And therein lies the coordination problem. Until we got to Afghanistan and people started working cheek to jowl with each other for a year, there was a distinct lack of understanding as to what the other guy brought to the table and how best to split the workload between them.
The 20% here includes SPs. That's well and good but that means there has to be training with that. The big issue though comes with the 40% expendables which are effectively effects or munitions. Some of those need to be carried around by the folks up front but most are delivered, or should be delivered and even guided from behind the lines. Add to that that many of the 40% of reusables also are launched and more than likely controlled from the rear.
When I see systems like a fourth seat in a tank for a UAV operator I immediately start to think that folks are missing the plot in order to find ways to notionally remain relevant. Cooperation and coordination through properly networked systems where controllers are kept out of the line of fire but their work product is directed and displayed to the folks who are dodging incoming rounds leads to a better "team."
The Brits, like us, are an infantry-centric army. The armoured brigades think too little about integrating with fires. I see a better future with deep recce strike. In large measure the problem comes from Afghanistan where the Brits, like us, grew a generation of officers (both combat arms and combat support . . . and signals) weaned on the battle-group without a firm understanding of how to integrate larger forces efficiently.
I always hate to be critical of a system based on an article where maybe the reporter just doesn't get it. 20-40-40 itself actually sounds like a move in the right direction once everyone figures out where the puzzle pieces need to fit together.
In our youth there was much talk about Smart rounds and Brilliant rounds, often to be delivered to the battlefield by 155s and MRLS rockets. The Brilliant Anti Tank or BAT round comes to mind - an early autonomous round.
Now I'm wondering about the relative cost of those things compared to these interceptor drones - 1000 to 3000 Dollars each, or roughly the price of a dumb arty or tank round.
But carried by hand or the truckload, launched without infrastrucure and reusable if they don't find a target.
20-40-40 - whatever the scalar is.
20 protected - the stuff with squshy centres.
40 attritable - UxVs that can break the bank if lost too frequently
40 disposable - UxVs? Brilliant rounds? Smart bullets?
Are dumb bullets a separate line item?
I am sure 20-40-40 briefed well when the Chief uttered it.
...
I agree about the 4th man in the tank.
How about this one?
Your starting 20 is 4 vehicles.
A gun tank
An arty projector ( gun or rocket)
A squad carrier
A command vehicle
If that then your next 40 is 16 UXVs for breaching, fire support, cuas, isr, evac and log? Maybe 32 if they are only half price? 64 if a quarter?
Either way, even if I only had to coordinate 16 autonomous soldiers to cover off all those support tasks while I was rolling and trying to concentrate on my day job I would be hard pressed.
And as to the final 40, the disposables, as you note how does that differ from regular ammunition and other consumables?
...
I don't think the people rolling are going to be the ones controlling all those UXVs, anymore than they would be directly controlling a recce squadrons vehicles, an engineer troop or a transport platoon's vehicles.
I suspect that many of those assets will be fairly autonomous but under supervisory control of people co-located with your fire control centres ... with the provision of services managed in a like manner.
Interceptor drone that can launch itself block and defeat a target for $1-3000. 120mm DU APFSDS apparently cost $10-20,000 in 2024.
And that while no doubt exquisite, is as dumb as it comes.
What does 20-40-40 mean?
ua.news
www.bbc.com
www.navylookout.com
