Upgun Everything

In modern warfare, everyone in the theater of warfare is on the front lines. The way that we arm military vehicles in the air, at sea, and on land, should reflect that reality. No manned military vehicle or system or base outside the U.S. should be considered out of harms way of hostile enemy forces, and thus exempt from having basic minimums of weapons and force protection.

In other words, everything military that isn't already optimized for primary combat roles should be up gunned, and should have some basic minimum levels of active and passive defenses. This echoes somewhat, the Marine Corps motto that every Marine is a rifleman, in addition to any other responsibilities that a Marine may have in a unit.

As an aside to save for another future post, responsibility for military homeland defense against invasions, and responses to disasters and insurrections at home, should be the primary responsibility of the Army National Guard, the Air Force National Guard, and the Coast Guard, whose organization and gear should be specialized to meet these needs rather than simply serving as a second tier group of reserve soldiers as they do today. Equipment and capabilities not necessary for homeland defense and disaster response should be transferred from the National Guard and Coast Guard to the Army Reserves, Air Force Reserves, Navy Reserves, and Marine Corps Reserves.

Upgunning In The Air

Warplanes without offensive weapons are an oxymoron that should not exist in the 21st century U.S. military.

Every non-combatant military aircraft including every transport helicopter, VIP transportation plane, manned reconnaissance aircraft, V-22, C-22 Greyhound, C-130, C-17, C-5, tanker aircraft, and light attack fixed wing aircraft in the U.S. military should have, at a minimum, a couple of bottom of the line air to air missiles and a couple of guided air to ground missiles or bombs. They should also have, at least, basic anti-drone/anti-missile electronic jamming defenses. Right now, many of these aircraft are completely unarmed or have only flare decoys, and don't even provide protection for personnel and vulnerable fuel and ammunition from small arms fire. They should also all have night vision and instrument landing capabilities.

The goal is not to make these aircraft part of the primary offensive air fleet. Instead, the goal is to provide some limited capability to engage low end interceptor aircraft or enemy civilian aircraft crudely repurposed for war, to provide some ability to engage small ground forces obstructing a landing area, and to provide an additional layer of defense against unsophisticated remote controlled or GPS guided drones and missiles, to the extent that this can be done with minimal additional weight. 

Similarly, while all aircraft mostly rely on speed, altitude, and distance to protect themselves from enemy fire, rather than armor, manned military aircraft should protect people inside them from small arms fire at least as well as an infantryman's flak jacket and helmet, and should provide a similar level of protection to fuel tanks and carried ammunition. In aircraft with a simple aluminum hull, this could be a simple as retrofitting a kevlar lining in parts of the aircraft exterior that have vulnerable targets behind it.

These basically defensive weapons won't provide the benefit of the advanced avionics and radar, maneuverability, supersonic speeds, or stealth  of fighter and bomber aircraft. But they would be better than the virtually nothing that some of these aircraft have now. 

None of this is intended to slight existing minimum standards like the availability of ejection seats, parachutes, rescue beacons, first aid kits, life rafts and personal floatation devices, first aid kits, back up oxygen sources, and small arms carried by flight crews, etc.

Upgunning At Sea

In the same vein, every ship that is in, or could be called into, U.S. Navy service (including merchant marine and Coast Guard vessels) should also meet some minimum standards, as should almost every boat (even deep sea/ocean class life rafts).

Every manned surface vessel and submarine (other than hospital ships), including amphibious force transport ships, aircraft carriers, fuel tankers, supply ships, littoral combat ships, expeditionary sea bases, command ships, rescue ships for sunken submarines, and Coast Guard cutters, should have, at a minimum:

* Some sort of air defense suitable for use against a helicopter or large drone, such as a couple of man portable anti-aircraft missiles, like the Stinger;

* Basic anti-drone/anti-missile electronic jamming defenses; 

* Some sort of additional anti-air drone/anti-missile weapons (a variety of systems from lasers to microwave energy bursts to small missiles to the Phalanx Close In Weapons System to interceptor drones are being explored for that purpose);

* If it has no naval guns, at least a couple of surface to surface missiles, with at least the capabilities of an army anti-tank missile, like a TOW missile or a Javelin missile, that could be used to take out a small boat or unmanned surface boat drone, carrying pirates, a small military boarding party, or the like;

* Each vessel should also have some sort of machine gun, from an assault rifle in a life raft or very small craft, to a 0.50 caliber heavy machine gun or small 25-50mm canon of the scale carried as a secondary weapon on a tank or infantry fighting vehicle, to provide a direct fire tool to respond to the same kind of threats, at the largest size that would not be a significant burden to the vessel;

* Any ship of about 500-1000 tons or more, regardless of its purpose should also have at least one or two shipping container sized anti-ship missiles that are either comparable to those found in existing vertical launch systems on frigates and destroyers, or a smaller anti-ship missile system capable of at least disabling, if not sinking, most non-warships, missile boats, cutters, corvettes, frigates, and destroyers; 

* all but the very smallest military vessels and vessels that could be called into military service should protect people inside them from small arms fire at least as well as an infantryman's flak jacket and helmet, and should provide a similar level of protection to fuel tanks and carried ammunition. In vessels whose hulls don't meet those standards, like deep sea/ocean grade life rafts and light aluminum vessels, this could be a simple as retrofitting a kevlar lining in parts of the hull, or select "safe rooms" walls that have vulnerable targets behind them; 

* Every military vessel should have at least one airborne drone, with a size suitable for the vessel, that it can deploy to provide visual awareness of a larger area than can be seen from the highest vantage point on  the vessel itself, and night vision capabilities; and

* Every military vessel, right down to life rafts and the smallest inflatable motorboats, should have a secure satellite phone or a satisfactory alternative (with the capacity to allow the user to call in air strikes or missile strikes as a forward observer).

As in the case of aircraft, these enhancements aren't going to turn every cargo ship into a primary surface combatant. But, it would provide military vessels with more protection than the vast majority of civilian vessels against pirates, small boarding parties, swarms of armed small boats, attack helicopters, armed drones, an isolated warship on patrol (including one that might have been disguised as a fishing boat or yacht), and small arms fire while in port or near shore.

In the status quo, some or all of these capabilities are absent from almost all non-combatant vessels and also from amphibious force transport ships, littoral combat ships, and aircraft carriers. But the cost and weight involved in upgrading the entire fleet to this military capability level would be modest, and it would greatly increase the resilience of the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard as a whole, for example, allowing these ships to have some defenses if they are separated from their escort warships or if there is a need for them to deploy in small numbers without an escort. 

None of this is intended to slight existing minimum standards like the availability of life rafts, personal floatation devices, rescue beacons, medical resources, small arms carried by crews on ships, etc.

Upgunning On Land

* Every military ground vehicle that is manned or carries fuel or ammunition (bigger than a motorcycle, electric bicycle, or ATV), retrofitted if necessary, and every military base that is more than a tent to be used for one or two nights, should have areas inside them that protect personnel from small arms fire at least as well as an infantryman's flak jacket and helmet (perhaps in a safe room, fox hole, or trench in the case of a base), and should provide a similar level of protection to fuel tanks and carried ammunition. The U.S. military shouldn't have to repeat the lessons we learned from the losses to unarmored Humvees with completely unarmored logistics support vehicles;

* Every new military ground vehicle that is manned or carries fuel or ammunition deployed outside the U.S. should have a "v-shaped hull" or other design features that mitigate the risk of harm to personnel, fuel, and ammunition from IEDs and land mines;

* Every manned military ground vehicle deployed outside the U.S., other than medical vehicles, and every military base that is more than a tent to be used for one or two nights, should carry, either in easily accessible storage or an in integrated weapons system: (1) at least one anti-armor weapon such as a TOW missile, Javelin missile, recoilless rifle, or rocket propelled grenade, that can be used against unarmored or lightly armored enemy military vehicles or light fortifications (e.g. sand bags), (2) at least one man portable anti-aircraft missile, like the Stinger, for use against helicopters, large armed drones, and low flying fixed wing aircraft, and (3) the largest feasible direct fire weapon for the vehicle in question from an automatic weapon from a carbine for each soldier on the vehicle, to a remotely operated CROWS mount, to a 0.50 caliber heavy machine gun or small 25-50mm canon of the scale carried as a secondary weapon on a tank or infantry fighting vehicle; this minimum can be met, if necessary, with a modest sized additional storage bin in vehicles that lack these capabilities like supply trucks, and at forward operating bases;

* Every manned military ground vehicle deployed outside the U.S.  and every military base that is more than a tent to be used for one or two nights, should have: (1) basic anti-drone/anti-missile electronic jamming defenses, (2) some sort of additional point defense anti-air drone/anti-missile weapon or weapons (as noted before, a variety of different concepts are being explored), (3) a system to instantly identify the location of (and where feasible, to immediately fire back at, if feasible to add this capability) snipers who fire on the vehicle or base, (4) at least one airborne drone with a size suitable to the vehicle or base that it can deploy to provide visual awareness of a larger area than can be seen at ground level, (5) night vision equipment, and (6) a secure satellite phone or a satisfactory alternative  (with the capacity to allow the user to call in air strikes or missile strikes as a forward observer).

Again, these enhancements aren't going to turn every manned military ground vehicle into a primary combatant, and won't turn every forward operating base into a castle or ultra-secure bunker. But, it would provide all military vehicles and semi-permanent bases with more protection than the vast majority of civilian vehicles against small arms fire and shrapnel, and some way to fight back against unexpected threats more powerful than infantry with small arms. This is essential in the modern war zone where the entire theater of the conflict is effectively on the front lines.

In the status quo, some or all of these capabilities are absent from almost all non-combatant vehicles such as logistics trucks, which have proven vulnerable in the Ukraine War on both sides. But the cost and weight involved in upgrading the entire U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps to this military capability level would be modest, and it would greatly increase the resilience of U.S. military ground forces.

None of this is intended to slight existing minimum standards like flak jackets, helmets, first aid kits, a soldier's personal carbine, rifle or handgun, putting soldiers on patrol duty at forward operating bases, air bags and spare tires in vehicles, and ammunition carried by individual soldiers, etc.