The Navy is just making things up now because they have nothing worthwhile to promote.
For example, the Navy is testing two small, unmanned, resupply vehicles (UAV): Tactical Resupply UAS TRV-150 and Blue Water Logistics UAS.
 |
| Blue Water Logistics UAV |
 |
| Blue Water Logistics UAV with Cargo Basket Containing ?Circuit Board? |
Um … okay.
So … what can these UAVs do? From a Breaking Defense article,
From the Navy’s perspective, TRUAS [Tactical Resupply UAS TRV-150] is viewed as a likely candidate for missions ashore with the Marine Corps, given its shorter range but heavier 150-pound lift. Blue Water, as the name implies, could be used for resupply at sea where its small footprint makes it suitable to be stored onboard ships, according to a service statement. (1)
A lift capacity of 150 lb or less? How is that useful?
The standard Navy 5” projectile weighs around 70 lb so you could transport one or two shells. A single small Hellfire missile weighs over 100 lb. A RAM missile weighs over 160 lb.
 |
| Tactical Resupply TRV-150 Quadcopter with Cargo Bag Hung Underneath |
How would the ability to deliver one shell or one small missile be of any benefit?
I guess you could deliver mail or a circuit board or a replacement coffee pot.
I know the Navy is going to claim that there could be a scenario where a ship suffers a critical casualty (breakdown) due to the failure of a single, small part (if it’s critical, you’re supposed to have a spare!) and a small UAV could deliver that part more efficiently than a full size helo – and I suppose that’s true. However, the odds that a ship will suffer a critical casualty, not have a spare on board, not need anything but that one single part, and has to have it immediately is vanishingly low. And, if that scenario were to occur then the fact that a small UAV could do the job more cost effectively than a full size helo is utterly irrelevant. If the need is that critical than the cost of the helo flight is immaterial.
The flip side of using a small UAV is that you have to store, operate, maintain, and fuel these UAVs on ships that are already severely space-limited and, at best, you’d be duplicating a capability that already exists (a helo). Why? To save a few pennies in a very unlikely scenario?
How does this enhance our combat capabilities? It doesn’t and yet that’s the only criteria that should matter.
So, why is the Navy wasting time on this? There are so many other, far more important things the Navy should be addressing.
This is technology for the sake of technology. It has no combat value.
_____________________________________
(1)Breaking Defense, “Navy conducts live test of resupply drones for ashore, at-sea missions ”, Justin Katz, 9-Nov-2021,
Looked at in the most charitable possible way, could it possibly be a first step to develop navigational, control, and other procedures that would later be used on a larger UAV that could actually carry a meaningful load?
ReplyDeleteNah ....
We've already done that with the MQ-8 Fire Scout that routinely flies off our decks so … no.
Delete"A lift capacity of 150 lb or less? How is that useful?"
ReplyDeleteWell, you could fit lotsa donuts in there, just sayin...
The drone would be good for the Marines EABO idea.
DeleteExpeditionary Autonomous Beer Operations.
This is about getting small parts from one ship to another. 3d printing will eliminate some of it. There is a cost savings of having a small UAV do these jobs than a manned aircraft. I'm not convinced they have selected the best platform for the job. Martin UAV might not be ideal, but I like its ability to stick the landing.
ReplyDelete"This is about getting small parts from one ship to another."
DeleteWhat small parts?
This is generic rubbish. A properly supplied and maintained ship, with a crew that is familiar with the equipment, has read the operator manuals, and has experience with the equipment will have all the critical parts it needs aboard ship.
So … what parts?
By the way, in this generic, non-specific concept, what other ship is going to have the missing 'parts' and be within the incredibly short quadcopter range?
Ive seen some previous mentions of these, and its pretty ridiculous. Its literally copying existing capability, but in a smaller and worthless size. I don't even see them as saving any costs. Jeez the Navy really is hunting for places to go unmanned just for the sake of it. Sad.
ReplyDeleteThe one that got to me was the video of doing an Amazon-type drop-off to a sub on patrol. Now, that required the sub to surface and remain surfaced for a while. Boomer or SSN, why would we ever want a sub to surface for such a thing? That seems to me to be the ultimate, not just useless, but actually counter-productive evolution.
ReplyDeleteRight?? And even if they needed some mission-critical widget, who's going to be in their operating area to send it to them, let alone within drone range?? Its great PR for a horrible idea!!
DeleteI'm reminded of articles describing similar UAVs delivering hot meals to PLA soldiers stationed near the China-India border, to show how well-equipped the Chinese military is compared to India's. It's a propaganda piece, but as the Himalaya mountain range is not easy to traverse, better to use UAVs so an isolated squad's soldiers can enjoy a hot meal, than to use an expensive manned helicopter on so trivial a task- a navy ship should have a fully stocked galley capable of providing hot meals to everyone aboard.
ReplyDeleteStrip out the wood packing outer cases, and you can easily fit four 840 round cans and a few sleeves of weapon/scope/map batteries within that Marine UAV weight.
ReplyDeleteThat gets you close to a single resupply for a single squad. 12 trips per company. Then four more trips for radio batteries.
So 16-17 trips per company, per day, not including food, medical supplies, or water.
Are you suggesting this would be a good idea?
DeleteNo. It would be like a radar pointer telling the Chinese exactly where to drop their arty. And unlike Berger's Corps, they have all their tube arty and they ripped off all of our drone tech and have improved on it.
DeleteAnd with medical supplies, it would be 100-120 flights per day for a single battalion, with the ships pinned near the island well within Chinese missile range.
There is a future where it could work as a last ditch resupply, but that day is not here and won't be until it goes 200 miles nape of the earth with no EM and with one or two thousand pounds of stuff
This really makes more sense for the Army, I feel. These quadrotors are small enough that they're not immediately obvious targets if they're flying nap of earth (because noise filters and RCS signature is still a thing back at a SAM site's radar screen). I'm reminded of the Battle of Ia Drang Valley, where Bruce Crandall picked up a Medal of Honor flying past enemy fire to drop off ammo and collect the wounded, over and over again. A whole fleet of these would be quite useful for that.
DeleteSo you launch 20 UAVs at one go, and resupply a company in a single trip.
But this really would only work for a situation where a unit is essentially static and resupply is difficult, thus the use of smaller drones to deliver supplies so as not to risk manned helicopters.
"There is a future where it could work as a last ditch resupply, but that day is not here and won't be until it goes 200 miles nape of the earth with no EM and with one or two thousand pounds of stuff"
This seems to fly in the face of ComNavOps' repeated points with UAVs that they need to be feature restricted so that you can afford to buy and throw them away in large numbers. And well, if you're making the drones bigger, you're putting more eggs in the same basket. There has to be a balance between size and speed and lift and range, based on the operational need.
"So you launch 20 UAVs at one go, and resupply"
DeleteOne of my [many] pet peeves is this kind of technology experimentation that *may* work in an isolated, non-challenging, single test but will fail miserably in actual use.
Consider the scenario you postulated. How will these quadcopters find their destination? On a peer battlefield, GPS will likely be unavailable due to jamming or spoofing or whatever means. So, does that mean you're going to have 20 'pilots' flying these things manually? That's a lot of manpower for a small delivery capacity. If you do use manual control, how do you maintain the comm link in a comm-challenged environment? The comm range would likely be very short. If you've already got the supplies to within a very short distance of the destination, do you really need the quadcopters for the last mile (or whatever)?
These are simple, ?inexpensive? UAVs. They won't have sophisticated comm gear, anti-jamming, ECM capability. What happens when the enemy hijacks the control signal and re-routes the UAVs to their own destination.
And so on.
As a one-off, unhindered experiment it may work. As a real battlefield operation it seems highly unlikely and with only a small upside even if it worked. We run all these neat tests on all kinds of advanced technology demonstrators but no one ever tests under anything even remotely approaching real combat conditions.
@ComNavOps: Obviously the technology is not there yet, but it needs to be pursued. Consider how much of a boondoggle primitive ASW helos were in 1943 when the coast guard started using them.
Delete"So, does that mean you're going to have 20 'pilots' flying these things manually? That's a lot of manpower for a small delivery capacity."
In terms of manpower, of course 20 pilots flying 10 helos gets you better resilience against the issues you've brought up, but then that means you're risking 10 helos to enemy fire. Your mileage may vary as to whether you consider that a good tradeoff.
All I'm saying is that the concept is not inherently unsound. It needs robustness and refinement. Everything is a boondoggle at the start - look at how long it took the US Navy to reach the perfection of the Iowas (I'm looking at you, Kearsarge).
But I mean, the Army is only the world's largest operator of helicopters, so I guess they think they can afford to absorb said losses. *shrug* Certainly their focus has been on new helicopters and manned vertical lift; as an organisation, big Army seems rather cool on the idea of UAVs and technological developments.
"it needs to be pursued."
DeleteWhy? What combat enhancement does it offer even when the technology is matured?
"What combat enhancement does it offer even when the technology is matured?"
DeleteIt'll teach us what weaknesses we can exploit when some other power tries to use the technology against us, and we need countermeasures. The Syrian Civil War did see drones used as bombers, dropping grenades with shuttlecock tails attached to them.
"Why? What combat enhancement does it offer even when the technology is matured?"
DeleteNot combat, supply. Being able to resupply dug-in infantry units engaged in combat along their frontage without exposing helicopters to enemy fire, is beneficial.
In a peer war, it's foolish to assume that we'll always be on the attack and will not have static forces on the defense. The purpose of the infantry is to take and hold ground, afterall. I'm talking in the context of a helimobile infantry battalion that has been dropped into position to hold a point, or a leg infantry force that has taken an objective and is now holding it pending reinforcement.
The 101st would have really appreciated this sort of resupply during the Battle of the Bulge!
Also, inevitably, the Apaches and Cobras are going to suffer attrition, forcing the Blackhawks to mount rockets and Hellfires and go play ghetto gunship like it's Nam all over again, which means that now our only resupply is by Chinook, which is a much bigger target than Blackhawk, or nothing.
Basically, give a fleet of supply UAVs to Logistics so that they can keep the warfighters topped off with beans, bullets and bandages. This lets us:
Delete1) resupply dug in units in combat without exposing helicopters to enemy fire,
2) allows us to use those helicopters for other missions (other helimobile assaults, squad transports serving as ghetto gunships, etc).
3) Losing a supply quadcopter carrying 200 lbs of rifle ammo is not as bad as losing a loaded Blackhawk carrying 2 tons of rifle ammo.
"The 101st would have really appreciated this sort of resupply during the Battle of the Bulge!"
DeleteThat's a perfect illustration of the conceptual failing of this idea! Let's suppose that the 101st had these tiny resupply UAVs then … ... ... ... Where were the supplies going to come from? They were surrounded ... cut off ... isolated. There were no supplies. The problem wasn't getting supplies to the guys in the foxhole - it was that there were no supplies available. The nearest supplies were ?many dozens/hundreds? of miles away. Tiny UAVs don't have that range with a full load.
Alternatively, if the 101st had had a large supply of material, they could have - and did, to the extent they had supplies - simply walked them to the foxholes. UAVs wouldn't have been needed.
On a related note, let's pretend that some outside supply unit had been close to the 101st but not similarly trapped (ridiculous but let's pretend). They could have flow the UAVs straight to the foxholes ... but how would they have known where the foxholes were?
The number of problems with this concept is nearly endless.
I mean, I just threw out the Battle of the Bulge because you like WW2 so much. ;) I wasn't being totally serious there.
DeleteBut like I've said a few times now, a more relevant example is the Battle of Ia Drang Valley, where you had helicopters flying in supplies throughout the duration of the battle to sustain LTC Hal Moore's battalion.
Ultimately, I think there's a role for a fleet of relatively small UAVs that can deliver several hundred pounds of ammo over a radius of 100 or so miles, for the reasons I've already said. This isn't pinpoint delivery right on top of the squad, this is sending cargo UAVs to an LZ where the cargo is offloaded - it's the same Army TTP with using helicopters to resupply a unit in the field.
On the other hand, the US Army seems to agree with you that this is not an avenue worth pursuing, given it's disinterest in cargo UAVs, and how Future Vertical Lift will continue to be manned platforms.
So, let me see if I've got the concept as you envision it.
Delete1. We're going to fly UAVs straight to dug in troops. How will the UAV operators know where each foxhole or position is? Presumably, this will be a GPS-denied environment which means a manual flight. Are you suggesting that in the middle of a battle/war we'll such perfect awareness that we'll know exactly where each individual soldier is?
2. Let's pretend we do know where each individual soldier is and we can somehow navigate a UAV to that spot. So, the concept is that we'll have UAVs hovering over each individual location so that the enemy can conveniently chart each location for the subsequent artillery barrage?
3. While you note, correctly, that losing a small UAV won't do as much harm as losing a helo, neither will it deliver any useful quantity of supplies compared to a helo.
4. Just a minor point of interest, 150 lbs of ammo, unless you unpack it into loose magazines or bullets, is actually only around 100 lb or less of actual ammo, the rest being crate/packing material.
I'm sorry but this appears to just be a technology stunt for PR purposes. It has no real combat value. Generic statements like, 'resupply dug in troops', fails to consider the combat reality.
Setting the land applications aside, it makes even less sense for the Navy.
"a more relevant example is the Battle of Ia Drang Valley, where you had helicopters flying in supplies"
DeleteOkay … and the helos did just fine and transported much more supplies than a swarm of UAVs would/could so what problem are you solving with tiny UAVs?
"This isn't pinpoint delivery right on top of the squad, this is sending cargo UAVs to an LZ where the cargo is offloaded"
Fair enough. So, if there's a safe unloading LZ then a helo would be the preferred delivery mechanism since it can carry ?40x? the load.
I don't care whether you believe there's a role for a tiny resupply UAV but I do care that you (the generic you, meaning anyone who is interested in this idea) think through the reality of the concept.
It's one thing to have a back-of-the-napkin idea that sounds good in the abstract but it's another to have an idea that makes actual sense in combat where the realities and problems quickly stack up to render most such ideas non-viable.
On a related note, every rifleman pulled off the front lines to do 3D printing or operate tiny UAVs or whatever the latest idiotic idea is, is one less combat effective soldier actually fighting. Don't get me wrong. Logistics is what allows a combat unit to function but, at some point, as idiotic idea after idiotic idea piles up, we're going to wind up with combat units with no actual combat soldiers! They'll all be doing auxiliary functions! That's a bit of hyperbole, of course, but the threat is real. The US military has a bad habit of continually increasing the tail at the expense of the tooth.
@ComNavOps:
Delete1. No, the UAVs would be flown to LZs and offload the ammo there. Troops at the LZ would collect the ammo and distribute it to the foxholes, that's what the Army SOP is.
2. You're the only person who's talking about that. I have always been approaching the concept from the angle of providing an alternative method of airborne resupply that does not put helicopters and crews at risk. This is not about supplying squads in foxholes, this is about supplying the battalion at contested LZs under fire.
Also, your argument about artillery barrages is a little spurious. They're already in combat, they're in static positions because this ground needs to be held. The artillery is already going to be sighting in and hammering fighting positions already. When bullets start flying both ways, stealth and concealment has flown out the window. The enemy has agency of their own.
3 & 4. This is why the point i was making to was to send out more UAVs than just one. Assuming that the ammo is sent out in crates, and a single crate is about 62 lbs, two ammo crates is 134lbs and gives you 3,480 rounds of ammo (1 crate = 2 cans). Sounds about right for 12-man infantry squad with 3 automatic riflemen. (If we go to ammo cans instead, an ammo can is about 30 lbs and holds 870 rounds of 5.56mm.)
"On a related note, every rifleman pulled off the front lines to do 3D printing or operate tiny UAVs or whatever the latest idiotic idea is, is one less combat effective soldier actually fighting."
DeleteThis is true, if you're suggesting this is a squad-level or platoon-level fight, which has very little tail. I've been speaking in the context of a fight at the battalion and higher level, where they have the tail for this. The rifle companies are on the line, all this sundry work is being done by the battalion's logistics platoon, the cooks and bakers platoon, the HQ company. Although as we saw at Ia Drang, even in pitched fighting, WHILE UNDER FIRE, you still had platoons pulling dudes off the line to grab ammo from the helicopters, because they needed to pay that momentary price in firepower loss to get longterm sustainment.
Now, some people would suggest that it be the battalion's logistics platoon that's using these UAVs for the final hop to deliver ammo to the companies on the line. That kind of makes sense for a battalion that's spread out to cover a large frontage, it lets you move ammo to companies on the line, faster than if you were using runners to deliver ammo - because either the tail is sending runners up with ammo, or the company is pulling riflemen off the line to go and fetch ammo.
But as a practical matter, I think the battalion logistics platoon would rather just keep sending runners to fetch and carry ammo, because you don't need to sign for runners like you have to sign for UAVs, and a runner handing an ammo can to someone is a much easier and faster evolution than unpacking a UAV. Which just goes back again to my argument that the people dealing with the UAVs should be the battalion logistics platoon, not the rifle platoons. :V Supply comes to the LZ, the logistics tail dudes unpack and grab the ammo, the UAV goes back. Absolutely zero involvement with the rifle companies on the line.
But anyway, like I said. This is a moot point. Big Army evidently agrees with you, because their plan is to keep doing the same things they've been doing: flying helicopters into contested LZs to perform resupply. (Or just not resupplying at all.)
One last thing that I meant to post but the character limit got in the way:
Delete"Okay … and the helos did just fine and transported much more supplies than a swarm of UAVs would/could so what problem are you solving with tiny UAVs?"
"Fair enough. So, if there's a safe unloading LZ then a helo would be the preferred delivery mechanism since it can carry ?40x? the load."
The helos were not fine at Ia Drang: Major Crandall changed helicopters three times because he was taking so much ground fire and every single Huey he was flying was getting shot up. At one point his LZ was 200 yards away from a firefight.
The operating words here are "safe unloading LZ". The enemy has artillery of their own, a fact you've pointed out over and over. The enemy has maneuver elements of their own. Yes, if the LZ is secure, absolutely helicopters are better for resupply. But if the LZ is not secure and is under fire from the enemy, like it was at Ia Drang, then you have two choices: either you hope that your pilots have balls like Bruce Crandall and are willing to fly through enemy fire to drop off supplies at contested LZs, or you don't resupply your troops at all. Like, medevac unit was refusing to fly in and collect the wounded because the ground fire was too heavy, so Bruce Crandall decides on his own that he's going to fly in, drop supplies and collect wounded, and he goes through heavy fire to do so and gets three Hueys shot up in the process.
He won the Medal of Honor at Ia Drang, which says something. Relevant excerpt of the Medal of Honor citation:
...On the fourth troop lift, the airlift began to take enemy fire, and by the time the aircraft had refueled and returned for the next troop lift, the enemy had Landing Zone X-Ray targeted. As Major Crandall and the first eight helicopters landed to discharge troops on his fifth troop lift, his unarmed helicopter came under such intense enemy fire that the ground commander ordered the second flight of eight aircraft to abort their mission. As Major Crandall flew back to Plei Me, his base of operations, he determined that the ground commander of the besieged infantry battalion desperately needed more ammunition. ... While medical evacuation was not his mission, he immediately sought volunteers and with complete disregard for his own personal safety, led the two aircraft to Landing Zone X-Ray. Despite the fact that the landing zone was still under relentless enemy fire, Major Crandall landed and proceeded to supervise the loading of seriously wounded soldiers aboard his aircraft. Major Crandall's voluntary decision to land under the most extreme fire instilled in the other pilots the will and spirit to continue to land their own aircraft...
"the people dealing with the UAVs should be the battalion logistics platoon, not the rifle platoons."
DeleteOkay … however, bear in mind that the people who would handle this are not 'free'. They aren't sitting around playing cards, just passing time and hoping someone gives them something to do to break the boredom. Presumably, they have full time jobs already. So, if you now want 'swarms' of pilots to control these UAVs and swarms of people to pack, load, and unload these UAVs, and operators to maintain, fuel, and prep these swarms of UAVs then you're going to have to pull them off their normal jobs, whether riflemen or logistics platoon. That creates holes in other jobs and other functions aren't getting done. Of course, you could add dedicated platoons of UAV pilots, maintainers, and loaders but that's increasing the tail for a relatively rare scenario and every added non-combat person is another person unavailable for assignment as a rifleman.
The point is that there's no free lunch. Every new technology we introduce (3D printing, tiny resupply UAVs, Marine female liaison teams, squad/platoon/company cyber operators, etc.) 'costs' us front line combat people and capabilities one way or another. The question is whether the introduced technology enhances our ultimate combat capability more than it hurts it. If so, we have a winner. In not, we have a failed experiment. From what I've seen, almost every new idea over the last couple decades fails the combat enhancement test. Whether it's minimal manning of ships, deferred maintenance, tiny resupply UAVs, 3D printing, or whatever, they uniformly hurt our overall combat capability not enhance it.
Can we concoct a rare scenario in which these tiny resupply UAVs are the perfect solution? Sure. But the question is, is it worth the 'cost' to maintain a capability with a very limited applicability?
By the way, has anyone tried to maneuver tiny UAVs past enemy lines into a contested LZ to see what the survival rate is? As you noted in your example, the helos got shot up. A helo can absorb many rounds (barring the golden BB) and still make in and out of the LZ. These tiny UAVs are, undoubtedly, one-hit kills. It might be that the survival rate for tiny UAVs in a contested LZ is near zero. Or maybe not. This is the kind of realistic testing that is needed before we commit to these questionable ideas.
If there is a need to resupply that sort of weight over that sort of range. (big if) wouldn't some kind of guided projectile be better? The "gun" or aircraft firing it should be able to calculate the grid point required. Use of "wings" or parachute could be used with relatively cheap electronics to guide it. Would be quieter and cheaper? As said a solution looking for a problem.
ReplyDeleteThis really is no more complicated than how I open my front door umpteen times a day and only burn a tank of gas every few weeks instead of days. They want CV-22B so it can go direct to other platforms in the battle group. This takes it just one step further. Why wait until you have a load for a manned helicopter? Why waste the manned resource at thousands per hour at all? I doubt they are thinking about using this to carry anything at range of a vertical envelopment across the beach. This is a boring, day to day enhancement to the fleet. Go use the money saved with this on something else we need. We can do the same things with 3d printing / additive manufacturing. Make something happen cheaper and more efficiently so you can go do something else money is needed for. Do that enough and maybe they give you even more money because they trust you.
ReplyDeleteIt would be both cheaper and faster to just stuff the circuit board into the 5in shell and just fire it at the ship that needs resupply.
ReplyDeleteThe circuit board would not survive the shock of getting shot out a 5" gun.
Delete