Register here

Author Topic: CSBA "Third Offset" paper  (Read 93710 times)

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #510 on: June 08, 2018, 01:17:16 pm »
The potential for an LHD/A-to-CV transition, on the other hand, definitely seems to be getting more serious discussion since
Sen. McCain's white paper
(PDF) and
CSBA's paper proposing a heavily revamped Fleet Architecture.

I think it's a bit early to start cancelling America-class hulls, but I'm at the point where I wouldn't be shocked if we end up stopping short of the 11 planned and transition to something else.

CVLs have been a recurring theme in practically all of the "future fleet architecture" studies commissioned
by both houses over the last 20 years.

What stood out as a major difference this time around was that the CNO's office gave a lower-bound of 36 (!) strike fighters
for the projected carrier air wing.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #511 on: June 08, 2018, 01:20:35 pm »
 “amphibious forced entry operations,” should always be an option even if not the first. air insertion is risky especially against a near peer nowadays. IADS may need to be suppressed w/ very long range guns.

The AAAV had such promise and some folks so botched it that now the USMC is suffering political ramifications..

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #512 on: June 20, 2018, 08:03:24 am »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #513 on: June 27, 2018, 06:51:32 am »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/06/gao-decision-threatens-us-military-dominance-reject-it/?utm_campaign=Breaking%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=64065746&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8G33DHV1l_ErkwzWty2AA8UrMSt6-2ACxS6pcD8qGrIKPjweq8tfqeNWFSZlpnbWwkQjqDSCqxuZ1nTA57cfSvbl7cFg&_hsmi=64065746

Quote
Bill Greenwalt is sort of the Pied Piper of military acquisition policy. Where he leads, others often follow. (Of course, there’s a major difference from the legend. Greenwalt is not making extravagant promises.) After he wrote a series of op-eds for Breaking Defense recommending major changes to the Pentagon’s acquisition system, Sen. John McCain lured Bill back to his old job at the Senate Armed Services Committee. Greenwalt rewrote the laws, shaking up Defense Department acquisition. Bill is back, pointing to new acquisition problems, this latest one with his former employer — the Government Accountability Office. It’s a doozy, as you’ll see. Read on! The Editor.

It hasn’t attracted much attention but a seemingly minor quasi-judicial ruling is a prime example of how our acquisition system serves as a means to self-inflicted unilateral disarmament.

Unless senior leadership in the Defense Department acts in the next few weeks, this Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) protest decision in favor of Oracle and against the Army and Transportation Command will ensure that China will dominate the future military application of quantum computing, artificial intelligence and machine learning, data analytics, biotechnology, robotics and autonomous operations. Even before the recent GAO ruling the odds were daunting that the Pentagon could pursue the right policies to compete and win in what is now the arms race of the 21st century. Unless the Defense Department engages, those odds just got perilously worse.

Why would such a seemingly mundane judgment have such a wide-ranging impact? In one fell swoop, this decision kills DoD’s ability to access Silicon Valley and the rest of leading edge commercial innovators in the US and the free world. While it may not be obvious to many, the only way for the U.S. to compete with China in the next decade will be to harness the engineering talent and the lead that the commercial market currently has in emerging technologies. To understand the significance of this, note that six out of the eight technologies identified in the National Defense Strategy as vital to future national security are being led by the commercial marketplace. To provide for its security the U.S. needs to find a way to partner and contract with commercial companies that until now would not work with the Pentagon because of its massive compliance requirements, its excruciatingly slow acquisition and contracting processes and the way it treats intellectual property.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #514 on: July 20, 2018, 08:24:30 am »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/exclusive-what-multi-domain-c2-may-look-like-raytheons-rick-yuse/?utm_campaign=Breaking%20Defense%20Air%20&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=64605558&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8uWJHa5XSKG0k0lGy9MVspCtBJ3MZs9ufk583lfAqg3MMuhIxn-h24eg-rdoIimrXStpOxpAAaFgM2IyLdhpxvghfvhw&_hsmi=64605558

Quote
FARNBOROUGH AIR SHOW: One of the best parts about covering an air show is bringing some of the gee-whizzery of the defense industry to the broader public, stuff beyond the metal tubing that flies fast and does neat things in the air.

Raytheon has been relatively quiet about its plans to develop systems for multi-domain operations, the US military’s evolving concept for defeating high-end adversaries with a coordinated onslaught from all five domains: land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. But in a low-key way, the company is touting upgrades of some systems it already fields to help the four services and intelligence community connect all the data from sensors and weapons around the world and in space.

The video above will give you an idea of what may become the combat center of the future, but one dispersed around the world, instead of being concentrated in a few hyper-secure (but potentially targetable) facilities.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #515 on: July 21, 2018, 12:09:40 am »
Contracts for July 19, 2018

Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, is awarded a $10,686,543 modification (P00005) to a previously
awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00019-17-C-0059) to conduct flight test demonstrations for the
Joint Standoff Weapon Extended Range (JSOW-ER) Phase 3a development, including hardware and software modifications. 
Tasking includes hardware and software modifications with laboratory and ground testing to the existing JSOW AGM-154C-1. 
Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona, and is expected to be completed in July 2019.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #516 on: July 24, 2018, 02:42:25 pm »
https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/rebuilding-americas-military-thinking-about-the-future

Quote
America’s military—engaged beyond capacity and in need of rebuilding—is at a crucial juncture. Its current “big-leap” approach to preparing for future conflict carries great risk in searching for revolutionary capabilities through force-wide commitments to major single-solution programs. The Heritage Foundation’s Rebuilding America’s Military Project (RAMP) recommends that the U.S. military instead adopt an iterative, experimentation-heavy approach that can achieve revolutionary outcomes at less risk through evolutionary improvements that build on each other until transformative tipping points are reached. Critical to this is a military culture that is immersed in the study of war and a force of sufficient capacity to prepare for the future while also handling current operational commitments.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #517 on: July 25, 2018, 05:05:06 am »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/pentagon-sounds-alarm-over-sub-hunting-tech-shortage-hypersonic-funding/

Quote
WASHINGTON The Navy says it is running short of critical submarine-detecting sonobuoys, thanks to stepped-up submarine activity by Russia in the Mediterranean and around Europe.

As a result, the service has asked Congress to reprogram $20 million to buy more of the detection devices in an Omnibus funding package the Pentagon sent to Congress earlier this month. The Omnibus says the air-dropped buoys — which can detect diesel submarines and transmit their location in real time back to monitoring units — are in critically short supply after experiencing “unexpected high anti-submarine warfare operational tempo in 2017 [which] resulted in unexpected high expenditure rate of all type/model/series.”
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #518 on: July 25, 2018, 08:57:06 am »
https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/rebuilding-americas-military-thinking-about-the-future

Quote
America’s military—engaged beyond capacity and in need of rebuilding—is at a crucial juncture. Its current “big-leap” approach to preparing for future conflict carries great risk in searching for revolutionary capabilities through force-wide commitments to major single-solution programs. The Heritage Foundation’s Rebuilding America’s Military Project (RAMP) recommends that the U.S. military instead adopt an iterative, experimentation-heavy approach that can achieve revolutionary outcomes at less risk through evolutionary improvements that build on each other until transformative tipping points are reached. Critical to this is a military culture that is immersed in the study of war and a force of sufficient capacity to prepare for the future while also handling current operational commitments.

There is barely an iterative, experimentation approach let alone and seeking of revolutionary outcomes or leap ahead.

Technology such as EM Guns (problem w/ energy density renders it questionable), EM Armor (maybe the same problem), and electric exoskeletons (maybe the same problem, even 16hrs is not enough especially if it only augments existing and does not drastically outperform regular human strength). 

Another example is the ground work horse for the foreseeable future the JTLV (lacks frontal slope and side slope armor or active axle tech) therefore was obsolete when it was introduced. 

Other examples include a ship manufacturing culture which appears not to be ready to produce the ships which need to prevail far across the beach or there is no 'early entry',and in the very high altitudes, and under & above the ocean, in all circumstances until 2060.

Lastly, a 'Model A' UAS culture w/ such doozies as Organic Precision Fires, which already has been outdone by ISIS multi-munition delivery UAS and general penchant for WWI era tube and wing airfoils (no stealth or dynamic maneuver dominance), and low efficiency & non stealth open props.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 837
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #519 on: July 25, 2018, 09:57:19 am »
Other examples include a ship manufacturing culture which appears not to be ready to produce the ships which need to prevail far across the beach or there is no 'early entry',and in the very high altitudes, and under & above the ocean, in all circumstances until 2060.
I' got to ask you to restate or explain this sentence, as written I don't have a firm enough understanding of what you're on about to respond or otherwise comment productively.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #520 on: July 25, 2018, 10:18:42 am »
Other examples include a ship manufacturing culture which appears not to be ready to produce the ships which need to prevail far across the beach or there is no 'early entry',and in the very high altitudes, and under & above the ocean, in all circumstances until 2060.
I' got to ask you to restate or explain this sentence, as written I don't have a firm enough understanding of what you're on about to respond or otherwise comment productively.
As a for instance the ability to support early entry w/ any degree of support can not be reached w/ single 125mm guns or the follow ons proposed, msles won't do it. Cant carry enough.. The frigate, destroyer, crusier paradigm is obsolete more like on-board power chooses the size  just for survival let alone all spectrum dominance for instance.  With the advent of multimission UAS what will be the difference between a Conventional carrier and uAS carrier which is the basis for Conventional carrier protectors etc. Is semi submersible the way to go etc.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #521 on: July 26, 2018, 08:46:22 am »
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22380/congress-demands-space-based-missile-defense-weapons-and-sensors-no-matter-what

Quote
U.S. lawmakers from the House and Senate have agreed on a final version of the approximately $716 billion defense spending bill for the 2019 fiscal year, which requires the U.S. military begin work on developing new warning satellites to spot incoming ballistic missiles and weapons to blow them up from space. The draft law requires the Missile Defense Agency to pursue these programs even if it argues against them in an up-coming ballistic missile defense strategy review, which might be setting the Pentagon up for a battle with Congress, but might also highlight the opinions of certain senior U.S. military leaders.

Legislators announced they had agreed on a single version of the law, formally known as the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, on July 23, 2018. The House expects to put the measure to a vote by the end of the month and then send it to the Senate in August 2018. If it passes both chambers, then it would go to President Donald Trump to become law.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #522 on: August 08, 2018, 05:55:56 am »
Technology Roulette: Managing Loss of Control as Many Militaries Pursue Technological Superiority

Report at the link

https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/technology-roulette
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #523 on: August 13, 2018, 06:51:46 pm »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/stop-wasting-time-so-we-can-beat-china-dod-rd-boss-griffin/

Quote
SPACE & MISSILE DEFENSE SYMPOSIUM: How much of a military-industrial rock star is Mike Griffin? Well, the former NASA director turned Pentagon R&D chief can call tell a room full of defense contractors and officials they’re wasting everyone’s money and time AND get a standing ovation.

“It is a good thing that we are a rich country, because poorer countries just could not afford to waste this kind of money,” the undersecretary of Defense for research and engineering said here last night. “For the two-and-a-half years I have remaining as a political appointee in this job, I will be asking you, at every chance I get, to look at what we’re doing and find ways to either eliminate it or shortcut it, because most of what you’re doing, by definition, is not value added

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018-08/ai-will-change-balance-power

Quote
We live in the cognitive age—an era when we will begin replicating, and exceeding, the prowess of the human mind in specific domains of expertise. While the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) are broad, as we head deeper into this new era, we will find that AI combined with myriad exponential technologies will carry us inexorably toward a different form of warfare that will unfold at speeds we cannot fully anticipate—a form of warfare we call hyperwar.

Historically, the balance of power between belligerents has been dictated in great measure by the relative size of their armies. Knowledge of terrain, skill, and technology all have been multipliers for smaller forces, but quantity has had a quality all its own. If one sets aside consideration of nuclear weapons, which allow small states such as Israel and North Korea to hold their opponents at bay, the outcomes of conventional conflicts are determined primarily by a country’s ability to field a larger force, sustained over a longer period of time—the costs of which are enormous.

The arrival of artificial intelligence on the battlefield promises to change this. Autonomous systems soon will be able to perform many of the functions historically done by soldiers, whether for intelligence analysis, decision support, or the delivery of lethal effects. In fact, if developers of these technologies are to be believed, their systems may even outperform their human competition. As a consequence, the age-old calculation that measures a country’s basic military potential by estimating the number of able-bodied individuals capable of serving no longer may be reliable in determining the potency with which a country can project power. 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #524 on: August 15, 2018, 12:50:47 pm »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/stop-wasting-time-so-we-can-beat-china-dod-rd-boss-griffin/

Quote
SPACE & MISSILE DEFENSE SYMPOSIUM: How much of a military-industrial rock star is Mike Griffin? Well, the former NASA director turned Pentagon R&D chief can call tell a room full of defense contractors and officials they’re wasting everyone’s money and time AND get a standing ovation.

“It is a good thing that we are a rich country, because poorer countries just could not afford to waste this kind of money,” the undersecretary of Defense for research and engineering said here last night. “For the two-and-a-half years I have remaining as a political appointee in this job, I will be asking you, at every chance I get, to look at what we’re doing and find ways to either eliminate it or shortcut it, because most of what you’re doing, by definition, is not value added

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018-08/ai-will-change-balance-power

Quote
We live in the cognitive age—an era when we will begin replicating, and exceeding, the prowess of the human mind in specific domains of expertise. While the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) are broad, as we head deeper into this new era, we will find that AI combined with myriad exponential technologies will carry us inexorably toward a different form of warfare that will unfold at speeds we cannot fully anticipate—a form of warfare we call hyperwar.

Historically, the balance of power between belligerents has been dictated in great measure by the relative size of their armies. Knowledge of terrain, skill, and technology all have been multipliers for smaller forces, but quantity has had a quality all its own. If one sets aside consideration of nuclear weapons, which allow small states such as Israel and North Korea to hold their opponents at bay, the outcomes of conventional conflicts are determined primarily by a country’s ability to field a larger force, sustained over a longer period of time—the costs of which are enormous.

The arrival of artificial intelligence on the battlefield promises to change this. Autonomous systems soon will be able to perform many of the functions historically done by soldiers, whether for intelligence analysis, decision support, or the delivery of lethal effects. In fact, if developers of these technologies are to be believed, their systems may even outperform their human competition. As a consequence, the age-old calculation that measures a country’s basic military potential by estimating the number of able-bodied individuals capable of serving no longer may be reliable in determining the potency with which a country can project power. 

Depending on AI/computers over able bodied individuals is dangerous slippery slope. Computers, much like myself are seldom correct and always sure ;D That is when they (computers) are not off doing random, wrong calculations based on incomplete information. AI may simply be to fast to be practical in many military decision situations. Conventional engagements w/ full sitawarn maybe best. Winning in long term Hybrid Conflict.. likely too hasty.