August 2013 Thoughts: Network Centric Warfare and the Royal Navy

Networked warfare is nothing new as a concept or practicality; a hunting party of early homo-sapiens using grunts to communicate could be considered to be working in a network. At Sea there have been many famous examples of networked warfare; Nelson’s Band of Brothers communicating by flag, hailer and shot – the different ships working in harmony, the frigates which before battle were charged with finding the enemy, during the battle became communication nodes repeating signals for the Admiral to the other ships which might not be able to see the flagship as it would be obscured by cannon smoke. During World War I the entire British war plan at sea was based upon a network of distributed different components working together in harmony thanks to the magic of radio telegraphy. In the Falkland’s war that network was to an extent regressed by the fortunes of fate and the bugbear of necessity; with some ships having to receive their orders by helicopter dropped ‘chit’ as they either were not fitted with, did not have a working set of or was so ancient it would be more dangerous to use communications system; but still it was a network. So if there have been so many networks, and it’s been around for so long, what is network centric warfare and why is it different?

Well, whereas it used to be that the network was just part of the force, a fabric of the structure but not something concentrated on itself, now it is. The idea goes that with all the parts of a network exchanging information with each other it allows all the ships commanders and most importantly the force command to achieve a level of knowledge of the battlefield, and therefore ability to co-ordinate their forces to best deal with the enemy that will revolutionise wars. The idea has been taken by some theorists to mean that it no longer matters how capable any ship is in any specific area as it is the capability of the ‘network’ as a whole which will win the battle. It’s a great theory, and when on land where resupply/replacements/reinforcements are just down the road must make a lot of sense especially for officers and ministers in charge of a cash strapped military. However, at sea ships are often on their own, thousands of miles from home and resupply, let alone replacements or reinforcements, is days if not weeks away. So upon that point network centric warfare would seem to have nothing to offer a fleet- but in reality it does, it’s just some of its principles have to be flipped. 

Instead of a fleet of specialists, interlinked together but facing the constant risk that if one ship is sunk it’s no more air defence; the network centric fleet is a four tier fleet of: 

·         ‘Capitals’; the Aviation & Amphibious ships – they are adaptable but require escorts, and mainly exist to exert direct influence on land events, although in the case of aviation ships can of course, providing they have the right aircraft, directly affect events at sea as well,

·         ‘Generalists’; the larger surface warships – which are flexible in terms of being quite good in all roles,

·         ‘Adaptables’; the smaller surface warships – which can be fitted with some sort of modular system allowing them to be easily adapted to specific roles; these are instead of having minor warfare specialist ships (i.e. Mine Counter-Measures vessels, Ocean Patrol Vessels, Oceanography Vessels and Littoral War Fighting units)

·       ‘Focuseds’; these are vessels like Submarines and Auxiliaries, but also the Aircraft that operate with the fleet - flexible within their brief but are confined within that, i.e. a Submarine can do Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW) and Land attack if fitted with Tactical Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs), it can do them all but it can’t be easily changed or even easily integrated within the network.

If a networked Task Force/Group[1] were a human body, then the Capital ships which are the nodes of any networked fleet would be its brain, receiving and communicating with all the other units. The Generalists are the bones around which the body is formed it’s strongest parts, they provide the core structure from which all operational strength will at some point spring from and depend upon. The Adaptables are the fleets muscle, they work in a symbiotic relationship with the Generalists relying upon their strength to support their movement, whilst the Generalists rely upon them provide flexibility & dexterity. Focuseds are the eyes, the ears and the organs of the fleet, they are key to providing it with information about what’s going on around it, and are also capable of producing an impact in a more limited way…just like a glance of the eyes can silence a room. The point is all are capable and in their own way flexible, but most importantly they all need to be present for the body to work.

The point is though that all these vessels have a role when not in the task group, an Adaptable is perfectly useful as a presence/patrol ship[2], the Generalists are useful as Guardships[3]/medium status visitors, the Capitals are of course high status visitors[4] and the Focuseds; well, what they do in war time is just a faster paced higher stakes version of what they do in ‘peace’ time. The point is also that none of them are specialists, none of them if absent due to destruction, damage, or delay would cripple a fleet’s capability to act; yet when combined by the multi-bit communications systems the cumulative sum is far greater than the constituent parts on their own. However, this is a situation which is now thanks to developments in technology can be replayed upon a lower level as well.

With the development of modern unmanned systems, every ship can become a ‘capital’ with mini-task group. Unmanned Aviation Vehicles (UAVs) whilst not making every vessel an aircraft carrier can provide enough aviation capability (in terms of numbers/reach) to allow them to maintain a real time picture of what is going on beyond the horizon, unaffected by the curvature of the earth. Further to this they can of course provide communications without the need to use satelites, enabling the vessel to use ultra-secure line of sight communication systems to communicate with allies and its unmanned systems. Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) enable the ship to expand its ‘bubble of security’; they are a weapons platform that moves so can provide a ship with a second towed array for it to work with and double up the data for ASW, or another Close in Weapon System (CIWS) that can be deployed up threat to chew into any Anti-Ship Missiles (ASMs) that get through the Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) screen – simply put they are an Escorts Escort; possibly thanks to jammers and other Electronic Wizardry (more usually referred to as Electronic Countermeasures or ECM) fool the incoming attack into thinking it is the ship. These unmanned systems multiply the impact of a single ship, they can’t at the moment replace the ships (for some roles they never will), but they can give it a better chance of success in its mission.

Fitting these mini-networks into the larger Task Group Network will be complex; blue-on-blue issues have always been a problem, thankfully the real-time data network should work with this to help it. Although that itself could present a problem of data management and raise the very real possibly of information overload[5]. The reality hopefully will be the maximisation of defensive and offensive layers[6]; multiplying the probability of interception of enemy attacks and therefore the likelihood of their defeat. A result which of course in turn increases the likelihood of the naval force succeeding in its mission.

So in summary Network Centric Warfare and the Royal Navy means change, since the 1920s its has been a force growing in specialisation, with increase percentage of the force being specialist vessels with a strongly defined purpose. This is great for arguments with the Treasury and other departments of state when it comes fighting for the limited available funds as it provides an easy metric by which each ship and each class can be measured; but for ‘peace time’ patrolling, guarding, presence/diplomacy, trade protection & conflict deterring this provides a very mixed capability which is not helpful and in war time it producing an unbalanced force – high tech world beating destroyers that are only capable of Area Air Defence[7], frigates which are worn out and submarines which are world leading but are so advanced & focused they rely upon their torpedo tubes to launch TLAMs instead of Vertical Launch System and are so expensive that the fleet is shrinking dramatically. What the fleet needs, and what network centric warfare will enable it to utilise best is force of  Generalists and Adapabtles built around enough Capitals for a flexible force to be in place and with enough Focuseds that it can accomplish its mission.

Further Reading:

·         Hill, J. R. Air Defence at Sea. Shepperton: Ian Allan Ltd, 1988.

·         The Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), Transforming Naval Anti-air Warfare - Case Studies in National Security Transformation Number 11, William D. O’Neil, August 2007

·         https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fleet-defense-updated-03120/

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=325&ct=2

---

[1] A Task Force is the entirety of the vessels sent – these will be divided into Task Groups each formed around a Capital ship for their role, i.e. the Carrier Battle Group is centred on a Carrier, an Amphibious Task Group will be centred on an Amphibious Aviation Ship (either a Landing Platform Helicopter, LPH, a Landing Helicopter Attack, LHA, or a Landing Helicopter Dock, LHD) and a Landing Platform Dock (LPD) plus assorted Landing Ship Logistics (LSLs – basically Auxiliary LPDs that focus on specialist troops, specialist amphibious functions or logistics), a Raiding or Stabilisation Task Group would be centred on (preferably) a LHD or an anti-submarine/trade protection group would be centred on a Carrier with a different Air Group

[2] For the RN this would be the Caribbean, the East Coast of Africa, Indian Ocean and maybe South East Asia & Australasia to demonstrate UK commitment to the 5 Power Alliance and the nations continued interest in such an important economic, cultural and strategic region. Further they may well be used to increase the level of presence where a Guardship is, such as in the Gulf and the UK.

[3] For the RN this would be the Falklands, Gulf and the UK (of course), although possibly it might be sensible to add the Mediterranean (Gibraltar) to the list.

[4] Even in peace time at least one Generalist and a couple of Adaptables would be kept with; forming a ‘mini task group’ for training with allies.

[5] Good warfare and intelligence officers are going to be more important than ever to sift through the data and bring important/overlooked things to the attention of commanders.

[6] Something which would make hill very happy, POST ON ANGLOSPHERE THEORISTS

[7] These have the capacity built into them to become generalists, they just need the 16 MK41 VLS cells to be added in, and it could carry the Anti-Ballistic Missile SM-3, or more importantly for recent missions the Tomahawk (& and it’s successor) TLAM.

Upgrade, Rebuild or New Build? For furture of Britain's escort force that really is the question...

The more that comes about the Type 26 Global Combat Ship program, the more I worry whether all the options have been considered. So that’s where this post comes from, a simple enquiry is the government making the right decision? Is the Type 26 in its current form, in any form, going to provide what Britain needs? Or is perhaps it better to follow the American example of building an improved existing design?

What Britain needs…

To start with there is the obvious, whatever vessels are built, they will be called upon to participate in a wide variety of war fighting missions – primarily as Type 23 replacements Anti-Submarine warfare is going to be a prominent function, considering the reduction in Type 45 numbers  Air Defence is also going to be a key capability, further to these support of Amphibious warfare and long range strike capability would of course provide for them to function as force multipliers in key RN missions.  But ships don’t pay for themselves in war; it’s in ‘peace time’ patrolling, policing and presence missions which justify them.

Britain maintains due to its global interests, mainly trade and legacy alliances, many patrols worldwide. Ranging from counter piracy of the coast of East Africa to South Atlantic Guard Ship, from Counter Drugs Operations in the Caribbean to NATO standing patrols… and none of this takes into account the various exercises and port visits which the fleets escorts take part in/carry out as part of Britain’s extensive diplomatic actions.

Figure 1. The original pre SDSR future fleet...

To do all these things Britain needs numbers, not World War II number but more than are currently in service. A like for like replacement on the Duke class would provide 13 vessels, and after the 2010 SDSR there is not even the prospect of the Type 27 to make up the numbers. Yet all political parties and defence experts are in pretty much agreement that there are not enough vessels to carry out all the missions that are required… so the obvious question is, are 13 enough? Would even 16, the number of Duke class originally built for RN be enough? It’s a no, there was a reason that originally the Type 45 was going to be a class of 12, the C1 was going to be a class of 10, and the C2 a class of 8; 30 escorts was the accepted minimum. Now talk is of the 2,500ton vessels of the Mine Countermeasures, Hydrography and Patrol Capability program making up the difference – and they will be able to do so in constabulary duties…the drugs patrols, but they won’t be able to South Atlantic Guardship, they won’t be able to do NATO patrols and they will not be able take a lead in more weapons intensive war fighting roles as they are simply not big enough to carry all the equipment. Therefore a criterion has to be to build as many as possible, the Type 26 is to have a unit price of around £350million pounds; but the costs don’t stop there, development, logistics, training and infrastructure are all things which have to be paid for. So out of a £10billion program, only £4.55 billon is going to go on buying the units – even when leveraging from 80% known technologies, it still costs money in development to make sure those technologies work together in the way they are planned to...after all nasty surprises are not welcomed in battle, especially when it’s something which works in theory but in practice lets the crew down. It’s the numbers which produce the question as to whether the Type 26 is the way to go for Britain and its strategic needs. 

However this is not the final requirement; whatever option is chosen it must be capable of generating export orders – i.e. it must bring in work and money for the UK. This is a bigger ask than at first glance it may look; successive governments whilst achieving sales of ‘used’ equipment, regularly ‘barely used’ equipment, sometimes to the detriment of Britain’s capabilities, have proved themselves unable to sell new equipment… or rather new pieces of large equipment. The Type 26 is also proving pretty difficult to sell, no matter how much hawking on international street corners our ministers seem to try. Which is a problem, because the reason its marketed as the ‘global combat ship’ rather than the Type 26, the reason its versatility and adaptability are being stressed, the reason the vessel being proposed is in many ways closer to being a small destroyer rather than a large frigate is to make it sell; to make it attractive to nations seeking either the modern equivalent of the American 18 pounder frigates that fought in the 1812 War, small fleet flagships, or those nations looking for an escort that can punch above its weight and give them maximum capability for minimum numbers.

Figure 2. The Type 26 as currently presented

What are the options?

So what are the options available to decision makers – the first is of course carry on build the new design, the Type 26 Global Ships. Even in this there are options, they could be built as currently planned, or they could be adapted…here are some possible mods:

·         Type 26 Mod 1 – 3 Phalanx (replacing 30mms aft), 32 cell MK41 VLS, 2x 8 cell Sylver A30 VLS forward (flanking ‘B’ position), 4x Stan Flex modules (2 amidships, and 2 aft atop hangar), 4.5in DG

·         Type 26 Mod 2 – 4 Oerlikon Millennium 35mm (replacing 30mm & Phalanx – forward flanking the ‘B’ position, replacing the 30mm), 4 StanFlex modules (2 amidships flanking Sylver A30, and 2 aft atop hangar), 32 cell Mk 41 VLS, 2x 8 cell Sylver A30 VLS forward (in ‘B’ position and amidships), 4.5in DG

·         Type 26 Mod 3 – 2 Phalanx (replacing 30mms aft), BAE MK110 57mm (‘B’ position), 32 cell MK41 VLS, 2x 8 cell Sylver A30 VLS forward (flanking ‘B’ position),  4.5in DG

The stanflex system could be a good idea, as instead of being fitted for not with, British ships could be ‘moded for not with’ – it would actually mean building a vessel closer in spirit to the C2, but with it having the ability to be rapidly turned into something more.  Plus it’s a proven, off the shelf system, which is buying in, like the MK 41 VLS to a wide range of development partnerships reducing long term costs on the British Taxpayer. Everything is still to play for with this design, because no one as yet has made any decisions about the engines baring that there will be a range of options available and they will generate enough power to get the ship to 28+ knots. However, an educated guess would assume that the British ones are most likely to be powered by the fruits of Rolls Royce… at least in part. Until the engines are selected everything else which will be put in round them (even in the days of fully electric systems, the sheer weight of the power plants still has a massive impact on how equipment is distributed around the ship) is not certain.  The Type 26 can be whatever its wanted to be; but that will cost and this will be a new system.

The other options are taking a leaf out of the USN’s book, and like they did with the Arleigh Burke / Zumwalt decision, build a modified/improved version existing, already supported and costed design. So the options are Type 23 or Type 45?

Figure 3. HMS Marlborough in Portsmouth dockyard.

The Type 23s already do the role, their design is functional and proven, the final units built cost under £100million per unit, a new upgraded version would probably be able to be brought in at £175million unit, allowing for the purchase of 26 for the same £4.55billion Unit purchase outlay as the Type 26. It won’t be as good as the Type 26 is proposed to be; but at 2 units for the price of 1 it would allow for a lot more operational flexibility. It could still carrying the new CAMM missile, a large amount of equipment is going to be transition from the Type 23s anyway – this would make the transition easier. A modified Type 23 could have CIWS fitted, all the problems/weakness in capabilities which the RN knows as fully as it can after operating the class for over 20 years; with a better power plant/drive train and improved sensors.

Figure 4. HMS Daring from every cubic angle but underneath

A more logical option perhaps, because they have finished being built would be to continue the Type 45s, and just expand there already developed/in place support systems – as well as capitalise on the logistics and training savings by using more of the money to purchase units. After all at £500million a unit (based on the AAD version), the £4.55billion could only buy 9 units, but the savings and synergies brought about by having a fleet of ‘one type’ would probably allow for an £3billion to be freed to purchasing units, allowing for a total purchase of 15 vessels and fleet which would have 21 vessels using the same engines, the same spare parts, the same systems… allowing for a far more operational productive structure than two classes of 13 and 6 vessels would. An example of this would be, an Auxiliary only has to carry one set of spare parts, so it can carry more of them, as well as components which go wrong less often, allowing for a higher level of frontline support to be achieved – maximising the force on station.

There is also the fact that the version produced to fulfil the ‘brief’ would have to be general purpose, i.e. it could have a cheaper less AAD focused radar such as the Artisan 3D radar already proposed for the Type 26, it already has space in its design for drones but if necessary an adaption to the superstructure or even a lengthening/broadening of the design could be included as the RN has done with previous designs. It’s understood from the most recent design that two types of VLS are desired, and the Type 45 does have the space for 2 8 cell A30 Sylver systems for the Sea Ceptors be put in… they could be inserted either side of the stack between the 30mm and phalanx mounts, whilst instead of just a 24 cell ‘attack’ VLS, a 48 cell system could be fitted.

Another option would be for the RN to keep to the existing radar set up, or possibly just the Sampson and use some of the ‘attack’ VLS cells to carry extra Area Air Defence weapon or even Anti-Ballistic Missile systems such as the SM-3; an option made more possible by the larger ‘attack’ VLS able to be carried by the destroyer. Its more money per unit but the program overall would not be more expensive; or it could mix and match, build some with the Sampson as ABM vessels that can also reinforce the existing AAD vessels, and build the rest with the Artisan radar… the fact is that with the same engines, layout and broadly speaking design, the changes would be relatively cosmetic in equivalence to the complexity of a modern warship.

What is the Best fit?

Well the sheer numbers offered by the Type 23 is attractive; but in reality it’s almost a 40 year old design, and its not big enough to do the mission profiles which will be expected of the future escorts. There is also the manning issue; manning 26 rather than 13 ships would be a big strain on the RN under its current size. Also whilst 3 ‘used’ units were sold to Chile, that’s not the sort of orders that would suggest more orders will be forthcoming should a new variant of the class be the decision of the British Government. This means that only two of these options are viable. A general purpose Type 45 or the Type 26?

The Type 26 represents possibility; could the RN really finally crack the formula of the perfect combination of capability and cost that will satisfy the needs of Britain’s security? It has promise; the separate/focused VLS is certainly a step in the right direction, and whilst interest has not been more than just that – it’s as yet an unknown quantity and those deciding might be waiting to see the final product before making a decision.

The Type 45, well represents a successful design, it works, it’s a known quantity, the problems and kinks have either been well documented or solved. Further to all this a general purpose version of the Type 45 would represent something that is known would attract interest+ from foreign buyers. For example the Saudis when considering the Type 45 for their navy were put off by what they felt was over specialisation for the size of the vessel; so a general purpose version especially if the mix and match approach was taken with vessels of differing levels would offer buyers the options it its believed will attract their money. Other considerations would be the fact that it be larger resulting force; which thanks to its shared logistics footprint would be far more deployable.

Conclusion: in reality…

History can only provide an idea of the future, not a definite path, and in reality it’s the type 26s which is the most likely option to be built, the general purpose Type 45s would be of great note and even greater use. An especial truth in the far reduced circumstance the RN has found itself in post successive cuts. However, a new ship, a new design is the apparent desire… so the challenge is to make that ship fit the role it’s needed to fill, and that means that real thought has to go into it. It has to be decided now, what it is wanted to do, what it is needed to do, and what it has to do… these are not the same things, what it is  wanted to do – is something that is rather liked for the sake of providing options, what its needed do – well that is the constraints of Britain’s strategic situation, what it has to do – that’s simple, it has to be able to fight...it has to be worth the cost, or else a lot of brave lives will be lost needlessly. Those decisions have to be made now, and they have to be stuck to – or all that will happen are delays and a ship that becomes a Christmas tree… with everyone hanging their pet project on it, and therefore causing the cost to keep escalating and unit numbers to be forced down by a penny conscious Treasury.

Figure  5. The Type 26 as revealed in an earlier graphic... arguably a junior Type 45 in much of its profile

Corvettes

Okay so this, I am afraid, is another of those joining the dots entries I am adding so that when the next large one is put out there it will not be such a great leap from the first. This is focusing on those little vessels, which the more I learn about the more I think are of growing importance in modern naval warfare; after all for navies such as Israel's they are their largest ships (Sa'ar 5 Pictured). I am of course referring to the very humble, but multi-mission capable corvette.

The limitations on corvettes are of course obvious, they are small; this means all the space has to be used effectively, but the continued use of the Pauka's by former Soviet Countries, and the American's new Littoral Combat Ships - a hybrid corvette in everything but name, rather like the British 'Through Deck Cruisers', aka the Invincible Class Carriers. Both these designs show that if you put enough thought into the design you can get a very useful 'ship of war' out of it.

Another factor which has raised the importance of these vessels in my mind at least is the lesson of the Joint Strike Fighter - an aircraft produced to a budget, of very high quality, very good capabilities, and not that expensive. Whilst of course the possibility exists to do this with other classes of ships, it is in fact better to build a number of corvettes in this method rather as the USAF is doing with JSF a larger number of those aircraft to provide the quantity whilst there is a core of F-22 Raptors. This is how I envisage the role of corvettes in a modern 'blue water' fleet, the Destroyers/Frigates provide the key escorts of the carriers/amphibious groups, whilst the corvettes fill the gaps, shadowing the big targets - the carriers and the amphibious ships, or taking over guard ship posts from the larger escorts if those vessels are needed elsewhere, thus alleviating the possibility of the Falklands Islands being left unguarded in the case of the British.

My definition of a corvette is something of around 550 to 2,800 metric tons, and between 50-120 meters in length. They carry almost any armament going, although it is increasingly common - and advantageous, for them have multi-role capable VLS system which take any combination of surface to air, surface to surface, or even surface to sub-surface weaponry. They carry a small helicopter- the lynx is quite common, although the new German ones have unmanned air vehicles with dipping sonar’s and small torpedoes instead of them. As is expected from the fact they are operated by so many states they exhibit a wide variety of gun armament across the range of corvettes in use. This I know is a nice long list, and I am sorry its style is lacking but its purpose is to show what these vessels are capable of.

With the German K130 Braunschweig class the standard theory of corvettes being the little ships which support other escorts is turned on its head; as it is these corvettes which are responsible for supporting the German navy’s attack boats. Now, this is focused on the Baltic sea operations, but it still demonstrates the same theory which I pointed out in the first post, that a destroyer operating in support of three or four corvettes will be able to achieve a large degree of sea control within a limited area of conflict; especially in support of littoral operations and peacekeeping/counter-piracy operations, both of which favour the larger numbers of smaller craft for which a corvette is an ideal constituent.

The final area which lends a corvette so well to modern warfare is the recent theories of decentralisation whereby capabilities are distributed around smaller vessels in order to make them more secure against enemy attacks. Reminiscent of guerrilla warfare and the methods by which smaller states survive the attacks of larger ones; for example the policy of Long War epitomised by Ho Chi Minh. However, back to theories of naval warfare. Corvettes can provide so much, but they come at a price, they need the support of a larger escort, a destroyer, and further back a carrier group. A corvette because of its size will never have the onboard supplies to survive unsupported against a modern threat spectrum as will be deployed in a full conflict. Whilst this is true, it also misses the main purpose of a corvette, it is a ship designed to act as part of something larger, as part of a battle group; it is as part of a collective that it comes into its own. Most importantly a corvette provides an option for navies which need the hulls but don’t have the budget of the USA to spend billions on escorts; because of this fact whatever its logistical limitations its importance will just continue to grow as time goes on.