The Coming War With China Part 3

[PappyM3]

based on rather unprecedented success in ukraine drone carriers is indeed the future. no need for humans anymore.
we are falling way behind in this game, as military purchase processes are corrupt to the core, and cheap effective drones are just not cutting it. they want items that cost millions of $ to make, not hundreds or thousands.

The U.S. develops and procures many cheap UAVs. We also have lots of research on how to optimize their utilization with autonomy.

But yes, we also invest in R&D of much more advanced and capable UAVs.

As for UAVs on carriers, how are we falling behind when we did it first and continue to do it while China hasn’t proven shit for their capability.

Did you ever think that there are huge benefits to being able to launch both manned and unmanned aircraft for MUM-T force multiplication?

 

[paul73]

The U.S. develops and procures many cheap UAVs. We also have lots of research on how to optimize their utilization with autonomy.

But yes, we also invest in R&D of much more advanced and capable UAVs.

As for UAVs on carriers, how are we falling behind when we did it first and continue to do it while China hasn’t proven shit for their capability.

Did you ever think that there are huge benefits to being able to launch both manned and unmanned aircraft for MUM-T force multiplication?

View attachment 882002View attachment 882003View attachment 882004View attachment 882005View attachment 882006

those are ultra expensive toys.
the war gets won now by sending swarms of smaller, cheaper units. i did not see anything like that, yet. what is above is still same boeing mentality products.
to be specific - products that try to mimic human control vehicles that were built for humans and retrofitted for the AI. and that time now had passed.

and the aircraft carrier like today - will it survive a coordinated attack of, say, a mere 1000 of such drones, if launched at once? all they have to do for final design is to make them able to dunk under the water for the last half mile or whatnot, to be pretty much undefeatable. times they're changing.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIwrokb-oTg

 

[1sern]

"If the new ship is intended to support large fixed-wing UAVs at sea, as its design suggests, then it raises the question of who or what it is expected to simulate. As we note, it is the first drone carrier in the world, so it is not mimicking any known Western ship. Such drones could be operated more cheaply from shore. A second possibility is that it is some type of experimental platform that will test and develop drone operations at sea.

Whether it is intended for Blue Force simulation or purely research and development remains to be seen. Similarly, we question whether it is an official PLAN program or a speculative commercial project. The new drone carrier remains something of a mystery. Watch this space."

China Builds World's First Dedicated Drone Carrier - Naval News

China has built the world's first dedicated drone carrier. The ship has not been reported however and many of the circumstances surrounding it remain a mystery.

www.navalnews.com

 

[paul73]

and, even conceptually, the whole age of humans and human warring machines, and the age of marines that carry $50K+ of gear on them and go over extensive training - all this efficiently got obsolete now by this war.
the $200-$600 flying self-guiding explosives age had come. you do not need a division of people now, all you need is a moving 3d factory stomping those units a dozen an hour, fitted with grenades and sent flying. the motherboard with an AI-like optical self guiding system is stomped in china for mere 150 bucks. and this was almost 10 yr old tech, design wise, that autel was based on. i do not even know, as i lost interest, of there it is now. i bet they got even more megaflops, and more cores, and more brains in there on those boards.

 

[TG Pioneer]

I’ve often thought that China doesn’t need to invade Taiwan either. The scenario that plays out in my head is that there are thousands of military age Chinese men crossing illegally into California. In the coming civil war, the Quisling, Newsom, will ask for their help as a police force. They’ll activate and unpack their equipment from the shipping containers at Long Beach.

 

[PappyM3]

those are ultra expensive toys.
the war gets won now by sending swarms of smaller, cheaper units. i did not see anything like that, yet. what is above is still same boeing mentality products.
to be specific - products that try to mimic human control vehicles that were built for humans and retrofitted for the AI. and that time now had passed.

and the aircraft carrier like today - will it survive a coordinated attack of, say, a mere 1000 of such drones, if launched at once? all they have to do for final design is to make them able to dunk under the water for the last half mile or whatnot, to be pretty much undefeatable. times they're changing.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIwrokb-oTg

Bottom line: I think your bias against the MIC is blinding you to the facts of the future involving autonomous combat.


Firsr, I didn’t post the small, cheap Group 1 and 2 UAVs that we use… because they have too short of a range to be effective from an aircraft carrier. I posted the UAVs that we have successfully operated from aircraft carriers. Something China has yet to prove they can do.

Yes, the DoD is procuring lots of cheap Group1/2 UAVs. And we’re also invested in the research for the autonomy and teaming that’s necessary to get the most of large groups of UAVs. We NOT behind the curve in this realm.

But we can’t rely on the Group 1/2 UAVs that are prominent in Ukraine right now. They are a great tool, but they are extremely limited in their range, munitions, and EW capability. All due to their small size.

As for your comment about USV swarms attacking a ship, that has nothing to do with our unmanned system R&D. Every country will have to do their own development of appropriate countermeasures. I don’t know if anybody has a solution fielded yet for defense against swarms of USVs. There are unique challenges for detection and tracking, but we’re working them. Regardless, we are doing lots of R&D into both USVs and UUVs of varying sizes.

those are ultra expensive toys.
the war gets won now by sending swarms of smaller, cheaper units. i did not see anything like that, yet. what is above is still same boeing mentality products.
to be specific - products that try to mimic human control vehicles that were built for humans and retrofitted for the AI. and that time now had passed.

Wars do not inherently get won by sending more, cheaper units. That is a fallacy.

As for working research on unmanned systems designed from previously manned platforms, that time HAS NOT passed yet. We are still in that key step of R&D. Partly because we can retrofit lots of F-16s in the near future for more attritable loyal wingmen, and partly because we still need pilots onboard to validate what AI/autonomy is doing. And I can tell you that China is nowhere close to having autonomous capabilities like we have.

https://www.darpa.mil/program/air-combat-evolution

F-16s arrive to be modified for autonomous testing

VENOM-AFT is designed and funded to accelerate testing of autonomy software on crewed and uncrewed aircraft. It complements the autonomy data and AI experimentation proving ground at Eglin AFB and

www.af.mil

These near future Group 5 UAVs will be MUCH more influential in the operational and strategic strikes that actually win wars. Group 1/2 UAVs help infantry, but Group 4/5 UAVs help destroy the high value targets that were keeping the infantry stuck in the first place.

 

[Trafficdiver]

Once the dollar dies the Chinese will purchase all of our nukes using gold. It won't matter how many arms we have. We are slaves that just don't understand it yet.

 

[paul73]

F-16s arrive to be modified for autonomous testing

VENOM-AFT is designed and funded to accelerate testing of autonomy software on crewed and uncrewed aircraft. It complements the autonomy data and AI experimentation proving ground at Eglin AFB and

www.af.mil

that is the exact fallacy i am talking about. and i get 100% the corporate take on that - get paid for the old human centered design, and then demand to be paid extra to 'retrofit' it.

cheap drones win wars, and get built not on a lithium short range power. they fly a 1000 kliks now and hit targets, autonomously.

 

[PappyM3]

and, even conceptually, the whole age of humans and human warring machines, and the age of marines that carry $50K+ of gear on them and go over extensive training - all this efficiently got obsolete now by this war.
the $200-$600 flying self-guiding explosives age had come. you do not need a division of people now, all you need is a moving 3d factory stomping those units a dozen an hour, fitted with grenades and sent flying. the motherboard with an AI-like optical self guiding system is stomped in china for mere 150 bucks. and this was almost 10 yr old tech, design wise, that autel was based on. i do not even know, as i lost interest, of there it is now. i bet they got even more megaflops, and more cores, and more brains in there on those boards.

The bolded sentence is SO SO wrong.

As for computer vision based guidance, it’s not that simple. Yes, the algorithms have been around for more than a decade. And they have gotten a lot better, but there are many considerations. Terminal guidance is fairly easy to build in, as you just need to do lots of training on known threat models/imagery. But the actual navigation is another story. It requires gathering lots of imagery and DTED to train the CV so it knows what path it’s going to fly without using GPS or operator control. It would be a good deal of effort to tailor each UAV for a specific sortie. Almost all of the UAVs being used in Ukraine are controlled by humans.

As for well equipped and trained infantry being obsolete. Absolutely not. EW and ballistic countermeasures are already effective as long as they’re being issued widely, and automated laser countermeasures are not far off.

 

[1sern]

The whole Black Sea is smaller than the Gulf of Mexico. What are the ranges on those little drones?

 

[PappyM3]

that is the exact fallacy i am talking about. and i get 100% the corporate take on that - get paid for the old human centered design, and then demand to be paid extra to 'retrofit' it.

What are you smoking? So it’s bad to want to retrofit our numerous F-16s so that they can operate with less human risk when possible?

In order to make autonomous systems that can effectively perform qualitative tasks, you need humans involved in the early development to validate its behavior.

cheap drones win wars, and get built not on a lithium short range power. they fly a 1000 kliks now and hit targets, autonomously.

Oh for f***’s sake. Tell me one war that has been won with cheap drones.

As for the cheap UAVs that can fly 1,000 km, tell me how effective they are? All of Iran’s cheap ones they launched at Israel were destroyed. The vast majority of Russia’s operationally significant strikes against Ukraine have been cruise missiles. Not UAVs. And Ukraine’s UAV utilization in the deep fight against Russia has not had any significant impact on the war. It’s all been symbolic.

 

[PappyM3]

The whole Black Sea is smaller than the Gulf of Mexico. What are the ranges on those little drones?

Very short.

 

[paul73]

The bolded sentence is SO SO wrong.

you really did not look lately of what is out there and how it works. it is that cheap, and it is working.
any self-guiding consumer drone with a 'follow me' feature - how do you think it is working? it was my hobby for a while to tinker drones that use ardupilot software - a mission planner solution that was using both gps and optical paths, and an ability to use stored maps in the device. it is same exact tech that now used in ukrainian devices. all that was solved long ago, and people used it to make agricultural applications, for spraying, or, now, for dropping explosives on the matching image pattern.

 

[paul73]

So it’s bad to want to retrofit our numerous F-16s s

not only bad - stupid.
a cardboard made plane that a radar cannot see can chop along happily and almost silently at 150ft altitude using cameras and avoiding all obstacles will deliver a hit with same precision - and costs, like, about $3000 to make. and can be made in close to unlimited numbers. those are longer range one, the anti-personnel kamikaze systems are way cheaper.
and how much one f16 costs?

it is the gap you refuse to see - the warfare had changed.

 

[PappyM3]

you really did not look lately of what is out there and how it works. it is that cheap, and it is working.
any self-guiding consumer drone with a 'follow me' feature - how do you think it is working? it was my hobby for a while to tinker drones that use ardupilot software - a mission planner solution that was using both gps and optical paths, and an ability to use stored maps in the device. it is same exact tech that now used in ukrainian devices. all that was solved long ago, and people used it to make agricultural applications, for spraying, or, now, for dropping explosives on the matching image pattern.

The “follow me” feature requires an object in view to select for tracking. That is the terminal phase and requires human input. I’m talking true autonomy in a GPS-denied environment, in both navigation and target identification, even before tracking. This isn’t my hobby.

Cheap UAVs have not obsoleted well trained and equipped infantry. That’s preposterous.

not only bad - stupid.
a cardboard made plane that a radar cannot see can chop along happily and almost silently at 150ft altitude using cameras and avoiding all obstacles will deliver a hit with same precision - and costs, like, about $3000 to make. and can be made in close to unlimited numbers. those are longer range one, the anti-personnel kamikaze systems are way cheaper.
and how much one f16 costs?

Do you know how small the payload is on that cardboard UAV?

Can that cardboard UAV strike a KJ-200 to paralyze Chinese command and control?

Can that cardboard UAV hit a hardened bunker with a JDAM?

Say you launch your slow, low cardboard UAV to take out an IADS tracking radar… don’t you think such a high value system would have UAV countermeasures? A slow cardboard UAV is MUCH easier to shoot down than an F-16.

it is the gap you refuse to see - the warfare had changed.

I’m keenly aware that warfare keeps changing. And autonomy is a key part of its current and future. But it’s not just cheap autonomous systems.

 

[PappyM3]

I’ll add that cheap, small UAVs are extremely important at the tactical level. And thankfully, our ground components are very vested in taking lessons learned from Ukraine. But for operational and strategic needs, they are severely flawed.


You still haven’t answered my question about how many wars have been won by cheap UAVs. You claimed cheap drones win wars. I’d like some evidence.

 

[drgrant]

based on rather unprecedented success in ukraine drone carriers is indeed the future. no need for humans anymore.

Drones are soooooo effective thats why the Ukraine thimg is a meat grinder stalemate largely still dependent on the level of human suffering flung at the front lines.

Will drones be important? Sure. But they still don't really hold ground.

 

[Waher]

Based on what I'm hearing and reading about the present state of the Taiwan populace, I suspect many of them would go along with a Chinese takeover along the lines of what happened in HK: China assumes control, but the place retains a lot of what made it distinctive. Leaders get quietly spirited away or liquidated, a new set of Beijing-installed leaders slips into place, and presto. Fait accompli.

Taiwan's populace isn't keen on being the next Hong Kong and voted strongly against Beijing's quisling party in Taiwan. The CCP getting more antagonistic towards Taiwan with military drills and planning is because Plan A of getting 5th columnists voted in isn't working.

Drones are soooooo effective thats why the Ukraine thimg is a meat grinder stalemate largely still dependent on the level of human suffering flung at the front lines.

Will drones be important? Sure. But they still don't really hold ground.

People keep saying this, but neither Russia (surprisingly bad at cyber and electronic warfare despite the reputation prior to the war) or Ukraine have great directed energy weapons or ample gun based short range air defense (something the west had and pissed away in the 1990s like everything else). Directed energy weapons that cause the onboard batteries to cook off are likely going to be the easiest way of swatting drones. I imagine the strategy will then be to swarm with drones backed up with simultaneous missile strikes because using one capability will make it difficult for radar & the like to engage the other.

Once the dollar dies the Chinese will purchase all of our nukes using gold. It won't matter how many arms we have. We are slaves that just don't understand it yet.

China's gold reserves are substantially less then the debt they owe to themselves and all the funny money they lent to far flung 3rd world shitholes that sooner or later will figure out that China doesn't have the capability to extract repayment any better than the old colonial powers could post WW2. When the Belt & Road countries start telling the CCP, "thanks for the infrastructure... get the f*** out and f*** off" things are going to get dicey for the CCP.

 

[1sern]

Well this went tangential pretty fast, A post about a new drone carrier turns into an argument about Uke and DJI Phantoms being the new ultimate weapon to about holding ground like infantry. I'm not sure even a Ford class would be good at holding ground, though maybe if they landed some crew they could hold a small amount (providing the scopes on their rfles weren't installed backwards).

Anyway the carrier seems to be built for large drones The Coming War With China Part 3

Taiwan's populace isn't keen on being the next Hong Kong and voted strongly against Beijing's quisling party in Taiwan

Ma Yingjeou going to Beijing and saying he trusts Xi was hilarious

 

[drgrant]

People keep saying this, but neither Russia (surprisingly bad at cyber and electronic warfare despite the reputation prior to the war) or Ukraine have great directed energy weapons or ample gun based short range air defense (something the west had and pissed away in the 1990s like everything else). Directed energy weapons that cause the onboard batteries to cook off are likely going to be the easiest way of swatting drones. I imagine the strategy will then be to swarm with drones backed up with simultaneous missile strikes because using one capability will make it difficult for radar & the like to engage the other.

None of that changes the fact that you need people and logistics on the ground to hold ground. I get it this geegaw syndrome stuff is the new hotness but it's not going to change every aspect of warfare just one phase of it.

 

[Picton]

Taiwan's populace isn't keen on being the next Hong Kong and voted strongly against Beijing's quisling party in Taiwan. The CCP getting more antagonistic towards Taiwan with military drills and planning is because Plan A of getting 5th columnists voted in isn't working.

Sure. As of 2024.

China plays the long game, and they'd rather not do a costly invasion with a high probability of casualties and a non-zero probability of Bay Of Pigs-style failure... not when they can take their time and do things a bit more peaceably.

They can watch the Taiwanese election schedule and they can refine their propaganda over the next decade or so if they want to get more pro-CCP people installed. That's if they even want to bother. I'm not sure grabbing Taiwan is in Beijing's best interests at the moment, especially when they know they've got all the time in the world.

 

[paul73]

None of that changes the fact that you need people and logistics on the ground to hold ground

it does not, but if a $500 self-guiding device will have a sufficiently high effective rate of extermination like it shows it now - then the whole game on the ground will change.
there would be no patrols in -stans and no troops there just walking around if around every corner it could be a flying bomb doing 65mph approach toward them in zigzag.
it is not going to change an every aspect of the game, but it will change a lot, as the rules of engagement just got severely altered.

and next step will be when those flying bombs will start getting used by terrorists, worldwide, as it is coming as well, for sure, and, i bet, pretty damn soon.

 

[Picton]

it does not, but if a $500 self-guiding device will have a sufficiently high effective rate of extermination like it shows it now - then the whole game on the ground will change.
there would be no patrols in -stans and no troops there just walking around if around every corner it could be a flying bomb doing 65mph approach toward them in zigzag.
it is not going to change an every aspect of the game, but it will change a lot, as the rules of engagement just got severely altered.

and next step will be when those flying bombs will start getting used by terrorists, worldwide, as it is coming as well, for sure, and, i bet, pretty damn soon.

The more important/significant these technologies turn out to be, the quicker and more effectively the countermeasures will appear.

 

[paul73]

The more important/significant these technologies turn out to be, the quicker and more effectively the countermeasures will appear.

who knows, may be. a portable emp blast rifles? dunno. plus shielded cpus can survive quite a bit of external blasts anyway.
the only measure before was to jam all gps and radio in the area, but with the new tech of self-guiding optical/flir systems, well, good luck.

ukrainians are now showing what can be done there with almost no budget and resources, but with a proper budget and resources that china got, anyway, time will tell.

 

[drgrant]

it does not, but if a $500 self-guiding device will have a sufficiently high effective rate of extermination like it shows it now - then the whole game on the ground will change.
there would be no patrols in -stans and no troops there just walking around if around every corner it could be a flying bomb doing 65mph approach toward them in zigzag.
it is not going to change an every aspect of the game, but it will change a lot, as the rules of engagement just got severely altered.

Yeah that assumes an infinite supply of flying bombs and infinite amount of pilots to fly them all (or AI or whatever) and none of that is reality.

I realize you guys jerk off over those like russian and chinese propaganda films that show the trucks showing up and deploying like 600 drones at
once, but thats not quite reality. Like most everything else it will work up to a point but only go so far.

Then the ECM tech gets deployed and things get boring again. And we're back to... people grinding it out....

 

[PappyM3]

it does not, but if a $500 self-guiding device will have a sufficiently high effective rate of extermination like it shows it now - then the whole game on the ground will change.
there would be no patrols in -stans and no troops there just walking around if around every corner it could be a flying bomb doing 65mph approach toward them in zigzag.
it is not going to change an every aspect of the game, but it will change a lot, as the rules of engagement just got severely altered.

and next step will be when those flying bombs will start getting used by terrorists, worldwide, as it is coming as well, for sure, and, i bet, pretty damn soon.

1. There’s a whole lot more to war than the tactical fight.

2. I think you may be observing some observability bias. Tons of videos from the Ukraine war show effective Group 1 “FPV” UAVs. Them, in tandem with loitering ISR and grenade UAVs are used a lot, but not to the extent you seem to suggest. There are still tons of infantry entering and clearing trenches and combined arms engagements with nary a UAV in sight. Yes, Russia and Ukraine are buying them from China in droves. But they’re still not an unlimited resource.

Yes, they’re cheap compared to their larger operational and strategic UAVs. But they still require logistics and planning, and SMEs to deploy/manage/operate* them.

* Currently need people to operate them. That will eventually go away.

who knows, may be. a portable emp blast rifles? dunno. plus shielded cpus can survive quite a bit of external blasts anyway.
the only measure before was to jam all gps and radio in the area, but with the new tech of self-guiding optical/flir systems, well, good luck.

ukrainians are now showing what can be done there with almost no budget and resources, but with a proper budget and resources that china got, anyway, time will tell.

EW, ballistic (both kill shots and disabling with nets/wires), and lasers are all options. EW is less of an option if the UAV is truly capable of GPS-denied autonomous navigation. But like I said before, that requires a lot of overhead for just one flight for these small UAVs.

Also, just as there is autonomy in these UAVs, there are also autonomous options for countermeasures. 65mph isn’t a whole lot for a turret system to detect it with computer vision, track it, and accurately engage with a ballistic weapon. This type of countermeasure would be even more effective as lasers get better and more viable.

 

[Picton]

Also, just as there is autonomy in these UAVs, there are also autonomous options for countermeasures.

Yep.

I saw that documentary once. It was called Terminator.

It's coming, whether I want it to or not. And I don't.

 

[paul73]

and in overall relation to the generic ship building:

The U.S. Navy Can’t Build Ships

Decades of deindustrialization and downsizing have left America without shipyards to build and maintain a fleet.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[paul73]

whole lot for a turret system to detect it with computer vision, track it, and accurately engage with a ballistic weapon

yeah, ukrainians also crafted such systems and use them right now. i bet it is what we will have as well, when push will come to shove.
here it is, the 'solution':

 

[PappyM3]

yeah, ukrainians also crafted such systems and use them right now. i bet it is what we will have as well, when push will come to shove.
here it is, the 'solution':
View attachment 882269

Rifles are a poor choice. That setup is appropriate for large group 2 or low group 3 UAVs.

Better ballistic options include shotguns with bird shot, net launchers, chain/cable shot, etc. And with automated turrets using EO/IR sensors for target detection and tracking. I wouldn’t be surprised if we also see more air burst munitions coming on scene.

The U.S. currently has numerous R&D programs to develop new man-portable/handheld small UAV countermeasures. And before you jump on the expensive MIC complaint, some of these R&D programs are funded with SBIRs.