the hard truth is, no one solved the ballistic missile defence on scale and in budget equation yet...
it takes 2 missiles to reliably intercept and each is at least 2-3 times costly than one being intercepted... and significantly more complicated to produce
I still can't shake the feeling there is a better solution hidden here somewhere if someone can just re-examine the basic problem and shake free off the interceptor "hit a bullet with a bullet" paradigm.
Let's assume that ballistic missiles have a limited terminal maneuvering capability, so once they've finished boost phase, or at least post-reentry we've got a good idea where they'll hit.
Let's assume we also have cheap(ish) drones, or drone swarms, with a significant loiter capability.
Instead of trying to intercept "bullet vs bullet" style, why not let them come to catcher instead?
Flood the zone with drones with shaped fragmentation charges that detonate as the missile gets to them. Heck, for that matter, go old school and have the 21st century equivalent of a barrage balloon that holds 20 fully charged drones at altitude ready for rapid deployment.
OK, I'm not saying this would work, and it might be that blowing up a hypersonic missile at low(er) altitudes where drones operate just creates a hypersonic shotgun shell that's worse that the original missile, or that the probable error in the re-entry vs the effective blast radius of a "drone claymore" swarm is too large and the maths doesn't work, but the intercept a "bullet vs bullet" paradigm ain't working either.
There must be a way to exploit an asymmetry somewhere if we shift our mental models.
Far finer minds than mine or yours have considered the problem. The wall of fire solution has been known and applied since carrier defence in ww2. The “brilliant pebbles” idea for the SDI initiative of the 1980s was a variant of this.
Ukraine 🇺🇦 has been amazingly innovative in every challenge that they have faced and that adaptability will defeat Russia at every level. Ukrainians also have, in living memory, a knowledge of what happens to them if they surrender to Russia. They know in their hearts and bones that Russia winning will result in mass graves from a genocide of pure vengeance. An invader fighting for an evil old man’s ego has little motivation when compared to a culture fighting for its very survival.
Ukraine also knows that it can’t count on allies whose political whims are mostly based on self interest. This understanding will make it even harder for Russia to win this war because the understanding in Ukraine that they can only rely on themselves, means that Russians will have to fight absolutely every last Ukrainian and will never be safe in any occupied territory… EVER.
At this point Russia is not capable of reaching any of its stated goals.
Yes, considering how many boarders there are to slip people and weapons across, the ability to set up 3D printers in homes, sheds and even caves for creating drones and weapons. A wide variety of communication options… and every granny and their dog waiting for an opportunity to kill you. I think that occupation over that much land would be quite a challenge.
You would think that after all these years of war that people would stop predicting immenent doom for Ukraine. Resourceful people defending their country are not to be underestimated. It's certainly not ideal that the United States has chosen to mostly abandon Ukraine (certainly in public), but the rest of us are still here. Keep pounding on Russian economic infrastructure and sanctioning everything Russian that we can identify. Soon, Ukraine will also have ballistic missiles. I wonder how the Russians are going to take to that development? Of course there is a missile defence gap for Ukraine currently which is undeniably worrisome. But it will be interesting to see it all in reverse when Ukrainian missiles are raining down on Russia and it becomes clear to see that they Al's have no missile defence.
Putin’s strategy since 2023 was pretty simple and typically ruthless.
Wait out the presidential election and hope for a friendly result. Feed soldiers into the meat grinder at about recruitment rate. His man won and delivered. Friendly Hungry slowed down the EU response. Knocking out the power grid over an especially severe winter was Putin’s moment. But the Ukrainians held out, and how could they do otherwise, collapse would have been so much worse.
But instead of a Ukrainian collapse 2 things happened. Europe woke up and picked up most of the slack. They were alarmed by US betrayal and aggression towards them. Greenland was the moment of overreach, there was no safe retreat for the EU and they were left without a path to inaction. Also, Ukraine successfully innovated with the assistance they got and have turned the tables in a few critical areas.
Now they’re back in a race. Can either side deliver enough punishment to break the other before the next technological breakthrough.
Chances are that both sides would suffer for years before their fronts collapse. And chances are that that’s what will happen for the next few years.
The US should really want Russia to make peace. If the Russians pivot to low casualty invasion like Ukraine has then the US military will be fully obsolete.
Wes, as a big fan of Hannibal I have to correct you here. «It raised new legions, adopted the Fabian strategy of refusing decisive battle, kept its alliance network mostly intact, and eventually took the war to Carthage itself.» Yes Rome did raise new legions, didn’t accept peace negotiation and went on to win the war. But they didn’t adopt Fabian strategies. Because Fabian strategies had been used. By Fabian, and they were not popular. They were in use between roughly the Battle of Lake Trasmine and Canne. Of course Canne was a deliberate break and failed very miserably. You can say they avoided pitched battles with Hannibal until Zama, but that’s something different. And it was as you said a victory that eventually was empty. Budding generals should remember that.
Thanks Wes, it’s important to keep things in perspective. It’s easy to get excited by the deep strikes that Ukraine are mounting but it’s just one piece in the puzzle.
The Kaiserschlacht changed the whole course of the war. A great book on a result of the freeing up of the front lines and the dispersal into outposts rather than trenches is “Stealth Raiders” by Lucas Jordan. Another book for anyone interested in that period is “Monash’s Masterpiece” by Peter FitzSimons.
the hard truth is, no one solved the ballistic missile defence on scale and in budget equation yet...
it takes 2 missiles to reliably intercept and each is at least 2-3 times costly than one being intercepted... and significantly more complicated to produce
There are possible solutions, shoot the archer is one.
I still can't shake the feeling there is a better solution hidden here somewhere if someone can just re-examine the basic problem and shake free off the interceptor "hit a bullet with a bullet" paradigm.
Let's assume that ballistic missiles have a limited terminal maneuvering capability, so once they've finished boost phase, or at least post-reentry we've got a good idea where they'll hit.
Let's assume we also have cheap(ish) drones, or drone swarms, with a significant loiter capability.
Instead of trying to intercept "bullet vs bullet" style, why not let them come to catcher instead?
Flood the zone with drones with shaped fragmentation charges that detonate as the missile gets to them. Heck, for that matter, go old school and have the 21st century equivalent of a barrage balloon that holds 20 fully charged drones at altitude ready for rapid deployment.
OK, I'm not saying this would work, and it might be that blowing up a hypersonic missile at low(er) altitudes where drones operate just creates a hypersonic shotgun shell that's worse that the original missile, or that the probable error in the re-entry vs the effective blast radius of a "drone claymore" swarm is too large and the maths doesn't work, but the intercept a "bullet vs bullet" paradigm ain't working either.
There must be a way to exploit an asymmetry somewhere if we shift our mental models.
Far finer minds than mine or yours have considered the problem. The wall of fire solution has been known and applied since carrier defence in ww2. The “brilliant pebbles” idea for the SDI initiative of the 1980s was a variant of this.
Thanks for the amazing analysis.
Ukraine 🇺🇦 has been amazingly innovative in every challenge that they have faced and that adaptability will defeat Russia at every level. Ukrainians also have, in living memory, a knowledge of what happens to them if they surrender to Russia. They know in their hearts and bones that Russia winning will result in mass graves from a genocide of pure vengeance. An invader fighting for an evil old man’s ego has little motivation when compared to a culture fighting for its very survival.
Ukraine also knows that it can’t count on allies whose political whims are mostly based on self interest. This understanding will make it even harder for Russia to win this war because the understanding in Ukraine that they can only rely on themselves, means that Russians will have to fight absolutely every last Ukrainian and will never be safe in any occupied territory… EVER.
At this point Russia is not capable of reaching any of its stated goals.
Superb by Wes (as usual) and by you too, Susan. Motivations matter.
Lord above, if you thought the Ukrainian regular army was a tough nut to crack, can you imagine what a Ukrainian Resistance would be like... 😳😳😳
Yes, considering how many boarders there are to slip people and weapons across, the ability to set up 3D printers in homes, sheds and even caves for creating drones and weapons. A wide variety of communication options… and every granny and their dog waiting for an opportunity to kill you. I think that occupation over that much land would be quite a challenge.
You would think that after all these years of war that people would stop predicting immenent doom for Ukraine. Resourceful people defending their country are not to be underestimated. It's certainly not ideal that the United States has chosen to mostly abandon Ukraine (certainly in public), but the rest of us are still here. Keep pounding on Russian economic infrastructure and sanctioning everything Russian that we can identify. Soon, Ukraine will also have ballistic missiles. I wonder how the Russians are going to take to that development? Of course there is a missile defence gap for Ukraine currently which is undeniably worrisome. But it will be interesting to see it all in reverse when Ukrainian missiles are raining down on Russia and it becomes clear to see that they Al's have no missile defence.
Thank you for such an insightful analysis
Another ripper of a read bloke. Really appreciate your insights.
Thanks Tim!
Putin’s strategy since 2023 was pretty simple and typically ruthless.
Wait out the presidential election and hope for a friendly result. Feed soldiers into the meat grinder at about recruitment rate. His man won and delivered. Friendly Hungry slowed down the EU response. Knocking out the power grid over an especially severe winter was Putin’s moment. But the Ukrainians held out, and how could they do otherwise, collapse would have been so much worse.
But instead of a Ukrainian collapse 2 things happened. Europe woke up and picked up most of the slack. They were alarmed by US betrayal and aggression towards them. Greenland was the moment of overreach, there was no safe retreat for the EU and they were left without a path to inaction. Also, Ukraine successfully innovated with the assistance they got and have turned the tables in a few critical areas.
Now they’re back in a race. Can either side deliver enough punishment to break the other before the next technological breakthrough.
Chances are that both sides would suffer for years before their fronts collapse. And chances are that that’s what will happen for the next few years.
The US should really want Russia to make peace. If the Russians pivot to low casualty invasion like Ukraine has then the US military will be fully obsolete.
Anyone who thinks the US military will be "fully obsolete" is talking out of their ass
Thanks for this. A little nitpicking about Hannibal and Rome doesn’t change this.
Wes, as a big fan of Hannibal I have to correct you here. «It raised new legions, adopted the Fabian strategy of refusing decisive battle, kept its alliance network mostly intact, and eventually took the war to Carthage itself.» Yes Rome did raise new legions, didn’t accept peace negotiation and went on to win the war. But they didn’t adopt Fabian strategies. Because Fabian strategies had been used. By Fabian, and they were not popular. They were in use between roughly the Battle of Lake Trasmine and Canne. Of course Canne was a deliberate break and failed very miserably. You can say they avoided pitched battles with Hannibal until Zama, but that’s something different. And it was as you said a victory that eventually was empty. Budding generals should remember that.
Most astute analysis I have read so far. Thank you.
I don't understand why anyone took Trump's supposed over of licensing Patriot seriously.
Thanks Wes, it’s important to keep things in perspective. It’s easy to get excited by the deep strikes that Ukraine are mounting but it’s just one piece in the puzzle.
The Kaiserschlacht changed the whole course of the war. A great book on a result of the freeing up of the front lines and the dispersal into outposts rather than trenches is “Stealth Raiders” by Lucas Jordan. Another book for anyone interested in that period is “Monash’s Masterpiece” by Peter FitzSimons.