Back to news

August 23, 2023 | International, Naval

The US submarine force should be silent no more

Instead of being the silent service, the U.S. undersea force will need to generate noise and hide in the resulting chaos.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2023/08/23/the-us-submarine-force-should-be-silent-no-more/

On the same subject

  • US Navy to develop drone deployment strategy

    July 22, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval

    US Navy to develop drone deployment strategy

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy's top officer has ordered his staff to develop a comprehensive strategy to field unmanned systems in the air, on the water and under the sea over the coming years. Dubbed “unmanned campaign plan,” it looks to tie together all the disparate programs into a coherent way forward, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday told Defense News in a July 16 interview. “We've got ... a family of unmanned systems we're working on,” Gilday said. “Undersea we've got extra-large, large and medium [unmanned underwater vehicles]; on the surface we have small, medium and large [unmanned surface vessels]; and in the air we have a number of programs. “What I've asked the N9 to do is come to me with a campaign plan that ties all those together with objectives at the end. I've got a bunch of horses in the race, but at some point I have to put my money down on the thoroughbred that's going to take me across the finish line so I can make an investment in a platform I have high confidence in and that I can scale.” Gilday's drive toward an unmanned campaign plan comes after two consecutive years of congressional criticism that the Navy is forging ahead too quickly on unmanned systems without first having designed or developed critical new technologies and mechanical systems. The criticisms have resulted in marks in legislation that deliberately slows down the development of the systems that both the Navy and the Office of Secretary of Defense have said are necessary to offset a rising China without breaking the bank. In the interview, Gilday acknowledged the Navy hadn't adequately mapped out its unmanned future in a way that would inspire confidence. “What I've found is that we didn't necessarily have the rigor that's required across a number of programs that would bring those together in a way that's driven toward objectives with milestones,” Gilday said. “If you took a look at [all the programs], where are there similarities and where are there differences? Where am I making progress in meeting conditions and meeting milestones that we can leverage in other experiments? At what point do I reach a decision point where I drop a program and double down on a program that I can accelerate?” In the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, currently working its way through Congress, lawmakers appear poised to restrict funding for procurement of any large unmanned surface vessels, or LUSV, until the Navy can certify it has worked out an appropriate hull as well as mechanical and electrical system, and that the design can autonomously operate for 30 consecutive days. Furthermore, the Navy must demonstrate a reliable operating system and ensure any systems integrated into the platform — sonars, radars, etc. — are likewise functioning and reliable, according the text of the subcommittee's markup of the fiscal 2021 NDAA, Congress's annual defense policy bill, which was obtained by Defense News. In short, the language would mean the Navy could not spend procurement dollars on a large unmanned surface vessel until it has a working model, and it may not try to develop those technologies on the fly. In a June interview with Defense News, Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., head of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, said the panel supports unmanned system development but doesn't want the Navy repeat mistakes. “The message I want people to understand is that we fully support the move toward unmanned, whether that's on the surface or undersea,” Courtney said. “But we want to make sure that some of the real nuts and bolts issues ... are worked out before we start building large unmanned platforms. “We want to make sure that, again, we don't end up with situations like LCS [the littoral combat ship] where we're trying to figure out what the mission is at the same time we're building them.” Conceptualize and control That's a criticism the CNO hears and is working to address. Gilday is pushing on two major efforts to get better answers on what the Navy is trying to accomplish with unmanned systems: a concept of operations, and a network to control them with. “The concept of operations that the fleet is working on right now will be delivered in the fall, and that talks conceptually about how we intend to employ unmanned in distributed maritime operations,” Gilday said, referencing a Navy plan to physically expand its maneuvers to complicate enemy targeting rather than aggregate around an aircraft carrier. But beyond how unmanned tech will fit into a distributed fleet, the Navy is looking at where those systems should be located and how they will be supported. That's leading the Navy to consider stationing the systems and support elements overseas. “What would a day-to-day laydown look like of unmanned forward?” Gilday asked. “The Navy has got to be forward: For obvious reasons we don't want the fight back here; the Navy exists to operate forward. That's where we need to be in numbers. And with unmanned, if you are not there at the right time, you are irrelevant. “There also has to be a number of unmanned [systems] forward. I can't just decide to rally unmanned out of San Diego or in the Pacific northwest at a time when they'll be too late to need.” The other big piece of the puzzle is something Gilday has previously referred to as akin to a new “Manhattan Project,” a rapid, well-funded project to field a network that can control all the various unmanned and networked systems, sensors and weapons. And to do that, he's linking in with the Air Force's Joint All Domain Command and Control, or JADC2, effort. “The other piece of this is the Navy Tactical Grid,” Gilday explained. “Coming into the job, the projections for the Navy Tactical Grid was for delivery in about 2035. I knew that was way, way too late. “So, on a handshake with [Air Force Chief of Staff] Gen. [David] Goldfein, I said: ‘Look, I am all in, and my vision is that the Navy Tactical Grid would be the naval plug into JADC2.' So the Navy Tactical Grid ends up being a very critical element of the unmanned campaign plan because it becomes the main artery to operate those platforms. “Without it, I have a bunch of unmanned that I shouldn't be building because I can't control it very well.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/21/the-us-navy-is-trying-to-get-its-act-together-on-unmanned-systems/

  • What’s standing in the way of multidomain operations?

    September 6, 2018 | International, C4ISR

    What’s standing in the way of multidomain operations?

    By: Daniel Cebul WASHINGTON — Mutlidomain operations are set to become standard for the U.S. armed services in the coming years, but technical, doctrinal and organizational hurdles remain. One impediment to multidomain operations involves issues in linking the service's disparate communication and information networks to share targeting data and communications. Rebecca Grant, a national security analyst with IRIS Independent Research, identified her “No. 1 problem" as “the communications architecture.” This stuff is not there yet," she said Wednesday at the Defense News Conference. "I'm less worried about the platforms, we've got some magnificent platforms. We've got to have that communication architecture. All the ability to do that is there, whether that's secure waveforms or the [radio frequency] links, but we have to take the plunge now, immediately, to go out and experiment with this next year.” The need for an integrated communications network was echoed by L3 Technologies' vice president of communications technology. “You need a network that can take all the networks we have right now, a systems-of-systems-level approach, that can tie these disparate networks together because you don't want to get rid of that install base because its too expensive to replace,” Keith Gentile said. Another challenge involves changing the services' doctrinal approaches to operations, especially as each branch becomes more dependent on one another. Gentile said that if the U.S. plans to quickly respond to enemy developments, doctrine surrounding operations in the domains must change. “There's a role mission and function issue that needs to be addressed when you talk about cross-domain or multidomain capabilities because each of the services operates in different domains," he said. "You got to go ahead and get away from the parochial pieces of service stovepipes, mission roles and functions — and realize you are talking about cross-domain capabilities.” Jaret Riddick, the director of the Vehicle Technology Directorate at the Army Research Laboratory, cited the service's recently stood-up Futures Command as one example of change within the services. “I would not downplay the steps the Army is making in standing up Futures Command. To take a four-star command and make the type of reorganization that has not happened since the early 1970s — I would not call that incremental,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense-news-conference/2018/09/05/whats-standing-in-the-way-of-multidomain-operations

  • Drone maker to pay $25M over military gear parts

    January 14, 2021 | International, Aerospace

    Drone maker to pay $25M over military gear parts

    By: The Associated Press PORTLAND, Ore. — Aerial drone manufacturer Insitu will pay $25 million to settle allegations that its military drones were outfitted with used components instead of new ones. U.S. attorney Brian Moran said cases such as this one should be seen as a warning to defense contractors that false claims have no place in military purchasing. Moran announced the settlement Tuesday, The Oregonian/OregonLive reported. The allegations originated with a former Insitu manager, D R O'Hara, who filed a whistleblower complaint in federal court and will receive $4.6 million of the settlement. Investigators, who took over the case under provisions of the whistleblower law, allege that Insitu billed the military for new parts and components but actually used less expensive recycled and refurbished parts. Insitu said it cooperated with the investigation and that its disclosures to the government met all requirements. “At all times, Insitu provided superior ISR services to the Navy and Special Operations Command, a fact the government does not dispute,” the company said in a statement. “Insitu continues to provide mission-ready systems and supports the nation's warfighters by providing world-class service.” Owned by Boeing, Insitu is based in the town of Bingen, Washington, along the Columbia River. It employs about 1,500 people with two-thirds of them in the Bingen and Hood River, Oregon, area. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2021/01/13/drone-maker-to-pay-25m-over-military-gear-parts/

All news