US Military’s “bright shinny object” attention is on the drone (Strategically, Operationally and Tactically). Why is the Marine Corps spending time, effort, and money on developing a Tactical Resupply Unmanned Aircraft System (TRUAS) drone that can carry a whopping 150 pounds for nine miles?…Wow! Pardon me for thinking like a rifle company commander here but one of the issues I was always concerned about during training (back in the day) was first actions after a fire fight (besides continuing the attack). I knew I would need to get a resupply of ammo in and causalities out. Let’s think about the fact that a 500 round can of linked machine gun ammo weighs just under 40 lbs. The “Wow factor” here is the TRUAS can carry four cans of machine gun ammo for a 6 machine gun rifle company on a single trip.
The other item I am going to need, for example, is water. Water weighs 8 pounds per gallon, therefore, a 5 gallon water can weights 40 lbs. The TRUAS might be able to carry 4 water cans (one per each platoon) for 20 gallons or 80 canteen quarts (20 per platoon). My point is with this small pay load, you are going to need a “swarm” of these just to resupply a single rifle company (with beans, bullets and bandages). In addition, I don’t believe that the TRUAS is going to fix the support problem of the MLR and neither is submersible drones.
“With the NMESIS and ROGUE Fires, the US Marine Corps is looking at stepping up its Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) solutions, fielding a number of unmanned launchers which can be easily forward deployed on islands, with the Indo-Pacific zone in mind. The NMESIS (land based) coastal defense batteries, with the Naval Strike Missiles, will add more punch to the US Navy’s anti-ship capabilities.”
It looks like we are still chasing the failed WW2 Defense Battalion strategy. Note that the range of the NMESIS is just over 100 miles. IMHO that range ain’t going to cut it for a land based anti-ship missile in the Pacific or any other Ocean. In addition, the anti-missile technology is already here with the Arleigh-Burk Destroyer and the Iron Dome.
Strategically, I would like to know what is the recon gap between satellites and drones? At the operational level of war the anti-drone technology is also here and getting better. The Houthis have reportedly shot down 3 US Air Force Reaper Drones. Tactically there is a need for drones, providing they are small, light weigh, man packable, inexpensive, and can be passed out to every tactical leader from the Battalion CO to the Squad Leader.
Where should the focus be? The Marine Corps should be putting its time, effort and money into JOINT Command, Control and Coordination (CCC). If we fight a global war with the CCP it will take all the different strengths that each of the Military Services can muster. Marine MEBs and MEFs, since they are AIR/Ground MAGTFs and they can and should be the “first in”, should have the ability to plan and coordinate a JOINT strike. This includes Army land based missiles, Air Force squadrons including flights of B-52s (x3) loaded with anti-ship missiles, Navy ship and air launched missiles (the Navy P8 squadron has six aircraft each with has 11 launch stations). Now we are talking about winning a war quickly.
Let’s leave the development of logistic drones to the US Army and Amazon. Seems like the TURAS is only good for delivery of hot coffee and breakfast to the General Officer mess. Land based missiles develop seems like it belongs to the US Army Missile Command along with anti-missile defense. The Navy needs to concentrate on ship building and maintenance of amphibs and Alleigh-Burk Destroyers. It would be nice if the US Navy could throw in a couple Joint Strike CCC capable LCCs. They are going to need at least two for the Combatant Commanders; one East and one West of the Malaccan Straits.
As the old saying goes, “those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.”
Compass Points - Cognitive Dissonance (CG) makes a great argument. CG is real and has led to military failure in the past.
Here’s an abstract written by Kurtis D. Lohide - Army Command and General Staff College which speaks to “How cognitive dissonance led to tragic surprise in the Persian Gulf War.” Strategic surprise affected both sides in the conflict. This is something for our current leadership to keep at the forefront in their thinking.
Threats to international shipping ought to be handled by an international leadership entity. Especially when those who threaten are not a “state” per se. Anybody else in the world concerned? Is a littoral regiment mobile enough to take on a portion of this development, or are they fixed?
On an aside: thanks to Generals TZ and PKVR for sparking these wide ranging discussions!
The Commanfant^s speech describes a very busy, forward looking Marine Corps that is very involved across the globe. The recent NATO Nordic Response on the newly expanded northern flank of NATO with Finland and Sweden added to Norway is huge for the continued significance of the Marine Corps. What started as a Marine Amphibious Brigade commitment in 1984 has now expanded to the Marine Corps being designated as the Land Component Commander as a Marine Expeditionary Force.
The Indo Pacific exercises that coordinate command and control with regional allies is a vital step forward should armed conflict with China begin. Especially significant is the introduction of the new MAGTF ACV to Philippine ecercises.
The impressive extended deployment of the Bataan ARG/MEU that posed the initial counter to Houthi missile atacks from Yemin. The fact most of the anti ship missiles were countered by the Navy/Marine force deployed to the Red Sea points to the vulnerability of missiles as offensive weapons.
Taking a step back and viewing the overall context of General Smith^s summation it should become apparent that the ^Close with and Destroy^ ethos of the Marine Corps and its MAGTF is more complex than ever before. For this reason, it is time for all influencial Marine leaders to move beyond the Divest to Invest era and move to dealing with the evolving exigencies that will face Marines in future operations. Marine Corps history says they will do what needs to be done to best serve our nation. SF
Sit and sense sounds like a bunch of nonsense! We had better get our amphibious house in order along with undoing most if not all of this divest to invest baloney.
So, what's your beef? Clearly the USMC can, and is observably organized to do both, sit and sense; fire and maneuver! Preferably sit and sense before fire and maneuver. Unless of course it needs to fire and maneuver iot sit and sense.
Teledyne unveils Rogue 1 exploding drone sought by Marine Corps
By Colin Demarest
May 7 at 08:05 AM
A Rogue 1 attack drone, to be furnished for the Organic Precision Fires-Light endeavor, is seen outfitted with its training payload.
Teledyne FLIR Defense's Rogue 1 drone, to be furnished for the Organic Precision Fires-Light endeavor, is seen here outfitted with its training payload. (Colin Demarest/C4ISRNET)
Teledyne FLIR Defense plans to provide more than 100 of its Rogue 1 attack drone, capable of targeting infantry and armored vehicles, to the U.S. Marine Corps this year.
The anticipated deliveries follow the company’s selection to the Organic Precision Fires-Light initiative, which seeks to arm Marines with easy-to-use, explosives-laden unmanned aerial systems. Teledyne is one of three companies competing for orders on the potential $249 million OPF-L arrangement; the two others are AeroVironment and Anduril Industries. AeroVironment said an initial order was valued at nearly $9 million.
Rogue 1 weighs about 10 pounds and can be retrieved from a carrying tube. Its quadcopter features fold out, and it is capable of vertical takeoff and landing, or VTOL, meaning no additional launching gear is required.
Its interchangeable warhead — for training, for taking out troops on foot, and for blasting through armor — sits on a gimbal and is coupled with sensors. Should the drone not explode or be recalled, it can be disarmed and reused thanks to a mechanical disconnect.
Brian Bills, the company’s director of UAS products, told C4ISRNET what makes Rogue 1 stand out is its VTOL design as well as the accuracy with which troops can hit a target.
“While we only have a roughly 1 pound warhead, we’re able to put that entire 1 pound to incredible use, due to that precision that’s offered by that gimbal,” Bills said in an interview. “One of them is designed to be kind of an anti-armor, so it’ll poke a hole through steel. The other one is forward-fragmenting, think of a really advanced shotgun effect with tungsten cubes, designed for anti-personnel and soft-skinned vehicles.”
Thanks for the link. The Rogue 1 is a nice piece of gear and am glad the USMC is getting those. Teledyne has also done some nice work developing the Black Hornet.
As far as relating to the point of the post, Cognitive Dissonance, I see the failure as one in which the base hypothesis has been sUAS/drones/Loitering Munitions will obviate the need for other legacy systems. It has been argued here in the annals of Compass Posts that 'x' is obsolete because now we have 'y'. That is cognitive dissonance win action...a failure to see that these emerging concepts and technologies are additive, and will be combined with relevant legacy systems in novel ways to become more effective. They are likely to spur further innovation in legacy systems rather than the disappearance of those systems. These are additive to the battlefield, like Machineguns, Radio Comms, and digital systems, not replacements like mechanical motors v horse, breech cartridge loaded rifles v muskets, and gunpowder versus mechanical projection.
Absolutely agree, the IDF is a perfect example. Gen Van Ripper demonstrated this in his exercise use of asymmetrical warfare to destroy a conventional naval formation. HI Sutton , hisutton.com is a leading source. Page 1 / 88 »
Ukrainian USV armed With R-73/AA-11 ARCHER FrankenSAM
Sun 05 May 2024
By H I Sutton
UPDATED
Flag Ukraine Footage has emerged, taken from the Russian side, of a Ukrainian uncrewed surface vessel (USV) armed with an improvised air-defense system. This is the first time anything like this has been observed.
The system uses repurposed air-air missiles in an arrangement often termed a 'FrankenSAM'...
Read More >....
Guide To Ukraine's Long Range Attack Drones
Fri 26 April 2024
By H I Sutton
UPDATED Originally posted Jan 24.
Flag Ukraine Russia’s use of long range drones, principally the Iranian Shahed type, against Ukraine is well documented. Ukraine too is increasingly using this category of drone.
This article will focus on the Ukrainian OWA-UAVs which can strike deep into Russia...
Read More >....
World Guide To Large Underwater Drones
Thu 25 April 2024
By H I Sutton
Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag The world of underwater drones (AUVs - autonomous underwater vehicles) is changing rapidly. Within the past 2-3 years more and more navies are seriously developing extra-large vehicles (XLUUVs).
This article will focus on the most relevant curre
DEAR COMMANDANT SMITH, “WHERE IS THE BEEF”?….Where's the beef?" is a catchphrase in the United States and Canada, introduced as a slogan for the fast food chain Wendy's in 1984. Since then it has become an all-purpose phrase questioning the substance of an idea, event, or product.[1]
History
2020 Where's the Beef ad
The phrase first came to the public audience in a U.S. television commercial for the Wendy's chain of hamburger restaurants in 1984. The strategy behind the campaign was to distinguish competitors' (McDonald's and Burger King) big name hamburgers (Big Mac and Whopper respectively) from Wendy's "modest" Single by focusing on the large bun used by the competitors and the larger beef patty in Wendy's hamburger. In the ad, titled "Fluffy Bun", actress Clara Peller receives a burger with a massive bun but a tiny patty from a fictional competitor, which uses the slogan "Home of the Big Bun". The small patty prompts Peller angrily to exclaim, "Where's the beef?"
Waste of time effort and money
I want to take exception to this article.
https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2024/05/marine-corps-set-field-resupply-drones-all-logistics-battalions-2028/396353/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mil-ebb
US Military’s “bright shinny object” attention is on the drone (Strategically, Operationally and Tactically). Why is the Marine Corps spending time, effort, and money on developing a Tactical Resupply Unmanned Aircraft System (TRUAS) drone that can carry a whopping 150 pounds for nine miles?…Wow! Pardon me for thinking like a rifle company commander here but one of the issues I was always concerned about during training (back in the day) was first actions after a fire fight (besides continuing the attack). I knew I would need to get a resupply of ammo in and causalities out. Let’s think about the fact that a 500 round can of linked machine gun ammo weighs just under 40 lbs. The “Wow factor” here is the TRUAS can carry four cans of machine gun ammo for a 6 machine gun rifle company on a single trip.
The other item I am going to need, for example, is water. Water weighs 8 pounds per gallon, therefore, a 5 gallon water can weights 40 lbs. The TRUAS might be able to carry 4 water cans (one per each platoon) for 20 gallons or 80 canteen quarts (20 per platoon). My point is with this small pay load, you are going to need a “swarm” of these just to resupply a single rifle company (with beans, bullets and bandages). In addition, I don’t believe that the TRUAS is going to fix the support problem of the MLR and neither is submersible drones.
I also came across this article: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/04/here-is-our-first-look-at-the-usmcs-nmesis-nsm-being-launched-from-an-unmanned-jltv/
“With the NMESIS and ROGUE Fires, the US Marine Corps is looking at stepping up its Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) solutions, fielding a number of unmanned launchers which can be easily forward deployed on islands, with the Indo-Pacific zone in mind. The NMESIS (land based) coastal defense batteries, with the Naval Strike Missiles, will add more punch to the US Navy’s anti-ship capabilities.”
It looks like we are still chasing the failed WW2 Defense Battalion strategy. Note that the range of the NMESIS is just over 100 miles. IMHO that range ain’t going to cut it for a land based anti-ship missile in the Pacific or any other Ocean. In addition, the anti-missile technology is already here with the Arleigh-Burk Destroyer and the Iron Dome.
Strategically, I would like to know what is the recon gap between satellites and drones? At the operational level of war the anti-drone technology is also here and getting better. The Houthis have reportedly shot down 3 US Air Force Reaper Drones. Tactically there is a need for drones, providing they are small, light weigh, man packable, inexpensive, and can be passed out to every tactical leader from the Battalion CO to the Squad Leader.
Where should the focus be? The Marine Corps should be putting its time, effort and money into JOINT Command, Control and Coordination (CCC). If we fight a global war with the CCP it will take all the different strengths that each of the Military Services can muster. Marine MEBs and MEFs, since they are AIR/Ground MAGTFs and they can and should be the “first in”, should have the ability to plan and coordinate a JOINT strike. This includes Army land based missiles, Air Force squadrons including flights of B-52s (x3) loaded with anti-ship missiles, Navy ship and air launched missiles (the Navy P8 squadron has six aircraft each with has 11 launch stations). Now we are talking about winning a war quickly.
Let’s leave the development of logistic drones to the US Army and Amazon. Seems like the TURAS is only good for delivery of hot coffee and breakfast to the General Officer mess. Land based missiles develop seems like it belongs to the US Army Missile Command along with anti-missile defense. The Navy needs to concentrate on ship building and maintenance of amphibs and Alleigh-Burk Destroyers. It would be nice if the US Navy could throw in a couple Joint Strike CCC capable LCCs. They are going to need at least two for the Combatant Commanders; one East and one West of the Malaccan Straits.
As the old saying goes, “those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.”
Compass Points - Cognitive Dissonance (CG) makes a great argument. CG is real and has led to military failure in the past.
Here’s an abstract written by Kurtis D. Lohide - Army Command and General Staff College which speaks to “How cognitive dissonance led to tragic surprise in the Persian Gulf War.” Strategic surprise affected both sides in the conflict. This is something for our current leadership to keep at the forefront in their thinking.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA273933
Threats to international shipping ought to be handled by an international leadership entity. Especially when those who threaten are not a “state” per se. Anybody else in the world concerned? Is a littoral regiment mobile enough to take on a portion of this development, or are they fixed?
On an aside: thanks to Generals TZ and PKVR for sparking these wide ranging discussions!
The Commanfant^s speech describes a very busy, forward looking Marine Corps that is very involved across the globe. The recent NATO Nordic Response on the newly expanded northern flank of NATO with Finland and Sweden added to Norway is huge for the continued significance of the Marine Corps. What started as a Marine Amphibious Brigade commitment in 1984 has now expanded to the Marine Corps being designated as the Land Component Commander as a Marine Expeditionary Force.
The Indo Pacific exercises that coordinate command and control with regional allies is a vital step forward should armed conflict with China begin. Especially significant is the introduction of the new MAGTF ACV to Philippine ecercises.
The impressive extended deployment of the Bataan ARG/MEU that posed the initial counter to Houthi missile atacks from Yemin. The fact most of the anti ship missiles were countered by the Navy/Marine force deployed to the Red Sea points to the vulnerability of missiles as offensive weapons.
Taking a step back and viewing the overall context of General Smith^s summation it should become apparent that the ^Close with and Destroy^ ethos of the Marine Corps and its MAGTF is more complex than ever before. For this reason, it is time for all influencial Marine leaders to move beyond the Divest to Invest era and move to dealing with the evolving exigencies that will face Marines in future operations. Marine Corps history says they will do what needs to be done to best serve our nation. SF
Sit and sense sounds like a bunch of nonsense! We had better get our amphibious house in order along with undoing most if not all of this divest to invest baloney.
So, what's your beef? Clearly the USMC can, and is observably organized to do both, sit and sense; fire and maneuver! Preferably sit and sense before fire and maneuver. Unless of course it needs to fire and maneuver iot sit and sense.
Touché
Great grandson of ExDrone?
MilTech
Teledyne unveils Rogue 1 exploding drone sought by Marine Corps
By Colin Demarest
May 7 at 08:05 AM
A Rogue 1 attack drone, to be furnished for the Organic Precision Fires-Light endeavor, is seen outfitted with its training payload.
Teledyne FLIR Defense's Rogue 1 drone, to be furnished for the Organic Precision Fires-Light endeavor, is seen here outfitted with its training payload. (Colin Demarest/C4ISRNET)
Teledyne FLIR Defense plans to provide more than 100 of its Rogue 1 attack drone, capable of targeting infantry and armored vehicles, to the U.S. Marine Corps this year.
The anticipated deliveries follow the company’s selection to the Organic Precision Fires-Light initiative, which seeks to arm Marines with easy-to-use, explosives-laden unmanned aerial systems. Teledyne is one of three companies competing for orders on the potential $249 million OPF-L arrangement; the two others are AeroVironment and Anduril Industries. AeroVironment said an initial order was valued at nearly $9 million.
Rogue 1 weighs about 10 pounds and can be retrieved from a carrying tube. Its quadcopter features fold out, and it is capable of vertical takeoff and landing, or VTOL, meaning no additional launching gear is required.
Its interchangeable warhead — for training, for taking out troops on foot, and for blasting through armor — sits on a gimbal and is coupled with sensors. Should the drone not explode or be recalled, it can be disarmed and reused thanks to a mechanical disconnect.
Brian Bills, the company’s director of UAS products, told C4ISRNET what makes Rogue 1 stand out is its VTOL design as well as the accuracy with which troops can hit a target.
“While we only have a roughly 1 pound warhead, we’re able to put that entire 1 pound to incredible use, due to that precision that’s offered by that gimbal,” Bills said in an interview. “One of them is designed to be kind of an anti-armor, so it’ll poke a hole through steel. The other one is forward-fragmenting, think of a really advanced shotgun effect with tungsten cubes, designed for anti-personnel and soft-skinned vehicles.”
Thanks for the link. The Rogue 1 is a nice piece of gear and am glad the USMC is getting those. Teledyne has also done some nice work developing the Black Hornet.
As far as relating to the point of the post, Cognitive Dissonance, I see the failure as one in which the base hypothesis has been sUAS/drones/Loitering Munitions will obviate the need for other legacy systems. It has been argued here in the annals of Compass Posts that 'x' is obsolete because now we have 'y'. That is cognitive dissonance win action...a failure to see that these emerging concepts and technologies are additive, and will be combined with relevant legacy systems in novel ways to become more effective. They are likely to spur further innovation in legacy systems rather than the disappearance of those systems. These are additive to the battlefield, like Machineguns, Radio Comms, and digital systems, not replacements like mechanical motors v horse, breech cartridge loaded rifles v muskets, and gunpowder versus mechanical projection.
Absolutely agree, the IDF is a perfect example. Gen Van Ripper demonstrated this in his exercise use of asymmetrical warfare to destroy a conventional naval formation. HI Sutton , hisutton.com is a leading source. Page 1 / 88 »
Ukrainian USV armed With R-73/AA-11 ARCHER FrankenSAM
Sun 05 May 2024
By H I Sutton
UPDATED
Flag Ukraine Footage has emerged, taken from the Russian side, of a Ukrainian uncrewed surface vessel (USV) armed with an improvised air-defense system. This is the first time anything like this has been observed.
The system uses repurposed air-air missiles in an arrangement often termed a 'FrankenSAM'...
Read More >....
Guide To Ukraine's Long Range Attack Drones
Fri 26 April 2024
By H I Sutton
UPDATED Originally posted Jan 24.
Flag Ukraine Russia’s use of long range drones, principally the Iranian Shahed type, against Ukraine is well documented. Ukraine too is increasingly using this category of drone.
This article will focus on the Ukrainian OWA-UAVs which can strike deep into Russia...
Read More >....
World Guide To Large Underwater Drones
Thu 25 April 2024
By H I Sutton
Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag Flag The world of underwater drones (AUVs - autonomous underwater vehicles) is changing rapidly. Within the past 2-3 years more and more navies are seriously developing extra-large vehicles (XLUUVs).
This article will focus on the most relevant curre
DEAR COMMANDANT SMITH, “WHERE IS THE BEEF”?….Where's the beef?" is a catchphrase in the United States and Canada, introduced as a slogan for the fast food chain Wendy's in 1984. Since then it has become an all-purpose phrase questioning the substance of an idea, event, or product.[1]
History
2020 Where's the Beef ad
The phrase first came to the public audience in a U.S. television commercial for the Wendy's chain of hamburger restaurants in 1984. The strategy behind the campaign was to distinguish competitors' (McDonald's and Burger King) big name hamburgers (Big Mac and Whopper respectively) from Wendy's "modest" Single by focusing on the large bun used by the competitors and the larger beef patty in Wendy's hamburger. In the ad, titled "Fluffy Bun", actress Clara Peller receives a burger with a massive bun but a tiny patty from a fictional competitor, which uses the slogan "Home of the Big Bun". The small patty prompts Peller angrily to exclaim, "Where's the beef?"