I know I’ve been extremely lukewarm about drones and, in
fact, often quite critical but this is just a demonstration of capability
that’s beyond belief. Who would not be
impressed and ‘converted’ into a drone supporter given this kind of
demonstrated result?
Of course, as with any combat exercise, there were a few
very minor nitpicks that a nitpicking nitpicker might nitpick about. What kind of minor nitpicks, you ask? Well, I hesitate to even mention them because
I’m sure they don’t alter the results one iota but, since you asked, here they
are:
The defenders, while they could see the drones, were
apparently unable to shoot or destroy them.
I guess this is to simulate the fact that the Russians and Chinese don’t
have guns or missiles. That seems
reasonable and accurate.
The technologies that were used in the game don’t exist but
are all considered feasible in the near future. Of course, if I could use made up technology,
I could probably develop some pretty kick-ass capabilities, too! And, just to add some perspective, the
Zumwalt’s gun was considered feasible and the F-35’s ALIS logistics program was
considered feasible and those turned out to be complete failures. However, I’m sure that any envisioned
technology in this wargame would turn out to be a complete success so the fact
that the result is based on non-existent technology is almost irrelevant.
The defenders did not, apparently, have access to any drones
themselves. This is the typical US
military tendency to assume that everything we have works and the enemy has
nothing and whatever they have doesn’t work.
If the game called for the attackers to possess advanced drone
technology wouldn’t the enemy also have advanced drones, ground combat robots, radar,
anti-drone electronic warfare capability (the Russians already do and,
presumably, so do the Chinese), anti-drone kinetic weapons (isn’t that what a
ZSU-23 is, even if you have nothing else?), advanced sensors, adaptive
camouflage capability, etc.? But, no,
the simulated enemy apparently only had Revolutionary War muskets to work with.
As I said, these are incredibly minor, insignificant nits
that, I’m sure, have no bearing on the result or interpretation of the
results. The key takeaway is that if you
encounter a defending force with no apparent capabilities and you, yourself,
have near Star Wars capabilities, you can defeat them with ridiculous ease.
Seems like it was a worthwhile wargame, don’t you think?
Seriously, this is the epitome of tilting the scenario to achieve the results you want. The US military is desperate to justify unmanned vehicle technology (reduces personnel costs, they think) so they create wargames that so artificially constrain the opposing force that the outcome is a foregone conclusion and *surprise* they get the result they want. With proof like that, who wouldn't jump on board the unmanned train?
Seriously, this is the epitome of tilting the scenario to achieve the results you want. The US military is desperate to justify unmanned vehicle technology (reduces personnel costs, they think) so they create wargames that so artificially constrain the opposing force that the outcome is a foregone conclusion and *surprise* they get the result they want. With proof like that, who wouldn't jump on board the unmanned train?
(1)Breaking Defense website, “AI &
Robots Crush Foes In Army Wargame ”, Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr.,
19-Dec-2019,
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/12/ai-robots-crush-foes-in-army-wargame/
Russians don't need missiles, they have EW and arty.
ReplyDeleteLots of drones + controllers = target able signatures.
See Ukraine for examples.
Chinese, well they built the drone electronics, so they
re-direct the drones against the infantry that launched them, saving valuable artillery rounds.
Q, How does one used drones in a contested EW enviroment without saying "here I am" ?
I can see drones being extremely useful once you knock the "contested" out of contested environment.
DeleteBut if the enemy has their EW capabilities intact the data links to the drones are going to be jammed to hell and gone.
So much for drones.
" if the enemy has their EW capabilities intact the data links to the drones are going to be jammed to hell and gone."
DeleteIf you read the linked article, it strongly suggests that the imaginary drones were AI controlled and needed little or now communications. Of course, the level of AI is approaching Terminator intelligence and is simply not currently achievable but that didn't stop the wargamers from getting the results they wanted!
"I can see drones being extremely useful once you knock the "contested" out of contested environment."
DeleteOf course, once you've eliminated the contested aspect, you don't really need drones! It's just mop up at that point.
"Each individual drone and ground robot needs its own narrow AI to navigate over terrain, analyze data from its sensors, and communicate with the rest of the force. But the most important AI is an overarching artificial intelligence to coordinate the whole platoon – an AI that doesn’t reside in any one physical location, but exists in a wireless cloud.
DeleteInstead of a single, central supercomputer that could be blown up, hacked, or have its communications jammed, the coordinating intelligence is distributed across multiple mini-servers carried by robotic vehicles and, potentially, individual soldiers. If one server is destroyed or loses communications, there are still others on the platoon network.
Of course, that requires the network to, well, work. If your cellphone has ever dropped a call, you know that’s not guaranteed. And battlefield networks have to overcome problems no commercial system faces, such as Russia’s extensive arsenal of electronic warfare systems to detect and jam transmissions. In 2017, the Army decided its tactical network was far too vulnerable to hacking and jamming, so it rebooted the entire modernization effort, and since then industry has been laboring mightily to build communications that can function even in the face of Russian or Chinese attack.
Maciuba is confident that American industry can deliver, he told me: “We actually have multiple [companies] that say they can build this architecture.”"
Sure, you've got some innate intelligence in each unit. That largely exists today.
But the data networking required to make this work and transmit the data back to a human is still highly problematic, and that's where I think this is going to land on its head.
We are assuming the Chinese and Russians can't disrupt the network. Wanna bet??
"Of course, once you've eliminated the contested aspect, you don't really need drones! It's just mop up at that point."
DeleteYup. But if you can keep the drones flying and communicating, its going to help your situational awareness a lot.
I just don't see how you keep them communicating. Even flying may be a challenge with battlefield directed energy weapons.
Aha!! There's a drone over there. Let's just get out the microwave flyswatter and give it a shot of juice!
Splash one drone...
Of course the technology is going to swing back and forth in terms of advantage, but neither side is likely to get a free ride.
"Of course the technology is going to swing back and forth in terms of advantage, but neither side is likely to get a free ride."
DeleteTHIS! This is the crux of the issue. The reality is that both sides ALREADY possess the basics of unmanned vehicles and AI. Why we think our side will have AND MAINTAIN an everlasting advantage is beyond me and is just a pure fantasy. And yet, this is precisely what we are basing our entire future military on. THIS IS OUR HYPED THIRD OFFSET STRATEGY!!!! We think that, somehow, magically, we, and only we, will have and maintain a combat advantage with unmanned, networked platforms.
One can't help but wonder whether this obsession with everything unmanned is (more or less consciously) caused by a lack of trust in the actual capabilities of the currently available manpower.
ReplyDeleteThe obsession with drones is due to the desire to reduce manpower (assumed not given), which is expensive in peacetime democracies, and to also minimize human exposure to casualties.
DeleteGAB
Well, we all know it's good PR and helps with funding, it's a start.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, next series of exercises will be more realistic and show what happens when you lose a quarter of your drones to AA and ECM. Maybe we lose half. What happens then? Maybe enemy gets smart and develops he own drones and AI. I'm sure those exercises will have interesting results and DoD wont classify them so we never heard the bad news....
As a side note, I'm sure I'm not alone, I'm guessing real life results might be far different than even such a "perfect play ground". What happens when bad guys take out half your drones and you lose SA? Do the troops wait for more drones? Do they fix them? Do they freeze in place? What's doctrine then? Do troops so used to such "superb" SA still more forward when SA is degraded by a quarter? Half? 3/4? What happens if bad guys set traps or funnels your drones to see what bad guy commander wants u to see??? What happens if bad guys deploy killer drones? Or some other counter measures? Can't wait and sincerely wish DoD not only goes there in these exercises but actually releases some results.
"next series of exercises will be more realistic and show what happens when you lose a quarter of your drones"
DeleteThe even bigger question is what happens when the enemy, who has just as many and just as advanced drones as you, locate you first and call in artillery fire against which your light infantry riding around in glorified jeeps have no protection against because you've been putting your development and acquisition into networks rather than firepower and armor.
This is exactly what happened in Ukraine. The Russian EW and drones found the Ukrainian units, called in artillery, and wiped them out.
Our exercises always assume the enemy doesn't have our capabilities but the reality is they not only match us but, in some critical areas, exceed us. Where's those wargames?
"Our exercises always assume the enemy doesn't have our capabilities but the reality is they not only match us but, in some critical areas, exceed us. Where's those wargames?"
DeleteIs this a good time to mention that the Chinese are generally thought to be catching up fast with the West in AI development?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-china-overtake-the-u-s-in-artificial-intelligence-research/
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50255191
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613117/china-may-overtake-the-us-with-the-best-ai-research-in-just-two-years/
China and Russia will surpass in AI because they don't face the same problems we do with the 'Terminator' dilemma. They don't care if collateral (or even some amount of friendly fire) damage occurs because of AI-rampaging robots/drones. Thus, they can bypass the whole ethical responsibility issue that we're grappling with. They can, and will, just write a 'kill' AI and turn it loose without caring much about target discrimination.
DeleteGenerally, the Chinese do not care much about ethical issues when it comes to scientific research altogether (see also: genetics).
DeleteThis will be an issue in the not-so-far future.
"China and Russia will surpass in AI because they don't face the same problems we do with the 'Terminator' dilemma."
DeleteThat's one piece of the puzzle for sure. One of the others is that China is graduating 8 times the US number of advanced degrees in STEM.
Now we can certainly debate how good a Chinese advanced STEM degree from a prestige university is vs a US advanced STEM degree from a prestige university.
And the US comes out ahead, but not by as far as you might expect. And that's today.
But like many things, what is true today is not necessarily going to carry over. I see the gap in commitment to advanced STEM education as a major problem moving forward.
Not least to the military. And its those highly educated and skilled researchers of tomorrow that are going to make or break the coming technologies and how they are applied.
"One of the others is that China is graduating 8 times the US number of advanced degrees in STEM."
DeleteNo they really are not, this canard is old.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-tech-students-slaughter-peers-in-russia-china-india-in-coding-test/
https://www.machinedesign.com/community/editorial-comment/article/21829922/the-myth-of-chinese-and-indian-engineers
I can dig up more but the simple fact most of what India and China label engineers would not qualify for or have a PE.
That be said China maybe seems to able to churn out ships with rapidity that is a concern (well if you not in China). Don't sweat the false STEM gap. Which mostly serves industry to get more visa leeway to not pay well the best educated and whine they can't have poor drones.
Add more.
DeleteI am not trying to sneer but as somebody who has MA and PE. The simple fact is India and China churn out a lot vapor ware people. Because they were never asked to run a project on their own and in place where you can fail doing it or have a mentor to guide you - school.
Thus they graduate people who are well Associate degree holders. They have little to no ability to take risks or defend their positions if they can even articulate them. But they are called STEM graduates.
I wouldn't get too caught up in a STEM debate which involves a lot of 'semantics' and definitions. The larger issue is the number of Chinese students graduating with advanced scientific degrees. From Inside Higher Ed website,
Delete"International students make up the large majority of full-time students in many graduate science- and engineering-related programs, and their numbers have been rising much faster than the number of domestic students, according to a new report from the National Foundation for American Policy, a research organization focused on immigration and the economy.
The report found 81 percent of full-time graduate students in electrical and petroleum engineering programs at U.S. universities are international students, and 79 percent in computer science are."
I don't pretend to understand the scope of the issue but a concern about the US providing education for a potential enemy is certainly valid. I've called for a complete cessation of all Chinese student education in the US.
Yes, please!! I have STEM graduate degrees, abd the lack of American students is disturbing and disgusting.
DeleteWe do a poor job of providing foundational high school STEM prep, a poor job of motivating undergraduates into graduate studies, and universities are addicted to larger tuition paid by foreign students.
It would warm my cold heart if we forbade Chinese students from university education in the US. There are plenty of actual allies who would leap to take their place.
"The report found 81 percent of full-time graduate students in electrical and petroleum engineering programs at U.S. universities are international students, and 79 percent in computer science are.""
DeleteSomebody is gaming those numbers I think because I can't make them add up with other data.
https://www.iie.org/Why-IIE/Announcements/2019/11/Number-of-International-Students-in-the-United-States-Hits-All-Time-High
That is the direct link to study you are citing. And yes China sends a lot of students but nothing matches the numbers you have cited.
More importantly see what asee has to say.
https://www.asee.org/documents/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/2017-Engineering-by-Numbers-Engineering-Statistics.pdf
Bachelors degrees by residency (Domestic/Foreign) (2016) ~90%/10%
Sure if you take all foreign for graduate school you can get a ratio around 45%/50%
It is important to remember that graduate school in a STEM field is a research job/apprenticeship and one you are vastly underpaid for. And also foreign students pay full price typically - they are not the ones getting reduced tuition etc. They in effect subsidize domestic students (the effect is even larger at an undergrad level in say a land grant university where a foreign student is almost certainly all the rather large out of system costs for everything).
What would call for a complete cession? Even the study you cite suggests the OPT programs have lead to more graduate students which implies they looking for the 36 months to find a job in the US that gets them a long term Visa.
If you want to start kicking out foreign students en mass than you also need to either pay more in taxes or accept a lot fewer Americans will be able to afford a STEM degree (or just own a nice crushing burden of debt).
"If you want to start kicking out foreign students en mass than you also need to either pay more in taxes"
DeleteA couple of issues here:
1. I'm not calling for elimination of all foreign students, just Chinese so that we stop educating our potential enemy.
2. From everything I can see, our universities have enough money to self-fund for decades without ever charging anyone any tuition. The University of Michigan, for example, is reported to have billions of dollars. From the U-M 2019 financial annual report:
"Our net position increased $523 million in FY 2019 to $14.8 billion.”
I'm not an accountant so I don't know what all is included in that $14.8B but, wow!
If you do the simple arithmetic, for a hypothetical university of, say, 30,000 students paying an annual tuition of $20,000, that's an income for the school of $600M !!!! That should be more than enough to pay professor salaries and building maintenance.
I further note that the average university's tuition has increased well beyond the rate of inflation for many years and continues to do so.
Again, this financial realm is well beyond my area of understanding but I don't see any need for massive tax/tuition increases just because we eliminate Chinese students.
Kath, I'll bite on CS specifically. Silicon Valley leads the world in CS, but one thing to watch is that over well over 50% of the workforce is foreign born which is not a good trend line.
DeleteIn STEM generally, the US is not necessarily ahead.
From your quoted article:-
"The researchers believe the findings could help redefine the way computer-science admissions are structured, which are often based on skill levels in math, science, and physics. Russian high-school students, for example, significantly outperform their peers in the US in physics before entering a computer-science degree, while Chinese students have far higher skills in math than any of the other three countries, according to the authors. "
My experience is that language differences have more impact on performance than skills differences.
I've been watching the Huawei saga play out with great interest. It certainly appears that the best of those STEM grads are doing a pretty decent job!
"1. I'm not calling for elimination of all foreign students, just Chinese so that we stop educating our potential enemy."
DeleteI kind of recognized that. But... Every person from China is not a potential enemy, many what to stay. How does that logic end.
I willing to bet on an open society. Don't forget that while here as graduate students foreigners are essentially doing open public work and science etc (or if anything is trending into patent range - the university owns it).
"2. From everything I can see,..."
Indeed but that is a different debate. However thy calculate their bottom line the fact is true that foreign students pay maximum dollar.
"I further note that the average university's tuition has increased well beyond the rate of inflation for many years and continues to do so."
Interestingly you know what else has increased well beyond inflation the pay of provosts and deans and college football coaches and athletic directors but not that of nontenured lectures or associate professors waiting for tenure.
"Again, this financial realm is well beyond my area of understanding"
Well so far since nobody has raised their hand as a provost. I agree that we are drifting off target.
In any case I have not yet commended your original post. A war game should be designed by definition to expose issues and the red team given the maximum latitude to argue for their side.
"isn’t that what a ZSU-23 is, even if you have nothing else?)"
Hey didn't we used to have one of those although not quite a good. Oh yep the M163 VADS (or you know could buy a Flakpanzer Gepard geez the Germans hardly fund their army but they still have best in glass SP gun AA). Bet it can shoot down drones for less money than a laser or rail gun.
@George
Delete"the Huawei saga play out with great interest."
Are they, I suppose. for now with a technology that won't be doing me any good any time soon. Their the low cost provider for now and I suppose they win on that (how much debt is China hiding for them). Quality, IP security we will have to see. Lost cost is not always the answer.
But this goes back to Regan killing our ship building. I care not for China sending students here at all. I care that unlike every other country we insist on the stupidly of not picking winners while they do. Or a t minimum bringing a proper support to a well subsidy fight.
"My experience is that language differences have more impact on performance than skills differences. "
Certainly. It really depends on the goal the exit. I would say public speaking is a huge lapse area for a lot of STEM programs if you cannot pen a good paper or do decent presentation nobody is going to care about your test scores back in the day.
"many what to stay."
DeleteSo what? I'd like to visit Chinese military facilities but they won't let me. Why would any Chinese citizen want to live here? China's a utopia - I know because their government says so. So, let them enjoy utopia. We have to stop supplying China with the very people who are trying to beat us.
"if anything is trending into patent range - the university owns it)."
Come on, now. Be honest. You had to be laughing while you typed that! China is the world's biggest thief of intellectual property.
"Come on, now. Be honest. You had to be laughing while you typed that! China is the world's biggest thief of intellectual property."
DeleteActually the joke I had in mind was domestic Genentech and UCSF.
I agree on your point that is why China should never have been allowed in the WHO. Bush senior and Bill C deserve a lot more shame than they get for pushing the ideal.
"So what? I'd like to visit Chinese military facilities but they won't let me. "
As I said I will to bet on an open society. Most Chinese graduate students will never visit a military location and the research thay do in a public university is public anyway.
WTO sorry not WHO.
DeleteBut its the little things thinking of the WHO by accident. So why is not a talking point of the US from both parties that China participates and funds the WHO very much less than even Luxembourg and certainly the Swiss. Where is China's public BSL-4 lab. Last I checked it ain't got one not much a of a world citizen as result.
DeleteKicking out Chinese students out for just being Chinese will not help the US. Making the point about who funded the the Ebola vaccine and funded the majority of the WHO budget to implement dealing with the last two major outbreaks might be a better route.
Kicking out Chinese students opens up seats for our allies, I believe in open societies as well, let’s get *their* grad students. Every Chinese we remove is one spot open for a Taiwanese, Polish, or Lithuanian student.
DeleteSTEM grad students both teach classes and do the actual work funded by various grants and sponsoring organizations. They make money for the university quite independent of tuition.
No expert so I'm sure I'm going to be stupid here so AI is just in the cloud sounds great and above mere physical problems like a 1000 lb PGM taking it out BUT I'm guessing AI isnt some voice of God just magically whispering inside every soldier brain, I'm guessing there's some kind of interface between our AI God and human brain AND that interface will be hacked, jammed or be at receiving end of artillery or PGM....PLUS, our AI or whatever is above it all in the cloud or super computers still need POWER, anybody worry JUST A LITTLE that Russia and surely China penetrated 100s of US POWER PLANTS and GRIDS.....Funny, we could "win" the battle with our 40 against 300 and "lose" the war when Russia shuts down half the country....
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I like the let's go all out and see what happens when we have something unique exercise, kind of reminds me of stealth and F117. I think AI and drones can be similar, can be breakthrough tech and can do some incredible stuff at the beginning BUT I see the advantages dwindle EVEN a lot faster than LO. EVERY BODY is working on AI, drones hacking etc....US advantage will be very short lived, if we even have an advantage!!! As mentioned, RUSSIA and CHINA probably will have far looser ROE and not bother as much about casualties compared to USA programmed AI to be more respectful.
From your lips to God's ear Nico.
DeleteThis reliance on hackable, jammable systems is idiotic and suicidal.
And always assuming we are going to be better than the enemy is also not very bright when you consider how both the Russians and Chinese are demonstrating a commitment to the very technologies that are going to trip us up and plant us on our faces in the mud...
"This reliance on hackable, jammable systems is idiotic and suicidal."
DeleteThe military misses two essential points:
1. At the end of the day, even with perfect data, you still have to be able to destroy what you see and that requires FIREPOWER. Nowhere in our development, plans, doctrine, wargaming, or acquisition do I see much of any commitment to firepower.
2. Firepower compensates for a whole lot of flaws in networks, data collection/transmission, strategic/operational errors, etc. If you have the firepower to wipe out a grid square then it doesn't matter whether knew how many left-handed enemy soldiers with torn pockets were there - you just wipe out the area and move on.
We're so fixated on data collection that we've forgotten that you still have to be able to act (destroy) on it. It's great that you can see that enemy armored division heading towards but if you haven't got the firepower to stop them, what was the point?
Couldn't agree more.
DeleteWhen combat devolves to WWII levels or worse (because comms may well be worse than WWII), its still going to be the guy with the biggest club that wins.
We don't seem to be much into big club development and manufacture at the moment.
We're going to regret that one day when things get serious.
Agree USA is completely moving away from firepower, lots of firepower! Nothing against PGMs but sometimes, you just have to take out an entire grid, Russia still gets it, China gets it, US and West used to get it but we are moving away from it to our detriment.
DeleteA thought I have been having about all these "cheap and expendable" drones, UAVs, UGVs, even USVs,etc...OK, so they are cheap and expendable by manned system standards BUT, just wait a second here, yes, we can lose them but for how long and how fast can they be replaced?!? Is the industry really ready to mass produce RAPIDLY some of these drones because if not, they might be cheap to buy a few units or maybe a dozen but if the production line isn't set up to produce more than a dozen or 20 or 30 a year, they surely aren't readily expendable and easy to REPLACE! We might lose the entire FY procurement in ONE DAY!!! If you start losing them at a rate far beyond replacement rate, then they aren't expendable! What happens then?
I don't know, has DoD looked into the production side of drones and how easy or difficult it is to accelerate in times of war production of these systems? If not, we really haven't moved that much past manned systems and similar to same production rates....and the same relative constraints!!!
To be truly cheap and expendable, we need not just big FY orders BUT also need a HOT production line that can MASSIVELY and QUICKLY be ramped up OR allow different manufacturers and sub contractors to produce the parts and assembly in times of war....the problem with the second option, this won't be WW2 were Japan gave us time to ramp up, WW3 and China might not give us the time to ramp up, we go to war with what we have....meaning a few drones supposedly expendable but with no quick replacements on the horizon that provide so much SA to US forces that we can't AFFORD TO LOSE THEM!
Back to the earlier statements regarding Ukraine- if we took known Russian capabilities in drones, EW, and artillery, how do we currently fare against them, and which developmental tech and tactics offer the best opportunity to defeat them?
ReplyDeleteThat’s the war games I want to see.
Meanwhile, Congress just cut the minesweeping vehicles and sensors budget hard.
ReplyDeleteIs that good or bad?
DeleteWell, the LCS MCM thing is pretty much dead now.
DeleteThen again, it was barely alive to begin with...