In an effort to be in compliance with GDPR we are providing you with the latest documentation about how we collect, use, share and secure your information, we want to make you aware of our updated privacy policy here
Enter your name and email address below to receive our newsletter.
The US Navy and the surface fleet is very much engaged in our strategic and tactical thinking about how to defend against the emerging Hyper-Sonic Cruise Missile threat.
Of course, the best way to stop a HSCM is to sink the enemy sub before it has a chance to fire.
A new player which could play a key role in a kill web approach could be the new Zumwalt class destroyer.There are three ships in this class, but rethinking the key role it could play in a kill web approach to the HSCM and other threats might lead to a rethink.
I have had a lifelong experience with the US Navy first as a “Navy Junior” because my father was career subs and an early participant in the Nuc Sub Navy serving on the USS Triton (SRN-586).
After graduating from Annapolis, I entered the Marines and became a Carrier qualified Naval Aviator so have had a lifetime of experience with the learning cycle for the sea services.
My key take away is that the Navy has proven to be absolutely ruthless in dealing with technology.
The Navy leadership in my personal experiencehas always been unrelenting on making the very hard choices on giving the best platforms and weapons to their sailors, after having the most open mind of any military in the world on pushing R&D efforts.
Of course, ugly politics often intrude beyond their control in the form of Congressional and OSD meddling. As always in our Constitutional process, one has to respect that civilian control.
But left to their own devices the Navy most often gets it right.
In an article which I published in The Washington Times a decade ago, I addressed how the Zumwalt can address the ASW challenge effectively.
On March 8, five Chinese ships converged on the USNS Impeccable, which was operating in international waters in the South China Sea. The dramatic confrontation was diffused but could have easily turned ugly.
At the time of the incident, the Impeccable was gathering intelligence about 70 miles south of Hainan Island, home to China’s newest and most sophisticated submarine base. China is in the process of creating its most lethal and stealthy fleet of submarines. Through an accelerated construction program and by purchasing ultra-quiet Russian subs, the Chinese are working toward a massive naval expansion, which is expected to top 200 attack and ballistic missile subs.
When China went after the Impeccable last month, the Chinese navy (or more accurately their Coast Guard), sent a powerful and very public signal from the waters off Hainan Island that they are worried about the U.S. Navy’s antisubmarine capabilities.
Chinese subs leaving port to hide in deep water must be identified and followed as they sortie out from the shallow waters. Now a significant capability of the Zumwalt-class destroyer becomes essential – the ability to defend itself with a significant punch while locating, tracking and identifying Chinese submarines in the cluttered littoral waters off Hainan Island and elsewhere.
Official Navy testimony delivered July 31 pointed out that the Zumwalt-class destroyer is “superior in littoral ASW” to the Burke-class, which has better “blue water” ASW. It the equivalent of a football coach saying the linebacker is superior at the line of scrimmage but the safety is better for deep coverage; both ship classes on the same team are hugely complementary.
Both the Burkes and Zumwalts will have the range and endurance well beyond the capability of the smaller Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). If both are combined in an ASW task force or going together in harm’s way as part of a carrier battle group, they will be mutually supporting and deadly.
Should a Chinese ballistic submarine make a run for open water in times of a building crisis, a future Zumwalt destroyer can tag it in shallow water, follow it to blue water and pass that intelligence along to a Burke destroyer and American attack submarines. This not only keeps America safer, it also keeps American sailors safer.
People can have honest disagreements over which of these two ships to support. But as China expands its submarine capabilities, there’s no doubt which American destroyer Chinese sub commanders would rather see scrapped. With superior littoral ASW capabilities designed to detect the quietest electric-powered stealth subs, the Zumwalt-class destroyer is a far greater threat to China’s growing submarine fleet.
If one goes back to my article of 10 years ago and if you simply substitute the Russian sub threat for the Peoples Liberation Army Navy sub threat highlighted in my analysis, the potential role of the Zumwalt is quite clear.
Now with the Russian “gremlin” again on our doorstep, the shallow water ASW capabilities of the Zumwaltsmight be of considerable value providing a key element in the Atlantic Sea Frontier.
This is the sixth piece in our series on the response to Putin’s escalatory rhetoric and force structure planning with regard to threatening the US with sub strikes using high speed hypersonic missile
NATO’s Allied Transformation Command will celebrate’s its fifteenth year this year as NATO celebrates its seventieth.
Earlier this month, in an interview with the new Supreme Commander, General André Lanata, we had a chance to discuss his approach to ACT and its transformation mission.
When asked about the challenge posed by the resurgence of high intensity conflict as demonstrated in the last big scale NATO exercise Trident Juncture 2018 (TRJE 18), SACT highlighted the importance of building upon the past performance of the Alliance.
“Whenever there was a threat at its borders, NATO coalitions always responded, whether in terms of Inherent Resolve against ISIS or Resolute Support in Afghanistan …
“Our role is to ensure that we accurately assess the threat and our capability gaps.
“We do this through prospective studies and through various review processes.”
That kind of anticipation has been part of General Lanata’s approach throughout his career.
He is a former Chief of Staff of the French Air Force and a former fighter pilot like his predecessors (ever since France rejoined the integrated command in 2008).
He has fought alongside the allies during the Gulf, the Bosnian and Kosovo wars.
He also has served in the office of plans and policy for air and joint staff, as well as as being the Deputy Director for International and Strategic Affairs at the Secretariat for National Defense and Security.
Then as Deputy Chief of Operations at the Joint Staff, he has worked on establishing the Franco-British Combined Joint Expeditionary Force (CJEF).
His goal is to “move forward together.”
He highlighted that as a key goal in his speech during the command change ceremony at Allied Command Transformation (ACT) held on September 11th, 2018 as Hurricane Florence was threatening to hit the Virginia Coast hard.
As he has done throughout his career, he has focused on taking very concrete steps to achieve a broader strategic objective.
“We have built a very efficient innovation hub here at Norfolk, that we can now leverage to establish an Innovation Lab.”
Another key focus for the head of ACT is to complete the reform of the NATO Command Structure (NCS).
One of the major changes affecting ACT is the regrouping by NATO of exercises planning within Allied Command Operations (ACO). (Allied Command Operations is responsible for the planning and execution of all Alliance operations. It consists of a small number of permanently established headquarters, each with a specific role. Supreme Allied Commander Europe – or SACEUR – assumes the overall command of operations at the strategic level and exercises his responsibilities from the headquarters in Mons, Belgium: Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, more commonly known as SHAPE.)
General Lanata explained that ACT will continue to lead on all ‘transformation’ aspects involving exercises.
ACE will remain in command of JFCT (Joint Forces Training Command) and JWC (Joint Warfare Center) as well.
General Lanata highlighted that he believed that new tools involved in modelling and simulation will allow the Alliance to provide for creative preparation for a wide range of scenarios.
Suggestive of the approach was his first visit as SACT to Europe in October 2018.
He visited Bydgoszcz, Poland, where the Poles host the JFTC and the yearly experiment CWIX (Coalition Warrior Interoperability eXploration, eXperimentation, eXamination, eXercise).1
“At ACT, we produce norms.
“But this goes far beyond equipment compatibility.”
He underscored that interoperability through the development of standards and certifications involves con-ops and joint training as much as working equipment compatibility.
Such an effort enhances common processes and norms and to operate effectively in times of crisis.
An exercise such as Trident Juncture 2018 (TRJE18), which took place last Fall in Norway, was an opportunity to test innovations in equipment (e.g. 3D-printed spares delivered by drone to the warfighter.2
It was as well an important opportunity to test out new operational concepts such as the Modular Combined Petroleum Units or MCPU.
As Chief of Staff for the French Air Force he set in motion the Franco-German Future Combat Air System.
This is an approach which highlights the importance of interconnections among platforms and connectivity to deliver a combat effect.
As SACT, he is clearly focused on the importance of a paradigm shift from platform-centric to a data-centric con-ops architecture.
He views the move from a platform-centric to a “data-centric capability architecture “as paving the way to what to shaping a “collaborative connected warfare” approach.
Notably, he highlighted this shift during last November’s NATO Industry Forum in Berlin.
But to achieve the full effect of such a shift, he underscored a key cultural change which needs to occur within the Alliance and clearly one which is focused on trying to facilitate.
“If the 29 members are rather efficient in sharing data about common adversaries, there is more reluctance about sharing data about themselves. We all know that without that kind of sharing, there cannot be progress in fields such as artificial intelligence and the management of Big Data.”
A new SACT is in town.
The featured photo shows French Air Force General Andre Lanata delivering his first address as Supreme Allied Commander Transformation during the Allied Command Transformation change of command ceremony at the command’s headquarters.
Allied Command Transformation’s mission is to contribute to preserving the peace, security and territorial integrity of Alliance member states by leading the transformation of military structures, forces, capabilities and doctrines.
The mission must enable NATO to meet its level of ambition and core missions.
(Photo by Sarah Schulte)
September 11, 2018.
Coalition Warrior Interoperability Exercise
The Coalition Warrior Interoperability eXploration, eXperimentation, eXamination, eXercise (CWIX) is the largest annual NATO interoperability event held at the Joint Forces Training Centre (JFTC) in Bydgoszcz, Poland.
CWIX gathers different stakeholders from NATO and participating nations, providing a federated multi-functional environment in which:
Scientists eXplore emerging interoperability standards and solutions through collaborative innovation activities
Engineers eXperiment with new interoperability solutions and assess suitability for near term implementation
Testers eXamine technical interoperability among fielded and soon be fielded capabilities and generate scorecards
Operational users eXercise interoperability capabilities using a relevant scenario
Designed to support the continuous improvement of interoperability for the Federation, CWIX is a North Atlantic Council (NAC) endorsed, Military Committee directed, and Consultation, Command and Control Board (C3B) guided Bi-Strategic Command (Bi-SC) annual programme.
NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (ACT) provides direction and management of the CWIX programme, while NATO and member nations sponsor interoperability capabilities. As a result, most of the funding comes from participating nations which is a clear indicator that nations value the testing opportunities CWIX provides.
CWIX addresses a wide spectrum of technical Communication and Information System (CIS) interoperability topics for current fielded, near-term, future and experimental CIS capabilities throughout NATO nations. The aim of CWIX is to improve technical interoperability in a timely and cost effective manner by testing systems, finding solutions for interoperability shortfalls, experimenting with alternative approaches, and exploring emerging technologies. In a highly federated multi-national environment, it is important to improve communication and collaboration between all stakeholders in order to meet mutual goals and objectives. CWIX is a key tool in helping the Federation meet the interoperability challenges of tomorrow by allowing NATO nations to address technical CIS shortfalls well before operational deployment reducing risk, resource requirements, and system failures in theatre.
As one of NATO’s foundation venues for achieving and demonstrating interoperability, CWIX is fully in line with the Readiness Action Plan (RAP) and ACT’s Smart Defence concept.
The Readiness Action Plan (RAP) is one element of NATO’s future posture. It will contribute to ensuring that NATO remains strong, ready, robust, and a responsive Federation capable of meeting current and future challenges and threats. The key supporting initiatives, such as SMART Defence, continue to make progress.
CWIX supports NATO’s SMART Defence concept by enabling federated multi-national pooling and sharing.
CWIX continuously improves CIS interoperability well before deployment.
CWIX validates and verifies CIS for achieving combat readiness of the NATO Response Force (NRF), Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), followed by the STEADFAST COBALT and culminating in the TRIDENT JUNCTURE/ JOUST exercise.
For some of the earlier articles on ACT published by Murielle Delaporte on Second Line of Defense, see the following:
Part of the defense rethinking going on in Australia involves finding ways to enhance a sustainable fifth generation force.
Building out a lethal and effective offensive-defensive force, which can expand the perimeter for the defense of Australia and provide for allied extended deterrence, is a core focus of ADF modernization.
To do so in a crisis management situation needs a serious look at how long Australian operations could be sustained if a determined adversary sought to disrupt imports into Australia to support a modern society and a modern combat force.
The sustainment issue could be solved in part by enhanced domestic manufacturing capabilities and sustainment approaches, such as the projected shipbuilding effort or the F-35 regional support hub.
But clearly, there is an opportunity as well to build out manufacturing in Australia and with the ranges and potential workforce augmentations, missiles and unmanned air vehicles would be a clear area of interest, not just for Australia but for its partners as well.
As a member of the F-35 global enterprise, there is a clear global partnering opportunity whereby the Australians could do “a Konigsberg” and build missiles or related capabilities for themselves but in a way that makes them a natural partner with other key F-35 partners.
The recently announced “loyal wingman” program could be a case in point.
To be clear, the amount of money being discussed at the program launch at Avalon makes it, in the words, of a senior Australian strategist “a PR stunt.”
What he was focusing on was a key reality – the money being proposed could hardly achieve a program of record.
But one way to look at it might be to see an Australian effort to leverage their position geographically and in terms of training ranges to provide a foundation for several partners to come and to build out an Australian-based test, development and manufacturing capability.
It is clear that already fifth generation led training in the United States is extending the range of training – quite literally – and it will be virtually impossible for European and Asian F-35 partners to do such training without the geographical scope that Australia provides.
If we take a look at the proposed loyal wingman program, a key element is affordability and the expectation that these are assets which can be consumed in a combat scenario, more like weapons than airplanes.
And to get a low cost, it is clear that the wingman will not be an organic festival of advanced sensors, C2 or other features.
It will be a plus up in mass for what Secretary Wynne has called for in terms of ‘the wolfpack.”
But some of the analyses surrounding the proposed program suggests that this will be an asset which can provide the tip of the spear into contested airspace or fly with legacy aircraft in a way whereby the legacy combat asset somehow has thinking capabilities which they simply do not have.
Clearly, as a low cost wingman is developed modifications to systems like Wedgetail or to tanker could occur to make them adjuncts to an operation, and as one considers the range of combat scenarios they could complement.
But the management capability onboard the mother ship so to speak is a key consideration of what will fly with it to make for an effective combat team.
One Australian enthusiast for the program highlighted what he sees as the contribution of this program to Australian sovereignty.
“We should now concentrate our efforts on breaking down barriers between further technological and industrial co-operation so we can build a sustainable sovereign defence industrial capability.”
Makes sense, if you are willing to invest significantly greater money in the program; but if it is a leveraging effort, then it is certainly conceivable that American, Japanese, and European F-35 partners would invest.
But it is also crucial to keep in mind the program’s limitations if it is to be a disposable lower cost asset.
The Australian analyst made a core point which he then seems to forget later in his analysis.
“The idea is that F-35s will be tasked with entering dangerous environments, relying on stealth and electronic warfare capabilities to survive, while spotting targets for lower-tech unmanned systems, like the new RAAF-Boeing drone, and non-stealthy fighters that remain outside the range of adversary defences.”
This statement is good up to a point; but the F-35 is a multi-domain air combat system with a brain big enough to work combat teaming with “slaves” in the wolfpack.
This is not true of 4thgeneration aircraft.
“This “loyal wingman” will be paired with fourth-generation manned aircraft such as F-18s and will likely act as decoys, scouts and communication relays. Eventually they may play a “bomb truck” role, carrying additional missiles and ordnance for both air-to-air combat and other strike missions.
“The largest benefit of these systems will be to beef-up its mass, or the amount of presence and firepower it will be able to project across the region against large numbers of adversary aircraft.
“A single F-18 with four to six autonomous wingmen in tow would be better able to survive, while being more lethal and numerous, multiplying its impact.”3
The problem with this is that a legacy aircraft like the F-18 will have a difficult enough time to survive without trying to manage “slaves” in tow.
If we return to the sovereignty bit, it is clear that if the loyal wingman program is a trigger to investment and engagement by the USAF and the RAF and others in leveraging the test ranges and future training facilities in Australia, this could well be a viable program.
But certainly not one for the amount of money being put on the table currently.
The demonstrator is being developed under the Loyal Wingman Advanced Development Program, which is being supported by A$40 million ($28.5 million) over four years in Australian government funding and by Boeing as part of its A$62 million investment in research and development in Australia in 2018.
The other limitation is clearly the current industrial capacity in Australia.
Boeing Australia has a modest industrial footprint in Australia, which might be considered seed corn but clearly not the kind of workforce and industrial facilities which will require a significant investment and build out.
Put in blunt terms: the loyal wingman could be part of enhanced Australian sovereignty and a trigger for global industrial partnering with Australia as a launch point rather than an importer.
But there is much work to do to make it so, to use the words of Captain Piccard.
Editor’s Note: After publication of the article, a senior Australian analyst provided some updated information with regard to the program.
The price quoted is only for the development of the first three prototypes.
Boeing has what was left of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) and the Government Aircraft Factories (GAF) which produced their own designs in the 80s and early 90s.
It’s now Boeing Aerostructures.
BAE have the autonomous brains to the system, which they produced for Tarinis, and there are no hydraulics in the system only electrics.
The view of the US Navy and its approach to ASW throughout history was laid down over sixty years ago by one of the most accomplished CNO’s in Naval History, Admiral Arleigh Burke.
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke initiated “Project Nobska,” which carved out a way ahead for the US Navy to deal with ASW against nuclear submarines, as well as focusing on new technologies to defend against them 4
It is only fitting given his focus that the best class of destroyers ever built were named for “31 Knot” Burke; Burke’s standing order in all cases was: “Destroyers to attack on enemy contact WITHOUT ORDERS from the task force commander.”5
Admiral Burke summed up his approach in an address written and delivered in 1959:
“The United States is ahead in its ability to use and exploit the sea, in antisubmarine warfare doctrine and capabilities, in the application of naval air power from carriers at sea, in guided missiles at sea.
“These capabilities did not come overnight.
“They are the result of solid thinking and hard work, hours, days, and years of attention to the many jobs the Navy has to do.
“They are the result of cool determination, and the intelligentapplication of always-limited resources.” 6
The Burke class destroyers and their evolution in the form of the Aegis system embody his thinking and his approach.
According to the US Navy:
“Arleigh Burke Class (DDG 51) Destroyers are warships that provide multi-mission offensive and defensive capabilities. Destroyers can operate independently or as part of carrier strike groups, surface action groups, amphibious ready groups, and underway replenishment groups.”7
It is past being ironically priceless that President Putin’s own news reporting publication Sputnik News actually notes the fighting characteristics and combat utility of Burke Class Destroyers, with a very nice picture included (see below).
According to a 2018 article in Sputnik News:
The US Navy has sent invitations to the private sector to submit bids to build Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, the service’s top weapons buyer said last week.
Speaking at the WEST 2018 conference last week, James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy, said that a new contract lasting from 2018 to 2022 to produce Flight III Arleigh Burke-class vessels was up for grabs. The destroyers will be built either at Bath Iron Works in Maine or the Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi, or perhaps both.
Specifically, the Flight III Arleigh Burke ships feature Raytheon’s AN/SPY-6 radar, an active electronically scanned array air and missile defense 3D radar. In advertising the radar on its corporate page of “7 fast facts about the navy’s newest radar — and how it will keep the world a safer place,” the firm boasts, “it has ‘spy’ in its name.”
Most of the 2017 funding for the Arleigh Burke program went into modeling and designing the vessel to incorporate new radars, USNI News reports.
“The Navy has worked with our industry partners to develop the Flight III testing to ensure each shipyard is well-positioned to execute this [multiyear procurement contract,” Geurts said in an announcement.
The destroyers can carry out a variety of tasks including anti-air warfare, anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface missions.8
But wait it gets even better.
Dating from our “Ready Now” destroyer’s beginning with the fight against German subs in WWI to WWII throughout the Cold War to today destroyers they have always been a huge contributor to Victory At Sea.
In World War I, the US Navy provided destroyers to the conflict against German submarines and their war of attrition against Britain.
Return of the Mayflower, 4 May 1917 Oil on canvas by Bernard F. Gribble, circa 1918, depicting the arrival off Queenstown, Ireland, of the first U.S. Navy destroyers to reach the European war zone for World War I service. The ships were under the command of Commander Joseph K. Taussig, USN. USS Wadsworth (DD-60) leads the line of destroyers, followed by USS Porter (DD-59), USS Davis (DD-65) and three others. A local fishing vessel is under sail in the left foreground. Courtesy of the U.S. Naval Academy Museum, Annapolis
Less than 25 years later, the Hunter-Killers of WWII again won the Battle of the Atlantic against German U-Boats.
“In the central and southern Atlantic, F-21 and Tenth Fleet served as the brains while the ships of the Atlantic Fleet provided the brawn for the U.S. Navy’s antisubmarine warfare offensive against Axis submarines.
“Smaller sized escort carriers were already sailing near Allied convoys, providing air coverage and thwarting U-boat attacks.
“After 1943, U.S. Navy escort carriers shifted to the offensive. While the British deployed escort carriers with convoys in the North Atlantic, the Americans formed autonomous “hunter-killer” antisubmarine task groups.
“A typical U.S. Navy hunter-killer task group consisted of a number of escort vessels like Destroyers (DD) and Destroyer Escorts (DE), which were centered on an escort carrier (CVE).
“Usually, the hunter-killers would sortie from Hampton Roads to a designated operations area. Afterwards, hunter-killer formations would either return to home port or continue on to alternate ports such as those in North Africa for refits, refueling, and rearmament.
“Maintaining a continuous circuit along the Allied convoy routes and in U-boat operations areas, U.S. Navy hunter-killers were a constant threat to U-boats after 1943.” 9
The Capture of the U-505
Enter the Cold War as a precursor and prologue to the new age Russian challenges highlighted by President Putin.
A documentary was made by Edward R Murrow, who global history has honored as a very serious and honest journalist. Murrow made his point about a naval revolution over six decades ago and it is still extremely important to this day:
“The cold opening of this November 18, 1956 black-and-white episode of Edward R. Murrow’s “See It Now” CBS television documentary series shows the viewer the wheel of the USS Constitution — “Old Ironsides” — the wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate launched in 1797 and the oldest commissioned warship afloat in the world, with the narrator then launching into a discussion of the revered vessel’s history.
“From there, the viewer is shown the wheel of the USS Forrestal (CV-59), a supercarrier, and her sister ship, USS Saratoga (CV-3).
“Currently there is a revolution in the navy.
“A revolution in ships and in weapons and in men.
“A revolution that really began in 1939 when (Albert) Einstein wrote a letter to the President about a new kind of bomb which he predicted would be carried by boats and be capable of enormous destruction.”10
Put in blunt terms, the weight of history of US Naval operational experience and evolving kill web technology are now to be directed against the threat which Putin now poses directly against the United States and its guarantees to NATO.
This is the fifth piece in our series on the response to Putin’s escalatory rhetoric and force structure planning with regard to threatening the US with sub strikes using high speed hypersonic missiles.
The Australian government signed an agreement in 2016 with Naval Group to build a new class of attack submarines.
There have been challenges to reach a partnering agreement, including intellectual property and other issues.
Last month, a core partnering agreement was signed enabling further working relationships to be established essential to shape an effective way ahead.
On February 11, 2019, Naval Group and the Australian government signed the base line strategic partnering agreement (SPA).
According to Jean-Michel Billig, executive vice president of the Future Submarine program and a member of Naval Group’s executive board:
“The aim is to deliver 12 regionally superior subs and ensure national sovereignty by developing the capabilities to build, operate and maintain the new fleet.
“The SPA will serve as the rulebook.
“It defines how the parties will work together over the next 40 to 50 years to achieve this aim, along with their commitments regarding intellectual property, technology transfers, scheduling, and Australian manufacturing capabilities, among other matters.
“Building on the SPA, the next step will be to draft so-called ‘program contracts’ for the different work packages, each complete with technical and financial specifications.”
Now the first agreement signed under the SPA has been executed on March 5, 2019.
The Submarine Design Contract is the first contract workscope to be fully executed under the Strategic Partnering Agreement.
The scope for this phase of work includes the ongoing maturation of the Attack Class design as it progresses into the next design phase known as the Definition phase.
This will include the source selection of over 100 critical and main equipment that will contribute to the submarine design solution.
This will mark significant opportunity for Australian industry, which together with ongoing Australian workforce skills development, will play an important part in the growth of the sovereign submarine capability in Australia.
The Submarine Design Contract also includes ongoing preparations for the build of the Attack Class in the Osborne shipyard in South Australia, including ongoing support to Australian Naval Infrastructure (ANI) for the design and build of the Submarine Construction Yard and the ICT systems that will be employed in there….
The first phase of the Submarine Design Contract is worth $605 million and will extend through to 2021.
This is the beginning of the effort but certainly there are significant challenges to be met.
The submarine to be built has never been built; it will leverage the work of Naval Group, formerly DCNS, won both nuclear and conventional submarines.
For this contract to succeed, Naval Group and the Aussies will have to build capacity in Australia which is not there to design, build, and maintain a new class of submarines with the first arriving a decade or more away.
If successful, a French company would have a solid base in Australia from which to operate in the region and beyond.
With the French subs, Canberra has chosen the Rolls-Royce of conventional subs but been indifferent to when we get them. The subs are new, big, complex and an “orphan” class, so they will be late, over budget and have huge teething difficulties. The Collins is now an effective sub but it took at least 10 years after the first one was commissioned. Industry sources say we won’t get the first French sub before 2036. That means we don’t get the 12th until about 2050.
We are not, as defence planners sometimes do, preparing to fight the last war. We are preparing for the war after next, with no provision for anything nasty in the meantime. If no one causes us any bother until 2050 we may have a good defence force by then, if all the future generations of governments live up to today’s woolly promises.
What the slow roll out does is to put pressure on the current ASW force being crafted in what we like to call the 0-5 year force structure; the modified army you have with which one has to engage in war and conflicts.
In a discussion in Canberra last August, a very senior ADF officer put the challenge this way:
“We are going to work with ASW with our new air assets, P-8, Triton, and F-35 which will expand the operational capabilities the force will have and we will reshape operations accordingly. And these assets will need to evolve in ways to work with our Collins class submarines, rather than to be tailored to the new combat systems onboard a new class of attack submarines.”
The famous battle winning lineage of the Navy’s Anti-submarine force (ASW)is being called to “Sound General Quarters Battle Stations” becauseAmerica is being directly threatened by the President of Russia’ssubmarines with low flying air-breathing nuclear tipped hypersonic cruise missiles.
The significant change in the direct threat to the United States which the Trump Administration has highlighted in last year’s National Security strategy was presaged by the NORAD/NORTHCOM Commander Admiral Bill Gortney, a clear embodiment of the fighting navy, in our 2016 interview with him in his office at Colorado Springs.
Question: The Russians are not the Soviets, but they are generating new capabilities, which clearly provide a need to rethink homeland defense.
How would you characterize the Russian dynamic?
Answer: With the emergence of the new Russia, they are developing a qualitatively better military than the quantitative military that they had in the Soviet Union.
They have a doctrine to support that wholly government doctrine. And you’re seeing that doctrine in military capability being employed in the Ukraine and in Syria.
For example, the Russians are evolving their long-range aviation and at sea capabilities. They are fielding and employing precision-guided cruise missiles from the air, from ships and from submarines.
Their new cruise missiles can be launched from Bears and Blackjacks and they went from development to testing by use in Syria. It achieved initial operating capability based on a shot from a deployed force.
The Kh-101 and 102 were in development, not testing, so they used combat shots as “tests,” which means that their capability for technological “surprise” is significant as well, as their force evolves.
This is a notional rendering of the 10 and 2 O’Clock challenge. It is credited to Second Line of Defense and not in any way an official rendering by any agency of the US government. It is meant for illustration purposes only.
The air and sea-launched cruise missiles can carry conventional or nuclear warheads, and what this means is that a “tactical” weapon can have strategic effect with regard to North America.
Today, they can launch from their air bases over Russia and reach into North American territory.
The challenge is that, when launched, we are catching arrows, but we are not going after the archers.
The archers do not have to leave Russia in order to range our homeland.
And with the augmentation of the firepower of their submarine force, the question of the state of our anti-submarine warfare capabilities is clearly raised by in the North Atlantic and the Northern Pacific waters.
What this means for NORAD as well is that limiting it to air defense limits our ability to deal with the multi-domain threat.
It is an air and maritime threat and you need to go on that tack and defense through multiple domains, not simply the classic air battle.
The NORAD Commander was clearly anticipating the core requirement for an air-sea integrated force to deal with the evolving Russian challenge, including the nuclear one.
Clearly, a key element of shaping an effective warfighting/deterrent force is the evolving US and allied anti-submarine capability.
And it is not just about history but a key element of the training and combat development dynamics of the kill web navy.
The ASW community like their fellow combat Naval Aviators and their SEAL team partners, have been day-in and day out 24/7 “training training training.”
And as we have seen at warfighting centers like Navy Fallon or at Jax Navy where the P-8 has been stood up, training encompasses the dynamics of change for concepts of operations to defeat an enemy fleet.
A key dynamic of change is how the Navy is working surface fleet and air integration to extend the reach and lethality of the fleet and to expand kill web capabilities of the ASW force.
During our visit to Fallon in 2017, Admiral “Hyfi” Harris highlighted the key development and evolving capability:
The SWO boss, Admiral Rowden, has been pretty adamant about the benefits of their Warfighting Development Center, the Surface and Mine Warfighting Development Center.
“SMWDC has been, in my mind, going full bore at developing three different kinds of warfare instructors, WTIs.
“They have an ASW/ASUW, so anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare officer.
“They have an IAMD officer and they have an expeditionary warfare officer.We are watching young lieutenants share with their bosses in a training environment, specifically during IADC (Integrated Air Defense Course).
“This is probably not the way we want AEGIS set up, or how we want the ship to be thinking in an automated mode.
“We may not previously have wanted to go to that next automated step, but we have to because this threat is going to force us into that logic.
And you’re seeing those COs, who were hesitant at first, say, “Now after that run in that event, I get it. I have to think differently.
“Admiral Rowden talks about distributed lethality and they are getting there rapidly.
And the addition of the Triton unmanned system as well as the new P-8s are part of an enhanced airborne detection and strike capability against enemy submarines.
The Navy and several allies are replacing the venerable P-3 with a dyad, the P-8 and the Triton.
During a visit to Jax Navy in 2016, the ASW community there shared their perspectives on the way ahead, which underscored the evolving kill web approach facing Russian submarines seeking to execute the nuclear mission described by President Putin.
Or put in other terms, the Russian President needs to realize that he is not fighting the US Navy of the Cold War years; he is facing a kill web enabled US Navy able to leverage a variety of assets to destroy his maritime assets.
In this sense, we are the reactive enemy against Putin’s declaratory strategy and arms buildup.
We published a report on our visit to Jax Navy in 2016 and provided the following over to the report which outlined key elements of how the Navy was positioning itself to provide building blocks for escalation dominance against peer adversaries.
On May 23 and 24, 2016, during a Jacksonville Naval Air Station visit, we spent time with the P-8 and Triton community which is shaping a common culture guiding the transformation of the ASW and ISR side of Naval Air. The acquisition term for the effort is a “family of systems” whereby the P-3 is being “replaced” by the P-8 and the Triton Remotely Piloted Aircraft.
But clearly the combined capability is a replacement of the P-3 in only one sense – executing the anti-submarine warfare function. But the additional ISR and C2 enterprise being put in place to operate the combined P-8 and Triton capability is a much broader capability than the classic P-3. Much like the Osprey transformed the USMC prior to flying the F-35, the P-8/Triton team is doing the same for the US Navy prior to incorporating the F-35 within the carrier air wing.
In addition to the Wing Commander and his Deputy Commander, who were vey generous with their time and sharing of important insights, we had the opportunity to interviews with various members of the VP-16 P-8 squadron from CO and XO to Pilots, NFOs and Air Crew members, along with the wing weapons and training officer, the Triton FIT team, and key members of the Integrated Training Center. Those interviews will be published over the next few weeks.
The P-8/Triton capability is part of what we have described as 21st century air combat systems: software upgradeable, fleet deployed, currently with a multinational coalition emerging peer partnership. Already the Indians, the Aussies and the British are or will be flying the P-8s and all are in discussions to build commonality from the stand-up of the P-8 Forward.
Software upgradeability provides for a lifetime of combat learning to be reflected in the rewriting of the software code and continually modernizing existing combat systems, while adding new capabilities over the operational life of the aircraft. Over time, fleet knowledge will allow the US Navy and its partners to understand how best to maintain and support the aircraft while operating the missions effectively in support of global operations.
Reflecting on the visit there are five key takeaways from our discussions with Navy Jax.
A key point is how the USN is approaching the P-8/Triton combat partnership, which is the integration of manned, and unmanned systems, or what are now commonly called “remotes”. The Navy looked at the USAF experience and intentionally decided to not build a the Triton “remote” operational combat team that is stovepiped away from their P-8 Squadrons.
The team at Navy Jax is building a common Maritime Domain Awareness and Maritime Combat Culture and treats the platforms as partner applications of the evolving combat theory. The partnership is both technology synergistic and also aircrew moving between the Triton and P-8
The P-8 pilot and mission crews, after deploying with the fleet globally can volunteer to do shore duty flying Tritons. The number of personnel to fly initially the Tritons is more than 500 navy personnel so this is hardly an unmanned aircraft. Hence, inside a technological family of systems there is also an interchangeable family of combat crews.
With the P-8 crews operating at different altitudes from the Triton, around 50K, and having operational experience with each platform, they will be able to gain mastery of both a wide scale ocean ISR and focused ASW in direct partnership with the surface navy from Carrier Strike Groups, ARG/MEUs to independent operations for both undersea and sea surface rather than simply mastering a single platform.
This is a visionary foundation for the evolution of the software upgradeable platforms they are flying as well as responding to technological advances to work the proper balance by manned crews and remotes.
The second key point is that the Commanders of both P-8 aviator and the soon to be operational Triton community understand that for transformation to occur the surface fleet has to understand what they can do. This dynamic “cross-deck” actually air to ship exchange can totally reshape surface fleet operations. To accelerate this process, officers from the P-8 community are right now being assigned to surface ships to rework their joint concepts of operations.
Exercises are now in demonstration and operational con-ops to explain and real world demonstrate what the capabilities this new and exciting aspect of Naval Air can bring to the fleet. One example was a recent exercise with an ARG-MEU where the P-8 recently exercised with the amphibious fleet off of the Virginia Capes.
The third key point is that the software upgradeability aspect of the airplane has driven a very strong partnership with industry to be able to have an open-ended approach to modernization. On the aircraft maintenance and supply elements of having successful mission ready aircraft it is an important and focused work in progress both inside the Navy (including Supply Corps) and continuing an important relationship with industry, especially at the Tech Rep Squadron/Wing level.
The fourth point is how important P-8 and Triton software upgradeability is, including concurrent modification to trainer/simulators and rigorous quality assurance for the fidelity of the information in shaping the future of the enterprise. The P-8s is part of a cluster of airplanes which have emerged defining the way ahead for combat airpower which are software upgradeable: the Australian Wedgetail, the global F-35, and the Advanced Hawkeye, all have the same dynamic modernization potential to which will be involved in all combat challenges of maritime operations.
It is about shaping a combat learning cycle in which software can be upgraded as the user groups shape real time what core needs they see to rapidly deal with the reactive enemy. All military technology is relative to a reactive enemy. It is about the arsenal of democracy shifting from an industrial production line to a clean room and a computer lab as key shapers of competitive advantage.
The fifth point is about weaponization and its impact. We have focused for years on the need for a weapons revolution since the U.S. forces, and as core allies are building common platforms with the growth potential to operate new weapons as they come on line. The P-8 is flying with a weapon load out from the past, but as we move forward, the ability of the P-8 to manage off board weapons or organic weapons will be enabled.
For example, there is no reason a high speed cruise or hypersonic missile on the hard points of the P-8 could not be loaded and able to strike a significant enemy combat asset at great distance and speed. We can look forward to the day when P-8s crews will receive a Navy Cross for sinking a significant enemy surface combatant.
In short, the P-8/Triton is at the cutting edge of naval air transformation within the entire maritime combat enterprise. And the US Navy is not doing this alone, as core allies are part of the transformation from the ground up.
This is the fourth piece in our series on the response to Putin’s escalatory rhetoric and force structure planning.
The featured photo shows U.S. Navy Adm. Bill Gortney providing remarks during the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command Change of Command ceremony, May 13, 2016 on Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. U.S. Air Force Gen. Lori J. Robinson was appointed by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada and confirmed by the U.S. Senate to assume command from U.S. Navy Adm. Bill Gortney. (DoD Photo by N-NC Public Affairs/Released)
The decision by the current Australian government to co-develop a new class of attack submarines with the French Naval Group will not deliver the replacement submarines until well into the next decade.
This clearly creates what one might call a submarine “gap.”
Given that attack submarines are the key current platform for long range strike against adversaries in the region, it will be important to close the gap.
Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor of The Australian, has highlighted his concerns in articles published earlier this year.
In one article published on February 14, 2019, Sheridan wrote a piece entitled “We Might Sink Decades Before These Submarines Fly.”
Submarines are our most lethal and important military asset, yet we are shaping up to have no effective submarine capability for years while militaries across our region are burgeoning and it is easy to imagine scenarios in which the US position in Asia declines….
122558fade1.05.0
One consequence of not getting the first sub until 2035, say, is that we won’t get the sixth until 2046. So we do not even replace the modest capability we now have with six Collins-class boats until 2046. We’ve got to keep the Collins going until then. And we don’t get the full fleet of 12 until the late 2050s. That is pathetic.
If we had the first couple of boats built in France, we would save billions of dollars and get the subs much earlier.
As it is, we may eventually have to look at a bridging capability, just as in the air the Super Hornets and then the Growlers were the bridge between the classic Hornets and the Joint Strike Fighters.
Such a bridge capability is more likely to be an evolved Collins-class sub than anything else.
We will address the new submarine program in a separate article; but the key point is clearly what Sheridan highlighted — the need to keep Collins going.
And this is clearly a challenge.
Second Line of Defense has visited the yard in Adelaide and we have highlighted how the Navy is sustaining the current fleet of Collins class submarines.
This effort is underway but will face many challenges in the decades ahead.
How will this be done?
What will it cost?
And how to shape ongoing interoperability with the US and Japanese Navy to deal with the Chinese and Russian submarine modernization efforts?
In an article published February 20, 2019, Daniel McCulloch highlights the challenge as seen by the Australian Navy.
Australia’s full fleet of Collins Class submarines may need to be upgraded before their French-built replacements are ready.
Chief of Navy Michael Noonan is assessing how many of the six ageing vessels will need major work to keep them in service.
“We are yet to fully determine how many of the boats we will upgrade,” Vice Admiral Noonan told a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra on Wednesday.
“We’re expecting that we will upgrade at least five, and the work around determining the scope of the upgrade has begun but has not yet been fully decided.”
Defence had planned to retire the Collins Class submarines from 2026, but has since decided to prolong their lives until the new fleet arrives.
The challenge is clear. Full stop.
How to ensure there is no submarine gap?
The featured photo shows Royal Australian Navy (RAN) Collins Class submarines have been captured in impressive imagery, whilst exercising off the West Australian coast.
We have just published the third version of report on German defense.
According to Brigadier General (Retired) Meyer sum Felde:
“Priority must now be again on collective defence and related high intensity warfighting capabilities for credible deterrence.
“The Bundeswehr must become again essential part of the conventional backbone of defence in Europe, similar to its role in the Cold War.”
But any German defense reset faces a significant challenge.
“But different from our Eastern European neighbors, who very clearly see themselves threatened by Russian behavior and power, we need to do so in a social context where many Germans do not share the assessment of the NATO governments that Russia poses a direct threat to Europe.
“Unfortunately, even within the coalition government, the consensus on our future defence posture broke during the federal election campaign in summer 2017 and this has not yet been fixed due to purely domestic tactical party politics.”
The report is based on recent interviews in Germany with senior retired Bundeswehr officers as well as strategists and journalists.
The featured photo shows
A German Air Force a Panavia Tornado conducting re-fueling off of a Royal Canadian Air Force CC-150 Polaris aircraft during Exercise TRIDENT JUNCTURE 2018 on November 3, 2018 in Norway.
