The
Navy is scrambling to write its new acquisition and operational playbook on the
fly, a decision based as much on what US rivals are doing as it is on what the service hasn’t done in recent decades. (1)
Well, how can acquisitions and doctrine/operations developed
“on the fly” not produce a good result?
Isn’t “on the fly” the key to a successful, solid, well founded
program? OF COURSE IT’S NOT!!!! Only an idiot – or the Navy – would initiate
major programs “on the fly”.
The
construction and innovation booms being undertaken by the Chinese — and to a
lesser extent Russian — navies, are forcing the admirals at the Pentagon to
push new, still mostly theoretical, unmanned technologies into the water
as quickly as possible for urgent make-or-break tests. (1)
Why are we reacting to the Russians/Chinese instead of the
other way around? What have our
esteemed, professional, military leaders been doing the last decade or two
while the Russians and Chinese have been steadily catching up to us? We know what they’ve been doing – they’ve
been pursuing gender sensitivity, green energy, jobs creation, diversity,
misanthropy, humanitarian response, and the like. What should they have been doing? They should have been studying the Russians
and Chinese, anticipating future military challenges and needs, preparing for
combat, and maximizing readiness. But,
they weren’t.
The
biggest gamble — with potentially the highest payoff — is the $3.7 billion
worth of unmanned programs the service included in its 2020 budget submission. The spending
includes $447 million to buy two large unmanned surface vehicles [LUSV] that
can provide a variety of missions from long-range surveillance to offensive
operations. (1)
So, in a desperate attempt to find some military advantage,
after having squandered our previous advantages, the Navy has latched on to
‘unmanned’. Yes, unmanned platforms
(doesn’t matter what kind!) will give us unrivaled military advantages and
vanquish our foes. True, none of these
unmanned platforms are designed and based on solid warfighting principles, none
have valid concepts of operation (CONOPS), and none have been tested in
realistic combat exercises but that’s beside the point because … they’re unmanned !!!!!
Well, let’s be fair.
ComNavOps has repeatedly called for more extensive prototyping and the
Navy is just buying two of the LUSVs so what’s wrong with that? It’s only one more than a prototype,
right? Well, there’s also this,
After
the 2020 budget, the Navy plans to buy two LUSVs a year until 2024, for a total
of about $2.7 billion. The Navy is making plans to buy 232 unmanned platforms
of different sizes and configurations over the next several years. (1)
I guess the Navy is already committed to more than two
LUSVs. It looks like, sight unseen and
utterly untested, they’re committed to a $2.7B program to obtain around ten of
the LUSVs !!!! Did the Navy learn
nothing from the LCS debacle where they committed to 55 ships before the first
was even designed? Apparently, not. So, we’re going to repeat our mistake because
we’re in panic mode and flailing around looking for something to give us an
advantage since we wasted the advantages we had and appear incapable of
reasoning out and developing legitimate advantages based on professional
military acumen.
It appears, though, that some vital questions have not yet
been addressed and answered despite our commitment to the acquisition program.
But
most key questions over how these unmanned ships will be controlled, by who,
and if they will deploy independently or as part of traditional strike groups,
have yet to be answered. (1)
Correct me if I’m wrong – and I’m not – but these kinds of
questions are exactly what a CONOPS would answer. So, having failed to learn the lesson of
building ships (LCS, AFSB, new frigate, etc.) without a CONOPS, we’re going to
do it again.
Why are we doing this?
Announcing
these huge investments without a corresponding operational plan is “an
expression of the urgency the Navy is attaching to the situation” of trying to
stay operationally unpredictable while keeping ahead of the Chinese and
Russian, Ronald O’Rourke, the top naval analyst at the Congressional Research
Service, told an audience Monday at the Heritage Foundation. (1)
No, this is not a sign of urgency, this is a sign of
stupidity and, given the repetitive nature of the errors while hoping for a
different outcome, a sign of insanity.
“Operationally unpredictable”? Yeah, I guess stupidity, by its very
definition is unpredictable but that doesn’t make it combat-useful. Hey, Navy, why don’t you build a fleet of
attack rowboats? It would be a lot
cheaper and still meet the goal of being “operationally unpredictable”!
This is bad but at least it’s not like this kind of
scatterbrained, haphazard, clueless acquisition is normal … or is it?
The
big spending on unmanned systems before many core questions are answered “is
emblematic of where some acquisition may be heading in the coming years … (1)
After how many failed acquisition programs, we’re now going
to codify this type of idiotic acquisition process and make it our new
standard? Are you kidding me?
Navy observers, at least, can see that this approach will
lead to failures. Noted observer Eric
Labs stated,
The
Navy “needs to socialize for various audience that we’re going to have
failures,” as these programs move forward quickly, and continue to change, said
Eric Labs, appearing alongside O’Rourke at Heritage. (1)
Of course you’re going to have failures. It’s baked into the idiotic process. It would be surprising if it produced
anything but failures.
Labs continued,
“If
they don’t do that socialization as part of the acquisition process many people
might draw parallels to the LCS program,” which has suffered years of criticism
— much of it earned — as it slogged through different operational concepts and
technology failures. (1)
Parallels to the LCS????
It’s an exact duplicate! It’s
already an assured failure.
Honestly, I grow weary of the institutional incompetence of
the Navy. The failures-in-the-making
could not be more obvious and yet the Navy refuses to heed the warnings and learn
any lessons. The entire Navy flag rank
needs to be fired.
(1)Breaking Defense website, “232 Unmanned
Ships May Be Key To Countering China, Russia ”, Paul McLeary,
15-Apr-2019,
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/04/232-unmanned-ships-may-be-key-to-countering-china-russia/
100% correct, the number of horrible decisions coming from Big Navy going back to the mid-90's is rather large, and no one seems to want to break the mold. Zumwalt, LCS, F35C, Not enough Growlers, diversity/gender games, etc.
ReplyDeleteIf any peer to peer conflict means satellites and comms/signals go out, or are reduced, what happens to these unmanned LUSV's?
I guess China can just collect the one's that go dead in the water?
I expect there are a couple of hundred Chinese IT specialists that are sitting around High-Fiving each other while they laugh at the American planners.
DeleteThose are the guys that will go after whatever technology is planned, probably down to the level of "as built" drawings in an effort to make all that unmanned tech sail in ever decreasing circles until it disappears down its own navel. Pun intended.
Seems like an astoundingly dangerous idea to me considering how bad we have proven to be at protecting our intellectual property.
At least if its manned hopefully someone can hit the "off" switch!!
"Hey, Navy, why don’t you build a fleet of attack rowboats? It would be a lot cheaper and still meet the goal of being “operationally unpredictable”!
ReplyDeleteLove it!
What ever happened to build a little, test a lot?
Buying one or two ships to test the concept of an unmanned sensor, or weapons platform is reasonable.
If the point is to explore AI opportunities the Navy needs to build a concept of test and evaluation for the technology.
Leaping to production is likely premature: we have limited functioning robots in limited fields
- Control: remote, AI, simple algorithms, mixture of systems with fall backs, or something else? AoA, cost, and performance analysis.
- Sensor and data link integration.
- Weapons: task force, ship self-defense.
- Communication security.
Plenty of concepts to test and work out.
I suspect that the motivation for autonomous ships manpower costs – the likely antidote is not automation, but a critical review of billets and functions. This is an anathema to any bureaucracy, because any serious review would conclude that the Navy is top heavy in rank, and needs to reduce many billets, while pushing more bodies to operational commands.
GAB
Reading SNAFU site this morning, appears the navy want to side line the guns on the Zummies and turn them into arsenal ships. Would be great if they do, but somehow they'll manage to foul that up too.
ReplyDeleteAnother great post by CNO, completely agree!
ReplyDeleteI would like to add to the wide range of reason why this is happening is I think we are seeing the end result of decades of all the corruption, malpractice, way too tight relationships, employment of Generals and Admirals on contractor boards, etc,etc.... what is happening to USN and DoD in general didn't happen overnight. Plus, once we got rid of all the internal military bureaus that had the knowledge, it was going to be a free for all for industry. We have even seen in the past decade calls for GAO and similar offices to removed or reduced! Let's make even EASIER on defense contractors!!!
This has been a concerted effort to remove what ever little check and balances there was inside DoD, now, it is turning into a free for all for defense industry and a complete farce for USN, they really have become just the PR front for the industry!
They have to "prepare" the public for failures and all the cost overruns BUT NOT why we need these new fancy unmanned crap!?!? Think about that one!!!
"once we got rid of all the internal military bureaus that had the knowledge, it was going to be a free for all for industry."
DeleteI think you're on the money. The loss of internal expertise has hurt concepts, designs, oversight, quality, cost … in short, almost every aspect of the Navy has suffered because of those losses.
CNO, we can expect reform when the USN loses the battle
Deleteof Tsushima.
We need a Navy man for President, or least a First Sea Lord. (sounds better than CNO)
Agree, we are way past "internal reforms", at this point, the only things will change is when we get our asses kicked. Sad....
Delete"Announcing these huge investments without a corresponding operational plan is “an expression of the urgency the Navy is attaching to the situation” of trying to stay operationally unpredictable while keeping ahead of the Chinese and Russian," Well, the former is certainly achieved...unpredictability...but that would be achieved by giving a crayon to a baby as well and seeing what he/she comes up with. The latter however, I don't think would be true.
ReplyDeleteComNavOps, would love to see the Navy utilize your battleship concepts. Although I would just do a major retrofit on the Iowa class ships.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"Please stop blaming women, gays and minorities for the failings of white anglo saxon male admirals. "
DeleteGive me the quote where I blamed any of that list. Otherwise, I'll delete this comment as incorrect.
"It was Ronald Reagans debt expansion that started in the 80's that has lead to the debt position the US finds itself in now."
DeleteDebt did not start with Regan and he was a minor contributor to our current debt. If you're going to comment, you need to be factually correct. I'll leave this comment here for a day or two for you to see and then I'll delete it as factually incorrect.
@CNO Of course, there's no quote. But the fact that you interpret all the diversity, gender, and sensitivity training as wasteful is bound to upset some folks that find those things uber-important. I think that our military should NOT be a place for any of that. Its not a democracy and has no time for social experiments. Our military exists solely to kill people and destroy things, and to do it better than the other guy. Period. Anything else just detracts from that core purpose.
DeleteAll that aside, I wonder how to recover from the mess that is our current/future planning and acquisition situation. The Navy has become a consumer, a customer of industry. Not having the internal knowledge to design and build ships leaves us in a precarious position. Where do we even start??
"Where do we even start??"
DeleteThat's easy! Reconstitute the General Board and BuShips.
"bound to upset some folks"
DeleteYeah, the truth will do that!
I know you're well read and all, but in case you missed it, Tyler Rogoway at The Drive has an interesting read on a submarine-based wake detection system to track other submarines.
ReplyDeleteYes, I saw it but thanks. I'd love to do a post on non-acoustic detection but there is almost zero hard data out there. It's an area I'm keeping an eye on given the potential it offers. Let me know if you see something definitive.
DeleteWill do. The probes were rather odd looking, some were slender cones and others looked like pitot tubes. Obviously related to their function. Also, there only seemed to be one set of sensors, so I wonder how that affects its field of view.
DeleteWas interesting to notice all the different shapes of all the cones and inlets.....wonder why??
DeleteThe Navy is in a death spiral. "The peak defense budget year was in the cold war era of 1987 and by 1997, the number of ships declined by 40 percent and the budget fell by about 35 percent, but between 1997 and 2015 the fleet shrank by a further 20%, but the base budget grew by 49%, the cost of operating and maintaining a shrinking fleet skyrocketed." CSIS.org
ReplyDeleteThe current Navy PB FY2020 plan to hit the 355 number will be canned, to extend the lives of the current fleet, eg Burkes to 45+ years, is totally unrealistic, as is the cost of the current new build, eg Ford class $15B+ unaffordable, and the funding for annual sustainment costs for manpower, operations and maintenance forecast to jump from ~ $11B in 2020 to ~ $40B in 2034 for the 355 fleet.
The Navy will preach the new holy grail of unmanned surface and undersea vessels, driven purely by need to tell Congress they can hit the target of a 355 ship navy while still buying Ford CVNs etc and to balance the books the new Navy FSA, Force Structure Assessment, due out later this year, will classify unmanned vessels as battle force ships to make up the numbers.
The only way Navy could achieve a 355 fleet is as outlined by CNS - Single Versus Multi-Function Ships - October 29, 2018
You may also like to look at us trade balance ad a % of gdp. Look what happens after 1980.
ReplyDelete