npeo_preview_issue_new.pdf

Carrier Craftsman

Rear Adm. Thomas J. Moore

PEO Aircraft CarriersU.S. Navy

Precision Guided Munitions O Shipboard Self-DefensePresidential Helicopter O Carrier Onboard Delivery PRSRT STD

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

LEBANON JCT., KY

PERMIT # 805

www.NPEO-kmi.com

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs


P r e v i e w i s s u e

Special Section:AsiA-PAcific Pivot

View from the hillCongressman Jo Bonner R-Alabama

SEPTEMBER 1.1q&a

Rear Adm. Donald GaddisPEO Tactical Air Programs

SPEcial SEcTion

Mine Warfare

PRoGRaM SPoTliGHT

LCS

fEaTuRES

Airborne ISR

Ballistic Missile Defense

Ship Life Cycle Management

TRadESHowS

Modern Day Marine

cloSinG daTE

August 30

ocToBER 1.2q&a

Rear Adm, David LewisPEO Ships

SPEcial SEcTion

USV/UUV Systems and Launch and Recovery Technologies

PRoGRaM SPoTliGHT

F-35

fEaTuRES

Biofuels

Maritime ISR Capabilities

Asia Focus

cloSinG daTE

September 9

noVEMBER 1.3q&a

Rear Adm. Paul GrosklagsPEO Air ASW, Assault and

Special Mission Programs

SPEcial SEcTion

Shipboard Fire Alarms and Control Systems

PRoGRaM SPoTliGHT

DDG*

fEaTuRES

Modeling & Simulation in Ship Design

Fleet At-Sea Replenishment

Corrosion Control

TRadESHowS

International Workboat Show

cloSinG daTE

November 12

Navy air/SEa PEO FOrUM

EditOrial CalENdar

This editorial calendar is a guide. Content is subject to change. Please verify advertising closing dates with your account executive.*BONUS DISTRIBUTION

2013

Cover / Q&AFeatures

REaR adMiRalTHoMaS J. MooREPEO Aircraft Carriers

U.S. Navy

16

July 2013Preview Issuenavy air/sea peo forum

96A big choice is coming up for the Navy on a crucial system that ties together both ship to shore and ship to ship for the Navy’s carrier strike groups. Should the Navy continue to use the C-2A(R) Greyhound, a twin-engine, high-wing aircraft, for carrier onboard delivery or should it seek a replacement?By Henry Canaday

Testimony from Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, commander, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 9, 2013, discussing how PACOM will meet President Barack Obama’s directive to make Asia Pacific a top priority.

Departments2 EdiToR’S PERSPEcTiVE3 undERway4 PEoPlE14 Main dEck

5unMannEd aiRcRafT on caRRiERS BEcoMinG REaliTyUCLASS is a system comprised of three major segments: the carrier segment; the control system and connectivity segment; and the air segment. The UCLASS system will provide persistent unmanned semi-autonomous, carrier-based, ISR and targeting, and strike capability to support 24/7 carrier operational coverage. The final request for proposal is likely to be issued in early spring 2014.By Brian O’SHea

22cloSE-in dEfEnSEToday’s shipboard close-in defense systems came to be developed, deployed and improved, in many cases, in reaction to specific incidents. One iconic event was the July 2000 attack on the USS Cole by suicide bombers operating a speedboat in the Gulf of Aden.By Peter BuxBaum

25TakinG aiMHitting the target with as much explosive force as possible and minimizing collateral damage are key benefits to using precision guided munitions on the battlefield. NPEO takes an in-depth look at current technology what the Navy is looking for in a next generation version.By melanie SCarBOrOugH

27VXX REduXBarring any surprises, a new helicopter to transport future American presidents will be selected in about a year. The U.S. government and defense contractors are gearing up for a competition to replace the aging VH-3D and VH-60N Marine One presidential helicopters. The program hopes to award an engineering and manufacturing development contract to the winning bidder by mid-2014.By marC Selinger

REnEw oR REPlacE?SPEcial SEcTion: indo-aSia-Pacific PiVoT

“CvN 78 is the first aircraft carrier to

be completely built using a 3-D model that allows every space on the ship to be visualized before drawings

are issued to construction

crews, allowing issues to be

resolved before costs are incurred.”

- rear Adm. Thomas J. Moore

View From the HillconGRESSMan Jo BonnERR-Alabama

12

As many publishing companies are decreasing the size and scope of their coverage, I am thrilled that KMI Media Group is expanding its family of publications spotlighting military and federal agency operations and technologies.

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum focuses on operations within Navy program executive offices with emphasis on carriers, ships and aircraft, as well as Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command and U.S. Space and Naval Warfare Systems.

Naval operations are ongoing and there is much to cover. For example, the recent successful carrier take off and landing of the X-47B, a first for an unmanned aircraft on an aircraft carrier. The X-47B is the proto-prototype for a fully armed and operational unmanned aircraft called the UCLASS (Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System), but the Navy A draft request for proposals (RFP) for the UCLASS will soon go out for industry feedback, followed by a formal RFP in early 2014 and a final decision on one contractor before the end of 2014. Unmanned squadrons are planned to be in operation by 2019. Or take the construction of the first of its kind Ford Class aircraft carrier the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), one of the most technologically advanced and capable carriers in the world.

“This will mark the beginning of a new class of aircraft carriers that will be in service for the next 94 years,” said Rear Admiral Thomas Moore. “With exception of the hull, virtually everything has been redesigned to make the Ford class more capable and more powerful than in the Nimitz class. This new class of carrier will build on the legendary performance of the Nimitz class carriers and will provide 25 percent more combat capability, increased service life margins throughout the ship to handle the aircraft and weapon systems of the future including unmanned aircraft and futuristic directed energy weapons, as well as driving down the total ownership cost of the ship by $4 billion over its 50 year service.”

Whether it is the $37 billion littoral combat ship program or the F-35 joint strike fighter program, if it involves the U.S. Navy in flight or in maritime operations, Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum is your source for coverage.

If you have any questions regarding Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum feel free to contact me at any time.


EditorialManaging EditorHarrison Donnelly [email protected] O’Shea [email protected]

Online Editorial ManagerLaura Davis [email protected]

Copy EditorsSean Carmichael [email protected] Hobbes [email protected]

CorrespondentsPeter Buxbaum • Henry Canaday Melanie Scarborough • Marc Selinger

art & dEsignArt DirectorJennifer Owers [email protected]

Senior Graphic DesignerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected]

Graphic Designers Scott Morris [email protected] Papineau [email protected] Paquette [email protected] Waring [email protected]

advErtisingAssociate PublisherNikki James [email protected]

KMi MEdia groupPublisherKirk Brown [email protected]

Chief Executive OfficerJack Kerrigan [email protected]

Chief Financial OfficerConstance Kerrigan [email protected]

Executive Vice PresidentDavid Leaf [email protected]

Editor-In-ChiefJeff McKaughan [email protected]

ControllerGigi Castro [email protected]

ReceptionistVania Jones [email protected]

Trade Show CoordinatorHolly Foster [email protected]

opErations, CirCulation & produCtion

Operations AdministratorBob Lesser [email protected] & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected] Gill [email protected] SpecialistsRaymer Villanueva [email protected] Walker [email protected]

subsCription inforMation

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forumis published four times a year by

KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission is strictly

forbidden. © Copyright 2013.Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum is free to

qualified members of the U.S. military, employees of the U.S. government and

non-U.S. foreign service based in the U.S.All others: $65 per year.Foreign: $149 per year.

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

Preview Issue • July 2013

eDiTor’s perspeCTive

www.GIF-kmi.com

Geospatial Intelligence

Forum

www.BCD-kmi.com

June 2012Volume 1, Issue 1

www.BCD-kmi.com

Border Threat Prevention and CBRNE Response

Border Protector

Michael J. Fisher

ChiefU.S. Border PatrolU.S. Customs and Border Protection

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

Integrated Fixed Towers

Leadership Insight:Robert S. BrayAssistant Administrator for Law EnforcementDirector of the Federal Air Marshal Service Transportation Security Administration

SPECIAL SECTION:

Border & CBRNE Defense

www.MAE-kmi.com

Military AdvancedEducation

www.MIT-kmi.com

Military Information Technology

www.GCT-kmi.com

Ground Combat

Technology

www.MLF-kmi.com

Military Logistics Forum

www.M2VA-kmi.com

Military Medical & Veterans

Affairs Forum

www.MT2-kmi.com www.NPEO-kmi.com

Carrier Craftsman

Rear Adm. Thomas J. Moore

U.S. Navy Program Executive OfficerAircraft Carriers

Presidential Helicopter O Shipboard Self-Defense O Riverine Patrol CraftPrecision Guided Munitions O Educational Development Partnership

www.npeo-kmi.com


SPECIAL SECTION:CARRIER ONBOARD DELIVERY OPTIONS

Military Training Technology

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

Special Operations Technology

www.TISR-kmi.com

Tactical ISR Technology

www.CGF-kmi.com

U.S. Coast Guard Forum

KMI MedIa Group LeadershIp MaGazInes and WebsItes

Brian O’SheaeditOr

Next Generation Jammer Contract Awarded

Raytheon Company recently announced it has been awarded a $279.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract by the U.S. Navy to conduct the technology development phase of the Navy’s Next Generation Jammer program.

“We believe the Navy’s choice validates Raytheon’s leadership in advanced electronic attack systems and technologies,” said Rick Yuse, president of Raytheon’s Space and Airborne Systems business. “Raytheon looks forward to building on our long-standing relationship with the U.S. Navy as we provide the warfighter with innovative and reli-able Next Generation Jammer solu-tions now and for many years to come.”

Raytheon leveraged knowledge and experience as a leading tactical weapon systems integrator to provide an affordable, low-risk, comprehen-sive NGJ solution to the U.S. Navy. Raytheon also leveraged its Gallium

nitride-based AESA technologies to provide warfighters with enhanced electronic attack capabilities.

“Raytheon provided the U.S. Navy with an innovative and effi-cient design capable of jamming current and future threats,” said Yuse. “Our technology approach met the program requirements and lever-aged our industry team’s extensive experience in combat-proven, high-reliability agile-beam RF systems designed for demanding carrier-based aircraft environments.”

NGJ will replace the ALQ-99 tactical jamming system currently on the Navy’s EA-18G Growler tactical airborne electronic attack aircraft.

Raytheon’s Space and Airborne Systems business, based in McKinney, Texas, will lead the technology devel-opment phase of the NGJ program with collaboration from Raytheon facilities in El Segundo, Calif.; Forest, Miss.; Dallas, Texas; Fort Wayne, Ind.; Largo, Fla.; and Andover, Mass.

U.S. Navy Awards Contract for Physical

Security/Access Control

Securityhunter, a federal security company, recently announced it has been awarded a multiple award contract for physical security and access control for U.S. Navy installations worldwide. Securityhunter is one of three companies sharing a total contract value of $99 million dollars over the course of three years.

Securityhunter was awarded the contract for physical secu-rity/access control (PS/AC) systems for the U.S. Navy in the continental United States and outside the continental United States installations, including joint bases assigned to the Navy. This award includes perimeter security and access control for both vehicles and pedestrians. Physical security information management will be included to help collect and analyze data. The contract is part of the Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Ashore Program to protect the Navy from natural disasters, acts of terrorism and other human-caused disasters.

Ross Nelson, federal program manager for Securityhunter Navy programs, said, “I am very excited about the PS/AC award. Working with the Navy on their Technology Refresh program has allowed the Securityhunter team to gain a unique understanding of what the Navy’s PS/AC contract is attempting to accomplish. I am looking forward to working with the Navy to accomplish their goals for this program.”

Ballistic Missile Defense System Completes Successful Intercept Flight Test

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and U.S. Navy sailors aboard the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) successfully conducted a flight test of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, resulting in the intercept of a separating ballistic missile target over the Pacific Ocean by the Aegis BMD 4.0 Weapon System and a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB missile.

Earlier this year, a separating short-range ballistic missile target was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, on Kauai, Hawaii. The target flew northwest towards a broad ocean area of the Pacific Ocean. Following target launch, the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) detected and tracked the missile with its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar. The ship, equipped with the second-generation Aegis BMD weapon system, developed a fire control solution and launched the SM-3 Block IB missile. The SM-3 maneuvered to a point in space based on guidance from Aegis BMD Weapons Systems

and released its kinetic warhead. The kinetic warhead acquired the target reentry vehicle, diverted into its path and, using only the force of a direct impact, engaged and destroyed the target.

Initial indications are that all components performed as designed. Program officials will assess and evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test.

This test exercised the latest version of the second-generation Aegis BMD Weapon System and Standard Missile, providing capability for engagement of longer-range and more sophisti-cated ballistic missiles.

Last night’s event, designated Flight Test Maritime-19 (FTM-19), was the third consecu-tive successful intercept test of the Aegis BMD 4.0 Weapon System and the SM-3 Block IB guided missile. Previous successful ABMD 4.0 SM-3 Block IB intercepts occurred on May 9, 2012, and

June 26, 2012. Other Aegis BMD intercepts have employed the ABMD 3.6 and 4.0 with the SM-3 Block IA missile, which is currently operational on U.S. Navy ships deployed across the globe.

FTM-19 is the 25th successful intercept in 31 flight test attempts for the Aegis BMD program since flight testing began in 2002. Across all Ballistic Missile Defense System programs, this is the 59th successful hit-to-kill intercept in 74 flight tests since 2001.

Aegis BMD is the naval component of the MDA’s Ballistic Missile Defense System. The Aegis BMD engagement capability defeats short-to intermediate-range, unitary and separating, midcourse-phase ballistic missile threats with the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), as well as short-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase with the SM-2 Block IV missile. The MDA and the U.S. Navy cooperatively manage the Aegis BMD program.

Compiled by Kmi media group staff

www.NPEO-kmi.com NPEO Preview Issue | 3

unDerWay

Rear Admiral (lower half) Cindy L. Jaynes will be assigned as program executive officer, air anti-submarine warfare, Assault and Special Mission Programs, Patuxent River, Md. Jaynes is currently serving as commander, fleet readiness centers/assistant commander for logistics and industrial operations (AIR-6.0), Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Fernandez L. Ponds will be assigned as commander, Expeditionary

Strike Group Three, San Diego. Ponds is currently serving as commander, Navy Region Hawaii/commander, Naval Surface Group, MIDPAC, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Charles A. Richard will be assigned as commander, Submarine Group Ten, Kings Bay, Ga. Richard is currently serving as deputy commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Global Strike, U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Neb.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Stuart B. Munsch will be assigned as commander, Submarine Group Seven/commander, Task Force Seven Four/commander, Task Force

Five Four, Yokosuka, Japan. Munsch is currently serving as deputy director, Submarine Warfare Division, N97B, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C.

Rear Admiral Terry B. Kraft will be assigned as commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Japan/commander, Navy Region Japan, Yokosuka, Japan. Kraft is currently serving as commander, Navy Warfare Development Command, Norfolk, Va.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Willie L. Metts will be assigned as director for intelligence, J2, U.S. Pacific Command, Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii. Metts is currently serving as deputy chief, tailored access opera-tions, S32, National

Security Agency, Fort Meade, Md.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Michael E. Jabaley Jr. will be assigned as deputy commander for undersea warfare, SEA-07, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. Jabaley is currently serving as vice commander, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Brian L. Losey,

who has been selected for the rank of rear admiral, will be assigned as commander, Naval Special Warfare Command, San Diego, Calif. Losey is currently serving as commander, Special Operations Command, U.S. Africa Command, Stuttgart, Germany.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Hugh D. Wetherald will be assigned as commander, Expeditionary Strike Group Seven/commander, Amphibious Force, U.S. Seventh Fleet, Okinawa, Japan. Wetherald is currently serving as deputy chief of staff for plans, policies and requirements, N5/N8, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Rear Adm. Cindy L. Jaynes

Rear Adm. Fernandez L. Ponds

Rear Adm. Michael E. Jabaley Jr.

Rear Adm. Brian L. Losey

Rear Adm. Hugh D. Wetherald

Rear Adm. Charles A. Richard Rear Adm. Terry B. Kraft

Digital Receivers for Electronic Warfare Application Order ReceivedMercury Systems Inc., a provider of commer-

cially developed, open sensor and big data processing systems for critical commercial, defense and intel-ligence applications, recently announced it received a $4.7 million follow-on order from Lockheed Martin for advanced digital intermediate frequency receivers for a shipboard electronic warfare (EW) application.

The orders were booked in the company’s fiscal year 2013 fourth quarter and are expected to be shipped by its FY14 first quarter.

“Our decade-long relationship with Lockheed Martin exemplifies our commitment to extending customer success over the entire life of this critical EW defense program, one of the largest for Mercury,”

said Didier Thibaud, president of Mercury’s commer-cial electronics business unit. “Our ability to deliver advanced mixed-signal offerings with unique capa-bilities in ultra-fast tuning, high dynamic range and extreme data processing will help enable our customer to gain a competitive advantage with its EW solution.”

Compiled by Kmi media group staffpeopLe

Compiled by Kmi media group staffunDerWay

www.NPEO-kmi.com4 | NPEO Preview Issue

Northrop Grumman’s X-47B unmanned combat air system (UCAS) demonstrator completed its first carrier-based arrested land-ing on board USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) off the coast of Virginia on July 10.

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

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

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

UCLASS is a system of systems comprised of three major seg-ments: the carrier segment; the control system and connectivity segment; and the air segment. The UCLASS system will provide per-sistent unmanned semi-autonomous, carrier-based, ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) and targeting, and strike capability to support 24/7 carrier operational coverage. The final request for pro-posal is likely to be issued in early spring 2014.

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

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

The Lockheed Martin UCLASS air vehicle concept integrates proven technologies from F-35C, RQ-170 Sentinel and other opera-tional systems to provide both the lowest development risk and great-est ISR mission capability. Lockheed’s approach is expected to leverage the experience of the Skunk Works and their cross-corporation team to meet the Navy’s requirements for a versatile and supportable car-rier-based unmanned aircraft. UCLASS will balance endurance, early operational capability and inherent growth that will enable operations in any environment or threat scenario.

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

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

“Boeing knows carrier aviation,” said VanNierop. “We bring 90-plus years of naval aviation history including delivering car-rier-based aircraft to the U.S. Navy, and more than three decades of unmanned systems experience. When combined, Boeing’s capabili-ties-based approach, Naval and unmanned systems experience, and rapid prototyping will allow us to create an affordable and low-risk solution for our customers. We have been very busy exploring the UCLASS trade space, but due to the competitive nature of the pro-gram, we are not prepared to discuss details of our work at this time. I can tell you that Boeing will give the Navy a UCLASS system that can provide a persistent CVN [Carrier Vessel Nuclear]-based ISR and strike capability supporting carrier air wing operations.”

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., a manufacturer of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), tactical reconnaissance radars and surveillance systems, introduced Sea Avenger in 2010, a carrier-based derivative of its Predator C Avenger UAS, to fulfill the U.S. Navy’s need for a UCLASS system. General Atomics has acknowledged that the Sea Avenger will likely be their entrant into the UCLASS competition.

Like Predator C Avenger, Sea Avenger presents a low-risk, high technology ready procurement option as it leverages more than 18 years of Predator-series UAS development, manufacturing and system support, along with 1 million flight hours of operational experience. In addition, many Predator-series elements, components and subsys-tems already provide mature, proven and affordable mission capabili-ties desired by the Navy for a UCLASS system.

Anticipating a future requirement for a carrier-based UAS, GA-ASI designed specific features into its Predator C Avenger to facilitate sub-sequent development of an aircraft uniquely suitable for carrier oper-ations that would also integrate seamlessly into the carrier air wing. These include a highly fuel-efficient engine and inlet design, retract-able electro-optical/infrared sensor, internal weapons bay, and folding wings. The aircraft’s structure was also designed with the flexibility to accommodate carrier suitable landing gear, tail hook, drag devices and other provisions for carrier operations. O

U.S. Navy’S competitioN for aN UNmaNNed aerial SyStem providiNg iSr aNd Strike capability.by briaN o’Shea

Npeo editor

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.

Unmanned Aircraft on Carriers Becoming Reality


For the past 12 months I have had the honor to lead over 328,000 servicemembers and 38,000 civilian employees as the U.S. Pacific Command [USPACOM] commander, and I look forward to sharing my thoughts with you on the strategic environment of this diverse and complex theater.

In 2011, the president directed his national security team to make America’s “presence and mission in the Asia-Pacific a top priority.” This testimony discusses the foundations of our strategy and how we plan to accomplish the president’s directive by providing a candid assessment of the opportunities and challenges USPACOM faces in this critical half of the world.

The Indo-Asia-Pacific stretches from California to India. It encompasses over half of the earth’s surface and well over half of its population. The Pacific Ocean is the largest physical feature on the planet. If all the world’s landmasses were placed in the Pacific, there would still be room left over for additional North American and African continents. To give you an even better idea of its size, a Carrier Strike Group takes three weeks to transit from the U.S. West Coast to the Philippines; 15 hours to get

there in a C-17; and from Fort Lewis, Wash., to the Maldives is 9,000 miles.

This region is culturally, socially, eco-nomically and geo-politically diverse. The nations of the Indo-Asia-Pacific include five of our nation’s seven treaty allies; three of the largest economies in the world, and seven of the 10 smallest; the most popu-lous nations in the world; the largest democracy; the larg-est Muslim-majority nation; and the world’s smallest republic.

The Indian Ocean is sur-passing the Atlantic and Pacific as the world’s bus-iest and most strategically significant trade corridor. One-third of the world’s bulk cargo and two-thirds of its oil shipments now pass through the Indian Ocean. Nine of the world’s 10 largest ports are here, and the Indo-Asia-Pacific is the engine that drives the global economy. China, Japan and India are three of the world’s largest economies. Last year alone, there was over $8 trillion of two-way trade. Regional cooperation

to ensure the safety and security of these vital trade routes will become increasingly important over coming decades.

By any meaningful measure, the Indo-Asia-Pacific is also the world’s most milita-rized region, with seven of the 10 largest standing militaries, the world’s largest and most sophisticated navies, and five of

the world’s declared nuclear armed nations. All these aspects, when you take them together, result in a unique strategic complexity. And this complexity is magni-fied by a wide, diverse group of challenges that can sig-nificantly stress the security environment. To be success-ful, we must draw on the strengths of the entire U.S. government, the U.S. econ-

omy and the American people.At a time when the region is experi-

encing such significant change, we must clearly communicate to our allies and part-ners our commitment by maintaining a credible, forward-deployed, sustainable force.

ShiftiNg focUS to addreSS bUrgeoNiNg threatS.

Adm. Samuel J. Locklear

Indo-Asia-Pacific Pivotby adm. SamUel J. locklear

speCiaL seCTion


SecUrity eNviroNmeNt

The Indo-Asia-Pacific has a myr-iad of security challenges, including rap-idly growing military capabilities, nuclear developments, unresolved territorial and resource disputes, violent extremism, natu-ral disasters, proliferation, illicit trafficking and more. This complex security environ-ment continues to evolve with both positive and negative trends.

Overall, the region enjoys considerable political stability. In the past year, we have seen a series of peaceful leadership transi-tions, most notably in China, the Republic of Korea and Japan, which have reinforced existing succession processes. With the obvious exception of China, these changes have also advanced democracy and demo-cratic principles. We’ve noted the positive changes occurring in Burma’s government and look forward to its continued prog-ress. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) continues efforts to pro-vide leadership on regional security issues and to effectively address transnational challenges such as natural disaster, terror-ism, transnational crime, climate change, while simultaneously working towards its goal of becoming a single economic

community by 2015. We expect ASEAN to continue to grow in this role under Brunei’s chairmanship in 2013. We have also seen encouraging examples of states using international bodies to address dis-putes peacefully, such as Bangladesh and Burma using the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to resolve their dis-puted maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal, and Thailand and Cambodia are awaiting a ruling later this year from the International Court of Justice on their long-disputed border region. We encourage all claimant states to seek peaceful means to resolve their disputes.

However, not all developments have been positive or stabilizing. North Korea’s repeated violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions that forbid building and testing of nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missile technologies represent a clear and direct threat to U.S. national security and regional peace and stability. China’s rapid development of advanced military capa-bilities, combined with its unclear inten-tions, certainly raises strategic and security concerns for the U.S and the region. And continuing plans by violent extremist orga-nizations to attack host nation and U.S. tar-gets is another example of the issues in this vast region that are of concern not just to USPACOM, but to many Indo-Asia-Pacific nations.

North Korea: Kim Jong Un used 2012 to consolidate his power. Kim is the young-est head of state in the world and holds the leadership position in all significant North Korean institutions of national power—military, state and party. We were cautiously encouraged in February 2012 when North Korea agreed to implement a moratorium on long-range missile launches, nuclear tests and nuclear activities at Yongbyon. However, Pyongyang almost immediately broke its promise by attempting to place a satellite into orbit using proscribed ballistic missile technology and parading an alleged road mobile intercontinental range ballis-tic missile system. Pyongyang responded to the unanimous U.N. condemnation of

its December launch with renewed rheto-ric, threats and bluster. Just a few weeks ago, again in clear violation of U.N. res-olutions, North Korea announced it had conducted its third nuclear test, which it claimed—without any evidence—was a “smaller, more powerful weapon.” North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic mis-sile programs, its illicit sales of conven-tional arms, and its ongoing proliferation activities remain a threat to regional sta-bility and underscore the requirement for effective missile defense.

North Korea maintains a significant percentage of its combat forces forward deployed along the demilitarized zone with the ROK. From these locations, they could threaten U.S. and ROK civilian and military personnel, as they showed in 2010 with the surprise attack on the ROK ship Cheonan and the artillery attack on Yeonpyeong-Do Island. The continued advancement of the North’s nuclear and missile programs, its conventional force posture, and its willing-ness to resort to asymmetric actions as a tool of coercive diplomacy creates an envi-ronment marked by the potential for mis-calculation that and controlled escalation could result from another North Korean provocative action.

Kim Jong Un’s stated emphasis on eco-nomic development and promises of eco-nomic growth have so far yielded little, and are undermined by North Korean missile launches and nuclear tests that lead to fur-ther sanctions and international isolation. We remain concerned about the poten-tial for peninsular and regional instability while North Korea continues to prioritize military objectives above economic recov-ery and reform and thus remains unable to sufficiently provide for its own population, a concern shared by our allies and partners.

Proliferation: We remain concerned by North Korea’s illicit proliferation activities and attempts to evade UN sanctions.

North Korea’s acts defy the will of the international community and represent a clear danger to the peace, prosperity and stability of the Indo-Asia-Pacific.

Indo-Asia-Pacific PivotspeCiaL seCTion


USPACOM’s Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction [CWMD] program is a com-plementary multinational activity intended to support counter-proliferation interdiction operations. USPACOM welcomes Thailand as a recent endorsee of the Proliferation Security Initiative [PSI] and looks forward to the new opportunities their active partic-ipation will bring. CWMD provides a volun-tary framework through which PSI partner nations can improve operational capabili-ties and domestic legal authorities in order to interdict WMD, their delivery systems, and related materials. Participation in PSI is vital, as part of an interagency approach, to the reduction of WMD trafficking. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and USPACOM continue to synchronize a wide range of CWMD-related activities such as international counter prolif-eration with our allies and partners, and foreign and homeland consequence manage-ment. Additionally, USPACOM is coordinating with the U.S. Department of Energy to estab-lish Centers of Excellence with both China and India to promote effective nuclear secu-rity and safeguards.

China: China’s military has benefited from many years of double-digit economic growth, which has helped fund a comprehen-sive military modernization effort. China’s military is an increasingly trained and capa-ble fighting force focused, in part, on denying U.S. access to the Western Pacific during a time of crisis or conflict. There are a number of notable examples of China’s improving mil-itary capabilities, including five new stealth and conventional aircraft programs and the initial deployment of a new anti-ship ballis-tic missile that we believe is designed to tar-get U.S. aircraft carriers. China is producing great quantities of advanced aircraft, missiles, electronic warfare systems and other special-ized military equipment, while its shipyards are currently building six classes of mod-ern diesel-electric submarines, destroyers and frigates. These new systems augment or replace older platforms and are rapidly trans-forming the People’s Liberation Army [PLA]. China commissioned its first aircraft carrier a few months ago and is continuing efforts to integrate aircraft with the ship to achieve a nascent regional power projection capability within the next few years.

Chinese military operations are also expanding in size, complexity and geographic location. Last summer, the PLA-Navy con-ducted its largest-ever exercise outside the

first island chain and into the Western Pacific, demonstrating increasing proficiency and sending a clear message to the region. Chinese maritime intelligence collection operations increased in 2012 as well, with historic first such missions into the Indian Ocean and within the U.S. exclusive eco-nomic zones off of Guam and Hawaii.

Overall, China’s intensive efforts to build, test and field new aircraft, ships, weapons and supporting systems are of increasing con-cern to the region. Many Asian nations worry about Chinese current and future intentions, with many of them asking, “As China’s mili-tary capabilities improve, will China’s inten-tions change?”

Chinese naval and maritime law enforce-ment vessels have been active in recent years in trying to advance China’s territorial and maritime claims in the South China and East China Seas. China’s strong rhetoric about the indisputable nature of its claims, combined with active patrolling by civil and military ships and aircraft in the air and waters surrounding Scarborough Reef and the Senkakus Islands, has raised tensions with the Republic of the Philippines and Japan respectively. China has also used other economic and diplomatic tools to pressure those countries to accede to Chinese claims. These actions have resulted in U.S. partners and allies in East Asia seeking additional support and reassurance. I am particularly concerned that the activities around the Senkakus islands could lead to an accident and miscalculation and escalation between China and Japan. The close proximity of ships and aircraft from all sides of these disputes raises the risks of escalation. Elsewhere, in the South China Sea, periodic confronta-tions between Chinese and Vietnamese ships and Chinese efforts to pressure international companies to not explore for oil and gas raise tensions. China has consistently opposed using collaborative diplomatic processes—such as negotiations of a code of conduct or international arbitration—to address dis-putes in the South China Sea, instead insist-ing on bilateral negotiations.

China’s relationship with Taiwan remains stable following the re-election of President Ma Ying-jeou in Taiwan. Cross-Strait ten-sions are at historic lows because Taiwan and mainland China have consistently pursued increased economic integration and people-to-people exchanges. However, the PLA con-tinues to maintain a robust military buildup opposite Taiwan that contradicts Beijing’s

stated pursuit of a “peaceful development” of cross-Strait relations. Many of China’s military developments appear specifically intended for use in a possible future conflict with Taiwan. Included in this growing arsenal are hundreds of short-range ballistic missiles and land-attack cruise missiles, high-speed patrol boats equipped with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles, naval mines suitable for blockading Taiwan’s ports, and various types of electronic warfare and cyber attack sys-tems. Cyber activity presents a significant and growing threat to USPACOM.

China is rapidly improving its space and counterspace capabilities to advance its own interests, and presumably to challenge the U.S.’s or other actor’s use of space-based sys-tems. China is expanding its satellite naviga-tion, reconnaissance and communications capabilities through routine space launches. At the same time, we are concerned over extensive writings about—and apparent con-tinued testing of—anti-satellite systems, including a purpose-built missile system, lasers and jammers.

One military development worth spe-cifically highlighting is the advances being made across the Indo-Asia-Pacific to enhance or expand submarine forces, including in sev-eral smaller navies as a potential counter to stronger neighbors. From the northern-most part of our area of responsibility where Russia maintains attack and strategic capa-bilities in its Pacific Fleet, to the western-most boundary where India is growing its submarine force, we see an emphasis on sub-marines throughout the region. The largest and most capable non-U.S. submarine force in the region is clearly China’s, which contin-ues to expand and modernize to complement China’s increasingly capable surface fleet. Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and the ROK are nations that have recently launched—or soon will launch—new, modern submarines.

Both Russia and China are expected to soon field new ballistic missile submarines capable of ranging the U.S. homeland. O

This article is an excerpt of testimony This article is an excerpt of testimony from Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, commander, U.S. Pacific Command before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 9, 2013.

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.

speCiaL seCTion


A big choice is coming up for the Navy on a crucial system that ties together both ship and shore and ship to ship for the Navy’s carrier strike groups. Should the Navy continue to use the C-2A(R) Greyhound, a twin-engine, high-wing aircraft, for carrier onboard delivery (COD) or should it seek a replacement?

Sticking with the Greyhound would mean extending its service life substantially and probably doing other upgrades to reduce life cycle cost. This option also implies continuing with a hub-and-spoke delivery sys-tem for carrier groups. Under this system, the C-2A(R) delivers and picks up cargo and personnel by land-ing on aircraft carriers, and Navy rotorcraft, currently the Sikorsky H-60, transfer the cargo and personnel to other ships by vertical onboard delivery (VOD).

One considered alternative is to eliminate both Greyhound and the hub-and-spoke system and use the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey to perform both roles, COD and VOD. The Osprey would give up some of the fixed wing Greyhound’s range and altitude capabilities for the COD role. And, as a new aircraft, it would presumably cost more than extending and upgrading the existing fleet. But the flexibility built in to the V-22’s design means it could handle pick-ups and deliveries across the strike group and thus replace both Greyhound and H-60s.

by heNry caNaday, Npeo correSpoNdeNt

the c-2 greyhoUNd haS beeN the Steady, loNg-raNge SUpply platform for the Navy SiNce the mid-1960S.


Northrop Grumman’s original C-2A Greyhound was a derivative of the E-2 Hawkeye, with the same wings and engines but with a wider fuselage and a rear loading ramp. A powered winch enables fast cargo loading and unloading. Production of the C-2A began in 1965.

Starting in 1984, the Navy ordered 39 new aircraft, called the C-2A(R) for re-pro-cured. These new Greyhounds had upgrades in both airframe and avionics.

The new C-2A(R)s began receiving a sur-face life extension program (SLEP) in 2005. This SLEP made improvements in the cen-ter wing and upgraded navigation with GPS. A ground proximity warning system was also added. The SLEP gave Greyhounds 15,000 hours and 36,000 carrier landings.

Of the 39 C-2A(R)s originally delivered after 1984, there are 35 currently flying. One was used to help design the SLEP, one neared its fatigue limits before SLEP, and two were retired due to strike damage after over-run-ning runways.

The Navy flew these aircraft heavily when the tempo of operations was high in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but that tempo has eased up now. “Once they did the SLEP to 15,000 hours and 36,000 landings they felt much more comfortable,” said Stephen Squires, director of the C2 Greyhound Program and Capture at Northrop Grumman.

Squires estimates that conflicts can double the range of Greyhound missions and nearly double the number of missions. “In peace time, they fly 400- to 600-nautical mile missions and two sorties per day. When the shooting starts, they do 600- to 800-nautical mile missions and up to three or four sorties per day.”

The Navy is looking at its COD choices now, because in a little over a decade, even with the recent SLEP, Greyhounds will begin reaching their fatigue end-of-life. “There is also an opportunity to modernize them and keep them relevant,” Squire stressed.

The Navy is proceeding very deliberately. It has completed the analysis of alternatives for a long-range, manned, carrier-based logistics aircraft to replace the C-2A(R) COD aircraft, explained Brian Scolpino, program manager of the COD Recapitalization Program Office of the Navy’s Program Executive Office for Tactical Air Programs. “The Navy is proceeding with COD recap-italization programmatic activities and requirements develop-ment for a competitive acquisition program,” Scolpino said. However, “it is too early in the process to speculate on details of potential alternatives leading into a competitive procurement.” Even evaluation criteria for assessing the alternatives have not yet been established.

Scolpino said his office has been doing market research for the past 12 to 18 months and is comfortable with the informa-tion it has obtained to date. He expects that a request for propos-als (RFP) will go out in late 2014, with a due date for responses of 90 to 120 days after the RFP is issued. He predicts a milestone

decision will be made in the second quarter of fiscal year 2016, with a contract award immediately following that.

The Osprey is purpose-built to quickly carry people, supplies or equipment over long distances, making it a perfect fit for the COD mission, said Joseph Weston, senior manager of business development for Boeing’s Navy Integrated Product Team. “In this era of fiscal vigilance and limited resources, the Navy warfighter deserves a reliable, operationally agile and affordable replace-ment logistics delivery aircraft, and the V-22 fits the bill.” Weston said a Navy V-22 tilt-rotor solution would exploit an in-produc-tion, non-developmental fleet of more than 400 aircraft that have proven their mettle, continually performing combat missions around the world since 2007.

Weston emphasized that the V-22 is a turboprop airplane that can also operate as a vertical-lift platform, like a conventional helicopter. “This combination of capabilities means the V-22 offers unsurpassed operational flexibility across the full range of Navy transport and support missions, COD/VOD, casualty evac-uation and point-to-point mobility within the task force. These tasks are currently split among several different platforms.”

Weston further argued that the V-22’s payload flexibility, and comparable speed and range, as well as its ability to take off and land vertically, expands the provision of rapid, long-range, high-priority logistics delivery directly to the point of need: both shore-to-ship and ship-to-ship, all with a single multi-role aircraft.

Weston said the V-22 requires no modifications to perform the COD mission. “As a matter of fact, V-22 operations require fewer aircraft, personnel and support assets than conventional

An MV-22 Osprey from Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (HMM) 166 moves down the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4). Boxer is currently underway off the coast of California. [Photo courtesy of the Department of Defense]


fixed wing and rotorcraft assets, resulting in a reduced footprint and reduced total life cycle costs.”

Reduced footprint and life cycle cost derive from the dual capabilities of the V-22. “It can perform the mission of both fixed wing aircraft and helicopters,” Weston stressed. The V-22 would be able to deliver to both the main carrier and other ships in a task force, using vertical takeoff and landing or even hover and hoist. Weston said that this direct delivery capability of the V-22 would be more efficient than the legacy hub-and-spoke system. He said a single aircraft can thus offer COD and VOD capabilities and a host of other multi-role mission capabilities. “Additionally, the V-22 is a modern fly-by-wire composite aircraft requiring less maintenance than legacy systems and significantly less training costs. It could also conduct the cargo portion of the mission at night.”

As examples of additional capabilities possible, Weston said the V-22 could be easily kitted to perform aerial refueling, air-borne mine counter measures, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and other tasks vital to strike groups.

In contrast, Squires emphasized the capabilities of the fixed wing Greyhound. “Its primary mission is COD with a 1,300 nau-tical-mile range and a pressurized interior that can carry 26 pas-sengers or 10,000 pounds and up to 860 cubic feet of cargo,” he explained. The Osprey can carry 20,000 pounds internally, has a useful cabin volume of 739 cubic feet and can also carry external cargo. Squires emphasized the Greyhound’s advantage in cubic feet of internal capacity. “It’s important because cargo aircraft usually cube out before they weigh out.”

Northrop thus recommends modernization of the Greyhound and extension of its service life. One modernization opportu-nity that Squires said is “staring us in the face” is putting a new engine in the C2A(R). Twenty years ago, the E2D got a new engine, a Rolls Royce T56-427A. Putting the same powerplant on the Greyhound would yield a 13 to 15 percent gain in fuel effi-ciency. “That is proven,” Squire said.

Installing a new cockpit suite in the C2A(R) would bring another 9 percent reduction in operating-and-maintenance (O&M) cost per mile. So Squires and Northrop estimate that re-engining and cockpit modification together would cut O&M cost by 22 to 25 percent.

Northrop’s recommendation to the Navy is to do the two upgrades, of engine and cockpit, first and then, as the aircraft near the end of fatigue life, to add a new center-wing section. “Then they can fly to the mid-2060s,” Squires said. He declined to estimate the cost of the upgrades-plus-extension but said, “These will cost far less than anything that is on the market now.”

If the Navy chose to buy brand new C2A(R)s, Squires said Northrop would accept that option. But he believes the modern-ization program is “the best and most affordable approach.”

The Northrop exec contended that, apart from economy, con-tinuation of the Greyhound has several advantages over switch-ing to the Osprey. He said the C2A(R)’s collaboration with H-60s in a hub-and-spoke delivery system is “tried and true” and similar to the cargo networks used by commercial carriers like FedEx.

The pressurization of the aircraft’s cabin lets it go long dis-tances with passengers and fly above bad weather, with a service ceiling over 33,000 feet, compared with the Osprey’s 25,000 feet. Further, the Greyhound’s 1,300-nau-tical-mile range, with no refueling, lets it reach carriers when strike groups are dis-persed widely over the seas. The Osprey’s un-refueled range is a bit less than 900 nautical miles. And the fixed wing Greyhound can land and take off with minimum disruption to an aircraft carrier’s operations.

“I am biased, I think it is a design mas-terpiece,” Squires said, only half-jokingly. “The performance has been eye-watering for 50 years.” When deployed, the aircraft has a mission capable rate near 100 percent, the Northrop exec said. He declined to estimate maintenance cost, noting that, as is custom-ary for high-demand, low-density aircraft, the C2A(R) is maintained by the Navy. O

A C-2A Greyhound from the Rawhides of Fleet Logistics Support Squadron (VRC) 40 taxis on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69). [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy, by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Rob Rupp]

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.


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

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

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

Navy Undersecretary Robert Work commented on this discon-nect in a January 2013 paper:

Some compare the ship to a guided missile frig-ate, and are left wanting. Others complain that there are better, less expensive, better-armed inshore gun-boats. Others think the Navy would be better served with fast attack craft or small corvettes festooned with anti-ship missiles. Still others believe a purpose-built ship is the only and best choice for the mine warfare mission. All of these alternatives might be potentially attractive choices—provided the Navy’s future fleet architecture had a need for such ships. However, the FORCEnet/TFBN operational construct and architectural framework calls

for a different ship altogether: an affordable, self-deploy-able, multi-role ship optimized for battle network opera-tions in the forward littorals. And that is precisely what the Department of the Navy got in the LCS.

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

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

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

Many critics have also pointed out the logistical hurdles of maintaining and manning the LCS. Thus far, the Navy’s answer has been to forward deploy these vessels in host nations with a complement of support crew and materials. However, there may be an even simpler solution just over the horizon. The joint high

by coNgreSSmaN Jo boNNer (r-ala.)

Littoral Combat Ship

vieW from THe HiLL

WideSpread miSUNderStaNdiNg of itS miSSioN remaiNS biggeSt hUrdle for lcS.


speed vessel (JHSV) has recently been touted as a logistics platform that could be positioned to support the LCS mission, carrying maintenance crews, spares, modules and other supplies. We often have to worry about the diplomacy of for-ward deploying vessels in host nations, but with a JHSV serving the role of host, the game may be a little less complicated.

As with the development of any new ship, there will be growing pains. Early issues of cracks in the LCS-1 Freedom variant, built by Lockheed Martin of Marinette, Wis., and corrosion in the LCS-2 Independence variant, built by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala., have been addressed. Mission packages are also being improved to keep pace with the Navy’s evolution of LCS strategy and improved performance.

The LCS Council was created to address weaknesses in the program, and Council Chairman Vice Admiral Richard Hunt recently voiced confidence in both the improvements and the role of the LCS. “LCS will be an important part of our future surface force. The focus of the council has been to utilize feed-back and information gathered from pro-gram reviews and fleet operations to identify areas of improvement. We under-stand what is at stake and will get this right. I have great confidence in the LCS program.”

While sequestration presents added challenges to the Defense Department and the Navy’s plans to expand the fleet, the LCS program has demonstrated that it can be built on budget and on time. Responding to criticism of the program’s cost, Secretary Ray Mabus told House appropriators on May 7, the LCS has expe-rienced a “dramatic” decline in cost from the first ships, and the program is well within congressional cost cap. The LCS represents execution of one of the Navy’s best acquisition strategies, providing lower cost, improved delivery and enhanced capabilities over leg-acy platforms.

With the support and confidence of Navy leadership, the LCS program is pushing ahead in the shipyards, in the halls of Congress and at sea. The Navy is calling for a total of 52 LCSs, down only three ships from the original plan based on a change to the presence requirement in the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. The Navy’s FY14 budget includes a $1,793,014,000 request to keep the program on pace. As noted previously, the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee heard budget testimony from the Navy chiefs in May and hopes to mark up the defense appropriations bill in June.

Meanwhile, LCS 1 arrived in Singapore on April 17 and LCS 2 and LCS 3 continue to operate and conduct testing out of home-port San Diego. Secretary Mabus recently noted that four LCS will be deployed in Singapore by 2016.

As the LCS evolves to meet the Navy’s new littoral mission strat-egy, the LCS is poised to deliver a knockout punch at the right time in the right places. It is absolutely prudent to keep a strong focus on cost, on-time delivery and quality control going forward. I am confident, however, the LCS will not only stand up to such scru-tiny, but will live up to high expectations it has created within the Navy’s top ranks. O

U.S. Representative Jo Bonner, R-Ala., is a member of the House Defense Appropriations Committee.

Top: Independence-class littoral combat ship (LCS) designed by General Dynamics consortium. Above: The Lockheed Martin-designed Freedom variant of the U.S. Navy’s LCS program. [Photos courtesy of the U.S. Navy]


Navy Triton Unmanned Aircraft System Completes First FlightThe Navy’s newest unmanned intelligence,

surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft platform, the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft system (UAS), completed its first flight from Palmdale, Calif., marking the start of tests which will validate the Northrop Grumman-built system for future fleet operations.

During the 80-minute flight in restricted airspace, the MQ-4C, controlled by ground-based Navy and Northrop Grumman personnel, reached 20,000 feet altitude.

“This flight represents a significant mile-stone for the Triton team,” said Rear Admiral Mat Winter, who leads the Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons at Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md. “The work they have done and will continue to do is critical to the future of naval aviation, particu-larly to our maritime patrol and reconnaissance community.”

The MQ-4C provides the fleet with a game-changing persistent maritime and littoral ISR data collection and dissemination capability, said Winter. It will be a key component of the Navy’s Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force family of systems.

As an adjunct to the manned P-8A Poseidon, the MQ-4C will be a major part of the

military’s surveillance strategy for the Asia and Pacific regions. The Triton will fly missions for 24 hours at altitudes greater than 10 miles, allowing the system to monitor 2,000 nautical miles of ocean and littoral areas at a time.

The P-8A is the Navy’s new multi-mission maritime aircraft being built to replace the P-3C Orion long-range anti-submarine warfare aircraft.

“When operational, the MQ-4C will complement our manned P-8 because it can fly for long periods, transmit its information in real-time to units in the air and on ground, as well as use less resources than previous surveil-lance aircraft,” said Rear Admiral Sean Buck, Patrol and Reconnaissance Group commander, who also witnessed the flight. “Triton will

bring an unprecedented ISR capability to the warfighter.”

The MQ-4C UAS will be based at five locations around the globe. Triton operators will dissemi-nate data in real time to fleet units to support surface warfare, intelligence operations, strike warfare, and search and rescue.

“Our goal is to mature the Triton UAS before supporting the Navy’s maritime ISR mission,” said Captain Jim Hoke, program manager for the Persistent Maritime UAS office, which oversees the Triton program. “The data we collect the next few years is essential to certify the system for operational use.”

Flight tests will continue in California for the next several months before the team transitions the aircraft to Patuxent River in the fall.

Navy and Marine Corps Small Tactical UAS Enters Production Phase

The Department of the Navy recently announced that the RQ-21A small tactical unmanned aircraft system (STUAS) received Milestone C approval authorizing the start of low rate initial production.

With MS C approval, the RQ-21A program, managed by the Navy and Marine Corps STUAS program office (PMA-263) at NAS Patuxent River, enters the production and deployment phase of the acquisition timeline, according to the PMA-263 program manager Colonel Jim Rector.

“This milestone allows us to provide our war-fighter with a unique capability—an organic UAS capable of operations from both land and sea,” said Rector. “The RQ-21A will provide persistent maritime and land-based tactical reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition data collection and dissemination capabilities.”

The Navy awarded Insitu Inc., an engineering manufacturing development contract for STUAS

in July 2010. Since then, the government/industry team has executed land-based developmental tests (DT), operational tests at China Lake, Calif., in December 2012 and conducted the first sea-based DT from USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19) in February.

Concurrently, Marines are flying an early operational capability (EOC) system at Twenty Nine Palms, Calif., for pre-deployment preparation. Lessons learned from EOC will be applied to opera-tional missions in theater.

The aircraft is based on Insitu’s Scan Eagle UAS, which has flown more than 245,000 hours in support of Navy and Marine Corps forward deployed forces via a services contract. The RQ-21A system has a 25-pound payload capacity, ground control system, catapult launcher and unique recovery system, known as Skyhook, allowing the aircraft to recover without a runway.

The RQ-21A includes day/night full motion video cameras, infrared marker and laser range

finder, and automatic identification system receivers. The ability to rapidly integrate payloads allows warfighters to quickly insert the most advanced and relevant payload for their land/maritime missions and counter-warfare actions.

“The expeditionary nature of the RQ-21A makes it possible to deploy a multi-intelligence capable UAS with minimal footprint, ideal for amphibious operations such as a Marine Expeditionary Unit conducts,” Rector said. “The RQ-21A can be operated aboard ship, and then rapidly transported ashore as either a complete system or just a “spoke”, or control center, making this system ideally suited for humanitarian or combat operations, where getting real-time intel-ligence to the on-scene commander is crucial.”

The DoN plans to purchase a total of 36 STUAS systems, each with five aircraft. Initial operational capability is scheduled for second quarter fiscal year 2014.


main DeCK

Navy Christens First Mobile Landing Platform

The Navy recently christened the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) Montford Point in March ceremony in San Diego.

USNS Montford Point (T-MLP 1) is named for the approximately 20,000 African-American Marine Corps recruits who trained at the North Carolina facility from 1942 to 1949. Their excep-tional service prompted President Truman to sign an executive order in 1948 disallowing segrega-tion in the Marine Corps. These 20,000 Marines were recently recognized with our nation’s highest civilian honor for distinguished achievement, the Congressional Gold Medal.

“I chose to name the department’s new MLP Montford Point as a way to give some long-overdue recognition to these proud Americans who gave so much in the defense of our nation,” said Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus. “The courage shown by these Marines helped forge the Corps into the most formidable expeditionary force in the world.”

The MLP is a highly flexible platform that will provide capability for large-scale logistics movements such as the transfer of vehicles and equipment from sea to shore. It will significantly reduce dependency on foreign ports and provide support in the absence of any port, making an MLP especially useful during disaster response and for supporting Marines once they are ashore.

The ship will leverage float-on/float-off tech-nology, allowing Montford Point to partially submerge, facilitating easy movement of cargo and craft. Additionally, the ship’s size allows for 25,000 square feet of vehicle and equipment stowage space and 380,000 gallons of JP-5 fuel storage.

With this set of capabilities, the ship is able to easily transfer personnel and vehicles from other vessels such as the large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off ships onto landing craft air cushioned vehi-cles and transport them ashore. The platform with its open, reconfigurable mission deck will serve as an important flexible and transformational asset to the Navy as it can be reconfigured to support a wide variety of future operations.

MLPs will have a maximum speed of 15 knots and range of 9,500 nautical miles. At 785 feet long, MLPs displace more than 80,000 tons when fully loaded. MLPs will operate with a crew of 34 Military Sealift Command personnel.

New Precision Munition Will Protect Against Swarming Boat Threats

Raytheon Company has initiated an internally funded program to enhance its combat-proven 155 mm Excalibur GPS-guided projectile with a new guidance and navigation unit (GNU) with a semi-active laser (SAL) end-game targeting capability. Addition of the SAL seeker will allow the munition to attack moving targets, attack targets that have re-positioned after firing, or change the impact point to avoid casualties and collateral damage.

“No other gun-launched GPS-guided artillery round is as precise as Excalibur, which in its current design gives one the ability to hit within 4 meters of the target 90 percent of the time,” said Kevin Matthies, Excalibur program director for Raytheon Missile Systems. “Now we’re ready to take this to the next level, giving the warfighter the ability to not only re-target the munition in flight, but leverage Excalibur’s maneu-verability to use the pinpoint precision of a semi-active laser seeker to hit targets on the move.”

This new Excalibur variant using SAL guidance paves the way for GPS-guided Excalibur Ib customers to upgrade their Excalibur Ib

guidance and navigation units with a GPS/SAL capability. Recent tests of the SAL seeker have demonstrated the robustness of the design in a severe gun-firing environment.

In addition to 155 mm artillery land forces worldwide, the GPS/SAL capability will be available for both 155 mm and 5-inch (127 mm) naval guns to address moving targets on land and at sea. Counter-swarming boat capability will be the prime focus of the at-sea moving target capability using a high-firing rate, large caliber, affordable munition that can be fired from land or sea platforms. The transition to the naval 5-inch configuration is easily made as the existing 155 mm Excalibur Ib GNU design also fits in a 127 mm projectile body.

“Excalibur has proven itself an invaluable asset for avoiding collat-eral damage while defeating targets that may otherwise be out of reach or cannot be quickly engaged,” said Michelle Lohmeier, vice president of land combat for Raytheon Missile Systems. “The need for this degree of precision to attack moving targets is there, and we now have the ability to leverage demonstrated Excalibur Ib technology to make this happen.”

Navy Receives First F-35C Lightning IIThe U.S. Navy’s Strike Fighter Squadron

(VFA) 101 recently received the Navy’s first F-35C Lightning II carrier variant aircraft from Lockheed Martin at the squadron’s home at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

The F-35C is a fifth-generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor informa-tion, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment.

The F-35C will enhance the flexibility, power projection and strike capabilities of carrier air wings and joint task forces and will complement the capabilities of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which currently serves as the Navy’s premier strike fighter.

By 2025, the Navy’s aircraft carrier-based air wings will consist of a mix of F-35C, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers electronic attack aircraft, E-2D Hawkeye battle management and control aircraft, unmanned carrier launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) air vehicles, MH-60R/S helicopters and carrier onboard delivery logistics aircraft.

VFA 101, based at Eglin Air Force Base, will serve as the F-35C Fleet Replacement Squadron, training both aircrew and maintenance personnel to fly and repair the F-35C.


Compiled by Kmi media group staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rear Admiral Thomas J. MoorePEO Aircraft Carriers

U.S. Navy


Carrier CraftsmanManaging Aircraft Carrier Operations within the U.S. Navy

Q&AQ&A

A: Gerald R. Ford is over 90 percent structurally complete, and the Island was landed on January 26. We have encountered “first in class” issues that have affected cost and schedule performance. For example, CVN 78 uses thinner steel plates for decks and bulk-heads compared with Nimitz class aircraft carriers to reduce over-all ship weight and restore growth margin in the ship’s life cycle. The thinner plate design has necessitated use of temporary brac-ing to allow handling of the modules as well as causing rework to flam straighten plates. Although shipbuilder actions to resolve first-of-class issues have retired some technical and schedule risk, NNS-HII has been unable to retire all schedule risk, and we expect a four-month delay to the launch and a subsequent delivery of CVN 78. In order to ensure that lessons learned from CVN 78 are incorporated into the rest of the class, PEO Carriers has stood up a new program office, PMS 379, to bring the class into serial pro-duction, driving down cost and maximizing contractor and gov-ernment performance. I expect John F. Kennedy [CVN 79] to be completed at significantly less cost than CVN 78 and with fewer man-hours than CVN 77, and I expect that trend to continue for Enterprise [CVN 80].

Q: For a new ship design like the Ford, how important is mod-eling and simulation to the naval architects putting the puzzle of an aircraft carrier together? How did this affect the develop-ment and construction strategy?

A: The advance of 3-D modeling design allows us to compress the time span for ship design and reduce the time it takes for the tra-ditional design spiral. It also provides benefits throughout the carrier’s life cycle. CVN 78 is the first aircraft carrier to be com-pletely built using a 3-D model that allows every space on the ship to be visualized before drawings are issued to construction crews, allowing issues to be resolved before costs are incurred. The con-struction crew uses the 3-D model to plan and rehearse complex tasks. Operators have a virtual ‘walk-through’ environment to enhance training and qualification, while maintenance activities use the capability for maintenance and modernization.

Q: Can you elaborate a bit more on the benefits of the carrier’s life cycle in regards to the use of 3-D modeling and simulation?

A: By employing a 3-D product model, the PEO and shipbuilder can easily redesign systems that are updated frequently, provide schematics wherever and whenever necessary, compare and con-trast arrangement options, and test new arrangements before installation. This enables greater sharing of information, reduces rework and lowers costs.

The Navy in general is moving toward more of the 3-D prod-uct modeling of our systems. We’ve started with the Virginia class submarine. The benefit of 3-D product modeling is that once you get the models and you start to build the ship, it gives the folks that are building the ship the ability to go in and look in advance at what they’re about to put together. They can actually have a dry run of how they’re going to put the ship together. We’ve already found with CVN 78 significant benefit to that. They have a room set up where they put goggles on and they’ll sit there with certain portions of the ship and they’ll go in and allow the deck plate guys to look at the arrangements. The other thing is when they look at the arrangements, they have the ability to make suggestions and

say, ‘That’s going to be a problem’ and ‘You might want to think about changing this.’ So we’ve made updates to the design before we put the pipe and other things in place. In the past, we would have put it in and they would have said, ‘That pipe doesn’t fit’ and we’d have to reroute it over here.

As far as the sharing goes, this will all be rolled over to CVN 79, which will make the second ship even easier to build from a configuration standpoint. We’re working with the public ship-yards that will eventually be maintaining the Ford class in the future. Our ability to share that data with them and the hull plan-ning folks in the future when they get ready to do maintenance or modernization on the ship—the ability to have that data right there and go look at it—will make it much simpler for us to mod-ernize and cut costs down significantly in terms of the number of ship checks we have to do and provide us with better first time quality in terms of our ability to install new things on the ship going forward. We see great advantages to the 3-D product model going forward, and I don’t think we’ve even scratched the surface of all of the benefits this will provide us. I think the 3-D product model is going to provide us not only with the ability to build the ships more affordably but also maintain them more affordably. The ability to share that data will make it much better for us over the entire life cycle of the ship. Having the product model gives them the ability to look at the space up front, and the craftsman can point out problems that could be caused later.

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

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

The original goal was to deliver CVN 78 in September 2015. We’ve had a four-month delay to launch and we’re now going to christen the ship and launch it in November of this year, and that will result in a corresponding delay in the delivery. Right now we expect to deliver the ship in the second quarter of 2016. We’re already down to 10 carriers because of the inactivation of USS Enterprise last November. So we’re operating in a period of time where we’re operating 10 carriers, which have a temporary waiver for until the commissioning of CVN 78. CVN 78 is a little bit unique because it’s the first ship of the class, so when we deliver it, it has to go for a shakedown and then post shakedown avail-ability. It also has a fairly elaborate test-and-evaluation period like the first ship of a class would. It’s probably not going to be opera-tional and deployable until about 2018. So any delay in the deliv-ery of the ship is something we take very seriously.

It’s regrettable we’re going to have a four-month delay in the ship, but in terms of what is the best for the ship and what’s the


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

Q: Carriers are designed with an inherently long service life. Can you talk about how life cycle management and sustainment has been considered in the new carrier class, and how is it being improved for the existing ships?

A: With a 50-year service life, aircraft carrier life cycle manage-ment is vitally important, and we are constantly upgrading the ship to maintain its combat effectiveness. Nimitz, our oldest car-rier, has the same combat capability as George H.W. Bush, our newest carrier. Because the ship’s combat capability is contained within the air wing, we are able to bring new generations of com-bat aircraft onboard with minimal ship alterations.

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

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

Q: Can you describe the process of RCOH and what it gener-ally entails?

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

At the 22- to 23-year point, ships are in RCOH for 44 months and then come out for another 22-23 years. It is akin to open heart surgery. It’s not just the refueling of the two reactors on the ship—that’s certainly a portion. The refueling of the reactors is only about 10 percent of the total cost of the RCOH. The rest of the cost is doing things like working on the piping systems, working

on the tanks. It’s also an opportunity to modernize the ship for the second half of her life. For instance, Theodore Roosevelt is just about to come out of RCOH and when she delivers, she will be the most combat capable aircraft carrier we have, even though she’s 23 years old. So we have the ability to come back and put the lat-est technology on that ship and the latest war fighting systems. You can look at Nimitz right now, which is 38 years old, and she is just as combat capable as the George H. W. Bush, which was delivered in 2008-09. RCOH is a key component of our ability to maintain these ships over their 50-year life cycle. It’s top to bot-tom, it’s radars, weapon systems, self-defense systems, communi-cation systems, all of it; she gets a complete makeover in the time she’s in there. It’s a very important part. We do 35 percent of all maintenance that we do in the 50-year life cycle in one four-year period. That four-year period is only 8 percent of that ship’s life, but it represents 35 percent of all the maintenance on the ship.

Q: Tell me about the new electromagnetic aircraft launch [EMALS] system. What does it bring to the table and how con-fident is the Navy that the system is ready?

A: EMALS brings great advantages to the fleet. The primary advantage is that it allows us to remove steam everywhere out-side the propulsion system, eliminating huge amounts of mainte-nance and corrosion and a corresponding number of maintenance personnel. EMALS allows the amount of force used to launch the aircraft to be precisely calibrated, reducing stress on the airframe and enhancing aircraft service life. Lastly, we predict EMALS will be more reliable than steam catapults, so the air wing will be able to generate sustained combat operations.

Water or steam and metal leads to corrosion. By having it all electric, you won’t have that with EMALS, so it will significantly reduce the corrosion levels that we see. Any time you’re in a salty air environment at sea and you have metal, it’s just the laws of physics, it’s going to cause rust and corrosion. We will limit that by using EMALS. Another thing is that by having it all electric, we’ll really take a significant amount of steam piping out of the ships today. Today, you run these massive steam pipes that come out of the propulsion plant that provide steam into the catapults, and now it’s all electrical cabling. So you have significant weight reduction, significant decrease in the amount of corrosion on the piping and then, because EMALS is designed to be more main-tainable and more reliable, less people to maintain it than the steam catapults. You put all those things together, along with increased operational availability and the fact that you’re going to be able to dial the forces on the airplane and you provide a signif-icant reduction in total life cycle cost. We’ve tested and launched several hundred aircraft already, so we know it works, and we’ve got a design site and we’ll keep testing it. A lot of the major com-ponents of the EMALS system itself are already loaded onto the ship [CVN 78] as we continue to construct it.

Q: With EMALS allowing for the launch of heavier aircraft, how does that work with the new advanced arresting gear [AAG] system?

A: EMALS offers greater flexibility at the upper and lower ranges of aircraft weight. AAG offers a similar capability, but the systems are independent of each other.


Q: Can you describe the primary benefits of the AAG compared to the previously used arresting gear system?

A: AAG is a modular, integrated system consisting of energy absorbers, power conditioning equipment and digital controls, designed to replace the exist-ing Mark-7 [Mk-7] arresting gear and provide higher reliability and safety margins. The Mk-7 system is a linear hydraulic machine that requires aircraft-specific tension adjustments for each landing. AAG is designed to allow arrestment of a broader range of aircraft, from the lightest unmanned aerial vehi-cles to the heaviest manned air-craft. AAG also has built-in test and diagnostic capabilities, result-ing in less maintenance and man-power to operate.

The key to AAG is that com-pared to the old Mk-7 system, you have the ability to adjust for changing weights of the aircraft. AAG can be dialed up so that the tension on the arresting gear purchase cable is matched exactly to the weight of the aircraft. So if you were to look at the forces on the plane as it lands, the idea is you would like to have a constant slowdown force rather than jerk it to a stop, because then you put additional stresses on the airframe. AAG has the ability to tailor itself to the weight of the aircraft, which is ideal because today’s aircraft—whether it be a joint strike fighter or Super Hornet, or even unmanned aircraft—provides us the ability to adjust the forces on the plane to limit the stress to the airframe. It increases the flexibility and our ability to operate a wide range of aircraft, and aircraft that we haven’t even envi-sioned yet, into the future.

In combination, EMALS does the same thing. EMALS allows us to dial precisely the weight of the aircraft. The com-bination of landing it with a constant deceleration and then launching with a constant acceleration based on the weight of the aircraft will significantly reduce the stress on the airframe, which we think over time will reduce the amount of mainte-nance we have to do on the aircraft and increase the fatigue life of the airframe itself. There are some significant benefits. The system itself is more reliable, easier to maintain, and will take fewer people to maintain. From that standpoint, you have a life cycle cost reduction because you have less maintenance and less people. The added benefit is to the airframes themselves, which I think at the end of the day we’re going to find is the biggest cost savings associated with both AAG and EMALS—in addition to just the pure combat capability that you get from the systems themselves.

Q: Will unmanned systems become part of a carrier’s inventory?

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

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

A: Although the X-47B unmanned combat air system-demonstra-tor [UCAS-D] was recently used to demonstrate the capability for an unmanned vehicle to safely conduct carrier operations, UCAS-D is a developmental aircraft only, not the Navy’s final selection for an oper-ational unmanned system. It is an example of the continuing ability of the aircraft carrier to incorporate new types of aircraft as technol-ogy advances.

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

To be honest, we just had the X-47B on the George H.W. Bush. We expect that there won’t be any major changes. But we fully expect to use the installed systems to land unmanned aircrafts. You may have some different systems that you have to have to do maintenance on board, but in terms of the flight deck itself, unmanned aircraft are not going to change the catapults or the arresting gear alignment on the carrier. We won’t put anything special on to handle those aircraft.

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

The flight deck of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier pre-commissioning unit (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is completed with the addition of the upper bow. The bow weighs 787 metric tons and brings Gerald R. Ford to 96 percent structural completion. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy]


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

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

A: PEO Carriers teams with various industries to address current and future technologies. Our shipbuilder, HII-NNS [Huntington Ingalls Industries-Newport News Shipbuilding], is a key source and integrator of new technologies both onboard our vessels and for construction of carriers. We collaborate with the shipbuilding industry through the National Shipbuilding Research Program [NSRP] to develop technologies to reduce the cost of carriers. Through the Navy’s Manufacturing Technology Program, PEO Carriers partners with U.S. Manufacturing Centers of Excellence and HII-NNS to develop and advance technologies to reduce cost, and improve performance and responsiveness. PEO Carriers is also an active participant in the congressionally authorized Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] program, which pro-vides direct transition of innovative small business technolo-gies to product lines. One SBIR example is the in-line fuel oil content monitor system, which continuously checks aviation fuel for dirt and water, avoiding the time-consuming task of a sailor taking a large number of samples and performing tests in a lab. PEO Carriers also works closely with their system provid-ers and their industry partners to address their system technol-ogy opportunities.

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

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

A: Our biggest challenges of 2013 will also be our biggest accom-plishments. The launch of CVN 78, the first new aircraft carrier design in 50 years, will be a major accomplishment for the Navy. We will also redeliver CVN 71 to the fleet, ready to defend our

nation for the remainder of her 50-year service life, and begin the first inactivation of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with USS Enterprise [CVN 65]. All of these projects must be accomplished in an era that demands more affordability from all of our prod-uct lines.

It’s a big year for us. Christening and launching the first of the Ford class in November is going to be a monumental event. It’s going to be a fabulous ship. At the same time, we’re looking to sign the contract for the second one [Ford class] John F. Kennedy and we’re really starting to work in earnest to drive more afford-ability into the CVN 80. We have the new construction program going on [CVN 78]; we’re going to deliver CVN-71 from RCOH. We just started the RCOH on the Abraham Lincoln [CVN 72], so we’re basically three months into her 44-month RCOH, and that’s a big deal. We’re starting the plans for CVN 73’s RCOH, which we start about three years in advance—she’ll start in 2016. And sadly, we’re also inactivating the Enterprise [CVN 65].

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

A: I think the three biggest lessons that we’ve learned from CVN 78, which we won’t repeat on CVN 79, are first, CVN 78 was orig-inally supposed to be part of a three-step process. We were not going to put all of the new technologies on the first ship; we were going to do this in steps. OSD [Office of Secretary of Defense] and the Navy agreed back in the 2003 timeframe and said, ‘Rather than use three steps, why don’t we just go ahead and we’ll incor-porate all the new technologies on the first ship of the class.’ So we changed the plan a little bit at the beginning and I think in the long run we’re going to be happy that CVN 78 will have the full suite of new technologies. But as a result of that, we started building CVN 78 without the design complete, and without full bill of materials. We didn’t have all the material in hand. Those two things, not having the design complete and not having the material in hand, has really caused us some challenges.

So as the ship builder has built the ship and put systems together, there have been instances where he’s building the chill water systems and he’s missing a valve because it was a brand-new developmental valve and the supplier base was not able to make all the valves as fast as we had hoped. So they built the system, they put a temporary spool piece in or a blank and con-tinued building the system, and then they have to go back and remove the blank when they finally get the valve and put it in. So it’s caused churn in the process, which has added cost to the ship. Some of that started upfront just because we didn’t have the design complete.

Those two things will change for CVN 79. We’ll start CVN 79 with a full bill of material and a complete design. Those two things by itself will significantly reduce the cost to build CVN 79. One other example, when we designed CVN 78 one of the things we really tried to do is take a bunch of weight off the ship to restore service life margins, because we tend to add things to its life. From a naval architecture standpoint, we wanted to start with a lower weight and lower center of gravity to give us a little bit of room. So we designed a lot of the decks with thin-ner steel on CVN 78 than we have typically done on the Nimitz class. We build these large sections of the ship on dry land and then we lift them up to place them, and what we found is that the


thinner steel buckled and warped. So we had many cases where we put large sections of the ship in and the shipyard had to spend an awful lot of time straightening the decks out. We realized that thinner decks reduce the weight, but the unin-tended consequence is that it [takes] a lot of man hours to go back and straighten these plates of steel out. Basically, you’re just heating the deck and then the steel eventually flattens out. But it cost us a lot of money and time to do that, so we’re going to go back on CVN 79 and go back to the typical steel thickness that we used on the Nimitz class.

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

Q: Any closing thoughts?

A: Aircraft carriers have been the centerpiece of our Navy for more than 70 years. We are an aircraft carrier-centric Navy. Aircraft car-riers remain our most enduring and transformational platforms, supporting the full spectrum of our maritime strategy. The legacy of today’s Nimitz carriers will be carried on when the Gerald R. Ford [CVN 78] is delivered. The Ford class will bring significantly increased combat capability, the margins and flexibility to handle the missions of tomorrow, and will cost $4 billion less to own and operate over the 50-year life compared to a Nimitz class carrier. It is an exciting time to be in carriers, and we are excited about the future.

There’s been an awful lot of focus in the media and on the Hill of the cost of the first ship, and rightly so. We’re not happy with the cost of the first ship, but it is the first ship of the class. It is a completely new ship compared to the Nimitz class, and we cer-tainly have had our challenges on the first ship of the class with all the new developmental items on there. Having said that, we have a plan going forward that will significantly drive costs down on CVN 79 and CVN 80, and will drive costs down to historical Nimitz class levels. We’ll build CVN 79 with fewer man hours than CVN 77, the last of the Nimitz class. As we talk about the cost of the ship, I think it’s important that people realize why we built the Ford class. We really did it for three principal reasons. First, to provide increased combat capability and flexibility going into the future. This ship can generate 33 percent more sorties than a Nimitz class can; it’s set up for net-centric warfare with open architecture, so from a combat capability this ship is a leap forward compared to the Nimitz class carrier.

Secondly, we also knew that the ship had to be designed with margin in it so we could adapt the ship for technologies that we

haven’t even envisioned yet. For instance, the Ford class has three times the electrical generating capacity than the Nimitz class. Could you envision a time 20-30 years from now as we develop directed energy weapons and lasers? It’s possible, because you have that additional margin of electrical generation capacity. The Ford class would be able to take these new weapons on board. Aircraft that we haven’t even envisioned yet, the Ford will be able to adapt to over time. And the great thing about aircraft carriers, and the reason they can last for 50 years, [is that] they do not become obso-lete. The weapon system on the aircraft carrier is the planes. So the carrier is always designed to adapt to handle new aircraft—the Ford class even more so than Nimitz. We have a class of ship that’s going to be around for 94 years, and that class of ship will be able to adapt to changing weapons systems and aircraft that we haven’t even envisioned.

The third thing is this ship will cost $4 billion less to own and operate over its 50-year service life than a Nimitz class carrier. The reason that is it’s built for maintainability. And secondly, we’re going to take 900-1,200 people off of that ship. People are the most expensive component of the life cycle cost of a ship. They represent about 40 percent of the total cost of a Nimitz class carrier over its 50-year life. Nimitz was built in an era where labor was relatively cheap—that’s not the case today with health care costs, etc. So it’s incumbent upon us to build a ship that takes fewer people to operate. When you add the $4 billion reduction in total ownership cost, the increased combat capability and the ability to have mar-gins going forward, the nation is getting a great aircraft carrier that’s going to provide what the nation needs for the next 94 years. I’m not at all minimizing the cost of CVN 78—we have to do bet-ter going forward—but when you talk about the cost of the ship, you always have to take a step back and recognize why we built the Ford class and what we’re going to get going forward. O

USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), assisted by tug boats, transits the James River as the ship relocates from dry dock 11 to a pier 2 at Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries. The ship is currently undergoing a 39-month refueling complex overhaul; the move marks the ship’s first underway since August 2009. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Sean Hurt]


ofteN the laSt liNe of defeNSe, cloSe-iN WeapoNS are a Ship’S gUardiaN aNgel.

by peter bUxbaUm

Npeo correSpoNdeNt


Today’s shipboard close-in defense systems came to be developed, deployed and improved, in many cases, in reaction to specific incidents. One iconic event was the July 2000 attack by suicide bombers operating a speedboat in the Gulf of Aden on the USS Cole. That incident led to the formation of the U.S. Navy’s Task Force Hip Pocket, which recommended major upgrades to the MK 38 machine gun system to improve anti-terrorism and force protection capabilities for deployed ships.

An earlier, less well-known incident was the sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat by Egyptian Soviet-made Styx anti-ship missiles in 1967, which led to the adaptation of an Army close-in weapon system (CIWS) for Navy vessels. Since its ini-tial deployment in 1980, the Navy’s Phalanx CIWS has evolved in response to increasing threats, adding anti-air warfare improvements along with surface threat and low/slow flyer defensive capabilities.

“Almost every ship in the fleet has a Phalanx CIWS, mak-ing it the most prolific multi-mission weapon system the Navy has,” said Navy Lieutenant Kurt Larson, a spokesperson for the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). “The Navy will com-plete the upgrade of all fleet CIWS to the latest configuration, Block 1B, in fiscal year 2014.”

In all, the U.S. Navy has deployed some 15 shipboard sys-tem for close-in defense. The oldest, the MK 45 MOD 2, came online in 1971. The newest, the MK 110 MOD 0, came on board in 2008.

How might the MK 38 upgrade have defeated the USS Cole attack? “After the Cole incident, the Navy decided to upgrade the system to add elec-tro-optical and infrared sensors, a control sys-tem, and to make the system remotely operated,” said Reuven G., technical expert from Rafael, which provided much of the technology for the upgrade.

“If the same boat showed up today it would have been seen 5 kilometers away” thanks to the integrated sensor system called Toplite, said Ben Nies, program manager at BAE Systems, the pro-vider of the system. “The system would have kept watch on it and tracked it as it got closer, and if there were evidence of hostile intent a warn-ing system would have been activated. Toplite replaces the sailor standing on deck looking through binoculars.”

The multiplicity of close-in shipboard defense systems is explained by the different environ-ments in which the U.S. Navy operates, the greater emphasis on close-to-shore operations, and the need to protect vessels with a layered defense system. “In littoral combat environ-ments, ships must defend themselves within a reduced bat-tlespace and with less reaction time, resulting in the need for a layered defense,” said Larson. “There is a need for multiple systems due to current and evolving threats. In littoral com-bat environments, the Navy cannot afford to develop one sin-gular solution that counters all possible current and future threats. Surface ships, particularly amphibious ships, must be equipped with robust defense systems which have been tested against a variety of threats in numerous scenarios.”

“When you combine layers of defenses the probability of threat annihilation goes up,” said Jim Sigler, a product man-ager at Raytheon, which provides the Phalanx CIWS as well as other ship-defense systems. “The layers are architected like a hockey team defense. The Evolved Sea-Sparrow missile is the longest-reaching system and is typically engaged first. If there are threats that make it past ESSM they are engaged by the Rolling Airframe missile and if it makes it past RAM, Phalanx is the goalie.”

“To continue the analogy, Raytheon’s Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS) would be the center—assessing the situation and driving the engagement strategy with all of the available weapon systems,” said Karl Bunker, the system’s senior pro-gram manager. SSDS is an open, distributed combat manage-ment system for aircraft carriers and expeditionary warfare ships. It is designed to expedite the detect-to-engage sequence to defend against anti-ship cruise missiles. Six different U.S. Navy ship classes use SSDS MK 2, including San Antonio (LPD 17), Nimitz (CVN 68), and Iwo Jima (LHD 7), with Tarawa (LHA 6) and Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry (LSD 41/49) in test, and Ford (CVN 78) in development. The system integrates and automates standalone sensors and weapon systems to provide the required, quick response and multi-target engagement capability.

ESSM provides a ship self-defense capability against high-speed, low-altitude anti-ship cruise missiles, low-velocity air threats such as helicopters, and high-speed, maneuverable surface threats. ESSM is deployed on U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, Ticonderoga-class cruisers, air-craft carriers, and large deck amphibious ships. The RAM MK 31 guided missile weapon system, with its Block 2 configuration, now in low-rate initial production, is designed to counter anti-ship cruise missiles.

The MK 38 MOD 2 upgrade, which came about in response to the Cole attack, provides a stabilized solution to counter small boat threats and is equipped with a 25 mm ATK cannon. “The system includes a dedicated electro-optical sen-sor for situational awareness and fire control,” said Larson. “The maximum effective range is 2,900 yards and the gun can fire up to 180 rounds per minute.” MK38 MOD 2 is installed aboard 10 classes of naval vessels as well the U.S. Coast Guard’s FRC class ships. Plans call for installation aboard CVN and AS class ships and MK VI patrol boats.

The control stations incorporated into the upgraded MK 38 resembles a video game con-sole, with a 12-inch screen and two joysticks.

“The operator can’t see the system but can see what the system is looking at,” said Nies. “It provides a simple intuitive interface that takes about an hour to figure out.”

Toplite, which is equipped with day, night and laser range cameras, provides the vessel command with a 24-hour surveil-lance capability. “The Navy tells me that when a ship leaves a port they turn on the power to Toplite and they don’t shut it off until they come back into port,” said Nies. “They can make a lot of decisions based on what they are getting out of Toplite.”

Ben Nies

Jim Sigler

[email protected]


If a threat is detected the system goes into hostile mode and locks onto and tracks the threat. In the event engagement becomes necessary, a switch is flipped and warning shots will be fired. “If the target keeps coming, the commander makes the decision to fire,” said Nies. “They don’t have to shoot until the target is within 500 meters. That way they can wait to see if it turns around. Once the system starts shooting it is going to hit. The target has no chance to get out of there once they start shooting.”

The system is capable of being integrated into a ship’s fire con-trol and command and control systems, noted Reuven G. “Some other navies have done that,” he said, “but the U.S. Navy has opted to have the system operated as a standalone system by a human at a remote position.” The system can also be equipped with an additional weapon such as a machine gun.

The Phalanx CIWS provides defense in littoral combat environ-ments, which places ships and their crews at risk to an increased number of threats, including small, fast gunboats, standard and guided artillery, helicopters, mines and a variety of shore-launched anti-ship missile. Phalanx is equipped with a 20 mm M61A1 Gatling gun, which fires armor-piercing rounds at a rate of 3,000 or 4,500 rounds per minute.

“The system is equipped with an advanced search and track Ku-band radar to provide autonomous target detection and engage-ment,” said Larson. “It can be interfaced with virtually any ship com-bat system and can provide target designation for other shipboard weapons, such as RAM.” Phalanx is installed on practically all U.S. combatant ships and on those of 22 allied nations.

Phalanx can automatically deliver bursts of rounds at a desig-nated target, noted Sigler. “Once it starts firing the system automati-cally closes in and adjusts its aim,” he said. “The gun can be upgraded with a longer barrel to improve accuracy. We will be incorporating an infrared sensor and thermal imager into the system to improve per-formance day or night.”

Another of the Navy’s close-in defense systems, the MK 46 MOD 2 was adapted from the Marine Corps’ expeditionary fighting vehicle gun application. General Dynamics Land Systems has been provid-ing the MK 46 to the Navy for about 10 years.

The 30 mm MK 46 gun weapons system is lightweight, fully auto-mated and remote controlled. The maximum effective range is 4,000 yards and can fire up to 200 rounds per minute. Two MK 46 GWSs are permanently installed aboard LPD 17 class ships. Two MK 46 MOD 2 are integrated with the MK 50 gun mission modules for the surface warfare mission package aboard LCS-class vessels.

“The system provides a capability against small, fast, and highly maneuverable surface threats,” said Larson.

“We have designed the MK 46 to be an all-weather day or night weapon,” said Joe Segar, GDLS’s MK 46 program manager. “It is also a stabilized system so it can be used in high sea states and turbulent sea states. The system can be integrated with other shipboard sys-tems or as a standalone system. A sailor could also sit in the turret and operate the system from there in case they were to lose commu-nications from the console.”

When integrated with fire control systems, the MK 46 can look for targets and train its weapon on them. “We have no requirements from our current customers to provide those capabilities,” said Segar.

Among other close-in defense systems, the Griffin missile is able to hit speedboats at 2 kilometers using GPS coordinates or laser des-ignation. The Griffin is used by Navy and Coast Guard patrol crafts and Navy littoral combat ships (LCS).

The newest of the defense systems, deployed in 2008, the MK 110 MOD 0 provides a capability against surface, airborne and sea-based threats. “The 57 mm MK 110 gun mount is medium weight, fully automated, and remote controlled when integrated with a fire con-trol system,” said Larson. “The maximum range is 9.5 nautical miles and it fires at 220 rounds per minute.” Seven MK110 gun mounts have been delivered to the Coast Guard’s national security cutters and the Navy’s LCS.

Recent enhancements to both the MK 38 and the MK 46 include an embedded trainer which allows an operator to train on the actual system without having to use live ammunition. “The embedded trainer simulates the functionality of the system and works from the same console the operator works at for actual operations,” said Segar. “Gunners can use the trainer when the ship is deployed and is unable to go to an area where they fire live ammunition. It also saves the cost of the ammunition itself. It allows them to set up scenarios includ-ing the number and type of targets and their locations. The system gives the instructor the ability to document how well the student performed and record that for history.”

The MK 38 will be undergoing enhancements to provide the sys-tem with an improved electro-optical sight, an integrated loud hailer, and a coaxially mounted 7.62 mm machine gun. ‘The improved sight will provide the fleet with improved situational awareness, allowing for detection and identification of potential targets at longer ranges,’ said Larson. ‘The loud hailer will allow the fleet to engage targets with a non-lethal warning tone or voice commands. The 7.62 mm machine gun will increase the MK 38’s anti-terrorism and force pro-tection capabilities while in-port and while transitioning narrow waterways.”

“The system could be equipped with a number of additional weapons,” noted Nies, “including a small missile.”

The RAM and ESSM are also undergoing improvements. “The RAM Block 2 missile upgrade will address missile kinematics and an RF sensor upgrade to counter evolving and future threats,” said Larson. RAM Block 2 is in low-rate production with initial opera-tional capability planned for 2014.

The ESSM Block 2 will integrate the existing ESSM semi-active seeker with an active seeker. “This configuration will improve the effectiveness of the missile against existing threats and deliver capa-bility against emerging threats,” said Larson.

Raytheon is starting to work on a next-generation Phalanx that will be adaptable to smaller vessels. “Phalanx is extremely heavy and has a large footprint,” said Sigler. “Smaller vessels like offshore patrol boats aren’t big enough to take a full-sized system. We are working at applying the Phalanx technology to a smaller form and fit so we can offer it on smaller ships.”

“A balanced, integrated combat system solution is essential to defeating threats,” said Larson. “Improvement in any one element alone is inadequate. Increased target detection ranges, decreased system reaction times, advanced command and control features, and improved hard kill and electronic warfare weapons must be inte-grated and coordinated to provide an effective defense. The ultimate goal is coordinating onboard, offboard and future systems to respond to advanced anti-ship missiles in a manner that enhances surviv-ability while effectively and efficiently employing all fleet assets.” 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.


preciSioN-gUided mUNitioNS have revolUtioNized Naval Warfare, iNcreaSiNg SUcceSS aNd efficieNcy. by melaNie ScarboroUgh

Npeo correSpoNdeNt

Although bombing is a critical compo-nent of warfare, it historically bore the dis-advantage of being imprecise. Pilots were dependent on weather that allowed suffi-cient visibility for them to take good aim at their targets, and even then bombs often went astray and caused civilian casual-ties. That problem has been significantly diminished by the development of preci-sion-guided munitions (PGMs) that strike with remarkable accuracy, enhancing mis-sion success.

Generally, PGMs are air-launched and guided either by laser, electro-optical sen-sors, global positioning systems (GPS) or inertial navigation systems (INS). Since lasers and electro-optical sensors rely on visual sighting of targets, experts agree that the future is in GPS/INS guidance, which operates independent of weather. (Experts may say the future is a dual mode system with both laser and GPS/INS capability).

The development of PGMs means not only improved destruction of military targets but lower expenses as well. “Precision guidance offers tremen-dous savings because now the warfighter only has to put one weapon on target to ensure mission success,” said Scott Wuesthoff, director, Boeing Direct Attack Weapons. “The beauty of all this is that it reduces collateral damage and costs.”

Most PGMs are created by adding a guidance system to unpowered ordnance, turning “dumb” bombs into “smart” ones. In its St. Charles, Mo., production facility,

Boeing builds the joint direct attack muni-tion (JDAM), a tail kit that ordnance crews can install within minutes on unguided warheads. The tail kit contains GPS/INS with small motors that move the fins; the motorized tail fins steer the weapon to a precise location in its GPS coordinates. The resulting weapons are capable of reli-ably defeating multiple high-level targets in a single pass—in any weather—with mini-mal risk to the aircraft.

In addition to the tail kits, Boeing pro-duces laser JDAMS, a modular laser sensor kit installed in the front of JDAM weapons that adds the capacity to prosecute targets of opportunity, including moving and mari-time targets, with a high degree of accuracy and reliability. According to a Navy spokes-man, the laser JDAM with direct attack moving target capability is proving particu-

larly effective because it pro-vides the ability to strike in GPS-denied environments.

“Adding GPS/INS/laser guidance allows the weapon to engage fixed targets in any weather condition while add-ing clear-weather capability to engage fast-moving tar-gets or fixed targets that have large target location error,” said a Navy spokesman. Weather is always a consid-

eration and often a challenge, especially in the winter, the spokesman said, which is why the Navy counts itself fortunate to have a wide range of PDMs that forces can choose from, specific to targets and weather.

Baseline JDAM is a coordinate-seeking weapon immune to weather conditions.

Both preplanned targets and reactive target coordinates can be generated prior to release and no after-release support is required (i.e., “launch and leave”). Laser JDAM utilizes a semi-active laser detector compatible with all U.S. and NATO airborne and ground-laser designators.

Other PGMs the Navy says are especially useful include direct and time-sensitive weapons—the Hellfire, Griffin, Maverick and the advanced precision kill weapon system (APKWS)—that have provided the Navy with a multi-mission, multi-target, precision-strike capability in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

miSSioN flexibility accompliShed

Another variation on the baseline is JDAM extended range (JDAM ER), which provides triple the range of a conventional JDAM for additional stand-off and threat protection for the warfighter. The modular add-on wings are used with a conventional 500-pound and 2,000-pound JDAM and are designed to unfold in flight, tripling the weapon’s glide range to more than 40 miles. Like the other JDAM variations, the JDAM ER wing kit is assembled within minutes at weapon build-up time for ranges beyond 15 miles.

The advantages of JDAMs include low cost, near-precision accuracy, high reli-ability, all-weather capability, and a large enough inventory to support operations around the world. “In the present environ-ment, cost is key—one weapon, one target,” said James Dodd, vice president, Boeing Global Strike, Weapons & Missile Systems. “Anything you can do to help the warfighters

Scott Wuesthoff


achieve their goal with one weapon, while giving them the capabilities they’re asking for in an affordable way, you have supported your customer.”

The decision of which PGM to utilize is dependent upon many factors, includ-ing mission, platform and availability. Of the PMA 201 portfolio, the Navy reports that the most commonly used is the JDAM, followed by laser JDAM. Of the PMA 242, the most commonly used is the APKWS Hellfire and Griffin.

Texas Instruments, now Raytheon, was the first to develop laser guided bombs (Paveway) during the Vietnam War. Since then Raytheon has continued to advance the capability and was the first to intro-duce dual mode systems (GPS/INS and laser). Raytheon’s Enhanced Paveway com-bines the accuracy of laser-guided weap-ons with the GPS/INS advantage of being immune to weather conditions. As a result, the Enhanced Paveway lowers the necessary weapon inventory while raising the mission success rate. “Paveway has revolutionized tactical air-to-ground warfare by providing the warfighter unparalleled accuracy and standoff capability, proving itself in every major conflict in which it has been used,” said Taylor W. Lawrence, Ph.D., Raytheon Missile Systems president.

According to Raytheon, the Paveway guided bombs are the most widely used PGM in history. During operations in Libya, for instance, the vast majority of PGMs used by allied forces came from the Paveway family.

The company also says that no compet-ing product offers the breadth of warhead compatibility as the Paveway family of weap-ons. Control sections are fully compatible with MK series warheads and the BLU-109, and size varies from 250 pounds for coun-terinsurgency/low yield to 2,000 pounds—and even 5,000 pounds for “bunker buster” penetration. Additionally, the Paveway pro-vides a full range of cockpit selectable ter-minal impact angles and headings with a mature height-of-burst.

Arlington, Va.-based ATK is develop-ing a family of precision guided munitions that include small glide weapons (known as Hammer and Hatchet) and a low-cost, lightweight guided advanced tactical rocket (GATR) with a precision guided rocket

launcher (PGRL). The GATR incorporates the same semi-active laser seeker technol-ogy used in the JDAM weapon, employing

a penetrating warhead pro-grammed from the cockpit to deliver impact fuzing to defeat soft targets or delayed fuzing to penetrate hardened targets.

“The GATR provides a tactical employment enve-lope as much as 50 percent greater than currently fielded laser-guided rockets and opti-mized terminal performance against hardened, stationary

and moving targets,” explained Tim Strusz, business development manager for ATK Guided Weapons. “GATR provides the war fighter the confidence of “lock on before launch” and the flexibility to successfully engage multiple target types with unprece-dented precision.”

the Next geNeratioN

Although 100 percent accuracy is prob-ably unattainable, the next generation of PGMs is being developed to get as near that ideal as possible. “The cur-rent trend for our military forces is to field weapons that offer greater levels of pre-cision,” Strusz said. “We’re at the point now where we are able to offer weapons that have been refined to the point where they are capable of offering extreme precision. Weapons that use modern SAL seekers have shown they can reliably strike within a meter of an intended target.”

The Navy expects that next-generation weapons will use propulsion, wing kits, or a combination of both to reach further dis-tances. Additionally, the PGMs of the future will be network-enabled and use multi-mode sensor technology. Multi-mode seek-ers capable of addressing multiple target scenarios and support all weather employ-ment requirements will be pursued in the future, the Navy said.

Boeing believes that as global security moves away from Afghanistan to other loca-tions and adversaries, two areas are likely to change: For one, GPS availability cannot always be guaranteed, yet the accuracy pro-vided by GPS will be a necessity in future

conflicts. Consequently, Boeing is develop-ing both mid-course and terminal guidance capability to supplement GPS. Secondly, because several countries have very capable air defenses requiring weapon engagement from standoff range, Boeing is developing JDAM range extension kits to provide this additional range.

Wuesthoff predicts that Boeing’s PGMs of the future will have increased seeker capabilities coupled with the ability to push the weapon greater distances, keeping the pilot or crews out of harm’s way. “You will also see the ability to ‘talk’ to the weapon through data links, thus giving the war-fighter the opportunity to better control the weapon and its impacts,” he said. “This is a tremendous capability that will also reduce the cost for a successful mission.”

Dodd agrees that the next generation of PGMs will—literally—provide more bang for the buck. “As we miniaturize technology with increased reliability and then package it in ways that give warfighters the desired effects they need, you’re going to see a new generation of affordable precision-guided munitions appear.”

At Raytheon, incorporation of the next generation of seeker technology, guidance

logic and navigation is being employed to expand high-speed maneuvering tar-get engagement and overall weapon performance.

Taking budget consid-erations into account, the Navy anticipates that it will continue to make mea-sured changes, such as converting unguided weap-ons into PGMs, rather than major overhauls. “Our abil-

ity to make incremental improvements has advanced the combat-proven capability of direct attack and precision strike weapons without the need for costly investments in new production,” said the spokesman. “The effort of our acquisition profession-als in developing these technologies pro-vides our sailors the right tools for success, which is a priority for all of us who serve at NAVAIR.” O


www.npeo-kmi.com.

Tim Strusz

James Dodd


VXX Redux

A new U.S. preSidentiAl helicopter replAcement progrAm iS in the workS.

By mArc Selinger

npeo correSpondent

Barring any surprises, development of a new helicopter to transport future American presidents will begin in less than a year.

The aircraft will replace the aging VH-3D and VH-60N Marine One pres-idential helicopters, which are oper-ated by a Marine Corps unit, Marine Helicopter Squadron One (HMX-1). Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) hopes to award an engineering and man-ufacturing development contract in mid-calendar year 2014.

Compared to the decades-old heli-copters it would replace, the VXX “will address capability gaps associated with aircraft performance, passenger payload and communications,” NAVAIR spokes-woman Kelly Burdick said. Over the years, Sikorsky-built VH-3D Sea King and VH-60N WhiteHawk helicopters have undergone modifications and improve-ments that have “added weight to the aircraft—decreasing other aspects of mission capability, like range, and lim-iting the ability to incorporate future

improvements because of the negative effect of further weight growth,” the Government Accountability Office (GAO) wrote in a February 2012 report to Congress.

A predecessor VXX program, also known as VH-71, was derailed four years ago by cost overruns, schedule delays and performance problems fueled by “the worst case ever of requirements creep,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice pres-ident of analysis at the Teal Group. The GAO concluded that the VH-71 program


“was started with a faulty business case, did not perform appropriate systems engineering analysis to gain knowledge at the right times, and failed to make necessary trade-offs between resources and requirements even after years of development. Furthermore, it did not seek to develop knowledge incremen-tally, but rather sought to develop the desired capability in a single step.”

NAVAIR said it is trying to avoid repeating those problems by holding development in the new program “to an absolute minimum” and discouraging changes to major components, such as the drive train, rotors, engines and basic structure.

“The Department of the Navy has developed an acquisition strategy for the Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program that balances system perfor-mance with an emphasis on affordabil-ity, cost control and risk reduction,” Burdick said. “The program will focus on integration of mature mission equip-ment into an existing aircraft that can meet the mission requirements.”

The Navy has budgeted almost $2.5 billion for the new program through fis-cal year 2018. The government plans to buy 23 aircraft, including two dedicated test aircraft, and achieve an initial oper-ational capability by 2020.

At one point, potential competi-tors for VXX included a Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin team offering the VH-92, a variant of Sikorsky’s S-92; a variant of the AgustaWestland AW101 offered by Northrop Grumman and AgustaWestland; the Boeing H-47 Chinook; and the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey.

But Boeing and Northrop Grumman both said July 29 that they would not submit bids, leaving Sikorsky as the only announced bidder.

Boeing concluded that while the Chinook and Osprey are “often used to transport military and government leaders, we do not believe these aircraft would be competitive for this program as it is currently structured,” the company said in a statement.

Northrop Grumman did not elab-orate on its decision, but teammate AgustaWestland said in a statement that after a “comprehensive analysis” of the request for proposals (RFP) issued in May 2013, “we determined that we were

unable to compete effectively given the current requirements and the evaluation methodology defined in the RFP. There are fundamental proposal evaluation issues that we believe inhibit our abil-ity to submit a competitive offering, and that provide a significant advan-tage to our likely competitor. The deci-sion to withdraw was most difficult, as we believe we have the best, most suit-able aircraft for the president.”

That apparently leaves just the VH-92, which “meets every requirement outlined by the Navy, and is a proven, safe and reliable aircraft to meet the needs of the office of the president,” Sikorsky said.

While declining to confirm that NAVAIR has received only one proposal, Burdick indicated that the federal gov-ernment has procedures in place to han-dle a single-bid response to a competitive solicitation.

“The Navy will follow procedures outlined in the Federal Acquisition Regulations and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement regardless of the number of proposals received,” Burdick said. “In a full and open competition in which a single bid is received, provisions exist to gather additional cost data from the bidder to ensure a fair and reasonable price has been submitted for evaluation.”

Vh-92

Sikorsky would be responsible for total system performance of the VH-92, while its teammate, Lockheed Martin, would integrate the mission systems. Bruce McKinney, Sikorsky’s VH-92 pro-gram director, said the helicopter’s bene-fits include its affordability, security and successful track record.

“Our aircraft meets all the mission requirements,” he told Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum. “And, the Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin team has a history of integrating missions systems into aircraft to deliver high performance on schedule.”

That history includes Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin teaming for nearly four decades to build hundreds of SH-60 and MH-60 Seahawk helicopters for the U.S. Navy.

McKinney described the S-92 as a mature platform that has amassed more than 535,000 flight hours since it was

introduced in 2004. “With that num-ber of flight hours on the fleet, we really know this aircraft,” he said.

Ten countries operate the S-92 air-craft for their head of state transport. The majority of the operational 170 S-92s are being used by the offshore oil and gas industry, search-and-res-cue teams and paramilitary organiza-tions. Sikorsky is building about 36 aircraft a year in Coatesville, Pa., near Philadelphia and is ramping up to an annual rate of 40.

The S-92 demonstrated its durabil-ity by achieving a 96 percent availability rate in harsh, space-constrained off-shore environments in 2012, McKinney said. And Sikorsky continues to make the aircraft more reliable by monitor-ing data generated by health and usage monitoring systems aboard each air-craft. Customers feed that informa-tion to Sikorsky’s Fleet Management Operations Center in Trumbull, Conn., where Sikorsky employees look for trends in aircraft performance and anticipate maintenance needs.

The S-92 has the lowest life cycle cost of any helicopter in its weight class, according to McKinney. The company engineered low operating costs into the aircraft, including high fuel efficiency and a minimization of scheduled mainte-nance. The company also puts emphasis on ensuring that spare parts, techni-cal information and training are readily available to operators.

Having built the VH-3D and VH-60N helicopters, and supported white-top air-craft for decades, Sikorsky has the infra-structure in place to support presidential aircraft and could “quickly provide for that type of secure environment for the new presidential helicopter,” he said. O


www.npeo-kmi.com.


September 2013Volume 1, Issue 1nEXT ISSUE

Cover and in-Depth interview with:

insertion orDer DeaDline: aUGUST 23, 2013 | aD materials DeaDline: aUGUST 30, 2013

PEO Tactical air ProgramsU.S. Navy

Rear adm. Donald Gaddis

airborne ISRKnowing where enemies are, how many there are, what they’re doing, how they’re supplied and what kind of support they have can give our forces a distinct edge. The u.s. navy employs isr assets to great benefit.

Ballistic Missile DefenseLeadership insight from the program manager of the navy’s ballistic missile defense program discussing methods for detecting, tracking and eliminating incoming ballistic missile threats.

Ship Life Cycle Managementin order to maintain, monitor and refine class maintenance plans for all naval vessels and ensure materiel readiness for the projected service life, planning and management are key.

Naval Distance LearningThe navy College program Distance Learning partnership is a continuously expanding program that helps sailors utilize their skills from service to earn credit towards receiving a degree.

FeaturesMine Warfarenaval mine warfare can be used offensively to destroy surface ships or submarines, or defensively to create safe zones around ally vessels.

Special Section

Program SpotlightLittoral Combat Shipoutting the evolution of this $37 billion program and how the navy will marry technology with mission requirements.

Nikki James, Associate Publisher • [email protected] • 301-670-5700 x116

npeo_preview_issue_new.pdf

Documents

carrier craftsmanrear

carrier operational

air segment

navys carrier strike

moorepeo aircraft carriersu

asia pacific

ship designfleet

uclass system