Npeo 1 2 finalrevised

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs

Special Section: Close-in Defense

Carrier Craftsman Rear Adm. Thomas J. Moore U.S. Navy Program Executive Officer PEO Aircraft Carriers

www.NPEO-kmi.com

December 2013 Volume 1, Issue 2

View from the Hill

Congressman Jo Bonner, R-Ala.

UCLASS O Undersea Warfare O Asia-Pacific O LCS

You Are Reading the Second Issue of KMI Media Group’s 12th Military Title

www.NPEO-kmi.com

This is the new hardhitting publication in the Navy field featuring the Program Executive Officers and their very important programs.

2,400 copies have been sent to the Hill Don’t let your programs be shot down by Congress for lack of information about the positive aspects of your offerings.

GO NAVY!

To advertise, contact Terry Harrington 301-670-5700 x158 • terryh@kmimediagroup.com

navy air/sea peo forum

December 2013 Volume 1, Issue 2

Features

Cover / Q&A

Special Section:

Asia-Pacific

Testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces from Dr. Andrew Erickson, Associate Professor, U.S. Naval War College, regarding U.S. Asia-Pacific strategic considerations.

Close-In Defense

Today’s shipboard close-in defense systems came to be developed, deployed and improved, in many cases, in reaction to specific incidents.

By Peter Buxbaum

6 View From the Hill

Congressman Jo Bonner, R-Ala., discussed the benefits of the Littoral Combat Ship program for the U.S.

24

16

22

Rear Admiral Thomas J. Moore

8

5

11

13

Undersea Warfare

Industry Profile:

Unmanned Aircraft on Carriers Becoming Reality

Program Spotlight:

An excerpt of a statement by Rear Admiral Richard P. Breckenridge, director of Undersea Warfare, and Rear Admiral David C. Johnson, program executive officer for Submarines, before the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Seapower, September 13, 2013.

An exclusive interview with Jim Dale, Business Area Director at Engility who discussed Engility’s ongoing relationship with NAVAIR and NAVSEA involving system engineering, unmanned aircraft system integration and support, acquisition and program management to name a few.

Departments 2 Editor’s Perspective 3 UnderWay 4 People 14 Main Deck 27 Resource center

UCLASS is a system comprised of three major segments: the carrier segment, the control system and connectivity segment, and the air segment.

By Brian O’Shea

Littoral Combat Ship Austal USA’s Independence variant of the littoral combat ship meets performance parameters in terms of speed, range and endurance with minimal fuel burn.

Industry Interview R. Scott Forney III

Senior Vice President Electromagnetic Systems Group General Atomics

28

U.S. Navy Program Executive Officer PEO Aircraft Carriers

“CVN 78 is the first aircraft carrier to be completely built using a 3-D model that allows every space on the ship to be visualized before drawings are issued to construction crews, allowing issues to be resolved before costs are incurred.”

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum Volume 1, Issue 2 • December 2013

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs Editorial

Editor Brian O’Shea briano@kmimediagroup.com Managing Editor Harrison Donnelly harrisond@kmimediagroup.com Online Editorial Manager Laura McNulty lauram@kmimediagroup.com Copy Editor Sean Carmichael seanc@kmimediagroup.com Correspondents Peter Buxbaum • Henry Canaday Nora McGann • Melanie Scarborough Marc Selinger

Art & Design

Art Director Jennifer Owers jennifero@kmimediagroup.com Senior Graphic Designer Jittima Saiwongnuan jittimas@kmimediagroup.com Graphic Designers Scott Morris scottm@kmimediagroup.com Amanda Paquette amandak@kmimediagroup.com

Advertising

Account Executive Terry Harrington terryh@kmimediagroup.com

KMI Media Group Chief Executive Officer Jack Kerrigan jack@kmimediagroup.com Publisher and Chief Financial Officer Constance Kerrigan connik@kmimediagroup.com Editor-In-Chief Jeff McKaughan jeffm@kmimediagroup.com Controller Gigi Castro gcastro@kmimediagroup.com Trade Show Coordinator Holly Foster hollyf@kmimediagroup.com

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry recently announced that the U.S. will increase maritime assistance aid to countries in Southeast Asia during his first visit to Vietnam as the United States’ top diplomat. In this announcement Kerry said the U.S. has pledged an additional $32.5 million for members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in an effort to protect their territorial waters in the South China Sea, where four states have competing claims with China. This brings the U.S. maritime security assistance to the region to more than $156 million over the next two years.

Kerry said this was not a “quickly conceived reaction to any events in Brian O’Shea Editor the region,” but that it was a “gradual and deliberate expansion” of U.S. support as part of the Obama administration’s strategy to shift focus to the Asia-Pacific region. This announcement was made after a recent near collision between U.S. and Chinese naval vessels in the South China Sea. “Peace and stability in the South China Sea is a top priority for us and for countries in the region,” said Kerry. “We are very concerned by and strongly opposed to coercive and aggressive tactics to advance territorial claims.”

Kerry’s announcement comes shortly after a visit by Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Bob Papp, who became the first commandant to visit Vietnam as part of an official international outreach initiative. Over the past three years, the Coast Guard, in coordination with the Department of State and the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi, has been aiding the Vietnam Marine Police (Vietnam Coast Guard) through training assistance focusing on maritime law enforcement, search and rescue, and operational planning.

The U.S. claims neutrality over the many territorial disputes in the South China Sea. However, China regards the South China Sea and the island groups as its own and has stepped up naval activity in that region, which is raising concerns from the 10 members of the ASEAN. In an area with several territorial disputes, it’s difficult for the U.S. to remain neutral when they increase their assistance to different parties. Giving financial aid and training can be a great thing, but I can only hope China and contesting members of the ASEAN come to a mutual understanding—and soon. If you have any questions regarding Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum please contact me at any time.

Operations, Circulation & Production Operations Administrator Bob Lesser bobl@kmimediagroup.com Circulation & Marketing Administrator Duane Ebanks duanee@kmimediagroup.com Circulation Barbara Gill barbg@kmimediagroup.com Data Specialists Raymer Villanueva raymerv@kmimediagroup.com

KMI MedIa Group LeadershIp MaGazInes and WebsItes Border & CBRNE Defense

Ground Combat Technology

Geospatial Intelligence Forum

Military Advanced Education

Military Information Technology

Military Logistics Forum

www.GCT-kmi.com

www.GIF-kmi.com

www.MAE-kmi.com

www.MIT-kmi.com

www.MLF-kmi.com

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

Special Operations Technology

Tactical ISR Technology

U.S. Coast Guard Forum

www.TISR-kmi.com

www.CGF-kmi.com

Border Threat Prevention and CBRNE Response

SPECIAL SECTION:

Integrated Fixed Towers

Subscription Information

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum is published by KMI Media Group.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2013.

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum is free to qualified members of the U.S. military, employees of the U.S. government and non-U.S. foreign service based in the U.S. All others: $65 per year.

Foreign: $149 per year.

Border Protector

www.BCD-kmi.com

June 2012 Volume 1, Issue 1

Michael J. Fisher Chief U.S. Border Patrol U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Leadership Insight: Robert S. Bray Assistant Administrator for Law Enforcement Director of the Federal Air Marshal Service Transportation Security Administration

Wide Area Aerial Surveillance O Hazmat Disaster Response Tactical Communications O P-3 Program

www.BCD-kmi.com

Military Medical Military Training & Veterans Technology Affairs Forum

Corporate Offices

KMI Media Group 15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300 Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USA Telephone: (301) 670-5700 Fax: (301) 670-5701 Web: www.NPEO-kmi.com www.M2VA-kmi.com

www.MT2-kmi.com

www.NPEO-kmi.com www.SOTECH-kmi.com

UNDERWAY

Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Navy X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Completes Carrier Tests The Navy concluded another round of carrier testing November 19 to further demonstrate and evaluate the X-47B unmanned air system integration within the aircraft carrier environment.

Tests aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) included deck handling, carrier approaches and landings in off-nominal wind conditions, digitized ship systems interfaces, and concept of operations development.

“The X-47 was tested in winds of higher magnitude and differing directions than seen in previous detachments,” said Program Manager for Unmanned Carrier Aviation Captain Beau Duarte. “This resulted in more stimulus provided to the aircraft’s guidance and control algorithms and a more robust verification of its GPS autoland capability.”

This test phase, which began November 9, also provided an opportunity for the second X-47B to make an appearance, marking the first time both aircraft appeared together in a carrier environment.

Over the flight test period, the X-47Bs performed 26 total deck touchdowns: 21 precise touch-and-goes and five arrested landings, as well as five catapults, five

commanded and two autonomous wave-offs.

While one X-47B operated in the vicinity of CVN 71, the second air vehicle conducted flight operations between ship and shore.

Both X-47Bs are assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River.

“The Navy and industry team once again conducted productive flight operations in the CVN environment,” said Barbara Weathers, Unmanned Combat Air System deputy program manager. “The carrier systems installation and system checkouts were performed in record time, quite an amazing feat.”

The Navy will operate the X-47B throughout FY14 to conduct further land- and carrier-based testing to mature unmanned technologies and refine concept of operations to further inform future unmanned carrier requirements.

“The Navy is committed to developing, maturing, and fielding unmanned carrier aviation capabilities into our carrier air wings and carrier environments. This week’s successful carrier operations demonstrated the feasibility and realistic path to achieving the manned/unmanned air wing

of the future,” said Rear Admiral Mat Winter, program executive officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons (PEO[U&W]), which oversees the UCAS program.

Standard Missile-3 IIA Completes Critical Design Review Raytheon Company and its Japanese partner, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, have completed the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA guided missile Critical Design Review (CDR). The CDR verified that the missile’s design will meet the stringent, specific operational performance requirements necessary to defeat the projected threats. The SM-3 Block IIA will defeat incoming ballistic missile threats by colliding with them in space, and the program is on track to begin flight testing in 2015.

In a precedent-setting co-development effort between allies, the U.S. and Japan have determined an equitable workshare agreement that defines by missile section the development responsibility between each country.

“This milestone is critical because it moves the SM-3 Block IIA program from design to build,” said Taylor W. Lawrence, Ph.D.,

www.NPEO-kmi.com

president of Raytheon Missile Systems. “Once deployed, SM-3 Block IIA will provide the U.S. and Japan capability to defend larger geographic areas from longer-range ballistic missile threats.”

The SM-3 Block IIA program plan included building hardware early, supporting completion of critical subsystem testing prior to CDR. This “hardware rich” approach coupled with the design commonality with previous versions of SM-3 reduces integration risk.

“We worked closely with the Missile Defense Agency to ensure our design plan was well thought out, allowing us to build a little and test a little along the way. This method will go a long way toward lowering our risk during future flight testing,” said Tim Lardy, Raytheon Missile Systems’ SM-3 Block IIA program director.

Over the course of 18 months, the Raytheon-Mitsubishi Heavy Industries team, along with various subcontractors, successfully completed more than 80 rigorous subsystem reviews leading up to the final “system” CDR. SM-3s destroy incoming ballistic missile threats in space using nothing more than sheer impact of collision, which is equivalent to a 10-ton truck traveling at 600 mph. The SM-3 Block IIA is the third evolution of the SM-3 family of guided missiles and builds on the successful legacy of the first two variants: SM-3 Blocks IA and IB. SM-3 Block IIA will have two distinct new features: 21-inch second and third stage rocket motors, and a larger, more capable kinetic warhead. SM-3 Block IIA will be deployed at sea and on land. More than 155 SM-3s have been delivered to U.S. and Japanese navies.

NPEO 1.2 | 3

UNDERWAY

Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

First Zumwalt Class Destroyer Launched General Dynamics Bath Iron Works successfully launched the Navy’s first Zumwalt-class destroyer October 28 at their Bath, Maine, shipyard.

The future USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) will be the lead ship of the Navy’s newest destroyer class, designed for littoral operations and land attack.

The ship began its translation from Bath Iron Works’ land-level construction facility to a floating dry dock. Once loaded into the dry dock, the dock was flooded and the ship was removed from its specially designed cradle. The dock was then flooded and the ship was floated off and tied to a pier on the Kennebec River.

“This is the largest ship Bath Iron Works has ever constructed and the Navy’s largest destroyer. The launch was unprecedented in both its size and complexity,” said Captain Jim Downey, the Zumwalt-class program manager for the Navy’s Program Executive Office, Ships. “Due to meticulous planning and execution, the operation went very smoothly. I’m extremely pleased with the results and applaud the combined efforts of the Navy-industry team.”

Construction began on DDG 1000 in February 2009, and the Navy and its industry partners have worked to mature the ship’s design and ready their industrial facilities to build this advanced surface combatant. Zumwalt is currently more than 87 percent complete, and the shipbuilder will continue remaining construction work on the hull prior to planned delivery late next year.

Because of the complexity of the first-of-class ship, the Navy will perform a two-phase delivery process. Bath Iron Works will deliver the ship itself to the Navy in late 2014. Upon delivery, the Navy will then conduct combat systems activation, tests and trials, to include multiple underway periods. The ship is expected to reach its initial operating capability in 2016.

The ship, the first of three Zumwalt-class destroyers, will provide independent forward presence and deterrence, support special operations forces and operate as part of joint and combined expeditionary forces.

The Navy has incorporated many new technologies into the ship’s unique tumblehome hull, including an all-electric integrated power system and an advanced gun system, designed to fire rocket-powered, precision projectiles 63 nautical miles.

The shape of the superstructure and the arrangement of its antennas significantly reduce the ship’s radar cross section, making the ship less visible to enemy radar at sea. The design also allows for optimal manning, with a standard crew size of 130 and an aviation detachment of 28 sailors, thereby decreasing life cycle operations and support costs.

The lead ship and class are named in honor of former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo R. “Bud” Zumwalt Jr., who served as chief of naval operations from 1970-1974.

As one of the Defense Department’s largest acquisition organizations, PEO Ships, an affiliated PEO of the Naval Sea Systems Command, is responsible for executing the development and procurement of all major surface combatants, amphibious ships, special mission and support ships, and special warfare craft.

PEOPLE Rear Admiral Thomas E. Beeman will be assigned as assistant deputy surgeon general for Reserve Affairs, Falls Church, Va. Beeman previously served as deputy commander, Navy Medicine National Capital Area, Bethesda, Md. Rear Admiral Paula C. Brown will be assigned as deputy commander, Naval Facilities

4 | NPEO 1.2

Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Engineering Command, Washington, D.C. Brown previously served as deputy commander, First Naval Construction Division, Virginia Beach, Va. Rear Admiral (lower half) Christina M. Alvarado will be assigned as deputy commander, Navy Medicine East, Portsmouth, Va. Alvarado previously served deputy chief of

staff, Navy Medicine East, Norfolk, Va. Rear Admiral (lower half) William M. Crane will be assigned as deputy commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic, Norfolk.

Crane previously served as chief staff officer, Navy Reserve Chief of Naval Operations, Operations and Plans (N3/N5), Washington, D.C.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Mark J. Fung will be assigned as deputy for naval construction force, Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, Virginia Beach. Fung previously served as deputy chief of staff, First Naval Construction Division, Virginia Beach.

Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) recently announced that Irwin F. Edenzon will retire

on December 1, 2014.

Edenzon is currently corporate vice president and president of Ingalls Shipbuilding, a division of HII. Edenzon will step down as president on March 31, 2014, and the HII board of directors has elected Brian Cuccias to succeed Edenzon in the positions of corporate vice president and president of Ingalls Shipbuilding, effective April 1, 2014.

www.NPEO-kmi.com

INDUSTRY PROFILE Jim Dale Business Area Director Engility services company, allowed us to remove OCI issues. We can provide our customers a direct path to cost effective engineering and program management services in an on-demand fashion.

Jim Dale is responsible for successfully delivering high quality program management and engineering support to our Navy customers, particularly in NAVAIR (Naval Air Systems Command) and NAVSEA (Naval Sea Systems Command).

Q: What do you see as major challenges over the next 12 months and how are you addressing them?

Q: What are your primary business areas with the Navy?

A: Engility, through its legacy companies, has a proud history of serving NAVAIR and NAVSEA. Our people support the NAVAIR mission across a broad spectrum that includes system engineering, unmanned aircraft system integration and support, engineering fabrication and rapid prototyping, acquisition and program management, training and education life cycle support and IT. With NAVSEA, it is safe to say we have personnel at nearly every shipyard and Navy port, concentrating primarily on testing and integration. Our engineers and technicians have provided T&E, IT, production engineering and quality assurance to new construction shipbuilding programs for carriers, cruisers submarines, DDG, and a host of other Navy and U.S. Coast Guard vessels.

Q: How have you adjusted your Navyrelated business to maximize efficiencies and help keep costs down?

A: Engility was created as a result of spin-off in July 2012 and that move really allowed us to build an industry best government services company. Through our legacy companies we already had the best people, and they are working for the Navy and our other customers today. We were able to create a more efficient and streamlined structure to support our customers and our people by reducing bureaucracy and empowering our experts in the field to make decisions and work more closely with our customers. The result is great service at a highly attractive price.

There are innumerable examples of how our teams have helped the Navy www.NPEO-kmi.com

maximize its own efficiencies. Take for example the Resource Allocation Management Program (RAMP). Engineers in one of our legacy companies designed RAMP for internal use and it has since transitioned to government control.

RAMP provides program managers and maintenance planners with a single repository for all pertinent aircraft data and information for long-range planning and forecasting of aircraft inventory requirements, configurations, operational schedules, budget planning, aircraft workload and management processes. Today, RAMP supports 11 PMAs and 12 different rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft.

Q: How do you coordinate your business development efforts to make sure they match what the Navy is looking for?

A: Federal budget pressures and the potential of a yearlong continuing resolution in 2014 likely will create delays in contract awards and subsequent modifications.

This means companies must have an even greater emphasis on cost accountability while still providing the Navy with the flexibility it has come to expect. Engility was created with this kind of environment in mind and the key to success will be providing technical assistance and innovative solutions while remaining cost-conscious in this ever-changing cost-driven environment. We provide this kind of service regularly, and in fact, one of our engineers just received an employee of the quarter award from the government because his inventiveness and ingenuity provided a 66 percent cost savings for the program he was supporting.

Q: How do you measure success?

A: The key is knowing your customer and delivering exactly what they need.

Engility is an active partner with the Navy in supporting planning and investment.

So for example, the Aircraft Survivability Investment Strategy (OASIS) process was developed by Engility staff in response to an OPNAV task assigned to NAVAIR. The requirement was to establish an ongoing process by which investment decisions are optimized to increase combat effectiveness across the portfolio of naval aircraft.

Engility is developing a relational database that, when complete, will support OPNAV requirements decisions with statistically significant, repeatable and traceable analytical results.

I would also add that our spin-off, which made us a pure play government

A: Any formal recognition of success is first and foremost based on our everyday performance and the close relationships we have with our customers. Regular visits by our program managers and senior managers encourage accurate and direct feedback, which helps to drive a continual circle of improvement to sustain a strong performance. This helps to ensure we are meeting the requirement and are always looking for ways to be both consistent and innovative. We encourage this in our employees. This proactive approach engages contractual, technical, financial and individual aspects of being a front-line contractor executor and falls under our philosophy of “Your Mission.

Our Commitment.” O NPEO 1.2 | 5

View from the hill

Littoral Combat Ship Widespread misunderstanding of its mission remains biggest hurdle for LCS.

By Congressman Jo Bonner, R-Ala.

During a May 7, 2013, Navy budget hearing, one of my congressional colleagues cited a year-old report calling into question the integrity of one of the Navy’s most adaptive new vessels, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The report and news coverage it has generated are focused on a mixture of outdated concerns and lingering disagreements over future naval strategy, and as a result, a very good ship is being sold short. In response, I extended an invitation to fellow members of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to personally visit the LCS shipyards to see firsthand the capabilities of one of the future workhorses of the United States Navy.

In recent history, it is hard to find such a transformative vessel that has been as maligned and unfairly discounted, even before a single ship was christened, as the LCS. From its inception, the LCS has been labeled by many as not survivable and less capable of performing its mission than the frigates and various minesweeping vessels it is designed to replace. Much like the armchair quarterbacking so popular in my favorite football conference—the SEC—the talk has gotten ahead of the game. Critics have pronounced the LCS program dead on arrival because they fail to understand the Navy’s new game plan, which is different from anything in the previous playbook.

Viewed through the lens of the current Navy, the LCS is a significant departure from the more traditional and narrowly defined roles of many of the fleet’s ships. With a reconfigurable mission platform built on speed and agility, it combines the size of a frigate with the maneuverability of a patrol boat, but with the versatility to perform the mission of three different vessels. The LCS offers a platform adaptable to the varied littoral missions of countering mines, small speed boats and diesel-electric submarines, and it is upgradable to integrate new technologies. It fits well within the Navy’s new strategy to counter asymmetrical, anti-access, near-shore threats. Yet opponents continue to view the LCS out of the context of its mission environment.

Navy Undersecretary Robert Work commented on this disconnect in a January 2013 paper.

Some compare the ship to a guided missile frigate, and are left wanting. Others complain that there are better, less expensive, better-armed inshore gunboats. Others think the Navy would be better served with fast attack craft or small corvettes festooned with anti-ship missiles.

Still others believe a purpose-built ship is the only and best choice for the mine warfare mission. All of these alternatives might be potentially attractive choices—provided 6 | NPEO 1.2

the Navy’s future fleet architecture had a need for such ships. However, the FORCEnet/TFBN operational construct and architectural framework calls for a different ship altogether: an affordable, self-deployable, multirole ship optimized for battle network operations in the forward littorals.

And that is precisely what the Department of the Navy got in the LCS. The LCS is not designed to operate in all contested environments alone. In an effort to keep the cost per ship down and to meet the new concept of operations defined in FORCEnet, the Navy intentionally designed the LCS to a Level I+ survivability standard, allowing for it, as Admiral Greenert put it in our Navy hearing, to take a direct hit and limp home. The LCS and the LCS mission modules were designed to provide the capabilities currently offered by frigates (Level II), mine countermeasures ships (Level I) and coastal patrol craft (Level I), most of which will decommission over the next several years. It’s also important to recognize that in situations where the threat of anti-ship missiles is high, the LCS will be operating with a battle group designed to enhance its strengths and protect its weaknesses.

As we assign levels of survivability in the traditional sense— with a scale of one to three, including several different measured areas beyond armored plating—we must also consider the environment in which the vessel is operating. While a DDG may be survivable at the highest level in a blue-water environment, it certainly does not have the same level of survivability in the brown-water, littoral environment. After all, speed and agility are not considered advantages possessed by our destroyers or even our aging frigates. The LCS excels best in these close-in engagement scenarios.

The LCS will be capable of surviving most anti-access environments on its own through its use of speed and new weapon technologies. One promising example of new technology is the development of the Advanced Low Cost Munitions Ordnance Program, or ALaMO. ALaMO is a 57 mm guided smart munition developed to counter small boat threats, whether in the Straits of Hormuz or off the Horn of Africa. This hit-to-kill guided bullet, still in the testing phase with promising results so far, can be utilized by the LCS’s Mk110 57 mm gun to take out approaching small boats before their weapons pose a threat. Each ALaMO munition uses built-in radar to guide and redirect the round to compensate for gun pointing errors, allowing for more efficient firing and providing the LCS with standoff capability from small swarming threats. www.NPEO-kmi.com

Many critics have also pointed out the logistical hurdles of maintaining and manning the LCS. Thus far, the Navy’s answer has been to forward deploy these vessels in host nations with a complement of support crew and materials. However, there may be an even simpler solution just over the horizon. The Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) has recently been touted as a logistics platform that could be positioned to support the LCS mission, carrying maintenance crews, spares, modules and other supplies.

We often have to worry about the diplomacy of forward deploying vessels in host nations, but with a JHSV serving the role of host, the game may be a little less complicated.

As with the development of any new ship, there will be growing pains. Early issues of cracks in the LCS-1 Freedom variant, built

by Lockheed Martin of Marinette, Wis., and corrosion in the LCS-2 Independence variant, built by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala., have been addressed. Mission packages are also being improved to keep pace with the Navy’s evolution of LCS strategy and improved performance.

The LCS Council was created to address weaknesses in the program, and Council Chairman Vice Admiral Richard Hunt recently voiced confidence in both the improvements and the role of the LCS. “LCS will be an important part of our future surface force. The focus of the council has been to utilize feedback and information gathered from program reviews Top: Independence-class littoral combat ship (LCS) designed by General Dynamics consortium.

Bottom: The Lockheed Martin-designed Freedom variant of the U.S. Navy’s LCS program. [Photos courtesy of the U.S. Navy] and fleet operations to identify areas of improvement. We understand what is at stake and will get this testimony from the Navy chiefs in May and hopes to mark up the right. I have great confidence in the LCS program.” defense appropriations bill in June.

While sequestration presents added challenges to the Defense LCS 1 arrived in Singapore on April 17 and LCS 2 and LCS Department and the Navy’s plans to expand the fleet, the LCS 3 continue to operate and conduct testing out of homeport San program has demonstrated that it can be built on budget and on Diego. Secretary Mabus noted that four LCS will be deployed in time. Responding to criticism of the program’s cost, Secretary Singapore by 2016.

Ray Mabus told House appropriators on May 7, the LCS has expeAs the LCS evolves to meet the Navy’s new littoral mission rienced a “dramatic” decline in cost from the first ships, and the strategy, the LCS is poised to deliver a knockout punch at the program is well within congressional cost cap. The LCS repreright time in the right places. It is absolutely prudent to keep a sents execution of one of the Navy’s best acquisition strategies, strong focus on cost, on-time delivery and quality control going providing lower cost, improved delivery and enhanced capabiliforward. I am confident, however, the LCS will not only stand up ties over legacy platforms. to such scrutiny, but will live up to high expectations it has creWith the support and confidence of Navy leadership, the ated within the Navy’s top ranks. O LCS program is pushing ahead in the shipyards, in the halls of Congress and at sea. The Navy is calling for a total of 52 LCSs, U.S. Representative Jo Bonner, R-Ala., is a member of the down only three ships from the original plan based on a change House Defense Appropriations Committee. to the presence requirement in the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. The Navy’s FY14 budget includes a $1,793,014,000 For more information, contact NPEO Editor Brian O’Shea at briano@kmimediagroup.com or search our online archives request to keep the program on pace. As noted previously, the for related stories at www.npeo-kmi.com.

House Defense Appropriations subcommittee heard budget www.NPEO-kmi.com

NPEO 1.2 | 7

Coordination of cross domain operations by undersea forces.

The following is an excerpt of a statement by Rear Admiral Richard P. Breckenridge, director of Undersea Warfare, and Rear Admiral David C. Johnson, program executive officer for Submarines, before the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Seapower.

Undersea Warfare Undersea warfare consists of military operations that originate from the undersea or are directed into the undersea, ranging from survivable nuclear deterrent patrols by ballistic missile submarines to intelligence collection by attack submarines to surveillance by undersea sensors. It includes antisubmarine warfare by aircraft, tomahawk strikes like those conducted by the guided missile submarine (SSGN) USS Florida in Operation Odyssey Dawn against Libya, and mine-hunting operations by small unmanned vehicles near the Strait of Hormuz.

Not all undersea warfare is done by undersea forces. For instance, antisubmarine warfare and maritime mine warfare are often done by airborne or surface systems and platforms. These cross-domain operations require careful coordination of efforts between undersea forces and surface ships, aircraft, space assets, communications systems and headquarters facilities, but they often yield outstanding results 8 | NPEO 1.2

and greatly improved efficiency. This is an area where we are applying greater emphasis in our maritime operations around the globe.

Today, though, I intend to focus on how undersea forces—the platforms and their crews that operate in the depths—contribute to undersea warfare.

The Unique Strengths of Stealthy Undersea Forces The stealth of our undersea forces provides an advantage that no other part of the joint force can provide: persistent, undetected, assured access far forward and the ability to do valuable things with that access. By leveraging concealment, our undersea forces can deploy forward without being provocative, penetrate anti-access/ area denial perimeters and conduct undetected operations. These operations might be precautionary preparatory ship movements, intelligence collection and surveillance, special forces support, or nuclear deterrent patrols.

Should it be necessary, these forces can exploit the element of surprise and attack at the time and place of our choosing to maximize the desired effect while minimizing risk. These attacks could include efforts specifically focused on helping gain access for follow-on general purpose forces. Concealment enables survivability while operating independently with magazines focused on offensive payloads. Finally, stealth enables undersea forces to exploit ambiguity to sow disruption and uncertainty in adversary operations, diverting adversary resources and creating confusion.

Feedback from our operational commanders indicates that the demand for this capability is strong. As the threat grows from advances in sensors and weapons such as cruise missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles and integrated air defense systems, more pressure will be placed on undersea forces.

This pressure will be further amplified by the proliferation of these advanced systems to more adversaries and more regions.

In addition, the role of the undersea to the globalized industrial economies of the www.NPEO-kmi.com

world is hard to overstate and is growing.

The intercontinental telecommunications backbone of the world rides on the seabed, with undersea cables carrying over 95 percent of all traffic. Offshore oil and gas production is growing rapidly, and undersea pipeline infrastructure is proliferating to service fields in Asia, the Middle East, the Gulf of Mexico, off Brazil and Africa, and in the North Sea. Transportation infrastructure such as tunnels, piers, bridge supports are accessible from the undersea, and the expansion of shipping traffic and oil drilling into the Arctic as ice-cover shrinks will further expand the importance of the undersea to the global economy.

Considering these factors, it is clear that the importance of the undersea will continue to grow, both in economic and in military terms, for the foreseeable future.

Trends in Undersea Force Structure Against this backdrop of unique undersea force value and continued strong demand, we must consider the trends in undersea force structure—the long-term number and type of vessels we can expect in our future undersea forces. The Navy has worked hard to arrest the downward trajectory in overall Navy force structure and stabilize the Navy near or slightly above its current level. Even this stabilized force, though, includes as part www.NPEO-kmi.com

of its baseline a reduction in submarine platforms of more than 25 percent over the next 15 years. This decline is not the result of some recent decision; it is the consequence of budget decisions taken over years and indeed decades. There were only two submarines procured from 1991 to 1998, producing two undesirable results. First, the expertise for submarine construction was dismantled and has only recently begun to recover to full strength. Second, it resulted in the loss of nearly a dozen nuclear powered attack submarines (SSNs) in the force.

Today’s attack submarine force of 55 SSNs will drop to 42; the 4 SSGNs will drop to 0; and the 14 ballistic missile submarines will drop to 10. The total submarine force will drop from 73 to 52 ships—a cut of 29 percent—before rebounding in the 2030s. The vertical strike payload volume provided by the undersea force will drop by well over half.

This trough is borne of the submarine shipbuilding hiatus of the 1990s, and no realistic build plan could now prevent it.

Shortfalls in Undersea Forward Presence Undersea forces will also suffer degraded forward presence. As a way of maximizing the deployed presence of U.S. nuclear submarines, the Navy uses a different rotational duty pattern for SSNs, SSGNs, ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and Guam-based

SSNs. Over the next 15 years, the forward presence of SSNs and SSGNs taken together will fall by over 40 percent. Roughly half of this reduction is due to the decline in the number of SSNs and half is due to the retirement of the SSGNs. One SSN will move to Guam to help mitigate this decline; additional increases in the number of SSNs in Guam, however, are constrained by the unavailability of infrastructure on the island and on the risks associated with concentrating too much of the force in one potentially vulnerable place.

Today, the SSN force is at 55 SSNs— above the 48-SSN minimum requirement defined by force structure analysis. Despite this nominal excess in SSN capacity, the combatant commander unconstrained demand for SSN forward presence greatly exceeds that which can be provided.

In 2006 Congress tasked the Navy with how it would provide the required SSN forward presence of a 48-SSN Navy with a force that would drop as low as 40 SSNs. In 2007, CNO Mullen [Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mike Mullen] testified about the tools available to him to reduce the impact of letting the SSN force dip below the required 48 level. The three tools he outlined were: (1) reducing the time to build each Virginiaclass submarine to about 60 months; (2) extending the service lives of selected Los Angeles-class SSNs beyond 33 years as fuel and material condition allow; and (3) using NPEO 1.2 | 9

deployments as long as 7 months to increase deployed availability. Since the first of the Block II Virginias was delivered in 2008, we have been making significant progress in reducing the construction time of our submarines. Getting to below 60 months on PCU North Dakota will help to add one to two effective SSNs to the force level. SSN fuel and material condition are being carefully managed to maximize the chance that some life extensions will be possible. If current trends continue it may be possible to fill about one-third of the ship-years of SSN shortfall. Lengthened deployments above seven months, as mentioned, are already in use.

The undersea forces have a demonstrated willingness to exploit creative operational concepts and basing schemes, and will continue to investigate potentially effective means to improve the presence of our limited number of SSNs during the shortfall time period. It bears noting, however, that most of the available measures discussed increase SSN forward presence but do not increase the number of SSNs available to surge in the event of conflict.

The Navy’s Integrated Approach to Future Undersea Capability Facing a long-term trend of increasing undersea importance and decreasing undersea force capacity, the Navy developed an integrated approach to providing as much of the necessary future undersea capability as would be possible within realistic constraints on force size, budgets, shipyard capacity, practical maintenance limits and technical realism. This integrated approach does not solve all of the capability and capacity shortfalls faced by the Navy, but it focuses attention on providing specific strategic effects while remaining closely in touch with acquisition realism.

I would like to describe the key interlocking pieces that represent the backbone of the Navy’s lean integrated undersea investment strategy: 1. It is mandatory that we sustain our survivable sea-based nuclear deterrent with about the same level of at-sea presence as today—this is priority number one. This requires a force no smaller than 10 operational SSBNs. The Navy has done everything possible to delay SSBN replacement procurement as long as possible and reduce its scope 10 | NPEO 1.2

as much as possible while still providing the required deterrent coverage.

Collectively, Ohio life extensions, force level reductions, maintenance efficiency and risk management enabled the Ohio replacement first patrol to be delayed by 20 years to 2031. This driver determines that we procure the first Ohio replacement SSBN in 2021 so we can achieve that first patrol in 2031.

It also fixes the start dates of the later ships as necessary to stay at 10 SSBNs during the transition from Ohio to Ohio replacement, and to restore the inventory to 12 to retain 10 operationally available as Ohio replacement submarines enter extended depot availabilities 2. All three submarine types go through large drops between 2025 to 2030 that are beyond fiscal and shipyard capacity to address. Between 2025 and 2030, the SSN force drops to 42, all four SSGNs retire and the SSBN force drops from 14 to 10. Top priority is placed on the SSBNs. Building new SSGNs from the keel up would require designing and starting construction of two large submarine classes (SSBNs and SSGNs) simultaneously—a task which exceeds the capacity of our design workforce.

Converting four more SSBNs into SSGNs is not possible because there are no surplus SSBNs to draw on. This determines that SSGN capacity, if it is to be retained, must be built into future SSNs. The SSN force structure trough coupled with this undersea strike capacity shortage dictates that SSN procurement must be our second priority.

3. In order for SSNs to carry strike missiles displaced from SSGNs and future payloads that extend the influence inherent to our assured access, added SSN payload volume is required. Adding more SSNs to the build plan beyond two per year is fiscally unlikely, would challenge yard capacity, and is not necessary. Instead the needed volume can be achieved by adding modules to SSNs already in the build plan, covering most of the lost SSGN capacity and providing UUV carrying capacity— thereby solving two problems at once. To mitigate the loss of strike capacity when SSGNs retire in the next decade, the Navy requested fiscal year 2014 research and development funding to continue

the design for a modification to the Virginia Class SSN, the Virginia payload module. Modified Virginia Class SSNs could be procured starting no earlier than fiscal year 2019. Our challenge will be executing this option affordably alongside competing priorities within the overall shipbuilding program.

4. As the SSN force gets smaller and as the importance of its unique forward access becomes clearer, additional payloads are likely to emerge. The strategic impact of each SSN being able to carry a family of different capabilities without any discernible external difference in the ship is daunting to an adversary planner, and therefore not only valuable to military capability but to deterrence value as well. It is not necessary to field all of these payloads soon—but the ability of the module to support them in the future will give future force commanders much flexibility. Additionally, the insert may allow for incorporation of sensors and stealth advancements to maintain dominance over capable undersea adversaries. This determines the need for the large tube payload volume to be flexible for maximum strategic and deterrent value.

5. The smaller SSN force structure will require each SSN to cover more physical territory and also cover more potential new types of undersea targets. Combined with the shortfall in torpedo inventory and the fact that there has not been a U.S. heavyweight torpedo produced since 1996, this creates a compelling need to restart torpedo production. Not only is there a shortfall in numbers, there is also no proven facility capable of producing weapons with a new capability. In the short term, this allows us to address the shortfall and capacity issues. More importantly, in the long term this provides a foundation for us to adapt our undersea weapons with new, expanded target set capabilities. This determines the need to restart torpedo production soon with emphasis on modularity. O

For more information, contact NPEO Editor Brian O’Shea at briano@kmimediagroup.com or search our online archives for related stories at www.npeo-kmi.com.

www.NPEO-kmi.com

U.S. Navy’s competition for unmanned aerial system providing ISR and strike capability.

By Brian O’Shea, NPEO Editor Northrop Grumman’s X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator completed its first carrier-based arrested landing on board USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) off the coast of Virginia on July 10.

“It isn’t very often you get a glimpse of the future. Today, those of us aboard USS George H.W. Bush got that chance as we witnessed the X-47B make it’s first-ever arrested landing aboard an aircraft carrier,” said Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus. “The operational unmanned aircraft soon to be developed have the opportunity to radically change the way presence and combat power are delivered from our aircraft carriers.”

The recent demonstration was the first time a tailless, unmanned autonomous aircraft landed on a modern aircraft carrier.

“For UCLASS we are in the final throes of reviewing the draft RFP with senior Navy leadership,” said Rear Admiral Mat Winter, PEO Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons. “We anticipate that draft RFP being released to industry before Christmas. Industry will have a period of time to review and assess, and we will conduct an industry day in late January or early February of next year. We will have the dialogue with them on that. We will take those inputs and we will incorporate other senior leadership efforts inputs and we will submit and release the final RFP late second quarter/early third quarter fiscal year 2014, [in April], so that’s the timeframe of next year. Then we’ll go 90 days to get the proposals back, we’ll go into a source selection period and we anticipate being able to award to a single air vehicle segment contractor in the early first or second quarter of FY15. That’s the timeline.” www.NPEO-kmi.com

Naval Air Systems Command released a request for proposal to four companies on June 10, 2013, for further design studies on the Navy’s planned Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system. Those companies include Northrop Grumman, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. (GA-ASI), Boeing and Lockheed Martin—the four UCLASS industry partners that previously had been awarded broad agency announcement study contracts to advance their concepts for the program.

UCLASS is a system comprised of three major segments: the carrier segment; the control system and connectivity segment; and the air segment. The UCLASS system will provide persistent unmanned semi-autonomous, carrier-based ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) and targeting, and strike capability to support 24/7 carrier operational coverage.

“The warfighter’s requirement is to provide the carrier strike group with persistent, enduring, relevant ISR capability,” said Winter. “In two orbits at tactically significant ranges from the carrier, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That’s the requirement.

So the goal of UCLASS, the goal of the acquisition community, is to put together a logical, affordable, executable program plan that delivers that capability to the warfighter, as outlined in the capability development document, on the timeline, within the budget, that the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] has directed us to do.”

Information concerning this highly competitive contract is difficult to come by as the four companies are not keen on discussing their entrants in detail.

NPEO 1.2 | 11

The X-47B may have a leg up on the competition as it was selected for the demonstrator aircraft and has had multiple carrier launch and landings under its belt. The X-47B is a tailless, strike fighter-sized unmanned aircraft currently under development by Northrop Grumman as part of the U.S. Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D) program. Under a contract awarded in 2007, the company designed, produced and is currently flight testing two X-47B aircraft. The UCAS-D program will also mature relevant carrier landing and integration technologies.

The Lockheed Martin UCLASS air vehicle concept integrates proven technologies from F-35C, RQ-170 Sentinel and other operational systems to provide both the lowest development risk and greatest ISR mission capability. Lockheed’s approach is expected to leverage the experience of the Skunk Works and their cross-corporation team to meet the Navy’s An artist’s rendering of the Predator C Avenger to facilitate the subsequent development of an aircraft suitable requirements for a versatile and supportable carrier-based for carrier operations. [Photo courtesy of General Atomics] unmanned aircraft. UCLASS will balance endurance, early operational capability and inherent growth that will enable operations in any environment or threat scenario.

Key features of Lockheed’s possible UCLASS entrant include integration of proven technologies, persistent 24/7 ISR operations, full spectrum adaptability, signature control, open systems architecture, reduced manpower requirements for command, control and maintenance, and future growth provisions.

While Boeing will not discuss details of its UCLASS UAV, Phantom Ray does play a significant role in Boeing’s knowledge of unmanned systems as well as their ability to rapidly prototype an aircraft, said Deborah VanNierop, Boeing spokesperson.

“Boeing knows carrier aviation,” said VanNierop. “We bring 90-plus years of naval aviation history including delivBoeing’s unmanned aerial system, the Phantom Ray. [Photo courtesy of Boeing] ering carrier-based aircraft to the U.S. Navy, and more than Anticipating a future requirement for a carrier-based UAS, three decades of unmanned systems experience. When combined, GA-ASI designed specific features into its Predator C Avenger to Boeing’s capabilities-based approach, Naval and unmanned systems facilitate subsequent development of an aircraft uniquely suitable experience, and rapid prototyping will allow us to create an affordfor carrier operations that would also integrate seamlessly into able and low-risk solution for our customers. We have been very the carrier air wing. These include a highly fuel-efficient engine busy exploring the UCLASS trade space, but due to the competiand inlet design, retractable electro-optical/infrared sensor, intertive nature of the program, we are not prepared to discuss details nal weapons bay, and folding wings. The aircraft’s structure was of our work at this time. I can tell you that Boeing will give the also designed with the flexibility to accommodate carrier-suitable Navy a UCLASS system that can provide a persistent CVN (Carrier landing gear, tail hook, drag devices and other provisions for carVessel Nuclear)-based ISR and strike capability supporting carrier rier operations. air wing operations.”

“The Navy is committed to maturing and fielding relevant and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., a leading manufaccapable unmanned carrier aviation capability into our carrier air turer of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), tactical reconnaissance wings and into our carrier environment,” said Winter. “We are absoradars and surveillance systems, introduced Sea Avenger in 2010, lutely committed to that and we are committed at the highest leva carrier-based derivative of its Predator C Avenger UAS, to fulfill els, from the secretary of the Navy and CNO. It’s exciting, it is truly the U.S. Navy’s need for a UCLASS system. While General Atomics historic and it’s achievable with the program plan that we’re putting declined to comment for this article, they did say the Sea Avenger together, and we will see unmanned carrier aviation in our airwings will likely be their entrant into the UCLASS competition. and on our flight decks in the 2018-2020 timeframe.” O Like Predator C Avenger, Sea Avenger presents a low-risk, high technology ready procurement option as it leverages more than 18 years of Predator-series UAS development, manufacturing and system support, along with 1 million flight hours of operational experience. In addition, many Predator-series elements, components For more information, contact NPEO Editor Brian O’Shea at briano@kmimediagroup.com or search our online archives and subsystems already provide mature, proven and affordable misfor related stories at www.npeo-kmi.com. sion capabilities desired by the Navy for a UCLASS system.

12 | NPEO 1.2

www.NPEO-kmi.com

Program Spotlight

LCS: Capability Counts

Delivering the world’s first trimaran surface combatant.

Austal and the Trimaran Design Austal has been a successful designer and builder of commercial high-speed aluminum passenger and car ferries for almost 25 years. For many years, the catamaran has been the hull form of choice for high-speed ferries. Despite this, on exposed routes some high-speed vessels were recognized as a fast mode of travel that regularly made many paying customers violently ill with motion sickness. In the late ’90s, Austal embarked on a significant research and development effort to design a high-speed hull form that would dramatically out-perform the existing highspeed monohulls and catamarans already on the market.

The trimaran concept was initially expected to provide a substantial improvement in passenger comfort over other highspeed platforms available in the marketplace.

Our initial work also suggested a potential speed improvement over comparable catamarans, and certainly over an equivalent monohull. Austal carried out model tests at a small scale, and then at a large scale as the research and development program matured. We also built a manned and instrumented 11-meter model in order to assess the maneuverability and seakeeping ability of the hull form.

Austal engineers optimized the hull shape using shipflow, analyzing over 300 variations of hull and ama (side hull) shapes before commencing a rigorous program of numerical analysis and model tank testing.

A U.S. Navy (USN) concept study for a focused mission high speed ship (FMHSS) in late 2002 resulted in the award of three littoral combat ship (LCS) preliminary design contracts in July 2003. The most significant feature of the FMHSS was its ability to employ modular mission packages or modules that could easily be swapped to support specific missions. The three preliminary design teams were: 1. Lockheed Martin, with a high-powered steel monohull based on the Fincantieri Destriero design 2. Raytheon, with a fiber reinforced plastic surface-effect ship based on the Norwegian Skjold Class design www.NPEO-kmi.com

3. General Dynamics, with the Austal aluminum trimaran design.

Following completion of preliminary design, each team submitted a proposal for final design and construction. Both the Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics teams were awarded final design and eventually detail design and construction contracts for the first two LCS. In 2010, when the USN wanted to downselect to a single variant, Austal led the team, with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems as selected ship systems agent. In a last-minute twist, USN awarded both Lockheed Martin and Austal teams with block buy contracts for 10 LCS each on December 29, 2010.

structural extrusions further reduce acquisition cost by reducing labor. Serial production allows us to apply lessons learned on early ships to follow on vessels.

On the ship, high levels of automation reduce manning requirements. An integrated command and control center combines traditional bridge and combat command spaces into a single unit, allowing flexibility of operation with fewer sailors. Through-life costs are minimized by the efficient trimaran hull form and use of weight-saving aluminum. The advanced open architecture combat system, developed by General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, allows fast and affordable upgrades to accommodate future technologies.

Fast

Austal LCS Today

The propulsion system is simple and reliable with two General Electric LM2500 gas turbines and two MTU 20V 8000 diesel engines, each driving one of the four steerable and reversing Wartsila water jets.

Austal’s Independence-variant LCS makes speed easily with excellent maneuverability.

The long, slender center hull of the trimaran is perfectly tuned for high speeds and excellent seakeeping.

USS Independence (LCS 2) is homeported in San Diego, Calif., and has been working for the last two and a half years to complete advanced mission package testing for the LCS Program. Coronado (LCS 4) was recently delivered to the Navy from the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Ala., and is expected to commission in Coronado, Calif., in early 2014.

Jackson (LCS 6), Montgomery (LCS 8), Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10), and Omaha (LCS 12) are at various stages of construction at Austal’s purpose-built manufacturing facility. Engineering and purchasing efforts are underway to support start of construction of Manchester (LCS 14) and Tulsa (LCS 16) in 2014. With steady state production, Austal can really capitalize on production and economic efficiencies to reduce cost for the U.S. Navy. After all, this is about putting the best ships in the hands of tomorrow’s U.S. Navy sailors as quickly and affordably as possible. O

Efficient In an age of economic uncertainty, the U.S. Navy needs efficient ships to keep total ownership cost to a minimum. The efficient trimaran hull form combined with the lightweight aluminum construction of the Independence-variant LCS meets all key performance parameters for speed, range and endurance with minimal fuel burn.

Affordable Austal has invested well over $300 million to bring the best automotive, aerospace and shipbuilding manufacturing practices to the Alabama Gulf Coast. Our purpose-built module manufacturing facility houses four assembly lines using linear workflow to bring the work to the worker in fixed workstations.

High levels of automation and advanced

Article provided by Austal USA

For more information, contact NPEO Editor Brian O’Shea at briano@kmimediagroup.com

NPEO 1.2 | 13

MAIN DECK U.S. Navy’s Most Advanced Submarine Christened General Dynamics Electric Boat christened North Dakota (SSN-784), the U.S. Navy’s newest and most advanced nuclear-attack submarine, on November 2. Electric Boat is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics.

The submarine North Dakota is the 11th ship of the Virginia class, the first U.S. Navy combatants designed for the post-Cold War era. Unobtrusive, nonprovocative and connected with land, air, sea and space-based assets, North

Dakota and the other Virginia-class submarines are equipped to wage multidimensional warfare around the globe, providing the Navy with continued dominance in coastal waters or the open ocean.

Electric Boat and its construction partner, Newport News Shipbuilding, have delivered 10 Virginia-class submarines to the Navy, and have contracts for eight additional ships.

Navy Launches UAV from Submerged Submarine The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), with funding from SwampWorks at the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Department of Defense Rapid Reaction Technology Office, demonstrated the launch of an all-electric, fuel cell-powered, unmanned aerial system (UAS) from a submerged submarine. From concept to fleet demonstration, this idea took less than six years to produce results at significant cost savings, compared to traditional programs, which often take decades to produce results.

“Developing disruptive technologies and quickly getting them into the hands of our sailors is what our SwampWorks program is all about,” said Craig A. Hughes, acting director of innovation at ONR. “This demonstration really underpins ONR’s dedication and ability to address emerging fleet priorities.” The successful submerged launch of a remotely deployed UAS offers a pathway to providing mission critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities to the U.S. Navy’s submarine force.

Operating under support of the Los Angeles class USS Providence (SSN 719) and the Naval Undersea Warfare Center-Newport Division (NUWC-NPT), the NRL-developed XFC UAS—eXperimental Fuel Cell Unmanned Aerial System—was fired from the submarine’s torpedo tube using a Sea Robin launch vehicle system. The Sea Robin launch system was designed to fit within an empty Tomahawk launch canister (TLC) used for launching Tomahawk cruise missiles already familiar to submarine sailors. Once deployed from the TLC, the Sea Robin launch vehicle with integrated XFC rose to the ocean surface, where it appeared as a spar buoy.

Upon command of Providence’s commanding officer, the XFC then vertically launched from Sea Robin and flew a successful several-hour mission demonstrating live video capabilities streamed back to Providence, surface support vessels and Norfolk before landing at the Naval Sea Systems Command Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center, Andros, Bahamas. “This six-year effort represents the best in collaboration of a Navy laboratory and industry to produce a technology that meets the needs of the special operations community,” said Warren Schultz, Ph.D., program developer and manager, NRL. “The creativity and resourcefulness brought to this project by a unique team of scientists and engineers represent an unprecedented paradigm shift in UAV propulsion and launch systems.”

The NRL Chemistry and Tactical Electronic Warfare Divisions team includes the design-builder of the Sea Robin, Oceaneering International Inc., Hanover, Md.; the fuel cell developer Protonex Technology Corp., Southborough, Mass.; and NUWC-NPT’s Autonomous and Defensive Systems Department for Temporary Alteration and test demonstration support. The XFC is a fully autonomous, all electric fuel cell powered folding wing UAS with an endurance of greater than six hours. The non-hybridized power plant supports the propulsion system and payload for a flight endurance that enables relatively low cost, low altitude ISR missions. The XFC UAS uses an electrically assisted take off system that lifts the plane vertically out of its container, and therefore enables a very small footprint launch such as from a pickup truck or small surface vessel.

LHA 6 Completes Builder’s Trials The future amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6) completed builder’s trials November 9, marking a significant milestone as the ship progresses toward acceptance trials and delivery to the Navy.

The trials took place off the coast of the Huntington Ingalls Industries’ shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss.

“The ship performed well at sea and largely exceeded my expectations. The state of completion is right where it should be for builder’s trials,” said Captain Chris Mercer, amphibious warfare program manager for the Program Executive Office, Ships. “Our joint government and industry team comprehensively tested every aspect of the ship’s equipment and systems, and the results leave us with a clear path to a successful acceptance trials and delivery next year.”

America will be the first of the Navy’s next generation of “big deck” amphibious ships that are designed to replace the aging Tarawa class. This new class has been designed to accommodate the future needs of the Marine Corps’ 14 | NPEO 1.2

aviation combat element with additional aviation maintenance capability, increased fuel capacity and a significant increase in available stowage for parts and support equipment.

LHA 6 provides a flexible, multi-mission platform with capabilities that span the range of military operations from forward-deployed crisis response to forcible entry operations. The class uses the same fuel and energy-saving propulsion plant, zone electrical distribution and electric auxiliary systems designed and built for USS Makin Island (LHD 8).

The ship’s keel was laid in 2009 and the shipbuilder plans to deliver the ship in fiscal year 2014. The ship will be homeported in San Diego, Calif.

As one of the Defense Department’s largest acquisition organizations, PEO Ships is responsible for executing the development and procurement of all destroyers, amphibious ships, special mission and support ships, and special warfare craft. www.NPEO-kmi.com

Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

U.S. Navy Celebrates Delivery of 3,000th Tactical Tomahawk Missile

The U.S. Navy marked a significant milestone November 5, as the service joined defense contractor Raytheon Missile Systems in celebrating the delivery of the 3,000th Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM) missile.

TACTOM, also known as Tomahawk Block IV, is a deep-strike, long-range cruise missile often used for land-attack warfare and employed from U.S. Navy surface combatants and U.S. Navy and United Kingdom Royal Navy submarines.

“More than 40 years ago, few could have imagined the viability of a long-range cruise [missile] with the precision and lethality to achieve strategic objectives,” said Captain Joe Mauser, program manager for the Tomahawk Weapons Systems Program Office (PMA280), in videotaped remarks included at a ceremony in Tucson, Ariz., where Raytheon Missile Systems is based. “Over the past three decades, Tomahawk has evolved, but remained a key component of combat operations with over 2,000 combat shots.”

The TACTOM missile is capable of loitering over a target area in order to respond to emerging targets or, with its on-board camera, provide battle damage information to war fighting commanders. TACTOM can also provide an on-scene commander with the flexibility to attack long-range fixed targets or support special operations forces with a lethal, responsive, precision weapon system.

“To get to this point was no accident,” Mauser said. “Rather, it is a direct reflection of the skill and dedication that each member of this incredible team has brought forward.

This is an incredibly complex weapon requiring the unique talents of diverse vendor base and the discipline to bring it all together in Tucson to deliver a reliable and effective weapon to the fleet. And yet it consistently happens like clockwork, as evidenced by years of early deliveries and high quality.”

www.NPEO-kmi.com

Team Collaboration Proves Rapid Response Capabilities

The Naval Aviation Center for Rotorcraft Advancement (NACRA) recently collaborated with the Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) to successfully test a new mobile communications system here.

Christine Liou and Tom Staley from Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) Pacific created the network on the move (NOTM) command and control system for both ground and air tactical vehicles. Liou and Staley conducted the groundbased testing inside a mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle at Naval Air Station Patuxent River.

Basil Moncrief, manager of the Extensible Marine Air-Ground Task Force, said the testing had three objectives: • Validate and demonstrate the ability to integrate a NOTM staff vehicle kit into a UH-1 using off-the-shelf components such as standard tactical radios • Conduct late developmental testing of a new 50-W amp for the radios • Validate automated “healing” of a broken digital communications network between ground vehicles via airborne node

The NOTM system provides extended capability for command and control networking and data transfer applications in non-line-ofsight situations. The equipment is part of a staff vehicle kit, which is loaded onto aircraft and ground vehicle platforms and integrated into a flight certified rack.

“If we lose connectivity between two ground vehicles, we can use a helicopter as a relay to heal a broken network on the ground,” Moncrief said.

Marine pilot Captain Alexis Harvey and communications officer Major Keith Kovats conducted the test operations in-flight on the UH-1N T-Rex helicopter, communicating via laptop with Liou and Staley to prove connectivity capabilities. Team members from NACRA, MARCORSYSCOM and SPAWAR met all three objectives during the two-day testing period and tested distance limitations.

Created in 2008, NACRA is responsible for short-term rapid response testing that relies on cross-competency collaboration rather than a program to advance rotorcraft design.

The group supports advanced concepts such as NOTM and develops innovative logistical analysis that reduces cost and risk for helicopter programs.

NPEO 1.2 | 15

Carrier Craftsman

Q& A

Managing Aircraft Carrier Operations Within the U.S. Navy

Rear Admiral Thomas J. Moore U.S. Navy Program Executive Officer PEO Aircraft Carriers

A second-generation naval officer, Rear Admiral Thomas J. Moore graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1981 with a Bachelor of Science degree in math/operations analysis. He also holds a degree in information systems management from George Washington University and a Master of Science and an Engineer’s degree in nuclear engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

As a surface nuclear trained officer for 13 years, he served in various operational and engineering billets aboard USS South Carolina (CGN 37) as machinery division officer, reactor training assistant and electrical officer; USS Virginia (CGN 38) as main propulsion assistant; USS Conyngham (DDG 17) as weapons officer, and USS Enterprise (CVN 65) as the #1 plant station officer responsible for the de-fueling, refueling and testing of the ship’s two lead reactor plants during her 1991-1994 refueling complex overhaul (RCOH). Additionally, ashore he served two years as a company officer at the United States Naval Academy.

In 1994, he was selected for lateral transfer to the engineering duty officer community, where he served in various staff engineering, maintenance, technical and program management positions including: carrier overhaul project officer at the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Newport News, Va., where he led the overhaul of the Enterprise, USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) and the first year of the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) RCOH; assistant program manager for in-service aircraft carriers (PMS 312) in the office of the Program Executive Officer, Aircraft Carriers, Aircraft Carrier Hull, Mechanical and Electrical (HM&E); requirements officer on the staff of the chief of naval operations Air Warfare Division (OPNAV N78); and five years in command as the major program manager for In-Service Aircraft Carriers, where he was responsible for the new construction of the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), the RCOH of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) and the life cycle management of all in-service aircraft carriers.

In April 2008, he reported to the staff of the chief of naval operations as the deputy director, Fleet Readiness, OPNAV N43B. In May 2010, he assumed his duties as the director, Fleet Readiness, OPNAV N43.

Moore assumed command as Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers August 11, 2011.

Moore’s personal awards include the Legion of Merit (three awards), Meritorious Service Medal (four awards), and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (three awards).

16 | NPEO 1.2

Q: Could we start with a look at the carrier fleet in terms of number deployed, number readying for deployment, major maintenance schedule, and production timeframe for work underway and planned?

A: With the inactivation of Enterprise [CVN 65] in November 2012, there will be 10 aircraft carriers until the Gerald R. Ford [CVN 78] is commissioned into active service in 2016. PEO Carriers is working closely with the fleet and carefully managing aircraft carrier maintenance schedules to ensure operational needs are met. At any given time, approximately one-third of the CVN [nuclear-powered aircraft carrier] force is deployed, one-third is in maintenance availability or just returned from deployment, with one-third preparing for deployment, and one in refueling and complex overhaul [RCOH].

Q: How would you characterize the construction progress for the USS Gerald R. Ford? Are there lessons learned that will improve the process for the second in the class?

A: Gerald R. Ford is over 90 percent structurally complete, and the Island was landed on January 26, 2013. We have encountered “first in class” issues that have affected cost and schedule performance. For example, CVN 78 uses thinner steel plates for decks www.NPEO-kmi.com

and bulkheads compared with Nimitz class aircraft carriers to reduce overall ship weight and restore growth margin in the ship’s life cycle. The thinner plate design has necessitated use of temporary bracing to allow handling of the modules as well as causing rework to flam straighten plates.

Although shipbuilder actions to resolve first-of-class issues have retired some technical and schedule risk, NNS-HII has been unable to retire all schedule risk, and we expect a four-month delay to the launch and a subsequent delivery of CVN 78. In order to ensure that lessons learned from CVN 78 are incorporated into the rest of the class, PEO Carriers has stood up a new program office, PMS 379, to bring the class into serial production, driving down cost and maximizing contractor and government performance. I expect John F. Kennedy [CVN 79] to be completed at F/A-18 Super Hornets assigned to the Sunliners of Strike Fighter Squadron 81 move into position aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier significantly less cost CVN 78 and with USS Carl Vinson. Carl Vinson is taking part in Southern Seas 2010 as part of a scheduled homeport shift. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy] fewer man-hours than CVN 77, and in advance at what they’re about to put together. They can actuI expect that trend to continue for Enterprise [CVN 80]. ally have a dry run of how they’re going to put the ship together.

We’ve already found with CVN-78 significant benefit to that.

Q: For a new ship design like the Ford, how important is They have a room set up where they put goggles on and they’ll modeling and simulation to the naval architects putting the sit there with certain portions of the ship and they’ll go in and puzzle of an aircraft carrier together? How did this affect the allow the deck plate guys to look at the arrangements. The other development and construction strategy? thing is when they look at the arrangements, they have the ability to make suggestions and say, ‘That’s going to be a problem’ A: The advance of 3-D modeling design allows us to compress and ‘You might want to think about changing this.’ So we’ve the time span for ship design and reduce the time it takes for made updates to the design before we put the pipe and other the traditional design spiral. It also provides benefits throughthings in place. In the past, we would have put it in and they out the carrier’s life cycle. CVN 78 is the first aircraft carrier to would have said, ‘That pipe doesn’t fit’ and we’d have to reroute be completely built using a 3-D model that allows every space it over here. on the ship to be visualized before drawings are issued to conAs far as the sharing goes, this will all be rolled over to CVNstruction crews, allowing issues to be resolved before costs are 79, which will make the second ship even easier to build from incurred. The construction crew uses the 3-D model to plan a configuration standpoint. We’re working with the public shipand rehearse complex tasks. Operators have a virtual “walkyards that will eventually be maintaining the Ford class in the through” environment to enhance training and qualification, future. Our ability to share that data with them and the hull while maintenance activities use the capability for maintenance planning folks in the future when they get ready to do mainteand modernization. nance or modernization on the ship—the ability to have that data right there and go look at it—will make it much simpler Q: Can you elaborate a bit more on the benefits of the carrier’s for us to modernize and cut costs down significantly in terms life cycle in regards to the use of 3-D modeling and simulation? of the number of ship checks we have to do and provide us with better first time quality in terms of our ability to install new A: By employing a 3-D product model, the PEO and shipbuilder things on the ship going forward. We see great advantages to the can easily redesign systems that are updated frequently, pro3-D product model going forward, and I don’t think we’ve even vide schematics wherever and whenever necessary, compare scratched the surface of all of the benefits this will provide us. I and contrast arrangement options, and test new arrangements think the 3-D product model is going to provide us not only with before installation. This enables greater sharing of information, the ability to build the ships more affordably but also maintain reduces rework and lowers costs. them more affordably. The ability to share that data will make it The Navy in general is moving toward more of the 3-D prodmuch better for us over the entire life cycle of the ship. Having uct modeling of our systems. We’ve started with the Virginia the product model gives them the ability to look at the space up class submarine. The benefit of 3-D product modeling is that front, and the craftsman can point out problems that could be once you get the models and you start to build the ship, it gives caused later. the folks that are building the ship the ability to go in and look www.NPEO-kmi.com

NPEO 1.2 | 17

Q: How does the Navy adapt and adjust its fleet operations to account for construction and delivery delays?

A: Under the Navy’s Fleet Response Plan (FRP) construct, a number of aircraft carriers, operating within their notional 32-month operational cycles, are available to surge on relatively short notice. When dictated by emergent conditions, such as an unplanned delay from construction or maintenance availability, the flexibility generated by FRP enables the Navy to decide between extending a current carrier’s deployment or surging other carrier forces from their homeports to best support combatant commander global presence requirements. Extending or surging carriers is considered a short-term, stop-gap measure, and is not sustainable for the long term. When delays are known well in advance, the Navy can also choose to manage its overall deployment schedule to fill potential presence gaps.

The original goal was to deliver CVN-78 in September 2015.

We’ve had a four-month delay to launch and we’ve christened the ship in November of this year, and that will result in a corresponding delay in the delivery. Right now we expect to deliver the ship in the second quarter of 2016. We’re already down to 10 carriers because of the inactivation of USS Enterprise last November. So we’re operating in a period of time where we’re operating 10 carriers, which have a temporary waiver for until the commissioning of CVN 78. CVN-78 is a little bit unique because it’s the first ship of the class, so when we deliver it, it has to go for a shakedown and then post shakedown availability. It also has a fairly elaborate test-and-evaluation period like the first ship of a class would. It’s probably not going to be operational and deployable until about 2018.

So any delay in the delivery of the ship is something we take very seriously.

It’s regrettable we’re going to have a four-month delay in the ship, but in terms of what is the best for the ship and what’s the most affordable delivery process for the ship, what we’re doing with CVN-78 makes sense. We have the ability, because of the FRP and the way we operate carriers, if we have enough advanced notice to adjust the carrier schedules of the current in-service fleet, we can make that plan work. You don’t want to do that over a prolonged period of time, but for a short four- to six-month period like what we’re talking about here, as long as we know about it in advance we can make the adjustments necessary. So we’re talking about 2017-2018 timeframe, where we’ll probably have to make some minor changes to the current carrier schedule. We actually build these long-range schedules for the deployment of the carriers and air wings that are five to seven years out; we have the ability to make minor adjustments and we’ll do that in this particular case.

Q: Carriers are designed with an inherently long service life.

Can you talk about how life cycle management and sustainment has been considered in the new carrier class, and how is it being improved for the existing ships?

A: With a 50-year service life, aircraft carrier life cycle management is vitally important, and we are constantly upgrading the ship to maintain its combat effectiveness. Nimitz, our oldest carrier, has the same combat capability as George H.W. Bush, our newest carrier. Because the ship’s combat capability is contained 18 | NPEO 1.2

within the air wing, we are able to bring new generations of combat aircraft onboard with minimal ship alterations.

To achieve the 50-year service life, the mid-life RCOH is essential. More than 35 percent of the maintenance and modernization that takes place aboard a CVN over its 50-year service life occurs during this 44-month availability. Properly planning and executing the RCOH gives the fleet a fully working asset for the second half of its service life.

The Ford class was designed from the bottom up with life cycle management and sustainment in mind. For instance, the Ford class is designed to go 43 months between major depot availabilities, compared to 32-36 months for a Nimitz class carrier, and Ford can go 12 years between docking periods, compared to eight years for the Nimitz class.

Q: Can you describe the process of RCOH and what it generally entails?

A: RCOH is a mid-life overhaul for the recapitalization of Nimitz class aircraft carriers. This 44-month maintenance period extends the service life of a Nimitz class carrier to 50 years by modernizing the ship’s combat and safety systems and equipment and refueling the ship’s nuclear reactors. Additionally, an RCOH provides an opportunity to perform underwater hull inspections and other maintenance-related evolutions that cannot be accomplished while the ship is waterborne. The RCOH provides sufficient time to perform more extensive propulsion plant repairs and testing than is possible during shorter scheduled maintenance periods.

At the 22- to 23-year point, ships are in RCOH for 44 months and then come out for another 22-23 years. It is akin to open heart surgery. It’s not just the refueling of the two reactors on the ship—that’s certainly a portion. The refueling of the reactors is only about 10 percent of the total cost of the RCOH. The rest of the cost is doing things like working on the piping systems, working on the tanks. It’s also an opportunity to modernize the ship for the second half of her life. For instance, Theodore Roosevelt is just about to come out of RCOH and when she delivers, she will be the most combat capable aircraft carrier we have, even though she’s 23 years old. So we have the ability to come back and put the latest technology on that ship and the latest war fighting systems. You can look at Nimitz right now, which is 38 years old, and she is just as combat capable as the George H. W. Bush, which was delivered in 2008-09. RCOH is a key component of our ability to maintain these ships over their 50-year life cycle. It’s top to bottom, it’s radars, weapon systems, self-defense systems, communication systems, all of it; she gets a complete makeover in the time she’s in there. It’s a very important part. We do 35 percent of all maintenance that we do in the 50-year life cycle in one four-year period. That four year period is only 8 percent of that ship’s life, but it represents 35 percent of all the maintenance on the ship.

Q: Tell me about the new electromagnetic aircraft launch (EMALS) system. What does it bring to the table and how confident is the Navy that the system is ready?

A: EMALS brings great advantages to the fleet. The primary advantage is that it allows us to remove steam everywhere www.NPEO-kmi.com

outside the propulsion system, eliminating huge amounts of maintenance and corrosion and a corresponding number of maintenance personnel.

EMALS allows the amount of force used to launch the aircraft to be precisely calibrated, reducing stress on the airframe and enhancing aircraft service life. Lastly, we predict EMALS will be more reliable than steam catapults, so the air wing will be able to generate sustained combat operations.

Water or steam and metal leads to corrosion. By having it all electric, you won’t have that with EMALS, so it will significantly reduce the corrosion levels that we see. Any time you’re in a salty air environment at sea and you have metal, it’s just the laws of physics, it’s going to cause rust and corrosion.

We will limit that by using EMALS. Another thing is that by having it all electric, we’ll really take a significant The flight deck of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is completed with the addition of the upper bow. The bow weighs 787 metric tons and brings Gerald R. Ford to 96 percent structural completion. amount of steam piping out of the [Photo courtesy of Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc.] ships today. Today, you run these masalso has built-in test and diagnostic capabilities, resulting in less sive steam pipes that come out of the propulsion plant that promaintenance and manpower to operate. vide steam into the catapults, and now it’s all electrical cabling.

The key to AAG is that compared to the old Mk-7 system, you So you have significant weight reduction, significant decrease have the ability to adjust for changing weights of the aircraft. in the amount of corrosion on the piping and then, because AAG can be dialed up so that the tension on the arresting gear EMALS is designed to be more maintainable and more reliable, purchase cable is matched exactly to the weight of the aircraft. less people to maintain it than the steam catapults. You put all So if you were to look at the forces on the plane as it lands, the those things together, along with increased operational availidea is you would like to have a constant slowdown force rather ability and the fact that you’re going to be able to dial the forces than jerk it to a stop, because then you put additional stresses on the airplane and you provide a significant reduction in total on the airframe. AAG has the ability to tailor itself to the weight life cycle cost. We’ve tested and launched several hundred airof the aircraft, which is ideal because today’s aircraft—whether craft already, so we know it works, and we’ve got a design site it be a joint strike fighter or Super Hornet, or even unmanned and we’ll keep testing it. A lot of the major components of the aircraft—provides us the ability to adjust the forces on the plane EMALS system itself are already loaded onto the ship [CVN 78] tol limit the stress to the airframe. It increases the flexibility and as we continue to construct it. our ability to operate a wide range of aircraft, and aircraft that we haven’t even envisioned yet, into the future.

Q: With EMALS allowing for the launch of heavier aircraft, In combination, EMALS does the same thing. EMALS allows how does that work with the new Advanced Arresting Gear us to dial precisely the weight of the aircraft. The combination (AAG) system? of landing it with a constant deceleration and then launching with a constant acceleration based on the weight of the airA: EMALS offers greater flexibility at the upper and lower ranges craft will significantly reduce the stress on the airframe, which of aircraft weight. AAG offers a similar capability, but the syswe think over time will reduce the amount of maintenance we tems are independent of each other. have to do on the aircraft and increase the fatigue life of the airframe itself. There are some significant benefits. The system Q: Can you describe the primary benefits of the AAG compared itself is more reliable, easier to maintain, and will take fewer to the previously used arresting gear system? people to maintain. From that standpoint, you have a life cycle cost reduction because you have less maintenance and less peoA: AAG is a modular, integrated system consisting of energy ple. The added benefit is to the airframes themselves, which I absorbers, power conditioning equipment and digital controls, think at the end of the day we’re going to find is the biggest designed to replace the existing Mark-7 (Mk-7) arresting gear cost savings associated with both AAG and EMALS—in addiand provide higher reliability and safety margins. The Mk-7 systion to just the pure combat capability that you get from the tem is a linear hydraulic machine that requires aircraft-spesystems themselves. cific tension adjustments for each landing. AAG is designed to allow arrestment of a broader range of aircraft, from the lightest Q: Will unmanned systems become part of a carrier’s inventory? unmanned aerial vehicles to the heaviest manned aircraft. AAG www.NPEO-kmi.com

NPEO 1.2 | 19

A: The CVN is capable of operating any aircraft that the Navy wishes, and unmanned will certainly be part of that mix in the future. I see no reason why unmanned combat aircraft cannot be successfully integrated into carrier operations with a minimum of ship alterations.

Q: What are some of the primary alterations necessary for aircraft carriers to support unmanned aircraft?

A: Although the X-47B unmanned combat air system-demonstrator (UCAS-D) was recently used to demonstrate the capability for an unmanned vehicle to safely conduct carrier operations, UCAS-D is a developmental aircraft only, not the Navy’s final selection for an operational unmanned system. It is an example of the continuing ability of the aircraft carrier to incorporate new types of aircraft as technology advances.

Someday, the unmanned aircraft will join the monoplane, jet aircraft and helicopters in the carrier air wing, with minor modifications to accommodate an unmanned vehicle command and control work space, and upgrades to existing carrier command and control systems to include air traffic control, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems.

We fully expect to use the installed systems to land unmanned aircrafts. You may have some different systems that you have to have to do maintenance on board, but in terms of the flight deck itself, unmanned aircraft are not going to change the catapults or the arresting gear alignment on the carrier. We won’t put anything special on to handle those aircraft.

Q: What is the timeframe for that to be the operational norm, having unmanned systems operational on a carrier?

A: The X-47B is obviously in its early stages of development. I think the program offices will take it as a prototype and then go back out to industry and say, “Okay, we’ve proven it can work,” and we’ll probably have a competition for it. So we’re years away from having a squadron of unmanned aircraft on board. It’s obviously pretty easy to envision in the not too distant future, 10-15 years down the road, we could easily have unmanned squadrons on board the aircraft carriers. Do I personally think they will ever replace manned aircraft? No. I think they’ll supplement it. They provide a lot of additional capability in terms of the ability to stay up for long periods of time for surveillance and additional mission sets. Eventually you’ll see them combining with manned aircraft to really provide an additional complement to the combat capability of the aircraft carriers.

Q: How important is PEO Aircraft Carriers’ relationship with industry to stay up to date of the latest technology?

A: PEO Carriers’ teams with various industries to address current and future technologies. Our shipbuilder, HII-NNS (Huntington Ingalls Industries-Newport News Shipbuilding), is a key source and integrator of new technologies both onboard our vessels and for construction of carriers. We collaborate with the shipbuilding industry through the National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP) to develop technologies to reduce the cost of carriers. Through the Navy’s Manufacturing Technology Program, PEO Carriers partners with U.S. Manufacturing 20 | NPEO 1.2

Centers of Excellence and HII-NNS to develop and advance technologies to reduce cost, and improve performance and responsiveness. PEO Carriers is also an active participant in the congressionally authorized Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] program, which provides direct transition of innovative small business technologies to product lines. One SBIR example is the in-line fuel oil content monitor system, which continuously checks aviation fuel for dirt and water, avoiding the timeconsuming task of a sailor taking a large number of samples and performing tests in a lab. PEO Carriers also works closely with their system providers and their industry partners to address their system technology opportunities.

We obviously have a professional working relationship with industry. We can’t build these ships without them. We’re partners in this. We have the responsibility to the taxpayer to make sure that we build these ships correctly, in a quality manner at an affordable price. So we provide the requisite oversight accountability for the overall project itself. It’s incumbent upon us to develop a professional relationship with industry and that includes HII-NNS, and that includes the supplier base, so we’re very supportive of them and we want them to succeed. When they succeed, we get a good product and we get it at the best price. So it’s incumbent upon us to try and make them as successful as we can.

Q: What do you foresee will be PEO Carriers’ biggest challenges in 2013?

A: Our biggest challenges of 2013 will also be our biggest accomplishments. The launch of CVN 78, the first new aircraft carrier design in 50 years, will be a major accomplishment for the Navy.

We will also redeliver CVN 71 to the fleet, ready to defend our nation for the remainder of her 50-year service life, and begin the first inactivation of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with USS Enterprise [CVN 65]. All of these projects must be accomplished in an era that demands more affordability from all of our product lines.

It’s a big year for us. Christening and launching the first of the Ford class in November is going to be a monumental event.

It’s going to be a fabulous ship. At the same time, we’re looking to sign the contract for the second one [Ford class] John F. Kennedy and we’re really starting to work in earnest to drive more affordability into the CVN-80. We have the new construction program going on [CVN-78]; we’re going to deliver CVN-71 from RCOH. We just started the RCOH on the Abraham Lincoln [CVN-72], so we’re basically three months into her 44-month RCOH, and that’s a big deal. We’re starting the plans for CVN73’s RCOH, which we start about three years in advance—she’ll start in 2016. And sadly, we’re also inactivating the Enterprise [CVN-65]. We hope to sign a contract in the June timeframe with Newport News Shipbuilding to start the inactivation, so we’ll take her over to the shipyard and they’ll start dismantling the ship.

Q: What are some of the lessons learned from the construction of CVN-78 that you’ll take into the CVN-79 process?

A: I think the three biggest lessons that we’ve learned from CVN-78, which we won’t repeat on CVN-79, are first, CVN-78 was www.NPEO-kmi.com

originally supposed to be part of a three-step process. We were not going to put all of the new technologies on the first ship; we were going to do this in steps. OSD (Office of Secretary of Defense) and the Navy agreed back in the 2003 timeframe and said, “Rather than use three steps, why don’t we just go ahead and we’ll incorporate all the new technologies on the first ship of the class.” So we changed the plan a little bit at the beginning and I think in the long run we’re going to be happy that CVN-78 will have the full suite of new technologies. But as a result of that, we started building CVN-78 without the design complete, and without full bill of materials. We didn’t have all the material in hand. Those two things, not having the design complete and not having the material in hand, has really caused us some challenges.

So as the ship builder has built the ship and put systems together, there have been instances where he’s building the chill water systems and he’s missing a valve because it was a brandnew developmental valve and the supplier base was not able to make all the valves as fast as we had hoped. So they built the system, they put a temporary spool piece in or a blank and continued building the system, and then they have to go back and remove the blank when they finally get the valve and put it in.

So it’s caused churn in the process, which has added cost to the ship. Some of that started upfront just because we didn’t have the design complete.

Those two things will change for CVN-79. We’ll start CVN79 with a full bill of material and a complete design. Those two things by itself will significantly reduce the cost to build CVN79. One other example, when we designed CVN-78 one of the things we really tried to do is take a bunch of weight off the ship to restore service life margins, because we tend to add things to its life. From a naval architecture standpoint, we wanted to start with a lower weight and lower center of gravity to give us a little bit of room. So we designed a lot of the decks with thinner steel on CVN-78 than we have typically done on the Nimitz class. We build these large sections of the ship on dry land and then we lift them up to place them, and what we found is that the thinner steel buckled and warped. So we had many cases where we put large sections of the ship in and the shipyard had to spend an awful lot of time straightening the decks out. We realized that thinner decks reduce the weight, but the unintended consequence is that it [takes] a lot of man hours to go back and straighten these plates of steel out. Basically, you’re just heating the deck and then the steel eventually flattens out. But it cost us a lot of money and time to do that, so we’re going to go back on CVN-79 and go back to the typical steel thickness that we used on the Nimitz class.

Those are three significant things that have changed on the CVN-79 that as compared to CVN-78 will make a significant difference in the affordability of CVN-79. Obviously we have a very active lessons learned program on CVN-79 that I just kind of scratched the tip of the iceberg here.

Q: Any closing thoughts?

A: Aircraft carriers have been the centerpiece of our Navy for more than 70 years. We are an aircraft carrier-centric Navy.

Aircraft carriers remain our most enduring and transformational platforms, supporting the full spectrum of our maritime strategy. The legacy of today’s Nimitz carriers will be carried on www.NPEO-kmi.com

when the Gerald R. Ford [CVN 78] is delivered. The Ford class will bring significantly increased combat capability, the margins and flexibility to handle the missions of tomorrow, and will cost $4 billion less to own and operate over the 50-year life compared to a Nimitz class carrier. It is an exciting time to be in carriers, and we are excited about the future.

There’s been an awful lot of focus in the media and on the Hill of the cost of the first ship, and rightly so. We’re not happy with the cost of the first ship, but it is the first ship of the class.

It is a completely new ship compared to the Nimitz class, and we certainly have had our challenges on the first ship of the class with all the new developmental items on there. Having said that, we have a plan going forward that will significantly drive costs down on CVN-79 and CVN-80, and will drive costs down to historical Nimitz class levels. We’ll build CVN-79 with fewer man hours than CVN-77, the last of the Nimitz class. As we talk about the cost of the ship, I think it’s important that people realize why we built the Ford class. We really did it for three principal reasons. First, to provide increased combat capability and flexibility going into the future. This ship can generate 33 percent more sorties than a Nimitz class can; it’s set up for net-centric warfare with open architecture, so from a combat capability this ship is a leap forward compared to the Nimitz class carrier.

Secondly, we also knew that the ship had to be designed with margin in it so we could adapt the ship for technologies that we haven’t even envisioned yet. For instance, the Ford class has three times the electrical generating capacity than the Nimitz class. Could you envision a time 20-30 years from now as we develop directed energy weapons and lasers? It’s possible, because you have that additional margin of electrical generation capacity. The Ford class would be able to take these new weapons on board. Aircraft that we haven’t even envisioned yet, the Ford will be able to adapt to over time. And the great thing about aircraft carriers, and the reason they can last for 50 years, [is that] they do not become obsolete. The weapon system on the aircraft carrier is the planes. So the carrier is always designed to adapt to handle new aircraft—the Ford class even more so than Nimitz.

We have a class of ship that’s going to be around for 94 years, and that class of ship will be able to adapt to changing weapons systems and aircraft that we haven’t even envisioned.

The third thing is this ship will cost $4 billion less to own and operate over its 50-year service life than a Nimitz class carrier. The reason that is it’s built for maintainability. And secondly, we’re going to take 900-1,200 people off of that ship.

People are the most expensive component of the life cycle cost of a ship. They represent about 40 percent of the total cost of a Nimitz class carrier over its 50-year life. Nimitz was built in an era where labor was relatively cheap—that’s not the case today with health care costs, etc. So it’s incumbent upon us to build a ship that takes fewer people to operate.

When you add the $4 billion reduction in total ownership cost, the increased combat capability and the ability to have margins going forward, the nation is getting a great aircraft carrier that’s going to provide what the nation needs for the next 94 years. I’m not at all minimizing the cost of CVN-78—we have to do better going forward—but when you talk about the cost of the ship, you always have to take a step back and recognize why we built the Ford class and what we’re going to get going forward. O NPEO 1.2 | 21

Asia Pacific

Achieving a durable and continuous coexistence.

The following is an excerpt of testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces from Dr. Andrew Erickson, Associate Professor, U.S. Naval War College, regarding U.S. Asia-Pacific strategic considerations related to the People’s Liberation Army naval forces modernization, on December 11, 2013.

At a minimum, the U.S. must continue to deter the use—or threat—of force to resolve Asia-Pacific disputes and cooperate where it can until Beijing embraces the mutual efforts required for the two Pacific powers to achieve durable, if frequently or even continuously competitive, coexistence. To ensure this, the U.S. should demonstrate the capability to deny China the ability to seize and hold disputed territories.

The need to avoid an insular approach, combined with the increasing inability for Washington to exercise undifferentiated global preeminence, makes it necessary to craft a coherent Asia-Pacific Strategy.

Subordination of vital regional realities to global strategy may have been appropriate during the Cold War, when the U.S. confronted a global adversary that threatened vulnerable Euro-Atlantic allies directly, and in the subsequent “unipolar moment,” when U.S. hegemony was undisputed and substantial regional challengers and direct global terrorist threats had yet to manifest themselves, but it is no longer sufficient. Failure to craft an explicit comprehensive Asia-Pacific Strategy will complicate efforts to “see the big picture” across the entire diplomacy, information, military and economic (DIME) spectrum and beyond. The most relevant example to build on is a series of unclassified regional policy documents issued by the Office of International Security Affairs in the late 1990s. This strategy should facilitate a coordinated, whole-of-government approach.

At the same time, it should also support a 22 | NPEO 1.2

clear bureaucratic division of labor based on which agency (or agencies, in special cases) is best placed to lead on and address a given issue. This will help to maximize efficiency and effectiveness by offering clear strategic guidance, aligning resources, and ensuring that agencies not ideally placed to contribute in a given area are not motivated or pressured to waste resources chasing headlines.

The U.S. must: (1) engage with China, (2) hedge against its possible negative behavior, and (3) work with its allies, friends and other partners (including China) to further positive outcomes in the Asia-Pacific and beyond.

Accordingly, U.S. policymakers should base their response to China’s naval/military development on the following principles: • Understand key dynamics of geography, physics, economics and politics • Develop an Asia-Pacific Strategy • Support rhetoric with resources • Emphasize and demonstrate U.S. identity as an Asia-Pacific power • Maintain regional presence and credibility • Sustain alliances and partnerships and leverage them in new ways • Engage and cooperate with China where productive to build on substantial shared interests and interdependence • Accord China international status in proportion to its international contributions • Focus military and strategic hedging on resisting China’s regional exceptionalism

• Resist intimidation and coercion, pass Beijing’s tests • Prevent China from using force, or threat of force, to address regional disputes or alter the region’s status quo • Pursue deterrence by denial capabilities as a minimal foundation • Avoid making concessions during China’s growth slowdown, while emphasizing that genuine constructiveness and reciprocity may be possible if it ultimately moderates its demands.

The A2/AD Approach To further its maritime interests within approximately, say, 500 nautical miles of its coastline, China is undermining the efficacy of, and likelihood of involvement by, U.S., allied and friendly military forces there. By developing abilities to hold U.S. and other foreign forces at risk, Beijing hopes to deter them from intervening in the Yellow, East and South China Seas, and to persuade regional actors that Washington’s assistance will be neither reliable nor forthcoming. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) thus systematically targets limitations in foreign military platforms stemming from laws of physics: for example, the fact that missile attack tends to be easier and cheaper than missile defense.

Asymmetric weapons development, coupled with determination to address regional disputes, promises to radically improve China’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities and undermine regional stability. www.NPEO-kmi.com

Strong close to shore, the PLA Navy (PLAN) is weaker farther away. Its capabilities are concentrated close to Mainland China, with ever-less-intensive layers radiating outward. The PLAN is largely deployed in and around the Yellow, East and South China Seas and their immediate approaches.

Beijing is working assiduously to address its weaknesses. Since 2008, it has been deploying limited forces out-of-area. Over the next two decades, greater diversity of out-of-area missions will be overlaid on strengthening and broadening A2/AD capabilities. Outside observers will be able to monitor many visible indicators, e.g., the PLAN’s pursuit of overseas access points. In its near- to-mid-term development of a regional blue water navy to consolidate control in the region while pursuing influence further afield, China could develop and acquire the necessary hardware should it elect to expend sufficient resources, but software will be more difficult to accrue, and coordination and integration of data and forces may be most difficult of all. The further from shore China’s forces operate, the fewer safeguards and workarounds will be available.

The U.S. should not be overly concerned that Asia-Pacific rebalancing could open up a vacuum far from China for China to fill.

Generally speaking, China’s overseas military activities should be viewed as far more vulnerable to disruption, and potentially mutually beneficial, than those in the Near Seas.

Rather than involving nationalistic zerosum claims, they target non-state actors who threaten not only Chinese lives, property and prosperity but also potentially those of other nations as well. At a minimum, this allows for sovereign exercise of Chinese rights; in many cases, it permits productive pursuit of common interests. Overseas military operations occur far from China’s homeland, with its extensive secure communications, logistics and defenses. They are thus relatively unprotected; particularly any fixed overseas access points that China may develop. Far from China, China’s military forces become vulnerable to the same physics-based limitations that it is working so persistently to target in U.S. and allied platforms, yet the PLA has far less ability to defend forces operating out of area than do the U.S. and its allies.

The Regional Dilemma To address historical grievances and rise again as a great power that commands neighbors’ deference, Beijing seeks to carve www.NPEO-kmi.com

out from the global commons the Yellow, East and South China Seas and the airspace above them as a zone of exceptionalism within which existing global legal, security and resource management norms are subordinated to its national interests. China champions the idea of greater “democracy” in international relations in words, but in deeds coerces smaller neighbors when it regards them as not knowing their place. This bullying tendency is likely to worsen as China’s power grows.

Absent Beijing’s clarification to the contrary, there is reason for concern that the “new type of great power relations” it promotes appears to be nebulous rhetoric with undertones of expectation that Washington yield to an ascendant Beijing and its “principled” positions. This makes it risky for the U.S. to embrace such a concept. As with “core interests,” China is likely to exploit perceived endorsement for future diplomatic and negotiating leverage.

While substantial Sino-American cooperation is already possible—and in many cases highly desirable—regarding overseas and global issues, particularly regarding nontraditional security threats, there is presently regrettably little hope of reaching effective, durable understanding regarding regional traditional security issues.

The S-Curved Trajectory Mounting challenges stand in the way of China fulfilling its regional objectives and shifting emphasis to safeguarding growing overseas interests and resource imports through distant seas operations. First, China insists on preconditions involving recognition of its sovereignty over disputed claims that its neighbors are unlikely to accept.

It is difficult to see how Beijing can peacefully realize its objectives anytime soon over its neighbors’ growing opposition and Washington’s continued commitment to preserving regional peace. Second, overseas objectives lack strategic coherence, limiting support for military approaches. This is especially true as the U.S. provides substantial global commons security free of charge.

Still larger dynamics are in play, however.

Great powers typically follow an S-curved growth trajectory. Initially, national consolidation and infrastructure development, combined with competitive labor and resource costs, unleashes rapid economic development. Smart policies in which the government regulates and supports in the right

areas and stays out of the way in others can further enhance these synergies. Resulting increases in technological, military and political power facilitate domestic consensus and international influence. Eventually, however, internal inefficiencies and external overextension slows growth. It is lately fashionable to trace such patterns in American power, but observers are only beginning to appreciate Chinese applications.

While Beijing may have limited its foreign commitments for now—and even abandoned forms of foreign aid that were burdensome to an impoverished China during the Cold War—it may be headed for rapid changes in the other two areas. China faces rent seeking behavior, aging, rising labor costs, growing welfare demands, and consequent reorientation of societal priorities away from economic and national power growth analogous to those that have affected the United States and other Western nations.

In fact, the unleashing of Chinese society in 1978 after a century of foreign predation and internal turmoil and three decades of abnormally constricted individual possibilities and economic growth may have disguised the subsequent three decade economic boom— facilitated though it was by pragmatic policies and globalization—as a “new normal” when in fact it was an exceptionally-wellmanaged catch-up period that cannot last.

Indeed, this one-time funneling of national potential, which has produced urbanization of unprecedented scale and rapidity, coupled with the world’s greatest artificial demographic restriction (the “one child” policy) and dramatic internal disparities, may be sending China along the “S-curve” faster than any other major power has gone before.

In addition to demographic decline, Beijing’s own policies have imposed unusually dire pollution, resource shortage, and vested interest problems. China may thus be further along the S-curve than many realize.

And China is already facing such headwinds long before it has achieved high per capita income, comprehensive social programs, or an innovative, high-efficiency economy that can absorb rapid cost increases generated by temporary or permanent resource scarcity. Eventually, Beijing will have to adjust its behavior accordingly, and may thereby become more receptive to mutually beneficial interaction with Washington at last. O For more information, contact NPEO Editor Brian O’Shea at briano@kmimediagroup.com

NPEO 1.2 | 23

Special Section:

Many times the last line of defense, close-in weapons are a ship’s guardian angel.

24 | NPEO 1.2

By Peter Buxbaum NPEO Correspondent

www.NPEO-kmi.com

defense. The Evolved Sea-Sparrow missile is the longest-reaching Today’s shipboard close-in defense systems came to be develsystem and is typically engaged first. If there are threats that make oped, deployed and improved, in many cases, in reaction to specific it past ESSM they are engaged by the Rolling Airframe missile and incidents. One iconic event was the July 2000 attack by suicide if it makes it past RAM, Phalanx is the goalie.” bombers operating a speedboat in the Gulf of Aden on the USS “To continue the analogy, Raytheon’s Ship Self-Defense System Cole. That incident led to the formation of the U.S. Navy’s Task (SSDS) would be the center — assessing the situation and driving Force Hip Pocket, which recommended major upgrades to the MK the engagement strategy with all of the available 38 machine gun system to improve anti-terrorism weapon systems,” said Karl Bunker, the system’s and force protection capabilities for deployed ships. senior program manager. SSDS is an open, distribAn earlier, less well-known incident was the uted combat management system for aircraft carrisinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat by Egyptian ers and expeditionary warfare ships. It is designed Soviet-made Styx anti-ship missiles in 1967, which to expedite the detect-to-engage sequence to defend led to the adaptation of an Army close-in weapon against anti-ship cruise missiles. Six different U.S. system (CIWS) for Navy vessels. Since its initial Navy ship classes use SSDS MK 2, including San deployment in 1980, the Navy’s Phalanx CIWS has Antonio (LPD 17), Nimitz (CVN 68), and Iwo Jima evolved in response to increasing threats, adding (LHD 7), with Tarawa (LHA 6) and Whidbey Island/ anti-air warfare improvements along with surface Harpers Ferry (LSD 41/49) in test, and Ford (CVN threat and low/slow flyer defensive capabilities.

Ben Nies 78) in development. The system integrates and “Almost every ship in the fleet has a Phalanx automates standalone sensors and weapon systems CIWS, making it the most prolific multi-mission to provide the required, quick response and multiweapon system the Navy has,” said Navy Lieutenant target engagement capability.

Kurt Larson, a spokesperson for the Naval Sea ESSM provides a ship self-defense capability Systems Command (NAVSEA). “The Navy will comagainst high-speed, low-altitude anti-ship cruise plete the upgrade of all fleet CIWS to the latest conmissiles, low-velocity air threats such as helicopfiguration, Block 1B, in fiscal year 2014.” ters, and high-speed, maneuverable surface threats.

In all, the U.S. Navy has deployed some 15 shipESSM is deployed on U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class board system for close-in defense. The oldest, the destroyers, Ticonderoga-class cruisers, aircraft carMK 45 MOD 2, came online in 1971. The newest, riers, and large deck amphibious ships. The RAM the MK 110 MOD 0, came on board in 2008.

MK 31 guided missile weapon system, with its Block How might the MK 38 upgrade have defeated Jim Sigler 2 configuration, now in low-rate initial production, the USS Cole attack? “After the Cole incident, is designed to counter anti-ship cruise missiles. the Navy decided to upgrade the system to add electro-optical The MK 38 MOD 2 upgrade, which came about in response to and infrared sensors, a control system, and to make the system the Cole attack, provides a stabilized solution to counter small boat remotely operated,” said Reuven Greenberg, manager of naval threats and is equipped with a 25 mm ATK cannon. “The system defense systems at Rafael, which provided much of the technology includes a dedicated electro-optical sensor for situational awarefor the upgrade. ness and fire control,” said Larson. “The maximum effective range “If the same boat showed up today it would have been seen 5 is 2,900 yards and the gun can fire up to 180 rounds per minute.” kilometers away,” thanks to the integrated sensor system called MK38 MOD 2 is installed aboard 10 classes of naval vessels as well Toplite, said Ben Nies, program manager at BAE Systems, the the U.S. Coast Guard’s FRC class ships. Plans call for installation provider of the system. “The system would have kept watch on it aboard CVN and AS class ships and MK VI patrol boats. and tracked it as it got closer, and if there were evidence of hosThe control stations incorporated into the upgraded MK 38 tile intent a warning system would have been activated. Toplite resembles a video game console, with a 12-inch screen and two replaces the sailor standing on deck looking through binoculars.” joysticks. “The operator can’t see the system but can see what The multiplicity of close-in shipboard defense systems is the system is looking at,” said Nies. “It provides a simple intuitive explained by the different environments in which the U.S. Navy interface that takes about an hour to figure out.” operates, the greater emphasis on close-to-shore operations, and Toplite, which is equipped with day, night and laser range camthe need to protect vessels with a layered defense system. “In literas, provides the vessel command with a 24-hour surveillance toral combat environments, ships must defend themselves within capability. “The Navy tells me that when a ship leaves a port they a reduced battlespace and with less reaction time, resulting in the turn on the power to Toplite and they don’t shut it off until they need for a layered defense,” said Larson. “There is a need for mulcome back into port,” said Nies. “They can make a lot of decisions tiple systems due to current and evolving threats. In littoral combased on what they are getting out of Toplite.” bat environments, the Navy cannot afford to develop one singular If a threat is detected the system goes into hostile mode solution that counters all possible current and future threats. and locks onto and tracks the threat. In the event engagement Surface ships, particularly amphibious ships, must be equipped becomes necessary, a switch is flipped and warning shots will be with robust defense systems which have been tested against a varifired. “If the target keeps coming, the commander makes the deciety of threats in numerous scenarios.” sion to fire,” said Nies. “They don’t have to shoot until the target is “When you combine layers of defenses the probability of within 500 meters. That way they can wait to see if it turns around. threat annihilation goes up,” said Jim Sigler, a product manager at Once the system starts shooting it is going to hit. The target has Raytheon, which provides the Phalanx CIWS as well as other shipno chance to get out of there once they start shooting.” defense systems. “The layers are architected like a hockey team www.NPEO-kmi.com

NPEO 1.2 | 25

Special Section: and it fires at 220 rounds per minute.” Seven MK 110 gun mounts The system is capable of being integrated into a ship’s fire conhave been delivered to the Coast Guard’s national security cutters trol and command and control systems, noted Greenberg. “Some and the Navy’s LCS. other navies have done that,” he said, “but the U.S. Navy has opted Recent enhancements to both the MK 38 and the MK 46 include to have the system operated as a standalone system by a human at a an embedded trainer which allows an operator to train on the actual remote position.” The system can also be equipped with an additional system without having to use live ammunition. “The embedded weapon such as a machine gun. trainer simulates the functionality of the system and works from the The Phalanx CIWS provides defense in littoral combat environsame console the operator works at for actual operations,” said Segar. ments, which places ships and their crews at risk to an increased “Gunners can use the trainer when the ship is deployed and is unable number of threats, including small, fast gunboats, standard and to go to an area where they fire live ammunition. It also saves the cost guided artillery, helicopters, mines and a variety of shore-launched of the ammunition itself. It allows them to set up scenarios includanti-ship missile. Phalanx is equipped with a 20 mm M61A1 Gatling ing the number and type of targets and their locations. The system gun, which fires armor-piercing rounds at a rate of 3,000 or 4,500 gives the instructor the ability to document how well the student rounds per minute. performed and record that for history.”

“The system is equipped with an advanced search and track The MK 38 will be undergoing enhancements to provide the sysKu-band radar to provide autonomous target detection and engagetem with an improved electro-optical sight, an integrated loud hailer, ment,” said Larson. “It can be interfaced with virtually any ship comand a coaxially mounted 7.62 mm machine gun. “The improved sight bat system and can provide target designation for other shipboard will provide the fleet with improved situational awareness, allowweapons, such as RAM.” Phalanx is installed on practically all U.S. ing for detection and identification of potential targets at longer combatant ships and on those of 22 allied nations. ranges,” said Larson. “The loud hailer will allow the fleet to engage Phalanx can automatically deliver bursts of rounds at a desigtargets with a non-lethal warning tone or voice commands. The nated target, noted Sigler. “Once it starts firing the system automati7.62 mm machine gun will increase the MK 38’s anti-terrorism and cally closes in and adjusts its aim,” he said. “The gun can be upgraded force protection capabilities while in-port and while transitioning with a longer barrel to improve accuracy. We will be incorporating an narrow waterways.” infrared sensor and thermal imager into the system to improve per“The system could be equipped with a number of formance day or night.” additional weapons,” noted Nies, “including a small Another of the Navy’s close-in defense systems, missile.” the MK 46 MOD 2 was adapted from the Marine The RAM and ESSM are also undergoing improveCorps’ expeditionary fighting vehicle gun application. ments. “The RAM Block 2 missile upgrade will address General Dynamics Land Systems has been providing missile kinematics and an RF sensor upgrade to counthe MK 46 to the Navy for about 10 years. ter evolving and future threats,” said Larson. RAM The 30 mm MK 46 gun weapons system is lightBlock 2 is in low-rate production with initial operaweight, fully automated and remote controlled. The tional capability planned for 2014. maximum effective range is 4,000 yards and can fire The ESSM Block 2 will integrate the existing up to 200 rounds per minute. Two MK 46 GWSs are ESSM semi-active seeker with an active seeker. “This permanently installed aboard LPD 17 class ships. Two Joe Segar configuration will improve the effectiveness of the MK 46 MOD 2 are integrated with the MK 50 gun missile against existing threats and deliver capability against emergmission modules for the surface warfare mission package aboard ing threats,” said Larson.

LCS-class vessels.

Raytheon is starting to work on a next-generation Phalanx that “The system provides a capability against small, fast, and highly will be adaptable to smaller vessels. “Phalanx is extremely heavy and maneuverable surface threats,” said Larson. has a large footprint,” said Sigler. “Smaller vessels like offshore patrol “We have designed the MK 46 to be an all-weather day or night boats aren’t big enough to take a full-sized system. We are working at weapon,” said Joe Segar, GDLS’s MK 46 program manager. “It is also applying the Phalanx technology to a smaller form and fit so we can a stabilized system so it can be used in high sea states and turbulent offer it on smaller ships.” sea states. The system can be integrated with other shipboard sys“A balanced, integrated combat system solution is essential to tems or as a standalone system. A sailor could also sit in the turret defeating threats,” said Larson. “Improvement in any one element and operate the system from there in case they were to lose commualone is inadequate. Increased target detection ranges, decreased nications from the console.” system reaction times, advanced command and control features, When integrated with fire control systems, the MK 46 can look and improved hard kill and electronic warfare weapons must be intefor targets and train its weapon on them. “We have no requirements grated and coordinated to provide an effective defense. The ultimate from our current customers to provide those capabilities,” said Segar. goal is coordinating onboard, offboard and future systems to respond Among other close-in defense systems, the Griffin missile is able to advanced anti-ship missiles in a manner that enhances survivto hit speedboats at 2 kilometers using GPS coordinates or laser desability while effectively and efficiently employing all fleet assets.” O ignation. The Griffin is used by Navy and Coast Guard patrol crafts and Navy littoral combat ships (LCS).

The newest of the defense systems, deployed in 2008, the MK 110 MOD 0 provides a capability against surface, airborne and sea-based threats. “The 57 mm MK 110 gun mount is medium weight, fully For more information, contact NPEO Editor Brian O’Shea at briano@kmimediagroup.com or search our online archives automated, and remote controlled when integrated with a fire confor related stories at www.npeo-kmi.com. trol system,” said Larson. “The maximum range is 9.5 nautical miles 26 | NPEO 1.2

www.NPEO-kmi.com

The advertisers index is provided as a service to our readers. KMI cannot be held responsible for discrepancies due to last-minute changes or alterations.

NPEO RESOURCE CENTER

Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Advertisers Index

Calendar

General Atomics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C3 www.ga.com/ems General Dynamics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C4 www.gd-ais.com/openarchitecture

January 29-30, 2014 Marine West Camp Pendleton, Calif. www.marinemilitaryexpos.com/marinewest.shtml

February 20-21, 2014 ASNE Day 2014 Arlington, Va. www.navalengineers.org

March 2014 Volume 2, Issue 1

Next Issue

Cover and In-Depth Interview with:

Rear Adm. Joseph A. Horn Jr. Program Executive Officer PEO Integrated Warfare Systems

Special Section Navigation Systems Sailing thousands of miles in open sea has many challenges, and making sure fleets are following the right course is just one of them.

Program Spotlight Program Spotlight: Airborne Anti-Submarine Warfare The U.S. Navy has multiple ways for aircraft to find, track, and deter, damage or destroy enemy submarines that are crucial to mission success.

Features Underwater Robotics Divers can handle a plethora of tasks while submerged, but there are some jobs that are best left to unmanned underwater systems.

Aircraft Communication Systems Maintaining constant contact with the fleet is essential for naval airborne operations.

RCOH Refueling and complex overhaul is the process performed on nuclear-powered naval ships replacing expended nuclear fuel, and often modernizing the ship.

Terry Harrington, Account Executive • terryh@kmimediagroup.com • 301-670-5700 x158

www.NPEO-kmi.com

NPEO 1.2 | 27

INDUSTRY INTERVIEW

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

R. Scott Forney III Senior Vice President Electromagnetic Systems Group General Atomics As the senior vice president of the Electromagnetic Systems (EMS) Group of General Atomics (GA), San Diego, Calif., Forney has P/L responsibility for all work associated with military and commercial EMS programs, including systems design, engineering, manufacture and test of weapons systems, power inverters, motors, generators, capacitors, radiation monitoring systems, and electrostatic separators.

Forney joined GA in November 2007. With his guidance the EMS Group continues as a leading Department of Defense contractor in high power electromagnetic equipment and systems. Recent groundbreaking achievements that exemplify his leadership include successful GA railgun launches and Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) launches.

Q: How has the award of the EMALS contract impacted GA? A: The EMALS contract confirmed General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems Group is a world-class developer of high power, state-of-the-art controlled power magnetic components and systems. We were able to leverage our experience with the generation and control of electromagnetic fields gained from our work in thermonuclear fusion research, linear motors and electromagnetic launchers. The contract also served as the catalyst to break ground on our state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Tupelo, Miss. Since 2005, we have invested more than $38 million in the now 367,000-square-foot facility, which manufactures power conversion system components for EMALS and the Advanced Arresting Gear as well as EMALS linear motors. In addition, we integrated a printed circuit board fabrication and test facility and have achieved MIL-STD-2037 certification to manufacture and refurbish electric motor sealed insulation systems for the Navy. We also can now manufacture and test high power motors from kilowatts to 15megawatts and machine 28 | NPEO 1.2

high tolerance parts as small as lugs for cable connections.

Q: What capabilities does EMALS bring to the fleet?

A: EMALS is a highly redundant, modular design with few moving parts, reducing shipboard maintenance and manning requirements while increasing system availability as compared to the legacy system. It brings to the fleet the capability to launch all current carrier-based aircraft as well as projected future aircraft at a higher sortie rate than on Nimitz-class carriers. The redundancy in the system architecture allows EMALS to complete a launch to desired end speed in a faulted condition. Because of its modularity and scalability, one could even envisage a smaller version of the system on other fleet assets for the purposes of launching UAVs. Q: How have you proven the technology?

A: The System development and demonstration (SDD) contract test plan includes component and subsystem tests as well as full system tests to confirm our models and verify that the design meets requirements. system functional demonstration (SFD) land-based testing of EMALS in a single-catapult configuration commenced in September 2010 at NAVAIR’s Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst facility, in Lakehurst, N.J. Since then, EMALS has demonstrated its full operational range and proved system functionality through 339 aircraft

launches, 3,036 deadload launches (as of December 2013) and over 11,000 no-load launches and maneuvers. We have demonstrated the system’s critical launch reliability—the ability to meet commanded catapult end speed, even with component casualties. The primary purpose of SFD has been to test and verify system requirements, capabilities and limitations by operating the system to, and in some cases above, design limits. The single launcher system at Lakehurst has demonstrated the full shipboard launch capability for all vehicle weights (10,000-100,000 pounds) and end speeds (70-180 kts) in both nominal and fault-inserted modes.

In addition, system components are undergoing environmental qualification tests at certified laboratories throughout the country to verify functionality in the harsh shipboard environment. We have successfully completed electromagnetic interference and emission tests on many hardware components with no measurable impacts to the fleet, aircraft, or ship’s structures.

Q: What are your most significant challenges remaining?

A: GA is under a firm-fixed-price contract to manufacture the first shipset hardware that is currently being installed aboard the CVN 78. One of the biggest challenges remaining is to complete testing under the SDD contract concurrent with production of the shipboard hardware. The production contract requires GA to implement changes resulting from SDD tests into the CVN 78 hardware at no increase in cost. As testing has been delayed due to discovery and cyclical budgetary instabilities, concurrency has increased, providing a challenging environment in which to manage both contracts. The good news is that the EMALS design is stable and the risk remains low that remaining testing will discover any significant deficiencies that would require design changes. O www.NPEO-kmi.com