Back to news

June 18, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land

In War, Chinese Shipyards Could Outpace US in Replacing Losses; Marine Commandant

“Replacing ships lost in combat will be problematic," Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger writes in a forthcoming paper. "Our industrial base has shrunk while peer adversaries have expanded their shipbuilding capacity. In an extended conflict, the United States will be on the losing end of a production race.”

By on June 17, 2020 at 4:44 PM

WASHINGTON: The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. David Berger, dismisses current Marine and Navy plans for amphibious ships as “obsolete,” and worries that in any conflict, China could replace damaged ships faster than the US in a draft operating concept obtained by Breaking Defense.

The warnings are the latest in a campaign waged by the reform-minded Berger to overhaul how the Marine Corps trains and equips to meet the challenges of China and other advanced nations, while working more closely with the other armed services and allies around the globe.

In the sharply-worded 22-page document, Berger rejects war plans anticipating a Cold War-style confrontation in which huge ships can creep close to shore free from the threat of precision-guided munitions being launched from batteries deep inland. He calls the current configuration of amphibious ships “the most obvious manifestation of this obsolete paradigm” in a draft document obtained by Breaking Defense.

In an unsigned draft of the unreleased report, “Naval Campaigning: The 2020 Marine Corps Capstone Operating Concept,” Berger underlines the need for new thinking about how the Marine Corps and Navy will fight an advanced Chinese military that can control islands, coastlines, and vast swaths of the sea with aircraft carriers, a swelling blue ocean fleet and long-distance precision munitions.

The old way of thinking “is also exemplified by our current amphibious warships and maritime prepositioning ships, which are large and built for deployment efficiency rather than warfighting effectiveness,” he writes. “These superb, multipurpose ships are extremely expensive—meaning we've never had the desired number.”

Berger also raises significant concerns about the United States' ability to replace any combat losses, even in a short, sharp conflict.

“Replacing ships lost in combat will be problematic, inasmuch as our industrial base has shrunk, while peer adversaries have expanded their shipbuilding capacity. In an extended conflict, the United States will be on the losing end of a production race—reversing the advantage we had in World War II when we last fought a peer competitor.”

The stark admission comes as the Navy's shipyards struggle under the disruptions caused by COVID-19, leading the service to order an emergency call up over 1,600 Reservists to fill labor shortages to do repair work on aircraft carriers and submarines in a desperate effort to get them back out to sea as soon as possible.

Berger takes care not to blame the Navy for building expensive, relatively slow amphibious ships to carry Marines across the globe.

“These issues should not be construed as a criticism of our Navy partners who built the fleet—to include the types of amphibious warfare and maritime prepositioning ships the Marine Corps asked for—that was appropriate to the security era within the constraints of finite resources.”

But that era is now over the Corps wants to build a more dynamic “inside force” of smaller ships that can operate within range of Chinese and Russian weapons and pack a potent offensive punch while offering more and smaller targets than the current amphibious fleet.

But these small ships won't replace their bigger cousins — they'll come in addition to them, creating new issues for both Navy budgets and the limited number of shipbuilders who can produce hulls for the sea service. The ships will also need ports to call home.

“One can think of basing forces and lots of smaller vessels in theater, but this raises the issue of where to put everything and doesn't seem to be a ready solution that replaces divestiture of large ships,” said Dakota Wood, senior research fellow for defense programs at The Heritage Foundation.

In recent weeks, the Navy met with shipbuilders to talk about plans for a new class of logistics ship that can operate under fire and resupply Marines deep within the range of enemy precision weapons. The Next Generation Medium Logistics Ship would resupply both ships at sea, as well as small, ad hoc bases ashore.

The ship fits within plans Berger has made to stand up several Marine Littoral Regiments designed to move fast and have their own integrated anti-air and possibly anti-ship weapons. The Corps and Navy are also looking to buy as many as 30 Light Amphibious Warships in coming years, which would be much smaller than the current amphibious ships.

The draft document doesn't include any those specifics. But Berger has already done that work in previous statements and documents, where he outlined plans: to rethink the role that large amphibious ships play in future; divest of M1 Abrams tanks; cut artillery units; slash helicopter squadrons; and reassess the role F-35s might play in future operations.

Berger has admitted he realizes he needs to undertake this transition within existing budgets, leading him to call for cutting tanks, helicopters, and even some end strength. But for the Navy, Wood said, “I think much of this will be added cost because it must maintain current capabilities (types of ships) while developing new capabilities. It does not have the luxury of getting rid of current before new replacements are ready.”

A significant omission in all of these plans is the absence of a larger, coherent naval strategy. The 30-year shipbuilding plan, due to Congress in February, continues to be missing in action. A major Navy force structure review was rejected by Defense Secretary Mark Esper earlier this year.

The force structure review, currently being taken apart by Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist, is expected this fall.

The Navy's plans are in such a fluid state that Vice Adm. Stuart Munsch, head of the service's Warfighting Development office, cited Chinese attention as a reason to decline to give a progress report in a call with reporters earlier this month.

“I'm not going to divulge our intentions,” he said. “I'm very conscious that, if I say anything public, I'm an authoritative source and the Chinese will key on what I say, and likewise any kind of public-facing document that we put out as well.” Pressed to explain what the Navy's strategy for operating in a world with competing great powers looks like, Munsch said, “I'm not sure how you would see that keeping our intentions for warfighting classified is something you would want as an American citizen.”

While Berger continues to push out papers and strategies for pushing the Marines into the future, the Navy, which will provide much of the lift he needs, is still at the drawing board.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/in-war-chinese-shipyards-can-outpace-us-in-replacing-losses

On the same subject

  • Two companies to square off for Australia’s $10 billion infantry fighting vehicle program

    September 18, 2019 | International, Land

    Two companies to square off for Australia’s $10 billion infantry fighting vehicle program

    By: Nigel Pittaway MELBOURNE, Australia – The Australian government has selected Hanwha and Rheinmetall to participate in the next phase of its A$15 billion (U.S. $10.3 billion) infantry fighting vehicle program, being delivered under Project Land 400 Phase 3. Hanwha's AS21 Redback IFV, a variant of the South Korean Army's K21 vehicle, and Rheinmetall's Lynx KF41 will now progress to a 12-month risk mitigation activity program later this year, which will test the vehicles under operational conditions. Land 400 Phase 3 (Mounted Close Combat Capability) will acquire up to 450 tracked IFVs to replace the Australian Army's ageing M113AS4 armoured personnel carriers. A decision on which tenderer will progress to the acquisition phase of the program will be presented to government for consideration in 2022. “The two companies have been assessed as offering vehicles that are best able to meet the requirements of the Army while offering value for money for defense,” Minister for Defence Industry Melissa Price said at the Sept. 16 announcement. The announcement reduces the field from four to two, with BAE Systems (CV90) and General Dynamics Land Systems (Ajax) now eliminated from the competition. Phase 3 of the overarching Land 400 program follows on from the A$5.2 billion (U.S. $3.6 billion) Phase 2, under which Rheinmetall is delivering 211 Boxer wheeled 8x8 combat reconnaissance vehicles to replace the Australian Army's light armored vehicles. Rheinmetall is assembling all but the first 25 Boxers at its recently established Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence at Ipswich, west of Brisbane. Local industry participation will be a key requirement for Land 400 Phase 3. “Australian industry involvement and Australian workers are vital to this project,” Price said. “Phase 3 is another important opportunity for Australian industry to deliver leading edge technology for the ADF.” Rheinmetall has indicated it will assemble the Lynx in its Ipswich facility and Hanwha announced on May 23 that it had teamed with EOS Group and Elbit Systems to develop the AS21 and build it in Geelong, south of Melbourne. Hanwha and Rheinmetall are also the prime contenders for the Australian Army's recently revitalized Land 8116 program, which will acquire 30 self-propelled howitzers, together with support vehicles and systems. Hanwha is proposing a local version of its K9 Thunder 155mm SPH, dubbed Aussie Thunder, which the company said in May would be assembled in Geelong irrespective of the Land 400 Phase 3 outcome. Rheinmetall is expected to offer a solution based on its PzH 2000 vehicle. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2019/09/17/two-companies-to-square-off-for-australias-10-billion-fighting-vehicle-program/

  • Photo feature: On board 'The Mighty Ike' with Carrier Strike Group 2 - Skies Mag

    August 16, 2023 | International, Naval

    Photo feature: On board 'The Mighty Ike' with Carrier Strike Group 2 - Skies Mag

    An exclusive look at operations on board the USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier, as Carrier Strike Group 2 performs a Composite Training Unit Exercise.

  • L'observation spatiale nouvelle génération parée au lancement

    December 19, 2018 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR

    L'observation spatiale nouvelle génération parée au lancement

    Helen Chachaty Mise à jour 13h (heure française) : Le lancement est reporté de 24 heures en raison de conditions météorologiques défavorables. L'observation spatiale prend une nouvelle dimension. Le premier satellite CSO (Composante spatiale optique) doit en théorie être mis sur orbite ce 18 décembre par un lanceur Soyouz, depuis le Centre spatial guyanais (CSG) de Kourou. La constellation CSO - composée de trois satellites - remplacera à terme le système Hélios II et reprendra les missions d'observation spatiale pour les forces armées françaises, mais aussi pour les pays partenaires du programme MUSIS (Multinational space-based imaging system). D'une masse de 3,5 tonnes, CSO-1 sera placé sur une orbite héliosynchrone à 800 kilomètres d'altitude et déployé pour des missions de reconnaissance, avec la capacité de produire des images très haute résolution. CSO-3 aura les mêmes fonctions, alors que CSO-2 sera quant à lui placé sur une orbite polaire à une altitude différente, soit 480 kilomètres d'altitude, afin de remplir la mission d'identification. Le deuxième satellite bénéficiera donc d'une résolution augmentée par rapport à CSO-1 et -3 et sera capable de produire des images d'extrêmement haute résolution - une donnée non-dévoilée. CSO-2 sera théoriquement lancé en mai 2020, toujours par Soyouz, CSO-3 devrait quant à lui être tiré par Ariane 6 en octobre 2021. Ces satellites de nouvelle génération représentent un « saut qualitatif en termes de résolution d'image, de précision de localisation et de nombre de prises de vue », explique un aviateur. Les satellites CSO sont destinés à effectuer des prises de vue en fonction des besoins militaires de la France et des pays partenaires (Allemagne, Belgique, Espagne, Italie, Suède). Dotés de capacités multispectrales et infrarouges, les satellites CSO permettront de disposer d'images mono- et stéréoscopiques. La participation de la Suède, qui met à disposition une antenne à Kiruna, permettra par ailleurs au satellite de « décharger » les données toutes les 90 minutes, contre environ deux fois par jour pour l'antenne de la base aérienne de Creil. La capacité journalière maximale est estimée à environ 800 images. La composante spatiale optique est articulée autour des trois satellites, d'un segment sol de mission pour le contrôle des satellites et d'un segment sol utilisateur. CSO-1, -2 et -3 ont été réalisés sous maîtrise d'oeuvre d'Airbus Defence & Space, l'instrumentation optique a été fournie par Thales Alenia Space France. Le segment sol mission est opéré par le CNES depuis Toulouse. Il est composé d'un centre de programmation (Capgemini) et de commande-contrôle (Airbus Defence & Space) et d'un centre d'expertise qualité image (Thales Service et Capgemini). Quant au segment sol utilisateur, situé à Creil, il a été conçu et réalisé par Airbus Defence & Space. La Direction générale de l'armement est responsable de la conduite du programme et assure la maîtrise d'ouvrage du segment sol utilisateur. Elle a délégué au CNES la maîtrise d'ouvrage pour la réalisation des satellites et du segment sol de mission, ainsi que le lancement des satellites - qui sera effectué par Arianespace. Le lancement de CSO-1 intervient alors que la ministre des Armées Florence Parly doit prochainement rendre au président de la République Emmanuel Macron un rapport sur la stratégie spatiale militaire française. « Il faut avoir en tête que l'espace devient le thé'tre de confrontations », avait-elle déclaré à l'occasion d'une rencontre avec des journalistes début septembre, mettant en avant la nécessité de disposer de capacités spatiales efficientes. Florence Parly avait également rappelé que « protéger l'espace, c'est protéger nos opérations. C'est aussi garantir notre souveraineté et trouver l'opportunité de partenariats avec nos alliés européens, et c'est surtout protéger nos modes de vie et notre quotidien ». La Loi de programmation militaire 2019-2025 inclut, outre la mise en oeuvre du programme CSO-MUSIS, la mise en service du programme CERES (Capacité d'écoute et de renseignement électromagnétique spatiale), des deux premiers satellites du système Syracuse IV et le lancement du programme OMEGA (Opération de modernisation des équipements GNSS des armées). Les premières images produites par CSO-1 sont attendues « dans quelques mois », explique-t-on au CMOS (Centre militaire d'observation spatiale). Après le lancement du satellite suivra une période de calibrage des instruments de bord et de calage du télescope et de la structure. https://www.journal-aviation.com/actualites/41584-l-observation-spatiale-nouvelle-generation-paree-au-lancement

All news