Can the US Navy save money by accepting the LCS as a sunk cost?

On the same subject

• 

  October 21, 2020 | International, Naval, Land, C4ISR

  U.S. Army Flexes New Land-Based, Anti-Ship Capabilities

  Steve Trimble Lee Hudson Finding ever new and efficient ways to sink enemy ships is usually assigned to the U.S. Navy and, to a lesser extent, the Air Force, but not anymore. Though still focused on its primary role of maneuvering against land forces and shooting down air and missile threats, the Army is quietly developing an arsenal of long-range maritime strike options. As the Army carves out an offensive role in the Pentagon's preparations for a mainly naval and air war with China, service officials now seek to develop a capacity for targeting and coordinating strikes on maritime targets with helicopter gunships in the near term and with long-range ballistic missiles by 2025. The Project Convergence 2020 event in September focused the Army on learning how to solve the command and control challenge for a slew of new land-attack capabilities scheduled to enter service by fiscal 2023. The follow-on event next year will expand to include experiments with the Army's command and control tasks in the unfamiliar maritime domain. “I think we have a long way to go in terms of partnering with the Navy for some of the maritime targeting [capabilities],” says Brig. Gen. John Rafferty, the Army's cross-functional team leader for Long-Range Precision Fires. “And I think that'll be a natural evolution into Project Convergence 2021,” Rafferty says, speaking during the Association of the U.S. Army's virtual annual meeting on Oct. 15. The Army operates a small, modest fleet of watercraft, including logistics support vessels and Runnymede-class large landing craft, but service officials have been content to respond to attacks on enemy ships at sea with the Navy's surface combatants and carrier-based fighter squadrons. Last year, the Air Force also revived a maritime strike role by activating the Lockheed Martin AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile on the B-1B fleet. But the Army's position has changed. The AH-64E Capability Version 6, which Boeing started developing in 2018, includes a modernized radar frequency interferometer. The receiver can identify maritime radars, allowing the AH-64E to target watercraft at long range for the first time. Meanwhile, the Defense Department's Strategic Capabilities Office started working in 2016 to integrate an existing seeker used for targeting ships into the Army Tactical Missile System (Atacms), which is currently the Army's longest-range surface-to-surface missile at 300 km (162 nm). Beginning in fiscal 2023, the Lockheed Martin Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) is scheduled to begin replacing the Atacms. The Increment 1 version will extend the range of the Army's missiles to 500 km. A follow-on Increment 2 version of PrSM is scheduled to enter service in fiscal 2025, featuring a new maritime seeker now in flight testing by the Army Research Laboratory. “As we begin to develop the PrSM [Increment 2] with the cross-domain capability against maritime and emitting [integrated air defense system] targets, obviously we'll be partnering with the Navy on that,” Rafferty says. Targeting ships from land-based artillery systems is not unique to the Army. The U.S. Marine Corps plans to introduce the Raytheon-Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile, firing the ground-based anti-ship cruise missile from a remotely operated Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. To strike a moving target at ranges beyond the horizon, the Army needs more than an innovative new seeker. A targeting complex linking over-the-horizon sensors with the Atacms and PrSM batteries is necessary. Moreover, the Army will need to adapt command and control procedures to an unfamiliar maritime domain. The annual Project Convergence events offer a laboratory for the Army to prepare the targeting and command and control complex before new weapons enter service. With the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, a medium-range ballistic missile and PrSM also set to enter service in the next three years, the Army is seeking to adapt quickly. Last month, the Army used the first prototype of the Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node ground station. An artificial intelligence (AI) program named Prometheus sifted through intelligence information to identify targets. Another AI algorithm called SHOT matched those targets to particular weapons with the appropriate range and destructive power. An underlying fire-control network, called the Advanced Field Artillery Data System, provided SHOT with the location and magazine status of each friendly weapon system. A process that would otherwise take minutes or even hours dwindled—in an experimental setting—to a few seconds. The first Project Convergence event last month focused on the Army's traditional mission against targets on land. The next event will seek to replicate that streamlined targeting process against ships possibly hundreds of miles away. These experiments are intended to help the Army familiarize itself with new tools in the command and control loop, such as automated target-recognition systems and targeting assignments. The event also helps the Army dramatically adapt, in a few years, institutional practices that had endured for decades. “In order for a bureaucracy to change, [it has] to understand the need, and we have to create the use case in order for a bureaucracy to change,” says Gen. Mike Murray, the head of the Army Futures Command. “I think in Project Convergence, what we're able to demonstrate to the senior leaders in the army will further help drive that change.” In a way, the Army is seeking to achieve in the maritime domain a networked sensor and command and control system that the Navy introduced to its fleet nearly two decades ago. To improve the fleet air-defense mission substantially, the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) generally develops a common, shared database of tracks from the multiple airborne, surface and subsurface sensors available to a carrier battle group. But the Navy also is building on the CEC standard. In 2016, a Lockheed F-35B demonstrated the ability to develop a target track of an over-the-horizon enemy warship. The track information was sent via the CEC to a launcher for a Raytheon SM-6. Although primarily an air- and missile-defense interceptor, in this case the SM-6 demonstrated an anti-ship role. A follow-on development SM-6 Block 1B is expected to optimize the weapon system as a long-range, anti-ship ballistic missile with hypersonic speed. More recently, the Navy has been quietly experimenting with its own series of Project Convergence-like experiments. Known as the Navy Tactical Grid experiments, the Navy and Marine Corps organized a series of demonstrations in fiscal 2019, according to the latest budget justification documents. Building on the common operating picture provided by the CEC, the Navy Tactical Grid is possibly experimenting with similar automation and machine-learning algorithms to streamline and amplify the targeting cycle dramatically. A new initiative is now replacing the Navy Tactical Grid experiments. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday tapped Rear Adm. Douglas Small, the head of Naval Information Warfare Systems Command, to lead the effort known as Project Overmatch. Small must provide a strategy, no later than early December, that outlines how the Navy will develop the networks, infrastructure, data architecture, tools and analytics to support the operational force. This includes linking hundreds of ships, submarines, unmanned systems and aircraft. “Beyond recapitalizing our undersea nuclear deterrent, there is no higher developmental priority in the U.S. Navy,” Gilday wrote in an Oct. 1 memo that revealed the existence of Project Overmatch. Aviation Week obtained a copy of the document. “I am confident that closing this risk is dependent on enhancing Distributed Maritime Operations through a teamed manned-unmanned force that exploits artificial intelligence and machine learning.” While Small is tasked with creating the “connective tissue,” Gilday directs Vice Adm. James Kilby, deputy chief of naval operations for warfighting requirements and capabilities (N9), with accelerating development of unmanned capabilities and long-range fires, Gilday wrote in a separate Oct. 1 memo outlining the details of Project Overmatch. Kilby's assessment must include a metric for the Navy to measure progress and a strategy that appropriately funds each component. His initial plan is also due to Gilday in early December. “Drive coherence to our plans with a long-term, sustainable [and] affordable view that extends far beyond the [future years defense plan],” Gilday wrote. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/missile-defense-weapons/us-army-flexes-new-land-based-anti-ship-capabilities

• 

  May 19, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  A $17 Billion Pot of National-Security Stimulus Aid Goes Begging

  By David McLaughlin and Anthony Capaccio There's a $17 billion pot of money in the pandemic aid package for companies vital to national security -- and no one seems to want it. The $2 trillion rescue package Congress adopted in late March includes loans and loan guarantees specifically for companies “critical to maintaining national security.” The funds at first were seen as largely directed at Boeing Co., which at the time had been pleading for a government bailout. But after selling $25 billion in bonds to investors, the aircraft maker turned down the aid, which would have come with strings attached that it didn't like. With the $17 billion up for grabs, the U.S. defense industry is asking the Trump administration to change the criteria for getting some of it, arguing that the terms are too strict. The Treasury Department, which has sole authority over the $17 billion, has limited the companies that qualify to those whose work is designated DX, which means it ranks highest on the military's list of national priorities, or to companies that have facilities with top-secret security clearances. Only about 20 companies applied by the May 1 deadline, according to the Defense Department. There are about 300,000 companies in the Pentagon's contractor supply chain. Earlier: Defense Firms to Vie for Virus Aid With Boeing Weighing Options “What we're hearing across the board is that the restrictions and requirements on the money are pretty onerous, and a majority of companies just can't apply for the money,” said Hawk Carlisle, president of the National Defense Industrial Association, which represents defense contractors. It's another example of the Trump administration's struggle to help businesses that have been decimated by the pandemic. The initial round of $349 billion aimed at small businesses sparked outrage after large restaurant chains, a professional basketball franchise and numerous publicly traded companies were able to get money while mom-and-pop businesses were shut out. Treasury has approved about $25 billion out of the $35 billion that Congress allocated for payroll assistance to airlines and cargo carriers. Earlier: American Gets Most as Biggest Airlines Win Bulk of U.S. Aid On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington asked Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to broaden the criteria for qualifying for loans and reopen the application process. “Treasury's implementation of the loan program has not adequately addressed the needs of the aerospace supply chain and its workforce, which is fundamental to America's industrial base,” she wrote. It's not just the defense industry raising concerns. Ellen Lord, the Defense Department's top acquisition official, told reporters last month that Treasury's criteria may have prevented companies with the greatest need from qualifying. “We have talked with them several times; they have reached out to us,” Lord said. “I am not sure companies with DX-rated contracts are perhaps the ones that have the most critical needs.” She said suppliers already have been giving DX programs priority, which they are required to do under Pentagon rules. The Treasury Department didn't respond to requests for comment. Congress stipulated that companies receiving the national-security loans must provide the government with warrants, equity or senior debt securities and agree to limits on dividends, stock buybacks and executive pay. But it's Treasury's additional criteria that defense firms say are too narrow. It restricted loans to two groups: those with a contract with the DX rating or those with facilities that have top-secret security clearances. Eric Fanning, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, whose members include Lockheed Martin Corp. and BAE Systems Plc, said the criteria should be broadened to cover more companies. A Pentagon spokesman, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Mike Andrews, said in an email that the Defense Department has determined that only a few programs required a DX rating, but opted to stop releasing their names as of December 2018. Before that, the Pentagon had said there are about a dozen DX programs, including those for the Minuteman III ICBM program, the B-2 bomber, presidential aircraft, missile warning satellites and nuclear-missile submarines. Some of the major companies involved are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman Corp. and General Dynamics Corp. The Pentagon doesn't track the number of companies that possess top-secret clearances, but only the number of facilities cleared at that level, spokeswoman Cynthia McGovern said in an email. Like Boeing, the large companies that might qualify for the Treasury loans are able to tap the capital markets to meet their financing needs, especially now that the Federal Reserve is pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into debt markets by buying corporate bonds and bond funds. Earlier: Here's Where $881 Billion in U.S. Aid Went in Month of Spending The Pentagon is helping by increasing progress payments by $3 billion and speeding up those payments to contractors, which range from the biggest makers of weapons systems to the more numerous, lower-tier suppliers of everything from software to uniforms. But many contractors also rely on commercial deals to supplement their government work. With the airline industry facing a sharp and lengthy contraction, aviation suppliers could see a greater need for rescue financing in the near future, said Fanning of the aerospace industry group. Boeing, for example, in late April said it's shrinking its workforce by about 10%, or about 16,000 jobs, to conserve cash. General Electric Co. is cutting about 13,000 jobs in its jet-engine operation. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc., a supplier to Airbus and Boeing, is also cutting jobs. “We don't have a sense yet of where the stress points are in the industrial base,” Fanning said. “The health of supply chains can take a while to sort out and show where there are problems.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-14/a-17-billion-pot-of-national-security-stimulus-aid-goes-begging

• 

  January 14, 2021 | International, Naval

  For the US Navy, the future of shipbuilding (and warfare) is in the power plant

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy wants to buy a next-generation large surface combatant by the end of the 2030s, but its not being built for a new kind of sensor or weapon system. The newly dubbed DDG(X) is being built for power. The Navy has, of course, built ships around advancements in engineering systems before: Nuclear power or steam engines, for example, have led to big leaps in naval design. But the large surface combatant is being built around a significant challenge. Weapons systems of the future such as high-powered electronic warfare systems, laser weapons, and high-powered radars and sensors will put an uneven and sometimes even unpredictable load on a ship's power system. That's pushing the Navy toward an integrated power system, says Rear Adm. Paul Schlise. “We're going to incorporate an Integrated Power System that has the ability to power up the weapons and sensors of the future,” Schlise said during the Surface Navy Association's virtual annual symposium. “[That's] the key to the realm here. It's DDG-1000-like, in some respects in that it'll have that integrated power system, but the most important thing is including the space, weight, power and cooling — reestablishing those margins to incorporate future systems that are not yet mature. “There's a lot of promise in some of those systems, but that integrated power system is the key to incorporating those feature systems that we're looking at, that we think are going to be part of that class of ship.” What is an integrated power system? Mark Vandroff, a former senior director of the National Security Council and a retired Navy captain who was the program manager for the Navy's new DDG Flight III program, said it's a major break from the kind of system used on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. “A major advantage of a ship with an integrated power system is that the power generated by any of the ship's engines can be used for either propulsion or electricity, rather than having engines solely dedicated to one or another.” On today's destroyer, and on the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, the ship has separate systems that power the twin propulsion shafts, which turn the ship's propeller and generators that work exclusively to power the ship. An integrated power system, similar to what is on the Zumwalt-class destroyers, uses all the ship's engines to make electricity that turns the propellers and powers the weapons and sensors. The integrated power system on Zumwalt is a new layout that uses advanced induction motors to produce up to 78 megawatts of electrical power, far more than any previous destroyer or cruiser. But the issue with the large surface combatant is a little more complicated than just producing a ton of power. What energy weapons or advanced electronics systems do is put a huge tax on the electrical system of a ship, often requiring more power than the ship is able to produce at one time. So while the integrated power system isn't new, the kinds of demands these new systems will place on the power grid meant to run everything is a new kind of challenge, said Matthew Collette, associate professor of naval architecture and marine engineering at the University of Michigan. Therefore, the Navy must figure out how to best store energy so it can be available to meet unpredictable demands. “The issue is, this is different than integrated electric propulsion, which we've had on cruise ships and offshore supply vessels for two decades at this point, and it works really well,” Collette said. “But on those ships, all the electrical loads are pretty well behaved: They rise and fall slowly, and there's no issues with the stability of the electrical system. “High-powered radars, high-powered electronic warfare, certainly rail guns, the lesser extent lasers — they all ask for power really quickly, faster than a mechanical generator can suddenly produce it. So now you have to think about whether [you] use batteries or flywheels or capacitors or other techniques to get the energy available on the timescale that the load needs.” It's not an insurmountable problem, and it is one the Navy has used elsewhere. The electromagnetic launch system on the Ford-class, which has had its share of technical problems, operates off a flywheel energy storage system. But the new power system already has Congress nervous, and lawmakers are pressuring the Navy to build a land-based engineering site to test out the power and propulsion system before getting too deep into the design work for the ship. Collette said that's a sensible approach, and that on the timeline the Navy is discussing, the technology should be sufficiently advanced to support the new class. “There's been a ton of work done on this, and I think it's certainly something that in the timeframe of a large surface combatant, I would expect would work,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/surface-navy-association/2021/01/13/for-the-us-navy-the-future-of-shipbuilding-and-warfare-is-in-the-power-plant