As we’ve seen, the US military, and the Navy in particular, are all-in on unmanned assets taking over major portions of combat despite the utter lack of any proof of concept. The latest example comes to us courtesy of the Hudson Institute in a report titled, “Sustaining the Undersea Advantage: Disrupting Anti-Submarine Warfare Using Autonomous Systems” and discussed in a USNI News article.(1)
The report itself is not available so we just have the USNI article to work from. As with all such reports, it appears to be brimming with beautiful, full color diagrams and graphics. The report apparently describes how unmanned assets will track and defeat enemy submarines.
… the team argues, unmanned systems can – for less money and in greater numbers – track enemy submarines from their home waters towards a chokepoint, and then either maintain a trail on them through and beyond the chokepoint or engage them with a small weapon. (1)
That sounds great, doesn’t it? Small, low powered, cheap, unmanned systems will track enemy subs and engage them at our leisure. I find it hard to believe that potential enemies are even wasting time and resources building submarines given that they will have absolutely no chance to accomplish anything before we destroy them. The outcome is a foregone conclusion if one believes the report.
Of course, all of this ignores the reality that we have a very hard time finding submarines even in scripted exercises. Our very best manned systems with high powered sonars, computers, the most sophisticated acoustic analysis software in the world, and trained experts can’t readily find submarines but small, low powered, unmanned assets will flawlessly find and track enemy submarines across the oceans.
Does this sound familiar? When the Marines first came out with their ridiculous hidden bases and anti-ship missile concepts, I kept pointing out that no one was explaining how these bases would be established, operated, and resupplied without being detected. To this day, no one has explained that. Instead, we’ve leapt right over those pesky reality questions and straight into the fantasy portion.
Similarly, all these unmanned ASW concepts fail to explain how our very best manned assets, backed by unlimited power, advanced computers, sophisticated software, and highly trained specialists can’t find submarines but small, simple, low powered, unmanned assets will easily find and ride herd on submarines we can’t even find in scripted exercises. How is this possible? If it’s true, then we need to immediately get rid of our Burkes because they can be replaced with a torpedo sized unmanned ASW vehicle for a tiny fraction of the cost. Those new frigates we’re going to build? There’s no point to building them since their main mission of ASW can be flawlessly executed by a small unmanned asset.
Either reality is wrong or our grandiose, fantasy, unmanned visions are wrong. Which is it? Is reality wrong or are our fantasies wrong?
The Navy clearly believes that reality is wrong and is betting on fantasy.
Where’s the proof that the fantasy is correct? Before we totally commit to changing over to an unmanned navy shouldn’t we test the concept? Shouldn’t we turn an actual submarine and an actual unmanned vessel loose and see whether the sub can be effortlessly tracked? Shouldn’t we prove it? Instead, we seem quite happy to merely make the claim and skip over the proof of concept.
 |
| This Ship and Helo Can't Find a Sub … |
 |
| … but this Won't Have Any Problem |
It would cost next to nothing to set the DARPA Sea Hunter unmanned vessel out at sea somewhere and see if it can find a Los Angeles or Virginia submarine and track it. In fact, I’d go a step further and allow the sub to live fire against the Sea Hunter, if it can. That would provide a pretty compelling demonstration, wouldn’t it?
Detection issues aside, there’s another small drawback to small assets.
If the unmanned system were told to engage with a small weapon, the submarine wouldn’t be sunk; but it would be at the very least warned that it’s being prosecuted, potentially forcing it to abandon its mission, or ideally it would be damaged enough that it couldn’t remain silent, forcing it back to port or making it easy to continue tracking. (1)
Small assets can’t actually sink a submarine! … but they can warn it. That’s what we want to do in war – warn our enemy rather than destroy them. We are seriously losing track of reality. This is what passes for a serious concept and report to the Navy nowadays.
Here’s some more unreality about war,
If naval commanders chose to just track them [submarines] instead of engage, the unmanned systems would track them to the chokepoint, where seafloor sensors, ocean surface gliders and sonobuoys would support unmanned vehicles in monitoring the enemy sub tracks, and another set of unmanned platforms would meet the subs on the other side and continue tracking them.
In war, what naval commander is going to choose to track rather than destroy a sub? That’s insane! Again, note the presumption that we can effortlessly track modern submarines with small unmanned assets despite all evidence to the contrary and absolutely no evidence that unmanned assets can actually track a sub. Why don’t we try it before we commit to it? Where’s the actual exercise that provides the proof of concept? No need to prove it when we can just claim it’s true, I guess.
So, if the concept is as bad as ComNavOps lays out, why are we even considering this stuff? The answer, as always, is money. The Hudson report suggests that unmanned ASW assets offer great savings.
… less than a third [of the cost] of the traditional predominately manned approach to ASW. (1)
Less than a third of the cost! Of course, you can’t actually track or destroy the enemy subs so that’s a drawback but, at least, it’s a cheap drawback, right?
If reality gets in the way, just make claims that bypass reality and continue on. No need to prove anything. Go Navy!
__________________________________
(1)USNI News website, “Report: Unmanned Systems Could Track and Fight Submarines At Less Cost Than Manned Ships, Planes”, Megan Eckstein, 19-Oct-2020,
Less than a third of the cost, and less than a third of the success.
ReplyDeleteI really don't understand the Navy's apparent unwillingness to construct and utilize cheap manned ships. ComNavOps, your proposed ASW escort (see the fleet structure tab) would provide probably the best shot we have at being able to conduct effective surface ASW. And your proposed ASW corvette would provide the only method on the table for effective shallow water ASW of any sort.
Some day some USV is going to find some submarine. And that will be cause for loud hosannas throughout the USN establishment. But I wouldn't bet the ranch (or our nation's security) on it, at least not any time soon.
If the Navy (or its defense contractor overlords) were not so determined to spend billions on overpriced Fords and LHAs/LHDs, not to mention disasters like the Zumwalts and the LCSs, then we would have the funds to build and operate proper manned ASW ships like the ComNavOps ASW escort.
ReplyDeleteIf we had not prematurely decommissioned the Spruances and the Perrys, we could still have a reasonably capable ASW force today. They would be nearing the end of their useful lives, and need replacing, but if we hadn't dumped a ton of money on the Zumwalts and LCSs, we could easily afford to replace them with something useful, and would not have to rely on unready USVs and UUVs to do a job that they cannot do.
Best idea I've seen for the Zumwalts--send one to the Med and one to WestPac as flagships for 6th and 7th Fleets, respectively, and send the third to San Diego as a weapons test platform. Best idea I've seen for the LCSs--give them to the Coast Guard, and if the Coast Guard doesn't want them, give them to allies, and if allies don't want them, SINKEX. Too bad we can't swap them out for the Sprucans and Perrys that we have already SINKEXed.
LCS SINKEX.
DeleteThe USCG can't afford them and they meet non of their requirements it terms of range and durability.
Pawning them off allies would be dirty pool.
SINKEK. But spend real money doing it remote control their defensive systems and I dunno blow in foam insulation to give them some simulated damage control. How well does NSM do against a target with all it sensors and defensive missiles active and ready and used.
I have no problem SINKEXing the LCSs. But I don't think the Navy will ever do that, it would be too embarrassing an admission. So they'll just keep trying to find something that they can do.
DeleteI believe that is the definition of idiocy.
DeleteYou know, and I admit to being an old guy, ( boot camp 1970) when will the idiocy stop? I had a lot of old guy Navy ASW training and with the most advanced sonar, and helicopters, and P3's we still couldn't find our own subs, and the Brits, on a regular basis. In some exercises the target would fire off a noisemaker so we would know where to start our search. So, the more I read about what is going on with our Navy the more I am convinced that few in Washington believe we will ever fight a near peer war. But, take heart! the Navy now has official emojis for social media!
ReplyDeleteAccepting a bow sonar is of limited use and that many of the surface fleet only have a nixie and not a tow the dependence on helos really precedes leaving torpedo tubes off all the newer surface combatants. I'd say the challenge is getting the mobile surface sonars where they need to be, when they need to be there, and not constrain the mobility of the surfce platform. Right now our best case option is getting the VDS on FFG and LCS. It seems to me they need a XLUUV sized to deploy similar to CUSV as a mobile sonar. It can then be an untethered VDS. Get 2-3 of these on a ship. Now you can deploy a real sonar net and hunt with one ship and the helos. The reality is that unmanned will creep into the picture over time just like the gun. Armenia/Azerbaijan is another example right now.
ReplyDelete"Accepting a bow sonar is of limited use"
DeleteIn the open ocean, that's somewhat true. In shallow waters, active sonar is the main ASW sensor. Shallow water ASW will be characterized by short range, surprise encounters (for sub and ship!) due to the abysmal acoustic conditions. Active sonar will be the primary sensor and since it is short ranged (even shorter in shallow water), encounters will be sudden and violent. This is why we need small, cheap, expendable ASW vessels, not multi-billion dollar Burkes and frigates. Do we really want $1B+ frigates playing tag with SSKs in shallow water? This is also why the lack of an on-board torpedo will hinder the Constellation.
The hull sonar warns non-suicidal submarines to stay away from the task force and that there are probably helicopters about.
DeleteThe report itself,
ReplyDeletehttps://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Clark%20Cropsey%20Walton_Sustaining%20the%20Undersea%20Advantage.pdf
Two of the authors of this study are Bryan Clark and Timothy Walton, who recently moved over to Hudson from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis (CSBA). At CSBA they authored a plan for the Navy's future fleet architecture
Delete(https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6292-Fleet_Architecture_Study_REPRINT_web.pdf)
that included 340 major surface ships, 42 patrol boats, 40 large unmanned surface vessels, and 40 large unmanned underwater vessels. So their support for large unmanned vehicles is quite clear.
It appears to me that the Navy strategy is to go for ever more expensive capital ships and use unmanned vehicles to try to make up the numbers. Sat a Nimitz ($9B) and 10 simple ASW escorts ($500MM each, or $5B total) runs $14B. It seems that the Navy would rather spend that $14B on a Ford ($13B) and 10 unmanned vehicles ($100MM each, or $1B total). I don't agree, and I think many on here don't, but that is clearly the way the Navy wants to go.
The best indication of the usefulness of unmanned systems for use against subs is the sonarman (sonarperson) rating. I haven't heard anything from the Navy or you about the retiring of the rate. If we had softare to totally replace a sonarman wouldn't we already have replaced them on our subs at least.
ReplyDelete" wouldn't we already have replaced them "
DeleteGiven the Navy's quest for reduced personnel costs, of course we would have! And, those huge, expensive, powerful sonars we install on Burkes … we would have replaced those with tiny, low powered sonars that could fit on the DARPA Sea Hunter or some other tiny unmanned vehicle.
The conclusion is obvious to everyone but the Navy … and, I guess, the Hudson Institute.
Technologies advance thus our opinion should also advance with them.
ReplyDeleteI see some old people insist gold is "the only money" end up conned by gold vendors.
Unmanned weapons is an important direction in future, if not "the".
At this moment, they are still in their infancy thus, normally, there are many short coming. Not just US, China also pursues unmanned weapons. Depend on which reports, China seems ahead US in this area.
It is OK that unmanned weapons don't work as they boasted AT THIS MOMENT. Question is whether they are improving in right directions. Underwater communication is a big technology challenge for underwater drones.
"Technologies advance thus our opinion should also advance with them."
DeleteWhy? Just because something is new doesn't mean it's good. The Zumwalt Advanced Gun System was new and it was a dismal failure. Examples abound.
Our opinion should 'advance' when the technology is PROVEN. Hype is not proof.
"It is OK that unmanned weapons don't work as they boasted AT THIS MOMENT"
DeleteIn R&D, yes.
Outside of there, stuff needs to actually work.
Again, reference Armenia Azerbaijan. Don't be the side late to the party.
DeleteDon't be the side with PowerPoint slides and no firepower.
Delete"At this moment, they are still in their infancy thus, normally, there are many short coming."
DeleteAt this moment, the Navy is trying to replace ships and submarines with drones.
"reference Armenia Azerbaijan"
DeleteYes, look at the current continuation of the Armenian Genocide, in which nation-states are fighting a group of under-armed rebels. Not exactly a "near-peer" situation.
But here's the thing... Whether its the "new direction" or not doesnt matter. While amazing (still nonexistent) tech may appear, there are and always will be issues with communication. The network-centric dream fails as soon as the enemy has a vote. Were committing to vessels that have no CONOP set in stone, which should be required. Never mind that all these fantasies about capabilities are just that.
DeleteIn the past, often the "new direction" actually became the new reality... Steam over sail, Iron over wood, CV over BB, etc... But, we didnt discard every frigate before Monitor sailed. We didnt scrap all the battleships before Langleys conversion was finished. But with the budgetary and "numbers" games being proposed based on little experience, thats what it seems we're doing...
"The network-centric dream fails as soon as the enemy has a vote."
DeleteHow many of these things have been tested in an active jamming environment? How did they work?
Well, cant say for sure, but since we never hear about it, I'd say never...
Delete"How many of these things have been tested in an active jamming environment? How did they work?"
DeleteTo some extent, the question has been answered. The military has stated that they restrict the use of active jamming and other disruptive technologies because it impairs the ability to train. Translation: we've tried this stuff on ourselves and we shut us down. Our stuff doesn't work in a contested electromagnetic environment.
"Whenever we have an exercise and the red force really destroys our command and control, we stop the exercise" - Rob "Genius" Work
Delete"Underwater communication is a big technology challenge for underwater drones."
DeleteOne interesting technology, perhaps more useful for mine hunting:
"Sea-Eye’s founder Ilia Vainstein believes he has found the solution to wireless, full color, real time streaming video, using an acoustic modem based on ultrasound technology."
The range is not very good, though:
"Vainstein plans to market modems in the near future with transmission ranges of up to 300-500 meters."
https://www.israel21c.org/israeli-sea-eye-takes-streaming-video-underwater-2/
This may be more useful:
Delete"The system configurations support strategic communication through long ranges applying GeoSpectrum’s Very Low Frequency (VLF) source as well as tactical communication for up to hundreds of kilometres using Low Frequency (LF) sources. Also, it can provide a means for reliable and secure remote acoustic activation or communications with Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) and divers."
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27124/Elbit_Systems_Gets_Contract_for_Secure_Underwater_Acoustic_Communication
"a means for reliable and secure remote acoustic activation or communications "
DeleteThat's great someone is looking at the problem but, seriously, think about the basic concept. Knowing what you know about the vagaries of underwater acoustic propagation, ducting, bottom and surface reflection, ambient noise, thermal layers, etc., does it really seem plausible to have RELIABLE underwater acoustic comms? Given that the signals will be omnidirectional (presumably), does it really seem plausible that the comms will be secure since anyone with an acoustic receiver can hear it. Now, it might be coded but it won't be secure.
Do you really envision a sub intentionally broadcasting an omni-directional acoustic signal in combat given that the entire aim of a sub in combat is to be SILENT?
Seriously, does anything about this make practical sense?
I don't know enough about it to be sure either way. I definitely think you are right about this NOT being silent. It will certainly give away the location, or at least the general direction of, the sender.
DeleteI think it may be able to be encrypted, which could help with the security side.
If I learn more than the sales-pitch, I'll let you know. At this point, you clearly understand the variables involved better than I do.
"full color, real time streaming video" is also massively overkill.
Delete"Seriously, does anything about this make practical sense?"
DeleteActually, my previous response was weak. Yes, I can see some potential value.
1. If the system is small enough to be carried by a helicopter, then it could be dipped and used to communicate surface-to-submarine/UUV. This without showing where surface vessels are.
2. If UUV's are armed (and I see no reason why they shouldn't be) this could be the "kill" signal.
3. If the argument is that communications that can be geolocated, jammed or be affected by environmental factors shouldn't be used, then get rid of radio comms. Heck, radar too.
4. It could be used in a quickly deployable SOSUS system. Units could even be dropped around to send out "junk" signals to confuse the enemy.
I'll study this to learn the pro's and con's of it's (potential) use.
""full color, real time streaming video" is also massively overkill."
DeleteThere is no such thing as "overkill." Also, if resources should be used on mines and not old barrels, such a capability would be great.
"If the argument is that communications that can be geolocated, jammed or be affected by environmental factors shouldn't be used, then get rid of radio comms. Heck, radar too."
DeleteYou say this somewhat sarcastically, I suspect, but the reality is that EMCON (no radio or radar or any other emissions) is EXACTLY how we operated during the Cold War and, often, during WWII. We've forgotten just how vulnerable signals make us … and yet we're basing our entire future military on the exact opposite of EMCON. That has got to give one serious pause. We are abandoning tried and true based on actual combat experience and replacing it with some neophyte's idea of war.
I would remind you of the Ukrainian's experience with communications when Russia invaded. The Ukrainians were decimated until they learned to hugely reduce or eliminate the comms. Again, this is actual combat experience that we're ignoring.
"There is no such thing as "overkill."
Delete?????????????????? Ford?
"You say this somewhat sarcastically, I suspect, "
DeleteI was being sarcastic. Please don't see that as disrespect; I don't mean it that way. I do see the seriousness of your point about traceable communications. Pretty soon, we may be back to using pigeons!
"?????????????????? Ford?"
Certainly a case of overspending...
"we may be back to using pigeons!"
DeleteAgain, you're making a funny but this level of technology is how Gen. Van Ripper utterly defeated the friendly force in the now infamous Millennium Challenge 2002 exercise. He used bicycle messengers, signal lights, and fishing boats among other very low tech.
Again, history and realistic exercises are screaming lessons at us but we're not listening.
"Again, history and realistic exercises are screaming lessons at us but we're not listening."
DeleteOr don't know. This is the first that I have learned about these issues. Please refer me to your past articles about this.
"Or don't know. This is the first that I have learned about these issues."
DeleteIt's perfectly understandable and acceptable for you not to know about the issues - you're not a professional warrior. HOWEVER, if our professional warriors don't know about them, that's gross negligence and professional malpractice.
"Please refer me to your past articles about this."
The Millennium Challenge 2002 is a famous example of the Navy being utterly defeated in a war game by a 'rogue' Marine General. The controversy is that, after being totally defeated, the Navy simply ignored the results, rewrote the rules of the game and continued on to 'victory'. Wikipedia has a decent writeup on the exercise.
Acoustic is not a good mode to communicate underwater. Active acoustic signal is to broadcast your location to enemies' sonars. Radio wave cannot be used because sea water is conductive. There are many researches in this area among nations.
DeleteOne key problem is that US' research capabilities on new technologies actually drop than advance. Less and less high school graduates choose STEM. Most STEM PhD are foreigners. While I read that F-22's R&D team's average age was in upper 50s (above 55) but China's J-20 team was under 40. It is really worrisome.
We cannot blame smart American student choose law schools over STEM. We spend ~4% GDP in lawsuits and money is made there. Why should smart Americans study STEM which don't make as much money as to do lawsuits to make troubles to others.
"Acoustic is not a good mode to communicate underwater."
DeleteAs NCO often says, back it up with documentation. I've shown some that says otherwise.
"Active acoustic signal is to broadcast your location to enemies' sonars."
I'm not suggesting that submarines go around blasting signals. Please read what I wrote above and maybe argue against some of those points.
"Acoustic is not a good mode to communicate underwater."
DeleteFor everyone, rather than argue about it, discuss it! Don't try to 'win' a point. Instead, identify the pros and cons. Consider how it might (or might not) be used in combat. Discuss alternatives. Discuss and let all of us learn from it!
"Acoustic is not a good mode to communicate underwater."
DeleteI assert that acoustic is an excellent mode to communicate underwater:
“Sound moves at a faster speed in water (1500 meters/sec) than in air (about 340 meters/sec) because the mechanical properties of water differ from air.”
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/sound01/background/acoustics/acoustics.html
For example, if submarines/UUV’s were to drop a receiver below 600’ below the surface, these would pick up sounds within the SOFAR layer:
“We have learned that by placing hydrophones at just the right depth (that is, at the axis of the sound channel) we are able to record sounds such as whale calls, earthquakes and man-made noise that occur many kilometers from the hydrophone. As a matter of fact, sometimes we can hear low-frequency sounds across entire ocean basins!”
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/sound01/background/acoustics/media/sofar.html
This does not prove that it is good in warfare but it does disprove that statement.
Beyond using cypher, a way has been found to make sure only the targeted user receives the message:
Delete"Thirdly, the dissertation presents a signal alignment method to secure underwater CoMP transmissions of geographically distributed antenna elements (DAEs) against eavesdropping. Exploiting the low sound speed in water and the spatial diversity of DAEs, the signal alignment method is developed such that useful signals will collide at the eavesdropper while stay collision-free at the legitimate user. The signal alignment mechanism is formulated as a mixed integer and nonlinear optimization problem which is solved through a combination of the simulated annealing method and the linear programming. Taking the orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) as the modulation technique, simulation and emulated experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method significantly degrades the eavesdropper's interception capability."
Thus, UUV's could be placed strategically, over a huge distance around a sea conflict, underwater communications could be directed toward predetermined places. Outside of those places, the communications would be an incomplete jumble to the point of only serving as jamming.
https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etdr/694/
A more exhaustive study is included here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3522957/#:~:text=The%20secure%20communication%20suite%20is%20composed%20of%20two,account%20the%20peculiarities%20of%20the%20underwater%20acoustic%20medium.
"Instead, identify the pros and cons."
DeleteCons:
1. I have tried to find specific examples but this is difficult. It does appear to me that dropping simple "noisemakers" would be an effective countermeasure to using this technology. Even natural background noise can affect it.
2. The main problem with breaking a signal up and sending it from different directions is that unexpected temperatures will distort the signal, possibly making complex messages unreadable.
3. To send signals vast distances, the sending equipment must be very powerful or be able to direct the sound energy as much as possible.
Thus, at this point I think the military usefulness may be limited to sending short messages hundreds of miles. For example, something like a "1" to describe a surface enemy warship and a "56" or whatever number to describe it's location on a grid. Toss in some garbage numbers to muck it up for the bad guys.
In the original story, it said "Elbit Systems'... will supply its secure underwater acoustic communications system... The contract with an undisclosed 'western' nation..."
I'll bet that nation is the U.S. and if so this tech will be attempted. Maybe we are just catching a glimpse of a great upcoming technology. Or maybe it is a future failure.
UAV = drone
ReplyDeleteUSV = ship
UUV = submarine
Sorry Navy but they are all just drones. No amount of hype will change that.
That's not quite right. Drones are the ones that make powerpoint slides for people that don't bother to look at them or don't understand what they're seeing. It does make me wonder if some or the good idea fairy stuff we see is from some random underlings seeing what they can get away with or get the bosses to say.
DeleteJust some research personnel ran out of things to put on the screen and came up with that because admirals have been buying into everything thay said? I will probably buy it ;)
DeleteSo what can unmanned drones actually do?
ReplyDeleteThey seem to have some utility in the ISRT (intel, surveillance, recon, targeting) areas, and we've had some success with drone missile attacks. How much those are compromised in an active electromagnetic threat environment is uncertain, but certainly some degradation would be expected. And we'd expect any competent enemy to shoot at least some of the down.
None of that suggests in any way that a drone ship--surface or submarine--can be expected to perform up to even a significant part of what we expect from a manned ship. So what if it only costs 1/3 as much; if it doesn't have at least 1/3 the capability (and preferably more), that is a losing proposition.
So what should we do? I think we should to continue to pursue drone technology aggressively, but expecting drones to take on a significant fleet role is probably unrealistic for the next 25-50 years, minimum.
I do think it makes sense to have small, expendable drones for the ISRT role, and possibly some missile-carriers. In ComNavOps's proposed fleet structure, he has a dedicated unmanned vehicle carrier. In mine, I would base them primarily on the cruisers, with a few spread around on other ships.
If we keep building Fords and can't come up with affordable submarines and major surface combatants, we may very well end up with 50-75% of our fleet being drones, out of fiscal necessity. The Navy seems obsessed with super-expensive ships, and that forces reliance on drones for numbers. I think that's absurd. I don't think that's a very strong or effective Navy, but that's the one we are headed toward.
Instead of Fords, build a mix on Nimitzes and conventional carriers. That's the only way to afford the numbers to have the kind of air dominance we have had for 75-80 years.
Build a bunch of (relatively) cheap ASW frigates (ComNavOps's proposed ASW escort is a good template). I would personally give up the AEGIS on the FFGXs for a cheaper air search and tracking radar that does not require so much high weight (my understanding is that the EMPAR/SMART-L would accomplish that, but I'm not an expert in those areas) and use the cost and weight savings to put a heavier duty weapons fit on it. Build a bigger Tico replacement, I'm thinking De Moines hull with 8-inch guns, more VLS cells, and a center section devoted to unmanned vehicles. We've probably got about 40 Burkes that still have 20-30 years of life, so keep them going. 20 cruisers, 40 Burkes, 60 modified FFGXs, and 80 ASW frigates is a 200-ship surface force that can do lots of useful things.
That assumes, of course, that we will maintain them and that we will conduct realistic training, including real blue versus red kinetic war games, with red free to do whatever it wants to do. I've mentioned before that I did a lot of ops with the Brits, and our impression was always that we had better equipment but they had more professional officers and sailors. So I would incorporate things like FOST, Perisher (for both sub and surface PCOs), and Springtrain. I hate to keep coming back to maintenance and training, but I think we need to improve those.
"Build a bunch of (relatively) cheap ASW frigates (ComNavOps's proposed ASW escort is a good template)."
DeleteI am very curious as to how the Coast Guard would be utilized in a major conflict. How their ships would stack up in a war. Perhaps a reader request for the future?
"US to base Coast Guard ships in western Pacific to tackle China"
https://www.dailyustimes.com/us-to-base-coast-guard-ships-in-western-pacific-to-tackle-china/
After seeing the conversation bring up underwater comms and carrier pigeons, Ill bring your attention to somthing else for the "Did they REALLY waste effort, then write a story about it?" file.
ReplyDeleteThere was a recent story (The Drive??) mentioning using a drone to deliver a message to a SSBN off of Hawaii. The contention was that it was the precursor to resupplying ships at sea. The Navy considered it a success. The drone appeared to be a readilly available one, and probably had a payload of a couple pounds. Is this the serious testing we're doing?? So we can fly a few miles offshore and meet a surfaced sub. And?? This kind of press releases is cringe-worthy. Im sure somewhere in China theres a room full of people who sit and scan through all the stories and releases, looking for mention of somthing for them to worry about. And unless we're in the midst of the biggest disinformation campaign in modern history, the people in that room not only havent found anything concerning, they're having lotsa laughs.....
https://www.businessinsider.com/video-navy-drones-hand-things-off-to-ballistic-missile-submarine-2020-10
DeleteTo be fair, the mention of the "bean bag drop" at least shows an acknowledgement of a future contested comms environment and/or a need for EMCON, but then again, unless the drone is flying preprogrammed, its control signal will be a beacon in itself so...(?)
DeleteSomebody correct me if I'm wrong, but it was always my understanding the once a boomer reached open sea, it pulled the plug and didn't come back up for the duration of its deployment. So we're now bringing them to the surface so a drone can drop off a package?
ReplyDeleteWhen I was young, my dad used to tell me how cool it is to study for a top-tier college and how it's gonna expand my prospects. Over the years, when I reach the actual college age, the school was found to have multiple scandals and fade into oblivion. In fact, some of these scandals were happening during the said period that they were praised.
ReplyDeleteNow why do I mention this? I have been reading research and answers on multiple forums over the years and the clear cut conclusion is how contrast the beliefs are. The research from non profit thinktanks always pointed at some kind of Armageddon and on the other hand, active/retired service members dismissed it as overreaction and believe we do just fine.
Assuming that they were only a bit far fetch, however we have become used to ignoring them. My fear is when they are actually correct, we refuses to examine it critically and reverse our courses. When is the right time to hit the stop button? We have become used to appeasement. We have become used to being given money by Congress to fund more ships. In short, we become used to where we are, our front of the pack.
And when you are in front, it's hard to see who is catching up. China has shown development after developments with no signs of stopping. What did we do in the past 20 years? We cancel our only air superiority aircraft program and start on procuring the most over budget over engineered aircraft in the history of mankind. Ships wise, we had three failed ships building programs and looking to transit to an entirely untested concept. The actual improvements are the incremental developments in ships and aircrafts that is running out of service life.
I am not here to criticize the Navy(you got CNO for that!), but I wanted to propose something else entirely. The college that I mentioned before has its change of leadership and reinvent itself to be relevant again. We had our change inside the leadership positions but rhe results are almost the same, why is that? I believe is because lack of outside perspective, people inside is comfortable with the current course and connections.
The distinction is the college, in risk of being shutdown, fired all of the leadership and hire top management people in the field to remake the entire school. Maybe it's time to let someone from outside to have a leadership position in the Navy? Maybe friendly foreign personnel? Maybe retired officers with vast experiences? Maybe young officers that demonstrated the right values? Maybe unconnected civilian officers? The main ideas are the military sometimes need someone who known nothing but the current Navy leadership and a scan of the best Navy and interested in nothing else but better his work organization. Surely, vast improvements could be gained from this alone?
My grandpa was a Vietnamese officer and he has always told me stories about how inept the SVN military actually was and how good they look on papers. When I first read about Navy research and exercises, I saw the same warning signs with the US Navy but I originally disregard it because I thought the issue was my lack of understanding. Low and behold, years later and young me was correct.
Hope this means something! Just a side philosophical comment, not really related to the post, I know.
I was also inspired by CNO's comment on the WW2 enlistment being filled almost entirely by civilians inventing their own ideas despite of original practices. Maybe the current soldiers are also way too complacent in their ideas of bettering themselves? It used to be how well could you understand your system and how fast can you get it offline to online? Now, it's what the next upgrades and what magical developments are proposed for it? While it's not their fault that they don't know any better ways but it shown us how far we are from combat reality.
DeleteI think it's ironic that the our being on top is actually not on top. We believe that we are at the forefront of military R&D abd preparedness. The Chinese on the other hand, recognized that there are huge gap and aggressively pursue development in ASW and ASuW with countless of realistic and stressing exercises. They know the gaps in industry and engage in heavy intelligence efforts of stealing and buying other nations's current and retired weapon systems. Imaginewe have some captured Chinese weapon systems! The US military has instead relied on combat experiences/ shooting practice in third world countries and R&D in the admiral's vision of a future where the enemy has absolutely no input in product demonstrations/exercises that we conducted and will be restarted if it's not playing fair with admiral's plans.
That's Virtual Reality these days, Admirals! It only cost 750 bucks (not 750 billions of taxpayers money) and you are welcome to retire! Just noting here, the acronym is VR, in case you are so obsessed.
"Maybe it's time to let someone from outside to have a leadership position in the Navy?"
DeleteThis "someone" would need to implement some politically unappreciated stuff and piss off lots of people, so I don't see it happening and even if it did opposition would be fierce.
The biggest problem with the military isn't the weapons but the mentality.
"Maybe it's time to let someone from outside to have a leadership position in the Navy?"
DeleteWell, almost every SecNav is 'outside' to a fairly large extent and few/none of them have appreciably changed anything.
ComNavOps for SecNav!
DeleteFrankly, I think it's time to make ComNavOps SecNav.
Delete@CNO, you are correct but SecNav also got their hands tied behind their back most of the time by the Navy. How many times you document the Navy ignoring orders straight from SecNav and Congress in some way or another?
DeleteAs long as the leadership could have their way, the state of the military won't change. Assuming that the rot came from the top, should we be replacing both the SecNav and the CNO the same time? Even better yet, could we replaced everyone in OPNAV?
I just propose the idea that the military needs to have some kinds of mechanism to consider outside critical perspectives (like all of you commenters!) and that should kept overconfidence to a bare minimum.
Layers of the same misguided oversights haven't worked but a critical analysis from our fellow allies might do? The least I could think this benefits the ASW focus that the UK is leading and we can call it "interoperability" to sell it to the Navy. Just my two cents.
"How many times you document the Navy ignoring orders straight from SecNav and Congress in some way or another?"
DeleteSecNav has the power to fire admirals. They need to exercise that power.
"a critical analysis from our fellow allies might do?"
We focus on our problems but every other country is just as screwed up as we are, or more. Japan comes the closest to being well run and I suspect I think that only because I don't have access to their failings.
This is the 'The Grass is Always Greener …' phenomenon.
Simple, start firing admirals. That's one way to get down to a more reasonable number.
DeleteFire anybody who signed off on the Fords, or the LCSs, or the Zumwalts. Fire anybody who comes up with strategic and tactical doctrine that makes no sense. Yes, I know, it's kind of like throwing them in the briar patch, because they'll just shuffle off to their 6-figure jobs at LockMart or HII. But send a message that certain things will not be tolerated as long as they are in uniform.
We fire captains for running ships aground. Why not fire paper-shufflers for making stupid and costly decisions?
"We focus on our problems but every other country is just as screwed up as we are, or more. [...]"
DeleteOn one hand, this is a valid point.
On the other, outside of America wasting 24 billions on three useless ships is simply impossible because they don't have access to that much money.
Larger budgets mean much more opportunities for corruption and inefficiency.
"simply impossible because they don't have access to that much money."
DeleteI think other countries waste just as much on a relative basis. That aside, if a foreign 'advisor' was to come to America and run our military acquisition and suddenly have access to the huge amounts of money we have, they'd make equally enormous mistakes.
For proof, read about the Australian Collins class or the UK's decades long decline and mismanagement of their navy or the German's F125 frigate fiasco or …
We don't read about them every day but other countries have the same problems and on the same relative scale, or more.
"The report itself is not available so we just have the USNI article to work from."
ReplyDeleteComNavOps: In your article, you said that the "Sustaining the Undersea Advantage..." report was not available at the time of your writing.
Have you had a chance to read it since? If so, do you have any additional thoughts? I'm about halfway through it now.
I finished the report and, as usual, your analysis was dead-on. Their points were coming out of both sides of their mouths. For example:
Delete"The comparison is not meant to imply that manned platforms
like DDGs, SSNs, or P-8As are not needed. These platforms are still needed for ASW C2, and more importantly, for operations where their multi-mission capabilities and onboard operators are more essential."
"For example, by reducing procurement over the next several years by one FFG, one DDG and one SSN,..."
Thank you as always!