Newsmax website has an article about a Chinese jet powered
VTOL drone intended for surface ships.[1]
The article goes on to rave about the advantages this will confer upon
the Chinese navy … according to Chinese sources/propaganda. Setting the dubious nature of the claims aside,
the article does raise an interesting and highly relevant issue that the US
Navy/military is struggling with, generally unsuccessfully, and that is the
question of whether the supposed warfare-changing technology of the moment
actually has any value.
For example, let’s consider a hypothetical example of an
advanced drone with all kinds of near-magical capabilities for surface ships. Who wouldn’t want it, right? I mean, it could potentially change the
future of warfare … until you start asking a few simple questions.
Conclusion
Sounds good on paper but fails the real world, value test.
The US (and good to see China is susceptible to this, as
well) is so focused on the technology that we forget to ask the real world
combat questions. Sometimes (well, most
of the time!) that amazing feat of technology simply has no real world
value. LCS … Zumwalt/LRLAP … EMALS …
magic elevators … large non-stealthy UAVs … etc.
_________________________________
- Can it be produced in quantity? -answer: no, it’s so magically advanced that it’s hideously expensive
- Can it be produced in large quantities? -answer: no, it’s too expensive and its complexity and advanced technology means it takes months or years to produce
- Can it be serviced in the field? -answer: no, its advanced technology and complexity requires advanced depot level maintenance support
- Can it do anything combat-useful? -answer: it can probably carry only one small munition which is almost insignificant in the big picture; ISR might be a useful function
- Is it small enough to not impact existing ship’s functions? -answer: no, complexity, range, capability etc. all come at a cost and one of those costs is size
- Can a ship carry enough to compensate for attrition or simple mechanical failure? -answer: no, its size and cost preclude large quantities on a single ship
- Can it perform its function without giving away the host ship’s location? -answer: no, it will require frequent/continuous two-way communication for sensor analysis and command/control
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/china-navy-jet-drone/2025/08/15/id/1222629/
Something to note is that unlike the US, a lot of these programs are internal projects developed by Chinese companies that are shopping them to the military. There's certain grants that companies can apply for to fund interesting prototypes; the government gives you the cash, you make a prototype and proof of concept and show it to the military, and if the military likes it, they'll pick it up as a formal procurement program.
ReplyDeleteIt's throwing shit at the wall to see what works, but that's why you get such a phletora of equipment being shown off at Chinese trade shows.
"Can it be produced in quantity?"
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it is a big problem for most nations but not China, thanks to its huge industry capacity. After the India-Pakistan air battle, China state TV showed a PL-15 production line. It is highly automation.
Trump is right to rebuild American manufacturing base but can he and his team success?
Trump told reporters that he watched China's military parade and he was impressed. He has asked SOD Hegseth to prepare for a military overhaul aimed at deterring threats from China and Russia. China has emphasized what they displayed yesterday are all active duty.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, Pentagon will come with a thoroughly thought, well consulted, executable plan to rebuild this deterrence.
Wake up! Do you believe just an executive order from Trump solving the problem?
DeleteUnless we produce more engineers than angry but incompetent whatever, we will see China widen gaps with US on high tech weapons.
"Do you believe just an executive order from Trump solving the problem?"
DeleteAs a crucial first step, emphatically yes! It requires leadership to set the goals and focus the effort.
"Unless we produce more engineers than angry but incompetent whatever, we will see China widen gaps with US on high tech weapons."
This is simplistic and incorrect. As a general statement, the US leads the world in technology. Ask yourself why China sends hundreds of thousands of students to US colleges? The world isn't breaking down the doors of Chinese universities, they're coming to the US. Where China and Russia have surpassed the US, in certain areas, is implementation. They take the technology the US develops and have applied it more than we have, in certain areas. This is what a Presidential order can address - our priorities for implementation.
"As a general statement, the US leads the world in technology. Ask yourself why China sends hundreds of thousands of students to US colleges? The world isn't breaking down the doors of Chinese universities, they're coming to the US. "
DeleteThis used to be true until fairly recently. Today, the trend is not as pronounced.
https://youtu.be/8msSfjvhu3k?si=Uz3GwXGWWmBRA819
The Chinese parade was interesting. A pretty good summary and basic analysis can be found here.
https://youtu.be/aFKtxcImgAs?si=8wMIXEToEAN1EqL4
Its also something to think about that the tenth Type 055 has started sea trials. The construction rate on these and the Type 052Ds is staggering.
Many wealthy Chinese parents send their children to western universities because a degree from a ‘top 100’ carries a lot of prestige value back in China.
DeleteUnfortunately many of these institutions have become addicted to the revenue from the fees that overseas students pay, and have lowered their standards to ensure that the cash keeps flowing.
In my experience many of these students have poor English language skills and graduate knowing little more than they did when they started their courses.
So this seems all remarkably backwards. We now have a technology that remotely controls machines of whatever size we want, and at whatever range (kind of) we want. The remote control can be continuous, or episodic, or pre-programed. So, figure out useful tasks, surveillance, deploying munitions, etc. and then design the appropriate machine and tactics, what follows would be scale, range, maintenance, etc. Instead we're getting cool toys and then have to dream up their usefulness? I think you've talked about this before using the word "Conops".
ReplyDeleteBingo!
Delete