Air Support in a Backpack: The Switchblade(asianometry.substack.com)
asianometry.substack.com
Air Support in a Backpack: The Switchblade
https://asianometry.substack.com/p/air-support-in-a-backpack-the-switchblade
102 comments
In related news, the Airbus Zephyr just set a new record for endurance flight and is still aloft:
https://www.space.com/airbus-zephyr-drone-long-endurance-fli...
An experimental aircraft tested in conjunction with the United States Army has been in the air above the Sonoran Desert for 42 days, breaking its own record for longest uncrewed flight.
The solar-powered, high-altitude Airbus Zephyr S took off from the U.S. Army's Yuma Proving Ground on June 15, 2022 and has since been flying patterns over the Yuma Test Range and Kofa National Wildlife Refuge.
The flight has now broken Zephyr's previous record of 25 days, 23 hours that it set in August 2018. The latest flight has seen Zephyr reach a number of additional milestones including its first flight over water, first flight into international airspace, the longest continuous flight while being controlled through satellite communications, and the farthest flight from its launch point, according to a U.S. Army statement (opens in new tab).
https://www.space.com/airbus-zephyr-drone-long-endurance-fli...
An experimental aircraft tested in conjunction with the United States Army has been in the air above the Sonoran Desert for 42 days, breaking its own record for longest uncrewed flight.
The solar-powered, high-altitude Airbus Zephyr S took off from the U.S. Army's Yuma Proving Ground on June 15, 2022 and has since been flying patterns over the Yuma Test Range and Kofa National Wildlife Refuge.
The flight has now broken Zephyr's previous record of 25 days, 23 hours that it set in August 2018. The latest flight has seen Zephyr reach a number of additional milestones including its first flight over water, first flight into international airspace, the longest continuous flight while being controlled through satellite communications, and the farthest flight from its launch point, according to a U.S. Army statement (opens in new tab).
Thanks, yes. That's the "weeks or months" I was talking about.
I'd be interested in knowing what its flight profile looks like. The Solar Impulse manned solar-powered aircraft that flew around the world (though with stops) performed energy potential banking by climbing over the course of the day, then descending through the night. Altitude was thus a large part of the "battery" storage system, banking energy received during the day.
Article below describes the aircraft, if not the energy management element.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/inside-first-solar...
I'd be interested in knowing what its flight profile looks like. The Solar Impulse manned solar-powered aircraft that flew around the world (though with stops) performed energy potential banking by climbing over the course of the day, then descending through the night. Altitude was thus a large part of the "battery" storage system, banking energy received during the day.
Article below describes the aircraft, if not the energy management element.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/inside-first-solar...
America's proxy war in the Ukraine, while full of video-op content from state media about kids with high tech weapons killing other kids in tin cans makes it seem like the good guys are winning. Everyone loses.
Alpha Go plus some drone kit from aliexpress and banggood is the start of WW3. If America does anything well, it is blowback. Russia's utter dysfunction would and should have been a long term strategic asset, but we burned it in Ukraine. Good technologists are globally distributed, everyone know where this is going and it will only cost a buck oh five. Often times, the winning move is not to play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiD86FtF2x0
Alpha Go plus some drone kit from aliexpress and banggood is the start of WW3. If America does anything well, it is blowback. Russia's utter dysfunction would and should have been a long term strategic asset, but we burned it in Ukraine. Good technologists are globally distributed, everyone know where this is going and it will only cost a buck oh five. Often times, the winning move is not to play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiD86FtF2x0
Leading your response with a gross mischaracterisation of a Russian war of aggression ... somewhat overwhelms any point you might have been trying to make here.
Who is "we"?
Good technologists ... tend to migrate toward attractive remuneration and/or sociopolitical environments, circumstances permitting.
Who is "we"?
Good technologists ... tend to migrate toward attractive remuneration and/or sociopolitical environments, circumstances permitting.
I didn't say who the aggressor was. With the west, "we" are pumping in billions of aid and the US DoD and the State Department finally getting to fight Russia without having to fight Russia, we have a proxy war.
But ignore I said that, because it tangential to the point I was making and the point you ignored.
Good technologists are everywhere on the planet. This is a supporting comment in that "the good guys" don't have a monopoly on the ability to create hyper-lethal, extremely low cost automated weapons.
The point which didn't land, is that the war in Ukraine, regardless of how we got there is funded by two parties and is being technologically participated in by many more. America is really good at blowback, like that is all we export. The low-cost, high-enough drone and autonomous weapons that are created during this war will have huge implications. Something we should have thought about before going down this path.
But ignore I said that, because it tangential to the point I was making and the point you ignored.
Good technologists are everywhere on the planet. This is a supporting comment in that "the good guys" don't have a monopoly on the ability to create hyper-lethal, extremely low cost automated weapons.
The point which didn't land, is that the war in Ukraine, regardless of how we got there is funded by two parties and is being technologically participated in by many more. America is really good at blowback, like that is all we export. The low-cost, high-enough drone and autonomous weapons that are created during this war will have huge implications. Something we should have thought about before going down this path.
There can be proxy wars in which one side is acting on the defence, I don't know if that's what your interlocutor had in mind or how pure his intentions are, but there can be. This is an odd case where the proxy isn't attacking and Russia is unlikely to be a proxy for China, granted. I glanced at the youtube he linked to but didn't start it up. Too vague and blustery and idiosyncratic to warrant my time.
Again, focus on this point derails the initial discussion with little basis or relevance to the matter at hand: role, relevance, and origin of drone warfare, for a flamebait emphasis which HN guidelines specifically advise against.
Noting the definition of proxy doesn't always imply aggression? I'm therefore trying to stop a fork due to a perhaps misunderstood comment taking us into other territory.
> The nature of ground (or surface naval) warfare will be profoundly changed. This is to bullets and shells what bullets and shells were to pikes.
They said this about torpedo boats, submarines, tanks, and guided munitions among others. It will require countermeasures and changes in tactics but I doubt much will change. Since these systems are cheap and slow everyone else will have them too and they will be easy to shoot down.
They said this about torpedo boats, submarines, tanks, and guided munitions among others. It will require countermeasures and changes in tactics but I doubt much will change. Since these systems are cheap and slow everyone else will have them too and they will be easy to shoot down.
Torpedo boats led to substantially-reinforced secondary batteries on capital ships and eventually mixed composition fleets. Submarines led to ASW (as a doctrine and embodied in single-purpose aerial and surface platforms). Tanks led to ATGMs and decades of penetrator and armor evolution. Guided munitions (and specifically, nuclear ones) led to radically dispersed combat and logistics deployments and the C3 necessary to support them.
All of those are very big changes.
The most likely effect of loitering munitions will be a revolution in SHORAD and an understanding that even dug-in infantry can't operate outside of an air defense bubble. Or countries with the manpower and ethical flexibility going all-in on poorly-equipped cheap numbers over exquisite platforms.
All of those are very big changes.
The most likely effect of loitering munitions will be a revolution in SHORAD and an understanding that even dug-in infantry can't operate outside of an air defense bubble. Or countries with the manpower and ethical flexibility going all-in on poorly-equipped cheap numbers over exquisite platforms.
Capital ships are hardly the only, or even primary, target of submarines. Cargo shipping was, and will likely be.
Further, submarine warfare by the US against Japan during WWII was absolutely devastating to Japan's ability to supply raw materials for its own war effort. Japan was (and is) an extraordinarily capable and productive country, but, thanks to its volcanic geology, also extraordinarily limited in crucial raw materials, particularly iron and fuels (coal, oil), both of which are formed or concentrated largely through long-term biological activity.
The U.S. had become aware of these costs itself due to the earlier actions of German U-boat operations against both intracoastal and transatlantic shipping early in WWII. In March 1943 alone German U-boats sank over 100 Allied vessels, mostly cargo. One consequence of the attacks against US oil shipments was the construction of inland oil pipelines, the "Big Inch" and "Little Inch", as government projects, during the war. These remain in use AFIAU. Later, one of the first projects following establishing a beachhead in Normandy was to run an oil pipeline across the English Channel.
(Daniel Yergin's The Prize coves all of this, and I'm relying on it for specifics.)
We're familiar with the notion of coal and oil forming over hundred-million-year intervals. Most iron-ore deposits are multi-billion year old accumulations, many predating the Great Oxygenation Event.
Present long-distance transport modes (sea and air) are reliant on cheap fuels, large vehicles (both aircraft and ships become more efficient with size, within limits), and secure passage along routes. I was struck a few years ago how the development of large-scale long-distance cargo shipping largely paralleled the evolution of large-scale long-distance whale species. Both rely on the fundamental greater efficiency of long bodies moving through water ("hull speed"), the existence of widely-spaced reward (cargo/payment, food source) locations, and the ability to traverse such routes with little risk.
Human-based whale hunting absolutely annihilated whale populations, which crashed to a few percent of their pre-hunt levels. In instances in which combat regions have emperilled commercial aviation flights, airlines have acted quickly to route around such regions, even at the cost of much longer travel (and higher fuel costs).
A reintroduction of anti-shipping naval-warefare activities, and unlimited targeting of commercial aviation, would have profound effects.
Further, submarine warfare by the US against Japan during WWII was absolutely devastating to Japan's ability to supply raw materials for its own war effort. Japan was (and is) an extraordinarily capable and productive country, but, thanks to its volcanic geology, also extraordinarily limited in crucial raw materials, particularly iron and fuels (coal, oil), both of which are formed or concentrated largely through long-term biological activity.
The U.S. had become aware of these costs itself due to the earlier actions of German U-boat operations against both intracoastal and transatlantic shipping early in WWII. In March 1943 alone German U-boats sank over 100 Allied vessels, mostly cargo. One consequence of the attacks against US oil shipments was the construction of inland oil pipelines, the "Big Inch" and "Little Inch", as government projects, during the war. These remain in use AFIAU. Later, one of the first projects following establishing a beachhead in Normandy was to run an oil pipeline across the English Channel.
(Daniel Yergin's The Prize coves all of this, and I'm relying on it for specifics.)
We're familiar with the notion of coal and oil forming over hundred-million-year intervals. Most iron-ore deposits are multi-billion year old accumulations, many predating the Great Oxygenation Event.
Present long-distance transport modes (sea and air) are reliant on cheap fuels, large vehicles (both aircraft and ships become more efficient with size, within limits), and secure passage along routes. I was struck a few years ago how the development of large-scale long-distance cargo shipping largely paralleled the evolution of large-scale long-distance whale species. Both rely on the fundamental greater efficiency of long bodies moving through water ("hull speed"), the existence of widely-spaced reward (cargo/payment, food source) locations, and the ability to traverse such routes with little risk.
Human-based whale hunting absolutely annihilated whale populations, which crashed to a few percent of their pre-hunt levels. In instances in which combat regions have emperilled commercial aviation flights, airlines have acted quickly to route around such regions, even at the cost of much longer travel (and higher fuel costs).
A reintroduction of anti-shipping naval-warefare activities, and unlimited targeting of commercial aviation, would have profound effects.
It'd be interesting to look at cheap counter-loiter tech and e.g. light exostructures and materials that are more difficult to penetrate at layers and readily repairable after drone attacks. I would guess that there is some interesting low-hanging fruit in that area.
It also seems like a possible co-creative opportunity with the concept of covering ground properties with solar panels. Defend against airborne threats but also make the protective layer pay for itself if possible.
Given additional sensor and environmental control development (vs breathing in munitions byproducts, etc), I wonder if over time the rationale for going outside, especially in a war zone, will simply fade away.
It also seems like a possible co-creative opportunity with the concept of covering ground properties with solar panels. Defend against airborne threats but also make the protective layer pay for itself if possible.
Given additional sensor and environmental control development (vs breathing in munitions byproducts, etc), I wonder if over time the rationale for going outside, especially in a war zone, will simply fade away.
In the future all these things will be countered by portable LASER systems.
Israel has explicitly identified drones as a target for Iron Beam. Once that’s operational I think you’ll see attitudes shift on drone value.
Drones aren't going anywhere. They are so cheap, plentiful, and useful that it doesn't really matter how good the counter measures get. And if the counter measures get too good, then those systems will become primary targets themselves.
EDIT: Looking at the wikipedia for Iron Beam. The range is only 7km. A quick google search indicates drones can fly at elevations of 10km, safely out of range. Also, it sounds like Iron Beam was designed to handle the occasional rocket launch from Hamas, and not a full scale barrage of artillery. So a possible way to defeat this system would be to send a drone up to 10km, locate the Iron Beam system, and send a barrage of artillery shells in its direction and maybe sneak in a high precision shell or two in the volley to increase your odds of a hit. That seems like it would be sufficient to take it out.
EDIT: Looking at the wikipedia for Iron Beam. The range is only 7km. A quick google search indicates drones can fly at elevations of 10km, safely out of range. Also, it sounds like Iron Beam was designed to handle the occasional rocket launch from Hamas, and not a full scale barrage of artillery. So a possible way to defeat this system would be to send a drone up to 10km, locate the Iron Beam system, and send a barrage of artillery shells in its direction and maybe sneak in a high precision shell or two in the volley to increase your odds of a hit. That seems like it would be sufficient to take it out.
> Also looking at the wikipedia for Iron Beam. The range is only 7km
It's limited by physics - as of now, if Israel needs long-range interdiction they use the missile-based Iron Dome instead.
There's reports of drones armed with bombs shot down by the Iron Dome system.
> a full scale barrage of artillery
I don't think any system currently deployed has the capability of disrupting artillery/rocket barrages, mostly one-of events.
Even the SDI initiative "Excalibur" project would only really worked in space (you don't want to detonate nuclear weapons very close to you, or scatter X-rays in the atmosphere instead of the target)
It's limited by physics - as of now, if Israel needs long-range interdiction they use the missile-based Iron Dome instead.
There's reports of drones armed with bombs shot down by the Iron Dome system.
> a full scale barrage of artillery
I don't think any system currently deployed has the capability of disrupting artillery/rocket barrages, mostly one-of events.
Even the SDI initiative "Excalibur" project would only really worked in space (you don't want to detonate nuclear weapons very close to you, or scatter X-rays in the atmosphere instead of the target)
Laser defences require large energy supplies. They're an option against fixed positions, far less viable for individuals or mobile units, armoured or otherwise.
What about beam energy and weight of a laser system? Current laser-armed aircraft are huge cargo planes mostly.
I suspect that non-coherent RF pulse weapons with phased-array focusing (along with detection and ranging) could be more realistically portable.
I suspect that non-coherent RF pulse weapons with phased-array focusing (along with detection and ranging) could be more realistically portable.
> Beginning with the Gossamer Albatros and Solar Challenger, which may surprise some.
Yeah, wow, I would not have even had the remotest idea that the Gossamer Albatross and the Switchblade were somehow connected prior to reading this article.
Yeah, wow, I would not have even had the remotest idea that the Gossamer Albatross and the Switchblade were somehow connected prior to reading this article.
> AeroVironment and their history of developing light-weight long-endurance aircraft. Beginning with the Gossamer Albatros
Before the Albatross there was the Gossamer Condor, which is the one that won the £50K prize mentioned in the article. For some reason the name of the aircraft wasn't given.
I remember when this prize was won. I was taking Unified (MIT aero-astro department requirement) and this achievement astonished me.
Before the Albatross there was the Gossamer Condor, which is the one that won the £50K prize mentioned in the article. For some reason the name of the aircraft wasn't given.
I remember when this prize was won. I was taking Unified (MIT aero-astro department requirement) and this achievement astonished me.
GC was also MacCready:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacCready_Gossamer_Condor>
I also remember when these flights were made. Part of the reason why TFA is having such a strong impression on me.
Also MacCready was the Quetzalcoatlus pterosaur:
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=8WFmpEmmzOU
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacCready_Gossamer_Condor>
I also remember when these flights were made. Part of the reason why TFA is having such a strong impression on me.
Also MacCready was the Quetzalcoatlus pterosaur:
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=8WFmpEmmzOU
"This is to bullets and shells what bullets and shells were to pikes."
Mainly these drones are for scouting and directing the shells of the artillery and the bullets of the soldiers, so I am not sure the comparison is adequate as they are not making the shells obsolete.
Once they are so cheap, that a drone with explosive is cheaper than an artillery round, they might make artillery obsolete, but so far they are strenghtening the value of artillery.
Mainly these drones are for scouting and directing the shells of the artillery and the bullets of the soldiers, so I am not sure the comparison is adequate as they are not making the shells obsolete.
Once they are so cheap, that a drone with explosive is cheaper than an artillery round, they might make artillery obsolete, but so far they are strenghtening the value of artillery.
Drones obviously provide several capabilities.
One of those is precise pinpoint attacks.
Russia's extraordinarily high losses of senior general staff officers would highlight these capabilities.
The ability to identify, inderdict, and disable high-capital equipment (e.g., tanks, the Moskova missile cruiser, another.
There's an interesting observation in an unusual source that I've had come to mind:
Regularity, order, and prompt obedience to command are qualities which, in modern armies, are of more importance towards determining the fate of battles than the dexterity and skill of the soldiers in the use of their arms. But the noise of firearms, the smoke, and the invisible death to which every man feels himself every moment exposed as soon as he comes within cannon-shot, and frequently a long time before the battle can be well said to be engaged, must render it very difficult to maintain any considerable degree of this regularity, order, and prompt obedience, even in the beginning of a modern battle. In an ancient battle there was no noise but what arose from the human voice; there was no smoke, there was no invisible cause of wounds or death.
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_V/...
Smith discusses the earlier realm of shorter-ranged and melee weapons as well.
Bullets have typically required soldiers somewhere in the immediate region, at distances of a few tens, hundreds, or at the extreme, a thousand or so metres. Artillery has longer range but has typically required larger launch systems, even where those are portable.
Human-portable drones extend range to tens or hundreds of km with loitering and seeking capabilities. Again, the range of peril is extended greatly.
One of those is precise pinpoint attacks.
Russia's extraordinarily high losses of senior general staff officers would highlight these capabilities.
The ability to identify, inderdict, and disable high-capital equipment (e.g., tanks, the Moskova missile cruiser, another.
There's an interesting observation in an unusual source that I've had come to mind:
Regularity, order, and prompt obedience to command are qualities which, in modern armies, are of more importance towards determining the fate of battles than the dexterity and skill of the soldiers in the use of their arms. But the noise of firearms, the smoke, and the invisible death to which every man feels himself every moment exposed as soon as he comes within cannon-shot, and frequently a long time before the battle can be well said to be engaged, must render it very difficult to maintain any considerable degree of this regularity, order, and prompt obedience, even in the beginning of a modern battle. In an ancient battle there was no noise but what arose from the human voice; there was no smoke, there was no invisible cause of wounds or death.
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_V/...
Smith discusses the earlier realm of shorter-ranged and melee weapons as well.
Bullets have typically required soldiers somewhere in the immediate region, at distances of a few tens, hundreds, or at the extreme, a thousand or so metres. Artillery has longer range but has typically required larger launch systems, even where those are portable.
Human-portable drones extend range to tens or hundreds of km with loitering and seeking capabilities. Again, the range of peril is extended greatly.
An artillery round flies much, much faster, supersonic for a good part of the trajectory. It hits a target 10-15 km away in well under a minute.
A drone would take 10-20 minutes to cover such a distance, and it would likely be easier to spot and destroy while en route, even if it tries to fly low and maneuver.
A drone would take 10-20 minutes to cover such a distance, and it would likely be easier to spot and destroy while en route, even if it tries to fly low and maneuver.
Artillery rounds follow ballistic trajectories, and though interdicting the shell itself is challenging, plotting trajectory to origin makes counter-battery fire quite effecitve.
Howizters and Panzerhaubitzen have greater strategic value than single shells do.
Drones can fly non-predictable paths, and single-use drones don't pave a lane back to origin.
Howizters and Panzerhaubitzen have greater strategic value than single shells do.
Drones can fly non-predictable paths, and single-use drones don't pave a lane back to origin.
"A drone would take 10-20 minutes to cover such a distance"
The strategy would be swarms of drones, who hibernate somewhere in enemy territory and gets activated once needed.
Also, you can have different propulsions, so in the end, basically have smart amunition/rockets.
But like I said, so far the artillery is not going away anytime soon.
The strategy would be swarms of drones, who hibernate somewhere in enemy territory and gets activated once needed.
Also, you can have different propulsions, so in the end, basically have smart amunition/rockets.
But like I said, so far the artillery is not going away anytime soon.
> the principle beneficiaries of lightweighting materials and solar (or small-engine) aircraft + nav & comms capabilities will be in warfare and surveillance applications
Isn't that the explicit reason these technologies were developed? Just as 7000 series aluminum and carbon fiber were made for fighter aircraft before they trickled down to iPhones and golf clubs.
Isn't that the explicit reason these technologies were developed? Just as 7000 series aluminum and carbon fiber were made for fighter aircraft before they trickled down to iPhones and golf clubs.
I don't believe military capabilities were high on the reported benefits of the Gossamer Albatross or Solar Challenger at the time.
Contemporaneous account:
<https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/17/archives/over-the-waves-i...>
There was a long article in National Geographic at the time (where I likely saw it). I don't know if that's online though it appeared in the November 1979 issue:
<https://nationalgeographicbackissues.com/product/national-ge...>
Internet Archive doesn't appear to have the issue.
Contemporaneous account:
<https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/17/archives/over-the-waves-i...>
There was a long article in National Geographic at the time (where I likely saw it). I don't know if that's online though it appeared in the November 1979 issue:
<https://nationalgeographicbackissues.com/product/national-ge...>
Internet Archive doesn't appear to have the issue.
> before they trickled down to iPhones and golf clubs.
Oh, and $€10k bicycle frames.
Oh, and $€10k bicycle frames.
> with cameras and transmission capabilities
I think the "transmission" part here is the real story for military applications. To get real time video further out than a few kilometers, not many nations have satellite datalink capabilities. Those that don't will be at the whim of commercial providers (Starlink for now). Otherwise, the long duration drone flight discussed here could be most valuable for aerial, orbiting, microwave transponders.
I think the "transmission" part here is the real story for military applications. To get real time video further out than a few kilometers, not many nations have satellite datalink capabilities. Those that don't will be at the whim of commercial providers (Starlink for now). Otherwise, the long duration drone flight discussed here could be most valuable for aerial, orbiting, microwave transponders.
Drones themselves could provide mesh networks, possibly / probably with narrow-band communications (laser or tight-beam microwave) between units.
Even a few hundred metres of elevation gives a highly extended transmission range, and dedicated high-altitude comms drones (FL40 -- FL60 or better) could communicate to distances of 100s of km.
These themselves would still be cheap, would be difficult to spot, let alone target, and would require high-altitude-capable missiles to reach, though beam weapons (e.g., lasers) are another option.
Balloons (think weather balloons) would be another option, operating even higher. Again, cheap and easily replaced, but costing $100ks or $1ms to destroy. Think Google's Project Loon.
Even a few hundred metres of elevation gives a highly extended transmission range, and dedicated high-altitude comms drones (FL40 -- FL60 or better) could communicate to distances of 100s of km.
These themselves would still be cheap, would be difficult to spot, let alone target, and would require high-altitude-capable missiles to reach, though beam weapons (e.g., lasers) are another option.
Balloons (think weather balloons) would be another option, operating even higher. Again, cheap and easily replaced, but costing $100ks or $1ms to destroy. Think Google's Project Loon.
Fly a larger re-translator drone 50-100 km away from the area of interest, which can relay the signal over a higher-power microwave link to a ground station another 100-200 km away.
It could relay signals from many front-line drones.
It could relay signals from many front-line drones.
> To get real time video further out than a few kilometers, not many nations have satellite datalink capabilities.
Suppose you capture video at 4k resolution and 2 frames per second, and you compress it with h.265 at reasonable quality. Most of your image will be the same from frame to frame, so encoding will be really efficient. Then you're looking at ballpark 70 kilobytes per frame, or 1120 kbit/s. If you transmit that over 1.3 GHz and the receiving station has a good antenna, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to reach 100-200 km range?
Suppose you capture video at 4k resolution and 2 frames per second, and you compress it with h.265 at reasonable quality. Most of your image will be the same from frame to frame, so encoding will be really efficient. Then you're looking at ballpark 70 kilobytes per frame, or 1120 kbit/s. If you transmit that over 1.3 GHz and the receiving station has a good antenna, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to reach 100-200 km range?
In future high end conflicts, satellite communications will be unreliable due to heavy use of anti-satellite weapons and electronic attacks. In order to maintain communications, military forces will need relays in the air and on the ground, plus agile orbital launch capabilities to quickly replace satellite attrition losses.
> satellite communications will be unreliable due to heavy use of anti-satellite weapons
> agile orbital launch capabilities to quickly replace satellite attrition losses.
Once you reach Kessler syndrome / collisional cascading, the problem is no longer anti-satellite weapons, it's just lots of damaging space pollution in orbit - at this point, launching more satellites won't help anymore.
EDIT: on another note, this also reflects the Mutual Assured Destruction/ICBM situation - you don't destroy my things, I don't destroy your things - it only works if both parties have things to loose. Anti-satellite weapons are the most dangerous in the hands of countries with low amounts of spacecraft.
> agile orbital launch capabilities to quickly replace satellite attrition losses.
Once you reach Kessler syndrome / collisional cascading, the problem is no longer anti-satellite weapons, it's just lots of damaging space pollution in orbit - at this point, launching more satellites won't help anymore.
EDIT: on another note, this also reflects the Mutual Assured Destruction/ICBM situation - you don't destroy my things, I don't destroy your things - it only works if both parties have things to loose. Anti-satellite weapons are the most dangerous in the hands of countries with low amounts of spacecraft.
Concerns about Kessler syndrome won't stop combatants from using anti-satellite weapons. When national (or regime) survival is at stake, they will shoot down adversary satellites and worry about cleaning up the mess later.
Kessler syndrome is mainly only a concern in higher orbits anyway. In lower orbits there's enough atmospheric drag that anything not periodically boosted will re-enter within a few years.
Combatants will have to consider satellites to be expendable anyway so they'll go ahead and launch replacements even if expected lifetime is very short. Even in if there's a lot of debris in orbit, it will take a while on average for any individual satellite to get hit.
This is absolutely nothing like MAD. Satellites have to be destroyed one at a time, and that involves little or no loss of human life or national infrastructure. In fact, I predict that if the USA gets into a major shooting war with China or Russia, satellites will be among the first targets on both sides.
Kessler syndrome is mainly only a concern in higher orbits anyway. In lower orbits there's enough atmospheric drag that anything not periodically boosted will re-enter within a few years.
Combatants will have to consider satellites to be expendable anyway so they'll go ahead and launch replacements even if expected lifetime is very short. Even in if there's a lot of debris in orbit, it will take a while on average for any individual satellite to get hit.
This is absolutely nothing like MAD. Satellites have to be destroyed one at a time, and that involves little or no loss of human life or national infrastructure. In fact, I predict that if the USA gets into a major shooting war with China or Russia, satellites will be among the first targets on both sides.
> Concerns about Kessler syndrome won't stop combatants from using anti-satellite weapons. When national (or regime) survival is at stake, they will shoot down adversary satellites and worry about cleaning up the mess later.
This is a sad truth, people will shot first, and then when their own satellites get mass destroyed by the remnants of "the enemy satellites" they will notice something had gone terribly wrong.
And once such condition is reached up, clearing up the mess is nearly impossible without international coordination on a very expensive project.
> Kessler syndrome is mainly only a concern in higher orbits anyway.
LEO satellites (most of them, specifically most military satellites) are very vulnerable to Kessler syndrome.
> Even in if there's a lot of debris in orbit, it will take a while on average for any individual satellite to get hit.
If it takes a while for it to get hit, then you haven't reached Kessler syndrome yet.
> This is absolutely nothing like MAD. Satellites have to be destroyed one at a time
Until they all suddenly turn collectively into space junk, because too much space junk is floating in space.
> that involves little or no loss of human life or national infrastructure.
I think that the very expensive satellites humans put in orbit is considered part of the national infrastructure.
This is a sad truth, people will shot first, and then when their own satellites get mass destroyed by the remnants of "the enemy satellites" they will notice something had gone terribly wrong.
And once such condition is reached up, clearing up the mess is nearly impossible without international coordination on a very expensive project.
> Kessler syndrome is mainly only a concern in higher orbits anyway.
LEO satellites (most of them, specifically most military satellites) are very vulnerable to Kessler syndrome.
> Even in if there's a lot of debris in orbit, it will take a while on average for any individual satellite to get hit.
If it takes a while for it to get hit, then you haven't reached Kessler syndrome yet.
> This is absolutely nothing like MAD. Satellites have to be destroyed one at a time
Until they all suddenly turn collectively into space junk, because too much space junk is floating in space.
> that involves little or no loss of human life or national infrastructure.
I think that the very expensive satellites humans put in orbit is considered part of the national infrastructure.
https://youtu.be/cH_vFJctl9I
Solar loitering for a few hundred bucks.
Solar loitering for a few hundred bucks.
Is there a particular segment of that hour-long video which specifically addresses capabilities / features / other elements of interest?
The key learning from the Ukrainian conflict from a military standpoint is the use of hobby drones + old artillery. You can either drop artillery rounds or use the drone as a way to direct artillery fire. This has totally changed the game. The switchblade is amazing, but, realistically they wont be built in any quantity to matter.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/wa74hd/ukrai...
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/wamxri/ua_dr...
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/wa74hd/ukrai...
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/wamxri/ua_dr...
To give an indication 4,000 of these things were deployed in Afghanistan since 2013, I'm not sure if that counts as a significant quantity. I've no idea what their manufacturing capacity is now, but that's an average of about 600 a year.
I think Ukraine and the Russians have learned to track consumer drone signals with aeroscope https://www.dji.com/aeroscope. There are a few videos out there of drones taking off then artillery shells arriving very soon after.
It’s real easy to root device and disable aeroscope but there are jammers on the market that equally easy land/home your device
This has been done in mass in syria and karabakh before and no not a game changer.
I think the interesting question is how they will "compare". If they compare favorably to that key learning, as "this kind of thing, but a better iteration on it" it won't much matter the quantity. As the article points out, it's not about this conflict, it's about the next one.
Meanwhile, this Ukrainian soldier wearing FPV goggles took a cheap commercial drone armed with explosives and flew it right to its target. Scary that almost anybody could do this anywhere, anytime.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1553090460352135169
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1553090460352135169
People have been doing this in a game I play call Squad for years. Interesting to see it realized in real life.
https://youtu.be/SctREcQ-D94?t=191
https://youtu.be/SctREcQ-D94?t=191
> "But the Ukrainian conflict has certainly put this thing on the map, and despite heavy competition I think AeroVironment is going to be finding a whole bunch of new customers soon. And the US military is going to learn a whole lot about what exactly these things can do."
Small wars are like marketing campaigns for military-industrial suppliers around the world. They also drive up commodity prices. Since Dec 2021, average share prices for the oil majors and the defense contractors have increased from 25-50% depending on the company in question, as of last month.
Small wars are like marketing campaigns for military-industrial suppliers around the world. They also drive up commodity prices. Since Dec 2021, average share prices for the oil majors and the defense contractors have increased from 25-50% depending on the company in question, as of last month.
This particular war, with a frontline of many hundreds of kilometers, and about 75k personnel losses on the Russia's side alone, is not a small war. This is more personnel than the US lost in Vietnam.
That's 75k wounded and killed, not 75k deaths. Still, it is a staggering number of injury and death in such a short time.
> "75,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded in the field"
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-suffered-more-75-000-1...
> "75,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded in the field"
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-suffered-more-75-000-1...
Supposedly between 20,000 and 40,000 Russian Federation troops killed. Of course many of them, maybe most? are from former SSRs other than Russia.
Russia is getting better at spotting with drones. I gather they just managed to wipe out a fleet of M777s that parked too close to Russian artillary. Or maybe it was rockets?
Russia is getting better at spotting with drones. I gather they just managed to wipe out a fleet of M777s that parked too close to Russian artillary. Or maybe it was rockets?
> This is more personnel than the US lost in Vietnam.
In about 1/30th the amount of time.
In about 1/30th the amount of time.
Added benefit a lot of old stock, from ammunition to whole systems, finally hets ised and expended and needa replacement. Training alone only consumes so much over a given year.
“I wouldn’t want to be a Russian tank, if it was even working in the first place.”
I don’t understand one sided barbs in pieces trying to appear like unbiased analysis.
Denying reality does nobody any good. In fact, denying Russias continuing victory only helps them, as people rest on their laurels.
I don’t understand one sided barbs in pieces trying to appear like unbiased analysis.
Denying reality does nobody any good. In fact, denying Russias continuing victory only helps them, as people rest on their laurels.
Russia isn’t winning. It’s essentially a stalemate at this point. Russia “paused” and “restarted” the war to shore up their force.
Paywalled, but still:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/28/ukraine-russ...
Paywalled, but still:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/28/ukraine-russ...
Aren't they occupying something like 20% of the country? Maybe they're overextended and will lose eventually, but sure seems like they're winning at the moment.
Their goal was to take 100% in a few days though. So 20% doesn't sound like winning to me.
They've already failed strategically, so they're desperately trying to gain territory in areas where they have a localised tactical advantage (places near the border).
They've already failed strategically, so they're desperately trying to gain territory in areas where they have a localised tactical advantage (places near the border).
A strategic failure is what happened in the Yom Kippur War when the Israeli counterattack penetrated the Egyptian and Syrian front and started attacking the rear. I don't see how gaining 20% of an opponent's territory and entrenching yourself is losing even if Russia thought it would achieve more faster. So far Ukraine hasn't demonstrated an ability to counterattack at scale.
There are of course degrees of failure. Egypt suffered a strategic collapse.
Russia failed to achieve its primary strategic goals. It has even failed its secondary strategic goals like taking the Donbas.
Instead of a swift conquest of Ukraine, they’re stuck in essentially a stalemate in most of the regions they control. They’re also facing an imminent counter offensive in the south with Kherson (their primary prize claimed so far) increasing cut from the lines of communication.
Meanwhile, years of economic growth have been erased from the Russian economy, it’s diplomatically isolated, militarily discredited, and facing a reinvigorated and enlarged NATO.
I’d call that a strategic failure.
Russia failed to achieve its primary strategic goals. It has even failed its secondary strategic goals like taking the Donbas.
Instead of a swift conquest of Ukraine, they’re stuck in essentially a stalemate in most of the regions they control. They’re also facing an imminent counter offensive in the south with Kherson (their primary prize claimed so far) increasing cut from the lines of communication.
Meanwhile, years of economic growth have been erased from the Russian economy, it’s diplomatically isolated, militarily discredited, and facing a reinvigorated and enlarged NATO.
I’d call that a strategic failure.
“Russia failed to achieve its primary strategic goals.”
According to who? The war is ongoing and getting worse for Ukraine the long the west doesn’t invest more heavily
According to who? The war is ongoing and getting worse for Ukraine the long the west doesn’t invest more heavily
> I don't see how gaining 20% of an opponent's territory and entrenching yourself is losing
I guess it depends on two questions: (1) have they accomplished their actual goals? (2) how quickly can they replace the manpower and equipment that they have lost so far?
I guess it depends on two questions: (1) have they accomplished their actual goals? (2) how quickly can they replace the manpower and equipment that they have lost so far?
> So far Ukraine hasn't demonstrated an ability to counterattack at scale
They have been constantly counter attacking.
And with so many Ukrainian soldiers in UK being trained the real offensive is coming soon when they return.
They have been constantly counter attacking.
And with so many Ukrainian soldiers in UK being trained the real offensive is coming soon when they return.
“Their goal was to take 100% in a few days though.”
Citation needed.
Trying for a move and adjusting when you don’t get the quick gambit isn’t failure.
Citation needed.
Trying for a move and adjusting when you don’t get the quick gambit isn’t failure.
Russia is occupying a sizable portion of the country, but to do so has expended vast quantities of stockpiled munitions and manpower. Ukraine as well, but they have undertaken mass mobilization and have the West supporting them re-arm. Russia has no such replacement capacity.
Given the dramatic military strength differential between Russia and the Ukraine, the fact they are at a stalemate is, itself, a huge victory for Ukraine and a crippling defeat for Russia.
Given the dramatic military strength differential between Russia and the Ukraine, the fact they are at a stalemate is, itself, a huge victory for Ukraine and a crippling defeat for Russia.
We'll see. I'm not as optimistic as you. Russia hasn't mobilized all their manpower and its position can change dramatically if the war lasts until winter.
I'm with you, I can't see how - long term - Russia could possibly lose. Sure they're a decade or two behind the West when it comes to technology but there's no way Ukraine can match Russia's manpower and industrial capacity. Then again, I really didn't think the U.S. could possibly lose to the Taliban, yet here we are.
Ukraine can't but the West easily does. It's important to keep in mind that Russia's economy is the size of Italy's, and they have a population of 145 millions. Ukraine has 44 millions, NATO countries combined have 950 millions, most of which are highly developed industrial nations, so there's really no question that NATO can outproduce Russia many times over, if they choose to really ramp up the production and ship it to Ukraine.
It seems they are getting there, even the Germans are slowly giving up their hesitations, and it makes sense as well: anything Russia has to spend in Ukraine, they cannot spend in Poland and the Baltic States.
It seems they are getting there, even the Germans are slowly giving up their hesitations, and it makes sense as well: anything Russia has to spend in Ukraine, they cannot spend in Poland and the Baltic States.
Comparing Russian GDP to Italy understates Russian economic power because it is probably the most autarchic country (maybe North Korea is more autarchic, I would have said the USA too until covid happened) and is a net exporter of metals, energy, and food. If the war lasts until winter Europe will really be hurting from lack of Russian energy.
> If the war lasts until winter Europe will really be hurting from lack of Russian energy.
Russia has already cut off most of their gas supplies with Nord Stream 1.
And so Europe has measures in place eg. storing gas, sharing agreements, increasing supply from Azerbaijan etc. They will experience some pain over winter but day by day they become more ready for it.
Russia has already cut off most of their gas supplies with Nord Stream 1.
And so Europe has measures in place eg. storing gas, sharing agreements, increasing supply from Azerbaijan etc. They will experience some pain over winter but day by day they become more ready for it.
Energy usage increases in the winter because of heating. That will cause price increases which will put pressure on European politicians to resolve the war.
That is definitely Putin's hope. However, since he has already invaded Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 Europe recognizes that if he isn't stopped in Ukraine, Russia will never stop their expansionist dreams.
Prices will be high, just like everything else, but there is no question that Russia must be defeated in Ukraine. It's essential to European security.
Prices will be high, just like everything else, but there is no question that Russia must be defeated in Ukraine. It's essential to European security.
> Aren't they occupying something like 20% of the country?
Temporarily occupying.
As we are currently seeing in Kherson, Ukraine continues to attempt to reclaim held territory.
And there is widespread doubt about Russia’s ability to hold them over the long term with the limited troops they have. Russia needs a full scale mobilisation to do this and unfortunately for them it’s politically toxic.
Temporarily occupying.
As we are currently seeing in Kherson, Ukraine continues to attempt to reclaim held territory.
And there is widespread doubt about Russia’s ability to hold them over the long term with the limited troops they have. Russia needs a full scale mobilisation to do this and unfortunately for them it’s politically toxic.
We'll see, pundits have been predicting a turning tide since a few weeks into the war. Hasn't happened yet.
> We'll see, pundits have been predicting a turning tide since a few weeks into the war. Hasn't happened yet.
Yeah, it did, which is why Russia radically changed focus and apparent strategy from decapitating and pacifying the regime to trying to seize a continuous arc through Eastern and Southern Ukraine to connect to the enclave they also clearly want to seize in Moldova.
Yeah, it did, which is why Russia radically changed focus and apparent strategy from decapitating and pacifying the regime to trying to seize a continuous arc through Eastern and Southern Ukraine to connect to the enclave they also clearly want to seize in Moldova.
I've started to notice that this is what you always post about Russia/Ukraine, but never with any links to evidence.
> Denying reality does nobody any good.
True, so why deny the reality that Russian tanks have proven to be horribly unreliable?
True, so why deny the reality that Russian tanks have proven to be horribly unreliable?
Hardly, info from the front outside of Twitter propaganda channels has shown otherwise.
You don’t get 20% of a large country without reliable armor. Fact.
You don’t get 20% of a large country without reliable armor. Fact.
Russia didn't even maintain the tires on their supply trucks properly, leading to a lot of breakdowns from sun damage, and you think they have good maintenance on their tanks?.
They have undoubtably got working tanks, but I think the quality and maintenance of those tanks is what remains to be seen.
They have undoubtably got working tanks, but I think the quality and maintenance of those tanks is what remains to be seen.
Where did you get this info?
I feel like people are just pulling stuff out of their ass now.
Russia is a near peer, of course they maintained everything. They have been preparing for this since 2012.
Pretending our adversaries are magically incompetent does NOTHING for us except make us complacent.
Use. Your. Brain.
Do you really think any modern military isn’t maintaining the tires on they transport vehicle? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
I feel like people are just pulling stuff out of their ass now.
Russia is a near peer, of course they maintained everything. They have been preparing for this since 2012.
Pretending our adversaries are magically incompetent does NOTHING for us except make us complacent.
Use. Your. Brain.
Do you really think any modern military isn’t maintaining the tires on they transport vehicle? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
> Where did you get this info?
Here's a very long twitter thread detailing all of it with photos. https://twitter.com/trenttelenko/status/1499164245250002944
> I feel like people are just pulling stuff out of their ass now.
I feel like you are underestimating just how corrupt Russia is
> Russia is a near peer, of course they maintained everything. They have been preparing for this since 2012.
Russia is no where near, a near peer to the USA. Every thought it was then it failed to take a city that was within ~300km of its borders.
> Pretending our adversaries are magically incompetent does NOTHING for us except make us complacent.
It's not pretend, they are just really bad at war.
> Do you really think any modern military isn’t maintaining the tires on they transport vehicle? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
Do you really think that the Russians are a near peer to the USA?.
Here's a very long twitter thread detailing all of it with photos. https://twitter.com/trenttelenko/status/1499164245250002944
> I feel like people are just pulling stuff out of their ass now.
I feel like you are underestimating just how corrupt Russia is
> Russia is a near peer, of course they maintained everything. They have been preparing for this since 2012.
Russia is no where near, a near peer to the USA. Every thought it was then it failed to take a city that was within ~300km of its borders.
> Pretending our adversaries are magically incompetent does NOTHING for us except make us complacent.
It's not pretend, they are just really bad at war.
> Do you really think any modern military isn’t maintaining the tires on they transport vehicle? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
Do you really think that the Russians are a near peer to the USA?.
There is also Warmate drone (commercial https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zzzOH5fBAqw) that is used by Ukraine forces.
The current conflict hasn't seen the best employment of loitering munitions, from both sides actually. Maybe as a function of the current paradigm (artillery duel), the low yield explosive of the S 300 fielded, or lack of experienced fixed wing drone operators, in comparison with multi-rotor drones, which are retrievable with much longer flight times.
Tube launched loitering munitions are the future nonetheless and will replace the mortar and multi rotor drones, once all the issues have been figured out.
Tube launched loitering munitions are the future nonetheless and will replace the mortar and multi rotor drones, once all the issues have been figured out.
I think the bigger impact will be when the larger variants are deployed among artillery.
We already have artillery that can reach 50-100km, but when that can be used to deploy drones with payloads capable of destroying tanks — then your entire style of fighting can change.
I actually wonder if this will bring back something like battleships: a 6” gun firing off drones in a 50-100km range would likely be able to penetrate modern point defense and hit critical systems — like radars, point defense, or weapons. At least, as a swarm from a broadside.
We already have artillery that can reach 50-100km, but when that can be used to deploy drones with payloads capable of destroying tanks — then your entire style of fighting can change.
I actually wonder if this will bring back something like battleships: a 6” gun firing off drones in a 50-100km range would likely be able to penetrate modern point defense and hit critical systems — like radars, point defense, or weapons. At least, as a swarm from a broadside.
> I actually wonder if this will bring back something like battleships: a 6” gun firing off drones in a 50-100km range would likely be able to penetrate modern point defense and hit critical systems — like radars, point defense, or weapons. At least, as a swarm from a broadside.
Battleships have disappeared for several reasons, but the biggest one is that it's an incredibly expensive way (in money and manpower) to launch those 6" (or even much bigger) shells. Changing the value of the shell doesn't change the fact that it's still incredibly expensive.
I think we'll be much more likely to see these launched in swarms from other aircraft - the Air Force is already exploring what they refer to as Arsenal Planes, which are basically cargo planes with the ability to launch or drop tons (literally) of long range munitions. These aircraft would remain hundreds of miles from contested airspace and still be able to bring hell down on a target.
Something like the Switchblade 600, launched by the dozens and controlled en-masse by either in-craft or remote pilots would be the modern version of launching these from the Mighty Mo's main cannon.
Battleships have disappeared for several reasons, but the biggest one is that it's an incredibly expensive way (in money and manpower) to launch those 6" (or even much bigger) shells. Changing the value of the shell doesn't change the fact that it's still incredibly expensive.
I think we'll be much more likely to see these launched in swarms from other aircraft - the Air Force is already exploring what they refer to as Arsenal Planes, which are basically cargo planes with the ability to launch or drop tons (literally) of long range munitions. These aircraft would remain hundreds of miles from contested airspace and still be able to bring hell down on a target.
Something like the Switchblade 600, launched by the dozens and controlled en-masse by either in-craft or remote pilots would be the modern version of launching these from the Mighty Mo's main cannon.
I hadn’t meant battleship in the sense of a large capital ship, but rather something largely automated with a dozen guns/barrels. And volleys in the 100-200 munition range, where you can saturate and push through point defense.
My sense of it is that such a ship would be able to engage at a range and volume of fire a lot of current navies would struggle to counter, but I’ll admit that’s more feeling than demonstrated fact.
Though, a plane is never going to hold the sheer volume of munitions a ship does: they have to fly and they’re smaller craft. And since Switchblade 600 has a 40km range, you’d have to take your plane awfully close for that plan — whereas artillery extends that.
Arsenal Planes are still a good idea though.
My sense of it is that such a ship would be able to engage at a range and volume of fire a lot of current navies would struggle to counter, but I’ll admit that’s more feeling than demonstrated fact.
Though, a plane is never going to hold the sheer volume of munitions a ship does: they have to fly and they’re smaller craft. And since Switchblade 600 has a 40km range, you’d have to take your plane awfully close for that plan — whereas artillery extends that.
Arsenal Planes are still a good idea though.
But artillery is already more than capable of killing tanks. Terminal guidance for artillery shells is likely to make more of a difference.
On the other hand drones appear to be excellent for directing artillery and general reconnaissance.
On the other hand drones appear to be excellent for directing artillery and general reconnaissance.
Sure — but now we’re into debating the difference between a shell with terminal guidance and steering versus a drone.
Over my head.
Though if you want to say the difference is powered flight, that’s probably a good distinction… but I think powered terminal guidance is worth a lot when you’re shooting 50-100km at potentially moving targets.
Over my head.
Though if you want to say the difference is powered flight, that’s probably a good distinction… but I think powered terminal guidance is worth a lot when you’re shooting 50-100km at potentially moving targets.
Why don't we hear anything about Switchblade anymore, in Ukraine? Did they use all theirs up? And didn't buy more, because artillery is cheaper, and lately just as precise?
The smaller one turned out to be hardly useful, the larger one isn’t available. Warmates seem to be more effective in Ukraine, and Ukraine bought/received more of those.
The smaller one, used on fuel trucks, could oblige the enemy to abandon tanks. But I guess wiping out the fuel depot would work better. That is anyway best done right before pushing back the front, so the abandoned equipment is left somewhere accessible.
We have a video from three days ago of Ukraine taking out a number of plain clothes FSB officers in Russia using a switchblade.
https://twitter.com/uaweapons/status/1552012564485267456
https://twitter.com/uaweapons/status/1552012564485267456
[deleted]
Does this threat make the retired German Gepard air defence tank "modern" again? Alternatively, could one mount something like Phalanx CIWS on a truck? I suppose one wouldn't want to use (expensive) missiles (stinger?) against small drones?
BTW: Why is the ammunition for these systems still on chains -- opposed to "just" shovelling it into some kind of funnel?
BTW: Why is the ammunition for these systems still on chains -- opposed to "just" shovelling it into some kind of funnel?
Funnels can plug/jam, chains rarely fail.
Chainguns generally depend upon an external drive to pull ammunition through a gun -- whether a round in the chamber has fired or not, it will be extracted and a new one put in its place. As I understand it, this is the primary difference between chainguns and belt-fed guns (which use part of the energy expended by the cartridge to cycle the weapon and feed the belt) -- reliability.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_gun
Chainguns generally depend upon an external drive to pull ammunition through a gun -- whether a round in the chamber has fired or not, it will be extracted and a new one put in its place. As I understand it, this is the primary difference between chainguns and belt-fed guns (which use part of the energy expended by the cartridge to cycle the weapon and feed the belt) -- reliability.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_gun
The chain in a chain-gun refers to the motor drive not a chain that hold the cartridges, it just an auto cannon that has its action being operated a motor drive basically it’s a very fast repeating rifle.
It doesn’t have much to do with how the ammo is loaded. Also most auto cannons today even the high fire rate ones that are used for CIWS and AA aren’t chain guns.
It doesn’t have much to do with how the ammo is loaded. Also most auto cannons today even the high fire rate ones that are used for CIWS and AA aren’t chain guns.
The chain in an externally powered weapon is distinct from the belt [0] (which can be all metal) which is used to feed the ammunition. Its confusing since the sections of a disintegrating belt are referred to as "links."
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_(firearms)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_(firearms)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster
Apparently it has been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Centurion_C-RAM
Lasers are supposedly the next big close range drone killers, less than $100 per shot, and infinite rounds (as long as you have fuel obviously).
There may be a question for swarms though:
An air burst round doesn’t require the system stay pointed as a single target, whereas a laser needs a few seconds on target.
At speed-of-sound, a munition moves at about 0.2 miles per second, or about a mile in the engagement time. Which caps the number of targets it can intercept to a handful.
An air burst round doesn’t require the system stay pointed as a single target, whereas a laser needs a few seconds on target.
At speed-of-sound, a munition moves at about 0.2 miles per second, or about a mile in the engagement time. Which caps the number of targets it can intercept to a handful.
> At speed-of-sound, a munition moves at about 0.2 miles per second
That's cute - but we aren't firing airguns at these things. A CIWS (the R2D2 looking missile defense cannons) fires its rounds with a velocity of around 3600ft/s, or 3.5x what you seem to be thinking.
That's cute - but we aren't firing airguns at these things. A CIWS (the R2D2 looking missile defense cannons) fires its rounds with a velocity of around 3600ft/s, or 3.5x what you seem to be thinking.
I was guesstimating on the low side, for incoming munitions.
Faster munitions means that the laser can intercept proportionally fewer targets — which is why it’s a question of if lasers can fend off swarms the way gun based solutions can.
Faster munitions means that the laser can intercept proportionally fewer targets — which is why it’s a question of if lasers can fend off swarms the way gun based solutions can.
That largely confirms a view I'd previously formed that the principle beneficiaries of lightweighting materials and solar (or small-engine) aircraft + nav & comms capabilities will be in warfare and surveillance applications.
A solar + battery styrofoam + balsa aircraft with cameras and transmission capabilities could loiter for weeks or months over a region transmitting close-range realtime imagery. Given comparable mission costs for manned aircraft (listed in the article) at $20k -- $40k/hour, it would be possible to "darken the skies" (or at least saturate regions of interest) at very low cost.
A smaller number of response UAVs could address specific points of interest with a response of a few minutes to hours.
All without putting pilots in harm's way.
The nature of ground (or surface naval) warfare will be profoundly changed. This is to bullets and shells what bullets and shells were to pikes.