Coronavirus Impact: France Pulls Out from African West Coast Maritime Security Mission

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on Coronavirus Impact: France Pulls Out from African West Coast Maritime Security Mission
04/03/2020

by defenceWeb

The French Navy has suspended its Mission Corymbe off West Africa due to the COVID-19 coronavirus, and withdrawn a vessel from the area.

The patrol vessel Lieutenant de Vaisseau Le Henaff, which departed Brest on 3 March for West Africa, returned to France at the end of the month. During its return voyage it stopped in Conakry and Dakar.

France established Mission Corymbe in 1990 to protect French economic interests in the Gulf of Guinea and coast of West Africa, particularly with regard to oil exploration. It has had a naval vessel on station ever since.

Vessels taking part in the mission have also carried out anti-piracy patrols and combated other maritime crimes such as illicit trafficking.

The French Navy has meanwhile sent two of its Mistral class landing helicopter docks to Reunion and Mayotte to provide medical assistance as well as the Antilles/Guyana area. It also has a carrier strike group operating in northern Europe.

Published by defenceWeb March 31, 2020.

 

Deterring China: The Australian Case

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on Deterring China: The Australian Case
04/01/2020

By Paul Dibb

Two important military developments recently should give China pause for thought.

The first one is the announcement by Prime Minister Scott Morrison of a $1.1 billion upgrade to the Royal Australian Air Force base at Tindal, which is about 300 kilometres south of Darwin, to lengthen the runway so that US B-52 strategic bombers as well as our own KC-30 air-to-air refuelling aircraft can operate from there.

The second development is the announcement by the US State Department that Australia has been cleared, at a cost of about $1.4 billion, to purchase 200 AGM-158C long-range anti-ship missiles (LRASM), which can be fired from our F/A-18 Super Hornets and the F-35s when they are delivered.

The significance of these two developments occurring at the same time should not be underestimated and certainly not in Beijing.

Morrison described the upgrades to Tindal as being ‘the sharp end of the spear’ for Australian and US air operations in the Indo-Pacific.

As ASPI’s Peter Jennings observed, the decision to expand the Tindal airbase is a giant strategic step forward and could be the basis for a greater leadership role for Australia in the region.

When the upgrade, including major runway extensions, fuel stockpiles and engineering support, is completed, Tindal will be the most potent military base south of Guam. And—for the time being at least—it is beyond the reach of Chinese conventional ballistic missiles.

The LRASMs will give Australia a highly capable stand-off anti-ship strike capability with much longer range than we’ve had before. Unclassified sources state that this missile has a range of at least 500–600 kilometres. It can conduct autonomous targeting, relying on on-board targeting systems to acquire the target without the presence of prior, precision intelligence or supporting data services like GPS.

It’s claimed that these capabilities will enable positive target identification and target acquisition and engagement of moving ships in extremely hostile environments. The missile is designed with countermeasures to evade active defence systems. Apparently, multiple missiles can work together to share data to coordinate and attack in a swarm.

The LRASM is also capable of hitting land targets. Its own data link allows other military assets to feed the missile a real-time electronic picture of the battlespace.

This missile only achieved operational capability with US Super Hornets in November last year. Its confirmation for sale to Australia so quickly reflects the closeness of the alliance.

This is a major new strike-deterrent acquisition for Australia.

It reflects the concerns of the defence force about Australia’s strike capabilities since the retirement of the F-111 in 2010 and the fact that it takes time for the navy’s Collins-class submarines to transit to Southeast Asian or South Pacific waters.

We are now in an era in which China is contesting our strategic space in the ‘inner arc’ stretching from the Indonesian archipelago and Papua New Guinea down to Solomon Islands and Vanuatu (the latter of which are about 2,000 kilometres from our east coast military bases).

For the first time since World War II, a major power is deploying military capabilities which could do us harm in our region of primary strategic concern.

In that sense, we are now in a period of defence warning time because a change of intention is all that a potential adversary would need to do to transform a presence into a direct military threat.

It is therefore important that we have the capability to push back against those who would use their increasing military power to restrict our strategic space and coerce us.

In the coming years we will need to consider acquiring weapons systems with even longer range.

The US is developing a ground-launched version of the latest Tomahawk maritime strike missile, a boost glide anti-ship missile, a hypersonic cruise missile and potentially a Pershing III anti-ship intermediate-range ballistic missile.

These could have ranges of around 1,000 kilometres to more than 3,000 kilometres. These sorts of weapons would enable Australia to strike at targets well into the South China Sea and the South Pacific.

Some previous RAAF chiefs have been strong proponents of acquiring Northrop Grumman’s B-21 Raider long-range strategic stealth bomber.

The project is still in the development stage, but the planes have an estimated cost of around US$550 million each and their maintenance costs will be huge.

It would probably be cheaper and more cost-effective if Australia focused on long-range, land-based anti-ship missiles.

Taken together, then, the upgrading of Tindal and the acquisition of LRASMs reinforce the U.S. alliance and foreshadow a significantly more potent Australian deterrent capability to assert control over our own region of primary strategic concern.

Paul Dibb is professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University.

Credit Image: Lockheed Martin.

This article was published by ASPI on March 12, 2020.

For Dibb’s assessment of the evolving Russian-Chinese relationship, see the following:

An Update on French Defense Industry During the Lockdown: April 1, 2020

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on An Update on French Defense Industry During the Lockdown: April 1, 2020

By Pierre Tran

Paris – Arquus last week delivered 13 VAB armored troop carriers to support the French army in the African Barkhane operation, and an initial batch of 100 VT4 light vehicles for national security, the vehicle manufacturer said March 31.

Meanwhile, Nexter partially restarted production March 30 after a week’s shut down, the company said on its LinkedIn website.

Arquus shipped its vehicles in the second week of the national lock down, which has been extended to April 15 in a bid to contain the spread of coronavirus.

Arquus was able to deliver the vehicles which were already built and fitted out under an accelerated program. Production has been closed since the quarantine came into effect, while service and spares have been provided under a reduced workforce.

“Arquus last week conducted a complete inventory of the assets which could be quickly made available to the services,” the company said in a statement.

That review led to identification of a park of almost 300 vehicles, both armored and unarmored, with some new units and some reconditioned, the company said.

Talks with the Direction Générale de l’Armement procurement office and army’s SIMMT maintenance arm led to DGA inspection and certification of 13 VAB troop carriers at the Garchizy plant, central France.

Those vehicles, delivered early in the week of March 23, had been adapted to give greater protection, based on lessons learnt in the field. That shipment completed a batch of 40 units and will “strengthen the capability made available to services deployed in Barkhane,” the company said.

The Barkhane mission is the French army’s operation in sub-Saharan Africa against Islamist fundamentalist fighters. President Emmanuel Macron has committed to send 600 more French troops to reinforce the 4,500 already deployed.

In addition to the troop carriers, Arquus is also delivering 200 light vehicles under the lock down.

Arquus delivered late last week an initial batch of 100 VT4 vehicles from its Saint Nazaire plant, northern France. A second batch of 100 VT4 will be delivered next week, to boost the services’s operations on national territory, the company said.

A further batch of 73 VT4 vehicles is due to be shipped.

The army deploys up to 10,000 troops in the Sentinel operation, with armed foot patrols and light vehicles deployed nationwide.

Some 35 percent of staff at the Garchizy plant were working under tight health rules, handling the dispatch of spares to the forces.

The VT4, based on the Ford Explorer, replaces an aging fleet of P4 jeeps. Arquus is the subsidiary of Volvo, a Swedish truck maker.

Nexter, builder of medium and heavy armored vehicles, partially returned to work March 30 after closing down for a week, the company said on its LinkedIn website.

The company cleaned equipment in factories and made sanitizing gel available to workers. Managers have been drawing up plans for gradually restarting production for those designated as priority programs. That return to production required talks with the large supply chain.

Workers on maintenance service continued to work, the company said.

Nexter is prime contractor on the Griffon multirole troop carrier and Jaguar combat and reconnaissance vehicle, two key elements in the army’s Scorpion modernization program. The company handles design of the Jaguar.

Thales, an electronics company, is industrial partner on these Scorpion programs.

Texelis, a supplier of drivelines and axles, is partner with Nexter for a light armored vehicle for intelligence and reconnaissance missions.

Operation Monclar Update

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on Operation Monclar Update

by defenceWeb

French, Malian, Burkinabe and Nigerien soldiers took part in a joint counter-terrorism operation in the Sahel earlier this month involving several thousand troops.

As part of Operation Monclar, 1 700 soldiers of the French-led Barkhane force, and 3 000 Malian, Nigerien and Burkinabe soldiers G5 Sahel joint force took part in operations between 3 and 23 March. Several terrorists were put out of action and many resources were seized, the French defence ministry said.

The operation took place in the Gourma region in the south of Mali. The joint force also carried out a large operation on the border between Burkina Faso and Mali, deploying 400 armoured vehicles.

French VBCI armoured vehicles were deployed, providing protection against mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs)and offering substantial firepower using their 25 mm automatic cannon.

In addition, throughout the operation, unmanned aerial vehicles and fighter jets stationed in Niamey provided ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) and fire support.

In three weeks of operation, a large number of terrorists were neutralized and numerous resources were seized or destroyed, including nearly 80 motorcycles, a technical pickup armed with a heavy machine gun, a very large quantity of armaments, ammunition, and material necessary for the making of explosive devices.

Led by the French military, in partnership with the G5 Sahel countries, Operation Barkhane was launched on 1 August 2014. It is based on a strategic partnership with Burkina-Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Chad. It brings together around 5 100 soldiers whose mission is to fight against terrorism and armed groups and to support the armed forces of partner countries.

This article was published by our partner defenceWeb on March 31, 2020.

 

The Contribution of the Australian Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel to Smart Sovereignty

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on The Contribution of the Australian Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel to Smart Sovereignty

By Robbin Laird

The argument of my forthcoming report on the nature and impact of the new build Australian OPV program is that the new build OPV is shaping a new template for Australian shipbuilding.

And it is one in which the role of the prime contractor is being redefined and in which the Commonwealth is shaping new governance structures for managing the effort, in terms of working the platform and mission systems management separately but interactively.

This new template is a work in progress and it will be challenging to execute fully.

I had a chance to discuss the importance of this strategic shift for Australia with Vice Admiral (Retired) Chris Ritchie, former head of the Royal Australian Navy.

He has had a distinguished career as well in the private sector.

From 2009 through 2012, he was Chairman of the Board of Directors of submarine and ship builders ASC Pty Ltd. In that position, he saw first-hand the challenges of the traditional approach to Australian shipbuilding which has been defined by the legacy approach to shipbuilding: one off builds, pause, and then reload for the next one-off build.

He was Chairman as the Air Warfare Destroyer build was put in motion, which is a major addition to not only the Royal Australian Navy but to ADF transformation overall.

He is currently a director of Luerssen Australia, prime contractor for the Australian OPV build.

In a 2017 piece in the Australian Business Review, Ritchie highlighted why he thought the OPV program was so critical to Australia’s maritime future.

At the Australian Strategic Policy Institute last month, Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne outlined his long-term vision to turn Australia into a defence exports powerhouse. This vision is supported in large part by the requirements and opportunities contained in the federal government’s Naval Shipbuilding Plan. 

What many people outside Defence do not understand — and why should they — is that the success of this vision will to a large extent depend on a comparatively unknown shipbuilding program known as SEA1180, and the decisions the government is expected to make around its delivery in the next few months.

Under SEA1180, or the Offshore Patrol Vessel Project as it is also known, 12 steel-hulled patrol boats will be built to replace the Royal Australian Navy’s ageing fleet of aluminium-hulled Armidale-class vessels. The first two of the new offshore patrol vessels will be built in South Australia and the following 10 in Western Australia.

The $3 billion Offshore Patrol Vessel Project will be the first major domestic steel-hulled shipbuilding project in the government’s continuous shipbuilding program.

This means the Offshore Patrol Vessel project will carry the weighty responsibility of recruiting and training the next generation of naval shipyard workers in this country.

The newest cohort of young Australian engineers, designers, welders, structural fabricators and electricians will be recruited and trained to build the offshore patrol vessels.

They will form the vanguard of a naval shipbuilding workforce that, all going to plan, will go on to build our new submarine and frigate capabilities, and meet the emerging demand in our region for minor warship exports.

In simple terms, the Offshore Patrol Vessel project is the pilot light required to get the entire Australian domestic naval shipbuilding furnace going. It will also begin to develop the industrial base Australia needs if it is to make good on the government’s aspirations to compete in the global — and rapidly growing — marketplace for naval exports.

 In our discussion conducted on March 30, 2020 via telephone, we discussed why and how the OPV program is a template for change.

I will not quote him directly, but I had several takeaways from our conversation which reinforced what I have learned over the past three years and underscored by my visit to the Henderson shipyard and meetings with Luerssen and CIVMAC.

The first takeaway was that Australians needed to build a relevant defense industrial base to support the way ahead for the Royal Australian Navy.

But such an approach needed to shape something different from the United States or the European allies. Australia has a smaller pool of skilled workers, and a smaller population.

So how best to do this?

The second takeaway was the new build OPV with a focus on sovereign management and control over the combat and mission systems was a way ahead.

Such an approach would allow Australia to work closely with a variety of key allies and to build the intellectual capital crucial to the development of the combat skills and systems which Australia needed, but also for which it could credibly build a skilled higher end work force to support.

The third takeaway was that the Commonwealth was looking to shape a very different working relationship with industry.

A requirements-based adversarial relationship where the Commonwealth was interacting with industry largely to shape and enforce requirements was not going to get Australia to the new approach it needed.

A shift would happen only with shaping a new partnership with industry and reshaping how to work with a prime contractor who understood the new approach.

The fourth takeaway was the importance of the emergence of the partnership which I witnessed in West Australia.

Clearly, Luerssen gets it with regard to the kind of partnership which Australia is working for.

Because they are not trying to build as much as they can in Germany in order to create jobs in Germany but are focused on how to stand up a new Australian company and working design capabilities interactively between Australia and Germany, Luerssen fits the needs of Australia looking for a new partnership approach.

The fifth takeaway involves the question of exports.

The intellectual capital being built in Australia to build, evolve, and maintain the new build OPV is where exportability will come from.

It may or may not come from a hull export from Australia to an export partner but certainly the core mission systems and operational experience working maritime remotes and innovations to be able to do so are part of the export potential of the program.

The sixth takeaway with regard to exportability is it interaction with working with allies in the region.

Clearly, being interoperable with nations operating OPVs and similar vessels in Maritime Border Command and related missions is a key aspect of being effective in the region.

If Australia can export part of its intellectual capital to shape integratability within the ADF, this puts them in a position to work with other allies in the region to hook such integrability into fleet operations and thereby delivering interoperability.

The seventh takeaway is growing importance of self-reliance for Australia.

My observation from my visits of the past several years to Australia is a clear shift in thinking about the need for greater resilience in Australia itself to deal with global shocks.

Obviously, the current Coronavirus approach only underscores this concern.

John Blackburn refers to this as the need for smart sovereignty.

“When we redesign our supply chains, we need to pursue a “Smart Sovereignty” model. The scale or degree of sovereign capability you have in a country, will vary significantly country by country. A country the size of U.S., with its population and manufacturing capacity, will have a greater degree of sovereign capability.

“A country like Australia, with much smaller population and a different economic base will have a smaller degree of sovereignty, but we need a lot more than we have right now.”

And David Beaumont, well regarded Australian logistics expert and serving Australian Army officer, has highlighted the importance for both Australian civil society and its defense sector to have more robust capacity to provide for its own needs in a crisis.

“Defence industry policy and other Acts of government can be the bedrock upon which national security responses can be formed.

“It may be that at the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, and after the economic recovery erases our memory of the cost of seizing international trade, behaviours and the interests of military and other national security organisations will return to normal.

“Now, amid a pandemic, it seems incredulous to suggest life will be so kind. National security is fundamentally about the preservation of normality, and militaries will have an important role in assisting their society assure it.

“It is an unwritten rule of military logistics start preparing for the time in which forces will return home just as they arrive on a military operation.

“Perhaps it is time to start planning now for ‘what comes next’, and to reconsider the national security implications of the globalised international economy.”

The OPV template could provide an important stimulus to shaping a practical way ahead to achieve such a new approach.

In this sense, the OPV project could provide a measured manufacturing response that provides a path ahead for the nation.

In other words, it not is just about a new approach to shipbuilding, it can also trigger serious rethinking as well as shaping new approaches for smart sovereignty.

The featured picture is of former Chief of the Navy, Vice Admiral Chris Ritchie at the HMAS ARMIDALE Commissioning ceremony at HMAS Coonawarra, Fremantle Wharf, Darwin.

 

 

 

L3Harris Australia: Working as Part of Team Luerssen in the New Build OPV

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on L3Harris Australia: Working as Part of Team Luerssen in the New Build OPV

By Robbin Laird

In the first part of this article, I posed the question:

What does it mean to be a supplier to such an effort in which the prime contractor is tasked to deliver ongoing capabilities and contribute those capabilities across the force, rather than to provide simply capabilities defined solely by a single platform?

Rather than a prime contractor working the integration of systems platform by platform, the Australian Department of Defence is working with a new model, one in which the prime contractor works with suppliers which will reach beyond the platform on which they are operating, for which the prime contractor is primarily responsible.

During my March 2020 visit to Australia, I had a chance to talk with Rob Slaven, a former Royal Australian Navy Captain, now with L3Harris, about how one might answer this question.

I started by asking about what systems L3Harris was providing for the Arafura Class OPV program and in highlighting their contribution he underscored the significance of providing an integrated electronic system for the program. 

Rob Slaven: We are working with Luerssen Australia to deliver what has traditionally been thought of as three separate systems onboard the ship: An Integrated Navigation System (INS); an Integrated Communications System (ICS); and an Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS). Collectively this suite of systems is known as the “Integrated Electronic System” of IES.

“Whereas in the past these systems would have been delivered separately in a stove-piped fashion, the Commonwealth’s focus on holistic integration and digital, software definable systems onboard the ship, allows L3Harris to design and code a single IES capability.

“Marrying different system elements, and drawing upon disparate business units, to deliver a hardware agnostic coherent capability of benefit to the customer.

“With the OPV we have woven these three different systems into what is in effect a single integrated system, because once you get the design and cabling right, integration becomes a matter of coded interfaces and compatible data sets, controlled by some very smart software.

“With the combination of common interfaces, adaptable software applications, fast computer servers and fiber optic cabling, we can share data across those three systems, enabling better systemic control and facilitating predictive maintenance in a manner Navy has not experienced before.

“The effective (seamless) exchange of data between these systems is what will make the OPVs better ships than everything that has come before them, and they will offer the Commonwealth the operational flexibility and improved availability that they are looking for.

“The IES approach allows for shipboard data integration and pooling, or disaggregation as desired. With the IES for example, one could measure the performance data of a pump controlling the steering and send that data ashore to someone in Perth to better assess ship and Class performance, and then plan appropriate maintenance activities tailored to that systems measured data.

“With the OPV, Defence will be able to manage the force in a deliberate and planned manner, leveraging the IES to interrogate ‘platform’ performance without having to having to resort to the labour intensive interrogation of stovepiped systems.

“Bottom line: As long as you get the IES design right – i.e. the wiring, the interfaces, the cyber protections and control software – one can seamlessly exchange data across different system types, and then tailor system outputs as desired for the specific applications, or indeed, modify overall system configuration and performance as required should the ship’s tasking change while on patrol.”

The Impact of an Integrated Systems Approach

Question: What the integrated systems approach is delivering then is a smaller footprint onboard the ship, an easier software upgrade path to evolve capabilities or modernization paths over time.

This then changes what the role of systems supplier like L3Harris plays with regard to a new build platform?

RobSlaven: It does.

“With an integrated systems approach, as long as the computer environment (server) is fast enough, then most functions can be virtualised and become an application running on a computer.

“Simplistically, if you have a flat screen touch displays connected to an integrated environment, then that display can switch functionality at will across system functions. Technologically speaking, there’s nothing to stop the same display being used for navigational and engine control. It’s just a multifunction display, albeit a display backed by a well-designed integration effort and the inherent flexibility of software code.

“With the move to virtualised machines, we are changing the way and speed at which upgrades can be implemented, as it’s effectively just a software application.

“With the flexibility of software upgrades, capability improvements can be delivered to ships at sea while underway if required or desirable, and they can be rolled out very regularly in a non-intrusive manner.

“This sort of operational and sustainment flexibility flattens out many of the logistical bumps Navy has faced in the past, and will again demonstrate how the OPVs will change the way Navy and CASG can do business going forward.

“As part of this new integrated platform paradigm, Luerssen as the OPV platform Prime, is delivering a design which is digitally fluid and able to morph as required to meet changing operational requirements, accommodate emergent technologies (either fitted or via embarked payloads) versatility, or facilitate the implementation of new training and sustainment methodologies.

“That is to say, the OPVs will be able to offer unheralded platform and capability flexibility in comparison to the ships they are replacing.

“The digital design flexibility of the OPV is such that if by the time we get to ship seven, a sailor on ship three has found a better way of doing business on one of the systems, and she convinces Navy that that is the way they want to do it, then we can code up a software modification, prove it ashore on its digital twin, and roll out a configuration change and training package that can bring all of those seven ships and crews to the same operational configuration simultaneously.

“In a worst-case scenario, if due to the Batch build approach, the physical configurations of the computer servers onboard the first three OPVs are not powerful-enough to run a system for whatever reason, then those ships would require a physical server upgrade before running the new code.

“But again, once you make that computer hardware change, then all seven ships will again share the same configuration and the same capability. The widespread adoption of virtualised functionality and common interfaces means that we can create a “hardware agnostic” approach to shipboard system operation.

“Indeed, as long as the Human-Machine Interface remains the same/similar across hardware/software upgrades, then we can help Navy avoid many of the personnel management pitfalls associated with retraining operators.

“Over the life of the OPV build program there might be longer term physical design changes to the hull like a bigger crane or a bigger boat, or a smaller flight deck etc.

“But for something that is software defined like the communication suite, then “change” becomes a matter of managing the pace of software upgrades, with a commensurate impost on the Commonwealth’s governance systems to certify and accredit those new software loads.

“Although this sounds like a new loading on the Commonwealth, it really reflects a technologically driven move toward a software “seaworthiness” certification regime, rather than looking at a set of drawings associated with a new piece of radio or crypto equipment.

“Some of the work we are doing with the United States Navy reflects a potential regime wherein software can be coded and rolled out to ships underway within 24 hours – dependent upon what is happening operationally, and what demands/loads/threats are being placed onto the integrated system.”

Delivering an Integrated Warfare Suite

Question: When we are talking about the C2 capabilities on the ship, we are not just talking about legacy C2, but we are talking about a communications suite or synergy management if we focus on the broader capabilities.

 How do you view this key part of the transformation being generated by the approach being shaped onboard the OPV?

Rob Slaven: “Suite” is the right term.

“The traditional terminology usually focuses on the functionality of C2 systems, because this is how isolated function specific systems were developed and it how these systems have historically been contracted for on platforms.

“But really, what we are focused upon with regard to the OPV, is designing the IES to shape a capability outcome, namely, creating a shipboard electronics environment that delivers an Integrated Warfare Suite (IWS).

“L3Harris can only really ‘integrate’ the systems we’ve been contracted to, but because of the Team Luerssen construct, we’re working closely with Saab Australia who are providing the core Situational Awareness System C2 elements.

“What we’re physically designing are the three elements of the OPV IWS that we control, which includes both hardware and software engineering.

“With the OPV we’re providing a platform that is electronically able, and informationally ready, to swap and exchange data among different aspects of the actual physical ship systems quite freely.

“This means that whatever applications that the Commonwealth decides to code into the C2 system, and whatever sensors/weapons/payloads they bring on board, the IES and C2 system can collectively integrate those disparate data sets organically on the ship, and reach out to external platforms to mate those sensors/data sets into a collective/coherent C2 picture.

“Let me give you an example which can be realized in the near term.

“If an operator in the ship’s Operations Room on the OPV wants to launch an Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV), they should be able to press a button on their Saab C2 display, and that command will be translated and communicated within the IES to order the autonomous launch of the UUV.

“With the ability to preload/reprogram UUVs with their mission profiles, the IPMS can then take control of the autonomous launch and recovery system to put that UUV in the water, and it goes away.

“And dependent upon the amount of freedom designed into the UUV, there would also be the capacity to reprogram the UUV after launch – all from the OPV’s Ops Room.”

The Impact of the Cognitive Engine

Rob Slaven: “And this is the really smart bit, L3Harris is developing a Cognitive Engine (CE) that resides within the communications management system, which can interrogate the EMS, interpret extant Communication Plans, and cognitively assess the TACSIT, i.e.  work with defined rules/doctrine, to identify suitable communication channels to facilitate executing the mission task without further operator interaction.

“The Cognitive Engine is creating the communications pathway necessary to support that UUV and what it needs to do in real-time. It is an autonomous machine to machine link that comprehends the physical and tactical environment.

“The cognitive engine is using the ship sensors, specifically the communication antenna farm and the EW system and, if we’re allowed, the radar faces, to measure the environment in real-time, to measure what the environment and adversary are affecting viable EMS transmission routes, and then determine which communications channels are available in accordance with its programmed doctrine.

“In effect the CE is looking at the environment, comparing it to the operational requirements, and executing mission tasks without operator input at Machine Speed.”

Question: How is this done?

Slaven: So it’s a matter of trust.

“You define for the cognitive engine what it’s its functions are, and the operational rules it must operate within. You give it physical guidelines and system configuration restrictions to control.

“You give it access to antenna arrays to measure the environment. And then you let it go. The CE will execute the mission as defined within its parameters. The USN’s Aegis system already has something like this referred to as “Doctrine”. Which USN operators plan and develop specifically for that deployment’s operational profile in the six months prior to sailing. When/if the operators turn that Aegis system on, it’s going to execute all of those planning rules in the established doctrine).

“OPV sailors can/could still interact and change actions/operations as required during the deployment, however the goal is to entrust the CE to execute the communications battle plan at Machine Speed to defeat enemy actions.

“L3Harris is currently trialing cognitive technologies with the USN for the communications suite, wherein we’ve got a cognitive engine with a given set of doctrinal controls, and we’re allowing it access to the communications and EW antenna farms to measure the EM environment. and

“Happily I can report that the system has done everything we expected and more, with the CE reconfiguring the communications plan in real time to execute the mission profile as allowed by the doctrine. Indeed, the trials have gone so well we have taken the next step toward allowing the CE to interpret “Commanders Intent”, a much more ‘fuzzy’ form of doctrinal guidance.”

The New Build OPV Approach as a Driver for Change

Question: And it is the OPV which is doing this?

Rob Slaven: The IES design will allow for this CE functionality. And although the OPV is not a sexy destroyer or frigate; and it is not a massive command platform like the LHDs; nor is a sneaky submarine. It will in its own right become the focus of its own fleet of unmanned systems, and become a central communications node/hub as part of the wider Joint force.

“If you design the ship right from the outset, and provide flexible, Integrateable systems, with open agreed interfaces, you create very different approaches to systems development, modernization pathways and sustainment management.

“Currently, the only things holding back the OPV from CE operations will be a software load, apart of course from the integration of a EW suite, embarked UxV payload systems, and of course trust from operators.

“While we can’t address the first two of these additional requirements, the latter matter of trust is more a human generational issue, with today’s/tomorrow’s sailors far more familiar with the capabilities and possibilities of technology than their forebears.

“The Royal Australian Navy is looking toward an enterprise approach for operations and sustainment, and clearly the OPV is being designed and built with this approach at its core.

“The Navy is looking to shape a shipboard technology environment with shared interfaces that can allow all the systems to talk together in a cyber-safe manner, and where we can finally break away from systems-specific barriers and silos. From our perspective, the OPV is clearly viewed by the RAN as the launch platform for this new approach.

“Because the OPV is such a different type of platform it will be groundbreaking, and the Royal Australian Navy should justifiably be proud of their new ships.

“Not only will the RAN be able to show the OPVs off to the world, but it will also be able to show itself what smart design and technology can do to break long standing operational and sustainment paradigms.

“These ships, these OPVs, will be a superior communications and electronics platform from everything that has come before them. Of that there is no doubt in my mind.

“The OPV will be able to take data from a multitude of other platforms and systems, and use holistically use that collective data to execute the mission, as opposed to the stovepiped traditional design thinking that defines even the Navy’s latest destroyer.

“From L3Harris’s point of view, we are focused on demonstrating the advantages of this IES capability, because we are sure that the OPV is going to be better than that destroyer as far as being able to collect, measure and exchange information.

“On operations the destroyers will be going to the OPVs to build their picture, control UxVs, and get their critical tactical information out in a denied environment.

“That level of capability is going to break paradigms and shock people in the Royal Australian Navy, it’s going to shock the New Zealanders, the Canadians, the Brits, the Americans, the Germans, and the French.

“It’s going to shock everybody, because suddenly this OPV is showing everyone the new way to do business.

“Although physically just a ‘little’ OPV, it’s going to be doing the job of what traditionally people thought larger command assets do.

“It will command and operate its own Air Wing, its own UUV force, its own dispersed USV screen.

“The OPVs will enable and facilitate change in a fashion the Navy has not seen since the introduction of wireless RF.

“If people looked at the way we’re delivering the OPV IES capability, I think they’ll be pleasantly surprised and be able to take a lot of lessons learned about what we’re doing as a part of Team Lurssen, that is, as an Australian Industry team.

“We are not only delivering a whole new level of operational capability to the Navy, but we are setting the standard for local ‘teaming’ to deliver on the Government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy.

“Team Luerssen is the little team that can.”

The photo shows Managing Director, L3Harris Australia Nigel Bagster, SA Premier Steven Marshall, and L3Harris Maritime opening a new office in Adelaide on January 6 to support Australian naval shipbuilding programs and strengthen the company’s collaboration with Defence SA. 

The new office will act as a base for integrating and delivering L3Harris’ advanced Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS) and Electronic Warfare System, which are being fitted to the 12 new Offshore Patrol Vessels.  

Also, see the following:

L3Harris and the Australian OPV Program

 

 

Scott AFB and Its Lighter than Air History

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on Scott AFB and Its Lighter than Air History

Compilation of news footage from the Scott AFB “Lighter Than Air” era.

Video acquired by Mark Wilderman, 375th Air Mobility Wing historian and edited and packaged by Senior Airman Greg Erwin, 375th AMW public affairs photojournalist.

SCOTT AFB, IL, UNITED STATES

02.13.2020

Video by Senior Airman Greg Erwin

375th Air Mobility Wing Public Affairs