August 27, 2020 | International, Naval

Lack of U.S. Warship Repair Capacity Worrying Navy

A deficit of ship repair capacity and an expected change in the Navy's needs for large combatants versus smaller ones may force the entire industry to rethink their roles in construction and maintenance work going forward, a panel of officials said this week.

The two halves of the Navy's Team Ships acknowledged that more companies would need to get involved in ship repair, and also that more companies getting involved on the construction side could cause hardship from some of the traditional shipbuilders that have spent years optimizing their yards to build large warships.

First, Rear Adm. Eric Ver Hage, the Commander of Navy Regional Maintenance Center (CNRMC) and Director of Surface Ship Maintenance and Modernization, said during the event that “we don't have enough (ship repair) capacity for peacetime,” let alone to repair combat-damaged ships during wartime.

“Think about how long it took [USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) and USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)] to get back in operations” following fatal at-sea collisions in the Western Pacific in 2017, he said.
“We'll see what we do with [USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6)], but that'll be a massive effort to repair her if that's where the decision goes – I'm talking years most likely. I think public and private investment is needed” to grow the ship repair industrial base.

Ver Hage said the existing repair industrial base is working hard to get more efficient at the work it does, but ultimately that base is too small, especially as the Navy tries to grow its fleet.

The rear admiral cited Titan Acquisition Holdings as one example of private investment: private investment firms The Carlyle Group and Stellex Capital Management came together to buy repair companies Vigor Industrial and MHI Holdings – and most recently, Huntington Ingalls Industries' San Diego Shipyard – to invest in the repair business on both coasts of the U.S. in a way that each small company might struggle to do on its own.

Ver Hage said the fact that such large investment firms showed interest in ship repair means there's a future to this business model.

He also cited the CARES Act, passed by Congress to keep the economy afloat during the coronavirus pandemic, as an example of public investment in shipbuilding and ship repair jobs as vital parts of the military's health but also the economy's health.

The second fact the admirals wrestled with is that the shipbuilding industry in recent years has relied primarily on seven yards owned by just four companies to build large warships – but all indications point to a future fleet that relies less on destroyers and large amphibious ships and more on a large number of small amphibs, small combatants and unmanned surface vessels.

“If the force structure comes up with the need for a portfolio of lesser large ships and more of the small ships, then the larger yards will have to determine how to flex to that. Their infrastructure is set up to build big ships. Are they capable of building smaller platforms? I think the answer is yes. There's also lots of opportunity for smaller yards who already are pretty efficient at building some of those smaller ships. So assuming that the piece of the pie does not grow, there will be a discussion about where the dollars go and where that capability exists,” Rear Adm. Tom Anderson, the program executive officer for ships, said during the same event.

There have long been worries about the consolidation of the shipbuilding industrial base. If the U.S. were to go to war, so few yards have experience working with the Navy and building Navy ships, it would be hard for them to ramp up and help in a shipbuilding surge. The idea of bringing smaller yards into the industrial base has been one of the positives to come out of the discussions of Distributed Maritime Operations and its call to have a lot of small and unmanned ships in the fleet: more companies can compete for these types of ships, bringing fresh ideas and a larger industrial base for the Navy to work with.

However, if the large yards see a decline in business, it's unclear what that will mean for the yard and their workers. General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works, for example, only builds destroyers, which may be in less demand under the upcoming force structure assessment, still being reviewed by the Pentagon. Ingalls Shipbuilding is nearing the end of its work on the National Security Cutter, and its work on destroyers and amphibious ships – while certainly not in jeopardy of going away altogether – could see reduced demand as the Navy and Marine Corps eye smaller combatants like a frigate, and a Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) and small amphib in lieu of the traditional ships Ingalls has built for decades.

Anderson said he took a trip to the Gulf Coast since taking over PEO Ships earlier this summer, and he said he didn't realize how many shipbuilders were there that not only work on Navy warships but auxiliaries, foreign military sales ships and commercial ships for the oil and energy sector, for example. These yards would all be set up well to compete for small or unmanned ships for the Navy, but they might be going up against large yards if they find themselves needing the work, too.

“Not knowing what the force structure analysis is going to tell us we need, I think it's hard to say at this point, because I think the big yards could flex, absolutely. Are they better aligned at the moment to build the larger ships that they're building? Yes. We'll just have to see how the [FSA] plays out,” Anderson said.

The two situations come together in an interesting way: the admirals suggested separately that, in a time of war, small repair yards could be called upon to help build ships; and they suggested that large yards could look to repair work to supplement any lost shipbuilding work – highlighting the predicament the entire enterprise finds itself in, with capacity and capability not necessarily matching up to needs and budgets.

Prior to Ver Hage's comments about lack of ship repair capacity for peacetime, let alone wartime, event moderator and Hudson Institute senior fellow Bryan Clark said, “the commandant of the Marine Corps recently talked about the concern he has regarding the ability of the Navy shipbuilding industrial base and ship repair industrial base to restore or rebuild the fleet in the face of losses that might occur in a conflict. And he talked about how this is an element of deterrence: if you don't have the ability to sustain a fight, a protracted fight, then perhaps your adversaries think they can wait you out or just push through and eventually you'll get to the point where you can no longer continue the combat.”

Breaking Defense first reported on these comments Commandant Gen. David Berger made in a draft document.

In response, Anderson said that about two years ago Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition James Geurts got a group together to talk about wartime planning for the industrial base, and what work could be done now to be better prepared in case of war. USNI News previously reported that much of that planning work was put to use when the COVID-19 pandemic started, with the Navy already having a good idea of where work is done and what vulnerabilities exist, thanks to this ongoing effort.

Anderson said that some of the questions asked during this planning effort were how shipbuilders could rapidly deliver ships nearing the end of their construction, how they could accelerate construction of hulls still in early phases of work, and how ship repair companies could contribute to a ramped-up shipbuilding effort if called upon to do so.

On the other hand, John Rhatigan, chairman of the Marine Machinery Associations, said during the discussion that shipbuilding yards ought to be contributing to the repair effort as well to address the deficit of repair capacity.

Noting that submarine builders take on submarine overhauls to supplement their construction work, he said, “there are shipyards that maybe don't think they're back into overhaul mode, but they probably need to. I'll give you a good example: Bath Iron Works. They should be able to do overhauls and new construction at the same time. They just went through a strike and they're behind schedule and things like that, but I think they can get back on schedule and I think they should be available, or trying to make themselves available, for overhaul work.”

He said these yards in the past have been swayed against doing repair work because, depending how the contract is structured, it could be a financially risky venture, especially given how common it is for growth work to appear once an overhaul is started.

“I think there's capacity there that hasn't been tapped yet,” Rhatigan said.
“I know that people have tried in the past, and just because someone said no in 2018 doesn't mean they're going to say no in 2021.”

https://news.usni.org/2020/08/26/lack-of-u-s-warship-repair-capacity-worrying-navy

On the same subject

August 19, 2019 | International, C4ISR

What’s the best way for the Pentagon to invest in artificial intelligence?
The Department of Defense is poised to spend nearly $1 billion on artificial intelligence in the next year. The Pentagon's proposed budget for fiscal 2020 includes some $927 million for AI, as well as machine learning, according to Ainikki Riikonen, a research assistant for the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. This includes $208 million earmarked for the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, which was created in 2018. The Center's initial efforts have delivered “a very mature, insightful high-level view” of issues surrounding AI, said Ian McCulloh, chief data scientist at Accenture Federal Services. AI encompasses hardware, software, people and processes. With nearly a $1 billion bankroll, Defense Department leaders and the intelligence community are now looking for the best ways to leverage this emerging capability most effectively. Starting point A deep dive into the numbers shows an early emphasis on basic research. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's budget request includes $138 million for advanced land systems technology, up from $109 million in fiscal 2019. That program includes research into urban reconnaissance and AI-driven subterranean operations. DARPA's budget also includes $10 million for the Highly Networked Dissemination of Relevant Data Project, a situational awareness tool, as well as $161 million for the AI Human Machine Symbiosis Project, up from $97 million. “That's all about creating systems and people that actually understand each other,” Riikonen said. These foundational research efforts could yield practical results for the war fighter. But before the Pentagon can make use of AI's analytic and predictive powers, military leaders will need to ensure they have the underlying infrastructure in place. “There's so much data available to the military, but it's stored all over the place, and rarely in a format that is easily transferrable into an algorithm,” said Todd Probert, vice president for Raytheon Intelligence, Information and Services. “If the military wants to set itself up for success, they should focus on data curation, labeling and cleaning, as well as recruiting and training the data scientists necessary to make use of it.” Good data requires good technical people, and those aren't easy to come by. “Talent isn't cheap and it's in high demand. The government will be competing directly with industry for a very small pool of people,” Probert said. This indicates a need for early investments on talented professionals. From there, defense can begin to look at funding specific projects and programs that take advantage of AI's capabilities. AI applications The Pentagon might begin by considering the potential for AI as a weapon of war. “We are only starting to scratch the surface on the impact of AI and how it can be manipulated by adversaries for nefarious purposes,” said Rahul Kashyap, president and chief executive of network traffic analysis company Awake Security. Machine learning might help military systems be more effective, but the reliance on data could also make those systems vulnerable to new kinds of attack. “With the adversarial use of AI, there are already discussions about ways in which data we have come to rely on may be poisoned to trick the machine inputs and algorithms,” Kashyap said. Some experts suggest that any early investments should address this potential risk, building in a defensive capability as part of AI's foundational layer. Others say that the low-hanging fruit lies in the military's ability to leverage AI in support of mundane, but nonetheless critical, tasks. In the near term, for example, AI spending could help provide transparency around inventory and supply chain management. “AI could help manage the complexity behind the connectivity and flow between transportation, people, facilities and supplies including equipment, spare parts and fuel in a predictive manner,” said Brigham Bechtel, chief strategy officer for intelligence and defense at big data applications firm MarkLogic. In this scenario, AI would leverage existing data on materiel availability and equipment performance to drive preventative maintenance, as well as parts procurement — “keeping records of millions of screws, wire couplers, and even tank gun barrels to support scaling to operational demand,” Bechtel said. That's a task for which machine-scale intelligence is ideally suited. In the realm of ISR, some industry representatives point to “open-source intelligence” (such as social media) as a prime target for AI investments. Sources such as Facebook and Twitter contain “significant intelligence that is beyond the scale of humans or classic computation analysis,” said Chad Steelberg, chief executive and chairman of AI-based analysis company Veritone. As in logistics, open-source intelligence offers ample data in a space where machine-scale analytics could have a deep impact. “The war of ideas, ranging from ISIS recruiting to state-sponsored propaganda, is the most dangerous battlefronts today,” Steelberg said. “With the source of ideas now being influenced by AI, the countries that harness this new weapon most effectively will have a distinct advantage.” The intelligence community also could benefit from AI's analytic powers to manage the sheer volume of sensor data in the field. “Is the analyst overwhelmed with data? If so, AI has the potential to help,” said Graham Gilmer, a principal in Booz Allen Hamilton's analytics business. “Generating a more robust search capability, fusing data from multiple sources, and generally doing the heavy lifting to cue the analyst are the most immediate applications.” In addition to addressing external data, the intelligence community could score an early win by building AI models that scrutinize conversations amongst analysts themselves. “In an ISR suite there can be as many as 15 chat rooms going at any time, with info coming in from various units and intelligence agencies,” Probert said. “That's too much data and crosstalk for a person to manage, so information is inevitably going to be missed. We need machine learning tools that can flag critical data and alert analysts to what's important.” All these represent valid points of inquiry and the Pentagon likely will pursue diverse variations on these themes. In the short term, though, analysts predict AI will mostly be about robots. “Advanced automation is the fastest growing category in AI, with the rise of unmanned systems,” Riikonen said, noting it would be a natural evolution for the military to leverage private sector learning to utilize AI in support of autonomous systems. “That fits very well with the overall U.S. defense strategy, which is all about having more of these autonomous systems that support war fighters in denied and contested environments.” In order to achieve those goals, the Defense Department may have to adopt a new way of investing in technology. Rather than a single development effort that leads to a completed product, however, AI requires an iterative process in which the computers learn over time. “You do small chunks, you do small bites,” said Paul Johnson, Grant Thornton public sector senior strategic adviser for the defense and intelligence community. In this light, AI investment will require not just algorithmic development, but investment in organizational change, to spur deep interactions between stakeholders. “We need to get the coders in the same room with the end users and start having the conversation about the art of the possible,” Johnson said. “You have to have that conversation early, often and repeatedly, for the coders to understand what they need to do.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2019/08/16/whats-the-best-way-for-the-pentagon-to-invest-in-artificial-intelligence/
April 19, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

Contracts for April 16, 2021
Today
October 1, 2019 | International, Naval

Kongsberg unveils Vanguard warship design that could ‘rock the market’
By: Andrew Chuter OSLO, Norway — Are you a navy looking to spend less when buying and operating warships? Norwegian defense company Kongsberg reckons it may have the answer. Kongsberg has taken the wraps off a new multirole warship design that the company says extensively uses commercial systems and can be built in commercial yards for substantially less money and in less time than traditional warships. With warship procurement becoming eye-wateringly expensive, Kongsberg's defense and aerospace arm is pitching its Vanguard design as a way to save money via a 50 percent life-cycle cost reduction. Vanguard will have what is effectively a plug-and-play capability, enabling the multipurpose vessel to pack containers — that meet this International Organization for Standardization's guidelines — with equipment to swap missions as diverse as hydrographic survey to anti-submarine, area-denial and other roles in a matter of hours. Kongsberg doesn't traditionally build or design warships. The Norweigian company is better known in the defense sector for pioneering the use of remote weapons for land vehicles and development of the surface-to-surface Joint Strike Missile for use on the F-35 fighter jet. Design work on the platform was led by Norwegian maritime consultancy Salt Ship Design. It's the company's first major military program, having previously focused on complex commercial ship design work in the offshore energy sector, among other markets. Kongsberg and Salt have been collaborating on the project for more than two years. Salt executives said conceptual work was more or less finished, and they are now engaged in initial design work. Vanguard has been fitted out with Kongsberg equipment like a commercial bridge system overlaid with military specifications. But company officials said the flexibility to install other systems to meet customer requirements is a key element of the program. Baseline ship equipment is predominantly supplied by Kongsberg Defence Systems. Its sister operation, Kongsberg Maritime, is a major player in the commercial maritime sector and earlier this year acquired Britain's Rolls-Royce Commercial Marine. Frank Tveiten , Kongsberg's vice president of naval integrated defense systems, said Vanguard has sparked the interest of potential customers and shipyards. “We have tested it in the market with very positive reactions. The baseline warship fitted with Kongsberg systems and sensors is substantially cheaper than other warships. It's going to rock the market a little bit,“ he said. Tveiten said the economies stretched beyond procurement with manning levels as low as 16-20 people, and a speed requirement that results in very low fuel consumption. Build time for a Vanguard in a commercial yard could be as little as two years, according to the Salt executives. Kongsberg executives said Vanguard would suit emerging navies as well as interest some larger navies looking to increase offshore patrol, corvette and frigate numbers without breaking the bank. Senior Norwegian naval officers at a Kongsberg briefing in Oslo on Sept. 26 said they are interested in the concept but were guarded about whether Vanguard could be a contender to replace the Navy's Helge Ingstad frigate, which was written off after a collision with an oil tanker last year. Chief of the Navy Rear Adm. Nils-Andreas Stensones said there is a gradual move to the use of commercial systems onboard warships, and that Norway's experience with Coast Guard vessels and other ships using similar systems had been positive. “We have had a very good experience when it comes to the Coast Guard over the last 30 years. Also, our new supply ship is built to civilian standards with some military adaptions, and the experience so far is good,” Stensones said. “We see that in many areas we can use civilian technology to great benefit. We see [the use of] commercial equipment sliding gradually to the more high-end applications, but how far [one[ can go with that we don't know yet." “The cost of building military-specified platforms today is becoming prohibitively expensive. If you can reduce the cost of the platform, you can invest more in weapons and sensors. It's finding the best balance,” he added. “Whether we will end up with this concept [Vanguard], I don't know. The hardest part is the training. If you have a mission module onboard, you also need a trained crew — that may be the biggest challenge.” https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2019/09/30/kongsberg-unveils-vanguard-warship-design-that-could-rock-the-market

All news

Lack of U.S. Warship Repair Capacity Worrying Navy

On the same subject

Contracts for April 16, 2021 Today

Contracts for April 16, 2021
Today