August 3, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
By: Lt. Gen. David Deptula (ret.) and Douglas A. Birkey
With the U.S. election around the corner and the economic impact of COVID-19 mounting, calls for defense spending cuts are on the rise. The practicality of reductions is questionable given the scale and scope of the threat environment, the reality that key elements of the military are decaying, and that defense jobs represent one bright spot in an otherwise bleak economy. If cuts are coming, it is crucial to execute them in a fashion that prioritizes the most effective, efficient and valuable capabilities within the Department of Defense. This requires a new approach to assessing weapon systems' value.
Defense programs are traditionally measured in a service-centric fashion based primarily upon two metrics: unit cost, and individual operating and support costs. Think about this in the context of buying a car and expenses associated with gas and maintenance. However, not all vehicles are created equal, with a compact car far different than a large SUV. Relative capabilities are essential when understanding how to best meet mission goals effectively and efficiently. To this point, when it comes to military systems, a much more relevant determination of merit is “cost per effect” — measuring the expense associated with achieving desired mission results.
These sorts of comparisons are far from theoretical. On the first night of Desert Storm, it took 41 non-stealth aircraft to hit one target. At the same time, 20 F-117 stealth fighters struck 28 separate targets. Without the protection afforded by stealth, it took a large airborne team to protect the eight bomb-carrying aircraft striking one target. This gets to the crux of the cost-effectiveness challenge. Even though the non-stealth aircraft each cost less from an individual unit aircraft perspective, the F-117s yielded far more mission results at less risk for far less enterprise cost.
However, during the last few budget downturns, decision-makers too often cut weapon systems that appeared “expensive” on a spreadsheet but actually delivered far greater effects for less cost. This year saw the Air Force seeking to retire 17 of its B-1 bombers even though a single B-1 can deliver as much or more ordnance than an entire aircraft carrier air wing, depending on the operational realities of range and payload. Production lines for the B-2 and F-22 — respectively the most advanced and capable bomber and fighter ever built — were terminated well before their validated military requirement was filled. Cost-per-effect analysis would have yielded very different determinations.
These decisions continue to have very significant consequences. The security environment today is much more dangerous than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and U.S. forces are stretched thin. Smart investments are essential to yield necessary mission results. The U.S. military no longer has the capacity to bludgeon its way to victory through mass as it did in World War II.
This is exactly why military leaders are embracing the need to harness information in their future war-fighting construct. Joint All-Domain Command and Control centers around understanding the battlespace in a real-time fashion to seek favorable pathways to achieve mission objectives, minimize the dangers posed by enemy threats and collaboratively team weapon systems to yield enhanced results. This is an incredibly smart approach. However, it is also wholly incongruous, with analysis centered around unit cost and individual operating expenses. If victory is going to be secured through the sum of parts, then we need to stop focusing on unilateral analysis absent broader context.
Cost per effect can be applied to any mission area — the measurement points simply need to be tailored to relevant data sets. Accordingly, if we look at high-end air superiority and strike missions, it is important to consider the ability to net results in a precise fashion. This is simple — not only does “one bomb or missile, one target” save money, but it also frees up forces to execute other tasks.
It is also important to consider survivability. Large, self-protecting, non-stealth strike packages akin to the Desert Storm example are incredibly expensive. Replacing a plane and pilot is not cheap. Additionally, losses reduce the force employment options available to commanders.
Fifth-generation technology attributes are also crucial — the combination of stealth, sensors, processing power, fusion engines, and real-time command-and-control links to penetrate defended adversary regions and understand how best to attain desired effects, while minimizing vulnerability.
Finally, range and payload are also very important — a single aircraft able to fly farther and carry more missiles or bombs drives effectiveness and efficiency. Assessing these attributes — all of which are measurable — validate precisely why aircraft like the F-35 and B-21 are so important.
Nor should these assessments be restricted within a service. That is not how combat commanders fight. They focus on missions, not service ownership. If cuts to defense are coming, then it is crucial that the DoD maintain the most effective, efficient options, regardless of service.
If past DoD budget cuts are any indicator, DoD budget “experts” will once again resort to their traditional monetary spreadsheets focused on unit cost and service-focused budget columns. Leadership from the very highest levels is crucial to ensure the very best options are preserved and prioritized. Joint cost-per-effect analysis is what will ensure a given amount of money will yield the most value at a time when it matters the most.
Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula is dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Power Studies. He has more than 3,000 flying hours under his belt, and he planned the Desert Storm air campaign and orchestrated air operations over Iraq and Afghanistan. Douglas A. Birkey is the executive director of the Mitchell Institute, where he researches issues relating to the future of aerospace and national security.
June 22, 2023 | International, Aerospace
Boeing's T-7 has struggled with safety issues and testing and schedule delays, and lawmakers want the Air Force to speed up the Red Hawk's acquisition.
August 17, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
By: Mike Yeo MELBOURNE, Australia — South Korea has over the past decade become a defense industry powerhouse in its own right, and it's seeking to widen its reach, with progress in international markets in recent years marking the maturity of its defense articles. This year's Defense News Top 100 list of the biggest defense companies in the world features four South Korean businesses. They are Hanwha (ranked 32rd), Korea Aerospace Industries (55th), LIG Nex1 (68th) and Hyundai Rotem Company (95th), all of which made last year's list. Continued reform The strong performance of South Korean defense companies comes in the wake of a series of reforms over the past decade, with the latest designed to consolidate industrial gains and create momentum for growth. The defense industry reforms are part of President Moon Jae-in's Defense Reform 2.0 program announced in 2018 — a complement to efforts seeking to create a slimmer, yet more efficient South Korean military that is less reliant on foreign defense technology. The push for further self-reliance is most prominent in Korea Aerospace Industries' KF-X program. KAI is developing a next-generation fighter for the South Korean Air Force. Although an American GE F414 turbofan will power the aircraft, its avionics will primarily be indigenous. These include the active electronically scanned array radar under development by Hanwha and the country's Agency for Defense Development, with support and some components supplied by Israel's Elbit Systems. Defense Reform 2.0 also puts emphasis on defense industry investment, and it comes as little surprise that the domstic market still takes up the biggest share of the pie where sales are concerned, backed up by the steady growth in defense spending: South Korea's defense budget grew 20 percent from 2009 to 2017, reaching $43 billion. Export success The reform program also places an increased priority on defense exports. The country is already successful in this area, with research by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute think tank showing the country was the 11th biggest arms supplier in the world in 2017, with sales totaling $5.5 billion. In a further indication of how much South Korea's industry has grown, SIPRI also noted in a 2018 report that the country's defense exports grew 94 percent in the 10 years prior, a growth figure only bettered by Turkey for the same period. This growth has been underpinned by two of the highest-profile South Korean defense exports in the past decade: the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle family of trainer and light combat aircraft, and the Hanwha K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzer. The T-50 was earmarked by the Air Force as its mainstay advanced trainer and light combat aircraft. Despite losing a number of trainer competitions, including in Poland, Singapore and the United States, the Golden Eagle has since scored a number of notable contracts for export. Compared to its rivals in the trainer market, such as the Leonardo M-346 and the Boeing T-7, the main draw of the T-50 family is its combat capability in the form of the TA-50 and FA-50 equipped with sophisticated combat capabilities in the form of radars and precision weapons employment capability. This makes the aircraft attractive to nations unable to afford a high-end trainer with a light attack capability, and the list of the type's customers bears this out, with Indonesia, Iraq, the Philippines and Thailand operating the type in their respective air forces. The Philippine Air Force used its FA-50PH fleet to attack Islamic State militants in the southern part of the country in 2018. Meanwhile, Hanwha's K9 Thunder has carved a niche for itself in the global market for self-propelled howitzers. The 52-caliber, 155mm system has been selected by a number of NATO nations, beating out the similar Panzerhaubitze 2000 by Germany's Rheinmetall in Estonia, Finland and Norway. Turkey is building the K9 under license as the T-155 Firtina. The system has also been selected for license production by India and Poland, and had previously been selected by Australia in the early part of the 2010s only to be canceled following budget issues caused by the global financial crisis. Hanwha is also one of two companies left in the running to supply the Australian Army with a new infantry fighting vehicle. The AS21 Redback, which is based on the K21 vehicle operated by the South Korean Army, is to take part in an evaluation program against the Rheinmetall KF41 Lynx to supply 450 vehicles to replace M113 armored personnel carriers. The evaluation will see three of each vehicle delivered to Australia for testing, with the first two Redbacks due to reach Australia at the end of August, having left South Korea by ship late last month. Post-pandemic support Like much the rest of the world, the COVID-19 pandemic has hit South Korea hard, though the worst appears to be over for the country. The local defense industry was forced to adjust financially and operationally, and it remains unclear how revenue will be hit by the events of 2020. The pandemic has claimed at least one sale for the South Korean defense industry, with Argentina, which had appeared set to be the next customer for the T-50 family, deciding in April to put off the acquisition indefinitely. The South American country is yet to sign a contract, despite choosing the aircraft for purchase in July 2019. However, the South Korean government is not waiting for foreign action. Defense Minister Jeong Kyeong-doo has unveiled plans for the country to spend more on locally produced defense articles, partly as a move to help curtail the effects of the pandemic. Jeong said during a mid-June meeting with industry CEOs that his ministry plans to adjust spending plans to continue its drive to spend more on indigenous products, and move delivery timelines to reflect the reality of schedule delays while also waiving penalties for late payments. He also plans to expand an existing strategy aimed at establishing “defense industry innovation clusters”; this move adds to the first one established in April with an initial government investment. As a result, more funding will be made available to industry and research institutes, and will be used to support regional collaboration in defense-related research and development as well as manufacturing. https://www.defensenews.com/top-100/2020/08/17/reform-efforts-in-south-korea-create-ecosystem-for-defense-industry-growth
August 1, 2022 | International, Naval
Four unmanned surface vessels are operating at RIMPAC -- and the lessons they generate will inform the path to a Large USV program of record in the next three years, and help determine if there's a future for a Medium USV.