What's new

US Army Set to Sink Ship in 2018 as PACOM Operationalizes Multi-Domain Battle Concept

F-22Raptor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
16,980
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States
U.S. Pacific Command has plans to put into practice a joint-service concept to integrate air, land and sea operations, with a mandate for all the services to incorporate the concept into their exercises in a lead-up to the Army sinking a ship at next year’s Rim of the Pacific exercise, the PACOM commander said last week.

Adm. Harry Harris said in a May 24 speech at the Land Forces in the Pacific Symposium in Hawaii that it is “critical that we approach implementing the Multi-Domain Battle concept with a sense of urgency” as threats in the Pacific increase. Multi-Domain Battle seeks to bring all the services together – with all their various sensors, weapons and networks – to create cross-domain warfighting capabilities for the combatant commanders to use.

Harris said in his speech that “I’d like to see the Army’s land forces sink a ship, shoot down a missile, and shoot down the aircraft that fired that missile – near simultaneously – in a complex environment where our joint and combined forces are operating in each other’s domains.”

“Simply put, this concept provides us a way to ensure access to the global commons in the run-up to war, and fight in those same commons should war come,” he added.
“The goal to provide joint solutions between sensors and shooters at the tactical level across multiple domains, this is juice worth the squeeze. A forward-deployed ground force can create temporal windows of opportunity to gain superiority in multiple domains that will allow the other components to kill the enemy more effectively.”

While Multi-Domain Battle was not designed to be geography-specific, Harris has a unique problem in PACOM in that the majority of his area of responsibility is covered in water – and 100 percent is covered by air and space, he noted last fall when addressing the concept at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual meeting and exposition in Washington. With islands and archipelagos and long shorelines to work with and against, and the combination of two top adversaries and five treaty allies in close proximity, Harris can’t allow the Navy to only focus on deep water operations, Marines only the beach, and the Army only inland.

“The end result of my challenge shouldn’t be a simple exercise where we all high five at the end and then head back to the comforts of our services. No, we must incorporate this concept into the way we train year-round. And we all know that tomorrow’s fights are won during today’s training,” Harris said.
“Therefore, we’ll integrate Multi-Domain Battle into command post exercises to check our assumptions. Then we’ll integrate it into our field training exercises that focus on getting our alphabet soup of sensors and shooters talking to one another. Service-specific systems must be able to talk to one another if any of this is going to achieve the effects that we’re looking for. Ideally we’ll get to a point where we see the Joint Force as a network of sensors and shooters allowing the best capability from any single service to provide cross domain fires.”

In his speech, Harris rattled off a number of service-specific Pacific exercises that would begin to test Multi-Domain Battle. By next summer, the beginnings of operational Multi-Domain Battle plans will be ready for the world stage, as “during RIMPAC 2018, [U.S. Army Pacific forces] will fire a Naval Strike Missile from the shore to sink a ship. Our Japanese allies will also fire a shore-based missile during this SINKEX. Folks, RIMPAC 2018 is just a year away. Outcomes like these address some of the tough problems that we face together in archipelagic defense scenarios,” Harris said.
“This is important because the joint force must have faster, longer range, more precise, more lethal, and, importantly, more cost-effective and resource-informed solutions. Not exquisite solutions that break the bank.”

Harris praised the Marine Corps for its efforts to cost-effectively develop and field tools for this type of joint cross-domain warfighting environment, noting that “Headquarters Marine Corps and [Marine Corps Forces Pacific] are working to deploy HIMARS (M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) rapidly aboard ships to shoot at other ships. The Commandant’s Warfighting Lab is working overtime with industry to come up with new ways to employ technologies that allow the Marines to operate across domains more effectively,” he said, referring to the recent Ship-to-Shore Maneuver Exploration and Experimentation Advanced Naval Technological Exercise 2017 in California.

The Marine Corps has the benefit of already having some, but not all, systems interoperable with the Navy. The Army has quite a bit of work to do before reaching Harris’ ideal scenario, which he outlined in his speech: “For example, while on patrol in 2007 USS Chafee (DDG-90) received a call for fires from some special operators on mission in Somalia. After some higher echelon coordination, Team Chafee answered that call with accurate and lethal five-inch rounds, hot metal on target. But naval gunfire support is in the Navy’s DNA, so that really isn’t something new. So let’s flip the script. Imagine, if you will, a less capable ship coming under attack in an area of the world where our land forces are within range to help out. Imagine if some of those ground-based artillery batteries could take out that attacker because it’s the best weapon in the best place to do so.”

“Imagine a future battlespace where maybe the best ordnance for a specific target held by a Navy sensor could come from an Army shooter. Or maybe it’s the reverse,” he summed up.

To get started towards that vision, U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) has already created a Multi-Domain Task Force that will become an operational unit that specializes in air, sea, space, and cyber domains, as well as land operations, and can be employed by Harris as needed. But that unit, and the Army as a whole, will have to begin to address five types of challenges: hardware challenges, software challenges, connectivity challenges, procedural challenges, and training challenges,” USARPAC spokesman Col. Christopher Garver told USNI News.

“For hardware, we not only have to look at actual weapon systems, we also have to figure out how to move them around the battlefield and logistically support them. For software, we need to adapt existing or develop fire control software to control the weapon system,” he said.
“For connectivity challenges, we have to ensure the fire control software can connect to and operate in the joint fire control system and make sure it can receive targeting data from joint sensors. For procedural challenges, we have to develop tactics, techniques, and procedures to integrate the weapon system into ground force operations. And finally, we have to train our soldiers on all these challenges so they can accomplish the mission.”

https://news.usni.org/2017/05/30/pa...to-exercises-ahead-of-2018-rimpac-army-sinkex
 
The Marines deploying HIMARS on ships is news to me, especially since it can fire the 300 km ATACMS ballistic missile which SCO is developing to hit maritime targets.
 
(December 23rd 2014) The French procurement agency (DGA) awarded a contract to Airbus Defence & Space to study the integration of Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) with the French Navy Mistral class LHDs.
In September 2011, a contract for the LRU upgrade was awarded by the French Procurement Agency to a Franco-German consortium including Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, alongside Airbus Defence and Space, Sagem, and Thales to modernize the LRM (M270) MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) with new firing system and rockets.
The LRU uses the new rocket M31 also called GUMLRS (Guided Unitary MLRS). Compared with the earlier French MLRS rockets, which were armed with submunitions, the M31 features a single 90 kg HE warhead; includes GPS and inertial navigation system guidance to provide a circular error of probability of less than 10 m; and doubles the missile's range to 70 km.
French_Navy_DGA_MLRS_LRU_Mistral_LHD.jpg

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...m-lhds-for-coastal-fire-support-missions.html

After the cluster munition ban rendered the sub munition loaded M26 rocket unusable the next major development was the 70km plus range M31 Guided Multiple Rocket launch System (GMLRS).
A number of changes included replacing the payload with a single 90kg blast fragmentation warhead, a dual mode fuze (point and proximity), longer range and a GPS/INS guidance system. In Iraq and Afghanistan it has proven its value thousands of times, earning the nickname the ’70km sniper’.
It is so accurate it was even used against a well, a well that was concealing the entrance to a weapons cache.
Future developments are likely to include an insensitive and selectable warhead, semi active laser (SAL) guidance and extended range
The latest version called GMLRS+, fitted with a new Aerojet motor, has demonstrated ranges in excess of 120km with the same high degree of accuracy.
In 2012 Lockheed Martin were awarded a $79m contract to develop the Alternative Warhead. The Alternative Warhead is designed to engage the same target set and achieve the same area-effects as the former GMLRS submunition warhead, but without the lingering danger of unexploded ordnance. The Alternative Warhead is being developed by ATK under subcontract to Lockheed Martin. The project has advanced steadily and ... a series of test firing were successfully completed.
There has also been some discussion on developing GMLRS as a carrier for the Small Diameter Bomb and SPEAR Capability 3 weapon. By using these weapons that are equipped with wing kit’s, the intention is to extend the range of the already long range GMLRS and provide additional guidance and warhead options. What makes this possible at a reasonable cost is the much reduced G forces experienced by rocket warheads compared to artillery. Engineering a precision guidance kit for a tube launched artillery shell is a considerable challenge.
ATACMS can range out to 300km, the rockets cost less about a million dollars and can drop right into a GMLRS system with only minor modification. It is not as accurate as GMLRS or GMLRS+ but for the likely target set, probably not a critical factor.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/01/rocket-renaissance/

US Army’s "Land-Based Anti- Ship Missile (LBASM) effort.” Run out of Research, Development, & Engineering Command (RDECOM), the project is funded for future live-fire testing, including launches from the MLRS and HIMARS mobile rocket launchers.
“US Army land-attack…capability.” Attacking ground targets at a distance is what MLRS and HIMARS are currently for, but they are outmatched by Russia rocket artillery, and their longest-range projectile is the upgraded ATACMS missile with a maximum reach of about 188 miles (300 km). The Army is exploring a Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF) missile with a 313-mile (500 km) range.
The HASC (House Armed Services Committee) mark doesn’t neglect Navy firepower, either. It orders a study of installing multi-purpose missile tubes — specifically the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) — on Navy amphibious ships normally used to transport Marine Corps forces specifically the LPD-17 San Antonio class.
The VLS tubes can accommodate a wide variety of offensive and defensive missiles to hit land targets, ships, aircraft, or enemy missiles. While amphibs with VLS wouldn’t have the defenses or electronics to join the main battleline, they could hang back and fire long-range shots using targeting data transmitted from Navy aircraft and other vessels — a technique called “engage on remote.”
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/winning-the-missile-wars-army-navy-tech-in-hasc-ndaa/

Suitable platforms: LPDs (San Antonio, Harpers Ferry, Whidbey Island classes), LHDs (Wasp, America classes), Afloat Forward Staging Base / Mobile Landing Platform (Puller class), various MSC ships e.g. T-AKR. Essentially: stable, large displacement vessels with ample free deck space.
 
Back
Top Bottom