3 ms·

In the short terms, EW and CIWS, which can be countered by “Wild Weasel” drones and overwhelming CIWS systems with cheap decoys. Now that low-tier states are fi

In the short terms, EW and CIWS, which can be countered by “Wild Weasel” drones and overwhelming CIWS systems with cheap decoys. Now that low-tier states are fighting it out with autonomous systems purchased from mid-tier states in conditions significantly different from how (e.g.) the US has been using them, expect to see a brutally Darwinian evolution of TTPs in the field.

Valgrim 6y ago
For those who don't speak warspeech: EW: Electronic Warfare; any action involving the use of the electromagnetic spectrum (EM spectrum) or directed energy to control the spectrum, attack an enemy, or impede enemy assaults CIWS: Close-in Weapon System; a point-defense weapon system for detecting and destroying short-range incoming missiles and enemy aircraft which have penetrated the outer defenses, typically mounted shipboard in a naval capacity. A gun-based CIWS usually consists of a combination of radars, computers and rotary or revolver cannon placed on a rotating, automatically aimed gun mount. Wild Weasel: an aircraft, of any type, equipped with anti-radiation missiles and tasked with the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses. In brief, the task of a Wild Weasel aircraft is to bait enemy anti-aircraft defenses into targeting it with their radars, whereupon the radar waves are traced back to their source, allowing the Weasel or its teammates to precisely target it for destruction. TTP: Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures; The role of TTPs in terrorism analysis is to identify individual patterns of behavior of a particular terrorist activity, or a particular terrorist organisation, and to examine and categorize more general tactics and weapons used by a particular terrorist activity, or a particular terrorist organisation.
- HillRat 6y ago
  I could have been less-acronym heavy! :) (The only correction is that TTPs can refer to tactical doctrine in general, which is the spirit I used it in.) To be a little more specific, what we’re seeing in Nagorno-Karabakh seems to be focused on using drones to disrupt sustainment and movement by attacking convoys, so a lot of doctrinal innovation is likely to be based on how to protect against drones while on the move, which will, of course, trigger further counter-counter-drone innovations.
PeterisP 6y ago
I believe that the recent conflicts are good examples that EW doesn't work. Perhaps USA has EW that would work, but Russia is (was?) generally considered to have effective EW, and we are seeing EW systems themselves getting directly taken out by drones. I think that we don't have effective countermeasures now; you just have to expect and tolerate drone strikes just as you have to expect and tolerate artillery strikes. CIWS systems are rare, bulky and expensive - you can use them to protect certain high-value targets (e.g. ships) but they don't scale to protect infantry emplacements, moving vehicles or the perimeter of large bases. Anti-air missiles work against the larger (and more dangerous) UAVs, however, the problem is that if you have to shoot down cheap drones with the current very expensive missiles, then you still lose on a cost/efficiency basis. The role of aviation a couple decades ago involved a limited amount of very effective but very expensive aircraft - and we have effective but expensive countermeasures. The current situation involves lots of cheap aircraft hitting expensive targets (e.g. tanks and various vehicle-based weapon systems). So we need either to have lots of cheap countermeasures, or accept the drone reality which means that high-value targets don't survive, so instead of a single great but expensive tank you'd need perhaps four quadbikes with rocket launchers, or a dozen small unmanned tracked vehicles.

Valgrim 6y ago

For those who don't speak warspeech: EW: Electronic Warfare; any action involving the use of the electromagnetic spectrum (EM spectrum) or directed energy to control the spectrum, attack an enemy, or impede enemy assaults CIWS: Close-in Weapon System; a point-defense weapon system for detecting and destroying short-range incoming missiles and enemy aircraft which have penetrated the outer defenses, typically mounted shipboard in a naval capacity. A gun-based CIWS usually consists of a combination of radars, computers and rotary or revolver cannon placed on a rotating, automatically aimed gun mount. Wild Weasel: an aircraft, of any type, equipped with anti-radiation missiles and tasked with the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses. In brief, the task of a Wild Weasel aircraft is to bait enemy anti-aircraft defenses into targeting it with their radars, whereupon the radar waves are traced back to their source, allowing the Weasel or its teammates to precisely target it for destruction. TTP: Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures; The role of TTPs in terrorism analysis is to identify individual patterns of behavior of a particular terrorist activity, or a particular terrorist organisation, and to examine and categorize more general tactics and weapons used by a particular terrorist activity, or a particular terrorist organisation.

HillRat 6y ago
I could have been less-acronym heavy! :) (The only correction is that TTPs can refer to tactical doctrine in general, which is the spirit I used it in.) To be a little more specific, what we’re seeing in Nagorno-Karabakh seems to be focused on using drones to disrupt sustainment and movement by attacking convoys, so a lot of doctrinal innovation is likely to be based on how to protect against drones while on the move, which will, of course, trigger further counter-counter-drone innovations.

PeterisP 6y ago

I believe that the recent conflicts are good examples that EW doesn't work. Perhaps USA has EW that would work, but Russia is (was?) generally considered to have effective EW, and we are seeing EW systems themselves getting directly taken out by drones. I think that we don't have effective countermeasures now; you just have to expect and tolerate drone strikes just as you have to expect and tolerate artillery strikes. CIWS systems are rare, bulky and expensive - you can use them to protect certain high-value targets (e.g. ships) but they don't scale to protect infantry emplacements, moving vehicles or the perimeter of large bases. Anti-air missiles work against the larger (and more dangerous) UAVs, however, the problem is that if you have to shoot down cheap drones with the current very expensive missiles, then you still lose on a cost/efficiency basis. The role of aviation a couple decades ago involved a limited amount of very effective but very expensive aircraft - and we have effective but expensive countermeasures. The current situation involves lots of cheap aircraft hitting expensive targets (e.g. tanks and various vehicle-based weapon systems). So we need either to have lots of cheap countermeasures, or accept the drone reality which means that high-value targets don't survive, so instead of a single great but expensive tank you'd need perhaps four quadbikes with rocket launchers, or a dozen small unmanned tracked vehicles.