Back to news

June 2, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval

US Navy upgrades more ships for the F-35 as the future of carriers remains in flux

By: David B. Larter

WASHINGTON — Former acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly hadn't been out of the job more than a month before the Navy canceled an ongoing study he'd launched into the future of aircraft carriers — a review he optimistically termed “Future Carrier 2030.”

Modly and his predecessor, Richard Spencer, had been excited by the prospect of fielding smaller, more risk-worthy carriers that could reduce the chance of China or Russia landing a major punch in a conflict simply by sinking or disabling a single ship, such as a Nimitz- or Ford-class aircraft carrier with thousands of sailors and tens of billions of dollars of hardware aboard.

But very soon after Modly's spectacular departure, former acting Secretary James McPherson canceled the study until further notice. Still, as the effort to move to a smaller carrier seems frozen — as it has been for decades every time someone suggested it — the Navy is forging ahead with preparing its big-deck boats — the amphibious assault ships — for operating with the Marine Corp's F-35B. The Corps' F-35 fighter jet is a short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant.

The Navy recently inked a $200 million contract with BAE Systems to upgrade the amphibious assault ship Boxer to be able to operate with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the fifth landing helicopter assault ship to be so amended.

“The USS Boxer [dry-dock availability] will complete a combination of maintenance, modernization, and repair of the following systems: Hull structure, propulsion, electrical plant, auxiliary systems, and communications and combat systems, as well as alterations to prepare the ship for operations with the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (JSF),” according to a statement from Naval Sea Systems command.

But the idea of smaller carriers is one the Navy has been flirting with more recently. Last fall, the Navy packed 13 F-35Bs on the amphibious assault ship America. Then-Navy Secretary Spencer later said the ship could hold up to 20.

“I will tell you, we are augmenting the aircraft carrier with our ideas, such as this lightning carrier,” Spencer said at the Brookings Institution think tank. “Twenty F-35 Bravos on a large-deck amphib. My cost performance there is tremendous. Does it have the same punch? No, it doesn't, but it does have a very interesting sting to it.”

The Boxer, which is an older class of big-deck amphib, could likely pack about 15 F-35Bs if it were dedicated for the purpose, according to Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.<

The idea of a lighter carrier is also one that has intrigued Defense Secretary Mark Esper. In an interview with Defense News that coincided with the fiscal 21 budget rollout, Esper raised the possibility that lighter carriers were still on the agenda.

“There are various ways to do carriers,” Esper said. “So we can talk numbers or we can talk the sizes of carriers, right? There's been discussion in the past about: Do you keep building big carriers, or do you go to smaller carriers, lightning carriers? Acting Secretary Modly and I have talked about that.

“I think this gets into the future fleet designs we look at. That will be one element that we look at.”

‘What's the objective?'

The Navy has shied away from lighter carriers for decades because, as expensive as the carriers are, they generate more sorties for less money than it would cost a comparable number of smaller carriers to generate.

But the utility of a smaller carrier that still has a mean bite was recently demonstrated when a COVID-19 outbreak on the carrier Theodore Roosevelt sidelined the flat top in Guam in the middle of its deployment. The Navy directed the America to the South China Sea to provide presence there to dissuade China from taking advantage of the Roosevelt's misfortune.

That was a win for the idea of a smaller carrier, said Seth Cropsey, director of the Center for American Seapower at the Hudson Institute.

“The ability of the America to be on scene when the Roosevelt was not was a good thing,” he said. “Look I don't think anyone is going to argue that it replaces a Ford-class carrier, but the idea of a more distributed force is a sensible one.

“I'm not saying that the Navy should stop building Ford-class carriers; I'm saying they should be including smaller carriers."

The reason is pretty simple, Cropsey said: China's missiles.

“I think there is definitely a strategic reason to do it: It's called the DF-21 and DF-24, and China'a ability to fill the sky with missiles over the South China Sea. The Navy gets it, but implementing the idea and turning into tangible programs is the problem.”

The first step for the Navy is to figure out what it wants to achieve when it comes to countering China, he said.

“My strong opinion [is] that the issue is compounded by the lack of a strategic concept,” Cropsey said. “What's the plan? What's the objective? Once the Navy is able to articulate that, questions such as the ones being asked about [smaller carriers] will resolve themselves much more easily.”

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/06/01/us-navy-upgrades-more-ships-for-the-f-35-as-the-future-of-carriers-remains-in-flux/

On the same subject

  • Opinion: Defense Is Unscathed By COVID-19? Think Again.

    May 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Opinion: Defense Is Unscathed By COVID-19? Think Again.

    John Dowdy May 22, 2020 The rapid onset of the novel coronavirus has wreaked havoc on markets around the world, hitting commercial aviation especially hard as load factors plummet, flights are canceled and suppliers cut production rates and furlough workers. Amid all this disruption, defense manufacturers appear to have been relatively unscathed. But defense has always been a long-cycle business, driven more by annual budgets than daily load factors. And as the bill for rebuilding the global economy mounts, defense budgets are sure to come under pressure. COVID-19 is first and foremost a human tragedy, and its continued spread is still a major concern. But we must solve for both the virus and the economy; the dual imperative of our time is the desire to preserve lives and livelihoods. Both will require substantial resources for public health and for economic rejuvenation. Countries around the world are making massive investments to rebuild battered economies, putting out more than $11 trillion in the last 2.5 months, with more sure to follow. In the U.S., Congress passed the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act at the end of March, bringing the total stimulus thus far to $3 trillion, which could push the fiscal 2020 budget deficit to a record $3.8 trillion, an eye-watering 18.7% of the country's GDP. Other countries have passed similar aid packages, leading to soaring debt levels around the world. And more may well be necessary: The House has passed proposals for another $3 trillion in aid, although the bill's fate in the Senate is unclear. Government debt levels are already high, swelling as the global financial crisis of 2008 caused a drop in tax revenues and a rise in social-safety-net payments. And the wave of deleveraging many expected as the recession eased never materialized: From 2008 to mid-2017, global government debt more than doubled, reaching $60 trillion. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), this year's increase in public-sector debt has reached 122.4% of gross domestic product (GDP) on average in developed countries. Increased deficits worldwide are likely to put pressure on all discretionary spend, including defense. In the U.S., military spending accounts for 15% of all federal and roughly half of discretionary spending, so defense may come under real pressure. Rep. Ken Calvert of California, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, says defense budgets were strained even before this year's unplanned burst of deficit spending. &ldquo;There's no question that budgetary pressure will only increase now for all segments of our federal budget, including defense,&rdquo; Calvert said. Defense Secretary Mark Esper has said he is preparing for future defense budget cuts and that legacy systems may need to be scrapped to pay for more modern forces. South Korea shows early signs of this trend, with leaders recently announcing a shift in resources to disaster relief in response to the pandemic. Money came from education, agriculture, and environmental protection but mostly from defense. This example is particularly significant, given that South Korea is still technically at war, frozen in conflict with its immediate neighbor to the north. Furthermore, South Korea has been more effective than its peers in addressing the pandemic with a swift medical response and widespread testing that allowed the country to reopen its economy faster than other advanced countries. If South Korea is altering its budgetary priorities, others could follow. The coronavirus has already had a massive human cost, resulting in approximately 300,000 deaths, including more than 90,000 Americans, more than were killed in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan combined. But the financial cost has been even greater. The cost in the US has already exceeded that of all the wars the U.S. has fought over the last 50 years. And if an additional $3 trillion is approved by Congress, the cost will surpass that of World War II. At this point, it is too early to predict how much the defense budget will draw down how quickly. Indeed, the shift might not occur immediately. Broadly speaking, two factors have historically had the most influence on defense spending: threats and affordability. Governments will all calibrate the relative importance of the threats they face against their new economic realities. In keeping with past patterns, countries may give most weight to threats, real or perceived, over the near term. If there are anticipated or ongoing conflicts, their defense budgets will probably increase. Over the longer term, however, economic factors tend to prevail, and governments may set defense budgets in line with their diminished resources. Either way, we face some tough decisions ahead. https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/manufacturing-supply-chain/opinion-defense-unscathed-covid-19-think-again

  • Sierra Nevada buys drone maker Volansi after VC funding dries up

    October 10, 2022 | International, Aerospace

    Sierra Nevada buys drone maker Volansi after VC funding dries up

    Sierra Nevada said it bought Volansi for "considerably less" than other drone manufacturers have sold for recently.

  • Study: Counter-Drone Systems Proliferate, Challenges Endure

    December 18, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    Study: Counter-Drone Systems Proliferate, Challenges Endure

    Graham Warwick Counter-drone systems continue to proliferate on the market, but technical and operational challenges in countering small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have not yet been fully surmounted, says a new report by the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, New York. The second edition of the Center's Counter-Drone Systems report lists 537 systems marketed by 227 companies in 38 countries, up from 235 in the first edition published in February 2018. This is despite removing 24 products from the database that no longer appear to be available. Citing a March 2019 solicitation by the Pentagon's Defense Innovation Unit which said &ldquo;it has proven difficult to identify and mitigate threats using currently fielded technologies,&rdquo; the report says &ldquo;dozens of background interviews with military and law enforcement personnel have validated this assertion.&rdquo; The challenges extend beyond the issue of effectiveness &ldquo;and include complex questions around safety, practicality, policy and legality,&rdquo; says the report's author, Arthur Holland Michel, founder and co-director of the Center. When it comes to detection effectiveness, radar may struggle to pick up small UAS flying close to the ground, while cameras might confuse a drone with a bird or aircraft and be degraded by poor weather, low visibility and strong sunlight. Electromagnetic interference may degrade the detection performance of radio-frequency sensors, with many potential sources of interference in urban areas. Radar, some RF systems and electro-optical/ infrared (EO/IR) sensors require line of sight to the drone, which can be problematic in urban areas. Acoustic sensors and RF detection systems rely on a library of sounds and signals emitted by known drones, but given the rapid rate at which drones are emerging on the market &ldquo;even libraries that are updated often will never cover 100% of the drones that might be operating,&rdquo; the report says. A major detection issue is the level of false negatives and false positives, the report said, noting that results of FAA testing of counter-drone systems showed distinguishing true positives from false positives in cluttered environments required a high level of manpower. Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate drone use is another issue. Remote identification technology and the FAA's pending Remote ID rulemaking, &ldquo;may go a long way to addressing this issue once implemented, but it will not be a total fix,&rdquo; the report says. There is a short time window available in which to respond to a drone threat and potential dangers posed to bystanders by some counter-drone interdiction techniques. Long-range systems such as lasers and high-power microwaves &ldquo;could pose a serious threat to aircraft operated above the targeted drone.&rdquo; In terms of interdiction effectiveness, the report points to results of a 2017 counter-UAS event staged by the U.S. Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Organization that showed the drones were resilient against damage. &ldquo;More recent C-AUS exercises indicate this problem remains an enduring one,&rdquo; it says. Jammers have no effect against drones operating autonomously without an active RF link; many signal jammers have an effective range of only a few hundred meters; spoofing systems may not be universally effective; and all kinetic systems may struggle against drones moving fast or in unpredictable patterns. Drone technology, meanwhile, is not standing still, the report says, noting research underway on UAS that can operate in GPS-denied environments, negating jamming, and are capable of actively defeating jamming or spoofing attacks. Consumer drones may soon be controllable via mobile LTE networks rather than an RF link, the report says. LTE drones could be operated at essentially unlimited range and &ldquo;would be difficult or dangerous to interdict with jamming systems without interfering with ubiquitous cellular communications,&rdquo; it says. The proliferation of counter-UAS systems will inevitably accelerate the development of technology to render them less effective, the report concludes, by programming drones to maneuver in patterns that make them hard to detect by automatic target algorithms. The report also highlights the challenges posed by drone swarms. &ldquo;A swarm doesn't have to be dynamic or truly autonomous to achieve these effects: 10 individual drone operators flying 10 drones in unison may just be as difficult to defend against as a true autonomous swarm of 10 aircraft,&rdquo; it says. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/study-counter-drone-systems-proliferate-challenges-endure

All news