npeo 2 3 final

Submarine Facilitator

Rear Adm. David Johnson

Program Executive OfficerPEO Submarines

Strategic Partnership O Fire Suppression O UUVsPrecision Strike Weapons O Helicopter Protection

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs

www.NPEO-kmi.com

June 2014Volume 2, Issue 3

SPECIAL SECTION:Launch and Recovery

www.gdeb.com

OHIO REPLACEMENT SSBNBUILDING THE

FUTURE – TODAY THE WORLD DEMANDS DETERRENCE... THE TIMES DEMAND AFFORDABILITY

General Dynamics Electric Boat has demonstrated a new method of constructing the next-generation SSBN that will save millions of dollars per ship, a decade before work begins. One Navy admiral called it ‘The most successful prototype program I have ever been involved with.’ It’s part of the Navy-EB commitment to controlling costs of a program vital to national security.

To order a poster of this ad go to www.gdeb.com/news/advertising

Cover / Q&AFeatures

ReaR admiRaL david Johnson

Program Executive OfficerPEO Submarines

16

13heLicopteR pRotectionDARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has had several projects in recent years looking at RPGs and the challenges to defending against them.

21FiRe suppRessionFires can prove disastrous on ships at sea. It is critical to have suppression methods before they get out of hand.By Brian O’Shea

24stRategic paRtneRship pRogRamThe Defense Acquisition University works in partnership with other educational institutions to develop future defense acquisition leaders.By Brian O’Shea

26

sateLLite communications“D” D’Ambrosio Executive Vice President Government Solutions O3b Networks LLC

June 2014Volume 2, Issue 3navy air/sea peo forum

Industry InterviewWiLLiam p. LennonVice President Engineering and Design ProgramsGeneral Dynamics Electric Boat

28

Departments2 editoR’s peRspective3 undeRWay/peopLe14 main deck27 ResouRce centeR

5

8

“The PEO is comprised of a

multi-disciplined military, civilian and contractor team working

in eight program offices that execute

20 acquisition category level

programs with an annual budget of about $8 billion.”

-Rear Admiral David Johnson

Launch and RecoveRyThe Navy’s need to efficiently launch and recover aircraft at sea is crucial to operational success.By Peter BuxBaum

pRecision stRike Weapons 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.By Brian O’Shea

speciaL section

10

unmanned undeRWateR vehicLesDivers can handle a plethora of tasks while submerged, but there are some jobs that are best left to unmanned underwater vehicles.By Brian O’Shea

In February 2012, although the Navy had concerns that its battle force was below the number of ships needed, the Navy announced plans to decommission nine ships prior to the expected end of their service lives. Seven cruisers and two dock-landing ships were decommissioned early. When this happens, the Navy is required to produce a decision memorandum to address the why the ships were decommissioned and how capability gaps will be mitigated, said a recently released Government Accountability Office (GAO) report

The decision memorandum was never prepared and Navy officials explained that while discussions regarding budget and cost issues, including maintenance and modernization costs, did take place, the memorandum was never prepared because they were under pressure to identify budget savings.

Congress disagreed with the decision to decommission the ships and provided funds to maintain, operate and sustain the nine ships in the fleet, and the Navy has since reversed its decision to decommis-sion the ships. Now the Navy plans to take these nine ships and five others out of their normal deployment cycles and modernize them.

“The Navy’s decommissioning policy does not incorporate key federal standards for internal control such as engaging external stakeholders, comparing actual performance to planned or expected results, and evaluating performance measures to achieve goals,” said the GAO report.

The GAO recommended that the Navy follow its policy to document its early decommissioning deci-sions and also update its policy to incorporate key federal standards for internal control—including engaging external stakeholders and evaluating performance measures, such as risks. DoD partially agreed with both recommendations and agreed that it should follow the policy, but questioned the importance of updating the policy to incorporate certain internal control elements.

I can understand engaging external stakeholders when making decisions concerning decommis-sioning ships, but on the flip side of things, the Navy is often under intense pressure to make budget cuts while maintaining the same level of capability. Doing more with less is a common mantra among the Navy’s top leadership. In my opinion, the decision makers were doing what they thought was best for our country given the fiscal demands of the current economic climate. If you have any questions regarding Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum feel free to contact me at any time.

Brian O’SheaeditOr

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs

editorialEditorBrian O’Shea [email protected]

Managing Editorharrison donnelly [email protected]

Online Editorial ManagerLaura mcnulty [email protected]

Copy EditorSean Carmichael [email protected]

CorrespondentsPeter Buxbaum • Henry Canaday • Nora McGann Melanie Scarborough • Marc Selinger

art & designArt DirectorJennifer Owers [email protected]

Ads and Materials ManagerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected]

Senior Graphic DesignerScott morris [email protected]

Graphic Designers andrea herrera [email protected] Paquette [email protected]

advertisingAccount Executiveterry harrington [email protected]

kmi media groupChief Executive OfficerJack Kerrigan [email protected]

Publisher and Chief Financial OfficerConstance Kerrigan [email protected]

Editor-In-ChiefJeff mcKaughan [email protected]

ControllerGigi Castro [email protected]

Trade Show Coordinatorholly Foster [email protected]

operations, circulation & productionOperations AdministratorBob Lesser [email protected]

Circulation & Marketing Administratorduane ebanks [email protected]

CirculationBarbara Gill [email protected] denise Woods [email protected]

Data Specialistraymer Villanueva [email protected]

subscription informationNavy Air/Sea PEO Forum

issn 2333-3251is 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.

corporate officesKMI Media Group

15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300rockville, md 20855-2604 uSa

telephone: (301) 670-5700Fax: (301) 670-5701

Web: www.nPeO-kmi.com

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

Volume 2, Issue 3 • June 2014

eDiTor’s perspeCTive

KMI MEDIA GROUP LEADERSHIP MAGAZINES AND WEBSITES

www.GCT-kmi.com

UAS Leader

Col. Tim BaxterU.S. Army Project Manager UAS Project Office

Technology & Intel for the Maneuver Warfighter

May 2014Volume 5, Issue 3

www.GCT-kmi.com

Rapidly Deployable ISR O Tactical UAS O Enduring REFArmy Aviation O Wheeled Vehicles O Ammo

SPECIAL SECTION:MANNED-UNMANNED TEAMING

Ground Combat & Tactical ISR

www.M2VA-kmi.com

Military Medical & Veterans Affairs

Forum

www.GIF-kmi.com

Geospatial Intelligence Forum

www.MT2-kmi.com

Military Training Technology

www.MAE-kmi.com

Military AdvancedEducation

www.NPEO-kmi.com

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

www.MIT-kmi.com

Military Information Technology

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

SOCOM Leader

Adm. Bill H. McRaven

CommanderSOCOM

Diver Gear O 3-D Training O Protective Gear Mulltinational Partnerships

May 2014 Volume 12, Issue 4

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

World’s Largest Distributed Special Ops Magazine

Program Management Updates

SOCOM2014

Special Operations Technology

www.MLF-kmi.com

Reverse Auctions O Defense Transportation O Afghanistan RetrogradeILS O Supply Chain Efficiencies O DMSMS O Senior Logisticians

The Publication of Record for the Military Logistics Community

Resource Aligner

Vice Adm. William A. “Andy” Brown Deputy CommanderU.S. Transportation Command

SPECIAL PULL-OUT SUPPLEMENTUSTRANSCOM

www.MLF-kmi.com

November/December 2013Volume 7, Issue 10

Exclusive Interview with:

GAIL JORGENSONAcquisition Director USTRANSCOM

Military Logistics Forum

www.CGF-kmi.com

U.S. Coast Guard & Border Security

U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command Awards $10 Million Contract to Maintain Torpedoes

Operational readiness of the U.S. Navy’s MK-48 heavyweight torpedo inventory will continue to be ensured by Lockheed Martin. The Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) recently awarded Lockheed Martin a contract option worth approximately $10 million to support the Navy’s intermediate-level maintenance activities for all MK-48 torpedoes. This is the first option exercised from a contract awarded in 2013 and brings the total contract value to more than $18 million.

“The key to this program’s success is our strong partnership with the U.S. Navy,” said Rob Smith, Ph.D., vice president of C4ISR for Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Solutions. “Working in unison, our teams established a diligent process that ensures reliability and helps

reduce life cycle costs for the Navy’s torpedo enterprise.”

Lockheed Martin has provided specialized undersea weapons main-tenance for the MK-48 since 2007. The Lockheed Martin team includes qualified torpedo maintenance tech-nicians who maintain the govern-ment-furnished equipment and property according to Navy regula-tions. Lockheed Martin provides all infrastructure support for the inter-mediate maintenance activities, including quality assurance, training, audit support, pier side services and ordnance handling. The Navy provides the facility, all required parts and equipment, as well as the proce-dures necessary to perform the main-tenance tasks.

Since torpedoes can be used multiple times for training and

exercises, Lockheed Martin refur-bishes these heavyweight torpe-does to ensure adequate numbers of ready-for-issue weapons are available to the Navy’s fleet commanders. Lockheed Martin performs intermediate-level mainte-nance for both exercise and wartime-ready “warshot” configurations of

the MK-48 advanced capability torpedoes. These training torpedoes are used for fleet training, a critical combat advantage to the submarine force, and their reliability is para-mount in the success of this training.

Work on this contract is performed at the Navy’s facility in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Compiled by KMI Media Group staffunDerWay

Rear Admiral David J. Gale has been assigned as program executive officer for ships, Washington Navy Yard, D.C. Gale is currently serving as deputy commander for surface warfare, SEA-21, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Mark W. Darrah has been selected for the rank of rear admiral and will be assigned as program executive officer for Strike Weapons and Unmanned Aviation, Patuxent River, Md. Darrah is currently serving as commander, Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division; and assistant

commander for Research and Engineering, Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River.

Rear Admiral John C. Aquilino has been assigned as deputy chief of staff for operations, training and readiness, N3/N7, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Aquilino previously served as commander, Carrier Strike Group Two, Norfolk, Va.

Rear Admiral George W. Ballance has been assigned as commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Southern Command/commander, Fourth Fleet, Mayport, Fla. Ballance is

currently serving as director, theater engage-ment, J-7, U.S. Southern Command, Doral, Fla.

Rear Admiral Sinclair M. Harris has been assigned as vice director for operations, J-3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C. Harris is currently serving as commander, U.S. Naval Forces, U.S. Southern Command/commander, 4th Fleet, Mayport Fla.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Richard W. Butler has been assigned as commander, Strike Force Training Atlantic, Norfolk. Butler is currently serving as commander, Joint Task Force Guantanamo, U.S.

Southern Command, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Rear Admiral (lower half) John G. King has been assigned as commander, Defense Logistics Agency-Land and Maritime, Columbus, Ohio. King is currently serving as commander, Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support, Philadelphia, Pa. Rear Admiral (lower half) Kevin J. Kovacich has been assigned as director, plans and programs, U.S. Africa Command, Stuttgart, Germany. Kovacich is currently serving as

commander, Carrier Strike Group 12, Norfolk.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Andrew L. Lewis has been assigned as commander, Carrier Strike Group 12, Norfolk. Lewis is currently serving as commander, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Fallon, Nev.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Victorino G. Mercado has been assigned as commander, Carrier Strike Group 8, Norfolk. Mercado is currently serving as deputy director, plans and policy, J-5B, U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla.

Compiled by KMI Media Group staffpeopLe

www.NPEO-kmi.com NPEO 2.3 | 3

High-Performance Digital Signal Processing Modules

Contract AwardedMercury Systems Inc., a provider of commercially

developed, open sensor and big data processing systems for critical commercial, defense and intelligence applica-tions, announced it received a $3.2 million follow-on order from a leading defense prime contractor for high-perfor-mance digital signal processing modules for an unmanned airborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) application. The order was booked in the company’s fiscal 2014 third quarter and is expected to be shipped by its fiscal 2015 third quarter.

“Our commitment to delivering innovative building blocks that provide superior value and performance across generations of applications has proved essential to the success of our long-standing relationship with this defense contractor,” said Didier Thibaud, president of Mercury’s Commercial Electronics business unit. “Mercury’s advanced, highly reliable signal processing systems continue to be a critical element in SAR programs that deliver high resolu-tion actionable data.”

$39M Contract Awarded to Service AE 1107C Engines

for V-22 AircraftRolls-Royce has been awarded $39 million to support

AE 1107C engines for V-22 aircraft operated by the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force.

The Rolls-Royce MissionCare contract, a modifica-tion of a prior agreement, includes repairs and support services, with work carried out at Rolls-Royce facilities in Indianapolis, Ind., and Oakland, Calif., as well as fleet support at customer bases. The contract for work in 2014-15 was awarded through the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md.

Paul Craig, president, defence services, Rolls Royce, said, “We are focused on providing innovative support and helping our customers complete their missions every day. Rolls-Royce is continuously working to improve the AE 1107C engine, increasing both power and reliability for the operator.”

The Rolls-Royce AE 1107C turboshaft is part of the AE product family, which has over 5,800 engines in service and has accumulated nearly 60 million flight hours. In addition to a dedicated team of field service representatives, Rolls-Royce also supports the AE 1107C engine fleet through the Defense Operations Center in Indianapolis, providing 24/7 real-time engineering support for V-22 operators.

Compiled by KMI Media Group staffunDerWay

Navy Awards Presidential Helicopter Replacement Contract

The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) recently awarded the Presidential Helicopters Replacement Program (VXX) contract to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation.

The $1,244,677,064 fixed-price incentive engineering and manu-facturing development (EMD) contract, with production options, culminates a full and open compe-tition to contract for integration of mature mission systems into an existing in-production aircraft in order to minimize the cost of devel-oping and testing a new design.

“Throughout the entire proposal process, we emphasized cost as well as technical perfor-mance,” said U.S. Navy Captain Dean Peters, program manager for NAVAIR’s Presidential Helicopters Program Office (PMA-274). “Our contract objectives are directly tied to mission requirements and long-term sustainability. We are committed to a cost-effective acqui-sition strategy and prudent use of existing technology. Sikorsky’s proposal adequately supports this commitment and together we will efficiently deliver the next presiden-tial helicopter fleet in an affordable and timely manner.”

Under the EMD contract, Sikorsky will provide six test aircraft, four of which will become opera-tional assets. Production options

will result in production of an addi-tional 17 operational aircraft.

Following a three-year period of market research and analysis of alternatives that informed the Navy’s acquisition approach, a draft request for proposal (RFP) was issued November 23, 2012. The draft RFP allowed industry to review the program’s strategy and require-ments, and to provide further feed-back on requirement clarity and potential cost and schedule drivers. The Navy used this feedback to refine the final RFP, which was released May 3, 2013, and closed August 1, 2013.

The U.S. Marine Corps currently operates 11 VH-3D and eight VH-60N helicopters; the VH-3Ds were origi-nally placed in service in 1974, and the VH-60s entered service in the 1980s.

The Navy will continue sustaining the existing presiden-tial helicopter fleet to ensure safe operations until the transition to the new aircraft can take place.

The PMA-274 has ultimate responsibility for providing equip-ment and support to ensure the safe and timely helicopter trans-portation for the president and vice president of the United States, heads of state and other official parties.

www.NPEO-kmi.com4 | NPEO 2.3

The ability of U.S. Navy ships to launch and recover smaller vessels and vehicles represents an important aspect of their ability to project power. Launch and recov-ery systems allow the ships to play this key role safely and efficiently. Davits, the launch and recovery systems for smaller boats, are built to internationally-accepted standards as well as to customer specifications.

Davits are rugged systems; they are designed and built to last 20 to 30 years. But the march of technology and chang-ing user requirements have also allowed these systems to incorporate innovations over the years.

The reduction of costs is a common theme in this area. Greater numbers of users have become more interested in com-mercial off-the-shelf (COTS) davits and less interested in custom-designed ones. Many now also prefer all-electric davits—because of their perceived lower costs—over hydraulic systems.

Of more recent interest are the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVS) that are increasingly deployed to sea on naval ves-sels. Unmanned aerial vehicles are already extensively being used by the U.S. and other navies as a platform for enhanced mari-time domain awareness, requiring special-ized launch and recovery systems for those assets. Launch and recovery systems have been developed for these so that they may be deployed without risking these valu-able assets and with a minimum of human

intervention. The future will likely see unmanned surface vehicles being deployed off naval ships. Launch and recovery systems are currently be developed for these, too, so that the Navy can flexibly make use of these innovative platforms on the high seas.

“For many vessels, the ability to launch and recover small boats has become one of their primary roles, and we see some very high duty cycles with the davits,” said Grahame Baker, director of sales and mar-keting at Welin Lambie, a sup-plier of davits to several U.S. Navy platforms. “New ship designs are allocating smaller spaces to locate davits even though their mission require-ment calls for greater uses of the davits and small boats.”

“Navies around the word want their ships to perform more missions such as coun-terterrorism, antipiracy, and patrolling waters for ille-gal immigrants and smug-glers,” said Rolf-Andreas Wigand, managing director of Vestdavit, also a supplier of davits to the Navy. “The need to launch smaller boats from bigger vessels is becom-ing more important all over the world.”

There has been tremen-dous growth in recent years

in the use of UAVs on naval vessels, noted Ryan Hartman, senior vice president for sales and marketing at Insitu, a subsidiary of The Boeing Company.

“Their role is primarily to provide mari-time domain awareness for the Navy ship,” he said. “In the past, a ship would have to steam to many different places within its area of responsibility. Now it can use a small, low-cost asset to fly as far as 100 miles away and at a 360-degree radius

from the ship and provide situational awareness to the ship. This decreases the time it takes to understand the maritime domain as well as its costs.”

Davits follow some very stringent design require-ments that have been devel-oped over the years by several multinational agen-cies that govern many of the design elements of davit, to ensure they are safe and will function in an emergency.

“The end user will issue a specification for a partic-ular system that has to fit a certain ship type, be able to launch and recover a certain type of small boat, and the system will allow the ship’s force to complete the mis-sion,” said Baker.

ShipS utilizing different vehicleS for increaSed miSSion capability. by peter buxbaum, npeo correSpondent

Rolf-Andreas Wigand

Ryan Hartman

speciaL section


End-users, in this case the Navy, spec-ify what certification is required for the davits to be installed on a particular plat-form. These certifications include standards promulgated by the American Bureau of Shipping for electric and magnetic interfer-ence, vibration and shock. “It is extremely important to identify these certifications early as they all extend the delivery time and the overall cost of the system,” noted Baker.

It is then the responsibility of the davit manufacturer to provide a davit that will fit on the ship, interface with the selected small boat, and meet the performance requirements.

“Everything we deliver is specifically tai-lor made to customer requirements,” said Wigand. “The core of our business is to design and produce high-performance sys-tems for the launch and recovery of boats under difficult conditions at sea.”

“The testing is very rigorous and the fac-tory has to simulate operating the davit at adverse list and trim conditions to mimic the tilting deck of a vessel,” added Baker. “On average we look for a life span of 20 to 30 years for a davit system. That duration is very dependent on how the end-users main-tain the davit system.”

“We started our business 20 years ago,” said Magnus Oding, marketing manager at Scan Pacific Northwest LLC, a distributor of Vestdavit products. “The first davit we delivered is still in operation.”

Organizations that spec-ify and procure davit systems have shifted their require-ments in recent years, accord-ing to Baker. “There was a big push to provide COTS davits that were built to primary commercial specifications,” he said.

Along these same lines, Wigand sees more customers asking for davits to be installed on skids, providing a plug-and-play capability. “This simplifies installation and prep work beforehand,” he said.

Weight considerations with davit requirements are also playing a more prom-inent role as ships get lighter and manning levels get lower. “Approximately 15 percent of the davits we produce are now aluminum and include devices to allow the operation of the system with fewer people,” said Baker.

“The key performance criterion is the sea state at which the user needs to launch

and recover the boat,” said Wigand. “This dictates the type of shock absorbers and sus-pension systems incorporated in the davit.”

Another major transition is the move-ment away from the use of hydraulics and toward davits that are all electric.

“To facilitate this we have worked to develop electric actuators,” said Baker. “Electrically- and mechanically-driven actu-ators offer a lower installation impact and long-term maintenance cost while providing all of the operations associated with hydrau-lic cylinders.”

“The advantage of the electrical systems is that customers think they are less costly to run,” said Oding.

Another innovation that has emerged recently has been the development of multi-launch davits. “These have the ability to launch several boats of different sizes at the same time,” said Oding. “We have developed a rail and trolley system that feeds the next boat onto the davit and it gets launched.”

Vestdavit has sold several of these sys-tems to commercial customers but not yet to the U.S. Navy.

Vestdavit has developed programmable logical controls into davits that it has sup-plied to customers in the United Kingdom and Germany.

“The computer has control over the mechanics, electronics and hydraulics of the davit, with preprogrammed movements to make sure that the oper-ator has his eye on the boat and the surrounding situa-tion,” said Wigand. “The davit is operated by remote control to lift the boat out of the cra-dle and over the side of the ship. This system can be pre-programmed so that it takes only one button to operate

the davit. That increases the safety of the operation.”

Vestdavit has historically supplied davit systems to many U.S. aircraft carriers and cruiser vessels. The Vestdavit PLR-3250 hydraulic davit supplied to Nimitz-class car-riers handles the launch and recovery of the seven-meter rigid-hulled inflatable boat (RHIB). The carriers were retrofitted with two Vestdavit davits per vessel around 15 years ago. The Ticonderoga class of cruisers, around 25 ships in all, was also retrofitted with the same hydraulic Vestdavit systems about 15 years ago.

“These systems feature a dynamic shock absorber system that reduces peak loads by up to 80 percent to lower stress on the davit,” said Oding. “It also comes with a constant tension feature which avoids slack or sud-den shock to the hoist wire while the boat is in the water and attached to the davit sys-tem. Another important feature is the guid-ing system. Two guide arms press against the small boat when it is being launched form the davit. They stabilize the boat when it is lowered into the water and when it is hoisted up.”

Welin Davit & Engineering Co. was established in 1901 and still manufactures davits in the United Kingdom, not far from its original location.

“Since 1998, an average of 82 percent of our davit production is exported to North America, primary to the U.S.,” said Baker. The U.S. Navy is one of the company’s pri-mary customers.

Among the Welin Systems supplied to the U.S. Navy is the SARBE 22 B, which is installed on FFG guided missile frigates.

“This is a self-contained all electric slew-ing type of davit that is designed to inter-face and operate the standard Navy 7-meter RHIB,” said Baker. “This davit is equipped with constant tension winch as well as full manual operation so ship personnel can still use the davit in the absence of power.”

Welin’s Lum 12 A is installed on landing ship dock platforms. “This is a multitasking electro-hydraulic davit that allows the oper-ator to launch and recover more than one RHIB from the same davit,” Baker explained. “The current configuration allows the opera-tor to select a 7-meter RHIB or an 11-meter cabin RHIB and launch and recover each RHIB independently.”

The davit features independent tension-ing that allows the operators to use the davit as a single point for both boats.

“The davit has a high level of automation that allows the operators to control the davit from a touchscreen and complete launch and recovery sequences,” said Baker. “This davit has a full manual operation option.”

The FAO 12A davit is installed on amphibious assault ships (LHA/LHD).

“This is an all-electric davit that is pri-mary configured to launch and recover the Navy standard 11-meter cabin RHIB,” said Baker. “This system can also be configured to operate both 11-meter and 7-meter RHIBs. The davit is equipped with self-leveling, inde-pendent fall tensioning, shock absorbers and

Magnus Oding

speciaL section


an integrated diagnostic system, and has a full manual operation option.”

The CVN 78 Ford class aircraft carrier is to be equipped with Welin’s UDTD 3.2. E davit.

“This is an all-electric davit that is designed to fit in a pocket under the flight deck,” said Baker. “The system is config-ured to launch and recover a Navy stan-dard 7-meter RHIB and is equipped with an electronic falls tension system. The davit is also fitted with a shock absorber and an integrated diagnostic system and has a full manual operation option.”

The Independence Class littoral combat ship (LCS) will be equipped with the PIV 3.6E davit.

“This is a unique all-electric davit that is manufactured in aluminum,” Baker explained. “The system is configured to launch and recover a Navy standard 7-meter RHIB. Both weight and base material were very critical for this application.”

Vestdavit is also currently supplying davits, the TDBE-2200 model, to Lockheed Martin’s Freedom Class littoral combat ship.

“The davit being supplied on the LCS is a telescopic, all-electric system mounted on a ceiling to preserve more deck space,” said Wigand. “Seven of the systems have been delivered to LCS vessels so far.”

Positioning UAVs on naval vessels has required the development of launch and recovery systems for those assets in those environments. A key challenge is the lim-ited square footage available on the deck of a ship for these activities. To that end, Insitu developed its SuperWedge launcher and SkyHook recovery system. Both are capable of handling the launch and recov-ery of a range of unmanned systems such as Insitu’s 45-pound ScanEagle and its 135-pound RQ-21A Blackjack UAVs.

“The SuperWedge was originally designed for being integrated on a ship,” said Hartman. “There is little real estate onboard, but you still have to be able to generate enough energy to put a UAV into flight.” The SuperWedge has since been adapted to other environments as well.

Insitu’s recovery system, SkyHook, was also designed with limited available space in mind. The system consists of a crane and a boom so that the recovery rope can be hung off the side of the ship. “That way the UAV doesn’t have to be pointed at the ship and its superstructure,” said Hartman.

Insitu’s launch and recovery systems include maritime versions that incorporate specific design features for that environ-ment. Both can be welded to the deck for ships that want them permanently installed. They are also appropriately weatherized for the maritime environment.

Another version is a wheeled system that can be rolled on and off ships. These have been provided to U.S. Marine Corps expeditionary units that operate RQ-21A Blackjack UAVs both at sea and on land. “As the unit transitions from ship to shore, the Blackjack goes with them and the Marines can set up the launch and recovery systems on the beach,” said Hartman.

Emerging Navy specifications for davits call for reducing the level of sophistica-tion and features on davits in order to limit the maintenance requirements. “We see an advantage in using marine-grade alu-minum,” said Baker. “This eliminates the rust and coating problems. The next step will be the wider use of composite material for davit structures. This is already used in commercial applications, and as the pres-sure increases for lower long-term owner-ship costs and for lighter weight equipment on deck, this will be the next step.”

Unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) are beginning to make their way into the fleet. The presence of USVs is likely to grow, said Wigand, because they “remove the human from a dangerous location.” Being able to launch and recover those assets will allow them to be deployed from larger vessels and will increase the Navy’s flexibility and agil-ity. USVs can be used in areas such as mine

countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare and long-duration surveillance missions.

“On manned boats, the crew is able to pull the wire and attach the hook to the ring,” said Wigand. “That is not the case with unmanned boats. The challenge is how to get hold of the boat from the water. At this time, USVs operate from shore and not from ships because there are no launch and recovery solutions, but we are work-ing on one.” Vestdavit has demonstrated the system to potential customers in sev-eral countries.

“We believe that this is something the U.S. Navy will be looking for,” said Oding.

Vestdavit developed the patented system, called SOLUS, together with Henriksen AS, a maker of hook lifting systems for naval craft. “An integrated hook and painter line system is used in combination with davits for safely launching and recovering USVs,” said Wigand. “It can be operated in up to sea state 4. This system can also be com-bined and used for launching and recov-ering traditional manned RHIBs and MOB [man overboard] boats. The SOLUS system needs very little maintenance and only two operators when in use.”

Vestdavit plans on continuing dialogue with major navies and integrating with USV producers. Eventually, it will be conducting full-scale testing with a major customer. O

Sailors on board guided missile destroyer USS Forrest Sherman man the boat davit for a passenger transfer to the Iroquois class destroyer HMCS Athabaskan. [Photo courtesy of Navy Media Content Services/by Jamica Johnson]

For more information, contact NPEO Editor Brian O’Shea at [email protected] or search our online archives for related stories at www.npeo-kmi.com.


The U.S. Navy uses a variety of weapons systems guided by laser or global positioning systems (GPS), or sometimes both. The Navy’s arsenal of precision guided weapon systems includes the Low-Collateral Damage Bomb, Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response (SLAM-ER), Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Harpoon, Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II), Laser Guided Bombs and General Purpose Bombs. The effectiveness of these weapon systems was apparent during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2005. Leaders in the defense industry are contin-uously improving weapon systems to neutralize more targets using fewer ships and aircraft.

Boeing is providing the U.S. Navy with both the Harpoon and SLAM-ER weapon systems. Both systems are currently in service.

In their direct attack programs they provide the JDAM. The Laser JDAM provides a modular laser sensor kit that is easily installed in the field in minutes. With this improved capability pilots can prosecute moving, re-locatable and maritime tar-gets with high degree of accuracy and reliability.

Another industry leader of precision guided muni-tions is Raytheon Missile Systems. Raytheon provides the U.S. military with the Tomahawk cruise missile, JSOW, Paveway, High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile, Griffin, Excalibur N, Maverick and SDB II.

Why uSe preciSion guidance?

Jim Brooks, director, cruise missile systems, Boeing Weapons and Missile Systems, said there are several benefits to using precision guided munitions.

One of the primary advantages is “reduced or minimized collateral damage—a generally higher confidence that the weapon will successfully navi-gate to the target and will hit the intended target with minimal effects on the unintended background fea-tures,” he said.

Thomas Keck, vice president, air warfare sys-tems, USAF & NAVAIR Programs at Raytheon Missile Systems, said the major benefits are the ability to strike the enemy in all weather, day or night, with the effects needed to achieve our war fighting objectives.

Using precision weapons reduces the number of weapons needed to achieve the Navy’s objectives.

“Precision strike is the capability to hit moving and stationary tar-gets in all environmental conditions, tailoring the employment profile of a weapon, while minimizing collateral damage effects,” said Keck. “‘Strike’ infers enemy surface targets (versus air-to-air engagements).”

innovative technology

The evolution of precision strike weapon technology is making steady progress. Currently, Boeing is working closely with the Navy to develop a roadmap of capabilities that could be used with the existing systems, said Brooks. These enhancements typically are focused on improved targeting sensor packages (such as the Boeing Direct Attack Precision Laser Guided Sensor) for the JDAM family of weapons. This

allows the JDAM’s terminal attack accuracy to be con-trolled by a laser designator rather than inertial nav-igation system/GPS. Another is increased standoff range (such as the Boeing Direct Attack JDAM ER (Extended Range) Wing Kit for the Joint Direct Attack Munition family of weapons, which allows the JDAM’s effective standoff range to be tripled.

Brooks added that Boeing has made significant improvements resulting from the implementation of controlled processes in their materials acquisition, factory assembly and the integration of GPS naviga-tional updates into the weapon’s mid-course naviga-tion. With their high reliability rates and the accuracy of GPS, they are achieving targeting levels much better than previously deployed systems, said Brooks.

Raytheon is now working to make improvements in the way weapons engage moving/mobile target sets. They are also improving the way weapons navigate to stay on target even in the densest jamming envi-ronments. The effects desired by their customers and network compatibility will be drivers for the future—along with affordability and lethality, they are key to interoperability and future development, said Keck.

“One of the best examples is how we are working to modernize the combat-proven Tomahawk cruise

the u.S. navy iS uSing innovationS in targeting to minimize collateral damage.

Jim Brooks

Thomas Keck

by brian o’Shea, npeo editor


missile,” he said. “Launched from surface ships and submarines, Tomahawk is a true precision weapon that flies more than 1,000 miles and, using GPS guidance and other navigation methods, strikes stationary land targets within a few feet of its aimpoint. Raytheon is now developing a new seeker for Tomahawk that will enable the missile to strike moving targets on land and at sea.”

challengeS

However, this evolution does not come without challenges.“As in any evolving or developing program, built-in design and

application challenges are always met and solved. Bringing the best and most affordable capability to the customer is especially challeng-ing in the current fiscal landscapes,” said Brooks.

These are highly sophisticated weapon systems, and adding com-plexity can add challenges, said Keck.

“One of the biggest challenges is in linking high quality target-ing information to the weapon in a dynamic combat environment,” he said. “This involves how the weapon system communicates and uses targeting information to be effective. Developing weapons that operate effectively in jamming environments is no easy task, but Raytheon is at the forefront of designing links/radios/networks [that] create flexibility for the warfighter.”

He added that, for example, the tri-mode seeker on Small Diameter Bomb II is a highly complex front end, but its capabili-ties will be key to the lethality of the Joint Strike Fighter. Also, in

recent testing, Tomahawk demonstrated the ability to receive rapid target updates from virtually any targeting source on the network.

launch platformS

The SLAM-ER is an air-launched-only weapon and can be launched from the F/A-18C/D/E/F Hornet/Super Hornet and the P3 maritime patrol aircraft. The Harpoon missile has been developed for launch from surface ships, aircraft, submarines and land-based mobile truck platforms. The U.S. Navy has only the air-launch and ship-launch configurations in service.

“Bringing new capabilities to our customers is what drives innovation within our portfolio of weapons,” said Brooks. “The future environment of advanced weapons like the offensive anti-surface weapon and long-range standoff weapon provide a clear direction of what the future warfighter will need to accomplish complex missions in the decades to come. We are committed to pro-vide the most innovative, reliable and affordable weapons systems now and in the future.”

Raytheon’s precision weapons are integrated on most fighter aircraft, bombers, surface ships, submarines and unmanned vehi-cles, said Keck. O

For more information, contact NPEO Editor Brian O’Shea at [email protected] or search our online archives

for related stories at www.npeo-kmi.com.

© 2014 Trijicon, Inc. Wixom, MI USA 1-800-338-0563 www.trijicon.com

PML7032-2 Rev(14.0)

Variable COMbaT OpTiCal GunsiGhTThe Trijicon 1-6x24 VCOG.™

SEE THE LINK

Trijicon_NavyAirSeaForum_PML7032-2 Rev(14.0).indd 1 5/21/2014 1:09:19 PM


Unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) decrease risks to sail-ors by reducing human exposure to tasks such as mine hunting or offensive operations—tasks that are dirty, dull and dangerous. They can offer capabilities not achievable by manned platforms at reduced costs by eliminating systems required for manned oper-ations. Thus, UUVs are able to offer superior performance and operate in conditions that offer risk to manned assets, such as in littoral areas that ships cannot safely navigate due to their deeper keel depths, said Captain David Honabach, program manager for Unmanned Maritime Systems (PMS 406), Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ships.

“UUVs offer the potential to greatly increase our fleet’s capa-bilities, flexibility and reach, allowing manned assets to focus on other priorities,” said Honabach.

The Navy is currently acquiring and fielding a number of dif-ferent UUVs for a variety of missions, including the Swordfish and Kingfish UUV, the Littoral Battlespace Sensing (LBS) UUV, the Persistent Littoral Undersea Surveillance (PLUS) system, the Knifefish UUV, and the Large Displacement UUV (LDUUV).

The Mk 18 Mod 1 Swordfish is based on the man-porta-ble 7.5-inch-diameter Remote Environmental Monitoring Unit System (REMUS) 100 model and is designed for low-visibility

exploration and reconnaissance in support of amphibious landing, mine countermeasures (MCM) operations (including search, clas-sification, mapping, reacquiring and identification), and hydro-graphic mapping in the very shallow water (10- to 40-foot depth) and seaward approaches. The Navy has 27 Swordfish vehicles.

An enhanced model, the Mk 18 Mod 2 Kingfish, is based on the lightweight 12.75-inch-diameter REMUS 600 model. In com-parison to the Swordfish, it has increased area coverage rate, increased endurance, and will serve as a platform for advanced sensors. The ATLAS (autonomous topographic large area), a for-ward-looking sonar, provides an intelligence preparation of the operational environment capability with enhanced area cover-age rates. The U.S. Navy is working to finalize and transition the Kingfish to military operations by the end of 2016. The Navy has 12 Kingfish UUVs with a projected inventory of 24 by the end of 2016.

Another system based on the REMUS product line is the LBS UUV. It provides a low-observable, continuous capability to char-acterize ocean properties that affect weapon and sensor perfor-mance. It includes LBS gliders (LBS-G) and a 12.75-inch-diameter REMUS 600 autonomous undersea vehicle to enable anti-subma-rine, mine, expeditionary and Naval special warfare operations,

uuvS are making operationS Safer While reducing coStS.



and persistent intelligence preparation of the operational envi-ronment. The LBS-G is a long-endurance UUV that is propelled by changes in buoyancy, guided by its wings and tail-fin surfaces. These gliders collect wave column and oceanographic data to sup-port high resolution, predictive ocean and weather models, and can operate for long periods of time. The U.S. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command has ordered three LBS UUVs for envi-ronmental surveys of ocean, coastal and inshore waters.

The PLUS system consists of an undersea network of sea glid-ers and 12.75-inch diameter REMUS 600 UUVs to detect and localize targets in support of anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations. The UUVs perform as autonomous vessels with long underwater dwell times that carry highly capable sensors for pas-sive surveillance. The sea gliders are smaller autonomous vessels that collect the UUV data underwater, and return to the surface to transmit that data to a shore-based command and control sta-tion. The PLUS system is designed to easily deploy from any sur-face ship with a winch and crane and sufficient storage capacity. The Navy is on schedule to deliver PLUS in 2015.

Knifefish is a 21-inch-diameter, 22-foot-long, 2,200-pound surface mine countermeasure (SMCM) UUV. It is designed for long endurance operations, and while designed for use with the littoral combat ship (LCS) as the primary launch platform, each system of two UUVs may also be launched from other vessels of opportunity. Knifefish engineering development models are currently being fabricated, to be followed by developmental/operational testing and low rate initial production of four systems. There is an overall inventory objective of 30 systems.

An LDUUV is under development by the Navy that will support a number of missions including IPOE, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), ASW, MCM, and offensive missions. The system will be considerably larger than the Knifefish to offer a long endurance, reconfigurable, modular UUV to operate autonomously in denied littorals. The LDUUV may be launched from a pier, submarine or littoral combat ship. The Office of Naval Research is currently conducting technology matura-tion for the LDUUV—predominately in the areas of energy, endurance and autonomy—and is fab-ricating several Innovative Naval Prototype vehi-cles. The LDUUV acquisition program plans to issue a request for proposal in late fiscal year 2015 and award contract(s) for engineering development model design and fabrication in fiscal year 2016. The Navy intends to procure 10 production UUVs with an initial operational capability expected in fiscal year 2021.

Honabach said the Navy’s biggest technical challenges facing the future of UUVs are power and energy density (endurance), autonomy (artificial intelligence) and reliability. Other challenges include tradeoffs between energy demands of sensors, propulsion, and endurance relative to mission requirements are crucial. Vehicle and sensor design optimization for minimal energy consumption will con-tribute significantly to meeting vehicle endurance goals. The Navy is investigating a variety of air independent energy tech-nologies that have the potential to meet endurance objectives while also meeting vehicle size, weight and safety requirements. Promising solutions include hybrid systems that pair rechargeable batteries with other candidate technologies, such as fuel cells.

Robust autonomy will enable onboard optimization of a limited energy budget through sensor, on-board processing and propulsion management. Advanced autonomy will facilitate multi-mission operations and vehicle survivability through robust autonomous behavior that accounts for the intermittent connec-tivity and limited bandwidth inherent in the undersea environ-ment, as well as the ability to respond to unexpected or dynamic situations with intermittent or minimal communication with human operators.

Reliability is a unique challenge for UUVs because of the extended time that the vehicles will be operating without the abil-ity to perform planned or preventive maintenance. The Navy is investing in technologies that can significantly increase the reli-ability of the LDUUV. These technologies include reliable com-ponents, smart components that can predict failure before they occur, and new modular architectures with fault tolerant compo-nents, algorithms, or backup systems, all of which are operating without human intervention.

“The principal areas of UUV improvement the Navy seeks are endurance, autonomy and reliability,” said Honabach. “Innovative developments in launch and recovery from various host platforms, mission planning, and affordability are also sought. Separate from the UUVs themselves, the Navy is working hard to facilitate the fleet introduction of UUVs, with multiple efforts supporting cer-tification for sailor use and on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea to support expanded employment.”

UUVs are increasingly being used in the oil and gas and tele-communications industries. The unique military requirements for endurance, autonomy and reliability, while being certifi-able for operation by sailors and existing fleet assets, creates a gap between commercial and military UUVs, added Honabach. However, UUV usage does not appear to decline in the foresee-able future.

“Unmanned maritime systems such as the unmanned under-sea vehicles will continue to provide new and enhanced capabil-ities to our warfighters and ensure our ability to dominate the

undersea domain,” said Honabach. “Industry, aca-demia, and government researchers and acquisi-tion professionals together pushing the technology barriers will provide the Navy with this asymmet-ric advantage.”

Industry is working to mitigate those techno-logical challenges with innovations in UUV systems for a variety of applications.

Bluefin Robotics (a wholly owned Battelle sub-sidiary) offers a full array of UUVs in line with the U.S. Navy’s master plan, said Jeff Smith, chief oper-ating officer at Bluefin. Bluefin’s UUV systems include man-portable class, 9-inch-diameter vehi-

cles for port and harbor security, lightweight 12-inch UUVs for lit-toral unexploded ordnance and MCM survey, heavyweight 21-inch UUVs such as Knifefish for buried mine detection and the Shark UUV for ASW.

Bluefin is also in partnership with Battelle and The Columbia Group to offer the large-diameter Proteus dual mode vehicle. In addition, Bluefin has the hovering autonomous underwater vehi-cle, a robot which travels underwater without requiring input from an operator, in production for Naval explosive ordnance dis-posal forces for the Mk 19 Hull UUV Localization System. Multiple

Jeff Smith


new systems are also in active development to help address future needs of our Naval forces.

“Proteus is designed to be a flexible vehicle that can go farther, stay out longer, and handle larger payloads than other UUVs,” said Bob Geoghegan, submersibles manager for Maritime Systems, Battelle. “It is also available on a lease basis, with full technical support. As a manned vehicle, it operates much the way of the more traditional SEAL delivery vehicle, but with some technical improvements.”

Proteus can handle payloads of 550 pounds of in-water weight. It can travel 300 nautical miles on its normal set of batteries, but extend to up to three times that with various aux-iliary battery sets. These represent a unique combi-nation of capabilities not readily available to users, added Geoghegan. Proteus will be utilized as a test bed for a Navy program this summer. It will include payload drops, dormant time on the seafloor, then a wake-up call to perform further activities.

“The U.S. Navy’s UUV Master Plan addressed nine prioritized mission areas including ISR, MCM, ASW, payload delivery and oceanography, to name a few,” said Smith. “Bluefin has readily available vehi-cle solutions that meet the majority of these mis-sion areas, and our modular vehicle architecture and broad platform classes can be easily modified to address the full spectrum of desired missions.”

Across its platforms, Bluefin offers a modu-lar, free flooded vehicle architecture that drives high availability, maintainability and rapid turn-around, added Smith. It provides for a very flex-ible design that can be rapidly reconfigured and customized for specific mission requirements. The free flooded design also drives smaller, lower cost pressure boundaries leveraging a high degree of pressure-tolerant subassemblies such as batteries, propulsor modules, antennas and junction boxes. This equates to very few differences between shal-low water (200 meters) and deep water (up to 6,000 meters) rated UUVs, giving further mission flexibility to the vehicles.

Since 2011, General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems (GDAIS) has been the prime contractor and an integral part of the design and construction of the first heavyweight class main-stream SMCM UUV system. Known as Knifefish, this UUV is part of the littoral combat ship MCM mission package, said Tom Mason, program manager of Knifefish, GDAIS.

Knifefish provides U.S. Navy commanders and sailors with enhanced mine-hunting capability to reliably detect and iden-tify volume, bottom and buried mines in high-clutter environ-ments. Additionally, with the ability to act as an off-board sensor while the host ship stays safely outside the minefield boundar-ies, Knifefish enhances situational awareness and significantly reduces risk to Navy personnel, said Mason.

He added that GDAIS’s unmanned MCM approach com-bines commercial off-the-shelf technologies with innovation for increased cost savings and operational efficiencies.

“Additionally, by leveraging our approach to open architecture on the Knifefish program, we ensure this MCM UUV will have the flexibility to seamlessly integrate into the Navy’s mission modules and continue to evolve to meet current and future mission needs,”

said Mason. “Our open architecture also enables modularity of the mission package for platform flexibility and quick reconfiguration for ‘plug-and-play’ integration in response to the dynamic mission requirements the fleet will encounter on a daily basis.”

In today’s budget constrained environment, Mason said unmanned systems must continue to advance toward autonomy. Autonomy allows UUVs to complete more missions with less oper-ator intervention and control, helping agencies enhance over-all operational efficiencies and most importantly, save money. In addition to helping agencies keep pace with fast-changing mission needs, autonomy can also lead to extended platform endurance

when assets are efficiently utilized.“A key component of a successful UUV program

is the architecture that supports it. It is essential that developers of unmanned systems continue to design common control solutions that are adapt-able, flexible and scalable to advance the mission,” said Mason. “By leveraging an open architecture, agencies can help drive innovation and capability in to their system, and time and cost out.”

Saab Seaeye is currently engaged with the U.S. Navy on the provision of a Multi Shot Mine Neutralization System (MuMNS), which is a new concept in MCM, said Chris Lade, defense sales manager, Saab Seaeye.

MuMNS is a unique system that combines the defense and commercial underwater vehicle and sensor expertise of Saab, the Ballista disruptor and the integral remote command initiated sys-tem. Combined, these components deliver an oper-ational system that offers greater flexibility than the current one-shot disposal systems. There is no requirement for a separate inspection or training round, so operators are able to train as they would fight. The reduction in cost of the live round allows the system to be used on a regular basis, increas-ing the opportunity for live training and permitting

regular use against historical ordnance for routine mine clear-ance operations and underwater demolitions.

Lade added that there are some challenges developing this technology for military customers.

“In general, the operators in the commercial world are much more experienced than those in the military domain,” said Lade. “Commercial operators only fulfil very specific roles. While in the military, training is often difficult to achieve due to other com-mitments and operators have a wide range of roles making them Jack of all trades and master of none. This affords a problem to the military operator not present commercially; the system needs to account for this and be simple to operate and intuitive.”

Saab Seaeye is hoping to finalize a contract to develop a new vehicle to deal with the terrorist threats to ships and harbors in U.S. ports and harbors. If successful, this would be a 12-month development project delivering in 2015. The Waterborne IED Vehicle will be a lightweight hull inspection vehicle with the abil-ity to interdict IEDs. O



Tom Mason

Bob Geoghegan


In August 2011, an Army Chinook carrying a combined U.S.-Afghan force, including Navy SEALs, was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) in the Tangi Valley of Afghanistan, killing all 38 onboard. While this incident was the most deadly of its kind, there have been numerous other attacks on helicopters by RPG-type weap-ons, including the possible employment of a ground-based anti-helicopter fragmenta-tion mine.

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has had several projects in recent years looking at RPGs and the challenges to defending against them.

“We fielded systems to increase the risk and decrease the effectiveness of adversary attacks on U.S. helicopters and ground vehicles,” said Regina E. Dugan, then director of DARPA, during congressio-nal testimony in 2011. “Advanced acous-tic detection and data processing exploit the supersonic shock wave produced by a bullet in flight to detect the presence and direction of incoming hostile small arms fire against helicopters, which accounts for 85 percent of hostile fire engagements.”

In 2010, a prototype system for helicop-ter alert and threat termination (HALTT) was installed on an Army UH-60L Black Hawk. In 2011, four HALTT systems were deployed to Afghanistan, with additional deployments following in 2012.

“Acoustic arrays and a radar system combine to detect, classify and track small arms, RPGs and other advanced threats to ground vehicles,” said Dugan. CROSSHAIRS (Counter RPG Shooter

System with Highly Accurate Immediate Responses) geolocates and displays shooter position on an interactive map and then slews to cue an overhead weapon. Both CROSSHAIRS and HALTT began with the vision to detect and counter adversary action at the source.

While there were many lessons learned from the 2011 Chinook attack, one is that even against a high-tech force, basic point-and-shoot weapons can dominate tactics.

In light of this, the Office of Naval Research is executing the Helicopter Active RPG Protection (HARP) Future Naval Capability (FNC) product. The FNC pro-cess manages the development of applied research and advanced technology devel-opment efforts to mature technology for transition to naval acquisition programs. The technology serving as the entry level criteria for FNC products is a component and/or breadboard validation in a labora-tory or relevant environment. At its con-clusion, an FNC product should deliver a system/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment.

The HARP FNC product is planned to deliver an aircraft survivability (AS) capability against the threat of unguided anti-aircraft projectiles, specifically RPGs. Unguided anti-aircraft weapons pose a unique problem for material AS solutions, as all current methods are dependent upon the existence of guidance features (i.e. radar, infrared) on the threat projectile. Current AS systems seek to jam, degrade, spoof or throw off these guidance features; consequently, the unguided anti-aircraft

projectile is immune to all AS methods in the inventory. As a result, aircrews are currently dependent upon tactics, tech-niques and procedures to counter RPGs. HARP seeks to address this material capa-bility shortfall, and could be applicable to a broad range of naval aircraft; however, the initial transition will focus on tilt-rotor and rotary wing aircraft. These aircraft (due to their flight profiles) are partic-ularly vulnerable to low-tech, unguided anti-air threat missile and rocket systems.

Aircraft require new systems that ensure incoming, unguided threat muni-tions, such as RPGs, can be defeated by expendable countermeasures. Technologies are emerging that pro-vide detection and declaration capabil-ities for hostile unguided ballistic fire engagements. The development of HARP technology should be designed and dem-onstrated in accordance with the modular open systems approach concept, as well as maintain the capability to be linked into the existing aircraft survivability equip-ment as part of a fully integrated suite of survivability equipment. An evolution-ary acquisition approach to hostile fire countermeasures is envisioned, which may contain multiple increments that define future expected improvements in capabil-ity as well as reductions in space, weight and power. O

the navy lookS to increaSe protection againSt unguided, rpg-like threatS.



NAWCWD Leads the Way for Alternative Energy Solutions

Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) scientists and engineers produce and develop products in renewable energy tech-nologies, including renewable fuels and composites, energy storage and remote power generation.

According to Mallory Boyd, deputy director of NAWCWD’s Research and Engineering Directorate, NAWCWD’s innovation is encouraged by its unique work environment, an environment that gives civilian scientists and engineers the ability to work with military operators, test squadrons and rapid prototyping facilities on expansive land and sea test ranges at both China Lake and Point Mugu.

NAWCWD’s biofuel patents enable the processing of readily avail-able bio-n-butanol into a number of chemicals that can serve as jet and diesel fuels, lubricants and basic components of industrial chemical processes. Additionally, NAWCWD has engineered renewable high density fuels that have energy densities up to 20 percent higher than those of conventional military jet fuels. These fuels have the potential to improve the performance of military jets, ground vehicles, missiles and unmanned air systems.

Geothermal power plants typically emit considerable amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) waste. NAWCWD has a patent-pending chemical process that converts CO2 waste into certified military and commercial jet and diesel fuels that can be produced and consumed locally. It is estimated that enough CO2 is released each year at the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake Geothermal plant to generate 9 million gallons of jet fuel.

According to Boyd, NAWCWD range operations currently rely on diesel generators that are expensive to fuel and maintain. NAWCWD has partnered with industry to develop generators that provide continuous clean power from sunlight. The NAWCWD Xstorra generator uses conventional photo-voltaic technology, an electrolyzer and a high pres-sure hydrogen fuel cell, to generate 5 kW of continuous power.

“A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with Planetary Power Incorporated was established to collaborate on the SUNSparq, a portable solar thermal generator that generates 6.5 kW of power and stores energy in a compact Li-ion battery array. The SUNSparq and Xstorra provide potential alternatives for forward-deployed forces reliant on diesel generators to fulfill power requirements,” said Marc Stockbaur, alterna-tive energy lead in NAWCWD’s Research and Engineering Directorate.

NAVSEA Schedules FY15 Surface Ship Availabilities

As part of a continuing Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) effort to improve surface ship maintenance and modernization, NAVSEA’s Surface Warfare Directorate fully analyzed the surface fleet’s maintenance and modernization requirements to better define and plan the scope and duration of all 44 surface force shipyard avail-abilities planned for fiscal year 2015, the command announced June 5.

This marks the first time the Navy has collectively assessed and integrated all advance planning efforts for a full year of surface ship availabilities, the result of which will be a reduction in lost operational days by “right-sizing” availability durations early in the process to accommodate all planned maintenance and modernization.

This planning effort has the added benefit of giving fleet commanders the option to defer planned work if operational schedules require shorter availabilities.

“This effort was an incredibly rigorous planning initiative,” said Captain Michael Malone, commanding officer of SEA 21’s Surface Maintenance Engineering Planning Program located in Norfolk, Va. “By understanding specific planned maintenance and modernization work required for each ship in advance, we can give fleet commanders a realistic analysis of how

long availabilities will last. Doing so really limits the potential for surface navy schedule shifts and lost opera-tional days.”

Prior to this year, the command did not have a formal process to treat surface maintenance and moderniza-tion as an integrated, life cycle busi-ness, which meant schedules were, at best, notional. Over the last few years, NAVSEA has completed detailed analyses of each surface ship’s maintenance and modernization requirements, as well as the type of modernization improve-ments required at each phase in a ship’s life cycle. Through these efforts, NAVSEA will be able to plan ship availabilities much more efficiently and accurately.

“We want to give fleet commanders more stability,” continued Malone. “Moving forward, our goal is to start availability planning 720 days in advance.”

This initiative is one of several NAVSEA efforts to improve how the Navy plans and manages surface ship main-tenance and modernization. NAVSEA will continue to review how ship main-tenance and modernization is sched-uled, budgeted and executed, and will continue to make recommendations to fleet commanders on how to improve this process and reduce costs.

By Naval Sea Systems Command Office of Corporate Communication

Survivability Testing on LCSAustal Limited (Austal) has

been awarded an engineering services contract to support surviv-ability testing on the U.S. Navy’s Independence-variant littoral combat ship (LCS).

The U.S. Navy awarded Austal USA a $6,726,406 contract modi-fication for the fabrication and assembly of a live fire test module. The contract is in support of the

U.S. Navy’s Independence-variant LCS survivability testing program, which is critical to class quali-fications and the ships’ eventual deployment.

Work will be performed at Austal’s shipyard in Mobile, Ala. Austal has a $3.5 billion contract from the U.S. Navy to build 10 littoral combat ships, with five ships currently under construction.


main DeCK

Acquisition Process Challenges Leaders Advancing Rapid

Transfer Technology to the Fleet

Senior leaders from the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) recently joined panel moderator Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy Dr. John Zangardi for discus-sions on rapidly advancing global Information Dominance technology across the fleet.

Victor Gavin, program executive officer for Enterprise Information Systems, stressed the importance of leveraging industry capability to help bridge the gap as Navy investment and budgets in research and development decline.

Most of the panel’s participants agreed the Navy lags behind major commercial enter-prises, such as Intel and Qualcomm, in innova-tion technology investment, with acquisition bureaucracy and budget shortfalls convoluting much of the effort.

SPAWAR’s executive assistant, Captain D.J. LeGoff, said the current process supports the rapid transfer of technology to the fleet, but the evaluation process gets in the way and bogs it down.

It is estimated that DoD will spend approxi-mately $63 billion on research, development, test and evaluation in the coming year. That amount equates to approximately $36 billion less than the amount spent on procurement in 2014. With the ever-increasing pace of current technology, major Navy information technology investments cannot keep up. Today’s procurement process, designed for the acquisition of platforms like ships and aircraft, slows the transfer of impor-tant information dominance capability to the warfighter, with some programs taking upwards of five years to reach significant milestones toward implementation across the fleet.

Priority investment decision-making is essential and a capable workforce vital to keep the warfighter from engaging in what is called “an unfair fight,” said Captain Kurt Rothenhaus, commanding officer, SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific. Meeting the Navy’s R&D needs in the current austere budget climate is challenging, especially while maintaining existing systems and modernizing and intro-ducing new technology.

By Tina C. Stillions, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Public Affairs

New Guidance System for Cruise Missile Tested Raytheon Company success-

fully completed a passive seeker test designed for a Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile using company-funded independent research and development investment. The captive flight test, using a modified Tomahawk Block IV missile nose cone, demonstrated that Raytheon’s advanced, next-generation, multi-function processor can enable the cruise missile to navi-gate to and track moving targets emitting radio frequency signals.

For the test, the nosecone of a Tomahawk Block IV missile was equipped with passive antennas integrated with a new modular, multi-mode processor, and fitted to a T-39 aircraft. Flying at subsonic speed and at varying altitudes, the aircraft simulated a Tomahawk flight regime. The passive seeker and multi-function processor successfully received numerous electronic

signals from tactical targets in a complex, high density electro-magnetic environment.

“Completion of this test is a significant milestone in Raytheon’s effort to quickly and affordably modernize this already advanced weapon for naval warfighters,” said Mike Jarrett, Raytheon’s air warfare systems vice president. “We have assessed our company-funded multi-mission processor at technical readiness level 6, enabling it to move to the engi-neering, manufacturing and

development phase. Besides Tomahawk, the processor could be used in other sophisticated weapon systems.”

A Raytheon-funded active seeker test with the compa-ny’s new processor inside a Tomahawk nosecone is planned for early next year. That event will demonstrate the processor’s ability to broadcast active radar as well as passively receive target electromagnetic information, a critical step in enabling the missile to strike moving targets on land and at sea.

Amphibious Assault Ship America (LHA 6) Delivered

Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Ingalls Shipbuilding division delivered the amphibious assault ship America (LHA 6) to the U.S. Navy. More than 900 crewmembers marched through the shipyard for a delivery ceremony on the ship’s flight deck, where they joined Ingalls shipbuilders and personnel from the U.S. Navy’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast.

America completed sea trials in February, with no major deficiencies identified. Following delivery, the commissioning crew will move aboard and begin shipboard training in prepa-ration for the ship’s sail-away.

Commissioning is slated for late 2014 in San Francisco.

When America enters the fleet, she will be the flagship of an expeditionary strike group, strategically positioning Marine Expeditionary Units ashore across a full spectrum of missions,

including humanitarian, disaster relief, mari-time security, antipiracy and other operations while providing air support for ground forces.

America-class ships are 844 feet long and 106 feet wide and displace 44,971 long tons. The gas-turbine propulsion system will drive the ships in excess of 20 knots. They will accommodate a crew of 1,059 (65 officers) and 1,687 troops. The America class will be capable of carrying a Marine expeditionary unit, including Marine helicopters, MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and F-35B Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

The newest class has an increased aviation capacity to include an enlarged hangar deck, realignment and expansion of the aviation maintenance facilities, a significant increase in available stowage for parts and support equip-ment, and increased aviation fuel capacity.


Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Rear Admiral David Johnson, the son of a Navy captain and a Pensacola, Fla., native, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1982 with a Bachelor of Science degree in aerospace engineering.

Upon commissioning, Johnson reported to Trident Refit Facility, Bangor, Wash., where he served as docking officer, qual-ified as ship superintendent at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and earned his engineering duty dolphins. Johnson graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1989 with a naval engi-neer degree and a Master of Science in mechanical engineering. Subsequently, Johnson held submarine acquisition and repair posi-tions at the supervisor of shipbuilding in Groton as a waterfront coordinator delivering Ohio class submarines, and later as the pro-gram manager’s representative for the Virginia class; at Trident Refit Facility Bangor as the planning officer; and at program exec-utive officer (PEO) Submarines as the assistant program manager for USS Jimmy Carter (SSN 23).

Johnson became major program manager, Virginia Program Office (PMS 450), in 2005. Under his guidance, the Virginia pro-gram reduced overall cost by $4 billion and delivered four sub-marines to the fleet. The program was awarded the 2007 DoD Value Engineering Award and the 2008 David A. Packard Award for Acquisition Excellence. Following selection to rear admiral, Johnson served as deputy commander for Undersea Technology (SEA 073), deputy PEO Submarines for the Ohio SSBN Replacement Program (September 2008-2010), and commander, Naval Undersea Warfare Center (September 2008-2009). Johnson also established and served as the first Undersea Enterprise chief technology officer.

Johnson assumed his current duties as the PEO Submarines in October 2010, where he is responsible for all new construction sub-marine programs, as well as acquisition and life cycle maintenance of submarine weapons, countermeasures, sonar, combat control and imaging systems. He is responsible for the Ohio Replacement SSBN and Virginia class SSN programs, which are the second and third largest programs, respectively, in the Department of Defense.

Johnson has received various personal and campaign awards, including the Legion of Merit and the Meritorious Service Medal with three gold stars.

Q: Can you describe the roles and responsibilities of PEO Submarines?

A: PEO Submarines’ mission is to deliver and support reliable and affordable undersea warfare platforms and systems. The PEO is comprised of a multi-disciplined military, civilian and contractor team working in eight program offices that execute 20 acquisition category level programs with an annual budget of about $8 billion.

I have an additional office that overseas our international efforts—foreign military sales, direct sales, and other agreements with a bil-lion dollar-plus portfolio.

I have two shipbuilding programs—the Virginia class attack submarine and the Ohio replacement ballistic missile subma-rine, the second and third largest programs in the Department of Defense. I also have all of the Navy’s torpedo and torpedo coun-termeasure programs, maritime surveillance systems such as the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System, or SURTASS, ships and associated systems, and the Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems (SWFTS)—our umbrella term for our open architecture and commercial off-the-shelf submarine sonar, combat and weap-ons control, imaging and electronic warfare systems.

PEO Submarines is a part of what the Navy calls Team Submarine. Team Sub combines my programs with the dep-uty commander for Undersea Warfare, NAVSEA 07, and the com-mander, Naval Undersea Warfare Centers, who is also dual-hatted as the deputy commander for Undersea Technology. Together, we represent the early research and development, science and tech-nology, acquisition, sustainment, modernization, maintenance, and ultimately disposal efforts for the submarine force’s platforms, weapons and systems. We share many of the same resources and hold a daily stand-up meeting in our shared front office with all of

Rear Admiral David JohnsonProgram Executive Officer

PEO Submarines


Submarine FacilitatorOverseeing Undersea Programs and Warfare

Q&AQ&A

our program managers so we can talk about issues that can span several program offices. It’s a great way to keep synergy across the three flag officer-led organizations.

Q: How is the current budget environment affecting operations at PEO Submarines?

A: The Budget Control Act of 2011, commonly referred to as seques-tration, coupled with continuing resolutions, greatly complicates our ability to properly plan and execute our programs.

With sequestration, we took reductions in every program in 2013—just like every other PEO. For the Virginia class, we took a $227 million reduction in fiscal year 2013. Since you can’t deliver a complete ship with 90 percent of the funding, Congress returned that money to the program in fiscal year 2014. Within the Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical System, we lost the ability to modern-ize three attack submarines in fiscal year 2013. Therefore, right now in the fleet, there are three SSNs [nuclear powered submarine] that are operating with systems that were scheduled to be upgraded and modernized but were not because of funding. Consequently, they will operate with less-capable and increasingly obsolete systems. This lim-its their effectiveness and increases the risk of losing operational days due to component failure. With the reduction of roughly $25 million across three programs, the fleet is forced to take risks with front-line units during a time when we cannot meet our combatant command-er’s requests for submarines. Other impacts include reducing the operational availability of our SURTASS TL-29 twin-line towed array from five to four ships; the elimination of one of our CNO-priority Surface Ship Torpedo Defense Roll-On/Roll-Off systems; and cut-ting about 30 MK54 Lightweight Torpedo and 24 MK48 Heavyweight Torpedo kits that were required for delivering modern anti-subma-rine and surface ship capabilities to our air, surface and submarine platforms. In short, sequestration had, and continues to have, a real and measurable impact on the PEO’s ability to deliver required capa-bility to the fleet.

Continuing resolutions are a somewhat different story. Instead of reducing our funding they delay our programs’ ability to receive their full funding on time. This has several downstream impacts. First, instead of having four quarters to obligate funds, we have three or less. Next, with all the programs getting their funding at roughly the same time, we overload our ability to execute new contracts and modify existing agreements, further delaying our ability to fund pro-grams and deliver capability to the fleet. Since we cannot obligate and expend funds across a full year, we have a hard time meeting bench-marks, opening our programs to cuts during the budget cycle. Lastly, with the instability of the budget process, our programs must expend a significant amount of time planning and re-phasing their programs to account for the delays in receiving funds. This instability not only affects the Navy but our industrial partners as well.

In short, the current budget environment creates a level of insta-bility that is not ideal from either a Navy or industry perspective. It’s something we must, and do, manage.

Q: What does the Virginia class offer as far as payload capabilities that its predecessor does not?

A: The Virginia class was conceived from the outset to dominate both the deep waters—an attack submarine’s traditional environment—and the littorals. It is this littoral emphasis that differentiates Virginia

from her SSN predecessors. We developed the first fly-by-wire ship control system to operate at shallow depths automatically, even in significant sea states. Further, the ship was designed to support spe-cial operation forces with a purpose-built lock-out trunk and a tor-pedo room that is reconfigurable to house and support Navy SEALs or other like forces.

Similar to Los Angeles and Sea Wolf, the Virginia class fires MK48 torpedoes and Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles. What makes Virginia stand out, though, is her modularity. In 2005, we undertook a design for affordability effort to reduce the per-hull cost of the Virginia class by nearly 20 percent. We redesigned about 20 percent of the ship, with the majority of the work occurring in the front end with the bow sonar and vertical launch tubes. Starting with USS North Dakota (SSN 784), all Virginias will have a large aperture bow (LAB) array instead of a sonar sphere and two 87-inch diameter Virginia payload tubes (VPTs) instead of 12 21-inch-diameter Vertical Launch System (VLS) tubes. By executing bow-related changes, we’re reducing the Virginia class’ per-ship cost by $40 million per hull without impact-ing the ship’s war fighting capabilities. With the LAB array, we’ll have greater capability than the traditional, air-backed, sonar sphere. The two VPTs provide the same number of Tomahawks, but with only two hatches and associated equipment we’re able to reduce bow’s con-struction and life cycle costs.

The modular design and construction techniques we’re using with the Virginia class have also opened the aperture for designing and installing a Virginia payload module (VPM) to recapitalize the undersea launchers lost when the four SSGNs retire in the 2020s. The VPM, which is currently in the early stages of design, is a 70-foot hull section inserted amidships with four VPTs, each capable of hold-ing seven Tomahawks. We’re not developing any new technologies, just repackaging what we already have and then utilizing Virginia’s inherent modularity to deliver capability to the fleet in an affordable manner.

Q: What was the reasoning to construct two Virginia class subma-rines a year?

A: Simple answer: The submarine force needs the platforms and we need to deliver them affordably. Over the next five years the Navy will decommission 13 attack submarines. In that same timeframe, we will deliver nine Virginia class boats. We’ve begun the slow and unstoppa-ble slide from 54 SSNs today to 41 SSNs in fiscal years 2029 to 2031—well below the required minimum of 48 attack submarines. We’re losing this force structure because the Los Angeles class SSNs were built at a rate of three, four, five, and in 1973, six per year. Many of those boats are either already retired or soon to be inactivated. We do not have the funding or industrial capacity to build at that high rate.

To mitigate the impending shortfall, we had to increase produc-tion to two boats per year—that is really the maximum number we can build within the current shipbuilding budget. As I mentioned earlier, in 2005 we established design for affordability initiatives that reduced our per-unit cost by 20 percent. This allowed us to increase production to two per year in 2011.

Part of reaching our goal of increasing production involved the type of contract we used. For the first five boats of the class, we uti-lized Block Buy agreements—essentially having to do a contract modification for each ship. Starting with the second ship of the Block II contract, USS New Mexico (SSN 779), we transitioned to a multi-year procurement agreement with economic order quantity material


provisions. In doing so, we saved about 12 percent on the remaining five ships of the Block II and even more on the eight Virginias pro-cured under the Block III contract.

In the end, we’re building two Virginias a year because the fleet needs these ships. My team was able to craft the increased build rate into an overall strategy that delivers this capability in an affordable way—a win for the warfighter and the taxpayer. I call that responsi-ble, and responsive, program management.

Q: Can you tell me a recent success story about the Virginia class submarine?

A: As noted, we reduced the per-hull price of the Virginia class through our Virginia cost reduction efforts. The first ship that reflects these cost reduction efforts in total will deliver this summer. Few people thought it possible, as accelerating production, changing the design, increasing the work scope and reducing cost were almost unprecedented. However, we achieved our cost reduction mark early without reducing capability and had an extra ship added into the fis-cal year 2011 budget. If anything, these ships are now more flexible because of two large bow tubes, each with the volume of a tractor trailer truck, versus the 12 smaller VLS tubes.

Usually when you change a design of an in-production ship you have some reverse learning—meaning it takes longer to build the re-designed ship. We have not experienced that with the Virginia class, though we are re-learning some first-of-class delivery lessons due to the redesigned bow. North Dakota’s bow took two fewer months and 8,000 fewer manhours to build than its predecessor. So, the first-of-a-class bow, with equal or greater capability than her predeces-sor, delivered faster and for less cost than the 10th-of-a-class bow—a real credit to our shipbuilders. When North Dakota delivers, she’ll be the seventh straight submarine delivered early to its contract deliv-ery date—making seven of 10 Virginias delivered early and giving the fleet four additional years of near-term Virginia class use. We have every indication that the rest of the boats now under construction will continue this tradition. Our collective Navy-industry credibility is built on sustaining this DoD-best performance.

Operationally, these ships are in the fleet, deploying and produc-ing eye-watering results in front-line missions with on-station rates that meet or exceed the Los Angeles class they are replacing. All told, eight Virginia class submarines have deployed, with three, USS Virginia (SSN 774), USS Hawaii (SSN 776) and USS North Carolina (SSN 777), completing two full-length deployments.

Q: What is the goal and timeline of the Ohio replacement program?

A: The program’s philosophy since inception is delivering credible capability at the lowest possible cost. This is a significant under-taking given that the Navy has not designed a new ballistic mis-sile submarine, or SSBN, since the 1970s or built one since the last Ohio class delivered in 1997. We have a dormant SSBN indus-trial base.

Today, our Ohio class SSBNs carry half of the nation’s deployed nuclear warheads. Under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the sea-based leg of the United States’ nuclear triad, the SSBN, will deploy 70 percent of the nation’s strategic weapons. The SSBNs’ stealth and large patrol area makes these ships virtually undetectable while deployed, and they are the survivable leg of the triad. Having the right ship with the right characteristics deployed in the right

numbers throughout the world’s oceans assures this second strike capability, providing a stabilizing presence in the world. Additionally, the Ohio replacement must have the right capabilities to be relevant when the first of the class conducts its first strategic deterrence patrol in fiscal year 2031 and through their entire 42-year operational life that ends, for the last ship of the class, in the 2080s.

So, let’s talk about fiscal year 2031. At a little over 16 years from now, it seems like a long way away. I’ll walk you back from there to today and show you that it really is a today issue, not something that can be deferred, delayed, cut or re-planned. Start with first deploy-ment in fiscal year 2031—that’s when the fifth Ohio class SSBN retires, leaving us with a force of nine ships, one below the strategic commander’s requirement. When the first Ohio replacement comes on line, we’re back to 10 and minimally meeting STRATCOM’s [U.S. Strategic Command] need. [Prior to that comes] lead ship test and evaluation—a three-year period to assess performance to operational requirements, shakedown the lead ship of the class, and conduct the demonstration and shakedown operation process certifying the read-iness of the crew and the performance of the strategic weapons sys-tem prior to initial operational capability. For a lead ship of the class, this period includes developmental and operational testing for inde-pendent assessment of the ship’s performance against required capa-bilities as documented in the capabilities definition document. A post shakedown availability is also scheduled following these activities, where we conduct the necessary repairs and planned system modern-ization. With three years to execute this phase, lead ship delivery must be in early 2028. That leaves a seven-year, or 84-month, span to build the lead ship if we are to meet the fiscal year 2021 lead ship authoriza-tion. Now we are only a mere six and a half years away from today—in that six and half years the program must execute the design, research and development, and construction preparation activity for assuring 83 percent design complete at construction start and a predictable, affordable, on-schedule construction effort. When you look at the pro-gram from that perspective, 16 years does not seem like a long time.

Here, in April 2014, we are almost into year four of the technology development phase. This phase lays the foundation for ship construc-tion Navy-funded design starting in 2017 and ship construction start-ing in 2021. The early stage work being accomplished in this phase is critical to achieving a design that’s 83 percent complete at construc-tion start, that’s producible, with few design errors, and is affordable above all else—in design cost, construction cost and life cycle cost. A non-trivial task given that we’re delivering an SSBN with modern fast attack submarine-like stealth at SSBN speeds, restarting a dor-mant missile tube and launch tube industrial base, constructing three major test facilities and achieving 124 patrols per ship on the most demanding operational cycle of any ship platform. All [of this must be] done within affordability targets and on a schedule that must be met—otherwise we aren’t delivering the strategic deterrent capability necessary for STRATCOM to do its mission.

There are a couple of key points to remember. Lead ship construc-tion is scheduled to span 84 months—an aggressive schedule given the Ohio replacement will be the largest submarine ever built in the U.S., with the lead ship construction span shorter than the previous three lead ship submarines—Ohio, Sea Wolf and Virginia. For com-parison, Virginia, a ship that’s 40 percent the size of Ohio replacement, took over 86 months to build. Accomplishing the 84-month build for Ohio replacement will be challenging and brings me to the second key point—design. The scope of the Ohio replacement design is unparal-leled—it is the largest design effort in the Navy’s shipbuilding history


and about 50 percent greater in magnitude than the Virginia class. A high design maturity at construction start in fiscal year 2021—nearly twice what we achieved on Virginia—is crucial to meeting the aggres-sive Ohio replacement construction cost and schedule challenges. The scope of the technology development effort is larger than for Virginia and needs to include time to incorporate prototyping efforts and inte-gration of a new design tool. The Ohio replacement program is devel-oping a new ship design with the technologies needed to pace the increasing threat expected throughout the life of the class—into the 2080s. These new technologies include advanced silencing, a new pro-pulsor and a first-of-kind electric drive. The ship will incorporate a life-of-ship reactor core, and maintenance innovations that will allow a class of 12 Ohio replacement submarines to fulfill the mission require-ments of today’s already life-extended 14 Ohio class submarines.

Q: What are some of the biggest challenges for the Ohio Replacement Program?

A: I go back to our goal—credible capability at the lowest possi-ble cost. The challenge is to stay affordable and meet all the other technical and schedule requirements. The Ohio replacement is one of the Navy’s most ambitious shipbuilding programs—some-thing I discussed earlier. In short, the program is designing and building, within a cost-constrained environment, a ballistic mis-sile submarine that will be in service from fiscal year 2031, the year of the first strategic deterrence patrol, until the early 2080s, when the last of the Ohio replacement class decommissions.

From the outset, cost has been on equal footing with capabil-ity. We instituted cost reduction efforts that are already starting to bear fruit. These efforts include establishing sufficient, but not exces-sive, capabilities, such as designing the new submarine with 16 mis-sile tubes instead of 24 on the current Ohio class, reusing proven and cost-effective technologies from the Ohio, SeaWolf and Virginia pro-grams, and collaborating with industry to leverage modern construc-tion techniques and improved efficiency.

We’re looking broadly—taking lessons learned from the Virginia class and other surface, carrier and submarine shipbuilding pro-grams. So far, the program has met or exceeded all of the major cost-reduction benchmarks necessary to meet its aggressive cost and timeline requirements without compromising platform capability. It’s a good start, but there is much to be accomplished.

This leads me to what I see as the biggest challenge—delivering a platform with the right capabilities to carry through the early 2080s, within budget, and on time. Keeping sustained support for the pro-gram’s design, research, and development, prototyping and construc-tion budget for the next decade is critical to accomplishing this goal. We are delivering a capability, not a platform—keeping the associated budgets funded throughout the program will be a challenge, and one we will be working on every single year. There is no more important program and, frankly, no more important task.

Q: Why is PEO Submarines restarting the full-up-round heavy-weight torpedo production?

A: We need the inventory. The requirement for heavyweight torpe-does has gone up due to revised war fighting plans. Additionally, the Navy has not taken delivery of a complete torpedo since 1997, and on average we consume between three and five torpedoes a year in exercises, so we’ve seen some attrition.

That said, we have been actively working to improve the torpe-does in our inventory. We’ve focused our efforts on improving the torpedo’s propulsion systems and, most recently, guidance and con-trol systems to an open architecture build that allows us to refine our software to improve the weapon’s ability to discriminate between tar-gets, countermeasures and background noise. Our torpedoes are the best in the world, but after a nearly two-decade production hiatus we have to restart production to ensure we have the quantities required by the warfighter.

The current plan is to award two production contracts in fiscal year 2016. One will be for the nose section, the guidance and con-trol, what we call G&C, and the second is for the afterbody and tail-cone. This later contract is primarily a build to print effort, which means we are essentially buying the same torpedo that is currently in the inventory with the only changes being tied to addressing obso-lescence issues. The G&C contract is a combination of build to print and build to specification due to the evolving nature of electronics, and our inability to build the same product as the electronics indus-try progresses. It, too, is maintaining the same requirements of the previous torpedoes, but allows for progression in the electronics. The Navy will take delivery of the forward and aft ends and integrate them using existing fuel tanks and warheads inventory, and then deliver the all-up-round torpedoes to the fleet. Eventually we will have to build more fuel tanks and warhead packages, but initially we’ll be consum-ing our existent inventory that isn’t installed in warshot torpedoes. The Navy will do the final assembly, testing and delivery of the com-plete torpedo.

We decided to split the awards because we believe we can obtain better pricing by competing the electronic guidance and control sys-tem separately from the mechanical afterbody and tailcone sections. This way, tech-savvy companies of all sizes can compete for the for-ward end and not have to worry about how they would build the mechanical-heavy aft end and vice versa, mechanical manufactures can compete for the aft end and not be concerned with the more technology-dense forward end. The Navy is also assessing our current submarine weapons and is exploring ideas to make a more modular torpedo. Getting a “hot” torpedo production line is an enabling capa-bility to evolve the torpedo to new requirements when they are estab-lished. The ability to have multiple variants of a torpedo with a larger fuel tank or other capabilities may be a better long term option than the traditional all-purpose torpedo we currently have.

Pre-Commissioning Unit North Dakota (SSN 784) sits moored at the graving dock of General Dynamics Electric Boat prior to its christening ceremony in Groton, Conn., Nov. 2. North Dakota is the 11th Virginia-class attack submarine. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by Lieutenant J.G. Phillip Chitty]


Q: What is the Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems and how has it changed how the Submarine Force modernizes its com-bat systems?

A: The SWFTS is an effort we started back in 1998 by transitioning our towed array processing from a military-specific hardware and software system to an open architecture and commercial off-the-shelf processor, display, and software. Since then, we’ve transitioned all of our sonar, fire and weapons control, and imaging systems to this model and it’s these three major programs that really consti-tute SWFTS.

Over the years, we’ve refined the model and now deliver biennial software and hardware upgrades. In odd years we deliver new soft-ware builds called advanced processor builds, or APBs. In even years we deliver the hardware technology insertions, or TIs. With the bien-nial process, each APB can go on the TI from the year before and year after. For example, TI 14 will be delivered hosting APB 13, APB 15 will be delivered to operate on TI 14, TI 16 will be delivered hosting APB 15, and so on. This drumbeat allows us to deliver capability to the fleet rapidly and at less cost. For example, if we want to add a new acoustic array to a submarine, we can include the software required to process the array in an APB. We just add the capability into the right APB and don’t have to worry about adding a new system to the already-tight confines of a submarine.

The SWFTS model has us upgrading each submarine every four to six years, allowing crews to become proficient on their systems and minimize repair and sustainment requirements by scheduling hard-ware replacement to coincide with component lifespans. This regular routine also allows us to plan well into the future. For example, the Ohio replacement program begins ship construction in 2021, but I know that the lead ship will have a TI 22 SWFTS suite hosting either APB 21 or APB 23. Knowing that now allows us to take the platform’s combat system off the critical path, allows us to get the right power, cooling and space requirements years before the start of construc-tion, and helps de-risk the overall program. Additionally, the SWFTS model allows us to drastically reduce acquisition costs. Ohio replace-ment’s non-recurring engineering costs associated with its combat systems are less than half of those costs for the Virginia class and about 17 percent of the cost for the Sea Wolf program.

As we move forward we may [further] refine our SWFTS model, but its basic goodness is clear—it allows us to deliver real war fight-ing capability quickly to the fleet at lower-than-traditional costs, it reduces our maintenance requirements, and it allows us to de-risk new construction efforts. In fact, in its 2013 budget submission, the Senate Appropriations Committee wrote that SWFTS “continues to be a model of efficient, effective and rapid response to submarine warfighter combat system, sonar and imaging needs. This program utilizes a flexible and forward-thinking methodology which enables the rapid introduction of fleet requirements and capability via an alternating biannual hardware and software modernization process which facilitates a stable industrial base. The TI/APB modernization process provides the submarine force with enhanced war fighting capabilities while avoiding significant research, design, acquisition, obsolescence and training costs by transitioning three classes of attack submarines and the four guided missile submarines to a com-mon baseline.” High praise indeed.

Q: What sensor work has PEO Submarines recently done with Low-Profile Photonics Mast and Towed Array improvements?

A: We actually have a couple of new efforts involving our Virginia class optical system and our thin-line towed array handler.

First, we are working on a Low-Profile Photonics Mast at the fleet’s request. Right now, I’d put our current Photonics Mast against any submarine above water visual sensor. It has every-thing you could ask for—high-resolution camera, low-light cam-era, infrared camera, radar, laser range finder, and more. However, to get all those systems in a mast we had to make it large, and to minimize its radar cross section we came up with a Christmas tree design that is unique to the U.S. submarine force. The fleet requested a smaller mast, so we’re prototyping two types of Low-Profile Photonics Mast that have most, but not all, of the capabili-ties as our current mast. The idea is to use the Low-Profile mast at times where there’s a possibility of visual detection and the larger version when you need that level of functionality. The masts we now have under construction will start delivering this summer and each one is tied to a deploying Virginia class submarine, so we’ll run them through their paces at sea and on mission.

For the towed array, we have a great sensor. Our thin-line arrays are about 1.5 inches in diameter and are real game changers. What we’ve found though is that our traditional pinch rollers can impart a significant amount of force on the array when it deploys and retracts them. A pinch roller does as it sounds— it pinches the array and then either moves it in or out of the submarine. Pinching the array can lead to failures, so we’re looking at ways to deploy and retract arrays without imparting that pressure. We looked at how other nations deploy towed arrays and came upon one used in the United Kingdom that, we believe, holds promise. It’s a belt tension-ing system that deploys the array more smoothly and evenly with-out pinching and it’s a direct bolt on change so we won’t have to do major structural work to bring it aboard. Right now, we’re planning to install the system aboard USS Charlotte (SSN 766) this summer, and if it works as we hope we’ll get these out to all the boats as fast as we can because it’s a simple and affordable way to remove a pos-sible failure mode in our towed arrays.

Finally, we’re also placing in the fleet’s hands six thin-line towed arrays, three each with one of two technologies to sim-plify and improve array reliability. We have two of these prototype arrays deployed this year. I call this rapid competitive acquisition. The Low-Profile Photonics Mast and TB-29B towed arrays are great examples of rapid competitive prototyping in the users’ mission environment leading to a longer-term production. As the opportu-nities arise, we’ll do more.

Q: Is there anything you would like to say that I have not asked?

A: Yes. I tell my folks and my industry partners that I have never seen a more challenging time to be in the undersea warfare acquisi-tion business. I also tell them that there’s never been a better time. Our services are in high demand. One only has to listen to what the nation is asking for, which is credible, asymmetric capability that is able to operate forward and unsupported. Our record stands on its own. We are a leading example of Secretary Kendall’s Better Buying Power, which is common-sense acquisition.

I am honored to lead such a capable, professional and unmatched team here in Team Submarine—and I include my industrial part-ners as well. We have an important task given to us: delivering the world’s best undersea capability, affordably. It’s a task that this team is up to and I look forward to the work ahead. O


A fire at sea is something few have to deal with. It could occur hundreds of miles from land with no help in the immediate area. Ships need to be equipped with proper firefighting systems to battle such disasters and extinguish the threat before it gets out of hand.

The Navy has a variety of systems in place to fight fires that have started at sea, said John Farley, director, Chesapeake Bay Detachment/ex-USS Shadwell Fire Test Operations at the Naval Research Laboratory’s (NRL) Navy Technology Center for Safety and Survivability. The ex-USS Shadwell is a decommissioned U.S. Navy landing ship dock now used to study the latest technologies, tech-niques and doctrines in maritime firefighting.

Shipboard firefighting systems currently being used include gaseous agents (Halon and HFC-227ea), aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), water mist and miscellaneous seawater sprinkler sys-tems he said.

The gaseous agents and water mist are generally used to counter class B (flammable liquid) fires in machinery spaces and flammable liquid storerooms. Due to the Montreal Protocol and subsequent U.S. law, Halon extinguishing agents are being phased out and now the preferred machinery space agent is water mist. Currently, HFC-227ea is being used for engine enclosure and flam-mable liquid storeroom fire protection applications, said Farley. Gaseous agents are stored within pressurized gas cylinders, and the gaseous agents are dispersed into the protected space via a distrib-uted piping/nozzle array.

AFFF is also used to counter class B pool fire threats on the flight deck, pump rooms, hangar bays, and some large volume spaces such as well decks and vehicle storage areas. AFFF concen-trate is mixed with seawater from the ship’s firemain system at the AFFF proportioning pump locations and is dispersed to the pro-tected volume via a distributed piping/nozzle array.

The water mist systems use high pressure pumps, which are fed from a dedicated fresh water supply source and disperses the gen-erated fine water mist droplets into the protected volume via a dis-tributed piping/nozzle array.

Seawater sprinkler systems are used to protect magazine (ammunition storage) spaces and are used in some high class A (combustible solid) fuel load spaces, such as berthing areas or store-rooms. The miscellaneous seawater sprinkler systems are serviced from the ship’s distributed firemain system, which directs seawater to the various piping systems and nozzles that are located within the desired protected spaces.

High expansion (HiEx) foam and self-contained aerosol genera-tors are two additional fire suppression technologies that have been recently introduced into the fleet. HiEx foam generators are used to protect the Joint High Speed Vessel mission bay and machin-ery spaces. The self-contained aerosol generators will be used as a Halon alternative for the Navy’s Ship-to-Shore Connector and on the Navy’s Landing Craft Utility.

HiEx foam concentrate is mixed with seawater from the ship’s firemain system at the HiEx proportioning pump station and is dis-persed into the protected volume using specialized HiEx foam gen-erators. The HiEx foam generator uses a fan to generate an air flow, which essentially pushes the HiEx foam solution against a screen to generate the HiEx foam bubbles.

A self-contained aerosol generator is essentially a small her-metic sealed unit that contains a solid potassium-based solid com-pound, which when activated will disperse a very fine aerosol into the protected compartment. Since the technology is totally self-contained, it does not required any pressurized cylinders or pumps for its operation, and negates the need for any piping/nozzle array system for agent distribution.

hoW the navy uSeS Shipboard firefighting SyStemS to combat fireS at Sea.



Ron Roller, force damage control officer on the staff of Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, said that ships of all sizes have salt water sprinklers, Halon, HFP (Heptafluoropropane), AFFF, water (salt and potable), and aqueous potassium carbonate (APC).

“All ships have different variations of saltwater sprinkler systems in berthing and habitability areas,” said Roller. “Some are manually activated through various directional valves while others are automatic through thermo heat devices. Salt water acts as a cooling agent for fires, mainly used on Class A [regu-lar combustible materials] fires.”

Newer ships such as the littoral combat ship (LCS) 1 and 2 variants and the LPD 17 class (amphib-ious transport docks) have water mist fire extin-guishing systems (WMFES).

“The WMFES is a relatively new fire suppres-sion system used on newer ship classes in engineer-ing spaces,” said Roller. “WMFES uses sprinkler heads made up of many very small nozzles releasing high pressure de-ionized water into the space, creating a mist acting to cool and smother the fire. WMFES is beneficial since the affected space does not have to be immediately evacuated, providing more time for initial fire fighters to combat any localized fire(s). The cooling effect also aids in the firefighting team’s re-entry of the space.”

Roller added that older ships use a carbon dioxide (CO2) flood-ing system.

“Installed CO2 flooding systems are still used on some older ships due to original ship design,” he said. “Newer ships no lon-ger use installed CO2 suppression systems due to the inherent dan-ger as it completely and quickly displaces all life-sustaining oxygen from a space.”

Both Farley and Roller said there are several challenges when fires occur at sea.

“First, there is nowhere to run, which requires the ship’s crew to quickly contain the [fire], and second, there is a need to maintain and/or restore the ship’s war fighting mission,” said Farley. “Other

factors that contributes to this challenge is the fact that beyond the presence of a large quantities of flammable liquids and unique com-partment geometries, which may include highly cluttered spaces, the warship also has stowed ordnance present, and always has the obligation to go into harm’s way when called upon.”

Roller said that smoke control is also a challenge when combating a fire at sea.

“All fires generate toxic gases through smoke that can spread quickly to other shipboard spaces,” he said. “Securing ventilation and the setting of both fire and smoke boundaries is paramount in getting the fire and smoke under control. Fires under con-trol significantly mitigate the possibility of spreading to other spaces.”

He added that certain types of fires are more difficult to suppress such as [fires located in] engi-neering spaces on conventional steam generation ships that pose risks due to the many heat sources

located within. Magnesium metal fires (sometimes used in aircraft wheels) also pose a significant challenge as the metal is an oxidizer and does not react well to conventional firefighting techniques and practices.

Additionally, a deep fat fryer fire in the ship’s galley is especially dangerous since any application of water can create a violent explo-sion of steam, pronouncing fire effects dramatically. Use of the ship’s deep fat fryer is interlocked to the aqueous potassium carbon-ate (APC) fire suppression system for safety purposes.

“APC is an automatic fire suppression system used for shipboard deep fat fryers in the crew, wardroom and flag galleys and is a liq-uid form of the more commonly known Purple K Powder, a por-table dry-chemical fire suppression agent used to smother class B fires,” said Roller.

He added that the biggest fire dangers aboard a ship at sea are flammable oil systems leaks, standing oil in engineering spaces, oil spray fires, air capable ships’ fixed wing and helicopter operations, general housekeeping and ventilation cleanliness. He added that crews train for these potential threats on a regular basis.

Ron Roller

Sailors assigned to the Whidbey Island-class amphibious dock landing ship USS Tortuga (LSD 46) combat a simulated flight deck fire at the Surface Warfare Officer School, Yokosuka Firefighting and Damage Control Training Facility at Fleet Activities, Yokosuka. The training facility is responsible for certifying and training shipboard firefighting teams on all forward-deployed ships in the 7th Fleet area of operations. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Amanda S. Kitchner]

A sailor assigned to the guided-missile destroyer USS Preble (DDG 88) moves fire fighting equipment during a fire drill. Sailors conducted a main space fire drill during a response to a shipboard fire. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Huey D. Younger Jr.]


“Shipboard fire drills are common practice and conducted on a continual basis,” he said. “Shipboard training teams are highly trained and established to conduct drills during any condition, including while underway, in port, during industrial availabilities, etc. There are many case studies resulting in lessons learned, but we are still learning.”

look ahead

Farley said the NRL is currently working on a number of proj-ects that include the use of “portable” high expansion foam genera-tors in the event there is a shipboard fire that is unconfined and fire conditions circumvent effective manual response firefighting oper-ations. Secondly, they are looking into the use of fixed AFFF/water cannons (both autonomous and/or remote manual operations) for large volume mission critical space fire protection. The NRL is also investigating the efficacy of using fluorine-free class B foams in lieu of AFFF at some point into the future, as well as verifying that any proposed alternative mobility and/or jet fuel does not comprise the effectiveness and/or increase the fire risk for current fire extin-guishing agents.

“There is a tremendous push right now to identify the hazards posed by lithium and lithium ion batteries that are being used for a number of Navy applications,” said Farley. “Most of the work to date has focused on quantifying the fire/explosion potential, heat release rate, and toxic gas hazards posed by some of the battery chemistries, and to look into additional battery storage safety issue requirements. Knowledge gaps still exist related to lithium bat-tery firefighting media effectiveness, which will require additional experimental study.”

Roller said that there are many improvements aboard the LCS and DDG 1000 platforms to be implemented in 2014, including many innovative and technology-driven systems incorporating automated fire suppression systems, remote control extinguish-ment, shipboard cameras, and less manpower driven monitoring, to name a few. The WMFES is a prime example of such advance-ments, he added.

“We continue to use lessons learned and case studies in future development of policy and procedures for combating shipboard casualties,” he said.

Drew Marine has been providing the U.S. Navy’s support fleet components, services, and engineering/technical support, for a variety of fire suppression functions and activities onboard Navy ships, said Gerald Lodge, fire, safety and rescue (FSR) technical marketing manager at Drew Marine. Specific systems include high/low pressure CO2, firefighting foams, dry chemical powder, Halon and clean agent gas, sprinkler, and water mist systems.

Platforms using Drew Marine services within the U.S. Navy surface ships include rescue and salvage, combat support, amphib-ious command, guided missile destroyers, landing and dock ves-sels, amphibious transport docks and joint high speed vessels, to name a few.

Each specific system has its own unique function and suppres-sion capability; the customary method of fire suppression involves a direct interference (and thus break-up of the fire cycle), said Lodge. Disrupting the fire cycle is chemical in nature for gas and clean agent systems, while involving a cooling effect in the water-based systems. With foam-based systems, a smothering effect becomes the primary mode of suppression, as the agitated foam solution

spreads across a liquid fire and cuts off the various legs of the fire triangle, which include oxygen, fuel and heat or ignition, he said.

“The complexities of each system type differ,” said Lodge. “We ensure working systems and consistency via planned main-tenance and testing, annual inspections, services, and training. Drew Marine also utilizes its ties with major operators and regula-tory agencies for additional inspections, repairs and certifications.”

Drew Marine is involved in ongoing initiatives that involve fire suppression, as well as an overall FSR suite of products and ser-vices. Many of these improvements have been initiated by feedback received from end users, their service engineers/technicians, or are based on input from their Firefighting Foam Analysis Laboratory and Technology Center.

“For instance, we are working within several different ship classes on replacing obsolete galley fire suppression systems, in addition to updating the fire detection systems,” said Lodge. O

A 10MW flammable liquid spray fire that is used to test new machinery space firefighting agents such as water mist. [Photo courtesy of the Naval Research Laboratory]

Drew Marine Instrument Testing Station. [Photo Courtesy of Drew Marine]




To become a program/project man-ager in the defense acquisition workforce, there are specific certifications that are required. These certifications vary on level and requirements based on what path the student chooses to follow, said Wayne Glass, professor and director of the Strategic Partnership Program at the Defense Acquisition University (DAU). The DAU establishes partnerships with colleges and universities, leaders in the defense industry, government agencies as well as professional associations, so defense acquisition workforce members can transfer DAU coursework toward col-lege and university degrees and certifi-cates. Currently there are approximately

80 academic institutions that have part-nered with the DAU.

DAU does not grant students degrees. They provide the training courses required to be certified in defense acquisition and then partner with other academic organi-zations who do grant degrees. This part-nership allows the transfer of college and certificate credit for courses taken at DAU, aimed at students who want a career in the defense acquisition workforce and to poten-tially become a program/project manager one day.

There are many specialties for people planning on entering the defense acquisi-tion workforce. Some of them include audit-ing, contracting, engineering, information

technology, life cycle logistics, test and eval-uation, purchasing, and program manage-ment. Within all of these specialties are three levels of certification, except for purchasing, which has only two. For each certification there are three requirements necessary.

“The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act is the law that requires the need to have three things to enter the defense acquisition workforce: You need to have job experience; training, which we pro-vide; and education, which the colleges and universities provide,” said Glass.

Through the Strategic Partnership Program, Glass helps facilitate the educa-tional requirement of certification while earning the training requirements.

by brian o’Shea npeo editor

earning defenSe acquiSition Workforce certificationS While earning a college degree.


For example, in program management each certification has specific areas of focus depending on what field the stu-dent plans on pursuing; such fields include weapons systems, service, business man-agement/IT and international acquisition. DAU offers courses that pertain to all of these specific areas; some courses, like CLE 025 Information Assurance, count toward all four specialties. However, a course such as CLI 001 International Armaments Cooperation Part 1 only counts toward pursuing an international acquisition specialty.

“Generally speaking, most people are after try-ing to become a manager,” said Glass. “At one of these levels, either in the IT world or actually running a major program or project, [that] is what their ultimate goal is. Most of the time that they’re in the workforce, they’re work-ing towards receiving certification. When they get a little more senior and they’ve already reached level 3 certification, there are executive level courses that they can take as well, especially in the project man-agement field. We have a number of them

that people can take and some of them are required.”

There is one 10-week course, PMT 401, offered at DAU that is required for every-body in acquisition who is going to be a program manager, project manager, or a deputy.

People who enter the defense acqui-sition workforce at DAU start off at 100-level online courses and they build up to classroom courses. Generally there are a

few classroom classes at the 200 level, but most of them start at the 300 level. The first few courses one takes at DAU are online except for one career field: contract-ing. The first class in the contracting specialty is in a classroom because students have to learn the federal acquisition regulation.

“The way you do it, you have to be in there to ask

questions, and be with an instructor,” said Glass. “It’s like going to law school and hav-ing someone interpret the law to you.”

It is not a requirement to have a previous degree to enroll at DAU. Not all people who enroll at DAU to get into the defense acqui-sition workforce have bachelor’s degrees,

but the majority do, said Glass. Typically the students who do not have a bache-lor’s degree are non-commissioned officers. Glass added that approximately 80 percent of the students that take courses at DAU are civilian and 20 percent are military.

The Strategic Partnership Program also has an Excelerate Program for someone who already has a bachelor’s degree and is in the early stages of their Level 1 certifi-cation on their way to earning a master’s degree. Most courses that transfer as credit to other colleges and universities are at the 300 level, while most courses in level-one certification are at the 100 level.

“I went to these schools and asked to accept their certification as credit for graduate level work toward their master’s degree,” said Glass. “I personally believe that it should be worth six to nine hours of credit for graduate level work, and 11 of the schools agreed with me on that. The reason I did this is I wanted to help these people coming in, to speed up getting their degree a little bit.” O

A DAU student familiarizes herself with the Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Life Cycle Management System chart during class at the DAU Fort Belvoir campus. [Photo courtesy of Defense Acquisition University]

Air Force Maj. Gary Lyles teaches the Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course (ACQ 201B) at the DAU Fort Belvoir campus. [Photo courtesy of Defense Acquisition University]

Wayne Glass



saTeLLiTe CommuniCaTions navy air/sea peo forum

O3b Networks is introducing a sat-ellite communication capability that operates at medium earth orbit at 8,063 kilometers that reduces round trip time

latencies to less than 150 milliseconds and saves 13 decibels of power compared to communication satellites operating at geostationary orbits at 35,786 kilometers. Four O3b satellites were launched on June 25, 2013, and are currently providing services, and four satel-lites that will complete the network are scheduled to be launched on July 10, 2014. An additional four satellites to be launched during the fourth quarter 2014/first quarter 2015 will provide additional capac-ity to the network. Each O3b satellite has 12 independently steerable antennas, two for gateways and 10 for customers, which can trans-mit 432 MHz (216 MHz forward and 216 MHz return) in Ka-band frequencies. O3b Networks has deployed nine worldwide operational gateways and a network operation center (NOC) and back-up satel-lite operations center near Manassas, Va., and a satellite operations center and back-up NOC in Betzdorf, Luxembourg.

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

A: We have been discussing O3b Networks’ capabilities with vari-ous Navy organizations to include the Department of the Navy chief information officer, Navy and Marine Corps staffs, SPAWAR, NAVAIR and NAVSEA as well as the fleet commanders and numbered fleet commanders such as commander, Seventh Fleet. As we roll out the O3b system, it’s important to listen and understand Navy and Marine Corps’ requirements and concerns with their current com-munication systems as well as understand their needs and desires for future satellite communications. Our primary business areas with the Navy and Marine Corps will include providing high data rate (100s Mbps to 1.6 Gbps) of effective communications through-put, low latency (guaranteed less than 150 milliseconds) using terminals, modified or comparable in size to today’s deployed termi-nals, to high data density users (for example, command and control ships, aircraft carriers, large deck amphibious ships, surface com-batants such as the littoral combat ship that require remote distance support, and over land areas to support Marines transitioning from the sea to shore during amphibious operations). Latency is impor-tant because systems like Citrix routinely time-out over geostation-ary satellite communication systems.

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

A: O3b Networks was originally designed to reach the “other 3 bil-lion” potential users (population) that are not connected to the world’s Internet and networks. We purposely kept costs low so that our services were affordable by those “other 3 billion” potential

users. Therefore, our costs are closer to fiber than to traditional C/Ku/X-band satellite communication systems. We estimate we will be roughly 30 to 40 percent lower in cost as compared with geosta-tionary satellite communication systems due to significantly lower capital investment costs.

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

A: Although the O3b Government Solutions Team is pursuing an indirect sales model, we have been reaching out, meeting and lis-tening to potential Naval end-users so that we can address their requirements and concerns and build in their requirements to ensure we can meet their secure, high data rate, low latency, and low cost expectations. As a result of our numerous conversations with Navy and Marine Corps officials, we have been gathering their requirements to ensure our business development efforts match Navy and Marine Corps priorities. We have been sharing this infor-mation with our government distribution partners and manufac-turing partners so they understand and can meet Navy and Marine Corps needs.

Q: How would you describe your after-sale support capabilities?

A: Outstanding; we have developed a distribution partner support process that will fully meet the needs of our government distribu-tion partners and their end-users. Customers (end users) are num-ber one, and we want to ensure that our distribution partners have the understanding of the real-time O3b network system to be able to fully answer end-user questions and expect the high quality, cus-tomer service delivery and help desk/trouble-ticket support. We will also learn from our distribution partners and end-users on how to make our services better and more responsive to their needs and desires. It’s a two-way conversation to ensure we meet the end cus-tomer’s current and future requirements.

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

A: O3b Networks’ system is a game-changer in the satellite commu-nication industry. Once end-users use the network and experience the efficiencies of secure, high data rate, low latency, low cost, sat-ellite communication capabilities, they will demand more and con-tinue to challenge the use of the system and the high demand for our services. We are already gathering requirements for our second generation of O3b satellites and constellation, which has been an ele-ment of our listening to and understanding of our distribution part-ner and end-users’ needs and desires. O

“D” D’AmbrosioExecutive Vice President Government SolutionsO3b Networks LLC

[email protected]


the

adve

rtise

rs in

dex

is p

rovi

ded

as a

ser

vice

to o

ur re

ader

s. K

mi c

anno

t be

held

resp

onsi

ble

for d

iscr

epan

cies

due

to la

st-m

inut

e ch

ange

s or

alte

ratio

ns.

Compiled by KMI Media Group staffnpeo resourCe CenTer

Calendar

September 9-10, 2014Fleet Maintenance & Modernization SymposiumVirginia Beach, Va.www.navalengineers.org

November 19-20, 2014Launch & Recovery of Manned and Unmanned Vehicles from Surface PlatformsLinthicum, Md.www.navalengineers.org

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!

• AccessallthesurveyanswersfromthehundredsofschoolsthatparticipatedinMAE’s2014 Guide to Military-Friendly Colleges & Universities

• Newandimproveddesignmakesiteasierthanevertofindwhatyou’relookingfor

• Searchthedatabasebyschoolname,state,onlineorbrick-and-mortarschools

• CompareandcontrastinstitutionswithalltheinfoMAEusedtoscoreanddesignateourtopschools

advertisers index

Boeing ...................................................................................................C4www.boeing.comGeneral Dynamics Electric Boat ......................................................C2www.gdeb.comTrijicon ...................................................................................................9www.trijicon.com


Q: What are your primary business areas?

A: Our core business is the design, con-struction and life cycle support of the U.S. Navy nuclear submarine fleet. We have three primary business areas: Virginia Class SSN construction, engineering and design. This includes the design and development of the Ohio replacement SSBN, and sub-marine fleet maintenance and moderniza-tion. In addition, we also support design and development of undersea systems and adjacent markets.

Q: Have you adjusted your submarine-related business to maximize efficiencies and help keep costs down?

A: Yes, we take a total cost approach to our business, which is focused on continuous improvement and reducing direct costs as well as overhead costs through reengi-neering efforts. The objective of our reen-gineering efforts is to increase the “value for cost” yield across all of our Navy pro-grams. One example of our success is the Virginia Class SSN Program, where we consistently deliver high quality ships ahead of schedule and below cost. In fact the last block of six Virginia Class subma-rines (i.e., Block II) was delivered 4 per-cent below target cost and represented a contract underrun of over $300 million. We continue to leverage Virginia design-build practices and technology to improve the cost position on future classes of ships such as the Ohio Replacement.

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

A: We work closely with the Navy to understand their needs and challenges as articulated in their integrated undersea strategy. We have teams that are focused on advancing all elements of this strategy, which includes maintaining ready under-sea forces and providing future undersea capability including platforms, payloads

and payload volume. We continuously challenge our teams to work with gov-ernment and industry partners to develop new ideas and game-changing technolo-gies as well as affordably improve subma-rine capabilities.

Q: How do you describe your after-sale support capabilities?

A: For more than 60 years, we have been a full service supplier to the U.S. Navy nuclear submarine fleet. We perform sub-marine maintenance availabilities, sub-marine modernization, emergent repairs, naval shipyard support, Naval Submarine Base (SUBASE) New London support and planning yard services for all classes of U.S. Navy submarines. We have three dry docks in the Groton Shipyard that are avail-able to provide fleet support. In addition, our New England Maintenance Manpower Initiative provides intermediate level maintenance support for the 15 subma-rines on the SUBASE New London water-front. Our Nuclear Regional Maintenance Department provides nuclear maintenance at the SUBASE New London in Groton, Conn. We also operate the floating dry-dock Shippingport as a government-owned, contractor-operated asset at the Groton base. Our planning yard team provides fleet support throughout the complete submarine life cycle including configura-tion management, design changes for class modernization, tiger team installations and upgrades, engineering services, problem resolution, supply support, maintenance

engineering and planning, logistic techni-cal documentation, and training systems and curriculum.

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

A: Our major challenges over the next 12 months are to deliver the first Virginia Class Block III SSN under target cost and ahead of schedule, complete the ramp up to meet the two-Virginia-per-year cadence, and continue to achieve our design mile-stones on the Ohio Replacement Program, including cost reduction targets. To achieve these objectives we must continue to develop and/or improve our tools and processes as well as train the next-gen-eration workforce. Lastly, we must con-tinue to be innovative in the development of future concept and designs, such as the Virginia payload module, to support the Navy’s integrated undersea strategy.

Q: Is partnering with other companies an important part of your business strategy?

A: Partnering with other companies is central to our business strategy. As the designer and integrator for the Navy’s sub-marine fleet, we look to our industry part-ners for the development of new payloads and sensor systems that help to ensure the Navy retains its position of undersea dom-inance. Today, we rely on more than 5,000 companies from all 50 states who support U.S. submarine programs. In addition, we continue to look for ways to reduce our cost of doing business as well as to reduce the cost of the products we design or the services we perform.

Q: How do you measure success?

A: Our measure of success is to have well-executed programs that remain affordable and relevant, while providing the world’s highest quality submarines for the U.S. Navy. O

inDusTry inTervieW navy air/sea peo forum

William P. LennonVice President

Engineering and Design ProgramsGeneral Dynamics Electric Boat


Who’s Who SponsorshipsDetailed Organization Profiles

Command Profile SponsorshipsQ&A with Top Level Command Leaders

Product ProfilesHighlights your product in the military niche market

Business ProfilesCustom Materials for Custom Audiences

Industry Event ReportsDesigned specifically for your industry-focused event

Resource GuidesProgram Management Updates; Contracts Guides; Products and Services Catalogs; Reference Guides

Posters/Poster SponsorshipsAgency Timelines; Command/Organization Anniversary Timelines; Message Posters

CDs/DVDsStrategically position your promotional CDs or DVDs with a tip in disc carrier

KMI Media Group offersADDITIONAL PRODUCTS and

SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES

To learn about advertising opportunities, contact Conni Kerrigan at [email protected] or 301.670.5700 ext. 111

0 25 50 75 100

3C

4C

50K

50C41M41Y

Job Number: BOEG_BDS_F18_2839M_GClient: Boeing

Date: 2/4/14

File Name: BOEG_BDS_F18_2839M_G

Output Printed at: 100%

Fonts: Helvetica Neue 65

Media: Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

Space/Color: Page — 4 Color — Bleed

Live: 7-7/8 in. x 10-3/8 in.

Trim: 8-3/8 in. x 10-7/8 in.

Bleed: 8-5/8 in. x 11-1/8 in.

Gutter:

Production Artist: S. Bowman

Retoucher:

GCD: P. Serchuk Creative Director: P. Serchuk Art Director: P. de Koninck Copy Writer: P. Serchuk Print Producer: Account Executive: D. McAuliffe Client: Boeing Proof Reader: Legal: Traffic Manager: Traci Brown Digital Artist: Art Buyer: Vendor: Garvey Group

Product: Boeing Defense Space & Security ApprovedDate/Initials

PUBLICATION NOTE: Guideline for general identification only. Do not use as insertion order.Material for this insertion is to be examined carefully upon receipt.

If it is deficient or does not comply with your requirements, please contact: Print Production at 310-601-1485.

Frontline Communications Partners 1880 Century Park East, Suite 1011, Los Angeles, CA 90067

7-7/8 in. Live

8-3/8 in. Trim

8-5/8 in. Bleed

11-1

/8 in

. Ble

ed

10-7

/8 in

. Tr

im

10-3

/8 i

n. L

ive

Evolve. Advance. Prevail.

F/A-18E/F SUPER HORNETRAYTHEON NORTHROP GRUMMAN GENERAL ELECTRIC BOEING

The F/A-18 Super Hornet was designed with built-in growth potential necessary to outpace

evolving threats. The Advanced Super Hornet is the latest proof: offering conformal

fuel tanks, an enclosed weapons pod and other enhancements to extend range and

significantly reduce signature. It’s part of a larger commitment to ensure the Super Hornet

remains affordably dominant, always at the forefront of innovation and capability.

npeo 2 3 final

Documents

navy admiral

navy peoswww

navy officials

navyeb commitment

number of ships

brian osheaspecial

brian osheain

docklanding ships