4 ms·

It's shocking to me the Secretary of Defense confirmation hearing only mentioned "drone" once, and that was not in reference to the future of warfare. Ukraine

by xnx 2y ago

It's shocking to me the Secretary of Defense confirmation hearing only mentioned "drone" once, and that was not in reference to the future of warfare. Ukraine has made pretty clear that drones will play a huge roll in future major conflicts. It's crazy that we haven't already shifted major portions of the defense budget from legacy weapons systems (e.g. tanks) to drones.

robertlagrant 2y ago
I'm pretty sure the US had drones before Ukraine occurred. The US does invest in drones. Maybe they will more, but we're probably a little way away from them assuming the role of tanks any time soon.
- jcgrillo 2y ago
  There's things like the Anduril Bolt. They cost like 100x as much as devices the Ukranians are building from cardboard. Another major innovation is TOW style fiber optic control which is immune to electronic countermeasures. There's definitely a lot to learn, but sadly necessity is the mother of invention and not since WW2 has manufacturing cost really been a serious concern for US defense production. Seems like we'll need a really big war to make that essential, and then there's an open question whether we'd actually be able to do it given that nobody knows how to do anything anymore.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > Seems like we'll need a really big war to make that essential, and then there's an open question whether we'd actually be able to do it given that nobody knows how to do anything anymore. I'm not sure if I'd be rooting for this eventuality.
    - jcgrillo 2y ago
      No, I'm definitely not! But I can't imagine the US defense sector doing anything sensible otherwise.
- pjc50 2y ago
  "Drone" gets used to cover a lot of things; full aircraft sized Reaper/Predator drones down to toy-sized quadcopters. It's the latter which Ukraine has been developing, including a unique solution to ECM: the fiber-optic drone. Small drones do not assume the role of tanks. Drones assume the role of WW1 aircraft: artillery spotters and very light bombing capability. They have this role there because both sides have SAM superiority over the other's airforce. Drones solve the problem that combat aircraft are too expensive and too easy to shoot down.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > Small drones do not assume the role of tanks I'm not saying they do. I was replying to a comment.
  - FreebasingLLMs 2y ago
    > very light bombing capability. Define "light". Ukraine is fielding FPV drones with EFPs attached that can easily slice into anything armored.
V__ 2y ago
I would be really interested in a deep analysis. Ukraine doesn't have air superiority and the war has evolved into trench warfare.. thus drones are a very usefull tool. But would this still be the case for a conflict with US involvement?
- rtkwe 2y ago
  The major threat is SAM and other anti air. Maybe the US's stealth or long range cruise missiles would be enough to knock down and keep down the opponents anti air coverage but it's not guaranteed. Neither side has been able to gain safe access to the skies in this whole conflict, modern AA is just able to cover such a wide area it's hard to get ground assets close enough to strike.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > Maybe the US's stealth or long range cruise missiles would be enough to knock down and keep down the opponents anti air coverage but it's not guaranteed. That's what those capabilities are designed to do ("SEAD"), but they're very expensive. And so strategic that the US wasn't willing to let the Ukranians have any.
    - rtkwe 2y ago
      Of course yeah, the main thing is they've not really been tested in a while against OpFor radar or AA so I have some reservations about it actually working long term. The last time they really tested at all was 2003 during the second Iraq war. Even if they can knock out dedicated AA manpads could still pose a significant threat they haven't had to encounter in a while. If they work like they should on paper and can keep the opponents pinned to the ground under US air supremacy it'll be great but there's always that little doubt that it will work as well against a more evenly match opponent like a theoretical US v Russia/China when it's not punching down so far.
- tim333 2y ago
  If you think of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, maybe not during the initial attack but once there were troops on the ground they would likely be vulnerable.
moduspol 2y ago
Yep. It boggles my mind that we still do aircraft flyovers at big football games. Those should be drones doing coordinated light shows--even in heavy winds, rain, and unfavorable conditions. Just to show that we've mastered it, and that we can do it easily even when there are no stakes. My genuine hope is that secretly we actually are really good with drones and just strategically have decided not to broadcast it, but I don't think that's the way forward. It needs to be known that we've absolutely mastered them. You know, kind of like the Chinese have done with their drone shows at the Olympics and similar events.
- Syonyk 2y ago
  > My genuine hope is that secretly we actually are really good with drones and just strategically have decided not to broadcast it... What would you call the Reapers and such? The US has a massive fleet of large, armed drones, remotely operated, and quite a few are capable of being armed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicles_in_the_United_States_military#List_of_U.S._military_UAVs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicles_in_th... It's different from the consumer/small commercial drones being talked about here, but the US Military is pretty darn good at UAVs.
  - xnx 2y ago
    True. This is a very different class of drone. What is the defense against an adversary who releases a thousand quadcopter style drones against a US aircraft carrier?
    - nradov 2y ago
      The type of quadcopter style drones that can be produced in the thousands have very short range and limited sensors. How are they going to get to the aircraft carrier? The lessons learned in a land conflict in Eastern Europe have little relevance to the Pacific Theater, where the US Navy intends to focus now.
    - 00N8 2y ago
      The carriers aren't sailing around alone - they're escorted by a whole fleet (plus air patrol) that will intercept the drone launching vehicle at multiple dozen nautical miles range. Smaller quadcopter drones won't even get close to catching the carrier (which can travel over 40 kts while evading) before their batteries die. And even if a few hundred got through, how much damage can they really do? I'd imagine the flight decks can be patched quickly, although some radar equipment & any jets parked at the time of the attack would probably be lost. It's definitely a concern as part of a larger attack, but I don't think a quadcopter drone swarm alone is likely to sink a carrier or leave it combat ineffective in the long term.
nradov 2y ago
I guess you haven't been paying attention. The Marine Corps has divested its tanks in preparation for fighting an island-hopping campaign against China. https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2857680/force-design-2030-divesting-to-meet-the-future-threat/ https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2857680/fo...
- euroderf 2y ago
  It's pretty amazing that an American armed forces service gave up an entire lineup of weaponry. 2021: "The Marine Corps had more than 450 tanks prior to the deactivation of the tank battalions. To date, MCSC has transferred more than 400 tanks to the Army. The remaining tanks in the Marine Corps inventory are afloat globally on Maritime Prepositioning Ships and are scheduled for transfer to the Army over the next few years."

by xnx 2y ago

robertlagrant 2y ago

I'm pretty sure the US had drones before Ukraine occurred. The US does invest in drones. Maybe they will more, but we're probably a little way away from them assuming the role of tanks any time soon.

jcgrillo 2y ago
There's things like the Anduril Bolt. They cost like 100x as much as devices the Ukranians are building from cardboard. Another major innovation is TOW style fiber optic control which is immune to electronic countermeasures. There's definitely a lot to learn, but sadly necessity is the mother of invention and not since WW2 has manufacturing cost really been a serious concern for US defense production. Seems like we'll need a really big war to make that essential, and then there's an open question whether we'd actually be able to do it given that nobody knows how to do anything anymore.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > Seems like we'll need a really big war to make that essential, and then there's an open question whether we'd actually be able to do it given that nobody knows how to do anything anymore. I'm not sure if I'd be rooting for this eventuality.
  - jcgrillo 2y ago
    No, I'm definitely not! But I can't imagine the US defense sector doing anything sensible otherwise.
pjc50 2y ago
"Drone" gets used to cover a lot of things; full aircraft sized Reaper/Predator drones down to toy-sized quadcopters. It's the latter which Ukraine has been developing, including a unique solution to ECM: the fiber-optic drone. Small drones do not assume the role of tanks. Drones assume the role of WW1 aircraft: artillery spotters and very light bombing capability. They have this role there because both sides have SAM superiority over the other's airforce. Drones solve the problem that combat aircraft are too expensive and too easy to shoot down.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > Small drones do not assume the role of tanks I'm not saying they do. I was replying to a comment.
- FreebasingLLMs 2y ago
  > very light bombing capability. Define "light". Ukraine is fielding FPV drones with EFPs attached that can easily slice into anything armored.

V__ 2y ago

I would be really interested in a deep analysis. Ukraine doesn't have air superiority and the war has evolved into trench warfare.. thus drones are a very usefull tool. But would this still be the case for a conflict with US involvement?

rtkwe 2y ago
The major threat is SAM and other anti air. Maybe the US's stealth or long range cruise missiles would be enough to knock down and keep down the opponents anti air coverage but it's not guaranteed. Neither side has been able to gain safe access to the skies in this whole conflict, modern AA is just able to cover such a wide area it's hard to get ground assets close enough to strike.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > Maybe the US's stealth or long range cruise missiles would be enough to knock down and keep down the opponents anti air coverage but it's not guaranteed. That's what those capabilities are designed to do ("SEAD"), but they're very expensive. And so strategic that the US wasn't willing to let the Ukranians have any.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    Of course yeah, the main thing is they've not really been tested in a while against OpFor radar or AA so I have some reservations about it actually working long term. The last time they really tested at all was 2003 during the second Iraq war. Even if they can knock out dedicated AA manpads could still pose a significant threat they haven't had to encounter in a while. If they work like they should on paper and can keep the opponents pinned to the ground under US air supremacy it'll be great but there's always that little doubt that it will work as well against a more evenly match opponent like a theoretical US v Russia/China when it's not punching down so far.
tim333 2y ago
If you think of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, maybe not during the initial attack but once there were troops on the ground they would likely be vulnerable.

moduspol 2y ago

Yep. It boggles my mind that we still do aircraft flyovers at big football games. Those should be drones doing coordinated light shows--even in heavy winds, rain, and unfavorable conditions. Just to show that we've mastered it, and that we can do it easily even when there are no stakes. My genuine hope is that secretly we actually are really good with drones and just strategically have decided not to broadcast it, but I don't think that's the way forward. It needs to be known that we've absolutely mastered them. You know, kind of like the Chinese have done with their drone shows at the Olympics and similar events.

Syonyk 2y ago
> My genuine hope is that secretly we actually are really good with drones and just strategically have decided not to broadcast it... What would you call the Reapers and such? The US has a massive fleet of large, armed drones, remotely operated, and quite a few are capable of being armed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicles_in_the_United_States_military#List_of_U.S._military_UAVs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicles_in_th... It's different from the consumer/small commercial drones being talked about here, but the US Military is pretty darn good at UAVs.
- xnx 2y ago
  True. This is a very different class of drone. What is the defense against an adversary who releases a thousand quadcopter style drones against a US aircraft carrier?
  - nradov 2y ago
    The type of quadcopter style drones that can be produced in the thousands have very short range and limited sensors. How are they going to get to the aircraft carrier? The lessons learned in a land conflict in Eastern Europe have little relevance to the Pacific Theater, where the US Navy intends to focus now.
  - 00N8 2y ago
    The carriers aren't sailing around alone - they're escorted by a whole fleet (plus air patrol) that will intercept the drone launching vehicle at multiple dozen nautical miles range. Smaller quadcopter drones won't even get close to catching the carrier (which can travel over 40 kts while evading) before their batteries die. And even if a few hundred got through, how much damage can they really do? I'd imagine the flight decks can be patched quickly, although some radar equipment & any jets parked at the time of the attack would probably be lost. It's definitely a concern as part of a larger attack, but I don't think a quadcopter drone swarm alone is likely to sink a carrier or leave it combat ineffective in the long term.

nradov 2y ago

I guess you haven't been paying attention. The Marine Corps has divested its tanks in preparation for fighting an island-hopping campaign against China. https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2857680/force-design-2030-divesting-to-meet-the-future-threat/ https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2857680/fo...

euroderf 2y ago
It's pretty amazing that an American armed forces service gave up an entire lineup of weaponry. 2021: "The Marine Corps had more than 450 tanks prior to the deactivation of the tank battalions. To date, MCSC has transferred more than 400 tanks to the Army. The remaining tanks in the Marine Corps inventory are afloat globally on Maritime Prepositioning Ships and are scheduled for transfer to the Army over the next few years."