The deadly triad: many, autonomous and unmanned.
Future weapon systems that can change the battlefield.
Armies are always keen to look for new technologies that can be used in warfare. History has shown us that having more sophisticated or entirely new weapons than your adversary can make the difference between victory and defeat. One of the (many) current trends in military technology is the focus on autonomous and unmanned systems. Artificial Intelligence, robotics and lasers are other examples of emerging technologies that may become relevant and applicable in warfare. In this post I will focus on the systems that are autonomous, unmanned and come in great numbers. Or as we like to say in military terminology: that can produce mass and can thus create a concentration of force.
Unmanned systems are already around for some time, namely in the form of drones like the MQ-9 Reaper. The main benefit of unmanned systems is that they minimize the risks for human beings. This was especially important in missions like those of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq, where casualties needed to be avoided at all costs because of the need for the political support for the mission. Don’t get me wrong, casualties always need to be avoided. Yet military operations are about taking risks. Depending on the intent of the operation, the acceptance of risks may be much higher, as is the case in Ukraine at the moment. Other advantages of unmanned systems that are often quoted are less advantageous as sometimes advertised. For example, unmanned systems such as drones seem to imply that you don’t need as much personnel. However, the opposite is currently the case. The total amount of personnel needed to operate and maintain a drone like the MQ-9 Reaper for 24 hours a day can reach 50 to 60.[1] Even small drones that are being operated in Ukraine at the moment often require more than one operator. One to fly the drone and one that needs to navigate towards the target on a (digital) map. This excludes the people needed to build and arm these drones. Another advantage of unmanned systems is that they can reach places that humans cannot, like tunnels, very high altitudes or very deep seas. This last advantage is not always a necessary requisite for weapon or surveillance systems since our targets are often easily accessible. The main advantage is therefore that it lowers the risk of human casualties and therefore makes it easier to take risks that one would normally not take with human beings. The kamikaze drones that are recently being used in Ukraine are an extreme example of this.
Unmanned systems can become more interesting when they become autonomous, meaning that they do not require (enormous amounts of) personnel. People are always the most valuable resource in war. At least for Western Armies that is, the Russians seem to have another take on this in Ukraine at the moment. When you can make systems unmanned and autonomous, you can actually enlarge your force without the need for additional personnel. Automation has some other advantages. These systems can work continuously as long as there is power and ammunition. Humans get tired, need sleep, water, food and can get doubts or battle stress. You can even argue that one can take even bigger risks when using these autonomous systems. You can for example task the system to patrol a certain area and defend it against intruders. You don’t have to monitor its every action since it is automated. Current unmanned systems will crash without human control, with the risk of unintentional harm or damage and of course the risk of losing the system itself. We currently don’t have systems that are sufficiently automated that we will allow them to take action without human oversight, and that is a good thing. However, there will undoubtedly come a time when we will be able to construct unmanned autonomous systems that can (and will be allowed to) responsibly fend for themselves.
Let’s imagine that we have such an unmanned autonomous system, be it for combat functions or surveillance. These will undoubtedly be very expensive in the beginning, which will again influence the amount of risk militaries are willing to take when employing them. Moreover, wars are often about having greater mass (numbers) than the adversary. That is why it is important to have this third ingredient: mass. That likely means that these systems will need to be relatively cheap and easy to produce and preferably disposable. Complicated and expensive systems need maintenance and this again requires human beings and a specialized supply chain. The army that will be able to produce Many Autonomous Unmanned (MAU) systems will have a clear military advantage. I’m imagining thousands instead of dozens. This is an important point because our defence industry has focussed for the last decades on developing and producing ever more advanced systems and equipment because Western militaries required only relatively small numbers of them for the missions like Afghanistan. Moreover, Western militaries were not calculating that these systems would be lost during combat. Many of these systems needed to last as long as possible (ie. years). The war in Ukraine has shown us that weapon systems have a life expectancy of only a couple of days or weeks. What matters is that you have the numbers. The defence industry should therefore focus on developing and producing weapon systems that are autonomous and unmanned but at the same time cheap and disposable (ie. usable in large scale warfare).
Wait! We already have systems like these. They are called mines and we even have specialized versions of them like Anti-Tank (AT) mines and Anti-Personnel (AP) mines. They are obviously unmanned. Mines are also autonomous since they require that the target triggers the explosives. And they come in great numbers. Mines are also always deployed in great numbers. As a rule, soldiers know that when they encounter one mine, there will likely be many more. There are two big limitations however; mines lack mobility and are not intelligent. We already have mines that are highly mobile and have some form of automation: the Switchblade.[2] This is practically a flying explosive, or what we tend to call loitering munitions. The operator though still needs to guide the drone towards its target via a video feed and to be able to abort the mission. The recent rapid advances in drones have made the problem of mobility an easily solvable one. The challenge now is how to make them intelligent enough to make them really autonomous. This will likely take some time and there are many dangers in using systems that are not intelligent enough. What if your unmanned autonomous weapon system accidentally targets civilians or your own troops?
To conclude, if we want to make unmanned systems valuable on the battlefield, they will need to become autonomous and they need to come in great numbers. They do not necessarily need to be very intelligent, as the example of existing mines demonstrates. However, the one who will be able to make these systems both mobile and intelligent will likely have a huge advantage on the battlefield.
[1] https://www.afsoc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/2547323/mq-9-reaper/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade
Picture 1: https://starwars.fandom.com/
Picture 2: https://warriormaven.com/
Mines are one of the most useful metaphors going for this business.