Read it and actually posted it in another thread. I'll add to the narrow spectrum issue the fact that when friendly EW operates it also limits the available spectrum for friendly forces. I can point to several practical examples in Afghanistan where we had technical failures of electronic controlled equipment as a result of friendly EW and poor management of the spectrum at the time.
I'm a great fan of automation and robotics but one has to always ensure that there are enough people in the loop to keep things going when the enemy starts playing its part. We're nowhere near "Terminator" level of robotics where all the "wetware" needs to do is flip the on switch.
A simple example is vehicle movement in Afghanistan. Vehicles have breakdowns. The enemy hits convoys with fire or IEDs. In either case a system is needed to provide security, evacuate wounded, recover the vehicle, transfer cargo, clear and repair the route. In Afghanistan whenever there was a strike it was a people and time extensive operation to get that done. One of the benefits of having sufficient people in the loop is to provide the flexibility to adapt to the situation and to recover from it. Put too many "followers" into a convoy and pretty soon all that flexibility is gone. I'm not for a second saying don't develop these technologies and don't deploy them. What I'm saying is that an army needs to be very careful to not make PY savings the ultimate goal. Everything needs balance.
One thing about HIMARS as the weapon of choice. We have for a very, very long time had the saying that the weapon of the artillery is not the gun - not the delivery system - but the projectile. Artillery is an effects based system and everything going up from the single round was developed based on the effects on the ground. The organization of a troop, a battery and a regiment were always based on the size of a target that could be effectively neutralized by a given artillery element. We're losing that perspective as the term "neutralize" starts to mean different things to different people.
Hand in hand with that is the motto "Ubique" which does not just mean "everywhere" but is also interpreted as "all the time". Artillery prides itself on being an all weather all day capability that can be called on and rapidly shifted around the battlefield. As we get to more sophisticated systems such as rockets and precision munitions we risk leaving gaps - costs per round makes it prohibited as to how many you can afford for your arsenal. Manufacturing complexity makes it difficult to quickly replace expended stocks. In practical terms, HIMARS and systems like it have reload and repositioning gaps where your launcher is not available to fill the time interval in providing fire support of a forward element in need.
All that to say we need to keep a very clear eye on the effects we want to deliver. There is a time for flights of combat drones, a time for either precision or area neutralization by rockets, and still, very much, a time for guns firing both precision and dumb rounds in sufficient quantities to provide the required effects on the target. Let there be balance in the force. And yes, I do think we can and should have some of all of the above.
en.wikipedia.org
