Here’s the US Army’s New Russia-Era Shopping List

Here’s the US Army’s New Russia-Era Shopping List

10/11/18
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine forced the U.S. Army to rethink its needs, from better cyber security to longer-ranged artillery cannons, according to the commander of the service’s new Futures Command. “That was kind of the wake-up call in terms of the capabilities that the Russians had been developing since about the time of Desert Storm,” said Gen. John Murray. Most prominently, Murray said, is Russian — and also Chinese — progress in “establishing standoff capabilities” — that is, the ability to strike from greater distances than the U.S. Army. He said the Russians — and in many ways the Chinese as well — what they have done is they have really established, they’re able to out-range most of our systems. They’re establishing standoff capabilities.” The U.S. Army has raced to keep up. Just last week, it tested a modified M777A2 howitzer that “doubled the range” of its cannon artillery, firing a round “62-ish kilometers” at Yuma Proving Ground, Murray said. “I think if you looked at the Russian army now and started counting artillery pieces they probable still have a slight advantage in terms of quantities,” the general said. “Quality, I would still argue, we’ve got the edge, but the range thing — they had developed some capabilities that really out-ranged our tactical cannon artillery.”

Many similar efforts are likely as the Army looks to re-invest $25 billion into its top weapons priorities, which largely deal with the “great power competition” with Russia and China that is laid out in the National Defense Strategy. Murray said Russia has paired drones with artillery systems, “almost using drones as spotters.” Russia is getting better at employing its forces, using operations in Syria as a proving ground for new weapons, a senior European defense official said in a recent interview. European officials have been surprised by the operational tempo Russia has been able to sustain, particularly being able to quickly maintain and repair its equipment. “The Russians have made some significant advances, not only in terms of the capabilities but in terms of their organizational structure and their tactics,” Murray said. “That really … was a wake-up call, if nothing else, to start looking at this in a more serious manner, which has led us into what you’re seeing now in the National Defense Strategy, a focus on near-peer competitors.”

Click to expand...

In the Donbas JFO theater, the Russians use 82mm/120mm mortars very effectively. They like to combine 220mm GRAD MLRS with 152mm howitzer fire. They also incorporate 152mm/203mm self-propelled guns. The Russians use drones for target acquisition and also for after action assessment. They utilize the R-330Zh Zhitel Anti-cellular and satellite communications jamming station, the RB-109A Bylina Brigade-level electronic warfare automated control system, and the Repellent-1 Anti-drone electronic warfare system. They have more tanks in eastern Ukraine than the total German inventory. The Russians have no compunction about targeting civilian houses and buildings, or infrastructure such as bridges, power pylons, and water purification/pump stations.

Rogue Valley said:

Here’s the US Army’s New Russia-Era Shopping List

In the Donbas JFO theater, the Russians use 82mm/120mm mortars very effectively. They like to combine 220mm GRAD MLRS with 152mm howitzer fire. They also incorporate 152mm/203mm self-propelled guns. The Russians use drones for target acquisition and also for after action assessment. They utilize the R-330Zh Zhitel Anti-cellular and satellite communications jamming station, the RB-109A Bylina Brigade-level electronic warfare automated control system, and the Repellent-1 Anti-drone electronic warfare system. They have more tanks in eastern Ukraine than the total German inventory. The Russians have no compunction about targeting civilian houses and buildings, or infrastructure such as bridges, power pylons, and water purification/pump stations.

Click to expand...

That's all very interesting, but the evaluation should start from the air, not the ground. No amount of fancy artillery is going to overcome losing control of the skies. Certainly, they hold their own with AAA, but unless there's been some revelation about their air forces, it seems like we would be able to swamp them there, both in quality and quantity, and then their ground forces are just targets.

If we haven't been integrating drones for indirect artillery targeting for awhile now, then we deserve to be behind, and we're getting an even worse deal for our spending than I imagined possible.

Overall, this strike me as just more MIC fearmongering to keep the money train rolling, which is no surprise considering the source.

WillyPete said:

That's all very interesting, but the evaluation should start from the air, not the ground. No amount of fancy artillery is going to overcome losing control of the skies. Certainly, they hold their own with AAA, but unless there's been some revelation about their air forces, it seems like we would be able to swamp them there, both in quality and quantity, and then their ground forces are just targets.

If we haven't been integrating drones for indirect artillery targeting for awhile now, then we deserve to be behind, and we're getting an even worse deal for our spending than I imagined possible.

Overall, this strike me as just more MIC fearmongering to keep the money train rolling, which is no surprise considering the source.

Click to expand...

This thread is about ground-based systems. It wasn't intended as an all-inclusive manifesto.

Geezus. You sound like a conspiracy nut.

Rogue Valley said:

This thread is about ground-based systems. It wasn't intended as an all-inclusive manifesto.

Geezus. You sound like a conspiracy nut.

Click to expand...

Maybe I am becoming too cynical. I just see the marketing behind everything these days.

This is fearmongering by DefenseOne. I didn't mean that you were in on it yourself.

WillyPete said:

This is fearmongering by DefenseOne. I didn't mean that you were in on it yourself.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. I've been on the Ukraine ATO/JFO front. The Russians are indeed utilizing shell/missile platforms with increased range.

They are also utilizing Syria as a test environment for new weapons.

Rogue Valley said:

I don't think so. I've been on the Ukraine ATO/JFO front. The Russians are indeed utilizing shell/missile platforms with increased range.

They are also utilizing Syria as a test environment for new weapons.

Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that. It's the way these (debatably minor) revelations are always presented as a rationale for more defense spending.

Jeez, I thought the Army's shopping list was going to be acquiring sufficient non-obese troops to fill the ranks.

Rogue Valley said:

Here’s the US Army’s New Russia-Era Shopping List

In the Donbas JFO theater, the Russians use 82mm/120mm mortars very effectively. They like to combine 220mm GRAD MLRS with 152mm howitzer fire. They also incorporate 152mm/203mm self-propelled guns. The Russians use drones for target acquisition and also for after action assessment. They utilize the R-330Zh Zhitel Anti-cellular and satellite communications jamming station, the RB-109A Bylina Brigade-level electronic warfare automated control system, and the Repellent-1 Anti-drone electronic warfare system. They have more tanks in eastern Ukraine than the total German inventory. The Russians have no compunction about targeting civilian houses and buildings, or infrastructure such as bridges, power pylons, and water purification/pump stations.

Click to expand...

I see a shooting war as more theoretical than reality based.

We will probably lose the next war in cyberspace before a shot is fired because many high tech companies such as Google refuse to contract with the US military.

chuckiechan said:

We will probably lose the next war in cyberspace before a shot is fired because many high tech companies such as Google refuse to contract with the US military.

Click to expand...

And the US military largely refuses to deal with them.

This has long been a problem, because of the new technology.

Traditionally, the US contracts things that are either COTS, or they have them specially made for them. And when things are made specifically for the military, as part of the contract-program the use outside is either prohibited or severely limited. So at most perhaps a software package developed for the Army could be sold to the Marines, or a package made for the DoD could be sold to the DoS or DHS. But it normally can not be used in commercial applications.

The DoD traditionally used either companies that were so large that this was not an issue (IBM), and relied upon the DoD for a lot of other things, not just software. Or they contracted with smaller companies that most have never heard of, who exist on the fringes and are generally only known to Computer Security professionals. Where their entire business is based upon custom making such software.

Google would want no part of that, because it does not fit their business model. The same goes for other companies, like Microsoft, Adobe, Norton, etc, etc, etc. Their very business model is based on taking information developed for one program and using it for another. Not taking the information developed for a program and sealing it away, never using it ever again.

Myself, I think it is past time the US stops trying to contract so much of this kind of stuff, and bring it back in-house. Over the past 30 decades we have seen a lot of our people bleed out of the military, because of budget cuts, downsizing, and lowered retention levels. So now instead of programming for the Pentagon, they get out and join a company that contracts for the Pentagon.

This is a perfect case when it comes to open source - closed source architecture. And the military has always been a "closed house" type, for obvious reasons. Google on the other hand is the "open house" type.

Myself, as an IT professional I have been troubled in the last 2+ decades by so many companies and organizations rushing to the Internet for so many of their needs. 20 years ago, a great many companies used microwave relay to transmit information from one site to another via a closed "Intranet" with no outside connections. Now they rely upon the Internet for all of that because of cost.

The best way to protect things like utilities is to return to the old closed systems. Cut the cables to the Internet, and go back to building closed-loop IT systems. Because no matter what you do, people will always be trying to get in.

Much of the basic foundation of the Internet has been lost in the commercialization of it. And it has become so pervasive that people today simply can not comprehend a life without it. But if we really want to protect ourselves, that is exactly what we have to do. Cut the cables, return to the time when millions of systems were independent and were shielded.

20 years ago I worked with a guy at Hughes, and all of his work was in a building completely protected by a Faraday Cage. I had to surrender my pager when I went in, but it did not matter because it would not work there anyways. Today, that building has been destroyed, at some time they figured it was no longer needed. And the giant dome on the roof that was a microwave relay to other sites in SoCal (including a testing facility in Malibu, another development center in Irvine, and others) has also been torn down.

All traffic now sent over the Internet no doubt.