Azerbaijani-Armenian Conflict

[MillerEP 30447]

So this war/conflict has been going on two weeks, and it's showing the world why Tanks are a thing of the past. For those who like to study military history, this is a war to keep an eye on. Especially if it blows up into a regional affair since Russia backs Armenia, and Turkey  backs Azerbaijan. 

Obviously Azerbaijan has much greater resources that Armenia, so they should be able to outlast them, but out of both supposedly have lost over 300 tanks a piece and it has only been 11 days or so of fighting.

[Js1 85293]

Noted Armenian affairs expert Kim Kardashian West has already weighed in. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21875]

Amid a lively debate about the viability of the UK’s heavy armour, the loss of over 42 Armenian T-72s to Azerbaijani forces in Nagorno-Karabakh requires further analysis.

Despite the heavy Armenian armoured losses, the key lessons from the videos Azerbaijan has published online are not about armour. Rather, they reflect how the density of sensors on the modern battlefield is changing the balance in combined arms warfare.

Before tackling this, some myths need to be challenged. There is a tendency for Western soldiers to dismiss what can be learned from these incidents because the videos show limited tactical proficiency being displayed by Armenian troops. This is misguided for several reasons. The snippet videos usually show armour manoeuvring, when camouflage is hard to maintain, and which Western forces would equally have to do if they were to affect the outcome of battle. The videos have also been selected as examples of Azerbaijani successes. However, there is actually a lot of evidence of Armenian forces digging in, concealing positions, and deploying decoys, of which at least two were struck by Azerbaijani forces.

More importantly, this dismissal of evidence suggests a lack of appreciation of just how naked the modern battlefield has become. Against a peer adversary it is entirely reasonable to expect the battlefield to be swept by ground-moving target indicator (GMTI) radars, with tactical units able to scan terrain out to 150 km. Night or day, unusual cross-terrain movements, coordinated spacing, and lack of adherence to civilian roads, all make military vehicles highly distinct to trained operators.

A further layer of scrutiny will come from electronic warfare units. Dependency upon radio in Western operations is a hard habit to kick, especially given the stringent safety standards in exercises. Western forces tend to leave a tell-tale map of electronic signatures for an adversary to analyse. Even platoon infantry attacks tend to see a lot of exchanges on the company net. For a competent adversary these signatures offer another potent tool to map Western forces’ movements.

Such stand-off ISTAR techniques are unlikely to provide track-quality targeting solutions, unless the adversary intends to saturate a large area. It is the threat of area targeting that has driven the UK to experiment with dispersed manoeuvre with its STRIKE concept, rendering long-range area saturation uneconomical. But these techniques will be quite capable of identifying areas of interest to prioritise the allocation of UAVs and other electrooptical sensor bearers.

The hope that camouflage will conceal vehicles from observation is highly optimistic. The proliferation of infrared and thermal imaging cameras makes concealment harder – by night or day – and even vehicles under thermal screens can often be given away by personnel leaving those screens to urinate or similar, all too human, needs. More importantly, some traces are hard to cover. The best evidence that armour will be unable to hide is that Western tracked vehicles struggle to avoid observation by friendly UAVs on exercise, which can quickly follow track marks on the ground to the woodblock where a vehicle is hiding.

To conclude from this that the tank’s days are numbered, however, is a serious error. From the videos in Nagorno-Karabakh it is evident that unarmoured vehicles and dismounted infantry are faring no better, even those dug into positions with camouflage screens. Indeed, the lack of protection means they will likely fare worse since there are more kinds of munitions that are lighter and easier to employ that can kill them.

Besides the vulnerability of other kinds of vehicle, the ability to inflict persistent attrition upon an adversary at reach does not change the fact that land warfare is about taking and holding ground, and the ground will still ultimately need to be assaulted. Once committed to an assault on defended positions, armour remains critical to rapid success with acceptable losses. The challenge is to get a combined arms formation within striking distance without it having suffered heavy losses before entering the direct fire zone. Armenia, for instance, has lost the equivalent number of tanks to more than a third of the UK’s heavy armour inventory.

The lessons are far reaching. Heavy formations must likely disperse to avoid being engaged by area-of-effect munitions at reach. This makes protecting them from UAVs and air attack more challenging, requiring the integration of short-ranged air defences (SHORAD) across tactical units, along with EW – specifically electronic attack – capabilities. This means a move away from camouflage towards hard protection, able to sanitise areas of the battlefield of enemy ISTAR assets. This does not prevent detection, however, since finding UAVs and engaging them will require radar – especially at night – which implies the need for  emissions detectable by enemy EW.

Therefore, a broader shift in mindset is required as to how combined arms manoeuvre functions. Infliction of attrition against enemy ISTAR must be prioritised to degrade the enemy’s sensor picture to a point where they will struggle to distinguish decoys from real targets. Deception, saturating the electromagnetic spectrum, and other active rather than passive means will be needed to protect the force as it moves into direct contact. Once in contact many traditional tactics and capabilities will remain relevant.

A critical challenge to be worked out is how to transition from a dispersed approach to a concentrated attack, since at the forming-up point there will be a significant vulnerability to artillery, anti-tank guided weapons and other threats. This is a key area of focus in developing robust tactics.

Challenges like this transition – ultimately resolvable through tactics and the employment of systems of technologies – highlight how the debate over future capabilities needs to shift. The challenge is not whether tanks are obsolete, but how a system of capabilities can be fielded and trained that gets the force to where it needs to be, with enough combat power to achieve the desired result. It is the system, not the platforms, and the balance within that system that we need to get right.

That new system of fighting – understanding the balance of capabilities critical to the future of combined arms operations – must also go further than articulating how to blind the enemy’s sensors. It must also outline how to reverse the calculus and impose comparable challenges on the enemy. Here there are more difficult structural questions to be resolved. The British Army had intended to disband 32 Regiment Royal Artillery, responsible for employing tactical UAVs, because it felt that UAVs should become organic across the force. There is a risk, however, that this would leave UAVs as an enabler to augment what regiments do already. The absence of a community of excellence to challenge thinking, develop new tactics and inform other units about the implications, is a problem, which has led to the regiment ultimately being retained. At the same time, keeping UAVs as a capability integrated throughout the force promises to encourage combined arms employment. Similar challenges might be asked about counter-UAV and EW systems. Should they be grouped at echelon, or attached organically to manoeuvre elements? If the latter is pursued, how can British forces avoid fratricide in the electromagnetic spectrum?

The answers to these questions can only be found through experimentation. In that sense while the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh highlights some key deficiencies in British forces – SHORAD, EW, UAVs – the answer cannot be a series of binary trade-offs between platforms. Instead, it cuts to the heart of what the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, highlighted in his recent address on the Integrated Review: the British Army should build a force fit for a new age of warfare.

Jack Watling is Research Fellow for Land Warfare in the Military Sciences team at RUSI.

[atomheartbevo 89630]

If only we could inject the Irish into this somehow, it would solve a lot of the world's problems.

And the Dutch.

[davidg 4036]

Haven't read too much on this but back in the early 2000s, there was a pretty nice bar/disco/go-kart track in Baku.  Was installing some equipment on a big semi-submersible at a shipyard and we learned of this place from some of the rig crew.  Loser of the race had to buy the next round and in between races you could set in the disco and watch young Russian girls dance with each other.   

[MillerEP 30447]

 

[Stannis 232]

1. Armenian & AZ T-72s are generations behind American M1A2s in armor protection, mobility, firepower, and crew ergonomics.

2. Neither Armenia nor AZ implement "combined arms" in the way the US is capable of implementing combined arms.  Our supporting infantry, artillery, armored vehicles, drones, and air support obviously dwarf anything these two combatants can employ.

3. Nonetheless, the wars in Syria, Yemen, and now Azerbaijan do show a level of tank vulnerability to crewed anti-tank weapons and man-portable anti-tank weapons that has concerned war-planners in the United States.  In fact, the Marines are phasing out the entirety of their armored forces, though that largely is due to mission differences between what the Marines and the Army will be expected to do in the next 25 years: rapidly deploy to hot spots in the South China Sea (USMC) vs. slug it out in urban warfare or in patched battles (Army).

4. Most people don't know this, but Azerbaijan deployed troops in support of American troops fighting in Iraq in the mid-2000s.  They provided perimeter security to several vital US bases in Anbar Province: Haditha Dam and Al Asad Air Base.  That's not particularly relevant to this conflict, other than to the extent it gives the State Department pause to reflexively support Armenia.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Stannis

[MillerEP 30447]

28 minutes ago, Stannis said:

4. Most people don't know this, but Azerbaijan deployed troops in support of American troops fighting in Iraq in the mid-2000s.  They provided perimeter security to several vital US bases in Anbar Province: Haditha Dam and Al Asad Air Base.  That's not particularly relevant to this conflict, other than to the extent it gives the State Department pause to reflexively support Armenia.

I did two tours in Iraq, first was in Al Asad between the Hit-Haditha corridor, and the second was at the Haditha Dam. I used to chuckle rolling up into the Dam, because the Azerbaijani's were manning the gate with an old Soviet ZPU-4 just angled straight down the road. I'm sure it'll fuck something up if it fired, but it was super out of place.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

5 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

I did two tours in Iraq, first was in Al Asad between the Hit-Haditha corridor, and the second was at the Haditha Dam. I used to chuckle rolling up into the Dam, because the Azerbaijani's were manning the gate with an old Soviet ZPU-4 just angled straight down the road. I'm sure it'll fuck something up if it fired, but it was super out of place.

Reminds me of Kim Jong Un executing one of his opponents with an AA cannon.

[Deej 76755]

15 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

I did two tours in Iraq, first was in Al Asad between the Hit-Haditha corridor, and the second was at the Haditha Dam. I used to chuckle rolling up into the Dam, because the Azerbaijani's were manning the gate with an old Soviet ZPU-4 just angled straight down the road. I'm sure it'll fuck something up if it fired, but it was super out of place.

Should have just aimed it at the dam. 

[Homercles 10205]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Reminds me of Kim Jong Un executing one of his opponents with an AA cannon.

I’d rather go instantly due to something like that instead of bleeding out slowly.  The horrible middle ground seems to be that 20 mike mike or whatever it was the Germans were rolling around at the end of Saving Private Ryan.  

[Captainant 27638]

13 minutes ago, Homercles said:

I’d rather go instantly due to something like that instead of bleeding out slowly.  The horrible middle ground seems to be that 20 mike mike or whatever it was the Germans were rolling around at the end of Saving Private Ryan.  

A 20mm bofors gun would prolly be pretty quick too, at least faster than an MG. Lots more hydrostatic shock

Also thanks for the share Nevermarry, I enjoy studying military history and it's interesting to see a significant jump in technology outside of wargaming scenarios. 

2020 continues to be an interesting year

[Guest Lobo]

600 tanks lost?  That's a lot of armor to lose in 11 days.  What the hell are they doing?  I mean that's Italian-level incompetency. 

[Nolacycling 893]

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

If only we could inject the Irish into this somehow, it would solve a lot of the world's problems.

And the Dutch.

What's that i smell on the eveni g breeze?

It's the gdamn Dutch making limburger cheese!

God made the Irish and they ain't much,

But they're a helluva lot better than the f'ing Dutch.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Nolacycling

[TwiceHorn 31440]

25 minutes ago, Homercles said:

I’d rather go instantly due to something like that instead of bleeding out slowly.  The horrible middle ground seems to be that 20 mike mike or whatever it was the Germans were rolling around at the end of Saving Private Ryan.  

That is one of the more horrific war movie scenes evar.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

A 20mm bofors gun would prolly be pretty quick too, at least faster than an MG. Lots more hydrostatic shock

Also thanks for the share Nevermarry, I enjoy studying military history and it's interesting to see a significant jump in technology outside of wargaming scenarios. 

2020 continues to be an interesting year

Bofors is a 40mm.  Swedish origin.

The allied 20mm was an Oerlikon, Swiss origin.  It is still basically in use today.

The German was also basically a Swiss design, Solothurn, owned by Rheinmetall.  Mauser adapted it to the SPR variant.  Rheinmetall the quad mount.

[South Austin 52456]

Some fucking war nerds in this thread.

[Somnio 751]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

600 tanks lost?  That's a lot of armor to lose in 11 days.  What the hell are they doing?  I mean that's Italian-level incompetency. 

Israeli Suicide Drones

https://www.newsweek.com/how-azerbaijans-drones-show-what-future-war-looks-like-opinion-1536487

[Parliament 14247]

10 hours ago, South Austin said:

Some fucking war nerds in this thread.

It is the content I am here for.  

Are these murderbots able to take out American tanks?

[MillerEP 30447]

11 hours ago, Somnio said:

Israeli Suicide Drones

https://www.newsweek.com/how-azerbaijans-drones-show-what-future-war-looks-like-opinion-1536487

See this is what's most interesting, which is kind of why I made this thread. Disposable drone technology on a mass scale are making previous war fighting techniques obsolete. During the Syria conflict ISIS was using commercial off the shelf drones to carry and drop homemade grenades and IED on top of troops, so new counter-drone guns were being manufactured and sent out to try and disrupt the RFID signals. Now these things are enough to take out anti-air and tanks. Something to keep an eye on.

[4th and 5 4914]

This twitter account has quite a few videos

https://mobile.twitter.com/immortalone111

[Guest Lobo]

Gee, I wonder if the fact that the world's only Superpower somehow managed to back both sides of this horrific conflict has anything to do with the decisions made earlier with this week in Stockholm.  the world tends to frown on playing both sides of a war, unless your the incomparable Nick Cage in "Lord of War", a really underrated flick.  

[nineliveslost 2753]

14 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Gee, I wonder if the fact that the world's only Superpower somehow managed to back both sides of this horrific conflict has anything to do with the decisions made earlier with this week in Stockholm.  the world tends to frown on playing both sides of a war, unless your the incomparable Nick Cage in "Lord of War", a really underrated flick.  

What decision was made this week in Stockholm?

[Guest Lobo]

They voted to switch places with Helsinki.  

[Bevo 13569]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

Gee, I wonder if the fact that the world's only Superpower somehow managed to back both sides of this horrific conflict has anything to do with the decisions made earlier with this week in Stockholm.  the world tends to frown on playing both sides of a war, unless you're the incomparable Nick Cage in "Lord of War", a really underrated flick.  

It turned out okay for Tony Stark. 

[Brisketexan 105079]

2 hours ago, MillerEP said:

See this is what's most interesting, which is kind of why I made this thread. Disposable drone technology on a mass scale are making previous war fighting techniques obsolete. During the Syria conflict ISIS was using commercial off the shelf drones to carry and drop homemade grenades and IED on top of troops, so new counter-drone guns were being manufactured and sent out to try and disrupt the RFID signals. Now these things are enough to take out anti-air and tanks. Something to keep an eye on.

Man, so much this.

An instant, cheap airforce, with massive numbers -- ANY country can now have the functional equivalent of a 2,000 plane air force, at least for ground attack purposes.  They are cheap, they are lethal, and they can be flown by video game nerds with years of training from being virgins living in mom's basement.  Imagine Azerbaijan having 2,000 A-10 Warthogs -- and functionally, that's what they DO HAVE.

What an incredible equalizer for low-budget militaries.

And what a horrifying realization for larger militaries that have counted on numbers and technological superiority as a winning strategy.  

Seems to me that being able to attack/disrupt drone signals is an essential tool in an opposing arsenal.  Which will lead to the drones becoming functionally autonomous -- no need for a signal - just launch them, give them a GPS area to loiter over, and kill anything with a sufficient magnetic profile (or however else a target can be identified).

Maybe another answer is a swarm of drones that are drone killers -- anything airborne they detect that doesn't match a friendly gets shot down. And for now, enemy drones aren't going to be focused on evasive action or dogfighting....but they will.

This will continue to escalate.  The future of the battlefield seems like it's going to be dominated by airborne AI.

[Brisketexan 105079]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

They voted to switch places with Helsinki.  

[Guest Lobo]

12 minutes ago, Bevo said:

It turned out okay for Tony Stark. 

It was my understanding, and could be wrong, that Cage's character Orlov, is an amalgamation of several real life arms dealers who often funded both sides of armed conflicts over the last 40 years.  I think it's a great movie except for Ethan Hawke who lays it on too thick.  It is also my understanding that Tony Stark is not a real person, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, I don't think we are directly arming both sides of this conflict (the United States).  But we are openly and aggressively looking the other way on several questionable international moves by both Russia and Turkey, who are fighting this proxy war in plain sight of us, and the world. 

[MoJames 8244]

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man, so much this.

An instant, cheap airforce, with massive numbers -- ANY country can now have the functional equivalent of a 2,000 plane air force, at least for ground attack purposes.  They are cheap, they are lethal, and they can be flown by video game nerds with years of training from being virgins living in mom's basement.  Imagine Azerbaijan having 2,000 A-10 Warthogs -- and functionally, that's what they DO HAVE.

What an incredible equalizer for low-budget militaries.

And what a horrifying realization for larger militaries that have counted on numbers and technological superiority as a winning strategy.  

Seems to me that being able to attack/disrupt drone signals is an essential tool in an opposing arsenal.  Which will lead to the drones becoming functionally autonomous -- no need for a signal - just launch them, give them a GPS area to loiter over, and kill anything with a sufficient magnetic profile (or however else a target can be identified).

Maybe another answer is a swarm of drones that are drone killers -- anything airborne they detect that doesn't match a friendly gets shot down. And for now, enemy drones aren't going to be focused on evasive action or dogfighting....but they will.

This will continue to escalate.  The future of the battlefield seems like it's going to be dominated by airborne AI.

Boston Dynamics needs to get us our robot soldiers.

[Somnio 751]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Seems to me that being able to attack/disrupt drone signals is an essential tool in an opposing arsenal.  Which will lead to the drones becoming functionally autonomous -- no need for a signal - just launch them, give them a GPS area to loiter over, and kill anything with a sufficient magnetic profile (or however else a target can be identified).

Maybe another answer is a swarm of drones that are drone killers -- anything airborne they detect that doesn't match a friendly gets shot down. And for now, enemy drones aren't going to be focused on evasive action or dogfighting....but they will.

This will continue to escalate.  The future of the battlefield seems like it's going to be dominated by airborne AI.

Y'all thought Terminator was fiction.  We have 9 years....

 

[Brisketexan 105079]

1 minute ago, MoJames said:

Boston Dynamics needs to get us our robot soldiers.

I mean......that's the natural end point.  For srs.  Not humanoid, but cheap, autonomous AI hunter-killers that can function on the ground or airborne?  That's where warfare is headed, and quickly.

[LCHorn 2615]

16 hours ago, MillerEP said:

I did two tours in Iraq, first was in Al Asad between the Hit-Haditha corridor, and the second was at the Haditha Dam. I used to chuckle rolling up into the Dam, because the Azerbaijani's were manning the gate with an old Soviet ZPU-4 just angled straight down the road. I'm sure it'll fuck something up if it fired, but it was super out of place.

Hey, me, too!  We were billeted adjacent to the Azerbaijani camp and they would come over and watch Reno 911 with us.  

[Enchubben 5510]

unleash the hounds:

[Macanudo 12975]

17 hours ago, Lobo said:

600 tanks lost?  That's a lot of armor to lose in 11 days.  What the hell are they doing?  I mean that's Italian-level incompetency. 

Nah, they were driving forward when hit, not in reverse.

[Parliament 14247]

Man, so much this.
An instant, cheap airforce, with massive numbers -- ANY country can now have the functional equivalent of a 2,000 plane air force, at least for ground attack purposes.  They are cheap, they are lethal, and they can be flown by video game nerds with years of training from being virgins living in mom's basement.  Imagine Azerbaijan having 2,000 A-10 Warthogs -- and functionally, that's what they DO HAVE.
What an incredible equalizer for low-budget militaries.
And what a horrifying realization for larger militaries that have counted on numbers and technological superiority as a winning strategy.  
Seems to me that being able to attack/disrupt drone signals is an essential tool in an opposing arsenal.  Which will lead to the drones becoming functionally autonomous -- no need for a signal - just launch them, give them a GPS area to loiter over, and kill anything with a sufficient magnetic profile (or however else a target can be identified).
Maybe another answer is a swarm of drones that are drone killers -- anything airborne they detect that doesn't match a friendly gets shot down. And for now, enemy drones aren't going to be focused on evasive action or dogfighting....but they will.
This will continue to escalate.  The future of the battlefield seems like it's going to be dominated by airborne AI.

"The US Military is obsolete," narrarive is one I fall into on occasion, usually when I read something about the 2002 Millennium Challenge. But, I have faith that all the trillions of dollars we spend on defense have us covered. We have rhe money for a conventional military AND an asymmetrical one.

Regarding your murderdrone comments. Watch this:

[Brisketexan 105079]

3 minutes ago, Parliament said:

"The US Military is obsolete," narrarive is one I fall into on occasion, usually when I read something about the 2002 Millennium Challenge. But, I have faith that all the trillions of dollars we spend on defense have us covered. We have rhe money for a conventional military AND an asymmetrical one.

Regarding your murderdrone comments. Watch this:

Yeah.....I mean.....yeah.

It's gonna be a fuckin' problem, man.

[TaxMaster 6]

8 minutes ago, Parliament said:

"The US Military is obsolete," narrarive is one I fall into on occasion, usually when I read something about the 2002 Millennium Challenge. But, I have faith that all the trillions of dollars we spend on defense have us covered. We have rhe money for a conventional military AND an asymmetrical one.

Regarding your murderdrone comments. Watch this:

 

10 minutes ago, Parliament said:

"The US Military is obsolete," narrarive is one I fall into on occasion, usually when I read something about the 2002 Millennium Challenge. But, I have faith that all the trillions of dollars we spend on defense have us covered. We have rhe money for a conventional military AND an asymmetrical one.

Regarding your murderdrone comments. Watch this:

FWIW the Navy has been increasing their capabilities to defend against large Iranian small-vessel swarm attacks in the Persian Gulf for several years now. Granted drones ratchet up the threat since they move in 3D vs 2D for boats. The Phalanx CIWS can take down smaller drones and patriot barrages could take down the bigger drones, but neither are scalable or intended to effectively counter swarms and both rely on ballistics to shoot down. However, cross-branch electronic warfare groups have already started developing non-ballistic methods to neutralize drones. I have my doubts regarding any near-term scalable solution, but I think it’s even more doubtful we’ll get involved in a conflict ( at least with a power that couldn’t be massively suppressed by existing air capabilities) before counter methods have been better developed. Some interesting reading-

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35726/the-army-has-unveiled-its-plan-for-swarms-of-electronic-warfare-enabled-air-launched-drones

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29505/the-navys-secretive-nemesis-electronic-warfare-capability-will-change-naval-combat-forever

[Brisketexan 105079]

15 minutes ago, TaxMaster said:

 

FWIW the Navy has been increasing their capabilities to defend against large Iranian small-vessel swarm attacks in the Persian Gulf for several years now. Granted drones ratchet up the threat since they move in 3D vs 2D for boats. The Phalanx CIWS can take down smaller drones and patriot barrages could take down the bigger drones, but neither are scalable or intended to effectively counter swarms and both rely on ballistics to shoot down. However, cross-branch electronic warfare groups have already started developing non-ballistic methods to neutralize drones. I have my doubts regarding any near-term scalable solution, but I think it’s even more doubtful we’ll get involved in a conflict ( at least with a power that couldn’t be massively suppressed by existing air capabilities) before counter methods have been better developed. Some interesting reading-

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35726/the-army-has-unveiled-its-plan-for-swarms-of-electronic-warfare-enabled-air-launched-drones

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29505/the-navys-secretive-nemesis-electronic-warfare-capability-will-change-naval-combat-forever

The "slaughterbots" in that short film are exactly what I have in mind for anti-drone intelligent munitions.  Launch them over the battlefield.  When enemy drones go up, the slaughterbots detect them and head right for them, detonating nearby like many of our air-to-air missiles do -- explode, sending out a burst of shrapnel to take out an airborne target.  Effectively, we send up a bunch of air-to-air munitions that can loiter for a while, find a target on their own, and then go kill it.

And, yeah....that has pretty broad utility. Just like in the short film.

As a species, we may be about done with our run on this planet.

[Captainant 27638]

1 hour ago, TaxMaster said:

FWIW the Navy has been increasing their capabilities to defend against large Iranian small-vessel swarm attacks in the Persian Gulf for several years now. Granted drones ratchet up the threat since they move in 3D vs 2D for boats. The Phalanx CIWS can take down smaller drones and patriot barrages could take down the bigger drones, but neither are scalable or intended to effectively counter swarms and both rely on ballistics to shoot down. However, cross-branch electronic warfare groups have already started developing non-ballistic methods to neutralize drones. I have my doubts regarding any near-term scalable solution, but I think it’s even more doubtful we’ll get involved in a conflict ( at least with a power that couldn’t be massively suppressed by existing air capabilities) before counter methods have been better developed. Some interesting reading-

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35726/the-army-has-unveiled-its-plan-for-swarms-of-electronic-warfare-enabled-air-launched-drones

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29505/the-navys-secretive-nemesis-electronic-warfare-capability-will-change-naval-combat-forever

I'd think that directed microwave emitters like what they developed for riot control would be devastating to the electronics that the drones need to fly. Lightweight and agile usually means not hardened and shielded against E/M

[4th and 5 4914]

19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is one of the more horrific war movie scenes evar.

I still want to punch Upham in the face

[staboner 4969]

what Armenia needs is more dudes taking photos with RPGs and shit

[Bevo 13569]

I usually reflexively say a girl, but what is this fight over?

[atomheartbevo 89630]

17 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I usually reflexively say a girl, but what is this fight over?

Armenians claimed they should be treated like they are human beings.  Azerbaijani were like "lol, no, you're Armenian."

Look up "The Troubles", replace Irish with Armenians, English with Azerbaijani.

Seriously, I think it's shit that goes back to the late 80s and the breakup of the Soviet Union and how territory was allocated or something.

[nineliveslost 2753]

Part of the original Azer land had majority Armeni. Armeni flipped that part of Azeri land to their side, naturally pissing off Azerbaijani. Azer now wants land back and doesn't care if majority are Armeni. Azer Invades their "original" land to get their shit back. Armeni mad and strikes back.

It gets more fucked up:

Turkey and Israeli (supplied drones)on Azer (Muslim) side

Russia and Iran on Armeni (Christians)side

US on both sides?????

Shit show ensues 

Profit: You bet 

Edited October 9, 2020 by nineliveslost
added "Merica

[Bevo 13569]

21 minutes ago, nineliveslost said:

Part of the original Azer land had majority Armeni. Armeni flipped that part of Azeri land to their side, naturally pissing off Azerbaijani. Azer now wants land back and doesn't care if majority are Armeni. Azer Invades their "original" land to get their shit back. Armeni mad and strikes back.

It gets more fucked up:

Turkey and Israeli (supplied drones)on Azer (Muslim) side

Russia and Iran on Armeni (Christians)side

US on both sides?????

Shit show ensues 

Profit: You bet 

I looked up whether we had conflicts with Canada over this sort of stuff and it was kind of interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canada_and_the_United_States

It seems like countries playing nice with their neighbors may be more the exception than the rule.

 

[nineliveslost 2753]

3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I looked up whether we had conflicts with Canada over this sort of stuff and it was kind of interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canada_and_the_United_States

It seems like countries playing nice with their neighbors may be more the exception than the rule.

 

and we probably tried to solve the bullshit over beers. Didn't get a solution , but didn't really care since it opened up more opportunities to drink. 

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

7 hours ago, TaxMaster said:

 

FWIW the Navy has been increasing their capabilities to defend against large Iranian small-vessel swarm attacks in the Persian Gulf for several years now. Granted drones ratchet up the threat since they move in 3D vs 2D for boats. The Phalanx CIWS can take down smaller drones and patriot barrages could take down the bigger drones, but neither are scalable or intended to effectively counter swarms and both rely on ballistics to shoot down. However, cross-branch electronic warfare groups have already started developing non-ballistic methods to neutralize drones. I have my doubts regarding any near-term scalable solution, but I think it’s even more doubtful we’ll get involved in a conflict ( at least with a power that couldn’t be massively suppressed by existing air capabilities) before counter methods have been better developed. Some interesting reading-

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35726/the-army-has-unveiled-its-plan-for-swarms-of-electronic-warfare-enabled-air-launched-drones

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29505/the-navys-secretive-nemesis-electronic-warfare-capability-will-change-naval-combat-forever

The US Navy has been patenting some pretty eye opening stuff of late. They’ll see your Terminator 2 tech and raise you Star Wars level stuff in reply if any of the patents have an actual basis in reality.

[Brisketexan 105079]

Ehhh... Sort of. The big thing you are missing here is a robot ground fighter would be extremely expensive relative to dudes from the hood and the hills.
Human troops aren't going away due to TCO and ROI. Not a joke, sadly.

No, they won’t go away entirely. But there will be just two types: high-end (special forces types) and cheap cannon fodder. And their numbers will go down. Because even the yahoo from Possum Ass, Kentucky still costs a good chunk of change to train, feed, house, supply and arm. A $50k robot is cheaper than a green recruit right out of basic.

[Brisketexan 105079]

Cease-fire brokered by Russia goes into effect in a few hours. We’ll see if it holds.

[elfenix 34225]

13 hours ago, Enchubben said:

unleash the hounds: