DOWNLOAD |
Transformation starts
The most significant element in the FY2004 Navy budget request may well be the $1.5 billion budgeted for new ship classes. It's a sign that "transformation" may actually be starting to happen.
Military analysts have written tomes on transformation. But two aspects of the concept are easy enough to digest. The most basic of these is that we're no longer fighting the Cold War: Tracking down and killing Al Qaeda operatives requires different military skills and resources than those needed to keep the Soviet Union (remember it?) stalemated.
So, now we come to the idea of "network centric" warfare.
Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski has been called the "father of network centric warfare." In Nov. 2001 he became head of the newly established Office of Force Transformation within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
"Network centric warfare is not about technology per se—it is an emerging theory of war," Cebrowski said last year in an interview with ITAA (Information Technology Association of America). "It is not about the network, rather it is about how wars are fought. How power is developed. During the industrial age, power came from mass. Now power tends to come from information, access and speed."
According to Cebrowski, we are "seeing warfare dominated more by sensors than perhaps any other piece of equipment. The ability to sense the environment, to sense the enemy and to be networked enough to transmit that critical data to all who require it, is a trend line emerging from current operations. The issue is not weapons reach. The issue is sensor reach. The whole world knows that if U.S. military systems can see a target we can kill it. Consequently, potential enemies are working very hard to make it difficult for us to sense their targets, so we are shifting from a weapons game to a sensor game."
How do we make transformation happen?
"Injecting prototypes into the forces in the field opens the door for the emergence of new operational concepts," says Cebrowski. "This is the lifeblood of transformation. It is imperative that we put into the hands of operators a capability they did not previously possess and did not imagine."
"A great example of this approach has been the military services' experience with the High Speed Vessels, which are being leased from an Australian shipyard. Australian military forces used these vessels to great effect during peacekeeping operations in East Timor in recent years. These ships are now being used by the Navy, the Army, the Marines, and Special Operations Forces to test out new operating concepts. The high-speed ships are indeed highly transformational. Compared to traditional amphibious ships, the catamaran ships are much faster and possess a shallower draft that allows them access to more ports with less preparation. But look at the cost. They are an order of magnitude cheaper than today's amphibious ship. One-tenth the cost. Consider the high-speed ships' overhead as well. The most efficient American amphibious ship delivers 1.77 Marines per embarked sailor. The Australian experience is 25 to 50 soldiers delivered per embarked sailor. That is a huge difference. I'm not arguing that we buy exclusively this capability, but I am arguing that we ought to buy some of it, experiment with it, and develop some operational experience with it."
NAVSEA awarded six $500,000 contracts to perform the 90-day concept studies that will explore a range of approaches in an overall effort to define future ship requirements. According to Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton, Deputy Program Executive Officer for Ships, the contractors were asked to develop a concept for a ship designed to counter three specific threats—diesel submarines operating in the littorals; fast, armed small craft; and mines.
"Each of these threats provide unique challenges in providing access for Naval forces as we move into different operating theaters," said Hamilton. "We want to serve that niche market with a specific class of ships to respond to those specific threats."
Hamilton envisions that a Focused Mission Ship would have a displacement between 1,000 and 4,000 tons and a draft of less than 20 feet, as compared to an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer that has a displacement of about 9,200 tons and a draft of 31 feet. A Focused Mission Ship would also employ a non-traditional hull shape and be capable of speeds between 40 to 50 knots.
A significant feature of the Focused Mission Ship would be its ability to employ modular mission packages or modules that could be easily added and removed from the ship to support specific missions. These modules would include specialty crew detachments that would deploy with the ship to support their specific mission.
Once the studies are completed, the Navy plans to use the results and, along with data collected from other experiments, to draft a new solicitation for up to three preliminary designs for LCS.
According to Hamilton, the designs would focus more specifically on speed and payload capabilities, while investigating new ways to design and build the ship hulls or platforms in the most cost-effective manner.
The admiral added that the recently awarded ship concept studies set the Navy on a course not only to craft the capabilities for LCS, but also to assist in shaping the 21st century Navy.
"This is an exciting time for the Navy," he said. "I'm looking forward to the best minds in industry and in the armed forces to help in this endeavor."
On the table are proposals that include technology drawn from such sources as Sweden's stealthy Visby from Kockums and Germany's modular MEKO from Blohm + Voss, to mention just two out of a very competitive field. Why so much European influence? Because, it's tempting to think, historically, American efforts to develop designs that produced a lot of firepower from a small package were largely squelched by Navy brass who didn't want to know about such things. With that thought, let's mention just two words that are still missing from U.S. Navy shipbuilding plans: diesel submarines. Submarine development, its seems, is still very much focused on nuclear subs. Even here, though, transformation is at work. Check here to see what's happening to the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
