Npeo 2 2 final

Warfare Integrator

Rear Adm.Joseph A. Horn Jr.

Program Executive OfficerPEO Integrated Warfare Systems

Aircraft Communications O RCOH O Littoral Combat ShipAirborne ASW O Navigation Systems

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs

www.NPEO-kmi.com

March 2014Volume 2, Issue 2

Sea-air-Space iSSue

VIEW FROM THE HILL:

SEAPOWER FOR 21 CENTURY

Congressman J. Randy Forbes

peO aircraft carrierS

st

Cover / Q&AFeatures

ReaR admiRal. Joseph a. hoRn JR.

Program Executive OfficerPEO Integrated Warfare Systems

16

5View FRom the hill Congressman J. Randy Forbes stresses the importance of maintaining our country’s aircraft carrier capabilities.

20oVeRhauling aiRcRaFt caRRieRs As the only ship platforms in the U.S. Navy designed to last a half-century in service, America’s nuclear powered aircraft carriers play a unique role not only in fleet inventories but also in national strategic planning.By Scott R. GouRley

23two ships, thRee missionsWhen it comes to theater security cooperation, a powerful destroyer or large amphibious ship is too big for some ports, especially with the U.S. rebalance in the Pacific region, and the littoral combat ship is a key part in that pivot.By edwaRd lundquiSt

25aiRcRaFt communication Navy and Marine aircraft are essential U.S. assets that must always be closely in touch with their ships, commands and other U.S. forces to be effective. By HenRy canaday

March 2014Volume 2, Issue 2naVy aIR/sEa pEO FORuM

Industry InterviewKen eagen Manager Domestic Programs Northrop Grumman Information Systems

28

Departments2 editoR’s peRspectiVe3 undeRway4 people14 main decK27 ResouRce centeR

“Our number one responsibility in PEO IWS is to

develop, deliver, and sustain operationally

dominant combat systems to sailors

and Marines. Everything we do is

targeted to that objective.”

-Rear Admiral Joseph A. Horn Jr.

naVigation in a leaneR, moRe demanding naVy Next to keeping ships afloat, navigation is the most critical duty of vessels, their equipment and crews. In the Navy, accurate navigation may also be necessary for effective combat and weapon accuracy.By HenRy canaday

FoRd class pRogRess Focus on the progress of the pre-commissioned unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN78) as well as a leadership photo spread of PEO Aircraft Carriers.By ReaR admiRal tHomaS mooRe

who’s who pictoRial oF peo aiRcRaFt caRRieRs

aiRboRne anti-submaRine waRFaRe The U.S. Navy has multiple ways for aircraft to find, track, and deter, damage or destroy enemy submarines that are crucial to mission success.

special section:NavigatioN SyStemS

12

11

PEO AIrcrAft cArrIErspRogRam spotlight:

86

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report that said delays in software testing on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could delay delivery of crucial weapons systems capabilities.

“Challenges in development and testing of mission systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in software delivery, limited capability in the software when delivered, and the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions,” said the GAO report.

The Director of Test and Evaluation expected the delivery of these capabilities could be delayed up to 13 months. The first delivery of the F-35 is scheduled for July 2015. However, to continue to fund this program, the report said that DoD will have to increase funds over the next five years.

“To execute the program as planned, the Department of Defense will have to increase funds steeply over the next five years and sustain an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037; for several years, funding requirements will peak at around $15 billion.”

Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, F-35 Program Executive Officer, said in a released statement they are aware of this problem and are taking steps to remedy the issue.

“There were no surprises in this report and all of the items mentioned were well-known to us, the F-35 inter-national partners and our industry team,” said Bogdan. “Software continues to remain our number one technical risk on the program and we have instituted disciplined systems engineering processes to address the complexity of writing, testing and integrating software. We are confident about delivering the F-35’s initial war fighting capability to the U.S. Marine Corps in 2015 and to the U.S. Air Force in 2016. The aircraft’s full war fighting capability is scheduled to be delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2018. There is more risk to that delivery schedule because it is naturally dependent upon the successful delivery of the previous software releases. ”

Bogdan added that this problem is being carefully monitored. “We are working relentlessly to reduce this risk by tracking software development daily and fixing issues as we

find them so the military services and our international partners will receive the F-35’s full war fighting capability.”Rising costs and delays in initial operations capabilities are

creating concern for members of Congress, but when it is all said and done, I believe the F-35 is crucial for the future of air superi-ority. If you have any questions about Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum, please contact me at any time.

The Communication Medium for Navy PEOs

EditorialEditorBrian O’Shea [email protected]

Managing EditorHarrison Donnelly [email protected]

Online Editorial ManagerLaura McNulty [email protected]

Copy EditorSean Carmichael [email protected]

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

art & dEsignArt DirectorJennifer Owers [email protected]

Ads and Materials ManagerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected]

Senior Graphic DesignerScott Morris [email protected]

Graphic Designers Andrea Herrera [email protected] Paquette [email protected]

advErtisingAccount ExecutiveTerry Harrington [email protected]

KMi MEdia groupChief Executive OfficerJack Kerrigan [email protected]

Publisher and Chief Financial OfficerConstance Kerrigan [email protected]

Editor-In-ChiefJeff McKaughan [email protected]

ControllerGigi Castro [email protected]

Trade Show CoordinatorHolly Foster [email protected]

opErations, CirCulation & produCtion

Operations AdministratorBob Lesser [email protected] & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected] Gill [email protected] Woods [email protected] SpecialistRaymer 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 offiCEsKMI Media Group

15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USA

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

Web: www.NPEO-kmi.com

navy air/sEa pEo foruM

Volume 2, Issue 2 • March 2014

EDITOR’s pERspECTIVE

www.GIF-kmi.com

Geospatial Intelligence

Forum

www.BSEP-kmi.com

March 2014Volume 3, Issue 1

www.BSEP-kmi.com

Border Guardian

Michael J. Fisher

ChiefU.S. Border Patrol

Aerostats O CBRN Decon O Responder Comms O DHS NextGen ITNight Vision O Cargo Screening

Border Threat Prevention and CBRNE Response

Border Security & Emergency Preparedness

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

$698.9 Million Contract Modification for Littoral Combat ShipsThe U.S. Navy has issued a Lockheed Martin-led industry team a

$698.9 million contract modification to add funding for construction of two littoral combat ships (LCS)—the seventh and eighth in a 10-ship contract awarded in December 2010.

The contract modification is for construction of Indianapolis (LCS 17) and LCS 19, yet to be named. The first ship on this 2010 contract, the USS Milwaukee (LCS 5), was christened and launched in 2013, and is undergoing trials before delivery to the Navy in 2015. The future USS Detroit (LCS 7) will be christened and launched later this year. Little Rock (LCS 9), Sioux City

(LCS 11) and Wichita (LCS 13) are all in various stages of construction, and Billings (LCS 15) will begin construction this year.

“Our industry team appreciates the U.S. Navy’s confidence in the LCS program as we continue down the learning curve to make these ships more capable and more affordable,” said Joe North, vice president of littoral ship systems at Lockheed Martin’s Mission Systems and Training business. “We’ll continue to build best-in-class, cost-effective ships for the Navy, supporting its need to defeat littoral threats and provide maritime access in critical waterways.”

$250 Million Contract for U.S. Navy’s Air and Missile Defense Radar Program

General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems was awarded a contract from Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in January 2014 to support the engineering and manufacturing development of the U.S. Navy’s next-generation integrated Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). Under the contract, General Dynamics will support Raytheon as they build, integrate and test an open, highly scalable and energy efficient advanced radar system to detect ballistic missiles and air and surface targets. The contract has a potential value of $250.1 million over 10 years if all options are exercised.

“By building on our proven open architecture design philosophy and business model, General Dynamics will continue to provide solutions that are flexible, more capable and have low life cycle costs,” said Mike Tweed-Kent, vice president and general manager of General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems Mission Integration Systems division.

AMDR is the Navy’s next-generation integrated air and missile defense radar and is being designed for Flight III Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) destroyers begin-ning in 2016. AMDR consists of an S-band radar, an X-band radar and a radar suite controller (RSC). AMDR-S is a new development integrated air and missile defense radar designed for long-range detection and engagement of advanced threats. The X-band radar is an existing horizon-search radar. The RSC provides S- and X-band radar resource management, coordination and interface to the Aegis combat system. Raytheon was awarded the AMDR contract in October 2013.

As a major subcontractor, General Dynamics will continue its work with Raytheon, which started with concept development, to build, integrate and test the AMDR-S Digital Receivers/Exciters and Digital Beam Forming subsystems for integration into the AMDR engineering development model radar. General Dynamics’ modular and scalable design builds on 10 years of research and development in advanced, open architecture radar technology performed in partnership with the Navy.

“With our years of open architecture and radar technology experience, we are well-positioned to support Raytheon’s delivery of the most modular, scalable and capable radar to the Navy to better protect its fleet,” said Carlo Zaffanella, vice president and general manager of the Integrated Platform Integration line of business for the Mission Integration Systems division at General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems.

The majority of work under this contract will be performed in Fairfax, Va.; San Diego, Calif.; Bloomington, Minn.; Scottsdale, Ariz.; and Kauai, Hawaii.

Navy Elevator Support Unit Contract

Huntington Ingalls Industries recently announced that its AMSEC LLC subsidiary has been awarded a contract to provide maintenance, training and planning support for U.S. Navy aircraft carriers.

The contract contains a one-year base period with four one-year option periods which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of the contract to about $135 million.

“AMSEC continues to respond to our customer’s needs and enhance our services to meet the Navy’s requirements,” said Harris Leonard, HII vice president and president of AMSEC operations. “We look forward to building on our record of superior service to the Naval Sea Systems Command and the naval fleet they support.”

AMSEC will furnish engineering services, mainte-nance and operator training as well as technical and repair services in support of maintenance and planning for the overhaul, modernization and repair of shipboard elevators, cargo-handling equipment and associated systems installed within U.S. Navy aircraft carriers.

“We are pleased to continue supporting the Navy with this very important work,” said Brad Mason, director of the maintenance, modernization and tech-nical services operation. “The Elevator Support Unit (ESU) has been one of AMSEC’s core contracts for years and we look forward to continuing our work with the Navy in the vital areas of maintenance, training, altera-tions and installation.”

The work will be performed onboard U.S. naval aircraft carriers in Norfolk, Va.; San Diego, Calif.; Bremerton and Everett, Wash.; Japan; and other fleet concentration areas to be determined. If all options are awarded, the work is expected to be completed by December 2018. The Norfolk Ship Support Activity (NSSA) is the contracting activity.

www.NPEO-kmi.com NPEO 2.2 | 3

compiled by Kmi media Group staffunDERWay

Rear Admiral Michael M. Gilday will be assigned as director, operations, J-3, U.S. Cyber Command, Fort George G. Meade, Md. Gilday is currently serving as commander, Carrier Strike Group Eight, Norfolk, Va.

Rear Admiral Babette Bolivar will be assigned as commander, U.S. Pacific Command Representative, Guam. Bolivar is currently serving as commander, Navy Region Northwest, Silverdale, Wash.

Rear Admiral Brett C. Heimbigner will be assigned as director, Intelligence Division, North Atlantic Treaty Organization International Military Staff, Brussels, Belgium. Heimbigner is currently serving as deputy

director, National Clandestine Service for Community HUMINT, Washington, D.C.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Dee L. Mewbourne will be assigned as commander, Carrier Strike Group 11,

Everett, Wash. Mewbourne is currently serving as commander, Naval Service Training Command, Great Lakes, Ill.

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

compiled by Kmi media Group staffpEOpLE

Rear Adm. Michael M. Gilday

Rear Adm. Dee L. Mewbourne

Rear Adm. Brett C. Heimbigner

Rear Adm. Babette Bolivar

Program Office TrainingScience Applications International Corp. was awarded a potentially

estimated $35,265,817 multiple-award contract to support Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific’s Training Development and Support Center to provide training for a range of program offices. This is one of four contracts awarded. Each awardee will have the opportunity to compete for task orders during the ordering period. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and work is expected to be completed March 4, 2017. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; other procurement, Navy and research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $50,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Helicopter and Engine Repairs

General Electric was awarded a $79,737,730 contract for the repair of 20 T-64 engine (CH-53D/E and MH-53E helicopters) components, along with manufacturing, engineering and technical support to the Fleet Readiness Center East, Cherry Point, N.C., with a goal of improving monthly output. Work will be performed in Cherry Point and Lynn, Mass. and is expected to be completed by September 30, 2015. No funds will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire before the end of the current fiscal year. Fiscal 2014 and 2015 Navy working capital funds will be used on the delivery orders as they are issued.

Automated Test Systems Contract Awarded

The U.S. Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a contract for new auto-mated test systems to increase aircraft mission readiness.

The $103 million award authorizes two low rate initial production options for the first 36 electronic Consolidated Automated Support System (eCASS) stations and associated support equipment. Sailors and Marines will use eCASS to troubleshoot and repair aircraft assemblies at sea or ashore, allowing them to return equipment to readiness status quickly and efficiently.

“ECASS will be the workhorse for avionics repair across the Naval Aviation Enterprise,” said Chris Giggey, deputy program manager for Automatic Test Systems, of the U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command’s Aviation Support Equipment Program Office (PMA-260). “This system provides us with capabilities critical to support of naval aircraft and gives us the ability to launch combat-ready aircraft from carriers anytime and anywhere in support of the nation.”

ECASS will replace the current CASS test equipment originally fielded in the early 1990s. CASS is the Navy’s standard automatic test equipment family supporting electronics on naval aircraft.

“ECASS runs 20 percent faster, is even more reliable, and is highly compatible with legacy CASS stations,” said Randy Core, director of enterprise test solutions at Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training. “This speed and reliability will ultimately help the Navy increase aircraft availability.”

The first eCASS station will be delivered in November 2014. ECASS will support all the aircraft in the Navy’s fleet and is extendable to new weapons systems, including the F-35 Lightning II.

www.NPEO-kmi.com4 | NPEO 2.2

VIEW FROM THE HILL

American commitments to global security and a rules-based order are in doubt. Spending cuts are eroding force structure and research programs indiscriminately, irrespective of how these pro-grams affect future capabilities. American seapower, the most critical guarantor of our security commitments in the predominantly-mari-time Asia-Pacific, received these cuts after a decade of neglect as our nation focused on two land wars. If the U.S. is to revitalize capabili-ties necessary to secure our interests in the decades ahead, we must lock in major trends in shipbuilding, naval aviation, and research and development (R&D) efforts that will comprise American seapower in the 2020s and beyond.

The challenges confronting our Navy are growing. The East and South China Seas feature contentious maritime disputes that risk inter-state war. Iran threatens energy supplies traversing the Strait of Hormuz. Ninety percent of global trade by volume travels by sea; the global economy depends on freedom of navigation and security from piracy or terrorism. Thirty percent of global oil production comes from offshore sources, and new renewables attempt to harness the power of the sea. American seapower manages these and other chal-lenges on a daily basis. The Navy-Marine Corps team is a versatile force scalable for a range of military, diplomatic or humanitarian mis-sions in either peace or war. Without them, much of U.S. foreign pol-icy becomes untenable.

Yet, at current resourcing, American seapower will fail to protect the international order it now safeguards. The Reagan administra-tion’s naval expansion was so comprehensive that it enabled the ser-vice to thrive for three decades. We deluded ourselves into viewing sea control as an American right, a natural condition of the interna-tional system that we could take for granted. We are now failing to adequately invest for the future.

The size of the fleet is plummeting as aging vessels retire faster than they are replaced. The Navy has atrophied from 568 ships in 1987 to just 283, and fleet size could decline to an alarming 270 ships by year’s end. The Navy has argued it needs 306 ships at minimum to secure American interests, while an independent, bipartisan panel put the requisite number at 346. As fleet size shrinks, the Navy is losing its ability to meet the needs of our combatant commanders. The percent-age of asset requests from combatant commanders fulfilled by the Navy has dropped from 90 percent in fiscal year 2007 to a projected 42 percent in fiscal year 2014. Our capacity to meet needs is decreas-ing even as threats to our interests adapt and multiply.

Critics of investments in seapower point to the qualitative edge our Navy currently enjoys in comparison with potential challengers as justification for avoiding these investments. This thinking erodes margins between merely accomplishing objectives and achieving

them with a minimum of risk to our serving personnel. In some capa-bilities, these margins are already perilously thin.

This means that the “fair-share” approach of relatively equal ser-vice budgets must end; budgets must instead be allotted based on stra-tegic necessity. The past decade has been characterized by prolonged counterinsurgencies in the Middle East and South Asia that exerted tremendous strains on our Army and Marine Corps, which received significant budget increases commensurate with the missions assigned to them. The shifting security dynamics in the Asia-Pacific necessitate a re-emphasis on our maritime forces. Filling the gap between the current fleet and the one determined necessary for Asia-Pacific stability does not require a large shift in Defense Department resources, according to Ron O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Service, but instead just 1.1 to 1.5 percent more of the department’s current average annual budget.

There are four main areas that must be prioritized for effective 21st-century seapower. First, we must extend the range and capabili-ties of the carrier air wing (CVW). Advances in anti-access/area denial and precision-strike weapons will force carriers, the centerpieces of American power projection, to either operate from farther afield or at greater risk. Extended CVW range and survivability will help maintain our ability to strike at the time and place of our choosing. Second, we must sustain our undersea warfare advantage as submarines offer the surest deterrent against maritime aggression in the Asia-Pacific lit-toral. Third, surface warfare capabilities need to be rejuvenated. The ability to deny enemy ships freedom of movement remains central to naval surface competition, and adversaries have gained a lead in anti-ship missile technologies that must be closed. Investing in better anti-ship weapons is critical to remedying this shortfall. Finally, funding for naval R&D must be protected. Slashing future innovation has been a tempting proposition in today’s fiscal environment, yet translates directly into less competitive future forces. O

This year will be pivotal for the Navy. We must make tough deci-sions regarding where to place scarce fiscal year 2015 budgetary resources. It is my firm belief that investments in robust American seapower offer the greatest returns in the decades ahead.

Representative Forbes (R-Va.) is chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommit-tee. He recently finished co-leading a bipartisan Asia-Pacific Oversight Series for the House Armed Services Committee.

Seapower for the 21st CenturyBy Rep. J. Randy FoRBes

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.


pROgRaM spOTLIgHT

Air Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Systems Program Office (PMA-264) supports the Navy with ASW systems and sensors that sus-tain America’s global operational readiness.

Currently the P-3C Orion, P-8A Poseidon and H-60 Seahawk aircraft are actively using air ASW systems and sensors on opera-tional deployments, as well as humanitarian and search and rescue missions.

PMA-264 plays a critical role in developing, acquiring and sus-taining airborne ASW systems and sensor requirements for the fleet and for Program Executive Officer for Air Anti-Submarine Warfare, Assault and Special Mission Programs (PEO(A)): Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft (PMA-290); H-60 Multi-Mission Helicopter (PMA-299). PMA-264 is also supporting the development of potential ASW capability packages for Program Executive Officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons (PEO(U&W)) program offices Persistent Maritime Unmanned Aircraft Systems (PMA-262); and Navy and Marine Corps Tactical Multi-Mission Unmanned Air Systems (PMA-266).

Air ASW systems and sensor products within the PMA-264 portfo-lio are vital to the warfighter in securing the battlespace from under-sea threats by swiftly dissuading submarine adversaries from fulfilling their mission. The program office procures air deployed, electro-mechanical acoustic sensors, which are designed to relay underwa-ter signals associated with ships and submarines to remote sensors. Current systems and sensor products include sonobuoys, multi-static

active coherent and high altitude ASW systems, and airborne ASW intelligence. These products provide the capability to detect, localize, and to track naval vessels. They also provide limited battle damage assessment of subsurface targets.

In the ASW role, maritime multi-mission aircraft (MMA), ships, and other platforms provide maritime superiority against subma-rines. The various platforms gather and provide tactical data on the subsurface targets and information to other assets through the use of on-board, off-board and deployable systems. The MMA, such as the P-3C and P-8A, make available an intelligence preparation of the bat-tlespace subsurface plot in order to enhance theater access by provid-ing the expeditionary strike group commander with planning options.

Today’s open architecture systems are technologically agile, which allows modern sensors, a robust communications suite, ASW and anti-surface (ASuW) weapons, and acoustic/non-acoustic sensors to be readily integrated on the maritime aircraft.

With the number of submarines in the world rapidly increasing and other countries either building or purchasing advanced, quiet, and extremely hard to find submarines, there is a requirement to fur-ther develop the ASW technology to detect them. The systems and platforms managed under PEO(A) and PEO(U&W) will provide the U.S. Navy with invaluable capabilities today and for decades to come.

platFoRms suppoRting the navy’s aiR asW mission

The P-3C Orion is a land-based, long-range, anti-submarine war-fare (ASW) patrol aircraft. Its long range and long on-station loiter time have proved invaluable capabilities throughout the overseas con-tingency operation. The aging P-3 has performed ASW missions since the early 1960s. It is equipped with advanced submarine detection sensors and magnetic anomaly detection equipment and can carry a mixed payload of weapons internally and on wing pylons. Today’s variant of the P-3C includes enhancements in sensors, communica-tions, displays and controls, survivability and vulnerability, and weap-ons capability.

The P-8A Poseidon is replacing the aging P-3C. Like its predeces-sor, the P-8A is a long range ASW, ASuW, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft capable of broad-area, maritime and lit-toral operations. The P-8 is currently conducting ASW missions on its maiden operational deployment to the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet area of responsibility.

The MH-60 Seahawk is the U.S. Navy’s next generation helicop-ter consisting of the MH-60R and the MH-60S. The primary mis-sions of the MH-60R are ASW, ASuW, surveillance, communications relay, combat search and rescue, naval gunfire support and logistics support. The primary missions of the MH-60S Seahawk are ASW,

Air Anti-Submarine WarfaresecuRing the Battlespace FRom undeRsea thReats.By latoya gRaddy

an aviation ordnanceman airman, foreground, and an aviation ordnanceman load sonobouys in launch tubes underneath a P-3C orion, assigned to the “tridents” of Patrol Squadron two Six (vP-26). vP-26 currently has two crews deployed to Naval air Station Jacksonville, Fla., participating in Joint task Force exercise. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by Photographer’s mate 2nd Class Johnathan Roark]


pROgRaM spOTLIgHT

combat support, humanitarian disaster relief, combat search and res-cue, aero medical evacuation, SPECWAR and organic airborne mine countermeasures.

aiR asW sensoRs and systems

Sonobuoys are air launched expendable, electro-mechanical sensors designed to relay underwater sounds associated with ships and submarines to remote processors. The following sonobuoys are procured by PMA-264 to support annual training, operations and testing expenditures: SSQ-36 Bathythermograph, SSQ-53 Passive Directional Frequency Analyze and Record, SSQ-62 Directional Command Active Sonobuoy System, SSQ-101 Air Deployed Active Receiver (ADAR), SSQ-110 Multi-static Non-Coherent Source, and SSQ-125 Multi-Static Active Coherent Source under development.

Multi-Static Active Coherent (MAC) is the third generation of multi-static active acoustic search systems to be developed under the multi-statics family of systems. MAC brings coherent acoustic source technology (SSQ-125) and improved signal processing to the air multi-static active ASW mission set. The coherent pulses (or series of pulses) provide waveform flexibility including Doppler-speed sen-sitive and frequency modulated-clutter suppressing capabilities. The MAC program will also provide updated tactical and mission software on the P-3C, an updated Mission Planning Tool, an updated Ground Replay System, updated TacMobile products, and an updated Tactical Operational Readiness Trainer. MAC will also be integrated on the P-8A beginning with an early operational capability prior to P-8A Increment 2, which is the next developmental phase of the program. Increment 2 is the planned incremental update to the P-8A scheduled to be fielded in 2016. MAC will be completed in two phases: Phase 1 will provide harsh shallow water capability and Phase 2 will provide deep water capability.

High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare (HAASW) integrates mod-ified sonobuoy sensors to enhance the P-8A capability to conduct its mission at higher than traditional fixed-wing airborne ASW altitudes.

These higher altitudes will enable greater communications range with large area buoy fields and greater coverage from other onboard non-acoustic sensors. The HAASW capability for P-8A will be inte-grated as part of the Increment 2 upgrade to the baseline aircraft. This capability will include the following technologies: receive, process, and store in-buoy GPS data received from AN/SSQ-53, AN/SSQ-62, and AN/SSQ -101B sonobuoys; integrate the GPS drop vector algo-rithm to enhance buoy splash point prediction and accuracy in real time; and receive, command and process the AN/SSQ-101B buoy with the digital uplink/downlink format for Radio Frequency Interference mitigation and increased bandwidth, while retaining legacy uplink/downlink capability.

Airborne ASW Intelligence (AAI) exists to support fleet ASW intel-ligence collection efforts and to conduct quick turnaround of threat unit analysis for tactical exploitation. AAI enables rapid development and insertion of advanced technology capabilities into airborne ASW platforms. This is accomplished through a standards-based archi-tecture with the objective of using intelligence products to support research and development of advanced ASW weapons systems, refin-ing tactical decision aids, updating models and simulation databases, and data collection for national science and technology assessments.

As Naval Aviation looks to the future, PMA-264 will continue to develop and produce ASW sensors and systems to address future ASW threats. The future of ASW will also include unmanned vehicles/sys-tems and will continue to build on the platforms already using the ASW sensors and systems. As new platforms are introduced, ASW sys-tems will be incorporated as requirements and affordability dictate. O

LaToya Graddy is the public affairs officer for the Naval Air Systems Command’s Air Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Systems Program Office (PMA-264)

mH-60 Sea Hawks assigned to the “Black Knights” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 4 prepare to deliver cargo to the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CvN 76) during a vertical replenishment. Ronald Reagan is underway conducting tailored ship’s training availability. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by mass Communication Specialist Seaman Jonathan Nelson]

Naval aviators assigned to Patrol Squadron (vP) 16, pilot a P-8a Poseidon during a mission to assist in search and rescue operations for malaysia airlines flight mH370. vP-16 is deployed in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility supporting security and stability in the indo-asia-Pacific region. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class eric a. Pastor]




Special Section: navigation systems

Next to keeping ships afloat, naviga-tion is the most critical duty of vessels, their equipment and crews. In the Navy, accurate navigation may also be necessary for effec-tive combat and weapon accuracy.

GPS has given a huge boost to naval navigation, as it has to virtually all forms of location finding. But GPS references may be lost due to malicious or accidental causes, and the Navy must still navigate precisely.

Navigation equipment is petty cash com-pared to ship and crew costs, but even petty cash counts in today’s budget environment. Fortunately, navigation electronics enjoy the

steady gains in performance and economy prevalent in electronic markets. To exploit those gains in the future, Navy navigation systems must be open to change, not locked in to old technology.

Where is Navy navigation going? One way to answer that is to look at navigation on the new littoral combat ship (LCS). “The biggest challenges we worked through was coming up with a new concept for mini-mum manning, with fewer operators on the bridge,” said Joe DePietro, deputy pro-gram manager for LCS Integrated Combat Systems.

Early LCS hulls integrated the next generation of Electronic Chart Display and Information System–Navy (ECDIS-N) for paperless charting. Going through certifi-cation of this tool was also a major effort, requiring coordination with multiple enti-ties, including Naval Sea Systems Command and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command.

In addition to keeping the ship safe and on course, the navigation system also pro-vides input to onboard weapon systems. Navigation data is distributed through the LCS using both network and direct

KnoWing WheRe you aRe and WheRe you Want to go.By henRy canaday, npeo coRRespondent

8 | NPEO 2.2 www.NPEO-kmi.com

www.NPEO-kmi.com

connections, allowing information to be dis-seminated to the combat system for compu-tation of fire-control solutions.

The LCS uses ECDIS, while some allied navies have moved to Warship ECDIS. These navies are “probably less risk-averse and out in front a little,” DePietro acknowledged. The LCS program will “look for opportuni-ties to evolve” toward more advanced paper-less charting.

In many ways, LCS navigation is simi-lar to that of older Navy ships, except it is so centralized on the bridge. “Wind, depth, ship control, everything is in one location and all at their fingertips,” DePietro noted. “In my previous duties with destroyers all this infor-mation was spread out across the bridge.” A destroyer or cruiser typically had six to eight people on the bridge. The LCS puts two peo-ple on the bridge for similar functions.

And LCS-integrated navigation is much more open architecture than earlier Navy navigation. Previously, hardware and soft-ware were tightly linked. LCS software per-mits more hardware flexibility. The program works closely with industry to keep up with new technologies and deal proactively with obsolescence issues.

Flexibility is also important because the navigation system has several major com-ponents, including speed log, positioning, Automatic Identification System, ECDIS charting and internal gyro. Lockheed Martin integrated navigation on the Freedom-variant mono-hull LCS, while General Dynamics Information Systems handled integration on the Independence variant trimaran.

The problem of denied access to GPS positioning data is a Navy-wide challenge. “All Navy ships will have to deal with this,” said Captain J.M. Iacovetta, major program manager of the LCS Integrated Combat System. Some worry that errors in posi-tion data could make some Navy weapon systems less reliable. This may be true for some systems, but for LCS defensive sys-tems, positioning provided by the navigation system “should be more than sufficient,” said Iacovetta. “The LCS Navigation Systems sup-port putting weapons we fire on target.”

Four LCSs have been delivered to the Navy and two more have been launched. Development and fielding of the LCS’s Voyage Management System, relying on ECDIS, has already helped to deploy the VMS to Navy destroyers and cruisers. DePietro said he has

no regrets about how LCS achieved minimal manning. “There was no way we could have done that better.”

Industry has a big stake in Navy navi-gation choices. For example, L-3 Marine & Power Systems provides everything from point navigation solutions to complete ship-management systems, bridge, navigation, command, control, and machinery and pro-pulsion systems. “We do navigation data-distribution systems on the CVN-68 Class carriers, new LHAs [Landing Helicopter Assault] and on the old LSDs [Landing Ship Dock],” explained Al Taylor, director of busi-ness development for L-3 Maritime Systems. L-3 Maritime Systems spe-cializes in navigation integra-tion, distributing sensor data to turn it into useful navi-gation information for both ship operations and weapon systems.

Taylor sees the Navy fac-ing two sorts of navigation challenges. The first is techni-cal and arises from the heavy use of GPS for current navi-gation. “The problem is that submarines can’t use GPS when submerged and it is easy to jam on surface ships.” How easy? Taylor notes a truck driver recently attempted to jam Newark Airport’s GPS with a $100 GPS jammer.

And there are some areas where GPS nav-igation is intrinsically tough. For example, the fjords in Sweden and Norway and limited access to GPS near the poles can make GPS fixes difficult.

Taylor said the Navy is looking for alter-natives to GPS, like using the bottom con-tours of the sea to find positions, which would require excellent maps; gravity deflec-tion; and automatic celestial navigation, which would have difficulty in clouds. He expects the ultimate solution will involve a mix of technologies. “It will probably be a combination of sensors and data processing.”

Taylor argued the other navigation chal-lenge is affordability. In the past, the Navy has sought commonality in navigation systems and this has driven the service toward high-end and expensive systems on all ships. “We think what is going to happen is a push toward more modular systems, tak-ing more of the processing away from the sensors. L-3 Maritime Systems is looking at how to realign designs to

make them more flexible and put affordable navigation on small ships and higher-end navigation on complex ships.”

Taylor thinks naval navigation systems will evolve with a more open architecture

KnoWing WheRe you aRe and WheRe you Want to go.

Littoral combat ship USS Freedom’s visit, board, search and seizure team en route to conduct a boarding exercise in the South China Sea as part of the Southeast asia Cooperation and training exercise last fall. in December, Freedom successfully concluded a nine-month assignment, forward-operating from Singapore. this assignment represented the first Pacific deployment for a littoral combat ship and the proof-of-concept deployment for the ship class. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy]

al taylor


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.

configuration, so that they can readily adapt to new operating systems and hardware, which changes frequently. L-3 has been working in that direction.

The Navy is also starting to move from its ECDIS charts to the international warship ECDIS. L-3 is prepared for that shift as well. Distinctively, L-3 is open to using products from other firms, including competitors, while major navigation firms tend to offer only in-house product suites. “We see that as a discriminator,” Taylor noted.

Inertial navigation systems (INSs) are crucial to weapon accuracy, whether accu-racy is measured in circular error probable or window of opportunity, said Mark Bock, director of integrated shipboard systems at Boeing. “You must have an accurate state-ment of the ship position, absolutely syn-chronized,” Bock said. “It’s relatively easy to navigate the ship. But it’s hard to navigate for the weapons.”

Ship navigation can be done by bathym-etry to avoid grounding, radar to avoid other ships and standard methods of navigation that account for currents and figure speed and direction. “They are always getting bet-ter at ship navigation,” the Boeing exec said.

Navigation for weapon accuracy applies to combat ships, ones that fire weapons like missiles. Boeing has been working on this accuracy problem for 50 years for strategic missile submarines. “We have a long history of internal navigation systems,” Bock noted.

Bock said the Navy is now struggling with anti-access area-denial (A2AD), or the denial of effective GPS positioning to ships. “Denial could be by enemy action, because GPS degrades or due to atmospherics,” he explained.

This denial matters because, with a bad or missing GPS position, the INS might not yield an accurate current position. Naval nav-igation works by taking positions periodically from GPS and then calculating current posi-tion by having the INS figure direction and distance moved. “If you get a bad initial posi-tion from GPS or land navigation point, you cannot get a good update,” Bock stressed. “You must start out with a good fixed posi-tion and ensure you can update it over time.”

One way to attempt compensating for A2AD is having the INS remove any errors. Bock said there are three basic ways to han-dle the problem. First, make GPS or other fixed position software more robust. Second,

make INS better at taking errors out. Third, establish alternative fixed sources of position, such as gravitational fields or global light-ning strikes. Boeing works in all three of these areas, but is most involved on improv-ing INS.

There is a fourth way of compensating for A2AD, but not necessarily a good one. If the navigation system is not precise, the weapon itself becomes more responsible for finding and seeking targets. More cost and more equip-ment thus go into the weapon. Bock calls this a “system-to-system problem,” and said it is better to keep weapons sim-pler with better navigation.

Apart from submarines and A2AD, another area where INS may become more criti-cal is underwater unmanned vehicles (UUVs). UUVs cannot rely on GPS as much, because the whole point of a UUV is to keep it under-water as much as possible.

Bock said A2AD is a fleet-wide problem for the Navy and potentially for the other ser-vices that also need accurate positioning for weapons as well.

For strategic submarines since the early 1990s, Boeing has supplied the electrostati-cally supported gyro navigator (ESGN) for the INS. Bock said this is “the most accu-rate INS in the world, no one would con-test that.” The ESGN uses a spinning metal ball levitated in a vacuum as the basic sen-sor to track each sub’s position. Also since the early 1990s, the surface Navy has used a ring laser gyro, the WSN-7 made by Northrop Grumman.

Boeing has now developed a new INS, the fiber optic gyro (FOG), and has won a con-tract to put this on submarines. “The ques-tion is what surface ships will do,” Bock said.

Navy PEO Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) has put out a request for informa-tion on a new INS and Boeing is waiting for a request for proposal. “They are working very hard to get it out,” Bock said. “We believe the specs will call for FOG.”

Once PEO IWS makes the INS decision, most of the surface Navy should go along with it. Bock said small ships that do not need precise positions for their weapon may still go to commercial off-the-shelf solutions like the less accurate inertial measurement units.

For the rest, “we believe FOG is the best, most accurate and the way forward,” Bock said. He argued retrofitting ships is not that expensive since, as elsewhere in electron-ics, “technology gets cheaper as it gets bet-ter.” Old software can still be used, and the new INS would fit in the same cabinet as the old one.

Naval navigation performs essential but more humble jobs than firing nuclear mis-siles. Virtually all major sur-face combat ships, including all aircraft carriers, have one or several Furuno radars for safe or get-home navigation, noted Sales Manager Matt Wood. “Military radars see things dozens or hundreds of miles away, but cannot safely navigate ships in harbor. This

is where Furuno comes in.”Furuno’s NavNet multi-function display

equipment is also on most of the Navy’s special warfare fleet, including the Mark V Special Operations Craft and its replace-ment, the Combatant Craft Medium. Special Operations Craft-Riverine, the Mark VI and Riverine Command Boat also use Furuno NavNet. Furuno has been down-selected for radar in the Service Life Extension Program of the Landing Craft Air Cushion hover craft and selected for the new Ship-Shore Connector.

In 2013, Furuno introduced NavNet TZtouch, a touch-screen multi-function device. Wood said the company, spurred by gains in consumer electronics, will launch more innovations in 2015.

Furuno is already seeing a trend to min-iaturization, shrinking navigation data to tablets or handheld devices. Wood said wear-able devices, such as helmets and glasses, are coming in 10 years or less.

Another goal of electronics is remote maintenance, in which remote testing of devices assesses their health and pre-dis-patches spare parts to make repairs faster. This too will be part of Furuno offers in the next one to three years. O

Matt Wood

Special Section: navigation systems


PCU Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the first ship of the Gerald R. Ford class, was chris-tened this past November at Huntington Ingalls Industries Shipbuilding in Newport News, Va. To date, the design is 99 percent complete, 95

percent of the material has been procured, 72.2 percent of the construction has been completed, 6.57 million feet (of 9 million feet) of cable has been installed, and the ship is in the water. When CVN 78 is officially delivered to the fleet in 2016, she will carry out her mission with greater lethality, survivability, joint interoperability, and at a reduced operating and maintenance cost to taxpayers than her predecessors of the Nimitz-class carriers.

While recent concerns of cost overruns on the first ship of the class have brought increased scrutiny, it is important to remember why the Navy chose to design and build a class of ship that will have a lifes-pan of 94 years and remain in ser-vice until 2110. The Ford class will deliver increased capability—at sig-nificantly reduced operating costs—and will remain at the forefront of a long-standing approach to countering threats and providing U.S. military presence in support of a wide variety of security objectives.

CVN 78 is a total redesign of the Nimitz class. The Ford class brings a 33 percent increase in sortie generation rate; a completely redesigned flight deck that uses a NASCAR-like concept to recover, rearm and refuel high-end aircraft capable of high sortie rates; a completely redesigned, more efficient and more powerful nuclear-propulsion system, greatly reduc-ing the requirement for steam, hydraulic and pneumatic pip-ing systems, along with the manpower necessary to maintain

them; a multifunction radar suite that will detect and engage the most advanced threats; and revolutionary launch and recovery systems that contribute to more efficient flight oper-ations while reducing total operating costs and stress on the aircraft. Together, these efforts will reduce manning by more than 600 billets, improve operational availability and capabil-ity, and reduce total ownership cost over its 50-year service life by $4 billion compared with Nimitz class carriers.

The Navy and the contractor have learned a great deal during the design and development of this new class of carriers. Engineering and cost saving analyses are being conducted daily, and these lessons learned are being imple-mented to reduce the costs of delivering the Ford, as well

as the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79). It will take less man hours to build CVN-79 than the last Nimitz class carrier, CVN 77, and the ship will be at least $1 billion dollars less than CVN 78. This learning process has developed an affordable and sustainable path forward for the remainder of the class. O

neW FoRd class Will incRease capaBility While Reducing opeRating costs.

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.

ReaR admiRal thomas mooRe

pRogRam executive oFFiceR

peo aiRcRaFt caRRieRs

the aircraft carrier Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CvN 78) is moved to Pier 3 at Newport News Shipbuilding. [Photo courtesy of Huntington ingalls industries/by Chris oxley]

Program executive officer aircraft carriers


Program executive officer aircraft carriers

Eric rybergPMs 379 Deputy

Program Manager

capt. Doug OglesbyPMs 379 Program

Manager

Ye-Ling WangPMs 378 Deputy

Program Manager

capt. chris MeyerPMs 378 Program

Manager

Jim PapageorgePMs 312 Deputy

Program Manager

Brad toncraycareer Planning Activity Deputy

Program Manager

capt. John MarkowiczPMs 312 Program

Manager

rear Adm. thomas Moore

Program Executive Officer

2014

Giao PhanExecutive Director

Lee Bowersoxtotal Ownership cost Manager

Eric Pittchief technology

Officer

Jo Minorchief financial

Officer

Nickita DavisActivity chief

Information Officer

Mike McEleneyDirector of

congressional/ Public Affairs

Maurice WardDirector of corporate

Operations

Howard Kirsnerchief of staff

Keel Laid for Future USNS Trenton ( JHSV 5)A ceremony celebrating the laying and authentication of the keel of

the future joint high speed vessel ( JHSV) USNS Trenton ( JHSV 5) was recently held at the Austal USA shipyard.

The keel was authenticated by the ship’s sponsor, Virginia Kamsky, who confirmed that it was truly and fairly laid. Although the laying of the keel has historically signified the start of ship fabrication, modern technologies make it possible for the shipbuilding process to commence months before the keel has been laid.

“I want to thank our shipbuilders who are working so hard, from each keel laying to each delivery, to ensure the Navy receives the strongest, most flexible and capable ships possible,” said Captain Henry Stevens, Strategic and Theater Sealift program manager, Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships. “Trenton’s keel laying marks the first significant milestone

in her journey to delivery and eventual support of a variety of missions around the world.”

JHSV 5 benefits from program maturity, building on the lessons learned from the earlier ships in the class. The ship leverages commercial design and technologies to ensure design stability and lower development costs.

Upon completion, USNS Trenton will be used for the rapid transport of troops, equipment and supplies over operational distances, in support of a variety of missions including maneuver and sustainment, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. JHSV 5 is capable of transporting 600 short tons of military cargo 1,200 nautical miles at an average speed of 35 knots.

The JHSV is capable of interface with roll-on/roll-off discharge facilities, features an off-load ramp and a flight deck, and has a shallow draft of less than 15 feet. Its speed and ability to access austere port environments, as well as the size and versatility of its cargo capabilities, makes the JHSV an extremely flexible asset for support of a wide range of operations.

The fourth ship to be named after New Jersey’s capital city, JHSV 5 honors the values and the men and women of the city as well as the state of New Jersey. USNS Trenton will be owned and operated by Military Sealift Command (MSC), operating within MSC’s Sealift program. It will be manned by a crew of 22 civil service mariners with military mission personnel embarking as required.

As one of the Department of Defense’s largest acquisition organi-zations, PEO Ships is responsible for executing the development and procurement of all destroyers, amphibious ships, special mission and support ships and special warfare craft. Delivering high-quality war fighting assets—while balancing affordability and capability—is key to supporting the Navy’s Maritime Strategy.

U.S. Navy Accepts MUOS Ground Stations The U.S. Navy has accepted three General

Dynamics C4 Systems-built ground stations for the mobile user objective system (MUOS). General Dynamics C4 Systems led the develop-ment and delivery of the ground systems and MUOS communications waveform; Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the entire MUOS system. Navy personnel will now operate the stations.

The MUOS ground stations are located in Hawaii, Virginia and Australia. They act like cell phone switches, receiving radio calls relayed through MUOS satellites from servicemem-bers around the globe and connecting them to ground-based Department of Defense commu-nication networks in just seconds. The ground stations also assist in the overall management and operation of the orbiting MUOS satellites.

MUOS radio calls, like those recently demonstrated in the Arctic Circle, use the

General Dynamics-developed MUOS wave-form. The waveform leverages the widely-used commercial Wideband Code Division Multiple Access cellular phone technology.

“The success in delivering these ground stations, combined with the successful MUOS waveform running on the AN/PRC-155 Manpack two-channel radio, are testaments to General Dynamics’ expertise in delivering networks that securely and reliably connect military and government personnel with their commanders and others from virtually any location on the planet,” said Chris Marzilli, president of General Dynamics C4 Systems. “All they will need is to dial a 10-digit phone number just like they have with their personal cell phones.”

The General Dynamics-built MUOS ground system provides communications and control interfaces among the MUOS satel-lites and Defense Department networks. Each

ground station has three freestanding 18.4-meter Ka-band antennas atop 53-foot-tall pedestals. A centralized operations and control center manages the ground stations’ opera-tion, providing Internet Protocol connectivity, switching facilities, network management and other satellite command-and-control elements.

In November, two MUOS-equipped AN/PRC-155 two-channel Manpack radios success-fully completed secure voice and data calls from Alaska and the Arctic Circle for the first time during a demonstration led by Lockheed Martin. Using the MUOS waveform, the AN/PRC-155 Manpack radios completed one-to-one voice and data calls as well as conference calls connecting more than five participants. The PRC-155 Manpack radio is the first and only tactical radio to deliver secure voice and data connectivity with the MUOS system in polar regions.


MaIn DECK

The Center for Surface Combat Systems (CSCS), working with Surface Training Systems (STS) Program Office (PMS 339) at the Naval Sea Systems Command and Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWC TSD), is in the process of developing the Aegis Ashore Team Trainer (AATT).

“In September 2009, President Barack Obama stated the requirement for a more capable land-based ballistic missile defense (BMD) system to provide defense for U.S. deployed forces, their families, and allies in Europe,” said Brian Deters, director of technical support for CSCS. “Aegis Ashore is the United States Navy’s solution to President Obama’s mandated phased adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe and in 2015, the first land-based Aegis weapons system is scheduled to come online in Romania.”

To understand this new technology, Deters explained that for decades, Aegis weapons systems have defended America’s interests onboard CG 47 Ticonderoga class cruisers and DDG 51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Aegis Ashore is the land-based version of this versatile combat system, leveraging the latest technology developed for the U.S. Navy’s most advanced warships as well as the experience of highly trained sailors.

“Aegis Ashore boasts virtually the same ballistic missile defense hardware and software configuration as the newest Navy destroyer, John Finn (DDG 113),” he said. “AATT provides a nearly identical setup to the Romanian Aegis Ashore CIC, giving officers and sailors the opportunity to experience working with the system and allowing teams to certify for opera-tions prior to deployment.”

This high fidelity training facility will be located onboard Naval Air Station Oceania Dam Neck Annex in Virginia Beach, Va. AATT, being built in Gallery Hall, will house a mock-up of the Combat Information Center (CIC) that is being built at the first host nation site in Romania.

“AATT is a great example of how technology plays an essential role in training sailors,” said Captain Don Schmieley, CSCS’ commanding officer. “While nothing can truly replace the training our sailors’ experience when they’re

out in the fleet, AATT represents the next evolution in training, giving us the capability to provide our sailors the tools they need for a successful mission, making them ready to contribute as soon as they arrive in theater.”

Every effort has been made to replicate the host nation tactical system accurately and to make the trainer as realistic as possible using actual tactical code wrapped in simulation and providing spatial realism right down to the paint color.

“We’re proud to be involved in this project and the opportunity it has given the team to be innovative in the way they blended commer-cial products and available technology,” said Captain Michael Van Durick, program manager in NAVSEA’s deputy commander for Surface Warfare directorate. “The integrated product teams have fostered several new concepts that produced, for example, a high quality mission playback system and a fully func-tioning communications suite. This trainer is the prototype for future training systems to be developed and delivered by PMS 339.”

Prospective watch teams will undergo a thorough eight-week training course, which will cover everything from knowledge lessons on system capabilities and limitations to complex threat scenarios conducted in conjunction with theater BMD entities.

“Starting in January 2015 when AATT comes online, a new watch team will commence training every eight weeks,” said Mike Kroner, deputy director for CSCS’s Technical Support Directorate. “After the first three watch teams have completed training, the host nation site will have an uninterrupted flow of incoming and outgoing watch teams deploying for six-month durations, maintaining three qualified watch teams deployed at all times.”

AATT facility development is already underway. The spaces designated for AATT in Gallery Hall are being renovated by Naval Facilities Engineering Command. The software is being developed by industry partners, which was last demonstrated to CSCS in January 2014.

“Equipment installation will begin in May, culminating in ‘initial operational capability’ date of October 2014, just in time for the first pilot class to kick-off in January 2015,” said Kroner.

Deters said it’s remarkable to see this program grow from the ground up.

“There are so many groups and organiza-tions doing great work to make this become a reality,” he said. “It will be exciting to see our first watch team complete the AATT course and deploy to Romania. It’s great that we can extend the U.S. Navy’s BMD capability to land and continue keeping our deployed forces, families and allies safe.”

The Center for Surface Combat Systems’ mission is to develop and deliver surface ship combat systems training to achieve surface warfare superiority. CSCS headquarters’ staff oversees 14 learning sites and provides almost 70,000 hours of curriculum for close to 700 courses a year to more than 40,000 sailors. The training center uses a mix of blended learning comprised of instructor-led classes, hands-on labs, simulation and computer-based training.

By Lieutenant Bryan Kline, techni-cal analyst, Center for Surface Combat Systems

Aegis Ashore Team Trainer: Training the Shield of Europe


compiled by Kmi media Group staff

This is the new hardhitting publication in the Navy field featuring the Program Executive Officers and

their very important programs.

2,400 copies have been sent to the Hill

Don’t let your programs be shot down by Congress for lack of information about the positive aspects of

your offerings.

To advertise, contact Terry Harrington 301-670-5700 x158 • [email protected]

GO NAVY!

www.NPEO-kmi.com

Rear Admiral Joseph A. Horn Jr. is a native of Philadelphia, Pa., and Audubon, N.J. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in May 1980 with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechan-ical engineering. Horn’s first duty assignment was in USS Sampson (DDG 10). Subsequent sea duty assignments include USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG 49), USS Ticonderoga (CG 47) and USS Anzio (CG 68). He commanded USS Stout (DDG 55) and USS Lake Erie (CG 70). While in command of Lake Erie, the ship conducted multiple suc-cessful ballistic missile engagements and won the Spokane Trophy, two Edward F. Ney Awards, and two Battle “Es.” Horn has deployed to the Mediterranean Sea, Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Indian Ocean, Eastern and Western Pacific, and conducted extensive operations in the Caribbean and Baltic Seas and the Atlantic Ocean.

Ashore, Horn earned a Master of Science degree in operations research from the Naval Postgraduate School and is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seminar XXI alumnus. He has served on the Joint Staff (J8) and the staffs of Joint Forces Command (J6), United States Fleet Forces (N8) and OPNAV (N86). Horn has also been assigned as deputy director, Missile Defense Agency. His previous assignment was program executive, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense and commander, Navy Air and Missile Defense Command.

Horn’s personal awards include the Defense Superior Service Medal (three awards), Legion of Merit (two), Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal (four), Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (two), and Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal (two).

Q: What are the roles and responsibilities of PEO Integrated Warfare Systems (IWS)?

A: Our number one responsibility in PEO IWS is to develop, deliver and sustain operationally dominant combat systems to sailors and Marines. Everything we do is targeted to that objective. The organi-zation is aligned to bring enterprise war fighting solutions to surface combatants, aircraft carriers, amphibious ships and other related sys-tems. PEO IWS competencies include program management, system engineering, and acquisition expertise over the life cycle of combat systems across the spectrum of warfare missions. In total, we manage a portfolio of about 150 projects and programs for which we provide oversight of the design, development, procurement and sustain-ment of integrated combat systems. Elements of the combat systems include missiles, radars, launchers, electronic warfare systems, under-sea warfare systems and gun systems.

We also partner closely with industry, academia, service labo-ratories and field activities to deliver reliable and effective combat

systems to meet current and emerging threats. PEO IWS serves as the Navy’s foreign military sales lead for combat systems, manag-ing over 250 active cases with our nation’s allies.

Q: How is the current austere budget environment affecting oper-ations at PEO IWS?

A: Like many program offices in the Department of the Navy, we are constantly reviewing our requirements and making the neces-sary adjustments to deliver the war fighting systems needed by our men and women in uniform. The current budget environment is not new to us. Changes in funding are always part of the military/government budget world. We must continue to focus on reducing costs and maintaining constant communication with the resource sponsor.

Q: What are the major challenges PEO IWS will face in 2014?

A: We will have to make intelligent choices to fulfill our responsibil-ity of providing dominant combat systems to the fleet, which, despite funding challenges, must operate worldwide in support of Navy objectives. As we adjust to future uncertainty, we must maintain a results-based organization that runs efficiently and effectively.

Rear Admiral Joseph A. Horn Jr.

Program Executive OfficerIntegrated Warfare Systems


Warfare IntegratorDevelop, Deliver and sustain operationally Dominant combat systems

Q&AQ&A

Q: What would you like to see from industry in 2014 and why?

A: We always closely follow advancements in technology. So much of what we do is rooted in innovation and advanced technology. We will continue to use our relationships with universities and research cen-ters to explore new technologies and test systems for use by the fleet. But industry has a part to play as well, and we encourage our partners to explore better ways to enhance our war fighting capability while also reducing our overall costs.

Reducing costs across the PEO IWS product line is an imperative. We are working closely with our industry partners across our portfolio to become more efficient in developing, testing and fielding capability.

Q: What are some of the recent advancements PEO IWS has made in radar technology?

A: Although SPY-1 will remain the workhorse of Aegis cruisers and destroyers in the near term, the air and missile defense radar (AMDR) is the newest advancement in shipboard radar that will be intro-duced to the fleet starting with the second DDG-51 authorized in FY16. This will be a new active array radar that will serve as the pri-mary radar for new construction Aegis destroyers. The AMDR suite is designed to support maritime integrated air and missile defense. It provides multi-mission capabilities, simultaneously supporting long range, exo-atmospheric detection, tracking and discrimination of ballistic missiles, as well as area and self defense against air and sur-face threats.

For ballistic missile defense, AMDR’s increased radar sensitivity and bandwidth over current radar systems will enhance the Navy’s ability to detect, track and support engagements of advanced ballis-tic missile threats, concurrent with area and self defense against air and surface threats. For area air defense and self defense capability, AMDR’s increased sensitivity and clutter capability will improve the ability to detect, react to, and engage stressing very low observable/very low flyer threats in the presence of heavy land, sea and rain clut-ter. This effort provides for the development of the active phased array radar with the required capabilities to address the evolving threat.

AMDR is scalable in size and sensitivity with simultaneous robust ballistic missile defense and air defense capabilities for cross-platform application. Currently, AMDR is in the engineering and manufactur-ing development phase and the suite will be incorporated into DDG Flight III ships.

Q: How is PEO IWS involved in improving undersea warfare (USW)?

A: Through research and development programs, we are significantly improving existing sonar system (submarine, surface ship and sur-veillance) capabilities through rapid and affordable development and integration of emergent, transformational technologies in support of overall anti-submarine warfare efforts. We are also concentrating on the advanced capability build (ACB) process, which leverages devel-opments from the submarine advanced processing build and acoustic rapid commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) insertion processes, including COTS/open architecture technology solutions.

PEO IWS is continuing the strategy of ACBs that introduces capability and performance improvements every two years. PEO IWS 5.0 has improved the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 measures of performance by enhancing detection, tracking, classification, active and passive

data processing and display capabilities, as well as increasing acous-tic sensor frequency bandwidth. To date, 24 ships have received the AN/SQQ-89A (V)15 ASW [anti-submarine warfare] combat system upgrade. The PEO IWS team is refining the Surface Ship Enhanced Measurement Program to measure actual at-sea performance of existing and new surface ship ASW combat systems to support assessments. In addition, we are focusing on improving the surface ASW synthetic training for improved training capability to provide more realistic training to maintain skill levels of the warfighter.

We are introducing the Undersea Warfare Decision Support System (USW-DSS) to provide a net-centric capability for the ASW commander to plan, coordinate, establish and maintain a common tactical picture (CTP) and execute tactical control. This system will enhance command and control within the strike group and theater and greatly improve the detect-to-engage timeline. The USW-DSS is the only program to deliver a USW CTP. This system will comple-ment and provide interfaces to the common operational picture sys-tems such as GCCS-M, CEC and Link 16. Shipboard ASW suites such as the AN/SQQ-89 will provide sensor and track data to USW-DSS. USW-DSS completed initial operational test and evaluation in FY13. Thus far the system has been delivered to a total of 10 surface com-batants and aircraft carriers and five shore sites.

Lastly, and definitely of equal importance to our war fighting capabilities in USW, IWS 5 is integrating the MH-60R into our USW tactical war fighting systems. This includes advanced sonabouy pro-cessing, periscope detection, ASW weapons integration, along with MH-60R FLIR video and radar directly into and interacting in real time with our combat systems in both Aegis, littoral combat ship (LCS), and for the first time ever in CVNs.

Q: Can you elaborate a bit about PEO IWS’s technology master plan?

A: The technology master plan is a strategy we implemented to deliver rapid and incremental capability improvements to the fleet. We are doing this by separating the development of the combat system from the development of the platform, while continuing to accommodate the needs of that ship. This will be accomplished by utilizing a com-mon combat system architecture and common information stan-dards. We will use a combat system product line based on a common objective architecture. Our product line of systems will utilize stan-dard interfaces and achieve commonality across ship classes when it makes sense to do so. This approach will improve both the flexibil-ity and commonality of our shipboard combat systems, minimizing the cost and the time to upgrade ships’ capabilities across the fleet.

For us to achieve this, we must establish a network-based COTS computing environment for in-service ships. We will continue to decouple the combat system hardware from the software, follow-ing the model with initiated with Aegis Baseline 9 and ship self-defense system (SSDS) Mk2. Beginning with our next computing infrastructure update in 2016, both Aegis and SSDS will use the same computing infrastructure. This commonality reduces life cycle costs and provides more flexibility for adding capability. We will also continue our use of combat system computer code reposi-tories, such as the Common Source Library for Aegis, which allows code to be reused across multiple combat systems in an agile and cost-effective manner. In future combat systems instantiations, the time and cost required to deploy or upgrade an integrated combat system will be reduced through the use of common code base and common hardware.


Q: How is PEO IWS involved with electronic attack solutions?

A: We are starting to introduce the next generation of electronic warfare (EW) capability with significant upgrades to the SLQ-32 system through the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP). This program will bring integrated shipboard EW capabilities that can be managed and controlled from a host of combat systems. The SEWIP Block 1 increment provides enhanced electronic surveillance processing capabilities for ships, improved control and display features, and adjunct receivers for special sig-nal intercept. It also addresses obsolescence issues with the SLQ-32 system, which has been our core EW system for several decades.

The SEWIP Block 2 increment will have enhanced electronic support (ES) capability by means of an upgraded ES antenna, ES receiver and an open system interface for the AN/SLQ-32. These upgrades will allow us to pace the threat over the coming decades and improve detection and accuracy capabilities. The SEWIP Block 3 will deliver electronic attack capability improvements required for the AN/SLQ-32(V) system to keep pace with the threat. The SEWIP Block 3 is currently in the technology development phase.

Q: What programs or initiatives are planned to be implemented in 2014?

A: I’ve already mentioned our commonality and cost reduction initiatives, which will continue to expand in 2014. As a Navy, it is important to build more commonality in our shipboard systems and implement open architecture practices when designing new combat systems not only to reduce cost, but also to keep pace with the threat. Commonality is also important in order to reduce sys-tem variance in the fleet. Reducing variance will increase efficiency

in maintenance, logistics, personnel training and manpower distri-bution, and overall decreasing cost. Part of the PEO IWS strategy is to provide a common scalable computing infrastructure to surface ships where appropriate. PEO IWS is responsible for the develop-ment, integration and delivery of all combat systems on Aegis and SSDS ships. We will also continue to work with PEO Ships and PEO LCS in development oversight for DDG 1000 and LCS and prepar-ing for transition of these combat systems into PEO IWS.

Q: How does PEO IWS work with other PEOs when developing integrated technological solutions?

A: We work hand in hand with the shipbuilders in PEO Ships, PEO LCS and PEO Carriers to design, develop, procure and sus-tain integrated combat systems to achieve the requirements of each ship class. We also work in close collaboration with PEO C4I, NAVAIR PEOs, and other program executives to achieve integra-tion between our systems to provide an integrated warfare system. We also provide oversight to our industry partners to ensure that our end product is an integrated combat system that meets the war fighting requirements, performance, cost and standards. Our abil-ity to work together is essential to deliver truly integrated capabil-ity to the fleet.

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

A: PEO IWS has been blessed with a highly capable and profes-sional workforce with the common objective: To develop, deliver and sustain operationally dominant combat systems for sailors and Marines. I could not be prouder of the men and women in PEO IWS. Thank you for the opportunity. O

NEVER STOP LEARNINGConsidering a new degree? Advising your troops on their education options? You need Military Advanced Education’s 2014 Guide to Military-Friendly Colleges & Universities!

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

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

• Newandimproveddesignmakesiteasierthanevertofindwhatyou’relookingfor

• Searchthedatabasebyschoolname,state,onlineorbrick-and-mortarschools

• CompareandcontrastinstitutionswithalltheinfoMAEusedtoscoreanddesignateourtopschools


Keeping nucleaR poWeRed aiRcRaFt caRRieRs in opeRation.

By scott R. gouRley

npeo coRRespondent

As the only ship platforms in the U.S. Navy designed to last a half-century in service, America’s nuclear powered air-craft carriers play a unique role not only in fleet inventories but also in national stra-tegic planning. Ensuring the relevance of these transformational platforms for their entire 50-year service life is supported by a lynchpin program known as refueling

complex overhaul (RCOH), a mid-life over-haul for the recapitalization of Nimitz class aircraft carriers.

The 44-month maintenance period, which begins around the 23rd year of ser-vice, extends the life of a Nimitz class carrier by modernizing the ship’s com-bat and safety systems and equipment while also refueling the ship’s nuclear

reactors. Additionally, an RCOH provides an opportunity to perform underwater hull inspections and other maintenance related evaluations that cannot be accom-plished while the ship is waterborne. The RCOH cycle provides sufficient time to perform more extensive propulsion plant repairs and testing than is possible during shorter scheduled maintenance periods.

20 | NPEO 2.2 www.NPEO-kmi.com

The first RCOH, performed on USS Nimitz (CVN 68), began in 1998. Most recently, 2013 witnessed completion and re-delivery of the fourth successful RCOH, USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), by Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) (a divi-sion of Huntington Ingalls Industries) in late August as well as the start of RCOH at NNS on USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) in March.

Planning and executing the multi-year RCOH process involves Program Executive Office (PEO) Carriers, Naval Reactors, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEAP), Supervisor of Shipbuilding Newport News, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Naval Air Forces and, of course, the ship and her crew.

Within that team structure, PEO Carriers has the responsibility for coordi-nating planning, budgeting and execution of the RCOH.

“The RCOH has been, and remains, probably the most demanding industrial task that anybody has ever undertaken,” offered Rear Admiral Thomas J. Moore, U.S. Navy PEO Carriers. “I would argue that it is much more challenging than new construction. It’s a lot harder to take an existing ship apart and go do what we do in some ways than build-ing it from the ground up.”

Characterizing the pro-cess as being similar to “open heart surgery,” Moore pointed to a number of les-sons learned and process improvements that have been implemented over the first five ships.

“The substantial change that has occurred since we did Nimitz is the recognition that this is an opportunity, while the ship is in there, to get a lot more modernization done on the ship,” he explained. “So if you were to look from a historical perspective at the amount of modernization that we did on Nimitz, for instance, and then trace that through [CVN] 69 [USS Dwight D. Eisenhower], 70 [USS Carl Vinson], 71 [USS Theodore Roosevelt], to 72 [USS Abraham Lincoln], you would find that Lincoln reflects the largest modernization package that we have to date.”

“You have the ship captive for 44 months to get through the critical path work of refueling the ship and getting the propulsion plant put back together and tested,” he noted. “So once the ship is deliv-ered back to the fleet, we really want to take maximum advantage of the fact that the ship has been offline for four years—and get it back to the operating fleet.”

A cursory look at the numbers can be deceiving. For example, the first RCOH, performed on USS Nimitz, was done in just 39 months, the least amount of time of the first five CVNs. However, at the comple-tion of that RCOH, Nimitz was sent back to the West Coast and taken offline again for an upgrade to the combat systems and C4I suite.

“So what we’ve done is address the modernization [in RCOH] so that when the

ship comes out she is essen-tially the most combat ready aircraft carrier we have,” Moore said. “You’ll see that the modernization package on Lincoln is the biggest as a result. We want to fit that work into the 44 months and we think we will be able to do that.”

Moore said that another processing change involved the fact that early RCOHs were followed by four to six months of ship shakedown and a subsequent four to six months of post shakedown availability in a shipyard.

“Starting with CVN 71 there was a concerted effort to see how we could get the ship back to the fleet sooner so that the combatant com-mander can use her quicker,” he noted. “So we basically went back and did a ‘lean

event,’ and decided that we could incorpo-rate a lot of the PSA/SRA [post shakedown availability/selected restricted availability] work into the RCOH baseline length of 44 months. And a lot of that is also modern-ization stuff. So we have basically built a program where we can reserve space and weight in certain spaces and then get the latest and greatest technology, particularly in the C4I computer world where the tech-nology turn circle is pretty tight.

“The net result was that CVN 71, which we delivered in September, has essentially

already done flight deck certification and has been turned back over to the fleet com-mander to start into her workup cycle. She will deploy about 16 months after the end of her RCOH, and in reality she could have gone quicker if the fleet commander had wanted her to do that,” he added.

“Relatively speaking, RCOH is a very efficient way to modernize the carrier, not just the refueling piece,” echoed Chris Miner, vice president of In-service Aircraft Carrier Programs at NNS. “In the 50-year life of an aircraft carrier, we can perform 35 percent of all the maintenance and modernization of that carrier in basically a 44-month period. If you think about that, it’s an extremely efficient way to re-establish/re-constitute that carrier—basi-cally recapitalize that carrier’s value for the next 25 years. And to do it in a very short period of time is a very efficient way to do that work.”

Outlining the level of effort over a 44-month RCOH, Miner pointed to more than 20 million man hours of work by a shipyard workforce that peaks at about 4,000 ship builders, along with another 2 million man hours of work is performed by the ship’s force (crew) and several million man hours by other Navy sub-contractors.

“It’s a total team effort relative to the ship’s force, the Navy and the shipyard, but Newport News Shipbuilding is responsible for the integration of all of that work and getting it done in that 44 month period,” he said. “During that period we refuel the two nuclear reactors—that’s a core piece of it. We also strip down the catapult and the arresting gear—all the equipment that is used to launch and recover aircraft. We strip those down and refurbish them com-pletely and rebuild them back to basically new construction/brand-new specs. That’s after 25 years of wear and tear. We also go through thousands of tanks and voids that have been used to store fuel, potable water or ballast water for the ship. We open those when a ship is in drydock. It sits in drydock for approximately 18 months when the ship arrives. And we refurbish those tanks and get them ready for refilling. We pull the shafts and refurbish the shafts and pro-pellers. We overhaul literally thousands of pumps and valves throughout the ship. We upgrade their combat systems, navigation systems and all the electronics.

“When she is done she is as capable as a brand-new carrier being delivered,” he added.

chris Miner

rear adm. Moore


While acknowledging the extreme complexity of all aspects of RCOH, Miner said that the greatest challenges lie in the unknowns about a carrier’s specific arrival condition.

“Although we spend 30-36 months planning for RCOH execution, including what we call pre-arrival ship checks where we will send people out to the ship to basi-cally inspect and identify as many things as we possibly can that need to be worked on, the challenge is that for a 25-year-old ship there are some things that you just can’t see until you take them apart,” he said. “We have a lot of inspections and a lot of disassembly that we do to identify any of the ‘hidden issues’ that might not be a problem today, but when you are reconsti-tuting the ship for another 25 years of ser-vice or bringing it back to a point where it’s just as reliable as it’s been for the first 25 years, the challenges are that we do identify a lot of additional work that we need to do as we are going through the RCOH.

“We have become very good at being flexible to respond to those challenges and that additional ‘emergent work’ that is identified,” he continued. “We have a very robust technical engineering staff here and an organization that supports us, and obviously from our perspective the greatest shipbuilders in the world that have done this before. So they are able to quickly investigate and to do the analysis of the problem and provide the technical solution. We’re also very good at deter-mining what materials are available, what skill sets are available, and then integrat-ing that work into the baseline schedule.

“But I don’t want to make that sound easy,” he cautioned. “That’s one of the largest challenges we have on the RCOH—the identification of new work during the period that we are actually trying to exe-cute that 20-plus million man-hours of work that we have planned for.”

Miner pointed to a number of other actions and procedures that have contrib-uted myriad efficiencies to the RCOH.

“We looked at new tooling and new pro-cesses,” he summarized. “We worked with the customer to ensure that all require-ments are ‘value added.’ We changed the sequence of things and looked at things like how we bring the work and the dock together for things like refurbishing them and bringing them back. We have improved our processes for cleaning systems. We

have improved our weld processes. We’ve improved our machining processes. All those types of things have added to bene-fits that we have done in the past. And we will continue to look at that in the future.

“It’s also important for me to high-light one of the huge benefits of the RCOH program as a whole,” he added. “The RCOH program basically follows the same sequence in which the carriers were built. And it’s a heel-to-toe program. So as we were actually executing the RCOH here at the shipyard on Nimitz, we had peo-ple planning for the next RCOH on the Eisenhower. When the Nimitz was deliv-ered and the Eisenhower was delivered immediately behind it we could take those same people that just did the work on the previous carrier and move them to the next carrier, taking with them those les-sons learned and working to improve pro-cesses, improve cycle times, reduce cost and get more work into a smaller period of time.”

Moore was quick to recognize the importance of efficiencies implemented to date as well as continuing budgetary pressures. Although the introduction of greater modernization elements in RCOH has “skewed” the cost curve to some extent, he pointed to “a concerted effort underway, in particular for CVN 73, to start tipping that cost curve back over, so

that I can get the same product out the door at a lower price—and at the same time still allow the company to make a reasonable profit.”

“To their credit the cost performance on the RCOH program has been very, very good,” he said. “The way we measure cost performance—the cost performance index—is a bit above 1.0 on the previous four RCOHs. And I would tell you that you would be hard pressed to find a multi-bil-lion dollar program anywhere in the world that has cost performances better than that. So a lot of credit goes to the com-pany for doing what is very demanding and challenging work and performing that well from a cost performance standpoint.”

Service participants point to the suc-cess of the RCOH program in ensuring that the venerable Nimitz-class still has 250 ship years remaining before the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) retires in 2059. Additionally, while RCOH is cur-rently focused on Nimitz class CVNs, the Navy’s long term plans project a similar RCOH on the USS Gerald R. Ford in the 2039-2040 timeframe. O

the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CvN 72) passes the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CvN 71), as the Lincoln arrives at Newport News Shipbuilding to begin the ship’s midlife refueling and complex overhaul (RCoH). the Lincoln’s RCoH includes refueling the ship’s reactors, modernization work and major upgrades to the flight deck, catapults, combat systems and the island. the Theodore Roosevelt completed its RCoH in august 2013. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Ricky thompson, Newport News Shipbuilding]



Sometimes a big warship is too much of a good thing. When it comes to theater security cooperation (TSC), a powerful destroyer or large amphibious ship is too big for some ports, or an outsized match for the United States working with a partner naval or coast guard force. That becomes especially important as the U.S. rebal-ances its forces to emphasize the importance of the Pacific region. And the littoral combat ship (LCS) is a key part in that pivot.

USS Freedom (LCS 1) returned to her homeport of San Diego in December 2013 after successfully completing her first overseas deployment to the Asia-Pacific region. The 10-month deployment to the Western Pacific was a demonstration of her considerable capabilities and operational flexibility through several exercises with regional maritime security partners.

“The USS Freedom represents a change in force structure here as we move and migrate to having more ships in the Asian Pacific region. At any given time, we have about 50 ships deployed to the Asian Pacific region, and it’s been that way since the 1990s. By the end of this decade, we’ll have roughly 60 ships,” said Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert.

Optimized for operations in coastal waters, LCS is a fast, agile and networked surface combatant designed to address specific lit-toral anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) threats. There is no other ship quite like it.

Greenert, the Navy’s top admiral, visited USS Freedom in Singapore last May. “My counterparts are impressed with the mod-ularity, the space and the volume, the agility and the fact that the way the ship is constructed, you can put a payload in at places here and there. Having a rear door below at the stern of the ship and a side door there to deploy and redeploy small boats and patrol craft, they find that’s pretty interesting.”

The Navy is procuring two variants of LCS. USS Freedom (LCS 1) was built by Lockheed Martin and commissioned in November 2008. USS Independence (LCS 2) was built by General Dynamics and commissioned in January 2010.

The Freedom class is a steel, semi-planing mono-hull that mea-sures 389 feet with a beam of 57 feet and a full load displacement of approximately 3,400 metric tons. Designated with odd hull num-bers, the Freedom-class ships are being constructed on the banks of the Menominee River, in Marinette, Wis.

The Independence class is an aluminum, stabilized mono-hull—commonly called a “trimarian” design—that measures 418.6 feet with a beam of 103.7 feet and a full load displacement of approx-imately 3,100 metric tons. Designated with even hull numbers, the Independence class is being constructed in Mobile, Ala.

Regardless of design, LCS can operate in waters as shallow as 20 feet and reach speeds exceeding 40 knots. The anti-access threats

as the united states ReBalances to asia paciFic, navy pivots to littoRal comBat ship.

By edWaRd lundquist


challenging our naval forces in the littorals include quiet diesel submarines, mines and small, highly maneuverable surface-attack craft. Such threats have great potential to be effectively employed by many less-capable countries and non-state actors to prevent unhindered access by U.S. forces to littoral areas. A key element of Navy’s future force, LCS provides a flexible ship, optimized to defeat these anti-access threats in the littorals.

And LCS is small enough to get into many ports in Asia that larger ships are unable to access.

“LCS provides a series of capabilities—I like to call them pay-loads—that you can put on board the ship in a more modular fash-ion. LCS offers speed and that volume and the agility to take in systems—with a large flight deck, large hangar and large mission bay,” said Greenert. “You can now tailor your capabilities to that. So you have one ship that can change its mission for a small, relatively small footprint. So being able to go to sea and be where it matters when it matters—without sovereignty issues—is important. We have places out here in the Asian Pacific region that allow to oper-ate with our ships, to rest, relax, refurbish and repair as necessary. We can move from place to place to be where we need to be and be there when we need to be. And it limits the diplomatic stress and cost associated with trying to establish bases around the world.”

Those “payloads” are the unique modular mission packages (MPs) that address littoral anti-access capability gaps in three mis-sion areas: surface warfare (SUW), mine countermeasures (MCM), and anti-submarine warfare. The MPs are designed to deliver to the fleet in an incrementally phased fashion. The surface warfare MP will provide the ability to perform the full portfolio of maritime security operations while delivering increased firepower and offen-sive and defensive capabilities against fast, highly maneuverable small craft. The SUW MP includes two 11-meter rigid-hull inflat-able boats for visit, board, search, and seizure; the gun mission module, consisting of two MK 46 30 mm gun systems; an MH-60R helicopter armed with Hellfire; a surface-to-surface missile module; and vertical-takeoff unmanned aerial vehicle (VTUAV).

The MCM MP will provide capabilities to detect, identify and neutralize mines throughout the water column through the use of systems deployed from off-board manned and unmanned vehicles. A significant change in the mine warfare concept of operations, the MCM MP uses off-board assets, keeping the ship and crew outside mine danger areas. Dramatically improving the search and cover-age rates, the package will include: remote multi-mission vehicles with the AN/AQS-20A mine hunting sonar; an MH-60S helicopter capable of employing the AN/ASQ-235 Airborne Mine Neutralization system or the AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System; VTUAV with the Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis mine detection system; and in later phases an unmanned influence sweep system and Knifefish unmanned underwater vehicle.

The anti-submarine warfare MP enables LCS to conduct detect-to-engage operations against modern submarine threats in the littorals. Mission systems in the package include: an MH-60R heli-copter with airborne low frequency sonar, sonobuoys and MK 54 Lightweight Torpedo; the Light Weight Towed Torpedo Defense and Countermeasures Module; the AN/SQR-20 Multi-Function Towed Array; and variable-depth sonar with continuous active sonar.

Fully self-deployable and capable of sustained underway opera-tions to any part of the world, LCS offers the speed, endurance and underway replenishment capability to transit and operate indepen-dently, with carrier strike groups, expeditionary strike groups, or

surface action groups. Optimized to defeat anti-access threats in the littorals, LCS delivers the enhanced war fighting capabilities and increased operational flexibility needed by a forward operat-ing Navy.

Over the lifetime of a ship, threats and capabilities change and the surface force being built today will require upgrades to its technologies and capabilities to maintain their war fighting edge. Through modularity, ships could be kept current and combat rel-evant by changing modular components rather than removing the ships from service for time consuming and costly mid-life overhauls.

“What we do down here is build partnership capacity through theater security cooperation, and preparing for humanitar-ian assistance and disaster relief. We’ve had typhoons in [the] Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand, and the tsunami of 2004 in Indonesia and around the region. This ship will work to find out what missions resonate with the needs of the nations down here, and we’ll work to bring our skills together in that area,” Greenert said. “It is a littoral combat ship, and this is one of the biggest lit-toral areas of the world. So, from that perspective, I’m very excited about the possibilities.”

Pacific Commander Admiral Sam Locklear said, “LCS will be a key player in the security environment in the world that I deal with, which has got a lot of littorals, and a lot of interesting things going on.”

The commander of Destroyer Squadron Seven, Captain Paul Schlise, said that LCS provides a capability and scale that America’s friends and allies in Southeast Asia are truly excited about. “With its shallow draft, it can get to places our larger ships can’t go and the ship and crew size are comparable to the regional navies we work with everyday in and around the South China Sea. We are looking forward to expanding the LCS operational foot-print as we train and operate with partner navies in this incredi-bly important international waterway.”

The Navy planned to build 52 LCS, but Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel voiced concern that the Navy was relying too heav-ily on the LCS to achieve its long-term goals for ship numbers. In announcing the Department of Defense’s 2015 budget sub-mission on February 24, 2014, Secretary Hagel directed the Navy to “submit alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, generally consistent with the capabili-ties of a frigate. I’ve directed the Navy to consider a completely new design, existing ship designs, and a modified LCS. These pro-posals are due to me later this year in time to inform next year’s budget submission.”

“We need to closely examine whether the LCS has the inde-pendent protection and firepower to operate and survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technolo-gies, especially in the Asia Pacific,” Hagel said. O

Captain Edward Lundquist, U.S. Navy (Ret.), is a naval analyst and strategic communication professional with MCR Federal in Washington, DC. He served as a surface warfare officer and pub-lic affairs officer. He writes on naval, maritime, defense and secu-rity issues for trade and professional journals around the world.




Navy and Marine aircraft are essential U.S. assets that must always be closely in touch with their ships, commands and other U.S. forces to be effective. Yet Navy jets oper-ate across the globe, over sea and land, over some of the longest distances and in some of the toughest environments encountered by U.S. forces

Communication links for these aircraft have their own special challenges. “Limited by line of sight and susceptible to envi-ronmental phenomena such as icing and electrical storms, VHF/UHF communica-tion performance can become degraded,” noted Lieutenant Robert Myers of the Navy Office of Information. “There are a number of ways to combat this degradation, includ-ing reducing range to the receiver, adjusting altitude, changing frequencies and heating antennas.”

The bigger, long-term communication challenge for naval aviation arises from progress and opportunities. The continu-ing revolution in telecommunications and information technology is making possible much better, more robust and flexible com-munication for all sorts of platforms—civil-ian and military.

The Navy naturally wants to exploit these opportunities. But choices will have to be made and priorities set to keep the transfor-mation of Navy communications affordable and to ensure that both legacy and new sys-tems can stay in touch during the transition.

The Navy needs to pay attention to what other services are doing, because it must continue to communicate with them. But the specific features of Navy assets and mis-sions will also shape the solutions adopted.

Broadly speaking, the Navy faces the same problems as the other U.S. ser-vices in its communication infrastructure and mobile networks, according to Tom Kirkland, senior director, defense business development at Thales Defense & Security.

The basic problem is the possibility of com-munication gaps throughout the battle space.

Kirkland said U.S. forces are attempting to modernize to keep up with performance capabilities of commercial technology. Navy and other defense personnel have expec-tations based on services available from commercial technologies on the long-term evolution (LTE) standard and broadband networking. “They want the network access, speed and bandwidth of these commer-cial networks to be prolifer-ated throughout the battle space.” Moreover, U.S. forces will need networks and net-work management to collabo-rate with each other and with coalition partners.

Kirkland said the Navy is making progress in cre-ating networks that meet these higher expectations. He points to the recent decision to outfit and test the USS Kearsarge and USS San Antonio with LTE systems.

But as commercial technology is adopted by military organizations, there will be gaps between legacy communications sys-tems, new systems and coalition networks. “Retrofitting military aircraft is particularly expensive, and it is very time-consuming to retrofit an entire fleet,” said Kirkland. So the new communication technology and capa-bilities are likely to go first to units that are not as time-consuming to retrofit. These could include the Naval Special Warfare groups, Seabees, base infrastructure and the Marines. This may make communica-tions with non-modernized Navy aircraft more difficult.

Kirkland said communication gaps could develop in several areas. The first is implementing commercial capabilities

in military applications while maintain-ing backwards interoperability with cur-rent systems. The second is exploiting all aspects of networks with the limited band-width available on aircraft. The third is being “spectrum-agile,” based on theater of operations. Finally, there is fully inte-grating color heads-up display systems that can consolidate data available from ground forces and on-board systems.

These possible gaps arise because it is essential to modernize Navy commu-

nications, but it will be impossible to modernize communications for all U.S. forces in the next five years. So the U.S. Navy “will need to seek creative technical solutions that focus on mod-ernizing the fleet while not losing backwards interoper-ability,” Kirkland stressed.

One specific modern-ization challenge is quickly accessing all available data

from ground forces that helps pilots make more informed decisions. Kirkland said pilots should be able to see high-definition video from a joint terminal attack control-ler calling in close air support as well as unmanned aircraft vehicle video feeds in the area and position location information for friendly forces, all in a single modifiable color-enabled, heads-up display.

The Navy has many choices to make in modernizing aircraft communications systems in a fiscally-constrained environ-ment. “The first question that needs to be answered is what does the Navy want from their objective network today and in 10 or 20 years?” Kirkland said.

Next, the Navy must decide whether to build on its current system architecture or to redesign the entire system to ensure full integration of the aircraft-management

tom Kirkland

navy Faced With long-teRm decisions. By henRy canaday, npeo coRRespondent


system, heads-up display and communica-tions networks.

Another major choice is which waveforms suit naval mission objectives. Options here include the joint tactical radio system suite of waveforms: soldier radio waveform, wide-band networking waveform and mobile user objective system. Also possible are Defense Department waveforms: tactical data link and Link 16. Finally, there are commercial tech-nologies, including LTE, 802.16E and others.

The Navy must also decide on timing and priorities—that is, which parts of the net-work will be addressed first.

Kirkland said Thales is excited to be a part of the evolution of broadband tactical networks across all services. He emphasized that his company focuses on solutions that ensure backwards interoperability with cur-rently fielded systems while using the best of commercial technology.

John Byrnes, director of Datalink Systems at BAE Systems, said the current caps in Navy airborne communications are in high bandwidth survivable networks and networked weapon capabilities. “These are all being addressed within the defense com-munity with joint aerial layered network (JALN), tactical targeting network technol-ogy (TTNT), weapons data link, naval inte-grated fire control-counter air and others.”

Byrnes believed the Navy is looking dil-igently at JALN-Maritime capability. “We expect that results of various internal inves-tigations will possibly result in future RFPs within the next two to three years,” he said, referring to JALN-M, with extended data rate waveform and advanced extremely high-fre-quency satellites.

The BAE exec said the Navy’s basic choice at this point is between making do with existing narrow-band capabilities with incre-mental improvements—for example, with concurrent multi-netting with concurrent contention receive enhanced throughput and crypto mod—or migrating to a whole new high-speed mobile ad hoc network solution.

BAE has been involved in many activ-ities to improve defense communication. “We’re excited about DoD’s transition to the next generation of airborne capability and are awaiting the various decisions that OSD and others are involved in,” Byrnes said.

BAE partners with Rockwell Collins in the data link solutions (DLS) joint venture. DLS already provides a significant amount of airborne networking capabilities with its multifunctional information distribution system (MIDS) and MIDS-joint tactical radio

system Link-16 product lines. It has already delivered more than 6,000 terminals to 36 countries.

Rockwell Collins’ experience with the Navy extends back to Rear Admiral Byrd’s South Polar expedition of 1933. Most Navy and Marine Corps aircraft fly with Rockwell radios, and the company’s TTNT enabled the X-47B to be the first unmanned vehicle to complete an arrested landing on an aircraft carrier.

“The Navy is prudently exploring anticipated needs as DoD redirects efforts to contested warfare that could challenge our armed forces in expanded levels of conflict,” observed Charles Hautau, director of Navy/Marine Corps and Coast Guard Programs at Rockwell Collins. He noted that the chief of naval oper-ations has voiced concerns about a possible capabil-ity gap in electromagnetic warfare. Hautau predicted that traditional defense thinking about communications will evolve toward data and voice networks. He believes defense planners will view these networks as major components of war, not just supporting or enabling elements.

“Next-generation communications will be much more resilient and flexible, able to respond to threats in certain spectrums and intelligently react to any threats, such as jam-ming or cyber attack,” Hautau summarized. “The Navy has been and should continue investing in these areas.” Communication networking technologies will benefit from dramatic improvements in processing power, miniaturization and heat reduction, Hautau said. These improvements will enable signif-icant reductions in size, weight and power.

Hautau said the Navy should continue exploring ways to integrate advanced net-works into both legacy and future aircraft and do this better and less expensively. Rockwell is a member of the Future Avionics Capability Environment consortium, which is attempt-ing to establish open-architecture standards that may help address this challenge.

Hautau understands the Navy must answer tough questions in improving com-munications. “What are the numbers? What is the capability required? How long will it take to be developed and deployed? How much will it cost?” Platforms such as ships, submarines and aircraft are essential, of course. But he said the real test is their

capabilities, the ability to share information and then convert information into tactical and strategic advantages.

The communications transformation will affect many Navy units that must manage the change, as well as private organizations that help retrofit expensive assets. For example, Rockwell’s TTNT is the Navy’s new advanced data link for carrier aircraft. “The secure, high-speed TTNT will ultimately allow shar-ing of high volumes of targeting data at

high data rates,” explained Mark Gammon, Boeing’s Advanced Capabilities pro-gram manager.

Boeing is currently work-ing with the Navy to ensure TTNT is integrated in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers. “With the high-speed, low-latency TTNT, Growlers, E-2D Hawkeyes and eventually Super Hornets will be able to

create a multi-platform, multi-sensor, fused targeting picture that allows many targets to be engaged rapidly, both air-to-surface and air-to-air,” Gammon said.

In summer 2013, the Navy flew Growlers with sensor-system upgrades and TTNT, dem-onstrating how enhanced technology will allow aircrews to locate threats more quickly and accurately. The technology will be incor-porated into deployed Growler electronic-attack aircraft in 2018, before all other Navy aircraft except the E-2D surveillance aircraft.

Gammon said Super Hornets and Growlers have had significant multi-source integration capability for some time, and the Navy plans to continue adding new fusion capability. “Boeing and its industry partners continue to evolve the architecture to ensure these aircraft can outmatch threats in future networked battle environments.”

Boeing is now exploiting the data-link capacity of TTNT and the advanced com-puting capabilities of the new Distributed Targeting System–Networked (DTS-N) to significantly increase fusion capabilities of the carrier aircraft. Boeing’s fusion software, derived from F-22A Raptors and the AWACS 40/44, combined with the TTNT data link and DTS-N, will bring this data-fusion capa-bility to Super Hornets and Growlers. O


Mark Gammon


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

General Atomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C2 www.ga.com/ems

Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C4 www.ballaerospace.com

compiled by Kmi media Group staffnpEO REsOuRCE CEnTER

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

June 10-12, 2014Multi-Agency Craft ConferenceVirginia Beach, Va.www.navalengineers.org

June 24-26, 2014Mega Rust 2014: Naval Corrosion ConferenceSan Diego, Calif.www.navalengineers.org

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

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

December 3-5, 2014International Workboat ShowNew Orleans, La.www.workboatshow.com

With a unique concentration on senior

military officers and DoD leadership, KMI

Media Group focuses on distinct and

essential communities within the defense

market. This provides the most powerful and

precise way to reach the exact audience

that procures and deploys your systems,

services and equipment.

KMI Media Group offers by far the largest

and most targeted distribution within critical

market segments. Sharp editorial focus,

pinpoint accuracy and depth of circulation

make KMI Media Group publications

the most cost-effective way to ensure your

advertising message has true impact.

Want to REACH the decision-makers in the DEFENSE COMMUNITY

KMI’S FAMILY OF PUBLICATIONS

?

To learn about advertising opportunities, call KMI Media Group at 301.670.5700

BORDER SECURITY & EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

GEOSPATIAL INTELLIGENCE FORUM

GROUND COMBAT TECHNOLOGY

MILITARY ADVANCED EDUCATION

MILITARY LOGISTICS FORUM

MILITARY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

MILITARY MEDICAL & VETERANS AFFAIRS FORUM

MILITARY TRAINING TECHNOLOGY

NAVY AIR/SEA PEO FORUM

SPECIAL OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY

TACTICAL ISR TECHNOLOGY

U.S. COAST GUARD FORUM

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 Response

Tactical 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:

SOF Enhancer

Adm. Bill H. McRavenCommanderSpecial Operations Command

Rapidly Deployable Networks O SOF Light Vehicles

Robotics Technology O Global SOF Training

May 2013 Volume 11, Issue 4

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

World’s Largest Distributed Special Ops Magazine

2013 SOCOM

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT UPDATES


Ken Eagen manages product develop-ment for Northrop Grumman Information Systems’ Intelligence Systems Division and has been employed at NG since 2010. Previously, Eagen has also worked on var-ious intelligence-related surface and air-borne systems over his career across Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and DRS Technologies.

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

A: Northrop Grumman Information Systems supports our Navy customer from a variety of locations across the country. We work extensively with NAVAIR and the Naval Special Warfare (NSW) organizations and are currently supporting NAVSEA in areas like big data, C4ISR and critical infrastruc-ture protection. Another primary business area includes our work on the design, man-ufacturing and integration of size, weight and power-constrained sensor payload sys-tems within multiple ISR and EW (elec-tronic warfare) mission packages. This includes both vertical takeoff and landing and persistent, long-endurance manned and unmanned platforms.

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

A: One key aspect of adjusting our Navy business models to maximize both mis-sion and cost effectiveness is our develop-ment of a standard Airborne Product Line Common SIGINT System (APL/CSS). This product line leverages technological invest-ments from national, Army, Air Force and SOCOM programs for flexible reuse and configuration of Navy specific missions and platforms. These high technical readiness level products are easily adapted to evolv-ing ISR, SIGINT, EW and cyber missions and targets. When practical, we show that our products meet mission needs through live demonstrations or exercises. For exam-ple, in 2013 we participated in a live fleet experimentation (FLEX) event known as

Trident Warrior 2013, sponsored by the Navy Warfare Development Command, OPNAV, NAVAIR and NAVSEA. For the Navy-staged fast attack craft/fast inbound attack craft scenario, Northrop Grumman dem-onstrated our APL/CSS capability in rapid detection, geolocation, and cross-cuing of multi-INT sensors. FLEX demonstrations like this help customers define and stream-line concepts of operations, mitigate future mishaps or tactical errors, and maximize warfighter operational tempo, while simul-taneous proving that off-the-shelf systems can meet Navy needs.

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

A: Business development efforts are coor-dinated by an internal oversight panel of subject matter experts (SMEs) who initiate weekly updates for their respective Navy are-nas. This panel is tasked with understanding, at a very granular level, their Navy customer missions. Whenever possible and appropri-ate, we locate a senior-level executive in close geographic proximity to our customers. For example, at NAVAIR we have a dedicated, senior-level SME living in the Patuxent River, Md. area, whose responsibility is to manage day-to-day corporate and sector-level opera-tions and customer interactions. This pro-cess helps to ensure that our customer has a single access point to Northrop Grumman, who is able to quickly match customer needs to the correct business development and technical resources within the company.

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

A: Northrop Grumman has extensive field service representative (FSR) support pro-grams sustaining our delivered mission sys-tems. Typically, our technical staff rotates in and out of operational theaters on a regular basis, matching user needs and keeping our staff fully trained on all aspects of our sys-tems. We strive to develop and deliver reli-ability and quality over quantity to make sure the systems we deliver will successfully operate as expected and promised.

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

A: Our company views one of the big-gest challenges over the next year, and frankly into the future, as our ability to focus research and development investments in a tightly constrained budget environment, enabling us to address the most critical areas and defining requirements to satisfy emerging or unknown threats. At Northrop Grumman, we design flexibility into our sys-tems by using open, scalable architectures that incorporate off-the-shelf or third-party executable software applications along with state-of-the-art, off-the-shelf hardware tech-nologies. Our research and development efforts are critical to enhancing capabili-ties as our systems continue to be deployed in new, asymmetric, or irregular warfare environments.

Q: How do you measure success?

A: We measure our success by how suc-cessful our customers are in their missions. Much of this feedback comes directly from our FSRs—located many times in harm’s way, just like the customer. Realignment and continuous mapping of Northrop Grumman’s technology development to the customer’s mission are keys to future busi-ness growth, and most importantly, trust within the customer community. O

InDusTRy InTERVIEW navy air/sea pEO Forum

Ken Eagen Manager, Domestic Programs

Northrop Grumman Information Systems

[email protected]


Features

future program/project Managers the defense acquisition university works in partnership with other educational institutions to develop future defense acquisition leaders.

unmanned underwater Vehiclesdivers can handle a plethora of tasks while submerged, but there are some jobs that are best left to unmanned underwater vehicles.

integrated Ship System resource Guidedefense acquisition programs have several options when choosing the best technology and hardware for a ship’s operation, and these leaders of industry are at the top of their respected fields.

precision Strike Weaponsno matter how much damage a weapon causes, it’s only effective if it hits the target. advancements in technology have given the u.S. navy a number of options for precision strike weapons.

On-board fire SupressionFires can prove disastrous on ships at sea. it is critical to have suppression methods before they get out of hand.

radar SystemsRadar is the primary air traffic control, air surveillance, surface surveillance, navigation, and engagement support sensor system for aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships and will likely remain so for at least the first half of the 21st century.

special section

Launch and recoverythe navy’s need to efficiently launch and recover aircraft at sea is crucial to operational success.

program spotlight

undersea Weapons programResearch is ongoing to develop offensive and defensive weapons capable of engaging submarines, surface ships and threat torpedoes.

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

Insertion Order Deadline: April 23, 2014 • Ad Materials Deadline: April 30, 2014

Cover and In-Depth Interview with:

next iSSUe

Program Executive OfficerPEO Submarines

Rear Adm. David Johnson

April 2014Volume 2, Issue 3

Npeo 2 2 final

Documents

Transcript of Npeo 2 2 final