Precision provides speed until the other side had precision, too. Being first will be nice but it won't be the last word in battlefield dominance.
The [Army Maneuver Center of Excellence] also wants to push emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning down to small units that are employing small drones or ground robots.
“How can we apply artificial intelligence to help soldiers and leaders in small units make better decisions faster?” [Donald Sando] asked.
Sando asked for industry’s assistance in solving an age-old problem: how to help rifle or scout platoons target enemy combatants in a firefight who have taken cover either underground or behind walls.
“I have to solve that problem as fast as I can with the weapon systems that I have on site. I can't be waiting for fire support or air support or anything else,” he noted.
The objective is a more lethal platoon that can organically solve its own tactical problems. While the Army would like to be able to destroy enemies with distant precision, a close fight can't be the Army's weak point where casualties are the price of doing business:
“If we can't avoid [the close fight], we want to enter it under conditions that are favorable to us. Makes sense, right? If I got to get in a gun fight, I want to go in under my terms. And when you're in it, you’ve got to win it and you’ve got to win it fast,” Sando said.
The longer a skirmish lasts, the longer troops remain vulnerable, he noted. “We don't need hours-long fights. They're good for the Movie Channel, but they're not good for the modern battle.”
I've been writing about this link between precision and speed for years. Four years ago I collected a lot of links to old posts in this post:
Precision firepower continues to get cheaper. Once expensive and only deliverable by specialized aircraft, precision firepower is reaching individual troops. This will speed battle tempo tremendously. ...
We already have plenty of precision air power and tube and rocket precision at brigade and higher levels.
Add in drone/grenades or mortar rounds (as a mini-air force for both strike and surveillance capabilities, and communications), precision 60mm mortar rounds at the platoon level, guided 81mm mortar rounds at the company level, and precision 120mm mortars at the battalion level, and we speed up the tempo of conventional operations tremendously by reducing the need to call up the chain of command for needed support, when coupled with Blue Force Tracker technology that lets our commanders see where their troops are.
With an anti-tank round, the XM25 also puts a portable weapon with relatively cheap rounds capable of destroying light armored vehicles in a squad to supplement more expensive anti-tank missiles or unguided rockets.
Still, it isn't all sunshine and walks in the park if the Army achieves that, as I commented on after noting precision rifle research:
In one sense [precision rifles] is kind of scary. We count on training to make our troops superior and not just our technology edge. If even ill-trained troops can shoot that well with similar technology, that edge drains away in one key area.
On the bright side, we will be able to focus training on other aspects of being a soldier to maintain our broader training edge. But we will have to change our training to take this into account.
And if we network all this stuff, precision firepower at lower levels and persistent surveillance will keep our ground forces very lethal with the ability to shoot first and kill enemies quickly--and even defend our troops.
Although what we do when we run low the precision rounds is another question. Then battle tempo will slow down despite the technology.
Last year I noted that problem of the enemy catching up:
The ability to reduce the work load at the pointy end of the stick in calling in fires and effects is an important capability to gain. It will speed up battle tempo. Until it doesn't.
But until then, I agree that pushing precision down to lower levels will speed up battle tempo, as I wrote in 2009:
Being able to use organic precision firepower means that units can handle threats without calling on brigade or higher level artillery/rocket assets or air power. Fewer problems will be beyond the capacity of the battalion to defeat.
This will speed up our units by allowing our units to keep advancing more quickly without waiting for outside assets to handle a threat that organic firepower is unable to deal with quickly.
Of course, eventually we'll face conventional enemies with this capability. Then speed won't be just our advantage.
Indeed, I was on to this in 2007 before precision was pushed down as much as we are seeing today:
Precision munitions aren't just about accuracy. They are about speed. ...
Coupled with recon assets that now roam the battlefield, precision strike capability will continue this speeding up effect. Our ground forces can look to the day in conventional combat where we kick off attacks and count on our forces to spot enemies during the advance and then destroy them with precision weapons when identified. The speed of reaction may very well allow us to fight in damn near march order in non-urban areas without having to pause to deploy against resistance unless it is a major force well dug in and concealed.
And precision fire support means that line units won't need to fire as much because supporting units to the rear and in the air will take out the targets. And those supporting units won't need to resupply as often, too. So pauses to resupply will dwindle.
Given that night vision gear and land navigation abilities based on GPS allow us to operate 24/7, the limits of human endurance will be the next brake on the speed of combat tempo. We're working on that, too.
I think I was writing about it in 2004, but I think I lost a lot of 2004 posts prior to the transition to Blogger, as I lamented last year:
I know I blogged about 3rd Infantry Division's cavalry squadron in the 2003 invasion of Iraq reflecting this speed/precision link, but it must be on the mostly dead Yahoo!Geocities version of The Dignified Rant pre-December 2004.
Just because the advantage is likely to be fleeting until enemies can do the same thing, I'd rather be first.
