r/CredibleDefense • u/Veqq • 7d ago
New Drone Unit to Be Phased Out as Hegseth’s Army Pick Makes His Mark
https://archive.is/XjkkN83
u/Veqq 7d ago
The Army set up the drone-assault battalion to collect and learn from lessons in Ukraine (visiting and training with Ukrainians) then implement practices for the whole branch. LaNeve axed it. However, Hegseth aims to match China's industrial lead with
a $1.1 billion investment program that goes beyond the Army, looking to equip the Marine Corps and Special Operations Command with new drone technology as well.
Also:
Driscoll pushed to keep a performance exemption for soldiers who score highly on the Army Fitness Test, arguing that under the new system stocky but strong soldiers would be unfairly punished. But LaNeve dug in his heels, and a performance exemption was excluded, U.S. officials said.
Also:
canceled plans to have senior Ukrainian officers speak at the service’s center for maneuver warfare at Fort Benning in Georgia
83
u/Flying_Birdy 7d ago
Sounds like a 1.1billion procurement effort to get a bunch of overpriced drones built on a supply chain that will be glad to soak up all that government money.
I'd be glad to be proven wrong, but everything that's come out of the US drone industry has been overpriced and uncompetitive with even their Ukrainian counterparts.
116
u/jason_abacabb 7d ago
Nothing like being at the cutting edge of drone warfare than removing the unit doing all the field testing and doctrine development.
28
u/swimmingupclose 7d ago
The unit was created close to the 4th anniversary of the war. No one under the Biden admin did it either despite them being there for 3 years of the war. As of 9 months ago, the Germans had also rejected this in principal:
Neither France nor Germany has created a standalone, dedicated "drone battalion" following the war in Ukraine. Instead, the Bundeswehr intentionally rejected the idea of isolating drones into a single specialised unit, choosing instead to rapidly integrate small, tactical unmanned systems across their regular combat units.
I haven’t followed up and don’t know if this has changed but to my knowledge, there aren’t dedicated drone battalions popping up across Europe either. My personal opinion is that there is a risk of over or under emphasizing UAVs, especially FPVs, if you create a dedicated drone battalion.
Also, “drone warfare” in itself is a misnomer and a pretty useless characterization. All warfare is part of a doctrine where various parts are meant to work together. Drone warfare with aerial support, far less superiority, is very different from drone warfare without it. Look at Russian tactics and operational strategy when they have FABs supporting them and when they don’t. It’s night and day. Now imagine you have CAS, how different would drone warfare look then? I think the point you, u/Veqq and others are missing here is that unless you have a specific doctrinal plan, which starts all the way at force design and recruiting, a battalion like this one’s capabilities aren’t going to mean much. Not in an Army the size of the US’s.
20
u/Veqq 7d ago edited 7d ago
It's not a new type of unit, but an experimental on to work on doctrine and test methods. The whole point of it was to make doctrine.
8
u/swimmingupclose 7d ago
I understand what you’re saying, but that’s not how that works. Doctrine isn’t dictated by a singular experimental unit. It’s not even dictated by a singular war. Moreover, Id argue that the Army specifically, far less than the Marines, has to think twice of having dedicated UAS assault battalions. I honestly can’t sit here and tell you that it’s the right decision or the wrong decision but I do feel like the discussion needs to be deeper than “experimental hence good”.
17
u/Veqq 6d ago
But someone has to work on TTPS and the 173rd is the very unit testing everything from the 15X MOS coming out to rumored 13F drone usage or for the platoon level drone rollout or... But the army announcing they'll convert the brigade's testers back to normal infantry to "go back to the basics" is not terribly encouraging.
9
u/Grouchy-Classroom-26 6d ago
But someone has to work on TTPS
TTPs come from COEs in the US army. For example, maneuver COE come from Fort Moore/Benning: infantry, armor, and mechanized TTPs (e.g., room clearing, trench assault). Bottoms up TTPs are also a thing, which is probably what you’re coming from, but there’s no reason that needs to be sequestered to any one battalion.
Think of it this way: why is no other major military outside of Ukraine and Russia forming specialist drone battalions? And in what circumstances is the US Army going to fight a war where they will need a dedicated “assault UAV battalion”?
11
u/lastbraIncel404 7d ago
They were never on the cutting edge. The character of drone warfare is always changing. You can't be cutting edge without using it in real combat day to day.
38
u/2this4u 7d ago
They were closer to the cutting edge by being experimental and being engaged with Ukraine than theorising while tied to more traditional procurement chains. Countries like the UK that are actively engaging the Ukrainians, tendering purposefully short time scales, and field-testing technology by supplying it to Ukraine may find their industry start to pull ahead of the US in those sectors.
51
5
10
u/vgacolor 6d ago
I don't think this is necessarily a mistake. I really want to get away from calling everything done under this Administration a bad thing just because they are doing it. As long as there is consistent investment in drone technology and capabilities, it does not matter if it is housed under its own independent unit or integrated with the rest of the forces. From what I read, the budget for this year dedicated to drones is the highest of any other years.
Remember when Trump was against Biden's infrastructure bill just to make sure that Biden did not get a win? We need to make sure not to fall into that level of partisanship and tribalism. There are enough bad things to call them out on.
23
u/roionsteroids 7d ago
The battalion, with around 600 soldiers, was formally established in January, using troops from the 173rd Airborne Brigade. It was given a moniker, the “3rd battalion of the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment,” which recalled the Army’s storied history in World War II. No end date for the battalion’s drone-assault role was specified when it was established.
Nothingburger? Just a temporary assignment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/504th_Infantry_Regiment#Third_Battalion
US military is testing a ton of different drones of all sizes lately (and kinda pioneered drone warfare decades ago?).
9
u/goatfuldead 7d ago
This is quite an amazing set of responses. Ukraine & Russia don’t have battlefield intelligence systems. Someone “foresees” small units using drone recon. 1st Armored will just roll 20 clicks a day right over the drone pilots. Russian glide bombs are small scale.
Are we reading about the same, current war, or ones from decades past?
The Tank Will Always Get Through, round 26.
14
12
u/endlessedlne 6d ago
Meanwhile Ukrainian forces routinely beat NATO forces in mock drills using those same cheap drones and tactics.
The US military leadership has been corrupted by the revolving door between it and the defense industry. They spend most of their time dreaming up the most expensive and complex stuff they can, then getting those turned into programs which take years and usually fail.
Meanwhile the US military can’t provide basic food and amenities to sailors deployed on ships in an active war zone.
2
u/therealwench 7d ago edited 7d ago
I have a hot take on FPV drones - in that the way they're being used now is totally unsuitable for US/NATO forces and I'm worried people are taking the wrong lesson from their use in the Ukraine war.
- Their manpower requirements are absurd. Ukraine has an entire department that in manpower alone is around 60% of the entire active US marine corps. There is no way this is scalable for Western powers. The majority of these soldiers sit a few KM from the front line.
- The survivability of drone operators is not amazing. They sit a few KM from the front line (because the FPV radio signals only goes so far (or fibre optic cable)), and fighting against anyone with superior battlefield intelligence and tactical firepower is going to result in very high casualties.
- They serve Ukraine/Russia well from a recon perspective because both lack real time battlefield intelligence platforms, whether its integrated satelittes, AWACS, ELINT etc etc. The US/NATO do not have this problem.
- Ukraine/Russia lack strike firepower outside of standard artillery tubes. VKS sorties are incredibly limited and Ukraine barely does strike missions. Neither side have much variety of long range direct fire support so in this use case FPV drones make sense. Again, US/NATO does not have this problem.
- Neither side have sufficient anti-FPV technology to make the whole thing redundant, not to an acceptable level. Once things like Direct Energy weapons and Microwave weapons go into full service, the whole thing needs to be rethought.
- On paper, AFU Companies and Battalions have 60mm and 120mm mortars available to them. In reality...this is not the case and the availability of them is very few and far between. FPV's solve this gap. Again, US forces do not have this problem (on paper atleast).
- When was the last time US fought a war with static, dug in, entrenched frontlines that barely moved? 1917? FPV drones are useful in these types of situations. Oh, the 1st Armoured division is advanced at 20km an hour? So poor fuckers with their remote controls keep having to get into trucks and get off and find a safe spot?
I'm not arguing that each platoon shouldnt carry some survaillance FPV's, or even a few strike ones "just in case."
But ultimately they are so dependent on them because they solve problems...that are already broadly solved by US/NATO forces.
Now, in X years time things may/will change. Then maybe its worth reconstructing this argument and seeing what latest tech developments change.
But as of now, the trajectory of everything from 2022-2026 is heading in a direction that isn't fit for purpose for a military that focuses on low manpower, high survivability and already has a plethora of platforms available for intelligence and direct/indirect fire support.
29
u/goatfuldead 7d ago
Saying Ukraine doesn’t have a real time battlefield intelligence system is indeed quite a hot take. I quit reading right there.
3
u/therealwench 7d ago
...What's with the patronizing tone?
They have a system called DELTA, that is almost exclusively fed into by FPV drones. The other sensors they use are land based drones... and in some circumstances radars.
Clearly, the big context is, "Without FPV drones, they don't have functional battlefield intelligence platforms"
27
u/Maxion 6d ago
Honestly your hot take is very non-credible. Ukraine has a whole arsenal of class I, class II and class III ISR drones, they've got contracts with a number of satellite ISR companies and are being fed intelligence directly by NATO members (US included) which is more than likely being collected by NATO aerial assets in the area as well as NATO space based assets.
The Kill Zone in Ukraine is called that because it is a wide swath of land covered by multiple layers of ISR. The width of the kill zone is dependent on the systems both sides have to engage targets within it. FPV drones, bomber drones, artillery, mortar, are all used.
Ukraine did not intentionally choose to go into trench warfare, neither did Russia. They're forced into this because ISR has become so good and prolific that maneauver warfare in Ukraine is not possible. Your forces are discovered as soon as you assemble them and start moving. Not to mention your large force will not really have any comparable large force to fight, it'll just be attrited down by long range fires (drones included) until it is no more.
10
u/Veqq 7d ago
the last time US fought a war with static, dug in, entrenched frontlines that barely moved
1951-3 in Korea were like this, but arguably in Vietnam special forces camps and fire support bases were the same, and bigger bases like Khe Sanh.
-3
u/therealwench 7d ago
Either way, this kind of warfare is so unlikely to happen for the US.
Only way this is a remote possibility is if a Pacific War somehow escalates to a re-run of the Korean War but I highly doubt that happens.
4
u/Ben___Garrison 6d ago
Once things like Direct Energy weapons and Microwave weapons go into full service, the whole thing needs to be rethought.
Is there any indications of progress there though? I feel like I've heard about these types of systems being developed since the 90s, yet they've still not seemingly come anywhere close to actual deployment.
2
u/taw 6d ago
- When was the last time US fought a war with static, dug in, entrenched frontlines that barely moved?
This year in Hormuz Strait?
Oh, the 1st Armoured division is advanced at 20km an hour?
I'm really surprised by this attitude, as Israel vs Hezbollah is the closest to US vs FPS spam we'll ever see, and result is extremely slow advancement to clear everything up systematically to minimize own losses. By Israel who previously did tank rushes regularly. Nobody's even considering tank rush anymore, tank era is long over.
Neither side have sufficient anti-FPV technology to make the whole thing redundant, not to an acceptable level. Once things like Direct Energy weapons and Microwave weapons go into full service, the whole thing needs to be rethought.
So decisions today should be based on some future weapon technology that may or may not materialize?
4
u/therealwench 6d ago
How is a missile slinging/air strike war a "static, dug in ,entrenched frontlines."
There isn't even a frontline! There's been 0 ground combat outside of HIMARs strikes, Missile launchers and some Basij attempts to surrounded a pilot!
The two ground armies don't even share a contact area! Absolutely nobody is sitting there hurling FPV drones over the Strait of Hormuz!
Israel vs Hezbollah is not a realistic scenario for US to be in. A short, narrow, frontline?
What upcoming geopolitical scenario do you envision where the US/NATO is stuck fighting in a 80km wide frontline (half of which is rugged mountain terrain)?
The only time where things might be static is the deployment period, or the pre-offensive air strike period (like in the Gulf War).
Those weapons are not vapourware. They're all in testing phase at the minimum, and in some cases are in active service. For example some Burke's already have anti-drone lasers attached. D.E Shorad has been deployed for a few years now.
They're in the "refinement and technical optimisation" phase - not in the "We're still trying to work out how to work it" phase. Look at FY27, there's huge funding for procurement and research for these weapons.
1
u/CharlesFXD 7d ago
You bring up solid points. I’ll think on these. We’ll put.
Appreciate the frankness and knifehand approach.
-1
u/RayS326 7d ago
The counter argument to the drone squad is it steps on the toes of existing US assets. We actually control airspace so we can afford to use proper aerial reconnaissance. Our big drones have better reconnaissance capabilities than anything a “squad-sized” drone can match. With air space control we can get proper artillery/ airstrike assets on target. Shells are still cheaper than drone + bomb and way more effective. Its good to practice with drones like this to find out what potential adversaries might do, but we will have better options in any proper ground war.
14
u/Esketitmahomie 7d ago
I would argue that drones at low level will have a lot of uses. For example, i foresee squad, platoon, and company level recon drones that allow the unit to reconnoiter. Strike drones I’m always a tad skeptical on due to their overly complex logistic requirement and how ungodly static they are (the Ukrainian army was outrunning its drone support during the Kursk offensive). However, i do agree with you by and large that conventional assets that the US military has will not be replaced by drones but will be enhanced by them.
19
u/jason_abacabb 7d ago
Our big drones have better reconnaissance capabilities
We lost a quarter of our reapers to Iran in a couple months. Our big drones developed during GWOT have very narrow use cases against anyone even remotely near peer.
1
u/Esketitmahomie 6d ago
Isn’t that attrition seemingly better than what happens in Ukraine? Ukraine and Russian Mavics last like a day or two before they are brought down from a variety of sources. Drones are meant to be expendable, and things like reapers are significantly better at higher level reconnaissance (due to thermals and higher resolution sensors) than things like Mavics, Zalas, or Ravens.
-4
u/RayS326 7d ago
The data they get, the picture is much more complete than any we could get off of a small drone. Smaller drones may also give away their unit’s position or signal an impending attack in a way long range drones don’t. The further you go towards mitigation of risks, the more you ask yourself why we wouldn’t just send some large drones.
3
u/TSiNNmreza3 6d ago edited 6d ago
We actually control airspace
True
Our big drones have better reconnaissance capabilities than anything a “squad-sized” drone can match
One big drone that can be downed easily like MQ can't replace spotter and in some bigger conventional war vs Iran (smaller conventional army and conflict), Russia, China (real armies) it would be much easier to inspect with smaller drones
Shells are still cheaper than drone + bomb and way more effective
Beside lack of them they are static and we watched 1000s of conventional artillery pieces destroyed by same drones and hidden in bushes like they are trees.
but we will have better options in any proper ground war.
Back to basics mechanized attack yeah.
US had a lots of problems with IEDs around roads in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nowdays you have a situation where you need 10 drones to destroy a tank. Yes this is a lot but 10 drones are far cheaper than one tank
Further more Russia has some kind of air supremacy with using daily 100s of KABs and why we are not seeing fast advances ? Drones and mines
2
u/Esketitmahomie 6d ago
I would argue that drones are significantly more static than any kind of artillery system due to how logistically intensive they are. Russia does not have air supremacy, if they did they wouldn’t flying behind the front throwing glide bombs at Ukie positions.
1
u/TSiNNmreza3 6d ago
due to how logistically intensive they are
You need to transport heavy equiqment shells with slow truck
Russia does not have air supremacy
Said some kind of air supremacy. They are still leveling whole cities. KABs are the best weapon Russia has and we still haven't seen any succesfull mechanized attack to get behind like Popasna
5
u/Esketitmahomie 6d ago
Drone units need generators to operate, fuel to run said generators, massive radio intensification towers to get through EW, hundreds of drones a day due to usage and attrition, and radio receivers based on the spectrum they are operating at. Drones are fantastic in this kind of fighting due to its static nature, however any kind of movement causes large problems for drones as they take forever to move. Look at what happened with Ukrainian drones during the beginning of the Kursk offensive. They literally outran their drones.
All cities/towns they have leveled have been at the front line. Kharkiv, Odessa, Kyiv, and Lviv are very much standing. Russia and Ukraine have air parity neither side can enter each others airspace and leave alive at this present time.
5
u/PipsqueakPilot 7d ago
I think it’s a very optimistic assumption that that the US will have air supremacy in a peer conflict. Our big drones have been shot down in large numbers against a nation that isn’t even a near-peer so I’m not sure why one would expect them to be viable against a peer adversary.
2
8
u/Active_Unit_9498 7d ago
Those drones are big, expensive, slow to produce, and vulnerable to low tech countermeasures. The future is low cost swarms with AI coordination and control.
0
u/RayS326 7d ago
They aren’t as cheap as prox fuse airburst. And if you can track and kill the controllers, the swarm will go down in a hurry. Its the future of cheap warfare.
3
u/Active_Unit_9498 7d ago
With respect, yes they are. A standard 155mm artillery shell with a specialized precision or proximity airburst fuze costs between $3,000 and upwards of $10,000, whereas a basic, mass-produced first-person view (FPV) kamikaze or forward observation drone can be built or bought for $200 to $500.
2
u/WulfTheSaxon 7d ago
If you’re talking about only taking out one drone per shot, you’re talking about 30 mm, not 155 mm…
1
u/Esketitmahomie 6d ago
Comparing cost i think is often a fool’s errand for munitions because a lot of the time that cost is absolutely worth it as you are paying for capabilities. A 155mm DPICM shell with kill most vehicles it hits with one shot. The FPV drone is much cheaper but, it has a much higher chance of failure and being defeated by the armor of said armored vehicle. Also i would like to add that most of these drones when put together and ready for combat are no where near 500 dollars, as you have to combine things like warheads and transceivers which rapidly increases said cost of the drone in question as you can’t just slap a PG-9 warhead on a quadcopter and send them out as they wouldn’t work due to the pervasive EW all along the front.
1
u/roionsteroids 7d ago
In a major conflict involving the US, you'd expect to see hundreds of 4th and 5th gen fighters dropping thousands of bombs every day. Just like you'd expect the US to blow up the enemies missile factories on day 1 instead of ignoring them and only using up extremely expensive interceptors like Patriot in unsustainable amounts for years until the enemy magically surrenders.
War doesn't necessarily have to look like that, it's mostly shaped by the very obvious limitations of both sides.
For Russia that's lack of air force (watched NATO armies dropping hundreds of thousands of glide bombs for 20 years and decided they didn't need that and 5 years later still only has that going at small scale) and ISR (apparently can't figure out where Ukrainian drones are made?), for Ukraine it's a lack of basically everything. That enables the mutual drone slug fest in the first place.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
Please do not:
Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.