Another Take: Analysis of the Constellation Programme Cancellation

The US Navy (USNavy) cancelled the Constellation-class frigate programme. In fact, this was a programme that began with high hopes. It was to be developed based on the FREMM-class frigate, a joint Italian-French project that all users were operating happily. For this reason, it was thought that Americanising the vessel, its R&D and production would be much more cost-effective. However, the plan did not work out, and matters progressed to the point of the programme's cancellation. Much has been written and said about this. I will share with you an aspect of the issue that you may not have read about before and that has escaped attention.

As we know, although all countries exist on the same planet, they live in different time zones. That is why we often hear phrases like, ‘This country is so many years ahead or so many years behind.’ Those who have travelled to other countries will understand this expression more easily, as they have seen how the specific conditions of time permeate all areas. Right now, a young Turk feels secure about their future by finding a job with benefits. A young Indian, on the other hand, has as many children as they can and hopes that some of them will turn out well and take care of them in their old age. Eating out is a luxury for one country, but for another, it is the most economical and quickest method. (Like those in the Asia-Pacific region.) In fact, this situation of living in different time zones is much more pronounced in technology-related areas.

For example, you cannot equate the modern processing power needs of a content producer with those of a content consumer. Producers gravitate towards multi-core CPUs, the latest generation of expensive GPUs, and the highest RAM and storage capacities. For consumers, a low-capacity computer with a ten-year-old, shared graphics card is sufficient. The interesting thing is that if you are a consumer, you cannot know the needs and world of a producer. This situation also applies to the United States, the producer of information and communication technologies, and China, which is following in its footsteps.

A Necessity with a Price: Naval Supremacy

Dominance over the seas and, consequently, the routes of global trade has been an unchanging goal for thousands of years. Remember, the Roman civilisation rose to power thanks to this. Therefore, maritime supremacy will remain a necessity in the agricultural age, the industrial age, and the coming information age. However, there is a significant difference between warships in the agricultural and industrial ages. With their high tonnage, mechanical complexity, materials used, and production technologies, warships are the pinnacle of industrial production. Their design, construction, testing, certification, and commissioning are time-consuming processes. This process is further extended by the commissioning cycle of many subsystems...

It takes 10 to 15 years and a great deal of patience for a military vessel to go through all these processes and enter service. This is true even for a country like Turkey, which engages in user-style/user-focused production. However, let us consider a leading producer country that develops technologies it cannot ignore every 1.5–2 years and feels compelled to use them. How can you reconcile a technology cycle that changes every 1.5–2 years with an industrial process that takes 10–15 years? In summary, what we see in this programme is this: ‘In the transition period we are experiencing, warship production, which we could call the episteme of the industrial age, has entered into a relentless conflict due to the conditions imposed by the information age.’

Let's take a closer look at the United States, the leading country developing (producing is a separate concept) information age technologies. In fact, we were seeing signs of this process in many areas. For example, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) programme consisted of two indigenous and national vessels, the Freedom and Independence classes. They hoped to keep up with the times by focusing on modularity. Both vessels failed, and we can say the programme ended prematurely. They repeatedly developed platforms intended to replace the M1 Abrams tank and the M2 Bradley armoured fighting vehicle. All these programmes failed, and ultimately, they continued by modernising the existing vehicles (and continuing to produce modern versions). Much like the Arleigh Burke-class AEGIS destroyers...

Difficulties from an American Perspective

Looking at American defence programmes, you might say, ‘Perfection is the enemy of good.’ While this statement is certainly true, how applicable it is to the situation is debatable. Because the language we speak is different from the language Americans speak. We also do not know the words they assign to their new inventions.

We cannot speak or think in words we do not know. We continue to produce using a method known and used by the whole world. We have every right to be proud of this, but it is certain that in a few years' time, we will have to grapple with the exact same problems the Americans are facing.

The Russian defence and aviation industry continues to produce designs left over from the Soviet era, such as modern derivatives of the Su-27 and MiG-29. For this reason, it is often criticised. But if you look at it, the US also continues to produce aircraft that are half a century old, such as the F-15 and F-16. The difference with America is that it can keep these aircraft much more modern and up-to-date. That is why the Coast Guard asks, ‘We are producing our Cutter frigates like they are money. Their qualities also meet your requirements. Why aren't you arming and using them?’

Not Everything is Going Well in China Either

For China, which is held up as an example to the world, the situation is actually quite dire in many respects. Let me illustrate with an example. During the Second World War, you cast the metal frame parts of a boat from iron using the iron casting method. You refined it by hand and put it into production. The innovation was the use of welding instead of riveting. You can still cast iron today. Or you can cold or hot-form a piece of iron. You can shape a single piece of iron with CNC. You can press iron powder to form the material, then strengthen it with heat treatment. Or you can use a 3D printer with layered/additive manufacturing methods. You may also need to coat it using electrolysis or other methods... But wait, there are thousands of different steel alloys you can use. Or you could opt for aluminium alloys. You also have the option of composite materials. When selecting the components and production method for composite materials, your alternatives are quite extensive...

I have only given an example of diversity in terms of the body. In fact, the situation is much more dire in the electronics sector. This is because there is a constant state of change, diversification and renewal in production technologies and machinery. Let me tell you a secret: China is the world's factory, right? Even 15–20 years ago, it was struggling to support the military platforms it produced and used itself. The situation is just as dire with the weapons it sells abroad. That's why nations are buying UAVs from Turkey, not China. Even if it's completely different, it can improvise and substitute one thing for another. But take the first generation JF-17s, for example. Their spare parts are now more expensive than the new ones. Pakistan tells me it needs them. China says, ‘I can consider this instead, but you will have to place a minimum order for me to produce it, you will have to wait, and you will have to test and see the result.’ If it doesn't work, the process and expense will be repeated...

If you are going to fight in three years, these situations are not a problem. After all, a significant portion of your force will be lost against powerful enemies. But what if war finds you thirty years from now? Then the trouble will be great. The cost of waiting thirty years is another painful issue. So, being the world's factory and the number one manufacturing power is good, but it burns you on the outside and me on the inside...

A Personal Footnote:

We are approaching our fifties. For over 35 years, I have been accumulating knowledge drop by drop in the context of military service, defence, and related technological developments. These drops have formed a large lake. You know how there is a rule of ten thousand hours for expertise in a subject. To become a ‘polymath/generalist in the art and technology of warfare,’ I have easily invested two or three times that amount. This lake of knowledge contains many possible futures. Like thinking X moves ahead in a game of chess, my mind is overflowing with branching simulations. What I have written here is actually like a limited reflection of this lake, like taking a spoonful from this lake and presenting it. What we write has a history, a future, cause-and-effect relationships...

Explaining these, putting them down on paper, is a very difficult, often impossible process. However, these are profound things that can be brought to light through mutual conversation in a safe circle of friends who ponder these issues. I hope we can meet in friendly conversations where we can share these things in greater depth.