How long until vision based ‘AI’ systems make these kinds of counter measures obsolete? It seems like it should be straight forward for a multi-modal sensor package to combine with some basic physics logic (the airframe can only ‘move’ so much) which would defeat these types of counter measures. The vision based processing component should be able to filter out chaff and flare based disruption.
I expect that the Ukraine war is a very useful proving/testing ground for a great many defense industry companies.
> How long until vision based ‘AI’ systems make these kinds of counter measures obsolete? It seems like it should be straight forward for a multi-modal sensor package to combine with some basic physics logic (the airframe can only ‘move’ so much) which would defeat these types of counter measures. The vision based processing component should be able to filter out chaff and flare based disruption.
Some current systems already have trouble at night. I would expect vision based systems to have even more trouble. Are there any CV based guidance systems?
Need to clarify here. GP appeared to be asking about computer vision based systems, which would involve object recognition. The traditional vision systems such as you referenced are based on contrast detection.
"Deflecting" 18 older model Russian SA-16 Gimlets, which have been being phased out for a decade.
Take it or leave it, but Ukraine is claiming[0] they shot down two Ka-52 helicopters in the past week and there is photographic evidence[1] of one being heavily damaged (although still flyable) yesterday.
Also estimates[2] are that 25% of Russian's total fleet of Ka-52 helicopters have been shot down during the Ukraine war. "Russian attack helicopters have likely suffered particular attrition from Ukrainian man-portable air defense systems"
So maybe impressive but not an invulnerability shield.
Only sources mentioned in the post are Russians, and the only one that named is RIA which is a Russian controlled media. The original can be found here [0] in Russian and doesn't have any links to sources or names.
There are already 35 confirmed loses of that type on Oryx [1] with most of them not on the ground. The true amount likely is much higher. But even that is a bit too high for such wunderwaffe of "the 2nd army in the world"
Russia military arent what we are being told to in Hollywood movies and controlled western media. What we should be talking about is really why with a budget of 10T usd with Abrahm tanks decked with DU, hundreds of Patriots, hundreds of F35 sorties, railguns, elite well trained Seals failed to beat Talebans for 20 years. Even quite a few of these slaughtered Seals vids available online against an army of ragtags that at best disguised as jackals and do suicide IEDs. Do Russian has bribery+corruption problems or in reality the Americans projected that virtual signals to others to avoid people looking into Pentagon books?
And yet, a large number of helicopters from the FSU military industrial base (which I think we can say is what Russia has: it has the upside investment in the cold war, which paved for its capacity to build these kinds of weapons) have indeed been shot down. So either, they lack sufficient numbers of these defensive units, or their maintenance has proved a problem in the field, or there is some locally overriding mechanism.
Or, perhaps other munitions continue to prove effective?
There is the sense "out there" in the commentariat that some systems used in this war are sub-par: not top of the line. I personally cannot believe any nation state a year and a half into a war it is palpably losing (or at least "not winning") in terms of achievement on the ground, manpower and public perception would deliberately hold back a technology which worked this well.
If they are digging into old stocks of tanks, then they are not capable of fielding new forms of tanks at sufficient volume. If they had the new stocks of tanks and they worked, they'd deploy them to great effect. The tanks problem, I would suggest projects into the helicopter problem. Where are the evidences of this system defeating ground to air missiles?
Russia does not have command of the air. Why is this?
Neither does Ukraine, apparently. Perhaps because anti-aircraft missiles have finally gotten accurate and reliable enough that human pilots can no longer expect to survive unless they are far from the front lines, which would make Ukraine’s decision to pursue F-16s rather than UCAVs (fighter drones) puzzling.
In the current situation, Ukraine has more effective use of the air within the limits of the tools available to it.
I suspect few of the Russian equivalents of the F-16 have been taken out by AAM, and they're withheld because of the risk, yes. But to argue from that there is no sense in Ukraine deploying this class of Jet I think is a false equivalence. It depends on the relative strengths and weaknesses of AAM, and radar systems. If enough of the Russian tactical field deployed radar are out of action and if they can't fly AWACS then, it might not be symmetric.
Basically "porque no los dos" -fly UAVs and fly jets, and find out what works.
I think its likely that logistics is winning this war. The evidence of a lack of depth in parts and maintenance in the background inside the Russian forces is marked. In order to field their top-line jets here, they have to be willing to lose them and the evidence is strong they aren't willing to risk them. If the Ukranians are donated F-16s, perhaps their willingness to lose them will be higher?
I hate the WW2 battle of Britain comparison, but it stands out: every german aircraft lost over the UK was a lost crew as well as an aircraft. Switching from attacking radar and air fields to mass bombing was a massive tactical mistake for the german forces. They wound up unable to sustain the losses. The British were willing to tolerate the attrition in bomber crews later on in the war, to horrific effect.
In that sense, losing Russian pilots and aircraft against weak logistics and pilot training, disadvantages the Russians more than I believe the Ukranians will be disadvantaged by deploying the F-16s at some risk of losses.
Russian air losses in WW2 were catastrophic at times, mainly because of asymmetric capability in the aircraft and weapons. They lost an entire cohort of crew.
Obviously if they deploy in an offensive role without standoff weaponry, the risks tend to equalise.
Given other Russian claims regarding the effectiveness of their military equipment, it's impossible to take a claim like this seriously, even if it's true.
Correction...Russian helicopter deflected 18 Russian test surface to air missiles...in a test. Many videos coming out of Ukraine clearly show that Russian helicopters are far from invincible.
The case of 18 missiles over the course of a sortie was a different instance from the test mentioned.
Air International magazine published a report from the Egyptian Ministry of Defense, which had already targeted Russian Ka-52 helicopters and subjected them to a myriad of tests before purchase. The Vitebsk-25-mounted helicopter was then fired upon by two dozen Russian Igla MANPADS missiles, none of which hit the target.
It is misleadingly phrased in the Bulgarian article, but the original Russian report was that a Ka-52 deflected 18 missiles over the course of a sortie, not all at once.
I expect that the Ukraine war is a very useful proving/testing ground for a great many defense industry companies.