Robert Solano的动态

查看Robert Solano的档案,图片

Commander @ DCMA | DoD Acquisitions Expert | Artificial Intelligence Enthusiast | Above all, a loving father and husband

I have mixed feelings about whether the Army's drone and counter-drone capabilities should be grouped together, as proposed by a House Armed Services Committee (HASC) subcommittee and included in the Department's Replicator initiative. Combining these capabilities seems to blur the lines between two distinct capabilities. The Aviation branch and Air Defense Artillery branch are separate branches. I believe it is Infantry branch, not the Armor branch, that is the proponent for anti-armor crew served weapons. Historically, the Department has differentiated between offensive and defensive weapon systems. Yet now, we're merging UAS and c-UAS ? While I understand the rationale behind lumping UAS and c-UAS together, especially in the context of securing scarce funding, I'm not sure it's the best long-term solution. We are setting up these capabilities to compete against each other for funding and resources. However, c-UAS should be competing with air defense and other force protection priorities, while offensive and scout drones should be competing for resources against other offensive weapon systems. Just my thoughts ??. p.s. Just for fun, this image is ChatGPT's attempt to create an "Army Drone Corps logo."

  • 该图片无替代文字
Matt Paladino

Airborne Intelligence Systems Portfolio Manager

6 个月

Replicator is an acquisition process/pathway. Establishment of a drone corps would be a T10 build people/organize/train process. Replicator would come in at the equip stage. There are at least two other branches not being discussed here which possess critical skills, attributes, equipment and training which are critical to the c-UAS fight: Intel and Cyber/EW (one branch for now, ack’ing the EW CoE proposal on the table). Thus my belief it makes more sense to make c-UAS a common warfighting task (like shooting a rifle, enabling maneuver and fires, etc) than to create a separate warfighting branch. In addition to policy and authorities hurdles (like who is allowed to attack through the EMS today? 17 series. Who is allowed to collect and retain EMS data for exploitation? 35 series.) we would have to figure out how to manage a probably very unwieldy and lengthy AIT/OBC/PME that teaches one how to sense, make sense, maneuver, target, deliver effects, assess, and re-attack. Those are currently spread across various branches, and this proposal seeks to combine those skills into one. Fielding UGVs, UAS, and c-UAS capabilities? Relatively easy. Changing the entire DOTMLPF at once? Very difficult - and time consuming.

Daniel Gomez

Habitual Line Stepper - Irregular Warfare Warrior - Envelope Pusher. I prepare National Defense Professionals to fight the unknown.

6 个月

Good points Robert Solano I think C-UAS should absolutely go under ADA. Meanwhile, I think we should have a robotics branch. The UAS for anything under what fixed wing flies to ground vehicles and future mechs etc.

Moses Cobb, PMP

Project Management Professional (PMP) certified | Professional Scrum Master I (PSM-1) certified | CompTIA Security+/ Network+/ A+ Certified | LSSYB | Servant Leader | Veteran

6 个月

With the creation of a drone branch (definitely a DJI Phantom 4 in the pic), the BAE/ADAM cells at BCT levels becomes a primary stakeholder, specifically with airspace deconfliction, flight following, recognition, and protected assets. I can see how those personnel assigned to that section would benefit from being involved with the training, especially if they decide to give the BDE Group-1 UAS Master Trainer position to the section's NCOIC (good times). The UAS/c-UAS training could be a tool used by BCTs to win the surveillance game.

Rob Allen, MInstRE

Senior Consultant, Training Solutions Team at Whitetree

6 个月

If micro UAVs are used at squad level, there is possible utility of UAVs as casevac assets and likely other uses in the near future how do you separate what belongs in 'Drone corps' and what is controlled at unit/sub-unit level? Surely UAVs become another tool in the box like GPS, biometric monitors, vision devices etc?

Ian Ferguson MSc

EW/Cyber/Simulation/Technology Advisor

6 个月

C-UAS should always be viewed as a layered AD capability and should absolutely sit with the air defence community. I agree merging UAS and C-UAS will provide issues and even though it would seem to encourage partnership and idea sharing etc. I think that would be short lived due to the funding constraints causing a competitive environment.

Rich Harrison

Senior Field Service Engineer || DOD Secret Clearance, Sec+, Linux+

5 个月

Great perspective! I think you're spot on. Being that I've worked in Air Defense Artillery & Counter UAS as both Soldier and Civilian, these are issues that have affects on my daily life. The different proponent branches within the Army have been fighting for the past decade (it seems) to take the reins of c-UAS away from ADA primarily for the pot of money it comes with. When it comes down to basic MOS tasks & functions, it seems more than clear that UAS belongs with the Aviation branch and c-UAS with the Air Defense branch.

回复
Sean Lindley

Destructive Devices, Explosives & ITAR Consultant/Expert Witness | Entrepreneur | Firearms, Ordnance & Less-Lethal Manufacturer, Importer, Exporter & Dealer

6 个月

The "joke" ChatGPT logo is ungodly amounts of cringe. But thanks to the Army being the Army, it's simultaneously both better and less cringe than whatever the Army would actually cook up while trying to be serious.

Travis Hord

Strategy Development

6 个月

-avoid at this time

Ryan Connell

CDAO | TEDx | Defense Acquisition

6 个月

Figured I'd try too. Gemini. Words are garbled but cool design

  • 该图片无替代文字
Michael Crouse

CEO Crouse Global Advisory Services | SVP Business Development World View Enterprises | Exclusive U.S. Partner for the Unmanned Network

5 个月

Should not be combined…but let’s leave it to the so-called experts.

回复
查看更多评论

要查看或添加评论,请登录