Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

[Brett327]

I don’t know if this is the correct post to put this in per se, but there is a discussion in here about missions and training. What is the current opinion in here about the Navy (and U.S armed forces in general) training when it comes to facing the potential drone threat in the next big “war”?

That’s a really vague and open ended question. What kind of drones are you talking about? One need only look at the many recent engagements with the Houthis to see what our capabilities are against that kind of drone threat. That’s obviously different than what our capabilities might be against a random DJI (or 10) with a grenade type weapon. The Navy just created a new rate to focus on this capability… the RW. As with any kind of warfare, we’re always playing catch-up, to an extent. C’est la vie.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Don't get in a protracted land war with your conventional army against an enemy with lots of drones? I think this is just the latest chapter being written on asymmetric warfare........and I'd submit it is remarkably easy to avoid asymmetric scenarios as the sole super power of the world. We just aren't good at avoiding them until the citizens start grumbling. I might be alone here, but I don't think the $500 drone and bomb changes the face of warfare like the internet nerds do. Maybe for the grunts, but there are so many ways to counter that threat, it is astounding the russians haven't to a large extent. Sucks to suck or be a russian douchebag. I'm fairly certain there was a time in my life when they were giving back alley BJ's in exchange for ammo. Not exactly a great comparison to our own capabilities.

 

[Spekkio]

I think this is just the latest chapter being written on asymmetric warfare........and I'd submit it is remarkably easy to avoid asymmetric scenarios as the sole super power of the world. We just aren't good at avoiding them until the citizens start grumbling. I might be alone here, but I don't think the $500 drone and bomb changes the face of warfare like the internet nerds do. Maybe for the grunts, but there are so many ways to counter that threat, it is astounding the russians haven't to a large extent.

I think something that often gets overlooked in the Russian / Ukrainian conflict is Russia's inability to establish air superiority / utilize CAS to any significant degree for various reasons - lack of proficiency, corrupt / incompetent leadership, lack of precision munitions require low flight profiles, effectiveness of western AA systems, etc.

Russia's doctrine was always tank-heavy, and drones are well suited to countering that threat when there is nothing protecting them.

Will it completely revolutionize warfare - by that I mean, our doctrine? I don't think so. Does it create a new threat (and capability) to address in joint warfare at the tactical level? Sure.

I would wager if a nation attempted to fight us the way that Ukraine is fighting Russia, it would look a lot like Germany punching through the Maginot Line. Don't interpret that to mean we would completely mop the floor with them just because it's quick - Germany took a lot of casualties invading France and lost a ton of tanks and aircraft.

 

[Hair Warrior]

Will it completely revolutionize warfare - by that I mean, our doctrine?

I would say yes, drone warfare has already revolutionized warfare. Drone and counterdrone capabilities are now the first (and deadliest) thing infantry forces will encounter on the battlefield. The side with the most capable (and numerous) drones is going to have an asymmetric advantage. This includes uncrewed armored vehicles, surface ships, and combat aircraft as well.

 

[Brett327]

I would say yes, drone warfare has already revolutionized warfare. Drone and counterdrone capabilities are now the first (and deadliest) thing infantry forces will encounter on the battlefield.

I would say that this is an absurd statement based on a single conflict, where the capability you’ve claimed to be revolutionary hasn’t even provided its primary user an outcome determinative advantage. I’m not saying that UKR hasn’t used drones in a very effective way, but part of that equation is how incredibly bad Russia’s military has been.

 

[Hair Warrior]

I would say that this is an absurd statement based on a single conflict, where the capability you’ve claimed to be revolutionary hasn’t even provided its primary user an outcome determinative advantage. I’m not saying that UKR hasn’t used drones in a very effective way, but part of that equation is how incredibly bad Russia’s military has been.

If it’s so absurd, why is every service in the US military fielding and adopting drones? Including uncrewed surface ships, combat aircraft, etc.

 

[Randy Daytona]

I would say yes, drone warfare has already revolutionized warfare. Drone and counterdrone capabilities are now the first (and deadliest) thing infantry forces will encounter on the battlefield. The side with the most capable (and numerous) drones is going to have an asymmetric advantage. This includes uncrewed armored vehicles, surface ships, and combat aircraft as well.

If the article and quote are correct, it is interesting that the priority targets appear to have recently changed from rocket launchers and tanks to drone operators.

Ukraine's drone pilots are overhauling which Russian targets they think matter most, and tanks have fallen far from the top

Kills on tanks and multiple launch rocket systems used to offer the top bonus for Ukraine's drone pilots. That's now changed dramatically.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Brett327]

If it’s so absurd, why is every service in the US military fielding and adopting drones? Including uncrewed surface ships, combat aircraft, etc.

That militaries are adopting a new capability doesn’t imply that it’s revolutionary. I think theres potential that their use becomes a more significant aspect of how we fight, but the UKR/RUS example you cited is patently absurd.

 

[Hair Warrior]

That militaries are adopting a new capability doesn’t imply that it’s revolutionary. I think theres potential that their use becomes a more significant aspect of how we fight, but the UKR/RUS example you cited is patently absurd.

I did not cite RUS/UKR.

 

[Brett327]

I did not cite RUS/UKR.

Your claim that it is revolutionary was in response was to a post about UKR/RUS. Where else is this capability being used in a significant way against infantry forces? By all means, clarify your position, but what else would you have us conclude by reading your reply to a post about UKR?

 

[Hotdogs]

Your claim that it is revolutionary was in response was to a post about UKR/RUS. Where else is this capability being used in a significant way against infantry forces? By all means, clarify your position, but what else would you have us conclude by reading your reply to a post about UKR?

There's an answer to this question, but let's see if @Hair Warrior can find it.

 

[JTS11]

I don't know what is "revolutionary" or not, but this is:

https://x.com/SarahLongwell25/status/1939842827036578035

I'm expecting a product review from @robav8r post-haste.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Here are the three "logical conclusions" I can envision an unmanned/drone warfare "revolution" becoming:

1) They become highly effective at destroying each other (drones), and there is a bizarre air war or drone war of unmanned systems just purely killing other unmanned systems. Nothing is accomplished since human combatants and civilians don't die in large numbers, or in any manner that would affect the outcome/original state of affairs that led to conflict.

2) The drone thunder dome does not get created and there is asymmetry. One side executes an effective campaign of terror, prevails on the battlefield, and the next war returns to an outcome described in #1. Or before defeat, nuclear war ensues.

3) Drones become an accepted tool in the battlefield toolbox, and have strengths and limitations, like any other weapon system. They will be effective at the tactical level at times.

I suppose you can guess which option my money is on

 

[Hair Warrior]

Your claim that it is revolutionary was in response was to a post about UKR/RUS. Where else is this capability being used in a significant way against infantry forces? By all means, clarify your position, but what else would you have us conclude by reading your reply to a post about UKR?

Let’s see where else…
1 Gaza
2 Azerbaijan quite extensively
3 Syria
4 China
5 Russia
6 several countries in Africa
7 Mexico
8 Haiti
9 Venezuela
10 major defense companies
11 DPRK potentially in future

Some are those against infantry specifically, since you seem to want to narrow the focus. Exhibits 1 and 2 are telling. Some are used more broadly than that. Exhibit 5 some might consider a new leg of nuclear deterrence. Exhibit 7 is nonstate. Exhibit 8 is LE (if you can even call it that). Exhibit 11 has not been used yet, but could result in changes to future planning assumptions for a conflict on the peninsula.

When the USMC is looking at reshaping the composition of its infantry squad due to it, I'd call that a doctrinal change in the DOTMLPF sense. I don't think drones are going away, they've routinely defeated armored vehicles in Ukraine that we used extensively in ODS '91/OIF '03, and I do think they've begun to change warfare doctrine.

 

[taxi1]

I would say yes, drone warfare has already revolutionized warfare. Drone and counterdrone capabilities are now the first (and deadliest) thing infantry forces will encounter on the battlefield. The side with the most capable (and numerous) drones is going to have an asymmetric advantage. This includes uncrewed armored vehicles, surface ships, and combat aircraft as well.

We are so close to just being able to tell a drone that this is your killbox, go kill something, and it can go there and find an elevated spot to park at and wait. Essentially no further comms required. It can mesh with others and respond like a swarm. Humans out of the loop.