CSBA "Third Offset" paper

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eyeing China, Russia, Navy wants new discretion to experiment with $5B prototype portfolio

The Navy's fiscal year 2017 budget request will seek new flexibility to allocate resources across a $5 billion portfolio of research and development projects in order to bolster new technology prototyping and experimentation in support of the Pentagon's new program to reinvigorate conventional deterrence against Russia and China.
 
http://warontherocks.com/2016/01/is-the-u-s-militarys-plan-to-keep-its-edge-fatally-flawed/?utm_source=WOTR+Newsletter&utm_campaign=596cfbd794-WOTR_Newsletter_8_17_158_15_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8375be81e9-596cfbd794-82917021
 
http://news.usni.org/2016/01/13/a-year-into-distributed-lethality-navy-nears-fielding-improved-weapons-deploying-surface-action-group
 
bobbymike said:
http://news.usni.org/2016/01/13/a-year-into-distributed-lethality-navy-nears-fielding-improved-weapons-deploying-surface-action-group

Of the 8,000 VL cells out there how many are strike length?
 
marauder2048 said:
bobbymike said:
http://news.usni.org/2016/01/13/a-year-into-distributed-lethality-navy-nears-fielding-improved-weapons-deploying-surface-action-group

Of the 8,000 VL cells out there how many are strike length?

All of them.
 
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
bobbymike said:
http://news.usni.org/2016/01/13/a-year-into-distributed-lethality-navy-nears-fielding-improved-weapons-deploying-surface-action-group

Of the 8,000 VL cells out there how many are strike length?

All of them.

Well that is convenient. But any surface threat that necessitates TLAM's range is also going to be sufficiently well protected to attrit TLAM at a very high rate.
 
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
bobbymike said:
http://news.usni.org/2016/01/13/a-year-into-distributed-lethality-navy-nears-fielding-improved-weapons-deploying-surface-action-group

Of the 8,000 VL cells out there how many are strike length?

All of them.

Well that is convenient. But any surface threat that necessitates TLAM's range is also going to be sufficiently well protected to attrit TLAM at a very high rate.

Which is why they need to replace TLAM IMO. They could stretch JASSM-ER 4 feet for a range increase but I've not heard any hint of them even considering doing so. Currently LRASM uses the booster from VL-Asroc. If they went with the booster already being used on Tomahawk that would give them about four more feet in a VLS cell. Whether or not the design is flexible enough to make that stretch or not I have no idea. Something like a stealthy RATTLRS would be even better (though would probably be much more expensive).
 
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
bobbymike said:
http://news.usni.org/2016/01/13/a-year-into-distributed-lethality-navy-nears-fielding-improved-weapons-deploying-surface-action-group

Of the 8,000 VL cells out there how many are strike length?

All of them.


Well that is convenient. But any surface threat that necessitates TLAM's range is also going to be sufficiently well protected to attrit TLAM at a very high rate.

Which is why they need to replace TLAM IMO. They could stretch JASSM-ER 4 feet for a range increase but I've not heard any hint of them even considering doing so. Currently LRASM uses the booster from VL-Asroc. If they went with the booster already being used on Tomahawk that would give them about four more feet in a VLS cell. Whether or not the design is flexible enough to make that stretch or not I have no idea. Something like a stealthy RATTLRS would be even better (though would probably be much more expensive).

I'm sure the Navy is not the least bit humiliated in having to adopt an Air Force weapon from a joint program where the Navy very loudly jumped ship. Still time to hop aboard the LRSO train...
 
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
bobbymike said:
http://news.usni.org/2016/01/13/a-year-into-distributed-lethality-navy-nears-fielding-improved-weapons-deploying-surface-action-group

Of the 8,000 VL cells out there how many are strike length?

All of them.


Well that is convenient. But any surface threat that necessitates TLAM's range is also going to be sufficiently well protected to attrit TLAM at a very high rate.

Which is why they need to replace TLAM IMO. They could stretch JASSM-ER 4 feet for a range increase but I've not heard any hint of them even considering doing so. Currently LRASM uses the booster from VL-Asroc. If they went with the booster already being used on Tomahawk that would give them about four more feet in a VLS cell. Whether or not the design is flexible enough to make that stretch or not I have no idea. Something like a stealthy RATTLRS would be even better (though would probably be much more expensive).

I'm sure the Navy is not the least bit humiliated in having to adopt an Air Force weapon from a joint program where the Navy very loudly jumped ship. Still time to hop aboard the LRSO train...

LRSO?

edit: Oh yeah, almost forgot about that one.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-considers-supersonic-engine-for-lrso-msissile-409653/
 
There was some discussion about collaboration with the Navy and LRSO being designed for carriage in VLS or VPM.
 
marauder2048 said:
There was some discussion about collaboration with the Navy and LRSO being designed for carriage in VLS or VPM.

That would make sense. (Then again they tried it back in the day and the USN ended up with Tomahawk and the USAF AGM-86. :-\)
 
There is room for three cruise missiles in the US military, IMHO:
1. High-tech long range penetrating --> LRSO
2. Low-tech and cheap medium range, JDAM + engine --> Tomahawk now, but ??? in the future
3. High-tech medium range penetrating --> JASSM

Unfortunately, but pursuing upgrades to the Tomahawk, the USN may reach a point where the Tomahawk drifts away from being cheap but will not have nearly the same capability as the LRSO / JASSM. Right now, that appears to be the problem, using the Tomahawk is great and all, but if it is no longer cheap and there's no money for nothing new, the USN is stuck.

Also, sferrin from the LRSO article, LOL at the 1,000 build units. That isn't nearly enough for a wartime stock for the future.
 
DrRansom said:
There is room for three cruise missiles in the US military, IMHO:
1. High-tech long range penetrating --> LRSO
2. Low-tech and cheap medium range, JDAM + engine --> Tomahawk now, but ??? in the future
3. High-tech medium range penetrating --> JASSM

Unfortunately, but pursuing upgrades to the Tomahawk, the USN may reach a point where the Tomahawk drifts away from being cheap but will not have nearly the same capability as the LRSO / JASSM. Right now, that appears to be the problem, using the Tomahawk is great and all, but if it is no longer cheap and there's no money for nothing new, the USN is stuck.

Also, sferrin from the LRSO article, LOL at the 1,000 build units. That isn't nearly enough for a wartime stock for the future.

IIRC that would be 1000 NUCLEAR armed missiles. (Don't know how many nuclear-armed AGM-86s were built but there were only about 460 AGM-129s.)
 
DrRansom said:
There is room for three cruise missiles in the US military, IMHO:
1. High-tech long range penetrating --> LRSO
2. Low-tech and cheap medium range, JDAM + engine --> Tomahawk now, but ??? in the future
3. High-tech medium range penetrating --> JASSM

Unfortunately, but pursuing upgrades to the Tomahawk, the USN may reach a point where the Tomahawk drifts away from being cheap but will not have nearly the same capability as the LRSO / JASSM. Right now, that appears to be the problem, using the Tomahawk is great and all, but if it is no longer cheap and there's no money for nothing new, the USN is stuck.

Also, sferrin from the LRSO article, LOL at the 1,000 build units. That isn't nearly enough for a wartime stock for the future.

I tend to agree with the list but with the addition of JSOW-ER or some warhead equipped version of MALD.

On the TLAM side, I think the argument is that the cost of incorporating an active seeker is dwarfed by the overall cost of refurbishing the Block IVs for another 15 years of service life. Speaking of which:

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2016-01-13-Raytheon-completes-active-seeker-test-for-Tomahawk-cruise-missile
 
http://news.usni.org/2016/01/12/navy-weighing-options-for-a-family-of-future-surface-ships
 
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/unconventional-warfare-in-the-gray-zone?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/invisible-bullets-the-navys-big-problem-in-future-war/?utm_campaign=Breaking+Defense+Daily+Digest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=25642386&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-93DJD-tOF5AYANpiE_ZhNoXnnszKuGx2ot-pqIiCLDhh1GUcJcnbkuPQhxGYA0kU4ao6AhQBWKazD0FoEAd0V2u5gSAA&_hsmi=25642386
 
Chief of naval research outlines service's contributions to Third Offset Strategy

The Navy's development of unmanned underwater vehicles, cyber capabilities and electronic-warfare applications are among the service's primary contributions to the Third Offset Strategy, the Pentagon's new initiative to pursue leap-ahead warfighting technologies.

The Navy's ongoing effort to develop more autonomous, more capable unmanned underwater vehicles, or UUVs, is one of its "cornerstone" contributions to the Third Offset Strategy, Rear Adm. Mat Winter, the chief of naval research, said at a Jan. 28 industry breakfast in Washington.

"In our undersea efforts, UUV capabilities and the ability to not just have ISR or a platform that operates undersea, but also one that has payload delivery capability, which we've demonstrated, was very attractive and was embraced by senior leadership as part of going forward on the Third Offset Strategy," Winter said.

The Third Offset Strategy is a new initiative spearheaded by Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work to develop game-changing technologies and strengthen conventional deterrence against countries like Russia and China. The fiscal year 2017 budget request, scheduled to be released Feb. 9, will represent the Pentagon's first organized attempt to fund the offset strategy.

According to Winter, placing the Navy's UUV development under the banner of the Third Offset Strategy has not significantly shifted the service's plans for advancing the technology.

"We've always been pushing for, not for a Third Offset Strategy, but the boundaries of capability for the technology," he said.

Winter said detailing the Navy's work under the strategy is difficult because "it gets classified right away." But in addition to UUVs, Winter said the Navy's other contributions to the initiative include cyber and electromagnetic maneuver warfare development.

The one-star said he is particularly excited about electromagnetic maneuver warfare. ONR is already sending technologies out to the fleet, mostly surface forces, to allow them to characterize, manipulate and maneuver within the electromagnetic spectrum, according to Winter.

"[Electromagnetic maneuver warfare] is going to be a game-changer in our ability to operate in the denied [environment], yes, but more importantly, for the deceptive engagement that we're really going to need to fight that high-end fight," Winter said.

Work said In December that "network-enabled autonomous weapons that are hardened for cyber-[attack] and electronic-warfare environments" are one of five major technology areas under the Third Offset Strategy.
 
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/01/28-new-defense-technology-orino
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/robot-subs-electronic-warfare-cyber-navys-role-in-offset-strategy/
 
http://news.usni.org/2016/02/02/little-known-pentagon-office-key-to-u-s-military-competition-with-china-russia
 
More detailed story from Inside Defense

Carter lifts the veil on classified work of secretive Strategic Capabilities Office

February 02, 2016

Defense Secretary Ash Carter provided surprising new details about work -- until now largely classified -- of a secretive office he established three years ago to fast-track development of promising, cutting-edge concepts and technologies to give U.S. forces new advantages against countries such as China and Russia. During an address to the Economic Council of Washington billed as a preview of the fiscal year 2017 budget, Carter touted the work of the Strategic Capabilities Office, a low-profile shop in the Pentagon's acquisition directorate that has gone from being set up to securing a $1.5 billion stake in military spending plans, including $870 million for projects to date for an expanding portfolio of potentially high-payoff technologies.

Carter directed the creation of the office during the summer of 2012 while deputy defense secretary as part of an effort to address policy issues associated with "pivoting" the U.S. military to the Asia-Pacific region. During his speech, he publicly took credit for the initiative and revealed new details about a number of projects. "SCO is incredibly innovative, but also has the rare virtue of rapid development and even the rarer virtue of keeping current capabilities viable for as long as possible," Carter said during his address.

The SCO -- led since its inception by William Roper who previously worked as the Missile Defense Agency's director for engineering -- was originally nested in the research and engineering directorate of the Pentagon's acquisition shop. Last year, Carter directed "the SCO be permanently established, operate under the authorities of the deputy defense secretary, and be integrated with the Advanced Capabilities and Deterrence Panel," a high-level DOD group focused on increasing U.S. technological advantages, according to a September Pentagon description of the office.

The SCO's budget has grown significantly since being established: $125.8 million in FY-14; $224.7 million in FY-15; and $519.8 million in FY-16 with plans laid out last year to spend another $766 million between FY-17 through FY-20. In addition, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work in a December address to a London think tank said he had identified the SCO as the vanguard for Pentagon efforts over the next five years to experiment with new technologies as part of the so-called Third Offset Strategy. Carter, in his remarks, discussed four SCO projects, two of which had not been publicly revealed and provided new details on the other two.

"First is a project focused on advanced navigation," Carter said. Until today, the Pentagon had said only that this project aimed to develop a prototype advanced navigation technique for contested environments, was begun in FY-15 with $15.2 million, and further details were "available at a higher classification level," according to budget justification documents sent to Congress last year. The SCO is "taking the same kinds of micro-cameras and sensors that are littered throughout our smartphones today, and putting them on our Small Diameter Bombs to augment their targeting capabilities," Carter said. "This will eventually be a modular kit that will work with many other payloads -- enabling off-network targeting through commercial components that are small enough to hold in your hand." In FY-16, the Pentagon plans to spend $16.3 million on this project, according to budget documents.

Another previously undisclosed project -- the "arsenal plane" -- takes "one of our oldest aircraft platforms, and turns it into a flying launch pad for all sorts of different conventional payloads," the defense secretary said. "In practice, the arsenal plane will function as a very large airborne magazine, networked to 5th-generation aircraft that act as forward sensor and targeting nodes -- essentially combining different systems already in our inventory to create wholly new capabilities." Based on this description, it is not clear whether the "arsenal plane" is being funded through a budget account dedicated to developing "innovative concepts" -- which would suggest this plane is an idea still on the drawing board -- or funded through the SCO's innovative technologies account, which would permit technology development.

Cater provided new descriptions of SCO projects that have previously only been outlined in broad strokes. The SCO's single biggest project to date is a "land-based rail gun" -- a $498 million effort through FY-16 -- that aims to find a new way to shoot down ballistic missiles that is much less expensive than using guided-missile interceptors.

"We're taking the same hypervelocity smart projectile developed for the electromagnetic rail gun, and using it for point defense by firing it with artillery we already have in our inventory -- including the five-inch guns at the front of every Navy destroyer, and also the hundreds of Army Paladin self-propelled howitzers," Carter said of the SCO project. "This way, instead of spending more money on more expensive interceptors, we can turn past offense into future defense -- defeating incoming missile raids at much lower cost per round, and thereby imposing higher costs on the attacker." Carter said the SCO, for the first time, recently fired a hypervelocity projectile from a Paladin self-propelled howitzer "and we found that it also significantly increases the range." Last June, Deputy Defense Secretary Work said that the SCO -- during a high-profile annual military exercise in Alaska -- demonstrated an innovative use of a large number of small, unmanned aerial vehicles, a precursor to exhibiting micro-UAVs capable of autonomous swarming behaviors and a move designed in part to display military advantage over China and Russia.

Asked at the time for additional details about the use of a "large number of micro UAVs" that Work briefly mentioned in a June 22 address, the SCO though a spokesman declined to provide further details. Today, the defense secretary explained what the SCO is doing with its project to develop swarming, autonomous vehicles of all kinds. "For the air, they've developed micro-drones that are really fast, and really resilient -- they can fly through heavy winds and be kicked out the back of a fighter jet moving at Mach 0.9, like they did during an operational exercise in Alaska last year, or they can be thrown into the air by a soldier in the middle of the Iraqi desert," Carter said. "And for the water, they've developed self-driving boats, which can network together to do all sorts of missions, from fleet defense to close-in surveillance -- including around an island, real or artificial, without putting our sailors at risk."

Each of these, Carter added, "leverages the wider world of technology." The micro-drones, according to the defense secretary, "use a lot of commercial components and 3D printing. And the boats build on some of the same artificial intelligence algorithms that NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory wrote for the Mars lander," Carter added
 
Little more on the arsenal plane. Earlier articles mentioned B-52 this one also mentions B-1 which would make more sense to me to keep up with fighters, etc.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/carter-touts-arsenal-plane-surrenders-10#comment-267071
 
Keeping up with the fighters might not be as big an issue depending on the range of the missiles used, conceivably the Air Force could park the BUFFs back with the E-3s and fire ramjet-powered missiles way over the horizon.
 
Moose said:
Keeping up with the fighters might not be as big an issue depending on the range of the missiles used, conceivably the Air Force could park the BUFFs back with the E-3s and fire ramjet-powered missiles way over the horizon.

If we had any. In addition to the speed/altitude/maneuverability advantages though, the B-1B has a far larger internal capacity. That means you're not hanging your expensive missiles in the elements all the time.
 
Moose said:
Keeping up with the fighters might not be as big an issue depending on the range of the missiles used, conceivably the Air Force could park the BUFFs back with the E-3s and fire ramjet-powered missiles way over the horizon.

I would tend to think the emphasis on conventional payloads rules out the B-52 since a BUFF lurking at standoff range might be misinterpreted and potentially destabilizing.
Not a problem with the B-1B since its been completely and demonstrably (as in New START sense) denuclearized.
 
sferrin said:
Moose said:
Keeping up with the fighters might not be as big an issue depending on the range of the missiles used, conceivably the Air Force could park the BUFFs back with the E-3s and fire ramjet-powered missiles way over the horizon.

If we had any. In addition to the speed/altitude/maneuverability advantages though, the B-1B has a far larger internal capacity. That means you're not hanging your expensive missiles in the elements all the time.
I'm not arguing that the B-1B is not the superior option, I'm just pointing out that the B-52 is in the running for a reason. The Bone still costs more to fly, after all. And the ramjets are coming, finally, in fact the Arsenal Plane becoming an official and high-profile program is yet more evidence of that.
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/transforming-distributed-lethality-strategy-into-action/

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/carters-strategic-capabilities-office-arsenal-plane-missile-defense-gun/
 
The idea for using the B-1 as an arsenal aircraft stems from consideration from this proposal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFsYcK5lWrQ
 
Moose said:
And the ramjets are coming, finally, in fact the Arsenal Plane becoming an official and high-profile program is yet more evidence of that.

What ramjets? As far as I can tell they're as much a pipe dream in the US today as they've ever been. (Yes, ramjets, let alone scramjets.)
 
sferrin said:
Moose said:
And the ramjets are coming, finally, in fact the Arsenal Plane becoming an official and high-profile program is yet more evidence of that.

What ramjets? As far as I can tell they're as much a pipe dream in the US today as they've ever been. (Yes, ramjets, let alone scramjets.)
There were multiple test flights of one last year, a ramjet I mean. The program is not well advertised, but it's alive and kicking.
 
Moose said:
sferrin said:
Moose said:
And the ramjets are coming, finally, in fact the Arsenal Plane becoming an official and high-profile program is yet more evidence of that.

What ramjets? As far as I can tell they're as much a pipe dream in the US today as they've ever been. (Yes, ramjets, let alone scramjets.)
There were multiple test flights of one last year, a ramjet I mean. The program is not well advertised, but it's alive and kicking.

Boeing apparently won a T3 downselect last year.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/which-one-is-climate-change-oplan-annex.html
 
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/which-one-is-climate-change-oplan-annex.html

Judas.

 
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/which-one-is-climate-change-oplan-annex.html

Judas.

<picard>*facepalm*</picard>

Indeed.


EDIT: Via EagleSpeak, the below is an excellent symbol for this mess.

3M-471-Green-Vinyl-Tape.jpg
 
Grey Havoc said:
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/which-one-is-climate-change-oplan-annex.html

Judas.

<picard>*facepalm*</picard>

Indeed.


EDIT: Via EagleSpeak, the below is an excellent symbol for this mess.

3M-471-Green-Vinyl-Tape.jpg
So if a commander determines attacking will produce more CO2 than surrendering????
 
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/which-one-is-climate-change-oplan-annex.html

Judas.

If all future surface combatants must be nuclear powered as a consequence it ain't so bad.
 
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/which-one-is-climate-change-oplan-annex.html

Judas.

If all future surface combatants must be nuclear powered as a consequence it ain't so bad.

More likely they'd demand the USN go back to sails.
 
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/which-one-is-climate-change-oplan-annex.html

Judas.

If all future surface combatants must be nuclear powered as a consequence it ain't so bad.

More likely they'd demand the USN go back to sails.

Nope. Galleys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom