Back to news

September 24, 2018 | International, Naval

4 questions with analyst and retired Marine Lt. Col. Dakota Wood

By:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Marine Corps is facing the same issue as the rest of the armed forces: figuring out how to fight inside the envelope of Chinese long-range missiles in what is known as the anti-access, area denial environment of the South and East China seas.

As the Navy and Marine Corps seek to protect sea lanes, allies and U.S. interests, their solution to their shared problem is to spread out, cause chaos and put strain on China's ability to target U.S. forces and sustain operations on multiple fronts.

Defense News caught up with retired Marine Lt. Col. Dakota Wood, now an analyst with The Heritage Foundation, to see how the Corps is tackling the issue.

As the Marines confront the challenge of fighting in the Pacific again, what are the top priorities for modernization?

There are two parts to that. What are their priorities? Well the amphibious combat vehicle, unmanned capabilities overall and completing fielding of the F-35B. So that's the easy stuff: air, ground and unmanned. They are pursuing upgrades for infantrymen — rifles, optics and communications — but that is always ongoing.

What I think is more interesting is how do those relate to the unfolding vision of what future Marine Corps should be. I don't think we've figured that out yet.

Just as in World War II, the Navy and Marine Corps are uniquely set up for operations in the Pacific theater, but you have to get close to fight. What progress are the Marine Corps and Navy making in solving that problem?

The chief of naval operations has specifically stated the dependency the Navy has on the Marine Corps to create those opportunities. The question is: How do you disrupt the enemy's posture, present multiple dilemmas to the enemy?

A Marine landing force on an island or feature has to present a problem to the enemy that is credible — anti-ship cruise missiles, short-range air defense, a sensor node contributing to the air or surface picture. It has to be able to thin out the enemy's fire power, sensor grid and attention span to give the Navy the chance to get inside the envelope, close and have an impact.

So how does the Marine Corps get there?

It has huge implications for organizational design to get these smaller units where they need to be in a distributed environment. So it's about connectors and how do you resupply those forces. Unmanned systems? Are amphibious combat vehicles relevant in that environment?

It has an impact on ships as well. So far, the Navy has been building big ships. And in this budget environment, will they be able to build enough to support that kind of operation? How do you distribute a force to pose a dilemma for your adversary? There is a gap between current modernization efforts and what needs to be there.

What's the answer?

To get where you need to be requires extensive experimentation and trying new things. That's the critical shortfall for the Navy and the Marine Corps.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/modern-day-marine/2018/09/24/4-questions-with-analyst-and-retired-marine-lt-col-dakota-wood

On the same subject

  • Boeing’s big month capped off with hat trick of new contracts

    October 1, 2018 | International, Aerospace

    Boeing’s big month capped off with hat trick of new contracts

    By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Boeing is the biggest aircraft manufacturer in the world, but the losses of the joint strike fighter program and Air Force's long range strike bomber still weigh heavily on the company's defense unit, and had prompted some in industry to wonder if the company's days of making cutting edge combat aircraft were numbered. Conventional wisdom held that Boeing needed to win either the Navy's unmanned tanker drone or the Air Force's next-generation trainer aircraft contract to keep its St. Louis, Mo.-based facility building tactical aircraft into the 2030s. a contract for the Air Force's Huey replacement helicopter was seen as out of reach as the service had formerly expressed a preference for sole-sourcing Black Hawks. But in a matter of weeks, Boeing racked up all three contracts, shocking the defense establishment. First came the MQ-25 Stingray award for the Navy's unmanned tanker drone on Aug. 30. An initial $805 million contract covers the design, development, fabrication, test and delivery of four Stingray drones, but Navy acquisition boss James Geurts said the entire program could be worth up to $13 billion for 72 aircraft. “It is a big win on a high-visibility competition/program and gives Boeing a franchise unmanned program,” wrote Roman Schweizer of Cowen Washington Research Group on Sept. 4. Boeing defeated Lockheed Martin and General Atomics to win the program — and that victory allows Boeing to cement its own status as the Navy's premier manufacturer of fixed-wing aircraft. “A Lockheed Martin win would have cemented its position as the builder of ‘next-gen' naval aviation platforms while Boeing would have been relegated to manufacturing fleet workhorses,” Schweizer said in his assessment of the award. “General Atomics would have a been a one-off, but we thought they would been a favorite for a low-cost, low-risk design.” Then on Monday, Boeing won another big competition — this time worth up to $2.38 billion — for the Air Force's UH-1N replacement helicopter. Boeing and Leonardo were immediately obligated $375 million for the initial four MH-139 helicopters, which will be built at Leonardo's commercial AW-139 production plant in Philadelphia. It was huge news for Leonardo, a large Italian defense contractor that had been attempting to break into the U.S. market with a major program for about a decade. But for Boeing, it was still a relatively small aircraft procurement program, with Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, writing that there were probably few opportunities for Boeing-Leonardo to sell the MH-139 to other users in the U.S. military. However, Boeing on Thursday won the major opportunity it had been seeking: the Air Force's T-X program. Boeing's clean sheet design beat out Lockheed and Leonardo to win a contract worth up to $9.2 billion. It's likely the actual program will be worth considerably less — Boeing would be obligated a total of $9.2 billion over time if the Air Force decides to execute all options on the contract for 475 training jets, and the services' program of record sits at 350 jets. But its importance to Boeing extends past the award's total contract value. Winning T-X was “possibly critical” for Boeing's St. Louis plant and for its defense business to remain a competitive player in tactical aircraft design, said Callan. “The MQ-25 win helps sustain production at that facility, which now builds F/A-18s and F-15s,” he wrote after the Sept. 27 announcement. “However, the F/A-18 and F-15 lines may end by the mid-2020s. T-X enables Boeing to keep that facility humming and therefore in the hunt for Penetrating Counter Air and other new military aircraft programs.” Analysts like Callan and Schweizer had speculated that Boeing would bid very aggressively to try to win the contract, but the question was whether the company could possibly offer a new purpose-built design at a significantly lower price point than competitors Lockheed Martin and Leonardo, which both proposed aircraft designs already in production and use by foreign militaries. It appears Boeing may have been able to do just that. Richard Aboulafia told Defense News in 2017 that the Lockheed and Leonardo trainers came with a price tag of about $25 million, although both companies were expected to bid lower than that to be competitive. Meanwhile, Jim McAleese of McAleese & Associates pegged the unit cost of Boeing's T-X at an “eye-watering” $19 million, far below the Air Force's $45 million per plane expectation. That low price “establishes an extremely high burden for disappointed offerors of Lockheed or Leonardo” to launch a successful protest with the Government Accountability Office, he stated in a Sept. 28 email, although Lockheed and Leonardo could potentially argue that the Air Force's cost and schedule risk assessments are too optimistic, given that Boeing offered a new airframe. Callan also pointed out that the MQ-25 and T-X wins could be advantageous to Boeing's commercial business. In the past, the defense sector has developed new materials that have later been adapted for use by the airline industry. With Boeing acquiring autonomy-focused businesses like Liquid Robotics and Aurora while investing in startups through its HorizonX organization, it is possible advances in military unmanned tech could give way to autonomous commercial cargo planes or other future concepts. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/09/28/boeings-big-month-capped-off-with-hat-trick-of-new-contracts

  • How the Army plans to improve its friendly force tracking

    April 24, 2018 | International, Land, C4ISR

    How the Army plans to improve its friendly force tracking

    By: Mark Pomerleau The Army is upgrading how it tracks friendly forces to increase readiness. During the fiscal 2019 budget roll out in February, Army officials at the Pentagon indicated that the service would be accelerating its Joint Battle Command-Platform, which provides friendly forces awareness information known as blue force tracking, as well as encrypted data and faster satellite network connectivity. The change is intended to solve mounted mission command problems across all formations. The new budget request shows the service is serious about the issue. The Army asked for $431 million for the program in FY2019. That's up from a total of $283 million during the FY2018 budget. Moreover, the Army plans to procure 26,355 systems as opposed to 16,552 from the FY2018 budget. However, officials in the program office were careful to note this was not a “plus-up, so to speak,” but an effort to accelerate the fielding of the tracking systems. C4ISRNET's Mark Pomerleau recently spoke about the program's modernization efforts with Col. Troy Crosby, project manager for Mission Command, alongside Lt. Col. Shane Sims, product manager for JBC-P, assigned to Project Mission Command. C4ISRNET: How should we interpret the FY2019 budget request for this program? COL. TROY CROSBY: It's important to understand that there wasn't necessarily a plus-up. Really what happened is we shifted already approved authorizations to the left. We're just expediting sooner. The Army asked us what we could do to modernize faster ... essentially, we went back to them and said give us the funding and the resources to move a lot of those units to the left because every year the G-3/5/7 comes out with this priority list and we weren't able to get down to that priority list because of funding. That's really what you're seeing with that movement of money from the out years closer in to the left. C4ISRNET: What led to the decision to baseline the program across formations? CROSBY: The Army's looking to standardize their baselines not only on the platforms like JBC-P, but also a similar effort in the command post with software baseline reduction. Moving to the standard baseline on the platform-side helps with training, readiness and the physical constraints as we can depreciate the older versions of FBCB2/BFT [Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below/Blue Force Tracking] out of sustainment. C4ISRNET: How does standardization help the Army? CROSBY: Any time you're greatly standardized in a organization the size of the Army, you're going to get easier interoperability down at the tactical level. If Lt. Col. Sims is Sgt. Sims and he is in a unit at Fort Stewart and we were trained on the current systems in the force and then he gets [a permanent change of station] out to Fort Riley, he already has a base of knowledge when he hits the ground on what those systems are because they're the same across the force. So, the training burden for his new units greatly reduced. I think it also helps in readiness as units and soldiers move around the battlespace. The other reason the Army really wants to standardize on JBC-P is, like with all systems in the tactical network, we're always looking to improve cyber posture, and there were multiple improvements in our cyber posturing that the department felt were relevant to try to accelerate so we could get that capability to the entire force as quickly as possible. C4ISRNET: In terms of cyber, what are some modernization efforts you're undertaking to help this platform perform in the more dynamic environments? CROSBY: I think the best way that we can characterize it is looking to ... achieve a cyber posture that allows us to operate both in a counter-insurgency/counterterrorism role and a near-peer adversary role. We're looking to answer both sides of that coin. Yes, current fight, but we're also looking to make sure we're cyber postured for a near-peer. LT. COL. SHANE SIMS: You can probably draw some conclusions from what you know on the commercial side. Imagine having a computer that's over 20 years old — that's where some of our platforms are right now when you're talking about the FBCB2 that was fielded almost two decades ago. C4ISRNET: In terms of your FY19 funding, could it be characterized as investing in standards to help increase readiness and lethality? CROSBY: Very much so. The plus-up kind of touched a couple of areas. On the research and development side, the plus-up helps us in looking at ways to modernize and bring new capability for the blue force tracking network side. We're really looking to expedite that fielding for better cyber posture. C4ISRNET: It sounds like standardization is very important from an Army readiness and lethality perspective. SIMS: When talking JBC-P, there are really three components: the software, the hardware and then the network. Really, what we're doing on a couple fronts [is] we're expediting the fielding to get the hardware out there but that's going to set the conditions for what we're doing in the command post with the infrastructure. That same infrastructure is going to reside on our hardware that's in the platform. The commanders are in environments where they experience something completely different in the command post than you experience on the platforms. You hear repeatedly from the commanders, “Can I have the same type of user experience?” Data's really what we're addressing with the modernization of the command post and the mounted computing environment. That user experience is going to be one and the same for the commander when he or she is in the command post and then when they get in the vehicle. That is really what we're doing with modernization for JBC-P. C4ISRNET: The National Defense Strategy has stressed prioritization on great power competition. How does JBC-P modernization and standardization fit into that strategy? CROSBY: The first one is looking to modernize JBC-P mission command on the move at the platform level. How we continue to modernize and field as fast as we can so that we can maintain both that counter-insurgency/counterterrorism fight and near-peer adversaries is one piece of this. https://www.c4isrnet.com/thought-leadership/2018/04/13/how-the-army-plans-to-improve-its-friendly-force-tracking/

  • Future fighter program poses key test for US Air Force’s design method

    August 30, 2023 | International, Aerospace

    Future fighter program poses key test for US Air Force’s design method

    In recent years, the advanced digital engineering techniques the service once thought would be revolutionary have not always panned out.

All news