Pages

▼

Monday, September 18, 2023

Goodbye Triton?

As you may recall, the MQ-4C Triton UAV was going to solve all the Navy’s surveillance monitoring requirements.
 
The Triton is a large, high altitude, long endurance (30 hrs) UAV derived from the Global Hawk.  It was intended to team with the P-8 Poseidon under the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) concept.  Triton would conduct high altitude surveillance and the P-8 would focus on anti-submarine and anti-surface surveillance.
 
MQ-4C Triton

The first demonstration aircraft flew in 2013 and, ten years later, Initial Operating Capability was just announced.  Plans called for 70 aircraft to be produced.  Groups of 4 aircraft were planned to operate from 5 sites, keeping 20 aircraft in active operations at any one time. 
 
A USNI News article notes the wonders of Triton,
 
… Triton is poised to bring significant improvements that will increase its effectiveness in the battlespace, enabling our manned-unmanned team to maintain awareness in the maritime domain,” Rear Adm. Adam Kijek, the commander of the Navy’s patrol and reconnaissance group, said in the service news release. “The Indo-Pacific theater is the ideal arena to demonstrate the advanced capabilities that Triton brings to our Fleet Commanders and the nation.”[1]

This would certainly sound like amazing news if it weren’t for the fact that the Navy, having just declared IOC, is halting production and severely cutting the Triton inventory.
 
The IOC benchmark comes as the Navy looks to halt the MQ-4C line. The Fiscal Year 2024 budget proposal sought to buy the final two MQ-4Cs in the next fiscal year, drastically cutting the program of record from an original 70 airframes to 27, according to service budget documents.
 
“The MQ-4C Triton inventory requirement has been re-assessed by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), which has modified MQ-4C Triton’s Capability Development Document (CDD) to reduce total inventory requirement,” the budget books read.
 
“The total number of aircraft are attributed to the program as 22 production, and 5 development … ” [1]

So, the Triton inventory is being cut from 70 to 22 production airframes.  In addition, the number of operating sites has been reduced from 5 to 3.
 
Why?
 
No explanation has been given.  My speculation is that the Navy has concluded, as has the Air Force, that large, slow UAVs are not survivable in the modern aerial battlefield – something they should have realized before development even began!
 
Does this sound eerily reminiscent of the LCS which the Navy is retiring almost as fast as they’re being produced?  Or, perhaps it reminds you of the Zumwalt which went from being the absolutely vital, future of naval warfare to being deemed entirely unneeded by the Navy in a matter of months?  Or, maybe it sounds like the brand new Mobile Landing Platforms (MLP) which the Navy attempted to retire, was thwarted by Congress, and was, instead, placed in Reduced Operating Status (retired in all but name)?
 
This is what happens when you produce assets without any Concept of Operations (CONOPS) – you quickly realize that they have no use and then you’re forced to dump them. 
 
Humiliating.
 
 
 
____________________________
 
[1]USNI News website, “MQ-4C Triton Reaches Initial Operational Capability, UAV on 2nd Guam Deployment”, Mallory Shelbourne, 14-Sep-2023,
https://news.usni.org/2023/09/14/mq-4c-triton-reaches-initial-operational-capability-uav-on-2nd-guam-deployment
at

22 comments:

  1. John GaltSeptember 18, 2023 at 5:18 AM

    Although not producing a CONOPS prior to program initiation is a most egregious fault, there is a more human reason for cancelling programs short of full fileding. That is the human careerist rationale. When a careeerist sees that a program has no CONOPS and that people in the field are starting to question its usability, the careerist sees the program funds as a chance to get money for their latest hair brained sabve the Navy scheme that will allow them to get noticed and get promoted. Or at worst they project themselves as a fiscally responsible person that can make tough decisions.

    A true Navalaist would find the bozo that never did a survivabilty study of the Triton in a non Air Supremecy environment and would make them an example of incompetence so that others learn not to cut corners in the development process.

    ReplyDelete
  2. NickSeptember 18, 2023 at 5:39 AM

    Low/zero survivability prospects if comes with in range of an air, land or ship AAW system and it an expensive piece of kit at $100+ million each.

    Wikipedia "On June 20, 2019, Iran's integrated system of Air Defense Forces shot down a United States RQ-4A Global Hawk BAMS-D surveillance drone with a surface-to-air missile over the Strait of Hormuz."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 18, 2023 at 6:02 AM

      "an expensive piece of kit at $100+ million each"

      Just a point of interest, the 2023 GAO annual report lists a unit price of $264M for Triton with an assumed quantity of 70 units.

      Delete
    2. LonfoSeptember 18, 2023 at 7:04 AM

      I assume that's a typo and you meant a unit price of 26.4M, not even the current military can pay a quarter billion dollars for one drone... right?

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsSeptember 18, 2023 at 7:15 AM

      No typo. $264M unit price. Read the GAO report for yourself!

      Delete
    4. AnonymousSeptember 18, 2023 at 7:23 AM

      How Much Does an RQ-4 Global Hawk Cost? In accordance with Lea Greene, the chief of public affairs at Grand Forks Air Force Base, the “base” model of the RQ-4 Global Hawk costs around $99 million. Furthermore, the latest Block 40 version adds another $30 million for sensors and other equipment.

      We can assume the Triton costs over $100 Million apiece not including sensors.

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsSeptember 18, 2023 at 8:15 AM

      Or ... rather than speculate, we can use the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which lists the exact cost which is $264M per unit.

      Excluding developmental costs, which is not a valid accounting approach, the GAO-reported unit cost is $161M. Of course, excluding development costs is invalid and fraudulent since we actually paid those costs to get a MQ-4C Triton. They are part of the cost. Reporting anything else is a just a manipulation trying to make the costs look better.

      Delete
    6. LonfoSeptember 18, 2023 at 8:59 AM

      "No typo. $264M unit price."
      People have been executed for less.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousSeptember 18, 2023 at 9:38 AM

      You could buy almost two F-22s for that price.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    8. Austin VernonSeptember 18, 2023 at 11:07 AM

      Drones that fly more than a few kilometers and carry more than a few kilograms of payload are expensive! Just like regular aircraft.

      Delete
    9. ComNavOpsSeptember 18, 2023 at 11:29 AM

      "Just like regular aircraft."

      A truth that few people recognize. In fact, UAVs are likely more expensive when you factor in ground based control stations and other requirements. The AF found this out and publicly stated that unmanned aircraft require MORE people than manned!

      Delete
    10. ComNavOpsSeptember 18, 2023 at 11:33 AM

      "You could buy almost two F-22s for that price."

      Not really. When the F-35 development costs are included, the aggregate unit price, as reported by GAO, is $177M.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousSeptember 18, 2023 at 12:28 PM

      "Not really. When the F-35 development costs are included, the aggregate unit price, as reported by GAO, is $177M."

      You could by one and a half F-22s for that price!!!!
      ;)

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    12. Larry MaySeptember 19, 2023 at 10:14 PM

      In order to make rational accounting decisions, you only should include the marginal cost of production/adding new units in the decision making process. Whatever the past development cost of the Triton were, that money has already been spent. This actually makes the situation worse because the money saved is not $264 million per air frame for the 57 or so air frames not being built but $166 million. The $98 million difference times those 57 drones will not be saved because it has already been spent. The DOD obfuscates the true marginal cost of buying weapon systems because (in all likelihood due to concurrentcy (spelling) there are still large development cost not yet spent/paid. F-35 prime example - who knows what each airframe costs on the margin?

      Delete
    13. LarrySeptember 19, 2023 at 10:19 PM

      To add to the above, I am pretty sure that if the DOD/Congress decided to stop buying further copies of the F-35, there would still be a massive bill for development costs bringing the current blocks up to combat capability. Perhaps the Triton has a similar problem (undoubtedly to a lesser degree than the F-35 disaster).

      Delete
    14. ComNavOpsSeptember 20, 2023 at 5:20 AM

      "In order to make rational accounting decisions, you only should include the marginal cost of production/adding new units"

      Yes, no, and it depends.

      Yes, if your accounting purpose is to figure out the cost of the next item produced then all the previous costs are immaterial.

      No, if your accounting purpose is to evaluate the cost of the program to document what you spent or to inform future decisions then you absolutely need to include developmental costs. Similarly, budget planning and decisions require FULL cost considerations.

      For example, at one point, the cost of an additional Zumwalt was around $4B. However, the overall cost of the program works out to around $8B per ship. That was real money that was budgeted and spent and can't be ignored.

      It depends, on what your accounting purpose is.

      Delete
  3. AndyMSeptember 18, 2023 at 8:48 AM

    I think their is growing evidence there are other airframes picking up some ISR work which are not publicly disclosed. I'm never hot to assume. I'd rather see something obviously picking up the work.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousSeptember 18, 2023 at 2:03 PM

    Of course, Triton cannot survive in high intensity battles nor Navy think they can. Their purpose is to monitor large areas in day to day operations.

    Key issue is, like many other weapons, TOO EXPENSIVE.

    This is fatal, especially compare with China. China produces drones in a fraction of cost in comparison with similar US drones. Even on more advanced drones US don't have, China spends far less money.

    Pentagon needs to remove heaps of *** (you know) from the food chain.

    ReplyDelete
  5. G2milSeptember 18, 2023 at 2:29 PM

    I found a cost of $180 million each for 2019.

    It seems a huckster sold the Navy on a magical radar that can see other aircraft without emitting. This should have been proven before the program began. It was never developed yet the money kept flowing for years.

    https://www.flightglobal.com/auvsi-us-navy-pauses-development-of-mq-4c-triton-sense-and-avoid-radar/110824.article

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousSeptember 18, 2023 at 8:09 PM

    "Does this sound eerily reminiscent of the LCS which the Navy is retiring almost as fast as they’re being produced? Or, perhaps it reminds you of the Zumwalt which went from being the absolutely vital, future of naval warfare to being deemed entirely unneeded by the Navy in a matter of months?"

    They all sound like systems that might have been useful during the 2000s, when there was no peer rival and the main concern was hunting non uniformed combatants. Drones, especially, are useful when the main risk is pilots falling asleep from boredom after combing the desert for months on end. I think the the navy just got caught flat-footed, expecting the GWOT to last much longer than it did and to have much more time before China became a serious rival.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Prospective SECNAVSeptember 18, 2023 at 11:14 PM

    Loaded for Bear, I was- Coming after ComNavOps piece on the E-2 (which made me think...the post made me 'think' and it still bothers me but I can't tell you why. Yet.)- Why not Triton to fill the E-2 gap/vulnerabilities?

    And then you (all-) bring up costs. I'm genuinely horrified about what one of these things costs.

    The facts will always make me change my mind.

    I also continue to think we're wrong in the way we conduct business. But I'm also conscious about what Trent Telenko writes regarding Gov't MilSpec STANDARDS (same bus required to launch Harpoon and SMDB and JAASM and everything else).

    The great man Thomas Sowell says, "There are no solutions; only tradeoffs." Likely. But I also think there's occasionally a solution. I just don't know what it is in this case. Or for the E-2. Armored ships I'm all in on.

    The reason I keep an eye on this blog is that it makes me 'THINK'. Many thanks to ComNavOps and all the rest of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 19, 2023 at 4:44 AM

      "keep an eye on this blog"

      Keep an eye on????? You should be riveted to this blog, hanging on every word that comes forth! :)

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.