The Future of Infantry III
The Missile Cometh
A quick note about the previous installment of this series, wherein I was skeptical that FPV drones would be an infantry weapon of the future. There was news this week that Ukraine will produce a million of the drones next year. What’s the disconnect? There isn’t one: I’m skeptical that FPV drones will be an infantry weapon, but I’m not skeptical that they will be employed widely in other ways. How they end up being deployed will depend a lot on how they continue to perform in Ukraine and how the Ukrainians employ them.
I am not at all this skeptical about loitering munitions.
This isn’t any great insight on my part. Both the Army and the Marine Corps are looking to invest heavily in loitering munitions. I just think that this is the right call and loitering munitions will become a mainstream infantry weapon in short order.
By loitering munitions, I specifically mean weapons that fire missiles that can be controlled in flight as opposed to FPV single-use “kamikaze” drones that were the subject of the last installment. The “loitering” terminology comes from the fact that they’re designed to stay in flight for long periods, giving an operator time to adjust their target in real time. They are frequently lumped together with FPV drones, like in this Breaking Defense article. But they have different employment considerations and different capabilities, at least for infantry forces. I think they should be treated differently and that loitering munitions will become an infantry weapon of choice rather than FPV drones.
Why will they become an infantry weapon? Firstly, because they can be launched by weapons the infantry already carry. Loitering munitions can be launched by shoulder-fired tube like a Javelin or SMAW. Other are launched just like a conventional mortar. It’s not out of the realm of the possible that loitering munitions can be developed to be fired from already existing systems. At that point, only the munition places an additional logistics burden unless it is swapped out for traditional ammunition based on mission.
Second, a well-handled loitering munition can do the exact same job as a FPV drone, but only the munition itself is expendable. When paired with reusable sUAS systems for persistent recon, the infantry doesn’t need to hump a bunch of expendable FPV drones. Again, there’s a different equation for mechanized or motorized infantry, but since they will have to leave the vehicles at some point, loitering munitions are the better tool. They can also be vehicle mounted.
Third, and probably the most important and overlooked aspect of loitering munitions, is their control system. Look in the below picture. Notice how similar the controller is to a video game controller. It’s essentially a Nintendo Switch. Younger generations are going to find them very easy to use, perhaps even easier than learning how to shoot a rifle.
Add all this up with another ability unique to loitering munitions: the pass-off. Infantry forces don’t have to carry all the loitering munitions they may want to employ. If the situation calls for a larger or longer-range munition, it can be fired from well behind the line or from a ship at sea or from an aircraft in the vicinity of the infantry unit. The control of the munition can then be passed to the grunt on the ground to guide it the rest of the way to the required target. This is a powerful capability for an infantry unit to possess. Not just combined arms at the squad level, but multiple options for doing so. They give the squad leader a highly-lethal, precision capability where previously the squad would have to call for artillery or air support to provide it.
Loitering munitions won’t displace the traditional infantry weapons: machineguns and mortars will still be needed to perform their fixing role as loitering munitions may not be able to perform it. But missile-based infantry combat is on the way. They not only give the squad leader an organic precision munition, but a powerful anti-tank and anti-hard point capability that is currently provided by multiple weapons. They probably won’t displace the Javelin, but they will displace the SMAW and AT4 and likely underbarrel grenade launchers like the M203. The squad gets more bang and more options for the weight buck with loitering munitions.
This begs the question though: who in the infantry unit should be employing loitering munitions? They do have to be controlled after launch and until they function, which means someone has their nose stuck to a screen. They’re not moving or providing security. The Marine Corps has toyed with a single infantry MOS, but that idea apparently died in experimentation. It seems to me that the employment considerations for loitering munitions are much the same as a mortar, but that may just be my 0341 background slotting it into a preexisting context. Still, infantry units should probably investigate a two-MOS option: one for direct fire weapons and one for indirect fire weapons including mortars and loitering munitions, with a follow-on course for designated scouts trained to employ sUAS systems and the ability to tap into satellite imagery.
This is not to say that loitering munitions will be a weapon exclusive to the infantry. There are much larger loitering munitions that would be more appropriate for the artillery, as well as air-launched versions. These won’t be organic to infantry units but could still be usefully called upon. And provide a much larger punch.
Weekly Links:
I agree that the natural home for infantry loitering munitions is in mortars, since the mortar platoon already holds the knowledge, equipment, and experience in IDF which goes hand-in-hand with airspace deconfliction. I expect the trend in standoff weapons to continue. The focus will be on allowing troops to hit targets in defilade and/or from defilade without direct line of sight. The line between direct and indirect fire specialists will become very blurry.