Pages

▼

Monday, May 20, 2024

One At A Time

We’ve seen reports and videos of small drones dropping a hand grenade on a hapless soldier.  We’ve heard reports of small suicide drones.  Breaking Defense website has a story about a small drone, Rogue 1, being evaluated by Special Ops forces.[1]
 
According to a company statement, Rogue 1 is a “next-generation, rapidly deployed and optionally-lethal VTOL small unmanned aerial system that enables warfighters to conduct precision strikes against moving and stationary armored targets, soft-skinned vehicles and dismounted threats.”
 
The Rogue 1 allows users to abort and recover the system if needed, and is able to operate in day or night conditions. The company also hyped up its modular nature with multiple payloads. The system has a maximum endurance of 30 minutes and range of 10km and has capacity to fly at a top speed of 113kph, including through GPS-denied areas of operation. Navigation can be enabled by GNSS, visual or thermal recognition. Communications are AES 256 encrypted.
 
The air frame is controlled by a single operator using a 2.3kg fire control unit. The LMS can also carry a laser range finder and LADAR sensor to calculate height of burst for proximity fire missions. A company official said Rogue 1 could be hand-launched, tube-launched as well as fired from a multi-canister launcher which could be integrated on board a tactical ground vehicle or surface vessel for example.
 
SOCOM’s pursuit of the 0A requirement comes at a time when one-way attack drones and small, weaponized UAS are proliferating the modern battlefield, particularly in Ukraine where both sides are using a wide range of technologies to target dismounted and mounted personnel.[1] [emphasis added]

 
This is, essentially, a one-at-a-time robotic assassin.  Is this a good idea or bad?  I’m not talking about the ethical aspects (it’s war, you kill the enemy any way you can) but, rather, the combat efficiency aspect.
 
How do you win wars?  This is not a trick question.  You win wars by killing the enemy in large quantities as fast as possible (along with destroying their industry and logistics, of course).  This drone is the epitome of the painfully slow, woefully inefficient, one-at-a-time approach to combat.  This is a peacetime system that would be useful for going after a lone terrorist, for example, but is woefully inefficient on a conventional battlefield.  In a real war, you want to eliminate grid squares in an instant, wipe out convoys with a single artillery barrage, eliminate armored battalions with a single air strike, kill an entire front of infantry with cluster bombs or fuel-air explosives, and so forth.  Killing the enemy occasionally, one at a time is not how you win.
 
Unfortunately, this is the mindset our military is afflicted with.  We’ve forgotten what real war is and what it takes to win a real war.
 
Admittedly, the referenced article is about special ops so maybe they have a legitimate use for a one-at-a-time drone but the sad reality is that much of our current drone thinking is predicated on exactly this type of one-at-a-time approach, likely spurred on by videos from Ukraine which even our military leaders seem to think is how war is fought.
 
I guarantee you that when the war with China comes, we’re going to see human wave attacks and massive attrition not one-at-a-time drones.
 
How do you win a war - Blitzkrieg or a guy with a toy drone?
 
 
 
____________________________
 
[1]Breaking Defense, “Teledyne FLIR’s ‘new’ Rogue 1 loitering munition has been under SOCOM contract for two years”, Andrew White, 17-May-2024,
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05/teledyne-flirs-new-rogue-1-loitering-munition-has-been-under-socom-contract-for-two-years/
at

24 comments:

  1. Bob NageleMay 20, 2024 at 4:43 AM

    Well, it did say "strikes against moving and stationary armored targets, soft skinned vehicles ....."

    If the armored target is a tank, is one at a time really that bad? It seems to me that it's no worse than a Javelin missile in that respect!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMay 20, 2024 at 6:46 AM

      "If the armored target is a tank, is one at a time really that bad?"

      If you're fighting a leisurely war, that's fine. Kill a tank, take a few vacation days, do it again. If you're fighting an all out war, the goal is to take out an armored column in one strike.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsMay 20, 2024 at 6:49 AM

      "If the armored target is a tank"

      Also, bear in mind that we're talking about small drones, not Predator size UAVs. A small, man-portable/launchable drone is not going to kill a tank with a hand grenade or some such.

      Delete
    3. Bob NageleMay 20, 2024 at 11:48 AM

      Are we sure it's just a grenade? Your excerpt didn't actually specify how big the warhead is. A Javelin is also man portable, remember. HEAT warheads aren't all that heavy. And of course, in a big fight you'd need a lot of them, just like you'd need a lot of Javelins.

      And of course there's also the thing that, if a special forces team is in a big fight, they've already lost.

      Delete
    4. ComNavOpsMay 20, 2024 at 12:21 PM

      "Are we sure it's just a grenade?"

      Like any good reader, I'm certain you read the linked article that the post was based on. The small UAV that was described in the article was classified as a 'micro' drone and was stated to weigh 10 lbs. Assuming the payload capacity of a drone is on the order of 5-10% of the body weight, that would put the payload at 0.5-1.0 lb ... right around a hand grenade.

      A Javelin weighs something on the order of 50+ lbs. It may be man-portable (I wouldn't want to be the one carrying it for any distance!) but it's certainly not small drone-portable.

      Another negative aspect of any drone is that it requires an operator (or more!). Every operator is another soldier not on the front line. At some point, when you're heavy into 3D printing, flying toy drones, conducting female liason work with the locals, working on DEI presentations, conducting social media combat, etc. who's left to ... you know ... shoot a rifle at the horde of attacking enemy?

      Delete
    5. AnonymousMay 20, 2024 at 3:53 PM

      In Ukraine today - unlike 2022 - we’re not seeing either side’s tanks operating in columns but in ones and twos. This is in order to avoid being wiped out by one of the artillery barrages that you reference.
      But there’s lots of footage of single AFVs being illuminated by a drone borne laser and then destroyed by a precision arty round or Lancet type missile and this mode of fighting seems to be becoming SOP.
      I doubt that any future conflict will involve large formations of infantry massing in the open, or WW2 style armored columns as the ubiquity of drones and other forms of ISR means that on the modern battlefield there’s no hiding place.

      Delete
    6. ComNavOpsMay 20, 2024 at 6:14 PM

      "I doubt that any future conflict "

      You're doing exactly what I've repeatedly cautioned against which is drawing conclusions from a conflict whose main characteristic is a stunning degree of tactical and operational ineptitude.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousMay 20, 2024 at 9:07 PM

      We saw a good deal of ‘ineptitude’ early in the conflict but not so much now I think. Steep learning curves all round.
      But given the high level of involvement by NATO (ie US) planners in developing Ukraine’s war fighting strategy, particularly its failed Spring Offensive, and given that many tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops have been sent to Europe for training in NATO level small unit tactics and operations, the quality and usefulness of which the Ukrainians themselves have criticized heavily, and given the demonstrably poor battlefield performance of much of the NATO military equipment supplied to Ukraine, it seems complacent to believe that there are few conclusions to be drawn from this conflict.
      The problem perhaps is that some of the lessons that need to be learned are unwelcome to a conservative military heavily invested in ‘manoeuvre warfare, thrusts, joint actions, etc. on a very large scale’, and to a MIC that would greatly prefer to continue with a highly profitable BAU strategy of producing small quantities of boutique weaponry that may not work very well but which delivers very high margins to the manufacturers.

      Delete
    8. ComNavOpsMay 21, 2024 at 6:04 AM

      "good deal of ‘ineptitude’ early in the conflict but not so much now I think."

      Both sides failed badly, early. Now, both sides have settled into what amounts to trench warfare. That's failure and ineptitude on a massive scale.

      "demonstrably poor battlefield performance of much of the NATO military equipment "

      To be fair, part of the equipment failure is inherent equipment flaws but part is the failure to utilize the equipment the way it was meant to be used. For example, trying to use tanks as mobile pillboxes, one at a time, is stupid and leads to tank losses. That's not a failure of the tank; that's a failure of tactics and utilization.

      "perhaps is that some of the lessons that need to be learned "

      Unless you think China will fight just as ineptly as Ukraine and Russia, there are no lessons to be gained from this conflict other than how not to fight a war.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousMay 22, 2024 at 7:04 PM

      Before critiquing a military campaign you need to have an understanding of the combatant powers’ strategic and political objectives.

      Unfortunately Western media coverage of the conflict has been so superficial as to be almost cartoonish, so if you’re relying on eg WaPo, NYT, ToL or ISW you’ll have been seriously misled as to the above, and misled too as to the causes, nature and course of the war and its likely outcome.

      The best source of accurate war reporting is to be found on the uncensored Russian and Ukrainian language channels of eg Telegram - readily accessible with machine translation.

      I haven’t seen any evidence that the Ukrainians are using western tanks as mobile pillboxes, although perhaps they’ve done something like that from time to time.

      Last fall the Russians pulled several hundred Soviet-era T55s out of storage, using some of them for close infantry support and some as semi-static artillery pieces. This was sensible enough as they still have millions of otherwise useless shells for its 115mm gun - perhaps you were thinking of this.

      Until recently both sides have been operating without tactical air support so inevitably the line of contact has been relatively static and the war has become one of attrition, which plays to Russia’s strengths and aligns with its political and military objectives.

      Regardless, although many in the military would wish it otherwise, the days of Blitzkriegs and Patton-style offensives are gone.

      Delete
    10. ComNavOpsMay 23, 2024 at 8:43 AM

      "although many in the military would wish it otherwise, the days of Blitzkriegs and Patton-style offensives are gone."

      Nonsense. Ukraine and Russia may lack the operational planning, logistical support, and assets to conduct proper warfare but that hardly leads to a sweeping conclusion about all future warfare. What it does lead to is a sweeping conclusion about how NOT to fight a war.

      "I haven’t seen any evidence that the Ukrainians are using western tanks as mobile pillboxes"

      Then you haven't been paying attention. There are plenty of videos of tanks operating singly, unsupported by combined arms. That's a mobile pillbox.

      Delete
  2. GeorgeMay 20, 2024 at 6:30 AM

    Might be useful for removing enemy commanders, particularly at the smaller unit level. You would have to use it in situations where it becomes a force multiplier. Aside from that, meh...

    ReplyDelete
  3. NICOMay 20, 2024 at 8:59 AM

    On the battlefield, I see all these little drones as "enhanced" snipping. Forces everyone to be more vigilant, requires more protection, more armor and more planning....you make too many mistakes and you pay the price even more than getting hit by 1 sniper. It turns every operator into a sniper.

    There's something even more "vicious" about this compared to a sniper, just watching videos of bad guys running for their lives with a drone chasing them just brings another level of hate to warfare. You can see the terror and fear as these drones hit because let's face it, almost all these guys see it coming and you have a few seconds compared to the "instant" death of a good sniper shot.

    Its really a "terror" weapon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMay 20, 2024 at 9:55 AM

      And that works if you're just sitting there, both sides essentially engaged in trench warfare, occupying the same territory for months on end and just sniping back and forth. However, if you're trying to win a war then you're engaged in maneuver warfare, thrusts, joint actions, etc. on a very large scale and sniping is nothing more than a nuisance. An armored division supported by air power is not going to care whether you have a toy drone. You're going to be steamrollered while you're flying a toy, looking for some individual you can go after.

      Delete
    2. LonfoMay 20, 2024 at 10:06 AM

      "That works if you're just sitting there, both sides essentially engaged in trench warfare"

      And even WWI trench warfare involved a lot more firepower than this.

      Neat spec ops gadget, if it works, but that's all.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousMay 20, 2024 at 2:18 PM

    Currently, Ukraine's most urgent request is not drone but artillery shells. We saw many videos of drone attacks because they have cameras. Small drones with a grenade can kill people but no harm to armored vehicles, even light ones.

    I saw a video post by Russia that a M1A1 tank was hit by a laser guided artillery shell. It is possible that video was taken by a drone also provide laser targeting. That M1A1 tanks appeared not in battle but transport halfway from one place to another .

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMay 20, 2024 at 2:25 PM

    China's drone swarm technologies lead the world. Not just these made in China drone swarm for shows to replace firework. They have displayed AI controlled drone swarms which form arrays in air to conduct missions. This is one hot topic between US and China AI summit. Both sides want to limit the other but not itself.

    These drone swarms can fight even lost communications with control stations. China has displayed a few drones in array lost communications one by one than recovered communications among them.

    Pentagon needs to work hard as the nation cannot let China lead in this field.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMay 21, 2024 at 6:08 AM

      "drone swarms"

      Drone swarms make for impressive looking flight demonstrations or faux fireworks but no one has yet demonstrated a practical combat use. The challenges of logistics, communications, control, short range, limited payload, etc. have yet to be overcome.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 21, 2024 at 1:24 PM

      It is alarming because they displayed AI controlled drone swarm in military applications. They can work even communication with base station is cut.

      https://asiatimes.com/2023/11/china-speeding-into-the-low-cost-drone-swarm-lead/

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsMhRhT6bJE

      https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202308/1295778.shtml

      https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/05/china-builds-worlds-first-dedicated-drone-carrier/

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMay 21, 2024 at 2:01 PM

      I'll repeat - for the final time - that the military usefulness of drones against a peer defender has not yet been established. You, like so many people, have jumped onto the technology hype without considering the combat challenges and usefulness.

      Delete
    4. JNX75May 23, 2024 at 2:37 AM

      Hello,
      In a land war scenario (so maybe not the priority of US war planners) , don't you think that fully autonomous drone (camera + vehicle reconnaissance software) would be a very cost-effective way to defeat an incoming mecanized force ?
      With an observation drone you spot the incoming armorded column. Then - at medium range (let's say 5km : in range for a drone, but too far away for an incoming tank to shoot precisely at you) you release a swarm of anti-tank drones. Since those are autonomous, jamming is useless. They are fast, shooting at them is nearly impossible. Most of the hits will be effective. A FPV drone costs between $1000 and $10 000.. thirty time less than the cheapest IFV/tank.

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsMay 23, 2024 at 8:52 AM

      "don't you think that fully autonomous drone (camera + vehicle reconnaissance software) would be a very cost-effective way to defeat an incoming mecanized force ?"

      Not unless the enemy obligingly lines up in columns and waits to be found and killed.

      Here's few questions that your vision gives rise to:

      1. What are these fully autonomous drones that are capable of scanning a battlefield, assessing targets, networking together to self-assign targets, and figuring out an attack plan? Which drone model has that capability?

      2. What weapon do you think these drones are going to use?

      3. What size drone do you think is going to be small and light enough to transport within 5 km of a front line and yet big enough and powerful enough to carry an effective anti-tank weapon?

      4. In what scenario do you envision drones that are "fast" enough to evade missiles, shells, and bullets from mobile anti-air vehicles?

      You need to put some serious thought into this and reconsider your idea.

      So,

      "don't you think that fully autonomous drone (camera + vehicle reconnaissance software) would be a very cost-effective way to defeat an incoming mecanized force ?"

      No.

      Delete
  6. AnonymousMay 22, 2024 at 2:29 AM

    Would appear the Houthis have shot down two MQ-9s in the last week.
    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2024/05/21/houthi-rebels-claim-shooting-down-2nd-us-drone-in-past-week/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 22, 2024 at 4:40 AM

      MQ-9 has very poor maneuverability. Its ultra long wings are designed to enable it to stay in air for a long time at cost of mobility. It is a good reconnaissance tool on parties without workable SAM.

      Russia's "house shed" tanks appear very good on defend tanks from small and medium suicidal drones. Drones' speeds are low thus hit these "shed" then explode won't damage tanks' armor, even in weak part. It is ugly but works.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.