Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED 01 JUL 2007 N/A - 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER WSTIAC Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 2 - Naval Ship and Ship Systems Needs 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION WSTIAC Weapon Systems Technology Information Analysis Center, REPORT NUMBER WSTIAC-V7-N2 Rome, NY 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) Defense Technical Information Center, Ft Belvoir, VA 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release, distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The original document contains color images. 14. ABSTRACT This issue of the WSTIAC Quarterly features an article on Naval Ship and Ship Systems Needs for Early 21st Century. Also included are recent news items related to weapon systems technology, the WSTIAC Calendar of Events and the Director’s Corner. Details on several Training Courses sponsored by WSTIAC are also included in this issue. Contents of in the News: Field Artillery Fires New Modular Artillery Change System On Taji, A-10 Modifications Speed Up to Support Warfighters, and Office of Naval Research Launches Science and Technology Strategic Plan. 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE UU 16 unclassified unclassified unclassified Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 Welcome to the latest edition of the WSTIAC that NAVSEA took to establish and prioritize technology Quarterly. The feature article is written by Michael development and the timeline for insertion into naval Bosworth, who is Deputy Chief Technology Officer at ships. It outlines some of the constraints and definitions the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). In his of the scope of technology needs. The article then goes article, Mr. Bosworth provides an overview of the vision, into some detail regarding the most recent assessment of strategy and approach that was taken in establishing the technology needs. future naval ship science and technology needs. This may be of interest to many readers, whether famil- NAVSEA was established in 1974 to support the iar with the process of assessing and planning the transi- Navy’s fleet of ships and naval weapon systems. The tion of technologies to naval ships or not. Other Services command provides research, engineering, development, and even other agencies within the Navy certainly have and sustainment support to keep the Navy’s ship systems different technology needs, however, this article provides the most advanced in the world and ready to serve at any a unique forum for presenting the perspective of one moment. NAVSEA also serves as an acquisition support practitioner in the NAVSEA community. The article also organization to any Department of Defense ship or naval shows how technologies are assessed and targeted for system. transition into naval weapon systems. In order to overcome the challenges that our military Ultimately, the technology needs assessment is impor- faces today and will face in coming years, each of the US tant to a wide range of organizations because it provides military services have technology needs which must be avision for the supporting community especially on how addressed. However, due to financial, practical, and other to best direct their technology development efforts. limitations, not all of the needs can be achieved, and thus When the Chief of Naval Operations establishes the they must be prioritized. Also, even if the needs can even- vision for the future of the US Naval weapon systems, it tually be met, there is a timeline that goes along with tran- provides research labs, industry and the Navy with a sitioning each technology into service. In order to clearer understanding of the technology needed. If all transition technologies into service effectively and effi- these components work together to meet the common ciently, much planning is required. For instance, the objectives and work toward this common vision, the US development of a specific technology can be planned in Navy will remain the strongest and most technologically order to match up the time it will reach deployment matu- advanced sea force in the world. rity with an insertion point on an acquisition program. Ben Craig This article gives a brief introduction to the approach Editor Director The WSTIAC Quarterly is the current awareness publication of the Weapon Systems Technology Information Mark D. Rider Analysis Center (WSTIAC). WSTIAC, a Department of Defense (DoD) Information Analysis Center (IAC), is administratively managed by the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) under the DoD IAC Program. Deputy Director All data and information herein reported are believed to be reliable; however, no warrant, expressed or Vakare Valaitis implied, is to be construed as to the accuracy or the completeness of the information presented. The views, opinions, Editor-in-Chief and findings contained in this publication arethose of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Agency position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation. Benjamin D. Craig Inquiries about WSTIAC capabilities, products, and services may be addressed to Publication Design Mark D. Rider Robert Fitzgibbon Cynthia Long Director, WSTIAC Technical Inquiries Tamara R. Grossman 703.933.3317 877.WST.USER [email protected] email: [email protected] EMAIL: Information Processing URL: http://wstiac.alionscience.com/ Pamela J. Kinstle Wewelcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact: Inquiry Services WSTIAC RobertFitzgibbon ATTN: BENJAMIN D. CRAIG 201 Mill Street, Rome, New York 13440 Product Sales PHONE: 315.339.7019 • FAX: 315.339.7107 Gina Nash EMAIL: [email protected] Michael L. Bosworth Deputy Chief Technology Officer Naval Sea Systems Command The business of researching and developing technologies and integrating them into naval ships and ship systems is a complex and wide-ranging process, and multiple viewpoints are needed to represent all of the important insights. This article expresses the viewpoint of one practitioner from the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) headquarters, who concentrates on advanced development R&D (6.4) with a focus on transition of technologies to ships. INTRODUCTION focuses on the red “needs” arrow, which is only one piece of the total The Advanced Development level of R&D (research and develop- input used by the CNR when putting together the ONR S&T Pro- ment) is set up to help transition maturing technologies into the gram. The other System Commands and their affiliated PEOs, Program Executive Offices (PEOs) and their acquisition programs which have a similar set of relationships, provide their needs as well. that design and build ships. Advanced Development R&D proj- The Chief of Naval Operations’ (CNO) Maritime Strategy and ects draw from the Science and Technology (S&T) program, Vision for the future Navy and requirements derived from current which is financed for the Navy Department primarily by the ship programs are also considered when defining the future needs. Office of Naval Research (ONR), though DARPA also contributes The intent of the analysis overviewed in this article was to take significant S&T work to the Navy, Marine Corps, and the other the very high level strategy and vision of the CNO and produce a services. Commercial and foreign developments also contribute consolidated Vision and Needs Report at the next lower level based other S&T level R&D. on the needs from each of NAVSEA’s affiliated PEOs. An outgrowth As part of the overall S&T planning process in 2006, the Chief of the 2006 effort was the recognition that NAVSEA required a of Naval Research (CNR) requested that the System Commands focal point for technology to help coordinate the various technolo- submit their S&T needs along with those of their respective affili- gy efforts and to serve as a facilitating interface with the rest of the ated PEOs, which would be combined with ONR’s own strategic S&T community including ONR and DARPA. Recently, a Chief planning effort in developing their overall S&T program. In this Technology Officer (CTO), Deputy CTO, and a supporting organ- context, “S&T needs” stem from operational or engineering capa- ization was outlined. They are in the process of being established. bilities or affordability goals that are not being met. This article APPROACH focuses on the 2006 NAVSEA S&T Needs analysis, which was conducted in response to the request by the CNR, by NAVSEA’s In order to establish a framework and context, PEOs also includ- Future Ships & Force Concepts Division, serving as a surrogate for ed a vision statement and broad guidance. The foundation for the the about-to-form Technology Office. analysis was based on the S&T needs provided by each of the Figure 1 depicts the relationship between the principal parties NAVSEA affiliated PEOs. These vision statements in themselves responsible for establishing the Navy’s S&T program. The figure is were as important as the needs, especially in attempting to under- a simplistic view of the relationship, but illustrates how the major stand where a particular platform or warfare area was focused for organizations are connected. The analysis included in this article the next generation of ships and systems. Based on these inputs, an analysis of those needs that are common to multiple PEOs and use the same technology was conducted. Although the specific CCSNNECOO // PEO inputs are not described here, an analysis of those common SEC needs is provided. ms Acq.ProgStrraategy/Vision Funding/PSri&oTritPierosgrams DIwnee rftiehn eidn efgfi ritnshtee ds t.Se cIpno optfeh teah pnisda st tEa,ss kttah tbeh lisesc hocionpnge s ittnhraecil nuTtidmse eadn Cadlo l snfcusottrpuaeri neo tsft etchhen eoflfoogryt Needs needs for ships and ship systems. However, this resulted in a list of NNAAVVSSEEAA CCNNRR every possible technology need and it provided little real guidance S&T Programs to the CNR. Almost anything that the S&T community might wish Figure 1. Relationship among NAVSEA, CNR and CNO / Secretariat to pursue was included on the list. Therefore, to limit the scope of (SEC) the effort, two key decisions were made. First, it was concluded that http://wstiac.alionscience.com The WSTIACQuarterly, Volume 7, Number 2 3 Near-Term Mid-Term Far-Term Ship Types FY 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Carrier CVN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CG(X) 1 1 11 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 DDG-51 Surface DDG-51FltIIA Combatant DDG(X) 1 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 DDG 1000 2 1 1 1 1 1 LCS 2 3 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 5 1 1 2 3 6 6 6 SSN-774 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Submarine SSN-774(X) 1 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 SSBN(X) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LPD-17 1 LSD(X) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Amphibious LHD-8 LHD(X) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LHA(R) 1 1 LHA(R)(mod) 1 1 1 T-AO(X) 1 11 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Logistics T-AOE 1 11 11 1 T-AKE 1 1 T-AKE(mod) 1 1 1 LMSR(mod) 1 1 1 MLP 1 1 1 ARS(X) 1 2 1 AS(X) 1 1 Support T-AGOS 1 1 1 1 HSS 1 T-ATF(X) 1 1 1 1 JCC(X) 1 1 JHSV 1 1 1 1 2 7 7 11 12 13 13 12 11 11 12 4 6 4 5 9 10 11 10 10 11 10 8 7 10 6 8 8 12 10 11 POM 08 FYDP 1 22 22 Start preliminaryDesign Pre-MSA& Prelim. Contract DetailDesign and Concept Design Design Construction Lead Ship Figure2. 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan the near term needs (within the first six years) should not be includ- •Mid-Term–Fiscal Years 2014 through 2020 ed because the current Future Naval Capabilities (FNC) process •Far-Term–Fiscal Years 2021 through 2036 adequately addresses that area. Secondly, it was decided that each Because of the ship focus of the Command and the new initia- PEO should submit their top 10 S&T mid-term and far-term tive by the CNO to stabilize a 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan, the needs, although the top ten lists would not be prioritized. FY06 published version of the Plan became the starting point. This set the stage for the timelines (near-term, mid-term and far- Defining Time Periods for Technology Needs term) and which new ship platforms or modernizations provided For this analysis, three time periods were defined to organize the opportunities for technology introduction. Figure 2 shows the 30- needs and correspond to the timeframes in the new shipbuilding Year Shipbuilding Plan used for assessing technology needs, which plan. These periods were based on the 2008 Program Objective has only been slightly changed for the 2008 Budget submission. In Memorandum Future Years Defense Program (POM08 FYDP) and addition to laying out the fiscal year for the first production ship, will be adjusted as needed in the future: the graph also shows the design space in front of that year, includ- •Near-Term–Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013 ing the start of concept design, which is the period of focus for this assessment. Other Time Constraints Years -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Another key constraint on the S&T process is the time it takes to FirstYr Last Yr Of FYDP OfFYDP develop a new system or technology from 6.2 RDT&E (research, SCN SHIP Yr development, test, and evaluation) through the ONR Future ACQUISITION CCoonncceepptt && Prel. &Contract Des. Naval Capabilities process and 6.4 RDT&E. By following this PHASES FFeeaass.. SSttuuddiieess Plus Contracting DDDD&&CC CCoonntrtraacct t AAOOAA PDR CDR AAwwaarrdd process it would take about six years to achieve Technology Readi- ness Level (TRL) 7. Recognizing this as an approximation and a general rule of thumb for strategic planning, the Navy’s Mid-Term System System PDR CDR 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan and an estimate of the expected timing AAOOAA 6.4 R&D / SCN Test 6.4 R&D / SCN for the Mid-Term Modernization programs were analyzed to DESDVYESESVYLTESOELTMPOEMMPREM FRNPEFTNP T Design BBuuiilldd Test,Mods,ILS determine probable start times for S&T. Figure 3 shows the R&D D&I FNC System TPRrLo t7otype DT&ETR ALc 8tual OT&TRE LA 9ctual timeline for the subsystem development and then the acquisition Science & Technology in OpEnvironment System System phases from subsystem to the ship. The key here is that the sub- 6.1 6.2 6.3 system must achieve TRL 7 to support the preliminary design DoD 5000 SYSTEM TRL 6E nPgr.o Fteoatsy. pIne LaDDbee mmooss DEVELOPMENT review (PDR) of the ship. But FNCs may only support the subsys- PHASES TRL 4 TRL5 tems up through TRL 6. Hence, there must be several years of Breadboard in LabSim. Environment development after completing the FNC to enable validation of the Figure 3. Ship Development and Acquisition Process subsystem through TRL 7. It is this stack up that is the root for 4 The WSTIACQuarterly, Volume 7, Number 2 the six year lead time. In fact, 7 or 8 years out is not too early to The increased emphasis on modularity and physically open system be investing in 6.2 R&D. interfaces (analogous to the more developed electronics and com- One of the key intentions of this ongoing S&T needs analysis is puter open architecture) will provide, in the future, more opportu- to better align the opportunities for technology insertion into sys- nities for technology insertion, when less than major overhauls tems based on the shipbuilding and modernization plans for ships are executed during routine annual maintenance. and weapon systems. By combining the ship building plan from This analysis is about prioritizingmid-term and long-term needs. Figure 2 and a projected modernization plan with the timeline from In future years, a more rigorous prioritization approach will likely be Figure 3, the result is the diagram in Figure 4, which shows the mid- used for application to the database of needs, and the database will term S&T opportunities. grow and be digitally maintained and updated for ease of review and prioritization. Having the needs in a database format provides the Future Plans opportunity to look at the data from a different perspective that In 2007 NAVSEA is expanding and deepening the analysis in a sec- brings additional illumination to the process of building the ONR ond iteration. NAVSEA is responsible for “Ship Systems” and, S&T program. therefore, the analysis uses the Navy’s formal shipbuilding plan and the current estimate of when modernizations will occur as the basis RESULTS OF THE S&T NEEDS ASSESSMENT for the S&T Needs. In addition, it establishes a foundation for The S&T Needs input from the PEOs was evaluated and presented Advanced Development planning to facilitate the important transi- to show S&T needs that are common among multiple platforms tion to new systems. and which use the same technology. Other areas of analysis of PEO Inthe same way, there are also opportunities to insert new tech- needs bycategory (e.g., manning, materials, open systems) were also nology during “modernizations,” which include scheduled major presented. These will enable NAVSEA to allocate the limited, but upgrades and, in the case of aircraft carriers, refueling and complex important, resources to areas best able to make a difference in Naval overhauls. Opportunities for insertion of new technology via capabilities. entirely new systems, sub-systems and/or components will be The following are key areas of common needs across multiple driven by their affordability and by the threats facing US interests. warfare and acquisition arenas: Mid-Term Far-Term Ship Types FY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 1 CVN 68 Carrier 66.1.1 – – 6 6.3.3 1 1 CVN 78 CG(X) DDG-51 Upgrades DDG-51FltIIA Upgrades Surface Combatant DDG 1000 6.61.1 – – 6 6..33 DDG(X) 6.61. 1– –6 .63.3 1 LCS MonohullSeaframe 6.1 – 6.3 6.1 – 6.3 LCS Trimaran Seaframe 6.1 – 6.3 SSN-774 Submarine SSN-774(X) 6.16 .1– –6 .63.3 1 22 2 2 SSBN(X) 1 1 LPD-17 LSD(X) 6.61. 1– –6 .63.3 1 LHD-8 Amphibious LHD(X) 6.16 .1– –6 .63.3 LHA(R) 6.16 .1– –6 .63.3 LHA(R)(mod) T-AO(X) 6.16 .1– –6 .63.3 1 11 2 2 2 Logistics T-AOE 6.16 .–1 6–. 36.3 T-AKE T-AKE(mod) LMSR(mod) 60.16 .1– –6 .36.03 MLP ARS(X) 66..11 –– 66..33 1 2 AS(X) 066..11 –– 66..33 Support T-AGOS 6.16 .1– –6 .63.3 1 1 1 HSS 6.1 – 6.3 T-ATF(X) JCC(X) JHSV POM 08 FYDP 1 2 2 LeadShipor , Modernization Start Contract DetailDesign and NewSystemsReady Design Construction Figure 4. Mid-Term S&T Opportunities by Ship Class http://wstiac.alionscience.com The WSTIACQuarterly, Volume 7, Number 2 5 • Common Affordability Needsthat address all areas of affordabil- the progression of new systems, levels of automation, and manning ity, from reduced maintenance cost to reduced acquisition cost. level goals. This area is also tied to the new CNO’s strategies and • Common Technology Needs that address Human Systems concept of operations. Integration (HSI); Ship Survivability; Other Hull, Mechanical, Survivability Needs Electrical and Logistics (HME&L); and Integrated Warfare Systems (IWS)/Littoral and Mine Warfare (LMW). Survivability covers a large area of technology as it represents three • Integrated Weapon System Strategies that transition from a very different areas: susceptibility, vulnerability and recoverability. platform to enterprise solution and then across the platforms to Since these areas are unique to Navy ships, there is no commercial support the affordable Fleet. counterpart for technology investment; a fact which requires the The S&T needs assessment recommends that some 6.1 and the S&T investment in survivability to be solely the Navy’s. There are “core” 6.2 RDT&E devoted to ships and associated weapon systems significant differences in survivability requirements between the should focus on specific new ship classes and modernizations in the ship types, but also many common needs among the PEOs. These mid-term and far-term so that the technology will be ready to are discussed by survivability area: demonstrate engineering feasibility in a timely manner. Susceptibility covers the control of ship signatures including: radio frequency (RF), infrared (IR), acoustic, magnetic and visual. Needs Analysis The control is closely tied to the characteristics and capabilities of The PEO S&T needs data (not provided in this article) was able to the threat sensors or weapons, and not all are of interest to each plat- be cross-cut and presented to show needs that are common among form. It is key that the signature analysis efforts continue to evalu- multiple platforms or systems. There are many needs that are not ate what technologies are required for signature control as the threat specific to ship types. However, some may be appropriate to sever- evolves in the future. This is an area that is common to and must be al, but not all, PEOs. These include: consistent with both weapon systems and • Common systems needs platform designs, and thus the effectiveness • New materials of defensive weapons is also very important. • New manufacturing processes Also, how the Global War on Terrorism • Newdesign techniques or analytical (GWOT) and new CNO strategy impact tools this area should be included in the ongoing The common needs among the various Aluminum False Deck Grid and Foundation analysis. For example, the GWOT changes PEOsaredescribed in more detail below. the threat weapons and battlespace and, therefore, could impact the relative impor- Common Affordability Needs tance of the infrared and visual signature The focus on affordability stems from the control. current budget pressures and the ability to Vulnerabilityis primarily the ability of the afford the CNO’s shipbuilding plan (strate- platform or system to withstand weapons gy/vision) as shown in Figure 1 (this is a effects. The most common requirements in FY06 plan but is updated annually). This the ship design include protection against does not mean that it is just a reduction in nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons ship acquisition cost, but a reduction in all (NBC), as well as shock and fragmentation. cost categories, since all impact the Navy’s Since the impact of vulnerability character- overall budget. istics run counter to smaller, less expensive In many cases, the first effort that is ships, there is continuing pressure to reduce required is a good analysis of what can be the requirements on these systems. No area accomplished in cost reduction through is closer to the core capability of a naval Figure5. Examples of R&D Projects technology investment. Given the limited ship than its vulnerability features. The funds, NAVSEA must invest where there is fields of weapons effects, ship vulnerability a good chance for a return. All of the elements of cost are related analysis, and new forms of ballistic protection need to be contin- to some degree. For example, simply making ships less expensive ued. The vulnerability to common weapons encountered in the can impact the life-cycle cost (LCC). Greatly improving the relia- GWOT should be the first priority. bility of systems design to reduce maintenance will impact acqui- Recoverabilityis the ability of a ship or system to recover its sition cost, and so on. A systems approach, along with the capability following an attack. This includes the classic damage analytical tools, should be part of any affordability initiatives. control response by the ship, but should also include automation, Reducing the cost of a system without the analysis to supportthe pre-configuration of systems, and other techniques required by the reduction does not result in the cost reduction being reflected in reduced manning initiatives. the futurebudget. Other Hull, Mechanical, Electrical, and Logistics Needs Common Technology Needs The following are common HME&L needs that are common to the HSI Needs various ship platforms: Clearly, Human Systems Integration is common to all systems • S&T that supports evolution of the current new architectures and ship types and should continue to be a focus for future S&T. in open systems and modular, zonal and Total Ship Com- The understanding of how the watch stander or maintainer will puting Environment (TSCE) approaches to ship and weapons interface with the system should expand and remain current with system design. 6 The WSTIACQuarterly, Volume 7, Number 2 Other Integrated Weapon Systems / Littoral and Mine Warfare Needs The following are common integrated weapon systems / littoral and mine warfare S&T needs that cut across the various system areas: • Command and control for simultaneous operation of multiple unmanned vehicles. • Increased computing power and advanced operating systems. • Operations in littoral environment and new GWOT threats. Figure 6. Examples of R&D Projects INTEGRATED WEAPON SYSTEM STRATEGIES • S&T that supports networked systems. The IWS future strategy is to produce integrated systems to • S&T that supports the new high power electronics and support multiple classes of ships. This strategy is closely linked electrical power actuators. to their investment and affordability initiatives. Figure 7 is taken • The introduction of autonomous unmanned vehicles pro- from the Command’s affordability study and is an example of vides both technology challenges and opportunities. The how this strategy is applied to several systems. operation of unmanned vehicles, including unmanned SUMMARY underwater vehicles (UUVs), unmanned surface vehicles (USVs), and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), will expand This article provided a high level overview of S&T needs and in the future and be operated off of most naval platforms. transition timing from the viewpoint of a single practitioner within the Naval Sea Systems Command, concentrating in Advanced Development R&D (6.4) for ships. It has long been DRAFT acknowledged that later stage R&D must be timed to ship in- FutureIntegrated Warfare Systems sertion opportunities, typically with use of the Ship Construc- tion, Navy (SCN) plan for the five or six coming years. This ADSevWelopment DSiQstrQib-S8utI9ePAdS(V)15 ASAWRCI / APBLCWDetAPeeScrtWiioscno RpaedarTwinS-LSinDeTTTarsaTken csFhfoonrrcomeloa AgtioiSenWsa/l overview suggests a means by which the S&T community and Netted Sensors Combat C2 MM TB29 its various R&D and transition partners can accomplish this GDeuvnelopment AGS, CIWS1B+, Medium and Minor Caliber Guns for early R&D (later S&T) by similarly utilizing the 30-Year MDeisvseilleopment SM-3, SM-6, RAM BlockII, Advanced ExoBMD, ICWI, Link P3I EnNtearpvryise Shipbuilding Plan as a foundation for high level R&D strate- RDaedvealropmentwDevelopment SSCC-PJJVRRYS -RX3S RCeopblSDaruaBcietRJemudenyt DCCDVJ(RNX) FRSuautduitareer •WCsSooyalmusrtmtifoeaonmnrse enterprise AffFourtduareble gicF oprl a2n0n0i7n,g t,h per aioprpirtoizaacthio tno, aasnseds srinesgo Su&rcTin gn.eeds will be expand- NeLow-CostRadar R&D SPS-49 / SPN-43 •Ecfafepcatibvielitwieasrfighting Fleet ed to incorporate a database in order to analyze the data from C4I C4IB/L Reduction CommanSdu p&p oCrotmSbhaipta Cn4t IShip C4I 2CIMonmtoedmrugolranar tC eOodpr eSe cnBa /ClaL4b’Isle •Corf eaalitgenceudlt ure multiple interests and allow alignment to technical areas and warfare system organizations. Also, there will be more culling of the needs along OA CS DD(X) JTM SBT acquisition & Applications Functionality BMD Merge NIFC-CA / JIFC lifecycle with a strategy for prioritization. Regardless, like the Shipbuild- support OCoAmputing SASeDgiSs MC/KS 2 B HL W7. 1AHrWch iAterccthuirteecture FMuutultrie-l eOvpeel,n C, oMmopduutlianrg, ESncavliarobnlem,ent ing Plan, NAVSEA would like to have stability in the technology Environment DD(X) TSCE-I for Future Platforms planning in order to provide consistency in year-to-year guidance. Common Cert Ship Constuction Innovation EPrnotecrepsrsise Enterprise T&E ••WStaarnfdaarred Sizyesdte Smh iTpu rHnokteeyl Spaces Next Generation ISE •Multiyear Ship Procurement Transition from Platform to Enterprise Solutions 24 Apr 2006 Figure7.Future IWS Integration Strategy Michael L. Bosworth is Ship and Force Architecture Concepts (SFAC) Program Manager, assigned to the Navy Department’s Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Ship Engineering Directorate (SEA 05), and currently acting as senior Deputy Chief Technology Officer (SEA 05TB) in standing up the new office. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1976 and completed two graduate degrees at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1985. Mr. Bosworth served for twenty years as a naval officer. He retired from naval uniformed service in 1996 and commenced employment at Syntek Technologies as strategic planner and R&D manager. In late 2001, Mr. Bosworth returned to the US Navy, this time as a civilian engineer, restructuring the SFAC Program, growing it two orders of magnitude in justafewyears. He is billeted in Surface Ship Concepts and Force Architecture (SEA 05D1) and has developed a multi-disciplinary and multi-sponsor technical team, comprised of naval architectures, mechanical engineers, logistics engineers, warfare systems engineers, ops analysts, software engineers, modularity engineers and other technical and program management specialists. He is currently phasing into the newly assembled CTO directorate, under Dr. Alexis Kaznoff. Mr. Bosworth is a member of the American Society of Naval Engineers, wherehe has served as section chairman and on the national board, and is also a life member of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. He is a certified Defense Department Acquisition Professional for Program Management and Systems Planning, Research, Development & Engineering. http://wstiac.alionscience.com The WSTIACQuarterly, Volume 7, Number 2 7 in the news... FIELD ARTILLERY FIRES NEW MODULAR ARTILLERY and all of our crews have qualified on it.” CHARGE SYSTEM ON TAJI Baird said his Soldiers have been fortunate to work with the by Staff Sgt. Jon Cupp howitzers, as changes in the field artillery branch have led to USArmy Public Affairs fewer opportunities to employ howitzers. “Now they’re work- CAMP TAJI, Iraq – While many artillerymen get the opportu- ing more in roles that concentrate on doing foot patrols, nity to fire artillery pieces only in training, Soldiers from the pulling tower guard and doing cordon and searches,” said 82nd Field Artillery Regiment’s Alpha Battery, 1st Battalion, Baird. “One of the most important things for my Soldiers is have already fired more than 1,100 rounds in real-world the fact that they’re actually getting to do artillery tasks, and missions to engage enemy for them this is great and I could not be more proud of their targets in support of combat performance today,” Baird added. “We’re the only true ‘hot operations in theater. gun’ battery in theater – others may have only one gun firing Since the first calibration of at any given time in support of real world missions. We’re using the M109A6 Paladin how- our entirebattery all the time.” itzers in early December, First Lt. Sidney Wilson, an Alpha Battery platoon leader, said Alpha Battery has supported he was impressed with the MACS and hopes his Soldiers will combat operations every day remember the experience. “They should take pride in being the Spc. Eduardo Briseno, a cannoneer by firing their Paladins. The who loads and fires howitzers for the first battery to fire these in theater,” said Wilson. “When they go unit has supported operations 82nd Field Artillery Regiment’s Alpha home, this is something they can tell their families about.” Battery, 1st Battalion, prepares to with everything from counter- Spc. Eduardo Briseno, a cannoneer who loads and fires load a charge into the barrel of a fire to suppressive fire, as well howitzer on an M109A6 Paladin, howitzers, had his own take on what the day’s firing meant to as striking pre-planned targets. March 13 on Camp Taji, Iraq, during him. “I love it, I can’t really explain it. There’s nothing else the first-ever calibration firing of the They have also cleared routes that compares with this and nothing else I’d rather be doing,” Modular Artillery Charge System in for combat missions along and the combat zone by an entire Paladin said Briseno. “Knowing that we’ve made history today in provided base camp security. battery. Photo by Staff Sgt. Jon Cupp firing the MACS ... this really feels awesome.” Yet one of the Soldiers’ most memorable moments came March 13 as they fired the new A-10 MODIFICATIONS SPEED UP TO Modular Artillery Charge System. “We’re on the brink of histo- SUPPORT WARFIGHTERS ry,” said Capt. Derek Baird, Alpha Battery commander. Baird by Bill Orndorff said the event marked the first time the MACS have been fired 309th Maintenance Wing in the combat zone byan entirebatteryof Paladins. HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah – The Air Force will soon ben- The MACS system, used in conjunction with a projectile, is efit from an A-10 Thunderbolt II milestone achieved here in a refined propellant that facilitates higher rates of fire and March. Personnel from the 571st Aircraft Maintenance extends range capabilities for the howitzers, Baird explained. Squadron completed a precision engagement modification on an The pre-measured charges, which are packaged in cylindrical, A-10 14 days ahead of schedule. The modification gives the toilet-paper roll-shaped canis- A-10 precision weapons capability through significant rewiring ters, push or propel projectiles and the addition of modern avionics upgrades. The A-10C from the barrels of the how- precision engagement program was accelerated by 18 months itzer. The charges also help to to meet the needs of the warfighter, causing the program to lessen the work of the old way undergo concurrent fielding and development. of measuring charges, whereby “We’re delivering airplanes to Air Combat Command, bag charges were cut and then Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units, while we’re still unused portions had to be finishing the development and design of the modification,” said disposed of – wasting powder, Greg Hoffman, the 571st AMXS director. “The program is added Baird. Alpha Battery being pushed on a fast track. You start to do the modifications March 19, 2007 Soldiers from the 82nd Field Artillery Regiment's Alpha will use the MACS in con- as you go and you don’t have time to sit there and flow out Battery, 1st Battalion, fired howitzers junction with a new munition how to best lay it out, so you get a couple of airplanes under on their M109A6 Paladins during the they will receive training on your belt and then make changes as you go. It’s part of continu- first-ever firing of the Modular Artillery Charge System in the combat and implement within the ous process improvement – we’re always looking for ways to do zone by an entire Paladin battery next few months – the Excal- things better.” March 13 on Camp Taji, Iraq. The ibur. “This is all very exciting. As with many new and accelerated programs, there were newly refined propellant pushes projectiles out of the barrel of the Our firing of the MACS is in challenges with parts supportability from vendors as well as howitzers. The MACS will be used preparation to get Excalibur,” maintenance procedures. “Lockheed Martin Systems Integration in conjunction with the soon-to-be- said Baird. “This is the final from Owego, NY, is the prime contractor,” Mr. Hoffman said. fielded Excalibur precision munition. Photo by Staff Sgt. Jon Cupp step before it’s fielded to us, “When you accelerate a program on us and accelerate our 8 The WSTIACQuarterly, Volume 7, Number 2 aircraft flow, it accelerates the delivery schedule as well. Initially, unmanned aerial and undersea vehicles to language translators to we had some points where we were waiting for components from countless other advances in use on the battlefield and in everyday Lockheed, but they’ve done a tremendous job rising to meet every life, ONR has been cultivating basic science and providing challenge and give us the support we need,” he said. advanced technology to the sea services and the nation since To add to the challenges, the A-10s lost six production docks to 1946. another workload. Additionally, nearly 100 new technicians hired The Naval Science and Technology Corporate Board – com- over the past year needed training. “Our squadron almost dou- posed of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Devel- bled in size with the addition of this modification,” said Mr. opment and Acquisition; the Vice Chief of Naval Operations; and Hoffman. “We had a lot of new people who had never worked in the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps – directed the the aircraft business before, so the training curve was pretty steep. Chief of Naval Research and ONR to develop a Naval science and A lot of them still have less than a year at the center and they’re technology strategy. This strategy will ensure that the investments still learning the weapon system.” of ONR and the Naval research enterprise support future innova- As a way to ensure the program’s success, a 12-member lean tive operational concepts as well as fulfill the needs of today’s team was formed in October to establish a standard work package warfighters. that logically flows every step of this new program from wheels The science and technology strategic plan has three principal down to wheels up. The team used critical chain process manage- goals: to ensure alignment of Naval science and technology with ment, also known as buffer management, to create a daily “hot Naval missions and future capability needs; to balance and man- list” of operations that need to be accomplished. The team further age the science and technology portfolio; and to communicate the enhanced the process by breaking the technicians into cells to science and technology vision to decision makers, stakeholders, improve training, quality and cost. “The cells we established were partners, and customers. to focus on a couple issues,” Mr. Hoffman said. “One was to keep The strategy is divided into thirteen focus areas: our process moving. More importantly, it was to ensure our train- • Power & Energy ing curve was accelerated. Instead of technicians getting assigned • Distributed Operations to an airplane and having to work the entire airplane, they can • Operational Environments focus on the gun bay area or the cockpit area so the skills build up • Naval Warrior Performance & Protection much quicker. We keep them in that area, and when everybody • Maritime Domain Awareness gets to a certain level, then we can start swapping personnel • Survivability & Self-Defense around to expand their abilities.” • Asymmetric & Irregular Warfare These efforts will allow the 571st AMXS to meet its goal of 70 • Platform Mobility A-10 Precision Engagement modifications this year. “The 571st • Information, Analysis and Communication mechanics are well on their way to successfully executing the A- • Fleet/Force Sustainment 10 Precision Engage- • Power Projection ment program,” Mr. • Affordability, Maintainability and Reliability Hoffman said. “They • Assure Access and Hold at Risk have reduced overtime Investments in these focus areas will result in a Navy and Marine from more than 1,400 Corps that will have: hours per aircraft to an • Domination of the electromagnetic spectrum and cyber space average of 600 hours. • Implemented directed energy—fighting at the speed of light Overall modification • Achieved persistent, distributed surveillance in all domains Photo Courtesy of DoD; Photo by SRA time was reduced from a • Achieved comprehensive maritime domain awareness with Jacqueline Hawkins high of 5,400 hours to large vessel stopping and weapon of mass destruction detec- consistently less than 4,000 hours and is well on its way to the tion for enhanced maritime intercept operations 3,512-hour target. Focusing on these aspects will not only ensure • Incorporated affordability into platform design and construc- the warfighter gets a quality product on time, but reducing over- tion time and installation hours will, in essence, be giving money back • Adaptive wireless communications networks to our customer to keep pushing additional aircraft to us within • Decision tools to give commanders tactical advantage the program.” • Determination of threat intent through social and cultural understanding OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH LAUNCHES SCIENCE AND • Lighter, faster, more lethal Marine forces TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLAN • Accelerated team training and skill development ARLINGTON, Virginia – Chief of Naval Research Rear • Increased operational effectiveness through more efficient Admiral William E. Landay III has unveiled a new Naval science power and fuels and technology strategic plan that outlines in detail how the • Responsive and visible logistics to enable distributed forces Department of the Navy will enable the Navy and Marine • Greater tactical advantage through superior knowledge and Corps of the future – and shape how Sailors and Marines will use of operational environments fight years and even decades down the road. Contact: Colin Babb, Office of Naval Research, Phone: 703-696- The Office of Naval Research (ONR) is the science and tech- 4036, [email protected] nology provider for the Department of the Navy. From GPS to http://wstiac.alionscience.com The WSTIACQuarterly, Volume 7, Number 2 9