Transformation - Part Tres
Battles over military force structure and how the military evolves will continue for the foreseeable future. Yet to make informed decision, military leaders need to assess what long term risks and adversaries may be and anticipate potential tactics these adversaries may engage. For the most part, the military gets hung up on the last conflict and addresses the issues that created the past operational environment.
Taking a napkin assessment of potential geopolitical environment, there are potentially two conventional style warfare scenarios, consisting of a large force-on-force engagement starring conventional forces. The first scenario is armed conflict with China across maritime, territory, space, and cyber-space domains. The other possible scenario is what we now call hybrid warfare with the Russians, to include direct action on a limited scale for chunks of territory. But outside of those two scenarios, and to be honest I do not even see all out warfare with China, future combat will be messier and less conventional.
To meet the demands of a less predictable geopolitical world strategies, tactics, and procurements need to evolve, be more flexible, and resilient. Civilian and military leadership should view the Services' stated requirements with a critical eye, looking to the future operational environments, not past engagements. We are looking at a time of greater resource constraints and the military needs to become more efficient in effective on how to conduct warfare.
A major step forward would be to capitalize and bolster those areas where technology has advanced to be a force multiplier and limits the risk to the most significant military resource - its people. Let's be clear, I am talking about certain military specialties being wholesale replaced by technology.
A skill set where this replacement currently makes sense is fighter pilots. Instead of outlandish costs per unit (a new basic F-5 Raptor is now priced at approximately $160M) of advanced airframes and the associated costs to train and sustain a pilot's skills on an annual basis, the military would be better served to increase the number and capabilities of its UAV fleet (a Predator costs around $5 million per unit and Reapers around $13 million per unit).
An operational concept for a bolstered UAV fleet may be: swarm approach with geo-synched UAVs flying Nap of the Earth below enemy radar that engages with numerical superiority to overwhelm radar and air defenses. Initial UAV strike could be low numbers with EMP weaponry to disable radar, computer systems, communications systems, and anti aircraft weapons. Follow on armed UAVs would swarm (hunt) and overwhelm/engage ground troops, rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft, ground vehicles, and weapon systems. As a part of the arsenal other UAVs may be fitted as its own missile for specific target sets.
This approach reduces spiraling next generation fighter plane costs, decreases the number of pilots potentially lost, and reduces the overall costs associated with pilot training and skill sustainment. This is only one scenario, drone mini-subs, near shore ships, and tanks are other areas where similar transitions could be made. The question is if there are forward thinking military and defense civilians who will buck against tradition and the good ole-boy networks to take the military into the 21st century.
There are drawbacks to any advancement. Those military members who would be displaced will say that current UAVs do not have the capabilities they possess. This sentiment seems to me to be bravado and service members and alumni trying to remain relevant.
But there are some legitimate concerns with technological solutions. Warfare in the future will be across multiple domains and one of the most important will be the cyber domain. Adversaries will attempt to hack into military systems to launch a preemptive cyber attack, spread propaganda, or disable/sabotage weapon systems. All classes of drones will need redundant guidance systems with over ride capability and secondary network platforms to disable rouge or sabotaged drones.
This concept of furthering cheaper technologies to replace certain expensive procurements and military personnel will need defense leadership that refuses to remain stuck in the past. But for any of this to even become glimmer of reality, there needs to be a radical change in the military mindset of what warfare will look like in the future.
Taking a napkin assessment of potential geopolitical environment, there are potentially two conventional style warfare scenarios, consisting of a large force-on-force engagement starring conventional forces. The first scenario is armed conflict with China across maritime, territory, space, and cyber-space domains. The other possible scenario is what we now call hybrid warfare with the Russians, to include direct action on a limited scale for chunks of territory. But outside of those two scenarios, and to be honest I do not even see all out warfare with China, future combat will be messier and less conventional.
To meet the demands of a less predictable geopolitical world strategies, tactics, and procurements need to evolve, be more flexible, and resilient. Civilian and military leadership should view the Services' stated requirements with a critical eye, looking to the future operational environments, not past engagements. We are looking at a time of greater resource constraints and the military needs to become more efficient in effective on how to conduct warfare.
A major step forward would be to capitalize and bolster those areas where technology has advanced to be a force multiplier and limits the risk to the most significant military resource - its people. Let's be clear, I am talking about certain military specialties being wholesale replaced by technology.
A skill set where this replacement currently makes sense is fighter pilots. Instead of outlandish costs per unit (a new basic F-5 Raptor is now priced at approximately $160M) of advanced airframes and the associated costs to train and sustain a pilot's skills on an annual basis, the military would be better served to increase the number and capabilities of its UAV fleet (a Predator costs around $5 million per unit and Reapers around $13 million per unit).
An operational concept for a bolstered UAV fleet may be: swarm approach with geo-synched UAVs flying Nap of the Earth below enemy radar that engages with numerical superiority to overwhelm radar and air defenses. Initial UAV strike could be low numbers with EMP weaponry to disable radar, computer systems, communications systems, and anti aircraft weapons. Follow on armed UAVs would swarm (hunt) and overwhelm/engage ground troops, rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft, ground vehicles, and weapon systems. As a part of the arsenal other UAVs may be fitted as its own missile for specific target sets.
This approach reduces spiraling next generation fighter plane costs, decreases the number of pilots potentially lost, and reduces the overall costs associated with pilot training and skill sustainment. This is only one scenario, drone mini-subs, near shore ships, and tanks are other areas where similar transitions could be made. The question is if there are forward thinking military and defense civilians who will buck against tradition and the good ole-boy networks to take the military into the 21st century.
There are drawbacks to any advancement. Those military members who would be displaced will say that current UAVs do not have the capabilities they possess. This sentiment seems to me to be bravado and service members and alumni trying to remain relevant.
But there are some legitimate concerns with technological solutions. Warfare in the future will be across multiple domains and one of the most important will be the cyber domain. Adversaries will attempt to hack into military systems to launch a preemptive cyber attack, spread propaganda, or disable/sabotage weapon systems. All classes of drones will need redundant guidance systems with over ride capability and secondary network platforms to disable rouge or sabotaged drones.
This concept of furthering cheaper technologies to replace certain expensive procurements and military personnel will need defense leadership that refuses to remain stuck in the past. But for any of this to even become glimmer of reality, there needs to be a radical change in the military mindset of what warfare will look like in the future.
Comments
Post a Comment