Npeo 2 1 final

Full Spectrum Planner

Rear Adm. Mat Winter

Program Executive OfficerPEO Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons

Maritime ISR O Seabasing O Strategic CommunicationsWeapons Design O Leadership Insight: AEA

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs

www.NPEO-kmi.com

February 2014Volume 2, Issue 1

Special Section: carrier onboard delivery

0 25 50 75 100

3C

4C

50K

50C41M41Y

Job Number: BOEG_BDS_F18_2839M_GClient: Boeing

Date: 2/4/14

File Name: BOEG_BDS_F18_2839M_G

Output Printed at: 100%

Fonts: Helvetica Neue 65

Media: Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

Space/Color: Page — 4 Color — Bleed

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

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

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

Gutter:

Production Artist: S. Bowman

Retoucher:

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

Product: Boeing Defense Space & Security ApprovedDate/Initials

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

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

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

7-7/8 in. Live

8-3/8 in. Trim

8-5/8 in. Bleed

11-1

/8 in

. Ble

ed

10-7

/8 in

. Tr

im

10-3

/8 i

n. L

ive

Evolve. Advance. Prevail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cover / Q&AFeatures

ReaR aDM. Mat WinteR

Program Executive OfficerPEO Unmanned Aviation

and Strike Weapons

17

9naval CoMMuniCation systeMsNavy platforms—whether ships, submarines or aircraft—are constrained by strict space, weight and power requirements in their ability to accommodate communications systems.BY Peter BuxBaum

11seabasingThere has been an increased emphasis in recent years by the United States Navy and Marine Corps on seabasing, a term used to describe operations that can be conducted without relying on infrastructure ashore.BY Peter BuxBaum

22MaRitiMe isRThe multiplication of ISR sensors has produced unprecedented volumes of ISR data, straining the Navy’s processing, storage and dissemination infrastructure as well as the space aboard ship that can be dedicated to these resources.BY Peter BuxBaum

25leaDeRship insight: aiRboRne eleCtRoniC attaCkAirborne Electronic Attack (AEA) is conducted primarily for all of Department of Defense by the EA-18G Growler aircraft, which is replacing the EA-6B Prowler. The Growler is uniquely suited to the AEA mission in that its receiver systems detect and identify threat signals.

February 2014Volume 2 Issue 1navy air/sea peo forum

Industry InterviewtoDD boRkeyChief Technology OfficerThales Defense & Security Inc.

28

Departments2 eDitoR’s peRspeCtive3 unDeRWay4 people14 Main DeCk27 ResouRCe CenteR

6

5

“In 2014, our first challenge

is the continued development, support and

retention of our workforce. The lynchpin to our success is, and always will be,

ensuring we have the right people

with the right skills in the right jobs.”

-Rear Admiral Mat Winter

ReneW oR ReplaCe The C2 Greyhound has done yeoman’s work since the mid-1960s. What are the options for carrier onboard support aircraft?BY Brian O’Shea and henrY CanadaY

Special SectionContRol of Weapons DesignWith the success of a forward-firing miniature munition, also known as Spike, the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division proved that the government can procure and deliver sophisticated guided missiles at a much lower cost than it is currently experiencing.BY renee hatCher

Recently, Vice Admiral Frank C. Pandolfe, director of strategy plans and policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the House Armed Services Committee concerning U.S. involvement in the Asia-Pacific region. He said that U.S. engagement in that area is essential for regional security.

“United States forces in the Asia Pacific region operate continuously on land, in the air and on the sea,” said Pandolfe. “These forces routinely conduct freedom of navigation operations, deployments and port visits; they also work with regional partners to respond to natural disasters. Our presence deters North Korean aggression and ensures unrestricted access to the global commons.”

Senior military leaders have made several visits to countries in that region and have conducted several exercises to create solid relationships that are built on familiarity, trust and communication, so the U.S. can effectively work with our allies in that area to handle any scenario.

“Military exercises have proven to increase interoperability across key mission areas such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, counterterrorism, maritime security, and peacekeeping,” said Pandolfe. “As the rebalance continues, regional exercises continue to grow in scope, participation and sophistication, ranging from basic unit-level training to complex multinational exercises such as RIMPAC and Cobra Gold. In 2014, RIMPAC [Rim of the Pacific Exercise] will include Brunei and China for the first time; Thailand-based Cobra Gold will see participation by Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Republic of Korea, among others. Through our exercise program and other engagements, we are helping our partners take the lead in addressing regional challenges. Additionally, we work closely with the Department of State to assist nations in strengthening their maritime security capabilities.”

Pandolfe added that our physical presence in that region demonstrates our commitment and enables the U.S. force to assure access to the area and reduce response times if need be.

This is a volatile region where there are so many contenders vying for control that military conflict between opposing forces seems unavoidable. It’s crucial for the U.S. military to maintain its presence there and continue working to seek a solution to the argument of who controls what. If you have any questions regarding Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum do not hesitate to contact me.

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs

Editorial

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

Online Editorial ManagerLaura McNulty [email protected]

Copy EditorSean Carmichael [email protected]

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

art & dEsign

Art DirectorJennifer Owers [email protected]

Ad and Materials ManagerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected]

Senior Graphic DesignerScott Morris [email protected]

Graphic DesignersAndrea Herrera [email protected] Paquette [email protected]

advErtising

Account ExecutiveTerry Harrington [email protected]

KMi MEdia groupChief Executive OfficerJack Kerrigan [email protected]

Publisher and Chief Financial OfficerConstance Kerrigan [email protected]

Editor-In-ChiefJeff McKaughan [email protected]

ControllerGigi Castro [email protected]

Trade Show CoordinatorHolly Foster [email protected]

opErations, CirCulation & produCtion

Operations AdministratorBob Lesser [email protected]

Circulation & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected]

CirculationBarbara Gill [email protected]

Data SpecialistsRaymer Villanueva [email protected]

subsCription inforMation

Navy Air/Sea PEO ForumISSN 2333-3251

is published by KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction

without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2014.

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum is free to qualified members of the U.S. military, employees of the U.S. government and

non-U.S. foreign service based in the U.S.All others: $75 per year.Foreign: $159 per year.

CorporatE offiCEs

KMI Media Group15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300

Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USATelephone: (301) 670-5700

Fax: (301) 670-5701Web: www.NPEO-kmi.com

navy air/sEa pEo foruM

Volume 2, Issue 1 • February 2014

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

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

The Publication of Record for the Military Logistics Community

Resource Aligner

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

SPECIAL PULL-OUT SUPPLEMENTUSTRANSCOM

www.MLF-kmi.com

November/December 2013Volume 7, Issue 10

Exclusive Interview with:

GAIL JORGENSONAcquisition Director USTRANSCOM

Military Logistics Forum

www.M2VA-kmi.com

Military Medical & Veterans

Affairs Forum

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

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

Compiled by Kmi media Group staffunDerWay

Northrop Grumman Corporation and the U.S. Navy have completed nine initial flight tests of the Triton unmanned aircraft system (UAS), marking the halfway point in a process called envelope expansion.

During envelope expansion, the test team validates the aircraft’s ability to operate at a range of altitudes, speeds and weights. The flights are taking place at the company’s manufacturing facility in Palmdale, Calif.

“Completion of envelope expansion will allow the test team to prepare for instal-lation and further testing of Triton’s surveillance sensors,” said Mike Mackey, Northrop Grumman’s Triton program director.

The Triton test team accomplished endurance flights up to 9.4 hours at altitudes up to 50,000 feet. The aircraft also performed doublets, a maneuver that tests the aircraft’s ability to recover from small perturbations in its flight path caused by turbulence.

Triton carries a variety of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sensor payloads that allow military commanders to gather high-resolution imagery, use radar to detect targets, and provide airborne communications and information-sharing capabili-ties to military units across long distances.

The Navy plans to field 68 Triton UAS and will be used with the manned P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft to conduct surveillance missions.

Cubic Defense Systems, a subsidiary of Cubic Corporation, recently announced it has been awarded a contract valued up to $112 million from the Naval Air Systems Command, Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD) to develop hands-on training devices, desktop trainers and simu-lators for each variant of the littoral combat ship’s (LCS) mission bays.

Under the contract, Cubic will provide training solutions for the preparation, launch, handling, recovery and securing of the ships mission equipment. These virtual trainers will be used at LCS training facilities in San Diego, Calif., and Mayport, Fla.

“This announcement underscores Cubic’s continued partnership with the U.S. Navy. We are honored to be selected for another LCS program,” said Dave Schmitz, president of Cubic Defense Systems. “Combined with three recent contract awards to develop and deliver game-based courseware for both variants of the littoral combat ship and their mission bay, our virtual trainers provide the Navy with the key tools necessary to deliver the full scope of foun-dational training for the crew of the LCS ships.”

The LCS program represents the U.S. Navy’s most advanced designs, capabilities and technologies to create the next generation of surface vessels that can operate in dangerous shallow and near-shore environments.

The LCS training programs will be executed in Cubic’s Orlando, Fla., facility.

Under a recent contract order for the production of Aegis weapons systems, Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Navy championed an afford-ability approach that will drive cost savings into all phases of the program, including production, inte-gration and test.

The $574 million contract includes the production of seven destroyers (DDGs 117-123) and an option for one Aegis Ashore assembly, which together will contribute to the United States Navy and Missile Defense Agency’s layered defense

system. The systems will operate the next-generation integrated air and missile defense capability, Aegis Baseline 9, at their core.

“Four decades ago, the Aegis program was born at our facility in Moorestown, and today it has evolved into a national asset, both at sea and on shore,” said Dale P. Bennett, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin’s Mission Systems and Training business. “This contract represents the partnership and inno-vation of our joint government/industry team who are bringing the

future of Aegis to the warfighter in an affordable and sustainable way.”

The central component of the Lockheed Martin-developed Aegis weapons system is the SPY-1 radar, the most widely fielded naval phased array radar in the world. The team recently completed the 400th SPY-1 antenna at its Moorestown facility. The Aegis weapon system and SPY-1 radar are deployed on more than 100 ships worldwide.

The additional Aegis Ashore assembly will be built as part of the administration’s European Phased

Adaptive approach and deployed to Poland, the second Host Nation participating in the missile defense strategy. Aegis Ashore is an evolu-tion of proven sea-based Aegis BMD capabilities and utilizes innovative adaptations for a land-based environ-ment. The Aegis Ashore system to be deployed to Romania, the first host nation, recently entered its opera-tional readiness stage in Moorestown, N.J., while the Aegis Ashore system at the Navy’s Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii is preparing for its first live test next year.

Navy Completes Nine Flights of Triton Unmanned Aircraft System LCS Training Contract

Awarded

Multi-year Contract Secured for U.S. Navy’s Aegis Weapons System

www.NPEO-kmi.com NPEO 2.1 | 3

In KMI’s previous industry interview with R. Scott Forney III, senior vice president, Electromagnetic Systems Group at General Atomics, KMI reported the GA’s state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Tupelo, Miss., at 267,000 square feet It should have been reported as 367,000 square feet Additionally, the following sentence was omitted at the end of the first paragraph: “We also can now manufacture and test high power motors from kilowatts to 15 mega-watts and machine high tolerance parts as small as lugs for cable connections.”

Rear Admiral (lower half) Christopher W. Grady will be assigned as commander, Carrier Strike Group One, San Diego, Calif. Grady is currently serving as deputy chief of staff for Operations, Training and Readiness, N3/N7, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Kenneth J.

Iverson will be assigned as director of Medical Education and Training, (M7), Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Washington, D.C. Iverson is currently serving as special assistant to the Surgeon General, Washington, D.C.

Rear Admiral (lower half) DeWolfe H. Miller will be assigned as commander, Carrier

Strike Group Two, Norfolk, Va. Miller is currently serving as director, ISR Capabilities, N2/N6F2, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C.

Captain John W. Ailes, who has been selected for promotion to rear admiral (lower half), will be assigned as chief engineer, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, San Diego, Calif. Ailes is currently serving as major program manager, Program Executive Office for Littoral Combat Ships, Washington, D.C.

Compiled by Kmi media Group staffpeopLe

The U.S. Navy has recently awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat a $121.8 million contract modification to buy long lead-time material for three Virginia-class submarines, SSN-793, SSN-794 and SSN-795. Electric Boat is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics.

The contract provides funding for steam and electrical-plant components, main propulsion unit and ship-service turbine generator sets, as well as miscellaneous hull, mechanical and electrical-systems components to support construction of the submarines.

With the modification, the contract has a value of $716.5 million. It was awarded initially in April 2012.

Recognized as a model defense-acqui-sition program for its technical excellence and schedule performance, the Virginia-class submarine program provides the Navy with the capabilities required to dominate both the open ocean and the littorals. In partnership with the Navy, Electric Boat is successfully pursuing its goal to reduce ship costs without decreasing capabilities through overall efficiency improvements, decreased ship-construction labor costs and shortened ship-construction cycle times.

Raytheon Company received an $80.5 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract for the procure-ment of 200 full rate production Lot 10 AGM-154C-1 Joint Standoff Weapons ( JSOWs). The contract also includes associated support equipment and one performance characterization test.

JSOW provides growth and threat adaptation opportunities for current and future customers, and interoperates with several platforms to support domestic and interna-tional warfighters. Work is expected

to be completed in August 2016 and will be performed in Dallas, Texas; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Tucson, Ariz.; and McAlester, Okla.

JSOW is a family of low-cost, air-to-ground weapons that employs an integrated GPS-inertial navigation system and terminal imaging infrared seeker. JSOW C-1 adds the two-way Strike Common Weapon Datalink to the combat-proven weapon, enabling a moving maritime target capability. JSOW C-1 will provide an advanced anti-surface warfare solution on the F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft.

Compiled by Kmi media Group staffunDerWay

Rear Adm. (lower half) Christopher W. Grady

Rear Adm. (lower half) DeWolfe H. Miller

$80.5 Million from U.S. Navy for Joint Standoff Weapon Contract

Awarded

$122 Million for Virginia-Class

Submarine Procurement

Contract Awarded

General Atomics’ New Manufacturing Facility

www.NPEO-kmi.com4 | NPEO 2.1

With the success of a forward-firing miniature munition, also known as Spike, the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) proved that the government, by owning and controlling a weapons design, using modern modular designs and commercial-off-the-shelf components through ‘non-Department of Defense’ U.S. companies, can procure and deliver sophisticated guided missiles at a much lower cost than it is currently experiencing.

Spike was conceived, designed, developed and tested at NAWCWD. To date, about 26 advanced development all-up test missiles have been built and tested by the NAWCWD team. More than 10 successful full-scale guided missile tests have been completed. The most recent suc-cess was a counter-unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) demonstration in June 2013.

The idea for this demonstration began in 2012 at an annual counter-UAV exercise at NAWCWD Point Mugu, in which the Army Research and Development Engineering Command (ARDEC) from Picatinny Arsenal was one of several participants. Picatinny Arsenal is the Joint Center of Excellence for Armaments and Munitions. Located in New Jersey, it provides products and services to all branches of the U.S. military and specializes in the research, development, acquisition and life cycle management of advanced conventional weapon systems and advanced ammunition.

The Picatinny team was demonstrating the Palletized Protection System (PPS), which used radar to detect airborne and ground-based targets and cue a mounted camera during the exercise. Discussions between engineers from NAWCWD and ARDEC led to the idea of put-ting a missile, Spike, in that loop to provide a tactical capability to actually engage the targets detected.

After further discussions, NAWCWD signed a memorandum of agreement with ARDEC. Plans were put together in the spring and the integration of Spike with PPS was successfully demonstrated in the summer on the land range at NAWCWD China Lake against an airborne target. Greg Wheelock, a NAWCWD technical lead, said this demonstration proved that ARDEC could have a potential new kill mechanism to accomplish their counter-UAV mission.

“The fact that Spike was developed by the Navy and is govern-ment-owned makes it even more attractive because we have the abil-ity to quickly modify the system to meet their specific requirements,” he said.

Wheelock said NAWCWD continues to work with the Army to refine requirements. Depending on what traction the Army gets with securing funding, the team stands ready to continue developing the capability.

“In today’s budget-constrained environment, a collaborative effort is more likely to be successful than trying to go it alone,” he said.

Spike is a multi-purpose system that can be launched from the ground or the air, and is being developed to be shoulder-fired. Several Spike missiles can also be loaded on a single mount to engage multiple targets.

Wheelock admits Spike is not a one-missile-fits-all, but said there are several capability gaps for which Spike would be a good fit.

One such area, and an increasing threat, is that of small boat swarms often referred to as the fast attack craft (FAC) and fast inshore attack craft (FIAC) threat. One strategy the enemy employs is to use multiple FACs/FIACs to go after a target. The NAWCWD team has demonstrated that Spike could be a good gap-filler in a layered defense against this tactic.

Spike has recorded direct hits against moving FIAC threats in sep-arate test events on the NAWCWD Point Mugu sea range.

Even though the Spike project has logged many successes in its relatively short existence, Wheelock and his team continue to seek new ways of improving the missile. Right now, they are focused on redesigning Spike so it can address current threats.

“We own the technical drawing package; we own all the intellec-tual property. We have the capability to develop it, take it out on the range, test it, come back and tweak it, and go back to test it and do limited rate production right in our own backyard,” Wheelock said. “Very few places can do that; that capability and flexibility means improved response time to warfighter requirements.”

Spike is not just a potential force on the battlefield; it’s also a proven catalyst for workforce development and growth. More than 200 entry-level engineers and scientists have worked on the Spike project as part of Section 219 of the FY 2009 National Defense Authorization Act that enabled mechanisms to provide funds for defense laboratories for research and development of technologies for military missions.

“At NAWCWD this legislation has been instrumental in both developing and demonstrating new war fighting capabilities, and it has been a critical means in rebuilding and honing the Navy’s technical workforce for the future,” said Scott O’Neil, NAWCWD executive director.

NAWCWD used the 219 program together with the Spike project to focus on workforce development by bolstering critical at-risk skills and developing newly required skills by doing hands-on development and technology generation. Using the 219 program, young engineers and scientists worked on the Spike project and developed not only technical but also project management skills. 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.

NAWCWD Develops forWArD-firiNg miNiAture muNitioN ‘iN-house.’

Control of Weapons Design

By reNee hAtCher


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 air-craft, for carrier onboard delivery (COD) or should it seek a replacement?

Sticking with the Greyhound would mean extending its service life sub-stantially and probably doing other upgrades to reduce life cycle cost. This option also implies continuing with a hub-and-spoke delivery system for car-rier groups. Under this system, the C-2A(R) delivers and picks up cargo and personnel by landing on aircraft carri-ers, and Navy rotorcraft, currently the Sikorsky H-60, transfer the cargo and per-sonnel to other ships by vertical onboard delivery (VOD).

One considered alternative is to elim-inate both Greyhound and the hub-and-spoke system and use the 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.

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 load-ing 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-procured. These new Greyhounds had upgrades in both airframe and avionics.

The new C-2A(R)s began receiving a surface life extension program (SLEP) in 2005. This SLEP made improvements in the center wing and upgraded naviga-tion with GPS. A ground proximity warn-ing 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-running 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 comfort-able,” 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-nauti-cal 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.

heNry CANADAy

Npeo CorrespoNDeNt

By BriAN o’sheA

Npeo eDitor

AND

Special Section


the C-2 greyhouND hAs BeeN the steADy, loNg-rANge supply plAtform for the NAvy siNCe the miD-1960s.

“There is also an opportunity to mod-ernize them and keep them relevant,” Squire stressed.

The Navy is proceeding very delib-erately. It has completed the analysis of alternatives for a long-range, manned, car-rier-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 recapitalization programmatic activities and requirements development for a competitive acquisition program,” Scolpino said. However, “it is too early in the process to speculate on details of poten-tial 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 infor-mation it has obtained to date. He expects that a request for proposals (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 immedi-ately following that.

The V-22 Osprey is Bell-Boeing’s sub-mission to the Navy’s COD contract com-petition. It combines the profiles of a turboprop aircraft and a medium lift heli-copter. In terms of operational flexibility, it relieves the need to deliver 100 percent of the supplies to the carrier, which then must be offloaded, onloaded to helicopters and redistributed, said Ken Karika, business development manager at Bell Helicopter.

“Essentially, the current method really makes for a logistics bottleneck at the car-rier itself before personnel and supplies can get distributed out to their final destina-tion within the strike group,” said Karika. “Whatever the cargo is, however much needs to get delivered where, we enable the Navy logistic planners to come up with the most optimum and efficient delivery solu-tion that they can, because the V-22 can operate off of almost any air capable ship and works nicely with the carrier.”

With increased focus on the Pacific, the Navy will start seeing increased distances and the need to not only optimize their logistics supply capability, but also opti-mize the usage of all the air capable ships in the strike group, said Brian Roby, busi-ness development manager at Boeing.

“With the current capability there’s no room to grow,” said Roby. “It will always be runway to ship, ship to runway for the longer ranges.”

Karika added that the V-22 enabled network to deliver out to the strike group is 44 percent more efficient than the current method.

“In the models and analysis that we’ve run using commercially available supply chain optimization tools, it shows that the V-22 with H-60 support can deliver 100 per-cent of its supplies to its final destination in a 12-hour flight day,” said Karika. “Compare that to a C-2 H-60 enabled network and it delivers 56 percent to its final destination on day one and it makes the 100 percent mark after three days. This is assuming about a 400 nautical mile range from its supply point.”

NPEO 2.1 | 7 www.NPEO-kmi.com

The V-22s internal capacity is maxed out for shorter ranges at up to 20,000 pounds.

“In the COD mission, typically we cube out; we hit our limits with the cabin capac-ity ahead of the weight capacity,” said Karika. “The integration loading system consists of a cargo rolling system and an aft loading ramp, so you would define the cargo that goes to destinations X, Y and Z, load them in standardized containers and use the rolling system to slide them into place, strap them down and be good to go. No need to build a cage because you don’t see those G-forces a fixed wing plane does.”

The COD mission calls for both cargo and passengers. The V-22 makes it simpler by comparison because the seating is integrated into the aircraft, so it’s a comfortable ride, said Karika. It’s been used for VIP missions throughout Iraq and Afghanistan and now in the U.S., where the Marines have integrated the V-22 into the presidential executive sup-port detachment out of Quantico, Va.

“You could put any passengers destined for the strike group on the V-22 and it’s a fairly simple process with the seats inte-grated into the fuselage,” said Karika. “By comparison the C-2 must bolt and unbolt as a maintenance action to configure for cargo and/or passengers, slowing down the delivery of cargo and people.”

“This is important because anytime you’re out on a carrier every second is precious, because there’s always some-thing going on,” said Roby. “You’re either repositioning aircraft on the flight deck for the next catapult or the next launch cycle or recovery cycle. You can get the V-22 on the deck and off the deck well inside of 20-30 minutes.”

The V-22 has a slightly less cargo capac-ity compared to the C-2; the V-22 flies at similar speeds as the C-2, but the V-22 is not limited to carrier only but all air capable ships in the strike group, said Karika.

Lockheed Martin has also entered the COD competition with a proposal to submit the S-3 Viking as the Navy’s COD replace-ment aircraft. First flown in 1972, the S-3s were originally designed for anti-submarine warfare (ASW), said Clay Fearnow, director of marine programs at Lockheed Martin. With the Cold War coming to an end and Russian submarines not deploying like they used to, the ASW missions started to decrease and the S-3 was retired—not because the S-3 was running out of life. Approximately 87 are in storage with 11,000 flight hours of life

left, and with some modifications that could be extended to 17,000 flight hours.

“The big advantages the S-3 brings are its range and its speed,” said Fearnow. “So as the U.S. Navy looks toward the Pacific and you look at the great distances that the carrier needs to be able to maneuver all over the Pacific, the S-3 gives the carrier much more maneuverability and many more options as to where it can be, as opposed to the other two competitors with the V-22 or the C-2. The range of the S-3 is double what the C-2 or the V-22 can deliver: It’s 2,300 miles. The speed will average between 350-450 knots true.”

Lockheed Martin’s KC-3 proposal will reuse the S-3’s cockpit section, the wings, the engines, the tail section and the land-ing gear, added Fearnow. What will be new is the fuselage.

“We’ll have a new fuselage that will have a ramp out the back that will be able to accom-modate a forklift that can load cargo into the back of the S-3,” said Fearnow. “Another thing that I think gives us an advantage is we are going to use the enhanced cargo han-dling system that we currently have in the C-130J Hercules. That’s all rollers, and we’ll be able to palletize all the cargo as well. So we should have a reduced manpower foot-print. Instead of having 20 sailors on the deck hand-loading stuff like they do in the C-2 now, making cargo nets and holding it down, we can do that but we can also pallet-ize it and get away with a forklift and one or two sailors to actually load it onto the pal-lets. The pallets get put into the back on the rollers and then you physically lock the pal-lets down so nothing can shift on a cat trap.”

Fearnow believes that Lockheed’s option for the COD solution is the cost-effective approach for the Navy to take.

“We’re still working the numbers as we go down this road, but we believe it will be significantly less than a brand-new V-22, and I think we’ll be close in price to refurbish the C-2,” said Fearnow. “We hope that the dis-criminator that the Navy ultimately uses is that we provide much greater range and speed to give the carrier a lot more options.”

Northrop thus recommends moderniza-tion of the Greyhound and extension of its service life. One modernization opportunity 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 power-plant on the Greyhound would yield a 13 to

15 percent gain in fuel efficiency. “That is proven,” Squire said.

Installing a new cockpit suite in the C2A(R) would bring another 9 percent reduc-tion in operating-and-maintenance (O&M) cost per mile. So Squires and Northrop esti-mate that re-engining and cockpit modifica-tion 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 mod-ernization program is “the best and most affordable approach.”

The Northrop exec contended that, apart from economy, continuation of the Greyhound has several advantages over switching 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 simi-lar to the cargo networks used by commer-cial carriers like FedEx.

The pressurization of the aircraft’s cabin lets it go long distances with pas-sengers and fly above bad weather, with a service ceiling over 33,000 feet, com-pared with the Osprey’s 25,000 feet. Further, the Greyhound’s 1,300-nautical-mile range, with no refueling, lets it reach carriers when strike groups are dispersed 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

Special Section

For more information, contact MT2 Editor Brian O’Shea at [email protected] or search our online archives for related stories at www.mt2-kmi.com.


Naval communications systems face challenges that are some-times less pronounced in other communications environments. Navy platforms—whether ships, submarines or aircraft—are con-strained by strict space, weight and power (SWaP) requirements in their ability to accommodate communications systems.

At the same time, the success of naval operations depends upon having access to the most up-to-date communications sys-tems. Naval platforms are being upgraded in that direction. While this activity presents challenges, the application of new technology can also facili-tate the necessary integration of naval communi-cations systems and helps the Navy deal with its SWaP challenges.

“We are fully conscious of the historical and cur-rent experiences that highlight the linkages between reliable, interoperable communications and victory at sea,” said Captain Christopher Page, deputy direc-tor of the Communications and Networks Division within the Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance. “Electromagnetic inter-ference and SWaP constraints and our rich body of war fighting experiences compel us to place heavy emphasis on effective inte-gration within and across the battle force. While so doing, they drive us to choose and invest in ruggedized, small form factor, tightly integrated designs that feature the capability to perform multiple functions in multiple bands and waveforms.”

Over the last few years, several operational and programmatic factors have reshaped the Navy’s requirements for at-sea commu-nications capabilities. “One example is the ongoing evolution of data-generating sensors and data-consuming weapons,” said Page. “Another is the need to network those sensors and weapons with each other and with command and control and analytical nodes

in order to achieve desired effects in the increasingly complex bat-tlespace. Other factors facing the Navy include decreased at-sea manning and the corresponding need to rely on the use of reach-back for a wide range of enabling functions.”

“Today, the scope of a communication system has been expanded to include data networks, alarms and announcing, sur-veillance, entertainment, and training systems, in addition to tra-

ditional tactical intercom and exterior radio and satellite communication systems,” said Taras Kozak, a vice president at L-3 Communications Systems-East. “Wireless handheld radio systems are increas-ingly becoming more vital as manpower is reduced. Wireless systems, provided as an integrated pack-age, allow users to access all other communication sub-systems including external communications with controlled access. An integrated communi-cations solution is needed to maximize mission performance. An integrated system also reduces communications infrastructure and drives down

hardware acquisition costs.” “We are finding that the increased demand for data messag-

ing and satellite communications capabilities requires that an integrated communications system that is fully internet-proto-col based,” said Dennis Svane Christensen, marketing manager at Saab Communications Systems. “Navies around the world are choosing systems that include as much commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment and open standards and interfaces as possible to make them less expensive.”

As part of the modernization of naval communications sys-tems and in an effort to save on weight and space, copper coaxial cables are being replaced with fiber-optic technology. “The switch from coaxial cable to fiber-optic cable provides significant weight

By peter BuxBAum

Npeo CorrespoNDeNt

Dennis Svane Christensen

Naval

the u.s. NAvy mAiNtAiNs CommuNiCAtioNs through the most up-to-DAte teChNology.

SystemsCommunications


savings and greater bandwidth and capacity,” said Richard Stewart, director of engineering at Microwave Photonics Systems.

On the user side, the Navy has been seeking fully-functional handheld radios with which to equip sailors for a multiplicity of functions. “In the last five years there has been a move to wide-band networking,” said Jeff Wrobel, a senior account manager at Harris Corp. “The Navy is interested in more than single-band, push-to-talk radios, but full radios that provide data communica-tions and have access to the Internet.”

Acquiring integration communications solutions provides sev-eral advantages to naval organizations, most notably a reduction of costs throughout the life cycle of a platform. “Integration was embraced first by international navies, coast guards and customs agencies that have far lower budgets,” said Kozak. “The technol-ogy enabling communications integration is readily available in the commercial marketplace but must be applied with strict atten-tion to the special needs of tactical platforms.”

Applying Internet protocol (IP) standards to naval communi-cations is one way to facilitate the integration and interoperability of legacy communications systems. “We recognize the criticality of IP as the key to establishing and maintaining interoperability among diverse communications platforms and we are working to transition all of our communications and networked computing systems to IP,” said Page. “This transition will enable the smoother flow of information within and across the full array of communi-cating platforms, to include not only the ships, submarines and other communicating platforms operated by the Navy but the communicating platforms operated by its joint, interagency and international mission partners.”

Saab Communications developed its tactical communications systems on the basis of global requirements for commercial COTS- and IP-based systems that provide satellite communications, voice and data communications. Saab’s ICS 2000 is a digital-commu-nication system that integrates voice and data-communication equipment with user terminals and is based on its DCS 2000 dig-ital-communication switch. The DCS 2000 is designed to handle the integration of various communication types, including HF, VHF or UHF radio communications, satellite communications, encryption equipment, and analog and digital shore lines.

“What we usually do is to take all the communications media a ship needs, internal and external, and transform it to IP on a single network,” said Christensen. “Our system is hardware independent so there is no necessity to go out and buy new radios.”

L-3’s integrated communications solutions are based on two products, known as MarCom and Symphony. “MarCom con-sists of end-user terminals and communications network infra-structure designed to allow shipboard users to interoperate,” said Kozak. “Symphony enables communication plans to be exe-cuted speedily and accurately every time with minimal training and experience.”

MarCom and Symphony have been deployed on over 150 plat-forms. In the U.S. Navy, MarCom has been deployed on destroy-ers, frigates, warships, littoral combat ships, Nimitz Class carriers, Los Angeles Class submarines and most recently on Virginia class submarines. In the U.S. Coast Guard, MarCom and Symphony are operational on the new class of national security cutters and fast response cutters as well as at shore sites. They have also been deployed internationally in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other countries in Asia and the Middle East.

“MarCom and Symphony, as the core technology, integrate with commercial and military off-the-shelf products to meet the requirements of tactical organizations,” said Kozak. “Wherever possible, commercial products are included in our systems to pro-vide an affordable yet powerful system.”

The Navy, for its part, ensures the inclusion in communica-tions systems of its IP requirement and interoperability standards by centrally developing program of record systems to provide communications and networked computing systems on tactical platforms. “The use of commercially developed communications systems allows the Navy to take advantage of systems with a higher technology readiness level, which in turn helps us avoid unneces-sary development costs and reduce technology risks,” said Page.

The Navy also strives to acquire hardware that can be pro-grammed to function in a number of frequency bands and wave-forms. “That not only promotes interoperability, but reduces the number of systems we have to maintain, and it allows us to maneuver more effectively in the congested electromagnetic spec-trum,” said Page.

“Over the last decade we have seen a movement from single-frequency, single-mission radios toward multimission, multiband radios that combine VHF, UHF, and satellite communications into a single radio,” said Max Green, sales manager for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps at Harris Corp. “We have also seen a movement form narrow band to wideband communications to bring the tac-tical internet to the radio as opposed to voice only.”

Harris has used open standards to develop software-defined radios such as the AN/PRC-117G wideband manpack radio and the AN/PRC-152(C) handheld radio. The AN/PRC-117G has been deployed to all branches of the Department of Defense and pro-vides advanced networking capabilities, as well as legacy radio communications, to warfighters. There are more than 80,000 AN/PRC-152(C) radios deployed around the world. Both are interoper-able with many other software defined radios.

“Software-defined radios allow the Navy to incorporate evolu-tionary enhancements at a much lower price,” said Wrobel.

The Navy’s switch from coaxial cables to fiber optics not only helps with SWaP but also provides immunity against electro-magnetic interference, according to Stewart. “Fiber-optic cables enjoy lower levels of attenuation,” he added, “although signal loss is not the overriding factor for using fiber optics on board ships. The smaller cross sectional area of fiber-optic cables makes them easier to route on board a vessel and promotes damage control and survivability.”

In the future the Navy will continue to deal with an ever-increasing demand for the higher capacity transfer of operational data. According to Page, this is especially the case as the Navy seeks “to exercise command and control over more unmanned vehicles and other platforms. We will be relying on our com-mercial partners to come to the table with innovative solutions, remaining mindful of the need to ensure the solutions we choose give us the capability to establish and maintain connectivity in a dangerous era characterized by increasingly significant threats in space, cyberspace, and the other domains through which we communicate.” O




Eighty percent of the world’s population lives near a shoreline and 90 percent of trade travels by water.

Most targets or areas in need of relief are near a body of water. Freedom of navigation allows naval forces to operate on the oceans and along the coastlines of the world with few restrictions.

These facts form the basis of a rationale for an increased emphasis in recent years by the United States Navy and Marine Corps on seabasing. A term used to describe opera-tions that can be conducted without relying on infrastruc-ture ashore, seabasing is not a new idea. Aircraft carrier groups, hospital ships and their supply vessels can each be considered seabases of sorts. The island-hopping campaigns of World War II were sea-based operations. From 2007 to 2010 there were 14 counterterrorism operations conducted from or supported by seabases.

What is relatively new is the emphasis that the Navy and Marine Corps have placed in recent years on enhanc-ing capabilities for prepositioning equipment and material at sea, and on transferring vehicles and equipment from seabases. These efforts have included acquiring new vessels and developing new technologies that promote these goals.

“Seasbasing spans the full range of mil operations,” said Jim Strock, director of the Seabasing Integration Division

at the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va. “While the conflicts in Southwest Asia might be ending, the enduring mission sets assigned to the U.S. military continue. These include humanitarian relief, train-ing and other actions short of major combat operations where naval expeditionary forces are of particular value.”

An updated seabasing doctrinal document was released by the Navy and Marine Corps in June 2013.

“In politically sensitive environments or situations where there is no time to obtain permissions and clearances to bring forces ashore, seabasing is often the only option for U.S. military action,” the document says. “Through seabasing, the United States can defeat, or mitigate, A2/AD [anti-access/area denial] challenges and enable free-dom of movement and action within the maritime domain and provide synchronization with the activities in the other domains.”

Navy/Marine Corps doctrine sets forth several overarch-ing principles essential to seabase operations. Seabasing exploits the use of the sea as operational maneuver space and provides commanders with operational flexibility. Sea-based forces provide offensive and defensive capabilities by helping to deter or preclude a crisis while enabling later introduction of additional forces, equipment, and sustainment.

iNCreAseD NeeD for operAtioNs thAt CAN Be CoNDuCteD Without relyiNg oN iNfrAstruCture Ashore.

By peter BuxBAum

Npeo CorrespoNDeNt


“A seabase can consist of one ship or dozens of ships, depend-ing on mission requirements,” says the document. “Seabasing provides a joint force commander the option to mass, disperse, or project joint combat power throughout the operations area at the desired time.” The seabase is sustained through the interface with supply ships and other maritime platforms and aviation assets, enabling naval and selected joint forces to remain on station for extended periods of time.

Most importantly, seasbasing creates uncertainty for adver-saries. “With its inherent distributed operational character, sea-basing provides multiple points and means of entry,” says the doctrinal document. “As a result, an adversary is at a defensive disadvantage, which creates opportunities to exploit seams and gaps in defenses.”

“The basic justification for seabasing is access,” said Lieutenant Caroline Hutcheson, a Navy spokesperson. “Access in a number of volatile regions is restricted by threat and political instability or sensitivities. However, this does not diminish the requirement for U.S. presence to provide regional stability or security response. Employing maritime-based concepts like the carrier strike group, amphibious-ready group with an embarked Marine expeditionary unit, and the afloat forward staging base provide the U.S. access in regions where land-based response may be denied.”

Employing international waters to provide the flexibility and access for task forces is one means of addressing regional issues when access is otherwise restricted. “With the evolving con-cept of seabasing,” said Hutcheson, “combatant commanders see an opportunity to reduce risk by providing a seabased capa-bility to address regional security issues and a platform that can be positioned closer to an area of crisis that is not reliant on land-based options.”

As the U.S. military transitions from counterinsurgency oper-ations in Iraq and Afghanistan, military planners believe that the new security environment will require increasing forward presence for U.S. military forces. “In this new normal environ-ment, naval and ground forces will increasingly need to operate from forward, sea-based platforms in order to ensure appropri-ate response time to possible contingencies,” said Hutcheson. “Although this construct will most likely consist of smaller, more agile response forces, the Navy is still prepared to conduct off-load at sea for a sizable landing force if required.”

Seabasing spans the full range of military operations, noted Strock, from humanitarian and disaster relief to major combat operations. “Seabasing also spans all of the war fighting func-tions,” he added, “including command and control, logistics, fire, maneuver, ISR, and even force protection.”

There are a number of key platforms that provide the capabili-ties the Navy and Marine Corps are seeking with seabasing. “There has been an increasing demand to be able to move personnel and equipment into and within theaters quickly, to maneuver rapidly within those theaters, and to flexibly adapt as military operations change and priorities shift,” said Hutcheson. “Likewise, there is a greater demand for an agile, responsive and resilient service with the capability and resources necessary to meet rapidly changing warfighter requirements and operations from and through a sea-base. The end-to-end on-time delivery of combat forces, mission payloads and operational support globally will be enhanced by the introduction of the mobile landing platform (MLP) and the joint high speed vessel (JHSV) to the Navy fleet inventory.”

The MLP leverages commercial float-on/float-off technology to facilitate at-sea interoperability of multiple platforms and to serve as a surface interface between prepositioning ships and landing craft. The MLP will enable the ability to deliver vehicles, equip-ment, personnel and supplies between the seabase and restricted access locations ashore.

“The MLP is designed to come along side the LMSR [large medium speed roll-on/roll-off ship] to transfer heavy rolling stock from the LMSR to ship-to-shore connectors for transfer ashore,” said Strock.

The JHSV will expand the Navy’s ability to transport signif-icant cargo and personnel loads at high speeds, to operate in shallow waters and to work out of austere ports. Capable of car-rying up to 600 tons of cargo in a 20,000-square-foot mission bay, the JHSV can embark over 300 passengers and travel up to 34 knots.

“These capabilities make the JHSV an adaptable logistics enabler, which will enhance fleet readiness, expand the Navy’s abil-ity to provide forward presence and/or deterrence capabilities, and allow for a re-prioritization and re-allocation of warfighter assets to conduct other critical missions,” said Hutcheson. “As the MLPs and JHSVs are introduced to the fleet and become more of a force enabler, fleet commanders will have an agile versatile set of tools capable of supporting payload management and operational sup-port to a wide array of forces.”

General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) has been awarded the contract to build three MLPs. USNS Montford Point (MLP 1) was constructed and delivered to the Navy on May 14, 2013. USNS John Glenn (MLP 2) is currently under construction. Construction on the USNS Lewis Puller (MLP 3) started in February 2013.

Austal USA, in Mobile, Ala., has been awarded the contract for the production and delivery of 10 JHSVs. USNS Spearhead (JHSV 1) and USNS Choctaw County (JHSV 2) have been delivered to the Navy. JHSV 3 through JHSV 5 are currently under construction.

The T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ship is another key platform that advances the logistics goals of seabasing. The configuration of the T-AKE allows cargo to be stored as pallets rather than in 20-foot ocean containers. “T-AKE enables float prepositioning by

The dry cargo and ammunition ship USNS Cesar Chavez (T-AKE 14) transfers cargo with an SA-330J Puma helicopter during a replenishment-at-sea with the guided-missile destroyer USS Mason (DDG 87). Mason is deployed as part of the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group supporting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Rob Aylward]


providing greater control over cargo,” said Strock. “It enables the selective offload of specific cargo required by warfighters.”

These capabilities are enabled by a series of flexible and multi-purpose cargo holds. NASSCO has delivered 10 T-AKEs to the Navy thus far out of a total expected inventory of 14.

The T-AKE and the MLP are two important elements of the Marine Corps’ two maritime prepositioning squadrons (MPS), one based in Guam and the other in Diego Garcia. “The T-AKE per-mits the MPS to take 20 percent of its prepositioning sustainment stocks out of 20-foot containers and to store and deliver them at the pallet level,” said Strock. Each MPS will be also equipped with an MLP.

The Navy’s seabasing platforms will be equipped with innovative technologies specifically imple-mented to enhance the seabasing capabilities of the vessels. For example, the power, propulsion and positioning systems for the MLP and the T-AKE were adapted from commercial technologies designed by General Electric Power Conversion.

“When we reviewed the requirements for these seabasing platforms, we realized that we had to design systems that are efficient to operate,” said Paul Thompson, naval leader for North America at GE Power Conversion. “These vessels spend a lot of time off full power in a loitering situation but they may also have to go to peak speed rather quickly. We were careful to design flex-ible system architectures that provide efficiency at all of these operational modes.”

GE’s electric propulsion design for the two platforms brings greater flexibility for the ship designer to locate systems aboard ship. “It minimizes our footprint and maximizes the space left over for mission-specific systems,” said Thompson.

The Marine Corps’s seabasing integration efforts have been aided by personnel provided by Alion Science & Technology. “We have been supporting the seabasing division for 10 years,” said

Alion’s Lee Stearns. “We just won a new two-year contract to help integrate and align Navy and Marine Corps requirements into the platforms.”

Alion provides approximately 15 technical experts to Strock’s team who cover everything from engineering and capabilities development to modeling work. “All of the platforms require a fair amount of integration work,” said Stearns. “We want to ensure that ship drivers are not surprised by how the new systems are functioning. There are numerous equipment integration issues involved with the platforms. All of these pieces come into play to allow the platforms and their systems to operate effectively.”

New technologies are being incorporated into the seabasing platforms on a continuing basis. One that are is in the works is referred to as skin-to-skin transfer of material from one vessel to another. This advanced ship mooring technology will allow two vessels to dock together for the efficient transfer of cargo from one element of the seabase to the next.

“This involves a great degree of compensation to deal with the roll and the pitch of different size vessels operating together in the same sea state,” said Strock.

Another innovation effort, funded with a grant from the U.S. Transportation Command, has devel-

oped prototypes of lifting devices that can move vehicles around a ship omnidirectionally to achieve better efficiency of the stowage of vehicles on board ship. “The prototypes proved successful,” said Strock, “and the Office of the Secretary of Defense recently signed off on an implementation directive. We are up and running to take this to the next level.” O

Paul Thompson



The Military Sealift Command joint high-speed vessel USNS Spearhead (JHSV 1) arrives in Souda Bay for a scheduled port visit. The U.S. Navy’s first-in-class joint high-speed vessel on operational deployment supporting theater security cooperation efforts and the international collaborative capacity-building program Africa Partnership Station in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of responsibility. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy by Paul Farley]


Lighter than its bulky predecessor, the Navy’s redesigned aircrew endurance (AE) survival vest attained initial operational capability (IOC), a key milestone in the development of the life-saving equip-ment, the service recently announced.

The upgraded AE survival vest provides improved ballistic protec-tion, superior load distribution and a new universal color for deploy-ment in a wider variety of terrains, Navy officials said, adding that the improvements will decrease the physical burden on rotary wing aircrew during extended missions.

IOC status, a pivotal gauge in the military procurement process, is achieved when a system or product can meet the operational capabili-ties for users before proceeding to full operational capability (FOC). With IOC reached November 27, the AE vest is scheduled to achieve FOC during the first quarter of 2016.

“The Aircrew Systems Program Office [PMA-202] is focused on identifying solutions to improve performance and safety for the human element of the weapons system,” said Captain Nora Burghardt, program manager for PMA-202, which is aligned under the Naval Air Systems Command based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. “Under the Aircrew Endurance program, the Navy will field a family of products all focused on reducing physical fatigue and stress during longer missions now being conducted by Navy and Marine Corps aircrew.”

The new AE system resolves deficiencies existing in legacy aircrew survival vests and fields upgraded armor protection. Two configura-tions of the new AE system are being deployed, one for mobile aircrew and another for those aircrew who remain seated during flight. The AE mobile aircrew vest weighs 29.6 pounds and the AE seated version 19.5 pounds—about 7 pounds lighter than legacy AIRSAVE survival vests.

Worn over the flight suit, the vest provides protection from shrapnel and bullets. The mobile crewman configuration provides an 80-inch tether connection to the aircraft, allowing crewmembers to move freely about the cabin as they carry out normal duties. It prevents ejection from the aircraft in a crash and incorporates a quick-disconnection release from the aircraft during an emergency egress.

As a survival item, the vest provides locations to carry emer-gency-signaling devices, radios, medical kit, emergency underwater breathing devices and an inflatable life preserver. In a rescue situa-tion, the vest provides a harness used for hoisting the aircrew into a rescue helicopter.

PMA-202 manages all systems that directly support the aircrew, troops and passengers in the performance of their missions. The program office supports more than 780 products common to many naval aircraft platforms and aircrew, including ejection seats, flight deck cranials, flight deck and aircrew clothing as well as chemical biological, nuclear protective equipment.

Navy’s Redesigned Aircrew Endurance Survival Vest Reaches Key Milestone

The Navy’s Electronic Consolidated Automated Support System (eCASS) recently received Milestone C acquisition approval, paving the way for limited production and installation of the next-generation device used to test the service’s aircraft avionics.

The Milestone C decision, approved December 16, awards $103 million to defense contractor Lockheed Martin and initiates low-rate initial production of eCASS, with the first stations being used to migrate the existing Consolidated Automated Support System (CASS) test program sets to eCASS, a crucial step toward eventual fleet introduction.

Managed by Naval Air Systems Command’s (NAVAIR) Common Aviation Support Equipment Program Office (PMA-260), sailors and Marines will use eCASS to troubleshoot and repair aircraft at sea or ashore, allowing them to quickly and efficiently return equipment to readiness

status. The new support system will replace the current CASS test equipment—the Navy’s standard automatic test equipment family supporting naval aircraft elec-tronics—from the 1990s.

“More than two decades old, the legacy CASS are becoming difficult to support and are technologically obsolete,” said Dennis Albrecht, principal deputy program manager for PMA-260, which is based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. “Replacement with eCASS is critical to continuing optimal and affordable aircraft readiness. ECASS will become the backbone of avionics repair across the Naval Aviation Enterprise.”

With eCASS, the Department of the Navy will enable a cost avoidance of more than $1 billion annually by averting the repair of avionics at the next level of maintenance or sending the parts back to the original equipment manufacturer, said Chris Giggey, PMA-260’s deputy program manager for

Automatic Test Systems, who manages the eCASS effort.

“The next-generation eCASS is techno-logically advanced and capable of supporting the Navy and Marine Corps’ current and future aircraft, such as the P-8A and F-35, which are undergoing level-of-repair anal-ysis,” Giggey said.

There are 613 CASS stations in use by the Department of the Navy and its foreign allies for testing of aircraft elec-tronics, including flight controls, navi-gation tracking and electronic-warfare support measures.

From midrange tow tractors and mobile hydraulic power supplies to jet-engine test instrumentation, PMA-260 manages the procurement, development and fielding of common, ground-support equipment and automatic test equipment that support every type, model and series of aircraft within the Naval Aviation Enterprise.

Navy’s Next-gen Test Equipment Achieves Milestone C Acquisition Approval


main DeCK

Lockheed Martin has completed on-orbit testing of the second Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) satellite and handed over spacecraft oper-ations to the U.S. Navy. The handover also includes acceptance of three MUOS ground stations that will relay voice and high-speed data signals for mobile users worldwide.

MUOS-2 was launched July 19, 2013, aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla. The system dramatically improves secure communications, delivering simultaneous and prioritized voice, video and data for the first time to users on the move.

“MUOS-2 benefits from continuous improve-ment. We completed our baseline on-orbit testing in half the time compared to MUOS-1,” said Iris Bombelyn, vice president of Narrowband Communications at Lockheed Martin. “We look forward to supporting the Navy’s test and evalua-tion phase to demonstrate the total capability of the Mobile User Objective System. When commis-sioned, the full digital data and flexible network management capabilities will be available to users for both MUOS-1 and MUOS-2.”

The Naval Satellite Operations Center will soon begin relocation operations to place MUOS-2 in its operational slot. There, it will undergo testing and evaluation prior to formal government commis-sioning in 2014.

Since 2004, Shield Technologies Corporation of Eagan, Minn., has been a leader in corrosion prevention cover tech-nology by providing over 60,000 Envelop Protective Covers to all branches of the U.S. military. Envelop Protective Covers are used to protect a variety of high value U.S. military equipment to include topside naval weapons, Army ground combat vehicles, and both fixed and rotary wing aviation assets.

The FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes language encouraging the enhanced use of anti-corro-sion cover systems so more components within the Department of Defense can realize the cost savings and readiness benefits of this technology.

“Corrosion remains the largest preventable cost to the U.S. military, a cost which exceeds $23 billion per year,” stated the FY14 NDAA Report. “Failing to protect the Department of Defense’s hardware from the preventable problem of corrosion leave hardware susceptible to damage and degradation associated with exposure to heat, dust, ultraviolet rays, and moisture.”

Envelop Protective Covers provide the military with a sustainment solu-tion by using a multilayered breathable fabric incorporating a vapor phased

corrosion inhibitor. Repeated tests by independent laboratories and branches of the military have shown that the use of Envelop Protective Covers can reduce the damage caused by corrosive environments by factors up to 95 percent. Envelop Protective Covers have proven to be the most effective, durable and depend-able protective cover technology available today.

“Sustainment of our nation’s war fighting fleet has never been more important. Shield Technologies is proud to support our nation’s warfighters by being the leading supplier of this type of technology to DoD. We remain dedicated to providing solu-

tions that aid our military in completing their missions,” said Mike Dupasquier, chief operating officer of Shield Technologies.

“The committee encourages the military services to follow the lead of the Navy and set a comprehensive service-wide strategy to mitigate corrosion that includes fielding more waterproof, breathable anti-corrosion cover technolo-gies,” continues the FY14 NDAA Report. Shield Technologies Corporation stands ready with its Envelop and Envelop Magnum Series of protective covers to answer that call.

NDAA Encourages Proven Sustainment Solutions—Envelop Protective Covers

Navy Accepts MUOS-2 Satellite

Thermion Inc. has developed a metal/ceramic non-skid coating system that has proved successful for landing of F-35B Joint Strike Fighter and MV-22 Osprey. This coating system is applied with a robotic twin-wire arc spray process also developed by Thermion.

The Thermion TH604 Non-Skid coating system has met the requirements of MIL-PRF-24667 for type V Composition G and is technically qualified for shipboard applications. However, broad approval has not been granted; the coating process is new to Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and classified as non-conventional, therefore standards and process instructions are in the development stage.

Presently, NAVSEA will consider approvals on case by case basis and desires to monitor all applications. This is a good deal for customers as their coating will be monitored at every step by quality control engineers intent on assuring coating reliability.

The Thermion TH604 Non-Skid meets the Navy’s mission durable requirements for non-skid coatings. It has been performance proven during sea trials of USS Wasp to provide a durable non-skid surface for F-35B and V-22 landings, which are extreme durability applications.

Thermion developed the coating process to be operator independent as much as possible; therefore, a deck coating robot performs the actual coating process. The robot operator sets the machine in place and performs setting of parameters, then turns it on. Four spray heads work in unison to apply the coating in a perfect repeated pattern. Each coating section is about 160 square feet, and coating time is about two hours for each section including moving and setup time.

The experience of the shipboard application of TH604 has determined the best approach for production applications. The full application process is similar to standard non-skid coatings that require surface cleaning then grit blast preparation, followed with the non-skid application, then a post water jet cleaning and final color top coat.

The only foreseeable required maintenance will be to clean the surface for cosmetic reasons. Normal bristle brush and detergents should suffice, or a low pressure water washer or steam cleaner could be used.

Thermion has developed a leasing program for all its coating equipment, making applica-tion for any size project affordable as no capital expenditures are required. It also allows more contractor choices, as all will be on equal standing for equipment availability and costs. Thermion will provide training and oversight of the coating task as part of the equipment leasing program.

A Non-Conventional Non-Skid


Compiled by Kmi media Group staff

NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED

NOT-FOR-PROFIT MEANSWE’RE IN IT FOR YOU

Contact Baker today for a complimentary evaluation of transfer credit and military work experience. See an online class demo at bakercollegeonline.com/demoREGIONALLY

ACCREDITED

100% ONLINE

LIFETIME EMPLOYMENTASSISTANCE

NO APPLICATION FEE

An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Institution. NAVY

CALL: (800) 469-4062

bakercollegeonline.com

UNDERGRADUATESCHOOL

GRADUATESCHOOL

U.S. NAVY PHOTO. USE OF MILITARY IMAGERY DOES NOT IMPLY OR CONSTITUTE DOD ENDORSEMENT.

U.S. NAVY PR AD

PREPARE YOURSELFTM

FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD

Baker College is a member of Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC), DANTES, GoArmyEd, and CCAF’s AU-ABC program. The college is eligible to receive Federal military and Veteran education benefits.

3393_REQ2_navyAir-SeaPEOforumAd_8pt375x10pt875_K2.indd 1 2/14/14 4:22 PM

Rear Admiral Winter is the program executive officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons at Patuxent River, Md.

Winter, a 1984 graduate of the University of Notre Dame with a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering, received his commission through the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps and was designated a naval flight officer in 1985.

At sea, Winter flew the A-6E Intruder with Attack Squadrons 42, 85 and 34 aboard aircraft carriers USS Saratoga (CV 60), USS America (CV 66), USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and USS George Washington (CVN 73).

Winter was selected as an aerospace engineering duty officer in 1995. His NAVAIR shore assignments include assistant deputy program manager for the Joint Standoff Weapon System; execu-tive assistant to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program director; team lead for JSF Integrated Flight and Propulsion Control; dep-uty program manager for the Tactical Tomahawk All-Up-Round (AUR) development program; PEO for Tactical Air chief of staff; and Precision Strike Weapons (PMA-201) program manager.

He most recently served as the commander of the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake/Point Mugu, Calif., and as the assistant commander for Test and Evaluation, Naval Air Systems Command.

Winter holds a master’s degree in computer science from the Naval Postgraduate School and another in national resource strategy from National Defense University’s Industrial College of the Armed Forces; and a Level III Program Management certifi-cation from the Defense System Management College.

His personal awards include the Legion of Merit (2), Defense Meritorious Service Medal (2), Navy Meritorious Service Medal (2), Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (4), Joint Service Achievement Medal (2), Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Air Force Acquisition Excellence Award, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Kuwait Liberation Medal, and various unit and sea service awards.

Q: What are the roles and responsibilities of the Program Executive Officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons (PEO U&W)?

A: In broad terms, a Program Executive Officer’s primary role, regardless of the portfolio, is to lead. In PEO U&W, we have nine program offices with over 100 programs of record mapped to those offices. Our PEO team of 3,000-plus acquisition professionals

provide our naval, joint and coalition warfighters with lethal, interoperable and affordable unmanned aviation, strike weapons, mission planning control systems, and aerial target and decoy systems. We are charged with the responsibility to effectively and efficiently execute over $3 billion of annual total obligation authority and another billion dollars of annual foreign military sales. Ensuring external stakeholder alignment and engaging where needed are key PEO responsibilities to ensure successful program team execution. Internally, the PEO is responsible for providing the program teams with the strategic guidance, tools, processes, resources and support to successfully execute their mission. Bottom line … the PEO ensures our program teams are delivering and sustaining affordable, integrated and interoperable capabilities to the warfighter, on time.

As the PEO, I also help to ensure the cross-organizational seams issues and barriers are addressed to facilitate my PMs pro-gram execution success. There are plenty of barriers and seams to tackle. Some are from “inside the family” such as burden-some, irrelevant policies or reporting requirements, and some are from “outside the family” such as legislative requirements and mandates that impede logical program execution. It is abso-lutely imperative for a PEO to establish strong, open communi-cation paths with our sister PEOs/SYSCOMs, fleet user, OPNAV/OSD staffs, sister services, Congress, academia and industry to

Rear Admiral Mat Winter

Program Executive OfficerPEO Unmanned Aviation

and Strike Weapons


Full Spectrum PlannerMaintaining Guidance for Weapons Systems from Acquisition to Execution

Q&AQ&A

facilitate effective program execution while working together to mitigate the barriers to our teams’ success.

Q: What are the top challenges PEO U&W will face in 2014?

A: In 2014, our first challenge is the contin-ued development, support and retention of our workforce. The lynchpin to our success is, and always will be, ensuring we have the right people with the right skills in the right jobs. The solutions we provide on a daily basis are multi-dimensional, requiring deep intel-lectual capital, expertise and experience. The technical complexities of design, verification, test, production and sustainment of leading-edge systems require a full-spectrum work-force to engage seamlessly together. Each discipline, from engineering, logistics and test to finance, contracts, legal and program management, is required to work toward the end-state requirements in support of deliver-ing the right capability to the warfighter at an affordable cost.

Our success is dependent upon the ability of our teams to translate warfighter require-ments into logical, affordable acquisition strategies that allow the government/industry team to deliver operationally suitable/effective unmanned systems and strike weapons, on cost, on time. It is the responsibility of leadership to train, equip, develop and support the workforce with the requi-site relevant skills while providing growth opportunities. Without our people, we fail.

It is our leadership obligation to be the stewards and teach-ers of this vital body of knowledge in order to retain that work-force in the face of budgetary uncertainties, job security volatility and policy ambiguities. Our people want to work hard and they absolutely do work hard. They want to be appreciated. They want to know that leadership understands what they’re doing and that we’ve taken an active interest in removing barriers in sup-port of their efforts, so they can execute their work most effec-tively. So, challenge number one is making sure we retain a relevant, qualified workforce that we can continue to motivate to execute programs.

The second challenge is achieving the required level of pro-gram execution efficiency in the face of burdensome policies and dynamic budget environments. We are an extremely effective acquisition force, as evidenced by the currently fielded capabili-ties that our Navy and Marine Corps warfighters successfully uti-lize daily to fight the fight and keep the peace. However, we have plenty of room for “execution efficiency” improvement to realize “game-changing” program execution throughput.

The process flow—requirements generation u technical base-line u executable schedule u required resources u integrated program plan u program execution/follow through—is ripe for opportunity in gaining efficiencies. I believe the most impor-tant element of this process is the “warfighter to design require-ments” translation. It is imperative that we get the “requirement

right” first. From that I mean, the “warfighter’s requirements set” followed by the “design requirements set.”

Too many programs accelerate through the requirements flow-down efforts without taking the due diligence to ensure the design requirements are integrated and technically feasible. This lack of sound systems engineering sets the program up for inef-ficiencies at best, program failure at worse. Hand in hand with establishing a technically feasible baseline is identifying the required resources to execute, better known as funding resource stability. Funding instability is a first order factor to why our acquisition programs are delayed, which translates to increased program costs.

Ideally, the funding environment for each program would be stable so we could execute to plan, vice changing the plan in response to each budgetary ebb and flow. However, the reality is that we have, and will continue to have, budgetary volatility. In recognition of this reality, I afford my program managers the lat-itude to make effective trades where it makes sense. My PMs don’t just sit there and say, “I’m going to have to wait and see what hap-pens.” That’s not what we do. My PMs are continuously reassess-ing their acquisition execution to determine appropriate shifts to continue to move the ball down the field within the resources allocated to meet their cost, schedule and performance commit-ments. As I say, program management is a verb, so we need to do it every day!

Q: How do you plan on mitigating those challenges?

A: Instead of addressing the previous challenges in specific terms, I want to discuss the actions and initiatives we are pursuing to mitigate the impetus for these challenges and for those across

The Navy and Marine Corps RQ-21A Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (STUAS) takes its first flight from Webster Field Annex, an outlying field to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. A team from the Navy and Marine Corps STUAS program office (PMA-263) at Pax River and Insitu are conducting flight operations at Webster in preparation for integrated operational test and evaluation in the fall. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy]


my entire portfolio. In my optic, challenges are really opportunities. If we look at chal-lenges any differently, such as sea anchors to progress, we have failed before we have even started. We need to assess the chal-lenge, really dig into the meat of the matter, and find the opportunities to move forward.

We have a robust strategy for developing and supporting our personnel. We take an active role by engaging in their training and development by making sure that they have the opportunities to grow in their own field and to also broaden their horizons into oth-ers. For example, we will give an engineer the opportunity to go and do test, a tester to do logistics, a financier exploring program management and so on. Cross training and exposure has proven to be extremely effec-tive in execution and keeping our work-force energized and motivated. Hand-in-hand with this is the PEO and PMs responsibility to ensure we have the right person with the right skills in the right job. It’s not comfortable to have to engage in the thorny dialogue of assessing a human being’s abilities. But it is absolutely essential to align people/skills/jobs in all our programs.

While my PMs are interested in what other PMs are doing, their efforts are focused primarily on their respective programs. As the PEO, with my staff, we need to promulgate the knowl-edge transfer across programs and up and down the chain of command. This is a key element in executing our PEO portfolio management concept. I can step back and look across the port-folio to identify factors/trends that highlight policy, execution, funding, and contract inefficiencies and anomalies. I can look at the bigger picture to cull out the causal factors behind the hic-cups and to ensure the sharing of knowledge and lessons learned between programs.

For example, most people look at unmanned air systems (UAS) and only see the air vehicle. They see a Triton, a Fire Scout, or an X-47. What I see is a system of systems. What we all need to see is a three segment—launch platform, control system, air vehicle—system of systems. Without a launch platform—be it a carrier, destroyer or a runway—and the control system, that air vehicle is nothing but a static display. A UAS integrates many parts that work in harmony. The UAS is the complete system of systems package … the unmanned aerial vehicle, the control segment, the launch and recovery elements, the supporting networks … not just the air vehicle. This system of systems construct is impera-tive to efficiency of execution in our UAS programs.

From a navigating policy perspective, I consistently empha-size to my PMs the importance of establishing and maintain-ing a healthy communications network. Some people are more effective than others in powering through the unintended static friction of policy. You have to know the respective stakeholders. When putting yourself at the centroid of acquisition and exam-ining your stakeholders … you have the warfighter, OPNAV [Office of the Chief of Naval Operations], industry, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Congress, international partners, your boss and a number of other external stakeholders. I emphasize to my PMs the critical importance of keeping all those stakeholders

informed and on the same sheet of music as needed. A leading indicator of your personal effectiveness is the value and relevance of your stakeholder communications. When things start getting quiet on the circuit, if you’re not getting any phone calls, any emails… you shouldn’t just look at it as, “I’ve got time to make up some work.” You may be starting to become irrelevant or out of the picture. A PM must be proactive in exercising lines of com-munication with stakeholders in order to effectively navigate the policy labyrinth to efficiently execute programs.

Q: How important is the relationship with industry to PEO U&W?

A: Absolutely critical. DoD acquisition is not a trivial pursuit, though I am met time and time again by those that believe it is simplistic. It’s not. It’s complex, it’s dynamic and it’s executed in an environment that does not lend itself to simple solutions. We are not going to Walmart and picking up a new Tomahawk or a new Triton. Industry and government have been teamed for the lifetime of weapons systems development and acquisition. General Dwight D. Eisenhower established a valued relationship between industry and government, realizing that it is a partner-ship that’s absolutely critical in order for us to provide our nation with the required capabilities to ensure our national security while ensuring a strong, diverse U.S. industrial base.

As the PEO, my established relationships at the industry vice president levels of each of my 30-plus prime contractor compa-nies are keys to our success. Similarly, my PMs have established relationships with the program directors at each of those com-panies. It’s absolutely critical that we work together and under-stand each other. It is important to note that in a typical program the division of program scope between industry and government is 60-70 percent industry, 30-40 percent government. Though some programs are different, this work share is non-severable and though contracts to industry and technical work agreements to government warfare centers are separate work elements, we have to work all efforts together seamlessly, otherwise the program will fail—not might, but will fail.

Finally, it is vital that the PEO and PMs have an apprecia-tion for our industry’s motivation and focus. I use the following

The EA-18G Growler carries Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM). The U.S. Navy signed a foreign military sales (FMS) agreement with the Australian government for an AARGM training capability, marking the first FMS sale involving the weapon. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy]


four-point commitment phrase to drive home the point. We’re both committed to the warfighter. We’re both committed to a quality product. We’re both committed to executing the program plan efficiently. The difference is that while I am commit-ted to being a steward of the taxpayer’s dollar, my industry counterpart is com-mitted to a shareholder and board of direc-tors, and rightfully so. So it is imperative that we understand those different perspec-tives, and at the end of the day, we hold our-selves accountable for crisp, effective and affordable program execution. Our indus-try counterparts need to deliver what they promise and we, the government, need to enable them to do so, within our commit-ments to the taxpayer.

Q: How will unmanned aircraft being able to deploy from an aircraft carrier benefit carrier capability in the future?

A: The Department of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations continues to state that the carrier strike group is the cornerstone of naval power pro-jection. It is the forward-deployed, persistent capability that our nation calls upon in time of conflict and in time of humanitar-ian need. As we look at the next generation efficiencies for carrier strike group makeup, the introduction of unmanned capabili-ties into the manned carrier air wing will revolutionize the way our carrier strike groups operate. Unmanned air systems are able to provide that unique degree of flexibility, versatility and persistence needed in the maritime environment. The ability to provide a 24/7 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance [ISR] and strike capability in this domain is a force multiplier for maritime commanders.

With the X-47B demonstration, we have proven the feasibil-ity of operating large scale unmanned air systems capabilities in the harsh carrier environment. We will continue to operate our X-47B over the coming year to further refine aircraft carrier unmanned air systems concept of operations and continue to pro-mote the true value of unmanned carrier aircraft capabilities as a realistic, future cornerstone of our Navy’s carrier strike groups.

Over the next decade, we will introduce our first operational carrier-based unmanned system, known as UCLASS [unmanned carrier launch airborne surveillance and strike]. This system is the next step in the Navy’s evolutionary integration of UAS into the carrier strike group operational environment and, when fielded, will provide a persistent, aircraft carrier-based ISR, tar-geting and strike capability to support carrier air wing operations.

UCLASS will be a revolutionary capability in carrier aviation. For the next few years, we’ll continue to mature the technologies involved in this system and we’ll integrate those technologies to field an early operational deployment of the first unmanned carrier aviation squadron. It’s exciting, challenging and truly historic. This has never been done before. This is not the next generation strike fighter, the next generation command and control nor the next generation helicopter. This is the first ever

unmanned carrier capability and our folks here in this PEO have their fingerprints all over it. I can guarantee their family, friends, future sailors and Marines will read about this in their history les-sons 50-plus years from now.

Q: How will the MQ-4C Triton expand overall naval operations?

A: The combination of manned and unmanned systems as an adjunct to the P-3 and P-8 missions allows us to have an effi-cient blend of the two capabilities. Our combined MQ-4C Triton and manned maritime patrol and reconnaissance capability pro-vide an opportunity to more efficiently and effectively deploy and employ the P-8, and that’s not a trivial statement. We purpose-fully brought together the maritime domain awareness and sur-veillance capabilities in the blend of P-8 and MQ-4C planned force structure to achieve required effectiveness.

The MQ-4C is leveraging the real-world lessons learned from our currently deployed Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Demonstrator (BAMS-D). The Triton UAS design was informed by operational experience gained on BAMS-D and incorporates sev-eral design and safety improvements over the basic Global Hawk design. BAMS-D was also used to develop initial doctrine, con-cepts of operations and tactics, techniques and procedures for operating persistent unmanned aircraft systems.

Triton will provide persistent maritime ISR data collec-tion and dissemination to combatant commanders, expedition-ary strike group commanders, carrier strike group commanders and other designated U.S. and joint commanders. Triton is a tac-tical, land-based, forward deployed platform that will operate from five operational sites (orbits) worldwide. Up to three Tritons can be controlled by a mission control station operating at one orbit, so you can have one on station, one coming back and one going out. Triton will provide the first large-scale deployment of Navy unmanned capability. It’s exciting from that perspective.

An artist’s rendering of the Predator C Avenger to facilitate the subsequent development of an aircraft uniquely suitable for carrier operations. [Photo courtesy of General Atomics]


We’re currently in flight test at Palmdale, Calif., and will transi-tion the test effort to Patuxent River later this year. We’ll finish up developmental test and seek a production decision in FY 2016. In FY 2017, we will start operational test and later that year begin fielding the MQ-4C for fleet use.

MQ-4C is going to change the way we do things in maritime surveillance. Today, we provide similar capability to the combatant commanders with manned assets. They are functioning in high demand, low density areas. Triton will provide surveillance when no other naval forces are present and will support operations in the littorals. Using an unmanned capability for this, our manned aircraft crews can be freed up for higher priority national tasking.

Q: How do unmanned aviation systems increase the Navy’s capabilities?

A: If I had to sum it up in a single word, I would say “persistence.” Unmanned air systems increase our ability to employ needed capability over an extended period of time in a multidimensional, vast area, bringing a magnitude increase of capacity to service a spectrum of regular and irregular missions. Persistence allows a unique degree of flexibility, versatility and relevance to pro-vide a 24/7 ISR and strike capability as a force multiplier for the combatant commanders.

Our unmanned systems have consistently provided that persis-tence and have proven to be very effective to date. The Fire Scout and our smaller unmanned systems have been actively engaged in deterring piracy and high seas activities, being deployed on our small ships and deployed by our special operations forces. Another example is our BAMS-D, which is in its 62nd month of service pro-viding persistent, effective and operational maritime surveillance in the Fifth Fleet today. It has become a cornerstone of operational capability for the combatant commander.

It is important to note though, that our unmanned systems are truly a complementary capability to our manned systems, and there is no intention to become an exclusively unmanned aviation Navy. Quite the opposite, as we are blending manned and unmanned systems at all levels of war fighting—Triton/P-8, Fire Scout/H-60 and soon UCLASS with our manned carrier air wings.

Unmanned aviation and the ability to deploy under a tactical or strategic commander’s control provide the flexibility to be there in a cost-effective, operationally relevant way. And it’s our job in this PEO to continue to refine the way to do that the most effi-ciently and affordably. We are truly on the forefront of our Navy’s game changing technologies, capabilities and systems. My PMs are truly changing and shaping the way our Navy will operate through the rest of this century and beyond.

Q: When people hear PEO U&W, most think of unmanned systems, but is there anything you would like to discuss as far as PEO U&W related to strike weapons?

A: Certainly, especially since I have my Navy roots deeply planted in weapons as an A-6 intruder bombardier/navigator, weapons PM and just prior to this posting, the commander of the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division.

We have seen a complete shift in the way we acquire and employ our weapons over the past four decades. In the Vietnam

era, we employed multiple weapons per target to compensate for the uncertainties in our weapon’s targeting solutions. In the 1990s, the advent of global positioning systems and the growth capacity in computational processing power spawned revolution-ary advances in weapons system effectiveness as we saw a funda-mental employment shift to one-weapon, one-target. Today we continue to build upon that effectiveness and are about to realize the next “big thing” in weapons employment as we proliferate the ability to effectively network our weapons, sensors and platforms on a large, interoperable scale.

Our CNO’s [Chief of Naval Operations] strategy for the future sets the course for us to leverage these technological advances focused on delivering affordable, integrated war fighting capabili-ties in our platforms and payloads. For many decades we’ve been a truly platform-focused war fighting force: carriers, a ship and aircraft. The CNO is challenging us to think differently and put payloads/systems over platforms, to look at kill chains for war fighting effects … and that’s PEO(U&W)’s sweet spot.

We have unmanned systems and the entire strike weapons portfolio. We look for the best integrated combination of capabili-ties to ensure that we are providing best war fighting effects. The Department [of the Navy] can’t afford to step out with hundreds of new programs at a billion dollars apiece. Our technologies are evolving; our adversary’s capabilities are evolving. To maintain our edge in this cost-conscious environment, we need to think differently. To that end, we routinely examine current inventory capabilities to see how they can be modified to meet the evolving threat in the most affordable manner.

We’ve done that in a number of ways with virtually every one of our strike weapons. Our anti-radiation capability uses high speed anti-radiation missiles to target an adversary’s radar that may be preparing to engage our aviators with a missile. What we’ve been able to do is take the current inventory of high speed anti-radiation missiles [HARM] and modify it with a new front end GPS tracker and seeker—that’s the AARGM [advanced anti-radiation guided missile]. When our adversary sees the HARM coming and shuts down the radar, the HARM doesn’t see the signal anymore. We call that a soft kill; that radar is down, so if I have a plane going through there I’m OK. But if we want a hard kill, the AARGM gets the GPS fix and if the radar shuts down, the AARGM is undeterred and still “kills it.” That’s not rocket science, it’s someone sitting there thinking, “Why can’t we do that?” We’ve done that for a very minimal cost and we are in full rate production for that new front end. It can still do the HARM mission, but now it can do the AARGM missions as well.

We have many more examples, such as our low collateral damage bomb, re-boostered fuzes, SLAM-ER moving target, Direct Attack Moving Target Capability improvements, Harpoon II+, JSOW C-1 and many more innovative examples of how we modified our current strike weapons portfolio to provide our warfighter increased capabilities at an affordable cost.

Strike weapons tend to take a back seat to the limelight of unmanned systems, but as I say, we’ve never “ISR-ed” anybody to death. So when you need the kinetic event, that’s strike weapons. My weapon PM teams are the best in the business and continu-ously answer the call to equip our warfighter, from both manned and unmanned platforms, with the innovative, affordable systems they need. O


The United States Navy is undergoing a transformation “equivalent to previous naval transformations such as sail to steam, steam to nuclear propulsion, and battleship to naval aviation warfare,” notes a 2011 Navy acquisition report. “As was the case in each of the previous naval transformations, the afloat Navy forces are dependent upon a rich shore-based infrastructure to support the new capabilities.”

Nowhere is this truer than in the case of maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). The multiplication of ISR sensors has produced unprecedented volumes of ISR data, straining the Navy’s processing, storage and dissemination infra-structure as well as the space aboard ship that can be dedicated to these resources. This has resulted in an ongoing overhaul of Navy ISR systems, using cloud infrastruc-tures and other technologies to consolidate systems, reduce replication of data and ease the burden on communications systems. The current budgetary climate creates even greater urgency to build a robust ISR infrastructure that can handle more information with fewer personnel.

By peter BuxBAum

Npeo CorrespoNDeNt

mANAgiNg the mAssive AmouNt of DAtA gAthereD.


“The key to a commander’s under-standing of their battlespace is the back end of the tasking, collection, pro-cessing, exploitation and dissemina-tion process,” said Captain Christopher Corgnati, acting deputy director of the ISR Capabilities Division in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance. “The networks, automated processing and people must be in place to turn vast amounts of raw data into information and knowledge. As the volume of data collected increases, it will continue to stress Navy networks and the ‘task, collect, process, exploit, disseminate’ infrastructure.”

“Navy systems are producing a lot more data,” added Mark Nelson of the Lockheed Martin Navy ISR team. “That data needs to be replicated and used across a much bigger area. Creating work flows that reduce a lot of the heavy listing for the operator will be key.”

Utilizing new methodologies like activ-ity-based intelligence is one approach to the Navy’s ISR data problem. “To develop a better understanding of the battlespace, operators and decision makers want to be alerted to abnormal conditions so that they can more efficiently place resources,” said Jeff Dunlap, director of business development for C4ISR at BAE Systems. “This approach reduces the fog of war so that you can counter an adversary very quickly or can keep a ship out of harm’s way.”

“Right now the Navy’s primary processing, exploi-tation and dissemination operations exist in stove-piped kinds of systems,” said Nelson. “This usually requires buying and maintaining separate hardware and software for each system and creates special problems in the shipboard environment because of the limitations of space.”

The Navy’s plans to deploy shipboard clouds will reduce the replication of hard-ware and can reduce licensing costs by 30 percent, according to Dunlap. “A lot of this is being driven by costs,” he said, “but in the end the systems will also actually be able to share data.”

DCGS-N, the Navy’s primary intelli-gence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting system, is used by Navy decision makers to manage a common intelligence

picture (CIP). “Fleet operators use the CIP to visualize and display ISR information,” said Captain Andrew Buduo III, acting deputy director of the Decision Superiority Division. “To generate an effective CIP, DCGS-N manages and fuses all types of intelligence from available sources into an integrated information base. Additionally, DCGS-N is developing specialized ana-lytic tools used to automate repetitive tasks, allowing intelligence workloads to be transferred to computers and enabling sailors to focus on higher priority tasks such as predictive analysis.”

“DCGS-N Increment 1 is an initiative to take several disparate ISR applications and put them together in a unified hard-ware and semi-integrated software pack-age,” said Nelson. “The point is trying to reduce the logistics tail of these pro-grams.” Lockheed Martin has been the prime contractor on DCGS-N since 2008.

“DCGS-N increment 2 is working to push these disparate programs together,” said Nelson. “The goal is a seamless inte-gration of programs that will improve the user experience. They will be smart enough to update data in all systems when data is updated in one.”

The key to the integration of maritime ISR systems, for Nelson, is adherence to a “no-kidding set of standards.”

“Without standards,” he added, “everyone goes down their own path.” The Navy is adopting commercial open source and standard data capabilities as an important part of its ISR data stor-age and processing strategy, said Buduo.

The proliferation of maritime ISR data, and of demands on that data, requires a strategy that allows for data storage and processing at different locations. “The Navy currently has in place systems to process and exploit data derived from sen-sors worldwide, from the seabed to space,” said Buduo. “Where that data is pro-cessed, stored and transported is dictated by processing and exploitation capacity and the intended consumer.”

Under the Pacific Fleet Intelligence Federation, for example, ISR tasking is shared between all assets that have an exploitation capacity with assignments in that specific geographic location. “A carrier operating in the Northern Pacific

might be assigned exploitation of sen-sor data for that area,” said Buduo. “The Maritime Operations Center would be assigned areas of particular focus for their commander and reach back nodes would ensure that no potentially important data goes unexploited.”

Moving forward, the Navy is develop-ing a data environment, hosted on the Consolidated Afloat Network Enterprise System (CANES) and Next Generation Network (NGEN) programs, that builds upon the system capabilities in place today. “It will be flexible and extensible, able to ingest future sensor data from the Navy, other services, the intelligence community and coalition partners while ensuring all Navy data is discoverable and accessible to those same partners,” said Buduo.

The effort to make mounds of data more useful to warfighters has led to the application of a number of methodologies and technologies including activity-based intelligence. “This involves taking data and transforming it into actual informa-tion that an intelligence worker can use,” said Dunlap. “There is such a large volume of data that some degree of automation is needed to connect entities and events and to build relationships among the data.”

Activity-based intelligence seeks to compare the current maritime situation informed with data garnered by persis-tent intelligence sensors with past expe-rience to identify potential threats. “Most things look normal at sea and ships are overwhelmed by data there,” said Dunlap. “But there were clues that led up to a small boat attack or an encounter with a mine, and operators can be alerted when those clues appear. This is a technology the Navy will have to employ in the next five to 10 years if they don’t want to add 100 people to a ship.”

Shipboard and ashore systems alike face data storage problems from the ava-lanche of ISR data and there are particu-lar challenges associated with connecting afloat and ashore systems. “You can only add so much more storage space to a ship,” said Dunlap. “Another server rack repre-sents another power and cooling require-ment, and those are critical on a ship.”

The new breed of cross-domain solu-tions allows users operating at different classification levels to access data from different secrecy and sensitivity domains without having to replicate that data into

Jeff Dunlap


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.

a separate domain. That cuts down on storage space, noted Dunlap.

The use of cloud technologies allows systems to migrate to a consolidated infrastructure and suggests the potential for ships within a single strike group to operate off a single instance of the cloud. A thornier problem arises when afloat clouds must communicate with ashore clouds and when data must be transmit-ted from ship to shore.

“Right now the Navy doesn’t store a lot of data and much of the data is overwritten within a short time frame,” said Dunlap.

The Navy Information Technology Enterprise, the Navy’s ashore and afloat infrastructure for utilizing large data sets, is incorporating cloud com-puting technologies to align with the Joint Information Environment and the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise. “This modern-ization campaign is aimed at increas-ing our efficiency, enhancing our ability to secure mission data and other cyber

resources against the full array of threats, and significantly improving our capabil-ity to gain operational advantages from data analytics, to include big data analyt-ics,” said Captain Christopher Page, dep-uty director of the Communications and Networks Division.

The modernization campaign empha-sizes building a common computing envi-ronment (CCE) encompassing the afloat CANES infrastructure, and NGEN and data center consolidation ashore. “The CCE will be the Navy’s platform for pro-visioning rationalized, virtualized and modernized data and application services, such as those delivered by DCGS-N, to Navy warfighters and their mission part-ners,” said Page. “Our goal is to optimize the CCE to enable sustained combat oper-ations in forward sea areas under denied, disconnected, intermittent and low band-width conditions.”

“The big problem for a shipboard tac-tical cloud comes when having to interact with clouds ashore,” said Nelson. “There are reliability and connectivity issues

relating to bandwidth. Clouds are used to talking to each other but shipboard clouds will sometimes operate in isolation. The answer will be to send off data at specific times when bandwidth is available.”

Lockheed Martin is working with the Navy to migrate legacy ISR applications to a future cloud environment. “We have found that this requires less data repli-cation and that it is cheaper to operate,” said Nelson.

“The Navy is still trying to understand whether the Navy tactical cloud really works and whether it provides a tacti-cal advantage,” said Dunlap. “I think the answer is yes. Operators need tools that are robust, user friendly, and that allow them to collaborate. The challenge is how to take advantage of the resources you have and get out of a stovepiped world.” O

Sailors work together to assess the security of the computer networks aboard the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Leonard Adams Jr.]


LeaDersHip insiGHT

AimiNg to iNCreAse the survivABility of strike AirCrAft AND WeApoNs systems.

CAptAiN JohN greeN

progrAm mANAger

AirBorNe eleCtroNiC AttACk systems AND eA-6B proWler progrAm offiCe (pmA-234)

Airborne Electronic Attack

Captain John K Green assumed his current position as program manager for the Airborne Electronic Attack Systems and EA-6B Program Office (PMA-234) in November 2009.

A native of Spokane, Wash., Green graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1987 and was designated a Naval Flight Officer in 1989. Operational tours include assignments with EA-6B Prowler squadrons VAQ-134 and VAQ-137, where he completed two combat deployments to the Persian Gulf.

In 1999, Green received orders to the EA-6B Aircraft Program (PMA-234) at the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) as a newly selected aerospace engineering duty officer. While at PMA-234, he managed the aircraft’s wing center section replacement program and numerous EA-6B depot and field modification team projects.

Follow-on assignments at NAVAIR included tours with the Air Combat Electronics Program office (PMA-209), AIR-1.0 (Program Management Competency), the F/A-18 and EA-18G

Aircraft program office (PMA-265), and leadership over the NAVAIR Total Force Management Office (AIR-7.3). His spe-cific roles have included leadership over the ARC-210 Radio program, Advanced Mission Computers and Displays pro-gram, and APG-79 AESA Radar program.

In 2007, Green deployed to Iraq as an Individual Augmentee. He served for nine months as the electronic warfare fielding and engineering officer for the Army’s 316th Expeditionary Sustainment Command (a division level command with 15,000 troops) and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal.

Green has received master’s degrees from the Naval Postgraduate School (Aerospace Engineering) and the U.S. Air Force Air Command and Staff College. His personal awards include the Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal (3), Meritorious Service Medal (3), Navy Commendation Medal (2), and Navy Achievement Medal.


Q: What AEA technologies/solutions does the U.S. Navy currently use?

A: Airborne electronic attack (AEA) is conducted primarily for all of Department of Defense by the EA-18G Growler aircraft, which is replacing the EA-6B Prowler. The Growler is uniquely suited to the AEA mission in that its receiver systems detect and identify threat signals in both the radar and communications radio fre-quency (RF) spectrum. It is this identification that then directs jamming from the ALQ-99 pods against those threats determined by the electronic warfare officer on the Growler. The receiver technologies use very current high sensitivity, full frequency spectrum and computer controlled systems. Since they are com-puter controlled, their software loads can be updated rapidly, as required, to ensure receivers sense the RF signals of interest.

The ALQ-99 pod system in current use was designed 45 years ago and contains a combination of traveling wave tube and solid state technologies. The follow-on system, the next generation jammer, planned for IOC [initial operational capability] in 2020, uses the latest active electronically scanned array, digital and software based technologies. The system will provide much higher power, rapid beam-steering, and a modular open systems archi-tecture that allows for rapid hardware and software upgrades.

Q: How do these systems work?

A: The AEA mission is typically used to increase the survivabil-ity of strike aircraft and weapons systems by delaying or denying an adversary’s ability to detect and counter our systems. Used in combination with tactics and other on-board systems, survivabil-ity is increased significantly. The AEA mission typically focuses against threat early warning systems, typically long-range radars, to delay an adversary’s “kill-chain.”

Q: What platforms are these systems being used on?

A: The radar jamming mission is conducted by the EA-18G Growler and EA-6B Prowler aircraft in support of joint and coali-tion warfare. Communications jamming is conducted by the USAF’s EC-130 Compass Call aircraft, the EA-18G, the EA-6B and a couple of smaller unmanned systems.

Q: What are the challenges in utilizing this type of technology?

A: The major challenge deals with the quick update of tactics and techniques associated with rapidly changing threat scenarios. Additionally, the increasing numbers of radars and variety of com-munications systems also provides challenging responses, since AEA systems are low-density, high-demand assets.

Q: How does the U.S. Navy adapt to evolving threats using AEA?

A: The most significant adaptation focuses on tactics and tech-niques developed by the fleet. Hardware updates usually take a long time, so the basic designs focus on architectural adaptabil-ity, usually using updated software.

Q: How does the U.S. Navy stay up to date with the latest technologies/solutions in the AEA arena?

A: The update cycle includes intelligence gathering, systems test-ing and requirements generation leading to hardware/software updates. The most significant and timely solutions set focuses on the fleet conducting realistic training scenarios, to maximize tac-tical capability and minimize surprises.

Q: Are there plans to implement any other AEA systems in 2014 or beyond?

A: The major focus in radar jamming for the rest of the decade is the design, development and test of the Next Generation Jammer and its delivery to the fleet early in the next decade. For commu-nications jamming, considerable resources are being expended in the design, development and fielding of the Intrepid Tiger II jam-mer for the United States Marine Corps. This jammer is carried on board the AV-8B Harrier II and is also being integrated and tested on the F/A-18C/D Hornet and AH-1Z Viper. Its carriage on these multi-mission aircraft extends the reach of Airborne Electronic Attack in support of the USMC’s Marine Air Ground Task Force.

Q: Is there anything else you would like to say?

A: In addition to traditional jamming systems, PMA-234 has been working closely with the USMC and Naval Air Weapons Center Point Mugu to develop a networked EW capability. This capabil-ity, known as the EW Services Architecture, is a service-based approach to the command and control of EW assets, both jammers and receivers, in the battlespace. Integrated within the Intrepid Tiger II jamming system, this capability is in the early operational capability phase and will continue to be matured and developed. It is envisioned that this capability, or something similar, will even-tually be used to provide a common EW operational picture of the battlefield for our joint forces that can be used for either the auton-omous or manned command and control of EW assets. O



LeaDersHip insiGHT

The ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System is integrated on both the EA-6B and EA-18G aircraft and is designed to provide vital jamming capability against radar and communications targets in the suppression of enemy air defense role. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy]


the

adve

rtise

rs in

dex

is p

rovi

ded

as a

ser

vice

to o

ur re

ader

s. K

mi c

anno

t be

held

resp

onsi

ble

for d

iscr

epan

cies

due

to la

st-m

inut

e ch

ange

s or

alte

ratio

ns.

advErtisErs indEx

Baker College Online .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 www.bakercollegeonline.comBoeing .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C2 www.boeing.comGeneral Dynamics Advanced Information Systems .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . C4 www.gd-ais.com/open-architectureMBDA .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C3 www.mbda-us.com

Compiled by Kmi media Group staffnpeo resourCe CenTer

CalEndarApril 7-9, 2014Navy League Sea-Air-SpaceNational Harbor, Md.www.seaairspace.org

May 28-29, 2014Electric Machines Technology Symposium (EMTS) 2014 Philadelphia, Pa.www.navalengineers.org

NEVER STOP LEARNING

Considering a new degree? Advising your troops on their education options? You need Military Advanced Education’s 2014 Guide to Military-Friendly Colleges & Universities!

Check out the searchable database at www.mae-kmi.com for the details prospective students and commanders are looking for!

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

• CompareandcontrastinstitutionswithalltheinfoMAEusedtoscoreanddesignateourtopschools

March 2014Volume 2, Issue 2

Terry Harrington, account [email protected] • 301-670-5700 x158

next ISSUE

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

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

RCOHperformed on nuclear-powered naval ships, refueling and complex overhaul is the process of replacing expended nuclear fuel and often modernizing the ship.

Cover and In-Depth Interview with:

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

Rear Adm. Joseph A. Horn Jr.Program ExecutiveOfficerPEO Integrated WarfareSystems

Program Spotlight:Airborne Anti-Submarine WarfareThe u.s. navy has multiple ways for aircraft to find, track, and deter, damage or destroy enemy submarines.


Todd Borkey is chief technology offi-cer (CTO) at Thales Defense and Security. He serves as CTO for the U.S. and as vice president of Thales Defense and Security’s System Solutions business area. As CTO, he leads the U.S. product portfolio strat-egy. As vice president of System Solutions, he manages a diverse business line of elec-tronic warfare, sonars, radars, combat management systems, communications, and training and simulation. Borkey holds a Master of Science degree in engineering management from the Stevens Institute of Technology and an undergraduate degree in applied mathematics.

Q: How is Thales Defense & Security organized in the U.S.?

A: Thales Defense and Security is a U.S. proxy company headquartered in Clarksburg, Md., with multiple locations across the U.S. We design, manufacture and sustain products at our Clarksburg campus. We operate seven different busi-ness areas—communications, system solutions, Tampa microwave (SATCOM terminals), e-security (cyber/information assurance), Visionix (helmet mounted dis-plays and motion tracking technology), air traffic management (navigation and sur-veillance) and advanced acoustic concepts (a sonar joint venture).

Our company is part of Thales, the tech-nology-rich world leader in the Defense, Aerospace, Space, Ground Transportation, and Security markets. Our Systems Solutions business area serves as a U.S. gateway for leading Thales technologies. We are delivering innovative Thales system offerings that solve U.S. market needs and are providing performance-based logistics and sustainment to Thales defense tech-nologies operated in the U.S.

With the range and depth of our tech-nologies, we are uniquely positioned to solve the challenges of our Navy custom-ers and meet their critical requirements.

Q: What are some of Thales’ achievements in defense markets?

A: Thales is a global leader in naval ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnais-sance], where we have leading positions in naval radars, sonars and combat man-agement systems. Our sonar technol-ogy is inside U.S. Navy dipping sonars, and our combat management systems are on modern U.S. Navy combatants. Globally, Thales is number one in these markets. The Thales Defense and Security Communications business has fielded almost 300,000 software-defined radios to military forces globally, including Special Operations. Additionally, we are delivering reliable HF communications systems into the U.S. Navy, improving performance, reducing weight, reducing workloads, and, overall, providing more capability in a smaller footprint.

Q: In what naval market areas do you believe Thales Defense & Security will generate growth?

A: I expect Thales Defense & Security to make gains in numerous areas. I believe we can provide the best solutions for U.S. Navy FFG [frigate] modernizations and upgrades. This year, we will bring a new disruptive capability to the air-borne ISR market with a new GMTI/SAR (Ground Moving Target Indicator/ Synthetic Aperture Radar). The new radar, I-Master, brings high performance to a wide range of new platforms while dra-matically lowering cost of ownership. In addition, Thales has developed exciting new electronic warfare systems which are going to sustain the U.S. warfighter advan-tage over the field of operation.

Q: What are some new technologies that Thales Defense & Security will introduce to U.S. defense customers?

A: One of the technologies we are most excited about is our introduction of the new airborne I-Master radar. This new multi-mission airborne radar has the highest performance and smallest foot-print of its kind. The radar is capa-ble of a wide range of functions, which include high resolution SAR, coherent change detection and GMTI, yet can be integrated onto both large and small, manned or unmanned airborne plat-forms. Even more impressive is that the radar can identify threats over water and over land. The I-Master radar has the same form factor as a 15-inch gimbaled sensor and mounts interchangeably. The radar is extraordinary when you compare its performance level with its form fac-tor, mission control flexibility and low logistics footprint.

Our Visionix business line is also introducing new disruptive situational awareness technologies. For example, Visionix’ Scorpion helmet mounted dis-play is the only color display of its kind that is compatible with night vision gog-gles. The system’s performance and price point make it a world leader, and the dis-play technology and the disruptive dis-play technology receives great reviews from everyone who flies it. This helmet mounted technology is universally bene-ficial to fixed wing, helicopter and ground forces alike.

These are just two of the game-chang-ing technologies that we are introducing to the U.S. Defense market. Elsewhere, Thales leads the market segments in which it participates. Our sonars, naval combat mission systems, and naval radars remain unrivaled for performance and economy. We stay close to our custom-ers and bring innovative solutions which target their needs. It is a combination of flexibility and focus in our business approach that ultimately keeps our cus-tomers coming back. O

inDusTry inTervieW navy air/sea peo forum

Todd BorkeyChief Technology Officer

Thales Defense & Security Inc.


Npeo 2 1 final

Documents

Transcript of Npeo 2 1 final