"How will drones affect infantry tactics?"
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez
Defence iQ
14 March, 2019
Originally published: https://www.defenceiq.com/defence-technology/articles/how-will-drones-affect-infantry-tactics
With unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology developing rapidly, military leaders, analysts as well as defence industries around the world are coming up with new methods to both utilize them and combat them in the field
Indeed, UAV technology presents plenty of beneficial opportunities, but it is important that drones remain-value adding, and efforts are made not to increase the cognitive and physical burden on infantry that will have to carry them, use, and retrieve after a mission.
The US Military Goes Shopping
The US Army has ambitious plans regarding infantry use of drones. For
example, in 2018 the US Army awarded a $2.6 million contract to FLIR
Systems Inc. of Wilsonville, Oregon, for an undisclosed number of “Black Hornet Personal Reconnaissance System —
a miniature helicopter with video cameras [which] enables infantry
squads to see enemy units from the air.” The platform weighs about the
same as a parakeet, and it can “can shoot live video with either a
daylight imager or infrared, has a range of a little less than a mile
and can fly for 25 minutes at a speed of 13 mph.” The contract is part
of the Soldier Borne Sensor program.
Other companies are manufacturing light drones as well. For example, InstantEye Robotics
reported in November 2018 that it had “secured a contract with the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) in support of PMA-263, the Navy and
Marine Corps Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS) Program
Office, to field 32 InstantEye Mk-3 GEN5-D1 SUAS systems (64 aircraft).”
Like the Black Hornet, InstantEye Robotics’ SUAS systems are light, for
instance, the one sold to the US Marines has a weight of around 250 grams.
Counter drone systems
Just as companies are developing lighter and more efficient drones,
other companies are developing products to disable them. For example, IXI EW
has developed the Drone Killer, which is available either as a rifle or
as a system that can be attached to a rifle. Similarly, the Israeli company Smart Shooter has manufactured a fire control system called SMASH 2000 Plus that has a “drone mode.”
RECOMMENDED: The future of drone and counter-drone technology
RECOMMENDED: The future of drone and counter-drone technology
Military and civilian agencies are trying to figure out how drones
will affect the way infantry units operate. The advantages they provide,
as well as the threat of enemy drone platforms, are still debated at
the squad and battalion level.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and other agencies published a joint report, titled Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System (CUAS) Capability for Battalion-and-Below Operations, in
2018, which has been widely read and quoted as it discusses precisely
this issue. The report touches on issues including how to counter enemy
drones, like for example jamming radio frequencies. (One problem is that
new drones “can operate without radio frequency
command-and-control links by using automated target recognition and
tracking, obstacle avoidance, and other capabilities enabled by
software.”)
Discussion: The infantryman and UAVs
There are several issues to keep in mind when discussing how UAVs
(nano, or small) will fit within the US Army. Let's consider how this
will affect a standard infantry squad of 9-14 members.
One obvious issue is weight. If a light infantry unit wants to bring such capabilities to the fight then troops must allocate space and weight to this kit. This will require additional manpower to carry the apparatus, no matter how light it is, which prompts an important question: if a soldier has to carry a UAV kit (the platform itself, a control system, power supply and so on) then what part of a kit will a soldier leave behind? This is a difficult call for commanders given the various risk mitigation strategies required for successful operations.
The extra weight may impede on the ability to carry our traditional force activities. If we accept the average rifleman will carry around 100lbs of equipment including a rifle, backpack with ammo, rations, water, and body armour. The idea of adding more weight to will not be appealing, particularly for operations that can last multiple days. This is one of the core reasons propelling industry to focus on making drones lighter and smaller.
On the other side of the spectrum, how will forces deal with adversarial drones? There have already been several analyses on this issue, see for example “On Drones and Tactics: How Unmanned Platforms Will Change the Way the Infantry Fights,” by 1st Lt. Walker Mills for the Modern War Institute.
One obvious issue is weight. If a light infantry unit wants to bring such capabilities to the fight then troops must allocate space and weight to this kit. This will require additional manpower to carry the apparatus, no matter how light it is, which prompts an important question: if a soldier has to carry a UAV kit (the platform itself, a control system, power supply and so on) then what part of a kit will a soldier leave behind? This is a difficult call for commanders given the various risk mitigation strategies required for successful operations.
The extra weight may impede on the ability to carry our traditional force activities. If we accept the average rifleman will carry around 100lbs of equipment including a rifle, backpack with ammo, rations, water, and body armour. The idea of adding more weight to will not be appealing, particularly for operations that can last multiple days. This is one of the core reasons propelling industry to focus on making drones lighter and smaller.
On the other side of the spectrum, how will forces deal with adversarial drones? There have already been several analyses on this issue, see for example “On Drones and Tactics: How Unmanned Platforms Will Change the Way the Infantry Fights,” by 1st Lt. Walker Mills for the Modern War Institute.
Even more, there have already been incidents in which unnamed aerial
vehicles were utilized by insurgents and foreign combatants to strike at
US and Coalition forces, and also for the purpose of testing their
reactions to these probes.
As for anti-drone technologies, currently, they vary from weapon-sized
devices, which means carrying an extra rifle (e.g. the full-sized
version of the Drone Killer), to a smaller system that is attached to a
standard rifle such as an M4 (like the Smash 2000 Plus). The question
again comes back to the issue of weight.
What is worth taking into the field? Can
the capability to neutralize enemy drones be accomplished through
traditional methods or is anti-drone gear absolutely necessary for
combating these devices?
Lastly, as a US Army service person with combat experiences explained
to the author, “will we even be aware of these devices prior to being
engaged, and are they employed in such numbers that we still find it
necessary to carry this gear to fend off secondary attacks?”
Moreover, there is the question of how will UAV and anti-UAV technology affect the composition of infantry squads themselves. Will there be a sole “droneman” that carries the unit’s UAVs, as well as anti-UAV gear like a Drone Killer rifle or Smash Plus system? It will be interesting to monitor whether the US Army revisits the composition of an infantry squad in itself to adapt to this new technology.
The US Marine Corps is reportedly testing new squad compositions. “The sizes being considered were 11-, 12-, or 14-man arrangements, and some considered having the squad systems operator carry the M4 carbine to reduce the load, as it is a smaller, lighter weapon,” explained a December 2018 article in the Marine Corps Times, for example.
Lastly, squad leaders will have to decide whether UAVs and anti-UAV technology adds value, especially when considering changes in unit dynamics and the additional burden on the supply chain and logistical tail. The cost of replacing and maintaining these assets may be very high. However, that opens the doors for other up and coming solutions such as additive manufacturing and 3D printing.
Moreover, there is the question of how will UAV and anti-UAV technology affect the composition of infantry squads themselves. Will there be a sole “droneman” that carries the unit’s UAVs, as well as anti-UAV gear like a Drone Killer rifle or Smash Plus system? It will be interesting to monitor whether the US Army revisits the composition of an infantry squad in itself to adapt to this new technology.
The US Marine Corps is reportedly testing new squad compositions. “The sizes being considered were 11-, 12-, or 14-man arrangements, and some considered having the squad systems operator carry the M4 carbine to reduce the load, as it is a smaller, lighter weapon,” explained a December 2018 article in the Marine Corps Times, for example.
Lastly, squad leaders will have to decide whether UAVs and anti-UAV technology adds value, especially when considering changes in unit dynamics and the additional burden on the supply chain and logistical tail. The cost of replacing and maintaining these assets may be very high. However, that opens the doors for other up and coming solutions such as additive manufacturing and 3D printing.
The proliferation of this technology is also something to consider.
If these assets become more numerous, the likelihood of them getting
lost account or captured is high. What data will be aboard these systems
and will how can it be leveraged by adversaries?
Final Thoughts
Recent analyses are increasingly focusing on understanding how this
technology will affect the infantry, as small drones and nano-drones are
beginning to be integrated into units. Indeed, the
era of UAV military technology is in full swing and we are just
beginning to grasp how it will affect the future of warfare, especially
in the areas of logistics, medical evacuation, reconnaissance, and
offensive support. Under the right condition set, there is no question
that small UAVs can be employed to suppress and disrupt small enemy
units.
About the Authors:
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez is an analyst who focuses on geopolitical, military and cybersecurity issues.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors
alone and do not reflect those of any institutions with which the author
are associated.
The author would like to thank the US military personnel interviewed for this analysis and who wish to remain anonymous.
No comments:
Post a Comment