Similarly, the US Navy, with no validation, no questioning, no
supporting documentation, no valid wargames, and no exercises, is now
developing unmanned surface vessels (USV) and, in fact, has already budgeted a
few years of construction. You’re not
allowed to question it. The only
question you can ask is how to implement it.
Speaking of implementation,
The
head of the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Forces Command has ordered the service’s surface
force to develop a concept of operations for both the large and medium unmanned surface vessels
in development, according to a Dec. 19 message seen by Defense News. (1)
So, having already doctrinally committed to a very large USV
presence in the fleet and having already committed to replacing many current
surface ships with lightly armed USVs and having already committed to fighting
future battles with USVs as a primary fighting asset, the Navy is now, after
the fact, beginning to look at developing a concept of operations (CONOPS). How many times have we seen the Navy do this
backwards? You develop a CONOPS first,
and then look to develop a ship to fit the CONOPS, not develop the ship and
then look to fit a CONOPS to it. This backward
approach is how we got the LCS and Zumwalt, among others. This backward approach is how we wound up
with an Afloat Forward Staging Base ship that has no mission (see, “AFSB –Looking For Something To Do”).
It is also noteworthy that the Navy is not being invited to
debate the concept or experiment with the concept or validate the concept or
question [gasp!] the concept. No, they
are being told only to figure out how to use USVs. Forget whether it’s a good idea or, as
demonstrated repeatedly in these pages, a bad idea; it remains only to figure out how to best use
them.
I can’t foresee any problems, whatsoever, with this approach.
This approach of ordering an organization to make a product
work without any supporting evidence that it’s a good idea is how organizations
force a bad idea into life.
Is ComNavOps the only one with reservations about this? No, Congress has doubts, too.
What
Congress wants to see is more gradual development and proof of concept before
it commits serious funding … (1)
Well, good for Congress!
I hope they forcefully exercise their oversight responsibility.
Every time I think I’ve seen the limits of the Navy’s
stupidity, they amaze me with their ability to set the bar still lower.
___________________________________
(1)Defense News website, “Fleet commander directs US Navy’s
surface force to develop concepts for unmanned ships”, David B. Larter,
3-Jan-2019,
Before the conops, it is nice to have a strategy.
ReplyDeleteOnce you have a strategy, then you game possible operations
to execute the strategy. At that point you have an idea of what to build.
The Navy hates diversity, every ship must be a Burke, big burke, mini burke, burke with marines.
What is the Surface Forces even doing 'developing concepts'
ReplyDeleteDoesnt the US Navy have its 'Naval Warfare Development Command for that.
https://www.navy.mil/local/nwdc/About%20NWDC.asp
Unless the Fleet Forces Command have oversight of NWDC, someones doubling up here. They actually have oversight of the active duty fleet
Under 'Products and services' ( urrrgh)
"Concepts- Identifies future capabilities based on challenges and opportunities.
CONOPS- Bridges Concepts to future Doctrine/Tactics Techniques Procedures."
....
"CONOPS at NWDC
Fleet Concepts of Operation (CONOPS) inform planners and operators of capabilities available today, and those that will reach initial operating capability (IOC) within the future years defense program (FYDP). They complement current and existing doctrine by integrating emerging technologies and capabilities into Fleet operations and tactics. In addition to authoring tasked CONOPS, NWDC assists other commands with their assigned CONOPS writing, connections to doctrine and other CONOPS, classification, and all draft CONOPS reviews. NWDC produces the Fleet CONOPS Writing Guide and maintains the master file of all Fleet CONOPS in the Navy Doctrine Library System."
Just a thought BUT not only having no CONOPS before ordering all these USVs is foolish BUT how much experience or practical usage does whoever is coming up with the CONOPSs have?!? Isn't there really a danger of "operating" USVs in impossible or useless manner OR using them like you would use a manned ship, which is probably highly likely since it's the only real experience the writers have...which kind of defeats the purpose of the USVs if used just like any other manned ship. Im sure there's some similarities for sure BUT also some distinct differences too.
ReplyDeleteIm no Luddite, think USN needs to buy a few of these USVs to play around with and discover what works and doesn't work before hand, write a CONOPs or something similar and go back to manufacturers to get it done right. Sadly, this has LCS fiasco written all over it....
Serendipity is one word for what you are describing.
DeleteSomeone might just have a bright idea, therefore, from a lower rank.
Diversity *is* great! I agree that it is a mistake to sell it as a "means to an end," because the evidence for that is often thin. Rather, I would argue, diversity/inclusivity is a worthy end-in-itself which should be embraced. In our rich, complex, pluralistic country, we should aspire to find a place for all our citizens, and would be wise to resist devolving into little homogeneous silos.
ReplyDeleteUSVs, on the other hand, actually should be required to deliver a demonstrable benefit...
I think you are correct that CONOPS and wargames should determine the ship. As it stands the shipyards will determine it. I do think we differ in that I think USVs will prove ready for prime time sooner than later if they hand the ship over to volunteers with a budget to play around with. The biggest things that bother me about their requirements thus far is they don't define specific cargo, just that it will fit in a container. I also don't like the random cutoff between a 50 meter medium USV and everything else being large. The CONOPS should address this in terms of function unless one of these medium USVs need to hitch a ride on something else or must fit within a small marina or waterway.
ReplyDelete"I think USVs will prove ready for prime time sooner than later if they hand the ship over to volunteers with a budget to play around with."
DeleteThis is what prototypes are for. Build a single vessel and let people experiment with it. Then, when you understand what you want to do with it, develop a CONOPS and then design the final ship.
What happens if these volunteers decide that the USV doesn't fit the need? We've already committed to production. It's too late. This is how we wound up with the LCS and nothing useful for it to do (well, that and no functional modules - which mistake we're also repeating, here).
Really, what you are after is a perceived ideal the world rarely grants anyone doing anything. The Langley became active in March of 22 and the Lexington and Saratoga were already committed as the next carriers. Sea Hunter has been active for more than 3 years already. We will have the second sea hunter and 2-4 ghost fleet experimental LUSVs before the final designs are chosen. We do need a Billy Mitchell moment though to get people's butts in gear. Have an XLUUV stick a few 45 pound weights on the side of a destroyer in port without telling anybody. That will build a pack of worthy young disciples.
Delete" perceived ideal the world ... Langley ... Lexington"
DeleteNot quite. Langley was converted to an aircraft carrier after prototyping occurred with other ships using temporary flight decks. There was also a good bit of experience using seaplanes launched from cruisers. Thus, the Langley was a logical next step, to make the temporary flight deck permanent and gain operating experience. The conversion was completed in 1920.
The Washington Naval Treaty halted work on the battlecruiser Lexington (and Saratoga, among others) in 1922. Lexington was re-ordered as a carrier in the fall of 1922 and was launched in 1925 (commissioned in 1927).
The Lexington was a fortuitous happenstance brought about by the Washington Naval Treaty and took place well after numerous prototype flight ops on various other ships.
Quite contrary to being a rare event, prototyping was actually quite common throughout naval history and for many countries. The US Navy history of prototyping goes back to the Civil War (Monitor, among other ironclad prototypes) and even earlier, in the age of sail. Many one-off ships were built throughout the years. In more modern times, the submarine service made extensive use of prototype submarines such as the Nautilus, Triton, and Albacore. Other modern surface ship prototypes include Long Beach, Enterprise, Sea Shadow, and Ponce, among others.
So, far from being a rarity, prototyping of ships was a common and wise practice. It is only fairly recently that the US Navy has foolishly abandoned the practice and is paying the price in utterly wasted ship classes such as the LCS and Zumwalt.
Really, what I am after is a return to the sanity and wisdom of prototyping which is a common and time-honored practice.
USV concept of operations is just cover to meet Trump commitment to a 355 fleet.
ReplyDeleteThe first Navy idiotic plan was to extend life of ships up to 50 years to make up the numbers, but when they added up the numbers the budget was still way over, so first reaction was to cut RCOH of Truman and a air wing last year, no doubt as Navy forecast Congress objected and re-instated additional funding in FY2020 for RCOH.
Plan #2 FY2021 Navy/OMB to meet the 355 fleet, reduce the size of the fleet by cutting future buy of Burkes and retire ships earlier and buy lots of USV and UUW, USV/UUV will be re-classified so as count as battle force ship/subs. 50 year ship life was totally unrealistic, one reason was they do not have the industry capacity in shipyards/ship repairers to maintain/upgrade current fleet let alone an approx. 25% larger fleet which as ships get older and require more and more upkeep, so now just buy more USVs.
This will enable Navy to claim they will meet the goal of 355 fleet in theory and Congress will re-instate funding for Burkes, a win win for the Navy .
Total nonsense as the unproven USVs will likely be as useless as LCS.
Only viable plan to achieve higher number fleet is CNOs with single function ships to bring costs down, acting Navy Secretary Modly recently stated that the average cost ships is now $2 billion whereas in '80s it was $1 billion (adjusted for inflation). Modly needs to read CNO blog:)
Zumwalt (whether you like him or not) faced the same problem in the drawdown after Vietnam. His idea was the high/low mix concept, where you build some top-of-the-line multi-purpose sips--Nimitz class, nuclear guided missile destroyers--and filled out the numbers with cheaper, single-purpose or dual-purpose ships--Knoxes (which is a program he actually inherited), Perrys, and the sea-control ship (which we never built, but Spain did). Both Knoxes and Perrys proved to be very capable ASW platforms (something we need today). I think that is the way to go. For example, for one Ford ($15B) you could build one Nimitz or RAND CVN-LX ($9B) and one smaller carrier (ComNavOps's Midway or a RN Queen Elizabeth with cats and traps, $6B), or for 80 Burkes ($2.5B each, $200B total), you could build 40 Burkes ($100B), 60 mini-Burkes at $1B each ($60B), and 80 ASW frigates for $500MM each ($40B).
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to ComNavOps's war/peace approach, except that I don't the benefit of spending a bunch of money on ships (even very cheap ships) that have no value in wartime.
The Navy's whole fascination with USVs, UUWs, and UAVs seems to be minimizing personnel numbers. I think giving up capability to save numbers is a bad deal.
" I don't the benefit of spending a bunch of money on ships (even very cheap ships) that have no value in wartime. "
DeleteI don't think you grasp how small the cost of a peace fleet is! I'm talking about commercial 'yachts', essentially, conducting presence, pirate patrol, wave the flag, etc. A $1M yacht with a few machine guns bolted on is, for all practical purposes, FREE by Navy budget standards. The cost of the entire peace fleet wouldn't even equal one warship. You can criticize the peace/war concept for a variety of reasons but not because of cost.
Even if the ships were free, the cost of operating them would not be. And I don't see the virtue of having people train on and operate commercial 'yachts' as you describe, then transition to full-size and full-fledged warships if the balloon goes up. If you can come up with some way to cycle crews through the 'yachts' and also spend time underway on real warships, then perhaps it could be made to work. But I don't really see a 'yacht' with some bolt-on machine guns as making a very impressive sight for presence or showing the flag, or as being formidable pirate patrol vessels. Maybe you could get me more onboard by filling me in on exactly how these ships would be used (their CONOPS) but I just don't see the advantage.
DeleteAlso, as far as your comment about building ships for a 20 year life instead of a 40 year life, yes the individual ships could be cheaper, but over a 40 year time frame you are going to have to build twice as many of them, and that doesn't seem a way to save money in the long run. I agree that by decommissioning so many ships early, the Navy is not getting the full benefit of useful lives from its current fleet. But the solution to that would seem to be enforcing some discipline on decommissionings rather than shortening ship lives by intentional design.
"the cost of operating them would not be."
DeleteYou are absolutely refusing to see the reality of a peace time concept. There are no operating costs that amount to anything. They aren't Burkes that are expensive to operate - they're commercial yachts that are free to operate relative to Navy budgets.
The crews are not hundreds, they're a dozen per craft, at most. A single 200-man Burke crew could man the entire peace fleet! That's nothing relative to Navy manning.
As far as training, what better nautical training could there be then to sail and navigate small vessels? We be developing people who really knew the sea and sailing!
I don't think you realize just how worthless most (all?) peacetime 'missions' are. 'Show the flag' can be done by any vessel, including a canoe. If all we want to do is impress two-bit rulers with our wealth then let's fly them to Washington and give them a State dinner. We don't need to build multi-billion dollar ships to host dignitaries. There are better ways to do that. You're wedded to the old way just because that's the way it's always been done. That was fine when we had the money but we no longer do. We're wearing out multi-billion dollar ships chasing hobo pirates in skiffs and 'exercising' with navies whose biggest ship is a glorified coast guard patrol boat. Sheer lunacy. If you are desperate to stick with the old ways out of fondness for tradition, that's fine but you can see where that's taking us. The fleet is shrinking, we're replacing warships with LCS and unmanned vessels. We're trying to retire Aegis cruisers so we can get unmanned surface boats (I can't use the word ship). We're building carriers that cost twice a Nimitz and have half the air wing. And so on. If you want more of that, you're welcome to it.
" 20 year life … yes the individual ships could be cheaper,"
DeleteThis is about as simple and obvious as can be. 20-yr ships will be cheaper, require far less maintenance (in typical Navy fashion, they can forego maintenance and it won't matter!), they will be continually newer with more up to date technology, and we'll better support the shipbuilding industry. There is, literally, no downside. Again, though, if you want to stick with 40-yr ships because it's always been that way, that's fine. Just be honest with yourself and admit that.
" that doesn't seem a way to save money in the long run. "
Of course it saves money. Maintenance costs are cut by half or more since the ship will be retired in 15-20 yrs anyway. There won't be any upgrade costs. The individual ships will be significantly less expensive, as I've explained repeatedly. There won't be any need to maintain obsolete parts and support trains.
Seriously, the cost savings just pile up the more you look into it.
I think we basically agree on the big stuff--we can't maintain much of a Navy if all we are going to build is Fords and Burkes and LHAs/LHDs and Virginias. We might be down to 150 ships before long. Actually 10 Fords ($150B), 80 Burkes ($240B), 10 LHA/LHD ($30B), 10 SSBNs ($90B) and 60 Virginias ($180B) would be $690B, or $17.25B a year over a 40-year life. So for the current Navy shipbuilding budget we could maybe have 200 ships, if we didn't have to build any auxiliaries or mine warfare ships or anything else. And that's not much of a navy for the commitments we have.
DeleteOur difference is over what to do about it. I go for a high/low mix. The above fleet would be $690B for 170 ships, or roughly $4B per ship. If you build cheaper carriers and amphibs, spread out the money for 80 Burkes among 40 Burkes, 60 mini-Burkes, and 80 ASW frigates, and build some cheaper submarines, you can get the average cost of a ship down to about $1.5B, which lets you build 400 ships for that $600B. I think that works better than war/peace simply because I don't think you can take a sailor who has been riding around on yachts for a career and throw him/her on a combatant and have him/her be productive or useful. I gather that you are planning on having the warships conduct combat training and the yachts do the peacetime underway stuff, but I just don't think that will deliver a combat-ready fleet at the end of the day. The French tried something like that around 1800, and they got their rear ends pretty properly kicked at the Nile and Trafalgar. I just think you have to get underway for deployment-length time frames to build the combat teamwork needed.
As far as your 20-year ship life, you would have to build the ship for 1/2 as much as a 40-year ship to have the same life. Maybe you could run some numbers and show me, but conceptually that just doesn't seem reasonable.
But I will agree with you that war/peace or high/low work a lot better than putting all our eggs in highly expensive ships based on cutting edge, unproved technology.
" I don't think you can take a sailor who has been riding around on yachts for a career and throw him/her on a combatant and have him/her be productive or useful."
DeleteOf course not! Who said otherwise? The few peacetime crew would be just that. In a war we might transition them over with proper training, if we wanted, but they wouldn't be Day-1 combat personnel. I would envision a 1 year tour in the peace fleet and then return to the regular Navy. That would keep everyone reasonably current. Alternatively, we could establish a pure peace fleet akin to the Coast Guard.
"I just don't think that will deliver a combat-ready fleet at the end of the day."
How much more combat-ready can you get than a fleet that trains continually for combat???? In your (the current scheme) where our ships are running around doing everything but combat training, that's the least combat-ready you can be.
You seem to be trying to make this peace fleet more complex than it is. You're proposing more of what we are already doing (with a slightly different mix of ships) and what we're already doing is failing miserably. Why do you want to continue doing it? Multi-billion dollar ships chasing pirate motorboats and delivering meals to disaster victims? How is that making us combat ready?
"Multi-billion dollar ships chasing pirate motorboats and delivering meals to disaster victims?"
DeleteBecause that's not what I'm talking about. In the high/low mix, the low end ships get most of the peacetime commitments, while the high-end ships would focus more on high intensity combat training.
We have multi-billion dollar Burkes doing pirate patrol because in a fleet with 80 Burkes, that's all we have to do pirate patrol. In a fleet with 40 Burkes, 60 mini-Burkes, and 80 ASW frigates for the same money, the frigates or even smaller corvettes could do the pirate patrol.
The real reason we are so busy running around doing non-combat stuff is because we don't have enough ships to divvy up the load better.
Of course, what is driving so much of this from the Navy's side is the effort to reduce manpower. I would need to understand a lot better where that is coming from, and why. Just how bad is the problem and what are the prospects?
"Is ComNavOps the only one with reservations about this?"
ReplyDeleteNo, ComNavOps, besides your observation that Congress is concerned, regrettably I too think that our Navy is being run by idiots. I agree with c.g. in this thread, but with a few more details - Threats are supposed to drive a coherent Strategy, which should result in broad reviews of current capability to settle upon what used to be known as a valid REQUIREMENT. If a material solution not in inventory is the only way to meet a requirement, That should drive analysis which determines the best and most cost-effective way to satisfy the requirement with a new system. Detailed conops are usually developed (or at least begun) as a result of, and iteratively with, that analysis. The problem with doing all that underpinning work with rigor is:
- it isn't sexy
- it takes time
Navy leaders are in a hurry to make their impact before their PRDs (less than 36 months), and they always want to be sexy! So, quick! Cut to the back of the book! But if you neglect the foundation, you build a house of cards - as you point out, LCS built on a hypothetical war game outcome which finally gained credence, and ZUMWALT need to be transformational and revolutionary with WAY too many untried systems, with the result that it is neither of those imperatives. The 1000 class ships never will be - $24B plus for three ships that can not do anything. Let that sink in. I'm no luddite, but for new stuff like this, there should be a raft of experiments and proof of concepts, rather than N96 viewgraphs which show USV poker chips as a major piece of getting to 355 coupled with budgets to build them on the come (we'll figure out how to use them after we have them). And no, an unmanned trip from San Diego to Hawaii and back does not impress me as a "QED" moment. I remember Vern Clark saying he needed LCS at the "speed of heat". Same premature and risky sentiment which is being used for jumping whole-hog into USVs.
I wonder if they are reading this blog?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/01/us-navy-issues-request-for-lusv-musv-conops-development/
If you want some decent, small patrol vessels that can literally go anywhere with the ice class hulls and a bucketful of range, plus refueling costs that the Navy just writes off as waste, I suggest you might like to look at a variant of the FPB 97. 110 feet and can literally go anywhere, and has been everywhere. Get back to me about how yachts can't bring forward a combat crew.
ReplyDeleteGiven a crew of 8-10 and some light weapons emplaced, plus trading windows for ballistic armor, you could have a great time scaring pirates and evildoers of all descriptions.
Seriously, something like this has already scared the pants off of all kinds of people worldwide who are pretty sure its military. Its a fairly fast displacement hull with a couple of RIBs to screw with pirates where needed.
Its for sale for 6.75 million euros which is a rounding error in the Navy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNTbx-T6s8s
https://www.berthon.co.uk/yacht-sales-brokerage/yacht-for-sale/fpb-97-iceberg/