The Navy plans to establish a second unmanned squadron this
May.[1] Why not? The first has demonstrated absolutely no
combat capability or enhancements to other asset’s combat capabilities so,
sure, let’s get more. This is a hot,
steaming platter of stupid served on fine china to make it look appealing
instead of putting it in the pile with the dog’s contribution to the lawn’s
fertilization.
Adm. Samuel Paparo made the announcement and then, rather
than describe any actual combat capabilities, immediately dropped into Secret
Squirrel mode, saying,
Remember when the Navy trumpeted the increase in air wing
size which turned out to be one aircraft?
I’m betting these exquisite capabilities are on the same scale as that.
Paparo goes on to note that unmanned craft have participated
in Integrated Battle Problems (IBP).
Here’s more unmanned news:
The degree of fantasy being applied to unmanned operations
is staggering as is the corresponding absence of firepower.
_________________________
“A “principle element within warfare is the element of operational security. So, our most exquisite capabilities, if I’m doing my job, you won’t [know] about it.”[1]Exquisite capabilities??? Someone’s been taking PowerPoint lessons for creative writers at their local community college.
… IBPs have seen unmanned vessels log thousands of miles at sea over a period of several months.”[1]That’s nice. Now, have any of those miles accomplished any useful purpose or demonstrated any actual useful combat capability?
Separately, on Tuesday, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Karsten Heckl told reporters his service would soon test a new unmanned drone designed to stealthily carry two Naval Strike Missiles to Marines ashore without attracting attention.[1]A drone that can transport two missiles? That’ll bring the Chinese navy to its knees! The general neglected to describe how this drone – or any drone – can get within sailing range of a Marine unit deep inside enemy territory. The host ship will, apparently, be invisible and undetectable by Chinese sensors. Of course, that being the case, why do we need drones?
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/02/us-pacific-fleet-to-stand-up-second-unmanned-surface-vessel-squadron-this-year/
"This is a hot, steaming platter of stupid served on fine china to make it look appealing..."
ReplyDeleteThat is pure gold.
Lutefisk
My high school creative writing class pays off!
Delete"A principled highly effective concept of operations of sea denial, with unmanned undersea vessels, with smart undersea capabilities, with surface capabilities and aerial capabilities is the ability to meet some of the principles … which is don’t send a human being to do something dangerous that a machine can do better, faster, and more cheaply,” he added."
DeleteWhile on other forums, people who have served with him are insistent that PacFlt, Adm Paparo is a warrior not a wordsmith or someone enamored with tech. But Im still having my doubts. Comments like this, made while discussing the new unmanned squadron, dont show me that he's concerned with what really matters, ie; explosives on target, logistics, ship numbers, etc. Frankly Id rather spend every dime spent on this to extend rhe life of a couple CGs or SSGNs, or build weapons inventory (remember, we're building ZERO Tomahawks this year.)
The money spent on this CONOP-less gadgetry could certainly be used elsewhere on somthing that will reliably destroy and kill an enemy. Numbers matter, and right now we should be in near-panic mode, trying to get our fleet maintained and back in shape, and preserving every platform we have. But...thats just me...
@Jj. agree. It is hard to take seriously the USN when we spending BILLIONS on unproven gadgets that carry almost ZERO weapons while the Chinese are building more ships in 1 year than USN builds in 10 and they producing all kinds of weapons and USN hasn't even placed an order for some Tomahawks this year....
DeleteI mean, the differences are stark!
"The degree of fantasy being applied to unmanned operations is staggering as is the corresponding absence of firepower."
ReplyDeleteThis is a prime example of a missed opportunity that you had discussed in a previous post.
The focus on next generation 'wonder weapons' that won't be ready for years takes away from a focus on the real need, which is to build a military to win a war in the next 5 years.
Lutefisk
"That’s nice. Now, have any of those miles accomplished any useful purpose?"
ReplyDeleteSir, that's state-of-the-art pork technology that made some people lots of money, isn't that an accomplishment?
I stand corrected!
DeleteThe Russkies have stolen the the tech to make autonomous tugboats, that can id ships needing help
Deleteby color and quantity of the their smoke.
So they’ll be swarming the LCS?
Delete"that's state-of-the-art pork technology that made some people lots of money, isn't that an accomplishment?"
ReplyDeleteThat seems to be THE accomplishment.
Does there really need to be any other?
Lutefisk
Not very useful, I don't feel very sorry for the drone if it gets shot down BUT who wants to be the USMC grunts on the ground when they get 2 ASMs delivered after somehow surviving the FIRST salvo, now you want them to do that AGAIN?!? Wonder what the odds are them surviving that?!?
ReplyDeleteTwenty to thirty percent by the book. Actually if you think about it probably the best way to figure the odds is to get people in Vegas to gamlbe on it.
DeleteWho is going to step in and end this idiocy?
DeleteI dont think its that high! No way Chinese don't locate and pulverize once the launcher has fired. Especially the second time?!? They dead men walking.
DeleteYou guys aren't going to get hired to design the Marines' next recruiting campaign.
DeleteLutefisk
A recent Warzone blog article on the Air Force's new Collaborative Combat Aircraft drone program listed the Navy's MQ-25 drone refueling program as an example of what NOT to do. It seems that the MQ-25 costs $150 million each while a new KC-46 (which carries as much as 3 or 4 MQ's) costs 163 million.
ReplyDelete"while a new KC-46 (which carries as much as 3 or 4 MQ's) costs 163 million."
DeleteThe most recent GAO report cites a KC-46 unit cost of $239M (FY23 dollars) versus a MQ-25 unit cost of $170M.
One should note that the KC-46 program began in 2011 and now, 13 years later, is still not ready. THAT would seem an example of how not to do a program especially one that is a 'simple' adaptation of an existing aircraft. Of course, the MQ-25 began in 2018 and full rate production is not scheduled until at least 2027 so the MQ-25 may yet give the KC-46 a run for its money in delays!