Pages

▼

Monday, June 30, 2025

The Wrong Criteria

I continue to see the Navy’s fascination with unmanned craft despite them being completely divorced from any relevant Concept of Operations (CONOPS).  In the latest example, the Navy is diligently evaluating various unmanned vessels.
 
The commander [Rear Adm. Michael Mattis] of a US Navy task force [ed. Task Force 66] focused on employing unmanned systems said his team is making decisions about which can be “operationalized,” and which will be sidelined for further development.
 
The task force, which was established in May 2024, participated in Baltic Operations 2025 (BALTOPS), a reoccurring major international maritime exercise featuring the US and NATO countries. That exercise, which took place throughout June, played an integral role in helping the service evaluate various USVs on the commercial market.[1]

Well, that’s good, isn’t it?  The Navy is carefully evaluating various craft in order to make the best decisions, right?
 
Let me ask you this: what criteria are being used in the evaluation?  Different criteria will lead to different results.  What might be ideal for one task might be useless for another.
 
Of course, there’s only one criteria for any weapon system and that’s combat.  How will the item being evaluated contribute to high end combat?  If it can’t or won’t, then it has no value.
 
What is the Navy trying to accomplish with unmanned craft?
 
Mattis, whose office falls under the Navy’s three-star operational command, US 6th Fleet, described Task Force 66 as being focused on using low-cost systems, such as commercial-off-the-shelf USVs, to “impose costs on the adversary.”[1]

Ah … I see.  We’re going to “impose costs” on the enemy.  That’s great!  Just out of curiosity, I wonder what these mythical costs are that small, unmanned craft will impose?  It certainly won’t have anything to do with firepower since none of these craft have any firepower.  It won’t be near-invincibility causing the enemy to use vast amounts of their anti-ship missile inventory trying to kill them since none could survive anything more than a 0.50 cal bullet and the enemy would just use the unmanned craft as training aids for their ship’s crews to have target practice.  It won’t be sowing panic and confusion on the enemy’s command and control because I doubt the enemy will even care that much about them, assuming they don’t just laugh.
 
What are the “imposed costs”?
 
How are the unmanned craft being evaluated?
 
Mattis said the event included “red versus blue scrimmages” where sailors were tasked with participating in either side of an engagement featuring several unmanned surface vessels staging an attack on a warship.[1]

Wow, a free form, red versus blue scrimmage (I guess that’s what battles are called now?) !  That’s great for evaluating unmanned craft.  Although … the thought occurs to me, where/when would we expect a [Chinese] warship to present itself conveniently close to several small, unmanned craft, obligingly allowing the unmanned craft to approach, assemble for an attack, and then attack without hindrance?  How would these small unmanned craft get anywhere near a warship on alert?
 
We’re evaluating unmanned craft but we’re using the wrong criteria for the evaluation.  It’s as if we think the Chinese will behave like the oblivious Russian ships.
 
You know what the Navy should do?  They should skip any kind of focus on a combat CONOPS and instead leap right over that and get into the technology of controlling, networking, and interfacing small, unmanned craft.  Well, …
 
Tangential to operating individual USVs, Mattis said TF-66 is working on controlling numerous autonomous vessels through a “single pane of glass,” referring to the notion of commanding multiple vehicles through a singular command-and-control station. And beyond controlling multiple American vessels, Mattis said his team is also working to integrate that capability with NATO allies.[1]

You can see from this that we’re caught up in the technology and ignoring the CONOPS.
 
At this point, you might be wondering what type of unmanned craft we’re talking about?
 
Mattis said the Navy was using at least 10 Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft USVs during BALTOPS.[1]

Here’s a photo of the Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft.
 
Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft
This is what we're going to war with ?


I’m not sure where the “Global” comes from because the range of these tiny motorboats is probably once around the harbor.  “Reconnaissance”????  Whatever sensor they put on it will have a field of view of a few hundred yards.  Is that really reconnaissance?  How would something like this be of any possible use in a high end combat scenario?
 
Anyway … ignore everything I’ve just written.  Hail, unmanned!  Damn the logic, full technology speed ahead!
 
 
 
_____________________________
 
[1]Breaking Defense website, “Navy uses European exercise to help evaluate unmanned vessels”, Justin Katz, 23-Jun-2025,
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/navy-uses-european-exercise-to-help-evaluate-unmanned-vessels/
at

29 comments:

  1. Just another opinionJune 30, 2025 at 3:39 AM

    Meanwhile, if the current budget bill fails, the Navy gets no new SM-6s.

    Glad we’re funding evaluation of the toy boats instead of missiles.

    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/06/u-s-navy-bets-on-reconciliation-for-sm-6-interceptors-risking-production-shutdown-if-bill-fails/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsJune 30, 2025 at 4:32 AM

      This is not new. The Navy has played budget games for decades. It's almost criminal the way they attempt to manipulate the system and, without a doubt, they are violating the intent of Congress and the budget process, if not the letter of the law.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsJune 30, 2025 at 4:35 AM

      The Navy has budgeted only 3 ships. They are betting on supplemental/reconciliation funds for an additional 16 ships.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousJune 30, 2025 at 6:05 AM

    The unmanned obsession is confounding. It seems to have very little combat value in either the near-term or mid-term. Even the long-term value is questionable.

    So why are they doing this?
    There has to be a reason.

    My working theories:

    1) Recruiting has been down. This makes it difficult to find enough quality sailors to man ships.

    Instead of actually fixing problems like reducing the length of deployments so that sailors can have a more normal family life, or making the navy a respectable and challenging career choice for a patriotic young person....let's just get rid of the need for the sailors.
    Sailors are expensive, why not just not have them?

    2) The US would like to be able to meddle in other countries' affairs without the American public paying much attention.
    If you deploy US military forces into harm's way, they are likely to have casualties. Casualties are messy and people notice them.
    But nobody pays attention when a drone gets captured or destroyed.

    3) During the post-Cold War era, there was no obvious naval threat. If we wanted to keep the R&D industry alive we would need to 'skip a generation' of technology. This would shovel money into defense contractors and keep them financially viable until the time when we really need them.

    Instead of doing practical things, the navy has been in a loop where they research fantastical things rather than the serious business of preparing for real war.

    These are my working theories as of now.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsJuly 1, 2025 at 5:57 AM

      "So why are they doing this?"

      Well, this is the baffling question. I can predict what the Navy will do, idiotic as their decisions are, but I can't provide the rationale. That said, here' my working theory.

      Today's Navy leadership was grew up in a culture where technology was the answer to all problems. No hard work. No repairs of existing things. No 'make do/make better'. That being the case, why wouldn't they embrace unmanned technology as the solution instead of hard work, making existing weapons and systems better, maintaining what we already have, and teaching ourselves to use it perfectly? Instead, they jump to the next new technology which, in this case, is unmanned.

      So, it's a cultural imperative for them. They probably aren't capable of acting any differently and anyone who does is eliminated from advancement.

      Growing up, I was taught to repair the broken toaster, patch the holes in my jeans, and clean and reuse the leaking faucet cartridge. Today's leaders grew up with throwing the toaster out for the newest model, buying new jeans, and calling a plumber to install a new faucet. Why would they not be attracted to unmanned technology. It's how they were raised.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 1, 2025 at 9:06 AM

      "...they jump to the next new technology which, in this case, is unmanned."

      Pretty reasonable working theory.

      The frustrating thing about it is that the technology is merely one part of the means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

      Given the choice of cutting edge technology or a highly competent navy, I would choose the latter.
      But the thing is, our navy doesn't need to make that choice.

      With the resources available to them, our navy can be (and should be) equipped with modern technology and be hyper competent.

      The US Navy's goal should be that they are the most competent military force on the planet.
      Their biggest competition for that honor should be the other branches of the US military.

      Unmanned is a lazy shortcut that negates what should be our navy's competency advantage.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsJuly 1, 2025 at 10:45 AM

      "Given the choice of cutting edge technology or a highly competent navy"

      Absolutely. I'd rather have a Navy that's a generation behind in technology but what we have works perfectly, is faithfully maintained, and the sailors are experts at its use.

      "But the thing is, our navy doesn't need to make that choice."

      In concept, you're correct, however, there's a practical aspect to that that argues against it. Technology advances so rapidly that it's impossible to become proficient at it before the next technology comes along. Thus, we're always inept at understanding and using the technology we have because it just go installed and will be replaced shortly with something new. Several (all?) of the recent collisions and groundings allude to this in the investigation reports.

      "Unmanned is a lazy shortcut"

      As is GPS, automated landing systems, etc.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJuly 2, 2025 at 6:11 AM

      "Technology advances so rapidly that it's impossible to become proficient at it before the next technology comes along."

      I think the key question there is how advanced does technology need to be to contribute to a qualitative edge over potential adversaries?

      It would seem reasonable that the technology should be mature enough that when it is fielded there is a training program developed and some of the more substantial bugs are worked out.
      Of course, you don't really find out what doesn't work until it's in the field getting used, but it appears from the outside that the navy is trying to field the bleeding edge of technology and it isn't ready (ie; EMALS).

      Much of what seems to be ailing the navy is just basic competency; ship maintenance, training standards, deployment objectives, ROE, CONOPS for ships/weapons/sensors.

      Training a crew to a high level of proficiency is difficult and it is perishable.
      I think the navy sees it as a lot easier to just keep introducing more and more advanced technology than do the hard work of realistic training.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsJuly 2, 2025 at 6:58 AM

      "the key question there is how advanced does technology need to be to contribute to a qualitative edge over potential adversaries?"

      Absolutely not the key question! The US held a massive technological advantage over Vietnam and still lost. Technology is not the deciding factor. In fact, it may often be a detriment. It takes longer to build and repair high tech. It is harder to maintain high tech. High tech blinds people to easier, more effective, low tech solutions - witness the IED fiasco in Iraq where we spent billions trying to come up with a high tech IED detection/defense instead of just ... driving off road.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJuly 2, 2025 at 7:24 AM

      ^ As I read your comment, I already know that what you are saying is correct.

      Realistic training and the resulting competency is what wins.
      I think that is especially true at the outset of a conflict when, realistically, the least incompetent force has the massive advantage.

      It's such a paradigm shift from what the navy has been pursuing for such a long time.
      How did they get off track?

      It feels like during the military build-up of the 1980's there was a balance of core competency and technological advancement...but I was in high school so I didn't see it first hand to speak with authority on that.

      Did things begin to swing out of balance in the 90's? Or was it earlier than that?

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    7. ComNavOpsJuly 2, 2025 at 7:56 AM

      "Realistic training and the resulting competency is what wins."

      And willpower! Will is the most important factor but, yes, training is right up there.

      "Did things begin to swing out of balance in the 90's? Or was it earlier than that?"

      Earlier! It began just after WWII when we bought into the magic of missiles and removed guns and armor from our ship designs. It continued when we proclaimed dogfighting a thing of the past because missiles would make dogfights obsolete. We sank the entire Spruance class so that they wouldn't compete with Aegis technology. And so on. The Navy has a long and proud tradition of abandoning training and competency in the pursuit of technology.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousJune 30, 2025 at 6:24 AM

    mulligan...

    4) We learned all the wrong lessons from Desert Storm.

    We attributed our overwhelming victory in that conflict to our technological advantages.

    What we seem to have forgotten is that the reason that the technology was so effective was the high level of competence of our military at that time.

    We had lots of senior officers and enlisted personnel that had learned hard lessons in Vietnam.
    And our core fighting unit was VII Corps, which had been doing the serious work of preparing to defend the Fulda Gap from a possible Soviet invasion of Germany.

    We deployed a highly competent army, navy and air force which had all been training with intent to fight the Soviets and Warsaw Pact if the balloon went up.

    It appears that we are not so focused now, especially the US Navy.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 1, 2025 at 9:22 PM

      Despite lots of fire power, Iraq had far lower technical level than US at that time. It was easy for then US troops to crash them.

      Now, if you face an enemy having similar technical capabilities, it is difference. Your electronic warfare can no longer easily jam its weapons, you cannot easily intercept its missiles, .....

      Since invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Administration and Pentagon spent way too many efforts on anti-terrorists and fight regional powers without thinking there will be a competent opponent.

      If you use rifles to fight a gang with knives, even if it has a competent leader, you can easily win. If you face another gang with machine guns, then, even if all your people are courageous, even if you are a good leader, .... this gang will crash you.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsJuly 2, 2025 at 6:54 AM

      "Iraq had far lower technical level than US at that time. It was easy for then US troops to crash them."

      Your entire comment is incorrect. A common comment from Desert Storm veterans was that they would have won even if the US and the Iraqis had reversed their equipment.

      Beyond that, we've documented in posts that technology is not only a decisive factor in victory, it may actually be counterproductive. An example is the Vietnam war. The US held a massive technological advantage and yet lost. As documented in posts, there are many other such examples of technologically inferior forces winning a war.

      Your comment is just plain wrong. Please the peruse the archives and military history and come up to speed.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJuly 3, 2025 at 10:40 PM

      But opinion of Desrt Storm veteran is just opinion and anecdotal. I think if equipment was reversed like you say and Iraqi had US equivalent airforce and US had Iraqi equivalent airforce then maybe Iraqis would win yes?

      Delete
    4. ComNavOpsJuly 4, 2025 at 5:41 AM

      "maybe Iraqis would win yes?"

      Not even the slightest chance. Regardless of their equipment, the Iraqis had no motivation (wholesale surrender and desertion), poor training, horrible leadership, no operational or tactical expertise, and insufficient numbers of troops and equipment. The US had all those, many times over. The only difference better equipment for the Iraqis would have made is that the war might have lasted slightly longer and the US would have had to use somewhat different operations and tactics. This is one of those things that's not even really debatable for anyone who has even a basic understanding of how/why militaries fight.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousJune 30, 2025 at 2:24 PM

    American politicians and political activists fell for the DELUSION they could win war "on the cheap," i.e., without imposing politically unpopular measures CRITICAL to WINNING a WAR, i.e., a draft and/or impressment (press gangs), rationing, nationalizing domestic industries, RAISED TAXES, etc. That attitude cost us potential victories in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and WILL cost us against peer and near-peer competitors like Russia and China.

    It's time to ABANDON the DELUSION war can be won "on the cheap." If the politicians and political activists cannot convince the American people a draft, rationing, nationalization of their businesses, and RAISED TAXES are necessary, then they should NOT push for a war we will LOSE if we do not bear such costs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsJune 30, 2025 at 2:55 PM

      You are mostly incorrect. All the unpopular measures you list we either did in the conflicts you cite or they weren't important. The ONLY important factor in any of those conflicts was will and we didn't have it.

      The number one factor in a peer war with China will be, as it always is, will. Some of the other factors will exert themselves but nowhere near the importance of will.

      All the other factors are peripheral issues of varying degrees of importance depending on circumstances.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousJuly 1, 2025 at 1:35 AM

    There is a sort of precedent to this : the French "Jeune Ecole" (young school) of naval thought in the late 19-early 20 century. The idea was to avoid building battleships because they were growing bigger at each new generation and also more expensive. They were to be replaced by torpedo ships in much larger numbers. The strategy was also concentrating on defence instead of attack and relying on a larger number of support bases on the French coasts. There was a large amount of support for this in the ministries and staff because France couldn't afford to have at the same time a large army to deter the German empire and a large navy to compete against Britain. In the end it got nowhere : there were many reasons for this, the Fachoda crisis between France and Britain where it was obvious that the Marine Nationale couldn't face the Royal Navy and an exercise during which the vaunted torpedo boats couldn't attack a much heavier French squadron moving between North Africa and Toulon on the Mediterranean coast. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeune_Ecole. Note : the French version of the article is much better documented that the English one.

    The Jacques Cassard Fan Club

    ReplyDelete
  6. BA 1959July 1, 2025 at 1:31 PM

    So what would a CONOPS be in the naval world for unmanned craft be? I'm thinking reconnaissance - be it short term in battle or soon to be in battle with expendable drones, watercraft or submersibles.

    Then weapons, watercraft for carrying extra missiles, submersibles carrying torpedos or mines - and then are they autonomous (which makes sense in battle) or controlled when not in battle).

    What else? Is there nothing out there at least suggesting a CONOPS is being thought hard about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsJuly 1, 2025 at 2:34 PM

      "I'm thinking reconnaissance"

      Think carefully about this. Modern naval battles will be anywhere from under the horizon (stumble across each other in EMCON, for example) out to a thousand miles. Now, consider the types of incredibly small USVs the Navy is focused on and their tiny sensors with, perhaps, 7 miles or so range of view. Is that effective recon?

      UAVs, if properly designed and used, could be effective in the recon role but, currently, we have no UAVs that would meet the requirement.

      "submersibles carrying torpedos or mines"

      We've addressed this in the post on the ORCA CONOPS and concluded that a UUV simply can't carry enough weapons to be effective and their incredibly slow speed makes them tactically useless.

      I keep saying, aside from my own general CONOPS, I've never seen a viable CONOPS for unmanned assets.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousJuly 2, 2025 at 8:40 AM

    "Why would they not be attracted to unmanned technology. It's how they were raised."

    That is golden.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousJuly 3, 2025 at 8:07 PM

    Speaking of wrong criteria: https://www.axios.com/2025/07/02/navy-faxx-pentagon-budget-f47

    We need a serious fighter on our carrier decks for the war against China, and the Super Hornet isn't it. Neither is the F-35. But with the cancellation of F/A-XX it looks like we're going to see a repeat of the F-111B fiasco, with an Air Force fighter built for Air Force needs and considerations being forced on the Navy and we have to try and make it work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 4, 2025 at 4:40 AM

      Sadly, China is developing TWO 6th generation fighters (J-36 and J-50) by two companies right now.

      Delete
    2. ConcernedCitizenPatriotJuly 4, 2025 at 10:54 AM

      We've been developing 6th gen Fighters by two different companies since 2013-2015. Also the J36 and J50 are not 6th gen...
      Also, it's going to be really hard to develop anything with their economy in complete collapse like it is now, which was inevitable.
      When the West (the US for sure) claims to have a certain capability, you should always expect them to be undervaluing that capability. Which, when you think about it seems obvious because you don't want your enemies to know everything you're capable of, just a general idea.
      When the Chinese claim something, their capabilities are likely overstated.

      Delete
    3. ConcernedCitizenPatriotJuly 4, 2025 at 11:32 AM

      FA/XX IS NOT CANCELED! Priority of 2026 funding has gone to AF's NGAD as opposed to FA/XX, not cancelled!
      This is likely due to a million different reasons, but one being that the DoD feels that the Navy's "China Strategy" is solid.
      Yes FA/XX would help a lot but they've otherwise got China covered via F-35Cs/Super Hornet's/Growler's launched from wherever needed in the Pacific Ocean. (And no, the Navy is not necessarily worried about Chinese ballistic or Hypersonic weapons. The only worry is potentially running out of interceptors, which is why ECM exists...)
      The US Air Force on the other hand doesn't have the luxury of a constantly moving floating Air Base anywhere in the Pacific. They rely on island air bases. Meaning Guam is the only island Air Base in the Pacific which is "near" Taiwan which can be used to park and protect up to hundreds of aircraft and ships in the harbor without being showered by missiles all of every day for years potentially.
      For the F35A's, we would need to have constant tankers in the sky for the Chinese to come shoot down all day long!
      So really, it makes perfect sense that the Air Force is much more focused on getting their long-range 6th Gen fighter out ahead of the Navy which does not need nearly as badly their next gen long range fighter...
      There's also the fact that work on FA/XX began like 3 to 5 years before NGAD, and the odds are they are potentially ahead of them yet and the development cycle. There's a potential NGAD is being given a chance to catch up to the same stage in the process so that they can be released on a similar time line...

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJuly 4, 2025 at 4:38 PM

      Importance of F/A-XX is that it could be a backup of F-47, in case it fails to meet requirements, like F-4 backed up F-104. Regardless what you think, top Air Force generals believe that both J-36 and J-50 are 6th gen fighters.

      Keep in mind, just not all 5 gen fighters are same, so do 6th gen, especially there is no commonly accepted criteria for 6th gen. Most accept stealthy is "the" criteria of 5th gen fighter (at least at 0-degree direction). Do not ignore XA-102 and XA-103, 2026 budget proposal gives them 3.2 billion. The adaptive engine is very important on 6th gen's performance. PW had just showed a CG of its XA-103. Bad news is the first completed version ground test is postponed to 2029, no date for its first flight. Of course, we don't know either GE or PW will win the contract.

      Although no official announcement, from what I read, China is not keen on adaptive engine but keen on TBCC engine on its 6th gen fighters. It takes a long writing to describe US' adaptive engine and China's TBCC engine scenario. Google the web yourself to find out. Without a leap in power system (engine), 6th gen will be like current fighter - if you want fly long range, you need to compromise on speed plus make a plane very large like B-21. So, don't just focus on tailless stealthy, watch also on engines.

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsJuly 4, 2025 at 6:13 PM

      "FA/XX IS NOT CANCELED!"

      While this is technically a true statement, it is, for all practical purposes, false. The F/A-XX is indefinitely frozen. It's in a coma and not expected to wake up. The pittance of $74M is to finish up final documentation.

      "DoD feels that the Navy's "China Strategy" is solid."

      This is a surprise. No idea where you got that. For starters, the Navy has no 'China strategy' that I've ever heard about and I've never heard that DoD likes the Navy's non-existent strategy. Feel free to fill us in of this development.

      "got China covered via F-35Cs/Super Hornet's/Growler's"

      Wow! That's some exceedingly optimistic opinion! For starters, the Navy does not, and will never, have enough F-35Cs to have any real impact. Their most optimistic plan is for one squadron (of ten aircraft?) per air wing. Not exactly a game changer! That leaves the short legged F-18 to go up against Chinese aircraft that are as good or better with China increasingly fielding better aircraft.

      Another issue is that the sketchy publicly available requirements list for the F/A-XX indicate that the Navy has learned no lessons from the F-18/35. The F/A-XX is, primarily, a strike aircraft with a secondary air to air role. This is guaranteed to produce a mediocre fighter and it's the fighter function that the Navy desperately needs. Also, the called for 25% increase in range is woefully short of what's needed for the Pacific theater. And so on. I am all for cancelling the F/A-XX and developing a true, long range, large payload, air superiority fighter. The 'F/A' tells us everything we need to know about how bad the Navy has so far missed the boat on this.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJuly 4, 2025 at 11:32 PM

      China's naval aviation strategy is questionable. Giving their carriers are not as big as USS Ford, yet they put two heavy twin engine aircrafts on them - J-35 for stealthy air superiority plus J-15 multirole (for attack). US' strategy of one multirole could be a better choice. This strategy reduces maintenance complexity.

      Delete

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