All posts by Guest Author

Warfighting Development

Thinking Together, Winning Together: The USNA Warfighter-Centered Design Challenge

Leave a comment

By Commander Ken Maroon, Jered Heimingway, Lyla Englehorn, and Lieutenant Commander Adam Johnson

Last summer, the academy hosted its second Naval Academy Warfighter-Centered Design (WCD) Challenge in partnership with the Naval Research and Development Establishment (NR&DE), and Naval Warfare Studies Institute (NWSI) at Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) to capture the talent and creativity of its graduates. Envisioned by Rear Admiral Lorin Selby, the WCD initiative seeks to “train people to think differently and challenge the current system.”1 This year’s workshop included eleven USN Ensigns and two USMC Second Lieutenants with a broad range of academic majors including Electrical Computer Engineering, Weapons Robotics and Control, Mechanical Engineering, Computer Science, and Naval Architecture. Collectively, these students combined their academic experience to meet this year’s challenge, to develop low-cost solutions for offensive and defensive unmanned surface capabilities.

Ensigns and 2ndLTs are briefed on the Warfighter-Centered Design process. (Photo by Ken Maroon)

Developing solutions to overcome the complexities facing the USN begins with the warfighter. Warfighter innovation is vital to solving real-world problems, addressing challenges, and filling capability gaps facing our warfighters. Embracing innovation will ensure that cutting edge technology employed within the battlespace will vastly improve the human experience and survivability. This year’s workshop, and the Warfighter Driven Challenge (WDC) series independently launched by NWSI at NPS in early 2024, curate challenges directly from warfighters and connect attendees with the growing community of warfare center engineers who have the resources and expertise to generate solutions. This partnership was a natural fit in supporting this year’s USNA WCD workshop as it employed tools of warfighter-centered design to approach a warfighter driven challenge.

Warfighter-Centered Design Challenge Process

The WCD challenge centered on developing low-cost solutions for offensive and defensive unmanned systems. After immersing the graduates with current naval applications of Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) and informing them of real-world complexities, the graduates were introduced to the process of warfighter-centered design, then split into two teams; one team focused on developing offensive USV capabilities and the other focused on developing counter-USV swarm capabilities. Each team was led by a WCD facilitator and dedicated technical experts from the NR&DE community. This year’s challenge leveraged assistance from NWSI, established to support the alignment of NPS’ priorities, activities, actions, and investments to the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ most pressing concept and capability development efforts.

The graduates received a crash-course in current naval applications of USVs. Operational briefs were presented by experts in this field from various warfighting perspectives to include COMNAVSURFPAC, NAVEUR, NSW, TF59, DCO, SURFDEVRON ONE, USVRON THREE, and INDOPACOM J8. Participants were also given the opportunity to interview these experts to fully explore the challenge with which they were tasked. Additional technical and innovative instruction was facilitated by subject matter experts from the Naval Postgraduate School, Center for Naval Analysis, the Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Prototyping & Engineering, Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock, Naval Information Warfare Center Atlantic, NSWC Panama City, NSWC Crane, and USNA instructors. Together, this group of instructors prepared the graduates for a grueling multi-day warfighter design challenge.

After each group received their challenge, explored the complex military problem space, and framed their challenge, the teams began the ideation process. The WCD ideation process is unique in that it leverages the creativity of young officers who have no presuppositions as to why a particular solution will not work. This allowed for ideation that ignites creative, yet critical thinking. Creative ideation, teamed with academic experience, helped each team to prioritize ideas and navigate the phase of concept development. During the concept development phase, each team used their expertise and information that had been shared by experts and senior operators to achieve a solution to the WCD challenge.

2nd Lt Lucas Gabrieli, 2nd Lt Andrew Braemer and ENS Maximilian Kimmel present the WILEA concept. (Photo by Ken Maroon)

To address the low-cost solution for offensive USV capabilities, the Offensive Team developed the concept called Waterborne Interchangeable Long-range Engagement Architecture (WILEA).2 In concept, the WILEA is a standard model low-cost USV with modular components. Their purpose behind developing a standard model was three-fold: 1) a standard model would allow for rapid scaling of production, 2) modular components would give warfighters the ability to interchange parts in an expeditionary environment, and 3) a standard model equipped with modular components would make the platform multi-purpose. Possible uses included the ability to deliver direct kinetic effectors below the target’s waterline or the deployment of Small Naval Electronic Attack Robots (SNEAR) to provide Electronic Warfare capabilities against enemy systems.

ENS Aidan Johnson and ENS Daniel Bartosik present the DEATHSTAR USV defense concept. (Photo by Ken Maroon)

The Defensive Team developed three concepts for a low-cost defensive solution to counter USV swarm capabilities. Their first concept was the High-altitude Unmanned Nautical Tracking Engagement Robots (HUNTER). HUNTER’s early detection of incoming USV swarms initiates the deployment of Kinetic Interceptors for Low-Level Engagement and Reconnaissance (KILLER). Their second concept, the Directed Energy Apparatus to Hamper Sensor Technology in Autonomous Robotics (DEATHSTAR), aims at disabling USV optical sensors. Rendering USV optical sensors useless would effectively blind any human or autonomous operator. Thirdly, the Defensive Team conceptually developed the Strategic Hydrous Interdiction and Elimination Liquid Defense (SHIELD). When deployed, this “pizza dough” like agent would counter an incoming enemy USV swarm by interfering with its propulsion and steering systems. Deployment of SHIELD could be accomplished by dropping or launching canisters or via the hose attachments on to naval vessels.

Introduction to Research, Development, and Innovation

In addition to providing graduates an opportunity to practice solving capability issues impacting naval warfare, the event also provides a unique opportunity for graduates to be exposed to the research and development side of the Navy and Marine Corps team. The Naval Academy has worked to build lasting partnerships in research through its Capstone and Internship programs provided to its midshipmen. The WCD expands on the research skills these graduates developed as midshipmen by working in a cross-discipline team and giving them direct contact with representatives from some of the Navy’s premier research organizations. To familiarize junior officers (JO) with the process of contributing their ideas for future development, the WCD teamed with Naval Junior Officer Counsel (NJOC).

Sanctioned by the Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP) and the Chief of Naval Research (CNR), NJOC is the Navy’s first cross-designator group of JOs, Lieutenant Commander and below. Its mission is to enhance communication across the Naval enterprise by enabling JOs to rapidly synthesize and deliver critical feedback and innovative contributions to senior leaders managing Navy challenges. NJOC recently launched a campaign to bolster its peer-to-peer facilitation capabilities with aims to deliver human-centered design (HCD) training as one of the key enablers to foster collaboration and problem-solving initiatives among a cadre of nearly 45,000 Navy JOs, globally.

To achieve this, NJOC has partnered with NWSI at NPS and ONR’s NavalX Accelerator Department to design, test, and refine these resources first within the Naval Education Environment. By leveraging expertise and shared equities between NPS and USNA, NJOC is striving to establish itself as a reliable supporting organization in the innovation space. Joint participation in this event marks a critical first step in one day equipping all JOs with the necessary tools to lead innovation efforts effectively across the Fleet.

Each USNA warfighter design challenge event ends with the graduate teams briefing their solutions to higher leadership such as the Chief of Naval Research, relevant stakeholders from the Office of DASD (P&E), and NPS. Briefing senior leadership not only gives attendees the opportunity to practice their communication skills, it also reinforces the fact that they are the warfighter, ant that their voice matters! Each of these participants will encounter challenges that will demand an innovative solution. Events like the USNA’s WCD encourage collaboration, ideation, and demand solutions. Exposing participants to a collaborative network of technical expertise and equipping them with a new toolset for innovative problem-solving will encourage concept development and proposed solutions that will greatly impact future investment decisions within the unmanned maritime domain.

A team that thinks together, wins together. As the battlefield evolves, emerging technology will be at the forefront of naval strategy and superiority. The USNA warfighter design challenge and the full Warfighter Driven Challenge (WDC) effort is leading the way in equipping next generation Navy and Marine Corps officers with the tools to become innovators that pave the way toward victory.

Commander Ken Maroon is a permanent military professor at the US Naval Academy.

Jered Hemingway is a contractor supporting NSWC Crane Code JXRR.

Lyla Englehorn is a faculty associate at NPS.

Lieutenant Commander Adam Johnson is Avionics Branch Head, F/A-18 Integrated Weapon Support Team, NAVSUP-Weapon systems Support-Philadelphia. 

References

1. Duffie, W. J. (2022, August 11). Designer Thought: ONR ‘SCOUTS’ For Creative Warfighting Solutions at Naval Academy Event. Retrieved August 2024, from Office of Naval Research: https://www.nre.navy.mil/media-center/news-releases/designer-thought-onr-scouts-creative-warfighting-solutions-naval-academy

2. The Offensive Team included 2nd Lt Jiyeon Kim, ENS Shannon Clancy, 2nd Lt Andrew Braemer, ENS Maximilian Kimmel, and 2nd Lt Lucas Gabrieli. The Defensive Team was comprised of ENS Julian McCloud, ENS Ben Witte, ENS Donna Evins, 2nd Lt Chris Civetta, ENS Daniel Bartosik, and ENS Aidan Johnson.

Featured Image: PACIFIC OCEAN (Dec. 13, 2024) Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Handling) 2nd Class Steven Crisologo, from the Philippines, assigned to the forward-deployed amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6), launches an F-35B Lightning II fighter aircraft from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 242 from the ship’s flight deck. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Amy Cocoro Mullins)

Podcast

Sea Control 564 – Canoes, Rivers, and more with Scot McFarlane

Leave a comment

By J. Overton

Historian Scot McFarlane joins the program to discuss the role of the canoe in warfare. He discusses the advantages the canoe provided in colonial America as well as the continued uses of canoes in warfare today. Scot McFarlane is a river historian and founder of the Oxbow History Company.

Download Sea Control 564 – Canoes, Rivers, and more with Scot McFarlane


Links

1. Scot McFarlane, “The Canoe,” American Historical Association.

J. Overton is Co-Host of the Sea Control podcast. Contact the podcast team at [email protected].

Addison Pellerano edited and produced this episode.

Wargaming

Do You Have To Do “Analysis” To Call It A Wargame? Actually, No.

2 Comments

By BJ Armstrong and Marcus Jones

“If my career were ahead instead of behind me, I should endeavor to the extent of my ability, and at the earliest opportunity, to acquire as thorough a knowledge of the principles of the art of war as possible, and should neglect no opportunity to train myself in their application by playing competitive war games.” –Admiral William Sims, 1921

With enemy destroyers approaching from the southern end of the Philippine archipelago, the commander faced a critical decision: Should he launch a risky strike with his dwindling VLS weapon supply, or chart a course eastward to evade and regroup in the vast Pacific for a future battle?

This scenario was the challenge for a Midshipman Fourth Class, serving as the commander of American forces in a recent wargame hosted by the Naval Academy Wargaming Society in collaboration with Bancroft Hall’s training program. Facilitated by CDR Ken Maroon, PhD, these combat scenarios in and around the contemporary South China Sea have become a staple of Saturday mornings in the Wargaming Lab beneath Mahan Hall. Acting as part of a makeshift Maritime Operations Center, Naval Academy Plebes in this scenario not only reinforced their professional knowledge of American naval forces, but also grappled with the complexities of naval decision-making and critical thinking in a dynamic, high-pressure environment.

Phil Pournelle’s recent article “Does it Matter if You Call It a Wargame? Actually, Yes,” calls on CIMSEC readers and the larger military and national security community to consider the taxonomy of how we think about the events that are commonly called “wargames.” He offers vital distinctions and a way to think about the teleology of exercises that often fall into a rather large kitchen sink. However, there is an important element of the wargaming enterprise which is overlooked, when the focus is only on analysis and the operations research outcomes that good wargames can provide, but not their education value.

Educational wargaming is not merely an exercise in concept development in the upper reaches of command. It is a crucible for forging the decision-making skills, adaptability, and intellectual overmatch required for contemporary naval challenges in the earliest stages of a young officer’s development. Wargaming, particularly at the pre-commissioning level, transforms the learning experience by engaging participants in narrative-rich, synthetic environments that mimic the pressures of real-world decision-making. Drawing on historical precedents and recent innovations, we see a central role of wargaming in cultivating the next generation of naval leaders at the U.S. Naval Academy. 

More Than Concept Development and Analysis

Since the 19th century, wargaming has been an invaluable educational tool for the U.S. military. Early efforts, including Kriegspiele at U.S. Army schools after the Civil War, were followed by Lieutenant McCarty Little’s development of a wargaming curriculum in the early years of the U.S. Naval War College. Later, the interwar games conducted there shaped the strategies and tactics for victory in the Pacific during World War II and were transformative not only because they tested operational concepts but because they prepared commanders for the cognitive and emotional challenges of command. This historical precedent underscores the enduring value of wargaming in creating synthetic experiences that sharpen the mind for future crises.

In the 21st century as they did then, these efforts offer a low-cost, low-risk environment for naval professionals to test tactics, strategies, and operational concepts, shape their knowledge of past and contemporary military scenarios, and condition their decisions within them. At USNA, a host of recent initiatives have laid the keel of our midshipmen’s knowledge of the maritime world and established their understanding of the core concepts of American seapower.

The Naval Academy is doubling down on the educational value of wargames through Saturday morning battalion training sessions, the activities of the student-led Wargaming Society club, wargame scenarios in history department classrooms, and the incorporation of wargame modules into the new Maritime Warfare (NS300) course taught by the Professional Development Department.

The resurgence of wargaming in military education over the past decade underscores its value in achieving an intellectual overmatch against today’s potential adversaries. In 2015, then Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus described wargaming as invaluable for testing new ideas in a low-risk environment. Former Marine Corps Commandant General David H. Berger later emphasized that wargaming is essential for practicing decision-making against a thinking enemy, while then-Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Q. Brown highlighted the role of wargaming in adapting continually to a shifting global strategic landscape. ​Despite this, current military education often delays wargaming exposure until mid-career, resulting in missed opportunities for developing decision agility and professional competency from the outset of a naval professional’s development.

Introducing wargaming at the pre-commissioning level lays the groundwork to address the Department of the Navy’s admitted deficiency in wargaming literacy at the operational and strategic levels of war. By introducing the practice of wargaming as early as possible in an officer’s development, we cultivate a mindset that embraces complex, multi-layered, competitive decision-making and innovative thinking about enduring military problems and concepts. Early exposure also mitigates later-career reliance on professional civilian wargamers and facilitates the operational integration of wargaming principles into military organizations. This in turn enhances the role and value of wargaming later in officers’ careers.

Laying the keel with early wargaming experiences embeds key cognitive attributes in young officers, preparing them to think deeply and creatively about history and its relation to contemporary warfare. The initiatives at USNA introduce midshipmen to the complexities of naval decision-making early in their careers, fostering the critical thinking and adaptability essential for future operational challenges. By embedding these skills at the pre-commissioning level, USNA prepares its graduates to contribute meaningfully to advanced wargaming processes later in their careers.

Wargaming as Interdisciplinary Thinking and Applied History

The educational program at USNA is admirably multidisciplinary, with particular focus on the study of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Integrating wargaming into this educational framework puts specific aspects of STEM education into context, demonstrating how these disciplines contribute to the multi-domain operations of today’s Joint Force. For example, understanding hypersonic technology’s impact on military operations or how cyber capabilities enable traditional land, sea, and air operations provides a deeper and broader understanding of modern warfare. Additionally, wargaming offers invaluable practical applications for the disciplines of math and economics by highlighting the central role of risk and probability in the adjudication at the heart of wargame processes, allowing midshipmen to apply theoretical concepts to real-world strategic and tactical scenarios.

Done well, educational wargaming serves as a form of applied history, offering midshipmen a unique way to engage with historical events, processes, causation, and outcomes. By building and working through historical scenarios, students develop a deeper understanding of the complexity and contingency of historical decision-making, amplifying their growth as leaders at every level. Midshipmen learn to ask the hard questions and wrestle with complex answers in ways that apply both to thinking about the past and reasoning through the operational and strategic challenges of the present.

Critical thinking and decision-making skills are, of course, buzzwords of the moment in higher education generally and officer development especially. More than just asking hard questions, however, thinking critically involves being willing to explore disruptive and alternative ideas. The process of designing, playing, and analyzing wargames requires students to think strategically, anticipate opponents’ moves, and make quick, informed decisions under pressure. These skills are directly transferable to real-world military and civilian leadership roles, where effective decision-making can have significant consequences. Of course, poorly designed scenarios can reinforce false assumptions or oversimplify complex realities, leading to flawed conclusions. As Peter Perla warns, the danger lies in creating narratives that are emotionally compelling but factually misleading.

To maximize their educational value, wargames must strike a careful balance between realism and abstraction, ensuring that participants grapple with the uncertainty and complexity of real-world operations without succumbing to simplistic or sanitized portrayals. Moving forward, wargaming activities at the Naval Academy must remain engaged with the Fleet’s contemporary posture and challenges, lest the practice of wargaming become abstract and fall into irrelevance.

Charting a Course on the Severn

Wargaming has a long history on the banks of the Severn River, though perhaps not as long as in Narragansett Bay. In the 1930s and 1960s, Naval Academy professors developed wargames for class use to enhance historical and contemporary understanding. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Academy relied on computer-based Navy Tactical Game (NAVTAG) to provide valuable opportunities for professional development and competition between companies and classes. The NAVTAG provided both educational and training simulation opportunities to the Brigade, but was sunset because of lack of financial and technical resources with the end of the Cold War.

In 2020, the Naval Academy Museum and History Department launched a wargaming initiative which created two main lines of effort. For a few years the History Department offered an experimental historical wargaming class, where midshipmen intensively studied an historical scenario and developed a wargame based on it. Concurrently, the Combat Action Lab was established, an Extra-Curricular Activity (ECA) today called The Wargaming Society, for Midshipmen to engage with the practice in an informal, midshipman-led setting. These efforts have developed over four years to include professional development events on Saturday mornings and the introduction of contemporary wargaming problems as the crowning experience in the new Maritime Warfare course. Efforts to bring these and other multidisciplinary lines of effort together, with the necessary resourcing and organizational structure, offer much promise for a robust future wargaming enterprise at USNA.

When today’s naval professionals and veterans think of wargaming, they often map it to operations research analysis, Pentagon decision-making, and mid-to-senior career development. There is great value in the analytical games, as described by CDR Anthony LaVopa in his recent article “Building Warfighting Competence: The Halsey Alpha Wargaming Experience,” and in their staff and war college level use. But, wargames are ‘story-living experiences’ that transcend traditional methods of teaching and analysis at all levels of seniority and experience including at the precommissiong level. By immersing participants in synthetic environments where decisions have tangible consequences, they provide a powerful means of cultivating the intellectual and emotional resilience essential for leadership in today’s demanding operational environments. As the U.S. Naval Academy continues to expand its wargaming initiatives, it is laying the keel for a generation of officers prepared to confront the uncertainties of a rapidly changing strategic landscape.

Captain Benjamin “BJ” Armstrong, PhD is an Associate Professor of War Studies and Naval History and the U.S. Naval Academy. 

Dr. Marcus Jones is an associate professor of history at the U.S. Naval Academy.

The thoughts and opinions expressed by the authors of this article are offered in their personal and academic capacities and do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the U.S. Navy or any government agency. 

Featured Image: U.S. 5TH FLEET AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY (Jan. 1, 2013) An F/A-18C Hornet of the Warhawks of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 97 launches from the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kenneth Abbate/Released)

Notes to the New Administration

Legislate New Fleet Acts for a Generational Investment in Naval Power

7 Comments

Notes to the New Administration Week

By Jason Lancaster

The Navy’s annual 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan should be replaced with a congressionally-appropriated fleet act. This act would fund the construction of the fleet the nation needs. Over the past 10 years of annual 30-Year Shipbuilding Plans the fleet has shrank, not grown. U.S. shipbuilders lack the capability to build the required ships because there is little consistency in U.S. warship procurement.

Annual budget changes destroy consistency in the annual 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan. The table below displays the ever-shrinking fleet. The fleet in fiscal year (FY) 27 and 44 are highlighted. FY44 was used instead of FY49 for consistency throughout the 30-Year Shipbuilding Plans.

During the late 19th century and early 20th century, the United States, Imperial Germany, and Austria–Hungary used fleet acts to fund desired force designs. Congress funded the Two-Ocean Navy Act in 1940 to expand the fleet by more than 70 percent. One would think that the imperial governments of Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary would only have to persuade their Kaiser, but both nations’ Chiefs of Navy had to have their shipbuilding plans approved by their respective parliaments.

The Two-Ocean Navy Act of 1940 provides a framework for a similar congressional act. In 1940, Congress authorized:

(a) Capital ships, 385,000 tons
(b) Aircraft carriers, 200,000 tons
(c) Cruisers, 420,000 thousand tons
(d) Destroyers, 250,000 tons
(e) Submarines, 70,000 tons

This act provided significant funding for ships, munitions, and shipyard expansions. It would help give the Navy a running start on wartime expansion by the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor more than a year later.

In Imperial Germany, Admiral Tirpitz proposed a fleet act that requested a Navy of a certain size. This plan assumed a replacement ship for each battleship after it reached 25 years of service life. Tirpitz’ Fleet Acts were passed in 1898, 1900, 1908, and 1912. Tirpitz’ Fleet Acts were based principally on assessments of the UK Royal Navy’s strength and requirements to defend overseas colonies.

Austria-Hungary had a similar system. After Italy began building battleships, Admiral Montecuccoli’s initial fleet plan was denied due to domestic politics. Admiral Montecuccoli eventually persuaded a shipyard to produce the first two ships. He secured a personal loan of 32 million Austrian Crowns to begin construction on the Viribis Unitis and Tegethoff while promising the government would procure the ships the following year.

The Austro-Hungarian Navy dealt with partisan politics. Montecuccoli was an expert at balancing political factions to accomplish his fleet plan. Czech delegates publicly voted against the Navy bill for partisan reasons, but privately supported it. The Czech company Skoda Works produced steel armor and battleship guns, offering well-paying jobs for Bohemia and Moravia, but the central government was antagonistic toward Czech independence.

Today, we have witnessed the Navy attempt to back out of block buys designed to reduce cost because annual DoD budgets did not support additional ships for the navy. A fleet act would provide the steady demand signal for ships that would enable companies to invest in required materials to sustain affordable shipbuilding for the long term.

It took decades for the Navy to reach this state. It will take steady and consistent funding to return the Navy to its desired size. A fleet act could provide a more viable mechanism for adjusting the Navy’s force structure and making a generational investment in naval power compared to the 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan, which has lost much of its usefulness.

Commander Jason Lancaster, USN, is a student at the National War College. He has served at sea in destroyers, amphibious ships, and a destroyer squadron. Ashore he has served as an instructor at the Surface Warfare Officers School, on the N5 at Commander, Naval Forces Korea, and in OPNAV N5.

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official positions or opinions of the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense, or any part of the U.S. government.

Featured Image: 1994 – A view of various ships under construction at the Ingalls Shipbuilding shipyard, Pascagoula, Mississippi. Front to back are the guided missile cruiser Port Royal (CG-73), the guided missile destroyer Stout (DDG-55) and the guided missile destroyer Mitscher (DDG-57). Inboard of Stout is the guided missile destroyer Ramage (DDG-61) and inboard of Mitscher is the guided missile destroyer Russell (DDG-59). (Photo via U.S. National Archives)