The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a
report on the Navy’s unmanned systems acquisition efforts and they list various
challenges the Navy faces in expanding the unmanned fleet. For example,
That’s nice, however, the report entirely ignores the
fundamental question, why do we even need unmanned assets? Instead, they jump over the “why” and proceed
immediately to address the “how”. The
Navy, and those who report on the Navy, has done this repeatedly and always to
their detriment, if not regret. Can you
say “LCS”? Can you say “Zumwalt”? Can you … well, you get the idea. I don’t need to cite the nearly endless list
of acquisitions that ignored the why (the CONOPS, in other words) and focused
on the how.
The report simply accepts the official Navy spiel about
unmanned.
Consider that statement. Ukraine proves nothing about naval warfare except that a sufficiently inept navy can be injured by drones. The Middle East proves nothing about naval warfare because there hasn’t been any naval drone warfare.
The statement then unquestioningly accepts the Navy’s idea
that unmanned assets will somehow, in some unproven, magical manner be
successful. There has been absolutely no
relevant, real world experience to justify drones and no exercises that do so.
So, a hybrid fleet is “necessary”? Based on what? Not based on the real world and not based on exercises so … what?
I’ll repeat what I’ve said many times: I have yet to see a viable CONOPS (the why)
for unmanned assets. The people
reporting on the Navy need to question the Navy’s proclamations, not blindly
accept them. GAO needs to examine the
why before they examine the how … and so do we.
__________________________________
- Inconsistent leadership and priorities impeded RAS [ed. robotic and autonomous systems] investments
- Domain- and platform-centric approaches impeded progress of RAS
Recent conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East prove that robotic and autonomous systems(RAS) are disrupting naval warfare and challenging traditional naval superiority. To provide more adaptable, distributed operations, the Navy intends to shift away from its World War II-era operating model, which was based on closely knit battle groups comprised of several traditional platforms, such as planes, ships, and submarines. [1]
Consider that statement. Ukraine proves nothing about naval warfare except that a sufficiently inept navy can be injured by drones. The Middle East proves nothing about naval warfare because there hasn’t been any naval drone warfare.
According to Navy strategic documents, a hybrid fleet is necessary to enable this shift and would incorporate smaller, more numerous, and distributed capabilities—including RAS capabilities—as a complement to larger, more individually powerful, traditional capabilities.[1]
So, a hybrid fleet is “necessary”? Based on what? Not based on the real world and not based on exercises so … what?
https://news.usni.org/2026/06/16/gao-report-to-congress-on-the-navys-robotic-autonomous-systems
Remove the unmanned factor, and you have the Jeune École idea.
ReplyDeleteSmall heavily armed ships overwhelming fleet units.
The Navy skips the heavy armament in their new model
mosquito fleet.
The Navy should learn from Ukraine about producing weapons
quickly, in quantity and updating weapons to maintain effectiveness.
Off topic but the GAO strikes again !
ReplyDeleteAccording to recent reporting by The National Interest, the F-35 Lightning II fleet's overall mission-capable rate has sharply declined, hitting 44%. This data stems from a comprehensive Government Accountability Office (GAO) report revealing that the fleet's availability fell steadily from 67% in fiscal year 2021. Even more critical, the full mission-capable rate—meaning the aircraft can perform all assigned profiles—has dropped to a historic low of just 25%.
We can assume that the mission availability is also poor for the F35 C.
Most, if not all, of the F-35s coming off the production line have concrete ballast in the noses instead of radar. The APG-85 is seriously delayed. They can't put the previous version in because the mountings, connections are built for the new one.
Delete"has dropped to a historic low of just 25%"
DeleteIt's worse than that. The Block 4 upgrade which is where the bulk of the advanced combat capability was slated to appear, has been permanently delayed so even the so-called fully mission capable aircraft aren't really. None of them.
It should be noted that Raytheon advised that Lockheed and USAF that their timeline for APG-85 fielding was unrealistic and said they would need more time, which both parties ignored.
DeleteOn one hand, a radar swap is a squadron level job that can be done with the squadron's mechanics - it just needs the contractor to fly out with the radars, supervise installation, install drivers, and troubleshoot the configuration. But this is all work that really should have been done in the factory.
5 years ago I would have said this is not an issue becausw we still have more stealth fighters than other nations, but that's no longer the case now and the gap is closing: China is on track to have more 5th Generation fighters flying than we have.
https://www.militarytimes.com/industry/techwatch/2026/06/12/only-1-in-4-f-35s-is-fully-mission-capable-gao-finds/
ReplyDeleteOnly 1 in 4 F35's mission capable !
This sounds like the GAO is taking the "if you cant beat em, join em" play. In the past the GAO has produced some rather damping reports on various programs, but nobody seems to listen. The Navy hasn't seen in real pushback against their idiocy in a very long time- Congress eventually even bought into their cruiser renovation plans, which we all saw through and predicted the result. GAO needs some folks with some knowledge and "a pair"... to become more DOGE-esque in their approach and results, and provide Congress with a real picture of things. We cant count on Congress to make proper decisions and guidance on things without an alternative document that questions the Navy and its actions.
ReplyDeleteWe really could use CNO, CDR Salamander, and a few others testifying at Congressional hearings...!!!
ReplyDeleteI can't. I'm booked at that time to be the technical advisor on the next Maverick movie: "Maverick - It's Not The Wheelchair, It's The Pilot."
DeleteAll these engagements with drones are relatively short range: the Black Sea Coast of Ukraine, the Straits of Hormuz, the Bab el-Mandeb Straits at the Red Sea. A valid issue/risk in warfare but we all know what happened last time the Navy became obsessed with the littorals. If drones are the future then why is the Navy onboard with the BBN(X)/ Trump battleship? It makes zero sense. It will have to replace carrier construction as it would use the dry dock where carriers are built and as there is one builder of naval nuclear reactors it would have to push out either Columbia Class, Virginia Class or Carriers. If the navy is going to move away from carriers then have that discussion; not reduce by default. The DDG(X) falls by the wayside: the navy could have two for each of these battleships without tying up the Newport News Shipyard or Naval reactors. The DDG(X) (in my opinion) makes sense as it appears to use relatively proven systems. I’m assuming the Zumwalt Class turbine electric/integrated power system works - (the power plant is not why the Zumwalt class failed). I also have to assume that the SPY-6 radar works as the Burke Tier 3 hasn’t really been operationally tested yet. Yet the size of the DDG(X) (space for system integration, cooling systems, weight margin)and the integrated power systems 78 megawatts of generation capacity would make the SPY-6 more doable than on the Tier 3. Of course, there’s no bottom to the incompetence of the Navy and the contractors but given that the DDG(X) is not anywhere the leap as the ridiculous nuclear battleship the odds of a successful program are much greater. I could be off on some of the above, let me know if you wish.
Delete"If drones are the future then why is the Navy onboard with the BBN(X)/ Trump battleship?"
DeleteYou're addressing two separate issues with this question.
1. Drones are not the future. Drones are minor, peripheral players, at best, against a blue water navy that is prepared. Of course, whether the Navy sees it that way is unknown and their obsession with unmanned surface vessels suggests they do not. Why would we be surprised? They haven't gotten any decision right for several decades now!
2. I don't think the Navy is onboard with the Trump battleship other than Trump's sponsorship of the program will get the Navy more budget slice which is, after all, the Navy's purpose. Once Trump leaves office, so too will the Navy's enthusiasm for the vessel.
" there’s no bottom to the incompetence of the Navy"
DeleteAnd there's the issue at the heart of every Navy decision. Honestly, can you think of the last good decision of the Navy?
At best, what we can expect from the BBNX is for the navy to come up with design studies for a new CGNX. We are getting to the point when the electrical power generation needs on existing ships are tapped out, and we'll need to move to nuclear power, especially with the addition of directed energy weapons into the fleet. A Constellation, for example, has 6 potential spaces that you could fit a 300 kilowatt laser. It does not have the spare power generation to fit in a single 300 kilowatt laser, because due to power transfer inefficiencies, the laser output is 30% of the power input. You want a 15 kilowatt laser? You need a 45 kilowatt generator. You want a 300 kilowatt laser? you need 1 megawatt of spare power.
DeleteIt is interesting to see how the Chinese are heavily pursuing point defense lasers, and the Japanese are working on point defense railguns - they're working on a 45mm weapon, that's firing a 2 inch wide projectile at targets, with the aim for a rate of fire better than the 3 inch gun.
"We are getting to the point when the electrical power generation needs on existing ships are tapped out, and we'll need to move to nuclear power"
DeleteThat is by no means a verified statement for a couple of reasons:
1. While EXISTING ships might be incapable of providing future power needs, it should also be noted that EXISTING technologies are not ready for widespread installation. We have no effective laser weapons or rail guns.
2. EXISTING ships were not designed to meet anticipated FUTURE power needs. It is a simple matter of designing ships with more conventional power. Nuclear power is NOT a requirement. For example, the Zumwalt class electric power is provided by two Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines (47,500 hp or 35.4 MW each) driving generators. If more power than that were needed, it's a simple matter of adding an additional turbine(s).
We would have to need currently unimaginable quantities of power to REQUIRE nuclear power. Even then, nuclear reactors do not generate electric power; generators do. Nuclear plants generate heat/steam which powers turbines which connect to generators. Whether the generators are powered by nuclear heat/steam or conventional turbines does not matter.
China develops and works on both manned and unmanned weapons and has got impressive results. How can the nation operate 3 to 4 times of Chinese military spending cannot do both?
ReplyDeleteDepend on your design and quality, unmanned weapons can work well or fail, even disturb your operations.
Watch China's type 076 see trials. How it operates large drones, especially GJ-21 tailless drones (naval version of GJ-11) with its EMALS.
Read online that Chinese military fans keep talking operating J-35 on type 076 while its landing part doesn't have platform to guide manned aircraft. PLAN is clear that type 076 is for drones. Operating J-35 on it is very inefficient. This displays differences between military fans and experts.
Delete