Drones and Idiocy

In Which I Respond to Mr. Musk

“Meanwhile, some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.”

Elon Musk, Tweet

When a general category of one’s beliefs is challenged, it should cause reflection, as well-intentioned evaluation of one’s presumptions is a sign of a supple mind. When the challenge is issued by a world figure of recognized and deserved esteem, the requirement for reflection becomes urgent, as the chasm of accomplishment and acuity between Mr. Musk and myself is vast. This essay then, is the record of that internal inquiry.

Because of my great respect for Mr. Musk, I will assume that the Tweet above represents his view, that it is not—as is the custom of so many on Twitter—a clickbait seeking excretion of one’s glands aiming for the payoff of sweet dopamine, an off-hand conversation starter that is “of course” not representative of a full and complete position. No, those sorts of remarks are beneath Mr. Musk, whose scores of billions of dollars of investment in the Twitter platform serve at the very least as a signal of his seriousness and intentionality when using it.

I undertake this accounting in an effort not to be counted among the Habsburg Old Guard or the Battleship Admirals, not to mention the by association earning the dred banner of Muskian idiot. I find myself firmly believing in the relevance of manned fighter aircraft to include their continuing construction, even as I see great promise in an increasing reliance on unmanned fighter aircraft.

A complete understanding of Mr. Musk’s view demands both a literal interpretation of his Tweet and an excursion into its forseeable extenstions and implications. We will start with the literal.

That “some idiots” are still building manned fighter jets must surely extend to the government of the nation in which he resides, the United States of America, and into which he will shortly begin service as a super-empowered efficiency watchdog. Taking Mr. Musk at his word and his view to its logical conclusion, he would advocate that the United States immediately cease production of manned fighter aircraft. This is not an overreaction to his stated view. From HIS words, one can logically discern that those building manned fighters are “idiots”, and by extension, that continuing to building manned fighter jets would be idiocy. It is quite logical to assume that the continuation of something that is “idiotic”, is itself, idiotic, and therefore must be discontinued.

Mr. Musk—in the tweet above—included video of a great number of small, unmanned vehicles operating in breathtaking precision, a feat of technology and engineering that should both inspire and worry. Because it accompanied the words reproduced above, it is reasonable for the viewer to assume that Mr. Musk sees a connection between the hundreds of UAV’s and the continuing idiocy of building manned fighter jets. It is not unreasonable to assume that Mr. Musk believes that the one—legions of small UAV’s—justifies the end of the other—manned fighter jets. His choice of video. His choice of words. A serious man should be taken seriously, and so I assume he means for readers to be persuaded that the one could do the job of the other. Not in the future, but NOW, as it would only be reasonable to assume that he advocates for the cessation of the aforementioned idiocy, the continuing construction of manned fighters.

I am skeptical—considerably more skeptical than Mr. Musk apparently—that the capacity and capability of the nation’s force of F-35 jets of its various forms can be replaced, today, by unmanned platforms. When thinking about UAV’s, there are three general virtues that attend (not counting cost, which rules them all): stealth, range, and capability. The rule of thumb is that you can always get one, sometimes achieve two, and that attaining all three with current and envisioned technology is improbale. When we cast our eyes on the drones Mr. Musk suggests are capable of replacing the F-35, we see aircraft that check off at best, two of the three—stealth and capability. They are likely stealthy by virtue of their design, but more imporantly, their size. Their size greatly restricts their range, as range is a function of fuel or power, both of which require greater form factors to scale up to longer range. Because the drones are not only small and therefore range limited, their payload—or capabilty is also limited. As I assess the capability that Mr. Musk believes replaces the F-35, I see insufficient range and capability, even with hundreds of them operating in a network. And so I am left with no alternative but to believe Mr. Musk and his tweet are in the wrong, and on this matter, I am satisfied that my presumptions have been sufficiently examined.

But Bryan, you say, he is clearly not asserting this. He is using the small, modestly capable drones as a stand-in for the idea of larger platforms that would solve the range and capability problems. The first thing I would say is that this is the wrong way to view Mr. Musk’s assertion. He—and others who share his confidence in emerging technology—DO believe that these small drones make manned fighters obsolete. How do I know that? He Tweeted it. As for what concept of employment Mr. Musk would apply to this technology that would enable it to replace a mutli-mission, 1000 mile combat radius F-35 with a full range of offensive weapons, we are left to guess. My first question would be how these (in his video, VERY short range) drones find their way to the battle—at sea, in the air, or on land. I don’t mean how they target or navigate, but how they physically arrive there? Some other platform—unnamed and presumably undeveloped—must ferry them there. That platform then would be subject to all of the limitations of manned aircraft that Mr. Musk seems keen to overcome (including size and vulnerability).

But let’s say Mr. Musk IS making a stand-in argument, that he REALLY means that he would like to see unmanned fighter aircraft of the size that would be sufficiently stealthy, with adequate range, and a diverse set of capabilities. Were that aircraft to exist, I would be open to the suggestion that we cease to manufacture manned fighter jets. But that aircraft does not exist. It does not exist, but it is not for not trying. There are billions of dollars going into various efforts to achieve this very thing. There are of course, cost, technical, and schedule risks associated with these efforts. Would Mr. Musk have us bet on the come, cease the manufacture of manned fighter jets in order to apply more resources to the problem of proper unmanned strike/fighters even as our most pressing challenge (China) builds capable fighters on a war production footing? If this is his intention, I again find him in the wrong, and my presumptions sufficiently examined.

One final thought on unmanned fighters; even if the technology existed to achieve the inferred design of even a stand-in argument, the cost would be astronomical. This breezy sense that we can mass produce effective unmanned mass is simply unproven in our existing industrial base.

In all honestly, what caught my eye about Mr. Musk’s Tweet was not the Tweet per se, but the implications it suggests to the field that I usually till, seapower, and its unloved step-child, shipbuilding. The web is replete with former junior Hill staffers stocking their online submission portfolios with missive after missive about how this Navy platform or that is obsolete and should be replaced by unmanned technology. Mr. Musk’s unfortunate Tweet provided this technological bro-culture with the high cover and intellectual legitimacy that their arguments alone have not earned.

In general, I think we have not sufficently thought through the implications of what more unmanned platforms mean, at sea or in the skies. Does the lack of a beating heart onboard lower the risk calculus in destroying a drone? If so, is this not itself destabilizing, as it lowers the bar for the recourse to aggression? Obviously, this alone would not be sufficient to NOT build unmanned platforms; that would be “idiocy”. But what roles unmanned play and how we treat their destruction must be deeply considered.

That said, I wholeheartedly believe that unmanned platforms will play a huge part in the future of the Navy. Furthermore, I believe that automation will continue to lessen the manpower requirements on manned ships. This should not be a controversial postion.

Unfortunately, in the Navy’s Surface Force, the speed with which unmanned capabilities have joined the fleet in order to supplement and maximize fleet capability has been disappointing. Given the time and money spent already on manned/unmanned teaming, we ought to have more to show for it. That other claims on resources had higher priority is not only asserted, but it is true. In an administration that valued seapower and shipbuilding, more ships would get built, both with crews and without.

But like the case of manned fighter jets, the suggestion—made by others and logically inferred from Mr. Musk’s Tweet—that manned warships are obsolete simply does not pass the sniff test. Navy leadership does not, not want unmanned warships. It wants unmanned warships that are technologically ready to extend existing capabilities without exerting increased demands on the manned fleet. The state of technology does not currently support this. Thus, we “idiots” continue to advocate for building more manned warships EVEN AS WE advocate for a powerful fleet of unmanned. Abandoning the one of the promise of the other is unwise, and I once again find my presumption to be examined.

Mr. Musk has contributed greatly to the world we live in, and I am grateful for his contributions. He is very good at a good many things, but I fear military force planning is not among them.