Committee on Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Some ...onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nec/050510Orourke.pdf · Committee on Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Some Potential

Presentation to National Academy of SciencesCommittee on Naval Engineering in the 21 Centuryst

Some Potential Technology Implications of the Navy’s Future

Ronald O’RourkeCongressional Research Service

National Academy of Sciences2100 C St., NW, Washington, DC

May 5, 2010

Disclaimer

— these views are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CRS, LoC, or Congress

Introduction – my background

— CRS naval issues analyst since 1984— role of CRS

— responsible for tracking Navy strategy, plans, programs, budgets, technology, industrial base, andrelated issues, particularly ship acquisition— reports, briefings, testimony for Congress

— magazine/journal articles and presentations to government, industry, and academic audiences

Outline

— some potential technology implications of

— Navy’s future operating environment— future Navy operations— Navy’s future resource situation

— note: some potential implications

— not intended as a comprehensive listing— no particular order

— very similar to January presentation

— some reorganization— some additional points

Outline

— some potential technology implications of

— Navy’s future operating environment

— future Navy operations

— Navy’s future resource situation

Navy’s future operating environment

— adversaries with anti-access weapons

— adversaries with cyberwarfare and ASAT capabilities

— adversaries with nuclear weapons

— terrorist and irregular warfare threats to forward-deployed Navy ships

— limited or uncertain access to, and vulnerability of,overseas land bases

— diminishment of Arctic sea ice

— policymaker focus on energy use and alternative energy

Adversaries with anti-access weapons

— 2010 QDR: deterring and defeating aggression in anti-access environments is one of six key mission areas

— China and Iran

— TBMs— including ASBMs

— LACMs— SAMs— ASCM-armed aircraft— submarines armed with ASCMs and torpedoes

— including wake homers— ASCM-armed surface combatants— mines— supporting surveillance and targeting systems

Countering ASBMS and advanced ASCMs

— shipboard radars more capable than SPY-1— AMDR – power and cooling

— improved networking technologies, including those forlinking ships with off-board sensors

— high-power DEWs, particularly lasers— marginal cost equation – integrated electric drive

— an improved terminal phase BMD interceptor

— soft-kill options for countering ASBMs

— ships with reduced radar cross sections and infraredsignatures

Countering undersea anti-access weapons

— ships with reduced acoustic signatures

— technologies for a distributed, sensor-intensive (asopposed to platform-intensive) approach to ASW

— anti-torpedo torpedo (ATT) to counter wake homers

— technologies for reducing or disrupting a ship’s wake,if any are available

— technologies for doing MCM more quickly, particularlyin very shallow waters and surf zone

— improved technologies for reducing ships’ magneticsignatures

Damage-control features for responding to hits by anti-access weapons

— deflecting or absorbing warhead denotations

— suppressing fires

— controlling flooding

— doing above on ships with reduced-size crews

Operating outside range of anti-access weapons

— longer-ranged carrier-based manned and unmannedaircraft, such as N-UCAS

— longer-ranged weapons

— off-board sensors and networks for surveillance,targeting, and damage assessment at long ranges









Adversaries with cyberwarfare and ASAT capabilities

— 2010 QDR: operating effectively in cyberspace is one ofsix key mission areas

— January 2007 Chinese ASAT test

— January 2010: Navy establishes U.S. Fleet CyberCommand and recommissions 10 Fleet, both at Fortth

Meade, and stands up Navy Cyber Forces at LittleCreek-Fort Story (Norfolk, VA)

Adversaries with cyberwarfare and ASAT capabilities

— cyberwarfare capabilities on ships, in addition to Navyand DOD capabilities at centralized locations ashore?

— resilience in face of cyber and ASAT attacks

— redundancy in computers and networking links

— ability to rapidly reconstitute networks andsatellites

— ability for ships to operate effectively in stand-alone mode when support from off-board systemsis reduced or not available due to attacks onnetworks or satellites









Adversaries with nuclear weapons

— 2010 QDR discusses issue at several points

— raises possibility of nuclear weapons being usedagainst or in vicinity of Navy ships

— features for withstanding effects of nuclear weapons

— e.g., overpressure, thermal effects, EMP,radioactive fallout

— ship structures, citadels, EMP-hardening,washdown systems— Navy in March 2010 reportedly reactivated its

EMP Assessment group after roughly 10-yearperiod of reduced activity









Terrorist and irregular warfare threats to forward-deployed Navy ships

— 10/12/00 attack on Cole; 9/11/01 attacks; 10/6/02boat-bomb attack on Limburg; 8/19/05 rocket attackon Ashland and Kearsarge in Aqaba; 7/14/06 HezbollahASCM attack on Hanit; March 2010 warning by MARADand ONI re potential for attacks on ships near Yemen

— sensors, barriers, unmanned vehicles, and lethal andnon-lethal weapons for countering small boats,mini-submarines, and swimmers

— sensors and weapons for countering rockets andmortars

— topside equipment that can withstand attacks by rocketsand mortars









Limited or uncertain access to, and vulnerability of,overseas land bases

— a past argument in favor of sea-based forces

— an argument underpinning plans for MPF(F)

— argument may reemerge as U.S. forces eventuallywithdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan

Limited or uncertain access to, and vulnerability of,overseas land bases

— ships with increased on-board storage for fuel andsupplies

— ships that use fuel more efficiently— could include equipping ships with integrated

electric drive technology

— ships with smaller crews— less need for food and other personnel-related

consumables

— nuclear power not just for aircraft carriers andsubmarines, but for other ships as well

— ships with greater survivability or more capability torepair their own battle damage at sea









Diminishment of Arctic sea ice

— leading to increased human activities in Arctic, andopening up potential new operating area for Navy andCoast Guard surface ships

— 2010 QDR discusses opening of Arctic waters

— 1/9/09 presidential directive establishing new U.S.Policy for Arctic region (NSPD 66/HSPD 25)

— 11/10/09 Navy Arctic roadmap— guides Navy activities for FY10-FY14

Diminishment of Arctic sea ice

— ice-strengthened hulls— underside features, including propellers, shafts, rudders,

and intakes, that are designed for operations in ice-infested waters

— topside systems capable of operating in extreme cold,as well as technologies for eliminating or resisting icebuildup on topside surfaces

— fuels and lubricants formulated for operations in extremecold

— technologies to support search-and-rescue operations inice-infested waters

— communication and navigation systems for operations inhigh latitudes

— improved models and analytical tools for predictingenvironmental conditions in the Arctic









Policymaker focus on energy use and alternative energy

— policymaker interest motivated by desire to reduce— fuel expenditures

— to reduce budget pressures— fuel-related logistics tail for forward-deployed forces

— to reduce budget pressures and make forcesmore expeditionary and agile

— DOD’s dependence on petroleum— reduce DOD’s vulnerability to disruption in oil

imports— DOD’s greenhouse gas emissions

— to mitigate DOD’s contribution to climatechange and set an example for others

— DoN initiatives in recent years— many pursued under Navy’s Energy Conservation

(ENCON) program


— October 2009: Secretary of Navy’s 5 energy-relatedgoals— use lifetime energy cost, and fully burdened fuel

cost, as mandatory evaluation factor in awardingcontracts for a building or system

— demonstrate a “green strike group” in localoperations by 2012, and deploy it by 2016— nuclear-powered ships, surface combatants

with hybrid electric drive running biofuel,aircraft using biofuel only

— reduce petroleum use on DoN commercial vehiclefleet by half by 2015

— produce at least half of shore-based energyrequirements from alternative sources by 2020

— meet at least 40%, if not 50%, of total DoN energyconsumption with alternative sources by 2020— ships, aircraft, tanks, vehicles, installations


— shipboard equipment that is more energy-efficient thanexisting models

— new technologies, and wider application of existingtechnologies, for improving hydrodynamic performance— e.g., stern flaps and hull coatings, including

environmentally friendly coatings— wider application of hybrid-drive and integrated electric

drive technology— higher-efficiency gas turbines— fuel cells— biofuels, particularly those whose production does not

displace food production, and certification of ship andaircraft engines to operate on biofuels

— nuclear-power not only for aircraft carriers andsubmarines, but other ships as well

— kite-assisted propulsion

Outline

— Some potential technology implications of

— Navy's future operating environment


— Navy's future resource situation

Future Navy operations

— Navy in future will likely conduct many of same kinds ofoperations it has conducted in past

— Focus here: recently added, expanded, or renewedkinds of operations

— BMD

— counterterrorism (CT) and irregular warfare (IW)

— anti-piracy

— partner capacity-building

— humanitarian assistance and disaster response(HADR)

BMD operations

— observers expect Navy BMD operations to expandsignificantly in scope due to— proliferation of TBMs— China’s emerging ASBM— Administration’s September 2009 Phased Adaptive

Approach (PAA) for missile defense in Europe andelsewhere

— concern that demands for BMD-capable Aegis ships willgrow faster than supply— Navy plans call for at least 10 Aegis cruisers and all

Aegis destroyers to eventually be BMD-capable

BMD operations

— integrating Aegis BMD system with other elements ofplanned European BMD architecture

— adapting Aegis BMD system into an Aegis Ashoreconfiguration

— developing SM-3 Block IIB missile to be used at AegisAshore sites

— developing shipboard technologies for facilitating use ofmultiple crewing or Sea Swap on BMD-capable Aegisships

Counterterrorism (CT) and irregular warfare (IW)operations

— 2010 QDR: succeeding in counterinsurgency, stability,and CT operations is one of six key mission areas— (2010 QDR report uses the term counterinsurgency

and stability rather than IW)

— Navy focus on these ops since 10/12/00 attack on Cole,9/11/01 attacks, start of combat ops in Iraq andAfghanistan— Navy contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan

— Navy organizational changes— establishment of NECC, riverine squadrons, FAO

program, naval civil reserve affairs battalion

Counterterrorism (CT) and irregular warfare (IW)operations

— developing and acquiring improved ship-based ISRcapabilities, including UAVs— particularly those capable of conducting persistent

ISR operations

— developing improved capabilities for expeditionaryelectronic warfare, signals intelligence, counter-IED,explosive ordnance disposal (EOD), and riverinecapabilities

— fast-to-target, low-collateral-damage strike weapons

— improved capabilities for covertly inserting andrecovering SEALs— including follow-on to Advanced Swimmer Delivery

System (ASDS)

Anti-piracy operations

— U.S. Navy one of several navies now engaged in anti-piracy ops in waters off Somalia

— piracy there not expected to subside completely until aneffective government is established in Somalia, whichmay not occur for some time

— Navy anti-piracy ops there incur financial andopportunity costs

— technologies for conducting such ops more costeffectively— UAVs for persistent ISR— discriminating pirates from legitimate fishermen— non-lethal weapons for ships and manned and

unmanned aircraft

Partner capacity-building operations

— 2010 QDR: building security capacity of partner states isone of six key mission areas

— Navy engaged in operations to build capacity of partnernations to conduct maritime security ops— one means of implementing Global Partnerships

Initiative (GMP)–- Cooperative Strategy for 21 Century discussesst

working with partners at several points

— improved education and training facilities— built into ships— portable modules that can be set up aboard ships

or moved ashore

Humanitarian assistance and disaster response (HADR)operations

— Navy placing considerable emphasis on such ops

— technologies for— rapid, detailed surveys and assessments of

damaged areas, and rapid dissemination of thatinformation to personnel in field

— improved ship-to-shore transfer of relief suppliesand equipment, particularly when sea ports andairports are damaged or not available

— rapidly repairing damaged sea ports and airports— portable power-generation, water purification, and

medical-care modules that can be quickly installedon ships or quickly moved ashore

— reestablishing local comms and civil governance— permitting personnel in field to reach back to distant

medical or other specialists

Outline

— Some potential technology implications of

— Navy's future operating environment


— Navy's future resource situation

Navy’s future resource situation

— increases in ship and aircraft unit procurement costs

— reduced ship and aircraft procurement rates

— operation and support (O&S) costs crowding out fundingfor procurement

— limited numbers of new ship and aircraft designs

Increases in ship and aircraft procurement costs

— such increases are making it more difficult for Navy toprocure ships and aircraft in desired quantities

— currently planned or potential actions— common hulls, airframes, systems, components— increasing use of modularity in ship design and

construction— incorporating into ship and aircraft designs

improved design-for-producibility features; makingbetter use of production engineering

— new materials that are less expensive— reducing size, weight, cost of shipboard systems— reducing ship crew size, including technologies for

automated damage control— developing improved construction processes and

methods, such as those developed by NSRP

Reduced ship and aircraft procurement rates

— in spite of actions to reduce unit cost, rates may remainrelatively low

— shipbuilding affordability challenge, particularly as— LCS and JHSV programs run their course— SSBN(X) procurement begins

— projected Navy-Marine Corps strike-fighter shortfall


— extend ship and aircraft lives

— building ships and aircraft with more-rugged ormore-durable materials

— building ships and aircraft with greater growthmargins

— building ships and aircraft with open-architecturecombat systems and physical open-architecturefeatures to facilitate modernization over long shipand aircraft lives

— improved technologies for corrosion control— improved technologies and models for monitoring,

inspecting and assessing condition of in-serviceships and aircraft and estimating their remainingservice lives


— increase percentage of ship life spent on deployment

— building ships and aircraft with more-rugged ormore-durable materials

— building ships with more-reliable systems,redundant systems, and increased onboardcapacity for repairing equipment

— building ships with technologies for facilitating theuse of multiple crewing or Sea Swap

Operation and support (O&S) costs crowding outfunding for procurement

— as one means of addressing this, Navy now placingmore emphasis on total ownership cost (TOC)

— reducing (or at least constraining) O&S costs couldinvolve— UVs as substitutes for manned ships and aircraft— ships with reduced-sized crews— ships with reduced fuel use— systems, components, materials that are more

reliable, have reduced life-cycle maintenance costs— improved technologies for corrosion control— improved technologies and models for monitoring,

inspecting, assessing condition of ships, aircraft— open-architecture combat systems and physical

open-architecture features to reduce-life-cyclemodernization costs

Limited numbers of new ship and aircraft designs

— as one means of reducing ship, aircraft design costs

— near-term programs for designing new complexcombatants appear limited

— LSD(X) (lead ship FY17)

— SSBN(X) (lead ship FY19)

— Navy’s proposal to cancel CG(X) and build Flight IIIDDG-51s from FY16 through FY31 suggests nextcruiser/destroyer design project might not begin untilmid-2020s

Limited numbers of new ship and aircraft designs

— strategies for introducing new technologies into fleetmore through mods of existing ship designs thanthrough designing new ships— improved design tools for working with existing ship

designs— roadmaps for introducing into cruiser-destroyer

fleet, through mods to DDG-51, technologiespreviously planned for widespread introductionthrough acquisition of DDG-1000s and CG(X)s— e.g., integrated electric drive, composites— Navy in February began study on options for

modifying DDG-51 to achieve improved IAMD,manpower reductions, energy efficiency andimproved power generation, improvedeffectiveness in warfare areas other thanIAMD, reduced TOC

Thank you

Documents

Committee on Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Some ...onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nec/050510Orourke.pdf · Committee on Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Some Potential