SDSR 15 – Following Boldly On

One of the hallmarks of a good officer is the ability to plagiarise with confidence.

To that end as we all eagerly honehone our 300 word SDSR 15 submissions I thought it would be worthwhile to look at similar exercises that were published this year by both China and the USA. The aim in doing so is to highlight how others see the operational environment, the ways by which they intend to operate in it and the means they intend to employ. Every county’s strategic perspective is unique, but understanding how other countries view their strategic environment and what their strategic aims are should help us in our strategic formulation.

USA

The US published its National Military Strategy (the United States Military’s contribution to national security) in July 2015.

Operating Environment.

“Complexity and rapid change characterize today’s strategic environment, driven by globalization, the diffusion of technology, and demographic shifts.”

“When applied to military systems, this diffusion of technology is challenging competitive advantages long held by the United States such as early warning and precision strike.”

“Emerging technologies are impacting the calculus of deterrence and conflict management by increasing uncertainty and compressing decision space.”

“Youth populations are rapidly growing in Africa and the Middle East, regions that face resource shortages, struggling economies, and deep social fissures. Meanwhile, populations in Europe and across northern Asia are set to decline and get older. Around the world, millions of people are flowing from the countryside into cities in search of work where they are exposed to cultural differences, alienation, and disease.”

Mission and Tasks.

“This National Military Strategy describes how we will employ our military forces to protect and advance our national interests.” “Success will increasingly depend on how well our military instrument can support the other instruments of power and enable our network of allies and partners.”

National Military Objectives

  • Deter, deny, and defeat state adversaries.
  • Disrupt, degrade, and defeat violent extremist organizations.
  • Strengthen our global network of allies and partners.”

Joint Force Prioritized Missions

  • Maintain a secure and effective nuclear deterrent
  • Provide for military defense of the homeland
  • Defeat an adversary
  • Provide a global, stabilizing presence
  • Combat terrorism
  • Counter weapons of mass destruction
  • Deny an adversary’s objectives
  • Respond to crisis and conduct limited contingency operations
  • Conduct military engagement and security cooperation
  • Conduct stability and counterinsurgency operations
  • Provide support to civil authorities
  • Conduct humanitarian assistance and disaster response.”

Force Development.

“In view of the anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) challenges we increasingly face, our future force will have to operate in contested environments. Key to assuring such access will be deploying secure, interoperable systems between Services, allies, interagency, and commercial partners. Priority efforts in that regard are establishing a Joint Information Environment (JIE), advancing globally integrated logistics, and building an integrated Joint ISR Enterprise.”

“Future capabilities must sustain our ability to defend the homeland and project military power globally. Important investments to counter A2/AD, space, cyber, and hybrid threats include: space and terrestrial-based indications and warning systems, integrated and resilient ISR platforms, strategic lift, long-range precision strike weapons, missile defense technologies, undersea systems, remotely operated vehicles and technologies, special operations forces, and the Cyber Mission Force, among others.”

Key Takeaways.

The consensus on the US National Military Strategy is that it was very good at describing the environment it anticipated operating in, but very light on the detail of describing how it would achieve anything in such an environment. This may have been a result of funding issues (sequestration) and having unknown (not just limited) resources to match against global demands. The document does give some indicators as to US thinking which will impact on UK defence planning:

  • As US military preponderance diminishes allies will become more important.
  • Forward basing of forces for deterrence and rapid-reaction will become more significant (we are already seeing this in Europe).
  • The US sees the threat of inter-state war as growing.

CHINA

China published its “Chinese Military Strategy” in May 2015.

Operating Environment.

“In today’s world, the global trends toward multi-polarity and economic globalization are intensifying, and an information society is rapidly coming into being.”

“Profound changes are taking place in the international situation, as manifested in the historic changes in the balance of power, global governance structure, Asia-Pacific geostrategic landscape, and international competition in the economic, scientific and technological, and military fields. The forces for world peace are on the rise, so are the factors against war. In the foreseeable future, a world war is unlikely, and the international situation is expected to remain generally peaceful. There are, however, new threats from hegemonism, power politics and neo-interventionism. International competition for the redistribution of power, rights and interests is tending to intensify. Terrorist activities are growing increasingly worrisome. Hotspot issues, such as ethnic, religious, border and territorial disputes, are complex and volatile. Small-scale wars, conflicts and crises are recurrent in some regions. Therefore, the world still faces both immediate and potential threats of local wars.”

Mission and Tasks.

“China’s national strategic goal is to complete the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2021”

“China’s armed forces take their dream of making the military strong as part of the Chinese Dream. Without a strong military, a country can be neither safe nor strong.”

“China’s armed forces mainly shoulder the following strategic tasks:

  • To deal with a wide range of emergencies and military threats, and effectively safeguard the sovereignty and security of China’s territorial land, air and sea;
  • To resolutely safeguard the unification of the motherland;
  • To safeguard China’s security and interests in new domains;
  • To safeguard the security of China’s overseas interests;
  • To maintain strategic deterrence and carry out nuclear counterattack;
  • To participate in regional and international security cooperation and maintain regional and world peace;
  • To strengthen efforts in operations against infiltration, separatism and terrorism so as to maintain China’s political security and social stability; and
  • To perform such tasks as emergency rescue and disaster relief, rights and interests protection, guard duties, and support for national economic and social development.”

Force Development.

“The seas and oceans bear on the enduring peace, lasting stability and sustainable development of China. The traditional mentality that land outweighs sea must be abandoned, and great importance has to be attached to managing the seas and oceans and protecting maritime rights and interests.”

“China will keep abreast of the dynamics of outer space, deal with security threats and challenges in that domain, and secure its space assets to serve its national economic and social development, and maintain outer space security.”

“As cyberspace weighs more in military security, China will expedite the development of a cyber force, and enhance its capabilities of cyberspace situation awareness, cyber defense, support for the country’s endeavors in cyberspace and participation in international cyber cooperation.”

“The nuclear force is a strategic cornerstone for safeguarding national sovereignty and security.” “China will optimize its nuclear force structure, improve strategic early warning, command and control, missile penetration, rapid reaction, and survivability and protection, and deter other countries from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against China.”

Key Takeaways.

The “Chinese Military Strategy” was a much better, more concrete policy document. It presented a clear strategic vision of China in the world and linked threats to security policy and resource implications. China has defined security in broad terms to cover 11 fields (political, territorial, economic, military, nuclear, social, cultural, science/technology, information, ecological, and financial). By defining security broadly China has allowed itself to apply the organs of security in any of these areas if needed. From a UK defence planning perspective it is worth noting that China is set on developing its regional hegemony status and that it is focusing its military capability development in cyberspace, outer space, nuclear forces and the maritime environment. From a UK perspective the fact that China sees itself as a nascent naval power should be giving cause for thought.

CONCLUSION

In considering the UK’s defence concept I found that the conceptual framework enunciated by Israeli Major General Sakal in his book “Soldier in the Sinai” a good framework to follow:

  • What are the domestic political considerations? What is the balance of power domestically? How much freedom does that give the government? How radical are opposing political visions? (We have gone from a bi-polar UK political system to a multipolar system, how will that impact on our willingness and ability to act on the world stage?)
  • What is the sociological basis of the society, its demographics and wealth? (We have an ageing society whose ethnic composition has undergone rapid and significant changes; this poses challenges for society, government and the military).
  • What is and what should be the Force composition be? The balance between Regular and Reserve components as well as between the different Services.
  • Past experience: experience accumulated in past wars and the political, military, technological, economic and social lessons learned. (For better or for worse SDSR 15 will be heavily influenced by the experience (political and military) of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns).
  • Economic considerations: the state’s ability to both afford conflict and to supply the weapons required to wage one. (What kind of war can we afford to fight? What kind of losses can we afford to sustain?)
  • Geographic considerations – what is the geo-political situation of the state. (We are a maritime state, but are we in Europe or out? What and where are our core interests and red lines?).

In considering the SDSR 15 operating environment I would highlight three points:

  • The character of conflict reflects the character of politics. At the micro and macro levels we are witnessing a fragmentation of the old order. Politics (and with it conflict) is changing. At the micro level this may well limit the UK’s ability to act, while conversely at the macro level increasing the requirement to act. The basis of the social contract in many societies (including the UK) is also changing, if not fraying. State on state war remains a distinct likelihood and the most dangerous form of conflict, but war among the people will be endemic and enduring.
  • Technological profusion means that the West will continue to lose its relative technological advantage.
  • The fundamentals of geo-political competition will not change.

Both China and the US clearly see a world where complexity and competition are increasing and the velocity of instability, enabled by changes in communication and by technological diffusion are increasing. In developing a coherent defence strategy we need to understand both what the threats are, but also what role we wish to play in the world.

China has a clear vision, the US maintains its lofty aspiration and the UK…?

 

The British Are Coming

From Fort Bragg.

The British are coming!

Capt. Joseph Bush, 82nd Airborne Division Artillery

FORT BRAGG, N.C. — The British are coming! The British are coming! One if by land, two if by sea, three if by air?

On Dec. 2, two 105mm artillery pieces with about a hundred rounds each, and one Pinzguaer High Mobility All-Terrain Vehicle from the 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, British Army, arrived by land to Fort Bragg from Marine Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, North Carolina after a month-long journey across the “pond.” While here, the British L-188 Light Gun will go through testing to later be air-dropped from a U.S. military cargo aircraft.

“Due to the superb support from the 82nd Airborne Division logistics staff and the 82nd Sustainment Brigade, specifically the 8th Ordnance Company, 82nd Division Artillery was able to receive U.K. equipment from the 7th Para in preparation for Exercise Pegasus Cypher from Jan. 9-15 and, as a proof of concept, for larger deliveries of equipment from the U.K. for Joint Operational Access Exercise 15-01,” according to the 82nd DIVARTY logistics officer Maj. Christopher Masson.

The British artillery is here to participate in Operation Pegasus Cypher. It is one of the first joint artillery exercises of its kind designed to integrate both nations’ systems.

Then it will be used in an airfield seizure exercise in April with 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Abn. Div.

“Your [the 82nd Airborne Division’s] platform is perfect for us. There is no platform in England that supports this gun and the Pinzguaer in service now,” said British Sgt. Phil Armitage, gun line section commander with 7th Para.

The artillery piece and truck will undergo several tests by the United States Army Advanced Airborne School to come up with a rigging solution for use in multiple training exercises between now and April. Once complete, the British artillery cannon can be dropped from any American aircraft in the world.

“We haven’t done anything like this since 1996,” said British Sgt. Maj. (CWO2) Carl Andrews, 7th Para Regimental Quartermaster Sergeant. “It’s a small exercise to build on something bigger in the future.”

Although there is little language barrier between the two allies, there is a communications gap between systems that don’t talk to each other. 82nd DIVARTY has come up with several methods to improve communications and work around the non-integrated that can be used in future joint interoperability exercises. 2nd Battalion 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment will be conducting Pegasus Cypher where British and American artillery Paratroopers will be working together to validate the proof of concept and learn how to communicate and fire artillery rounds using those different systems and techniques.

Staff Sgt. Andre Garson, the 82nd DIVARTY movement non-commissioned-officer, said he learned a lot in the last few days about the British military. “It’s been an awesome experience to learn about their Army and how they work.” He said now he can help others in his unit understand how they operate as well.

“When we send blokes in January they will know what to expect from the horse’s mouth,” said Armitage.

Sgt. Phil Armitage, 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, rotates the L188 105mm light gun in the 82nd Division Artillery motor pool on Fort Bragg, N.C., with the help of the 82nd Division Artillery movement non-commissioned-officer, Staff  Sgt. Andre Garson, in support of  joint exercise Pegasus Cypher in mid January.

Sgt. Phil Armitage, 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, rotates the L188 105mm light gun in the 82nd Division Artillery motor pool on Fort Bragg, N.C., with the help of the 82nd Division Artillery movement non-commissioned-officer, Staff Sgt. Andre Garson, in support of joint exercise Pegasus Cypher in mid January.

Sgt. Phil Armitage, 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, checks the L188 105mm light gun shortly after it arrived in the 82nd Division Artillery motor pool on Fort Bragg, N.C., with the help of the 82nd Division Artillery movement non-commissioned-officer, Staff Sgt. Andre Garson, in support of joint exercise Pegasus Cypher in mid January

Sgt. Phil Armitage, 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, checks the L188 105mm light gun shortly after it arrived in the 82nd Division Artillery motor pool on Fort Bragg, N.C., with the help of the 82nd Division Artillery movement non-commissioned-officer, Staff Sgt. Andre Garson, in support of joint exercise Pegasus Cypher in mid January

Sgt. Phil Armitage, 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, checks the L188 105mm light gun shortly after it arrived in the 82nd Division Artillery motor pool on Fort Bragg, N.C., with the help of the 82nd Division Artillery movement non-commissioned-officer, Staff Sgt. Andre Garson, in support of joint exercise Pegasus Cypher in mid January

Sgt. Phil Armitage, 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, checks the L188 105mm light gun shortly after it arrived in the 82nd Division Artillery motor pool on Fort Bragg, N.C., with the help of the 82nd Division Artillery movement non-commissioned-officer, Staff Sgt. Andre Garson, in support of joint exercise Pegasus Cypher in mid January

Sgt. Phil Armitage, 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, checks the L188 105mm light gun shortly after it arrived in the 82nd Division Artillery motor pool on Fort Bragg, N.C., with the help of the 82nd Division Artillery movement non-commissioned-officer, Staff Sgt. Andre Garson, in support of joint exercise Pegasus Cypher in mid January

Sgt. Phil Armitage, 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, checks the L188 105mm light gun shortly after it arrived in the 82nd Division Artillery motor pool on Fort Bragg, N.C., with the help of the 82nd Division Artillery movement non-commissioned-officer, Staff Sgt. Andre Garson, in support of joint exercise Pegasus Cypher in mid January

Sgt. Phil Armitage, 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, unloads the L188 105mm light gun with its prime mover, the Pinzguaer High Mobility All-Terrain Vehicle in the 82nd Division Artillery motor pool on Fort Bragg, N.C., which will be used in a combined exercise called Pegasus Cypher in mid January

Sgt. Phil Armitage, 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, unloads the L188 105mm light gun with its prime mover, the Pinzguaer High Mobility All-Terrain Vehicle in the 82nd Division Artillery motor pool on Fort Bragg, N.C., which will be used in a combined exercise called Pegasus Cypher in mid January

Sgt. Phil Armitage, 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, unloads the L188 105mm light gun with its prime mover, the Pinzguaer High Mobility All-Terrain Vehicle in the 82nd Division Artillery motor pool on Fort Bragg, N.C., which will be used in a combined exercise called Pegasus Cypher in mid January

Sgt. Phil Armitage, 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, unloads the L188 105mm light gun with its prime mover, the Pinzguaer High Mobility All-Terrain Vehicle in the 82nd Division Artillery motor pool on Fort Bragg, N.C., which will be used in a combined exercise called Pegasus Cypher in mid January

Light Gun 8

Combined Seapower: A Shared Vision for Royal Navy – United States Navy Cooperation

The culmination of a year long study has resulted in the publications of articulates a shared vision for increased cooperation between the Royal Navy and US Navy.

From the US Navy website

WASHINGTON (NNS) — Leaders of the U.S. and British navies agreed on a shared vision for closer cooperation Dec. 11, the culmination of a yearlong effort that will build on a long-standing maritime partnership over the next 15 years.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert and his counterpart in the United Kingdom, First Sea Lord Sir George Zambellas, signed a combined strategic narrative that articulates a shared vision for deeper cooperation between the U.S. Navy (USN) and the Royal Navy (RN).

“The United States and the United Kingdom rely on our navies to project power in critical regions and to protect the freedom of navigation that underpins the global economy,” said Greenert.

The narrative, titled “Combined Seapower: A Shared Vision for Royal Navy-United States Navy Cooperation,” is the culmination of a yearlong effort by a RN-USN study group formed in September 2013 to identify opportunities to enhance ties.

“The narrative provides a strategic vision to sustain and enhance cooperation between our two navies so that we can provide forward presence and be where it matters, when it matters,” Greenert said.

The U.S. and U.K. navies share a common naval heritage and legacy of collaboration since the first half of the 19th century. More recently, a combined RN-USN destroyer squadron staff completed a nine-month deployment to the U.S. 6th and 5th Fleet areas of responsibility in April. Royal Navy personnel were part of a staff that served aboard USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) and supported the sea combat commander for the strike group.

RN sailors also train aboard USN aircraft carriers as the Royal Navy constructs aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, the lead ship of her class. The United Kingdom currently has 15 pilots training in U.S. Navy units. The two navies also work closely on countering piracy, supporting disaster relief efforts, and fighting terrorism globally.

The narrative builds on these collaborative efforts and includes the following five features that will characterize the RN-USN partnership going forward: interoperability and mutual technology investment; combined aircraft carrier operations; force and capability planning; officer exchanges; and collaborative force management.

“This combined narrative represents a new and exciting opportunity for our two nations to build on shared national interests through the value of credible seapower,” said Zambellas. “It is a powerful statement of our shared maritime ambition, it cements our maritime leadership, and it delivers an even deeper partnership between our navies, to the mutual strategic and operational advantage of both the U.K. and U.S.”

The narrative represents a strong commitment by the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy to work together to achieve shared economic and security interests in the 21st century. This cooperation will ensure that the U.S. and the UK remain leaders in the increasingly important maritime domain.

It will be interesting to see more details as they emerge in due course but the five key pillars are;

  • interoperability and mutual technology investment
  • combined aircraft carrier operations
  • force and capability planning
  • officer exchanges
  • collaborative force management.

Am I alone in thinking those in the Marine Nationale might be raising an eyebrow or can we all be friends?

Given we are close to Christmas, can we look forward to a joint production of A Penguin Named Jack, perhaps with cheerleaders 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leQZq5p8RUA

 

Traditional Amphibious Warfare Wrong for decades, wrong for the future

The title of a challenging article in the US Marine Corps Gazette from USMCR Major Trevor Howell

The introductory paragraph sets out the thrust of the article

Military news is replete with calls from traditionalists for the Marine Corps to return to its “amphibious roots.” Citing a dubious account of history, traditionalists have long held amphibious warfare to be the defining characteristic of Marines while simultaneously displaying a strong aversion to Corps participation in irregular warfare (IW) in the decades following the 1950 amphibious landing at Inchon. With Afghanistan winding down, that war will join Iraq and Vietnam in a list of military campaigns that traditionalists will point toward to justify their aversion to IW no matter the circumstances. Notwithstanding the mixed results of these campaigns, the traditionalists’ claim that the Marine Corps is rooted in amphibious warfare is dubious insofar as it is not a full presentation of the historical record. Moreover, a return to amphibious warfare in the same way traditionalists have wanted since Inchon, with the opposed amphibious landing being the crown jewel of these forcible entry operations, will be detrimental to the Nation and the Corps

Given our recent discussion on the future of the UK’s general amphibious capability I thought it worth sharing.

Read more

https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/traditional-amphibious-warfare

As a footnote, you do have to admire the US forces for the way in which they can allow challenging articles to appear in their professional journals, something to be learned there I think.

Beating the Cousins at their Own Game

This is a great story

Fleet Challenge 2014 wrapped up its annual anti-submarine warfare competition April 10 at Naval Air Station Jacksonville. This year’s winners were the allied P-8A Poseidon aircrew from the Pro’s Nest of Patrol Squadron (VP) 30, followed closely in second place by VP-4 Skinny Dragons flying the P-3C, and third place taken by a VP-5 Mad Fox crew in a P-8A. “Fleet Challenge was a great, challenging experience and a superb opportunity to fly together as a British crew on a real submarine target,” said Royal Air Force Master Aircrewman Mark Utting from VP-30.

Lets just all forget we are bumming a ride 🙂

 

Operation Commando Rattlesnake

Whilst Phil Hammond has been in the US this week playing up UK defence and trying to convince everyone in Washington that the UK is not some ‘liberal’ paradise with gay marriage and mothers day friendly armed forces but indeed a strong partner with high levels of capability, resilience and willingness, 1 Battalion the Rifles have been on exercise with elements of the US 10th Mountain Division.

Read more and watch a video at the Waterdown Daily Times

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20140328/NEWS03/703289864

You do have to like the way US forces designate their operations and exercises, I mean really, what is Herrick 🙂

So, to what Phil said;

With a fully integrated force of 190,000 regulars and reserves, retaining our ability to deploy into the field a division-size force, our cutting-edge, broad spectrum conventional capabilities, our world class Special Forces, and our unique intelligence network, the UK will continue to be able to project and sustain military power around the world.

We will remain the most capable and most interoperable ally of the United States of America.

 

Should the Pentagon Should look West (or East) when Shopping?

Running down UK defence capabilities and pronouncing on the death of the British Armed Forces seems to be both a national and international sport.

But hang on a cotton pickin minute!

We might be looking a bit dog eared around the corners but putting aside the natural talents, good looks and all round brilliance of the British sailor  soldier and airman, the British Defence Industry has a a basket of gems. ready for the procurement managers of the worlds number 1 military power.

This is a bit of a tongue in cheek post but some of the procurement issues and gaps being raised by many US commentators have potential answers in the UK, or East or West, depending on your perspective 🙂

The AIM-120 Range Problem

First F-35 Live Fire Weapon Test with a AIM-120 AMRAAM

From Defensetech.org

When we war game it out, that’s the Achilles heel of the U.S. fighter fleet,” Gigliotti said referring to the AIM-120 at a F-35 panel session at a Navy conference here. Two other Navy F-35 pilots and one Marine Corps F-35 aviator, who also sat on the panel, agreed with Gigliotti.

The UK has the AIM-120 in service and will be replacing it with the MBDA Meteor

Of course the actual effective range of both weapons in various scenarios is going to be on the top secret side but by all accounts, the Meteor is turning out to be a bit of a monster and is claimed to have the largest no escape zone of any other comparable missile.

Would the Meteor be a viable replacement for US AIM-120’s?

The Littoral Combat Ship and Ticonderaga Class

Vice Admiral Thomas Copeman, commander of the Naval Surface Force and U.S. Pacific Naval Surface Force published the ‘Vision for the 2026 Surface Fleet

This obviously created a lot of interest and discussion, one of the areas much analysed was comments on the LCS, another expensive and troubled programme. I tend to think detractors of the LCS concept miss some of the wider advantages but it is hard to disagree with the cost, capability and survivability arguments.

An MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter prepares to land aboard the littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1).

Also, for those that follow defence programme acronyms, the reported US Navy Future Surface Combatant (FSC) that will replace the Ticonderaga class, should raise a smile

the later part of the ’20s when we’re going to start contracting for these… to replace our cruisers

I don’t think anyone is entirely sure what the USN FSC will look like but the forerunner to what will be the Type 26 is the Royal Navy Future Surface Combatant programme!

Why not the Type 26?

The Ground Combat Vehicle

It looks like the GCV is on life support with trickle funding and a general lack of appetite for developing a new combat vehicle. Defensenews reported that BAE and General Dynamics will run out funding by summer unless some new cash can be found.

BAE Systems Ground Combat Vehicle

Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Ray Odierno said recently;

Do we need a new infantry fighting vehicle? Yes. Can we afford a new infantry fighting vehicle now? No.

Is the GCV, a replacement for the Bradley, really that different in scope and performance than the UK’s FRES SV programme?

The UK has already funded development and again, the final vehicle is reportedly turning out to be performing well beyond expectations, especially in protection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgzeV4_rCjw

Imagine the economies of scale for both nations seeking to replace their old warhorses like the Bradley and Warrior/CVR(T)

FRES might not have the hybrid electric drive and some of the electronics of the proposed GCV’s but so what, these are all capable of being retrofitted when the technology matures.

Whether it is in the air, at sea or on land, the UK has three emerging weapon programmes that could potentially provide almost ready made replacements for a number of US items of equipment or fill capability gaps with little risk.

And these are just three examples, everything from the Chemring Centurion to the Expeditionary Elevated Sangar with Dual Mode Brimstone, Fire Shadow and Lightweight Multi Role Missile in between,

Some have even suggested the QE class aircraft carriers and A400M Atlas transport aircraft!

It would be ignorant to suggest the US does not buy weapons from non US sources, US Army artillery or US Navy aviators both using British equipment for example.

However, as the hangover from sequestration continues and the inevitable and relentless budget cuts continue, can the Pentagon continue as is, or is austerity coming to Washington like it has in London, Paris and Berlin?

Can the Pentagon learn lessons from Europe on how to cut costs with damaging (too badly) military capability?

Is the answer (if there is a single answer) to find a way around Mr Pork Barrel and buy from Europe?

None of this will ever happen of course, but fun to speculate

 

The Return of the Auxiliary Mothership

When you look back there have been a number of notable examples of the auxiliary mothership, or perhaps more accurately, a useful conversion of a civilian vessel to carry out warlike tasks on a temporary or semi permanent basis.

We can argue about the definitions all day long but if you picture the MV Bunga Mas Lima or Atlantic Causeway you would not be far off.

Now the US Department of Defense is getting on the action with something that seems to have passed the blogosphere by, although not Sol, who posted about it at the end of 2011, click here

Either way this bears watching

I would agree but I promptly forgot!

I was reminded of this by a few people recently, H/T Lee and Chuck and we had some great discussions, so interesting that I thought it would be worth writing a short post about it.

In November last year US DoD issued a contract notice, reproduced here in full

Maersk Line Ltd., Norfolk, Va., is being awarded a $73,677,038 firm-fixed-price contract for the time charter of one U.S.-flagged, twin-shaft vessel, which shall function as a maritime support vessel.  This contract includes four 12-month option periods, which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $143,149,058.  Work will be performed at sea worldwide, and is expected to be completed November 2014.  If all options are exercised, work will continue through October 2018.  Working capital contract funds in the amount of $73,677,038 are obligated for fiscal 2014, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was competitively procured with over 200 proposals solicited via a solicitation posted to the Military Sealift Command and Federal Business Opportunities websites, with 13 offers received.  The Military Sealift Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00033-14-C-2015).

There are more details here and here but to summarise;

Military Sealift Command (MSC) requests a U.S. flagged vessel which shall function as a Maritime Support Vessel (MSV). The vessel shall serve host to fifty (50) Sponsor personnel with the ability to surge to an additional one hundred and fifty-seven (157) support personnel, for a total of two hundred and seven (207) Sponsor personnel, within twenty-four (24) hour notice.

The vessel shall support launch, recovery, refueling, and resupply of small crafts, provide organic force protection and perform stowing, transport, launch/recovery, re-fueling of manned and unmanned rotary wing aircraft.

The vessel shall provide equipment stowage, messing, berthing, administrative/operational space, maintenance space, emergency towing, and logistics services in support of operations. The Contractor shall independently operate all deck equipment to include the craft handling/launching systems.

Expanding on selected aspects of the requirements document;

C-3.1 Endurance. The vessel shall maintain sufficient stores onboard to support the crew and fifty (50) Sponsor personnel for a minimum of forty-five (45) days without resupply. Additionally, the vessel shall have sufficient storage capacity to support at-sea operations for the crew and two hundred (200) Sponsor personnel for a minimum of forty-five (45) days without resupply. At a minimum, the vessel shall be able to Fuel At Sea (FAS) using INSTREAM single probe procedures in accordance with Navy Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (NTTP) 4.01-4 (provided upon request) with standard Coalition /USNS logistics ships and be able to support VERTREP for stores and ammunition delivery as required, extending operations for up to forty-five (45) additional days if port visits are not operationally feasible.

C-3.1.2 Minimum Range. 8,000 nautical miles (NM)

C-3.2 Seakeeping/Docking and Station Keeping. The support vessel shall be able to maintain course and speed in storm conditions of 50 knot winds and/or seas of up to 20 foot significant wave height. Vessel must support small craft launch and recovery operations up to and including seas described in Attachment C-3. Alongside refueling operations with small craft shall be conducted in maximum sea conditions described in Attachment C-3. The vessel must be capable of anchoring in water depths for a vessel of its class and size. The vessel will be required to loiter for long periods of time as a re-supply station for small crafts. The vessel shall have the capability to maintain directional stability below two knots.

C-3.3 Minimum Transit Speed. 20 knots sustained for five (5) days (120 hours). The vessel must be able to transit at least 3,000 NM in up to sea state 5.

C-3.6.1 Conference Room. The Contractor shall furnish a dedicated and lockable planning conference room (SCIF capable, built to ICD 705 standards), with a lockable communications storage closet. All power shall include surge protection and automatic switching (ATS) to Un-interrupted Power Source (UPS) for backup

C-3.6.2 Communications/Server Room. The Contractor shall furnish a dedicated, humidity controlled and lockable communications room (SCIF capable, built to ICD 705 standards) with a separate, attached, lockable storage space for communications equipment

C-3.6.4 Workout Rooms. The Contractor shall provide a minimum of 2,600 sq. ft. for a workout room

C-3.6.5 Aircraft Maintenance Planning Space. The Contractor shall provide one room in close proximity to the aircraft hangar that can be used for aircraft maintenance planning. Space shall be sized to support ten (10) personnel

C-3.6.6 Aircraft Maintenance Work Space. The Contractor shall provide a room in close proximity and on the same level as the aircraft hangar that can be used for aircraft maintenance in accordance with NAVAIR 4.8.2.5

C-3.6.13Medical Space. The Contractor shall provide a medical space where the primary focus shall be support of a surged Surgical Response Team (SRT). The secondary focus shall be support of shipboard medical clinic operations run by an independent duty corpsman or civilian equivalent

C-3.8.1 Equipment Stowage. The Contractor shall provide space to accommodate twelve (12) – 20’L x 8.7’W x8’H containers and six (6) standard 108″L x 88″W ISU boxes with a minimum of 5′ wide walkways between container doors and around the craft. Access to all containers and ISU boxes shall be from the deck level or equivalent internal storage area. The Contractor shall provide power for each ISU and each container in the following circuit sizes and quantities: 110V, 60Hz, 10A and (3) 110V, 60 Hz, 20A

C-3.8.2 Ordnance and Weapons Storage. The Contractor shall provide ordnance and weapons storage equal to the size of twenty-two (22) GFE climate controlled Ready Service Lockers (RSLs), four (4) weapons armories and two (2) ISU 90 weapons cleaning facilities. The exterior dimensions of the RSL are 11’L x 9’W x9’H and 20’L x9’W x9’H. The RSLs shall be secured to the deck with sufficient restraint to accommodate all vessel motions; they must be watertight and protected against corrosion

C-3.11.2 Craft Launch/Recovery Systems. The Contractor shall provide the capability to simultaneously launch and recover four (4) craft up to 12.5m x 3m with a minimum draft of 2m. The launch and recovery system shall be capable of lifting and supporting 30,000 pounds per craft and shall meet the requirements of the ABS Guide for Certification of Lifting Appliances (latest revision), including the requirements for personnel lifting.

There are many more, covering communications, accommodation, FLIR systems, diver support facilities, maintenance spaces, weapon mounts, security cameras and a jet ski launch and recovery facility (no, honestly!)

All good stuff, but what caught our eye was the aviation requirement, apart from the requirement of the workout rooms to four 50″ TV’s!

The flight deck

C-3.14 Flight Deck. The Contractor shall provide helicopter facilities with the ability to simultaneously launch/recover two (2) MH-60 class or one (1) CH-53E class helicopter with clear, unobstructed vertical airspace. Helicopter facilities shall comply with the requirements of US Coast Guard Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 9-81 for day and night landings with instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) for the following aircraft: MH6, AH6, MH47G, MH60K, MH60L, MH60M, UH60L, CH47 D-F, OH58D, AH64 A-D, MV/CV 22, HH60H, HH60J-T, SH60 B-F, MH60R, MH60S, and the MH53E.

The helicopter facilities shall meet the requirements of Aviation Attachment C-4 to achieve a NAVAIR Level I Class 2 certified facility (day and night IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions) landing facilities with service but no maintenance facilities) for following aircraft: MH6, AH6, MH47G, MH60K, MH60L, MH60M, UH60L, CH47 D-F, OH58D, AH64 A-D, MV/CV 22, HH60H, HH60J-T, SH60 B-F, MH60R, MH60S, and the MH53E. A recovery assist, securing, and traversing system (RAST) is not required. The flight deck, aircraft parking areas, and hangar deck shall withstand the landing loads and parking loads associated with moderate and storm sea conditions (sea state 5) for all aircraft identified above.

The flight deck shall meet NAVAIR requirements for Level I, Class 4, Special Type 2 vertical replenishment operations (VERTREP) for the H-60 series, CH-53K, H-46, CH-47, and V-22 aircraft.

The Contractor shall provide adequate tie-down locations for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and all rotary wing aircraft shall be restrained in sea state 5. The flight deck must be reachable by material handling equipment in order to move equipment (5,000 lb pallet) to below deck storage areas. The Contractor shall provide all necessary yellow gear to move equipment and aircraft around the flight deck.

And the hangar

C-3.14.1 Hangar. The Contractor shall provide a hangar facility, capable of being NAVAIR certified, with easy access to the flight deck. Hangar shall be capable of housing two (2) MH-60 class helicopters with main rotor folded, refueling probe installed, and tail rotor unfolded in flyable condition (30’W x 75’L x 26’H), as well as 4 (15′ x 5′) air vehicles, GFE yellow gear, spare parts and space to conduct routine required maintenance. The hangar shall be of sufficient size to accommodate two (2) MH-60 class helicopters. The entire traverse cycle shall be accomplished without disturbing adjacent aircraft stowed and secured in the hangar. The following minimum hangar clearances are required: 12 inches of overhead clearance at the door and 18 inches within the hangar, 24 inches of horizontal side clearance on each side of the aircraft at the door and throughout the traverse cycle, and 27 inches of horizontal clearance all around the aircraft between the deck and a height of 6 ft 8 inches (18 inches above 6 ft 8 inches). The hangar shall be provided with continuous white and NVD overhead lighting. The hangar shall have mooring points for the MH-60 class helicopters, ground handling equipment (to include tow bar) to move aircraft to/from hangar and flight deck or flight deck elevator.

That’s a big flight deck and a pretty big hangar.

When I said the US was getting in on the action that would not be strictly true, I should have said, get back in the action.

This is the first time the US has contracted for a dedicated Maritime Support Vessel (MSV) but has used various vessels in the past in a similar role, especially for special forces support. The 220ft Edison Chouest C-Champion for example. The C-Champion cost the princely sum of $7m to convert and less than $10m per year to run. The feedback was reportedly very good and the C-Champion operated in the role for many years although the lack of aviation facilities was recognised as a shortcoming.

The MSV is not a warship, but then it is not meant to be, so the trade-offs in terms of protection and survivability seem entirely reasonable to me. A lot of capability for not a lot of money.

The UK has also dabbled with the concept, even excluding the amazing feats of 1982

Special Forces - SBS Stealth boats

SD Victoria

The SD Victoria is often seen (or maybe not) with special boats aboard in the Worldwide Support Vessel role

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXpHsiurYls

We have also operated the RFA Bay class LSD(A)’s in the mother ship role, supporting the MCM force in the Middle East and elsewhere for example

An interesting concept any day of the week, especially given that the US has decided to increase the size, capacity and all round capability of the Maritime Support Vessel (MSV)

What makes it really interesting from a UK perspective is the vessel that Maersk won the contract with.

The MV Cragside, formerly of DFDS

http://www.dfdsgroup.com/Ournetwork/Fleet/Ro%20ro/CRAGSIDE/

Mmm, does that look familiar

Yep, its from the same design family as those operated in the UK’s Strategic RORO Service

http://www.fsg-ship.de/18-1-RoRo.html

Instead of looking for cost savings by going small as many suggest, perhaps is the answer to the perennial problem of balancing the high end yet scarce capabilities with the numerous low end demands is to ‘go large’

Supersize me!