Technology and the Third Offset Strategy Initiative

Outgoing Defense Secretary Hagel announced the outlines of DOD’s new offset strategy initiative back on November 15^th. Since then, Sydney Freedberg at Breaking Defense has carried some of the best analysis and commentary on the initiative that I’ve come across.

Freedberg’s initial piece did a great job unpacking the various emerging technology areas the SECDEF mentioned in his speech. On quicklook, these technologies are all presently at relatively low Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) with respect to their potential applications in next generation military systems. Any conceptual systems that might be based around these technologies are almost certainly at least a decade away from reaching Milestone B, and that’s assuming laboratory-level research is successful enough for them to support Milestone A decisions and a transition to Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction phase prototyping by the early 2020s. The obvious implication is that the planning horizon for introducing such systems is the U.S. military of the late 2020s/early 2030s. Hagel was therefore not announcing some near-term tectonic shift in DOD force structure and acquisition in favor of these kinds of systems, but rather that the underlying technologies will be prioritized within the DOD budget’s basic and applied research funding lines over the coming years. I accordingly recommend reading the Defense Science Board’s October 2013 examination of several of the above technologies for context on how research investments in them might be shaped.

Freedberg later covered DEPSECDEF Work’s comments regarding the prospective strategy’s technological durability. Work was quite right that the U.S. likely does not possess dramatic or enduring advantages in any particular defense emerging technologies over its main competitors. This represents quite a contrast from how the sizable U.S. competitive advantages of the 1970s-1980s in microelectronics technologies enabled introduction of qualitatively superior conventional warfare systems that could partially offset quantitatively superior Soviet conventional forces. Instead, contemporary technological circumstances seem more similar to those that prevailed throughout the 1950s. During that decade, the Eisenhower administration sought to offset Soviet conventional mass by capitalizing on U.S. superiority in nuclear weapons and delivery vehicle technologies at the expense of U.S. conventional force structure. It certainly made strategic sense to prioritize nuclear force development due to the sheer impossibility of economically sustaining American conventional forces sized to match their Soviet counterparts. It also made sense to threaten massive nuclear retaliation for any major acts of conventional aggression against Western Europe or Japan while both were still politically, economically, and militarily recovering from the Second World War’s traumas. No technological or resource barriers existed to prevent the Soviets from countering relatively quickly with their own symmetric nuclear buildup, however, and by the end of Eisenhower’s second term this and many other factors made it clear that a new and somewhat less nuclear-centric strategic direction would be necessary.

If DEPSECDEF Work’s assertion that the U.S. will not be able to enjoy any lasting military-strategic advantages from investing in emerging technologies is correct, then why make the exertion at all? The simple answer is that such investments are America’s price for maintaining rough qualitative military-technological parity with its competitors over the coming decades. I would further argue, though, that technological advantages alone are never enough to achieve military dominance. What really matters is doctrine, operating concepts (including how forces are organized), and force-wide competence (from the platform-level technician or console operator all the way up to the theater commander) for employing advanced technology systems. These elements formed the invisible core of the U.S. military's post-1970s microelectronics-based offset. If they end up doing the same in the new offset initiative, they may very well end up being the difference-maker.

Upward Falling Payloads (UFP)

This is very interesting.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative research proposals in the area of distributed unmanned sensors and systems for maritime applications. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice. Details are contained in the attached Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) DARPA-BAA-13-17. 

Basically DARPA wants to have a magazine of unmanned systems that can be called upon and deployed. It is worth reading the detailed announcement at the link if you want to get your juices flowing.

As long as we are dreaming up ways to do cool things, I'd like a box of 36 Tomahawk missiles and 12 Harpoon missiles that can be towed into position by a submarine and left suspended at around 100 meters depth until called upon. 

Talking to Robots on the Flight Deck

You might ask yourself, "Who in the world is that yellow shirt signaling?" It is an unmanned system afterall, right? What is the point if the operator is that green shirted guy (not that kind of green shirt) right next to the yellow shirt. That was exactly the question on my mind last week when i first noted all the pictures and video put out by the US Navy as the X-47B was driving all over the flight deck of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75).

Well, it turns out all that work is part of teaching the UCAS-D to read and understand the hand signals of the Yellow Shirt. Yes, that guy in the green on video is the human engaged pilot, but there is a learning process underway by which the unmanned aircraft is learning how to taxi around an aircraft carrier autonomously based on the hand signals of the yellow shirt.

Ready to watch the video again? Pretty cool IMO.

Watch very closely in this video (and check out others for more examples) and you will see how very deliberate the yellow shirt is with his signals, indeed he stays very steady and is being very deliberate with every motion. This is an example of yet one more in a long list of very interesting, intricate processes being developed as the Navy moves toward flying advanced computers without pilots strapped to jet engines off aircraft carriers.

As one pilot noted to me today, what this video is actually showing is a two way conversation on the flight deck.

Keyhole

As we continue the movie theme this week, ironically the same week the movie Battleship hits theaters, I encourage folks to check out this presentation by Michael Jones, Chief Technology Advocate at Google Ventures. Now full disclosure, this is how Google rolls and I have seen a version of this speech several times, each time tailored to the audience. Basically Google guys like Mr. Jones walks in and scares the crap out of people.

If you are interested in the power of information, you are going to love this.

Commercial Seabed Mining at last?

I do not have an opinion on UNCLOS, because I have not been persuaded by arguments for or against. I've read it many times, but I am far from an expert. Most Americans don't know anything about it. I think issues involving UNCLOS represents an important discussion on ID, and I fully expect the Obama administration to take on the treaty now that START is completed. With that discussion looming, potentially later this year, I welcome these types of blog contributions on the subject because I believe they are important. The following post is contributed by Dr. Miles Libbey.

Miles is a retired Navy Captain who studied Law of the Sea at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy during his appointment as the Navy's first Samuel Eliot Morison Scholar, eventually leading to a Ph.D.; he founded the startup Seaminr last year to provide technology, international law and business impetus to worldwide commercial seabed mining efforts creating exploration companies.

Commercial Seabed Mining at last?
....UNCLOS gains importance for USA…

The close association of the United States and the Law of the Sea (more correctly UNCLOS, the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, Dec 82) over its long maturation period from the 60’s until today, has impressively passed a significant milestone Tuesday as the first two commercial claims for polymetallic nodule exploration were approved at the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

These claims are potentially worth many tens of billions of dollars by harvesting the readily accessible, important minerals such as cobalt, nickel, copper and the Rare Earths that are helping to build green motors and generators. Admittedly the impression of “readily accessible” may be stretching the point a bit when these potato-sized rocks lie on the seabed surface at about two and a half miles deep.

30 years ago it was stretching technology some to collect these attractive mineral nuggets… today not so much. Three major inflection points have jointed to revitalize this wonderful ocean resource and technology is one of them. Driven by the feats of the deep water hydrocarbon industry in offsetting foreign US gas and oil, seabed mining can now borrow and shape their technology to use a light touch to bring these metals to the surface. Environmental responsibility is an international byword and backed by regulations evolving with our increasing knowledge.

The economic inflection point could drive the race for seabed resources alone. Market demands for nodules and closely associated crusts cause give economic incentives long lacking in tepid markets for harvesting seabed minerals. The new world economy demanding stainless steel and rare earths for green energy by the burgeoning BRICS (Brazil, India, China, South America …as well as Indonesia, Malaysia and other economies) need more than terrestrial resources can easily and economically provide as we look to the future. By having their claims approved yesterday, the island states of Tonga and Nauru show their prescience by making their claim first, leading the rest of us to understand a environmentally and economically sound path to needed resources.

The final inflection is driven by the international acceptance of over 160 countries of the law of the sea as expressed by UNCLOS. This literal world-wide acceptance has led to a settling and increasing stability of the international legal regime governing the seabed, consequently creating an environment in which capital markets can enter safely and likely thrive.

Infamously, most of the countries who have not yet acceded to UNCLOS are small like the Vatican, do not care because they are landlocked, or have USA in their chant.

The US has several pioneer claims each about the size of Rhode Island with an estimate of over trillion dollars of important metals to harvest: but only after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee breaks its 30-year lock on stopping a full vote of the Senate to allow Ratification. Perhaps Tonga’s and Nauru’s foresight and leadership will change some minds on Capital Hill this year.

The Navy's Fuzzy Green Math

Last week a bunch of "green" news surfaced all over the internet regarding a major contract with the Navy that Solazyme was about to announce regarding Algae-fuel - and given I am interested in both the Navy and algae fuel, I've been watching the DoD contract listings. But alas - nothing.

And yet CNET is saying this happened?

Algae biofuel producer Solazyme announced Wednesday it's delivered 20,000 gallons of algae-based shipboard fuel to the U.S. Navy.

Solazyme's Soladiesel Renewable Naval Distillate fuel will go toward the Navy's ambitious goal of getting 50 percent of its energy from renewable resources by 2020.

But algae fuel is not just useful for the Navy's ships.

This past summer Solazyme also delivered 1,500 gallons of algae-based jet fuel to the U.S. Navy for testing. If testing goes well, Solazyme's algae-based advance biofuel could be powering some of our nation's military aircraft.

That is the completion of an old contract, not an announcement for a new contract.

I don't know where the money is coming from, but somehow the Navy is reported to have paid $8.5 million for 20,000 gallons of algae produced marine fuel (of which they have now taken delivery), and then has this new contract for $10+ million more for "research and development of using biofuel feedstocks." That was after paying who knows how many million last year for 1,500 gallons of algae-based jet fuel last year, of which has also already been delivered so I've heard.

But something isn't right here, indeed something smells all wrong. Why are there no public contract announcements outlining exactly how much money the Navy is spending with Solazyme, and even more important - why is the Navy throwing money at this company in the first place?

Look, you don't have to convince me that algae-fuel will one day replace oil based fuels, I already believe that is true (and understand there is still a lot of skepticism). What you do have to convince me though is how in the world Solazyme is ever going to be anything other than a really neat technology that is also cost effective, because it is a really neat technology that has almost no chance of ever being cost effective. Algae-fuel companies are renowned for offering gross exaggerations with their estimations, and while Solazyme clearly has the technology to produce lots of algae-fuel - their cost models examined in the backdrop of their super electricity consuming laboratories don't even come close to passing the smell test.

It costs Solazyme more than a gallon of oil based fuel to create a gallon of biofuel, so why is the Navy investing so heavily in a company that is the antithesis of carbon neutral green energy? I think the technology Solazyme has is cool as hell - because cooking fuel just sounds cool as hell - but come on..., is 'neato' how we measure investments in government or does substance matter?

Do the math - the Navy is paying $425 per gallon for Marine biofuel from Solazyme, and the goal for Solazyme is to ramp up their production up to 1,000,000 million gallons a year. To put it in perspective, a single DDG-51 uses more than 1,000,000 gallons fuel when assigned on deployment to CTF-151 off the Horn of Africa (see USS James E Williams in FY09) - and that's the high end goes for Solazyme right now. This is the slowest possible road towards The Great Green Fleet Ray Mabus discussed.

I understand the idea that the US Navy would buy algae-fuel from Solazyme to test engines of various platforms for viability, but because I am not seeing contract money - I can only assume the money is actually part of a grant. With that said, if the United States is throwing grant money at an algae-fuel company that has no chance in hell of ever being commercially viable and competitive short of war with Iran, then our green energy priorities are really screwed up.

Solazyme either has someone in Congress in their back pocket, of the folks in the green energy section of the Navy need to explain themselves better because they are begging for criticism.

When it comes to algae-fuel, the US Navy should be looking at every single algae company doing work in ponds they can find - because if the US Navy doesn't understand why pond based algae fuel technologies will be part of the US Navy's greater disaster response package one day, then their vision of algae-based fuel technologies is remarkably limited. The US Navy green energy policies need to be about energy and food and water - and the "and food and water" part should be pretty damn important to the US Navy.

Either the Navy is not really spending the money on algae-fuel (in other words, some other government agency or budget is), or that spending is not being reported properly because there is no way someone can convince me the Navy is ordering more that 20,000 gallons from Solazyme without spending big millions. Solazyme has some of the most interesting green technology in the world, but until it takes less than 1 gallon of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of bio-gasoline I have serious questions regarding government investment - particularly the Navy who has so much more to gain from the technologies surrounding pond based algae.

I am a huge believer in green technology for algae fuels, but I am not optimistic the US will be the world leader when this technology booms in 10 years. Our energy policies at the political level are fundamentally broken in this country (and the Navy investing millions in Solazyme is part of the problem). Ridiculous solutions like Cap & Trade is only one example of just how far our nations aim is off vs what the target should be.

Earmarking FutureTech in Hawaii

Herbert A. Sample of the Associated Press has been looking into Sen. Daniel Inouye's (D-Hawaii) earmarks, and has an impressive list on display. This one in particular stands out:

Pacific Marine/Navatek Ltd., Honolulu: $2.2 million to build model of amphibious vehicle.

Like them or not, earmarks are a part of Congress not going away. They aren't always bad, but they don't always make sense either. I'm going to have a tough time complaining too much about this one though, because to me, this is a case where Sen. Daniel Inouye is putting up the money to build something way outside the box. It is for Navatek's version of the T-Craft, which ONR did not accept in phase II. From the February 20, 2024 Honolulu Advertiser:

"If our preliminary $2 million design is accepted, we move to phase two where we would receive an additional $10 million to produce and model-test a detailed design of the ship," said Navatek President Steven Loui in a written statement. "If awarded the phase three work, Navatek will receive an estimated $150 million to design, build and test a 350-foot prototype craft."

It was not accepted in phase two, but it is certainly one of the most interesting designs for amphibious ship to shore connectors presented in some time. The $2.2 million earmark is to build a half-scale model of the Navatek T-Craft version. Good or bad, it is certainly interesting.

It should be noted that Navatek has produced interesting new designs for the Navy in the past. It was only a few years ago they built Sea Flyer.

The Search and Rescue Flying Saucer

Last November Noah covered DARPA's Personal Air Vehicle Technology project on Danger Room. He described the project as a search for "a working prototype of a military-suitable flying car — a two- or four-passenger vehicle that can "drive on roads" one minute and take off like a helicopter the next. The hybrid machine would be perfect for "urban scouting," casualty evacuation and commando-delivery missions, the agency believes."

One of the companies that went after the project was Moller International, LLC. I never followed up whether they got the contract or not, but at the time I remember being fascinated by the technology Moller International, LLC was building. This press release reminded me of that DARPA project.

Moller International announced today that it has begun assembly of a unique version of it Neuera-series VTOL aircrafts, the Moller “Firefly”. The Firefly is specifically designed for urban search and rescue operations. (see www.Moller.com).

“The Firefly can address the pressing need for a vehicle that is able to extract trapped personnel directly from the upper floors of office buildings,” stated Dr. Paul Moller, President of Moller International. “It can accomplish this by positioning itself adjacent to the building near a window, thereby enabling trapped personnel to exit the building directly into the Firefly.” Unlike a helicopter, the Firefly's enclosed rotors can approach and dock to the side of a high-rise building without interference from a dangerous overhead rotor.

Based very closely on the Company's M200 Neuera recreational and utility vehicle, the Firefly will be capable of retrieving three people per trip and transporting them safely to ground level, a capability that is virtually non-existent in current search and rescue vehicles. The Firefly is equipped with larger engines to accommodate the increased payload and will have a retractable ramp with handrails to facilitate movement to and from the building. The operator is seated at the rear of the vehicle where he can oversee and provide direction to those being rescued.

The Firefly operator will use the computer-assisted flight control system to maneuver the aircraft, requiring less training than conventional air-rescue vehicles. The Company anticipates that public safety personnel will be able to operate the vehicle under the authority already granted to local fire and rescue organizations, as the high-rise rescue will typically occur within city limits.

This isn't a joke, but Moller International, LLC doesn't have the best track record. For years they have been suggesting a break through was just over the horizon. Maybe, maybe not, but moving to assembly is a good sign.

The idea behind the "Firefly 3" (top picture) is urban search and rescue, although other types of search and rescue operations are possible. For example, if a fire breaks out on the 30th floor, the Moller Firefly 3 could presumably fly up and rescue folks from windows, in fact Moller's M400 model video demonstration is of exactly that capability.

As the picture indicates (from here), it has been speculated there could be a military application to this technology... assuming it works. As I understand it, the Firefly 3 and the M400 are expected to be the two production models Moller intends to sell first, as both are mature designs that are in flight testing. Watching the flight videos reminds me a bit of watching early flight testing of helicopters, but that's just me.

The latest M400 is the model seen in the bottom picture, and has interesting expected specifications.

Passengers:4
Top speed @ 13,200 ft:375 mph
Cruise speed @ 20,000 ft:275 mph
Maximum rate of climb:6,000 fpm
Maximum range:750 miles
Payload excluding fuel:750 lbs
Operational ceiling:36,000 ft
Gross weight:2,400 lbs
Engine power (2 min. rating):1,200 hp
Fuel consumption:approx. 20 mpg
Fuel:Ethanol
Dimensions (LxWxH):19.5' x 8.5' x 7.5'

At that speed, one theory of a potential military application is to take off and land inside a C-130 or other cargo aircraft.

As you might expect, Moller International hopes to get a flying car to the masses. I don't know about you, but most of my neighbors are scary drivers around the neighborhood... I can't say me or my house gets too excited thinking they may be flying around the neighborhood, although one of the arguments for this technology is that the computer is supposed to be capable of doing most of the flying anyway. I hope so.

Nonetheless, thought it was interesting.