Sea-Air-Space Issue The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs
PEO Aircraft Carriers
Warfare Integrator Rear Adm. Joseph A. Horn Jr. Program Executive Officer PEO Integrated Warfare Systems
www.NPEO-kmi.com
March 2014
Volume 2, Issue 2
VIEW FROM THE HILL: SEAPOWER FOR 21st CENTURY Congressman J. Randy Forbes
Aircraft Communications O RCOH O Littoral Combat Ship Airborne ASW O Navigation Systems
navy air/sea peo forum
March 2014 Volume 2, Issue 2
Features
Cover / Q&A
Program Spotlight:
Special Section: Navigation Systems
6
8
Airborne Anti-Submarine Warfare
Navigation in a Leaner, More Demanding Navy
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.
PEO Aircraft Carriers
11
Next to keeping ships afloat, navigation is the most critical duty of vessels, their equipment and crews. In the Navy, accurate navigation may also be necessary for effective combat and weapon accuracy. By Henry Canaday
Ford Class Progress
Focus on the progress of the pre-commissioned unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN78) as well as a leadership photo spread of PEO Aircraft Carriers. By Rear Admiral Thomas Moore
16
12 Who’s Who pictorial of PEO Aircraft Carriers
5
20
23
25
View From the Hill
Overhauling Aircraft Carriers
Two Ships, Three Missions
Aircraft Communication
Congressman J. Randy Forbes stresses the importance of maintaining our country’s aircraft carrier capabilities.
As the only ship platforms in the U.S. Navy designed to last a half-century in service, America’s nuclear powered aircraft carriers play a unique role not only in fleet inventories but also in national strategic planning. By Scott R. Gourley
Departments 2 Editor’s Perspective 3 UnderWay 4 People 14 Main Deck 27 Resource center
When it comes to theater security cooperation, a powerful destroyer or large amphibious ship is too big for some ports, especially with the U.S. rebalance in the Pacific region, and the littoral combat ship is a key part in that pivot. By Edward Lundquist
Navy and Marine aircraft are essential U.S. assets that must always be closely in touch with their ships, commands and other U.S. forces to be effective. By Henry Canaday
Industry Interview Ken Eagen Manager Domestic Programs Northrop Grumman Information Systems
28
Rear Admiral. Joseph A. Horn Jr. Program Executive Officer PEO Integrated Warfare Systems
“Our number one responsibility in PEO IWS is to develop, deliver, and sustain operationally dominant combat systems to sailors and Marines. Everything we do is targeted to that objective.” -Rear Admiral Joseph A. Horn Jr.
EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE
Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum Volume 2, Issue 2 • March 2014
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 laurad@kmimediagroup.com Copy Editor Sean Carmichael seanc@kmimediagroup.com Correspondents Peter Buxbaum • Henry Canaday Nora McGann • Melanie Scarborough Marc Selinger • Scott Gourley
Art & Design
Art Director Jennifer Owers jennifero@kmimediagroup.com Ads and Materials Manager Jittima Saiwongnuan jittimas@kmimediagroup.com Senior Graphic Designer Scott Morris scottm@kmimediagroup.com Graphic Designers Andrea Herrera andreah@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 Operations, Circulation & Production Operations Administrator Bob Lesser bobl@kmimediagroup.com Circulation & Marketing Administrator Duane Ebanks duanee@kmimediagroup.com Circulation Barbara Gill barbg@kmimediagroup.com Denise Woods denisew@kmimediagroup.com Data Specialist Raymer Villanueva raymerv@kmimediagroup.com
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report that said delays in software testing on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could delay delivery of crucial weapons systems capabilities. “Challenges in development and testing of mission systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in software delivery, limited capability in the software when delivered, and the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions,” said the GAO report. The Director of Test and Evaluation expected the delivery of these capabilities could be delayed up to 13 months. The first delivery of the F-35 is scheduled for July 2015. However, to continue to fund this program, the report said that DoD will Brian O’Shea Editor have to increase funds over the next five years. “To execute the program as planned, the Department of Defense will have to increase funds steeply over the next five years and sustain an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037; for several years, funding requirements will peak at around $15 billion.” Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, F-35 Program Executive Officer, said in a released statement they are aware of this problem and are taking steps to remedy the issue. “There were no surprises in this report and all of the items mentioned were well-known to us, the F-35 international partners and our industry team,” said Bogdan. “Software continues to remain our number one technical risk on the program and we have instituted disciplined systems engineering processes to address the complexity of writing, testing and integrating software. We are confident about delivering the F-35’s initial war fighting capability to the U.S. Marine Corps in 2015 and to the U.S. Air Force in 2016. The aircraft’s full war fighting capability is scheduled to be delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2018. There is more risk to that delivery schedule because it is naturally dependent upon the successful delivery of the previous software releases. ” Bogdan added that this problem is being carefully monitored. “We are working relentlessly to reduce this risk by tracking software development daily and fixing issues as we find them so the military services and our international partners will receive the F-35’s full war fighting capability.” Rising costs and delays in initial operations capabilities are creating concern for members of Congress, but when it is all said and done, I believe the F-35 is crucial for the future of air superiority. If you have any questions about Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum, please contact me at any time.
KMI MedIa Group LeadershIp MaGazInes and WebsItes Border Security & Emergency Preparedness
Ground Combat Technology
Geospatial Intelligence Forum
Military Advanced Education
Military Information Technology
Border Threat Prevention and CBRNE Response
Military Logistics Forum The Publication of Record for the Military Logistics Community
Subscription Information SPECIAL PULL-OUT SUPPLEMENT USTRANSCOM
Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum ISSN 2333-3251
Border Guardian
is published by KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2014. 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: $75 per year. Foreign: $159 per year.
Michael J. Fisher
Resource Aligner Vice Adm. William A. “Andy” Brown
www.BSEP-kmi.com
March 2014 Volume 3, Issue 1
www.MLF-kmi.com
November/December 2013 Volume 7, Issue 10
Chief U.S. Border Patrol
Deputy Commander U.S. Transportation Command
Aerostats O CBRN Decon O Responder Comms O DHS NextGen IT Night Vision O Cargo Screening
Reverse Auctions O Defense Transportation O Afghanistan Retrograde ILS O Supply Chain Efficiencies O DMSMS O Senior Logisticians
Exclusive Interview with:
GAIL JORGENSON Acquisition Director USTRANSCOM
www.BSEP-kmi.com
www.GCT-kmi.com
Military Medical Military Training & Veterans Technology Affairs Forum
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
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
$250 Million Contract for U.S. Navy’s Air and Missile Defense Radar Program
Navy Elevator Support Unit Contract
General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems was awarded a contract from Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in January 2014 to support the engineering and manufacturing development of the U.S. Navy’s next-generation integrated Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). Under the contract, General Dynamics will support Raytheon as they build, integrate and test an open, highly scalable and energy efficient advanced radar system to detect ballistic missiles and air and surface targets. The contract has a potential value of $250.1 million over 10 years if all options are exercised. “By building on our proven open architecture design philosophy and business model, General Dynamics will continue to provide solutions that are flexible, more capable and have low life cycle costs,” said Mike Tweed-Kent, vice president and general manager of General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems Mission Integration Systems division. AMDR is the Navy’s next-generation integrated air and missile defense radar and is being designed for Flight III Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) destroyers beginning in 2016. AMDR consists of an S-band radar, an X-band radar and a radar suite controller (RSC). AMDR-S is a new development integrated air and missile defense radar designed for long-range detection and engagement of advanced threats. The X-band radar is an existing horizon-search radar. The RSC provides S- and X-band radar resource management, coordination and interface to the Aegis combat system. Raytheon was awarded the AMDR contract in October 2013. As a major subcontractor, General Dynamics will continue its work with Raytheon, which started with concept development, to build, integrate and test the AMDR-S Digital Receivers/Exciters and Digital Beam Forming subsystems for integration into the AMDR engineering development model radar. General Dynamics’ modular and scalable design builds on 10 years of research and development in advanced, open architecture radar technology performed in partnership with the Navy. “With our years of open architecture and radar technology experience, we are wellpositioned to support Raytheon’s delivery of the most modular, scalable and capable radar to the Navy to better protect its fleet,” said Carlo Zaffanella, vice president and general manager of the Integrated Platform Integration line of business for the Mission Integration Systems division at General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems. The majority of work under this contract will be performed in Fairfax, Va.; San Diego, Calif.; Bloomington, Minn.; Scottsdale, Ariz.; and Kauai, Hawaii.
Huntington Ingalls Industries recently announced that its AMSEC LLC subsidiary has been awarded a contract to provide maintenance, training and planning support for U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. The contract contains a one-year base period with four one-year option periods which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of the contract to about $135 million. “AMSEC continues to respond to our customer’s needs and enhance our services to meet the Navy’s requirements,” said Harris Leonard, HII vice president and president of AMSEC operations. “We look forward to building on our record of superior service to the Naval Sea Systems Command and the naval fleet they support.” AMSEC will furnish engineering services, maintenance and operator training as well as technical and repair services in support of maintenance and planning for the overhaul, modernization and repair of shipboard elevators, cargo-handling equipment and associated systems installed within U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. “We are pleased to continue supporting the Navy with this very important work,” said Brad Mason, director of the maintenance, modernization and technical services operation. “The Elevator Support Unit (ESU) has been one of AMSEC’s core contracts for years and we look forward to continuing our work with the Navy in the vital areas of maintenance, training, alterations and installation.” The work will be performed onboard U.S. naval aircraft carriers in Norfolk, Va.; San Diego, Calif.; Bremerton and Everett, Wash.; Japan; and other fleet concentration areas to be determined. If all options are awarded, the work is expected to be completed by December 2018. The Norfolk Ship Support Activity (NSSA) is the contracting activity.
$698.9 Million Contract Modification for Littoral Combat Ships The U.S. Navy has issued a Lockheed Martin-led industry team a $698.9 million contract modification to add funding for construction of two littoral combat ships (LCS)—the seventh and eighth in a 10-ship contract awarded in December 2010. The contract modification is for construction of Indianapolis (LCS 17) and LCS 19, yet to be named. The first ship on this 2010 contract, the USS Milwaukee (LCS 5), was christened and launched in 2013, and is undergoing trials before delivery to the Navy in 2015. The future USS Detroit (LCS 7) will be christened and launched later this year. Little Rock (LCS 9), Sioux City
www.NPEO-kmi.com
(LCS 11) and Wichita (LCS 13) are all in various stages of construction, and Billings (LCS 15) will begin construction this year. “Our industry team appreciates the U.S. Navy’s confidence in the LCS program as we continue down the learning curve to make these ships more capable and more affordable,” said Joe North, vice president of littoral ship systems at Lockheed Martin’s Mission Systems and Training business. “We’ll continue to build best-in-class, cost-effective ships for the Navy, supporting its need to defeat littoral threats and provide maritime access in critical waterways.”
NPEO 2.2 | 3
UNDERWAY
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
Automated Test Systems Contract Awarded
Helicopter and Engine Repairs
The U.S. Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a contract for new automated test systems to increase aircraft mission readiness. The $103 million award authorizes two low rate initial production options for the first 36 electronic Consolidated Automated Support System (eCASS) stations and associated support equipment. Sailors and Marines will use eCASS to troubleshoot and repair aircraft assemblies at sea or ashore, allowing them to return equipment to readiness status quickly and efficiently. “ECASS will be the workhorse for avionics repair across the Naval Aviation Enterprise,” said Chris Giggey, deputy program manager for Automatic Test Systems, of the U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command’s Aviation Support Equipment Program Office (PMA-260). “This system provides us with capabilities critical to support of naval aircraft and gives us the ability to launch combat-ready aircraft from carriers anytime and anywhere in support of the nation.” ECASS will replace the current CASS test equipment originally fielded in the early 1990s. CASS is the Navy’s standard automatic test equipment family supporting electronics on naval aircraft. “ECASS runs 20 percent faster, is even more reliable, and is highly compatible with legacy CASS stations,” said Randy Core, director of enterprise test solutions at Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training. “This speed and reliability will ultimately help the Navy increase aircraft availability.” The first eCASS station will be delivered in November 2014. ECASS will support all the aircraft in the Navy’s fleet and is extendable to new weapons systems, including the F-35 Lightning II.
General Electric was awarded a $79,737,730 contract for the repair of 20 T-64 engine (CH-53D/E and MH-53E helicopters) components, along with manufacturing, engineering and technical support to the Fleet Readiness Center East, Cherry Point, N.C., with a goal of improving monthly output. Work will be performed in Cherry Point and Lynn, Mass. and is expected to be completed by September 30, 2015. No funds will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire before the end of the current fiscal year. Fiscal 2014 and 2015 Navy working capital funds will be used on the delivery orders as they are issued.
Program Office Training Science Applications International Corp. was awarded a potentially estimated $35,265,817 multiple-award contract to support Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific’s Training Development and Support Center to provide training for a range of program offices. This is one of four contracts awarded. Each awardee will have the opportunity to compete for task orders during the ordering period. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and work is expected to be completed March 4, 2017. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; other procurement, Navy and research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $50,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
PEOPLE
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
director, National Clandestine Service for Community HUMINT, Washington, D.C.
Rear Adm. Michael M. Gilday
Rear Admiral Michael M. Gilday will be assigned as director, operations, J-3, U.S. Cyber Command, Fort George G. Meade, Md. Gilday is currently serving as commander, Carrier Strike Group Eight, Norfolk, Va.
4 | NPEO 2.2
Rear Adm. Babette Bolivar
Rear Adm. Brett C. Heimbigner
Rear Admiral Babette Bolivar will be assigned as commander, U.S. Pacific Command Representative, Guam. Bolivar is currently serving as commander, Navy Region Northwest, Silverdale, Wash.
Rear Admiral Brett C. Heimbigner will be assigned as director, Intelligence Division, North Atlantic Treaty Organization International Military Staff, Brussels, Belgium. Heimbigner is currently serving as deputy
Rear Adm. Dee L. Mewbourne
Rear Admiral (lower half) Dee L. Mewbourne will be assigned as commander, Carrier Strike Group 11,
Everett, Wash. Mewbourne is currently serving as commander, Naval Service Training Command, Great Lakes, Ill. Captain John W. Ailes, who has been selected for promotion to rear admiral (lower half), will be assigned as chief engineer, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, San Diego, Calif. Ailes is currently serving as major program manager, Program Executive Office for Littoral Combat Ships, Washington, D.C.
www.NPEO-kmi.com
View from the hill Seapower for the 21st Century By Rep. J. Randy Forbes
American commitments to global security and a rules-based order are in doubt. Spending cuts are eroding force structure and research programs indiscriminately, irrespective of how these programs affect future capabilities. American seapower, the most critical guarantor of our security commitments in the predominantly-maritime Asia-Pacific, received these cuts after a decade of neglect as our nation focused on two land wars. If the U.S. is to revitalize capabilities necessary to secure our interests in the decades ahead, we must lock in major trends in shipbuilding, naval aviation, and research and development (R&D) efforts that will comprise American seapower in the 2020s and beyond. The challenges confronting our Navy are growing. The East and South China Seas feature contentious maritime disputes that risk inter-state war. Iran threatens energy supplies traversing the Strait of Hormuz. Ninety percent of global trade by volume travels by sea; the global economy depends on freedom of navigation and security from piracy or terrorism. Thirty percent of global oil production comes from offshore sources, and new renewables attempt to harness the power of the sea. American seapower manages these and other challenges on a daily basis. The Navy-Marine Corps team is a versatile force scalable for a range of military, diplomatic or humanitarian missions in either peace or war. Without them, much of U.S. foreign policy becomes untenable. Yet, at current resourcing, American seapower will fail to protect the international order it now safeguards. The Reagan administration’s naval expansion was so comprehensive that it enabled the service to thrive for three decades. We deluded ourselves into viewing sea control as an American right, a natural condition of the international system that we could take for granted. We are now failing to adequately invest for the future. The size of the fleet is plummeting as aging vessels retire faster than they are replaced. The Navy has atrophied from 568 ships in 1987 to just 283, and fleet size could decline to an alarming 270 ships by year’s end. The Navy has argued it needs 306 ships at minimum to secure American interests, while an independent, bipartisan panel put the requisite number at 346. As fleet size shrinks, the Navy is losing its ability to meet the needs of our combatant commanders. The percentage of asset requests from combatant commanders fulfilled by the Navy has dropped from 90 percent in fiscal year 2007 to a projected 42 percent in fiscal year 2014. Our capacity to meet needs is decreasing even as threats to our interests adapt and multiply. Critics of investments in seapower point to the qualitative edge our Navy currently enjoys in comparison with potential challengers as justification for avoiding these investments. This thinking erodes margins between merely accomplishing objectives and achieving www.NPEO-kmi.com
them with a minimum of risk to our serving personnel. In some capabilities, these margins are already perilously thin. This means that the “fair-share” approach of relatively equal service budgets must end; budgets must instead be allotted based on strategic necessity. The past decade has been characterized by prolonged counterinsurgencies in the Middle East and South Asia that exerted tremendous strains on our Army and Marine Corps, which received significant budget increases commensurate with the missions assigned to them. The shifting security dynamics in the Asia-Pacific necessitate a re-emphasis on our maritime forces. Filling the gap between the current fleet and the one determined necessary for AsiaPacific stability does not require a large shift in Defense Department resources, according to Ron O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Service, but instead just 1.1 to 1.5 percent more of the department’s current average annual budget. There are four main areas that must be prioritized for effective 21st-century seapower. First, we must extend the range and capabilities of the carrier air wing (CVW). Advances in anti-access/area denial and precision-strike weapons will force carriers, the centerpieces of American power projection, to either operate from farther afield or at greater risk. Extended CVW range and survivability will help maintain our ability to strike at the time and place of our choosing. Second, we must sustain our undersea warfare advantage as submarines offer the surest deterrent against maritime aggression in the Asia-Pacific littoral. Third, surface warfare capabilities need to be rejuvenated. The ability to deny enemy ships freedom of movement remains central to naval surface competition, and adversaries have gained a lead in antiship missile technologies that must be closed. Investing in better antiship weapons is critical to remedying this shortfall. Finally, funding for naval R&D must be protected. Slashing future innovation has been a tempting proposition in today’s fiscal environment, yet translates directly into less competitive future forces. O This year will be pivotal for the Navy. We must make tough decisions regarding where to place scarce fiscal year 2015 budgetary resources. It is my firm belief that investments in robust American seapower offer the greatest returns in the decades ahead. Representative Forbes (R-Va.) is chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee. He recently finished co-leading a bipartisan Asia-Pacific Oversight Series for the House Armed Services Committee. 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.
NPEO 2.2 | 5
Program Spotlight
Air Anti-Submarine Warfare Securing the battlespace from undersea threats. By LaToya Graddy
Air Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Systems Program Office (PMA-264) supports the Navy with ASW systems and sensors that sustain America’s global operational readiness. Currently the P-3C Orion, P-8A Poseidon and H-60 Seahawk aircraft are actively using air ASW systems and sensors on operational deployments, as well as humanitarian and search and rescue missions. PMA-264 plays a critical role in developing, acquiring and sustaining airborne ASW systems and sensor requirements for the fleet and for Program Executive Officer for Air Anti-Submarine Warfare, Assault and Special Mission Programs (PEO(A)): Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft (PMA-290); H-60 Multi-Mission Helicopter (PMA-299). PMA-264 is also supporting the development of potential ASW capability packages for Program Executive Officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons (PEO(U&W)) program offices Persistent Maritime Unmanned Aircraft Systems (PMA-262); and Navy and Marine Corps Tactical Multi-Mission Unmanned Air Systems (PMA-266).
active coherent and high altitude ASW systems, and airborne ASW intelligence. These products provide the capability to detect, localize, and to track naval vessels. They also provide limited battle damage assessment of subsurface targets. In the ASW role, maritime multi-mission aircraft (MMA), ships, and other platforms provide maritime superiority against submarines. The various platforms gather and provide tactical data on the subsurface targets and information to other assets through the use of on-board, off-board and deployable systems. The MMA, such as the P-3C and P-8A, make available an intelligence preparation of the battlespace subsurface plot in order to enhance theater access by providing the expeditionary strike group commander with planning options. Today’s open architecture systems are technologically agile, which allows modern sensors, a robust communications suite, ASW and anti-surface (ASuW) weapons, and acoustic/non-acoustic sensors to be readily integrated on the maritime aircraft. With the number of submarines in the world rapidly increasing and other countries either building or purchasing advanced, quiet, and extremely hard to find submarines, there is a requirement to further develop the ASW technology to detect them. The systems and platforms managed under PEO(A) and PEO(U&W) will provide the U.S. Navy with invaluable capabilities today and for decades to come.
Platforms Supporting the Navy’s Air ASW Mission
An aviation ordnanceman airman, foreground, and an aviation ordnanceman load sonobouys in launch tubes underneath a P-3C Orion, assigned to the “Tridents” of Patrol Squadron Two Six (VP-26). VP-26 currently has two crews deployed to Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Fla., participating in Joint Task Force Exercise. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Johnathan Roark]
Air ASW systems and sensor products within the PMA-264 portfolio are vital to the warfighter in securing the battlespace from undersea threats by swiftly dissuading submarine adversaries from fulfilling their mission. The program office procures air deployed, electromechanical acoustic sensors, which are designed to relay underwater signals associated with ships and submarines to remote sensors. Current systems and sensor products include sonobuoys, multi-static 6 | NPEO 2.2
The P-3C Orion is a land-based, long-range, anti-submarine warfare (ASW) patrol aircraft. Its long range and long on-station loiter time have proved invaluable capabilities throughout the overseas contingency operation. The aging P-3 has performed ASW missions since the early 1960s. It is equipped with advanced submarine detection sensors and magnetic anomaly detection equipment and can carry a mixed payload of weapons internally and on wing pylons. Today’s variant of the P-3C includes enhancements in sensors, communications, displays and controls, survivability and vulnerability, and weapons capability. The P-8A Poseidon is replacing the aging P-3C. Like its predecessor, the P-8A is a long range ASW, ASuW, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft capable of broad-area, maritime and littoral operations. The P-8 is currently conducting ASW missions on its maiden operational deployment to the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet area of responsibility. The MH-60 Seahawk is the U.S. Navy’s next generation helicopter consisting of the MH-60R and the MH-60S. The primary missions of the MH-60R are ASW, ASuW, surveillance, communications relay, combat search and rescue, naval gunfire support and logistics support. The primary missions of the MH-60S Seahawk are ASW, www.NPEO-kmi.com
Program Spotlight
MH-60 Sea Hawks assigned to the “Black Knights” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 4 prepare to deliver cargo to the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) during a vertical replenishment. Ronald Reagan is underway conducting tailored ship’s training availability. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Jonathan Nelson]
Naval aviators assigned to Patrol Squadron (VP) 16, pilot a P-8A Poseidon during a mission to assist in search and rescue operations for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. VP-16 is deployed in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility supporting security and stability in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Eric A. Pastor]
combat support, humanitarian disaster relief, combat search and rescue, aero medical evacuation, SPECWAR and organic airborne mine countermeasures.
These higher altitudes will enable greater communications range with large area buoy fields and greater coverage from other onboard non-acoustic sensors. The HAASW capability for P-8A will be integrated as part of the Increment 2 upgrade to the baseline aircraft. This capability will include the following technologies: receive, process, and store in-buoy GPS data received from AN/SSQ-53, AN/SSQ-62, and AN/SSQ -101B sonobuoys; integrate the GPS drop vector algorithm to enhance buoy splash point prediction and accuracy in real time; and receive, command and process the AN/SSQ-101B buoy with the digital uplink/downlink format for Radio Frequency Interference mitigation and increased bandwidth, while retaining legacy uplink/ downlink capability. Airborne ASW Intelligence (AAI) exists to support fleet ASW intelligence collection efforts and to conduct quick turnaround of threat unit analysis for tactical exploitation. AAI enables rapid development and insertion of advanced technology capabilities into airborne ASW platforms. This is accomplished through a standards-based architecture with the objective of using intelligence products to support research and development of advanced ASW weapons systems, refining tactical decision aids, updating models and simulation databases, and data collection for national science and technology assessments. As Naval Aviation looks to the future, PMA-264 will continue to develop and produce ASW sensors and systems to address future ASW threats. The future of ASW will also include unmanned vehicles/systems and will continue to build on the platforms already using the ASW sensors and systems. As new platforms are introduced, ASW systems will be incorporated as requirements and affordability dictate. O
Air ASW Sensors and Systems Sonobuoys are air launched expendable, electro-mechanical sensors designed to relay underwater sounds associated with ships and submarines to remote processors. The following sonobuoys are procured by PMA-264 to support annual training, operations and testing expenditures: SSQ-36 Bathythermograph, SSQ-53 Passive Directional Frequency Analyze and Record, SSQ-62 Directional Command Active Sonobuoy System, SSQ-101 Air Deployed Active Receiver (ADAR), SSQ-110 Multi-static Non-Coherent Source, and SSQ-125 Multi-Static Active Coherent Source under development. Multi-Static Active Coherent (MAC) is the third generation of multi-static active acoustic search systems to be developed under the multi-statics family of systems. MAC brings coherent acoustic source technology (SSQ-125) and improved signal processing to the air multi-static active ASW mission set. The coherent pulses (or series of pulses) provide waveform flexibility including Doppler-speed sensitive and frequency modulated-clutter suppressing capabilities. The MAC program will also provide updated tactical and mission software on the P-3C, an updated Mission Planning Tool, an updated Ground Replay System, updated TacMobile products, and an updated Tactical Operational Readiness Trainer. MAC will also be integrated on the P-8A beginning with an early operational capability prior to P-8A Increment 2, which is the next developmental phase of the program. Increment 2 is the planned incremental update to the P-8A scheduled to be fielded in 2016. MAC will be completed in two phases: Phase 1 will provide harsh shallow water capability and Phase 2 will provide deep water capability. High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare (HAASW) integrates modified sonobuoy sensors to enhance the P-8A capability to conduct its mission at higher than traditional fixed-wing airborne ASW altitudes. www.NPEO-kmi.com
LaToya Graddy is the public affairs officer for the Naval Air Systems Command’s Air Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Systems Program Office (PMA-264) 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.
NPEO 2.2 | 7
S pecial S ection : Navigation Systems
Knowing where you are and where you want to go. By Henry Canaday, NPEO Correspondent
Next to keeping ships afloat, navigation is the most critical duty of vessels, their equipment and crews. In the Navy, accurate navigation may also be necessary for effective combat and weapon accuracy. GPS has given a huge boost to naval navigation, as it has to virtually all forms of location finding. But GPS references may be lost due to malicious or accidental causes, and the Navy must still navigate precisely. Navigation equipment is petty cash compared to ship and crew costs, but even petty cash counts in today’s budget environment. Fortunately, navigation electronics enjoy the 8 | NPEO 2.2
steady gains in performance and economy prevalent in electronic markets. To exploit those gains in the future, Navy navigation systems must be open to change, not locked in to old technology. Where is Navy navigation going? One way to answer that is to look at navigation on the new littoral combat ship (LCS). “The biggest challenges we worked through was coming up with a new concept for minimum manning, with fewer operators on the bridge,” said Joe DePietro, deputy program manager for LCS Integrated Combat Systems.
Early LCS hulls integrated the next generation of Electronic Chart Display and Information System–Navy (ECDIS-N) for paperless charting. Going through certification of this tool was also a major effort, requiring coordination with multiple entities, including Naval Sea Systems Command and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. In addition to keeping the ship safe and on course, the navigation system also provides input to onboard weapon systems. Navigation data is distributed through the LCS using both network and direct www.NPEO-kmi.com
connections, allowing information to be disseminated to the combat system for computation of fire-control solutions. The LCS uses ECDIS, while some allied navies have moved to Warship ECDIS. These navies are “probably less risk-averse and out in front a little,” DePietro acknowledged. The LCS program will “look for opportunities to evolve” toward more advanced paperless charting. In many ways, LCS navigation is similar to that of older Navy ships, except it is so centralized on the bridge. “Wind, depth, ship control, everything is in one location and all at their fingertips,” DePietro noted. “In my previous duties with destroyers all this information was spread out across the bridge.” A destroyer or cruiser typically had six to eight people on the bridge. The LCS puts two people on the bridge for similar functions. And LCS-integrated navigation is much more open architecture than earlier Navy navigation. Previously, hardware and software were tightly linked. LCS software permits more hardware flexibility. The program works closely with industry to keep up with new technologies and deal proactively with obsolescence issues. Flexibility is also important because the navigation system has several major components, including speed log, positioning, Automatic Identification System, ECDIS charting and internal gyro. Lockheed Martin integrated navigation on the Freedom-variant mono-hull LCS, while General Dynamics Information Systems handled integration on the Independence variant trimaran. The problem of denied access to GPS positioning data is a Navy-wide challenge. “All Navy ships will have to deal with this,” said Captain J.M. Iacovetta, major program manager of the LCS Integrated Combat System. Some worry that errors in position data could make some Navy weapon systems less reliable. This may be true for some systems, but for LCS defensive systems, positioning provided by the navigation system “should be more than sufficient,” said Iacovetta. “The LCS Navigation Systems support putting weapons we fire on target.” Four LCSs have been delivered to the Navy and two more have been launched. Development and fielding of the LCS’s Voyage Management System, relying on ECDIS, has already helped to deploy the VMS to Navy destroyers and cruisers. DePietro said he has www.NPEO-kmi.com
Littoral combat ship USS Freedom’s visit, board, search and seizure team en route to conduct a boarding exercise in the South China Sea as part of the Southeast Asia Cooperation and Training exercise last fall. In December, Freedom successfully concluded a nine-month assignment, forward-operating from Singapore. This assignment represented the first Pacific deployment for a littoral combat ship and the proof-of-concept deployment for the ship class. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy]
And there are some areas where GPS navno regrets about how LCS achieved minimal igation is intrinsically tough. For example, manning. “There was no way we could have the fjords in Sweden and Norway and limited done that better.” access to GPS near the poles can make GPS Industry has a big stake in Navy navifixes difficult. gation choices. For example, L-3 Marine & Taylor said the Navy is looking for alterPower Systems provides everything from natives to GPS, like using the bottom conpoint navigation solutions to complete shiptours of the sea to find positions, which management systems, bridge, navigation, would require excellent maps; gravity defleccommand, control, and machinery and protion; and automatic celestial navigation, pulsion systems. “We do navigation datawhich would have difficulty in clouds. He distribution systems on the CVN-68 Class expects the ultimate solution will involve a carriers, new LHAs [Landing Helicopter mix of technologies. “It will probably be a Assault] and on the old LSDs [Landing Ship combination of sensors and data processing.” Dock],” explained Al Taylor, director of busiTaylor argued the other navigation chalness development for L-3 Maritime Systems. lenge is affordability. In the L-3 Maritime Systems spepast, the Navy has sought cializes in navigation integracommonality in navigation tion, distributing sensor data systems and this has driven to turn it into useful navithe service toward high-end gation information for both and expensive systems on all ship operations and weapon ships. “We think what is going systems. to happen is a push toward Taylor sees the Navy facmore modular systems, taking two sorts of navigation ing more of the processing challenges. The first is techniaway from the sensors. L-3 cal and arises from the heavy Al Taylor Maritime Systems is looking use of GPS for current naviat how to realign designs to gation. “The problem is that make them more flexible and put affordable submarines can’t use GPS when submerged navigation on small ships and higher-end and it is easy to jam on surface ships.” How navigation on complex ships.” easy? Taylor notes a truck driver recently Taylor thinks naval navigation systems attempted to jam Newark Airport’s GPS with will evolve with a more open architecture a $100 GPS jammer. NPEO 2.2 | 9
S pecial S ection : Navigation Systems configuration, so that they can readily adapt to new operating systems and hardware, which changes frequently. L-3 has been working in that direction. The Navy is also starting to move from its ECDIS charts to the international warship ECDIS. L-3 is prepared for that shift as well. Distinctively, L-3 is open to using products from other firms, including competitors, while major navigation firms tend to offer only in-house product suites. “We see that as a discriminator,” Taylor noted. Inertial navigation systems (INSs) are crucial to weapon accuracy, whether accuracy is measured in circular error probable or window of opportunity, said Mark Bock, director of integrated shipboard systems at Boeing. “You must have an accurate statement of the ship position, absolutely synchronized,” Bock said. “It’s relatively easy to navigate the ship. But it’s hard to navigate for the weapons.” Ship navigation can be done by bathymetry to avoid grounding, radar to avoid other ships and standard methods of navigation that account for currents and figure speed and direction. “They are always getting better at ship navigation,” the Boeing exec said. Navigation for weapon accuracy applies to combat ships, ones that fire weapons like missiles. Boeing has been working on this accuracy problem for 50 years for strategic missile submarines. “We have a long history of internal navigation systems,” Bock noted. Bock said the Navy is now struggling with anti-access area-denial (A2AD), or the denial of effective GPS positioning to ships. “Denial could be by enemy action, because GPS degrades or due to atmospherics,” he explained. This denial matters because, with a bad or missing GPS position, the INS might not yield an accurate current position. Naval navigation works by taking positions periodically from GPS and then calculating current position by having the INS figure direction and distance moved. “If you get a bad initial position from GPS or land navigation point, you cannot get a good update,” Bock stressed. “You must start out with a good fixed position and ensure you can update it over time.” One way to attempt compensating for A2AD is having the INS remove any errors. Bock said there are three basic ways to handle the problem. First, make GPS or other fixed position software more robust. Second, 10 | NPEO 2.2
For the rest, “we believe FOG is the best, make INS better at taking errors out. Third, most accurate and the way forward,” Bock establish alternative fixed sources of position, said. He argued retrofitting ships is not that such as gravitational fields or global lightexpensive since, as elsewhere in electronning strikes. Boeing works in all three of ics, “technology gets cheaper as it gets betthese areas, but is most involved on improvter.” Old software can still be used, and the ing INS. new INS would fit in the same cabinet as the There is a fourth way of compensating old one. for A2AD, but not necessarily a good one. Naval navigation performs If the navigation system is essential but more humble not precise, the weapon itself jobs than firing nuclear misbecomes more responsible for siles. Virtually all major surfinding and seeking targets. face combat ships, including More cost and more equipall aircraft carriers, have one ment thus go into the weapon. or several Furuno radars for Bock calls this a “system-tosafe or get-home navigation, system problem,” and said it noted Sales Manager Matt is better to keep weapons simWood. “Military radars see pler with better navigation. things dozens or hundreds of Apart from submarines Matt Wood miles away, but cannot safely and A2AD, another area where navigate ships in harbor. This INS may become more critiis where Furuno comes in.” cal is underwater unmanned vehicles (UUVs). Furuno’s NavNet multi-function display UUVs cannot rely on GPS as much, because equipment is also on most of the Navy’s the whole point of a UUV is to keep it underspecial warfare fleet, including the Mark V water as much as possible. Special Operations Craft and its replaceBock said A2AD is a fleet-wide problem ment, the Combatant Craft Medium. Special for the Navy and potentially for the other serOperations Craft-Riverine, the Mark VI and vices that also need accurate positioning for Riverine Command Boat also use Furuno weapons as well. NavNet. Furuno has been down-selected for For strategic submarines since the early radar in the Service Life Extension Program 1990s, Boeing has supplied the electrostatiof the Landing Craft Air Cushion hover cally supported gyro navigator (ESGN) for craft and selected for the new Ship-Shore the INS. Bock said this is “the most accuConnector. rate INS in the world, no one would conIn 2013, Furuno introduced NavNet test that.” The ESGN uses a spinning metal TZtouch, a touch-screen multi-function ball levitated in a vacuum as the basic sendevice. Wood said the company, spurred by sor to track each sub’s position. Also since gains in consumer electronics, will launch the early 1990s, the surface Navy has used a more innovations in 2015. ring laser gyro, the WSN-7 made by Northrop Furuno is already seeing a trend to minGrumman. iaturization, shrinking navigation data to Boeing has now developed a new INS, the tablets or handheld devices. Wood said wearfiber optic gyro (FOG), and has won a conable devices, such as helmets and glasses, are tract to put this on submarines. “The quescoming in 10 years or less. tion is what surface ships will do,” Bock said. Another goal of electronics is remote Navy PEO Integrated Warfare Systems maintenance, in which remote testing of (PEO IWS) has put out a request for informadevices assesses their health and pre-distion on a new INS and Boeing is waiting for a patches spare parts to make repairs faster. request for proposal. “They are working very This too will be part of Furuno offers in the hard to get it out,” Bock said. “We believe the next one to three years. O specs will call for FOG.” Once PEO IWS makes the INS decision, most of the surface Navy should go along with it. Bock said small ships that do not need For more information, contact NPEO Editor Brian O’Shea precise positions for their weapon may still at briano@kmimediagroup.com or search our online go to commercial off-the-shelf solutions like archives for related stories at www.npeo-kmi.com. the less accurate inertial measurement units. www.NPEO-kmi.com
Program executive officer aircraft carriers
New Ford class will increase capability while reducing operating costs.
Rear Admiral Thomas Moore Program Executive Officer PEO Aircraft Carriers them; a multifunction radar suite that will detect and engage PCU Gerald R. Ford (CVN the most advanced threats; and revolutionary launch and 78), the first ship of the Gerald recovery systems that contribute to more efficient flight operR. Ford class, was chrisations while reducing total operating costs and stress on the tened this past November at aircraft. Together, these efforts will reduce manning by more Huntington Ingalls Industries than 600 billets, improve operational availability and capabilShipbuilding in Newport ity, and reduce total ownership cost over its 50-year service News, Va. To date, the design life by $4 billion compared with Nimitz class carriers. is 99 percent complete, 95 The Navy and the contractor have learned a great deal percent of the material has been procured, 72.2 percent of the during the design and development of this new class of construction has been completed, 6.57 million feet (of 9 million carriers. Engineering and cost saving analyses are being feet) of cable has been installed, and the ship is in the water. conducted daily, and these lessons learned are being impleWhen CVN 78 is officially delivered to the fleet in 2016, she mented to reduce the costs of delivering the Ford, as well will carry out her mission with greater lethality, survivability, joint interoperability, and at a reduced operating and maintenance cost to taxpayers than her predecessors of the Nimitz-class carriers. While recent concerns of cost overruns on the first ship of the class have brought increased scrutiny, it is important to remember why the Navy chose to design and build a class of ship that will have a lifespan of 94 years and remain in service until 2110. The Ford class will deliver increased capability—at significantly reduced operating costs— and will remain at the forefront of a long-standing approach to countering The aircraft carrier Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is moved to Pier 3 at Newport News Shipbuilding. threats and providing U.S. military [Photo courtesy of Huntington Ingalls Industries/by Chris Oxley] presence in support of a wide variety as the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79). It will take less man of security objectives. hours to build CVN-79 than the last Nimitz class carrier, CVN CVN 78 is a total redesign of the Nimitz class. The Ford 77, and the ship will be at least $1 billion dollars less than class brings a 33 percent increase in sortie generation rate; a CVN 78. This learning process has developed an affordable completely redesigned flight deck that uses a NASCAR-like and sustainable path forward for the remainder of the class. O concept to recover, rearm and refuel high-end aircraft capable of high sortie rates; a completely redesigned, more efficient and more powerful nuclear-propulsion system, greatly reducFor more information, contact NPEO Editor Brian O’Shea at briano@kmimediagroup.com or search our online archives for ing the requirement for steam, hydraulic and pneumatic piprelated stories at www.npeo-kmi.com. ing systems, along with the manpower necessary to maintain
www.NPEO-kmi.com
NPEO 2.2 | 11
Program executive officer aircraft carriers
2014 Rear Adm. Thomas Moore Program Executive Officer
Brad Toncray Career Planning Activity Deputy Program Manager
Capt. John Markowicz PMS 312 Program Manager
Capt. Chris Meyer PMS 378 Program Manager
Capt. Doug Oglesby PMS 379 Program Manager
Jim Papageorge PMS 312 Deputy Program Manager
Ye-Ling Wang PMS 378 Deputy Program Manager
Eric Ryberg PMS 379 Deputy Program Manager
Giao Phan Executive Director
Howard Kirsner Chief of Staff
Maurice Ward Director of Corporate Operations
Jo Minor Chief Financial Officer
Nickita Davis Activity Chief Information Officer
Mike McEleney Director of Congressional/ Public Affairs
Lee Bowersox Total Ownership Cost Manager
Eric Pitt Chief Technology Officer
MAIN DECK U.S. Navy Accepts MUOS Ground Stations The U.S. Navy has accepted three General Dynamics C4 Systems-built ground stations for the mobile user objective system (MUOS). General Dynamics C4 Systems led the development and delivery of the ground systems and MUOS communications waveform; Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the entire MUOS system. Navy personnel will now operate the stations. The MUOS ground stations are located in Hawaii, Virginia and Australia. They act like cell phone switches, receiving radio calls relayed through MUOS satellites from servicemembers around the globe and connecting them to ground-based Department of Defense communication networks in just seconds. The ground stations also assist in the overall management and operation of the orbiting MUOS satellites. MUOS radio calls, like those recently demonstrated in the Arctic Circle, use the
General Dynamics-developed MUOS waveform. The waveform leverages the widely-used commercial Wideband Code Division Multiple Access cellular phone technology. “The success in delivering these ground stations, combined with the successful MUOS waveform running on the AN/PRC-155 Manpack two-channel radio, are testaments to General Dynamics’ expertise in delivering networks that securely and reliably connect military and government personnel with their commanders and others from virtually any location on the planet,” said Chris Marzilli, president of General Dynamics C4 Systems. “All they will need is to dial a 10-digit phone number just like they have with their personal cell phones.” The General Dynamics-built MUOS ground system provides communications and control interfaces among the MUOS satellites and Defense Department networks. Each
ground station has three freestanding 18.4meter Ka-band antennas atop 53-foot-tall pedestals. A centralized operations and control center manages the ground stations’ operation, providing Internet Protocol connectivity, switching facilities, network management and other satellite command-and-control elements. In November, two MUOS-equipped AN/ PRC-155 two-channel Manpack radios successfully completed secure voice and data calls from Alaska and the Arctic Circle for the first time during a demonstration led by Lockheed Martin. Using the MUOS waveform, the AN/ PRC-155 Manpack radios completed one-toone voice and data calls as well as conference calls connecting more than five participants. The PRC-155 Manpack radio is the first and only tactical radio to deliver secure voice and data connectivity with the MUOS system in polar regions.
Keel Laid for Future USNS Trenton ( JHSV 5) A ceremony celebrating the laying and authentication of the keel of the future joint high speed vessel (JHSV) USNS Trenton (JHSV 5) was recently held at the Austal USA shipyard. The keel was authenticated by the ship’s sponsor, Virginia Kamsky, who confirmed that it was truly and fairly laid. Although the laying of the keel has historically signified the start of ship fabrication, modern technologies make it possible for the shipbuilding process to commence months before the keel has been laid. “I want to thank our shipbuilders who are working so hard, from each keel laying to each delivery, to ensure the Navy receives the strongest, most flexible and capable ships possible,” said Captain Henry Stevens, Strategic and Theater Sealift program manager, Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships. “Trenton’s keel laying marks the first significant milestone
14 | NPEO 2.2
in her journey to delivery and eventual support of a variety of missions around the world.” JHSV 5 benefits from program maturity, building on the lessons learned from the earlier ships in the class. The ship leverages commercial design and technologies to ensure design stability and lower development costs. Upon completion, USNS Trenton will be used for the rapid transport of troops, equipment and supplies over operational distances, in support of a variety of missions including maneuver and sustainment, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. JHSV 5 is capable of transporting 600 short tons of military cargo 1,200 nautical miles at an average speed of 35 knots. The JHSV is capable of interface with roll-on/roll-off discharge facilities, features an off-load ramp and a flight deck, and has a shallow draft of less than 15 feet. Its speed and ability to access austere port environments, as well as the size and versatility of its cargo capabilities, makes the JHSV an extremely flexible asset for support of a wide range of operations. The fourth ship to be named after New Jersey’s capital city, JHSV 5 honors the values and the men and women of the city as well as the state of New Jersey. USNS Trenton will be owned and operated by Military Sealift Command (MSC), operating within MSC’s Sealift program. It will be manned by a crew of 22 civil service mariners with military mission personnel embarking as required. As one of the Department of Defense’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. Delivering high-quality war fighting assets—while balancing affordability and capability—is key to supporting the Navy’s Maritime Strategy.
www.NPEO-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
Aegis Ashore Team Trainer: Training the Shield of Europe The Center for Surface Combat Systems (CSCS), working with Surface Training Systems (STS) Program Office (PMS 339) at the Naval Sea Systems Command and Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWC TSD), is in the process of developing the Aegis Ashore Team Trainer (AATT). “In September 2009, President Barack Obama stated the requirement for a more capable land-based ballistic missile defense (BMD) system to provide defense for U.S. deployed forces, their families, and allies in Europe,” said Brian Deters, director of technical support for CSCS. “Aegis Ashore is the United States Navy’s solution to President Obama’s mandated phased adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe and in 2015, the first land-based Aegis weapons system is scheduled to come online in Romania.” To understand this new technology, Deters explained that for decades, Aegis weapons systems have defended America’s interests onboard CG 47 Ticonderoga class cruisers and DDG 51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Aegis Ashore is the land-based version of this versatile combat system, leveraging the latest technology developed for the U.S. Navy’s most advanced warships as well as the experience of highly trained sailors. “Aegis Ashore boasts virtually the same ballistic missile defense hardware and software configuration as the newest Navy destroyer, John Finn (DDG 113),” he said. “AATT provides a nearly identical setup to the Romanian Aegis Ashore CIC, giving officers and sailors the opportunity to experience working with the system and allowing teams to certify for operations prior to deployment.” This high fidelity training facility will be located onboard Naval Air Station Oceania Dam Neck Annex in Virginia Beach, Va. AATT, being built in Gallery Hall, will house a mock-up of the Combat Information Center (CIC) that is being built at the first host nation site in Romania. “AATT is a great example of how technology plays an essential role in training sailors,” said Captain Don Schmieley, CSCS’ commanding officer. “While nothing can truly replace the training our sailors’ experience when they’re
www.NPEO-kmi.com
out in the fleet, AATT represents the next evolution in training, giving us the capability to provide our sailors the tools they need for a successful mission, making them ready to contribute as soon as they arrive in theater.” Every effort has been made to replicate the host nation tactical system accurately and to make the trainer as realistic as possible using actual tactical code wrapped in simulation and providing spatial realism right down to the paint color. “We’re proud to be involved in this project and the opportunity it has given the team to be innovative in the way they blended commercial products and available technology,” said Captain Michael Van Durick, program manager in NAVSEA’s deputy commander for Surface Warfare directorate. “The integrated product teams have fostered several new concepts that produced, for example, a high quality mission playback system and a fully functioning communications suite. This trainer is the prototype for future training systems to be developed and delivered by PMS 339.” Prospective watch teams will undergo a thorough eight-week training course, which will cover everything from knowledge lessons on system capabilities and limitations to complex threat scenarios conducted in conjunction with theater BMD entities. “Starting in January 2015 when AATT comes online, a new watch team will commence training every eight weeks,” said Mike Kroner, deputy director for CSCS’s Technical Support Directorate. “After the first three watch teams have completed training, the host nation site will have an uninterrupted flow of incoming and outgoing watch teams deploying for sixmonth durations, maintaining three qualified watch teams deployed at all times.” AATT facility development is already underway. The spaces designated for AATT in Gallery Hall are being renovated by Naval Facilities Engineering Command. The software is being developed by industry partners, which was last demonstrated to CSCS in January 2014. “Equipment installation will begin in May, culminating in ‘initial operational capability’ date of October 2014, just in time for the first pilot class to kick-off in January 2015,” said Kroner.
Deters said it’s remarkable to see this program grow from the ground up. “There are so many groups and organizations doing great work to make this become a reality,” he said. “It will be exciting to see our first watch team complete the AATT course and deploy to Romania. It’s great that we can extend the U.S. Navy’s BMD capability to land and continue keeping our deployed forces, families and allies safe.” The Center for Surface Combat Systems’ mission is to develop and deliver surface ship combat systems training to achieve surface warfare superiority. CSCS headquarters’ staff oversees 14 learning sites and provides almost 70,000 hours of curriculum for close to 700 courses a year to more than 40,000 sailors. The training center uses a mix of blended learning comprised of instructor-led classes, hands-on labs, simulation and computer-based training. By Lieutenant Bryan Kline, technical analyst, Center for Surface Combat Systems
NPEO 2.2 | 15
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
Warfare Integrator
Q& A
Develop, Deliver and Sustain Operationally Dominant Combat Systems Rear Admiral Joseph A. Horn Jr. Program Executive Officer Integrated Warfare Systems Rear Admiral Joseph A. Horn Jr. is a native of Philadelphia, Pa., and Audubon, N.J. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in May 1980 with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering. Horn’s first duty assignment was in USS Sampson (DDG 10). Subsequent sea duty assignments include USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG 49), USS Ticonderoga (CG 47) and USS Anzio (CG 68). He commanded USS Stout (DDG 55) and USS Lake Erie (CG 70). While in command of Lake Erie, the ship conducted multiple successful ballistic missile engagements and won the Spokane Trophy, two Edward F. Ney Awards, and two Battle “Es.” Horn has deployed to the Mediterranean Sea, Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Indian Ocean, Eastern and Western Pacific, and conducted extensive operations in the Caribbean and Baltic Seas and the Atlantic Ocean. Ashore, Horn earned a Master of Science degree in operations research from the Naval Postgraduate School and is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seminar XXI alumnus. He has served on the Joint Staff (J8) and the staffs of Joint Forces Command (J6), United States Fleet Forces (N8) and OPNAV (N86). Horn has also been assigned as deputy director, Missile Defense Agency. His previous assignment was program executive, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense and commander, Navy Air and Missile Defense Command. Horn’s personal awards include the Defense Superior Service Medal (three awards), Legion of Merit (two), Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal (four), Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (two), and Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal (two). Q: What are the roles and responsibilities of PEO Integrated Warfare Systems (IWS)? A: Our number one responsibility in PEO IWS is to develop, deliver and sustain operationally dominant combat systems to sailors and Marines. Everything we do is targeted to that objective. The organization is aligned to bring enterprise war fighting solutions to surface combatants, aircraft carriers, amphibious ships and other related systems. PEO IWS competencies include program management, system engineering, and acquisition expertise over the life cycle of combat systems across the spectrum of warfare missions. In total, we manage a portfolio of about 150 projects and programs for which we provide oversight of the design, development, procurement and sustainment of integrated combat systems. Elements of the combat systems include missiles, radars, launchers, electronic warfare systems, undersea warfare systems and gun systems. We also partner closely with industry, academia, service laboratories and field activities to deliver reliable and effective combat www.NPEO-kmi.com
systems to meet current and emerging threats. PEO IWS serves as the Navy’s foreign military sales lead for combat systems, managing over 250 active cases with our nation’s allies. Q: How is the current austere budget environment affecting operations at PEO IWS? A: Like many program offices in the Department of the Navy, we are constantly reviewing our requirements and making the necessary adjustments to deliver the war fighting systems needed by our men and women in uniform. The current budget environment is not new to us. Changes in funding are always part of the military/ government budget world. We must continue to focus on reducing costs and maintaining constant communication with the resource sponsor. Q: What are the major challenges PEO IWS will face in 2014? A: We will have to make intelligent choices to fulfill our responsibility of providing dominant combat systems to the fleet, which, despite funding challenges, must operate worldwide in support of Navy objectives. As we adjust to future uncertainty, we must maintain a results-based organization that runs efficiently and effectively. NPEO 2.2 | 17
Q: What would you like to see from industry in 2014 and why? A: We always closely follow advancements in technology. So much of what we do is rooted in innovation and advanced technology. We will continue to use our relationships with universities and research centers to explore new technologies and test systems for use by the fleet. But industry has a part to play as well, and we encourage our partners to explore better ways to enhance our war fighting capability while also reducing our overall costs. Reducing costs across the PEO IWS product line is an imperative. We are working closely with our industry partners across our portfolio to become more efficient in developing, testing and fielding capability. Q: What are some of the recent advancements PEO IWS has made in radar technology? A: Although SPY-1 will remain the workhorse of Aegis cruisers and destroyers in the near term, the air and missile defense radar (AMDR) is the newest advancement in shipboard radar that will be introduced to the fleet starting with the second DDG-51 authorized in FY16. This will be a new active array radar that will serve as the primary radar for new construction Aegis destroyers. The AMDR suite is designed to support maritime integrated air and missile defense. It provides multi-mission capabilities, simultaneously supporting long range, exo-atmospheric detection, tracking and discrimination of ballistic missiles, as well as area and self defense against air and surface threats. For ballistic missile defense, AMDR’s increased radar sensitivity and bandwidth over current radar systems will enhance the Navy’s ability to detect, track and support engagements of advanced ballistic missile threats, concurrent with area and self defense against air and surface threats. For area air defense and self defense capability, AMDR’s increased sensitivity and clutter capability will improve the ability to detect, react to, and engage stressing very low observable/ very low flyer threats in the presence of heavy land, sea and rain clutter. This effort provides for the development of the active phased array radar with the required capabilities to address the evolving threat. AMDR is scalable in size and sensitivity with simultaneous robust ballistic missile defense and air defense capabilities for cross-platform application. Currently, AMDR is in the engineering and manufacturing development phase and the suite will be incorporated into DDG Flight III ships. Q: How is PEO IWS involved in improving undersea warfare (USW)? A: Through research and development programs, we are significantly improving existing sonar system (submarine, surface ship and surveillance) capabilities through rapid and affordable development and integration of emergent, transformational technologies in support of overall anti-submarine warfare efforts. We are also concentrating on the advanced capability build (ACB) process, which leverages developments from the submarine advanced processing build and acoustic rapid commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) insertion processes, including COTS/open architecture technology solutions. PEO IWS is continuing the strategy of ACBs that introduces capability and performance improvements every two years. PEO IWS 5.0 has improved the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 measures of performance by enhancing detection, tracking, classification, active and passive 18 | NPEO 2.2
data processing and display capabilities, as well as increasing acoustic sensor frequency bandwidth. To date, 24 ships have received the AN/SQQ-89A (V)15 ASW [anti-submarine warfare] combat system upgrade. The PEO IWS team is refining the Surface Ship Enhanced Measurement Program to measure actual at-sea performance of existing and new surface ship ASW combat systems to support assessments. In addition, we are focusing on improving the surface ASW synthetic training for improved training capability to provide more realistic training to maintain skill levels of the warfighter. We are introducing the Undersea Warfare Decision Support System (USW-DSS) to provide a net-centric capability for the ASW commander to plan, coordinate, establish and maintain a common tactical picture (CTP) and execute tactical control. This system will enhance command and control within the strike group and theater and greatly improve the detect-to-engage timeline. The USW-DSS is the only program to deliver a USW CTP. This system will complement and provide interfaces to the common operational picture systems such as GCCS-M, CEC and Link 16. Shipboard ASW suites such as the AN/SQQ-89 will provide sensor and track data to USW-DSS. USW-DSS completed initial operational test and evaluation in FY13. Thus far the system has been delivered to a total of 10 surface combatants and aircraft carriers and five shore sites. Lastly, and definitely of equal importance to our war fighting capabilities in USW, IWS 5 is integrating the MH-60R into our USW tactical war fighting systems. This includes advanced sonabouy processing, periscope detection, ASW weapons integration, along with MH-60R FLIR video and radar directly into and interacting in real time with our combat systems in both Aegis, littoral combat ship (LCS), and for the first time ever in CVNs. Q: Can you elaborate a bit about PEO IWS’s technology master plan? A: The technology master plan is a strategy we implemented to deliver rapid and incremental capability improvements to the fleet. We are doing this by separating the development of the combat system from the development of the platform, while continuing to accommodate the needs of that ship. This will be accomplished by utilizing a common combat system architecture and common information standards. We will use a combat system product line based on a common objective architecture. Our product line of systems will utilize standard interfaces and achieve commonality across ship classes when it makes sense to do so. This approach will improve both the flexibility and commonality of our shipboard combat systems, minimizing the cost and the time to upgrade ships’ capabilities across the fleet. For us to achieve this, we must establish a network-based COTS computing environment for in-service ships. We will continue to decouple the combat system hardware from the software, following the model with initiated with Aegis Baseline 9 and ship selfdefense system (SSDS) Mk2. Beginning with our next computing infrastructure update in 2016, both Aegis and SSDS will use the same computing infrastructure. This commonality reduces life cycle costs and provides more flexibility for adding capability. We will also continue our use of combat system computer code repositories, such as the Common Source Library for Aegis, which allows code to be reused across multiple combat systems in an agile and cost-effective manner. In future combat systems instantiations, the time and cost required to deploy or upgrade an integrated combat system will be reduced through the use of common code base and common hardware. www.NPEO-kmi.com
Q: How is PEO IWS involved with electronic attack solutions? A: We are starting to introduce the next generation of electronic warfare (EW) capability with significant upgrades to the SLQ32 system through the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP). This program will bring integrated shipboard EW capabilities that can be managed and controlled from a host of combat systems. The SEWIP Block 1 increment provides enhanced electronic surveillance processing capabilities for ships, improved control and display features, and adjunct receivers for special signal intercept. It also addresses obsolescence issues with the SLQ32 system, which has been our core EW system for several decades. The SEWIP Block 2 increment will have enhanced electronic support (ES) capability by means of an upgraded ES antenna, ES receiver and an open system interface for the AN/SLQ-32. These upgrades will allow us to pace the threat over the coming decades and improve detection and accuracy capabilities. The SEWIP Block 3 will deliver electronic attack capability improvements required for the AN/SLQ-32(V) system to keep pace with the threat. The SEWIP Block 3 is currently in the technology development phase. Q: What programs or initiatives are planned to be implemented in 2014? A: I’ve already mentioned our commonality and cost reduction initiatives, which will continue to expand in 2014. As a Navy, it is important to build more commonality in our shipboard systems and implement open architecture practices when designing new combat systems not only to reduce cost, but also to keep pace with the threat. Commonality is also important in order to reduce system variance in the fleet. Reducing variance will increase efficiency
in maintenance, logistics, personnel training and manpower distribution, and overall decreasing cost. Part of the PEO IWS strategy is to provide a common scalable computing infrastructure to surface ships where appropriate. PEO IWS is responsible for the development, integration and delivery of all combat systems on Aegis and SSDS ships. We will also continue to work with PEO Ships and PEO LCS in development oversight for DDG 1000 and LCS and preparing for transition of these combat systems into PEO IWS. Q: How does PEO IWS work with other PEOs when developing integrated technological solutions? A: We work hand in hand with the shipbuilders in PEO Ships, PEO LCS and PEO Carriers to design, develop, procure and sustain integrated combat systems to achieve the requirements of each ship class. We also work in close collaboration with PEO C4I, NAVAIR PEOs, and other program executives to achieve integration between our systems to provide an integrated warfare system. We also provide oversight to our industry partners to ensure that our end product is an integrated combat system that meets the war fighting requirements, performance, cost and standards. Our ability to work together is essential to deliver truly integrated capability to the fleet. Q: Is there anything else you would like to add? A: PEO IWS has been blessed with a highly capable and professional workforce with the common objective: To develop, deliver and sustain operationally dominant combat systems for sailors and Marines. I could not be prouder of the men and women in PEO IWS. Thank you for the opportunity. O
NEVER STOP LEARNING Considering a new degree? Advising your troops on their education options? You need Military Advanced Education’s 2014 Guide to Military-Friendly Colleges & Universities! Check out the searchable database at www.mae-kmi.com for the details prospective students and commanders are looking for! •
Access all the survey answers from the hundreds of schools that participated in MAE’s 2014 Guide to Military-Friendly Colleges & Universities
•
New and improved design makes it easier than ever to find what you’re looking for
•
Search the database by school name, state, online or brick-and-mortar schools
•
Compare and contrast institutions with all the info MAE used to score and designate our top schools
www.NPEO-kmi.com
NPEO 2.2 | 19
Keeping nuclear powered aircraft carriers in operation. By Scott R. Gourley NPEO Correspondent
As the only ship platforms in the U.S. Navy designed to last a half-century in service, America’s nuclear powered aircraft carriers play a unique role not only in fleet inventories but also in national strategic planning. Ensuring the relevance of these transformational platforms for their entire 50-year service life is supported by a lynchpin program known as refueling 20 | NPEO 2.2
complex overhaul (RCOH), a mid-life overhaul for the recapitalization of Nimitz class aircraft carriers. The 44-month maintenance period, which begins around the 23rd year of service, extends the life of a Nimitz class carrier by modernizing the ship’s combat and safety systems and equipment while also refueling the ship’s nuclear
reactors. Additionally, an RCOH provides an opportunity to perform underwater hull inspections and other maintenance related evaluations that cannot be accomplished while the ship is waterborne. The RCOH cycle provides sufficient time to perform more extensive propulsion plant repairs and testing than is possible during shorter scheduled maintenance periods. www.NPEO-kmi.com
“You have the ship captive for 44 The first RCOH, performed on USS months to get through the critical path Nimitz (CVN 68), began in 1998. Most work of refueling the ship and getting the recently, 2013 witnessed completion and propulsion plant put back together and re-delivery of the fourth successful RCOH, tested,” he noted. “So once the ship is delivUSS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), by ered back to the fleet, we really want to take Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) (a divimaximum advantage of the fact that the sion of Huntington Ingalls Industries) in ship has been offline for four years—and late August as well as the start of RCOH at get it back to the operating fleet.” NNS on USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) A cursory look at the numbers can be in March. deceiving. For example, the first RCOH, Planning and executing the multi-year performed on USS Nimitz, was done in just RCOH process involves Program Executive 39 months, the least amount of time of the Office (PEO) Carriers, Naval Reactors, first five CVNs. However, at the compleNaval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEAP), tion of that RCOH, Nimitz was sent back Supervisor of Shipbuilding Newport News, to the West Coast and taken offline again Huntington Ingalls Industries, Naval Air for an upgrade to the combat systems and Forces and, of course, the ship and her C4I suite. crew. “So what we’ve done is address the Within that team structure, PEO modernization [in RCOH] so that when the Carriers has the responsibility for coordiship comes out she is essennating planning, budgeting tially the most combat ready and execution of the RCOH. aircraft carrier we have,” “The RCOH has been, Moore said. “You’ll see that and remains, probably the the modernization package most demanding industrial on Lincoln is the biggest as task that anybody has ever a result. We want to fit that undertaken,” offered Rear work into the 44 months Admiral Thomas J. Moore, and we think we will be able U.S. Navy PEO Carriers. “I to do that.” would argue that it is much Moore said that another more challenging than Rear Adm. Moore processing change involved new construction. It’s a lot the fact that early RCOHs harder to take an existing were followed by four to six ship apart and go do what we months of ship shakedown do in some ways than buildand a subsequent four to six ing it from the ground up.” months of post shakedown Characterizing the proavailability in a shipyard. cess as being similar to “Starting with CVN 71 “open heart surgery,” Moore there was a concerted effort pointed to a number of lesto see how we could get the sons learned and process ship back to the fleet sooner improvements that have so that the combatant combeen implemented over the mander can use her quicker,” first five ships. Chris Miner he noted. “So we basically “The substantial change went back and did a ‘lean that has occurred since we event,’ and decided that we could incorpodid Nimitz is the recognition that this is rate a lot of the PSA/SRA [post shakedown an opportunity, while the ship is in there, availability/selected restricted availability] to get a lot more modernization done on work into the RCOH baseline length of 44 the ship,” he explained. “So if you were months. And a lot of that is also modernto look from a historical perspective at ization stuff. So we have basically built a the amount of modernization that we did program where we can reserve space and on Nimitz, for instance, and then trace weight in certain spaces and then get the that through [CVN] 69 [USS Dwight D. latest and greatest technology, particularly Eisenhower], 70 [USS Carl Vinson], 71 in the C4I computer world where the tech[USS Theodore Roosevelt], to 72 [USS nology turn circle is pretty tight. Abraham Lincoln], you would find that “The net result was that CVN 71, which Lincoln reflects the largest modernization we delivered in September, has essentially package that we have to date.” www.NPEO-kmi.com
already done flight deck certification and has been turned back over to the fleet commander to start into her workup cycle. She will deploy about 16 months after the end of her RCOH, and in reality she could have gone quicker if the fleet commander had wanted her to do that,” he added. “Relatively speaking, RCOH is a very efficient way to modernize the carrier, not just the refueling piece,” echoed Chris Miner, vice president of In-service Aircraft Carrier Programs at NNS. “In the 50-year life of an aircraft carrier, we can perform 35 percent of all the maintenance and modernization of that carrier in basically a 44-month period. If you think about that, it’s an extremely efficient way to reestablish/re-constitute that carrier—basically recapitalize that carrier’s value for the next 25 years. And to do it in a very short period of time is a very efficient way to do that work.” Outlining the level of effort over a 44-month RCOH, Miner pointed to more than 20 million man hours of work by a shipyard workforce that peaks at about 4,000 ship builders, along with another 2 million man hours of work is performed by the ship’s force (crew) and several million man hours by other Navy sub-contractors. “It’s a total team effort relative to the ship’s force, the Navy and the shipyard, but Newport News Shipbuilding is responsible for the integration of all of that work and getting it done in that 44 month period,” he said. “During that period we refuel the two nuclear reactors—that’s a core piece of it. We also strip down the catapult and the arresting gear—all the equipment that is used to launch and recover aircraft. We strip those down and refurbish them completely and rebuild them back to basically new construction/brand-new specs. That’s after 25 years of wear and tear. We also go through thousands of tanks and voids that have been used to store fuel, potable water or ballast water for the ship. We open those when a ship is in drydock. It sits in drydock for approximately 18 months when the ship arrives. And we refurbish those tanks and get them ready for refilling. We pull the shafts and refurbish the shafts and propellers. We overhaul literally thousands of pumps and valves throughout the ship. We upgrade their combat systems, navigation systems and all the electronics. “When she is done she is as capable as a brand-new carrier being delivered,” he added. NPEO 2.2 | 21
While acknowledging the extreme complexity of all aspects of RCOH, Miner said that the greatest challenges lie in the unknowns about a carrier’s specific arrival condition. “Although we spend 30-36 months planning for RCOH execution, including what we call pre-arrival ship checks where we will send people out to the ship to basically inspect and identify as many things as we possibly can that need to be worked on, the challenge is that for a 25-year-old ship there are some things that you just can’t see until you take them apart,” he said. “We have a lot of inspections and a lot of disassembly that we do to identify any of the ‘hidden issues’ that might not be a problem today, but when you are reconstituting the ship for another 25 years of service or bringing it back to a point where it’s just as reliable as it’s been for the first 25 years, the challenges are that we do identify a lot of additional work that we need to do as we are going through the RCOH. “We have become very good at being flexible to respond to those challenges and that additional ‘emergent work’ that is identified,” he continued. “We have a very robust technical engineering staff here and an organization that supports us, and obviously from our perspective the greatest shipbuilders in the world that have done this before. So they are able to quickly investigate and to do the analysis of the problem and provide the technical solution. We’re also very good at determining what materials are available, what skill sets are available, and then integrating that work into the baseline schedule. “But I don’t want to make that sound easy,” he cautioned. “That’s one of the largest challenges we have on the RCOH— the identification of new work during the period that we are actually trying to execute that 20-plus million man-hours of work that we have planned for.” Miner pointed to a number of other actions and procedures that have contributed myriad efficiencies to the RCOH. “We looked at new tooling and new processes,” he summarized. “We worked with the customer to ensure that all requirements are ‘value added.’ We changed the sequence of things and looked at things like how we bring the work and the dock together for things like refurbishing them and bringing them back. We have improved our processes for cleaning systems. We 22 | NPEO 2.2
The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) passes the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), as the Lincoln arrives at Newport News Shipbuilding to begin the ship’s midlife refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH). The Lincoln’s RCOH includes refueling the ship’s reactors, modernization work and major upgrades to the flight deck, catapults, combat systems and the island. The Theodore Roosevelt completed its RCOH in August 2013. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Ricky Thompson, Newport News Shipbuilding]
have improved our weld processes. We’ve improved our machining processes. All those types of things have added to benefits that we have done in the past. And we will continue to look at that in the future. “It’s also important for me to highlight one of the huge benefits of the RCOH program as a whole,” he added. “The RCOH program basically follows the same sequence in which the carriers were built. And it’s a heel-to-toe program. So as we were actually executing the RCOH here at the shipyard on Nimitz, we had people planning for the next RCOH on the Eisenhower. When the Nimitz was delivered and the Eisenhower was delivered immediately behind it we could take those same people that just did the work on the previous carrier and move them to the next carrier, taking with them those lessons learned and working to improve processes, improve cycle times, reduce cost and get more work into a smaller period of time.” Moore was quick to recognize the importance of efficiencies implemented to date as well as continuing budgetary pressures. Although the introduction of greater modernization elements in RCOH has “skewed” the cost curve to some extent, he pointed to “a concerted effort underway, in particular for CVN 73, to start tipping that cost curve back over, so
that I can get the same product out the door at a lower price—and at the same time still allow the company to make a reasonable profit.” “To their credit the cost performance on the RCOH program has been very, very good,” he said. “The way we measure cost performance—the cost performance index—is a bit above 1.0 on the previous four RCOHs. And I would tell you that you would be hard pressed to find a multi-billion dollar program anywhere in the world that has cost performances better than that. So a lot of credit goes to the company for doing what is very demanding and challenging work and performing that well from a cost performance standpoint.” Service participants point to the success of the RCOH program in ensuring that the venerable Nimitz-class still has 250 ship years remaining before the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) retires in 2059. Additionally, while RCOH is currently focused on Nimitz class CVNs, the Navy’s long term plans project a similar RCOH on the USS Gerald R. Ford in the 2039-2040 timeframe. 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
As the United States rebalances to Asia Pacific, Navy pivots to littoral combat ship. By Edward Lundquist Sometimes a big warship is too much of a good thing. When it comes to theater security cooperation (TSC), a powerful destroyer or large amphibious ship is too big for some ports, or an outsized match for the United States working with a partner naval or coast guard force. That becomes especially important as the U.S. rebalances its forces to emphasize the importance of the Pacific region. And the littoral combat ship (LCS) is a key part in that pivot. USS Freedom (LCS 1) returned to her homeport of San Diego in December 2013 after successfully completing her first overseas deployment to the Asia-Pacific region. The 10-month deployment to the Western Pacific was a demonstration of her considerable capabilities and operational flexibility through several exercises with regional maritime security partners. “The USS Freedom represents a change in force structure here as we move and migrate to having more ships in the Asian Pacific region. At any given time, we have about 50 ships deployed to the Asian Pacific region, and it’s been that way since the 1990s. By the end of this decade, we’ll have roughly 60 ships,” said Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert. Optimized for operations in coastal waters, LCS is a fast, agile and networked surface combatant designed to address specific littoral anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) threats. There is no other ship quite like it. www.NPEO-kmi.com
Greenert, the Navy’s top admiral, visited USS Freedom in Singapore last May. “My counterparts are impressed with the modularity, the space and the volume, the agility and the fact that the way the ship is constructed, you can put a payload in at places here and there. Having a rear door below at the stern of the ship and a side door there to deploy and redeploy small boats and patrol craft, they find that’s pretty interesting.” The Navy is procuring two variants of LCS. USS Freedom (LCS 1) was built by Lockheed Martin and commissioned in November 2008. USS Independence (LCS 2) was built by General Dynamics and commissioned in January 2010. The Freedom class is a steel, semi-planing mono-hull that measures 389 feet with a beam of 57 feet and a full load displacement of approximately 3,400 metric tons. Designated with odd hull numbers, the Freedom-class ships are being constructed on the banks of the Menominee River, in Marinette, Wis. The Independence class is an aluminum, stabilized monohull—commonly called a “trimarian” design—that measures 418.6 feet with a beam of 103.7 feet and a full load displacement of approximately 3,100 metric tons. Designated with even hull numbers, the Independence class is being constructed in Mobile, Ala. Regardless of design, LCS can operate in waters as shallow as 20 feet and reach speeds exceeding 40 knots. The anti-access threats NPEO 2.2 | 23
challenging our naval forces in the littorals include quiet diesel submarines, mines and small, highly maneuverable surface-attack craft. Such threats have great potential to be effectively employed by many less-capable countries and non-state actors to prevent unhindered access by U.S. forces to littoral areas. A key element of Navy’s future force, LCS provides a flexible ship, optimized to defeat these anti-access threats in the littorals. And LCS is small enough to get into many ports in Asia that larger ships are unable to access. “LCS provides a series of capabilities—I like to call them payloads—that you can put on board the ship in a more modular fashion. LCS offers speed and that volume and the agility to take in systems—with a large flight deck, large hangar and large mission bay,” said Greenert. “You can now tailor your capabilities to that. So you have one ship that can change its mission for a small, relatively small footprint. So being able to go to sea and be where it matters when it matters—without sovereignty issues—is important. We have places out here in the Asian Pacific region that allow to operate with our ships, to rest, relax, refurbish and repair as necessary. We can move from place to place to be where we need to be and be there when we need to be. And it limits the diplomatic stress and cost associated with trying to establish bases around the world.” Those “payloads” are the unique modular mission packages (MPs) that address littoral anti-access capability gaps in three mission areas: surface warfare (SUW), mine countermeasures (MCM), and anti-submarine warfare. The MPs are designed to deliver to the fleet in an incrementally phased fashion. The surface warfare MP will provide the ability to perform the full portfolio of maritime security operations while delivering increased firepower and offensive and defensive capabilities against fast, highly maneuverable small craft. The SUW MP includes two 11-meter rigid-hull inflatable boats for visit, board, search, and seizure; the gun mission module, consisting of two MK 46 30 mm gun systems; an MH-60R helicopter armed with Hellfire; a surface-to-surface missile module; and vertical-takeoff unmanned aerial vehicle (VTUAV). The MCM MP will provide capabilities to detect, identify and neutralize mines throughout the water column through the use of systems deployed from off-board manned and unmanned vehicles. A significant change in the mine warfare concept of operations, the MCM MP uses off-board assets, keeping the ship and crew outside mine danger areas. Dramatically improving the search and coverage rates, the package will include: remote multi-mission vehicles with the AN/AQS-20A mine hunting sonar; an MH-60S helicopter capable of employing the AN/ASQ-235 Airborne Mine Neutralization system or the AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System; VTUAV with the Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis mine detection system; and in later phases an unmanned influence sweep system and Knifefish unmanned underwater vehicle. The anti-submarine warfare MP enables LCS to conduct detectto-engage operations against modern submarine threats in the littorals. Mission systems in the package include: an MH-60R helicopter with airborne low frequency sonar, sonobuoys and MK 54 Lightweight Torpedo; the Light Weight Towed Torpedo Defense and Countermeasures Module; the AN/SQR-20 Multi-Function Towed Array; and variable-depth sonar with continuous active sonar. Fully self-deployable and capable of sustained underway operations to any part of the world, LCS offers the speed, endurance and underway replenishment capability to transit and operate independently, with carrier strike groups, expeditionary strike groups, or 24 | NPEO 2.2
surface action groups. Optimized to defeat anti-access threats in the littorals, LCS delivers the enhanced war fighting capabilities and increased operational flexibility needed by a forward operating Navy. Over the lifetime of a ship, threats and capabilities change and the surface force being built today will require upgrades to its technologies and capabilities to maintain their war fighting edge. Through modularity, ships could be kept current and combat relevant by changing modular components rather than removing the ships from service for time consuming and costly mid-life overhauls. “What we do down here is build partnership capacity through theater security cooperation, and preparing for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. We’ve had typhoons in [the] Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand, and the tsunami of 2004 in Indonesia and around the region. This ship will work to find out what missions resonate with the needs of the nations down here, and we’ll work to bring our skills together in that area,” Greenert said. “It is a littoral combat ship, and this is one of the biggest littoral areas of the world. So, from that perspective, I’m very excited about the possibilities.” Pacific Commander Admiral Sam Locklear said, “LCS will be a key player in the security environment in the world that I deal with, which has got a lot of littorals, and a lot of interesting things going on.” The commander of Destroyer Squadron Seven, Captain Paul Schlise, said that LCS provides a capability and scale that America’s friends and allies in Southeast Asia are truly excited about. “With its shallow draft, it can get to places our larger ships can’t go and the ship and crew size are comparable to the regional navies we work with everyday in and around the South China Sea. We are looking forward to expanding the LCS operational footprint as we train and operate with partner navies in this incredibly important international waterway.” The Navy planned to build 52 LCS, but Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel voiced concern that the Navy was relying too heavily on the LCS to achieve its long-term goals for ship numbers. In announcing the Department of Defense’s 2015 budget submission on February 24, 2014, Secretary Hagel directed the Navy to “submit alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, generally consistent with the capabilities of a frigate. I’ve directed the Navy to consider a completely new design, existing ship designs, and a modified LCS. These proposals are due to me later this year in time to inform next year’s budget submission.” “We need to closely examine whether the LCS has the independent protection and firepower to operate and survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia Pacific,” Hagel said. O Captain Edward Lundquist, U.S. Navy (Ret.), is a naval analyst and strategic communication professional with MCR Federal in Washington, DC. He served as a surface warfare officer and public affairs officer. He writes on naval, maritime, defense and security issues for trade and professional journals around the world. 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
Navy faced with long-term decisions. Navy and Marine aircraft are essential U.S. assets that must always be closely in touch with their ships, commands and other U.S. forces to be effective. Yet Navy jets operate across the globe, over sea and land, over some of the longest distances and in some of the toughest environments encountered by U.S. forces Communication links for these aircraft have their own special challenges. “Limited by line of sight and susceptible to environmental phenomena such as icing and electrical storms, VHF/UHF communication performance can become degraded,” noted Lieutenant Robert Myers of the Navy Office of Information. “There are a number of ways to combat this degradation, including reducing range to the receiver, adjusting altitude, changing frequencies and heating antennas.” The bigger, long-term communication challenge for naval aviation arises from progress and opportunities. The continuing revolution in telecommunications and information technology is making possible much better, more robust and flexible communication for all sorts of platforms—civilian and military. The Navy naturally wants to exploit these opportunities. But choices will have to be made and priorities set to keep the transformation of Navy communications affordable and to ensure that both legacy and new systems can stay in touch during the transition. The Navy needs to pay attention to what other services are doing, because it must continue to communicate with them. But the specific features of Navy assets and missions will also shape the solutions adopted. Broadly speaking, the Navy faces the same problems as the other U.S. services in its communication infrastructure and mobile networks, according to Tom Kirkland, senior director, defense business development at Thales Defense & Security. www.NPEO-kmi.com
By Henry Canaday, NPEO Correspondent
in military applications while maintainThe basic problem is the possibility of coming backwards interoperability with curmunication gaps throughout the battle rent systems. The second is exploiting all space. aspects of networks with the limited bandKirkland said U.S. forces are attempting width available on aircraft. The third is to modernize to keep up with performance being “spectrum-agile,” based on theater capabilities of commercial technology. Navy of operations. Finally, there is fully inteand other defense personnel have expecgrating color heads-up display systems that tations based on services available from can consolidate data available from ground commercial technologies on the long-term forces and on-board systems. evolution (LTE) standard and broadband These possible gaps arise because it networking. “They want the network access, is essential to modernize Navy commuspeed and bandwidth of these commernications, but it will be cial networks to be proliferimpossible to modernize ated throughout the battle communications for all U.S. space.” Moreover, U.S. forces forces in the next five years. will need networks and netSo the U.S. Navy “will need work management to collaboto seek creative technical rate with each other and with solutions that focus on modcoalition partners. ernizing the fleet while not Kirkland said the Navy losing backwards interoperis making progress in creability,” Kirkland stressed. ating networks that meet One specific modernthese higher expectations. He Tom Kirkland ization challenge is quickly points to the recent decision accessing all available data to outfit and test the USS from ground forces that helps pilots make Kearsarge and USS San Antonio with LTE more informed decisions. Kirkland said systems. pilots should be able to see high-definition But as commercial technology is adopted video from a joint terminal attack controlby military organizations, there will be ler calling in close air support as well as gaps between legacy communications sysunmanned aircraft vehicle video feeds in tems, new systems and coalition networks. the area and position location information “Retrofitting military aircraft is particularly for friendly forces, all in a single modifiable expensive, and it is very time-consuming to color-enabled, heads-up display. retrofit an entire fleet,” said Kirkland. So the The Navy has many choices to make new communication technology and capain modernizing aircraft communications bilities are likely to go first to units that are systems in a fiscally-constrained environnot as time-consuming to retrofit. These ment. “The first question that needs to be could include the Naval Special Warfare answered is what does the Navy want from groups, Seabees, base infrastructure and their objective network today and in 10 or the Marines. This may make communica20 years?” Kirkland said. tions with non-modernized Navy aircraft Next, the Navy must decide whether more difficult. to build on its current system architecture Kirkland said communication gaps or to redesign the entire system to ensure could develop in several areas. The first full integration of the aircraft-management is implementing commercial capabilities NPEO 2.2 | 25
system, heads-up display and communications networks. Another major choice is which waveforms suit naval mission objectives. Options here include the joint tactical radio system suite of waveforms: soldier radio waveform, wideband networking waveform and mobile user objective system. Also possible are Defense Department waveforms: tactical data link and Link 16. Finally, there are commercial technologies, including LTE, 802.16E and others. The Navy must also decide on timing and priorities—that is, which parts of the network will be addressed first. Kirkland said Thales is excited to be a part of the evolution of broadband tactical networks across all services. He emphasized that his company focuses on solutions that ensure backwards interoperability with currently fielded systems while using the best of commercial technology. John Byrnes, director of Datalink Systems at BAE Systems, said the current caps in Navy airborne communications are in high bandwidth survivable networks and networked weapon capabilities. “These are all being addressed within the defense community with joint aerial layered network (JALN), tactical targeting network technology (TTNT), weapons data link, naval integrated fire control-counter air and others.” Byrnes believed the Navy is looking diligently at JALN-Maritime capability. “We expect that results of various internal investigations will possibly result in future RFPs within the next two to three years,” he said, referring to JALN-M, with extended data rate waveform and advanced extremely high-frequency satellites. The BAE exec said the Navy’s basic choice at this point is between making do with existing narrow-band capabilities with incremental improvements—for example, with concurrent multi-netting with concurrent contention receive enhanced throughput and crypto mod—or migrating to a whole new high-speed mobile ad hoc network solution. BAE has been involved in many activities to improve defense communication. “We’re excited about DoD’s transition to the next generation of airborne capability and are awaiting the various decisions that OSD and others are involved in,” Byrnes said. BAE partners with Rockwell Collins in the data link solutions (DLS) joint venture. DLS already provides a significant amount of airborne networking capabilities with its multifunctional information distribution system (MIDS) and MIDS-joint tactical radio 26 | NPEO 2.2
capabilities, the ability to share information system Link-16 product lines. It has already and then convert information into tactical delivered more than 6,000 terminals to 36 and strategic advantages. countries. The communications transformation will Rockwell Collins’ experience with the affect many Navy units that must manage the Navy extends back to Rear Admiral Byrd’s change, as well as private organizations that South Polar expedition of 1933. Most Navy help retrofit expensive assets. For example, and Marine Corps aircraft fly with Rockwell Rockwell’s TTNT is the Navy’s new advanced radios, and the company’s TTNT enabled the data link for carrier aircraft. “The secure, X-47B to be the first unmanned vehicle to high-speed TTNT will ultimately allow sharcomplete an arrested landing on an aircraft ing of high volumes of targeting data at carrier. high data rates,” explained “The Navy is prudently Mark Gammon, Boeing’s exploring anticipated needs Advanced Capabilities proas DoD redirects efforts to gram manager. contested warfare that could Boeing is currently workchallenge our armed forces in ing with the Navy to ensure expanded levels of conflict,” TTNT is integrated in the observed Charles Hautau, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets director of Navy/Marine Corps and EA-18G Growlers. “With and Coast Guard Programs at the high-speed, low-latency Rockwell Collins. He noted TTNT, Growlers, E-2D that the chief of naval operMark Gammon Hawkeyes and eventually ations has voiced concerns Super Hornets will be able to about a possible capabilcreate a multi-platform, multi-sensor, fused ity gap in electromagnetic warfare. Hautau targeting picture that allows many targets to predicted that traditional defense thinking be engaged rapidly, both air-to-surface and about communications will evolve toward air-to-air,” Gammon said. data and voice networks. He believes defense In summer 2013, the Navy flew Growlers planners will view these networks as major with sensor-system upgrades and TTNT, demcomponents of war, not just supporting or onstrating how enhanced technology will enabling elements. allow aircrews to locate threats more quickly “Next-generation communications will and accurately. The technology will be incorbe much more resilient and flexible, able to porated into deployed Growler electronicrespond to threats in certain spectrums and attack aircraft in 2018, before all other Navy intelligently react to any threats, such as jamaircraft except the E-2D surveillance aircraft. ming or cyber attack,” Hautau summarized. Gammon said Super Hornets and “The Navy has been and should continue Growlers have had significant multi-source investing in these areas.” Communication integration capability for some time, and the networking technologies will benefit from Navy plans to continue adding new fusion dramatic improvements in processing power, capability. “Boeing and its industry partners miniaturization and heat reduction, Hautau continue to evolve the architecture to ensure said. These improvements will enable signifthese aircraft can outmatch threats in future icant reductions in size, weight and power. networked battle environments.” Hautau said the Navy should continue Boeing is now exploiting the data-link exploring ways to integrate advanced netcapacity of TTNT and the advanced comworks into both legacy and future aircraft and puting capabilities of the new Distributed do this better and less expensively. Rockwell Targeting System–Networked (DTS-N) to is a member of the Future Avionics Capability significantly increase fusion capabilities of Environment consortium, which is attemptthe carrier aircraft. Boeing’s fusion software, ing to establish open-architecture standards derived from F-22A Raptors and the AWACS that may help address this challenge. 40/44, combined with the TTNT data link Hautau understands the Navy must and DTS-N, will bring this data-fusion capaanswer tough questions in improving combility to Super Hornets and Growlers. O munications. “What are the numbers? What is the capability required? How long will it take to be developed and deployed? How For more information, contact NPEO Editor Brian O’Shea much will it cost?” Platforms such as ships, at briano@kmimediagroup.com or search our online submarines and aircraft are essential, of archives for related stories at www.npeo-kmi.com. course. But he said the real test is their 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 General Atomics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C2 www.ga.com/ems
Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C4 www.ballaerospace.com
Calendar June 24-26, 2014 Mega Rust 2014: Naval Corrosion Conference San Diego, Calif. www.navalengineers.org
May 28-29, 2014 Electric Machines Technology Symposium (EMTS) 2014 Philadelphia, Pa. www.navalengineers.org
September 9-10, 2014 Fleet Maintenance & Modernization Symposium Virginia Beach, Va. www.navalengineers.org
June 10-12, 2014 Multi-Agency Craft Conference Virginia Beach, Va. www.navalengineers.org
November 19-20, 2014 Launch & Recovery of Manned and Unmanned Vehicles from Surface Platforms Linthicum, Md. www.navalengineers.org December 3-5, 2014 International Workboat Show New Orleans, La. www.workboatshow.com
?
Want to REACH the decision-makers in the DEFENSE COMMUNITY With a unique concentration on senior military officers and DoD leadership, KMI
KMI’S FAMILY OF PUBLICATIONS Border Threat Prevention and CBRNE Response
Media Group focuses on distinct and essential communities within the defense market. This provides the most powerful and precise way to reach the exact audience that procures and deploys your systems, services and equipment.
BORDER SECURITY & EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
SPECIAL SECTION:
Integrated Fixed Towers
Border Protector
GEOSPATIAL INTELLIGENCE FORUM
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
Hazmat Disaster Response Wide Area Aerial Surveillance O Program Tactical Communications O P-3
GROUND COMBAT TECHNOLOGY MILITARY ADVANCED EDUCATION MILITARY LOGISTICS FORUM MILITARY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
KMI Media Group offers by far the largest
MILITARY MEDICAL & VETERANS AFFAIRS FORUM
and most targeted distribution within critical
MILITARY TRAINING TECHNOLOGY World’s Largest
market segments. Sharp editorial focus, pinpoint accuracy and depth of circulation
Distributed
Special Ops
Magazine
NAVY AIR/SEA PEO FORUM
2013
SOCOM PROGRAM MANAGEM ENT UPDATES
SPECIAL OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY
SOF Enhancer Adm. Bill H. McRa ven Comman der Special Operatio ns Comman d
www.SOTECH-k mi.com
May 2013
Volume
make KMI Media Group publications the most cost-effective way to ensure your
11, Issue
4
Rapidly Deployab Robotics le Technolog Networks O SOF y O Global Light SOF TrainingVehicles
TACTICAL ISR TECHNOLOGY U.S. COAST GUARD FORUM
advertising message has true impact. To learn about advertising opportunities, call KMI Media Group at 301.670.5700
www.NPEO-kmi.com
NPEO 2.2 | 27
INDUSTRY INTERVIEW
Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum
Ken Eagen Manager, Domestic Programs Northrop Grumman Information Systems Q: How would you describe your after-sale support capabilities?
Ken Eagen manages product development for Northrop Grumman Information Systems’ Intelligence Systems Division and has been employed at NG since 2010. Previously, Eagen has also worked on various intelligence-related surface and airborne systems over his career across Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and DRS Technologies. Q: What are your primary business areas with the Navy? A: Northrop Grumman Information Systems supports our Navy customer from a variety of locations across the country. We work extensively with NAVAIR and the Naval Special Warfare (NSW) organizations and are currently supporting NAVSEA in areas like big data, C4ISR and critical infrastructure protection. Another primary business area includes our work on the design, manufacturing and integration of size, weight and power-constrained sensor payload systems within multiple ISR and EW (electronic warfare) mission packages. This includes both vertical takeoff and landing and persistent, long-endurance manned and unmanned platforms. Q: How have you adjusted your Navy-related business to maximize efficiencies and help keep costs down? A: One key aspect of adjusting our Navy business models to maximize both mission and cost effectiveness is our development of a standard Airborne Product Line Common SIGINT System (APL/CSS). This product line leverages technological investments from national, Army, Air Force and SOCOM programs for flexible reuse and configuration of Navy specific missions and platforms. These high technical readiness level products are easily adapted to evolving ISR, SIGINT, EW and cyber missions and targets. When practical, we show that our products meet mission needs through live demonstrations or exercises. For example, in 2013 we participated in a live fleet experimentation (FLEX) event known as 28 | NPEO 2.2
Trident Warrior 2013, sponsored by the Navy Warfare Development Command, OPNAV, NAVAIR and NAVSEA. For the Navystaged fast attack craft/fast inbound attack craft scenario, Northrop Grumman demonstrated our APL/CSS capability in rapid detection, geolocation, and cross-cuing of multi-INT sensors. FLEX demonstrations like this help customers define and streamline concepts of operations, mitigate future mishaps or tactical errors, and maximize warfighter operational tempo, while simultaneous proving that off-the-shelf systems can meet Navy needs. Q: How do you coordinate your business development efforts to make sure they match what the Navy is looking for? A: Business development efforts are coordinated by an internal oversight panel of subject matter experts (SMEs) who initiate weekly updates for their respective Navy arenas. This panel is tasked with understanding, at a very granular level, their Navy customer missions. Whenever possible and appropriate, we locate a senior-level executive in close geographic proximity to our customers. For example, at NAVAIR we have a dedicated, senior-level SME living in the Patuxent River, Md. area, whose responsibility is to manage day-to-day corporate and sector-level operations and customer interactions. This process helps to ensure that our customer has a single access point to Northrop Grumman, who is able to quickly match customer needs to the correct business development and technical resources within the company.
A: Northrop Grumman has extensive field service representative (FSR) support programs sustaining our delivered mission systems. Typically, our technical staff rotates in and out of operational theaters on a regular basis, matching user needs and keeping our staff fully trained on all aspects of our systems. We strive to develop and deliver reliability and quality over quantity to make sure the systems we deliver will successfully operate as expected and promised. Q: What do you see as major challenges over the next 12 months and how are you addressing them? A: Our company views one of the biggest challenges over the next year, and frankly into the future, as our ability to focus research and development investments in a tightly constrained budget environment, enabling us to address the most critical areas and defining requirements to satisfy emerging or unknown threats. At Northrop Grumman, we design flexibility into our systems by using open, scalable architectures that incorporate off-the-shelf or third-party executable software applications along with state-of-the-art, off-the-shelf hardware technologies. Our research and development efforts are critical to enhancing capabilities as our systems continue to be deployed in new, asymmetric, or irregular warfare environments. Q: How do you measure success? A: We measure our success by how successful our customers are in their missions. Much of this feedback comes directly from our FSRs—located many times in harm’s way, just like the customer. Realignment and continuous mapping of Northrop Grumman’s technology development to the customer’s mission are keys to future business growth, and most importantly, trust within the customer community. O kenneth.eagen@ngc.com www.NPEO-kmi.com
April 2014 Volume 2, Issue 3
Next Issue
Cover and In-Depth Interview with:
Rear Adm. David Johnson Program Executive Officer PEO Submarines special section
program Spotlight
Launch and Recovery
Undersea Weapons Program
The Navy’s need to efficiently launch and recover aircraft at sea is crucial to operational success.
Research is ongoing to develop offensive and defensive weapons capable of engaging submarines, surface ships and threat torpedoes.
Features Future Program/Project Managers
Precision Strike Weapons
The Defense Acquisition University works in partnership with other educational institutions to develop future defense acquisition leaders.
No matter how much damage a weapon causes, it’s only effective if it hits the target. Advancements in technology have given the U.S. Navy a number of options for precision strike weapons.
Unmanned Underwater Vehicles
On-board Fire Supression
Divers can handle a plethora of tasks while submerged, but there are some jobs that are best left to unmanned underwater vehicles.
Fires can prove disastrous on ships at sea. It is critical to have suppression methods before they get out of hand.
Integrated Ship System Resource Guide
Radar Systems
Defense acquisition programs have several options when choosing the best technology and hardware for a ship’s operation, and these leaders of industry are at the top of their respected fields.
Radar is the primary air traffic control, air surveillance, surface surveillance, navigation, and engagement support sensor system for aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships and will likely remain so for at least the first half of the 21st century.
Insertion Order Deadline: April 23, 2014 • Ad Materials Deadline: April 30, 2014 Terry Harrington, Account Executive • terryh@kmimediagroup.com • 301-670-5700 x158