Putting the 2023 Australian Strategic Review in Context: An Assessment by John Blaxland

03/28/2023

By Robbin Laird

Currently I am in Canberra, Australia to participate in the latest Williams Foundation Seminar for which I write the reports. While visiting, I have the opportunity to discuss strategic issues with a number of analysts and officials while here.

This year is noticeable for the coming defence review of the Labor government and the recent announcement of the new nuclear submarine program which has been announced as part of a broader initiative of cooperation with Britain and the United States which has been christened AUKUS.

What this will amount to really in the years ahead is unknowable, but will depend on how seriously Australia builds it own defense capability and how the United States and its Pacific allies reshape how they deal with the various threats in the region and beyond. The United Kingdom can only be an ancillary player, and clearly, the relationship of Australia to Japan will be much more determinate about how Australia defends itself in the years to come.

Hence, no matter what is delivered in the final public report on defense in April, the Strategic Defence Review needs to be placed in context.

And in a conversation with Professor John Blaxland, the noted Australian defense analyst, John did so.

Appropriately we had this conversation in a local Canberra pub near Blaxland Park. Blaxland started by focusing on core questions which will be raised quickly in the public debate.

“Whatever the recommendations, how will changes be resourced and implemented?”

He warned that there could be a propensity to have an ongoing bureaucratic focus on the review, more interested in process and the broader question of rethink, than upon actually improving the capability for Australian defense.

Blaxland quoted the late Jim Molan to the point that Australia needed a broad national strategic review and policy within which a defense review would occur. A defense review is simply too narrow given the nature of the challenges posed by China to Australia.

In my own work, I have emphasized the importance of dealing with the Chinese approach to globalization which has put the liberal democracies in a subordinate position as a key part of any credible rethink of Pacific defense. Blaxland agreed with this point.

Blaxland underscored that the current government has rejected language used by the Morrison government as being too militaristic and too critical of China. Having avoided the question of why you are doing a defense review and focusing on what you need to do in the changed situation makes it difficult to have the kind of public narrative Australia will need to persuade the public and Australia’s partners in the region.

So how will the delivery of the defense review be accompanied by a credible and effective public narrative?

With regard to shaping a credible and cohesive national narrative, Blaxland raised concerns with regard to the energy initiative of the government and the deal they cut with the Greens as one element of the context.

The Greens are the most anti-military and anti-AUKUS political group of influence in Australian politics. What impact does this agreement on energy and Labor’s elevating the importance of the Greens have on the broader defense debate, discussion and narrative?

AUKUS will be embedded in the broader defense review, so that criticism which has already emerged within the Labor Party about AUKUS will be carried forward into the Strategic Defence Review itself.

Blaxland underscored that there is a clear need for more effective strategic messaging in an era of unrestricted competition or what some have called the weaponization of everything.

That is sure why there is a need for a broader national strategy for Australia to compete effectively in a world of 21st century authoritarian conflict with the liberal democracies.

Blaxland described the period we have entered as being one of three intersecting circles of a Venn diagram. One circle might be labelled great power contestation; the second circle might be labelled looming environmental catastrophe; and the third might be labelled governance challenges in the liberal democracies.

How does AUKUS and the Strategic Defence Review fit into this world?

In short, the about-to-be-released Strategic Defence Review is not the end of the discussion but simply part of the discussion of what realistically is the way ahead for Australian defense, and a good part of answering that question will not even be about the ADF.

John Blaxland is Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre (SDSC), Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University (ANU).

He is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a Fellow of the Royal Society of New South Wales. He has previously been a Chief Intelligence Staff Officer (J2) at HQ Joint Operations Command, defence attaché to Thailand and Myanmar, Head of SDSC and Director of the ANU Southeast Asia Institute. At ANU, he teaches “Honeypots and Overcoats: Australian Intelligence in the World” and supervises several PhD students.

He lectures regularly at the ANU National Security College (on the Geostrategic SWOT Analysis for Australia) and Australian Defence College (including the Defence and Strategic Studies Course, Command and Staff Course, Australian Defence Force Academy and Royal Military College, Duntroon).

He also addresses conferences and workshops on security in Australia (RUSI, U3A, Army Research Centre, Seapower Conference, etc) MalaysiaKoreaThailand (Thammasat, Chulalongkorn and military academies), the Philippines, Taiwan, UK (Kings College London), the USA (MinervaCSISEast West Centre, etc) and Canada and offers commentary with The Australian Institute of International AffairsThe GuardianThe Age & Sydney Morning Herald, Canberra TimesThe AustralianThe New York TimesBangkok PostThe Straits TimesThe Jakarta PostAsia TimesAustralian Foreign AffairsThe ConversationThe Saturday PaperLowy Interpreter, The MandarinEast Asia Forum, SCMPWorld Politics Review, The DiplomatPolicy ForumThe RAND BlogVoices of WarSecurity ChallengesThe Australian Army JournalDefence Connect and the Journal of Global Strategic Studies.

He also occasionally offers comments on television and radio including on the ABCBBCCNNSkyNewsTRT WorldArirangWIONFrance24 and CNA.

Featured Image: Australian Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Richard Marles MP speaks to the media during a visit to HMAS Stirling, Western Australia.

On 14 March 2023, the Government announced the first initiative under an enhanced trilateral security partnership with the United Kingdom and the United States (AUKUS) that will identify the optimal pathway for the acquisition of at least eight nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Richard Marles held a press conference at HMAS Stirling on Thursday 16 March to outline the Government’s plan for the acquisition of Nuclear Submarines.

Credit: Australian Department of Defence

China’s Strategic Shift: What are the Implications for the Evolving Global Order?

03/25/2023

By Robbin Laird

Dr. Harald Malmgren has described what he and his colleague see as a strategic shift in China associated with the next phase of President Xi’s leadership.

The shift from an export-oriented growth economy which is deeply intertwined with the developments in the Western world to one more focused on domestic consolidation and a global shift to the rest of the non-Western world carries with it significant implications for the global competition with the West.

How can we characterize this shift?

What is the nature of the changed competition?

What are the implications for the West?

Although it is early days in providing answers to these questions, we can identify some possible key developments and questions going forward.

In this article, my objective is to raise such questions rather than providing answers, which will be determined interactively between China, its allies, its friends and its competitors.

But that is really the central point: the nature of the new global order will be determined by competition among key states and how they cooperate or don’t in shaping what has been called frequently a “rules-based order.”

There might be several “rules-based orders” rather than one as the outcome.

The kind of authoritarian regime being crafted by President Xi and his allies puts a priority on how to shape working relationships with other authoritarian powers.

The relationship with Russia is the most visible for China, but there is a global effort to come to terms with other authoritarian powers built around working relationship’s shaped by the enemy of my enemy is my friend dynamic.

We are simply not very good at analyzing how authoritarian leaders work with one another, how they think, how they act and how they are deterred from actions we fear or do not like. We need to recognize that this is a key field of study which has little to do with how liberal democracies compete and cooperate with one another.

This raises a key question when we address conflict and notably military conflict in the years ahead.

We have coined a series of concepts such as hybrid warfare and gray zone conflict which simply reflect that we don’t know how to deter let along compete in an area which is neither hard nor soft power nor in which force is used to gain objectives short of a general war. The American-led wars in Iraq in Afghanistan have demonstrated that the art of statecraft in dealing with this level of conflict is in short supply.

Authoritarian leaders clearly do not all think alike and have their own version of their national interest.

How do and will they work together?

How do and will they influence each other?

For example, when President Xi restored the former Chinese name to Vladivostok, what did Putin discern its meaning?

How in fact can Western states most effectively influence authoritarian behavior?

The track record with regard to Putin certainly is not a showcase for European or American statecraft.

What would have deterred him from the Ukraine invasion?

This is a subject worthy of analysis, not from the minds of Westerners but from the mind of Putin and his allies. This is hardly just historical analysis because it is tied up with how we would end such a war and deal with the evolving global order.

Another key area to explore are the changes in the global economy associated with the projected shift led by President Xi.

This can be seen on many levels but here I will focus on two.

The first is the need for foreign capital to fuel Chinese domestic development. The recent peace overture led by China with Saudi Arabia and Iran was largely interpreted as dealing with oil and the future energy needs of China. But it is much broader than that.

The American political process led by Biden attacked the legitimacy of the ruler of Saudi Arabia, and Biden turned his back on the Abraham Accords. President Xi could care less about the internal ethics of the Saudi leader but the global future of Saudi is important. They are building new technologies and new defense systems which China could support, China has personnel to replace the current heavy reliance on Pakistanis and the Saudis have capital to invest.

The second is the shift associated the West and China.

There is a clear shift towards innovation in terms of energy, of better use of resources which are loosely associated with dealing with the global climate change.

In dealing with this new phase or age of innovation, there is a shift towards critical minerals and other commodities of enhanced importance, somewhat reminiscent of the shift from coal to oil at the beginning of the 20th century.

Countries which have these critical minerals and commodities are in a pole position for enhanced global influence and the reshaping of the “rules-based order” to their advantage.

The visit of President Lula to China can be seen in this light. Brazil is not simply part of the South or the developing world. Brazil should be described differently with the Western world increasingly preoccupied with the “climate emergency.”

But such a shift in terms of global economic focus raises the question of how Xi will balance his calculation in terms of the use of force and for what purpose with his shift away from the Western economies.

Does an invasion of Taiwan make any sense from his point of view in terms of the global fallout from his shift away from the West?

Or does it become more desirable as a show of force which can enhance his ability to demonstrate the weakness and “moral bankruptcy” of the West?

Then I would like to raise an issue very relevant to the future direction of military conflict.

Dr. Pippa Malmgren, Hal’s daughter and a noted global analyst in her own right, has raised for some time the secular change in operational capabilities for military forces associated with the growth of AI-enabled machines.

Recently, she argued that following: “The next war for China is a digital operation run by highly responsive and obedient self-replicating robotics, informed by the best data sets and AI that exists anywhere in the world today. Humans won’t even be needed for decision-making. In conjunction with super-computing, AI is replacing Generals, especially as the warzone expands beyond a battlefield and across the entire supply chain.”

If we look at the question of what one is prepared to do in terms of machine-led destruction to support your version of statecraft, how will China led by President Xi use his machines to support gray zone operations or his global reach?

I would like to close with a sobering thought.

Will the West really rebuild their ability to defend their interests?

Will we really find ways to work supply chains in common?

Will we be able to recover the art of statecraft along with military force innovations to provide deterrence of the authoritarian powers with China being a key leader?

And will the West do so while being able to find ways to cooperate with China in those areas that are critical for global survival?

Accompanying the economic shift described by Harald Malmgren might well be a broader global shift.

China would shift from being the economic export growth engine of globalization as understand by the West.

The focus would be upon managing the economic drawdown internally but working globally with key authoritarian allies and non-Western countries in the South to create an alternative to the legacy rules-based order.

China does not have to be formally allied to other authoritarian powers but just play off what the challenges these powers pose to the West.

And with the Brazil’s of the world new resource and trade relationships can be built as alternatives to the capital-intensive belt and road approach.

The growth of China’s informal empire becomes a key priority for the Chinese leadership as opposed to the export engine to the West.

As noted in an earlier article about China’s informal empire in Latin America which was built around the thoughts of Kenneth Maxwell:

“China has focused under the regime of President Xi on building out its global informal empire.

“By trade and investment, China has become a key player in Africa and Latin America. Its practices in doing so have a number of questionable dimensions, but instead of highlighting the reality of Chinese informal empire practices, Western states have largely ignored the opportunity to do so. They have focused on issues like Taiwan and the South China Sea, both very important but not part of the informal empire geopolitical strategy.

“But the reality is that China poses a global threat to the Western order underwritten by its economic, cultural, and third world narrative efforts along with an expanding fleet of both military and commercial shipping and ports as well.

The concept of informal empire was developed by John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson in a 1953 article published in The Economic History Review, as Kenneth Maxwell has underscored in his discussions about Latin America and China. Ronald Robinson was Maxwell’s tutor at St. John’s College at Cambridge University.

“It ought to be a commonplace that Great Britain during the nineteenth century expanded overseas by means of ‘informal empire’ as much as by acquiring dominion in the strict constitutional sense. For purposes of economic analysis, it would clearly be unreal to define imperial history exclusively as the history of those colonies coloured red on the map.

“Nevertheless, almost all imperial history has been written on the assumption that the empire of formal dominium is historically comprehensive in itself and can be cut out of its context in British expansion and world politics. The conventional interpretation of the nineteenth-century empire continues to rest upon the study of the formal empire alone, which is rather like judging the size and character of icebergs solely from the parts above the water-line.”

If one looks at the world from the perspective of the Southern Hemisphere, and with the notion of informal empire in mind, one gets a different understanding of how things might play out. The featured image provides such a map.

If one looks at this map and looks from China outward towards South America and Africa, one begins to see why Australia for example becomes more important in the way ahead for China as a global power and player.

As far as military issues go, China has internal problems – significant and growing.

But in terms of defense there nuclear arms buildup makes them a territory one would not wish to strike, and with the growing domination of Russia, the internal resource trade routes are secure.

This means that their outreach with regard especially to naval power becomes more significant less in terms of directly confronting the United States and the West, then building a force that can operate globally around them.

At the same time, building a global navy of course enhances their ability directly to deter or fight the West if it comes to that. The recent exercises off of South Africa with the Russians illustrate this approach.

China shifts along with the global order.

The Next Phase of the Xi Era: China’s Strategic Shift in a World in Flux

Defense XII: A World in Transition

 

The Next Phase of the Xi Era: China’s Strategic Shift in a World in Flux

03/23/2023

By Robbin Laird

The recently concluded Party Congress in Communist China has both consolidated Xi’s control of the Chinese system and turned the country further from its earlier legacy of global engagement built on its powerful export engine. According to my colleague, Dr. Harald Malmgren, Chinese policy under Xi has taken a significant strategic turn in its economy and with it in terms of how he seeks to shape the China of the next decade.

This shift is significant and has significant implications for a world which is in flux in terms of the Western countries who have been the focus of exports, the authoritarian partners of China and the global system which my colleague Ken Maxwell has referred to in an essay published in 2022 as the arrival of the new world order. In this new world order relationships by multiple power centers which would not described either as Western or as great power authoritarians have emerged and are shaping new global linkages. And China under Xi is focused on enhancing these relationships at the expense of its recent decades of reliance for high growth on its export relationships with the West.

Dr. Malmgren and his colleague Nicholas Glinsman have highlighted and summarized the Chinese shift in their seminal paper written earlier this year entitled, “China and its Lost Decades Ahead.”  In this paper, the authors assess that China is moving on from its neo-mercantilist economic model which relied heavily on exports for growth. At the Party Congress, the importance of global exports was replaced by placing highest national priority on domestic consumption within China itself.  The dramatic shift in priority from its external relations in economic growth and the drawdown of their ability to rely on foreign capital to domestic growth drivers poses huge challenges for China in shaping a new way ahead.

Malmgren has also noted in a recent discussion I had with him that up to now President Xi had kept reporting of his military exclusively to himself. All other matters, including state security,  were under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party.  In March, Xi declared that state security was removed from CCP jurisdiction and would henceforth report exclusively to Xi personally.  All matters that he deemed to be essential in managing internal security would be subject to his personal decisions. Thus, from now on the entire CCP was subordinated to the supreme leader, and the Party would function under decisions made by state security and the Central Military Commission, which Xi chairs.

To better control the domestic economy, Xi has decided to intensify centralized direction of all segments of the economy.  Since Deng, state owned enterprises had been subject to Party direction, but large segments of the economy functioned with considerable autonomy. Xi made it clear that he wanted greater public and private coordination, and that Party political officials would be placed into the management of all private businesses.

Moreover, the Party would assign its officials to participate in all scientific research projects and the development of technological innovations. This would, of course, complicate relations between Chinese scientific innovators who were participating with American scientists and investors, calling into question whether either the Party or the U.S. Government would permit continuation of such ongoing businesses and R&D projects.  Innovations which had been spurred by foreign investments and engagements of various foreign academics and scientists would likely be re-crafted to become more Soviet like with commissars within the key companies and domestic economic sectors.

The Covid Pandemic lockdowns paralyzed the Chinese economy during the period from the start of 2020 to the very end of 2022. Throughout the world markets, there has been an expectation that 2023 pandemic end would result in a strong Chinese economy rebound, bringing back to life the powerful Chinese engine of growth that had long provided momentum to the rest of the world. As it turned out, 2023 showed little sign of a Chinese rebound. New orders for exports did not appear. Demand for ocean going cargo carriers remained depressed.

What the world had forgotten was that world trade in manufactures had already slowed down in the years since the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-09.  During 2019, just before the pandemic struck, the IMF warned that a synchronized industrial downturn was evident throughout the world. The pandemic then took over, slowing and even halting all economic activity virtually everywhere. Now, in post-pandemic 2023 much of the world is back where the economy of 2019 left off, in an economic downturn.

None of the world’s great trading nations, Japan, China, South Korea, Germany or the U.S. showed any signs of increased demand for manufactures, whether automobiles or consumer appliances. Worldwide inflation was being attacked by central banks everywhere, raising interest rates to subdue spending and rising wage demands.

In February, 2023, the Government Investment Corporations of Singapore, one of the world’s biggest Sovereign Wealth Funds, announced it was pulling back from exposure to investments in China. This agency is known throughout the world as the most knowledgeable entity able to make objective assessments of the inner workings of the Chinese economy.

The U.S. Government was also showing concern about U.S. private investment into China that might be supporting technologies of national security concern. This was casting a negative blanket over previous years of optimism among high tech American and European technology investors.

Malmgren noted that China has reached an economic plateau similar to that reached by Japan in the late 1980s, where Japan shifted its economic growth to direct engagement in the United States and other Western states. China will not be able to do that because of the Western concern with regard to how China has distorted “globalization” to its advantage.

According to Malmgren, with the United States cutting the umbilical cord to its technology and technological investment’s, there is growing Chinese recognition that their own pace of innovation could slow significantly.

With the economic slowdown by China, the role which China played in the 2008 global economic crisis will not be repeated. The authors concluded in their paper that “China will not come to the world’s rescue, as it did in 2008-09 under Hu Jintao.”

Malmgren also underscored that the focus on enhanced domestic consumption will prove difficult as well with the economic drawdown and internal protests. Most of the major protests have been highly disciplined in forms that the government felt unable to contain.

These protests have taken two forms: the so-called white paper protest whereby significant numbers of Chinese have simply hoisted blank paper in protest without actually indicating what they are protesting.

The second is Chinese parents of child bearing age are refusing to have children and, wives asserting their rights to continue active professional lives and simply avoiding raising any children. The birth rate per thousand Chinese continues to fall dramatically, alongside a growing number of the elderly. The total number of Chinese counted in 2022 showed year on year decline, and world population experts are now forecasting steep decline in Chinese population over the next 50 or 100 years.

I will include here the first part of their paper, a paper which brings together a wide range of data supporting their arguments in the paper.

“In late October, when Xi Jinping consolidated his hold on China’s communist party at its five-yearly congress, the world cringed. Xi seemed determined to push China back to the age of Mao Zedong, his role model. Hardline ideology would tighten its grip on the world’s second-largest economy, with dire implications for the rest.

“The last thing anyone expected from a strongman president entering his 11th year in power was a sudden about face. Yet within weeks, Xi’s government reversed its efforts to control Covid-19, Big Tech companies, the Chinese property market and more. It has shown signs of reduced support for Russia’s war in Ukraine while trying to ease diplomatic tensions with the US and in its territorial disputes regarding the South China Sea. This softening seemed so uncharacteristic of Xi that rumors began circulating that his political power was weakening, as other high officials were intervening to alter policy/.

“That’s unlikely, given that at the congress, Xi had purged enemies and installed allies throughout the party. Yet the 180-degree turn on multiple policy fronts was unmistakable and raises doubts about everything the world thought it knew about Xi, the unbending hardliner. Was he now bending to pressure from worried officials, the public, the deteriorating economy?

“The answer may be all of the above. Xi’s Covid policy, the tech crackdown and the property bust had brought the economy to a standstill in 2022. The economy contracted in the fourth quarter, which is likely to bring growth for the year down to 3 per cent. That is according to official Chinese data; the reality was probably worse, as the reliability of such has declined under Xi. Nevertheless, and back on point, China has not grown this slowly since the late 1970s and is growing no faster than the rest of the world, also a first since the 1970s.

“A performance that weak was a serious threat to an authoritarian state that rests its legitimacy on promises to restore China’s prosperity and its global stature. As the slowdown fuelled street rallies against the pursuit of “zero-Covid lockdowns”, some protesters dared to call for Xi to step down. Officials in his own government were reportedly urging him to act to save the economy. Still, few if any China watchers thought the paramount leader would change course.

“Aiming to revive the economy after the congress, Xi’s government started sounding less Maoist. It has dropped the “three red lines” on borrowing by developers, and announced that the “rectification” campaign against fintech firms is nearly complete. After tightening state control for years, it is sending out messages of support to the private sector, even offering details of its new global data market that suggest respect for private data ownership.

“The irony: Xi may be trying impractically hard to revive growth. His plans to build “a modern socialist economy” imply an annual gross domestic product growth target of 5 per cent, which is no longer possible. China’s population growth has slowed sharply, as has productivity growth. With fewer workers and slumping output per worker, the country’s potential growth rate is 2.5 per cent. Beyond this year, when spending by Chinese consumers released from lockdown may temporarily boost growth, 5 per cent is an unrealistic target. And more debt-financed spending will only increase China’s already massive debt load.

“Global investors, who often blow hot and cold on China, have again flipped, this time to embrace the new Xi. Before November, the country’s stock market was tanking with the economy. Foreign fund managers were launching emerging market mandates excluding China. Now, they are bullish on hopes of a post-pandemic “reopening” bounce and have been pouring money into Chinese stocks. The benchmark MSCI China index is up a staggering 50 per cent since the late October lows.

“Yet questions about China’s policy direction remain. Xi’s pivot is a pragmatic course correction, but it raises doubts about his steadiness. His impulse to control may reassert itself when the economy starts to recover.

“However, we just do not see it lasting, and hence there will be no repeat of the Chinese reaction to the Great Financial Crisis of 2008/09, wherein the enormous stimulus introduced by the Hu Jintao administration was accredited with helping the world economy avoid a broad and deep global recession.

“Back to the present and despite the dangers, there are nevertheless signs that the economy is stirring. Subway ridership in major cities is rapidly returning to normal. Consumers who accumulated savings while shut in their homes for much of the past year have money to spend. And the government is rolling out policies to support a rebound, or more accurately, reversing policies that had previously constrained growth. China’s ability to recover from nearly three years of self-imposed isolation “is very likely the single most important factor for global growth in 2023,” according to Kristalina Georgieva, the managing director of the IMF.

“Indeed, the global economy’s other main engines are far from firing on all cylinders. The US economy, despite a strong end to 2022, will struggle this year as higher interest rates bite, according to the World Bank’s latest forecast. Europe is in recession, and Japan is projected to eke out just a 1 percent growth rate.

“As for China, the World Bank forecasts growth of 4.4 percent this year, and of course, some private estimates are even higher. Goldman predicts a 5.2 percent gain. “Evidence of a rapid China reopening is accumulating,” the investment bank said in a note to clients last week.

“Still, it will take time for the Chinese to re-establish their pre-pandemic routines, including links to the outside world that the government severed in hopes of keeping the virus at bay. The next few months may bring a stop-and-go recovery before a more widespread resumption of activity in the spring.

“Even with a smooth Chinese reopening, the global economy faces a year of anaemic growth, according to World Bank and IMF projections. As mentioned above, China could theoretically provide a big world economic impetus, but we do not expect China to have growth surge and ride to the rest of the world’s rescue.

“One area that commentators are expecting a growth impetus is Chinese exports, but we would argue against that too…”

In other words, we are seeing a sharp break from the economic orientation of China and from how China has engaged with the West economically. How then does this affect the Chinese place in the world, and affect the evolution of the evolving global situation and order?

I will address those questions in the next article.

Credit Featured Photo: President Xi has his eyes set o expanding China’s diplomatic role as part of a broader global shift.

For our new book analyzing global change, see the following: 

Defense XII: A World in Transition

MARSOC and 2nd MLG Prepare for the Entrance of the CH-53K Into the Fleet

03/21/2023

By Sgt. Jesula Jeanlouis

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. – Marine Forces Special Operations Command’s Paraloft personnel teamed up with 2nd Marine Logistics Group’s Air Delivery Platoon to evaluate the secondary mission capabilities of the CH-53K King Stallion helicopter, Oct. 25 – Nov. 3, 2022. This evaluation included day and night aerial cargo delivery, low-level static line parachute operations, and military freefall operations.

“The validation of these operations and the data collected will provide added capability to the fleet in support of the initial [Marine Expeditionary Unit] deployment and lay the groundwork for future operational employment of the CH-53K,” explained Lt. Col. Adam D. Shirley, Marine Raider Regiment Air/Fires Officer and CH-53K pilot. “This event was significant because it was the first time that any of these tasks have been conducted from this new, immensely capable aircraft.”

Headquarters Marine Corps chose MARSOC to assist in the evaluation of the new helicopter due to the command’s unique insertion and extraction proficiency. 2nd MLG provide subject matter expertise to augment MARSOC’s Paraloft personnel during the aerial delivery operations.
“The CH-53K will surely play a crucial role in supporting not only MARSOC and the Marine Corps, but our joint, combined, and coalition partners worldwide,” said Shirley.

The CH-53K King Stallion helicopter is the Marine Corps’ newest, and most advanced assault support, heavy-lift helicopter replacing the CH-53E Super Stallion. The primary mission of the CH-53K is the ship-to-shore transport of heavy equipment and supplies in support of amphibious operations and subsequent actions ashore.

“A requirement for the Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Two One is to validate an aircraft’s ability to execute those mission essential tasks, as outlined in the Training and Readiness Manual,” explained Shirley.
MRR’s Paraloft personnel evaluated all tasks in accordance with Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Two One’s test plan and evaluation criteria using a crawl-walk-run approach. Flight Test Engineers and program representatives observed and recorded data while MARSOC subject matter experts validated aircraft rigging procedures for static line parachuting and aerial cargo delivery.

“The first phase began with packing parachutes, jumper and Jump Master refresher training, [drop zone] preparation, and safety briefs,” continued Shirley. “The next phase included experimentation with the aerial delivery via parachute of 200-pound door bundles and 500-pound cargo drops from the ramp of the aircraft. The final phase consisted of personnel parachute operations that included military free fall jumps from 10,000 feet.”

The tests are designed to validate the aircraft’s ability to execute tasks that not associated with the aircraft’s primary mission of assault support transport. Secondary missions include helicopter insertion and extraction operations, medical transport, and casualty evacuation.

“Once secondary mission tasks are validated, the CH-53K will be authorized to conduct all tasks required in the Training and Readiness Manual that received a favorable evaluation,” said Shirley. “If any task does not receive a favorable evaluation, it will be referred to engineering for a solution and be re-evaluated at a later date.”

This article was first published on 25 November 2022 and is credited to the Marine Forces, Special Operations Command.

To see a further discussion of MARSOC please see Chapter Seven of our recently published book on USMC transformation.

Building and Operating a Hybrid Fleet in the Pacific: A Key Area for U.S. Navy and RAN Cooperation

03/16/2023

By George Galdorisi

The USN’s commitment to a future fleet comprised of as many as 150 unmanned maritime systems did not instantly materialize, and it is worth examining this journey. This is due to the fact that the ADF and RAN will likely have to socialize such a change in the composition of Australia’s Navy over time and in much the same way.

Here is how the U.S. Navy finally arrived at this major decision. The U.S. Navy’s commitment to—and dependence on—unmanned systems was seen several years ago in the Navy’s official Force Structure Assessment, as well as in a series of “Future Fleet Architecture Studies.”  In each of these studies: one by the Chief of Naval Operations Staff, one by the MITRE Corporation, and one by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the proposed Navy future fleet architecture had large numbers of air, surface, and subsurface unmanned systems as part of the Navy force structure.

Soon thereafter, these goals regarding populating the Navy Fleet with large numbers of unmanned vehicles were described in the Congressional Research Service Report, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, which describes plans for a 355-ship Navy, as well as a “Battle Force 2045,” for achieving a fleet of more than 500 manned and unmanned ships by 2045.

Issued in December 2020, America’s Tri-Service Maritime Strategy, Advantage at Sea was demonstrated a commitment to unmanned systems. The same month that Advantage at Sea was published, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, suggested that a much larger 500-ship U.S. Navy would be necessary to contain Chinese expansionist ambitions. In a direct reference to the importance of unmanned systems in reaching this goal, General Milley noted: “Part of the move to pursue a 500-ship fleet rests upon the hope for as many as 140 to 250 unmanned vessels,” which he called, “Sailorless ships, robots on the water and under the water,” would be part of the U.S. Navy inventory.

It appears that the U.S. Navy is committed to making unmanned systems of various types and capabilities an important part of the Navy Fleet in the near-, mid- and especially long-term. During his Congressional testimony in support of his nomination for the post of Secretary of the Navy, Carlos Del Toro said: “Investments in unmanned naval systems will be key to meeting those threats. It’s important to ensure that they’re fully integrated with all of our existing platforms.”  Subsequently, the Strategic Guidance issued by the Secretary of the Navy in October 2021 calls out unmanned systems as: “A technological breakthroughs that will define future conflict.”

Also that year, the Department of the Navy released its UNMANNED Campaign Framework. In his introductory message introducing this Framework, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Gilday, explained:

“Unmanned Systems have and will continue to play a key part in future Distributed Maritime Operations and there is a clear need to field affordable, lethal, scalable, and connected capabilities. A hybrid fleet will be necessary for the Navy to meet emerging security concerns. We need platforms to deliver lethal and non-lethal effects simultaneously in all domains across multiple axes. UxS will provide added capacity in our Future Fleet—in the air, on the surface, and under the water.”

Most agree that the culminating event in the U.S. Navy’s journey to build a hybrid fleet occurred in July 2022 with the issuance of the Chief of Naval Operations NAVPLAN 2022, and Force Design 2045, which both call for a “hybrid fleet” 373 manned ships, and 150 large unmanned surface and subsurface platforms.  These official U.S. Navy documents provided the clearest indication yet of the Navy’s plans for a future fleet populated by large numbers of unmanned maritime systems.

Admiral Gilday put a stake in the ground and made a huge bet that represented a sea change in Navy force structure plans that is without precedent in recent memory. This new direction promises to have profound implications for the U.S. Navy through at least the middle of the century. Specially regarding unmanned maritime vehicles, Force Design 2045 notes: “Unmanned surface and subsurface platforms to increase the fleet’s capacity for distribution; expand our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance advantage; add depth to our missile magazines; supplement logistics; and enhance fleet survivability. This transition will rebalance the fleet away from exquisite, manpower intensive platforms toward smaller, less-expensive, yet lethal ones.”

To support these goals regarding large numbers of unmanned maritime platforms populating the U.S. Navy established an Unmanned Task Force in August 2021 to provide stewardship for Navy-wide efforts to accelerate efforts regarding unmanned systems. Task Force leader, Michael Stewart, described the focus of this effort:

“With operational needs in mind, the task force uses a venture capital-like method to identify investments that could pay off: the process scans technology across the military and commercial markets; identifies which could be applied to warfighter challenges; hunts for potential barriers to implementation; picks technologies for further experimentation; and, in the end, selects a handful of items to receive small investments.

“I wanted to make sure that whatever the requirement was, you could trace it right back to the National Defense Strategy, the Joint Warfighting Concept, the CNO Navigation Plan and the Commandant’s Planning Guidance. We wanted to make sure we were solving a problem the warfighter actually cared about.”

From all indications that we have today, it seems that for the U.S. Navy, the intent is to go all-in on unmanned maritime vehicles and field a hybrid force of manned and unmanned systems. Importantly, the intent is to have these unmanned systems work in conjunction with manned platforms and achieve the goal of manned-unmanned teaming. Indeed, the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Gilday described this concept of operations (CONOPS) when he noted that he: “Wants to begin to deploy large and medium-sized unmanned vessels as part of carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups in 2027 or 2028, and earlier if I can.”

What the ADF and RAN Will Likely Be Keen to Learn

While Australia is watching the USN on its journey to introduce more unmanned maritime vehicles into its fleet and ultimately field a hybrid force, it is important to understand that Australia does have its own overarching plan to thoughtfully insert uncrewed systems into the Australian Defence Force. This plan is embodied in two capstone documents: Robotics, Autonomous Systems and Artificial Intelligence (RAS-AI) Strategy 2040 and the Robotics, Autonomous Systems and Artificial Intelligence (RAS-AI) Campaign Plan 2025 which sets out the challenges and opportunities that these technologies present for the ADF and RAN.

While moving forward with the purpose and intent of these documents, the Australian Defence Force can likely glean useful lessons from the U.S. Navy’s journey to populate its fleet with large numbers of unmanned maritime vehicles. Here are some signposts that will likely indicate how this journey is materializing:

(1) Watch how the U.S. Congress reacts to U.S Navy requests for funding for unmanned maritime vehicles. At the moment as a skeptical Congress has challenged the Navy to come up with a concept of operations (CONOPS) for how it intends to use these platforms.

(2) See if the U.S. Navy changes direction on its commitment to unmanned maritime vehicles. The journey of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is instructive. When the LCS program was conceived decades ago the threat landscape was vastly different than it is today, and the number of LCS in the U.S. Navy inventory is but a fraction of what was originally intended.

(3) Watch how industry reacts to the U.S. Navy’s desire to acquire a substantial number of unmanned maritime vehicles. It is one thing for a defense contractor to tool up to produce more of the same class of ship such as the DDG 51, but quite another to build an entire new line of hulls.

(4) See how a CONOPS evolves for the use of unmanned maritime vehicles. Will they sail completely independently or be part of U.S. Navy carrier or expeditionary strike groups. That will be a huge factor in how these platforms ultimately evolve. One evolving CONOPS involves having large USVs serve as a “truck” to transport medium and small USVs into the battle space.

(5) Watch how the CONOPS progresses for how the U.S. Navy actually uses unmanned maritime vehicles. What missions will they perform? How will the mix of large, medium and small USVs work together? These signposts for how the ADF and RAN might employ these platforms.

(6) As the U.S. Navy’s development and fielding of USVs evolves, observe whether these platforms are really uncrewed or not. Given the ongoing maintenance needs of naval vessels operating in harsh ocean environment, technology will likely have to evolve to make these USVs truly uncrewed.

(7) Crewed naval vessels have multiple ways to communicate with each other. It is not a trivial thing to evolve methods to command and control unmanned maritime vehicles. The ADF and RAN will want to watch carefully how the U.S. Navy evolves a command and control methodology for its evolving USV fleet.

(8) Given the long acquisition process common for most naval vessels, watch how the U.S. Navy decides to field unmanned maritime vehicles. There are current initiatives to move to a different paradigm such as contractor-owned, contractor-operated (COCO) in order to speed the fielding of these systems.

Navies Learning Together and Sharing Best Practices

These are only some of the signposts that the ADF and RAN will want to observe as they watch the U.S. Navy begin its journey to evolve a hybrid fleet in the decades ahead. This will likely not be a “linear” journey but will move forward with fits and starts, as is common with any new and emerging technology.

It is worth remembering that Australia and the United States, while bound by a defense treaty as well as cultural, economic and other factors, have substantially different security needs. That said, as both nations and navies seek to leverage the possibilities presented by unmanned maritime systems, “looking over the fence” to see what one’s neighbor is doing can be mutually beneficial for both.

This article was first published by APDR in February 2023 and is republished with the permission of the author.

The featured photo shows MARTAC’s Devil Ray USV autonomous system participating in the 2022 Australian Autonomous Warrior Exercise. 

Devil Ray USV in Medical Evacuation Training Scenario

03/12/2023

U.S. Navy Sailors simulate a ship-to-shore patient transfer using a MARTAC T-38 Devil Ray unmanned surface vessel (USV) in Aqaba, Jordan, March 9, 2023, during International Maritime Exercise 2023.

The USV transferred a mannequin from the Gulf of Aqaba to land, marking the first time the unmanned platform has been used to execute a medical evacuation training scenario.

AQABA, JORDAN

03.12.2023

Video by Spc. Aaron Troutman 

U.S. Naval Forces Central Command / U.S. 5th Fleet

ARABIAN GULF (Jan. 24, 2023) Members of Combined Task Force (CTF) 152 from Combined Maritime Forces operate a small boat near a MARTAC T-38 Devil Ray unmanned surface vessel in the Arabian Gulf, Jan. 24. CTF 152 operates inside the Arabian Gulf to ensure maritime security and promote regional maritime cooperation. (Courtesy photo)

 

 

Dassault Report: March 2023

03/10/2023

By Pierre Tran

Paris – Dassault Aviation could raise production of the Rafale to three fighter jets per month, if the aircraft company won export orders, executive chairman Eric Trappier told March 9 a news conference.

Dassault could “ramp up” to just over three Rafale per month if foreign nations opted for the French fighter, he told a news conference on 2022 financial results.

The company has been talking to subcontractors to maintain the supply chain, which was strained by the Covid crisis and war in Ukraine. But production of the fighter has kept on track, despite shortage of components, raw material, and energy.

The family-controlled company has moved to building two fighters per month, following a series of export deals, including Croatia, Egypt, Greece, India, Indonesia, and Qatar.

There are 125 foreign and French 39 orders for the Rafale, boosting the company’s order book for the fighter, with the prospect of winning more export and domestic deals.

Those foreign orders effectively kept Dassault in business in building fighter jets, as France suspended orders for the last four years, in a bid to manage the defense budget.

“Luckily we had exports,” the executive chairman said, pointing up intent to pursue foreign sales prospects. “We will look for them.”

The potential deals include the Indian navy looking to buy 26 fighters, with the Rafale  competing with Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. The French company is also in talks with Colombia, reported to have been close to a deal last year.

That potential higher output compares to Dassault building for years one Rafale per month, the minimum needed to keep open the Merignac aircraft factory, just outside Bordeaux, southwestern France. That led to annual production of 11 fighters, as the plant closed for a month’s holiday in August, a traditional French labor practice.

Last year the company hit a “historic high” in Rafale orders, Trappier said, with a total order for 92 fighters, comprising the United Arab Emirates ordering 80 units, Greece ordering a further six units to the Hellenic air force, and Indonesia paying a deposit for a first batch of six Rafale, with orders for 36 more fighters to confirmed with further down payments.

Indonesia has found the budget to order soon a next batch of 18 Rafale, business website La Tribune reported March 9, with the last batch of 18 to be ordered toward the end of the year or early next year. With Indonesia going to the polls next February, there is a race against the clock for the last tranche, the report said.

Dassault reported 2022 operating profit of €572 million ($605 million), with an operating profit margin of 8.3 percent of sales, compared to €527 million and operating profit margin of 7.3 percent in the previous year.

That operating profit margin was “not bad,” Trappier said, adding that there were competitors which did better.

Gulfstream, a unit of General Dynamics, posts profit in double digits as percentage of sales, an industry source said. Dassault operates its Falcon business in the U.S. out of Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dassault is in tense talks with French labor unions on an annual pay agreement, and the company seeks to keep costs under control, while making €500 bonus payments and employee profit-sharing worth a total €210 million in a bid to buy workers’ goodwill. That compared to €139 million in 2021.

The company posted 2022 net profit of €830 million, or 12 percent of sales, compared to €693 million and 9.6 percent of sales in the previous year.

New orders rose sharply last year to €20.1 billion, including export fighter deals worth €17.5 billion, orders for 64 Falcon business jets, compared to total orders of €12.1 billion in the previous year, which included 49 Rafale deals worth €9.2 billion, and 51 Falcon.

The new orders included a contract for work as lead architect in phase 1B on a technology demonstrator for a new generation fighter (NGF) in a European future combat air system (FCAS).

Dassault will in the next few weeks start work on studies on the new fighter at its Saint Cloud head office, in the suburbs of the capital. That design work will use a Dassault Systèmes computer platform, dubbed 3D Experience, Trappier said.

The new fighter contract allowed Dassault to protect its intellectual property rights, he said. Airbus had been keen to gain access to that know-how.

The 2022 new orders boosted the total order book to a high of €35 billion, compared to €20.7 billion in 2021.

Last year, sales slipped to €6.9 billion from €7.2 billion, with delivery of 14 export Rafale and one fighter to the French air force. That drop in sales reflected delivery of 25 export fighters in 2021.

The 2023 outlook is for weaker sales, with 14 Rafale to be shipped to France, and one to Greece. Dassault makes less money on fighters shipped to the French services compared to export clients, Trappier said.

The company has a large cash holding of €9.5 billion, up from €4.9 billion, due to the down payments paid by export clients.

Dassault expects France to order a 42-strong batch of Rafale as the tranche five this year, and the company will also start work on the advanced F5 version of the fighter.

The Marine Corps Works its Way Ahead: The Perspective of Lt. Gen. Brian Cavanaugh

03/08/2023

By Robbin Laird

I had a chance to meet with Lt. Gen. Brian Cavanaugh at his office in Norfolk on Friday 24, 2023. He is Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic; Commander, Marine Forces Command; and Commander, Marine Forces Northern Command.

According to the official information regarding these two commands under “one commander and one staff”:

FMFLANT/MARFORCOM MISSION

Commander, Marine Forces Command (COMMARFORCOM) commands Service-retained forces (active component and activated reserve component) and provides forces in support of joint, naval, and service requirements. As Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic, (CG FMFLANT) commands assigned Marine Corps forces and advises Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (USFF) on matters relating to the training, employment, and sustainment of Marine Corps forces in support of fleet forces.

MARFOR NORTHCOM MISSION

Commander, MARFOR NORTHCOM as the Marine Corps Service Component Commander for Commander, U.S. Northern Command (CDRUSNORTHCOM), represents Marine Corps capabilities and interests; and exercises command and control over all assigned and attached Marine Corps forces.  Furthermore, the commander advises CDRUSNORTHCOM on the proper employment and support of Marine Corps forces; and coordinates and/or validates antiterrorism program/force protection/deployments/employment/ redeployments sustainment and planning of all assigned and attached Marine forces ordered to conduct homeland defense operations; and to provide defense support of civil authorities.

As Lt. Gen. Cavanaugh has spent many years in the Pacific, he comes to the Atlantic area in a period of change and under the impact of the war in Ukraine. He argued that the Marines are in a process of transformation which can be understood as one affecting all of the joint forces. As he put it:  “The joint forces have acquired their equipment and training in the past twenty hears focused on a capability, not necessarily specific threats. This clearly has changed as we recognize specific threats to which we need to modernize equipment and train our forces.”

“The joint forces have acquired their equipment and training in the past twenty hears focused on a capability, not necessarily a specific threat. This clearly has changed as we recognize specific threats to which we need to modernize equipment and train our forces.”

The updated National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategy undoubtedly identify the primary threat from the People’s Republic of China and the CCP. The Corps has taken this task head on as evident in the Commandant’s Planning Guidance and the past few years of Force Design. However, from his seat on the Atlantic coast, where his headquarters sits abreast the Navy’s U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Cavanaugh explains the Corps’ support to National Defense is more than just a focus on the Pacific.

“We know the PRC is operating globally and competes with the U.S. and our allies across all domains. The Corps, and the greater Naval force, is looking at how we address security issues globally,” said Cavanaugh. His command is co-located with U.S. Fleet Forces Command, and he works closely with this command to support the Marine Corps’ Naval Integration efforts. Cavanaugh emphasized that they are working together to meet the evolving threat envelope facing U.S. and allied forces.

The Marines are the smallest of the joint forces but are very adaptable. Cavanaugh is focused on transitioning advanced Marine Corps capabilities and joint concepts to enable the Navy and the joint force to meet these emerging challenges across all global regions.

He argued that the current command structures along geographical lines needs to adapt as technology and our Nation’s threats do not subscribe to those geographical boundaries. The Marines are working to re-shape and re-define how they tailor their forces to work the defense problems posed by the newly evolving threat envelopes.

Cavanaugh explained that concepts like Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations and Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment address global security threats in support of Fleets and Combatant Commands. “We are focused on shaping different ways to use our tools to adapt various force packages to get the desired joint effect. In my discussions with fleet commanders, I focus on our complimentary capabilities. Marines can provide fires and sustainment in the broader Naval campaign.

“The Corps provides commanders across the globe with expeditionary, joint force enabling capabilities.   Our air, land, and sea capabilities facilitates integration with our fellow services and allies. That’s why we train and equip to enable the operations of the broader Joint Force, our allies and partners, and the NATO construct.”

As I have argued in my book on USMC transformation, the Marines are in the process of transformation from the land wars to shaping a more mobile force, one that can provide tailored force to provide payloads designed to deliver the kind of effect desired by the joint commander.

In an interview I did recently with Colonel Marvel, the CO of MAG-39, he described how his command was working the evolution along these lines. As he commented: “The Osprey provides unique speed and range combinations with an aircraft which can land vertically. It is a very flexible aircraft which could be described as a mission-kitable aircraft. The Osprey has big hollow space in the rear of the aircraft that can hold a variety of mission kits dependent on the mission which you want the aircraft to support.”

I discussed with Lt. Gen. Cavanaugh a similar process which the latest USMC aviation asset, the CH-53K, is bringing to the Marine Corps. Cavanaugh has many operational hours in the legacy CH-53D/E. He spoke about how he saw the new aircraft operating in the dynamic context for the Marines, the Navy, and the joint force.

He argued that the CH-53K is very different from the legacy aircraft in terms of physical attributes of lift capacity and ease of flight operations. But it is a digital aircraft which he anticipates will be part of the overall transition of the USMC in providing tailorable capability to the joint force.

This is how he put it: “Because it is a digitally enabled aircraft, the CH-53K can operate within the mesh network as user and provider. It’s a part of a broader interoperable kill web that can pass data to other parts of the kill web and enable the joint sensor-shooter relationship.

“I see the CH-53K leading with UASs in a mesh web and passing data to enable Aegis ship operations. It’s not just a muscle platform, it’s part of the digital interoperability revolution affecting our platforms and allowing them to be part of a joint kill web.”

We discussed the importance of Northern Europe and the opportunities for Marine Corps naval integration in support of the region and our Nordic allies. The East Coast Marines will receive the CH-53K first among Marine Corps forces and bringing them into the Northern European area of operation provides an opportunity to shape the aircraft’s path of innovation along with our allies.

This type of win-win integration is what Lt. Gen. Cavanaugh is focused upon.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL BRIAN W. CAVANAUGH

Lieutenant General Brian W. Cavanaugh assumed the duties as Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic; Commander, Marine Forces Command; and Commander, Marine Forces Northern Command on 30 August 2022.

A native of Baltimore, Maryland, Lieutenant General Cavanaugh earned his commission through the United States Naval Academy in 1990 and was designated a Naval Aviator in 1992. He served with HMH-462, HMH-362, and HMX-1. He commanded HMH-362 in Iraq during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and MAG-36 during multiple disaster relief efforts in Asia.

As a General Officer, he served as Deputy Commander, U.S. Marine Forces Pacific; Deputy Director for Operations, Joint Staff J-3; Assistant Deputy Commandant, Programs, Headquarters Marine Corps, Programs and Resources Department; and as Commanding General, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing.

Lieutenant General Cavanaugh’s other staff assignments include instructor at Officer Candidates School; Aide-de-Camp to the Chief of Naval Operations; Joint Doctrine Branch Chief, Joint Staff; Executive Assistant, Vice Director Joint Staff; Director of the Commandant of the Marine Corps’ Safety Division; and Marine Military Assistant to the 75th Secretary of the Navy.

Lieutenant General Cavanaugh’s education includes a BS in Mechanical Engineering from the United States Naval Academy, an MBA from Webster University and a Master of Science in National Resource Strategy from the National Defense University’s Industrial College of the Armed Forces. He is also an MIT Seminar XXI Fellow.

Lieutenant General Cavanaugh has accumulated over 3,000 flight hours, primarily in the CH-53D/E.

Featured photo: U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Brian W. Cavanaugh, right, the commanding general of Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic, Marine Forces Command, Marine Forces Northern Command, speaks with Naval officers and Chiefs stationed aboard the USS Bataan (LHD 5), left, during a ship tour on Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, Feb. 24, 2023. Cavanaugh toured the ship to discuss readiness and capabilities with leadership, as well as meet and converse with Marines and Sailors. The Bataan, or “Big Five,” is a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship, which, along with the San Antonio class amphibious transport dock ship USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19), and Harpers Ferry class dock landing ship USS Carter Hall (LSD 50), forms the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group.

This tour occurred after the interview with Second Line of Defense. The photo reminds us of the importance of the commitment to build up and modernize the amphibious fleet as a means of enhancing the role of the blue/green team across the spectrum of conflict. In my co-authored book with Ed Timperlake on the way ahead for the maritime kill web enabled force, one capability we highlighted was re-imaging the role of the amphibious force.

This is how we put it: “There is no area where better value could be leveraged than making dramatically better use of the amphibious fleet for extended battlespace operations. This requires a re-imaging of what that fleet can deliver to sea control and sea denial as well as Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) offense and defense. Fortunately for the sea services, such a re-imaging and reinvention is clearly possible, and future acquisitions which drive new connectors, new support elements, and enhanced connectivity could drive significant change in the value and utility of the amphibious fleet as well. In addition, as the fleet is modernized new platform designs can be added to the force as well.

“And as we will address later in the book, this entails shaping variant payloads as well to be delivered from a distributed integrated amphibious fleet. As building out the evolving fleet, larger capital ships will be supplemented and completed with a variety of smaller hull forms, both manned and autonomous, but the logistics side of enabling the fleet will grow in importance and enhance the challenges for a sustainable distributed fleet. That is certainly why the larger capital ships – enabled by directed energy weapons as well – will see an enhanced role as mother ships to a larger lego-like cluster of smaller hull forms as well.”[1]

[1] Laird, Robbin F.; Timperlake, Edward. A Maritime Kill Web Force in the Making: Deterrence and Warfighting in the 21st Century (pp. 109-110). Kindle Edition.