First, from the Lexington Institute’s Dr. Loren Thompson (courtesy of Castle denizen Ry):
“Forcenet” (is) the metaphorical glue that will hold the future fleet together. The goal of Forcenet is to migrate Navy communications from a legacy, “need-to-know” mind-set to a far more open, “need-to-share” culture. The basic idea is to break down barriers to the transmission, fusion and interpretation of information so that all war-fighters with appropriate security clearances have access to the full information resources of the joint force. This openness closely resembles the operating principles of the internet…
You really can do more with less when everyone shares the same worldview – or “common operational picture” – and everyone contributes to it. It enables you to do more with less by swarming an adversary with decisive firepower much more quickly than they can observe, orient, decide and act. It also permits an economy of force, since each node in the target set would be assigned to the most capable unit in the network, reducing redundancies by blowing away the “fog of war.” Mostly.
This is also the rub, of course – although “open architecture” helps ensure universal compliance with standards, it also opens up a huge vulnerability set – an adversary who can inject himself into and compromise your network will have the capability of rendering all other advantages moot: The battle will be over before a shot can be fired. And to quote Sun Tzu, “To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”
Ideally, all naval war-fighting systems will one day be “born open,” meaning able to exploit the full potential of internet-protocol communications. Today, only a few programs are, such as the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye radar plane, the P-8A patrol plane, and the Littoral Combat Ship (all of which are still in development)…
The Navy could improve its prospects for making this revolution work if it took four basic steps. First, it needs to do a better job of explaining its networking goals to Congress, so that normal people can grasp what it is trying to achieve. Second, it needs to rebuild the ranks of Navy engineers capable of effectively managing the contractors working on new technology (ed. I’m sensing abundant job opportunities here). Third, it needs to coordinate with other services on establishing stable standards for building a truly joint and interoperable network. Finally, it needs to avoid stop-and-start funding practices for key programs, because delays in one program ripple across other efforts.
Yeah, well: Good luck with that last bit.
Also in this week’s blotter is a brief discussion on anti-missile strategies. Dr. Daniel Goure observes that much time, effort, money and political capital has been expended on creating ground-based missile defenses, while making the sensible observation that high-velocity kinetic energy interceptors stationed at sea offer a much better boost-phase counter-missile capability without incurring any of the potential political liabilities.
If you’re talking multiple-warhead missiles, then a boost-phase interceptor has much to recommend it (and a FORCENET-enabled fleet would be the way to implement it). Even if it isn’t possible to build a defensive shield capable of completely warding off a full-scale national attack, it ought to be econonically feasible – not to mention a moral imperative – to field the kind of system that could deter a rogue nation or non-state actor who otherwise might hope to make a nuclear statement.
Dr. Goure loses me a little though, when he recommends stationing these systems aboard the LPD-17 class of ships rather than aboard CG(X) cruisers.
Let me offer a modest proposal that takes advantage of what the Administration has been able to achieve in missile defense while recognizing simultaneously the realities of the 21st Century. Deploy KEI on large naval vessels. Not the CG(X), which should be designed to meet the Navy’s enduring missions, but on a variant of the Navy’s new class of amphibious ships, the LPD-17. More than 680 feet long, with a loaded weight of 25,000 tons, the LPD-17 could easily carry a large number of KEIs, as well as other air and missile defenses including the Navy’s Aegis system. Moreover, the LPD-17 comes equipped with one of the most modern command, control and communications suites in the Navy and therefore would be able to integrate seamlessly with the rest of the Fleet.
Not only would this mean crossing swords with the US Marine Corps – if the class designator has an “L” in it (meaning “amphibious”), the Marine Corps only pretends to let the Navy think we own it – but the optimal deterrent capability would lie in the kind of strategic ambiguity that exists if a rogue regime or non-state actor knew that every combatant warship offshore had the potential capability to serve as a floating BMD station.
I would note that its important to always be aware of the color of the lens through which the Lexington Institute views various issues. You may find that the hue may shift depending on who is paying the bills.
Thats said, as long as any latent biases are accounted for, its good gouge.
Well, Goure has some interesting if not unique ideas and concepts re. KEI. There are many dynamics at work though that have delayed KEI, not some bureaucratic bias against same.
Given I will have some enforced downtime next week and had planned on a couple of postings on BMD, guess I’ll add this particular topic to the list, provided my wife (aka Nurse Ratchet) doesn’t hide the laptop…
- SJS
I think the main thing to keep in mind — regardless of which platform KEI is stationed on — we need to make it clear to everyone that we as a nation will not sit idoly by and be attacked. This means not only having a good BMD system, but also letting all potential players know that if attacked, or if we think we’re going to be attacked, we’ll beat the living dog snot out of them. I still believe that one of the biggest failings of the previous administration was forgetting that the best defense is a good offense.
Jim C
Shipmates,
I would, however, point out that, to my mond, the one flaw in the “up-teching” of Navy Systems is this: One or more 1MT airbursts over the Pacific at, say, 150-300nm altitude.
I hope folks still remember how to use a sextant and a HF/UHF system.
Respects,
BMD systems are a tough topic. Land based are much cheaper, but terminal is the hardest phase. Boost is the most effective, but few nations are interested in taking the heat from powerful neighbors for allowing us to station there.
That leaves mid-course, and therefore sea-basing becomes attractive (if not required). I just don’t think that’s a job for Naval ships. We generally have other primary missions. The rogue states we say BMD is designed for aren’t likely to pose a threat to open ocean surface ships. How about a big RO-RO or tanker sized ship. Could probably get one second hand.
Incidentally, the Sea Based X-Band Radar will be based in Adak, AK and move around the Pacific.
Cap’n,
Tim has a point but I submit Navy ships could survive EMP given sufficient warning. Yeah, that’s where the rub is.
I remember working, back in the day, on an NTDS application that eliminated ‘ghost’ images reported over the roll-call net. Most interesting, especially as it led to the OTH targeting systems.
One question remains, however. Given the extremely high veolocity of an incoming MIRV, can a kinetic energy weapon be precisely targeted and delivered?
SeniorD-
Yes it can…
while it’s still in it’s silo at the launch point! Actually, I’ve been aboard an Burke DDG when we’ve done intercepts, but, we KNEW they were comin’. Don’t know if it can actually work, but, if it acts as a mild derterrent, I’m all for it. As for basing on a SA Class LPD, well that just smacks of Tin-Can Envy on the part of the Gator Fleet. Harumph.
LPD-17 can’t integrate seamlessly with itself, never mind the rest of the Fleet.
Shipmates,
So…. there’s a good wargames exercise for you: If you were a potential aggressor to the United States, and had access to a large fleet of older-style (but newly made and well-trained) deisal boats, which do you target first. The Carriers, or the BMD platforms. Of course, it’s a given you’d task the X-Band Sea-Based radar regardless.
Looks like someone has a bit of a dilema, and it also compounds the escort’s problems during a future sea war. If the BMD ships are going to have that as primary tasking, they will need some escorts as well, which, considering our reduced contruction, makes it harder to prioritise where they will be tasked.
BMD ships? CBG? Supply vessels in transit? LPDs? Interesting…
Respects,
Most ARG’s already have a small cadre of escorts of the Aegis variety in most instances (assuming the ARG comprises the whole of the pie-in-the-sky idea of placing KEI/BMD platforms squarely amidst 600 angry Marines per LPD, give er take a few)…
I know the Navy has moved more towards littoral warfare of late since the demise of the Big Bear, but, I think the idea of turning a San Antonio Class LPD into an Aegis Platform is more “let’s see what we can think of next” than reality…
Bottom line, in your scenario, the Diesel Boat Skipper has the upper hand… just no way to make all those Jarheads be QUIET!!!!
heh…
Yeah, I’ve been interested in the long game between China and the US for many years. I have many concerns, especially in regard to numbers. The concept of quality over quantity isn’t always valid.
We are shooting up our older escorts as targets and we are not even bothering to come close to replacing them. If we get into a strung-out war a long way from home, we may well NOT have enough escorts to protect the CV’s and the auxilliaries.
China is cranking out deisal boats. I am convinced she’s trying to emulate the German Wolf-pack concept. She can read. She saw what our wolfpacks did to the Japanese supply lines. Compared with the lowering of our ASW capabilities through platform attrition (all types: air, sub & surface) and fewer trainex’s that doesn’t bode well for our side.
Now, we can send our fast attacks to take out quite a few, but then what do we use to track the Chinese boomers?
I am so very concerned that we’ll end up like the little Dutch Boy, with more holes to plug than fingers and toes.
But that’s just me… sigh.
Respects,
Tim-
You just need to convince them boys down DC way to give the boys up your way the green light to rev up the ways and build us more platforms! I spent a year up your way, BIW/Bath zone building my last Tin Can, loved it up there. Yup, send more of them Tin Cans down the Kenebec, to give ‘em hell of course. ASW has taken a back seat to STRIKE from the time the first VLS cells touched hulls. The Sonar Techs never got much love after that, even though, inch for inch, they OWNED the ship (in so far as sheer equipment/space was concerned), second only to the Aegis geeks…
Course, it was all greek to me anyway, I was a snipe…
Lee,
Oh yeah, there are two hulls on the ways even as I type. I can look out my front window and see the superstructure of one not 200 yards away.
We do need more. Hopefully we can get them into the budgets, because those tin cans are mucn more important then many folks realise.
And no, I don’t work for Bath Iron Works. I just live next door. Literally.
Respects,
I hate to sound ignorant, because in this instance I am, but occassionally the question “Why can’t we?” has caused the impossible to suddenly become possible.
My question is, why can’t we incorporate this into the boomer fleet? Seems to me the system has two parts, the radar/tracking system and the launching platform. Well, the launching platform can be about anything, right? And after launch guidance has to be sent to the missle anyway, not the launcher, so there’s really no reason they have to originate from the same platform. Finally, if we accept the idea as given (a leap, I admit) that 12 tubes or 6 tubes of MIRV doesn’t make a lot of difference against most actors at this stage of the game, maybe devoting a couple or four tubes to defense becomes a way to help cost-justify the portion of the fleet we pay to disappear from sight for months? Be kind of nice to know they can play both sides if necessary.
I’m just *askin* here, you know. Running it up the flagpole, so to speak.
– Max