ComNavOps has long stated that UAVs, especially the larger
ones, are utterly ineffective, unsuited, and non-survivable over the
battlefield and the Air Force has publicly agreed with that assessment. Despite my statements, many (including the
Navy) continue to believe that UAVs will provide omniscient awareness about our
enemies. Well, we’re finally starting to
accumulate some real world data. We know
that Iran has downed multiple UAVs in the past [2] but now we have combat data
from the Navy’s engagement with the Houthis in Yemen. What does the data show?
Bing’s AI search engine reports (unsourced),
Other sources have similar or larger reported loss numbers. The point is not the exact number of losses but the fact that this proves that larger UAVs are not survivable over the modern battlefield. In this case, the conclusion is even more emphatic since the Houthis are far from a modern, top tier military force like the Chinese and because these losses are occurring in the face of supposed high intensity attacks on the Houthis – and yet they somehow manage to routinely shoot down our UAVs? I guess our attacks aren’t very effective, are they?
Seven Reaper drones have been brought down by the Houthis since the beginning of March, with six of them occurring since March 15 and three of them over the past week, the official said. At least 15 Reapers have been brought down by the Houthis since October 2023 … [1]
Bing’s AI search engine reports (unsourced),
Houthi rebels in Yemen have downed seven US MQ-9 Reaper drones since March 31, 2025. Since November 2023, the Houthis have claimed responsibility for downing fourteen MQ-9 Reaper drones. Yemeni forces have shot down seven US MQ-9 Reaper drones this month and 22 since October 2023. Each MQ-9 is worth about $30 million, so that means the US has lost $660 million worth of drones over Yemen in about a year and a half.[1]
Other sources have similar or larger reported loss numbers. The point is not the exact number of losses but the fact that this proves that larger UAVs are not survivable over the modern battlefield. In this case, the conclusion is even more emphatic since the Houthis are far from a modern, top tier military force like the Chinese and because these losses are occurring in the face of supposed high intensity attacks on the Houthis – and yet they somehow manage to routinely shoot down our UAVs? I guess our attacks aren’t very effective, are they?
 |
| MQ-9 Reaper |
How is it possible that the Houthis can manage to operate
radars and SAM launchers while supposedly being overwhelmed by US military
attacks? We can’t stop the Houthis from
doing this but we think we’ll take on the Chinese?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/houthis-shoot-growing-number-us-drones/story?id=121099082
We learned we couldn't fly a U-2 over contested airspace back in the 50's.
ReplyDeleteJust because it's unmanned the powers that be suddenly think it's a magical plane and won't suffer the same fate.
But it's not about what works on the battlefield. It's about what keeps the money spigot flowing
"But it's not about what works on the battlefield. It's about what keeps the money spigot flowing"
DeleteThat's sophomoric reasoning. It's the easy, lazy explanation. I don't mean that in a mean way. It's just that too many of us fall back on this type of simplistic explanation that makes us feel good: the evil military industrial complex causes all our problems. Oh, there may be an element of that but come on, think harder. Dig deeper.
There's hundreds/thousands of military programs that can keep the money flowing, as you put it. It's also just as easy to keep the money flowing with good weapon systems as bad and good systems have the added benefit of actually helping the country. So, why aren't we keeping the money flowing with good systems? Think harder. Dig deeper. What other factors are at play, here?
Fair enough. I took a rhetorical cheap shot that wasn't in line with your post and I was off the mark with it.
ReplyDeleteDigging deeper I would say it's indicative of institutional decay where there is an accepted train of thoughts and beliefs that are not to be challenged. Getting Congress to fund new programs is harder than getting them to continue paying for systems that have worked in the past or that work in theory.
As we continue to fight yesterday's wars, the war on terror showed the value and utility of these UAV systems so we should continue to use them especially against an enemy so backwards as the Houthis. To do otherwise would require us admitting that we are not prepared for current conflicts and that we have become a paper tiger
Excellent! You've touched on a few other factors, all valid.
Delete" accepted train of thoughts and beliefs that are not to be challenged."
Another way of saying this is 'get along, go along' which is a phenomenon inherent in all organizations, military and commercial.
"Getting Congress to fund new programs is harder than getting them to continue paying"
Hmm ... I'll have to give this some more thought. Congress has been awfully willing to fund huge new projects such as the F-35, Zumwalt, LCS, etc. Interesting thought, though.
"To do otherwise would require us admitting that we are not prepared for current conflicts"
I think this is very close to one of my main themes although you didn't quite express the way I do. It's professionalism. Our warriors are supposed to be military professionals which means that they are supposed to live, breathe, eat, sleep, and fart warfare. They should study it, analyze it, dissect it, game it, and know everything there is to know about it ... but they don't. They are not professional warriors. They are, for all practical purposes, amateurs. I would venture to say that we, on this blog, put more thought into warfare than our officers who are consumed on a daily basis with budgets, sensitivity training, gender issues, climate concerns, diversity, daily reports, etc. We need our officers to return to the study of warfare and dump the rest of the garbage - something I hoped SecDef Hegseth would do but, so far, has not.
Good comment and I thank you for it. Now, having identified some problems, what solutions can you offer, both ideal and practical?
Hmm ... I'll have to give this some more thought. Congress has been awfully willing to fund huge new projects such as the F-35, Zumwalt, LCS, etc. Interesting thought, though.
DeleteNew? F-35 - 29 years old, Zumwalt - 30+ years old, LCS - 20 years+.
The incompetence of modern hardware development is so terrible that it takes longer than the equivalent from the start of WW1 to the end of WW2 to get anything in 'usable' service.
"New?"
DeleteNew at the time they were proposed, obviously.
I guess all that information dominance isn’t deterring anyone. I guess they need a USMC littoral combat regiment to show them how it’s done.
ReplyDeleteI'm A DIFFERERT Anonymous (I swear).
DeleteI love this comment alot.
This is why I encourage everyone to at least add a username to the end of their comment. No need to sign in; just tack on a username.
Delete"I love this comment alot."
DeleteWhy? I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing. I just want you to explain your rationale, either way.
My comment regarding Congressional funding was specifically regarding the SuperHornet as it was considered an upgrade to an existing platform and that was marketed as an easier way to sell it vs admitting it's a whole new plane.
ReplyDeleteAs to how we can fix our military on the whole. That's tough. I don't see an easy answer to that one. There are so many issues both small and large that have permeated it over the past 30 years and it is suffering greatly because of it.
Things like, turning over the entire general/admiral staff would be a start but it won't stop the current issues from cropping up again.
At this point part of the problem is cultural. What do we, as Americans, need or want from our government and military? What defines us? What should we be building towards? Do we want to be the world's policeman? Stay strong with NATO and fight China or Russia if needed? Do we need to be involved with nation building? Or just focus on being the regional power of the Western Hemisphere?
I know I'm punting on your question but I don't think we, as a country, have had a good grasp on who we are ever since the end of the Cold War.
It's like owning a company and not being sure of what to make or knowing who your market is.
But to answer your question as best as I can I would start with turnover of all the top brass and push for a focus of building the right tools for the right jobs. I'm not a fan of one platform that can do many things. An ASW platform should do just that and do it exceedingly well. Same with a new fighter. It should all be geared towards being able to cheaply build large quantities of what's needed. A $30 million drone that can be shot down by a $10,000 missile is a waste of money.
How do we find the military professionals who can identify what we need to fight both our current and future wars? That I don't have an answer for. I'd like to believe that the current crop of O-4 to O-6 would have some ideas on how that can be done but that may just be wishful thinking on my part.
I agree with the statement that since the Cold war end, I don't think USA has had a clear national security policy. We just go around from war to war, bombing the "problem" until something else pops up....and let's not even talk about "soft power", we have given up any semblance of using that.
DeleteIf we had a serious, professional military, we would have developed simpler, cheaper "solutions" to these "wars", really more police actions like Afghanistan, Yemen now or even Iraq at the time. Instead, we are using multibillion dollar platforms, firing million dollar SAMs to shoot down $100k drones...and why? I know we supposedly fighting piracy and something-something about Yemen BUT was that ever really declared? Voted for? Everyone inside USA A-OK with this and the expenditure? How many Americans even know what's going in Yemen? Syria? Parts of Africa? maybe we need to start there as a country, maybe people need to get a little bit more involved in the affairs of the nation and not just "roll their eyes" or "I don't care".....
"maybe people need to get a little bit more involved in the affairs of the nation"
DeleteThis starts with our education system. We need to go back to teaching actual history, geography, civics, etc. That's what provides the foundation of understanding the world. However, that's beyond the scope of this blog so I'll leave it at that.
Original concept of UAV is "consumable", as long as they collect desired information. Problem is that the nation doesn't have real consumable yet competent ones. All US made functional drones are too expensive to be consumable.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem is the US military and its civilian leaders (the President, the Secretary of Defense, Congress) all fell for the military equivalent of a "Get rich quick!" scheme. Want to win a war CHEAPLY, without having to enact a politically unpopular draft, rationing, nationalization of domestic industries (whose lobbyists donate to your election campaigns, and who will be VERY UNHAPPY if the government interferes with their business), and RAISING TAXES? Deploy some drones! They have no pilots to kill or capture, so who cares if they get shot down? The drones are UNABLE to perform the missions demanded of them? Well, as long as VOTERS don't realize this and continue to believe we (the military and its civilian leaders) are doing something about the problem, it doesn't matter!
ReplyDeleteAgainst an enemy that's willing to PAY THE PRICE for victory, like Russia? Then we must decide to either MATCH THEIR PRICE- enact a draft, impose rationing, nationalize domestic industries, raise taxes, etc.- or we must admit we can't compete and then drop out. There is no middle ground.
You raise a good point that we have "forgotten" about or never really want to acknowledge about our politicians: they very happy to fire cruise missiles and stand off weapons because it never really endangers the pilots or troops so it looks like whoever in charge is doing "something" but really isn't doing much AND USA never fully commits. Example today Yemen BUT we could use just about any conflict USA has been involved in the last 30 years or so, we fire some cruise missiles, send a few Navy ships, USAF drops a few bombs, maybe send some SF and then US media moves on to the next war or murder mystery or sporting event that engulfs the nation and that war gets forgotten....again though, how much is it the political class issue (pretend to do something) or the general population issue (loses interest or doesn't care)?
DeleteAt this point, we really have 2 choices: go for less capability and the drones are a heck of a lot cheaper and be prepared to lose them OR we have to start putting defense systems like ECM, chaff, flares,etc on Reapers and others.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing how big these things are. They should probably be 80%-90% smaller with a more off the shelf engine and Starlink terminals for the satellite link. They could carry one bomb or missile. And the body could just be plywood. Then you'd have something better suited to flying over Yemen.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that we are rapidly approaching a red line where flying over Yemen is going to be completely unaffordable. My understanding from my own reading is that we are now up to 24 downed, and the operable cost in the air is around $33M each. And the downed number is going up like a rocket ship as the Houthis get better at this. Meanwhile, their anti-ship efforts are also getting better far faster than anyone on the US side anticipated. This sounds like a complete no-win heading our way, and no-win means a functional defeat.
ReplyDelete#ComNavOps
ReplyDeletewhat do you think of loitering munitions ?
here are few cost effective loitering munition options available to us
Israeli Solutions
1) IAI Mini Harpy
cost: ~150,000 USD
Warhead: 7.7 kgs
Operational range: 100 kms
cruise speed: 157 km/hr
2) IAI Harpy
cost: 500,000 USD
Warhead: 32 kgs
Operational range: 500 kms
max speed: 185 km/hr
Ukrainian Solution
Terminal Autonomy AQ-400 Scythe
cost: 30,000 USD
Warhead: 43 kgs
Operational range: 750 kms
max speed: 200 km/hr
Loitering munitions (UAVs - that's what it really is) have their uses in the right set of circumstances. On the other hand, they are quite expensive for the firepower delivered. Harpy is $500K-$800K to deliver a single 70 lb explosion. That's the wrong side of the cost curve to be on. They're also slow and not very stealthy which makes them non-survivable in a contested environment. Loitering for days sounds good IF NO ONE IS CAPABLE OF SHOOTING IT DOWN. If they are, the survivable loiter time would be on the order of minutes.
DeleteCarpet bomb (MLRS, for example) the target area and you don't need a loitering munition.
From what I understand, a loitering munition is basically an AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) that can spend HOURS orbiting the battlefield, waiting for enemy air defense radars to turn on, so they can then home in on and destroy these air defense radars. It fills a niche for those who lack EA-18G Growlers or other Wild Weasels, i.e,.aircraft appropriate for Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) or Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (DEAD) missions.
DeleteFor those who DO have Wild Weasels, a loitering munition is much less useful.
"a loitering munition is basically an AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) that can spend HOURS orbiting the battlefield"
DeleteNo, or only in the loosest sense. HARM (the 'H' stands for high speed) has a speed of nearly Mach 3. The loitering munition that's the subject of this thread has a speed of a little over 100 mph. They're two entirely different weapons.
An AGM-88 is unable to loiter for HOURS, waiting for an enemy air defense radar to turn on and reveal its position- that's the tradeoff for high speed. A Wild Weasel IS able to, but unless it has top-of-the-line electronic warfare systems, it will be little more than a target for the air defense systems the HARM is designed to destroy. VERY FEW nations have the ability to develop top-of-the-line electronic warfare systems, or to CONSTANTLY UPGRADE these systems so they'll remain top-of-the-line.
DeleteHence my description of loitering munitions as filling a niche. The US has the EA-18G Growler, so we don't need to fill this niche. China now has the J-16D, so she doesn't need to fill it anymore. Israel and Russia still have this niche.
I think that this should call into question the core validity of unmanned assets generally.
ReplyDeleteThey have their niche, but that's all it is. I feel that we are putting far too many eggs in the unmanned basket.
Lutefisk
Fun news:
ReplyDeleteMarines’ first Landing Ship Medium slated to take 4-5 years to build
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/05/marines-first-landing-ship-medium-slated-to-take-4-5-years-to-build/
World War II was over for the USA in four years.
____________________________
V-22 will fly with restrictions until 2026
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/04/v-22-will-fly-with-restrictions-until-2026/?utm_medium=email&_hsmi=359400347&utm_content=359400347
This will be the fourth time the gearboxes were upgraded. C-2s will keep on flying.
"4-5 years to build"
DeleteAt least initially, the first vessels will be the existing Israeli vessels. Of course, the Navy will modify them; they can't resist screwing with designs and adding cost and time. The use of an existing ship makes the timeline all the more difficult to explain and justify. A Liberty ship in a month; a glorified LSM in 4-5 years. What's wrong with this picture? I'd fire everyone in this LSM program right now and completely turn the project over to Bollinger and give them a one year deadline with a really good profit margin if they can succeed. No interference or involvement from the Navy, whatsoever, since it's been proven that the Navy has nothing positive to offer.
Bing?
ReplyDeleteLarge UAVs are link inkjet cartridges for Defense Contractors. Give the first one away and then wait for combat to start and sell replacements to the low probability of survival items. This is even better in that the contractor gets paid for overruns to develop and build the inventory.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I see the issues here so the Houthis can manage to shoot down a largely defenseless drone. I can see that brings up an argument that the US should probably take this has a reason to see if the same capability can be fitted out at some cheaper price point. The equipment the Houthi need is hardly cutting edge - to reiterate I would think perhaps the US should consider if maybe the tools for this fight should be equally not the latest and most expensive.
ReplyDeleteThe map space called Yeman is impoverished, the Houthi leadership obviously is largely indifferent to it peoples relative suffering and apparently said population is not particularly putting premium value GDP growth or whatever and a comfortable life the way say Serbians were when they quickly decided the cost of Serbian nationalism was not worth paying (and it was only has high as its not pleasant living in Belgrade anymore). More important I am not sure what you want to target other wise than the US and at any higher rate, The indiscriminate Saudi campaign budged neither the leadership nor the Houthi people. For a brush conflict largely about shipping costs how much do you really want to bomb more for at best minimal marginal gains.
I see no particular relation to China out of this.
Unmanned vehicles take the pressure off senior commanders. This is why they like them.
ReplyDeleteThink of it from their point of view: For many of them, the biggest threat is not losing in combat. They fear having their careers derailed by ending up on someone's naughty list.
Losing a manned aircraft is a dramatic, news-worthy event. That's the kind of stuff that ends careers. Risking manned aircraft is stressful. Maybe the mission isn't worth the risk? I have to weigh trying to talk my boss out of a risky idea, or executing the mission and rolling the dice.
But not with unmanned systems! Just say "Yes, sir!" and execute the mission. Nobody even notices if you lose an aircraft. You have to lose seven before obscure blogs even pick it up. This is the kind of risk avoidance senior leaders will invest in all day!
Worry about real combat power or facing down a peer adversary? I may choose to deprioritize a low probability risk like that. I know I'll have to attack some low-level threats at some point. Reapers help me sleep at night. We haven't had a real war in generations. Odds are I'll retire before it happens again.
We need to separate the long-range transit function of UAV (which requires a big slow platfrom) from the sensing function (which can be small and cheap). A Reaper that could carry a dozen or so small, expendable UAVs is worth considering
ReplyDeleteThat's a lot of communications: between the small UAVs and the Reaper and between the Reaper and the ground control station. In a permissive environment that can work. In combat with electronic warfare and cyber attacks, that's asking a lot in addition to broadcasting their own locations.
DeleteNot necessarily. Modern UAVs are growing a lot more autonomous. If you could give the UAVs pre-programmed tasks (go to this area and conduct reconnaissance) the C2 requirements could be drastically reduced.
Delete"UAVs are growing a lot more autonomous."
DeleteThey could be 100% autonomous but they still have to continually broadcast their sensor data presumably back to the controlling Reaper which, in turn, has to relay it back to the ground control station.
So, in this concept, you'd have a dozen or so small UAVs continually broadcasting their radar (or EO or whatever sensor they have) data. That's large bandwidth, continual broadcasts. The controlling Reaper would then be continually broadcasting a dozen UAVs worth of large bandwidth sensor images back to the ground control station. All the UAVS will be instantly spotted and, presumably, destroyed. I'm missing how this is a survivable (as in, long enough to be effective) process. Feel free to enlighten me.
True mission autonomy doesn't require continual broadcast. A UAV with on-board processing and automatic target recognition would only need to communicate when it has found a target of interest.
DeleteYour original premise was that a Reaper, whose primary function is surveillance, could transfer its sensing function to UAVs, thereby increasing its own chance of survival. Therefore, the smaller UAVs are sensor platforms. A small UAV simply hasn't got the computing capability to perform automated sensor analysis. This is difficult enough with shipboard computers and highly trained analysts. Expecting a small UAV to perform broad are maritime surveillance totally autonomously is fantasy. Yes, finding one specific target type autonomously might be possible but that's not broad area maritime surveillance. BAMS is about catching a glimpse of what might, or might not, be a periscope. It's about looking for and identifying ships from a great distance (too close and you die) and that means multi-spectral analysis of vague images that may or may not be real, and so on. It's also about exercising judgment in deciding when to get a closer look at a possible item of interest and when to continue the search and ignore the possible item. It's also about evaluating risk versus benefit. All of that requires human judgment. We are not at the Terminator level of AI yet. As a related example, our best unmanned mine hunter vehicles still require that the data be uploaded to the host ship for analysis. They lack the ability to do reliable onboard analysis.
DeleteThis is a capability to works toward but does not yet exist.
I would say that part of the problem is the bureaucratic mindset that infests both civilian bureaucrats and senior military officers. The biggest concerns to those people, in order of importance, are:
ReplyDelete1) my career
2) my agency
3) my country
Say you are a CDR/CAPT and you get assigned to the project team for a new system. Assume that very quickly, you analyze the project and determine that it is doomed to failure. If you blow the whistle and recommend cancellation, that’s good for country but bad for your agency and career. Alternatively you can write glowing reports and keep the project (and your career) floating along swimmingly for a decade or more. As long as that’s the way things work, good luck getting honest evaluations until things get to the field and fail.
I think what makes sense are smaller drones in large numbers for recon, intel, targeting, and damage assessment.
Are you suggesting we use just a bunch of cheaper drones or somehow making 1 drone specific for each task? Instead of building one big drone with all the sensors and whatnots needed, break down each task and make a "specific" drone for each task only....not sure it would be cheaper but I find that idea intriguing...like instead of doing these multi billion dollar multi task ships, we go back to making ships more 1 task oriented, wonder if that would work with drones.....
DeleteCompletely off topic and maybe I'm old, tired and confused BUT are we talking about $12 billion in another article to $17 billion in another article FOR 2 EXTRA VIRGINIAS?!? I read this article and others and I can't understand the price tag in relationship to the work if it's only 2 SSN?!?!? A Virginia is now $6 billion dollars a pop?!?
ReplyDeletehttps://seapowermagazine.org/virginia-class-ssn-team-awarded-12-billion-contract-modification-for-two-submarines/#:~:text=%E2%80%93%20General%20Dynamics%20Electric%20Boat%2C%20a,and%2012th%20of%20the%20block.
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/04/navy-awards-up-to-17-1-billion-submarine-contract-modification-to-general-dynamics-electric-boat/