What happens in 2025? / new tactics- new technologies

[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.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by MarkSheppard

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

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.

If wasting the enemy's time is the goal then only a few of them real saves scarce resources and slows him down just as well

[Isto]

Yeah, seems Formidable at least. But it should not affect all materials the same. That is a very astonishing Development, i wont downplay that. I just say, that there can be things it wont affect the same. (that picture shows a stronger result than i anticipated)

The effectiveness of such weapon should depend much on the material it is used against. (or yes, but there should be a Kinetic representative, that can go against any current equipment and prevail. And against Missiles espcially, they are weak against Kinetic Force and i suppose Mortar Shells and Artillery Shells are not that sturdy either. I dont know is it really necessary, but many newer US Surface to Air Missiles uses a Kinetic Penetrator too. If im not entirely mistaken, they dont have Explosive Warheads at all as they supposedly think, they are not needed to achieve the goal of shooting missiles down. I also do not fully understand how they function, but thats what is stated on their information in Wikipedia: Kinetic Penetrator - For example, i do not know do they just attempt to head butt the opposing missile, or do they have an Air Burst type penetrator, that explodes as multiple pellets within proximity of the target, or both)

The effective of Kinetic weapons not that much.

Not sure about Mortar Shells, but against Missiles who use lighter chassis on default. Steel is usually not even used ?

Composite Materials are the thing as far as i have read from my limited sources. Mixture of different kind of materials, as light but strong as possible. When laser weapons get more common, they have to take them into account when engineering defences against them. Can very much be, there are several materials that Laser weapons are ineffective against because of how they function.

I am not an expert on Laser weapons. But i do know a mirror reflects them ? So against certain reflective surfaces, it might not behave the same than against pure steel. The Pure Steel (or Rolled Homogenous Armor) is also seen outdated compared to current solutions on armor.

As far as i know, pure steel is an outdated thing even against Kinetic threats. And the Helicopter gets utterly annihilated against Air Burst munitions. They are not only Blinded, but they become a Wreck and are basically Destroyed. They are so slow moving target, that it is not likely, that they can ever evade a sophisticated Autocannon system. The moment it shows itself, is very likely the moment it is wrecked. Thats why modern Helicopters uses approach, where they can shoot missiles without being seen. But that is also not necessary, as you can do that with Infantry Platforms and Ground Platforms too, there really is no difference do you launch a missile like Spike from a Helicopter or a Ground Platform. You can still hide behind terrain, and guide it mid flight without being seen yourself. Except the Helicopter price is most likely more than 10 times the price of a Ground system. But against peer opponent, you cannot bring Helicopters in the open. You will most likely end up using them the same way as Artillery. And then, why would you not just focus on the Artillery in the first place. And for example, German IRIS-T missiles can be shot against Helicopters without actually seeing them. They have a sophisticated Hunt and Seek Algorithm, that will hunt the helicopters in the blind. No matter, is it in the open or not.

So they just have to start to use different chassis that is adjusted to be resistant against Laser type weaponry. The mortars and shells might not be the problem, if you have seeker missiles that is capable of destroying the laser system.

The laser systems might not be costly to use as shot per shot basis. But the building of the laser system itself should be expensive. Each destroyed laser system is not cheap, and if you can effectively make hunt and seek offline missiles immune to them with sophisticated seek and destroy algorithms. Then the laser systems are in serious danger against them and after the laser systems have been neutralized, you can start use the normal Mortar and Artillery Shells. There might not be real need to adjust Mortar and Artillery Shells against Laser Weaponry, if you can effectively Neutralize them with missiles that the Laser Weapons cannot counter. Then the result should be, that you combine the Laser System with Missile Defence and Kinetic Defence. But the Laser Defence alone, might not be enough in itself. And the Air Burst munition is very capable a defence system also, which can make a Laser System an expensive asset to produce, which ends up performing a very limited role, that can also be performed by other, more well rounded platforms, like Autocannons too.

Against Kinetic Force, i suppose they are better against lighter targets, as in missiles, than against Mortar rounds. But as far as i have been informed, you can use Kinetic force against Mortar and Artillery Shells too.

Kinetic Force will not outdate in my opinion. I am very sceptical of the path of development many Armies have decided to take (Autonomous Robot Armies, Fully Autonomous Systems, Wing Man Planes, Laser Weaponry, Wireless Connectivity and so on). I very much value the Traditional Methods, and Traditional equipment made Sophisticated (like Autocannons, Artillery, Missiles and Human Controlled Fighter Jets).

The main idea of Wing Man Plan is represented as, that it "Draws Fire" and enables to operate within a Danger Zone. But if you have equipment like JASSM Extended Range, with 2 000 km of range. Why would you ever go within the Danger Zone, if you can pummel all of their air defence without ever put your own assets to risk. And then, where you need Wing Man planes, if you never plan to operate within any danger zones. The Missile is not that different of a Wing Man Plane, but i suppose building a missile should be cheaper, and take less of product capability. To choose between multiple Cruise Missiles and few Wing Man Planes. Can very much be, that a Cruise Missile is the better option. The future development of Cruise Missile also start to resemble more and more like a plane. So a Future Cruise Missile might not be that different from a Wing Man Plane (as in, they shoot missiles to guard the cruise missile against enemy surface to air missiles and so on, and have cluster warheads, which each of them have separate Hunt and Seek mechanism that is capable of operating without any connection to the host as in, in Offline Heavy EW environment - You basically just launch them endlessly, until all of opposing is gone. It is that simple, and do not take any skill, because it does everything automated without any connection to the launching platform).

And after the Heavy Air Defence is gone, you can move to distance 2, and start to Glide Bomb them with similar warheads, that use cluster approach and are fully operational offline. Its the same function, but without a motor.

The Counter Battery Fire, you can fully automate. The radar detects and calculates the opposing fire arc, and automatically sends a Counter Battery mission without delay. The crew do not even have to inform, or only click "Confirm Fire Mission". This is especially used against so called "Shoot and Scoot" missions, as the Counter Battery Fire Mission can start even before the rounds land if the calculation procedure is fast enough. There might even be as little than 20 or 30 seconds between the opposing Fire Mission and the response in Counter Battery Fire mission in this kind of system. And of course, a normal Tank should be entirely capable of this too. Not only specialized artillery platforms.

This is how i think. Very simple. And the emphasis is to have enough of Offline Hunt and Seek Capabilities that you wont run out of them, and can overwhelm the opposing defences.


Just something to say. to warn if planning to go Full Laser Route while neglecting other type of systems. There can very much be crucial weaknesses in them, and most likely there are. If it functions well on something very basic like a Mortar Shell or normal Missile, it might not function at all against Specialized Equipment, that is designed to counter them. And then, you become very dependant on other type of platforms to protect them as they themselves, can only function against limited type of assets. Making it a very Specialized Platform with a narrow function as a whole. As the Autocannon is kind of a Fix it All kind of platform. There is not, or should not be anything in the future, that can effectively become immune to its functions. It can function well against any and each target alone. And then, you have different Munitions to specialize against certain roles.


Just as a Joke, i can envision a Future army with High Tech capabilities for a direction not to go:

1. Make all your systems Wireless, as part of one large Wireless network.

2. Stop educating your soldiers on Mechanical use of Weaponry, only educate them on Remote Operations.

3. Never use any other assets than Remote Controlled assets, that are dependant on Wireless Connectivity.

4. Never make any Offline copies of any Information, and never make an equipment, not even a normal Body Armor, that is not linked on Wireless Network.

5. Destroy all Kinetic Weaponry, and only use Laser, Energy and EW Weaponry.

6. Especially the Ballistic Defence systems, make them only use Laser.