I’m seeing more and more examples of military observers and analysts drawing conclusions about future warfare from the Ukraine-Russia war, particularly as they relate to unmanned assets.
I suspect most of the desire to draw conclusions and lessons stems not from any attempt to better understand combat but, rather, to support pre-existing opinions and positions. For example, the US military, having long ago staked out a firm commitment to unmanned assets, despite absolutely no supporting evidence of their high end combat effectiveness, is eager to latch onto any glimmer of news that would support and justify continued funding of unmanned forces. Whether those conclusions and lessons would apply to any but an unbelievably incompetent enemy like Russia, is of no concern to US military leadership. Their concern is to use the ‘lessons’ to obtain continued (or increased!) funding from Congress.
I cannot stress enough that the Ukraine-Russia war is exquisitely unique – and largely useless – as it relates to war with China. Russia has been astoundingly inept in every facet of war. It is extremely unlikely that China will be equally inept. Therefore, attempts to draw lessons from Ukraine-Russia are likely invalid.
More and more observers and analysts are latching onto unmanned assets as the future of combat based on the Ukraine-Russia results. If we fight an utterly inept enemy then, yes, the lessons will be valid. However, does anyone really believe that China will be so inept as to allow unmanned boats to approach naval assets unobserved and unhindered? Does anyone really believe that China will be so inept as to allow UAVs to fly over the battlefield unobserved and unhindered?
Consider the highly publicized Ukrainian unmanned suicide drone boats (USV) that are reported to have attacked Russian naval forces at Sevastopol. Each quarter million dollar boat is reported to be 18 ft long with a payload of 400 lbs and a range of 500 miles and a maximum speed of 50 mph.[1] That’s nice, I suppose, but in a harbor the boats can be thwarted by simple patrol boats, booms, nets, or a guy sitting on a lawn chair with binoculars. At sea, radar, optical sensors and lookouts are sufficient to detect the boats. We claim to have radars that can detect periscopes at vast ranges; how difficult would it be to detect these boats? I can’t imagine China allowing these USVs to approach their naval forces undetected and unhindered. So before we scrap our Burkes and commit to a fleet of these USVs, we need to understand what kind of threat, if any, they pose to an enemy that is even slightly competent.
 |
| Ukraine Drone Boat |
 |
| Drone Boats |
 |
| Drone Boat - Note Wake at Speed |
Similarly, we see observers latching onto reports of Ukrainian UAVs leisurely cruising the skies over the battlefield and sniping/suiciding Russian forces. Again, I can’t imagine China allowing UAVs to cruise over the battlefield undetected and unhindered. We wouldn’t allow it so why would we think China will? In fact, the US military has already stated that large UAVs are not survivable over the battlefield.
Unless we have reason to believe that China will perform just as incompetently, we should be very , very, very, very, wary of drawing conclusions and lessons from the Ukraine war.
___________________________________
[1]The Drive website, “Ukraine’s Shadowy Kamikaze Drone Boats Officially Break Cover”, Howard Altman, 11-Nov-2022,
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraines-shadowy-kamikaze-drone-boats-officially-break-cover
One concern I have re: US military use of unmanned aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles, is how effective they'll be if an enemy uses electronic warfare units to jam communications between the unmanned assets and their control station. Has there been ANY reports of EITHER side using electronic warfare to disrupt control over unmanned vehicles, in the recent war? Maybe use radio interception technology and techniques to pinpoint the control station, as a target for airstrikes or other attacks?
ReplyDeleteI watched footage of the drone attack on Sevastopol.
ReplyDeleteThese were "aware" ships with helicopter escort... and I say that lightly. The only weapon system that got close to hitting the drone was a PKM mounted on a MI8.
Either the ship was badly maintained or they had no auxiliary weapons operational to fire at the drones.
Additionally, one of the Russian ships i saw were underway. These drones are not fast and if the Warship engines were properly maintained, it should have been able to go to flank speed and outrun, it did not.
Good Post. I am also skeptical of the US push for unmanned vehicles, mainly due to the lack of CONOPS for each type of vehicle. However, this new technology is working, although against a less than peer force, and so we should not discount it completely. Look at tanks in 1918, they missed at being the game changer the proponents hoped for, but 20 years later they ruled the roost. During the 20 yrs CONOPS were developed, refined, and the tanks redesigned to have the features that made them the ultimate force on the battlefield. Please note they became the ultimate force BECAUSE they worked in combined arms units. Perhaps the Navalsits should look at what a combined "arms" force could do with unmanned vehicles. What are the CONOPS for combined air, surface, subsurface, unmanned vehicle groups? Too often we imagine future battles as isolated actions that allow each stovepiped service branch to get their time at the plate (and potential glory and budget gains) separately and not simultaneously and in a cooperative and coordinated manner.
ReplyDelete"should not discount it completely"
DeleteAbsolutely not and I apologize if I've given that impression. We must investigate unmanned technology but we must not commit to it before we have proof that it works ... and we do not, as yet.
CNO, would you like to listen to the Ukrainian thoughts rather than mass media propaganda?
DeleteNo need to be concerned. I listen to all reports (otherwise known as propaganda) from Ukraine, Russia, the US, wherever. Then, I filter them through the lens of propaganda, discarding the majority of what's said, and find the elements of truth, if any, which I present to you as my insightful analysis. You're welcome!
DeleteThe US has offered the MQ-1c to Ukraine, the Ukrainian AF
ReplyDeletedon't think they would be useful or survivable.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukrainian-fighter-pilots-call-bullshit-on-need-for-mq-1c-gray-eagle-drones
Of course! The Gray Eagles' longest ranged weapon is the Hellfire missile, meaning they must place themselves well within range for Russian SAMs to shoot down, before the UCAVs may shoot their targets. They're slow, meaning their ground control stations must be relatively close to the frontlines, to do anything with any urgency- possibly within range of a Russian artillery barrage, meaning if Russian electronic warfare units can track a ground control station's transmissions to triangulate the station's location, it, and the highly trained and unexpendable personnel there, will be dead.
DeleteThe US military needs to remember what war with peer and near-peer competitors looks like.
All of these need to be taken as "layers of the onion", and to your point, conclusions drawn are just part of understanding where they fit and don't fit. The battlefield use of UAV's shows they have great utility, but as our (too drawn out) anti-uav tests show, they are pretty easy to knock down, but you need something to do it with. So I'm sure the army will test and ID 50 great solutions and procure like 25 when they need 2500. You need the capability at least down to platoon level. On these boats, not sure if China is going to be all that competent either, but these boats naturally need to be A. cheap B. used to harass and not be the be-all/end-all. Unmanned assets have been shown already to be able to be spoofed, witness Iran somehow embarrassingly getting one of our RQ-170 uav's to be downed- or land- due to intercepting and taking over the signal. Ditto on cheap low end UAV's where insurgents showed that yes, you indeed could see what the cheap UAV was seeing and now they knew what we could see. How nobody planned for that is utter incompetence, but a learning curve. Our solar powered wave riding USV's that China seized right in front of us and we did jack about? How much would you really want to spend on that? Not much, or don't mark it as a US asset and have a tamper switch that goes "boom" when tampered with (and if innocents seize it?). If anything these should be like the MALD's the Air Force launched years ago, something that is a diversion and if you ignore them, then they can literally bite you and blow up on the side of your ship. But considering how easy it would be for someone like China to commandeer and override them if they don't have hardened links, they better be self-destructing and again, cheap. Cheap and built in mass amounts needs to be a part of the Pentagon jargon in the future alongside complex and expensive. Air Force was already talking in their new golden horde tests about how tomahawks could talk to SDB II's and share information in order that they could do "more with less" and spend less per sortie, which is the same thinking that led to people going "hey wait, we gave away 30% of our entire stockpile of weapons x, y and z". Prepare for 7 years of war with using a ton daily, people hate to hear it, but they should be prepared for it.
ReplyDeleteIt hink its a matter of maximizing the advantages unmanned can provide. Many and cheap. Fast to field. We need to be better at this last one both manned and unmanned. I rarely here from the Pentagon a vision of something they dont have and need such that I know they know what it is. They just toss notions out to industry to fill in the gaps and sell a cool picture or animated video.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it unlikely that China will be as inept as Russia? China hasn't fought a shooting war since 1979.
ReplyDeleteBecause as documented on many sites, China has modern equipment and has been training hard; far harder than the US or Russia.
DeleteA lack of experience has two sides. On the one hand, they have no recent combat experience but on the other hand they have no bad habits, either. The US' constant small wars has provided experience but not the right experience. We've developed a lot of bad habits and wound up developing a force structure ill-suited for peer war and are trying desperately to change that with relatively little success.
"Really according to whom."
DeleteI've deleted the associated comment as an example of an uninformed, pointless, unproductive comment.
The 'according to whom' is according to me. I'm the person who monitors multiple Chinese military content sites. I read multiple Chinese military blogs. I compare and cross examine what I see, hear, and read. I examine the content of multiple private email communications on the subject. I examine photos of Chinese training and equipment. I read about Chinese force structure, organization, and doctrine. I examine the reported exercises. I note the extensive amphibious training that is constantly on-going. I note the carrier training and time at sea that currently puts our carrier fleet to shame. I observe the state of maintenance of Chinese ships and aircraft. I see the extensive use of prototypes and their testing. I note the large scale, sustained aerial exercises in and around Taiwan. I see the extensive use of realistic conditions (smoke, terrain, staged explosions, live fire, etc.) in Chinese exercises. I note the rehearsals of converting Chinese merchant ships to military use. I note the large unit Army and Marine maneuvers and exercises. I check the frequency of exercises. I note the development and evolution of capabilities and equipment that can come only from training feedback. I do all that and much more.
I then take all of that information and run it through the filter of propaganda to see what's fake and what's real. I compare what I see to US training and propaganda and then I draw my conclusions and make my assessments.
So, that's who the conclusion is 'according to'. Do you have any other absolutely idiotic, dim-witted questions?
I don't care, in the least, whether you choose to believe my assessment or not but I will not allow that kind of mindless babble to appear on the blog just because you don't happen to like the conclusion.
"I then take all of that information and run it through the filter of propaganda to see what's fake and what's real. I compare what I see to US training and propaganda and then I draw my conclusions and make my assessments."
DeleteWe have our disagreements regarding Chinese geopolitical ambitions, but I'm glad you don't foolishly underestimate and then dismiss the military capabilities with which these ambitions may be achieved. Too many American commentators seem to think a war against China will simply be a repeat of Operation Desert Storm, i.e., one "We can win with both hands tied behind our backs!" i.e., without implementing a draft, rationing, austerity measures, commandeering civilian industries for military purposes, raising taxes, and other measures necessary to fight am extended war.
"Why is it unlikely that China will be as inept as Russia? China hasn't fought a shooting war since 1979."
DeleteBecause assuming that your opponent is anything but competent without evidence is a good way to get your clock cleaned. Even with evidence of incompetence, death, pain and embarrasement have a way inspiring armies to improve themselves. It is wiser to assume competence and that your enemy will learn from mistakes.
Then you can happy if your wrong.
They weren't detected because they didn't have periscope.
ReplyDeleteAll kidding aside, the lesson I took was that point defense is critical. These suicide boats should have been shredded by cannon fire.
Speaking seriously, these are the kinds of things I keep in mind when I hear claims and evaluate systems. A manufacturer claims to be able to detect periscopes at a thousand miles but boats can approach undetected. That tells me what kind of credence I give the periscope-detecting manufacturer's claims.
DeleteAny manufacturer can make any claim about anything. The real world, however, passes judgement.
I need a ruling on whether sea bass with freakin' lasers on their heads are considered to be unmanned.
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
Given the very low level of intelligence exhibited by Navy leadership (is it even detectable??), I would consider laser-equipped sea bass to be highly intelligent weapon systems! They're referred to as 'fished' rather than 'manned'. We're working on 'unfished' weapon systems.
Delete"They're referred to as 'fished' rather than 'manned'. We're working on 'unfished' weapon systems."
DeleteClearly a failure by Number Two to get Virtucon's weapons in front of the right people.
Dr. Evil might have to pony up for some lobbyists.
Lutefisk
There's something fishy going on here. I can't quite figure it but I'm sure I will.
DeleteReal high tech UAVs (air, land, and surface) are recently showed at China Zhuhai Airshow early this month. You can search with keywords of Zhuhai Airshow and drones (also UAVs). Except very high end like GJ-11, they are promoted for selling overseas.
ReplyDeleteThis means that China is also deadly serious about UVAs, even include unmanned ACV.
Do you think that China also makes deadly mistakes?
Of course China makes mistakes, but as the government refrained from military intervention in most cases, few of these mistakes are deadly, i.e., cost Chinese lives.
DeleteMore importantly, China is LEARNING from these mistakes. Read about how her military transformed itself from one optimized to ise guerilla tactics to wage wars of attrition, to a high tech one capable of using stealth fighters as launch platforms for precision guided weapons- in short, changing its strategy from repeating the Korean War of 1950-1953, to doing what the US has dreamed of repeating since Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.
Meanwhile, we Americans keep forgetting lessons from past wars, not only from that against the last peer competitors we faced (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, during World War II), but also very recent ones (al-Qaida and the Islamic State, in Iraq and Afghanistan). Have any generals been fired for the incompetence that allowed an allied government in Kabul, to fall to our mortal enemies? We did fire Admiral Kimmel in 1941, and General MacArthur in 1951.
There are right lessons to be learned also wrong ones. Wars are different.
ReplyDeleteThe Iranian suicidal drones are actually low tech products. They flight slowly with very high noises. They can be shot down by most SAM. Their selling point is -- cheap, very very cheap, cheaper than all available missiles to intercept them. So even a small nation can make or purchase a large quantity. They don't worry 80% been shot down by expensive missiles.
Another lesson is M142 Himars. They are actually surface to surface missiles. Ukrainian army can fire them in very short time and leave their firing position. Their 70 km range is beyond almost all Russian artilleries'. Once Russian army locates their firing position by anti-artillery radars, they have left their positions so Russian missiles won't be able to hit them.
DeleteInteresting to see how vulnerable Russian Kalibr cruise missiles appear to be to the various MANPADS deployed by the Ukrainian armed forces (even discounting claims by 50% or so).
ReplyDeleteHopefully the Navy’s Tomahawks - the things that put the Strike into a CSG - will prove more a lot survivable, as a $2 million LAM is a very poor swap for a $25k Chinese Stinger-equivalent.
"Hopefully the Navy’s Tomahawks - the things that put the Strike into a CSG - will prove more a lot survivable, "
DeleteGood grief, NO! Tomahawks are slow, non-stealthy, not maneuverable, and have limited penetration aids. Why would anyone think that equates to survivability or effectiveness? In large enough numbers, they can overwhelm a defense but that's their only positive attribute.
We use them only because we haven't bothered to make a better missile in the 40 some years since they were first fielded.
Having ISR detail to plan the route for the strike is a critical factor the Russians seem to have proven they do not have.
DeleteOmigosh, NO!
ReplyDeleteCOMNAVOPS is off regarding UAVs. SMALL aerial UAVs are the problem. Think in terms of economics. There are multiple ample (but I repeat myself) videos of thousand-dollar drones dropping ordinance on and disabling multi-million dollar (Russian) IFVs and tanks. Does it make sense to shoot down a $2K drone with a $120K Stinger (if it could; don't think so-).
WHAT in the USN arsenal can shoot down a DJI drone? Nothing. SM6? 5-inch? CIWS? Don't think so. Why sweat DJIs? Hang a frag-grenade under each, multiple drones in a concurrent attack, and you can mission-kill any USN platform by taking out (at min-) SPY (and any other) antennas.
Know what's best defense at the moment? A combination of multiple M-14s and 12-gauge shotguns. At the moment. Shotguns are good for 50 yards or so; thus the need for for the M-14s. At the moment because we have no better IMMEDIATE counters. But you need both shotguns and rifles for now. And. More importantly-
The will to use them. Which USN doesn't have. To quote the original TOPGUN (TOPGUN, per Neptunus Lex, one word all-caps), "Do not fire until fired upon." What a stupid frickin' mindset. But it's ours.
Recall a year or so ago a USN destroyer off the California coast was surrounded (buzzed?) by multiple commercial drones. Ships Captain did NOTHING. "Oh no, we can't damage (unknown) civilian toys." I'd have relieved the CO. But that's just me.
Does the USN need to get BACK to multiple 20MM mounts a la WW2? Something like multiple ZSU-23s port and starboard? Multiple? Yep. And alternatively/also multiple multiple radar/optically-guided mini-gun mounts a la what's carried on copters. Hell, the gatling-gun I saw the guy carrying in the Predator movie (tonight) would be a cheap force multiplier. Need multiple.
UAVs are a incredible blindspot. Because economics. If it costs more to DEFEND than to OFFEND you're on the wrong side of the equation and can't sustain any protracted engagement.
Commercial UAVs are cheap and can (fairly easily-) mission-kill anything that floats. Oh. And DON'T lecture me on the limits of controllable-range (commercial equipment will never get close enough to my ship) because that argument fairly easily counterable
"SMALL aerial UAVs are the problem."
DeleteAt least as regards naval combat, you're overlooking a major factor and that is range. Small UAVs and quadcopters have very limited range. If you're attacking a ship with grenades, as you describe, you're talking about open ocean. The UAV launch/control station/platform would have to be relatively very close to the target and no naval commander in combat is going to allow an enemy (or unknown) platform to get that close. No platform ... no UAVs.
And, yes, I have called for very low end anti-UAV systems such as 0.22 cal machine guns or similar.
The USN encounters off CA are plenty open ocean enough. We will face surprise attack facilitated from commercial ship operations. Be prepared.
Delete"We will face surprise attack facilitated from commercial ship operations."
Delete???? Do you think a naval commander is going to allow an unknown ship to approach? In war, any unidentified ship will be presumed an enemy and sunk long before it can cause trouble. Where does this idea keep coming from that commercial ships will be able to act as 'surprise' combatants?
There are probably close to 800,000 boats fishing the South China Sea alone, and many more in adjacent waters. Few of them operate very professionally or carry modern comms or navigation aids, but any of them could be manned by Chinese militia carrying MANPADS or UAVs.
DeleteI don’t think we could or would seek to sink all these boats ‘on suspicion’, or because they failed to identify themselves to the satisfaction of a nearby USN warship, so something of a dilemma there.
"800,000 boats fishing the South China Sea"
DeleteAnd no US ship would operate in the South China Sea until/unless China's military had been rolled all the way back . And, yes, we'd sink every one of those boats in a war if they were near us. In a real war, you blockade the enemy, deny oil, raw materials, and food. Review WWII to understand what real war is like.
"800,000 boats fishing the South China Sea"
DeleteI don't doubt the USN will be required to treat unknown surface ships as threats in wartime.
However, if US Tomahawk stocks are approx 4000 (source: this website), other ASM stocks not much better, and the as-built USN rather lean on torpedo and gun tubes (as ComNavOps often notes). I'm not sure I would want to bet against the Chinese leadership's willingness to use steel-hulled fishing boats as occasionally-armed sacrificial shields for it's surface fleet, on a potentially massive scale. While I don't want to over-estimate China's control over it's population nor it's ruthlessness, with current civilian shipbuilding in China at about 39 million tonnes per year, they may well feel they can make hulls faster than the US can make missiles. The next war could be a long one.
"Tomahawk stocks ... ASM stocks"
DeleteI assume you understand that no one is going to use expensive missiles to sink fishing boats?
" they may well feel they can make hulls faster than the US can make missiles."
That might well be true if the US was foolish enough to wage a war without targeting enemy shipyards, raw material sources, etc. and, instead, just sat back and watched the enemy guild new ships of all types, unhindered.
You understand that not all these fishing boats are going to be Chinese, and that one fishing boat looks pretty much exactly like the next one.
DeleteSinking them all regardless of the nationality of their crews sounds like a good way to lose our regional friends and allies, and confirm everything the Chinese say about us.
"Sinking them all regardless of the nationality of their crews sounds like a good way to lose our regional friends and allies"
DeleteI'm going to assume you're sincere and just don't understand how war works rather than being deliberately obtuse,.so I'll offer you some education. In an all-out China-US war, civilian vessels, of every and any type, are going to avoid the war zones, not go sailing directly at the warships of either side. So, there won't be any fishing vessels in war zones. What few there might be will be hugging the coast so as to stay out of the way and have a chance to survive.
China might well want to continue sending out fishing vessels (people gotta eat!) but they'd be protected by naval forces and would be pretty obviously Chinese and, thus, fair game to be sunk, if we so desired.
Do you see how this works, now?
Alpabet (Google) on its "other bets" has made a $20 billion operating loss in the last five years, my guess the majority of the $billions in losses due to its self driving cars program, if so nothing cheap or straight forward about unmanned.
ReplyDeleteThe Air Force has stated that it requires more people to operate unmanned aircraft than manned.
DeleteBecause they aren't using AI yet and the UAVs can stay up so much longer. Anduril's Ghost 4 can have 1 man control a swarm. That's where this is heading in short order.
DeleteFor the present reality, no.
DeleteRe: what you call Russian ineptitude - I think that future analysis will link it to long term corruption in the Russian military from top to bottom and to cannon fodder drawn from a cowed population. I also don't think there's any firm reason yet to think that China's unproven military might will be any different on the naval battlefield given the deep-seated corruption of their own military/political/industrial complex and their own cowed population - except for one factor: fear. I think Chinese military commanders will be fearful of liquidation if they fail, whereas the current Russian regime currently doesn't seem to be applying that incentive.
ReplyDelete