August 29, 2018 | International, Naval
By: Megan Eckstein
THE PENTAGON – The Navy will buy the first of its Future Surface Combatants in 2023 – a large warship that will be built to support the Arleigh Burke Flight III combat system and will pull elements from the Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) and Zumwalt-class (DDG-1000) destroyer designs.
The combatant – not dubbed a cruiser, and potentially not dubbed a destroyer either – will be bigger and more expensive than the Arleigh Burke Flight III design and will have more room to grow into for decades to come, the director of surface warfare (OPNAV N96) told USNI News today.
Future Surface Combatant refers to a family of systems that includes a large combatant akin to a destroyer, a small combatant like the Littoral Combat Ship or the upcoming frigate program, a large unmanned surface vessel and a medium USV, along with an integrated combat system that will be the common thread linking all the platforms. Navy leadership just recently signed an initial capabilities document for the family of systems, after an effort that began in late 2017 to define what the surface force as a whole would be required to do in the future and therefore how each of the four future platforms could contribute to that overall mission requirement.
With the ICD now signed and providing the service with an idea of how many of each platform would be needed in a future fleet and how each would contribute as a sensor, a shooter or a command and control asset, Surface Warfare Director Adm. Ron Boxall and his staff are now able to begin diving into the finer details of what each platform would look like.
The first to be tackled is the large combatant, Boxall told USNI News today. He noted the effort would be more like the move from the Ticonderoga-class cruiser to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer – where the same combat capability was kept, but housed in a more suitable hull – rather than the move from the Spruance-class destroyer to the cruiser, which maintained the same hull design but added in new combat capability.
After the addition of the AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) to the DDGs' Aegis Combat System to create the Flight III design, Boxall said the resulting warfighting capability is one the Navy can use for years to come.
“We have a new capability on that hull now, so everything's going good – except for, as we look towards going further, we know we've maxed out that hull footprint,” Boxall said of the Arleigh Burke-class hull design, power-generation capability and more.
“So the key elements that we're looking at in this work we're doing on the requirements side is, keep the requirements about the same as DDG Flight III, but now look at what do we need a new hull to do.”
USNI News first reported last month that the large combatant would pair a new hull with the Flight III combat system.
The Navy will spend about the next six months having that conversation about what the new hull will need, though he suggested to USNI News that it would need sufficient space to carry helicopters and unmanned systems; it would need to support long-range missiles and weapons; it would have to include command and control systems able to support a staff onboard for air defense or offensive surface capability, much like the cruiser does today with the air defense commander role for a carrier strike group; it may incorporate DDG-1000's signature controls and integrated power system; and it will certainly have to be flexible and modular enough to quickly undergo upgrades and modernizations in the future as new systems are developed that the Navy will want to incorporate into the next block buy of large combatants or back fit fielded ones.
Though there has been much speculation about whether the large combatant would use an existing design or a new design, Boxall said there really are no designs out there that meet the Navy's needs without significant modifications.
Whereas the ongoing frigate design effort was able to mandate that bidders use mature parent designs, Boxall said “a lot of people in the world make frigates. Not many people make large surface combatants of the size and capability that we need. So we've got to kind of look to our portfolio of blueprints that we have as a starting point, and we'll edit and modify the hull and design things as we go forward.”
“I think what you're going to see won't be a huge deviation from things we have already, but at the same point, we are going to be making changes to anything we have” already in the fleet, he added.
In a nod towards the idea the next large combatant will share the same combat system as DDG Flight III and will perform much the same role in the fleet, Boxall said the Navy is starting with the DDG-51 Flight III capability development document (CDD); will go through a Large Surface Combatant Requirements Evaluation Team effort with requirements, acquisition and engineering personnel from the Navy and industry; and after six months call the finished product a “modified Flight III CDD.” Once that modified CDD is complete, it will be clearer how much the future large surface combatant will resemble its predecessor and how much it will be a new class of ship – which will likely determine its name.
“It is the big question: what do you call the future large surface combatant? I don't know. I don't think you call it a cruiser. I don't think you call it a destroyer. Maybe – I don't know what it is,” Boxall said, noting that he has commanded both a cruiser and destroyer and that they get used in much the same fashion, save for the cruiser's role as the air defense commander ship, which the future large surface combatant will have the capability of doing with its command and control suite.
Once the first large combatant is designed and purchased in the 2023 “block” – following the current block-buy of Flight III DDGs from Ingalls Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, which spans from Fiscal Years 2018 to 2022 – new blocks will be planned for every five years. As USNI News has reported, this block structure, laid out in a Surface Combatant Capability Evolution Plan, would allow the insertion of new hardware and software in a predictable timeline. This would help researchers and developers in the government and in industry understand when a new capability would have to be matured by to be included in the next block design, and anything not quite ready yet could wait until the next block. This setup is much like the Virginia-class attack submarine's block upgrade approach to adding in new capabilities, and its Acoustic Rapid Commercial-off-the-shelf Insertion (ARCI) process of adding new capabilities in via new construction and back fitting existing subs. However, Boxall noted the surface community had the added challenge of managing this block buy and upgrade effort across four or more types of surface combatants, compared to just one class of attack submarines.
Unlike before, when the surface community would undergo a massive planning effort – like the CG(X) cruiser replacement design that ultimately was too expensive and not accepted by the Navy – and then cease planning for many years before undertaking another massive effort, Boxall said he hoped the block upgrades would create a “heartbeat type of effort, where you always have something going on.”
March 24, 2021 | International, Naval
Norway will block Rolls-Royce from selling a Norwegian maritime engine maker to a Russian company on national security grounds, its justice minister told parliament on Tuesday.
April 24, 2024 | International, Aerospace
The F-35 upgrades known as Technology Refresh 3 are now a year overdue and have halted deliveries of the newest fighter jets from Lockheed Martin.
June 7, 2019 | International, Land
By: Andrew Chuter LONDON – Britain has fallen behind its allies and potential adversaries in key armored combat vehicle capabilities and must do more to become a force to be reckoned with, Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt has warned. “The future may look very different in years to come, but meantime, while armour is relevant it must be capable, and we must be competitive. We have not been,” Mourdaunt told an audience of senior international army chiefs and industry executives at a land warfare conference in here June 4. The Challenger 2 main battle tank and the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle, two of the key elements of the British army's battle formations, were both labeled as “obsolete” by a defense secretary who only started the job a month ago but could move on once a new Conservative prime minister is elected in July to replace Theresa May. “Challenger 2 has been in service without a major upgrade since 1998. During this time the U.S., Germany and Denmark have completed two major upgrades, whilst Russia has fielded five new variants with a sixth pending,” she said. “Warrior is even more obsolete, and is twenty years older than those operated by our key allies. Since Warrior's introduction in 1988 the United States and Germany have conducted four major upgrades and Russia has invested in three new variants,” said Mordaunt. What does she mean by obsolete? In the case of Warrior its best known shortcoming is the inability to fire on the move, and a 30mm cannon that has to be manually loaded with three round clips of ammunition. As it stands, the vehicle is unlikely to scare potential adversaries like the Russians. The British have been under-invested in combat armored capability for years aside from meeting the urgent operational requirements to counter improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan. Many of those vehicles remain in service, even though the threat has changed. Efforts are finally underway to improve the situation, sparked, in part, by the army's move to form two armored strike brigades by 2025. That force is planned to include tracked reconnaissance vehicles, an 8x8 mechanized infantry vehicle and a new 155mm artillery system. General Dynamics UK has started delivering the first of 589 Ajax reconnaissance and support vehicles in what has been touted by the government as the largest armored vehicle investment in three decades. Germany's Artec has been nominated as the preferred supplier with its Boxer 8x8, although no contract has been signed yet. A competition on the artillery is getting underway. Programs to upgrade both the vehicles named as obsolete by Mordaunt are in the works, but there is no manufacturing contract yet for either. In the Warrior's case Lockheed Martin UK secured the upgrade development program from the defense ministry in 2011, but is only now undertaking the reliability trials on which a final production contract depends. At one time the number of hulls to be updated was in the region of 380, but suppliers at a recent Lockheed Martin briefing said that as the British Army has shrunk and budgets got tighter, that figure is now down to around 265 and could go even lower. As for Challenger 2 upgrades, an assessment phase involving BAE Systems and Rheinmetall has been completed and is now under review. It seems no final decision has been made, but the signals coming out of the defense ministry suggest the Army may get what they want, which is a Challenger 2 sporting a German turret and smoothbore cannon. Tank numbers to be upgraded are unclear, with defense procurement minister Stuart Andrew telling Parliament recently that the final decision would be informed by “the assessment phase, the defense requirement and a balance of investment consideration.” The British Army currently has a fleet of 227 Challenger 2 tanks. BAE and Rheinmetall recently announced their intention to form an armored vehicle joint venture including the British companies activities in the sector, with the German company having the majority shareholding. Final approval of the deal is expected this month and a decision about the way forward on Challenger 2 could follow in the following two or three months. The scope and size of the armored-vehicle effort depends, like everything else, on the availability of funding. The defense ministry has budgeted £18.4 billion ($23.4 billion) for land-warfare equipment purchases over the next 10 years. Shorter-term budget considerations, though, will be resolved in the next few months. A government-wide review of departmental budgets, known as the comprehensive spending review, is currently underway. That will dictate whether the currently cash-strapped military will get the sizeable spending increases they are hoping for over the next three years. In opening remarks to the RUSI conference this week, Gen. Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, the chief of the general staff, made it clear he saw the threat of the tank diminishing in the military of the future as the focus shifts to issues like cyber warfare. “The main threat is less missiles and tanks. It's the weaponization of those elements of globalization that hitherto have made us prosperous and secure, such as mobility of goods, people, data and ideas," he said. "Living on an island gives no guarantees against the corrosive and intrusive effects of disinformation, subversion and cyber.” Perhaps for now, at least, the last word over the utility of the tank in today's information-rich environment should go to the conference speaker who voiced the opinion, “You can cyber all you like, but there comes a time when only a tank will do." https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/06/05/will-the-stars-finally-align-to-upgrade-britains-obsolete-tanks/