# While the U.S. chased political correctness, Russia chased the edge in battle



## McG (9 Aug 2016)

This article draws warnings for the US Army.  It is focused on artillery with a little reference to electronic warfare.

However, its warnings are applicable to Canada in both general and specific contexts.  Like the US, we have allowed atrophy in our combat capabilities.  Infantry battalions have lost whole companies and capabilities while our four artillery regiments collectively hold enough guns (maybe) to send only one regiment into a contested fight.

If Canada really believes that Russia is a threat of any sort, then it may be time to start investing, and it may be time to start considering the operational impacts of "humanitarian" agreements that constrain our options in use of force while potential threats do not subscribe.


> *While the U.S. chased political correctness, Russia chased the edge on the battlefield*
> Robert H. Scales, Washington Post
> National Post
> 08 Aug 2016
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robert-h-scales-while-the-u-s-chased-political-correctness-russia-chased-the-edge-on-the-battlefield


----------



## GR66 (9 Aug 2016)

Is Canada (perversely) in a potentially positive place for re-invention into a true 5th Generation military?  There are calls for structural reorganization of our forces and reserves, many of our primary weapon systems are either in the early process of replacement or will be due for replacement in the not too distant future.

Many of the discussions on this website are about incremental ways to improve our capabilities but should we instead pause and take this opportunity to examine what a true 5th Generation military would look like.  The type of force that can face the challenges of facing a larger enemy in a highly contested EM environment is probably radically different than what we have now.

I won't hold my breath that the Defence Review will delivery anything other than another safe, comfortable, vanilla Defence policy, but unfortunately that will still leave us with a military with 2nd tier capabilities (no negative reflection on the members of the CF intended).  However when we're looking at replacement of virtually every major weapon system in our inventory now would certainly be the time for bold moves.   :2c:

...sorry for the derail.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Aug 2016)

I suspect the US would be more than happy to "lease/sell" us 2 batteries of Paladins and supporting vehicles.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Aug 2016)

It all boils down to dollars. With a $30B+ deficit, capital DND spending 'deferral', and sagging job numbers, money for an overhaul of the CAF is somewhere between none and hell freezing over.


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Aug 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It all boils down to dollars. With a $30B+ deficit, capital DND spending 'deferral', and sagging job numbers, money for an overhaul of the CAF is somewhere between none and hell freezing over.


The defense industry can create jobs, imagine if we said to GDLS we need mortor carriers, engineering, ADATS, and recovery assets, and more on a LAV 6 chassis, push the ship building ahead but using all avalible yards in the country to get ships in the water, and lets bring back thee CCV project, get the LS and HL replaced now. While the initial cost would be high, if we can build in canada, atleast partially it would create hundreds if not thoudands of manufacturing, high tech jobs, and maybe expand the CF.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## GR66 (10 Aug 2016)

I'm not suggesting that the CF transform into a 5th Generation military overnight, but the Defense Review SHOULD (in my opinion anyway) have that as the end goal.  We should take a good hard look at what that means with similar terms of reference as those are using to describe the revolution in air warfare that the F35 (potentially) represents.

Imagine a highly mobile, light Brigade Group with a large variety of stealthy ground recon vehicles, UAVs, manned aircraft and satellites giving it previously unparallelled situaltional awareness of a greatly extended battlespace.  The force could be equipped with long-range, precision, beyond line-of-site weapons which could disrupt and/or destroy enemy force concentrations or strong points without coming within range of their own weapons.  It could be protected by a fully mobile equivalent of an Iron Dome system and an integrated, multi-level air defence system.  A similar system of systems could be used at sea.

Of course all this isn't available right now, but you'd focus your purchases and restructuring on those things that move you toward that vision...while choosing to make due with those legacy systems that do not fill that requirement.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Aug 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Imagine a highly mobile, light Brigade Group with a large variety of stealthy ground recon vehicles, UAVs, manned aircraft and satellites giving it previously unparallelled situaltional awareness of a greatly extended battlespace.  The force could be equipped with long-range, precision, beyond line-of-site weapons which could disrupt and/or destroy enemy force concentrations or strong points without coming within range of their own weapons.  It could be protected by a fully mobile equivalent of an Iron Dome system and an integrated, multi-level air defence system.


.....and then the alarm clock goes off.  Damn dreams.


----------



## GR66 (10 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> .....and then the alarm clock goes off.  Damn dreams.



Quite possibly, but if we keep just putting our money into the identical basic force design with incrementally updated equipment when possible then we'll never have the opportunity to change.  Envision the goal then the many other organizational changes become much more justifiable.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Aug 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Quite possibly, but if we keep just putting our money into the identical basic force design with incrementally updated equipment when possible then we'll never have the opportunity to change.  Envision the goal then the many other organizational changes become much more justifiable.


We already incrementally update equipment and vehicles. 10-15 year projects deliver the best equipment 10 years late, every 30 or so years. You can't keep up with technology when your system doesn't allow fast enough replacements, and the time between those replacements is too long. It's the same reason we have no real, and will not have a real defense industry, because there's no predictable funding or regular replacement timelines.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Aug 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Envision the goal .....


But, as has been mentioned by several folks, perhaps the sitting governments (of both parties) and people with an interest in defence and security issues have differing "goals."  One side may wish to spend as little as humanly possible -- with whatever spent being more focused on regional economics -- while the other side may wish to advance actual military capabilities.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Aug 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting that the CF transform into a 5th Generation military overnight, but the Defense Review SHOULD (in my opinion anyway) have that as the end goal.  We should take a good hard look at what that means with similar terms of reference as those are using to describe the revolution in air warfare that the F35 (potentially) represents.
> 
> Imagine a highly mobile, light Brigade Group with a large variety of stealthy ground recon vehicles, UAVs, manned aircraft and satellites giving it previously unparallelled situaltional awareness of a greatly extended battlespace.  The force could be equipped with long-range, precision, beyond line-of-site weapons which could disrupt and/or destroy enemy force concentrations or strong points without coming within range of their own weapons.  It could be protected by a fully mobile equivalent of an Iron Dome system and an integrated, multi-level air defence system.  A similar system of systems could be used at sea.
> 
> Of course all this isn't available right now, but you'd focus your purchases and restructuring on those things that move you toward that vision...while choosing to make due with those legacy systems that do not fill that requirement.



In a real war, the only thing that allows us to be 'highly mobile' is precise, overwhelming, flexible firepower. Mainly from artillery and other indirect assets, and also from the air.

There's a reason that the artillery has been the 'senior service' since the year dot. But don't tell any of my Airborne buddies I said so, OK?


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Aug 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting that the CF transform into a 5th Generation military overnight, but the Defense Review SHOULD (in my opinion anyway) have that as the end goal.  We should take a good hard look at what that means with similar terms of reference as those are using to describe the revolution in air warfare that the F35 (potentially) represents.
> 
> Imagine a highly mobile, light Brigade Group with a large variety of stealthy ground recon vehicles, UAVs, manned aircraft and satellites giving it previously unparallelled situaltional awareness of a greatly extended battlespace.  The force could be equipped with long-range, precision, beyond line-of-site weapons which could disrupt and/or destroy enemy force concentrations or strong points without coming within range of their own weapons.  It could be protected by a fully mobile equivalent of an Iron Dome system and an integrated, multi-level air defence system.  A similar system of systems could be used at sea.
> 
> Of course all this isn't available right now, but you'd focus your purchases and restructuring on those things that move you toward that vision...while choosing to make due with those legacy systems that do not fill that requirement.



Wonderful ... now imagine that you might actually want to use it for more than a "one off" exercise somewhere, so you need five of them (at least three equipment "sets," anyway) and then you see the smiling face of Bill Morneau, the Finance Minister saying "No!"


----------



## George Wallace (11 Aug 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Wonderful ... now imagine that you might actually want to use it for more than a "one off" exercise somewhere, so you need five of them (at least three equipment "sets," anyway) and then you see the smiling face of Bill Morneau, the Finance Minister saying "No!"



Imagine all that now, and then the technology FAILS or is NEUTRALIZED.  Back to the BASICS if anyone remembers how.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But, as has been mentioned by several folks, perhaps the sitting governments (of both parties) and people with an interest in defence and security issues have differing "goals."  One side may wish to spend as little as humanly possible -- with whatever spent being more focused on regional economics -- while the other side may wish to advance actual military capabilities.



And it may be that none of that is true.  That's the thing with speculation.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Aug 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Imagine all that now, and then the technology FAILS or is NEUTRALIZED.  Back to the BASICS if anyone remembers how.



The other side is using technology as well.  

The United States could simply overwhelm with air power from jets and cruise missiles.  Russia doesn't have much of a defence that could counter it, other than ending the world.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Aug 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The other side is using technology as well.
> 
> The United States could simply overwhelm with air power from jets and cruise missiles.  Russia doesn't have much of a defence that could counter it, other than ending the world.



Are you forgetting that Russia has probably one of the the most, if not the most advanced air defense weapons on earth, not to mention the S-500 begins rolling out this fall which has a rumored range of 600km to intercept ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, and 400km for aircraft, engaging them at mach 5. Combined with some reports Russian radar can see advanced stealth aircraft like the F-35, I am afraid I don't buy that argument, it would take a lot of dead airmen to penetrate Russia's air defense network.


----------



## BurmaShave (12 Aug 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Are you forgetting that Russia has probably one of the the most, if not the most advanced air defense weapons on earth, not to mention the S-500 begins rolling out this fall which has a rumored range of 600km to intercept ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, and 400km for aircraft, engaging them at mach 5. Combined with some reports Russian radar can see advanced stealth aircraft like the F-35, I am afraid I don't buy that argument, it would take a lot of dead airmen to penetrate Russia's air defense network.



I will preface this by saying, I'm not an SME, this isn't my job, and if one of the real experts would like to show up, that'd be great.

With that out of the way, here's my amateur analysis:

[list type=decimal]
[*]The S-500: I'll wait and see. My gut feeling is that a missile big enough to go 600km is not going to be agile enough to intercept a maneuvering target. I think it's more an ABM/ASAT system, like THAAD or the HQ-19, with a secondary plane killing option. If anything, the big issue will be the danger it poses to AWACS, alongside stuff like the R-37 and K-100 (amateur prediction: C4ISTAR is going to become more peer-to-peer using MADL, MIDS-J, and the Talon HATE pod for legacy airframes. Replace the AWACS with target/targeting sharing.)
[*]Stealth: Stealth isn't some binary onff thing. The stealthier I am, the harder I am to acquire, and the more effective my countermeasures will be.  So, sure, a bistatic radar with a span the width of Moscow will see the F-35, but it'll also see every other metal marble sized target. An Su-27 will see it, too, but it'll have to be right on top of the F-35 (which also means it's been in -120 range for minutes). Every time they hand off, from the big nuclear radar, to a tracking radar, to a fighter or SAM, and then to an active missile, a stealth aircraft gets proportionately harder to find. This additional acquisition range, ideally, gives me enough space to accomplish my mission. Even if it doesn't, the tiny radar return makes it much easier to dupe/seduce/jam any missile fired at me.
[*]IADS: Defeating an Integrated Air Defence System (IADS) with the planes it's designed to kill has always been an interesting challenge. However, even with the crazy Russian systems, we still have ways. For example, we can add a whole bunch of cheap drones (ADM-160 MALD) that mimic our aircraft (made easier by the F-35 and F-22's tiny radar signature). As the get locked up, they feed data on those emitters back over a data link, which can then be transmitted to systems and aircraft to kill the emitters. That's just one of the many options in the toolkit for slaying an IADS. Ideally, a combination of stealth, jamming, target saturation, air supremacy, decapitation strikes, anti-radiation missiles, cruise missiles, and bombs allow us to kill off their air defence without significant loss, opening the battlespace for our aircraft. Or, it doesn't work, and then we all die. Oh well, war is hell.
[/list]


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Aug 2016)

I like your #3 idea, using drones in wild weasel missions to spike AD systems is probably a great use of them, pilots are hard to replace, an airframe isnt, so spamming drones to overwhelm an AD system sounds like a great option. the S-500 is reported to be only able to track and engage 10 targets at a time, if you could throw 100 drones at an area, even if you had 2+ S-500 batteries present, that would still be several minutes to intercept the drones alone, by the time you can reload, the planes mixed in with HARM missiles have probably reduced your AD capacity significantly.


----------



## BurmaShave (12 Aug 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I like your #3 idea, using drones in wild weasel missions to spike AD systems is probably a great use of them, pilots are hard to replace, an airframe isnt, so spamming drones to overwhelm an AD system sounds like a great option. the S-500 is reported to be only able to track and engage 10 targets at a time, if you could throw 100 drones at an area, even if you had 2+ S-500 batteries present, that would still be several minutes to intercept the drones alone, by the time you can reload, the planes mixed in with HARM missiles have probably reduced your AD capacity significantly.



Yeah, the US did just that on the first day of the Gulf War air campaign. Launched a hundred TALDs (predecessor to the MALD), and then blew up anything that spiked them.

While the Russians have newer stuff than the Iraqis had 25 years ago, so does the USA. They're just not so loud about it, cause they're not trying to sell stuff (unlike the Russians with the S-400/S-500. Also, "network centric warfare" doesn't make good clickbait like "5 Deadly New Russian Missiles. #3 Will Surprise You!" does).


----------



## dangerboy (15 Aug 2016)

An interesting news article that shows some of Russia’s tactics.   For the Infantry it reinforces the requirement for us to have a Javelin type anti-armour weapon, especially as we move forward with light forces. Also with the level of EW being used a need to remain proficient in map and compass skills. 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-using-ukraine-battlefield-to-rehearse-for-war-with-west-32bgm7xmq




> Russia using Ukraine battlefield to rehearse for war with West
> Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor
> 1,329 words
> 10 August 2016
> ...


----------



## GR66 (15 Aug 2016)

It seems to me that identifying the strengths of the Russian military SHOULD be the first step in determining where we should be concentrating our efforts in developing our own capabilities.  Anti-Air system to shoot down their drones, surveillance systems to locate their jammers, radars and artillery positions, long range precision weapons (longer range than their artillery for ground based systems or longer range than their AD weapons for air-launched systems) to take out their artillery and EW assets.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Aug 2016)

The Russians have always had a hard on for Artillery.  I wouldn't want to fall under their attention.  

I do remember the limousine that always was right behind Yeltsin's car at the G5 in Halifax in 95.  It had curtains across all the windows in the back.  Everyone's electronic gear was jammed while it was in range.  Was fun watching folks with their cell phones etc going nuts when it was rolling by.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Aug 2016)

It seems to me that most of these problems can be managed by technology and tactics and going back and reconsidering the application of the principles of war.

The biggest concern that I would have is the use of thermo-barics: how do you counter that?  If you can hunker down in your trench and wait out the attack then everything else is manageable.  But if you are denied the safety of a trench then what?  

Everybody in tanks?  That doesn't seem practical.  Especially since one of the other   lessons learned is that even MBTs are vulnerable.

Iron dome type GBADs to intercept the missiles in flight?   More missiles with longer ranges for counter-battery fire?  More F35s?

How well do all of those technologies work if jammers are cheap and ubiquitous?  What happens if every thermo-baric missile carries its own jammer?

Can you create a nodal network from line of sight laser communications?   How about more autonomous Anti Aircraft Machine Guns on tracks for killing drones without disclosing the location of troops?

The commentary about the Javelin is particularly interesting - 

Javelin is effective - but even it might require multiple missiles for a kill - so the answer would seem to be lots and lots of Javelins and drive the cost of production down.

Edit: Linked picture removed because I didn't want that particular solution to become a focal point of the discussion - the subject is way too broad and demands a more general discussion.

Edit2:  Curiously I have just recently been re-reading Jerry Pournelle and Robert Heinlein.  Some of their works anticipated some of this.  Both of them, for example, make reference to high teck spring loaded weapons firing darts - because everything else could be defeated or spoofed by electronic means.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Aug 2016)

Reading the "lessons learned" link to the article posted by Thucydides  I realized that the Russian commentator wasn't just talking about Javelins but also about RPGs.  That would suggest that even large numbers of low cost missiles, like CG-84s, could also be useful.  All that reactive armour can only be exploded once.  Once it is stripped away the underlying vehicle becomes vulnerable.  

And that brings us back to the M77 Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munition and "Cluster Bombs" - The M77, of course, is a point detonating HEAT round that could degrade that active armour.


----------



## GR66 (15 Aug 2016)

Low cost missiles may not be able to defeat enemy armour from all aspects to produce a hard kill but the tracks are still a weak point and creating a mobility kill might be enough to prevent the enemy from achieving their objective.

Another option could be some sort of flechette round that is designed to deplete an enemy's active defence systems and/or set off their reactive armour.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Aug 2016)

On the thermo-baric issue:

I see that the CAF has issued an RFP for more SKOP kits.  http://army.ca/forums/threads/107184/post-1448603.html#msg1448603

Does the SKOP kit need to be upgraded to include something like these?

http://www.bretonindustries.com/blast-blankets/


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> On the thermo-baric issue:
> 
> I see that the CAF has issued an RFP for more SKOP kits.  http://army.ca/forums/threads/107184/post-1448603.html#msg1448603
> 
> ...



Looking at Wikipedia I would think that Blast Blankets would be useless as the oxygen would be sucked out of the air to fuel the explosion.  Perhaps full-time sprinkler systems would be better to defeat the fuel using up the oxygen and lessing the blast.



> From Wikpedia:
> 
> Most conventional explosives consist of a fuel-oxidizer premix (gunpowder, for example, contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer), whereas thermobaric weapons are almost 100% fuel, so thermobaric weapons are significantly more energetic than conventional condensed explosives of equal weight. Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude, and in adverse weather. They do, however, cause considerably more destruction when used inside confined environments, such as foxholes, tunnels, bunkers, and caves—partly due to the sustained blast wave, and partly by consuming the available oxygen inside. Thermobaric weapons have the longest sustained blast wave and most destructive force of any known explosive, excluding nuclear weapons.



Looks like thermo-baric munitions would be absolutely useless in a monsoon.   [


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Aug 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Looking at Wikipedia I would think that Blast Blankets would be useless as the oxygen would be sucked out of the air to fuel the explosion.  Perhaps full-time sprinkler systems would be better to defeat the fuel using up the oxygen and lessing the blast.
> 
> Looks like therm-baric munitions would be absolutely useless in a monsoon.   [



Eggggselent!  A whole new offensive capability for the Met department.  How much are rainmakers going for these days?   [


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Aug 2016)

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/world/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/world/putin-deploys-russias-most-advanced-air-defence-missiles-in-crimea-as-alarm-grows-war-is-imminent


What will August bring? History says another Russian power play

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Aug 2016)

A refresher on US thermobarics?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-american-militarys-deadly-thermobaric-arsenal-14505

Note the effort to make them go the way of the Cluster Bomb.


----------

