• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Drones, the Air Littoral, and the Looming Irrelevance of the USAF

So not being quite up on drone tech, how vulnerable are they to being detected by things like radar etc?
Depends on their size, how far off the ground they fly, and what they’re made of.

First, I think that person has an axe to grind against Naval Aviation. But that’s neither here nor there.

Second, carriers (and their air wings) aren’t just used to strike land-based things. It is a main goal to project power, but a carrier is also a huge floating base to do whatever - humanitarian assistance being one. Or just the “soft power” of a Carrier Strike Group off your coast. The AEW aircraft also extends the radar bubble of the task force, and while the big threat is the sub threat, having a bunch of Absalons isn’t going to change that calculus.

Also, each Tomahawk isn’t going to land back at the arsenal ship if the mission gets “turned off” for any number of reasons.

Upon further thought, that article reminds me of the “why have manned interceptors/fighters when BOMARC missiles can do the same thing?” Argument in the 50s/60s.
 
Depends on their size, how far off the ground they fly, and what they’re made of.


First, I think that person has an axe to grind against Naval Aviation. But that’s neither here nor there.

No doubt re the axe grinding.

Second, carriers (and their air wings) aren’t just used to strike land-based things. It is a main goal to project power, but a carrier is also a huge floating base to do whatever - humanitarian assistance being one. Or just the “soft power” of a Carrier Strike Group off your coast. The AEW aircraft also extends the radar bubble of the task force, and while the big threat is the sub threat, having a bunch of Absalons isn’t going to change that calculus.

Point.

Also, each Tomahawk isn’t going to land back at the arsenal ship if the mission gets “turned off” for any number of reasons.

Upon further thought, that article reminds me of the “why have manned interceptors/fighters when BOMARC missiles can do the same thing?” Argument in the 50s/60s.

I'll agree that it is the same argument. Having said that I will note that technology is weighting the scales differently now. Maybe not terminally but certainly differently.
 

1725414686376.png 1725414725326.png 1725414958055.png
Kratos Valkyrie Kratos Mako Kratos BQM-177

Kratos Valkyre Loyal Wingman evolved from the Kratos Mako which evolved from the Kratos BQM-177 target.
The Valkyrie and Mako are both armed and the BQM-177 can carry stores.

All of them are using Shield AI.

The navy has decided to develop the AI on the cheapest of the platforms - the target system which is already well proven and exists in the inventory in large numbers.

 
Further to Shield's AI Hivemind (party political puff piece but still interesting)



....


1725477544105.png1725477620049.png
 
Also, each Tomahawk isn’t going to land back at the arsenal ship if the mission gets “turned off” for any number of reasons.

Saw that V-Bat article and it got me to thinking about tail-sitters landing on their butts and went looking for other examples. I came up with these.



Tomahawk is a vertically launched jet propelled intelligent munition. How long before Shield AI software is incorporated? How long before a ramjet is incorporated? Vertical recovery and landing?

My next prediction sees Frankie Zapata's Hoverboard merged with the V-Bat to supply a short hop transport for one person.

Better solution than this


The V-Bat would leave both hands free - and be easier to dismount.
 
Interesting pieces about:

EpiSci converting its AI Swarmware from aircraft to boats in weeks - aim to use same software in multiple domains
Shield AI working with a pair of Kratos Firejets
US Army's 101st Abn Div Multi-Functional Reconnaissance Company
(Side bar on HAMAS Resistance philosophy)

 

Are small units better with a C-RAM capability rather than a C-UAS capability?

A C-RAM capability would counter rockets, artillery and mortar projectiles and, I believe concurrently, FPV "drones". But does that unit need to be able to kill UAS systems?

My sense is that there is a working assumption that a mortar team might fly a drone over the enemy position to spot fall of shot and that the effective counter would be for the targeted unit to take out the spotter flying overhead.

But what happens if the spotter, a Mavic sized target, is flying 5 miles away and observing the target through a long lens. Will the targeted unit be able to see the spotter, or even be aware of it? Would it have a system on hand that could reach out that far to knock the spotter out the sky?
 
Anduril's new family


WASHINGTON — Arguing that many of today’s options don’t do the trick, Anduril worked to make up something quick: a new family of air-breathing, autonomous air vehicles, akin to cruise missiles or one-way drones, which the company calls “Barracuda.”

Unveiled today, the weapon comes in three configurations — the Barracuda-100, -250 and -500 — with each increasing in size and payload. According to the company, the largest configuration can offer a range of greater than 500 nautical miles and over 100 pounds of payload. The two smaller configurations have lower ranges and offer a payload of 35 pounds. The company says each of the three variants can fly at speeds of up to 500 knots.

“The problem that we are seeking to solve here … is America and our allies and partners do not have enough weapons, full stop. And we are not capable of producing the volume of weapons that we’re going to need to establish deterrence against a peer competitor,” Anduril Chief Strategy Officer Chris Brose said in a briefing with reporters ahead of the announcement.


While the Barracuda may be new to the public, Anduril Vice President for Air Dominance & Strike Diem Salmon revealed the weapon has been selected for the early stage of a joint Air Force and Defense Innovation Unit effort to develop a low-cost air vehicle.

Additionally, Salmon noted that the Barracuda can come in a -M configuration — denoting the qualities of a cruise missile or munition — and that modular features mean that the system is capable of “a lot of different things.” Working together in either manned-unmanned or purely unmanned teaming, Brose said Barracudas could offer different capabilities like decoys, target detection and strike.
 

The drone will decide if, say, an abandoned car near a road appears to be a threat or not. If it decides it's not then it wouldn't "bother the operator. The operator is doing something important," co-founder Matthew Buffa said. "I'm (the drone) not going to go on the radio and tell him about this random car I've seen,​


Don't worry boss. I've got this one!
 

View attachment 87743 View attachment 87744 View attachment 87745
Kratos Valkyrie Kratos Mako Kratos BQM-177

Kratos Valkyre Loyal Wingman evolved from the Kratos Mako which evolved from the Kratos BQM-177 target.
The Valkyrie and Mako are both armed and the BQM-177 can carry stores.

All of them are using Shield AI.

The navy has decided to develop the AI on the cheapest of the platforms - the target system which is already well proven and exists in the inventory in large numbers.



Further to ....

Feb 2023 - Kratos BQM-177 $902,000 each complete with ancillaries and launchers.


The US Navy has awarded Kratos Defense & Solutions a $49.6-million contract for the service’s BQM-177A Subsonic Aerial Target Lot 4 program.

The BQM-177A is a recoverable, high-subsonic target drone that imitates anti-cruise missile threats. It is used for fleet training and shipboard air defense tests.

Under the agreement, Kratos will deliver another 55 BQM-177A drones, mission kits, related flight consumables, and technical data to the navy.

Work on the contract will be conducted in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, and Sacramento, California.

The US Navy will allocate $227.6 million if the options for Lots 5 to 7 are exercised.


March 2024 - Kratos BQM-177 $823,000 each complete with ancillaries and launchers.


US-based military aerial target provider Kratos Defense & Security Solutions has received a $57.6m modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract from the US Department of Defense (DoD) to exercise options to procure full rate production Lot Five of the BQM-177A programme.

Under the terms of the deal, Kratos will provide for the production and delivery of 70 BQM-177A surface launched aerial targets and 70 rocket assisting takeoff attachment kits, as well as associated technical and administrative data in support of weapons system test, and evaluation, and fleet training for the US Navy.

August 2024 - USN contracts with Shield AI to add autonomy to Kratos BQM-177


The navy noted that the decision to leverage the Kratos drone was due to its lower unit cost and cost per flight hour, allowing progress at an “accelerated pace.”

...

The Air Force still wants run ways....


...

Seems to me that the loss of the RATO launch assist and the addition of landing gear is going to reduce range and payload and demand larger engines with more fuel and more cost - not to mention the cost of finding and maintaining airfields.

But without landing gear and pilots what is the difference between a Valkyrie UAV and a PrSM artillery missile?

My guess is that the USMC is quite content to look at the RATO launched Valkyrie in conjunction with the VTOL F35B, creating a support force that is independent of both runways and big deck carriers.

The USN may be looking at the Valkyrie/UTAP-22/BQM-177 as exceptionally bright and low cost Tomahawk and Harpoon replacements.

The USAF is struggling emotionally with the loss of its pilots. Can it afford to lose its runways as well?
 

Despite the headlines the US is still fiddle-farting around with Drones.



....

Meanwhile the US

Army embraces Ukraine-style warfare with new all-drone unit​

The 101st Airborne’s nine-man team is designed to coordinate fire, reconnoiter ahead of vehicles, and strike with loitering munitions.​

By Sam Skove
Staff Writer
September 19, 2024 03:55 PM ET

FORT JOHNSON, Louisiana—Staff Sgt. David Meyer peered intently into the screen of his hand-held drone controller, sweat slowly beading through his face paint in the 100-degree heat.

Somewhere below his quadcopter, an allied unit was under attack by Geronimo, the highly skilled force that plays the enemy in weeks-long wargames at the U.S. Army’s Joint Readiness Training Center here.

Meyer suspected the Geronimo troops of trying to trick his side into burning through its ammo. Then they’d melt back into the forest to strike again elsewhere. It’s the sort of game that comes naturally to Geronimo, whose home-team status gives them an unmatched knowledge of the training area’s 250,000 acres of pine forest.

This time, they may have underestimated their opponent.

Meyer was part of the new Lethal Unmanned Systems platoon, one of the Army’s first formations dedicated entirely to operating short-range reconnaissance drones. If Meyer’s drones could find Geronimo, they could bring the fire of an attached platoon of 81mm mortars and turn the opposition's raid into a disaster.

All Meyer had to do was find them.

The LUS platoon

In mid-August, Defense One spent an afternoon with LUS soldiers as they fought Geronimo.

The soldiers are members of the 101st Airborne’s second brigade, which had traveled to JRTC to test the Army’s “transforming-in-contact” initiative. Announced earlier this year, the effort is sending new equipment to the 101st's brigade, the 10th Mountain Division’s third brigade, the 25th Infantry Division’s second brigade. Soldiers are responsible for giving feedback and working out on new doctrine in conditions as close as possible to actual war.

The LUS platoon sits within the Multi-Purpose Company, or MPC, itself a new formation launched this April. The MPC’s four platoons—scout, mortar, anti-tank, and LUS—replace the old heavy weapons companies, which were downgraded to platoons in February.

Nine of the LUS platoon’s 21 soldiers fly drones, including Meyer and platoon leader 1st. Lt. Jahmir King. The rest are air defenders who use a mix of anti-aircraft weapons like Stinger missiles and counter-drone weapons, including the Bal Chatri drone detector, Dronebuster jamming rifle, and Modi electronic warfare system.

Just as in Ukraine, their drones are meant primarily to help spot enemy forces, and, if possible, coordinate indirect fire.

But unlike the Ukrainians, the LUS drone operators cannot directly stream their video to other soldiers. Instead, they must rely on an attached fire control officer to radio to the mortar section where they are seeing the rounds land. Similarly, LUS soldiers must upload data to battle-management systems to share it with commanders, in contrast to the banks of live drone video feeds that Ukrainian commanders use to survey the battlefield.

But the operators do have some ability to strike enemies themselves. Some of the drones can be rigged to drop munitions, and soldiers are trained to fly Switchblade loitering munitions systems. The unit was not practicing with the Switchblades at JRTC.

The unit can also use their drones for route reconnaissance, said MPC commander Captain Phil Tateyama. If the unit wants to quickly clear an area, a drone operator will fly a drone just ahead of the moving vehicle.

The platoon also carries a drone-borne electronic detection unit built on an ultracheap Raspberry Pi computer that can sniff for WiFi connections. To operate it, they’d temporarily brought along an Army cyber soldier.

The counter-drone unit, meanwhile, serves as a mobile defense force that can be split out as needed, with some members defending the command post and others assigned to the mortars, according to Tateyama and King.

Drones, lots of drones

The unit’s seven drone operators carry about five extra drones, but King said many more might be required in an actual war. In realistic training operations, such as the one they were on, he expected to have at least one drone down due to mechanical or other failures every other day.

Combat operations would likely increase that rate, he said.

“We’re going to start losing them, and then we’re out of a job,” said King.

The unit operates Parrot, Skydio, and Vesper drones, all small short-range systems with a flight time of under an hour. King said such systems could fly only one to three kilometers out before losing signal in the dense vegetation of Fort Johnson.

That meant the team had to be relatively close to the front line, placing them in easy range of Geronimo’s artillery and even their infantry.


Eventually, King and Tateyama said, they hope to equip the unit with medium-range drones like the C100. Smaller drones would then be assigned to the reconnaissance unit. Tateyama said those drones should most likely be operated by an experienced LUS member detailed to the recon unit.

King said they could move up to operating first-person-view drones — hobbyist racing drones that Ukraine uses for pinpoint strikes—although he added that the weeks of training necessary made it harder to employ such drones.

King said Skydio and Parrot drones performed well, with soldiers favoring the latter for its ability to identify the specific map coordinates of whatever object it looked at, which was useful for artillery coordination. A mechanical problem, however, meant that soldiers had not brought along the Parrot.

Drone soldiers

In contrast to previous Army drone operations, all of the LUS soldiers are infantrymen, rather than specialist operators.

“If you can drive semi-decent in [Grand Theft Auto],” then you can fly, said one soldier. To hone their skills, the unit practices drone operations on a special course back at Fort Campbell, their home base.

Soldiers also receive some training to recognize enemy vehicles, said King. Some features on the drone also help, such the Parrot’s ability to pinpoint the hottest parts of whatever it’s looking at. Using this feature, soldiers can easily identify exhaust pipes, thereby discovering vehicles.

Besides flying and processing drone footage, soldiers are also expected to keep the drones charged. Battery management in particular is a major concern in planning, said King.

“That’s what it’s about: how long can we stay on the objective.” One soldier said he kept extra batteries in the pouch typically used for dumping spent rifle magazines.

On top of all that, soldiers must also pull security. Ideally, King said he’d like to see three to four soldiers assigned to flying, data management, and security, for a maximum of 12 soldiers versus the seven they have now.

Hunting Geronimo

Back at the screen, Mayer soon ran into difficulty. In the sweltering heat of the Lousianna pine forest, the drone’s already limited batteries were eking out just 20 minutes of flight time—including only a few minutes over the objective.

To maximize coverage, the unit kept a fresh drone ready to go when one returned. But flight-safety rules forbid operating two drones at once.

As drone after drone buzzed into the sky, hope started to fade. For a brief moment, Meyer’s screen showed a Geronimo truck driving along the road—but then lost it.

Somewhere out there, Geronimo was still lurking, hidden beneath trees or simply beyond the range of the LUS platoon’s drone. They’d gotten away, if only for the moment.

A limited number of short range drones, small number of operators, restricted flight rules, no FPV, no low level distribution, limited data distribution, centralized fire control through existing fire control chain of command.....

More, faster....
 
Despite the headlines the US is still fiddle-farting around with Drones.

Big militaries who have substantially more depth in their Combined Arms toolkit will not see drones the same way as a country that has no choice but to attempt to create the capabilities they need with these drones.

Too many of you are watching the Ukraine war and not properly absorbing lessons learned. If the US Army has to rely on trench warfare with drones, we'll really be in trouble.
 
Big militaries who have substantially more depth in their Combined Arms toolkit will not see drones the same way as a country that has no choice but to attempt to create the capabilities they need with these drones.

Too many of you are watching the Ukraine war and not properly absorbing lessons learned. If the US Army has to rely on trench warfare with drones, we'll really be in trouble.


The Army wants to buy drones in the “kind of quantities” it buys munitions, Army acquisition chief Doug Bush said Wednesday during an webcast with Defense News.

“We need them potentially at very large scale and very quickly,” said Bush. “They're somewhere between a munition and the way we think about a large platform,” he added.


U.S. industry is not ready to produce the hundreds of thousands of drones that may be needed in a major war,

The US Army seems to be giving consideration to both facing and using lots and lots of drones, LAMs and FPVs.
 






The US Army seems to be giving consideration to both facing and using lots and lots of drones, LAMs and FPVs.
Backing up to what @ytz said, the use of drones is in part bc Ukraine didn’t have peer levels of military capability.

It’s obviously hard to say what it would have been like otherwise but I suspect it wouldn’t be folks making them in their garages.

I’m not saying that the lessons aren’t valid but I think it’s one tool in the toolbox, not the silver bullet
 
Backing up to what @ytz said, the use of drones is in part bc Ukraine didn’t have peer levels of military capability.

It’s obviously hard to say what it would have been like otherwise but I suspect it wouldn’t be folks making them in their garages.

I’m not saying that the lessons aren’t valid but I think it’s one tool in the toolbox, not the silver bullet

For clarity's sake: I have never proposed any piece of kit as a silver bullet. Drones or otherwise.

I anticipate that any fight will be sufficiently dire that both parties will chuck everything they can at the other chap to achieve their ends.

From my position that means trying to figure out how much damage any single piece of kit can do if it is the only tool left in the box.

If we have lots of options - brilliant.

On the other hand in February 2022 the Kremlin and the Pentagon were strongly of the opinion that Zelensky's best CoA was to get out of Dodge because he had nothing to chuck. And here we are, coming up on three years later, with the Ukrainians and the Russians both managing to create effects that are stymying conventional systems.

...

Again I point out that Mills bombs, Lewis guns and Stokes mortars all were novelties in their day. As was the percussion cap. As were the PIAT, Panzerfaust and Bazooka.

I anticipate that the drones will become just as indispensible as those systems.
 
For clarity's sake: I have never proposed any piece of kit as a silver bullet. Drones or otherwise.

I anticipate that any fight will be sufficiently dire that both parties will chuck everything they can at the other chap to achieve their ends.

From my position that means trying to figure out how much damage any single piece of kit can do if it is the only tool left in the box.

If we have lots of options - brilliant.

On the other hand in February 2022 the Kremlin and the Pentagon were strongly of the opinion that Zelensky's best CoA was to get out of Dodge because he had nothing to chuck. And here we are, coming up on three years later, with the Ukrainians and the Russians both managing to create effects that are stymying conventional systems.

...

Again I point out that Mills bombs, Lewis guns and Stokes mortars all were novelties in their day. As was the percussion cap. As were the PIAT, Panzerfaust and Bazooka.

I anticipate that the drones will become just as indispensible as those systems.
Oh definitely. I don’t think anyone will fight without it at this point.

But, I will disagree with people saying that this is the only way to go and to disband heavy armour, etc. based on the Russian losses
 
I thinks it’s often the case that the people who advance the case for elimination of weapons platform A,B or C because XYZ is a “game changer”, aren’t the people who have to do the fighting without A,B or C.

Battleships, I guess, might be an example of displacement by new technology, but battleship functions (NGS, ship to ship gunnery) are still part of naval warfare and will be for some time to come. So while one might be able to dispense with certain functions of tanks, the purposes of tank warfare (whatever those are) I imagine remain relevant.
 
Back
Top