Parvusimperator reviews the T-15 HIFV

Posted by

Fishbreath wrote an excellent bit defending the BMP-3, the traditional, rather lightly-armored IFV. You should go read it here. In it, he’s replying to my discussions in favor of heavy APCs like Namer, and my own design sketch for a heavy IFV. But I can hardly leave it there. I should reply to him, because argument is interesting and fun. Plus, recent developments bear some pondering.

As you are no doubt aware, the BMP-3 is Russian. Duh. It’s from a similar school of thought as the previous BMPs, heavily armed, cramped, lightly armored. It’ll float. It’s easy to move. Splendid.

Or is it?

I’ve mentioned before the Russian experience in Grozny, but it bears repeating. It was a bloodbath. BMPs were deathtraps. Poorly trained conscripts sent in died in droves because Chechen fighters had thought carefully about urban warfare tactics. Fuel is stored in the egress doors on the BMP-1 and BMP-2. This fuel is supposed to be the first used, but that didn’t always happen. So if the rear was hit, fuel would get sprayed all over the dismounts. And it was likely on fire. Not fun. Plus, given that there’s so much ammo in the BMP, basically any penetration of the turret armor or the forward section meant that the ammo gets hit by the shaped charge jet and blows up too. So, soldiers took to riding on the outside.1

This defeats the purpose of an enclosed vehicle. If they’re just going to ride on top, why not have something like the Sd.Kfz. 251, which had no roof. Of course, that leaves infantry vulnerable to machine gun fire and artillery fragments. Plus, that cold. I hear Russia has a miserable winter. They could suck it up and enjoy their superior deployability. A BMP-3 can float, you know.

This brings us to the T-15. It’s built on that same Armata combat platform as the T-14, except the engine is at the front now, where it belongs for vehicles that carry troops. Two things are of note. First, it’s got an unmanned turret, second, it weighs about as much as the T-14. That’s tank-level protection right there. The Russians have agreed with the Israelis–if you have a vehicle that’s going to get shot at like a tank, it should take hits like a tank. Even outside of urban areas–the Donbass is hardly suburbia. Like most modern armies, the Russians have become much more casualty sensitive2, and shooting an ATGM–even an old one–at a BMP is a great way to inflict casualties.

Armor on the T-15 is typical Russian–a reasonably thick steel and composite structure under a lot of ERA. The reactive armor is a new type, of course, but it’s not clear how good it actually is, because no one has had a chance to shoot it yet. Still, it should be good, since they have lots of experience, and overall protection should be on the order of the protection level of the T-14 given the weight, layout, and the remote turret which I’ll discuss in a moment. Further protection is provided by a hard-kill active protection system, the Afghanit. This system is also in use on the T-14, though again it hasn’t been tested. Not being a fluent reader of Russian, and with the Russians generally keeping things quiet, I don’t know how it compares to other Western competitive systems. I’d guess it’d be similar in performance to Trophy as far as reaction times go, but that’s speculation. They do have a reasonable number of tubes per side, unlike so many western designers who think two per side is enough (it isn’t).

On to the turret. The T-15 has an unmanned turret, just like the T-14. It’s all contained above the turret ring, because a traditional turret basket removes space for dismounts, and carrying dismounts is the T-15’s primary mission. The T-15’s turret is well thought out, and I’m a big fan. It’s got a 30mm cannon with 500 rounds split between a 160 round box and a 340 round box to accommodate the double ammunition feeds. The autocannon is capable of high angle fire, perfect for hitting top-floor rocket teams. The coax gun is in the usual 7.62x54R caliber, and there are 2,000 rounds available. Four tubes for Kornet-EM ATGMs are provided, two on either side of the turret. Kornet-EM has a tandem-HEAT warhead with further improvements, plus automatic command line of sight (ACLOS) guidance, which is an improvement over the usual SACLOS. The gunner has thermal and day sights, plus a laser rangefinder. The commander has his own independent sight which appears to be a duplicate of the gunner’s.

The turret does not appear to be well armored. Since support fires appear to be a secondary tasking, the lack of protection and ease of knocking out the turret is probably not a major issue. I’m fine with this overall, for weight and cost reasons. The IFV’s weapons are much less critical than those of the MBT. For similar reasons, I’m more willing to accept an unmanned turret on an IFV, since any loss of effectiveness is to a secondary mission. Plus, it allows for more hull protection and a full load of dismounts.

The 100mm gun is gone from the T-15. It’s not really needed, as the T-15 has proper, modern ATGMs, and the extravagance is just going to take up turret room which is better spent on more 30mm.

The T-15 carries nine dismounts, plus a crew of three. I do not know enough about Russian tables of organization to know if this is a full squad, but it’s reasonable. It would hold about any current western squad I can think of. This is very good, and is a lot easier than trying to split squads across vehicles.

So what do we think of the T-15? I love it! No, really. Here’s a vehicle that’s on my side in an argument with Fishbreath, and it’s even Russian! They’re replacing their BMP-3s with something much more to my liking. Further, its capabilities aren’t really available anywhere else. We might be able to get close with some modifications to the Namer, but that’s a project for another time. Out of the factory, this is the only HIFV game in town. And I’m a huge fan of the concept, even if I might prefer some minor tweaks. I would prefer missiles with a top-attack profile, and possibly some alternative sensors depending on the particulars. But those are relatively minor points.

 

1.) Russian and Ukranian troops are doing this in the Donbas now too. BMPs are still deathtraps. They were deathtraps in Afghanistan, deathtraps in Grozny, and they’re deathtraps in the Donbass.
2.) Though the Russian Army is still a conscript one.

The K2 Black Panther: A South Korean MBT

Posted by

The Leopard 2 is a really solid tank. So far, it’s gone into a battle royale with the Leclerc, Challenger 2, and M1A2 Abrams, and come out the winner. It’s also bested the famous Merkava Mark IV. It also has tremendous export success. But, seeing as I love tanks, I can’t resist examining more in detail. Maybe today’s opponent will be able to unseat the reigning champ, the Leopard 2E.1

The K2 Black Panther is South Korea’s second indigenously produced tank. The first, the K1, is basically a licensed M1 Abrams variant. You’d be hard pressed to tell the K1A1 from an M1A1 at a distance. Interestingly, the K2 bears a strong resemblance to the Leclerc in terms of overall design. I don’t know if that’s happenstance, or deliberate reverse engineering, or if Hyundai had some quiet deals with GIAT.

The K2 weights about 55 tonnes, and has a conventional layout, with driver forward, a two-man turret in the middle, and an engine in the back. Like the Leclerc, the hull is relatively short, thanks to a compact engine. It’s a conventional diesel though, the 1,500 hp MTU 883 (or a locally made equivalent engine) rather than the hyperbar V8 on the Leclerc. Leclerc might get better acceleration, but the 883 is more fuel efficient and likely more reliable. Also cheaper. Everyone’s going diesel these days. The Russians are pretty much all-diesel, and the Leopard 2 has a diesel, and that’s our super-popular benchmark. I’m not sure whether the K2 or the Leclerc has better acceleration, but they can both probably get going faster than a Leopard 2E because of the superior power/weight ratio on the K2.

The K2 also uses an autoloader. It’s a bustle-mounted, conveyor-type autoloader, just like the one on the Leclerc. Interestingly, though the Leclerc’s autoloader holds 22 rounds, the one on the K2 only holds 16 rounds. This is comparable to the Leopard 2 (15 ready rounds) and the M1 (17 ready rounds), but notably lower. I’m not sure what the reasoning is here, or if there’s some issue with sources. There aren’t many that talk about the K2, and fewer still in English. It’s curious either way. Perhaps a retrofit later. 16 ready rounds is good, but we’d love to sacrifice some extra turret stowage compartments or something for 22 ready rounds. Plus, that would give an overall capacity of 46 rounds rather than 40 in the K2.

The K2’s gun is a 120mm L55, licensed from Rheinmetall. The best tank gun in the world. The Leclerc has a 120mm L52 model, which is good, but not quite as good. Same gun as the Leopard 2E. So this is a tie overall. However, the Koreans have developed a top-attack munition for their tanks, which follows a ballistic trajectory to attack the roof armor with a 120mm HEAT round. This is going to do awful things to even those tanks that have plenty of roof armor. I don’t know of a reason that the Leopard 2E couldn’t mount this, but it currently doesn’t. Both are able to mount the Israeli LAHAT gun-launched ATGM. When the South Koreans designed the K2, they were strongly considering the 140mm gun. While it was not selected, it can be installed without significant modification to the turret.

The K2 has a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun with 12,000 rounds of 7.62mm ammo stored and a roof-mounted 12.7mm HMG for the commander with 3,200 rounds stored. I do not know how many of these are ready rounds, though I suspect they use standard 200-round boxes for the HMG. The Leopard 2E has a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun and a second 7.62mm machine gun mounted on the roof. Interestingly, the Germans mount that by the loader’s hatch, not the commander’s. The Leopard 2 carries 4,750 rounds of 7.62mm to be split between both machine guns. Again, I don’t know the ready capacity of the coax gun. The K2 seems to be showing some American design influence in the quantity of machine gun ammo carried. I approve. Neither tank mounts these weapons in a remote weapons station, though this is changed in the Leopard 2A7 variant. Not a big deal though, it’s an easy enough thing to change for either.

Armorwise, the K2 is at a disadvantage by virtue of being newer, since I don’t have as much discussion on it. The 2E is a known commodity, with very thick frontal armor, substantial roof armor, and optional side armor kits for the turret and skirts. In terms of frontal armor, the 2E is very good against KE, being comparable to the M1A2 against KE threats and much better against HEAT. Neither is as well armored as the Challenger 2 on the turret face.

The K2 has more modern composite armor construction, and has a “stepped turret” with reduced-height turret faces, and then a higher middle portion to accommodate the gun’s desired depression angle. So we’d expect a thick and tough face. Looking at it and doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations tells us that it’s no worse than the Leopard 2E or M1A2, and likely better. It’s probably going to end up being comparable to the front armor of the Challenger 2, or possibly a trifle less good. It’s a very modern armor array, with not a lot of frontal area and plenty of thickness to work with. It’d be easy to play with lots of modern metallurgy and composites to get something really good here.

Side armor is rather less thick. It does include ERA, as does the roof over the crew compartment. The turret hatches also have ERA modules. I don’t know much about this ERA, but it indicates some likely good resistance to HEAT rounds or RPGs on the side. Improved side skirts and possibly additional turret side armor might be warranted in urban combat scenarios, but the Black Panther is well-suited to conventional warfare as-is.

The Black Panther also includes a ‘soft kill’ active protection system right from the factory. It has a radar-driven missile approach warning system, and can automatically fire visual/infrared screening smoke grenades in the direction of the threat. This will also make it easier and cheaper to add a ‘hard kill’ system, since we only need to add the effectors. No additional sensors are needed.

Both the K2 and the Leopard 2E have modern thermal sights for the crew. Fire control on the K2 is significantly better, with automatic target tracking capability and integration of the radar system. It can also hold fire momentarily if the gun is jostled by a large bump. The Leclerc has a similar system, but as far as I can tell, the Leopard 2E does not. The K2 has a battle management system, one is available for the Leopard 2E, but it’s not fitted standard.2 The K2 also has a datalink system for sharing targeting data, but the Leopard 2E does not.

Due to the rough mountainous terrain on the Korean Peninsula, the K2 has a hydropneumatic suspension system that is adjustable for ride height or to tilt the tank, like on a low rider. It’s cool and useful, since it deals with harsh terrain or lets you make best use of available cover, and no other current tank has it. That said, it’s overkill in the plains of Central and Eastern Europe.

So how does it shake out? Is the K2 better?

Yes. The K2 is a more advanced tank than the Leopard 2E, and crucially, it has more growth room. Remember, early versions of the Leopard 2 weighed 55 tonnes, and armor augmentations have driven that up, putting extra strain on the suspension and powertrain and reducing acceleration performance. The K2 is the best western tank on the market today.

And now, the other question you’re wondering: would we buy them? That depends strongly on price and politics. The K2 has a reputation as the most expensive tank in the world, but quoted figures aren’t awful. They’re actually quite competitive with those of the Abrams, which is a decent apples-to-apples comparison. The Leopard 2E includes native production licensing and spares. So we’ll see. As for politics, Germany is closer and a NATO member. But South Korea actually spends money on defense these days and doesn’t have ideas in its head for an EU army of stupid. So we shall see. But given the cost of the 2E package and the 2A7 offered to Saudi Arabia, the K2 looks like a good buy.

What about the T-14 Armata I reviewed last week? Now it gets interesting. Both are very new,  very advanced tanks for about the same price. Again, we’ll set aside politics for you to keep this technical, where you want it, lest the K2 score an easy win. Both tanks are very new. Neither tank has a ton of information available about it. The T-14 has better survivability from complete crew/ammo isolation. The K2 has the better electrics, with lots more features being confirmed, including the important battle management system and third gen infrared sights, and South Korea has a much better track record of good electronic systems. Both have excellent guns. The K2 can be easily upgraded to a 140mm if desired. The T-14 is rumored to be upgradeable to a 152mm gun, but no such gun exists yet3. The T-14 has a smaller engine, but the K2’s engine is more proven. Both should have plenty of room for future upgrades. The T-14 comes with a hard-kill active protection system, but we might be able to find a better one if we shop around.

In the end, the greater survivability of the T-14 outweighs any disadvantages from the unmanned turret and the Russian electronics. The better base platform is the one to choose, and that’s Armata. Electronics are easy to upgrade, engines and transmissions are easy to change out, and there’s a long tradition of export buyers putting French electronic systems in Russian vehicles, but ammunition stowage and crew safety is relatively permanent. So the Armata is our overall champion, with the K2 a close second best.

 

1.) I’m choosing the 2E because it’s a known commodity, and I actually have successful sale prices (to Spain, and it’s similar to the one sold to Greece). The 2A7 adds a lot of modifications for urban combat, which isn’t really my bag. Plus, it hasn’t been sold yet, and the prices on offer to the Saudis were really high, though support and spares is likely increasing it.
2.) It’s another thing included in the 2A7 upgrade kit. This is totally my bag.
3.) I would actually expect something in the 130-140mm range here, but that might just be projecting. I don’t know what supergun the Russians have under development.

OpenTafl v0.3.0.0b released!

Posted by

Well, actually, it was released on Thursday, but parvusimperator needed some space filled on Saturday, so here we are.

OpenTafl v0.3.0.0b is a major milestone release, as you can tell by the version number increment. It brings support for network play and, as far as I know, is the only real-time tafl game with support for a proper game clock built-in. From now on, there will be a server running at intersect.manywords.press, which is the default setting in OpenTafl. Selection of server is user-configurable, and anyone can run a server by using the –server command line option, and optionally –threads <#> to indicate how many worker threads the server should run.

In other news, OpenTafl now lives primarily at Bitbucket: you can find the link (and the link to the updated version) on the OpenTafl website. Bitbucket has a built-in bug tracker, so if you encounter any issues, file them over there1. The source will continue to be mirrored at the old Many Words hgweb instance, but those updates will lag by a day2.

Since I have a few extra days3 to write this, I may as well go into a little more detail on OpenTafl’s server architecture, for the curious.

For maximum scalability, the OpenTafl server does as much work as possible on a set of worker threads, which pull tasks from a priority-based task queue. The task queue has three separate internal queues: a high-priority, standard-priority, and low-priority queue. Tasks are preferentially executed from higher-priority queues, interleaving low-priority queues as necessary to prevent total starvation of the lower-priority queues4. When a client connects to the server, a client thread is created. This client thread has the sole task of taking incoming data and pushing it to a handle-communication task on the standard-priority queue. The handle-communication task in turn pushes tasks to the high or low priority queues.

On the server, clients can belong to no game, belong to a game, but remain in the lobby, or belong to a game and be in the game UI. The server sends lobby updates (connected users, available games) to clients in the first two states at regular intervals. Clients in-game don’t get lobby updates, to save on bandwidth and time spent sending lobby updates.

Finally, some player information is stored on the server: currently, usernames, hashed and salted passwords, and time of last login. The mechanism by which this data is stored is transparent to OpenTafl—hidden by an interface. Right now, the ‘database’ is a pipe-separated file. In the future, if I decide to go further in on the idea of server-side recordkeeping, it’ll be a fairly simple change to kick the file-database to the curb and swap in something like Hibernate+HSQLDB.

That’s where we stand now. Obviously, it’s subject to change, but generally speaking, I’m happy with it. Keep your eyes open for spectator mode and headless AI play.

1. Over there, over there…
2. Or possibly longer, until I get the cronjob working right.
3. It’s a musical tafl post, evidently. You’d better believe that my wife and I always sing ‘Extra daaaaaay!’ whenever we have reason to say ‘extra day’ now.
4. Or so it is planned. My current implementation behaves like this under light loads, but inverts its behavior at the worst possible time: as the queues begin to get busy.

Lessons from the Donbass

Posted by

Lots of people are observing the fighting in the Donbass and taking notes, and it’s time for me to add my two bits. I’m going to weigh in and try to get some solid lessons from the observations.

Observation: Russian drones are excellent, often-present spotters
Comments/Conclusions:
First, drones are useful for more than pegging terrorist assholes with a hellfire missile while they take a dump. Drones can also spot for airstrikes or artillery, and that’s just how the Russians use them. Bonus that spotting drones can be smaller and cheaper, and there are some interesting questions on what the largest unit size that should have organic drone support. We’ll have a follow-up article on that, but yeah. Drones are useful! So get you some of that, and use them. Second, from a defensive perspective, drones might be watching you. So one should give thought to camouflage and anti-drone measures, both in terms of ECM and anti-aircraft measures that can shoot them down. This is an argument to perhaps revisit the late-war Panzergrenadier organization table, which called for company level organic AAA assets. Third, it’d be a good idea to train with drones and practice using them for spotting, and working against them so that troops are familiar with their limitations and killing them. It can be demoralizing to feel like one is always being watched.

Observation: Russian artillery is a brutal killer
Comments/Conclusions:
The Russians love their artillery. Duuuuh. They’ve increased the number of rocket artillery launchers per artillery unit, and deployed these at the tank/infantry battalion level. They’re also not ruled by stupid hippies, so they’ve kept their cluster weapons. These are very, very effective weapons. Shock, cluster munitions work well. Again, time to consider how best to avoid being seen, and survivability against shaped-charge bomlets. Also, artillery fragments kill. This should be remembered while we’re working up body armor loadouts, and not get too obsessed with big heavy rifle plates. This point also brings up the importance of counterbattery radar systems and drill to stop enemy fires. Also, all those “icky” cluster munitions, thermobarics, and top-attack submunitions might be worth another look. Russia’s buying…are you?

Side note: The Russians are using about three rocket artillery vehicles for every four gun-artillery vehicles.

Side note 2: Range is good. More range is better. Get some range. Get more. It’s never enough.

Side note 3: For different reasons, both sides use their artillery in direct-fire mode. Training in such fire missions shouldn’t be neglected.

Observation: Russians make effective use of ECM
Comments/Conclusions:
This is harder, since ECM capabilities are super-classified. Plus, the Russian ECM systems are pointed at Ukrainian radars/radios, mostly, which have less funding and are based on the same familiar Soviet systems. Not sure how well they’d do against American or Western European stuff. I’m not saying to have no fear, but I’m also not saying to panic. Key takeaways are knowing that excessive emissions can let the enemy pinpoint your position for artillery, and understanding that radios might get disrupted. Practicing with less than perfect comms/datalinks is important. Friendly ECM is also something that shouldn’t be neglected, and can be used for spotting or for disrupting enemy comms. So while the pundits keep babbling about “cyber”, ECM is still awesome. Proof of concept in the Donbass: ECM can be used to ground or otherwise neutralize drones. Something to train with and against, and a very useful capability to have. Also, frequency hopping radios are the kind to buy. Anything to make the life of the jammer more difficult.

Also note that GPS is pretty easy to jam. We’ll have another post up to talk about alternatives, but for now it’s important not to assume GPS will always be there. Because it won’t. Go buy a map.

Observation: Russian IADS grants air superiority
Comments/Conclusions:
Nothing new here, other than we get to see this in action. Again, these aren’t peer opponents, so this isn’t surprising. Similarly, we expected the USAF to have no trouble establishing air superiority over Iraq. The Russians have sunk a lot of money into their air defenses and it shows. So, SEAD is a key capability to have, as is stealth. This is a big reason why I love the F-35. But this is nothing new. SAMs are useful and the Russians have lots of them, news at 11. You’ll have trouble too if you’re not prepared.

Observation: Tanks generally survivable against the artillery/missile threat
Comments/Conclusions:
Again, nothing new. Minor checks ought to be done to make sure sufficient overhead armor is placed on tanks and other heavy armored fighting vehicles, and active protection systems should also be strongly considered. But the late-Soviet stuff with a full ERA kit seems to be doing just fine. Of course, it should be noted that because this is Not A Peer Conflict, the ATGM threat is pretty old-school. The Ukrainians do not have TOW II or Javelin, both of which are designed to put the hurt on tanks equipped with ERA.

Further, lacking any kind of ATGM equalizer, light infantry is at a tremendous disadvantage against the tank threat. There’s a lot of good, mobile, fighting retreat tactics out there that go out the window when your ATGMs are old and don’t work. So get the good missiles. And perhaps consider mounting them on vehicles so you can move and shoot.

Observation: IFVs and other lightly armored vehicles aren’t survivable
Comments/Conclusions:
Nothing new here, but people apparently need reminding of this one. Again. Ukrainians and Russians are riding on the outside of their BMPs in the Donbass, because those are thin-skinned deathtraps. The Russians did the same in Chechnya. Americans rode on M-113s in Vietnam. Almost makes you question if roofs are worth it. IFVs fall to old school mid-Cold War era, single-warhead ATGMS, to submunitions, and to 30mm autocannons. Maybe we should have an infantry carrier with proper armor. I wonder where we could get one of those?

The Russians and the Ukranians are developing heavily-armored IFVs. Hmm. Seems they agree with the Israelis on survivability.

Of note here is the lack of ERA kits on the vehicles. I’m not sure if this is a question of cost or if the base armor somehow isn’t enough to take advantage of ERA or if the suspension can’t take the weight. Anyway, no ERA is to be found here, and slat armor kits aren’t enough against the bigger missiles. Or against 30mm gunfire, obviously. There’s not a lot of armor on a BMP to start with, and they’re not built around a lot of weight. If you like your IFVs, consider their armor. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Americans added multilayer ERA kits to the Bradley and the sides of the Abrams, and found these very effective against RPG type threats. They’d likely prove effective at least against the missiles encountered in theater.

Observation: The Russian Army is relatively small, and conscript based
Comments/Conclusions:
The Russian Army is based on conscripts, and as such morale is low. They don’t fight hard, they die in droves. And here is a weakness–the Russian mothers. Casualties are an issue. The Ukranians haven’t rolled over as expected. Smaller nations in Eastern Europe should make plans to make an offensive as bloody as possible.

Parvusimperator reviews the T-14 Armata MBT

Posted by

By popular demand, I am reviewing Russia’s latest Tank Of Doom, the T-14 Armata. While I usually wargame with the Russians as the opposition, as per Cold War tradition, we have more in common than you might think. We both love realpolitik, nuclear weapons, and tanks. Lots of love for tanks. We both adore tanks, expect and demand that they be the heavy hitters in combat, and scoff at the idiots who think their time is through. So let us look at the latest design from a fellow tank lover.

In many ways, the T-14 Armata is a recognition that something has to give. The Russians saw in the first Gulf War what happens when their T-72s got overmatched and had their armor penetrated: the reserve ammo cooked off, immolating the crew and sending the turret flying into the air like a jack-in-the-box. No problem, they said. This was a mere “monkey model”1 T-72. They had big, scary T-72BU,2 with the high-end Kontakt 5 ERA, that was effective at reducing the penetrating ability of APFSDS rounds and could also stop HEAT rounds without a dramatic increase in weight. Keeping the tanks relatively light was very important to the Russians, because the bridge infrastructure in Russia and the former Soviet Union was not very good, and just can’t take the weight of a fully kitted out Leopard 2A7. Plus it’s a lot easier to move bridging equipment when it has less weight to support.

But then came Chechnya, where veterans knew to shoot multiple rockets at the ERA modules, since they don’t do multihit capability. And then the West developed rounds that could get through Kontakt 5 without issue. Better modules and more base armor was needed. The cycle was to begin again, but those bridges weren’t going to get stronger on their own. Faced with strict weight requirements, the Russians decided to take the crew out of the turret. Putting them all in the hull meant less frontal armored area, which meant less armor weight. This was something confronting Western designers too–designs for the next tank made in the late 80s in the US and West Germany had a similar layout. But the Russians hit the wall first. Plus, the Russians have always been willing to try new things in their tanks.

In many ways the Armata is a profoundly Western-style tank, though it still is very light at under 50 tonnes. It has a properly strong front hull armor of what appears to be composites and steel, and it’s rated for protection right up there with its Western rivals. It is, however, not considerably better than them as far as frontal armor estimates go. There’s an all new 125mm gun, the long-barrel 2A82-1M, which has a 32 round autoloader, an all-new APFSDS round with a longer penetrator, and an all-new gun launched ATGM round. There’s a 1,500 hp diesel, though it’s in a goofy and questionable X-configuration. And there’s modern looking thermal sights for the commander and the gunner. Of the seven sets road wheels, the first two pairs and the last pair have adjustable suspension. And, straight from the factory, it has a missile approach warning radar, and hard and soft kill active protection systems3. The sides of the hull appear to have ERA skirts, though they might just be composite modules. The roof is well armored, but I’m uncertain if this contains ERA or not.

That said, the tank is brand new, so many questions remain. How good are the Russian thermal viewers: are they second-generation or third-generation? How good is the fire control computer? Can it do automatic target tracking? IFF? Can the radar be used for finding ground targets? How reliable is the new engine/transmission4 setup? How much armor is on the turret? The outer shell is clearly not tough, but there must be armor behind it or else it would be super easy to achieve a mission-kill. But you don’t need much of an armor profile internally to protect the gun, so maybe the outer shell is just for the radar and APS. And how well will the unmanned turret design work in war (or at least in exercises)? They’re gambling heavily that technology can overcome the loss of situational awareness, though to be fair, so are the Germans with the Puma IFV. Of course, there are some classified things I’d love to know too, like just how good is the main gun compared to a Rheinmetall 120mm L55, and just how good is that armor.

There is one other thing that bothers me presently, and that is how many will the Russians actually buy? They have an awful lot of new weapons programs, and while labor costs are certainly cheaper in Russia, this is a lot of new technology. It won’t be substantially cheaper than a Western tank program of similar vintage with good management, e.g. K2 Black Panther.5

But let’s get to business, and the three million ruble6 question. Would we buy one? On the one hand, politics and NATO might intervene. On the other hand, Russia will sell to anyone, and deferring to politics would be the ultimate cop out. So, let’s set that aside. Would we buy?!

In terms of raw capability, it is similar to Leopard 2A7. A worthy competitor, but not massively better than either, at least on paper and without knowing classified information all around. In terms of cost, it is similar to Leopard 2A7, high but manageable. But ammo is stored entirely separate from the crew, so it is more survivable than either. And hard kill APS are built right in. Electrics should be good, and if not, there’s a long history of adding French and/or Israeli electronics to Russian stuff. The only question might be production, but maybe we could make like India and become a partner in production with a big order to see that it actually gets done.

So would we buy one? Сделка?!

Oh yeah. We’d be all over it.

Uralvagonzavod? Сделка.

1.) i.e. a watered-down export version. The crap you sell to dodgy “friends” like Saddam Hussein, not the good stuff you keep for yourself.
2.) Better known as the T-90.
3.) So, automatically triggered visual/infrared screening smoke to hide the tank, and some kind of mini grenade to destroy missiles.
4.) It’s a twelve-speed transmission, which seems needlessly complicated to me. Also, the previous Russian diesels are all descended from the same V-12 engine family.
5.) While a simple currency conversion of the quoted price doesn’t bear this out, the ruble has lost a lot of value against the dollar recently. If we convert to an intermediate, fixed value commodity in both places (e.g. gold or big macs) as an intermediate step, we get a price that is near as makes no difference to that of the K2 Black Panther.
6.) The top prize on Сделка?!, the Russian Deal or No Deal game show.

OpenTafl v0.3.x: The Networkening Begins

Posted by

The time has finally come. OpenTafl v0.3.x is officially under way. You can find the ongoing changes to the source code at the Mercurial repository. I’m going to spend this post talking a little bit about the structure and organization of the OpenTafl server.

First: I decided that a thicker server was the way to go. Peer-to-peer networking is almost always more trouble than it’s worth for things like this, and OpenTafl shouldn’t be all that resource-hungry. So, the OpenTafl server will maintain the authoritative version of each game, and the authoritative version of that game’s clock. OpenTafl uses TCP instead of UDP; OpenTafl doesn’t run a lot of network traffic or need particularly low latency, and the guarantees provided by TCP are super-handy.

Second: I wanted a server which could easily be scaled up and down. Rather than work with Java’s default threading model for networking, which uses a reader thread per client to both read and do the work, I decided to write a priority task queue. Everything the OpenTafl server does, from parsing incoming communication from clients to updating the game clocks to distributing chat messages, is encapsulated in an individual task object. The task objects are pushed to one of three queues, corresponding to high, standard, or low priority. Higher-priority tasks are executed preferentially, unless there’s a large backlog of lower-priority tasks. This lets the number of worker threads be subject to user configuration. Finally, to distribute load, the OpenTafl server spreads out repeated tasks over a number of buckets in the period of repetition: clients get an updated game list every 30 seconds, by default, but only one in thirty clients gets the game list per second.

Third: Clients are expected to do some heavy lifting. The client gets a server clock update every five seconds, and has to maintain its own clock for display purposes in between. Although the server runs the authoritative version of the game, each client also keeps a full copy of the game. This lightens the burden on the server, which does a lot, and pushes it to the clients, who don’t do much, relatively speaking.

Those are the big features. I’ve run some successful tests over the past day or two, successfully playing out games over the network. I have more features to do before I can make an initial public release, but I expect to have one for you in the next few weeks.

Oracle v. Google: Apocalyptic Subhead

Posted by

Bringing you only the finest in topical writing, it’s your Soapbox contributors.

So, Oracle v. Google. First, some backstory. In 2009, Sun Microsystems, the creator of Java, was acquired by Oracle, Inc., Larry Ellison’s database outfit. At around the same time, Android was in the middle of taking off. (The HTC Dream/T-Mobile G1 was released in October, 2008.)

Android, of course, is the most widely-used mobile operating system in the world, and something your humble author works with on a daily basis. Developed by Google, Android has two parts: a low-level operating system, powered by Linux, and a framework running on top of it, written in Java. … but not exactly. Google re-implemented some of Java’s APIs, for reasons of developer familiarity. I’ll pause for a moment here and give you some metaphors for APIs, in case you aren’t also a developer.

At its most basic, an API (which stands for application programming interface) is a list of capabilities a certain piece of code exposes to the world. First consider a racing rowboat, with a team of oarsmen and a coxswain in the back. The rowers have a simple API: there is one function (sometimes called a method or a procedure) called ‘stroke’. The coxswain doesn’t necessarily need to know how the oarsmen row, but he does need to know that, when he says ‘stroke’, the oarsmen will all row at once.

Next, consider a car. It presents a slightly more complicated API: ‘go faster’, ‘go slower’, and ‘turn’. In modern cars, the API is implemented by the gas pedal, the brake pedal, and the steering wheel. In the early days of motoring, this wasn’t necessarily so: the Model T, for instance, used a very different control scheme. The important point is that both the Model T and a Tesla Model S implement the same API, no matter how different they may be in the details.

Finally, consider a dictionary. Say you invent a language and create a dictionary for it. Your dictionary is protected by copyright, but your language is not. US copyright law says that you can copyright expression, but not information or data. Your language is information, but the definitions in your dictionary are expressive, creative content. So, although your dictionary is copyrighted, someone can come along and rewrite all your definitions. By doing so, they have created a new work, and you have zero rights to it: they’re using the freely-usable data (the words which compose your language) that you have collated, and making new content where copyright would otherwise be an issue (the definitions).

So, what does an API entry look like in Java?

public String toString()

There are three parts here. ‘Public’ means that anyone who includes this piece of code in their own piece of code can ‘see’, and therefore use, the function. ‘String’ means that the function returns a value of type String. (A String is a piece of text.) toString() is the method name. (There is a fourth part; the parentheses enclose the arguments, the information which someone who wants to call the function must send to the function. In this case, there are no arguments.)

An API is something like a mixture of all of those metaphors1. It’s a way to lay out the functionality of a piece of software, and functional works are generally not subject to copyright. On the other hand, an API is also a description of the functionality of a piece of software, and descriptions (like dictionary definitions) can be copyrighted.

That brings us back to the matter at hand, re-implementations of Java. Two other projects with that aim predated Android: GNU Classpath and Apache Harmony. You’ll note that neither calls itself Java: Oracle, by way of Sun, owns the trademark for the term ‘Java’. Now, Java’s APIs are organized in groups called packages, which have names, for instance, like java.lang (core functionality in the Java language). Crucially, Sun never thought it could copyright those names. It could copyright the implementations: for instance, there’s a method called Math.max(number, number), which returns the larger of two numbers, belonging to the java.lang package. Its full address is java.lang.Math.max. Despite the occurrence of ‘java’ in the package name, Sun never asserted ownership over the structure of the API: it was broadly accepted in the software industry that API definitions were functional, not expressive, and therefore not subject to copyright.

In 2012, though, Oracle looked at Google and thought to itself, “Hmm. I want a piece of that sweet, sweet Android pie. How can I get my hands on that?” The answer? Assert copyright over the Java API. Oracle sued Google in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The jury ruled that there was infringement, but hung on Google’s fair use defense. Rendering the jury’s verdict moot, Judge William Alsup4 additionally ruled that APIs aren’t copyrightable at all, under a certain clause in the Copyright Act5 which states that procedures, processes, systems, and methods of operation, among other things, are not subject to copyright. Oracle appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which overturned Alsup’s ruling that APIs are not copyrightable, and remanded the case back to Alsup’s court to hear arguments over fair use, which is where we are today.

Before I go on, I want to remind readers that, from a practical standpoint, I’m on Google’s side. I don’t think that APIs ought to be copyrightable, for reasons I’ll get into later. That said, having read Judge Alsup’s decision in the original case, and the CAFC’s decision overruling that decision, I think that the CAFC probably ruled correctly, exclusively as a matter of law, in Oracle’s favor. Oracle argued—convincingly—that, although a method like toString(), the example above, may not be copyrightable in itself, the arrangement of methods into classes and those classes into packages constitutes a taxonomy, which an earlier case found to be subject to copyright. In the same way that writing, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” would not infringe on Charles Dickens’ copyright, but inserting the whole text of A Tale of Two Cities into this post would, copying a single method from an API is different than copying an entire API.

Unfortunately for the world of software, Oracle’s argument—that the organization of the API is expressive, and therefore subject to copyright—seems correct to me. There are infinite ways to organize an API, and deciding on one of those is an expressive process which takes creativity. Certainly, there are well-structured APIs and poorly-structured APIs, and there are no hard and fast, mechanical rules for how to design the former as opposed to the latter. An API is not like a general-purpose English dictionary, where there is only one reasonable arrangement for the words and definitions, the alphabetic and that arrangement is therefore purely functional. It’s more like a Chinese dictionary, where there is no purely alphabetical arrangement for the words. To arrange words in a Chinese dictionary, the dictionary author has to design a taxonomy or an arrangement, and that, again, is a creative process6.

Up until now, I’ve spoken of the law as it stands. How the law stands is, in this case, different from how the law ought to be. Although the organization of an API is taxonomic, and therefore subject to copyright, APIs need a special exemption. I’ll provide a few examples of products which, under the case law established by the CAFC, would be infringing.

First, and most ironic, we have… Oracle’s flagship database product. Almost every database in wide use today uses a programming language called SQL to manage and query the database. Oracle DB is no exception. Oracle did not, however, invent SQL: that honor falls to IBM, which created the language in the early 1970s. Oracle re-implemented it, evidently without obtaining a license, in the late 1970s, and SQL was not released as an ISO standard until 1986. Since Oracle was founded, and went through its initial growth, by infringing IBM’s copyright on the SQL API, IBM has plausible grounds to literally sue Oracle out of existence7.

Second, we have Linux, as well as all the GNU utilities. In the 1980s, Unix was an AT&T product, and antitrust judgements had forced AT&T to license Unix freely. When AT&T spun off Bell Labs, those judgements no longer applied, and Bell Labs began to sell Unix as a commercial product. The GNU project, and eventually Linus Torvalds, wrote clean-room implementations of the Unix kernel, which became Linux, which now powers the larger part of the Internet. Nokia, the owner of Bell Labs, can now hold the whole Internet hostage. (Fortunately, I doubt they will. Nokia tends to be pretty chill.)

Third, and most compelling, we have literally every non-Apple computer in existence today8. In the 1980s, IBM released the IBM Personal Computer, from which we get ‘PC’. Almost immediately after that, dozens of competitors released IBM PC-Compatible computers, which re-implemented the low-level API by which programs written for the IBM PC interacted with the operating system and the computer hardware. The presence of a de-facto standard allowed competitors to enter the marketplace, and as the PC market grew, Microsoft released MS-DOS and Intel figured out its own expansion card standard. When IBM tried to go proprietary, the consumer PC market—now almost entirely independent from IBM—moved to the Windows/Intel standard that has persisted to this day. Without IBM’s initial innovation, and the freedom of other manufacturers to re-implement IBM’s standard, we wouldn’t have the vibrant personal computer market we have today.

So, the law is wrong. We can’t fix that in this case. What can we do? Google is trying to claim a fair use defense, and may yet prevail, but I don’t want to speculate on the odds. Provided that APIs are copyrightable (and, right now, as a matter of law, they are), Google’s use was probably not protected by fair use. My read of the trial suggests that, in general, Google argued well and Oracle argued poorly. With any luck, the jury will agree.

What if they don’t? The result is bad for the software industry, but not as apocalyptic as some might claim. There is no copyright concern as far as using an API goes: that isn’t the issue at hand here. The issue is reimplementation, which is a driver of innovation and market expansion. We will likely see fewer products which are designed to take the place of other products, because such projects are now risky on copyright grounds, and depend on the good will (or free licensing) of the copyright holder.

We’ll also probably see a return to ‘not invented here’ as an objection to using open products—unless they were designed from the ground up to be different from other, existing products covered by copyright, the risk, for corporate entities, is too great.

Finally, it’s also bad for Java. Closing a platform tends to kill it; see the IBM example above. Even if that doesn’t happen, Oracle’s behavior here will undoubtedly have a chilling effect. Although I just said that this suit doesn’t have a major impact on day-to-day usage of Java, what it does do is demonstrate that Oracle is willing to push the boundaries of IP law in pursuit of a quick buck. If that’s the way they want to behave, they’ll have to deal with the consequences: people are going to run away from Java.

Fortunately, Google appears to have won, according to the news today. More on what that might mean after I read enough to synthesize an opinion.

1. My wife, who holds a seminary degree, often talks about heresies2 as regard the Trinity, and how most common metaphors for the Trinity end up espousing one of those heresies. My usual response is, “Yes, but there’s no such thing as a perfect metaphor; a perfect metaphor is just the thing you’re trying to describe.”
2. In the technical sense; that is, beliefs incompatible with lower-case orthodox Christian doctrine.
3. (There is no third footnote. I forgot to update the numbering when I removed it, and can’t be bothered to change it now.)
4. His middle name is ‘Haskell’, which the programmers and computer scientists in the audience will find amusing.
5. See here for more; you’re looking at section b.
6. To my knowledge, which is very limited, because I am not a lawyer, this has never been tested in a US court, but my feeling is that the arrangement of a Chinese dictionary would also be copyrightable. See this article and point 5 in this blog post for more on Chinese dictionaries.
7. Your author would watch that case.
8. I don’t know if Apple computers count here, so I’ll leave them out.

On the Merkava Mark IV

Posted by

I’ve already mentioned my fondness for the Namer. But let’s look at the other famous piece of Israeli heavy armor, the Merkava. Once again, Israeli experiences, especially in the wars of 1967 and 1973 featured heavily in designing a tank for their needs.

Despite being some of the staunchest devotees of Orthodox Maneuver Warfare, the Israelis have historically favored British tanks, which emphasize protection first, firepower second, and mobility third. The Israelis collaborated with the British on the design of the Chieftain, but after the Six Day War, the British refused to sell them to the Israelis, since the Israelis had struck first.1 The Israelis were incensed, and set about developing their own tank, the latest version of which is the Merkava Mark IV.

The Merkava has many unique features, most obviously a front-mounted engine. I’m not entirely sold on this idea, but the Israelis didn’t have access to composite armor technology when they first developed the Merkava, so they put the engine forward to maximize protection. The engine will stop a HEAT round, at the expense of dying. But a mobility-killed tank is a lot easier to replace than a tank crew, and the front mounted engine allows for a rear hatch, plus space at the back that can be used for plenty of ammo or the emergency transport of troops. A rear hatch makes it easy for the crew to safely escape a knocked-out tank, or to resupply the tank with ammo. Perfect for a defensive struggle with hordes of Syrian tanks as they surge across the Golan heights. This has stuck around, and the Merkava IV has a 1,500 hp engine up front, and a door at the back. I like the ammo capacity, but I think I’d prefer a more traditional layout and to load up with composite armor at the front.

The 1,500 horsepower engine is the MTU 883, probably the best diesel tank engine in the world today. It’s powerful, reliable, cheap, and relatively fuel efficient. And the Mark IV needs every one of those horsepowers. Wikipedia says the Mark IV weighs 65 tonnes, which is heavy. Heavier than an M1A2, heavier than a Leopard 2E, heavier than a standard Challenger 2, all of which come in around 63 tonnes. And yet, I call bullshit. The IDF is very secretive, even about the weight of their tanks. You could get fewer lies about weight if you asked Hillary Clinton how much she weighs. I have a much better source from an expert on the Merkava, who served in the IDF armored units, and he lists the weight of a Mark IV at “more than 70,000 kg”. That’s a good bit heavier. That’s heavier than the Leopard 2A7 with all the supplemental armor kits.

I might suggest the tank is heavier still. Photos of the turret with some of the armor modules removed shows that they’re mostly solid armor. I don’t know the competition, but that indicates a lot of weight, especially considering how big the Merkava is. And the 1,200 horsepower engine of the Merkava Mark III wasn’t enough. If that weighed about 63-65 tonnes, we could go from 78 to 81 tonnes without too much trouble as far as power/weight is concerned. That’s beastly. Remember, the British have been perfectly happy to add 12 tonnes of armor to the Challenger 2, and that only has a 1,200 horsepower engine. The Israelis have always thought like the British as far as tank design goes.

But enough rampant speculation. It is a big, heavy, very well-armored tank, that much is clear. I really like the turret design; the armor is very thick, even on traditionally less protected areas. There’s plenty of side armor, and more roof armor than on the turret of any other tank. And that’s in addition to a very thick looking turret face. Excellent! Hull armor is reasonably good too, with armored sponsons and plenty of armor on the hull front. The latest versions of the Mark IV even add a Trophy active protection system. More hull front armor might be nice, but the engine is there. The turret is a good shape. Protection of the hull sides, especially where the ammo is stored, leave something to be desired, since a hit in this area can cook off the stowed ammo.

I don’t have a ton of information on armor composition. Not that I’d believe it, given how much I question even the weight figures. Early marks used lots of spaced steel armor, trading weight for cost and protection. More recent marks probably use some kind of composite, something that works well in a highly sloped arrangement. It’s also used in multiple layers with air gaps in between in the turret. But given the published cost numbers, it’s probably not anything particularly exotic. It’s also not explosive reactive armor, despite extensive Israeli work on that. The Israelis are probably still trading thickness and weight for cheapish protection. However, I’m a little concerned about the armor design. Usually, composite modules are contained between inner and outer steel plates, to contain the modules. The Merkava doesn’t have the outer containing plates, so weapon hits tend to cause significant structural damage to the area around the impact point. Structural compromise beyond the area hit directly by the shaped charge jet indicates a limited ability to withstand multiple hits in the same armor module. Other designs are much better at not coming apart in the area around an impact.

I should take a moment to point out that most of the armor on the Mark IV is modular, and is easy to remove and replace for repair or upgrade, as long as a convenient crane is handy.

On to the firepower. The Merkava Mark IV has a 120mm gun, designed for high pressure rounds with an improved recoil system and stronger chamber over the 120mm gun on the Mark III. There’s also a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun, provision to mount an external coaxial 12.7mm machine gun, and another 7.62mm machine gun on the roof for the commander. There’s no machine gun for the loader though. Instead, his duties include loading a breach-loading 60mm mortar. This mortar comes from the lessons of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, and was also retrofitted to the other, foreign-built tanks in the Israeli inventory. It was used to launch starshells in the days before night vision. It’s also useful for engaging anti-tank teams in defilade, since it’s an indirect fire weapon. I really like this feature. I’m not sure about the external 12.7mm extra coax. I’d probably prefer a 12.7mm machine gun for the commander, though the Germans also seem to favor a GPMG for the roof.

Now, let’s talk survivability and ammo stowage, since those two go together. The Merkava’s large size is a big help to reducing how many crew are going to get injured in the event the armor is penetrated. About 8,000 rounds of machine gun ammo is carried, plus 40 rounds for the 60mm mortar. But that’s less of a big deal. Let’s look at main gun ammo. That’s what you’re here for. The Mark IV carries ten ready rounds in the bustle, in a pair of automatic five-round drums. The loader can select ammo type, and the drums will rotate and push it out a small hatch so he can grab it. Blow-out panels are provided over the ammo, of course. The smaller hatch makes the crew that much safer from ammo cook-off, and the automated system for selecting rounds is pretty sweet. But, 10 ready rounds is not a lot, the Leopard 2 has 15 and the Abrams has 17. I’d prefer it if there was more ready ammo.

The Mark IV carries 38 other rounds, six in the floor under the turret basket, and 32 in individual containers, 16 per side in the rear of the tank. These rounds can be removed to create space to evacuate tank crews or move infantry around, but aside from the protective containers, there’s not a lot of internal separation for these rounds. I’m not the biggest fan of this arrangement. It does predate heavily armored APCs like the Namer, and I’d prefer more isolation of ammo from crew, even at the expense of being stuck with the arrangements. Hull blow-out panels would be great here, or at least some isolation so you could get a halon extinguisher in each reserve magazine. On the other hand, the Israeli arrangement does make reloading easier, and tanks being shot at from behind are never going to fare well.

In terms of electronics, the Mark IV is right up there with the best of the West, with thermal sights and laser rangefinders for the commander and gunner, a battle management computer system, and a modern fire control computer complete with automatic target tracking. The Israelis also are the only Western country to produce the LAHAT, a gun-launched ATGM with semi-active laser homing guidance, providing extended range for the main gun. Currently, they’re fitting Trophy active protection systems to the Mark IV, because it’s not yet hard enough to kill.

So, when all is said and done, would we buy, if they were available? Would we prefer them to our chosen Leopard 2E?

No.

The Leopard 2E is better suited for conventional warfare, with massive frontal protection2 and the best production tank gun in the world. The Leopard 2E’s 120mm L55 gun is rated for more pressure than even the enhanced, Israeli-made 120mm L44 on the Mark IV. The Leopard 2E’s armor is properly encapsulated, so it won’t come apart around a hit area. It’s not difficult to add active protection
to the Leopard 2E, or the Abrams, or any other new tank. And the Leopard 2E even comes with improved roof armor and supplemental armor kits for the turret sides, hull skirts, and underbelly. So it can become almost as good at urban warfare. It’s just a better tank all-around, not being excessively optimized for incursions into Beirut.

1.) Apparently, striking first isn’t cool anymore, even if your enemy is preparing to strike you. Lame.
2.) As it should be.

The CAS Conundrum

Posted by

Assume a peer opponent, like the Soviet Union in its glory days.

Wait, no. That’s hard to think of. And not necessary.

Assume a relatively peer-ish opponent. Or even semi-peer. The diet coke of peer will do in a pinch. Maybe it’s a revanchist Russia, maybe China, or maybe just someone with their head screwed on right, like Serbia in the late 90s. Someone who has built a nice IADS. Invested in air defense. Trained on it. Got them in your head? Good. Now you’re at war…

We, of course, want to provide air support. And air support can take the form of interdiction or CAS, close air support. Right up at the line of contact. There’s plenty of good historical examples of how to do this right. And it’ll bring decisive firepower to assist. It’s worked in basically every war since the Second World War. If you can bring airplanes to help, you’ve got yourself a big win. And right at the front lines is where it matters the most. But the enemy is going to try to stop you, and therein lies the problem. Let’s consider those defenses.

As far back as the 60s, big medium and long ranged SAM systems were trouble. Remember Gary Powers? Okay, there’s that peer competitor again. But plenty of F-105s and even mighty B-52s were shot down by SA-2s over Vietnam. There. That’s not very peer. The SAM threat was bad. One counter was to build up a big strike package with SAM-suppression aircraft and jamming support. That’s perfect for the interdiction mission, the deep strike. But what about the CAS mission? Are we doomed?

No, we fly low! Perfect. And this is the approach of choice for the Panavia Tornado and the A-10 and the Su-25. If we’re doing close air support, and it’s the 60s or 70s, we only have to worry about anti-aircraft guns. And not like the big 12.8cm guns that defended Berlin in ’44, but small, mobile units. 23mm autocannons are the standard size for Russian units. So the A-10 was built to take shots from those 23mm guns, and it was built around a massive 30mm autocannon that outranged the Soviet 23mm guns. It could win a ‘high noon’ duel with the defending 23mm batteries, and then tear tanks apart with more 30mm gunfire plus bombs.

Perfect. Except that nobody likes to be looking at a losing score up on the board. The Soviets love their tanks, and they weren’t about to sit around while they got torn up from the air. They had enough of that back when they were facing Ju-87Gs back in the Great Patriotic War. They doubled down on missiles, specifically short range missiles. And here was the hard counter they were looking for. Short range systems, plus the famed MANPADS like Strela-3, Igla, and Stinger.

In 1991, lots of aircraft came at the Iraqi air defense system at low level. Again, we had the Tornado and the A-10 as big users of the attack profile. Both were not only doctrinally constrained to low-level attacks, but also had weapons systems that required the aircraft to fly low to be effective. And both aircraft took some significant losses, which forced changes in attack profiles. Back up to medium altitude, where they were relatively safe because the Iraqis weren’t very good at protecting their bigger (and longer ranged) SAM systems from coalition air defense suppression assets.

The Soviets experienced basically the same thing in Afghanistan, once the Mujahedin got Stingers. This forced their aircraft up to medium altitude, where they were safe from the missiles.

And now it gets worse. First, we’re not really doing close air support anymore. We’re dropping from altitude, and can’t actually see the guys on the ground. So we’re dependent on communicated coordinates. Don’t screw that up, or else the bomb might hit you.1 Second, at medium altitude, that big awesome gun on the A-10 is just a lot of weight and drag.

But, no problem, right? We can just use a bomb truck with plenty of gas, like the A-6E. That even has a lot of built-in targeting systems to squeeze maximum precision out of dumb bombs. The even bigger F-111 is another good choice. Or it would be except for those surface to air missiles. We saw in 1999 that an army with old, reasonably mobile SAMs like the SA-6 could make life hell for an attacker by using clever tactics, decoys, and good emissions discipline. And they didn’t even have the widely-exported S-300 family, which are much more formidable.

At medium altitude, there’s no cover, and a bomb truck like an A-6 or an A-10 isn’t going to be able to shake SAMs very well. There is another way to beat the big SAMs though: stealth.

As Muhammad Ali would say, your hands can’t hit what your eyes can’t see. A little route planning, and boom. They won’t be able to touch you. Stealth is cool, but it demands internal carriage of weapons and not being predictable. Both of which make CAS extremely difficult.

But CAS is not doomed. And I’m not about to give the skeptics victory. The Small Diameter Bomb is a good start, since lots of those can fit in a stealthy 5th generation fighter. Remember, the formidable Stuka generally didn’t use giant bombs, and we have way more precision than Rudel could have dreamed of. Plus, we could always loiter on standby near, but not over, the battlefield. And we don’t have any good examples of a stealthy midsize bomb truck. We have big fighters like the Raptor, but only small bombers. A stealthy plane with some bomb capacity would be perfect here. Something F-22 sized or a bit bigger that can haul a decent bombload internally.

1.) By ‘might’, I mean ‘will,’ thanks to that asshole Murphy.