August 7, 2019 | International, Naval

With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers

By: David B. Larter and Joe Gould

WASHINGTON — The new chief of naval operations, Adm. Michael Gilday, was confirmed quickly by the Senate last week, but lawmakers made clear that the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers to ever-faster and evasive missiles will be among the issues he's expected to tackle when he officially takes the reins.

The Navy's main force projection tool, the carrier, became a punching bag for several lawmakers at Gilday's confirmation hearing, as they alternately raised the threat posed by Chinese and Russian hypersonic missiles and berated the Navy's future top admiral for the significant delays and cost overruns associated with the new carrier Gerald R. Ford.

At one point during the July 31 hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., told Gilday the Navy's arrogance on the carrier “ought to be criminal.” Later on, longtime friend of the Navy Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, warned that hypersonic missiles were a “nightmare weapon” that threatened to make carriers obsolete.

And while the lawmakers differed on the future of aircraft carriers and their long-term viability, the hearing left no doubt that Gilday, a career surface warfare officer, has his work cut out for him in proving he can guide the service toward a more stable future for the Navy's most expensive and strategically invaluable assets.

To be clear, Inhofe does not oppose carriers, and he has publicly reminded multiple Trump administration officials of the Navy's legal requirement to maintain 11 of them. Inhofe was in the bipartisan chorus of lawmakers who opposed Pentagon plans to cut costs by decommissioning the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman before the administration scuttledthose plans this year.

When it comes to the Ford program, Inhofe plans to keep the Navy on a short leash and pressed Gilday to commit that he would work to prevent the kind of widespread “first-in-class” issues that have plagued the Ford. It's an issue with some urgency behind it, as the Navy prepares to tackle the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine for nuclear deterrent patrols, as well as a next-generation frigate, new classes of unmanned warships and a new large surface combatant.

“The Navy entered into this contract in 2008, which, combined with other contracts, have ballooned the cost of the ship more than $13 billion without understanding the technical risks, the costs or the schedules, and you know this ought to be criminal,” Inhofe said.

The Navy had taken a gamble integrating immature dual-band radar, catapult, arresting gear and weapons elevators, and Inhofe expressed displeasure with the result.

Tackling the first-in-class issue will be a priority, Gilday said.

“I commit to that and complete transparency as well as taking what we learn from the Ford and ensuring that we don't commit those same mistakes again in the Columbia class and other ships that we need to field in the next few years,” Gilday told Inhofe.

‘Sitting ducks'

As for rising threats to the carrier, King believes hypersonic missiles are an existential threat to the Navy and urged Gilday to take the issue head on.

“Every aircraft carrier that we own can disappear in a coordinated attack,” King said. “And it is a matter of minutes. Murmansk, [Russia], to the Norwegian Sea is 12 minutes at 6,000 miles an hour.

“So I hope you will take back a sense of urgency to the Navy and to the research capacity and to the private sector that this has to be an urgent priority because otherwise we are creating a vulnerability that could in itself lead to instability.”

In an interview with Defense News, King said the speed at which the Russians and Chinese are fielding the capability worries him.

“My concern is that we are a number of years away from having that capacity, and our adversaries are within a year of deployment,” he said. “And that creates a dangerous gap, in my view. This represents a qualitative gap in offensive warfare that history tells we better figure out how to deal with, or it will mitigate our ... advantage.”

King, who represents the state where half the Navy's destroyers are produced, also said he's concerned about the long-term viability of aircraft carriers in a world with hypersonic missiles.

“I think it does raise a question of the role of the aircraft carrier if we cannot figure a way to counter this capability,” he said. “I don't want indefensible, $12 billion sitting ducks out there. I'm not prepared to say the carrier is obsolete, but I say that this weapon undermines the viability of the carrier.”

Inhofe, in response to another senator's questions about carrier obsolescence, said he disagrees carriers are becoming obsolete, but that he's concerned about the cost.

But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it's a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.

“I think what King's comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.

“Then you are talking about something that is relatively inexpensive and could be delivered in large numbers, and that would be a bigger deal because missile defenses are not necessarily built for hypersonic weapons.

“So we'll have to find a way to deal with this new challenge, or we'll have to rethink how we do things.”

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/08/06/with-mounting-questions-about-cost-and-survivability-a-shifting-political-landscape-for-us-aircraft-carriers/

On the same subject

April 3, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval

Top Marine ‘signaling’ to industry that F-35 cuts are on the table
By: Aaron Mehta How will US Marines adjust for the future fight? | Reagan Defense Forum 2019 WASHINGTON — The top officer in the U.S. Marine Corps is sticking to the planned procurement of the F-35 joint strike fighter — but indicated a willingness to cut planes in the future if analysis says it makes sense. Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger told reporters Wednesday that he is a firm believer in the capabilities the F-35 is bringing, in particular the jump-jet B model favored by the service. However, Berger made it clear he's not wedded to long-term procurement plans, at a time the corps is shedding legacy missions as it pivots to focus to a primarily naval-focused service. “Right now, the program of record plows ahead as it is,” he said. “But I'm signaling to the industry, we have to be prepared to adjust as the operating environment adjusts. Right now, the program of record stays the same, but we will — we must — adapt to the adversary and we must adapt to the operating environment that we're challenged with being in.” Berger noted that an upcoming independent review of his force posture plans, expected to be completed in the next few months, could be a forcing function for more changes. Already, his planning guidance to the corps changed how many planes are featured in each F-35 squad, from 16 to 10. Longstanding plans call for the Marines to procure 353 of the F-35B and 67 of the F-35C carrier variants. “There's nothing like it,” Berger said of the jet. “The F-35B, the ability to operate from austere airfields and ships both, [is] incredible. In wargames, it's one of the handful of capabilities that really caused an adversary problems, because it is so flexible, it's deployable ashore or from ship. Gamechanger is sort of an overused phrase, but I'm a huge advocate of the F-35 and its capabilities.” Broadly speaking, Berger said, what will drive how many F-35s are in a squadron going forward, or how many the Corps eventually buys, comes down to maintenance — a longstanding issue for the stealthy jet. “If the maintenance readiness of the F-35 proves to be very, very strong, then of course, like any other system you need less of them because more of them are up all the time. On the other hand, if it turns out not to be so, then you're going to need more of them, to account for the ones that are in repair, that are down right now,” he said. Complicating that issue is what he called the “unique” supply chain for the jet, which in theory lets parts flow in from all over the world, as opposed to the traditional U.S. based supply. “In all aspects, we absolutely know we will learn along the way, and if its appropriate we will make adjustments” to either the squad level or the overall buy, Berger said. “But it's not a lack of confidence in the airframe at all.” https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/01/top-marine-signaling-to-industry-that-f-35-cuts-are-on-the-table/
March 8, 2021 | International, Aerospace

U.S. General Says Unmanned Aircraft Need Too Many People
U.S. Special Operations Command is looking at Reaper drones for the new Armed Overwatch role. But although the Reaper may be uncrewed, it takes a lot of people on the ground to keep it flying -- maybe too many to be viable.
October 9, 2018 | International, Land

Army looks to a future of integrated fire
By: Daniel Cebul WASHINGTON — Even as Army leadership points to the great progress made toward interoperability of missile systems, the future could take that vision one step further. During a Monday panel hosted by Defense News at the Association of the United States Army annual meeting, Col. John Rafferty, director of the Long-Range Precision Fires Cross-Functional Team, said the Army aspires to have “an integrated network, rather than interoperability, which is the work around" in the meantime. "When we get into operational strategic fires we want to extend the systems approach across the fires warfighting function, offensive and defense,” Rafferty added. Tom Karako, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Missile Defense Project, stressed that a more aggressive approach to integrating offensive and defense fires is required to defeat current and future near-peer threats. One area Karako has his eye on “is the degree of integration between Maneuver SHORAD, and frankly the whole rest of ARMY AMD, as well as offensive fires. Making sure that interoperability or integration is common as opposed to being another stovepipe of excellence.” The Integrated Air and Missile Battle Command System (IBCS) is one Army program that will be key to achieving integrated fires. The brains behind the Army's future air and missile defense command-and-control system, IBCS will improve the operational capabilities of current AMD systems like THAAD and Patriot by connecting the former disparate systems. When integrated, the Army can leverage THAAD's AN/TYP-2 radar to extend Patriot's effective range and provide a clearer picture of incoming threats. Discussing the importance of integrated air and missile defenses, Karako said, “just as there is that full spectrum of air and missile threats, we're going to need to have a full spectrum and integration of air and missile defense.” Rafferty and his team have not overlooked the significant investment being made in long-range precision fires. “I definitely feel like we are the number one modernization priority for the Army,” Rafferty said. “I also realize that with the investment comes a sense of cost consciousness because we know that hard choices were made ... across the Army to resource this number one priority.” And while Rafferty's cross functional team is receiving significant funding, the Army knows it has to work as a team to achieve its goals. As explained by Brig. Gen. Alfred Abramson, the program executive officer with PEO Ammunition, the Army has to put their heads together to figure out “where's the juice worth the squeeze in terms of investment." "Can we build a better mouse trap so to speak with some limited dollars, because you can't spread it across everything,” said Abramson, adding that his organization has seen a significant spike of about $2.5 billion for fiscal years 2017 to 2022 funding for ammunition and armament systems products. "At the same time we have a conversation with Col Rafferty's organization about what direction should we be heading. So it really is a discussion across these organizations to make sure everybody is focused on the same thing.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/08/army-looks-to-a-future-of-integrated-fire

All news

With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers

On the same subject

U.S. General Says Unmanned Aircraft Need Too Many People U.S. Special Operations Command is looking at Reaper drones for the new Armed Overwatch role. But although the Reaper may be uncrewed, it takes a lot of people on the ground to keep it flying -- maybe too many to be viable.

U.S. General Says Unmanned Aircraft Need Too Many People
U.S. Special Operations Command is looking at Reaper drones for the new Armed Overwatch role. But although the Reaper may be uncrewed, it takes a lot of people on the ground to keep it flying -- maybe too many to be viable.