2017-07-23 By Robbin Laird

A key element of evolving naval power is the ability to integrate unmanned with manned assets aboard the sea base.

This is not only a work in progress, but a capability which will evolve over time with the technology, the operational experience and the ability to leverage the shift in culture which this integration brings to the fleet.

With the framing of the distributed lethality and kill web concepts, the US Navy and Marine Corps team are focused on distributing and dynamically integrating C2 with ISR with strike capabilities.

The very nature of distributed warfare means that the shift is from looking at a ship simply from the standpoint of what organically is on that ship, to how that ship contributes to the battle fleet by contributing assets to that fleet.

We have looked earlier at two key examples of how the US Navy and Marine Corps are working manned and unmanned integration.

The first is the shaping of a new maritime domain awareness strike enterprise built around synergy between the P-8 and the Triton.

With regard to Triton and P-8, the US Navy will operate them as a dyad. 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 Triton “remote” operational combat team that is stovepiped away from their P-8 Squadrons.

The MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft system approaches the runway at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., after completing its inaugural cross-country flight from California. The Navy will conduct Triton flight tests at Patuxent River in preparation for an operational deployment in 2017. (U.S. Navy photo by Kelly Schindler/Released)

The teams at Navy Jax and Pax River are 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 be assigned significant 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.

These new systems are all software upgradeable which sets in motion the opportunity and a need to shape new acquisition approaches to take advantage of software, which can evolve to deal with the threat environment as well.

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.

https://sldinfo.com/the-arrival-of-a-maritime-domain-awareness-strike-capability-the-impact-of-the-p-8triton-dyad/

The second example is being played our right now at sea with the first deployment of the USS America.

The Marines have deployed the Blackjack UAV at sea and are working its integration with manned assets operating within the Amphibious Task Force.

The Blackjack is deployed from a San Antonio class LPD but it launches from that platform but contributes to the entire situational awareness of the task force.

https://sldinfo.com/the-next-phase-in-the-evolution-of-usmc-uas-capabilities-an-interview-with-colonel-barranco/

PACIFIC OCEAN – Marines complete final data updates before launching the RQ-21A Blackjack to support surveillance for a visit, board, search and seizure mission conducted by the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit Maritime Raid Force during Composite Training Unit Exercise, May 12, 2017. The RQ-21A Blackjack enhances and extends the lethal and nonlethal capability of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, fostering transformational advancements in battlespace command and situational awareness. The Marine and aircraft is with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 161 (REIN) attached to the 15th MEU. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Timothy Valero)

And a third example is the work the US Navy has done onboard the LCS with regard to integrating the Fire Scout UAV with the MH-60S manned system.

The entire approach is to shape an operational experience with the two systems working together and then to build forward from that experience.

Ideally, any future acquisition of new systems would build from this operational experience and inform the evolution of fleet capability.

Although the LCS is currently the only ship in the US Navy set up to support integrated Fire Scout/MH-60S operations, obviously this integration can be applied to current or future fleet assets, such as the new frigate.

And the integration effort, which is a work in progress, is part of the overall effort to distribute ISR, C2 and strike and to offboard sensors and strike elements.

Earlier this year, the dyad worked together for the Fire Scout to provide targeting data to an MH-60S to then launch a Hellfire missile.

In an article by Lieutenant Michael DiDonato HSC-23 Public Affairs published on May 15, 2017, this effort was described as follows:

SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND, Calif. (NNS) — The “Wildcards” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 23 made history this month, operating MQ-8B Fire Scout Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV) from Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF) San Clemente Island utilizing a Mobile Mission Control Station (MMCS).

Teams of pilots, aircrewmen, maintenance personnel and civilian specialists functioned organically to complete integrated missions with various surface and air assets. 

The two-week operation culminated with the successful employment of the Fire Scout as the laser designating platform for an AGM-114N Hellfire missile, fired from an MH-60S Knighthawk attached to HSC-23 Detachment 2 on board America-class amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6).

Additionally, the team accomplished the first ever long-range transit of the Fire Scout by an operational squadron, executing a “control station handoff” while transiting between NALF San Clemente Island and Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) Pt. Mugu. This operation has paved the way for the future development of the Fire Scout program, functioning as a force multiplier for the larger naval surface community and the tactical application of integrated manned and unmanned platforms in Naval Aviation.

Personnel from HSC-23 began operations from NALF San Clemente Island on May 3. 

Prior to this detachment, Fire Scout operators conducted all flight training at NBVC Pt. Mugu, which is approximately 175 miles northwest of San Diego. Bringing the system to NALF San Clemente Island, which is located 80 miles west of San Diego, afforded many opportunities for integrated training with naval assets due to the multitude of ranges and support facilities around the island. The detachment planned and coordinated events despite an array of logistical hurdles, and established procedures for unmanned air vehicle operations within San Clemente Island airspace.

“A primary goal for this detachment was to showcase the capabilities of the MQ-8B,” said Lt. Cmdr. David Barnhill, officer-in-charge of the detachment. “San Clemente Island broadens the training opportunities for our Fire Scout team and gives us the ability to work with a multitude of assets not otherwise available.”

After completing unit-level training and confidence testing of the Fire Scout system within local and special use airspace during the first week, Fire Scout crewmembers flew range clearance missions and a successful Hellfire missile event in support of USS America Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) on May 10.

98463 random 1.0 5.0

“The Hellfire shot was absolutely a highlight for this detachment. It proved that Fire Scout is a viable asset to an already potent team,” continued Barnhill. “But more than that, executing a successful in-flight transfer of the MQ-8B from one air vehicle operator to another over 70 miles away was the biggest milestone. It gives us enormous operational flexibility going forward to work with fleet elements on a regular basis.”

This detachment can be classified as a resounding success by bringing UAV operations to the fleet on a larger scale than ever before. The Fire Scout provides critical mission sets to enhance battlespace awareness as well as providing early warning detection and classification capability. HSC-23 is at the forefront of MQ-8B Fire Scout operations, driving the development and refinement of manned/unmanned tactics and providing a clear path for the future of Fire Scout operators.

HSC-23 “Wildcards” are a Coronado-based expeditionary squadron under Commander, Helicopter Sea Combat Wing Pacific. It is the first squadron to deploy a MH-60S and MQ-8B composite detachment aboard an Independence-class littoral combat ship.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=100454

I had a chance recently to sit down in the Pentagon with Navy officers involved with shaping the composite detachment and thinking through the way ahead in this dynamic and significant area of innovation for the fleet.

The interview was conducted with Lt. Commander Doug Kay, the Fire Scout Assistant Requirements Officer and previously was the air boss on the USS Fort Worth.

The second officer was Commander Ted Johnson, the Fire Scout Requirements Officer and former commander of an MH-60S Seahawk squadron.

And the final officer was Kyle Gantt, a Surface Warfare Officer who works on future ship requirements.

We had a wide-ranging conversation and during that conversation the officers made a number of key points.

First, as one officer put it: “I think one of the benefits of the manned-unmanned teaming concept is you can play to the strengths and weaknesses of each of the two.

“Right now, we’re deploying Fire Scout with MH-60S detachments onboard LCS. Sierra is somewhat sensor deprived.”

The dynamic decision-making is challenging to program into an unmanned platform so the pairing allows the two-man team in the MH-60S to use the data from the Fire Scout to inform their decisions.

“A Fire Scout has much greater persistence than a manned helicopter and allows it to do broad area maritime search with its payloads and to provide queuing for the manned platform.”

The C2 revolution is at the heart of distributed lethality and shaping kill webs.

And the concept of a composite deployment provides support for that revolution.

As one officer put it: “I think it’s all about using the payloads onboard the UAS and being able to efficiently get that information back to the right decision maker whether that right decision maker is in the cockpit of another helicopter, or that decision maker is on the ship.”

Second, the crewing is being shaped to support the manned-unmanned pairing.

Crew needs to be able to maintain, support and to operate two different systems and to do so within the confines of a small ship, the LCS.

This puts a premium on shaping crew skill sets which can synergistically support the composite detachment.

As one officer put it: “When aviators break the aircraft, they fix them, both the manned and the unmanned.

“All the operators, both the crewmen and the pilots are cross-trained to operate both types of aircraft. We have dual qualified operators.”

And the advantage of doing so provided a better understanding of what the dyad could deliver as an overall capability.

“What we have found is that you create a more cohesive team when the MQ-8 operators also know how to fly the 60, and the 60 operators know how to fly the MQ-8, and have changed those roles several times during the week.

“Basically, they then understand the limitations and abilities of each system and the synergy which can be achieved by operating together.”

In effect, what the Navy is creating is a common operational culture shaped by the two systems, rather than creating an unmanned operational ghetto.

Third, the actual operational experience of working a composite detachment will drive future operations and future operational requirements.

It is an iterative process.

Clearly, the US Navy is acting on the assumption that one needs to get the technology into the hands of the warfighter to drive innovation rather than building better briefing charts.

After all, power point slides only kill the audience, not the enemy.

Fourth, the operational experience of the dyad will be part of shaping the way ahead with ship design, and requirements as well.

As one officer put it: “As we look at what ships we need and how to use them in the future, this concept of manned-unmanned teaming both with organic systems as well as the use of national systems use is really critical to how we will use those ships, and how we’ll deliver those capabilities.”

In simple terms, it is about getting best value out of systems, which operate from the deck space.

As one officer put it: “Everything that goes on the ship has to buy its way on the ship through the capability that it delivers.”

In short, the composite detachment is viewed as a cutting edge capability which will be enhanced in the future.

“The future of aviation certainly offers the distributed fleet a suite of capabilities that are met between a pairing of manned and unmanned systems.

“What missions will go to the manned and unmanned, well that remains to be seen, but most definitely the future of aviation is going to be a pairing of both manned systems and unmanned systems.”

Editor’s Note: The slideshow highlights the composite detachment and the photos are credited to the US Navy. 

2017-07-19 The next seminar to be held by the Williams Foundation in Canberra will focus on electronic warfare.

The seminar will be held on August 23, 2017 at the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra and Second Line of Defense will be covering the seminar and producing a report as well.

Background

An increasingly sophisticated and rapidly evolving threat with ready access to advanced, commercially available off-the-shelf technology is transforming the operational context in which the Australia Defence Force must now survive and fight.  The next generation battlespace will be contested across multiple domains with control of the Electromagnetic Spectrum becoming just as important as control of the Air if the Joint Force is to operate with the freedom of manoeuvre necessary to ensure campaign success. 

E/A-18 Growler Opportunity

Traditionally, Electronic Warfare has been the preserve of a specialist cadre of domain experts with an emphasis in recent years upon platform self-protection; however, that is all changing.  The EA-18G Growler is the catalyst for a transformational change in our approach to Electronic Warfare and an opportunity to rethink our attitude to the Electromagnetic Spectrum as a warfighting domain in its own right.  We will always need Electronic Warfare specialists, but we will increasingly need a much broader pool of Electronic Warfare generalists able to operate across the Joint Force if we are to maximise the capability of our new weapon systems.

Aim of the Seminar

This Seminar seeks to build a common understanding of how the EA-18G Growler, in particular, will impact the Australian Defence Force at the strategic, operational and tactical levels, and how Airborne Electronic Attack is likely to shape future Australian Defence and Security policy. 

It will provide a historical perspective on the development of the Royal Australian Air Force’s Electronic Warfare capability dating back to World War 2, and describe how today’s Air Force personnel are raising, training and sustaining the Growler Force in partnership with the United States Navy. 

We will hear the perspectives of the Australian Army, Navy, and the Joint Commanders, as well as contributions from our senior coalition partners in the United States and the United Kingdom.  The emphasis will be on gaining a better understanding of the key enablers and technologies, such as C4I, Electronic Warfare Battle Management, and training systems, which turn the manned and unmanned platforms into Joint Capability delivering sophisticated battlespace effects.

The Seminar will also serve as an opportunity to provide an industry perspective on Electronic Warfare and, in particular, the role they can play as a Fundamental Input to Capability. It will highlight the importance of disruptive technologies, speed to market, and the increasing emphasis on non-kinetic effects to gain operational advantage. Industry participants are invited to address topics including Electronic Warfare Battle Management, training, and the emerging technologies associated with networked, force level effects.  

Above all, the seminar will emphasise the need for a new attitude to Electronic Warfare and, in particular, a need to embrace the arrival of the EA-18G Growler as a catalyst for change.  In doing so, it provides an opportunity to make Electronic Warfare more accessible and understandable to the Joint Force, and develop the Information Age Warfighters necessary to deliver campaign success on future operations.

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/event-2527349

A recent piece written by Stew Magnuson and published on the NDIA website highlighted the need to refocus on electronic warfare and the challenges facing the US in this regard.

After what one senior official called “25 years of inattention,” the Defense Department is pushing ahead to make its defensive and offensive electronic warfare capabilities more robust.

“There is an appreciation on the dependency of our electronic warfare capabilities [and] to make sure that the force — all the platforms — are survivable. I think that appreciation is very real and very substantial,” William Conley, deputy director of electronic warfare in the office of the undersecretary of defense for acquisitions, technology and logistics, said during a recent Mitchell Institute speech.

“The foot is fully on the gas pedal” when it comes to catching up on EW capabilities, he said.

Electronic warfare is among the fields that the Pentagon has identified as part of the “third offset” — a collection of battlefield technologies that the U.S. military must master in order to leap ahead of potential adversaries.

In the wake of a Defense Science Board report on the military’s electronic warfare shortcomings, Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert O. Work created an electronic warfare executive committee comprising high-level military leaders who meet once per month with the goal of reversing the “inattention.”

The July 2015 report, “21st Century Operations in a Complex Electromagnetic Environment,” concluded that the United States military was “no longer the overwhelming leader in these technologies.” The neglect set in after the end of the Cold War and with the perception that advanced threats had all but disappeared, it said.

“Superiority in electronics is now severely challenged and a substantial set of initiatives is needed to regain the advantage,” the report said.

The committee includes the undersecretary of defense for acquisitions, technology and logistics, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the services’ acquisition executives, Strategic and Cyber Command commanders, the directors of Operational Test and Evaluation and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and others.

Conley is the point man in the Defense Department’s campaign to make electronic warfare more robust.

“We — in my opinion — basically got to where we are in electronic warfare after 25 years of inattention. We will get out of it with 25 years of attention,” Conley said.

His office released in the spring a strategy document that looks at the current state of electronic warfare and where it is going. While Defense Department personnel and contractors can access the report, it is not releasable to the public, he said. 

An implementation plan is in the works that will give specifics on where programs are going. That will be classified on a secret level because it will include exact technical specifications of next-generation capabilities, he said. 

The challenging part of writing the plan will be avoiding prescriptive documents that say something must be done in an exact way. That stifles innovation, he said. 

However, if the plan isn’t prescriptive at all there is a risk that the military will go down the same path and suffer another 25 years of inattention, he said.

“It is a delicate dance — in full disclosure — to make sure we get this right,” he said. The implementation plan needs to set goals that will bring the department to the “next level.” In about six months, he will begin sharing more specifics in classified settings, he said.

It is a complicated field and the threats and technology are rapidly evolving, he noted. In modern battlefields, data and communications will be traveling over the airwaves unless someone wants to carry fiber-optic cable around. Adversaries will try to intercept or jam communications or sensors such as radars. In turn, U.S. forces want to do the same to the enemy.

“Underneath our feet, the ecosystem is continuing to change,” Conley said…..

Conley gave an example of a potential problem in high-end warfare. A trendline shows that a surface-to-air missile that can reach 600 kilometers might be possible by the 2030s. The electro-magnetic spectrum will be needed to guide that missile to its intended target. 

“You can’t just lob something 600 kilometers and expect to hit it. You’re going to have to guide it,” he said. It might require a midcourse update of the target’s presumed location. That requires protecting the electromagnetic spectrum. Only after reaching the vicinity can the missile turn on its seeking device, he said.

The anti-access/area-denial warfare the Air Force, Navy, and increasingly the Army, see themselves fighting against near-peer adversaries will also take place in the electromagnetic spectrum, he said.

Nations project power by setting up “no-go zones,” and they are extending these engagement areas year by year, he added.

“Everything about forming an A2/AD environment is about being able to access the spectrum,” he said.

As the Army develops its multi-domain battle concept, Conley noted that its plans will depend on the ability to network data and share it over these domains. “It is going to be going in some way, shape or form over a wireless link,” he said. “How are we contesting it? How are we protecting it? How are we accessing it?”

China’s military doctrine calls for information dominance in any battle, he said. That includes space, counter-space, cyberspace and electronic warfare. 

“If they say they want to dominate something and we say we want to dominate something it is highly unlikely that both of us simultaneously can achieve dominance,” he said. The best that can be achieved in such a contested environment is “superiority,” he added.

If an adversary understands how an opponent thinks, it can start sending bad data, or prevent information reaching where it needs to go, he said.
Singer said it is hard to know how close potential adversaries such as China and Russia are to the U.S military when it comes to electronic warfare.

“You won’t be able to say who is better until after the fight, but they clearly see it as an area to offset our own advantages,” he said in an interview. They are making major investments in the technology, he added.

“Two can play the ‘offset’ game.

“And don’t just think of this problem set the way we do — by framing it as an air services issue for the Navy and Air Force to hash out. Russia showed off some interesting capability on the ground warfare side in Ukraine,” he said.

Another major issue, Conley noted, is fighting in joint operations and with allies.

“Not every fight is a high-end fight, … not everything is a [counter-terrorism] fight, but we have to be able to span across the range of military operations and across the different phases of a conflict to make sure we have the right capabilities at the right time,” he said.

The U.S. military needs cognitive systems, he said.  It needs them to be more agile, capable of doing different things and adaptive so they can respond to changes in their environment faster. 

If allies don’t have the same systems, or don’t know about U.S. capabilities, some electronic warfare weapons may have to be switched off, or risk being mistaken as an attacking adversary. 

There has been a lot of “need to know” and secrecy between allies, he said.

“The more we can break down that belief, the better off we will be,” Conley added.

“We want to be able to be better integrated with the overall joint force, [and] with our allies,” he said.

Training, therefore becomes essential. The Air Force’s Red Flag exercise in the Nevada desert where allies fly together is a step in the right direction, he said.

“How do we train in a contested environment regularly enough?” he asked.

The materiel side is another matter.

“What are those systems of the future that we want to go ahead and do?” Conley said…..