June 23, 2020 | International, Naval

The US Navy and Marine Corps should acquire Army watercraft

By: Capt. Walker D. Mills and Lt. Joseph Hanacek

The Navy intends to acquire up to 30 new light amphibious warships, or LAW, to support new Marine Corps requirements. The vessels are needed to meet the challenges of “evolving threats in the global maritime environment,” according to the Navy program office, and are tied to the new operational concepts of Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations and Distributed Maritime Operations as well as the Marine Corps' Force Design 2030 effort. Once complete, the acquisition will have almost doubled the number of L-class amphibious ships already in naval service. Rather than accepting a new amphibious design built from the ground up, however, decision-makers should take advantage of the fact that many key requirements of the new vessels are very similar to the capabilities of vessels operated by U.S. Army Transportation Command.

The Navy and Marine Corps should delay any new construction and immediately acquire some of these existing vessels to drive experimentation and better inform their requirements for the LAW program.

The key requirements of the future LAW include having 8,000 square feet of cargo space, a range of 3,500 miles, a speed of up to 14 knots, accommodation for a crew of up to 40 Navy personnel and 75 embarked Marines, and up to 200 feet in length. The vessel also needs to have a roll-on/roll-off capability, preferably with a stern ramp.

U.S. Army Transportation Command has over 100 vessels, and dozens have similar capabilities to those required of the LAW. The Army's LCU-2000s, also called the Runnymede-class large landing crafts, are smaller, with roughly half of the cargo space designed for the LAW and slightly slower, but they boast nearly double the range. The Runnymede-class vessels have nearly 4,000 square feet of cargo space and can travel 6,500 miles when loaded and at 12 knots; and they can unload at the beach with their bow ramp.

The Army's General Frank S. Besson-class logistics support vessels are larger than the future LAW, at 273 feet in length but can claim 10,500 square feet of cargo space and a 6,500-mile range loaded to match the LCU-2000. These vessels also have both a bow and stern ramp for roll-on/roll-off capability at the beach or ship-to-ship docking at sea. The version built for the Phillipine military also has a helipad.

Army Transportation Command has 32 Runnymede-class and eight General Frank S. Besson-class vessels in service. Mostly built in the 1990s, both classes of vessel have many years left in their life expectancy and more than meet the Navy's 10-year life expectancy for the LAW.

These vessels are operable today and could be transferred from the Army to the Navy or Marine Corps tomorrow. In fact, the Army was attempting to divest itself of these watercraft less than a year ago, which underscores the importance of this opportunity even further. Congress is firmly set against the Army getting rid of valuable, seaworthy vessels and has quashed all of the Army's efforts to do so thus far, but transferring this equipment to the Navy is a reasonable course of action that should satisfy all parties involved.

While acquiring “surplus” military equipment might lack the allure and promise of designing a new ship class from the ground up, the reality of the situation is that this overlapping of service needs couldn't come at a better time. By acquiring a watercraft that meets most of their requirements from the Army, the Navy and Marine Corps simultaneously fill current capability gaps and obtain an invaluable series of assets they can use to support the evaluation and experimentation of new designs and concepts. This will allow Navy and Marine leaders to give their units the maximum amount of time to evaluate and experiment with new designs to get a better idea of what they need both in future amphibious craft as well as operational and support equipment.

The significance of so rapidly acquiring the Army's amphibious craft isn't just limited to developing a better amphibious force either. There is a very real capability gap that exists in the fleet today in the areas of surplus seagoing capacity, and acquiring these Army watercraft would go an extremely long way toward addressing it. Often overlooked, the availability of surplus vessels is absolutely critical to the process of developing new technologies, developing the tactics to employ them, conducting training, and providing decision-makers the requisite capacity to remain flexible in the face of unexpected challenges.

The Navy and Marine Corps today are hurtling toward a new future of distributed operations and unprecedented levels of integration in the littorals. The Marine Corps commandant has clearly specified that force design is his No. 1 priority and that significant changes to the Marine Corps are in the works.

At the same time, the Navy and Marine Corps continue to serve as the first responders for many of the nation's emerging challenges around the globe. They've long been in need of a boost in their amphibious capabilities so as to be better positioned to meet the demands of today and prepare for the challenges of tomorrow, and taking possession of the Army's Runnymede- and Frank S. Benson-class vessels is a solution on a silver platter.

Capt. Walker D. Mills is a U.S. Marine Corps infantry officer serving in Cartagena, Colombia. Lt. Joseph Hanacek is a U.S. Navy surface warfare officer based in Dam Neck, Virginia. The views expressed here are theirs alone and do not necessarily represent the views of these military branches or the Defense Department.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/22/the-us-navy-and-marine-corps-should-acquire-army-watercraft/

On the same subject

October 15, 2018 | International, Aerospace

Air2030: A la rencontre de SAAB et du Gripen E
Alexis Pfefferlé Lancement des rencontres BtoB Jeudi 11 octobre 2018, Lausanne. Première journée incontournable pour l'industrie suisse de la défense. A l'initiative du Groupe romand pour le matériel de Défense et de Sécurité (GRPM) , de Swissmem, l'association faîtière des PME et des grandes entreprises de l'industrie suisse des machines, des équipements électriques et des métaux (industrie MEM) et du Bureau des affaires compensatoires à Berne, se tenait la première journée BtoB (Business to Business) dans le cadre de l'appel d'offre du programme Air2030. Pour rappel, le programme Air2030 est en substance le projet d'acquisition par l'armée suisse de nouveaux jets de combat et d'un nouveau système de défense sol-air de longue portée sous la forme d'un arrêté de planification pour un coût maximal de 8 milliards de francs. Au contraire de la votation de 2014 sur le Gripen, le peuple ne se prononcera cette fois pas sur le modèle d'avion mais uniquement sur l'enveloppe budgétaire souhaitée par le Département de Guy Parmelin. Suite à l'appel d'offre lancée par Armasuisse en juillet 2017 pour la partie avions de combats, cinq constructeurs sont entrés dans la course. Saab et son Gripen E, Dassault et son Rafale, Boeing et son FA 18 Super Hornet, Lookheed Martin et son F-35A et Airbus avec l'Eurofighter. Particularité de cet appel d'offre, l'achat de nouveaux avions de combat devra faire l'objet d'une compensation industrielle à 100%, à savoir que le pays vendeur devra compenser l'achat de la Suisse par des achats d'un montant équivalent auprès de l'industrie suisse. Dans le jargon, on appelle cela les affaires compensatoires ou l'offset industriel. C'est ainsi que dans le cadre de l'acquisition des nouveaux avions de combat, les cinq constructeurs sont appelés à rencontrer les sociétés suisses avec lesquelles ils pourront potentiellement conclure des contrats. L'enjeu est de taille, ces affaires compensatoires représentent près de CHF 8mia pour l'industrie suisse (dont 30% espérés en Romandie) et des possibilités très intéressantes de partenariats à long terme. Par le biais de ce blog, j'ai décidé de partager avec vous quelques détails de ces journées incontournables pour l'industrie suisse de la défense. SAAB en première ligne Retour donc à Lausanne le 11 octobre, à 0800 comme disent les militaires. L'ambiance est sobre, voire médicale, bien loin de l'image d'Épinal de la foire aux canons avec hôtesses slaves en pantalon treillis et kalachnikov. Les femmes, j'en compte 2 sur 200, sont en tailleur et ça parle beaucoup suisse-allemand, quand bien même la même réunion s'est tenue la veille à Berne. Après une introduction par le Président du Groupe romand pour le matériel de Défense et de Sécurité, c'est au Président du Switzerland Business Unit de SAAB d'entrer en scène. Le discours est rodé, court, impactant. Le Gripen E, version monoplace, est un avion de dernière génération, économique et facile à manœuvrer et à manutentionner. Il peut notamment être ravitaillé en essence et munitions en 10 minutes par une équipe réduite et décoller sur une piste de 800 mètres. Pour une présentation en Suisse, l'exemple est parfait. On en vient ensuite directement à la question des affaires compensatoires. On est là pour faire des affaires, ce n'est pas aujourd'hui que l'on vend l'avion. Sur ce point, le discours est stratégique avec deux concepts martelés tout au long de la présentation, implantation à long terme et partenariats plutôt qu'achats. Et SAAB soutient le discours par du concret, 25% des sociétés suisses présentes dans la salle sont déjà des fournisseurs de SAAB, et ce malgré l'échec de 2014, et un autre 20% est en cours de négociation. De plus, SAAB possède des participations dans au moins quatre sociétés suisses actives dans l'industrie de défense et comme SAAB produit, en plus de ses avions, des voitures, des tanks, des bateaux et même des sous-marins, le potentiel de collaboration est énorme. Sur l'aspect partenariat, les promesses sont alléchantes. Les sociétés suisses qui participeront au développement du Gripen E, si celui-ci était retenu, verront leurs technologies et produits intégrés au programme Gripen E et donc vendus aux autres pays intéressés par l'avion. Avec 60 avions en commande pour la Suède, 36 pour le Brésil et trois appels d'offres en cours en au Royaume-Uni, en Finlande et en Bulgarie, le “contrat suisse” pourrait faire des petits. Fin de la présentation, nous sortons boire un café ou un jus de pommes. Je vois s'activer les représentants des sociétés suisses qui, dans quelques minutes, débuteront leur BtoB avec l'avionneur. Quinze minutes par société en tête à tête pour conclure, dans une sorte de speed-dating technique en col blanc. GRIPEN E, points forts et points faibles Pour conclure sur le Gripen E, j'ai retenu quelques points forts/faibles au terme de cette première présentation. Points forts Forte implantation suisse de SAAB, tant en matière industrielle qu'en terme de lobbyisme ; Fort potentiel de partenariats en matière industrielle, militaire et civile ; Investissements historiques en Suisse et accroissement souhaité sur le long terme ; Transparence accrue dans les pays du Nord, notamment en matière de défense. Points faibles Faible poids de la Suède au sein de l'Europe dans une perspective géopolitique ; Marché de la défense à l'export plus petit et plus faible que d'autres concurrents, notamment dans la perspective d'affaires compensatoires dans d'autres domaines que l'aviation. Et si le Souverain disait non ? Avant de quitter les lieux, voyant toutes ces personnes peaufiner leur speech et les organisateurs régler les derniers détails, me vient à l'esprit cette réflexion : Et si tout ça n'aboutissait à rien ? En effet, ces rencontres BtoB, fruits de plusieurs mois de travail acharné des organisateurs et des industriels présents précèdent l'analyse des offres par l'armée et plus encore, le probable référendum. Au bout du compte, il se pourrait bien que tout ce temps et cet argent investis ne servent à rien en cas de nouvel échec devant le peuple. Ce qui m'amène à la réflexion suivante, pourquoi diable le Département fédéral de la défense et des sports n'a-t-il pas pressé pour que l'on vote avant l'appel d'offre ? Venir en 2020 devant le peuple avec l'argument que tout est déjà réglé et qu'il ne manque que la signature du souverain, c'est prendre un énorme risque. Espérons qu'il soit calculé. ABE Bon baiser de Suisse. https://blogs.letemps.ch/alexis-pfefferle/2018/10/15/air2030-a-la-rencontre-de-saab-et-du-gripen-e/
November 14, 2022 | International, C4ISR

General Dynamics, Amazon, Cisco form coalition to spur 5G adoption
The fifth generation of wireless technologies promises exponentially faster speeds as well as the capacity to accommodate more and more-advanced devices.
September 18, 2019 | International, Aerospace

4 questions about innovation with the US Air Force’s vice chief of staff
By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Gen. Stephen “Seve” Wilson knows the enemy doesn't sleep. As the U.S. Air Force's vice chief of staff, he's aware of how innovation can be stifled. But that must change as the United States finds itself in an era of great power competition, he argues. Wilson spoke on a panel at the 2019 Defense News Conference on Sept. 4, where he discussed how the government can close the innovation gap, and how the military can improve its relationship with industry. What is the biggest challenge to moving innovative concepts into military operations? What I see arguably as the biggest challenge to innovation and moving it forward is urgency. And today I can't beat that drum hard enough and loud enough about the sense of urgency that the status quo simply isn't acceptable in the world that we live in. The good news is we know how to do this, we've done it before. And I'd go back to a time in our history in the early '60s when President [John F.] Kennedy said: “We're going to go to the moon and back.” In about eight years, we did 36 space launches. We built the biggest rockets ever known. And we did 36 launches in eight years. Today I look at the time frame it takes us to deliver capability, and we're nowhere on that timeline. I think we as a nation need to understand the competition and develop amongst all of us in all of our communities this sense of urgency that we're in this competition, and the status quo is just simply not good enough. So how do you enable that change? I was just at in San Antonio, Texas, visiting the 33rd Network Warfare Squadron. I met a young lieutenant with these bold ideas. He went to his boss and said: “Hey, I think we've got this really hard problem. I think I can solve it. Give me a handful of people in a couple of days and I'll be able to get after [it].” He came back and not once, not twice, but three times he failed. And along the way he asked for more people and time, until he didn't fail, and he solved a really wicked hard problem. There was a courageous lieutenant in this case and a leadership that empowered him to move forward. And then he briefed me — here's the vice chief coming to visit, [and he says]: “Hey vice chief, here's where I failed three times until we didn't.” And he brought the sense of urgency. It was about building a team, a common vision. It's really powerful, and I think it's indicative of what we need to see across all of our forces. We hear how advanced China is in areas of innovation. Just how advanced is it really? I tell people that we're the best in the world and our adversaries know it. But they're catching up. If we don't change, we could lose. We have to do business differently. We're trying. How? We hear government is not always easy to do business with. We're trying to lower those barriers and bring on people quicker and easier. We have some of the most impactful problems for our nation. And if we can get people in the door and expose them to the challenges and let them do what they can do, it's hugely rewarding. We have to make it easy. Can we make it easy where industry could come work with us, maybe even for only a few years, but [long enough] to really make a difference? How can we bring somebody in, let them work and then let them go back to industry? We both benefit from it. We have to find ways because this is about a competition for talent and good ideas. Then what do we do with it? Do we empower them and let them really work at these really hard problems? I think that's what people really want to get after. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2019/09/15/4-questions-about-innovation-with-the-us-air-forces-vice-chief-of-staff

All news

The US Navy and Marine Corps should acquire Army watercraft

On the same subject

General Dynamics, Amazon, Cisco form coalition to spur 5G adoption The fifth generation of wireless technologies promises exponentially faster speeds as well as the capacity to accommodate more and more-advanced devices.

General Dynamics, Amazon, Cisco form coalition to spur 5G adoption
The fifth generation of wireless technologies promises exponentially faster speeds as well as the capacity to accommodate more and more-advanced devices.