NPEO 2.4 (September/October 2014)

Joint Acquisition Leader

Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan

Program Executive Officer PEO Joint Strike Fighter

Airborne ISR O UCLASS O Energy Conservation Amphibious Warships O CH-53K

The Admirals’ Magazine

Special Section: propulSion SyStemS

At F-35 Lightning ii Joint ProgrAm oFFice

www.NPEO-kmi.com

September/October 2014

Volume 2, Issue 4

Client: Pratt & Whitney Military EnginesAd Title: Carrier Varient - Breakthrough FighterPublication: Navy Air Sea PEO Forum - SeptemberTrim: 8-3/8” x 10-7/8” • Bleed: 8-7/8” x 11-3/8” • Live: 1/4” inside trim

The breakthrough fighter for blue water ops.

The 5th generation Pratt & Whitney F135 engine is in production – bringing safe, proven and reliable power to the F-35 Lightning II. What’s more, highly advanced engine technologies designed specifically to meet the demands of Navy blue water operations will increase readiness and reduce maintenance costs to keep the F-35 flying and projecting Navy power. Learn more at f135engine.com.

It’s in our power.™

31753 F135 CV Breakthough_Navy Air Sea PEO Forum.indd 1 9/11/14 2:18 PM

19Who’s Who At F-35 Lightning ii Joint ProgrAm oFFice

A photo spread of the decision-makers of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office.

Cover / Q&AFeatures

LieutenAnt generAL christoPher c. BogdAn

Program Executive Officer PEO Joint Strike Fighter

17

The Admirals’ Magazine

5VieW From the hiLL

Rep. Bradley Byrne discusses how the littoral combat ship will play a big role in the Navy’s future.

8meeting gLoBAL AmPhiBious WArshiP demAndThe future security environment requires a robust capability to project forces ashore from amphibious platforms and to maneuver over land to positions of advantage. Amphibious ships and their expeditionary forces provide combatant commanders with unmatched versatility and capability; consequently, these forces are in great demand.

24energy conserVAtionAccess to reliable, secure sources of energy has long been a strategic concern for the U.S. Navy and the other military services. History has proven that energy is a critical enabler to mission success, and that innovative, often-disruptive advances in technology have greatly benefited early adopters.

By Josh Frederickson

26ucLAssVice Admiral Paul A. Grosklags, Mark D. Andress and Brigadier General Joseph T. Guastella make the case for preserving the current proposed funding for the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier- Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program. UCLASS will be an important addition to the Department of Defense’s broad portfolio of programs that serve the near-term ISR needs of the nation and the joint warfighters.

September/October 2014Volume 2, Issue 4navy air/sea peo forum

Departments2 editor’s PersPectiVe3 underWAy/PeoPLe14 mAin deck27 resource center

“You need maintenance

manuals. You need a supply chain.

You need a depot capability. You

need trained pilots and maintainers,

so they need simulators. You

need all of that stuff to deliver capability. You can’t lose sight

of that and just focus on the

airplane.”

Lt. Gen. Christopher C.

Bogdan

12ch-53k king stALLionDesign improvements over the CH-53E include full fly-by-wire flight controls with triple-redundant flight control computers, which greatly improve survivability and pilot workload.

By hank VanderBorght

6sPeciAL section: ProPuLsion systemsWhether they use a motor, propeller or engine, naval craft need a propulsion system to get the job done.

By Brian o’shea

Industry InterviewLorraine M. MartinExecutive Vice President & General ManagerLockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Program

28

The Navy’s Space and Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) recently awarded contracts to five companies who will be competing to deploy an advanced at-sea network aboard its warships and coastal facilities. The Consolidated Afloat Networks (CANES) consolidates five legacy networks into one, which enhances operational effectiveness and provides better quality of life for deployed sailors.

“The operating systems that exist today on some of those legacy networks are not sustainable,” said Rear Admiral Christian Becker, the Navy’s Program Executive Officer for C4I. “CANES allows us to deploy current operating systems and then upgrade or stay current with future changes to those operating systems in a more cost-effective and timely way.”

However, CANES has now been delayed after contractor protests have been filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Two companies, DRS Laurel Technologies Inc. and CGI Federal Inc., filed protests with GAO on September 2, which triggered a 100-day stop-work order for the CANES equipment contract.

“We are confident in the source selection process and are working diligently to minimize any schedule impacts to the fleet,” said SPAWAR spokesman Steven Davis.

The five companies chosen to compete for orders in this potentially $2.5 billion contract are BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services Inc., General Dynamics C4 Systems, Global Technical Systems, Northrop Grumman Technical Systems and Serco Inc.

Additional benefits of CANES include a common computing environment with continual hardware and software upgrades and total ownership cost reduction partially achieved through full and open competition throughout the program’s life cycle. CANES will also provide an adaptable IT platform that can meet rapidly changing warfighting requirements, network standardization and variant reduction (ship-to-ship, scalable for ship class) and government-owned data rights supported by low-risk, proven technology.

“CANES represents an essential element of the Navy’s modernization plan, including the enhancement of our afloat cybersecurity posture and increased operational effectiveness,” said Davis.

As threats to the United States are becoming increasingly more advanced, especially cyber-attacks, it is crucial for the Navy to begin implementing CANES. However, with so much money at stake, it is understandable why some companies protest not being chosen for such a lucrative contract. If you have any questions regarding Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum, do not hesitate to contact me.

Jeff McKaughaneditor-in-chieF

The Admirals’ Magazineeditorial

Editor-in-Chiefkeff Mckaughan [email protected]

Managing Editorharrison donnelly [email protected]

Copy Editorscrystal Jones [email protected] Magin [email protected]

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

Art & designArt DirectorJennifer owers [email protected]

Ads and Materials ManagerJittima saiwongnuan [email protected]

Senior Graphic Designerscott Morris [email protected]

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

AdvertisingAccount Executiveterry harrington [email protected]

kmi media groupChief Executive OfficerJack kerrigan [email protected]

Publisher and Chief Financial Officerconstance kerrigan [email protected]

Editor-In-ChiefJeff Mckaughan [email protected]

Controllergigi castro [email protected]

Trade Show Coordinatorholly Foster [email protected]

operations, circulation & ProductionOperations AdministratorBob Lesser [email protected]

Circulation & Marketing Administratorduane ebanks [email protected]

CirculationBarbara gill [email protected] denise Woods [email protected]

Data Specialistraymer Villanueva [email protected]

subscription informationNavy Air/Sea PEO Forum

issn 2333-3251is published by kMi Media group. all rights reserved. reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden.

© copyright 2014.Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum is free to qualified members of the U.s. military, employees of the U.s. government and

non-U.s. foreign service based in the U.s.

all others: $75 per year.Foreign: $159 per year.

corporate officeskMi Media group

15800 crabbs Branch Way, suite 300rockville, Md 20855-2604 Usa

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

Web: www.nPeo-kmi.com

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

Volume 2, Issue 4 • September/October 2014

eDiTor’s perspeCTive

KMI MEDIA GROUP LEADERSHIP MAGAZINES AND WEBSITES

www.GCT-kmi.com

UAS Leader

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

Technology & Intel for the Maneuver Warfighter

May 2014Volume 5, Issue 3

www.GCT-kmi.com

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

SPECIAL SECTION:MANNED-UNMANNED TEAMING

Ground Combat & Tactical ISR

www.M2VA-kmi.com

Military Medical & Veterans Affairs

Forum

www.GIF-kmi.com

Geospatial Intelligence Forum

www.MT2-kmi.com

Military Training Technology

www.MAE-kmi.com

Military AdvancedEducation

www.NPEO-kmi.com

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

www.MIT-kmi.com

Military Information Technology

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

SOCOM Leader

Adm. Bill H. McRaven

CommanderSOCOM

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

May 2014 Volume 12, Issue 4

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

World’s Largest Distributed Special Ops Magazine

Program Management Updates

SOCOM2014

Special Operations Technology

www.MLF-kmi.com

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

The Publication of Record for the Military Logistics Community

Resource Aligner

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

SPECIAL PULL-OUT SUPPLEMENTUSTRANSCOM

www.MLF-kmi.com

November/December 2013Volume 7, Issue 10

Exclusive Interview with:

GAIL JORGENSONAcquisition Director USTRANSCOM

Military Logistics Forum

www.CGF-kmi.com

U.S. Coast Guard & Border Security

Navy Vice Admiral Philip S. Davidson has been nominated for appointment to the rank of admiral and for assign-ment as commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, Va. Davidson is currently serving as commander, Sixth Fleet; commander, Task Force Six; commander, Striking and Support Forces NATO; deputy commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe; deputy

commander, U.S. Naval Forces Africa; and Joint Force Maritime Component Commander Europe, Naples, Italy.

Navy Rear Admiral Dixon R. Smith has been nominated for appointment to the rank of vice admiral and for assignment as commander, Navy Installations Command, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. Smith is currently

serving as commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Va.

Navy Rear Admiral Thomas S. Rowden has been nominated for appointment to the rank of vice admiral and for assignment as commander, Naval Surface Forces/Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, San Diego, Calif. Rowden is currently serving as director, Surface Warfare

Division, N96, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Pentagon, Washington, D.C.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) John F. Kirby has been nomi-nated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. Kirby is currently serving as press secretary, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.

compiled by kMi Media group staffpeopLe

Hawkeye Closes in on Aerial Refueling

The Northrop Grumman and U.S. Navy team has success-fully conducted the preliminary design review (PDR) for its E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aerial refueling system.

Completion of this critical milestone allows the program to proceed to its critical design review, moving closer to manufacturing the system and installing it on new production E-2Ds as well as retrofitting it onto E-2Ds that are currently operating in the Navy fleet.

“I’m very pleased with the progress the team has made,” said Captain John Lemmon, program manager, E-2/C-2 Airborne Tactical Data System Program Office. “Adding an aerial refueling capability to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye will extend its critical mission of providing continuous informa-tion to the warfighter who depends on it.”

Under a $226.7 million engineering, manufacturing and development contract awarded in 2013, Northrop Grumman is designing several system upgrades necessary to accommo-date an aerial refueling capability. These include new seats to enhance pilot field-of-view and decrease crew fatigue; forma-tion lights for better visualization and air space orientation; and enhanced software in the aircraft’s flight control system to assist the pilots with aircraft handling qualities when refueling.

Successful Long Range Anti-Ship Strike Missile Test

On September 23, the U.S. Navy conducted a demonstration test firing of Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile (NSM) at Point Mugu test range in Calif.

The missile was launched from USS Coronado of the Independence class littoral combat ship, and followed the preplanned trajectory towards a target ship 100 nautical miles away. When the missile arrived at the target area, it located and hit the target at the preselected hit point.

All test objectives were met, and the demonstration was very successful. The test also provided U.S. Navy insights into the NSM’s unique capabilities of targeting, range and survivability. This is the first time a ship of this class has launched a long-range anti-ship strike missile. This is also the first time that the U.S. Navy is firing the Naval Strike Missile.

This demonstration follows a successful NSM live fire event from the Royal Norwegian Navy’s Fridtjof Nansen class frigate during the recently completed Rim of the Pacific 2014.

“We are very pleased that the US Navy evaluates the NSM missile. This contract does not however include any commitment for the US Navy beyond the test,” said Pål Bratlie, executive vice president, Kongsberg Defence Systems. “The missile is in series production for Norway and Poland, and this test has enabled the U.S. Navy to study it closer in a realistic scenario.”

compiled by kMi Media group staffunDerWay

www.NPEO-kmi.com NPEO 2.4 | 3

compiled by kMi Media group staffunDerWay

Lynx Radar Performs Well in Spearhead IIA Exercise

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems’ (GA-ASI) Lynx multi-mode radar, on a Predator B/MQ-9 Reaper surrogate (King Air 350), partici-pated in the recent Navy Exercise Spearhead IIA held off the coast of Key West, Fla.

The Lynx’s synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and maritime wide-area search (MWAS) modes detected mine-like-objects and very small vessels, including fast boats, sailboats and fishing boats. Concurrently, the King Air 350 data linked the Lynx and video data via the onboard L-3 Mini-T data link system to the Navy’s Intelligence Carry-On Program (ICOP) data link system installed on a joint high-speed vessel, with the ICOP system employing L-3’s VideoScout-CM2 video exploitation and management system.

“GA-ASI’s main goal in supporting this exercise was to provide the ICOP system onboard the JHSV and deliver near-real-time, all-weather, day/night Lynx radar and EO/IR (Electro-optical/Infrared) imagery on high-interest maritime targets,” said Claudio Pereida, executive vice president, mission systems, GA-ASI. “We achieved several historical firsts, with the MQ-9 surrogate providing the ICOP system with tactical Lynx radar maritime data, demonstrating Reaper’s continued opera-tional relevancy via new Lynx capabilities, and successfully leveraging Reaper in support of the Air-Sea Battle Concept.”

During the exercise, GA-ASI’s Claw sensor payload operation software cross-cued the Lynx

imagery to the EO/IR sensor for visual target identification. The Lynx target data also was used to cross-cue other platform sensors used in Spearhead IIA. GA-ASI plans to continue inte-gration and test coordination efforts to enhance surface vessels and shore C2 nodes receiving and conducting data exploitation capabilities of Lynx SAR and moving target indicator (MTI) data further.

The Lynx, upgraded to the two-channel Lynx Block 20A and in production, is capable of high-resolution video dismount detec-tion and a 30-degree-per-second scan rate with algorithms optimized for detecting small vessels, including self-propelled semi-submersible vessels.

$17 Million Awarded for U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Installation

Serco Inc., a provider of professional, technology and management services, was recently awarded a task order under the Sea Enterprise II contract vehicle to support the U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR). The company will provide instal-lation support on the USS Ronald Reagan with an option to provide installation support on the USS Carl Vinson. This two-and-a-half-year contract is valued at $17.5 million if the option is exercised.

Serco will deliver command, control, communica-tions, computers, intelligence, surveillance and recon-naissance (C4ISR) solutions to support the installation of the Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services, an initiative by the U.S. Navy to combine numerous shipboard networks into a single network.

“We have a great team in San Diego ready to support SPAWAR with high-quality service on this installation,” said Dan Allen, chairman and chief executive officer at Serco. “We will put to use our extensive knowledge of C4ISR solutions to support the warfighters aboard the USS Ronald Reagan and USS Carl Vinson.”

Under the Sea Enterprise II contract vehicle and its predecessor contracts, Serco has supported SPAWAR for over 15 years, and has completed over 1,200 integrated installations on ships and shore facilities worldwide. The company also provides C4ISR solutions to other branches of the Department of Defense, including the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army.

Launch & Recovery Systems Awarded

U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) awarded General Atomics (GA) an initial sole-source contract for Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) for the CVN 79 aircraft carrier to be named John F. Kennedy.

This contract is for the initial procurement of the long-lead-time materials in support of a full production contract for installation of EMALS and AAG into CVN 79, the second of the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers. CVN 79 is scheduled to be delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2023.

GA Electromagnetic Systems Group will manufacture EMALS and AAG components at its 367,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in Tupelo, Miss.

“These are exciting times. We are beginning EMALS and AAG production for the second ship in the class, CVN 79, as these systems are being integrated into the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). We are proud to be part of the team that is putting cutting-edge technology into the world’s premier aircraft carriers and into the hands of Naval forces,” said Dean Key, director of Launch and Recovery Production Programs, General Atomics.

GA was awarded the prime contract to provide EMALS and AAG systems for CVN 78 in June 2009 and is manufacturing the CVN 78 hardware concurrently with the System Design and Demonstration programs. Hardware delivery to CVN 78 is scheduled to be completed in 2014.

www.NPEO-kmi.com4 | NPEO 2.4

Imagine this: the United States has been drawn into a conflict with Iran, a country that has focused extensively on anti-access/area denial (A2AD). In the Persian Gulf, the enemy has built a defense made up primarily of small swarm boats and deployed mines in the near-shore waters. This hypothet-ical scenario demonstrates the impor-tance of a small surface combatant that can perform various “plug and fight” missions. The Navy’s littoral

combat ship (LCS) is that vessel.The LCS program is clearly a critical component for the future of

the Navy. It is a fast, versatile, fuel-efficient and highly capable ship that has the potential to become the tip of the spear for our fleet. It is being built in a manner that is both affordable and efficient. Beyond the enhanced capability it provides as a stand-alone vessel, the LCS allows larger surface combatants like the DDG 51 to perform the blue-water missions they were designed for.

The secretary of the Navy and the chief of Naval operations have said repeatedly that we need these ships in order to build an effective fighting force for the 21st century. Unnecessary cuts to this program now would be a tragic mistake, resulting in significantly greater costs to the taxpayer, setting back the Navy’s procurement schedule for a small surface combatant by a decade, and ultimately creating a man-ufactured crisis that could do serious harm to the program as a whole.

I’m proud of our Alabama-made LCS that provides over 4,000 jobs on Alabama’s Gulf Coast and the team at Austal USA whose mobile shipyard redefines state-of-the-art.

For years, we have been talking about the LCS from a purely the-oretical standpoint, but that is no longer the case. Earlier this year, the LCS 2 took part in the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) off the coast of Hawaii. During the exercise, the Austal-built ship demon-strated the unique flexibility to carry out a variety of missions. From operating with manned and unmanned aircraft, to facilitating special operations forces, to some gunfire operations, the LCS 2 excelled in every role it was given. The LCS is no longer just an abstract thought, but now an exciting, capable member of our fighting fleet.

The LCS always reminds me of my favorite boxer, Muhammad Ali. Ali was a pretty unique boxer for his time. He didn’t win his fights by sitting back and taking punches. Instead, he always said he wanted to “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.” To me, that is what the LCS is designed to do. It is fast and agile, but it can sting just like a bee.

When I shared my common-sense analysis of the LCS with Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus during a House Armed Services Committee hearing, he once again acknowledged how important the

LCS is to the future of our fleet. Mabus also pointed out that the rea-son for a pause in the LCS program was to take a look at the vari-ous missions of the LCS and how the ship can best meet those needs.

I am well aware of the budgetary challenges sequestration has imposed on the Pentagon. While I believe sequestration is ill-con-ceived and should be replaced, in the meantime, military leaders are going to be forced to make difficult choices. However, both Secretary Hagel and Navy leaders have made clear that a small surface combat-ant is critical to the future of the Navy.

We now await the findings from the Navy’s Small Surface Combatant Task Force study. While the Navy remains silent on the details, I continue to believe the answer rests solely in making modifi-cations to the current ship. It would go against rational logic to scrap the LCS program and try to start over from scratch. The industrial base is already in place, a new ship would not be cost-effective, and the ship is already designed in a way to be easily upgraded and altered to suit various missions, as the RIMPAC exercises clearly highlighted.

Going forward, I will continue to be the strongest advocate pos-sible for the LCS program because the current global stage, from the Middle East to the Asian Pacific, demands a small surface combatant. In fact, the LCS represents nearly one-sixth of the future 306-ship fleet the Navy has expressed as its fleet requirement.

New challenges are emerging internationally on a near-daily basis, and I believe our nation’s men and women need to have the resources and tools to respond to those challenges. The littoral com-bat ship is such a vital tool, and I will continue to fight for it in sup-port of the brave men and women who defend our nation at sea. O

vieW from THe HiLL

By Rep. BRadley ByRne

The Littoral Combat Ship Plays a Big Role in the Future of U.S. Navy

Rep. Bradley Byrne

The littoral combat ships USS Independence (LCS 2), left, and USS Coronado (LCS 4) are underway in the Pacific Ocean. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Keith DeVinney]

For more information, contact Editor-in-Chief Jeff McKaughan at [email protected] or search our online archives for related stories

at www.npeo-kmi.com.


Whether nuclear, electric, diesel, gas, fuel cell or biofuel, propulsion systems pro-

pel the Navy’s fleet where it needs to go. Fairbanks Morse Engine (FME) is a leader in engine technol-

ogy and manufacturing. They currently have engines installed on a majority of U.S. Navy, U.S. Military Sealift Command and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) ships, said Patrick Bussie, FME.

The engines are installed as main propulsion engines, ship service diesel generator sets and emergency diesel generator sets. FME manufactures, assembles and tests every engine or system in their factory in Beloit, Wis., and per-forms all engine installation along with provid-ing complete service and parts support for all of their engines installed in all branches of the military. They have performed extensive testing on many of the engine models and systems pro-vided to the Navy, such as ABS (American Bureau of Shipping) Naval Vessel Rules (NVR) testing and Mil-S-901D Shock, along with vibration and electromagnetic interference testing. FME’s cur-rent engine product line ranges in power from 750 kWm to 21,600 kWm and speed from 500 to 1800 revolutions per minute (rpm). Some of the ships where FME engines are installed are: LSD 41, T-AO, Fast Sea-Lift, LPD 17, T-AKE, LHD 8, CVN, LCS 1, LHA 6, SSN and MLP, as well as the following USCG cutter classes: 378-foot WHEC, 270-foot WMEC, 210-foot WMEC and 140-foot WTGB.

“For some of our newer ship programs, we have provided sequential turbocharging (STC) systems, which provide improved engine perfor-mance at low load (rpm) operation,” said Bussie. “This reduces fuel consumption and reduces

smoke while providing greater torque and performance at low load operation.”

FME offers condition-based engine monitoring, which allows them to remotely monitor the engine performance, improve ship availability and lower sustainment costs. FME installed low load kits on some of their older engines, which significantly improved engine performance at low load operation. In some of FME’s new engines, they are utilizing the latest turbocharg-ing systems, which provide improved performance and reduced fuel consumption. Many of the engines also offer electronic fuel

injection or common rail fuel systems; both will provide reduced fuel consumption from the ear-lier engine designs. Lastly, FME is performing alternative fuels tests on multiple fuels such as algae, HDCD (hydroprocessed depolymerized cel-lulosic diesel) and DSH (direct sugar to hydrocar-bon) for the Navy so they have other fuel options other than marine diesel oil.

Rolls-Royce has one of the largest highly innovative product and power systems capabili-ties in the naval and marine market, enabling Rolls-Royce to support customers’ needs from conceptualization through design, build, testing, delivery and after-market life cycle support, said Don Roussinos, president-Naval, Rolls-Royce. The full range of equipment in service or under build for U.S. Naval and other government naval vessels includes marine gas turbines and generator sets, high-speed and medium-speed diesel reciprocat-ing engines (MTU and Bergen), fully integrated propulsion systems (controllable pitch propel-lers, fixed pitch propellers, steering gear, water-jets, azimuthing thrusters, tunnel thrusters, etc.), vessel design, automation and control systems,

Don Roussinos

Patrick Bussie

GettinG the navy wheRe it needs to Go.By BRian o’shea, staff wRiteR

Special Section


stabilization systems, ship replenishment systems, deck machin-ery and winches and the main-propulsion steam raising plants for the Royal Navy nuclear submarine fleet.

“Rolls-Royce has been supporting the U.S. Navy for over 50 years, and is especially proud to be part of a team that is pro-viding the U.S. Navy with the most efficient and reliable power generation systems for current and future ship programs,” said Roussinos. “Rolls-Royce continues to offer full-spectrum power and propulsion systems to the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard.”

Rolls-Royce provides the power and propulsion system for the Freedom-class variant and Independence-class variant of the littoral combat ship. Aboard the Freedom class ships are two MT30 gas turbines (derived from the Trent 800 aero engine that has over 20 million flying hours to date) driving four large waterjets. Each MT30 in mechanical drive on this ship produces up to 40 megawatts (MW) of power. Aboard the Independence-class ships are two series 8000 high-speed marine diesels built by their power systems partner, MTU America, that provide over 9,000 KW of power each.

The MT30 marine gas turbines are also utilized in the DDG 1000 multi-mission destroyer class of ship (as well as the UK’s QE class aircraft carriers and the Republic of Korea Navy’s Future Frigate Program). But unlike its application in the littoral combat ship, the MT30s installed in the DDG 1000 class vessel(s) are used for power generation.

“The reason for this, and a likely trend for future naval vessels, is that modern multi-mission destroyers like the USS Zumwalt DDG 1000 have high power demands, not just for pro-pulsion systems but also for future air and missile defense radars and weapon systems,” said Roussinos. “So, by combining the newly certified MT5S ATGs (auxiliary turbine generator sets) with the well-proven MT30 MTGs (main turbine gensets), Rolls-Royce is able to deliver a highly survivable integrated power sys-tem that provides 100 percent of the electrical power aboard this and future Zumwalt-class multi-mission destroyers.”

Rolls-Royce’s scope of supply on the USS Zumwalt includes two main turbine gensets generating 36 MW each and two aux-iliary turbine gensets generating 4 MW each, providing a total of 80 MW for total ship power, in addition to the fixed-pitch propellers.

Rolls-Royce has also been selected to provide the MT7 gas turbine to power the U.S. Navy’s next-generation landing craft air-cushion vehicle (or ship-to-shore connector). This engine is derived from the AE1107 gas turbine engine, which is in ser-vice with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps on the Osprey V-22 tilt rotor aircraft. Each of the ship-to-shore connectors, to be built by Textron Marine and Land Systems, will be powered by four MT7s.

“In addition to these current and future programs, Rolls-Royce has a long history providing gas turbine gensets for every U.S. Navy combatant over the past 40 years, as well as the pro-pellers for virtually every U.S. naval vessel in service today,” said Roussinos.

Rolls-Royce is currently investing heavily in more fuel-effi-cient and lower through-life cost engines as part of the U.S.

Navy technology development roadmap. They are also a leader in developing hybrid propul-sion systems to capture the benefits of electric drive and direct mechanical drive configurations for naval vessels.

“Further, Rolls-Royce is applying much of its investment in research and development into highly innovative products and services in support of our naval and coast guard custom-ers, including the use of permanent magnet technology, noise abatement, fuel efficiencies and cleaner energy,” said Roussinos.

They are also a leader in liquefied natural gas engines for the marine market.

“Rolls-Royce is continuously updating product designs to meet our customers’ budget and performance needs, and the U.S. Navy is no exception,” said Roussinos. “We are continually introducing technology updates that improve fuel performance on legacy engines. Rolls-Royce is the world leader in hybrid pro-pulsion plants and, with the MTU (motor and turbine union) engine line, under the Rolls-Royce Power Systems division, we are able to make this commercial system a standard offering for government ships around the world.” O

Above: The gas turbine for the U.S. Navy’s newest and most advanced ship platforms: the MT30 marine gas turbine is installed in both the Freedom-class littoral combat ship as well as the DDG 1000 multi-mission destroyer class of ship. The MT30s installed in the DDG 1000 class vessel(s) are used for power generation, as modern multi-mission destroyers like the USS Zumwalt DDG 1000 have high power demands, not just for propulsion systems but also for future air and missile defense radars and weapon systems. [Photo courtesy of Rolls-Royce]

Left: The FM/ALCO 251 F engine is universally recognized for its great reliability, high specific output and low specific fuel consumption. This rugged 4-stroke engine is available in 6-, 8-, 12-, 16- and 18-cylinder configurations and provides 500 to 2810 kWe of power. [Photo courtesy of Fairbanks Morse Engine]

Special Section




planninG and fundinG aRe expected to mitiGate Risks that could come fRom a shoRtfall in amphiBious ship capaBilities.

The Honorable Sean J. Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition), General John M. Paxton Jr., assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, and Vice Admiral Joseph P. Aucoin, deputy chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems, recently testified before the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces of the House Armed Services Committee on Amphibious Fleet Requirements.

The future security environment requires a robust capability to project forces ashore from amphibious platforms and to maneuver over land to positions of advantage. Amphibious ships and their expeditionary forces provide combatant commanders with unmatched versatility and capability, and consequently there is a great demand for these forces. It is clear that our Navy and Marine Corps would like more amphibious ships, yet we must bal-ance war fighting risk across the spectrum of required capabilities and capacity.

amphiBious ships

Amphibious ships operate forward to provide the nation’s best means of

projecting sustainable power ashore, responding to crises, deterring potential adversaries and supporting allies; they also provide an exceptional means for deliver-ing humanitarian assistance and disas-ter relief. Amphibious forces comprised of sailors, Marines, ships, aircraft, landing craft and surface connectors provide the ability to rapidly and decisively respond to global crises in an expeditionary envi-ronment or for temporary duties with-out establishing a permanent footprint ashore that could place unnecessary polit-ical or logistical burdens upon our allies or potential partners. There are three main drivers of the amphibious ship require-ment: maintaining our persistent forward presence, enabling engagement and crisis

response, and delivering the assault ech-elons of up to two Marine expeditionary brigades (MEBs) for joint forcible entry operations.

amphiBious Battle foRce RequiRements and inventoRy

The chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) have determined that the force structure required to support a 2.0 MEB assault echelon lift is 38 amphibious assault ships. The 38-ship requirement was communicated to the chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services committees by a joint secretary of the Navy, CNO and CMC


letter dated January 7, 2009. This require-ment, initially established during a 2007 Navy/Marine Corps working group, has been fully analyzed and was last revali-dated in March of 2011. Understanding this requirement, and in light of cur-rent fiscal constraints, the Department of the Navy can sustain a minimum of 33 amphibious ships in the assault echelon. Balancing the total naval force structure requirements against fiscal projections imposes risk in meeting this requirement. Based on the footprint of a 2.0 MEB assault echelon force, a minimum of 30 operation-ally available ships is necessary to provide a force made up of 10 amphibious assault ships (LHD/LHAs), 10 amphibious trans-port docks (LPDs) and 10 dock landing ships (LSDs). Planning factors call for a force of 33 ships to achieve this availability.

At the end of fiscal year 2015, the amphibious force structure will stand at 30 ships, which includes nine LHD/LHAs, nine LPDs and 12 LSDs. A total force of 33 ships will be achieved in FY 18, although the required mix of 11 LHD/LHAs, 11 LPDs and 11 LSDs will not be achieved until the delivery of LHA 8 in FY 24. Eleven LPDs will be achieved in FY 17 with the delivery of LPD 27. Twelve LSDs will be maintained by the CG/LSD Phased Modernization Plan, retaining 11 deploy-able LSDs in the battle force until LX(R) delivers. The F Y15 shipbuilding plan will result in a projected amphibious ship force structure of at least 30 ships in the near-term and maintains 33 ships throughout the 2020s and most of the 2030s.

INSERT CHART IN THIS SECTION

lsd phased modeRnization plan

The Navy plans to maintain 11 deploy-able LSDs in the active force until LX(R) delivers by rotating three LSDs, one at a time, into a four-year phased moderniza-tion period and then placing them back in service. USS Tortuga (LSD 46) would be inducted into its phased modernization beginning in 2016, and will achieve the expected 40-year operational service. The phased modernization of USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) and USS Germantown (LSD 42) will begin in 2020 and 2024, respectively. This will extend LSD 41 and LSD 42 (with midlife complete) to 45 oper-ational years of service. This plan miti-gates presence shortfalls and 2.0 MEB assault echelon shipping requirements.

mitiGatinG amphiBious lift shoRtfall

In the short-term, we are accepting risk to aviation, vehicle lift capacity, and sur-face assault capacity in the event of a 2.0 MEB forcible entry operation. Major com-bat operations may require all LSDs and careful management of maintenance cycles to avoid delay of forcible entry timelines. The LSD Phased Modernization Plan will maintain LSD inventory at the required 11 ships. Ten operational LSDs are sufficient to source amphibious ready group/Marine expeditionary unit deployments at current levels. However, the capacity to support any additional independent amphibious ship demands, such as maritime security opera-tions, theater security cooperation, or other forward presence missions, will require employment of alternate maritime vessels.

Risk may be reduced through the greater use of carrier tactical aviation for close air support and by delivering additional ground maneuver support vehicles via the mobile landing platform (MLP)/large, medium-speed roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) and/or the joint high speed vessel (JHSV), and sustain-ment from the dry cargo and ammunition ship (T-AKE). Innovative approaches and employment models are also under con-sideration to mitigate impacts to presence missions caused by reduced ship quantities. With increased investment in the capabili-ties of JHSV, MLP/LMSR and T-AKE, the risk associated with missions in permis-sive environments may be reduced. These new ships can take on potentially valuable roles in security cooperation, humanitarian assistance and disaster response, freeing

up the amphibious warships to meet global war fighting demands.

connectoRs

Surface connectors such as landing craft, air cushion (LCAC) and landing craft utility (LCU) provide amphibious capa-bility to lift all weapons systems, cargo, equipment and personnel of the assault element of a Marine air/ground task force from amphibious ships and mobile land-ing platforms to the shore. The LCACs and LCUs have reached their useful ser-vice life and are being replaced. The Ship to Shore Connector (SSC) program will replace the aging LCACs, and the Surface Connector Replacement (SC(X)(R)) pro-gram will replace the LCUs. The LCAC inventory, including those LCACs which have undergone a service life extension program (SLEP), begins to degrade below the required operational capability/pro-jected operational environment (ROC/POE) requirement beginning in 2015. Ensuring that both the LCAC SLEP program, which has 14 planned SLEPs in the FY 15-18 timeframe, and the SSC, which will begin ordering SCN-funded craft in FY 15, stays fully funded and on-track is imperative in addressing the projected air cushioned con-nector capability gap.

The Ship to Shore Connector (SSC) program had its critical design review in August 2014, followed by a production read-iness review in September. Fabrication of the first two craft will follow; they are scheduled for delivery and operational test-ing in FY 18. The program is planned to deliver a total of 73 SSC craft. In order to

Amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) assigned to Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron (HMM) 261. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy]


mitigate the LCAC connector gap, SCN-funded craft orders begin in FY 15, ramp-ing up from two craft per year to a more economical production rate of eight to 11 craft per year by the end of the Future Years Defense Program.

The SC(X)(R) program to replace the aging LCUs is completing its analysis of alternatives, and detail design and con-struction of these craft will begin in FY 18. A total of 32 SC(X)(R) craft are planned.

amphiBious ship acquisition and the industRial Base

A healthy design and production industrial base is critical to achieving the Department of the Navy’s priorities and fulfilling the Navy’s needs going forward. Perturbations in naval ship design and con-struction plans are significant because of the long lead time, specialized skills, and extent of integration needed to build mili-tary ships. The complex configuration and size of naval vessels result in long design and construction schedules, and each indi-vidual ship makes up a significant portion of not only the Navy’s shipbuilding budget, but also industry’s workload and regional employment numbers. Consequently, the timing and stability for planning for fund-ing of ship procurements is a critical matter to the department as well as to the health and sustainment of U.S. shipbuilding, com-bat system industries and their suppliers.

While the department is ever mindful of the effect of its decisions on the indus-trial base, our ability to mitigate adverse impacts on the shipbuilding industrial base from constrained resources is not with-out limits. The reduced BCA levels start-ing in FY 16 and fiscal realities associated with funding of the Ohio Replacement Submarine program will significantly impact the industrial base and the future ship mix due to reduced procurement of other ship classes. The result will be increased risk in the Navy’s ability to sup-port the Defense Strategic Guidance and inevitable reductions in the shipbuilding and combat system industrial base, with

potential for further long-term impacts on platform affordability and force size. During the Future Years Defense Plan, 2015-2019, construction will continue on three previ-ously-awarded amphibious ships, one addi-tional ship will be awarded in FY 17, and the design for the replacement of the LSD 41/49 Classes will complete. A summary of the FY 15 shipbuilding acquisition plan for the LHA/LHD, LPD, and LSD programs follows.

lha/lhd class

LHA/LHD Class ships are flexi-ble, multi-mission platforms with capa-bilities that span the range of military operations—from forward-deployed crisis response to forcible entry operations. The LHA replacement program, called LHA(R), will be the modern replacements for the remaining LHA 1 Tarawa Class ship and the aging LHD 1 WASP Class ships as they begin decommissioning in the late 2020s. The LHA(R) program began with two Flight 0 ships, America (LHA 6), delivered in April 2014, and Tripoli (LHA 7), scheduled for delivery in 2018. These ships are opti-mized for aviation capability in lieu of a well deck. LHA 8, the first Flight 1 ship, reincorporates the well deck to provide increased connector capability along with a reduced flight deck island to increase flight

deck space and retain an aviation capabil-ity similar to the Flight 0 ships. Both fea-tures improve the ship’s essential dual surface and vertical assault capabilities. LHA 8 design activities are underway, and the ship procurement will be split funded in FY 17 and FY 18, with delivery sched-uled in FY 24. The Navy expanded the early industry involvement efforts for the LHA 8 design and initiated a phased approach to the design for affordability of amphibious ships. FY 14 funding enables affordability efforts that foster an interactive competi-tion with industry partners in developing an affordable, producible detail design and build strategy, and help drive towards more affordable ships. Beginning in FY 24, the Navy plans to begin building LHA(R) Flight 1 ships every four years.

lx(R)

LX(R) is the replacement program for the LSD 41 Whidbey Island and LSD 49 Harpers Ferry Classes, which will begin reaching their expected service lives in the mid-2020s. The Navy has completed the LX(R) analysis of alternatives and is currently determining the ship’s key per-formance parameters (KPP) and refin-ing design and construction options. Navy anticipates the program will begin

Amphibious Battle Force Inventory FY15-44

Fiscal Year 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

LHA/LHD 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 11 10 9 9

LPD 9 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

LSD/LX (R) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 14 13 14 13 13 12 12 13 12 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

Total 30 31 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 36 35 36 35 35 34 34 35 34 32 32 33 33 33 32 33 32 31 31

Amphibious warships like the USS Tarawa are flexible, multi-mission platforms with a wide range of capabilities for military operations. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by Petty Officer 1st Class Bryan Niegel]


technology development in early FY 15. Affordability will be a key focus for this ship class. Industry will be involved in identify-ing cost drivers and proposing cost reduc-tion initiatives to drive affordability into the design, production, operation and mainte-nance of this ship class. Advanced procure-ment funding in FY19 is planned with the lead LX(R) Class ship planned in FY 20. The lead LX(R) will deliver in time for LSD 43’s retirement in FY 2027. The remaining 10 ships will be procured in the FY 22-34 time-frame. This build profile will help maintain the inventory for amphibious ships at or above 33 ships until the mid-2030s.

lpd 17 class

The LPD 17 San Antonio Class provides the ability to embark, transport, control, insert, sustain and extract elements of a Marine air-ground task force and support-ing forces by helicopters, tilt rotor aircraft, landing craft and amphibious vehicles. The Navy accepted delivery of USS Somerset (LPD 25) in October 2013, the ninth of 11

ships. The remaining two ships are under construction and will deliver in 2016 and 2017, respectively. The FY 15 President’s Budget requests SCN funding for cost-to-complete, outfitting, post-delivery and pro-gram close-out costs.

The FY 15 Shipbuilding Plan does not include a request for a 12th LPD. The Navy’s Force Structure Assessment, com-pleted in 2012, identified a requirement for an 11-LPD 17 ship class. Additionally, the Navy’s 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan currently supports an 11-ship class profile. If fully funded, the Navy can execute the acqui-sition of a 12th LPD, but the requirement cannot be supported at the expense of other items in the PB-15 request.

The FY 13 Continuing and Furthering Appropriations Bill (P.L. 113-6) added $263 million of Advanced Procurement (AP) funding for a 12th LPD 17 amphibious transport dock ship. With the sequestra-tion mark of approximately $20 million, the net FY 13 appropriation for the 12th ship is $243 million. The end cost of a fully scoped 12th LPD is estimated at $2.023 billion. If

the 12th ship were to be constructed, the Navy would build it as a bridge to LX(R), implementing some of the affordability ini-tiatives identified during the recent design studies effort.

Meeting Global Amphibious Warship Demand

The DoN remains committed to provid-ing sufficient amphibious lift for day-to-day presence as well as large-scale expedition-ary operations and will reach the required 33 amphibious ships in the near-term. The 33-ship amphibious force will eventually be comprised of 11 LHA/Ds, 11 LPDs and 11 LSDs/LX(R)s. Our proposed delivery and decommissioning profiles will meet histor-ical sourcing for amphibious-ready groups. The Navy remains committed to provid-ing 30 operationally available amphibious ships to meet global amphibious warship demand. O

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

PML7038-1 Rev(14.0)

locate. range. IDENTIFYTrijicon 6x48 MGO ACOG.®

SEE THE LINK

Trijicon_NavyAirSeaForum_PML7038-1Rev(14.0).indd 1 7/23/2014 4:37:15 PM

For more information, contact Editor-in-Chief Jeff McKaughan at [email protected]

or search our online archives for related stories at www.npeo-kmi.com.


By u.s. maRine coRps colonel hank vandeRBoRGht, heavy lift helicopteRs pRoGRam manaGeR, pma-261

Deployed on ships and ashore, H-53 helicopters prove the relevance and importance of the heavy-lift mission in combat and humanitarian relief operations worldwide. Before I launch into the CH-53K program, I want to provide a little background on the heavy lift history so you can appreciate its vital mission.

The first U.S. Marine Corps’ heavy lift helicop-ter was delivered in 1963—the CH-53A—with a total of 129 delivered over the course of five years. Between 1967 and 1971, 126 CH-53D helicopters were delivered, the last of which was retired by the Marine Corps

in October 2012. The CH-53E was intro-duced in 1981 and has proven to be extraordinarily relevant in executing the

U.S. national security strat-egy, Navy and Marine Corps war fighting concepts, and the associated heavy-lift needs. From the Scott O’Grady rescue mission in the Balkans to delivering critical combat support in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa, the CH-53E remains in incredibly high demand. There are cur-

rently 151 CH-53E aircraft in operation.The CH-53E Super Stallion is used

worldwide but is aging rapidly, mak-ing the CH-53K King Stallion an asset

required to meet the Marine Corps’ future war fighting requirements.

Now in active development, the CH-53K will be the most capable marin-ised helicopter ever produced. It is a new-build helicopter that will transport Marines, heavy equipment and supplies during ship-to-shore movement in sup-port of amphibious assault and subse-quent operations ashore, and will expand the fleet’s ability to move more material when and where it’s needed using proven and mature technologies.

Design improvements over the CH-53E include full fly-by-wire flight controls with triple-redundant flight control com-puters, which greatly improve survivabil-ity and pilot workload. These systems will provide significant improvements,

Colonel Hank Vanderborght

CH-53K King StallioncominG in 2019 to a theateR neaR you.


CH-53K rollout event on May 5 in West Palm Beach, Fla. [Photos courtesy of NAVAIR]

especially in degraded visual environ-ments such as the brownout scenarios often experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the stabilized hover capabil-ity will greatly increase aircrew safety.

The CH-53K has three GE T408 engines. When compared to its pre-decessor T64 turboshaft engine that powers the CH-53E aircraft, the 7,332-rated shaft horsepower T408 will pro-vide 54 percent more power, 18 percent better specific fuel consumption and 63 percent fewer parts. The engines, coupled with an advanced bearingless rotor system incorporating fourth-gen-eration composite main rotor blades with anhedral tips, give the CH-53K nearly three times the lift capability of the CH-53E—nearly 14 tons at a mis-sion radius of 110 nautical miles in Navy high/hot environments—all with-out changing the current shipboard footprint.

Logistically, the advanced internal cargo system is capable of support-ing two 463L pallets (or five 463L half-pallets), which enables cargo to be offloaded from theater fixed-wing lift assets and placed directly onto the CH-53K. This drastically enhances the logistical throughput for the warfighter, since material will no longer have to be transferred between 463L pallets to wooden pallets prior to movement, which is the case with the CH-53E.

An advanced triple-hook external cargo system enables three separate loads to be picked up or dropped off

independently as the mission dictates. With this triple hook system and the 463L pallet capability, the CH-53K will provide the Marine Air-Ground Task Force commander unparalleled support for the warfighter on the ground.

From the survivability aspect, the fly-by-wire flight controls and inte-grated armor systems will greatly reduce the aircraft’s critical areas and improve survivability for aircrew and passengers. The CH-53K will have a state-of-the-art electronic missile warning and countermeasures sys-tem, which will provide real-time warn-ing and protection from current and emerging threats.

The CH-53K program is currently on track to provide an initial operating capability (IOC) in 2019; the CH-53K Operational Requirements Document defines IOC as: “when the first squad-ron receives four CH-53K aircraft with required personnel suitably trained and certified, required primary and support equipment and technical publications, to include initial spares with interim repair support and initial training in place, ready to deploy in accordance with United States Marine Corps stan-dards.” The current program of record plans for 200 helicopters.

Ground test vehicle (GTV) testing began in December 2013 with a “bare head” light off, so named because it was conducted without rotor blades, which initiated the safety-of-flight evaluations with test pilots at the aircraft’s controls.

The program is currently undergoing “shakedown” tests, which began on April 16. With blades installed on the GTV, shakedown exercises the aircraft systems through much of the propul-sion and drive train systems’ operating envelope. As of the end of July, about 25 percent of the total testing needed before first flight has been completed. From that testing, several issues were identified and fixed—and this is why these tests are conducted, to uncover any system integration issues or system performance issues that could not be found in component or subsystem-level bench testing before we risk pilots and test assets in flight.

GTV test phases required prior to first flight include shakedown comple-tion, main rotor whirl (an endurance test of the main rotor head at maxi-mum flight loads) and a preflight accep-tance test (an endurance run of the full aircraft drive system at predicted flight loads). Once flight testing begins, which we anticipate within the next year, the GTV will continue to conduct endurance testing to verify the aircraft systems’ life prior to requiring repair or replacement. These are exciting times for the program and we look forward not only to continued progress, but to 2019 and beyond. O

For more information, contact Editor-in-Chief Jeff McKaughan at [email protected]

or search our online archives for related stories at www.npeo-kmi.com.


University of Maryland Launches UAS Test Site near

Patuxent RiverThe University of Maryland (UMD) cut the

ribbon on its new unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) test site at St. Mary’s County Regional Airport in California, Md., on August 5.

UMD named former Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) vice commander Matt Scassero the director of the new test site. His mission is to safely and responsibly integrate and advance UAS. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) UAS Test Site program selected the Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership—which includes Maryland, Virginia and New Jersey—to help integrate UAS into national airspace.

Located less than 12 miles from the command’s headquarters at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., the test site offers potential for a collaborative environment to advance UAS technology.

“Our existing relationship with the University of Maryland serves as the foundation of this new test site,” said Vice Admiral David Dunaway, commander of NAVAIR. “The sharing of human capital and expertise from the university, govern-ment and industry will be a conduit for technology transfer and the overall betterment of national security.”

The test site will deliver products and programs in support of workforce development and higher education while it serves as a hub focusing the capabilities of the people and infrastructure in the area. These activities will provide new opportuni-ties for the Southern Maryland region.

“This new addition to the St. Mary’s County Technology Corridor is the first step toward a larger autonomous research initiative in the region,” said Maryland Delegate John Bohanan Jr. “The test site represents the next big transfor-mation of our Southern Maryland economy, and will offer up new job opportunities for Maryland residents.”

The UAV industry is rapidly growing, with a current global market estimated at $6.4 billion yearly, according to aerospace consultancy The Teal Group. They project that number will nearly double to $11.5 billion by 2024.

“What we hope to do is to take advantage of that considerable investment,” Dunaway said. “This is a very exciting day for the U.S. Navy, and I look forward to working with everyone involved.”

USS Independence Successfully Completes Special Trials

USS Independence (LCS 2) successfully completed special trials (ST), a series of at-sea tests on August 2, following the ship’s participation in the multinational Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises that took place throughout the month of July.

Independence, funded as a research development test and evaluation ship, conducted an ST instead of the usual final contract trial (FCT).

Traditionally-funded ships have a specific timeframe for when FCT must take place in order to identify issues or deficiencies to be corrected before the vessel is officially turned over to the U.S. Navy. Independence was commissioned in January 2010, and has already undergone several periods of maintenance to correct issues uncovered in testing and operation. A similar ST was previ-ously carried out with USS Freedom (LCS 1) in May 2012.

The successful ST for LCS 2 was conducted off the Hawaiian coast, where the ship underwent a series of specific tests under the supervision of the Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV). Specific tests included: anchoring, launch and recovery of rigid hull inflatable boats, firing exer-cises using the 57 mm gun, and full power propulsion and maneuvering tests.

“This was a well-executed trial and a positive validation of the capability embedded in this ship. With this good RIMPAC and INSURV performance, our Navy should rightly be bullish on the LCS,” said Rear Admiral Jeff Harley, president of INSURV.

“This was a great opportunity for me, as the builder of future littoral combat ships, to see this first-of-class ship with nearly five years of time in service be put through her paces,” said Captain Tom Anderson, LCS program manager. “Both the ship and her crew performed superbly.”

LCS 2 is a trimaran-hulled small surface combatant built for high speed that can conduct agile and mission-focused operations in the complex littoral environment. Built by Austal USA, the Independence variant of LCS can be rapidly reconfigured with specific mission modules to conduct surface warfare, mine countermeasures and anti-submarine warfare.

NAVAIR engineers recently installed new software for the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system’s control station at the program’s Naval Air Station Patuxent River lab.

In early September, the UCLASS team integrated the latest iteration of Common Control System (CCS) software into the next-generation unmanned effort, laying the groundwork for potential use across multiple domains: airborne, land and subsurface.

This new software version is the first to provide an unmanned command and control capability using the latest Navy Interoperability Profile (NIOP) standards. The NIOPs allow control systems to talk to and share data with multiple air vehicles.

Davis’ team leveraged support from other unmanned programs, specifically Triton and Fire Scout, to build baseline software for UCLASS. They are currently testing this software with an air vehicle simulator based on Triton.

Navy Integrates ‘Common’ Software Into Next-Gen Unmanned Carrier-Based System


main DeCK

X-47B Achieves New Set of Firsts Aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt

The Navy’s X-47B completed its final test aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) on August 24 and returned to its home base at Naval Air Station Patuxent River after eight days at sea.

While underway, the X-47B flew in the carrier pattern with manned aircraft for the first time and conducted a total of five catapult launches, four arrest-ments and nine touch-and-go landings, including a nighttime shipboard flight deck handling evaluation.

“This is another detachment for the record books; all tests were safely and effectively executed,” said Captain Beau Duarte, Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Aviation program manager. “We have set the bar for the future of unmanned carrier aviation.”

Testing began August 17 when the X-47B performed its initial cooperative launch and recovery cycle with an F/A-18. With its automatic wing-fold capability and new tailhook retract system, the X-47B met the program’s objective to demonstrate that carrier-based manned and unmanned aircraft could maintain a 90-second aircraft launch and recovery interval.

Throughout the week, the Navy/Northrop Grumman test team captured X-47B flying quality and recovery wind condition data to evaluate how the aircraft responded to wake turbulence during approach and landing. This data will be used to improve a simulation model for use with carrier-based aircraft.

The team also evaluated how the unmanned aircraft performed during the first nighttime taxi and deck-handling operations aboard a carrier. Since

the shipboard environment presents different challenges at night, this test was an incremental step in developing the operational concept for more routine unmanned air system flight activity.

“We conducted X-47B night flight deck operations to understand the human interface and suitability of the unmanned air vehicle and deck opera-tor’s handheld control unit in the night environment,” said Barbara Weathers, X-47B unmanned combat air system lead. “These lessons learned will help with the development of future unmanned platforms.”

The Navy will continue to execute shore-based testing at Patuxent River to further the goal of seamless integration with manned aircraft and to refine best practices for the evaluation of future unmanned air systems.

Stackley Calls NAWCWD a ‘Crown Jewel’ After Seeing Its CapabilitiesSean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy

for Research, Development and Acquisition, was the latest of several senior Defense Department leaders to visit Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division to see firsthand the in-house expertise and resources available at the Navy’s premier research lab for weapons.

“NAWCWD is clearly a warfare center that hasn’t lost touch with the warfighter,” said Stackley, who toured NAWCWD on August 11. His visit followed closely behind that of the Honorable Frank Kendall, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, who continues to speak highly of the workforce and the significant capabilities he witnessed during his visit in May.

NAWCWD’s military and civilian workforce filled Stackley’s daylong visit to China Lake with demonstrations and discussions about several work focus areas, including electronic

warfare systems, target and threat simulation, and unmanned systems. Stackley then went on a walking tour of NAWCWD’s Advanced Weapons Lab, where he saw firsthand how the integrated approach to development, integration and test (operational test and developmental test) of soft-ware, systems and weapons for the F-18 aircraft, maintained during the last 35 years, has provided the fleet with significant capability improvements affordably and effectively. He also heard how the Navy can leverage this experience to help support the Joint Strike Fighter in the future.

“Mr. Stackley learned firsthand what we at WD know to be true; we have an extremely talented, experienced and dedicated workforce that is focused on the mission of supporting our sailors and Marines,” said Rear Admiral Mike Moran, NAWCWD commander. “He was exception-ally impressed with our workforce’s innovative spirit that is alive and well—clearly setting the

standard for what he believes the Navy’s warfare centers should be.”

Other discussions focused on the technical advances made by NAWCWD weapons develop-ments, including the Spike missile, synthetic guid-ance, the digital precision strike suite, and weapons propulsion opportunities for the government to assume more of a leadership role going forward. He also saw the unique resources that are already in place and ready to support a variety of work important to the Navy during an overview of the NAWCWD land range at China Lake.

More than 300 people from the NAWCWD workforce joined Stackley for an all-hands session held at McLean Lab.

“The Department of the Navy has a lot of warfare centers and places that call themselves labs,” Stackley said. “We have very few crown jewels; NAWCWD clearly is one. What you all do is very special and unique.”


compiled by kMi Media group staff

Lieutenant General Christopher C. Bogdan is the program executive officer for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office in Arlington, Va. He leads the Department of Defense agency responsi-ble for developing and acquiring the F-35A/B/C, the next-generation strike aircraft weapon system for the Air Force, Marines, Navy and many allied nations.

Bogdan was commissioned in 1983 from the U.S. Air Force Academy. He has served as an operational pilot, test pilot, staff offi-cer, executive officer, acquisition program manager and program director. He is a command pilot and experimental test pilot with more than 3,200 flying hours in more than 35 aircraft types, includ-ing the KC-135, FB-111A, B-2 and F-16. He has commanded at the squadron and group levels, and served as the executive officer to the Commander, Electronic Systems Center, and to the Commander, Air Force Materiel Command.

Prior to his current assignment, Bogdan served as the program executive officer for the KC-46 Tanker Modernization Directorate, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

Q: What steps is the PEO Joint Strike Fighter taking to manage the costs in this program?

A: When we look across the program, there are different phases that we’re in the midst of. We’re in the middle of development, we’re in the starting phases of production, and with our 80-plus airplanes out in the field, we’re sustaining those airplanes now. When I look across the program at those three areas, we have specific initiatives and things we’re doing to reduce the costs in each.

In development, we live by the motto, “We have no more money, and we have no more time.” Relative to development, any new work that gets put into the development phase of the program either has to be a safety requirement or a requirement that the services vali-date, and usually that has to come with something coming out of the program.

The other thing we do in development is, monthly, my dep-uty, Rear Admiral [Randolph L.] Mahr, chairs what we call a Cost Reduction Initiative Board, where we look across the whole process of development—whether it’s labs, flight test, engineering work, engi-neering change proposals—and we look for ways to reduce costs in terms of, “Do we have to do that work? If we have to do that work, does it have to be done at this level? Do we have to do that testing? If we don’t do that testing, is there any increase to the risk of the pro-gram, or is there anything we’re going to miss?” If the answer [to any of those questions] is no, we’ll revise the scope.

Living by that motto has probably saved us $100-200 million over the last few years, mainly due to some of the testing that we initially thought we would have to do on the program that we later deemed unnecessary. For example, because we have three variants, there was certain testing that we thought we’d have to do across all three vari-ants: A, B and C. As it turns out, the engineering and the data that we’ve gathered from one variant would not change across variants, so we wouldn’t have to do that testing.

There are a number of things that we’re doing in production to help contain costs. The first thing is we’ve changed our contracting strategy with our industry partners, such that there is more balance when it comes to cost risk. For example, starting in LRIP-5 (low-rate initial production Lot 5) with the engines, and starting with Lot 6 on the airplanes, and moving forward, all of our contracts have a ceiling on them, which is the negotiated price of the airplane or the engine, and any cost over and above that is borne 100 percent by the contractor.

As you build more and more airplanes you get smarter and smarter—they call that “coming down a learning curve.” There are things that you can do to accelerate coming down that learning curve and coming down the price curve. One of those things is investing in different ways to manufacture the airplane. We have embarked on a program called Blueprint for Affordability with Lockheed Martin and its partners, BAE and Northrop Grumman, and we are in the process of putting together the same kind of program with Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce for the engine. The way it works is, the team that’s

Lieutenant General Christopher C. Bogdan

Program Executive OfficerF-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office


Joint Acquisition LeaderManaging Costs Through Innovative Strategy

Q&AQ&A

building the airplane and the engine has many good ideas on ways to reduce the production cost of this airplane—it may be a new man-ufacturing technique, changing the material of what a part is made of, or even something as simple as the sequence in which events are done on the production line. Some of those initiatives require invest-ment—they just don’t happen. So in the Blueprint for Affordability, Lockheed Martin and its partners have agreed to put up $170 million for two years and invest their money in the initiatives that the gov-ernment has approved. When the price of the airplane comes down, we are guaranteed that savings from those initiatives, and it’s from those savings which we will take the money and pay back industry.

So if Lockheed doesn’t achieve those savings, they don’t get paid back. There’s strong motivation on Lockheed’s part—one, to get those savings, and two, to get them as fast as they can, because the sooner savings occurs within a lot of airplanes, the sooner they get their money back.

I also have money set aside beyond the next two years [for invest-ing in this process] if it works well with Lockheed. We believe these investments are going to take a good chunk out of the price of this airplane to the point that when we get to 2019, the price of an F-35 is going to be comparable to fourth-generation airplanes in then-year dollars—somewhere on the order of $80-85 million a copy for an A-model F-35, which includes everything you need to go to combat.

We’ve talked about development, we’ve talked about production. Now we’ll talk about the biggest piece of the cost pie in the F-35 pro-gram, and that’s the operations and sustainment piece. More than 75 percent of the overall life cycle cost of this airplane is in the opera-tions and sustainment. We’re not talking tens of billions of dollars—we’re talking hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in that cost alone over a 50-plus-year program life cycle. So anything you can do today while the airplane is young, and you don’t have a lot of airplanes out there to drive those costs down, will in the future reap huge benefits.

What have we done to try to help that? The first thing we’ve done is we’ve stood up a reliability and maintainability program. This is a government-funded program where Lockheed Martin and its team-mates have put together a program management team that is look-ing across the board at how we can improve the reliability and the maintainability of the airplane. That means maybe we’re going to change how we repair a part, or maybe we’re going to change the material that part is made of, so in the long run it doesn’t fail as quickly. Maybe we’re going to change a maintenance procedure or give the maintainers a proper tool to do the process so that some-thing that may have taken four hours now only takes two hours to complete.

We have looked over all the external parts of the airplane with the low observable [stealth] features, and we’ve tried to find ways to reduce the time it takes to repair low observables. All of those things within the reliability and maintainable program, we invest in those initiatives now, and the payoff comes later on. The best thing you can usually do is project what those savings are going to be—we have a way of tracking each and every airplane in the whole fleet to see if those initiatives are really making a difference in the future.

The second thing we’re doing is we’ve stood up what we call a “War on Cost execution team.” The purpose of this team—it’s a joint team with the program office and our industry partners, [consisting of 20 or 25 folks, half government, half industry]—they’re looking at every single way we spend money on this program, and figuring out, “Is there a better way to do it?”

The perfect example of that would be: Perhaps we buy this piece or part from company A, who then sells it to company B, who then sells it to Lockheed, and then we buy it from Lockheed. If that part is already fully qualified, and it has no more testing to go through, and we don’t think its design is going to change, there’s probably not a reason why we have to buy it through three people. We are delayering or “flattening” the supply chain.

“Let’s take a look at how much flying a particular service or a particular partner needs to do per pilot, per month.” Can you actu-ally do some of that training in a simulator as opposed to having to do it flying the airplane? Because the simulator is a whole lot cheaper. We’re doing studies with our partners and the services to [determine] the right balance between simulator flying and actual flying.

Another thing we’re looking at is support equipment. The ser-vices and their partners have an awful lot of support equipment from legacy airplanes. In general, when we started this program, all the support equipment that we were procuring for this airplane was new and newly created. You don’t always have to have new and newly created support equipment—you can modify old support equipment, or by just changing some maintenance procedures, you may be able to use old support equipment.

A couple examples of that are: There are hydraulic systems, there are pneumatic systems, there are multiple systems that, all you would need to do on the F-35 is change the adaptor, and you could use that old support equipment. You do a cost-benefit anal-ysis. What does it cost to change the adaptor on all the airplanes, compared to the cost to buy a brand-new piece of support equip-ment for 50 years? The War on Cost team is looking at different things than the production team and the development team are looking at, but all are coming together to try to drive the cost down.

Affordability is a big deal, especially for our partners, who by percentage are spending a lot more of their national treasure and their defense budgets on this airplane than we are.

Q: What are some of the challenges throughout the test and eval-uation phase?

A: One of the biggest challenges we face on this program when it comes to test and evaluation is we are fairly concurrent when it comes to producing and testing the airplanes. Test and evaluation becomes more of a production problem than it is a test problem, because as you discover things in test, you have got to make sure that future airplanes are not built with those problems, and that current airplanes you’ve already built are fixed. So that’s an issue—more of a production issue while concurrently testing and discover-ing issues that require change now or downstream.

But relative to testing itself on this program, we have three dif-ferent variants. The initial vision of this program was that these air-planes would be somewhere between 70 and 80 percent common; if they were that common, you’d only have to do a certain amount of testing. What we have in reality is three variants that are very dif-ferent structurally—only about 20 to 30 percent common. Because we don’t have that [projected] commonality, we end up having to do a lot more testing on each variant than we originally thought. It goes back to those cost reduction initiatives we were talking about.

Another big challenge with the F-35 is it has some very leading-edge technologies, and sometimes the technologies outpace our ability to test them, so you have to build new test equipment, new


range equipment, new capabilities to test things. We have found that in some instances, some of the electronic warfare capabilities and some of the low observable capabilities on this airplane have actually exceeded our capability to measure as tightly as we need to measure to see if the airplane is performing. As a result, we end up either having to conduct that testing in the simulator, which is not as high-fidelity as actually doing it, or investing money to improve our test infrastructure.

The last problem with testing on the F-35 is that when you have lots of partners and three different services, everybody wants to be involved a little bit, and everybody wants to know what’s going on. Keeping everybody abreast of all the things that go on in flight test-ing is a challenge. Sometimes things get leaked out and we didn’t think in the program office they were such a big deal, and it turns out to be a big deal for one of our stakeholders.

Q: Do you have any specifics about near- or long-term milestones and goals?

A: We have some very important things happening in the next four to five years. First, in the near term, the most pressing milestone is U.S. Marine Corps IOC: initial operating capability. The commit-ment is that, by July 1, 2015, we want to be able to have the U.S. Marine Corps declare IOC. The Marines have given us a range of time, and they’ve said if they can declare IOC between July 1, 2015 and December 2015 they’ll be happy. We will do all we can to keep that event as close to July 1 as possible.

On its heels a year later is U.S. Air Force IOC, August 1, 2016. The Air Force has done the same thing—they’ve given us a range,

they’ve said August 1, 2016 to the end of the year 2016 would be good for us. We have only one date in mind: August 1, 2016.

U.S. Navy IOC is exactly the same way in August, 2018 and they’ve also given us a range between August 2018 and February 2019. We are fixed on the August 2018 target.

In between, we do have a couple of other key events that are very important to us. One is we are going to start some what I would call high-fidelity operational testing in 2015. The important thing for us is we have to get the operational testers on the air-plane that’s in the right configuration with the right software and the right capabilities so they can start that testing—that’s a 2015 deadline that we’re doing everything we can to meet.

Right on the heels of that, we have two partners who are going to have airplanes based in their countries in late 2016 and 2017—Italy and Israel.

Between now and 2018, about four or five major events take place in the program that we measure ourselves by, because in order to declare IOC you need an entire weapons system—you need all the pieces and parts, and they all have to fit. We’re measuring ourselves with those IOC dates, and [are using] those dates to sup-port Israel and Italy.

Q: How does the Pentagon ensure quality standards are met when parts are built by international partners?

A: This program is a bit unique in that somewhere in the order of 35 percent of the content of this airplane comes from outside the United States. So it is very important for us to ensure that the qual-ity of equipment produced by U.S. companies, partner companies

F-35 LIgHtnIng II JoInt PRogRAm oFFICe

Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan, USAF

PEO

Steffanie B. EasterExecutive Director

C. Douglas EbersoleDirector of Engineering

Todd C. MellonDirector of Industrial & Logistics Maintenance Planning/Sustainment

Rear Adm. Randolph L. Mahr, USN

Deputy Program Executive Officer

2014


and other companies is at the right standard. We do that in a num-ber of different ways.

DCMA (Defense Contract Management Agency), who is our part-ner in the program, actually has representation and oversight in every single place we buy parts for the F-35. At some point or another, they have either set foot in that factory or gone and seen that com-pany and made an assessment of how they’re doing.

Second, we pay Lockheed Martin as part of their cost of manag-ing this program to maintain what we would consider to be a quality supply chain, and we measure that through DCMA. Lockheed also measures it and reports to the program office on how they’re doing. We get to see down to the fourth, fifth, sixth tier how the suppliers on this program are working, and how they’re doing. If they’re not doing well, then the JPO [F-35 Joint Program Office], Lockheed and Pratt (on the engine side) can go take action.

The third thing that we do, and it’s built into the program also, is whenever Lockheed Martin has contracted a supplier outside the United States to build a part for this airplane, we the government have funded Lockheed Martin to ensure the effectiveness of the pro-cesses and that pieces are going to be fully qualified. We call that technical assistance, and it’s actually part of the contract where Lockheed and Pratt are responsible for, at the initiation of a new sup-plier outside the United States.

Once that part is qualified and it’s good enough to go on an F-35, that technical support lingers and is not quite at the same level as when they were getting qualified, but there’s still oversight there.

Q: The B and C variants have their own performance requirements. How are you overcoming those technology hurdles?

A: One area of the program where there is a lot of commonality is in the F-35’s avionics, the software and the mission systems. That’s good from one perspective, and that is when you train a pilot, and he’s flying next to another pilot who is also trained and they’re fly-ing different variants, inside the cockpit it’s very similar to each other in what they see, how they react to threats and the common picture they’re seeing. This can be very important for the partners and the services when it comes to flying and teaming with coalition partners, because we never go to war by ourselves.

But the outside of the airplane and the engines make the aircraft far less common than we thought it was going to be. One of the big challenges there is first—the maintenance procedures on these air-planes are very different. We’ve had to develop different maintenance procedures for the A, B and C models. The C model, for example: dif-ferent landing gear, folded wings, bigger tail—all that requires differ-ent maintenance manuals and different procedures, and we have to go about now verifying and validating that all of that is right.

On the B model: The core of the engine is the same, but every-thing else about that engine is different, including the whole lift fan combination and the whole back of the engine that rotates down. So the entire set of maintenance procedures for the engine, the entire supply chain for the lift part of the engine, is totally different than the A or C. We’ve had to set up our supply chain, depot maintenance, maintenance manuals and training to tailor specifically for the B model.

The Navy C model again—carrier variant. It’s very different envi-ronment operating on a carrier than it is operating on land. The B model is going to be on a small deck ship also. So there are many tests and many things we’ve had to build into the airplane and verify

they’re going to work for a carrier variant or an LHD [landing heli-copter dock] variant.

Perfect example: the hook. Only the C model has the hook. We’ve had some technical difficulties with the hook, as you know, so we’re in the process of revalidating the new design on that hook. That hook has got to work—otherwise the Navy doesn’t have an airplane that works on an aircraft carrier.

From the perspective of differences in the airplane, they are big-ger than we thought, create more work than we thought, but we have to be no less diligent to ensure that capability for the A, the B, or the C is there. That drives cost into a program, too. Part of the reason why early on in the program the cost estimates were very low and then grew were because some of the assumptions we made about the three different variants, about commonality, about simplicity, didn’t hold true.

The ability to take any one of these three variants and fly it at 1.6 Mach, and then take the B version and land it vertically or take off almost vertically, and take the C model and land it on a car-rier at 150 knots and get it up to 1.6 Mach while maintaining your LO (low observable) capability, while being able to employ the most advanced weapons and advanced avionics ever, its pretty technologi-cally challenging.

Q: When an incident occurs like the June 2014 fire, what kind of process is initiated to ensure something like that doesn’t happen again?

A: There are two aspects to that question. The first aspect to that question is when we have an incident in the F-35 enterprise, whether it happens during flight testing, ground testing, fleet operations or training, we have to have a very robust and very quick communica-tion link, because there are a lot of people flying this airplane in a lot of places. One thing we learned from the incident in June is that the communication link, while it worked in this instance, probably needs to be faster, and in the future broader. I say broader because, at the time the incident occurred, only the U.K., the Netherlands, and the U.S. services had airplanes. Imagine a couple of years from now when six or seven or eight partners or FMS (foreign military sales) custom-ers had those airplanes, so we know that the communication links following the initial incident have to be quicker and broader.

Within the first 24 to 48 hours, we will make an initial assess-ment about the risk and what we think happened. We make a very quick assessment about what we think happened, and if we think there’s a safety risk to the fleet, whether it’s in flight test, ground test or out in the field, we get the airworthiness authorities involved and we will cease operations that we think are too risky.

In this instance here—because we did not know the root cause, and once we started exploring what happened, we recognized that this was going to be a complicated thing to understand—the com-munity decided that it was best to put down all the F-35s and not fly them. It was a wonderful decision, because safety is first for all of us.

From the incident perspective on how you want to make sure you’re safe initially, we have a little work to do with the communi-cation channels, but the process is fundamentally good, because we know how to keep airplanes and people safe.

Now, on the longer term: How do you stop these [things] from happening? One of the things you have to do when you have an inci-dent like this is what we call a “root-cause analysis” (RCA). Basically what it says is, “What was the reason for this happening?” We want


to know what happened, and we want to know why. Once you know what happened and why, then you can address, “How are you going to fix this? Are you going to fix this through a change in operating pro-cedures? Are you going to fix this through a tech-nology change? Are you going to fix this through a design change? Did this problem occur because of a manufacturing problem, maybe a bolt that wasn’t tightened properly?”

Once you get to that RCA, you can then start tar-geting the fix. On this program, that’s very compli-cated, for the very reasons we already talked about. The fix may not be the same for the A, the B and the C—we have airplanes in the field already that we would have to retrofit or fix; we have airplanes on the production line right now that we would have to ensure get fixed before they get delivered; and we have future airplanes that are still in design and development that we have to fix. And, I have a fleet of over 20 test airplanes that I have to fix, because I can’t keep testing them if there’s a problem.

In the long term, it’s not a quick process. For the engine problem, we are probably within 30 to 45 days of getting to that root cause. We have already started to under-stand some of the fixes that might be required with this engine, and we’ve already started exploring the pros and the cons of those. We won’t make a decision on that until probably by the end of September [when] we’ll know what the root cause was, and then we can pick from a menu of things to fix.

More importantly to us with the incident is, “How do we get our test airplanes back to full capability right now?” because they’re doing very important work, and how do we get the fielded airplanes, which are flying in a very small envelope, back to bigger envelopes so they can do meaningful flying.

So that’s a short-term fix compared to a long-term fix, which we’re exploring as well.

Q: What are some of the biggest process lessons learned from a program of this size?

A: When you are trying to manage a program of this scope and com-plexity, you’ve got to go back to basics. Some of those basics include things like a disciplined systems engineering process. You have to sometimes take your time so you don’t make mistakes over and over again. Second, when you look at an airplane like the F-35, you have to recognize that it’s more than just the airplane—there are a whole lot of things that go along with the airplane that have to work for this to be a combat weapon system. You need the autonomic logistics information system (ALIS), the maintenance information system, to work. You need the offboard mission planning system to work. You need what we call the “reprogramming labs,” which create the brick or the mission data file that we put in the airplane so when it goes to fly in combat, it knows who it’s flying against and where it’s flying. You need maintenance manuals. You need a supply chain. You need a depot capability. You need trained pilots and maintainers, so they need simulators. You need all of that stuff to deliver capability. You can’t lose sight of that and just focus on the airplane.

Unfortunately there have been periods of time in the history of this program where, for good and sufficient reasons, we’ve had

significant problems with the airplane on which we’ve had to focus our attention, and we let some of that other stuff fall by the wayside. What we’re trying to do now is catch all of that up. So that’s getting back to basics. Look at this as an entire weapons system and not just an airplane.

The third one is communication. I have a belief, stemming from my 20-plus years of acquisition experience, that almost every sin-gle problem you can find in an acquisition program—it doesn’t matter whether you’re building a tank, a ship, an airplane, a satel-lite—can be traced back to communication. A problem in commu-nication, whether it was poorly communicated requirements from the warfighter to the acquisition community, poorly communicated requirements from the acquisition community to industry, poor communication when it comes to [determining] the goals and out-comes, poor communication when it comes to technical discussion, poor communication when it comes to the business side of things.

“Well, I didn’t think you were going to do that. Well, we did that for this reason.”

Most of the problems can be traced back to communication. How do you solve that problem? There are number of ways. The

first way you solve it is [through] culture. You’ve got to be ready and willing to have very frank discussions in the acquisition world, whether that’s with industry, stakeholders, warfighters or your own program office. And what I mean about that is you’ve got to have straight talk. Sometimes, acquisition is like a full-contact sport. It’s rough and tumble, so you sometimes have to lay the facts out on the table, as uncomfortable as they may be, and have a discussion about them, because you cannot leave and have people misunderstanding or talking past each other, because that will cause problems down-stream. You’ve got to straight-talk them.

The other thing is you have to be able to communicate at the right levels throughout the organizations. My engineering team has to be able to talk to Lockheed’s engineering team, because their pro-gram manager and I can’t solve technical problems. My business team has to be able to talk to their business team. My business team has to be able to talk to the comptrollers and the money people in the

An F-35B Lightning II aircraft undergoes testing aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) during the second at-sea F-35 developmental test event. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Markus Castaneda]


Pentagon to explain why we need money. My requirements team and my operational guys have to be able to talk to the warfighters. I have to be able to talk to Congress. I have to be able to talk to the press.

All of those lines of communication have to be very clear, and they have to resonate with the same message. If the enterprise starts hearing different messages from different parts of the organization, you’ve got problems.

So for us, managing a complex program fundamentally comes down to discipline, communication, transparency—transparency is very important, because when you’re spending as much money as we are, everyone wants to know what you’re doing. And you should expect that when you’re the biggest program in the Department of Defense. You should expect that when you’re spending billions and billions of dollars a year. You should expect that when you’re taking partner money and spending it for them. You should expect that peo-ple want to know what’s going on, and you should expect them, as I say to my team, to be in your knickers. Get used to it.

We’ve got to be transparent. We’ve got to open our books. We’ve got to tell people why we make decisions. We’ve got to give them the good news and the bad news equally, so they can form their own opinions and judgments.

The last one is accountability. Accountability is really important, because there are a lot of people on big, complex programs like this one who have inputs and pushes on the program. I’ll just name a whole set of stakeholders that push and move this program around: Congress, my partners’ governments, our partners themselves, OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense), the services, [the taxpayers, the warfighters] and the press. They all have a stake in this program, and they all say and do things that affect the program. We all have to be accountable for our actions.

I also have to hold industry accountable, but that’s easy—my job is to hold industry accountable for the contracts we sign.

What’s harder is to hold my team accountable, because we make promises too, to ourselves and to others, and we’ve got to hold our-selves accountable, and to hold the rest of the enterprise account-able for the things that they do. Because sometimes, the things they do to the program are not beneficial. They do them for good and sufficient reasons, but when they do them, they have to know that what they’re doing is not beneficial to the program. We call that 360-degree accountability.

Those four principles to leading a complicated program lead to one thing, probably the most important thing on this program, and that’s trust. If people don’t trust the people on my team, if we’re not credible with everybody and we lose their trust, this program will fail, because it’s too complicated for any one person or any one thing other than my team to manage very tightly, and if they don’t trust my team to do that, we’re going to be lost. That’s, in a nutshell, run-ning a really complicated program.

One more piece I have to get in there is one of my favorite lines: Because this program is so very complex and we have so many stake-holders and customers, we would never expect that we could make them all happy. We think that’s impossible, quite frankly. So, you know how we measure ourselves in this program office? We measure ourselves by looking at all of our stakeholders and customers, and we say to ourselves, “If everybody is about equally happy and unhappy with what we are doing, then we are getting it about right.” If any-body is much happier, or someone is really mad, we probably don’t have the program in balance. So we look at ourselves and we try to keep everybody’s expectations in balance.

Q: Can you comment about the projected software delivery goals?

A: When we measure ourselves on how we’re doing relative to soft-ware development and delivery of capabilities, what people in the enterprise don’t always recognize, and what I want to emphasize, is we build margin into that software development process, but we also build margin into the delivery of key milestones and capabili-ties that software ties to. So, if you hear a report from someone else in the enterprise or outside of the enterprise that says, “We believe that the 2B software on the F-35 program is going to be at least four months late,” that might be a true fact, and in fact, it is a true fact today, as compared to where we thought we were going to be in 2010.

But here’s the rest of the story: When we set Marine Corps IOC dates, when we identify fleet release for certain capabilities, we built some margin in. So that four months of late software, yes you got it, you’re right, we’re four months late. Does it impact Marine Corps IOC? Not by four months, because I built some margin in there, both in development and capability delivery.

So the key milestones on the program in terms of delivering capability and meeting our promises to people are tied to software, but not necessarily tied to software delivery dates, and folks kind of miss that, because they automatically assume that when we talk about a software delay, our 3i software: fact—five months late. 3i software is for Air Force IOC. Is Air Force IOC five months late? It is not, because we built margin in there when we developed the sched-ule. Folks don’t always get that; they do that automatic translation of “late software means late program.”

Late software’s not good. Believe me, I’m the first guy to tell you, I want my software high-quality, on time, delivering all the capa-bility. But it doesn’t always mean you’re going to push bigger mile-stones to the right.

Q: Could you describe the global sustainment strategy once the aircraft are fielded by the United States and international partners?

A: There are two pillars to global sustainment of the F-35.The first pillar is the day-to-day tactical sustainment and main-

tenance of getting jets ready to fly each and every day. That’s done at the flight line level, that’s done generally with organic manpower and some contractor support, at the flight line level, at the day-to-day level.

What we are striving for, from that column of sustainment for the services and the partners, is to build a core set of services that they can tap into for that work, but we’re going to try and tailor it to their unique needs. Example: There may be partner A in Europe who does not care to have organic maintenance on their airplanes, organic meaning having their own military folks doing that. They may prefer to have a contractor do all of their flight line mainte-nance. It may be Lockheed, it may not be Lockheed. It may be a partner’s industry [commercial entity] in that country. We are going to try and fashion each of those individual solutions tailored to the unique needs of the partners and the services while maintaining a core set of capabilities behind that frontline piece so we can get the synergies of cost savings.

What do I mean by that? There’s a supply chain that goes with maintaining airplanes on a day-to-day basis. When that part gets to the edge of the base, wherever it is, how it gets on that airplane, we’re going to let our partners and our services decide that. Do you want a contractor putting it on there? Do you want a combination


contractor/military? Do you want an organic guy? Do you want a government civilian? Does it matter to the program office? Behind that, we’re going to pro-vide them the supply chain so that when they need that part, it’s there. And what we’re going to set up for them is performance-based results that say, “We want to make sure that our airplanes relative to sup-ply are only down 15 percent of the time.” So we are only willing to accept the fact that there’s not a part there to fly when we need it 15 percent of the time.

We’re going to build a supply chain for the global enterprise, organized and controlled by the program office, and maybe executed by Lockheed Martin and Pratt or some other industry partner that provides them those parts at the right rate so they can meet that goal. But on the front end of that whole process tailored for the partner, the FMS customer or the service, is a core set of capabilities that we’ll provide them to link into that. That’s the day-to-day.

We have a much broader heavy maintenance concept. So airplanes that have to go into depot to replace wings, to replace landing gear, to repair engines heavily damaged or engines that need upgrades, that’s heavy maintenance. That’s the kind of stuff that doesn’t get done day-to-day at the flight line level with the partners and the services; that’s where you have to build up large infrastructure to do it—big hangars. You see that in the fleet support centers for the Navy and the air depots for the Air Force.

In that pillar, we’re going to break the work up into three regions: Pacific region, North American region, European region. In each of those regions, we are going to establish those heavy mainte-nance capabilities so that the airplanes in that region, whether they are U.S. airplanes, partner airplanes, or anybody’s airplanes, can tap into that larger infrastructure for that heavy maintenance work. It does not make sense, for example, to ship landing gear from Europe all the way to Ogden Air Logistics Center to fix it. If you can establish a landing gear capability in Europe, that’s cost-effective.

So that’s what we’re getting ready to establish in the next few years, in the Pacific and in Europe, because we have fundamen-tally the basic heavy maintenance in the United States established already with the depots and the fleet support centers.

The way we’re going to establish the Europe and Asia infrastruc-ture is very interesting. Our partners want to be a part of this, so what we’ve told them is, “If there’s a particular heavy maintenance capability that you want you and your industry to have on your soil, let us know that. We will go see, and we’re in that process right now, if your industry has the capability and the capacity to do that, and if they do, we’ll assign you that capability.”

Let’s take landing gear, for example. If country A in Europe wants to build a heavy landing gear maintenance facility, and we believe their industry has the capacity to do that, we’ll say, “Okay, country A, you have been assigned the European workload for landing gear.” The industry and the partner have to do their own investing to create the infrastructure. They get the return on their investment by all the work that’s going to come in over the next 40 or 50 years for all those airplanes in Europe that need landing gear work. If two partners want to do the same capability, and there is the need for more than one, we’re going to assign it to both part-ners to do that work.

Let’s say for example that we’ve done our studies—and we have done our studies—that say heavy engine work in Europe needs at least two places for it to be done, and country A and country B both want to do it, and country A and country B are both capable of doing it. Country A and country B invest their own money to stand up that capability. What we do is we will tell them, “Country A, you’re guaranteed a minimum amount of work that’s equivalent to how-ever many airplanes you buy. Country B, you’re guaranteed a min-imum amount of work equal to the amount of airplanes you buy.” Now, there’s extra work to be done out here, because only country A and country B aircraft volume are taken care of so far, engine-wise. All that extra work for countries X, Y and Z, Country A and B get to compete for it, and whoever can do a better job at a better cost is going to get more of that work. Their industry is motivated, because that return on investment is coming faster. We’re moti-vated, because we’re driving the cost of repairing engines in Europe down. The hosting partner country is incentivized, because their industry now gets to learn on fifth-generation airplanes, and there are jobs there, and money is flowing into the country. It’s a win-win for everybody when you set it up that way, even with the competi-tion piece. That’s how we’re going to build the global sustainment posture for heavy maintenance.

Q: Is there anything else you want to add?

A: [This is a] very complicated program—very big and complex. What we ask people to do is don’t look in the rearview mirror. Don’t assume that this is the old F-35 program. The old F-35 program had a tragic past. We’re not quite the same program we were back then. We’ve gotten smarter, we’ve gotten better—on the shoulders of a lot of people who did work before us to get smarter and better—but instead of painting us with the same broad brush of cost overruns, delays, immature technology, ill performance that was the dialogue years ago, let’s look at what we’re doing now. Judge us on what we’re doing today, and the results we’re getting today, and the future, instead of looking in the rearview mirror. That’s what I ask of people when they look at the F-35 program. O

More than 75 percent of the overall life cycle cost of the F-35 airplane is in operations and sustainment. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Air Force]


Access to reliable, secure sources of energy has long been a strate-

gic concern for the U.S. Navy and the other military services. History has proven that energy is a critical enabler

to mission success, and that innovative, often-disruptive advances in technology have greatly benefited early adopters. The Navy has long been a pioneer and early adopter of technology, including advances in power and energy. From improvements in sailing ves-sels; to increased speed and agility; to the shift from sail to coal power; to conversion from coal to oil; to the eventual integration of nuclear power on subma-rines and aircraft carriers, the Navy has been at the forefront of change. At each step of this evolutionary process, we have significantly improved the Navy’s capability. This commitment to innovation continues today as we take steps to transition to an even more efficient forward-operating naval force.

Energy efficiency is a key component of the Navy’s overall strategy to enhance the effectiveness of its combat force. The ability to keep ships at sea and air-craft in the air longer or travel farther using the same amount of fuel creates a tremendous advantage, allowing our platforms to stay on-station longer when they need it most. Today’s ships, aircraft,

weapons and combat systems are more techno-logically advanced than ever and provide

tremendous capability. However, these advances are often tied to increases in the energy needed to generate the power to operate these systems. The Navy is currently working on a num-ber of maritime and aviation initia-tives that focus on innovative solutions to increase the efficiency of the fight-

ing force.

The Navy’s energy program is focused on incorporating energy technologies and facilitating a change in culture regarding how Navy views energy. In terms of technology, the Navy is investing in passive, active and actionable technology to improve the efficiency of the force. Passive technology—such as stern flaps that improve ship hydrody-namics, hull coatings that reduce biofouling, or solid state lighting (i.e., LED lighting) that reduces overall energy consumption—pro-

vides energy savings without the need to turn a device on or off. The energy savings associated with these types of maritime technologies translate into more time at sea using the same amount of fuel. For example, retrofitting an amphibious assault ship with a stern flap can save approximately 200,000 gallons of fuel per ship every year, and can also provide each ship with the abil-ity to operate forward an additional five days per year. This can extend the ship’s range or allow the ship be on-station longer, potentially at a time when most needed to support the mission.

The Navy is also developing and deploying tech-nologies that can be categorized as active energy ini-

tiatives, which provide ship commanders the option to turn on the technology for improved efficiency when it makes tactical sense to do so. For example, hybrid propulsion technology enables a ship’s crew to use the power produced by the ship’s electric generators for pro-pulsion at slower speeds, when the gas turbine main engines are least efficient. When installed on a DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, this technology would reduce fuel consumption to enable a ship to spend two and a half extra days at sea between refu-elings when the system is used 50 percent of the time. When used 75 percent of the time, a DDG 51 would benefit from nearly four extra days at sea.

The third category of energy initiative can be described as actionable technologies which enable the warfighter to make choices that provide energy savings and enable operational flex-

ibility. The DDG 51 energy dashboard allows sailors to diagnose shipboard system ineffi-

ciencies by using an Integrated Condition Assessment System to collect and ana-lyze shipboard data and apply better prac-tices to conserve energy. It recommends efficient equipment configurations and calculates energy consumption rates, thereby maximizing shipboard energy management for either performance or efficiency, depending on the command-er’s requirement.

Josh Frederickson

enhancinG the effectiveness of the navy’s comBat foRce.By Josh fRedeRickson, deputy diRectoR, navy eneRGy cooRdination office


Technological advances will continue to be a core component of the energy strategy. However, compre-hensive improvements in the Navy’s energy security posture can only be achieved through transformation of how Navy personnel view energy. Current efforts to shape that transformation are rooted in chang-ing operational procedures in the maritime and avi-ation communities. For over a decade, the maritime Incentivized Energy Conservation Program (iEN-CON) paved the way for shipboard energy conser-vation, identifying procedural options for use in the maritime environment. In fiscal year 2013, iENCON helped to achieve a savings of over 31 million gallons of fuel, enabling capability in the form of additional steaming hours.

In 2012, the Navy formed the Aviation Energy Conservation Program (AirENCON), which is designed to optimize fuel consumption for naval air-craft without adversely impacting mission execution or safety. The program aims to standardize energy conservation best practices and drive the implemen-tation of these practices across the naval aviation community. In doing so, AirENCON seeks to reduce fuel consumption 4 percent by 2020. Through the AirENCON Program, two approved energy-sav-ing initiatives have been implemented: Short-Cycle Mission and Recovery Tanking (SMART) and truck refueling. SMART—in which F/A-18 refueling during flight is dependent upon “yo-yo tanking,” or passing fuel in-flight—is more efficient for carrier air wing operations and is estimated to save an average of 15,000 gallons of fuel per day over traditional tank-ing practices. Hot pit refueling is a common prac-tice to decrease aircraft refueling turnaround time at naval air stations. After landing, aircraft taxi to a hot pit refueling station where fuel is pumped to the aircraft while at least one engine runs. Truck refu-eling was approved as a method to reduce energy consumption during refueling events. Through the truck refueling process, a mobile fuel truck would be used to refuel while the engines are shut down, which would save as much as 70 gallons per refu-eling cycle. Through this process, approximately 240,000 gallons of fuel per year could be saved at a single naval air station.

In addition to these types of demand reduction initiatives, the Navy is also working to expand fuel supply options through a robust alternative fuel testing and qualification process. Although this is a minor component of the investment portfolio, alternative fuels have the potential to allow increased flexibility in operations if compat-ible sources of alternative fuel are available in locations where the Navy requires fuel access. A core requirement for any alternative fuel for use in Navy ships or aircraft is that it must be a “drop-in” replacement—in other words, it must be invisible to the operator and capable of being mixed in the same tank with petroleum and not require a change in configuration of the platform. Ongoing testing and qualification of alternative fuel blends will enable future use by Navy aircraft and ships once they are available at prices competitive with conventional petroleum-based fuel. Leveraging alternative fuel sources and developing a distributed energy infrastructure capable

of sustaining our forward-deployed forces will mitigate vulnerabili-ties associated with reliance on a single source of fuel, which is also subject to abrupt price changes based on changes to the geopoliti-cal landscape.

The Navy is applying the lessons of history to the present day to ensure our future capabilities will not be limited. We are reinvent-ing the way the Navy operates by creating a new paradigm of energy consumption. This new normal of Navy operations is shifting from one of high energy consumption to that of combat capability through energy efficiency. The objective is an end state where sailors value energy as a strategic resource and combat enabler, and make energy-conscious decisions that improve our overall capability. O

Four new solar carports at Naval Base San Diego will provide approximately 155,000 kilowatts per year, producing enough energy to power approximately 27 homes at today’s average consumption. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest-owned and maintained solar carports will replace power normally purchased from off-base suppliers and will reduce the cost of power to the region and tenants at the bases over time. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy]

A high-efficiency lighting system designed by Naval Sea Systems Command is on display at the Naval Energy Forum. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy]




The Navy’s (DoN) Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program will be an important addition to the Department of Defense’s broad portfolio of programs that serve the near-term ISR needs of the nation and the joint warf-ighters. UCLASS, therefore, must be viewed as one of many assets that provide various capabilities, including ISR, persistence flexible mission payloads (sensors and weapons) and enhanced survivabil-ity, to name a few.

The United States is a maritime nation with global responsibil-ities. Our Navy and Marine Corps’ persistent presence and multi-mission capability represent U.S. power projection across the global commons. Navy and Marine Corps forces move at will across the world’s oceans, seas and littorals, and they extend the effects of the sea-base deep inland. Naval aviation provides our nation’s lead-ers with “offshore options” where needed, when needed. We enable global reach and access, regardless of changing circumstances, and will continue to be the nation’s preeminent option for employing deterrence through global presence, sea control, mission flexibility and, when necessary, armed interdiction.

The Navy and Marine Corps provide an agile strike and amphib-ious power projection force in readiness—such agility requires that the aviation arm of our naval strike and expeditionary forces remain capable in the future threat environment. UCLASS will enhance our naval and Joint Force capabilities by providing the carrier air wing with organic persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnais-sance, and targeting (ISR&T) and precision strike capability.

uclass system

The UCLASS system is the next step in the Navy’s evolutionary integration of unmanned air systems into the carrier strike group operational environment. It will provide a persistent, aircraft-car-rier-based ISR&T and precision strike capability with inherent pro-visions for growth in mission capability, keeping UCLASS relevant long into the future.

DoN is fully committed to UCLASS. Our fiscal year 2015 President’s Budget requests $403 million in research and devel-opment and test and evaluation for system development efforts to meet Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) direction to expedite fielding of an early operational capability. The JROC has re-affirmed, as recently as February 2014, the need for rapid field-ing of an affordable, adaptable, carrier-based ISR&T platform with future precision strike capability.

Warfighter representatives from the chief of Naval Operations (CNO) staff, commander of Naval Air Forces, and United States Fleet Forces Command collaborated over the last four years to ensure alignment of all UCLASS requirements. The CNO signed the capabilities development document (CDD) in April 2013. Key per-formance parameters (KPPs) and key system attributes (KSAs) have remained stable and unchanged since that time.

UCLASS KPPs and KSAs address affordability, persistence, sen-sor payload, weapons payload (including future growth capabil-ity), survivability (including future growth capability), and aerial refueling (give and receive). UCLASS is required to be fully inte-grated within the current carrier air-wing and sustainable onboard an aircraft carrier. It will also have the ability to pass command and control information along with sensor data to other aircraft, naval vessels, and ground forces. Sensor data will be transmitted to exploitation nodes afloat and ashore. Interfaces will be provided with existing ship- and land-based command and control systems, as well as processing, exploitation and dissemination systems.

Based on the technology advancement and maturation dem-onstrated via the UCAS-D program, combined with insight gained through recent UCLASS preliminary design reviews conducted with Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Atomics, the Navy is confident that a government-industry team has the ability to deliver a UCLASS system that meets service-approved CDD requirements within planned cost and schedule.

Significant reduction in FY15 UCLASS funding or a program pause for further review of UCLASS requirements will significantly delay source-selection activities, award of a development contract to industry, and delivery of an early operational capability. Any sig-nificant delay at this point in the program will also jeopardize con-tinued investment and/or participation by one or more industry partners.

DoD, in concert with Congress, has spent the last four years in assessment of the UCLASS performance requirements, leading to the balanced capability reflected in the recently released draft request for proposals. In parallel, the Navy has developed an acqui-sition strategy that balances affordability and expediency with the ability to cost-effectively expand UCLASS capabilities to address future threats. O

Vice Admiral Paul A. Grosklags, principal military deputy, assistant secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition); Mark D. Andress, assistant deputy, chief of Naval operations (N2/N6); and Brigadier General Joseph T. Guastella, deputy director, Requirements (Joint Chiefs of Staff/J8), recently testified before the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike Program.

the navy has developed an acquisition stRateGy that Balances affoRdaBility

and expediency with the aBility to cost-effectively expand uclass capaBilities to addRess futuRe thReats.




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

BAE Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16www.baesystems.com/ewLockheed Martin Aeronautics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C4 www.f35.comPratt & Whitney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C2 www.f135engine.comTrijicon, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 www.trijicon.com

compiled by kMi Media group staffnpeo resourCe CenTer

CAlendArNovember 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

January 13-15, 2015National Symposium of the Surface NavyArlington, Va.www.navysna.org

April 13-15, 2015Sea Air SpaceNational Harbor, Md.www.seaairspace.org

NEVER STOP LEARNING

• AccessallthesurveyanswersfromthehundredsofschoolsthatparticipatedinMAE’s 2014 Guide to Colleges & Universities

• Newandimproveddesignmakesiteasierthanevertofindwhatyou’relookingfor

• Searchthedatabasebyschoolname,state,onlineorbrick-and-mortarschools

• CompareandcontrastinstitutionswithalltheinfoMAEusedtoscoreanddesignateourtopschools

Consideringanewdegree?Searchingforanewcareerfield?Advisingyourtroopsontheireducationoptions?YouneedMilitary Advanced Education’s2014 Guide to Colleges & Universities!

Checkoutthesearchabledatabaseatwww.mae-kmi.comforthedetailsprospectivestudentsandadvisorsarelookingfor!


inDusTry inTervieW navy air/sea peo forum

Lorraine M. Martin serves in Lockheed Martin’s Aeronautics business area as executive vice president and gen-eral manager of the F-35 Lightning II Program, the U.S. government’s larg-est and most complex fighter develop-ment and production program. She is responsible for the successful completion of the system development and demon-stration program, as well as production, flight testing, global deployment and sustainment of the three F-35 variants for 13 military services in nine partner countries and two foreign military sales customers. Previously, she was the pro-gram’s vice president and deputy.

Prior to her role on F-35, Martin served as the vice president of C-130 Programs, responsible for all aspects of Lockheed Martin’s C-130 airlifter line of business. Previously, she served as vice president of the C-5 Program, where she was responsible for overall oper-ations and leadership of the Avionics Modernization Program, the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program, the Legacy Fleet Sustainment and Depot Services Program, and the Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures Program. She has been with Lockheed Martin for 26 years and led businesses across the diverse corporate portfolio.

Prior to her Lockheed Martin career, Martin served as an officer in the United States Air Force holding various lead-ership positions for software-intensive technology and development programs, with a focus on computer security and expert decision systems.

Q: How would you describe the overall status of the program right now?

A: Generally, we are making steady prog-ress in all areas of the program. One of the points I emphasize is the complex-ity of this program. No company has

ever tried to do what we are doing and that is to develop, test and produce three distinct variants of a single stealth air-craft. For example, it has four times the computing power of the most advanced fighter ever fielded, and we’re doing it for three U.S. services and 11 allies.

So, the program is very challenging and we’ve had setbacks along the way. But this is a different program than it was four years ago. Four years ago, we hadn’t delivered a single production jet. We had part of our test fleet in place, but that’s it. Today, we have 100 planes flying at 10 locations—Edwards, Eglin, Luke, and Nellis Air Force Bases; Naval Air Station Patuxent River; Marine Corps Air Stations Beaufort and Yuma; Ogden and Cherry Point maintenance depots and our plant at Fort Worth.

Four years ago, we hadn’t started training pilots or maintainers. As of August, we’ve trained more than 125 pilots and 1,300 maintainers, and we’ve stood up two training bases—Eglin, where pilots and maintainers from all three services are training, and Luke, where we’ll conduct the bulk of our training for the Air Force and interna-tional services.

One of the keys to enabling those training activities is having aircraft and equipment in the hands of our operators. Right now, we are nearing the end of our next round of negotiations for 43 more aircraft and support materials as part of low rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 8. What’s unique about LRIP 8 is it includes our first Foreign Military Sales (FMS) jets for both Israel and Japan. Once we are finished building the LRIP 8 jets, we’ll have more than 200 aircraft in oper-ation by eight nations. So again, a lot has changed about this program from where it was in the past.

One of things we are most focused on is affordability, and we’re definitely making progress in this area. We’ve seen a 55 per-cent drop in cost from the first to seventh contracts prior to LRIP 8. Concurrency costs have decreased by more than $900 million over the same period of time, and the 2013 Select Acquisition Report found a $19.2 billion reduction in operations and sustainment costs. We are dedicated to making sure these trends continue.

Q: So, what exactly are you doing to make the F-35 more affordable?

A: With any major development and pro-duction program there is a formula for affordability. It’s predictable, and max-imum efficiency is achieved when your production rate is at its optimum. That’s because when you buy in quantity, you get a better price. From the outset, the F-35 program was designed to leverage the economies of scale and commonal-ity to give our customers the best price. While we aren’t at full rate production yet, we are beginning to see that philoso-phy pay dividends. Early cost reductions in production come from quick learning around the manufacturing processes. Follow-on cost reductions typically are driven 80 percent by quantity.

Lorraine M. MartinExecutive Vice President & General Manager

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Program


To speed up our program’s afford-ability, we’re adding a catalyst to the affordability formula. This summer, DoD, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman announced an agreement called the “Blueprint for Affordability.” The goal of that initiative is to drive down F-35 production costs and reduce the purchase price of a fifth-generation F-35 to the equivalent of a current fourth-generation fighter by the end of the decade.

Those industry partners that I men-tioned have committed to investing upwards of $170 million over the next two years to find ways to cut costs. From 2016 to 2018, the USG will add $300 mil-lion to supplement these affordability efforts. We project that the total sav-ings to the government will be approxi-mately $1.8 billion across the five-year FYDP and in excess of $8 billion for the life of the program. By 2019, our goal is to deliver an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing jet for less than $80 million in then-year dollars.

Q: What are some specific examples of the affordability initiatives you’re implementing?

A: Blueprint initiatives are focused on streamlining both our methods and the materials we use. One example is the canopy bow frame. Previously, to pro-duce the bow frame we started with forg-ing. Forging is equivalent to putting clay into a mold and then squeezing that mold to make a shape. Only instead of clay, forging uses metal. One of the draw-backs of this forging technique is that it doesn’t produce a finished product that naturally meets the level of precision required for producing a stealth fighter.

So, what we had to do was take that initial shape from the forging and then machine it using some specialized equip-ment to get the bow frame to the exact dimensions and specifications. This tech-nique is used on many large metal struc-tures on the aircraft. Until recently, that was the most efficient way we could pro-duce the bow frame.

But new advances in technology are allowing us to approach manufacturing

in a new way. One of these technologies is called direct manufacturing—or 3-D printing as it is more commonly known. We are now actually capable of grow-ing the attachment features of the bow frame by directly depositing material onto a metal plate. We can then simply final machine the attachment features and the rest of the part on to one plate. We can even grow several parts out of that one plate, enabling us to save on material costs.

In addition to reducing material costs, we’ve already seen the application of this manufacturing technique cutting our lead time. So, what does that really mean for our customer and for the cost of the airplane? By investing $342,000 into this project, we can save about $31.5 million over the life of the program.

That’s just one of more than 600 ini-tiatives we’re exploring and testing. We feel very confident that Blueprint will be the catalyst that enables us to deliver fifth-generation capability at a fourth-generation price point.

Q: Earlier you mentioned the econo-mies of scale as one of the keys for affordability. A lot of that scale comes from the program’s international par-ticipants. How is the international pro-gram progressing?

A: Our partners are key to affordabil-ity. Eighty percent of the savings on this program going forward will come from the savings of an increased ramp rate. Specifically, the international projected participation in the program will save the government more than $35 billion in total, which amounts to about $10 million in the procurement cost of every F-35 for the government. As more FMS nations sign on, the cost will continue to drop for all participants.

What’s becoming clear is that the world’s great air forces are all choosing the F-35, and it’s because they recog-nize the unprecedented fifth-generation capabilities it brings to the fight. About a year ago, the Netherlands formally selected the F-35. In March of this year, the Republic of South Korea selected the F-35, and in April, Australia approved the

acquisition of an additional 58 F-35As, bringing their total commitment to 72.

There is a growing momentum on the international side of the program. Given the condition of the global econ-omy and challenges many nations are facing today, that momentum speaks volumes about our partners’ commit-ment to and confidence in the F-35.

Q: What are some of the major mile-stones for the program over the next year or so?

A: Our focus is on enabling the services to declare their individual initial oper-ating capability (IOC), and the Marines are up first. They plan to declare IOC on their objective date of July 2015 or with a threshold date of December 2015. All of the systems and software are developed to support their IOC. We are focused on completing flight test of the Block 2B software they require for IOC. We’re very confident we are on the right path to making that declaration possible.

We’ve also started flight testing the Block 3i software that the Air Force will use for IOC in 2016. Block 3i will also serve as the baseline for our interna-tional participants. By early next year, we’ll start flying Block 3F, which is the final block of software under the devel-opmental phase of the program. The Navy plans to use it to declare IOC in 2018. So making sure we meet those software and capability milestones over the next couple of years is critical.

Beyond that, we’re excited about tak-ing the carrier variant out to sea for the first time later this year. We are also very much focused on enhancing affordabil-ity and we expect to see the fruits of our labor reflected in the lower costs of LRIP 8 aircraft.

In closing, the F-35 is a remarkable aircraft and we know its importance to the United States and its allies. The men and women on the program are dedicated to ensuring the revolutionary capability of this fifth-generation fighter is provided to the warfighter as soon as possible to protect our nation’s secu-rity and that of our allies for decades to come. O


Date post:	05-Apr-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kmi-media-group
View:	217 times
Download:	2 times

NPEO 2.4 (September/October 2014)

Documents