By Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization
(Washington DC)
Now that the USS Ford is operational at sea, the Navy is focused on tailoring the ship’s weapons, technologies and sailor training to meet the demands of specific mission assignments and theaters of operation.
Ford-Class Carrier Variants
For example, could there be differently configured European or Pacific variants of Ford-class carriers? Certainly threats and conditions specific to particular areas might require different kinds of preparation and even different technologies. Navy Ford-class program manager Capt. Brian Metcalf said adjustments or various “installs” may be made prior to deployment to certain areas.
“Once I turn the ship over to the fleet, if there are things they need to do that are theater specific, whether that be East coast or West coast, they will have the time and availability to do that. If they get a work-up schedule to deploy West instead of East, that is where they get their special tactics training, their procedures training or any installs that would be specific to where they end up,” Metcalf said earlier this year when speaking at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space Symposium.
Video report: Capt. Metcalf Describes “Installs” & Training Prep for Ford-Carriers
Metcalf’s response came in response to a specific question at Sea Air Space from Navy expert Chris Cavas who asked if countermeasures or weapons specific to certain enemy threat such as Russian EW systems, would be built into carriers going places with specific known threats.
Metcalf was clear to explain that “Installs” or adjustments specific to a mission set are performed by the respective “fleet” commands and that his program delivers a base-production ship, however the USS Ford and follow-on carriers are engineered with the technical infrastructure sufficient to accommodate new technologies as they emerge. The ships are also built with common standards such that they can be adjusted or modified as needed in response to specific threats.
Should various adaptations be made for theater assignments related to deployment of Ford-class carriers, what might that look like? Certainly countermeasures for specific enemy weapons might be integrated for particular geographic areas. Perhaps Ford-carriers going to the Pacific will want to “jam” Chinese anti-ship missiles with a certain frequency at at certain ranges? Perhaps the Navy has technological countermeasures to respond to specific Chinese or North Korean weapons.
Geographical Expanse
The geographical expanse that is the Pacific might require longer-range sensors and greater degrees of multi-domain Command and Control to identify threats beyond the horizon. It is also likely that carriers in the Pacific will need to operate the MQ-25 Stingray carrier-launched refueler drones to enable ship-launched fighters to massively expand their combat radius should carriers wish to project power from ranges less vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship missiles.
For instance, should a Chinese DF-26 anti-ship missile, a much hyped “carrier-killer” missile able to travel several thousand miles, require a carrier to operate further off shore to minimize risk, then MQ-25-enabled, carrier-launched fighter jets such as an
F-35C can double its combat reach and hold enemy areas at risk from hundreds of miles farther away.
Multi-domain Networking
Carriers in the Pacific might also rely upon multi-domain networking to a greater extent as they will need to conduct surveillance missions of high-threat areas from great distances. This is something which air-surface platform networking with drones, fighter jets or Unmanned Surface Vehicles would greatly enhance, therefore the carriers might need to be equipped with the requisite interfaces or protocols necessary to enable connectivity and data transmission across a wide range of platforms and domains.
Air platforms such as a Hawkeye surveillance plane, Triton drone or even F-35 can function as aerial “gateways” or nodes sufficient to find, track and relay threat specifics at ranges beyond the radar aperture of surface vessels. This is the rationale for the Navy’s now-deployed Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air effort, an integrated system wherein ship-commanders receive threats specifics from ranges beyond the typical radar horizon.
An aerial gateway such as a drone or aircraft can relay threat specifics to ship-based fire control in position to launch an SM-6 interceptor to track and destroy the incoming threat at much greater stand-off distances than would otherwise be the case. This is the concept of NIFC-CA, which now arms DDG 51 Destroyers deployed in Carrier Strike Groups.
For example, networking and data-transmission coordination were critical for the US Navy months ago when the service conducted “dual-carrier” training operations in the Pacific. Projecting power across two carriers in an integrated way requires networking and data-sharing coordination to optimize air attack formations, something which can be expedited by certain technological adjustments.
Perhaps different transport layer communications systems such as a given frequency, datalink or RF signature need to be aligned with command and control systems on a ship to enable secure data-sharing necessary for mission coordination.
European Variant?
What about a European variant? Many of the attributes and technological capabilities woven into carriers headed to the Pacific are clearly relevant and applicable to carriers operating in the Mediterranean, Atlantic or Baltic Sea.
Perhaps European theater carriers would need to be armed with shorter-range ground-attack missiles, guns and weapons able to hold enemy coastline defenses and weapons at risk from the ocean at closer-in ranges as compared to what might be needed in the Pacific.
Ground-surface coordination might also figure as a more pressing need given that carriers close to the European continent may want to closely coordinate missions with allied ground troops positioned a few hundred miles inland from the ocean.
Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
