Global military buildup

[Darth Wagtaros]

What is the future of close air support in a world where man portable anti-aircraft weapons are becoming increasingly more accurate and more dangerous? 

If the era of the tank is over is the era of the IFV, like the Bradley or BMP also over? 

The lesson from Iraqi Freedom is that you get nukes as soon as possible, will that make their use a given?

[grumbler]

I suspect that one of the lessons learned from the increased use of man-portable ATGMs is that artillery needs to have a lot more smoke rounds in their ammo trailers.

People also over-estimate the utility of light infantry and ATGMs in the attack.  They are severely deficient in mobility and highly vulnerable while moving.  I do think that infantry kit costs pretty much everywhere are going to go up to something approaching the $20,000 it costs to equip a US soldier (with no ATGM), because modern soldiers without it going up against modern soldiers with it are Brewster Buffalos going up against Mitsubishi Zeros.

[Admiral Yi]

I would think that the advances of man-portable anti-tank weapons means that additional care and thinking has to go into the combined arms tactics with tanks, rather than outright render tanks obsolete. I mean, there are many man-portable anti-aircraft weapons as well, with great range, and that doesn't mean that fixed wing aircraft and helicopters are obsolete... right?

I'd expect that tanks will remain useful in situations where bringing maneuverable heavy guns to bear quickly is worthwhile. There might still be applications like that in all the different permutations of modern warfare.

My understanding from the Russian occupation of Afghanistan is that Stingers don't have the range to hit jets, unless they're flying at low altitudes.  That being said, it has been remarked several times that the Russian air force is strangely absent from the fighting.

A tank main gun is a line of sight weapon.  That means if you can see the target, the target can see you.  Anything you can hit can hit you back.  Trading off tanks that cost several million for a Javelin that costs 50K is not a winning proposition.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I would think that the advances of man-portable anti-tank weapons means that additional care and thinking has to go into the combined arms tactics with tanks, rather than outright render tanks obsolete. I mean, there are many man-portable anti-aircraft weapons as well, with great range, and that doesn't mean that fixed wing aircraft and helicopters are obsolete... right?

I'd expect that tanks will remain useful in situations where bringing maneuverable heavy guns to bear quickly is worthwhile. There might still be applications like that in all the different permutations of modern warfare.

My understanding from the Russian occupation of Afghanistan is that Stingers don't have the range to hit jets, unless they're flying at low altitudes.  That being said, it has been remarked several times that the Russian air force is strangely absent from the fighting.

A tank main gun is a line of sight weapon.  That means if you can see the target, the target can see you.  Anything you can hit can hit you back.  Trading off tanks that cost several million for a Javelin that costs 50K is not a winning proposition.

What about helicopter gunships?

[Admiral Yi]

What about helicopter gunships?

Like, how vulnerable are they?  My understanding is very.

[grumbler]

A tank main gun is a line of sight weapon.  That means if you can see the target, the target can see you.  Anything you can hit can hit you back.  Trading off tanks that cost several million for a Javelin that costs 50K is not a winning proposition.

That's been the main argument behind the "the tank is obsolete" argument since 1919.  And, for armies that intend to only defend until their enemy gives up or their own nation collapses, that's a pretty good argument.  The Finns were successful using that argument in the Winter War (until they were not successful and lost, but it wasn't because they were beaten by tanks).

Not too many militaries are going to be satisfied with a purely passive posture, though.  Going on the offensive against tanks with your ATGM force means moving and trying to find an enemy that has far better sensors than you before he finds you and kills you dead.  A 6000 meter range sounds impressive until you look at what the average line of sight in Europe actually is.

[grumbler]

What about helicopter gunships?

Like, how vulnerable are they?  My understanding is very.

It's been getting tougher for them, which is why the latest have sensor pods above the rotors so that they can "see over the top" and fire-and-forget missiles so they can didi before the enemy can react to the rocket blast/smoke plume.  There are no current countermeasures to laser-guided MANPADS except evasion.

[Josquius]

I don't think Europe meaningfully needs to spend more simply for self-defense. But if they want to try and improve, I think the foundation would be a shift to a more professional, career, full time military. It is a good move that most NATO member countries have ended conscription and universal male service--I spent time in Europe when I was in the Army and every officer I've ever discussed it with has agreed that the general quality of European conscript soldiers was absolutely atrocious.

-

TLDR:

- Professionalize
- Beef up NCO training/education
- Buy/build a fuckton of missiles of all delivery modes
- Invest heavily in drones

For Europe, the Naval question really depends on what they're talking about doing.

Agreed.
I bet conservatives in some places are using Ukraine as an excuse to push for the necessity of conscription (they will latch onto anything for this) , though really it should be seen as showing the complete opposite.
It's a backwards policy of little military utility.

If I was a country like Switzerland for example (as I'm here), I would be cutting back conscription drastically to maybe a summer or two at 24 (18 year olds. Pff.), followed by short fortnight refreshers every few years, to give young women (important) and men basic militia training - that's all they're good for anyway-and fulfill the whole national identity portion of conscription, whilst massively boosting pay, conditions and training for pro soldiers.
Big investment in drones and anti tank and anti air weapons to arm them with.
Fuck the air force. Its stupid they even have it for anything other than natural disasters (unlike say for larger countries where it should be a priority).

[Iormlund]

My understanding from the Russian occupation of Afghanistan is that Stingers don't have the range to hit jets, unless they're flying at low altitudes.  That being said, it has been remarked several times that the Russian air force is strangely absent from the fighting.

I'd guess that the absence of the Russian air force comes down to exhausting their limited smart munitions (due to corruption or simply expecting a swift end of the conflict).
Relying on dumb bombs means you have to get awfully close to Ukrainian air defense systems.
One of the lessons seems to be that you need big stockpiles of smart munitions for an all out war, which I think only the US and Israel have.

The way I see it right now in Ukraine AA has won over air forces and both sides have resorted to make extensive use of drones plus arty combos. Of course that is extremely skewed by the limited info we get.

Stealth seems also extremely important in order to gain air superiority or operate when it is not possible to achieve it. Lockheed Martin's F-35 looks like a big winner here. I see no reason to go for a 4/4.5 frame right now.

A tank main gun is a line of sight weapon.  That means if you can see the target, the target can see you.  Anything you can hit can hit you back.  Trading off tanks that cost several million for a Javelin that costs 50K is not a winning proposition.

That's where geography and who has the initiative is crucial. In the southern plains of Ukraine a tank will see you coming long before you get within Javelin firing distance. They also have a lot more mobility and can deliver shots much, much faster than missile teams.
That's why, I'd wager, the Ukrainians are asking for tanks. Now that the battles up north are over, they need them to evict the Russians from those territories they took.




In the near future I expect to see a lot of emphasis on developing reliable AI for disposable drones used either for surveillance, as laser designators for smart munitions or loitering munitions themselves.
I do wonder also if eventually we are not going to see AI drones take over the tank role as well.

As scary as that sounds, I think that's where the future is going. A world where machines can make lethal decisions on their own to overcome enemy ECM.

[crazy canuck]

I wonder if the real lesson here is that offensive war is not particularly feasible.

Or at least I hope that is one of the things China is learning.

[Josquius]

I wonder if the real lesson here is that offensive war is not particularly feasible.

Or at least I hope that is one of the things China is learning.

Hopefully there'll be a few more ship sinkings to show what even a nation completely not focused on the sea can do there.

[Malthus]

From what I've read, the most important lessons learned from the current conflict are: invest heavily in army reform!

Looks like the Ukrainians did this (with lots of help from the West), and in particular, in creating an effective NCO class.

The Russians went in for reform as well, but with much less success - they reduced, but did not eliminate, their reliance on conscripts, increasing reliance on 'contract' soldiers; but their main focus was on flashy new weapons systems, none of which were made in large enough numbers to really affect their fighting potential much.

As for what gear to buy - that will depend on what you expect your army to do. A nation like Ukraine focused most on light infantry, for the defence, and again so far successfully; but for attack (to drive the Russians out of prepared positions) they will need different gear - like heavy artillery and tanks - and this is what they have been asking for now.

Obviously the two most important bits of gear so far have been man-portable missiles, and drones. The issue will be how the Ukrainians can fight if they switch over to the offensive.

[Tonitrus]

What about helicopter gunships?

Like, how vulnerable are they?  My understanding is very.

It's been getting tougher for them, which is why the latest have sensor pods above the rotors so that they can "see over the top" and fire-and-forget missiles so they can didi before the enemy can react to the rocket blast/smoke plume.  There are no current countermeasures to laser-guided MANPADS except evasion.

I also get the impression that the roles filled by helicopter gunships can also mostly be replaced by drones like the Bayraktar, with far less cost/danger to crew.

[grumbler]

I also get the impression that the roles filled by helicopter gunships can also mostly be replaced by drones like the Bayraktar, with far less cost/danger to crew.

True, but a force able to shoot down helo gunships will slaughter drones.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I also get the impression that the roles filled by helicopter gunships can also mostly be replaced by drones like the Bayraktar, with far less cost/danger to crew.

True, but a force able to shoot down helo gunships will slaughter drones.

So swarming instead of expensive targets.