DARPA is about to show the Navy’s shipbuilding plan is bull****
2012/08/16 2 Comments
What is a powerful enough word to describe how the Navy’s shipbuilding plan is wasting thousands of man years and hundreds of billions of dollars on prejudices, untested assumptions, and bureaucratic inertia?
Luckily, DARPA is doing exactly what Congress created them to do way back in the Sputnik era: they are creating and protecting against technological surprise. It would be fantastic if the Navy would jump on board and run phase 7 of this recently awarded DARPA contract.
For those of you who do not come from defense, here is my take on the conflict between how the traditional Navy looks at ships and how DARPA and the embattled progressive minority in the Navy look at naval platforms including unmanned naval vessels.
The big, traditional Navy believes–and they have some experiences that gives rise to this belief–that naval ships ought to be flexible, broadly capable, and completely independent assets. Take a modern Arliegh Burke class destroyer (DDG-51 class), the backbone of the U.S. fleet, as prime example. It can deploy itself to the theater of operations, maneuver tactically, sense targets, make engagement decisions, engage the target, and retrograde tactically and strategically from the operation. Moreover these ships can do almost every mission that they might be called on to do. They are among the most capable ships at anti-air, surface, and anti-submarine warfare. Additionally, they respond to things like pirates, search and rescue, and humanitarian relief operations. Sounds pretty cool, right? And it is.
However, being able to do everything comes with two main drawbacks. First the ‘jack of all trades, master of none’ phenomenon is far more likely to be true because of design compromises in engineered systems than it is in people. Second, adding all this capability costs a lot of money. These destroyers are about $2B a copy and on the order of $1M/day to operate if you add in everything. This means that we can only have so many and they cannot be everywhere.
DARPA and the progressive faction within the Navy believe that there is a fundamental change at hand in naval warfare. Looking at how the Army/Air Force team conducts operations and the improvements in automation and communication technologies at sea, the progressives believe that the tradition of having big capital ships that do everything is outdated.
In contrast to the completely capable Navy platforms, Army units often only do one or two things. Almost no Army units have strategic mobility. Most can only do one or two things. Intelligence units often only have the ability to sense. Artillery units only have the ability to do tactical maneuver and fire, but cannot sense. Transport units move other units and equipment but cannot fire or sense; sometime they cannot even maneuver tactically. The Army has huge staff units that do nothing but process information and make decisions to keep all these specialist pieces working in coordinated fashion on the battlefield.
DARPA and the naval progressives believe that a similar future is in store for the next globally dominant navy. Which we hope will be, but does not have to be from the Unites States. They envision swarms of inexpensive specialist vessels such as the one DARPA is building running around coordinated by a few manned ships. The components of these fleets would be optimized to do a couple things well, be relatively–we’re talking about defense here–cheap, and be deployed in large numbers.
The reason that this is an urgent argument is that there is wide consensus within the U.S. Navy, across both the traditionalists and the progressives, that the Navy will not be able to meet its strategic obligations to our allies and American political leadership in a decade or two. This is a ways off, but still within the service life of all the ships commissioned in the last decade. The traditionalist seem to hope for a larger budget and the chance to ditch some missions (the Obama administration just took steps in this direction in their last budget), while the progressives say that if the Navy is receiving half of global naval spending it should be able to keep all its obligations by changing the way the Navy is organized.
The problem is that the traditionalists point out, correctly, that the progressives have not proved their scheme will work. Then they say that they cannot cut even one ship or submarine which would build about a hundred of these future systems so that this alternate path can be tested. It sounds to me like someone’s rice bowl is about to be overturned, and deep down they know it.
This is why DARPA’s ACTUV program is so important. It puts at least one of these vessels out on the water so that people can see with their own eyes that they work. They will be able to see the SAIC team turning around the vessel in record time and the ship controlled remotely and also sailing autonomously. They will get to see that anti-submarine warfare works when done with a robot instead of hundreds of men on ships. DARPA will start smashing the traditionalists reality, or at least put some big cracks in it.
Three cheers to DARPA for their continued work pushing the United States forward whether we all want to go or not!