - it burned through a 120-mm mortar shell, cut the metal casing and burned the camera of the copter.

Also the day before, the British Ministry of Defense showed a video of a laser test.

DragonFire was successfully tested in January of this year. The laser is stated to be very accurate with a direct beam, can hit visible targets at the speed of light, and is very cheap to use.

Bunch of media at that twitter post; but the one most of interest (once I do calculations) is this:

[MarkSheppard]

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/...64270247350478

Tests of Ukrainian mine laying drone equipped with 15 TM-62 anti tank mines

Rather simple; the mines are attached to each other by string, so it requires somewhat level ground, and it results in a very obvious pattern. More of a "deny ground" tactic that wastes the enemy's time by forcing them to dismount and demine.