In my mind I believe principles of loitering munitions employment should be something like the following (PICMDEEP, with loitering munitions capabilities):
Pairs We attempt to employ loitering munitions in pairs(squads) at all times. Loitering munitions employed in pairs should remain in Line of Sight of each other. Frequency and connection are key and dictate distance of separation. This allows us to duplicate fires to ensure continuous fire support even if one loitering munition goes down. This also gives us “mutual support”, giving us constant visual on the target and uninterrupted support during immediate action drills or if a loitering munition goes down or temporarily loses connection. Ground mortars/artillery can be integrated to the pairs if needed.
Interlocking flight paths/communication range Reinforce and double the firepower employed across the units frontage. This also ensures no area goes uncovered, especially when flight paths intersect
Coordination of Fires Dictates use of appropriate weapons to fire on appropriate targets. This allows maximum effectiveness of all weapons systems employed, to conserve ammunition, and to mask the loitering munitions position until their fires are required.
Mutual Support The weapons systems need to be able to support each other. If one loitering munition is down or fails, the other weapon needs to be able to fire the mission.
Defilade
Defilade for pilot allows us to pilot the loitering munition behind the mask of terrain outside the effects and observation of the enemy. This allows us to increase survivability of the position and the crew.
Enfilade Whenever we utilize loitering munitions, we attempt to achieve enfilading fires upon our enemy. By enfilade fires we mean that the long axis of the beaten zone coincides with the long axis of the target.
Economy By economy, we mean economy of our fires. We utilize the appropriate weapons systems in accordance with the threat. We establish engagement criteria for our loitering munitions to conserve ammunition, make sure the munition is appropriate to the threat and to ensure crew survivability.
Protection Obvious considerations need to be taken in the construction of loitering munition crew positions in order to ensure maximum survivability of the crew. Once the loitering munitions are ordered to engage, they will obviously become a focal point of the enemy. Cover and concealment are critical. The construction must be robust as well as moved frequently in order to ensure the continued support of their fires.
I think one of the big challenges that line units will face when LMs are used will be deconflicting the airspace, especially in a high density electronic warfare environment. Using large quantities of LMs will need to be balanced against the need for RW and FW CAS. Do we relegate CAS to assisting artillery to shape the deep battle or do we find spatial and temporal methods to combine LMs, CAS, and artillery in support of the close in battle?
The Marine Corps has a very effective process for combined arms already in place. We don't necessarily need to create new planning methods to allow for this employment, when we can instead incorporate another weapon system/ordnance to the currently existing framework. We have been using ISR feeds to coordinate CAS and IDF in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan previously - now it seems to be more a question of FiST/FSC bandwidth and the degree of automation we wish to employ. But to the author's point - the area of influence has increased. Who is in control of fires will need to be hashed out between the O-6 and O-5 levels and we need to train and experiment on this topic now.
Outstanding article. I used this in my studies of the Replicator program for the DoD. This article provides a sound foundation for how units at the ground level are approaching the program. I would argue that the advocates at CD&I, SOI, and WTB need to push this to the Services' approach on obtaining funding for this critical effort.
Beware the Rifle not becoming the Bayonet…
In my mind I believe principles of loitering munitions employment should be something like the following (PICMDEEP, with loitering munitions capabilities):
Pairs We attempt to employ loitering munitions in pairs(squads) at all times. Loitering munitions employed in pairs should remain in Line of Sight of each other. Frequency and connection are key and dictate distance of separation. This allows us to duplicate fires to ensure continuous fire support even if one loitering munition goes down. This also gives us “mutual support”, giving us constant visual on the target and uninterrupted support during immediate action drills or if a loitering munition goes down or temporarily loses connection. Ground mortars/artillery can be integrated to the pairs if needed.
Interlocking flight paths/communication range Reinforce and double the firepower employed across the units frontage. This also ensures no area goes uncovered, especially when flight paths intersect
Coordination of Fires Dictates use of appropriate weapons to fire on appropriate targets. This allows maximum effectiveness of all weapons systems employed, to conserve ammunition, and to mask the loitering munitions position until their fires are required.
Mutual Support The weapons systems need to be able to support each other. If one loitering munition is down or fails, the other weapon needs to be able to fire the mission.
Defilade
Defilade for pilot allows us to pilot the loitering munition behind the mask of terrain outside the effects and observation of the enemy. This allows us to increase survivability of the position and the crew.
Enfilade Whenever we utilize loitering munitions, we attempt to achieve enfilading fires upon our enemy. By enfilade fires we mean that the long axis of the beaten zone coincides with the long axis of the target.
Economy By economy, we mean economy of our fires. We utilize the appropriate weapons systems in accordance with the threat. We establish engagement criteria for our loitering munitions to conserve ammunition, make sure the munition is appropriate to the threat and to ensure crew survivability.
Protection Obvious considerations need to be taken in the construction of loitering munition crew positions in order to ensure maximum survivability of the crew. Once the loitering munitions are ordered to engage, they will obviously become a focal point of the enemy. Cover and concealment are critical. The construction must be robust as well as moved frequently in order to ensure the continued support of their fires.
I think one of the big challenges that line units will face when LMs are used will be deconflicting the airspace, especially in a high density electronic warfare environment. Using large quantities of LMs will need to be balanced against the need for RW and FW CAS. Do we relegate CAS to assisting artillery to shape the deep battle or do we find spatial and temporal methods to combine LMs, CAS, and artillery in support of the close in battle?
The Marine Corps has a very effective process for combined arms already in place. We don't necessarily need to create new planning methods to allow for this employment, when we can instead incorporate another weapon system/ordnance to the currently existing framework. We have been using ISR feeds to coordinate CAS and IDF in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan previously - now it seems to be more a question of FiST/FSC bandwidth and the degree of automation we wish to employ. But to the author's point - the area of influence has increased. Who is in control of fires will need to be hashed out between the O-6 and O-5 levels and we need to train and experiment on this topic now.
Outstanding article. I used this in my studies of the Replicator program for the DoD. This article provides a sound foundation for how units at the ground level are approaching the program. I would argue that the advocates at CD&I, SOI, and WTB need to push this to the Services' approach on obtaining funding for this critical effort.