The last time Congress created a new military branch was in 1947 when they formed the Air Force out of the Army Air Corps. Now, several Congressmen want to create a new branch of the military: the Space Corps. However, when the House of Representatives passed the final version of this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), now signed into law by President Trump, it addressed the controversial proposal in no uncertain terms:
“No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise available for fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense may be used to establish a military department or corps separate from or subordinate to the current military departments, including a Space Corps in the Department of the Air Force, or a similar such corps in any other military department.” ~H.R.2810 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, Section 6605
Its proposer and strongest supporter, Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), asserted that the Air Force has dropped the ball on space over the last two decades, allowing our adversaries to close the space technology gap with us. The only thing that could save us now was to create an entirely new branch of the military– The Space Corps– sharing a similar relationship with the Air Force as the Marine Corps has with the Navy.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces sub-committee proposed creation of the Space Corps in 2017, believing that the USAF had not adequately performed its duties in regards to the space mission. (Image credit: C-SPAN)
To be fair, we do have a problem. Modern Air Force strategy has highly valued fighters and air attack. Accordingly, fighter pilots represent 31 percent of the Air Force General Officer leadership, to include six out of the fourteen top four-star officers (for comparison, Air Force Personnel Command reports pilots of ANY aircraft compose only 20 percent of officers). Officers in other fields (such as space) have historically not been promoted as frequently or highly. Additionally, sixteen years of combat operations under inadequate budgets have encouraged raiding the space funds of tomorrow to meet the mission requirements of today.
Most significantly, our adversaries have indeed enhanced many of their space capabilities to near-peer status. Recently, China tested quantum communication satellites, and Russia enthralled the Space community with maneuvering satellites that have unknown strategic intentions. Both countries, as well as the European Union, have launched their own navigation satellites to remove their reliance on the American GPS constellation.
However, Rep. Roger’s Space Corps plan ignored three important truths:
1. Our adversaries have a vote on what their space capabilities are. Even with more focus on space, on what grounds were we to protest or prevent Russia from launching satellites? They have just as much right to the peaceful use of space as we do, and embarrassingly, we depend on them for all of our own manned space flight since the shuttle retirement in 2011.
2. We already have Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) Headquartered in Colorado Springs, it is run by four-star General John “Jay” Raymond. What would a Space Corps realistically do that AFSPC is not capable of doing? If Congress aims to get him a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it would be easier to amend Title 10 of the United States Code to make him a required consultant on all issues related to space, or change who he ultimately reports to. There is a precedent: that was the initial role the Commandant of the Marine Corps played before he was given a permanent seat. Such an amendment would also be far easier to implement than forming an entirely new branch.
3. A new military department will only complicate appropriations.Fiscal year 2009was the last time Congress passed an appropriations bill for the Department of Defense before the actual start of the fiscal year. This has led to numerous continuing resolutions that Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley called “professional malpractice” when he testified to Congress in April. Approaching a decade of indiscriminate budget cuts from sequestration, our forces are stretched thin. Congress proved this point on January 19th when they failed to pass the third continuing resolution for the 2018 fiscal year. The first two passed only hours before yet another government shutdown. When the third failed, the entire federal government shut down for almost three days until they ended it on January 22, with only another three-week stopgap passed. A new military branch would incur more redundant overhead. What makes Congress think that if we can’t afford to adequately fund space now, or anything else, we can afford it after we spend billions on a whole new branch?
USSTRATCOM commander, General John Hyten (left), directed the current commander of Air Force Space Command, General Jay Raymond (right), to also assume duties as the Joint Force Space Component Commander in December 2017. The author believes this will improve DoD’s space posture without having to create an entirely new military department. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Kyla Gifford)
The Space Corps idea received a cold reception from the Department of Defense from the start. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told Congress, “If I had more money, I would put it into lethality, not bureaucracy.” Her sentiments were seconded in separate testimonies by General John Hyten, the Commander of United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), as well as General Raymond.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis also opposed it. While he has recognized that we need to update our approach to space, he believes no one has adequately argued that the Space Corps is the way to do it. It would only become another budget strain.
To the Air Force’s credit, they realized several years ago that they were dropping the ball on space. It is no accident that General Raymond, a man with a background in missiles and space, was put in charge of AFSPC. Backing him up as the Unified Combatant Commander over AFPSC, General Hyten also has significant space experience. He led AFSPC as its previous Commander and served as the deputy there before that.
Even though the final NDAA scrapped the Space Corps, Congress did make at least one critical change to benefit AFSPC. General Raymond’s job now comes with a minimum six-year term. This draws from the Naval Reactors model begun by Admiral Hymen G. Rickover, where the Admiral oversees the program for an eight-year term. This has contributed to the Navy’s consistently strong nuclear operational and safety record, and it will do worlds of good for the space program as well.
The Air Force has the right leadership cadre in place. It needs a chance for this reinvigorated command structure to succeed. Proposing the Space Corps did get the attention of all the right people, but it has more problems than solutions. The concept will likely keep reappearing every year for the foreseeable future, as several congressmen have alluded to. Will our military one day require a Space Corps? Possibly. But it is not today, and it is not next year. Killing the proposal now was the right call.
Scott Lassiter is a U.S. naval officer assigned to United States Strategic Command, and a member of the Navy’s Space Cadre.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Navy, Air Force, Strategic Command, or Department of Defense.
Featured image: US Air Force personnel examine the experimental orbital vehicle known as the X-37B after a successful landing at Vandenberg AFB in December 2010. (AP)
The 2017 back-to-back collisions of two Navy destroyers led to much speculation about the role of cyberphysical interference in the disasters. As the senior officer representing the U.S. Navy engineering community during the USS McCain cyber assessment, it is clear that we do not yet have the basic tools to definitively answer the question, “were we hacked or did we break it?”
Cyberphysical systems are the backbone of the global infrastructure we rely on for transportation, power, and clean water, and are growing at an exponential rate. The deep integration of physical and software components is not without risks and most industries are technically and organizationally unprepared to conduct forensic examinations. The ability to trust cyberphysical systems is dependent on our ability to definitively identify and remedy cyber interference, which is dependent on our understanding of how data flows impact the physical world.
There are broad lessons from the USS McCain cyber assessment that highlight the type of forensics needed to build and sustain cyberphysical infrastructure around the globe. In order to prevent and respond to future cyberphysical events, whether malicious or accidental, the Navy and organizations dependent on cyberphysical systems must establish post-event procedures for cyber forensic investigations, develop trusted images, and integrate threat intelligence with engineering teams.
Post-event Procedures
Post-incident shipboard forensic examination is a unique activity that is separate and distinct from cybersecurity evaluations or responses to network intrusion or malware. Typically, when cybersecurity operations centers observe malicious communications or indications of compromise within their operating network, they have a clear map of the network and key pieces of information, such as an initiating IP address or malware signatures, from which to begin the forensic mission. They start by identifying and classifying malware on the offending endpoint and can take immediate actions to observe the adversary in their system and identify what is being targeted, while simultaneously acting to clean and quarantine the network.
In stark contrast, post-incident cyberphysical assessment requires an undirected baseline on a variety of media, including hard drives from voyage management systems, machinery control stations, and IT network endpoints. Greatly complicating post-incident response is the fact that many segments of the network will likely be shut off by design or physically destroyed by the casualty itself. The task of cyber forensic teams is essentially the equivalent of trying to determine why a building collapsed without blueprints, physical access to the structure, or any data on what happened immediately prior to the collapse.
The technical understanding and research required to define standard operating procedures for shipboard cyber forensic investigations do not currently exist. While the task of developing a comprehensive approach to shipboard cyber forensics is daunting, the military has experience developing specialty training paradigms, such as submarine navigation and tactical aviation. Hunting a cyber adversary in industrial control systems is a complex task requiring unique operational and tactical expertise. An achievable near-term milestone would be to create procedures for an attack surface assessment for a routine pre-planned mission, which could provide a test-bed for developing more comprehensive procedures, as well as a better understanding of capabilities and gaps.
Trusted Images
All ships operate three main networks: the voyage network that supports the safe navigation of the vessel, the engineering network that controls propulsion along with material handling and auxiliary systems, and the administrative network that supports business operations and crew welfare needs. U.S. Navy vessels also have a combat systems network. The interconnectedness of operational and information technology networks means that traditional information technology tools and perimeter-based security solutions are inadequate for cyberphysical systems. For example, the addition of even simple PKI security can overwhelm the processing power of installed cyberphysical processors and cause a system crash instead of preventing unauthorized access. Additionally, in order for systems like GPS to function, the system must allow access to all properly formatted traffic, rendering perimeter defense insufficient. Security for complex cyberphysical systems requires capturing data flows and developing contextually aware algorithms to understand the dynamics during shipboard operations.
To generate network situational awareness sophisticated enough to do cyber forensics, the team will need to search for electronic anomalies across a wide range of interconnected systems. A key component of anomaly detection is the availability of normal baseline operating data, or trusted images, that can be used for comparison. These critical datasets of trusted images do not currently exist. Trusted images must be generated to include a catalog of datasets of network traffic, disk images, embedded firmware, and in-memory processes.
1. Network Traffic: A common attack vector is to find a computer that has communications access over an unauthenticated network, which issues commands to another system connected to the network (i.e. malware in a water purification system issuing rudder commands). Cyberphysical forensics require network traffic analysis tools to accurately identify known hosts on the network and highlight anomalous traffic. If the trusted images repository contained traffic signatures for every authorized talker on the network, it would allow forensic teams to efficiently identify unauthorized hosts issuing malicious commands.
2. Disk Images: Every console on the ship has a disk that contains its operating system and key programs. These disks must be compared against trusted images to determine if the software loaded onto the hard drives contains malicious code that was not deployed with the original systems.
3. Embedded Firmware: Many local control units contain permanent software programmed into read-only memory that acts as the device’s complete software system, performing the full complement of control functions. These devices are typically part of larger mechanical systems and manufactured for specific real-time computing requirements with limited security controls. Firmware hacks give attackers control of systems that persist through updates. Forensic teams will need data about the firmware in the trusted image repository for comparison.
4. In-memory Processes: Finally, advanced malware can load itself into the memory of a computer and erase the artifacts of its existence from a drive. Identifying and isolating malware of this nature will require in-memory tools, training, and trusted images.
In addition to the known trusted images, future forensic analysis would benefit from representative datasets for malicious behavior. Similar to acoustic intelligence databases that allow the classification of adversary submarines, a database of malicious cyber patterns would allow categorization of anomalies that do not match the trusted images. This is a substantial task that will require constant updating as configurations change. However, there are near-term milestones, such as the development of shipboard network monitoring tools and the generation of reference datasets that would substantively improve shipboard cybersecurity.
Organizational Integration
As future shipboard assessment teams work to confirm or refute the presence of cyber interference, they will need the assistance of a cyber intel support team to validate assumptions about their findings aboard the vessel. The basic flow established in the USS McCain investigation was to look at the physical systems involved in causing the collision (i.e. propulsion, steering) and then begin looking for cyberattack vectors to those systems.
Ruling out cyber interference requires evidence of absence, which can be uniquely challenging. In order to refute a particular attack vector, coordination with a cyber intel support detachment is essential to understanding the range of possible cyberattack scenarios for a particular physical effect. For example, advanced cyber effects could be delivered over a radiofrequency pathway. Therefore, cyber investigators will need to understand the electromagnetic environment the ship is operating within, as recorded in national systems, and give access to analysts capable of identifying anomalies in the signal pathway.
Shipboard assessment and cyber intel support teams each have specific sets of expertise necessary to understand the full suite of cyberattack vectors and their potential impacts on shipboard systems. Cyberattack tactics are constantly changing and the highest levels of technical expertise and security clearance are required to keep abreast of the potential methods to penetrate networks and attack industrial control systems. Cyber intel teams will never have the engineering expertise to understand the full range of potential physical impacts on shipboard systems. As was demonstrated with Stuxnet and the attack on the Ukrainian power grid, the most successful cyberphysical attacks exploit the organizational gap between engineering and cyber teams.
Organizational constructs for cyberphysical systems will never be straightforward because cyber risk cuts horizontally across engineering systems and traditional intelligence activities. Organizational integration between the cyber and engineering communities must be practiced and continually refined in order to prevent and respond to cyberphysical interference. A near-term milestone would be to execute joint training exercises between the cyber intel and engineering communities in order to promote cross-disciplinary understanding and begin to build out the template for future organizational integration.
Conclusion
Network connectivity in industrial control systems has revolutionized the way humans interact with physical systems and ushered in a new era of capabilities from energy generation to manufacturing to warfighting. These advancements are not without risks, and to avoid cyberphysical catastrophe, the development of tools to ensure resilience, security, and safety must keep pace. Shipboard forensics provide a prime example of the current gaps in our ability to understand, monitor, and protect cyberphysical systems. The lessons learned from the forensic examination of the USS McCain can provide the foundation for the procedures, data, and organizational constructs required to create modern tools to monitor and protect cyberphysical systems.
Zac Staples had a 22-year career in the United States Navy as a surface warfare officer specializing in electronic warfare. His final tour was as the Director of the Center for Cyber Warfare at the Naval Postgraduate School, where he led inter-disciplinary research and development teams exploring cyber capability development. Zac holds a B.S. in engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy, a Masters in National Security Affairs from the Naval Postgraduate School, and is a distinguished graduate of the Naval War College.
Maura Sullivan specializes in systemic risks and data-driven emerging technologies. Maura was the Chief of Strategy and Innovation at the U.S. Department of the Navy, where she developed and implemented the strategic roadmap for emerging cyberphysical technologies. Previously, Maura led a start-up within the global catastrophe risk company, RMS, developing software and consulting solutions for managing systemic risks for financial and insurance markets. She was a White House Fellow, has a Ph.D. in epidemiology from Emory University and a B.S and M.S. in earth systems from Stanford University.
Zachary Staples (USN, Retired) and Maura Sullivan, PhD are the co-founders of Fathom5, a maritime cybersecurity company.
Featured Image: Operations Specialist 3rd Class Daniel Godwin, from Milton, Fla., stands watch in the Combat Information Center aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65). (U.S. Navy photo)
As one of our valued members, we’re eager to hear your thoughts on our community and its future. If you haven’t already, please take our 8 question survey at the link below. Last call! The survey will close this Sunday, January 21st.
In 2018 the United States remains engaged worldwide. The 2017 National Security Strategy addresses the wide-range of threats to the security and prosperity of United States.1 These threats range from high-end peer competitors such as China and Russia, to rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran, to the ongoing threat of terrorism represented by such groups as ISIL. In a preview of the National Security Strategy at the December 2017 Reagan National Defense Forum, National Security Advisor General H.R. McMaster highlighted these threats and reconfirmed the previous administration’s “4+1” strategy, naming the four countries – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea—and the “+1” — terrorists, particularly ISIL — as urgent threats that the United States must deal with today.2
The U.S. military is dealing with this threat landscape by deploying forces worldwide at an unprecedented rate. And in most cases, it is naval strike forces, represented by carrier strike groups centered on nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and expeditionary strike groups built around large-deck amphibious ships, that are the forces of choice for dealing with crises worldwide.
For decades, when a crisis emerged anywhere on the globe, the first question a U.S. president asked was, “Where are the carriers?” Today, that question is still asked, but increasingly, the question has morphed into, “Where are the expeditionary strike groups?” The reasons for this focus on expeditionary strike groups are clear. These naval expeditionary formations have been the ones used extensively for a wide-array of missions short of war, from anti-piracy patrols, to personnel evacuation, to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. And where tensions lead to hostilities, these forces are the only ones that give the U.S. military a forcible entry option.
During the past decade-and-a-half of wars in the Middle East and South Asia, the U.S. Marine Corps was used extensively as a land force and did not frequently deploy aboard U.S. Navy amphibious ships. Now the Marine Corps is largely disengaged from those conflicts and is, in the words of a former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, “Returning to its amphibious roots.”3 As this occurs, the Navy-Marine Corps team is looking to new technology to complement and enhance the capabilities its amphibious ships bring to the fight.
Because of their “Swiss Army Knife” utility, U.S. naval expeditionary forces have remained relatively robust even as the size of the U.S. Navy has shrunk from 594 ships in 1987 to 272 ships in early 2018. Naval expeditionary strike groups comprise a substantial percentage of the U.S. Navy’s current fleet. And the blueprint for the future fleet the U.S. Navy is building maintains, and even increases, that percentage of amphibious ships.4
However, ships are increasingly expensive and U.S. Navy-Marine Corps expeditionary forces have been proactive in looking to new technology to add capability to their ships. One of the technologies that offer the most promise in this regard is that of unmanned systems. The reasons for embracing unmanned systems stem from their ability to reduce the risk to human life in high-threat areas, to deliver persistent surveillance over areas of interest, and to provide options to warfighters that derive from the inherent advantages of unmanned technologies—especially their ability to operate autonomously.
The importance of unmanned systems to the U.S. Navy’s future has been highlighted in a series of documents, ranging from the 2015 A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, to the 2016 A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority, to the 2017 Chief of Naval Operations’ The Future Navy white paper. The Future Navy paper presents a compelling case for the rapid integration of unmanned systems into the Navy Fleet, noting, in part:
“There is no question that unmanned systems must also be an integral part of the future fleet. The advantages such systems offer are even greater when they incorporate autonomy and machine learning….Shifting more heavily to unmanned surface, undersea, and aircraft will help us to further drive down unit costs.”5
The U.S. Navy’s commitment to and growing dependence on unmanned systems is also seen in the Navy’s official Force Structure Assessment of December 2016, as well as in a series of “Future Fleet Architecture Studies.” In each of these studies—one by the Chief of Naval Operations staff, one by the MITRE Corporation, and one by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments—the proposed Navy future fleet architecture had large numbers of air, surface, and subsurface unmanned systems as part of the Navy force structure. Indeed, these reports highlight the fact that the attributes unmanned systems can bring to the U.S. Navy Fleet circa 2030 have the potential to be truly transformational.6
The Navy Project Team, Report to Congress: Alternative Future Fleet Platform Architecture Study is an example of the Navy’s vision for the increasing use of unmanned systems. This study notes that under a distributed fleet architecture, ships would deploy with many more unmanned surface (USV) and air (UAV) vehicles, and submarines would employ more unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs). The distributed Fleet would also include large, self-deployable independent USVs and UUVs, increasing unmanned deployed presence to approximately 50 platforms.
This distributed Fleet study calls out specific numbers of unmanned systems that would complement the manned platforms projected to be part of the U.S. Navy inventory by 2030:
255 Conventional take-off UAVs
157 Vertical take-off UAVs
88 Unmanned surface vehicles
183 Medium unmanned underwater vehicles
48 Large unmanned underwater vehicles
By any measure the number of air, surface, and subsurface unmanned vehicles envisioned in the Navy alternative architecture studies represents not only a step-increase in the number of unmanned systems in the Fleet today, but also vastly more unmanned systems than current Navy plans call for. But it is one thing to state the aspiration for more unmanned systems in the Fleet, and quite another to develop and deploy them. There are compelling reasons why naval expeditionary forces have been proactive in experimenting with emerging unmanned systems.
Testing and Evaluating Unmanned Systems
While the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have embraced unmanned systems of all types into their force structures, and a wide-range of studies looking at the makeup of the Sea Services in the future have endorsed this shift, it is the Navy-Marine Corps expeditionary forces that have been the most active in evaluating a wide variety of unmanned systems in various exercises, experiments, and demonstrations. Part of the reason for this accelerated evaluation of emerging unmanned systems is the fact that, unlike carrier strike groups that have access to unmanned platforms such as MQ-4C Triton and MQ-8 Fire Scout, expeditionary strike groups are not similarly equipped.
While several such exercises, experiments, and demonstrations occurred in 2017, two of the most prominent, based on the scope of the events, as well as the number of new technologies introduced, were the Ship-to-Shore Maneuver Exploration and Experimentation (S2ME2) Advanced Naval Technology Exercise (ANTX), and Bold Alligator 2017. These events highlighted the potential of unmanned naval systems to be force-multipliers for expeditionary strike groups.
S2ME2 ANTX provided an opportunity to demonstrate emerging, innovative technology that could be used to address gaps in capabilities for naval expeditionary strike groups. As there are few missions that are more hazardous to the Navy-Marine Corps team than putting troops ashore in the face of a prepared enemy force, the experiment focused specifically on exploring the operational impact of advanced unmanned maritime systems on the amphibious ship-to-shore mission.
For the amphibious assault mission, UAVs are useful—but are extremely vulnerable to enemy air defenses. UUVs are useful as well, but the underwater medium makes control of these assets at distance problematic. For these reasons, S2ME2 ANTX focused heavily on unmanned surface vehicles to conduct real-time ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) and IPB (intelligence preparation of the battlespace) missions. These are critical missions that have traditionally been done by our warfighters, but ones that put them at extreme risk.
Close up of USV operating during S2ME2; note the low-profile and stealthy characteristics (Photo courtesy of Mr. Jack Rowley).
In an October 2017 interview with U.S. Naval Institute News, the deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, test and evaluation, William Bray, stressed the importance of using unmanned systems in the ISR and IPB roles:
“Responding to a threat today means using unmanned systems to collect data and then delivering that information to surface ships, submarines, and aircraft. The challenge is delivering this data quickly and in formats allowing for quick action.”7
During the assault phase of S2ME2 ANTX, the expeditionary commander used a USV to thwart enemy defenses. For this event, he used an eight-foot man-portable MANTAS USV (one of a family of stealthy, low profile, USVs) that swam undetected into the “enemy harbor” (the Del Mar Boat Basin on the Southern California coast), and relayed information to the amphibious force command center using its TASKER C2 system. Once this ISR mission was complete, the MANTAS USV was driven to the surf zone to provide IPB on obstacle location, beach gradient, water conditions and other information crucial to planners.
Unmanned surface vehicle (MANTAS) operating in the surf zone during the S2ME2 exercise (Photo courtesy of Mr. Jack Rowley).
Carly Jackson, SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific’s director of prototyping for Information Warfare and one of the organizers of S2ME2, explained the key element of the exercise was to demonstrate new technology developed in rapid response to real-world problems facing the Fleet:
“This is a relatively new construct where we use the Navy’s organic labs and warfare centers to bring together emerging technologies and innovation to solve a very specific fleet force fighting problem. It’s focused on ‘first wave’ and mainly focused on unmanned systems with a big emphasis on intelligence gathering, surveillance, and reconnaissance.”8
The CHIPS interview article discussed the technologies on display and in demonstration at the S2ME2 ANTX event, especially networked autonomous air and maritime vehicles and ISR technologies. Tracy Conroy, SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific’s experimentation director, noted, “The innovative technology of unmanned vehicles offers a way to gather information that ultimately may help save lives. We take less of a risk of losing a Marine or Navy SEAL.”
S2ME2 ANTX was a precursor to Bold Alligator 2017, the annual Navy-Marine Corps expeditionary exercise. Bold Alligator 2017 was a live, scenario-driven exercise designed to demonstrate maritime and amphibious force capabilities, and was focused on planning and conducting amphibious operations, as well as evaluating new technologies that support the expeditionary force.9
Bold Alligator 2017 encompassed a substantial geographic area in the Virginia and North Carolina OPAREAS. The mission command center was located at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia. The amphibious force and other units operated eastward of North and South Onslow Beaches, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. For the littoral mission, some expeditionary units operated in the Intracoastal Waterway near Camp Lejeune.
The Bold Alligator 2017 scope was modified in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, as many of the assets scheduled to participate were used for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. The exercise featured a smaller number of amphibious forces but did include a carrier strike group.10 The 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) orchestrated events and was embarked aboard USS Arlington (LPD-24), USS Fort McHenry (LSD-43), and USS Gunston Hall (LSD-44).
The 2nd MEB used a large (12-foot) MANTAS USV, equipped with a Gyro Stabilized SeaFLIR230 EO/IR Camera and a BlueView M900 Forward Looking Imaging Sonar to provide ISR and IPB for the amphibious assault. The sonar was employed to provide bottom imaging of the surf zone, looking for objects and obstacles—especially mine-like objects—that could pose a hazard to the landing craft–LCACs and LCUs–as they moved through the surf zone and onto the beach.
The early phases of Bold Alligator 2017 were dedicated to long-range reconnaissance. Operators at exercise command center at Naval Station Norfolk drove the six-foot and 12-foot MANTAS USVs off North and South Onslow Beaches, as well as up and into the Intracoastal Waterway. Both MANTAS USVs streamed live, high-resolution video and sonar images to the command center. The video images showed vehicles, personnel, and other objects on the beaches and in the Intracoastal Waterway, and the sonar images provided surf-zone bottom analysis and located objects and obstacles that could provide a hazard during the assault phase.
Bold Alligator 2017 underscored the importance of surface unmanned systems to provide real-time ISR and IPB early in the operation. This allowed planners to orchestrate the amphibious assault to ensure that the LCACs or LCUs passing through the surf zone and onto the beach did not encounter mines or other objects that could disable—or even destroy—these assault craft. Providing decision makers not on-scene with the confidence to order the assault was a critical capability and one that will likely be evaluated again in future amphibious exercises such as RIMPAC 2018, Valiant Shield 2018, Talisman Saber 2018, Bold Alligator 2018 and Cobra Gold, among others.
Navy Commitment to Unmanned Maritime Systems
One of the major challenges to the Navy making a substantial commitment to unmanned maritime systems is the fact that they are relatively new and their development has been “under the radar” for all but a few professionals in the science and technology (S&T), research and development (R&D), requirements, and acquisition communities. This lack of familiarity creates a high bar for unmanned naval systems in particular. A DoD Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap provided a window into the magnitude of this challenge:
“Creation of substantive autonomous systems/platforms within each domain will create resourcing and leadership challenges for all the services, while challenging their respective warfighter culture as well…Trust of unmanned systems is still in its infancy in ground and maritime systems….Unmanned systems are still a relatively new concept….As a result; there is a fear of new and unproven technology.”11
In spite of these concerns—or maybe because of them—the Naval Sea Systems Command and Navy laboratories have been accelerating the development of USVs and UUVs. The Navy has partnered with industry to develop, field, and test a family of USVs and UUVs such as the Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vehicle (“Sea Hunter”), MANTAS next-generation unmanned surface vessels, the Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV), and others.
Indeed, this initial prototype testing has been so successful that the Department of the Navy has begun to provide increased support for USVs and UUVs and has established program guidance for many of these systems important to the Navy and Marine Corps. This programmatic commitment is reflected in the 2017 Navy Program Guide as well as in the 2017 Marine Corps Concepts and Programs publications. Both show a commitment to unmanned systems programs.12
In September 2017, Captain Jon Rucker, the program manager of the Navy program office (PMS-406) with stewardship over unmanned maritime systems (unmanned surface vehicles and unmanned underwater vehicles), discussed his programs with USNI News. The title of the article, “Navy Racing to Test, Field, Unmanned Maritime Vehicles for Future Ships,” captured the essence of where unmanned maritime systems will fit in tomorrow’s Navy, as well as the Navy-after-next. Captain Rucker shared:
“In addition to these programs of record, the Navy and Marine Corps have been testing as many unmanned vehicle prototypes as they can, hoping to see the art of the possible for unmanned systems taking on new mission sets. Many of these systems being tested are small surface and underwater vehicles that can be tested by the dozens at tech demonstrations or by operating units.”13
While the Navy is committed to several programs of record for large unmanned maritime systems such as the Knifefish UUV, the Common Unmanned Surface Vehicle (CUSV), the Large Displacement UUV (LDUUV) and Extra Large UUV (XLUUV), and the Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV) vehicle (since renamed the Medium Displacement USV [MDUSV] and also called Sea Hunter), the Navy also sees great potential in expanding the scope of unmanned maritime systems testing:
“Rucker said a lot of the small unmanned vehicles are used to extend the reach of a mission through aiding in communications or reconnaissance. None have become programs of record yet, but PMS 406 is monitoring their development and their participation in events like the Ship-to-Shore Maneuver Exploration and Experimentation Advanced Naval Technology Exercise, which featured several small UUVs and USVs.”14
The ship-to-shore movement of an expeditionary assault force remains the most hazardous mission for any navy. Real-time ISR and IPB will spell the difference between victory and defeat. For this reason, the types of unmanned systems the Navy and Marine Corps should acquire are those systems that directly support our expeditionary forces. This suggests a need for unmanned surface systems to complement expeditionary naval formations. Indeed, USVs might well be the bridge to the Navy-after-next.
Captain George Galdorisi (USN – retired) is a career naval aviator whose thirty years of active duty service included four command tours and five years as a carrier strike group chief of staff. He began his writing career in 1978 with an article in U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings. He is the Director of Strategic Assessments and Technical Futures at the Navy’s Command and Control Center of Excellence in San Diego, California.
The views presented are those of the author, and do not reflect the views of the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense.
Correction: Two pictures and a paragraph were removed by request.
References
[1] National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, D.C.: The White House, December 2017) accessed at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905-2.pdf.
[2] There are many summaries of this important national security event. For one of the most comprehensive, see Jerry Hendrix, “Little Peace, and Our Strength is Ebbing: A Report from the Reagan National Defense Forum,” National Review, December 4, 2017, accessed at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454308/us-national-security-reagan-national-defense-forum-offered-little-hope.
[3] Otto Kreisher, “U.S. Marine Corps Is Getting Back to Its Amphibious Roots,” Defense Media Network, November 8, 2012, accessed at: https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/return-to-the-sea/.
[4] For a most comprehensive summary of U.S. Navy shipbuilding plans, see Ron O’Rourke Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, November 22, 2017).
[5] The Future Navy (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Navy, May 2017) accessed at: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/Resource/TheFutureNavy.pdf. See also, 2018 U.S. Marine Corps S&T Strategic Plan (Quantico, VA: U.S. Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, 2018) for the U.S. Marine Corps emphasis on unmanned systems, especially man-unmanned teaming.
[6] See, for example, Navy Project Team, Report to Congress: Alternative Future Fleet Platform Architecture Study, October 27, 2016, MITRE, Navy Future Fleet Platform Architecture Study, July 1, 2016, and CSBA, Restoring American Seapower: A New Fleet Architecture for the United States Navy, January 23, 2017.
[7] Ben Werner, “Sea Combat in High-End Environments Necessitates Open Architecture Technologies,” USNI News, October 19, 2017, accessed at: https://news.usni.org/2017/10/19/open-architecture-systems-design-is-key-to-navy-evolution?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=b535e84233-USNI_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0dd4a1450b-b535e84233-230420609&mc_cid=b535e84233&mc_eid=157ead4942
[8] Patric Petrie, “Navy Lab Demonstrates High-Tech Solutions in Response to Real-World Challenges at ANTX17,” CHIPS Magazine Online, May 5, 2017, accessed at http://www.doncio.navy.mil/CHIPS/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=8989.
[9] Information on Bold Alligator 2017 is available on the U.S. Navy website at: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=102852.
[10] Phone interview with Lieutenant Commander Wisbeck, Commander, Fleet Forces Command, Public Affairs Office, November 28, 2017.
[11] FY 2009-2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap, pp. 39-41.
[12] See, 2017 Navy Program Guide, accessed at: http://www.navy.mil/strategic/npg17.pdf, and 2017 Marine Corps Concepts and Programs accessed at: https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/.
[13] Megan Eckstein, “Navy Racing to Test, Field, Unmanned Maritime Vehicles for Future Ships,” USNI News, September 21, 2017, accessed at: https://news.usni.org/2017/09/21/navy-racing-test-field-unmanned-maritime-vehicles-future-ships?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=fb4495a428-USNI_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0dd4a1450b-fb4495a428-230420609&mc_cid=fb4495a428&mc_eid=157ead4942
[14] “Navy Racing to Test, Field, Unmanned Maritime Vehicles for Future Ships.”
Featured Image: Marines with 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment prepare a Weaponized Multi-Utility Tactical Transport vehicle for a patrol at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Calif., July 13, 2016. (USMC photo by Lance Cpl. Julien Rodarte)
