The Remote Controlled Abrams Tank [Hammacher Schlemmer]
Over at Defense One, Patrick Tucker reports that General Dynamics Land Systems has teamed up with Kairos Autonomi to develop kits that “can turn virtually anything with wheels or tracks into a remote-controlled car.” It is part of a business strategy “to meet the U.S. Army’s expanding demand for unmanned ground vehicles”
Kairos kits costing less than $30,000 each have been installed on disposable vehicles to create moving targets for shooting practice. According to a spokesman, General Dynamics has also adapted them to LAV-25 Light Armored Vehicles and M1126 Strykers.
Tucker quotes Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster (who else?), director of the U.S. Army’s Capabilities Integration Center, as saying that,
[G]etting remotely piloted and unmanned fighting vehicles out into the field is “something we really want to move forward on. What we want to do is get that kind of capability into soldiers’ hands early so we can refine the tactics, techniques and procedures, and then also consider enemy countermeasures and then build into the design of units that are autonomy enabled, build in the counter to those counters.”
According to General Dynamics Land Systems, the capability to turn any vehicle into a drone would give the U.S. an advantage over Russia, which has signaled its intent to automate versions of its T-14 Armata tank.
Image by Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA).
In several recent posts, I have alluded to something called the Third Offset Strategy without going into any detail as to what it is. Fortunately for us all, Timothy A. Walton, a Fellow in the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, wrote an excellent summary and primer on what it as all about in the current edition of Joint Forces Quarterly.
The Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) articulated 10 missions the [U.S.] joint force must accomplish in the future. These missions include the ability to:
– deter and defeat aggression
– project power despite antiaccess/area-denial (A2/AD) challenges
– operate effectively in cyberspace and space.
The follow-on 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review confirmed the importance of these missions and called for the joint force to “project power and win decisively” in spite of “increasingly sophisticated adversaries who could employ advanced warfighting capabilities.”
In these documents, U.S. policy-makers identified that the primary strategic challenge to securing the goals is that “capable adversaries are adopting potent A2/AD strategies that are challenging U.S. ability to ensure operational access.” These adversaries include China, Russia, and Iran.
The Third Offset Strategy was devised to address this primary strategic challenge.
In November 2014, then–Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced a new Defense Innovation Initiative, which included the Third Offset Strategy. The initiative seeks to maintain U.S. military superiority over capable adversaries through the development of novel capabilities and concepts. Secretary Hagel modeled his approach on the First Offset Strategy of the 1950s, in which President Dwight D. Eisenhower countered the Soviet Union’s conventional numerical superiority through the buildup of America’s nuclear deterrent, and on the Second Offset Strategy of the 1970s, in which Secretary of Defense Harold Brown shepherded the development of precision-guided munitions, stealth, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems to counter the numerical superiority and improving technical capability of Warsaw Pact forces along the Central Front in Europe.
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has built on Hagel’s vision of the Third Offset Strategy, and the proposed fiscal year 2017 budget is the first major public manifestation of the strategy: approximately $3.6 billion in research and development funding dedicated to Third Offset Strategy pursuits. As explained by Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, the budget seeks to conduct numerous small bets on advanced capability research and demonstrations, and to work with Congress and the Services to craft new operational concepts so that the next administration can determine “what are the key bets we’re going to make.”
As Walton puts it, “the next Secretary of Defense will have the opportunity to make those big bets.” The keys to making the correct bets will be selecting the most appropriate scenarios to plan around, accurately assessing the performance of the U.S. joint force that will be programmed and budgeted for, and identifying the right priorities for new investment.
It is in this context that Walton recommended reviving campaign-level combat modeling at the Defense Department level, as part an overall reform of analytical processes informing force planning decisions.
Walton concludes by identifying the major obstacles in carrying out the Third Offset Strategy, some of which will be institutional and political in nature. However, he quickly passes over what might perhaps be the biggest problem with the Third Offset strategy, which is that it might be based on the wrong premises.
Lastly, the next Secretary of Defense will face numerous other, important defense challenges that will threaten to engross his or her attention, ranging from leading U.S. forces in Afghanistan, to countering Chinese, Russian, and Islamic State aggression, to reforming Goldwater-Nichols, military compensation, and base structure.
The ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq show no sign of abating anytime soon, yet they constitute “lesser includeds” in the Third Offset Strategy. Are we sure enough to bet that the A2/AD threat is the most important strategic challenge the U.S. will face in the near future?
Walton’s piece is worth reading and thinking about.
Group of English gentlemen and soldiers of the 25th London Cyclist Regiment playing the newest form of wargame strategy simulation called “Bellum” at the regimental HQ. (Google LIFE Magazine archive.)
I am mindful of a time more than twenty years ago when I was very much involved in the analyses leading up to some significant force structure decisions.
A key tool in these analyses was a complex computer model that handled detailed force-on-force scenarios with tens of thousands of troops on either side. The scenarios generally had U.S. Amy forces defending against a much larger modern army. As I analyzed results from various runs that employed different force structures and weapons, I noticed some peculiar results. It seemed that certain sensors dominated the battlefield, while others were useless or nearly so. Among those “useless” sensors were the [Long Range Surveillance (LRS)] teams placed well behind enemy lines. Curious as to why that might be so, I dug deeper and deeper into the model. After a fair amount of work, the answer became clear. The LRS teams were coded, understandably, as “infantry”. According to model logic, direct fire combat arms units were assumed to open fire on an approaching enemy when within range and visibility. So, in essence, as I dug deeply into the logic it became obvious that the model’s LRS teams were compelled to conduct immediate suicidal attacks. No wonder they failed to be effective!
Conversely, the “Firefinder” radars were very effective in targeting the enemy’s artillery. Even better, they were wizards of survivability, almost never being knocked out. Somewhat skeptical by this point, I dug some more. Lo and behold, the “vulnerable area” for Firefinders was given in the input database as “0”. They could not be killed!
Armed with all this information, I confronted the senior system analysts. My LRS concerns were dismissed. This was a U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command-approved model run by the Field Artillery School, so infantry stuff was important to them only in terms of loss exchange ratios and the like. The Infantry School could look out for its own. Bringing up the invulnerability of the Firefinder elicited a different response, though. No one wanted to directly address this and the analysts found fascinating objects to look at on the other side of the room. Finally, the senior guy looked at me and said, “If we let the Firefinders be killed, the model results are uninteresting.” Translation: None of their force structure, weapons mix, or munition choices had much effect on the overall model results unless the divisional Firefinders survived. We always lost in a big way. [Emphasis added]
Scales relates his story in the context of the recent decision by the U.S. Army to deactivate all nine Army and Army National Guard LRS companies. These companies, composed of 15 six-man teams led by staff sergeants, were used to collect tactical intelligence from forward locations. This mission will henceforth be conducted by technological platforms (i.e. drones). Scales makes it clear that he has no personal stake in the decision and he does not indicate what role combat modeling and analyses based on it may have played in the Army’s decision.
Last year, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work called on the Defense Department to revitalize its wargaming capabilities to provide analytical support for development of the Third Offset Strategy. Despite its acknowledged pitfalls, wargaming can undoubtedly provide crucial insights into the validity of concepts behind this new strategy. Whether or not Work is also aware of the base of sand problem and its potential impact on the new wargaming endeavor is not known, but combat modeling continues to be widely used to support crucial national security decisionmaking.
Lockheed Upbeat Despite F-35 Losing Dogfight To Red Baron (Image by DuffelBlog)
Dan Grazier and Mandy Smithberger provide a detailed run down of the current status of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) over at the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). The Air Force recently declared its version, the F-35A, combat ready, but Grazer and Smithberger make a detailed case that this pronouncement is “wildly premature.”
The Pentagon’s top testing office warns that the F-35 is in no way ready for combat since it is “not effective and not suitable across the required mission areas and against currently fielded threats.”
As it stands now, the F-35 would need to run away from combat and have other planes come to its rescue, since it “will need support to locate and avoid modern threats, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to outstanding performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage available (i.e., two bombs and two air-to-air missiles).”
The F-35’s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, is delivering progressively upgraded versions of the aircraft in blocks, but the first fully-combat operational block will not be delivered until 2018. There are currently 175 operational F-35s with limited combat capability, with 80 more scheduled for delivery in 2017 and 100 in 2018. However, the Government Accountability Office estimates that it will cost $1.7 billion to retroactively upgrade these 335 initial F-35s to full combat ready status. Operational testing and evaluation of those rebuilt aircraft won’t be completed until 2021 and they will remain non-combat capable until 2023 at the earliest, which means that the original 355 F-35s won’t really be fully operational for at least seven more years, or 22 years after Lockheed was awarded the development and production contract in 2001. And this is only if the JSF Program and Lockheed manage to hit their current targets with a program—estimated at $1.5 trillion over its operational life, the most expensive weapon in U.S. history—characterized by delays and cost overruns.
With over $400 billion in sunk costs already, the F-35 program may have become “too big to fail,” with all the implications that phrase connotes. Countless electrons have been spun assessing and explaining this state of affairs. It is possible that the problems will be corrected and the F-35 will fulfill the promises made on its behalf. The Air Force continues to cast it as the centerpiece of its warfighting capability 20 years from now.
Moreover, the Department of Defense has doubled-down on the technology-driven Revolution in Military Affairs paradigm with its Third Offset Strategy, which is premised on the proposition that advanced weapons and capabilities will afford the U.S. continued military dominance into the 21st century. Time will tell if the long, painful saga of the F-35 will be a cautionary tale or a bellwether.
Williamson Murray, professor emeritus of history at Ohio State University, on the notion that military failures can be traced to an overemphasis on the lessons of the last war:
It is a myth that military organizations tend to do badly in each new war because they have studied too closely the last one; nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact is that military organizations, for the most part, study what makes them feel comfortable about themselves, not the uncongenial lessons of past conflicts. The result is that more often than not, militaries have to relearn in combat—and usually at a heavy cost—lessons that were readily apparent at the end of the last conflict.
Revolutionary new technologies such as nanotechnology, robotics and artificial intelligence will drive that fundamental change. But while Milley said that a revolution is coming, how exactly the character of ground warfare will shape up remains an open question. “Exactly what that’s going to look like, I don’t know,” Milley said. “I just know that we’re there. We’re on the leading edge of it. I think we’ve got a few years to figure it out—probably less than ten. But I think by 2025, you’re going to see armies—not only the American Army but armies around the world—will be fundamentally and substantively different than they are today.”
In related news, the Army’s Paladin Integrated Management program to upgrade 133 M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzers to M109A7’s to improve the weapon’s reliability, maintainability, performance, responsiveness, and lethality has run into problems. The Department of Defense Inspector General found the M109A7 failed to meet maximum rate-of-fire requirements in tests and requires additional fire extinguisher capabilities in crew compartments. Army observers have warned of recent advances in Russian artillery technology and the need for effective countering capabilities. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld cancelled the Army’s proposed next-generation XM2001 Crusader self-propelled howitzer in 2002.
In early April, a panel comprised of several senior Army officer testified before a Senate Armed Service subcommittee on modernization.
[They] delivered a grim warning about the future of the U.S. armed forces: Unless the Army budget was increased, allowing both for more men and more materiel, members of the panel said, the United States was in danger of being “outranged and outgunned” in the next war and, in particular, in a confrontation with Russia. Vladimir Putin’s military, the panel averred, had outstripped the U.S. in modern weapons capabilities. And the Army’s shrinking size meant that “the Army of the future will be too small to secure the nation.”
These assertions are, predictably, being questioned by, also predictably, some in the other armed services. Perry cites the response of an unnamed “senior Pentagon officer.”
“This is the ‘Chicken-Little, sky-is-falling’ set in the Army,” the senior Pentagon officer said. “These guys want us to believe the Russians are 10 feet tall. There’s a simpler explanation: The Army is looking for a purpose, and a bigger chunk of the budget. And the best way to get that is to paint the Russians as being able to land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. What a crock.”
Perry boils the debate down to what it is really about.
The fight over the Army panel’s testimony is the latest example of a deepening feud in the military community over how to respond to shrinking budget numbers. At issue is the military’s strategic future: Facing cuts, will the Army opt to modernize its weapons’ arsenal, or defer modernization in favor of increased numbers of soldiers? On April 5, the Army’s top brass made its choice clear: It wants to do both, and Russia’s the reason.
Perry’s walk through the various arguments is worth reading in full, but he accurately characterizes the debate as something more than an ecumenical disagreement among the usual Pentagon suspects.
The argument over numbers and capabilities might strike some Americans as exotic, but the debate is much more fundamental—with enormous political implications. “You know, which would you rather have—a high-speed rail system, or another brigade in Poland? Because that’s what this is really all about. The debate is about money, and there simply isn’t enough to go around,” the Pentagon officer told me. “Which is not to mention the other question, which is even more important: How many British soldiers do you think want to die for Estonia? And if they don’t want to, why should we?”
Those looking for a sober, factual debate over the facts and the implications of these issues are likely to be disappointed in the current election year atmosphere. It will also be interesting to see if strategic analysts will offer more than chum for the waters and warmed over versions of old arguments.
The weapon pictured above is the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement (CDTE) precision-guided grenade launcher. According to its manufacturer, Orbital ATK,
The XM25 is a next-generation, semi-automatic weapon designed for effectiveness against enemies protected by walls, dug into foxholes or hidden in hard-to-reach places.
The XM25 provides the soldier with a 300 percent to 500 percent increase in hit probability to defeat point, area and defilade targets out to 500 meters. The weapon features revolutionary high-explosive, airburst ammunition programmed by the weapon’s target acquisition/fire control system.
Following field testing in Afghanistan that reportedly produced mixed results, the U.S. Army is seeking funding the Fiscal Year 2017 defense budget to acquire 105 of the weapons for issue to specifically-trained personnel at the tactical unit level.
The purported capabilities of the weapon have certainly raised expectations for its utility. A program manager in the Army’s Program Executive Office declared “The introduction of the XM25 is akin to other revolutionary systems such as the machine gun, the airplane and the tank, all of which changed battlefield tactics.” An industry observer concurred, claiming that “The weapon’s potential revolutionary impact on infantry tactics is undeniable.”
Well…maybe. There is little doubt that the availability of precision-guided standoff weapons at the squad or platoon level will afford significant tactical advantages. Whatever technical problems that currently exist will be addressed and there will surely be improvements and upgrades.
It seems unlikely, however, that the XM25 will bring revolutionary change to the battlefield. In his 1980 study The Evolution of Weapons and Warfare, Trevor N. Dupuy explored the ongoing historical relationship between technological change and adaptation on the battlefield. The introduction of increasingly lethal weapons has led to corresponding changes in the ways armies fight.
Assimilation of a significant increase in [weapon] lethality has generally been marked (a) by dispersion, thus reducing the number of people exposed to the new weapon in the enemy’s hands; (b) by giving greater freedom of maneuver; and (c) by improving cooperation among the different arms and services. [p. 337]
As the chart below illustrates (click for a larger version), as weapons have become more lethal over time, combat forces have adjusted by dispersing in greater frontage and depth on the battlefield (as reflected by the red line).
[pp. 288-289]
Dupuy noted that there is a lag between the introduction of a new weapon and its full integration into an army’s tactics and force structure.
In modern times — and to some extent in earlier eras — there has been an interval of approximately twenty years between introduction and assimilation of new weapons…it is significant that, despite the rising tempo of invention, this time lag remained relatively constant. [p. 338]
Moreover, Dupuy observed that true military revolutions are historically rare, and require more than technological change to occur.
Save for the recent significant exception of strategic nuclear weapons, there have been no historical instances in which new and more lethal weapons have, of themselves, altered the conduct of war or the balance of power until they have been incorporated into a new tactical system exploiting their lethality and permitting their coordination with other weapons. [p. 340]
Looking at the trends over time suggests that any resulting changes will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The ways armies historically have adapted to new weapons — dispersion, tactical flexibility, and combined arms —- are hallmarks of the fire and movement concept that is at the heart of modern combat tactics, which evolved in the early years of the 20th century, particularly during the First World War. However effective the XM25 may prove to be, it’s impact is unlikely to alter the basic elements of fire and movement tactics. Enemy combatants will likely adapt through even greater dispersion (the modern “empty battlefield“), tactical innovation, and combinations of countering weapons. It is also likely that it will take time, trial and error, and effective organizational leadership in order to take full advantage of the XM25’s capabilities.
![The Remote Controlled Abrams Tank [Hammacher Schlemmer]](https://dupuyinstitute.dreamhosters.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/remote-control-m1a2-abrams-tank-xl.jpg)
