Canadian Defence News

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

did he joke about how what the Ukrainians are already deploying in battle now

could be unleashed against the politicians in Ottawa, from a basement somewhere with a smartphone ?

the bleeding edge of drones not being anything like MQ-9

what the Ukrainians are deploying right now

could fly right up to a politicians limo and blow it up

commercial off the shelf

to wit, if you can sneak up on a Main Battle Tank and kill it on the total war battlefield

there is literally no defence against that in any inventory

Main Battle Tank is the government's absolute last line of defence

and those are getting blown away with impunity right now in Ukraine

we are at an inflection point now, where there is no defence against a drone swarm

MQ-9 ? That archaic drone would easily be destroyed by a smarter drone, right on the airfield

it's not like Canadian air force bases are defended in Canada

somebody could take the MQ-9's out with civilian drones plus homemade pipe bombs

never mind an attack supported by a state actor

it's no wonder that Canadian governments are terrified of Iran & Hamas

since Iran & Hamas could really cause some serious shit in Canada

with minimal effort at comparatively cheap  prices

for example, do the planes taking off and landing at Pearson airport

have any defences whatsoever against a commercial off the shelf drone attack ?

you don't even need a bomb, all you have to do is fly a drone into both engines at the same time

a turbofan could ingest a bird perhaps, but it can't ingest a brick

that's all the terrorists would need to do

tape a brick to their FPV drones, then fly those into the glide path at Pearson

all the Canadian defence plans look like something out of the 1980's

when in fact, all that shit is forty years out of date

MQ-9 is like buying a Supermarine Spitfire, to fight against an F-15 Eagle, that's how out of date it is

these clunky airplane sized remote controlled drones literally date back to the Vietnam War

MQ-9 isn’t for counter-drone warfare either.  Drone defence is still in it’s infancy and who knows what Canada will end up employing, if anything…for the time being they are working with allies though 

 

I agree on the modern battlefield against a near-peer enemy MQ9 probably isn’t going to last long, especially where the electromagnetic spectrum is contested. But they have their place in operations at home and abroad as an ISR platform and as a combat platform. The enemy isn’t always operating with every military capability at his disposal.  Sometimes the enemy is just 2 a-holes and a radio hunkered in an OP with no support nearby. Sometimes the enemy is an illegal fishing boat off the Grand Banks or a Russian spy vessel disguised as a cargo ship in the Strait of Juan de Fuca or leaky oil tanker in the NWP or a Chinese “scientific research vessel”   

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

but who says you are actually safer in a LAV6 these days ?

It’s become clear that the light infantry deployed to latvi will be tasked with light infantry duties they will not be converted to mech. The LTVs are not intended as combat vehicles they are a transportation alternative to the school bus, ATVs, and marching on foot

[Dougie93]

43 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s become clear that the light infantry deployed to latvi will be tasked with light infantry duties they will not be converted to mech. The LTVs are not intended as combat vehicles they are a transportation alternative to the school bus, ATVs, and marching on foot

again, I don't think it matters that much anymore

in that Main Battle Tanks are getting blown up left & right

so it's not like you are comparatively well protected in an infantry fighting vehicle

the main thing in Ukraine seems like it is just best to be as low profile as possible

in that, the heavier the vehicle you are in, the more joint fires it attracts

and there really isn't any level of armour which prevents you from getting blown up, particularly by top attack

 

[Army Guy]

On 8/15/2024 at 6:01 PM, Dougie93 said:

but who says you are actually safer in a LAV6 these days ?

the Russians are blowing M1A1 Abrams and Leopard 2's away like it ain't no thang

to wit, when they are hovering over you with drones

an armoured vehicle is basically a death trap

you would honestly be safer dismounting, dispersing,  and hunkering down in the trenches

World War One 2.0

for example, when you observe the Ukrainian conops now

much of the time they are driving around in civilian pickup trucks, with a drone sensor

when the drone sensor sounds the alarm,

they immediately park the truck to dismount and hide in the treeline

armour has become irrelevant

being trapped in a vehicle of any kind,  in the face of drones, is actually suicidal

this is a military epoch in progress

like the Maxim machine gun being unleashed upon the Western Front, against Napoleonic tactics

to wit, the Ypres Salient, has come full circle;  stand to,  stand to, prepare grenades, fix bayonets

there is no armoured escape from the infantry once again

and the air support can't even get through in the face of contemporary SAMs

over the top when the whistle blows, into the forlorn hope

Slava Ukraini

Anyone thats seen or has been blown up in a LAV III....

Ukrainians are not using combine arms tactics....Simple drones are having there 15 mins in the spot light...counter measures are already on the battle field...from mounting 30 mm auto cannons and radar on tanks and IFV's a quick burst and the drone is history...

The job of the infantry has rarely changed we still dismount and still fix bayonets' to clean out trenches/ Objective's...that will never change, all that has changed is how we run around the battle field...Israelis have gone to using old tank hulls for IFV's armor will just keep getting thicker, LAV 6.0 is around 25 plus tones, new german Lynx is around 40 tons...tech will evolve and drones will be another tool in the tool box, as a offensive weapon that will fade away or become more specialized as a recon tool.

[Dougie93]

16 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Anyone thats seen or has been blown up in a LAV III....

Ukrainians are not using combine arms tactics....Simple drones are having there 15 mins in the spot light...counter measures are already on the battle field...from mounting 30 mm auto cannons and radar on tanks and IFV's a quick burst and the drone is history...

The job of the infantry has rarely changed we still dismount and still fix bayonets' to clean out trenches/ Objective's...that will never change, all that has changed is how we run around the battle field...Israelis have gone to using old tank hulls for IFV's armor will just keep getting thicker, LAV 6.0 is around 25 plus tones, new german Lynx is around 40 tons...tech will evolve and drones will be another tool in the tool box, as a offensive weapon that will fade away or become more specialized as a recon tool.

It's not that I'm saying you don't need a vehicle to advance to contact

what I am surmising however, in terms of fighting near peers

is that the Infantry Fighting Vehicle  has become a death trap

you do need a battle taxi, but you don't want to be trapped in that thing on the objective

because the threat is now from above

there's a small very hard to detect drone hovering over you

and that drone is directing precision guided joint fires against you, in a top attack mode

so for example the 40 ton KF41 Lynx is still a death trap, since it isn't designed to survive a top attack

[Iceni warrior]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

It's not that I'm saying you don't need a vehicle to advance to contact

what I am surmising however, in terms of fighting near peers

is that the Infantry Fighting Vehicle  has become a death trap

you do need a battle taxi, but you don't want to be trapped in that thing on the objective

because the threat is now from above

there's a small very hard to detect drone hovering over you

and that drone is directing precision guided joint fires against you, in a top attack mode

so for example the 40 ton KF41 Lynx is still a death trap, since it isn't designed to survive a top attack

Are we approaching the point where the squishy meat bag is no longer an asset and more of a liability on the battlefield?

Human frailty already limits what a fighter can do in terms of manoeuvrability in the air.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Iceni warrior said:

Are we approaching the point where the squishy meat bag is no longer an asset and more of a liability on the battlefield?

Human frailty already limits what a fighter can do in terms of manoeuvrability in the air.

for very complex tasks, to include imposing your political will upon an adversary population

the squishy meat bag is still exponentially more efficient and comparatively cheap

but in terms of simple tasks at the tactical level, it's not clear that you even need fighter planes anymore

manoeuvrability in the air was only required so that you could get behind the other guy and shoot him with guns

but that's not required anymore to achieve air dominance

to wit, the drones don't have to win the dogfight, since dogfights themselves are entirely obsolete

[Iceni warrior]

Is high manoeuvrability not useful in evading missile attacks or is that just Top Gun fiction?

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Iceni warrior said:

Is high manoeuvrability not useful in evading missile attacks or is that just Top Gun fiction?

if you are just sending swarms of AI controlled low cost drones

why do you need to evade the missile attack ?

bearing in mind that the missile is exponentially more expensive and harder to produce than the drone

which is an inherent win for the drone side when the missile hits its target

in that you will run out of those exquisite missiles long before I run out of these cheap 3D printed drones

[Iceni warrior]

It's a whole new world where tanks and aircraft carriers are heading towards obsolescence? 

Just as we've built 2 Elizabeth class carriers.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Iceni warrior said:

It's a whole new world where tanks and aircraft carriers are heading towards obsolescence? 

Just as we've built 2 Elizabeth class carriers.

just load those carriers up with the high end drones

the aircraft carrier now is in essence a mobile sea base

what types of platforms you launch from the carrier is constantly evolving

[Dougie93]

18 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

Just as we've built 2 Elizabeth class carriers.

don't think of it as being a downgrade

it's an upgrade

so for example, no need for Sea Harrier to fly out to attack the Argentines on the Falkland Islands

since the R08 Queen Elizabeth class as a drone carrier could attack Buenos Aires itself with impunity

cut straight to the resolution above the tactical level, thus is the arm of decision

Edited August 18, 2024 by Dougie93

[Iceni warrior]

Well, we had the option to attack Buenos Aires last time but decided it would upset the Americans too much.

 

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Well, we had the option to attack Buenos Aires last time but decided it would upset the Americans too much.

the threat of a drone carrier capable of reducing Buenos Aires to rubble with impunity

would have prevented the war from ever breaking out in the first place

 

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

Are we approaching the point where the squishy meat bag is no longer an asset and more of a liability on the battlefield?

Human frailty already limits what a fighter can do in terms of manoeuvrability in the air.

One of the main reasons wars come to an end , is when one side has made the other pay in regards to life and equipment...once enough humans have died then peace talks begin...without those meat bags what will be the end state, when will peace talks begin...when we run out of machines ? 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Iceni warrior said:

It's a whole new world where tanks and aircraft carriers are heading towards obsolescence? 

Just as we've built 2 Elizabeth class carriers.

They have been saying that for decades....and yet here we are still fighting with tanks and aircraft carriers...drones have shaped a new weapon of war, but like any weapon they will find a counter measure...look at the new tanks designs coming out becasue of the ukraine conflict, now armed with a 30 mm anti air cannon, and radar...not to mention mobile air defences with just short range cannons... just for those pesky drones...

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

..when we run out of machines ? 

the ultimate machine being the hydrogen bomb

which does constrain total war of annihilation as the objective end state

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

 just for those pesky drones...

but the drone is a force multiplier for the carriers

the drones are much stealthier, longer ranged, and expendable

the drone gives the carrier exponentially more reach and a much higher rate of sortie

the drone actually restores the punch of the carrier, higher rate and volume of fire, at much longer range

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

It's not that I'm saying you don't need a vehicle to advance to contact

what I am surmising however, in terms of fighting near peers

is that the Infantry Fighting Vehicle  has become a death trap

you do need a battle taxi, but you don't want to be trapped in that thing on the objective

because the threat is now from above

there's a small very hard to detect drone hovering over you

and that drone is directing precision guided joint fires against you, in a top attack mode

so for example the 40 ton KF41 Lynx is still a death trap, since it isn't designed to survive a top attack

Germans have developed a new counter munition type of protection for top attack... Swedes had advance armor for top protection on their leopards for years...

KF41 also has increased gun movement can be armed with 30 or 35 mm auto air burst munitions, 4 or 5 rounds and your drones get melted...new smaller radar is also being developed for ground applications in in some cases already operational to detect and kill drones..the germans/french/ and americans have already fielded proto type units..on each of their advanced tank models. 

[Army Guy]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but the drone is a force multiplier for the carriers

the drones are much stealthier, longer ranged, and expendable

the drone gives the carrier exponentially more reach and a much higher rate of sortie

the drone actually restores the punch of the carrier, higher rate and volume of fire, at much longer range

I agree it is another tool in the tool box, but countermeasures are already in play...all of that being said, everyone in the forces are expendable, it's great that a machine can take some of the risker missions, but at some point a human is going into the battle space....Just look at the Arleigh Burke flt 4 and 5 designs looking at 128 VSL tubes...thats a lot of missiles, considering some carrier 4 missiles per tubes.

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

It's not that I'm saying you don't need a vehicle to advance to contact

what I am surmising however, in terms of fighting near peers

is that the Infantry Fighting Vehicle  has become a death trap

you do need a battle taxi, but you don't want to be trapped in that thing on the objective

because the threat is now from above

there's a small very hard to detect drone hovering over you

and that drone is directing precision guided joint fires against you, in a top attack mode

so for example the 40 ton KF41 Lynx is still a death trap, since it isn't designed to survive a top attack

The drone i am scared off is the one that you don't see, and is spotting for some arty unit, about to unload a world of hurt with a barrage of highly accurate 155mm shells, i'd rather face some drone with a RPG warhead tring to target me than accurate arty fire. 

[Dougie93]

Just now, Army Guy said:

I agree it is another tool in the tool box, but countermeasures are already in play...all of that being said, everyone in the forces are expendable, it's great that a machine can take some of the risker missions, but at some point a human is going into the battle space.

my point is simply that contemporary manoeuvre fighting vehicles, MBT & IFV

is WWII tactics upgraded with 1980's tech

and after almost 100 years of dominance, that paradigm is in fact obsolete

because escorting the infantry across no man's land is not the arm of decision anymore,

rather, as armour is increasingly irrelevant in the face of cheap and easy ways to defeat it

it's back to an artillery duel stalemate in trenches, with the drone as the New Artillery

the human is in the battlespace, he's just hunkered down in a bunker directing drones with his smartphone

no need to go running out into the no man's land to get your legs blown off, if that doesn't win anything for you

manoeuvre fighting vehicles are not the arm of decision anymore,

it's quite clear that drones have rendered the mechanized formation into a death trap

bearing in mind that drones are going to throw off the shackles of remote control

to become fully autonomous

there won't even be a drone operator

the drones will find & identity their own targets, no need for radio nor GPS nor any of that sort of thing

it's not even that high tech anymore, this sort of autonomy is already commercial off the shelf

 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

my point is simply that contemporary manoeuvre fighting vehicles, MBT & IFV

is WWII tactics upgraded with 1980's tech

and after almost 100 years of dominance, that paradigm is in fact obsolete

because escorting the infantry across no man's land is not the arm of decision anymore,

rather, as armour is increasingly irrelevant in the face of cheap and easy ways to defeat it

it's back to an artillery duel stalemate in trenches, with the drone as the New Artillery

the human is in the battlespace, he's just hunkered down in a bunker directing drones with his smartphone

no need to go running out into the no man's land to get your legs blown off, if that doesn't win anything for you

manoeuvre fighting vehicles are not the arm of decision anymore,

it's quite clear that drones have rendered the mechanized formation into a death trap

bearing in mind that drones are going to throw off the shackles of remote control

to become fully autonomous

there won't even be a drone operator

the drones will find & identity their own targets, no need for radio nor GPS nor any of that sort of thing

it's not even that high tech anymore, this sort of autonomy is already commercial off the shelf

 

The paradox being that territory is not captured until a human being sets foot on it and claims it, which an effective drone force will make all but impossible. Eventually, someone will come up with something to overcome that and put the infantry back in the game

[BeaverFever]

Timely editorial in the Globe and Mail:

 

It’s about time Canada’s lagging counterdrone industry gets a revamp

Elisabeth Gosselin-Malo is a Milan-based correspondent for Defense News.

After years of underfunding, it is high time that Canada’s lagging counterdrone industry gets the revamp it desperately needs to effectively defend its skies against unmanned aerial systems.

This rapidly evolving technology, commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft that can fly without a human pilot. Drone threats come in many shapes and sizes, including miniature ones – dubbed “mini” and “micro” aerial vehicles in defence jargon – which weigh less than 250 grams.

The wide-scale deployment of these weapons in the Ukraine war has military experts warning of the serious threat they pose to civil and military targets, as their low-altitude flights allow them to operate outside traditional radar coverage and go undetected by existing air defence systems.

“We’re seeing the pervasive use of micro and mini drones on the battlefield in Ukraine and every major military is taking note – they are cheap, fast and the technology is evolving on the time scale of months rather than years,” Jae Daniel, co-founder of AIM Defence, a Melbourne-based anti-drone company, told me.

The Canadian military seems to be paying attention. Concerns about the country’s military readiness to confront new threats from adversaries were voiced by the new Chief of the Defence Staff, General Jennie Carignan, during a press conference after her appointment ceremony in July.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is increasingly conducting exercises with a focus on countering these unmanned systems. One official told me at a recent training event in Romania that they view small drones as one of the most significant current threats in military conflicts.

Canada recently became the fifth NATO country to test above-the-horizon lasers to defeat drone threats in open space as part of the Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) program’s Counter Uncrewed Aerial Systems contest in Suffield, Alta.

Dubbed the Sandbox, the three-week initiative was organized by the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to accelerate the testing of a variety of counterdrone technologies.

Three prior editions have been held at Defence Research and Development Canada’s Suffield Research Centre, as it possesses one of the world’s largest outdoor laboratories, with about 500 square kilometres of terrain, essential for conducting these types of demonstrations. Participants hailing from Canada, Australia, the United States, Israel and Britain competed for three monetary prizes based on their performance and growth potential as assessed by the DND and the CAF.

“This was the first time that directed energy [weaponry] was allowed to enter the Sandbox – prior years have focused on more traditional defeat technologies, such as jamming and bullets,” said Jessica Glenn, the other co-founder of AIM Defence, which took home the $1-million first prize. Fractl:1 was the system brought by AIM, which integrates a high-power laser with the company’s own AI tracking system, able to precisely target specific parts of the drone and neutralize it from more than a kilometre away.

“During the testing, a provided ‘Red Team’ flew a range of drone types, including first-person-view, fixed-wing and quadcopter drones, in different patterns and with different payloads – some of these were representative of real-world engagements and others were designed to safely push the edges of Fractl,” Ms. Glenn said.

The joint second-place prize went to Canadian company DARIT Technologies and the University of Toronto’s Prandtl Dynamics, which both won $375,000.

High-energy lasers are optical devices that produce a very focused beam of light, through which they can destroy an unmanned aerial vehicle’s electronics. These systems have gained interest in recent years owing to their lower cost and their ability to mitigate threats more quickly than other counterdrone technologies on the market.

According to Matt Ceh, who was the lead defence scientist at this year’s contest, Canada is increasingly exploring this type of equipment, as lasers “can provide a solution that minimizes collateral damage when compared to guns.”

While investments in both research and development in the counterdrone sector should have been made years ago, these types of events and the expansion of the IDEaS program are a good indication that Ottawa is taking drone threats seriously.

In order to be a technologically advanced fighting force, as highlighted in the latest national defence policy, the DND and the CAF must double down on efforts to match the pace of drone proliferation. This begins by dedicating greater funding to the maturing industry and committing to acquiring effective weapons.

Dr. Daniel said his company is hopeful that their win will represent the beginning of a long-term partnership with the Canadian military.

Ultimately, what will be paramount is for the DND to translate this testing and interest into concrete orders to acquire a variety of counterdrones systems. Only then will Canada be ready to protect soldiers from the imminent threat posed by drones.
 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-its-about-time-canadas-lagging-counterdrone-industry-gets-a-revamp/?login=true

[Dougie93]

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The paradox being that territory is not captured until a human being sets foot on it and claims it, which an effective drone force will make all but impossible. Eventually, someone will come up with something to overcome that and put the infantry back in the game

well the infantry is still advancing, but simply at exponentially higher rates of attrition

somewhere on a spectrum with Vietnam at the low end to the First World War at the high end

then it becomes a question of how long you can sustain those losses

and once those losses can no longer be sustained, does it escalate to the strategic level ?

in that, if the land war is a complete stalemate, the next level of escalation is to take the war to the high seas

at which point it breaks out of theatre to become a global conflagration