How Would You Sink the Shi Lang?

From the Inbox.

Assuming she ever gets operational, using what you know of US tactics and capabilities...if you wanted to sink the Chinese aircraft carrier, how would you do it and what would you use?

I immediately thought about MK 48. Obviously a nuke could also do it.

But the question drove my thinking towards how our modern fleet is designed to attack aircraft and submarines, but now must deal with future potential requirements of sinking heavily protected, screened ships of the line - a thought exercise the US Navy has not undertaken in a long time. Even the Soviets were mostly air attack and submarines...

I look forward to thoughtful commentary by the community, and I'll post my thoughts on this subject next week.

Observing Modern MSO Squadron Operations

This is an interesting update on the anti-piracy activities of Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2). I see this as representing the other side of what Chris was discussing last night. I'm posting the news release in full (PDF).

NATO Operation Delivers Severe Blow Against Armed Pirates

Earlier this month, NATO counter-piracy forces delivered a severe blow against armed pirates off the coast of Somalia by arresting 34 suspected pirates. The suspected pirates had previously been observed loading up their mother ships and skiffs with fuel and weapons in order to attack merchant ships further out to sea. In a well-planned operation, NATO warships conducted a night-time strike on the known pirate lairs at sea, close to the coast. As well as detaining the 34 suspected pirates, 34 innocent hostages, who had been held by the pirates, were freed unharmed by the NATO forces.

Recent months have seen an increase in pirate attacks, particularly in the northern Arabian Sea, and with the monsoon season coming to an end, and the weather improving, it was seen as crucial for counter-piracy forces to strike to help prevent pirates getting out to sea to prey on merchant shipping transiting the area.

Over an extended period NATO warships HNLMS Tromp, HDMS Esbern Snare and USS Halyburton, observed the known pirate camps, supported by Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircrafts from the EU Naval Force (EUNAVFOR) and various other counter piracy forces.

On Friday, as part of the focussed operation, crew from NATO warship HDMS Esbern Snare boarded a suspicious whaler and found it to be packed with fuel, AK47 machine guns, a ladder and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and 3 suspected pirates. The whaler and weaponry were seized by the warship, and after being questioned, the suspected pirates were taken to a nearby beach.

On Saturday HDMS Esbern Snare then approached a dhow that was suspected to be involved in pirate activity. As the Danish boarding team investigated, the pirates started firing at them, who then fired back in self defence. In the fire-fight several pirates were wounded and as a result, a medical team from NATO flag ship HNLMS Tromp was quickly sent to the scene to render medical assistance.

Shortly afterwards HNLMS Tromp spotted another suspect dhow heading for a known pirate camp and as she closed in to investigate, her boarding team was also fired upon. Gunners on board Tromp and the boarding team returned fire, setting fire to the dhow. Ten pirates tried to escape in a skiff, but were quickly captured. When a team from HNLMS Tromp went to the dhow to assist the innocent crew, they found 2 fatally wounded pirates on board. At the same time, a previously pirated merchant vessel - MV Albedo, lifted anchor and headed straight for the NATO flagship.

After some well-aimed warning shots across her bow, Albedo returned to her anchorage. HNLMS Tromp then escorted the freed dhow and crew to safer waters.

On several occasions during the operation, the NATO warships surveyed the anchorages and the pirate beaches. They will continue to do so for the next few months.

Speaking after the operation, Rear Admiral Hank Ort, Chief of Staff at NATO’s Maritime HQ in Northwood said, “This operation has shown the pirates that we mean business and will not tolerate their criminal activities. By conducting this operation close to the shore we have been able to deprive some pirates of a safe passage back to their anchorages and deprive others of the opportunity to go out and attack innocent merchant ships. We are pleased with the success of this operation but we are not complacent as we know there is still much work to be done.”

As per the release:

NATO Forces currently in Operation Ocean Shield:

HNLMS TROMP (Flagship) - Netherlands
HDMS ESBERN SNARE - Denmark
USS BAINBRIDGE - United States of America
USS HALYBURTON - Unites States of America
TCG GIRESUN - Turkey

As a press release, we aren't really getting some of the key operational details, but it does sound to me that NATO has been conducting some form of shore blockade on a specific pirate group.

When I think about the three ships involved in this activity, HNLMS Tromp (F803), HDMS Esbern Snare (L17), USS Halyburton (FFG 40); I see the future of how the Littoral Combat Ship could be used operationally when fielded in numbers. Basically one large ship supports two (or more) motherships that are conducting MSO and harassment operations against the bad guys in the littorals.

This type of operational scenario extends beyond just piracy to potentially include scenarios like current operations off Libya, offshore infrastructure protection, narcotics and anti-smuggling operations, and counter terrorism operations in the South Pacific. It is also very possible in the future we will see NGO operations at sea that require operations not unlike what Israel faces with protest flotilla's. Just about anywhere maritime forces will be utilized for some form of blockade or maritime defense operation, the organization of a single large ship supporting several Littoral Combat Ships focused on sea control in an ungoverned area will be very useful.

An LCS Model Adds Logistics Requirements

Potentially more so for Esbern Snare (L17) and perhaps similar to the way USS Halyburton (FFG 40) is functioning today, there are a lot of moving parts in the mission modules of the Littoral Combat Ship. Stuff breaks, and when (not if) they break, where is the service depot for repairing the equipment?

The Navy is currently building 24 Littoral Combat Ships. As I have said many times, I do not support building more than these 24 Littoral Combat Ships until the concept behind the LCS is rigorously tested and experimented with in operational conditions. The problem is, after 2015, existing Navy plans suggests they simply continue to evolve the LCS and build more. It strikes me this plan has several flaws and is not an optimal use of money, particularly because the Navy will begin the second block of ships before the first block has been thoroughly tested.

I'd like to see the Navy take a different approach towards the years FY16-FY18, and consider slowing the LCS down to 2 ships per year (one of each instead of 2 of each) for that three year period and think about how to build support platforms that enhance the operational capability of the LCS.

One idea would be to build 1 T-AKE type ship per year as a LCS mothership capable of fueling and repairing the Littoral Combat Ship and her modules. For the same cost of two Littoral Combat Ships, the Navy can add that LCS support element that helps keep the hard driving LCS with its rotational crew and forward deployed posture supported effectively forward - adding more time on station instead of in transit to and from port.

Another approach might be to build 2 extra JHSVs per year for three years to serve as an support platform for module repairs and module augmentation in a forward theater. JHSVs may not be able to deploy modules like the LCS, but they can act as additional storage capacity and be designed as a mobile module repair ship for these new unmanned systems that are being distributed to virtually every level in the fleet. While this approach would not add to supporting the extra fuel requirements that can be expected with the LCS, it would add depth to the forward maintenance capability that extends beyond the LCS to the cruisers, destroyers, and submarines - all of which are and will in the future deploy unmanned systems.

The Right Large Ship

Another question that comes to my mind when examining the NATO organization scenario above in a LCS context is what ship would you want to play the role of HNLMS Tromp (F803)? HNLMS Tromp (F803) is an air defense warship with command and control capabilities - a fantastic warship for exactly this role in a NATO MSO operation. But the question I have is whether the DDG-51 would be the optimal ship for scenarios where the LCS would be used, or if the US Navy requires more flexibility due to the range of capabilities that the United States has in a relative comparison to the Dutch.

Lets face it, in war scenarios the AEGIS ships will be there anyway and there will be value added to any task group organization detaching a destroyer to support LCS operations if the LCS operations are what is required. The dirty secret upon close examination is that the AEGIS ship is not always needed, but combat power in the form of different capabilities is indeed needed.

The way military capabilities are used today is remarkable. Last month the United States basically blew through the entire fixed air defense infrastructure of Libya with the vast majority of combat power being provided by a single submarine: USS Florida (SSGN 728). If someone would have suggested to Ronald Reagan in 1986 that instead of a carrier air strike, "we'll defeat the vast majority of the Libyan defense infrastructure with a submarine," that person would have been laughed out of the room and called a clown. And yet, that was only 25 years ago.

So tell me what MSO looks like in 25 years when a Littoral Combat ship squadron is running around conducting maritime interdiction operations, or defending offshore infrastructure. There will be an enormous number of moving parts in sustained operations, and that is going to keep the crews of the LCS very busy. In many ways, MSO is about killing flies, not shooting birds, so having combat power in the context of the sharpest sword is much less useful than having combat power in the context of a mallet.

When augmenting an LCS force in these operations, the capabilities desired the most for these operations will involve manpower. They will be in the form of Blue-Green cooperation like Enhanced Company Operations, brown water capabilities like Riverine, Naval Expeditionary Security, Special Warfare capabilities, EOD, and even Seabees. These are capabilities that suggest a ship will be needed with capabilities very different than the way we think about traditional surface combatants which today come with combat power almost exclusively focused on air defense.

Just as there was the SSGN represents a hybrid between the SSN and the large missile carrying cruiser, I believe in the future we are going to need a surface ship that is a hybrid between today's modern warships and an amphibious ship - and that hybrid will be a large mothership for manned capabilities.

The LCS enables tremendous opportunity for flexible action in the littorals, but sustained operations on the LCS with the small crew suggests the necessity for augmentation, and when discussing any small ship there are always be several areas where augmentation is required. The Navy and Marines are looking to replace 12 LSDs with 11 LSD(X). Whether the Navy reuses the existing LSDs (like the Navy did with SSGN reusing retiring SSBNs) or simply thinks differently about the design of the LSD(X), there is a lot of room for innovation in the configuration of the future large surface combatant towards increasing combat power in areas other than air defense - where the US Navy fleet today is already strongest.

US Navy Tows the Nation Towards Alternative Energy

If anybody doubts the potential of these fuels, consider Brazil. As I said, I was just there last week. Half of Brazil’s vehicles can run on biofuels -- half of their fleet of automobiles can run on biofuels instead of petroleum. Just last week, our Air Force -- our own Air Force -- used an advanced biofuel blend to fly a Raptor 22 -- an F-22 Raptor faster than the speed of sound. Think about that. I mean, if an F-22 Raptor can fly at the speed of -- faster than the speed of sound on biomass, then I know the old beater that you’ve got, that you’re driving around in -- (laughter) -- can probably do so, too. There’s no reason why we can’t have our cars do the same.

In fact, the Air Force is aiming to get half of its domestic jet fuel from alternative sources by 2016. And I’m directing the Navy and the Department of Energy and Agriculture to work with the private sector to create advanced biofuels that can power not just fighter jets, but also trucks and commercial airliners.

President Barack Obama, Remarks by the President on America's Energy Security, March 31, 2024

I thought it was interesting that during the Presidents big energy speech a few weeks ago, the President discussed energy security and alternative energy development in the context of USDA, Department of Energy, oh and the US Navy. It strikes me that Ray Mabus, who early on was pushing (or dragging depending upon how you look at it) the Navy to get serious about alternative fuels has been quite successful in that effort. Background on the broader issue of alternative energy in the DoD can be found within this RAND report, which I think is very useful for framing the issue and challenges.

At Sea Air Space this week there was an interesting panel that discussed alternative energy. It was a lot better than I expected, but it was the answer by Thomas Hicks to one of the questions late in the session that got my attention.

An article at the National Defense blog somewhat captures the gist of the conversation, but what Mr. Hicks said during Q&A was that the government intended to help create the alternative fuels market to move it "near competitive" with existing fuel source options. I watched the session live and have not seen the videos from Sea Air Space posted publicly online, so I can't do the exact quote, but it was a remarkable statement.

Because in the context of everything the DoD has done with alternative fuels, one could say the policy objective driving the US Navy's alternative energy strategy is to build a new viable economic market for alternative fuels in the United States based on Mr. Hicks comment. I find that remarkable, and would love to see a RAND study on the viability of the government building any brand new alternative economic market competitive with an existing market in the United States. This is different than other examples of government market influence like Health Care and Retirement (Social Security) as the approach the government is taking with energy is to attempt to invest enough in the private sector to mature relatively new technologies.

It might actually work, because the more competitive the technology is in the market, the more private investment the technologies will attract. The snag in "Green Energy" over the last few years has been the weak economy, which had led to lower energy prices, which then led to a real slow down in investment money. With energy prices rising again and the economy in rebound, with the technology still moving forward thanks in some part due to continual DoD investments... you never know.

Hopefully the Navy League will get videos of their Sea Air Space speeches and panel sessions online soon, because there is a lot to discuss from the conference but without the videos, it will be impossible for me to get the quotes right. As one who watched as much as I could from the online live feed, I have to say Sea Air Space was an enormous success - and I participated from my seat in New York.

Countering Piracy Ashore - A Step in the Right Direction‏

Late last year, I argued that in order to truly impact Somali pirates, we needed to spend less energy on the pirates themselves and target their key network nodes and facilitators ashore. In January, VADM Fox similary advocated focus on the pirates' networks. Yesterday, the FBI announced that they are doing just that.

The arrest of Mohammad Shibin is a significant breakthrough in the United States’ battle against Somali pirates,” said U.S. Attorney MacBride. “Today marks the first time that the U.S. government has captured and charged an alleged pirate in a leadership role—a hostage negotiator who operated in Somalia. We hope that this indictment will strike at the heart of the piracy business and send a strong message to all pirates that they are not beyond the reach of the FBI, whether they board the ships or remain on-shore in Somalia.

Rolling up a single facilitator is clearly a positive step, but we shouldn't expect major disruptive effects anytime soon unless faciltiators are neutralized faster than they can reconstitute. That said, additional efforts to dismantle the pirates’ logistical and financial network ashore will prove significantly more effective (both operationally, and cost-wise) than CMF's futile interdiction operations in the Indian Ocean.

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense, the US Navy, or any other agency.

President Calls for Roles and Missions Debate

I found a transcript of the President's speech as prepared for delivery at the Weekly Standard. These speeches sometimes get adjusted before or during presentation, but as prepared these were the specific comments President Obama made regarding cutting defense spending.

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.

Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.

To answer those who asked me the question today..., yes, some the Obama folks read the blog, because they enjoy telling me how wrong I am all the time with my fiscally conservative views. I'd point out they did that before the most Progressive President in American history joined the crusade in Washington DC towards spending cuts.

I think President Obama has done something remarkably brilliant politically in proposing the defense cuts, because as was previously discussed, the President used the same vernacular and proposed the same process in determination of cuts that existing conservative and libertarian defense thinkers have made in their arguments framing defense cuts in the past.

It is unclear how the internal review process will take place, but it is likely the review will be conducted as required in Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 2 USC Sec. 118b (as amended by FY08 NDAA) as part of the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review following the FY2012 budget already submitted. The details of the QRM are outlined below:

(a) Review Required.— The Secretary of Defense shall every four years conduct a comprehensive assessment (to be known as the “quadrennial roles and missions review”) of the roles and missions of the armed forces and the core competencies and capabilities of the Department of Defense to perform and support such roles and missions.

(b) Independent Military Assessment of Roles and Missions.—

1. In each year in which the Secretary of Defense is required to conduct a comprehensive assessment pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall prepare and submit to the Secretary the Chairman’s assessment of the roles and missions of the armed forces and the assignment of functions to the armed forces, together with any recommendations for changes in assignment that the Chairman considers necessary to achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces.
2. The Chairman’s assessment shall be conducted so as to—

(A) organize the significant missions of the armed forces into core mission areas that cover broad areas of military activity;
(B) ensure that core mission areas are defined and functions are assigned so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort among the armed forces; and
(C) provide the Chairman’s recommendations with regard to issues to be addressed by the Secretary of Defense under subsection (c).

(c) Identification of Core Mission Areas and Core Competencies and Capabilities.— Upon receipt of the Chairman’s assessment, and after giving appropriate consideration to the Chairman’s recommendations, the Secretary of Defense shall identify—

1. the core mission areas of the armed forces;
2. the core competencies and capabilities that are associated with the performance or support of a core mission area identified pursuant to paragraph (1);
3. the elements of the Department of Defense (including any other office, agency, activity, or command described in section 111 (b) of this title) that are responsible for providing the core competencies and capabilities required to effectively perform the core missions identified pursuant to paragraph (1);
4. any gaps in the ability of the elements (or other office, agency activity, or command) of the Department of Defense to provide core competencies and capabilities required to effectively perform the core missions identified pursuant to paragraph (1);
5. any unnecessary duplication of core competencies and capabilities between defense components; and
6. a plan for addressing any gaps or unnecessary duplication identified pursuant to paragraph (4) or paragraph (5).

(d) Report.— The Secretary shall submit a report on the quadrennial roles and missions review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The report shall be submitted in the year following the year in which the review is conducted, but not later than the date on which the President submits the budget for the next fiscal year to Congress under section 1105 (a) of title 31.

You can find the last Quadrennial roles and missions review from January 2009 here (PDF).

Initially, there is likely to be some debate on how big a defense budget cut $400 billion over ten years really is. It is really about how you look at it. The FY2011 total defense budget that includes defense spending in the Dept of Energy and supplemental spending for the wars goes for about $700 billion. Some of that spending though, like war operations, simply won't be cut because the President isn't going to cut the budget money allocated towards conducting the 3 wars, for example. Another point of view might be the base defense budget topline number, which is about $533 billion in FY2011. In my opinion, what the Obama administration has essentially suggested is a top line total defense cut excluding certain war operations that is basically 15% of the defense budget, give or take ~2% either way depending upon what you believe the real annual spending number is for the defense budget over the next decade.

I personally believe ~15% (or $400 billion) is the right target, because it is a politically achievable number.

What To Watch For

If the process for conducting "a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world" is in fact going to be the QRM, then the QRM just beginning development right now is likely to be more important than the QDR released last year - and perhaps even invalidate the QDR released last year.

The most important question is: with Secretary Gates set to retire very soon, will he conduct the QRM or is it important that the administration names a Secretary of Defense replacement sooner and have that person conduct the QRM? The Politico reported today only three names remain in contention for the Secretary of Defense position: Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, and Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy.

Whoever gets picked will inherit the defense cuts debate, and that debate is going to be the legacy of the next Secretary of Defense no matter who it is. The most important early decision of the QRM is going to be whether the defense budget will continue to be divided equally or be changed towards unequal distribution of funding among the services. I believe the new Secretary of Defense must make and own that decision in order to be effective in this debate, which means I believe the announcement for who is the new Secretary of Defense will be coming very soon.

I also fully expect that the unequal distribution of the defense budget is going to happen, because if the budget is divided equally - the military industrial establishment will have reason to align in unity against the President for attacking the defense budget. If the QRM recommends unequal distribution of funds between the services, the military services themselves will then forced to compete against each other and articulate a national defense argument in the context of national strategy that has very little politically to do with the administration.

In other words, unequal distribution of the defense budget favors both national strategy and the President politically. The down side to unequal distribution is that it might divide Congress, which is actually an upside for the administration with political control of the Senate and House already divided anyway. In that context, it is really hard to see any downside for the Obama administration pushing towards an unequal distribution of the defense budget between the services, which is why it will almost certainly happen and make the upcoming defense cuts debate a lot more than just another DoD budget cut rock drill.

I admit to being impressed. President Obama is set to cut the DoD budget while also kick starting the much needed strategic debate in national security that many have been calling for since 9/11. Sharpen your arguments folks, because over the next year the most influential defense debate since the cold war will be taking place, and the military service that loses the debate will be completely different than they are today.