June 29, 2023 | International, Naval
Contract signed for new Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigates
The Dutch Ministry of Defence, Damen and Thales have signed the contract for the design, construction, and delivery of four Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigates.
August 23, 2018 | International, C4ISR
Here’s how one Army leader sees the future of war
By: Mark Pomerleau
The Army of the future will be leaner and that means junior officers will have more responsibility and more capability in their hands, a top Army general said Aug. 21.
Lt. Gen. Theodore Martin, deputy commanding general of Training and Doctrine Command, said in future wars a platoon or company may be the unit that takes action.
Martin, speaking at the TechNet Augusta conference, said that units have become smaller since World War I. Then, the U.S. military fought with huge field armies. World War II was fought with armies and corps, the Korean and Vietnam Wars were fought primarily with divisions, and the modern counterinsurgency wars have been fought with brigades, Martin said.
With a potentially smaller, and leaner, structure, the junior officers that will command these units will have have capability within their power.
“The type of assets that now reside at the brigade level, my grandfather ... if he were alive today [he] would be totally flabbergasted by what a colonel can bring to bear on the battlefield under his or her own authorities,” Martin said. Brigades today are led by colonels.
In the future, Martin envision a lieutenant who will have grown up in a multidomain world with an education in the Army that is much different than that of today, and which prepared him or her for the future fight. Army leaders will expect that a platoon will take advantage of electronic warfare, cyber and information operations.
This could mean the platoon will throw an electronic warfare grenade that will blind enemy mission command systems, jam radios and block similar attacks to keep friendly radios online. Then, as the platoon gets closer to its objective, perhaps they will send an email to the enemy commander saying something like their wife is cheating on them or their bank account has been emptied, as a way to create an additional distraction, Martin said.
Martin acknowledged this vignette seems a little far-fetched, but in the multidomain battlefield “that's what we're going to be facing and it's a race to capability,” he said.
On the same subject
-
-
September 12, 2019 | International, Land
DSEI: UK’s Warrior fleet upgrade about 18 months away from kickoff
By: Andrew Chuter LONDON — Negotiations are underway on a production contract to update the British Army's fleet of Warrior infantry fighting vehicles, according to the Ministry of Defence official running the program. “We are now talking about how we go forward on production,” Marcus Bruton, the MoD's Warrior upgrade director said during an interview at the DSEI show Sept. 10. Bruton said the two sides were probably 18 months away from a contract allowing Lockheed Martin and its supply chain to start upgrading the Warrior. The effort to progress the long running Warrior capability sustainment development program into the manufacturing phase has come on the back of Lockheed Martin successfully achieving 20 battlefield mission assessments – a key milestone in the reliability growth test program now underway. The MoD said in March it would open manufacturing contract negotiations once it was satisfied with progress on reliability trials. In late August Lockheed Martin achieved that milestone. The company said that in cooperation with the British Army Armoured Trials and Development Unit, it had fired thousands of rounds from the new CTAI developed 40 mm cannon, driven more than 5,000 kms, and achieved the battlefield mission assessments with flying colors. Lockheed Martin Warrior program Director Lee Fellows said he is expecting a deal towards the back end of next year. The company is keen to get the production contract signed and sealed but “we need to get it right, so it will take as long as it needs to," he added. "Getting it done at pace and quality aequally important.” Quantities, the mix of variants and affordability are among the items due to be discussed. Discussions on how to overcome issues of design authority ownership is also part of the build up to a production contract, said the officials. BAE holds the design authority on the existing legacy Warrior, but Lockheed Martin holds the approval for the extensive upgrade — particularly the new turret. “The expectation is there will be a collaboration with BAE. We are talking with them already, that's part of the negotiations,” said Fellows. Neither executive will comment on what sort of upgrade numbers the British Army is looking at. Roughly 740 vehicles were delivered to the British Army starting 1988 but a number were lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of vehicles have been earmarked for battlefield support duties that don't require a new turret. At one time the number of hulls to be updated was in the region of 380, but suppliers at a company briefing in March said that as the British Army downsized and budgets became more challenging the figure slipped to around 265 or lower. The Lockheed Martin executive said that the next 18 months or so will bring further reliability growth trials, but that the major risks have been removed and testing had not unearthed any significant problems. The update is considered one of the Army's top priorities alongside other vehicle programs, including the Challenger 2 tank upgrade and procurement of the Boxer mechanized infantry vehicle from German company Artec. Lockheed Martin was awarded a development deal to upgrade Warrior vehicles back in 2011, but the program has been dogged with problems slowing down progress towards a production deal by several years. The update program includes a new turret fitted with the CTAI cannon, electronic architecture, a modular protection systems and other enhancements. It's a much needed update. The current vehicle's inability to fire on the move is just one of a number of shortcomings deemed to make the Warrior obsolete by current battlefield standards. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2019/09/11/uks-warrior-fleet-upgrade-about-18-months-away-from-kickoff
-
May 7, 2019 | International, Naval
With billions planned in funding, the US Navy charts its unmanned future
By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — With the U.S. Navy poised to dive headlong into a future of robotic ships, the surface fleet is preparing to map out how best it can employ new unmanned sidekicks against potential adversaries Russia and China. At the Coronado, California, headquarters of the Navy's top surface warfare officer, the staff is cobbling together a plan stand up a development squadron to experiment with new technology for which the Navy has requested $2.7 billion for the next five years. “That's happening,” Vice Adm. Richard Brown, the head of naval surface forces in the Pacific, said in a recent interview. “We're going to have large [unmanned surface vessels], we're going to have medium-displacement USVs. I've got Sea Hunter running around. I've got no place to put those things. That was the impetus behind the development of the Surface Development Squadron.” The Sea Hunter is an unmanned vessel developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The surface Navy is on the precipice of launching into a very different future than the Aegis fleet of the late 1970s, the 1980s and the post-Cold War era. It's a future that eschews the ballooning costs of packing evermore sophisticated strike, air defense, counter-electronic warfare, counter-surface and counter-submarine technologies into massive manned combatants that cost billions of dollars. The Navy wants to prepare for a future where off-board aerial, surface and subsurface drones with sophisticated sensors search for, detect and engage enemy combatants, submarines and aircraft with humans in the loop who are based on manned combatants that attempt to stay undetected. The problem is the Navy doesn't know how to do that or how it would introduce those technologies into a fleet that has for the most part fought the same way since the Cold War. “We've got to figure out command and control,” Brown said. “We've got to figure out the man, train and equip aspects — there's got to be an administrative commander in charge of them, got to be a guy who equips those things, got to be a guy who oversees the training of the people who interact with and use the USVs.” That is a tall order, and Brown and his staff are relying on the Surface Development Squadron, or SURFDEVRON, to figure it out. “Let's say I have a ship going over the horizon and it has three USVs it's operating with. I've got to have a ship that's manned and trained to operate those USVs, and that ship has to be equipped with the comms architecture, and I've got to make sure the USVs are manned, trained and equipped," Brown said. “Right now I don't even know what that looks like. We are going to experiment the hell out of it in the SURFDEVRON.” The development squadron, which mirrors similar efforts in the submarine and aviation communities, will also be responsible for developing the three new stealth destroyers, which the Navy sees as highly capable platforms that can be used to develop new concepts. Alongside the Zumwalt-class destroyers, the Navy plans to place the Sea Hunter under the auspices of SURFDEVRON, Brown said. Moving fast The development squadron aims to speed up the pace of experimentation in the fleet and empower the squadron's officers to integrate new technologies into naval platforms. This is crucial to the Navy's forthcoming “distributed maritime operations” concept meant to counter rising threats, primarily from China, in the vast expanse of the western Pacific. “The surface force has been key in the [distributed maritime operations] discussion because there is an incredible amount of firepower located on our ships,” Brown said. “But once you buy into a distributed maritime operations concept, you've got to experiment, you've got to work it out. And what better place to do that than the SURFDEVRON? ... You need platforms.” Providing the squadron with ships, such as the Zumwalt, the destroyer Michael Monsoor and the Sea Hunter, will allow ideas to flourish rather than die on the vine. “Someone has an idea for this new laser, it will take you two years to get the approval process,” Brown said. “Look at the laser we are trying to put on [the amphibious transport dock] Portland: We've been talking about that since I've been in this job. It's still not on there. “[With SURFDEVRON], I think we're talking about weeks to months — it's this idea of rapid acceleration of experimentation.” Too fast? The speed at which the Navy moved on efforts for unmanned surface vessels, as reflected in this year's budget proposal, raised questions about whether the technology pursued by the Navy is mature enough to be reliable in a fight. But with prototypes such as Sea Hunter already performing complicated tasks at sea, the state of technology is less a barrier that previous thought, said Bryan Clark, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a retired submarine officer. The Navy's goals for the first large USVs are limited, Clark said, and developing the platforms makes sense. “The state of technology, especially for unmanned surface vessels, I don't think that's the issue,” he said. “The technology is mature enough to support what the Navy wants to do with these vehicles, especially the initial set of missions because they are going to be done in concert with manned platforms. So you'll have the ability to have people manage them as opposed to being independent steamers.” The way the Navy pursues USVs makes sense as well, Clark said. The service wants to buy eight large USVs, each about 2,000 tons with the ability to autonomously navigate waters. The drones would be equipped with enough space, power and cooling to host a variety of different systems. The service also plans to develop a smaller, medium-sized USV. “Is this 2,000-ton large surface vessel the right vessel?” Clark asked. “And I think given the fact that it's more or less a hull or a truck — that's how the Navy is looking at it — there's less risk of buyer's remorse to say: ‘Well, I wish I'd designed it very differently.' Because if it's a truck and it's got at least the space and weight [and] cooling you need, you can pretty much cover any [concept of operations] you might envision for it.” Another question is whether the Navy can develop a reliable communications network as a way to link to distant unmanned vessels. One benefit of distributing sensors is that detectable electronic signals are a considerable distance from the manned platform, meaning that platform has the advantage of active radars but without exposing itself to adversaries armed with signal-sniffing equipment. In a distributed construct, the drones spread out across an area while the manned ship passively receives the data at a distance. But it's a challenge to accomplish that in environments where an adversary such as China or Russia actively jams communications signals. However, it's a challenge the Navy must address, said Bob Work, the former deputy secretary of defense who championed unmanned technologies under the Obama administration. “This is like carrier aviation in the interwar period,” Work said. “This is an integration problem with systems that ultimately are going to change the way the Navy fights and considers combat power. The first thing is to get things into the fleet to test them and say: ‘How do these things work together?' ” Work said the Navy's concept of operations currently under development doesn't need to be the final word, but he added it's imperative the Navy begin experimenting. “It's very rudimentary right now — the medium-displacement surface vessels are the sensor guys, and the large surface vessels are more missile magazines. Hell, I can see all kinds of permutations, but for the first time we actually have platforms that are in the program that are being procured and will form the basis for fleet problems on human-machine surface action groups, human-machine undersea combat groups. I'm very excited about the way this is going," he said. “Are these the final ones? No, they'll change. But first the Navy had to commit to unmanned surface vehicles. People say, ‘Well, they'll never be able to talk to each other,' or that ‘under admiralty law, unmanned vessels are considered hazards to navigation.' And I'm just thinking: ‘Will you just stop?' Start thinking about how you work through those problems.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2019/05/06/with-billions-planned-in-funding-the-us-navy-charts-its-unmanned-future/