As I often do, I turn this space over to my professional self this day, and think out loud a bit about a remarkable event last week in Washington DC when the Indo-Pacific Commander ADM Sam Paparo brought some big medicine to the think tank community.
I’m not a military person and I agree with this post. As I see it the problem with unmanned vehicles is that sensory input is fed through a bottle neck cutting off ongoing information that could be vital. Like when you meet on Zoom, or in 2D, rather than in person, 3D. There’s more gained on sight. Of course the trade off is personnel risk. You need personnel on the ground to capture what is actually happening and articulate it up the chain. History has shown that drones, while precise in its targeting can be detrimental in the outcome. Obama learned that in Afghanistan using drones seek out an enemy combatant only to kill half a villiage along with the target. It comes back later to haunt you. If you’re looking for a needle in a haystack, destroying the haystack may not achieve your goal. Obama’s actions didn’t win us any friends and look at the situation now. Our drones while usually completing its mission successfully, help defeat our overall goal. Unmanned weapons are a tool in the belt, but shouldn’t replace the belt.
Since you raised it, what is your opinion of the Eddie Gallagher stuff? I’m agnostic on the subject and have heard some from both sides. I don’t know what to think.
I noticed when asked about putting replicator drones out there, will they ride on ships? Adm. Paparo said, yes. This was his only answer on Replicator where he did not say he isn't going to talk about it. It will be interesting to see when they veil is lifted.
On unmanned/manned. I think we are missing the small yet manned force multiplier with the larger unmanned platforms that would have the legs for the Pacific. Larger unmanned will still need man scaled access areas to get aboard for maintenance. Minimal manning would create a lot of flexibility we don't have otherwise. We still have the ability to quickly create a small fleet in being in this space and start building out more with the final naval design similar to Hawaii Superferry and EPF. We have Mariner, Ranger and Vanguard. We could go buy and add similar hulls:
Liam, Ava, and Alya McCall (Najla got sold to the UAE)
Additional hulls could be built at the original yard, Gulf Craft LLC. We should probably have them partner with Metal Shark's yard on the other side of the highway given that yard is working on LRUSV and a few other unmanned/autonomous platforms. Several other aluminum yards could also be building these.
I think we see other open paths for larger unmanned platforms. Metal Shark has the 40' PB and the unmanned version of it LRUSV for the Marines. If you look more into the Marines Whiskey Boat, Metal Shak's Prowler also looks a lot like the unmanned version of it. I could see us doing something similar with the MUSVs where we have an unmanned patrol boat/missile boat/corvette out there with the optionally manned ships. This hull would be more useful than continuing FRC hulls in haze gray. I'd also look at a 35 meter aluminum unmanned combatant as we could get a ship that size out in quantity as well and flood the littoral areas when needed.
All, good, and the Hulls in the water at end game discussions are spot on. But one point; Where's the plan to Man them with competent folks, that invest in careers in that service? Where's the incentive, and rewards? More importantly, where's the mindset in the target population that makes this something important and worthwhile? That's the other 'long pole" in this tent. And I give you that the lead time to address this is not small.
Ego... The DEI elements in play in education /organizations that do no not acknowledge merit, skill, an demonstrated leadership, regardless of who the person is, should not just be removed, they must be refuted with reality. Or to paraphrase that old reality check truism....."DEI Can Get you Killed"....al a "Can Do can get you Killed..." Food for thought, and action
Agree, with your point completely. I was thinking of adding the following to the first paragraph, but in the end, didn't. But you just made the point. (See MSC Manning item ..... the canary in the coal mine, if you will, with reality implications.)
It seems to me that "integrating manned and unmanned systems into the future of Naval warfare" presently depends on conjecture. Unless the U.S. has a Plan that fits the scope of the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans rather than only the constricted waters of the Baltic and Black Seas.
(I served aboard combatants deployed for NATO NORLANT exercises and BALTOPS and aboard the former Naval Field Station in Sinop TU; I'm familiar with the basic geographies involved.)
A couple of points to consider:
- Adversaries will always attempt to discover and disrupt secure communication links.
- Support infrastructure for unmanned systems will overburden existing logistics chains because their depth and extent are unknown.
I don't mention the "Peace Dividend"; it significantly and deleteriously affected me, and I'm not a shipyard.
Yes, we need both manned and unmanned systems. The arguments will be around how many and what kind. The answer to those arguments, unfortunately, will be answered, only, by the experience of a hot war against a peer adversary. Like the arguments about battleships and aviation pre WW2. We found we needed both. The battleships to provide support for the carriers.
Good capture in your post. How did we get our small Navy of today? We started with a big fleet years ago and slowly whittled it down. How do we get our small Navy of 2051? Begin another cycle up to a big Navy in 203x. To get there, the US and USN require a comprehensive long term shipping approach to build up the infrastruture, fleet, and active/civilian personnel it will take to build the big fleet. Yes, it's challenging, expensive, and will require bi-partisan dedication. But it really is that simple. There really is no option if we want to maintain our martitime capabilities. Regardless of improvements in unmanned, digital, autonomous, there is no replacement for hardware in low latency proximity to the point of need.
Bryan: I cannot agree more with you and Admiral Paparo. The enduring need for manned naval ships is clear and the lack of platforms to execute our declared strategy for the Indo-Pacific is painfully apparent. As is obvious, the industrial base to build and support the hybrid fleet we need is woefully inadequate. A well funded plan to restore our atrophied shipbuilding and ship repair capacity should be a national priority. We could begin by diverting hundreds of billions from the transformation of fossil fuel dependent sectors—especially transportation—to reopening the shipyards that were shuttered when we downsized the Cold War Navy in the 1990s (to realize a “peace dividend”). The misnamed Inflation Reduction Act could be the bank which funds the restoration of capacity and the education of the skilled workforce needed to man it!
One consideration critical to operating the hybrid fleet and fighting putative foes in the Indo Pacific is our dependence on the space based systems which enable intelligence, targeting and communications today. Absent means to protect these systems in the first days of a major conflict, even an expanded hybrid fleet will not meet the challenge we face from larger more primitive foes!
Agreed, Admiral. Space sometimes shapes up like a "red line" in games I play, both as a condition of the game and as a practice by the sides. I'm not sure it will shake out that way.
Thanks for the terrific posting. It was a well attended event, insightful and as you stated, a very candid presentation by Paparo. Regarding the comments on the two SECNAVs, I would probably add the CNO as well, in my opinion.
I’m not a military person and I agree with this post. As I see it the problem with unmanned vehicles is that sensory input is fed through a bottle neck cutting off ongoing information that could be vital. Like when you meet on Zoom, or in 2D, rather than in person, 3D. There’s more gained on sight. Of course the trade off is personnel risk. You need personnel on the ground to capture what is actually happening and articulate it up the chain. History has shown that drones, while precise in its targeting can be detrimental in the outcome. Obama learned that in Afghanistan using drones seek out an enemy combatant only to kill half a villiage along with the target. It comes back later to haunt you. If you’re looking for a needle in a haystack, destroying the haystack may not achieve your goal. Obama’s actions didn’t win us any friends and look at the situation now. Our drones while usually completing its mission successfully, help defeat our overall goal. Unmanned weapons are a tool in the belt, but shouldn’t replace the belt.
“war-crimes charges,”
Since you raised it, what is your opinion of the Eddie Gallagher stuff? I’m agnostic on the subject and have heard some from both sides. I don’t know what to think.
No opinion.
Post is spot on. Thanks.
I noticed when asked about putting replicator drones out there, will they ride on ships? Adm. Paparo said, yes. This was his only answer on Replicator where he did not say he isn't going to talk about it. It will be interesting to see when they veil is lifted.
On unmanned/manned. I think we are missing the small yet manned force multiplier with the larger unmanned platforms that would have the legs for the Pacific. Larger unmanned will still need man scaled access areas to get aboard for maintenance. Minimal manning would create a lot of flexibility we don't have otherwise. We still have the ability to quickly create a small fleet in being in this space and start building out more with the final naval design similar to Hawaii Superferry and EPF. We have Mariner, Ranger and Vanguard. We could go buy and add similar hulls:
Liam, Ava, and Alya McCall (Najla got sold to the UAE)
Additional hulls could be built at the original yard, Gulf Craft LLC. We should probably have them partner with Metal Shark's yard on the other side of the highway given that yard is working on LRUSV and a few other unmanned/autonomous platforms. Several other aluminum yards could also be building these.
I think we see other open paths for larger unmanned platforms. Metal Shark has the 40' PB and the unmanned version of it LRUSV for the Marines. If you look more into the Marines Whiskey Boat, Metal Shak's Prowler also looks a lot like the unmanned version of it. I could see us doing something similar with the MUSVs where we have an unmanned patrol boat/missile boat/corvette out there with the optionally manned ships. This hull would be more useful than continuing FRC hulls in haze gray. I'd also look at a 35 meter aluminum unmanned combatant as we could get a ship that size out in quantity as well and flood the littoral areas when needed.
All, good, and the Hulls in the water at end game discussions are spot on. But one point; Where's the plan to Man them with competent folks, that invest in careers in that service? Where's the incentive, and rewards? More importantly, where's the mindset in the target population that makes this something important and worthwhile? That's the other 'long pole" in this tent. And I give you that the lead time to address this is not small.
Ego... The DEI elements in play in education /organizations that do no not acknowledge merit, skill, an demonstrated leadership, regardless of who the person is, should not just be removed, they must be refuted with reality. Or to paraphrase that old reality check truism....."DEI Can Get you Killed"....al a "Can Do can get you Killed..." Food for thought, and action
DEI blows, but it isn't what keeps them from service. Cash. Cash is king. Pay them more and they will come.
Also, remove outdated or irrelevant obstacles. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/11/improve-recruiting-make-medical-standards-match-retention-ones/401240/?oref=d1-homepage-river
Agree, with your point completely. I was thinking of adding the following to the first paragraph, but in the end, didn't. But you just made the point. (See MSC Manning item ..... the canary in the coal mine, if you will, with reality implications.)
It seems to me that "integrating manned and unmanned systems into the future of Naval warfare" presently depends on conjecture. Unless the U.S. has a Plan that fits the scope of the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans rather than only the constricted waters of the Baltic and Black Seas.
(I served aboard combatants deployed for NATO NORLANT exercises and BALTOPS and aboard the former Naval Field Station in Sinop TU; I'm familiar with the basic geographies involved.)
A couple of points to consider:
- Adversaries will always attempt to discover and disrupt secure communication links.
- Support infrastructure for unmanned systems will overburden existing logistics chains because their depth and extent are unknown.
I don't mention the "Peace Dividend"; it significantly and deleteriously affected me, and I'm not a shipyard.
Yes, we need both manned and unmanned systems. The arguments will be around how many and what kind. The answer to those arguments, unfortunately, will be answered, only, by the experience of a hot war against a peer adversary. Like the arguments about battleships and aviation pre WW2. We found we needed both. The battleships to provide support for the carriers.
Good capture in your post. How did we get our small Navy of today? We started with a big fleet years ago and slowly whittled it down. How do we get our small Navy of 2051? Begin another cycle up to a big Navy in 203x. To get there, the US and USN require a comprehensive long term shipping approach to build up the infrastruture, fleet, and active/civilian personnel it will take to build the big fleet. Yes, it's challenging, expensive, and will require bi-partisan dedication. But it really is that simple. There really is no option if we want to maintain our martitime capabilities. Regardless of improvements in unmanned, digital, autonomous, there is no replacement for hardware in low latency proximity to the point of need.
Bryan: I cannot agree more with you and Admiral Paparo. The enduring need for manned naval ships is clear and the lack of platforms to execute our declared strategy for the Indo-Pacific is painfully apparent. As is obvious, the industrial base to build and support the hybrid fleet we need is woefully inadequate. A well funded plan to restore our atrophied shipbuilding and ship repair capacity should be a national priority. We could begin by diverting hundreds of billions from the transformation of fossil fuel dependent sectors—especially transportation—to reopening the shipyards that were shuttered when we downsized the Cold War Navy in the 1990s (to realize a “peace dividend”). The misnamed Inflation Reduction Act could be the bank which funds the restoration of capacity and the education of the skilled workforce needed to man it!
One consideration critical to operating the hybrid fleet and fighting putative foes in the Indo Pacific is our dependence on the space based systems which enable intelligence, targeting and communications today. Absent means to protect these systems in the first days of a major conflict, even an expanded hybrid fleet will not meet the challenge we face from larger more primitive foes!
Agreed, Admiral. Space sometimes shapes up like a "red line" in games I play, both as a condition of the game and as a practice by the sides. I'm not sure it will shake out that way.
Bryan,
Thanks for the terrific posting. It was a well attended event, insightful and as you stated, a very candid presentation by Paparo. Regarding the comments on the two SECNAVs, I would probably add the CNO as well, in my opinion.
Wish you a safe and happy vacation.
Best,
Nigel