Thread by @paul_scharre

Some quick thoughts on the DoD's 500+ ship Navy draft plans and "unmanned" (uninhabited) systems
[THREAD]

per story by @DavidLarter & @AaronMehta @defense_news

defensenews.com/naval/2020/09/…

First off, the 500+ ship Navy plans are less crazy than they sound because they count uninhabited (“unmanned”) ships, which account for the bulk of the new ships. The # of crewed large surface combatants stay roughly the same.

There’s room to debate the specific #s of the plans, but the broad outlines of the plans make sense in terms of the “manned-unmanned mix” of the fleet. They're headed in the right direction.

Plans look at major growth in XLUUVs (40-60) & LUSVs (65-87). This is exactly the direction the Navy should be heading. Going to need XLUUVs and LUSVs as a cost-effective way to complement existing SSNs and DDGs with additional platforms for sensors and strike (VLS tubes).

UxVs are a force multiplier for existing assets and a way for the Navy to expand its reach and lethality in contested environments and at an affordable cost.

Good to see independent groups (CAPE & Hudson) coming to these conclusions about need for a mixed fleet of crewed & uninhabited surface and undersea vessels. Plans show how Navy can adapt & employ UUVs & USVs to put distributed lethality into practice in a cost-effective manner.

The Navy undersea community has long been at the vanguard of robotic systems. They’ve done it quietly but have been far ahead of many other military communities. They’ve been scaling up UUVs in size and the XLUUV concept is maturing with a number of prototypes funded.

For USVs, Sea Hunter and Overlord prototypes have been a game-changer in proving the concept. LUSVs have potential to be a major force multiplier for surface fleet in bringing add'l magazine capacity (VLS tubes) for crewed combatants & at far lower cost than building add'l DDGs

USVs are further behind UUVs technologically and conceptually in terms of how they’ll be employed, but as the Navy builds more prototypes and continues experimentation and tech development, surface warfare community will get a better handle on how they can be used effectively.

Here’s a good backgrounder on Navy UUV and USV programs from Ron O’Rourke at CRS
fas.org/sgp/crs/weapon…

It’s good to see the undersea and surface warfare communities moving out on UxVs. Also notable that the aviation community is so abysmally far behind. Naval aviation had all of the opportunity in the world to build a carrier-based UCAV and squandered it.

It’s interesting to wonder why the difference in how Navy tribes have responded to UxVs. FWIW my own theory is that the hang-up w/ carrier-based UCAVs is deck space. Every UCAV added is a manned a/c removed. It’s a 1-for-1 trade.

It’s one thing to give up the refueling mission to UAVs. But combat airplanes? That’s going to be a fight.

I’ll note the Navy has been okay w/ land-based UAVs (MQ-4C Triton) where space isn’t a constraint.

Not the same physical constraint for surface and undersea communities that forces 1-for-1 trade w/ uninhabited v. crewed assets. $$ an issue but if UUVs & USVs at low enough price point & add enough value as a force multiplier to the fleet, then they may be seen as worth it.

These are still draft plans, and we’ll have to see what makes it into the budget, what Congress actually funds, and how things unfold in the years ahead. Current USV prototypes are promising, but there is still work to be done in technology and doctrine development.

To keep uninhabited vessels at a lower cost, which is absolutely vital for them to remain valuable, the DoD will have to restrain itself from the all-too-typical pattern of requirements creep and cost growth that plagues so many programs, and which UxVs are not immune to.

If they become too expensive, eventually XLUUVs and LUSVs will lose their value proposition. It will take serious discipline on the part of DoD to constrain requirements.

But the fact that the vessels are uninhabited is a real advantage. They can be (relatively) attritable. Without people onboard, they don’t need to be as survivable (and costly).

Instead of costly multi-mission warships, DoD can build purpose-built uninhabited trucks with plug-and-play mission payloads to perform specific tasks … so long as DoD can refrain from gold-plating the requirements.

Finally, there are serious $$ considerations that will constrain all of these plans.

It’s hard to see how any of these plans, even accounting for the lower costs of uninhabited vessels, are affordable given the current topline, not to mention likely post-COVID $$ pressures

These are ambitious plans & there are harsh funding realities ahead. The plans are probably unaffordable in the budget environment DoD likely to face in yrs ahead. But the broad direction the plans signal in terms of the role of uninhabited vessels in the fleet is encouraging.

The plans indicate conceptually the right approach towards a mixed crewed-uninhabited fleet. In a tight budget environment finding the right balance will be harder. UxVs will have to prove their place, as they should. These plans are a signal in the right direction, though.

Here’s the article again by @DavidLarter & @AaronMehta @defense_news

defensenews.com/naval/2020/09/…