Navy 033115 final

Coast Guard Cutter Procurement By Ronald o’RouRke, SpecialiSt in naval affaiRS

The Coast Guard’s program of record

(POR) calls for procuring eight national secu-

rity cutters (NSCs), 25 offshore patrol cutters

(OPCs), and 58 fast response cutters (FRCs)

as replacements for 90 aging Coast Guard

cutters and patrol craft. The NSC, OPC and

FRC programs have a combined estimated

acquisition cost of about $21.1 billion, and

the Coast Guard’s proposed fiscal year 2016

budget requests a total of $449.9 million in

acquisition funding for the three programs.

NSCs are the Coast Guard’s largest and

most capable general-purpose cutters. They

have an estimated average procurement cost

of about $684 million per ship. The first four

are now in service, the fifth through seventh

are in various stages of construction, and long

lead time materials are being procured for the

eighth. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY16

budget requests $638 million for the NSC

program, including $91.4 million in acquisition

funding for the NSC program.

OPCs are to be smaller, less expensive

and, in some respects, less capable than

NSCs. They have an estimated average

procurement cost of about $484 million per

ship. The first OPC is to be procured in FY17.

The Coast Guard’s proposed FY16 budget

requests $18.5 million in acquisition funding

for the OPC program.

FRCs are considerably smaller and less

expensive than OPCs. They have an esti-

mated average procurement cost of about

$73 million per boat. A total of 32 have been

funded through FY15. The 11th was commis-

sioned into service on January 24, 2015, and

the 12th is scheduled to be commissioned

in March 2015. The Coast Guard’s proposed

FY16 budget requests $340 million in acquisi-

tion funding for the FRC program.

The Future of Naval AviationVice Admiral Paul Grosklags,

Principal Military Deputy, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition), Rear Admiral Michael C. Manazir, Director Air Warfare, and Lieuten-ant General Jon Davis, Deputy Com-mandant for Aviation testified before the Seapower Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Navy’s plans for its aviation programs going forward.

There are several central themes to our 2016 Naval Aviation Budget plan: fifth-generation fighter/attack capability; netted persistent multi-role intelligence, surveillance, recon-naissance and targeting; supporting capabilities such as electronic attack, maritime patrol, and vertical lift; advanced strike weapons programs; readiness recovery; and targeted modernization of the force for relevance and sustainability.

First, we are acquiring F-35 fifth-generation fighter/attack aircraft while maintaining sufficient tactical aviation (TACAIR) inventory capac-ity. Our plan will integrate fifth-generation technologies into the carrier air wing and expeditionary forces while maintaining and modernizing the capability of the current TACAIR fleet. The F-35B and F-35C will replace Marine Corps F/A-18 and AV-8B air-craft significantly increasing capabilities across the range of military operations of Marine sea- and land-based MAGTFs. The F-35C, F/A-18E/F and EA-18G provide complemen-tary capabilities that enhance the versatility, lethality, survivability and readiness of our air wings. F/A-18A-F and AV-8B aircraft will continue to receive capability enhancements to sustain their lethality well into the next decade. Future avionics upgrades will enable network-centric operations for integrated fire control, situational awareness and transfer

of data to command-and-control nodes.

To meet the demand for persistent, multirole intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability, the Navy and Marine Corps are building a bal-anced portfolio of manned and unmanned aircraft focused on mis-sions in the maritime environment. The Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system will provide a persistent aircraft carrier-based ISR&T and strike capability as an integral part of carrier air-wing operations no later than the early part of the next decade. MQ-4C Triton will provide persistent land-based maritime ISR and complement our P-8 multi-mission maritime aircraft (MMA); MQ-8 Fire Scout will provide ISR support to our frigates and other suitably-equipped air-capable ships; and smaller unmanned systems such as the RQ-21A Small Tactical Un-manned Aircraft System (STUAS)

and RQ-7B Marine Corps tactical UAS (MCTUAS) will provide the shorter dura-tion, line-of-sight reconnaissance capability integral at the unit level.

The fiscal year 2016 budget request enables naval aviation to continue recapital-ization of our aging fleets of airborne early warning, maritime patrol and vertical lift platforms. The department is recapitalizing our fleet of E-2C airborne early warning aircraft with the E-2D, maritime patrol and reconnaissance with the P-8A, airborne electronic attack with the EA-18G, and car-rier onboard delivery (COD) with the V-22. E-2D integrates a new electronically-scanned radar that provides a two-generation leap in technology with the capability to detect and

continued on paGe 8 ➥continued on paGe 19 ➥

MARCh 31, 2015www.NPeO-kMi.COM

Rear Adm. Michael C. Manazir

Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags

Lt. Gen.Jon Davis

A PubliCAtion www.nPeo-kmi.Com

plus:• PACFLT SeNiOR

LeAdeRS MeeT• FRANk C. JONeS

AwARd

31 MaR2015

EditorialEditor

Jonathan Magin [email protected]

Managing EditorHarrison Donnelly [email protected]

Copy EditorCrystal Jones [email protected]

CorrespondentsJ.B. Bissell • Kasey Chisholm • Catherine Day

Michael Frigand • Nora McGann

Art & DesignArt Director

Jennifer Owers [email protected]

Ads and Materials ManagerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected]

Senior Graphic DesignerScott Morris [email protected]

Graphic Designers Andrea Herrera [email protected]

Amanda Paquette [email protected]

KMI Media GroupChief Executive Officer

Jack 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 Administrator

Bob Lesser [email protected]

Circulation & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected]

CirculationDenise Woods [email protected]

Subscription InformationNavy Air/Sea

is published 50 times a year by KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved.

Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2015

Corporate OfficesKMI Media Group

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

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

Web: www.NPEO-kmi.com

Table of ConTenTs

exClusive subsCriber ConTenTSubscribers to Navy Air/Sea receive exclusive weekly content. this week’s exclusive content includes:

• An update from the Naval Research Lab about research on types of rubber

with the potential to provide better corrosion protection for amphibious assault

vehicles.

• An article about the visit of the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy,

Mike Stevens, to U.S. Naval Station Rota.

March 30-April 1, 2015

Joint undersea Warfare technology

San diego, Calif.

www.ndia.org/meetings/5260

April 2, 2015

coast Guard intelligence industry day

Chantilly, Va.

www.afcea.org

April 12-15, 2015

Sea-air-Space

National harbor, Md.

www.seaairspace.org

April 22, 2015

nRo industry day

Chantilly, Va.

www.afcea.org/events/nro/15/

May 5-7, 2015

auvSi’s unmanned Systems

Atlanta, Ga.

www.auvsishow.org/auvsi2015

June 23-25, 2015

Mega Rust

Newport News, Va.

www.navalengineers.org

September 1-2, 2015

fleet Maintenance & Modernization

Symposium

San diego, Calif.

www.navalengineers.org/events

Calendar of evenTs

The Future of Naval Aviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and issues for Congress . . . . 1

Communications and Networks discovery and invention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Open Call for Nominations: Frank C. Jones Award for Vessel Alternations and Repair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

NSwC Crane Advanced Planning Briefings for industry 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Navy Networking environment Shore Modernization Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

STRATCOM Commander emphasizes Need to Modernize Nuke Triad . . . . . . . 5

Planning for Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Surface Ship Sonar domes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

PACFLT Senior enlisted Leaders discuss Mission Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Contract Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

www.NPeO-kMi.COM2 | MARCh 31, 2015

Communications and networks Discovery and invention

Communications technology that can

provide seamless, robust connectivity is

at the foundation of the Sea Power 21

Vision “... to have the right information, at

the right place, at the right time ....” The

performance of command and control (C2)

systems and decision-making at all levels

of command depends critically on reliable,

interoperable, survivable, secure and

timely communications and networking.

The current evolution of naval

warfighting from a platform-centric to a

network-centric paradigm depends on

successfully meeting the implied need for

significantly enhanced communications

and networking capabilities of C2, sensor

and weapon systems. These systems are

deployed on a variety of platforms and us-

ers, both manned and unmanned, operat-

ing under challenging battlefield conditions

(lack of infrastructure, mobility, spectrum,

interference, multipath, atmospherics,

size/weight/power constraints, etc.) in dif-

ferent environments (space, terrestrial and

undersea).

The goal of the Communications and

Networking Program within the Office of

Naval Research (ONR) Code 311 is to

overcome these challenges by developing

measurable advances in technology that

can directly enable and enhance end-to-

end connectivity and quality-of-service

for mission-critical information exchange

among such widely dispersed naval,

joint, and coalition forces. The vision is to

provide high throughput, robust communi-

cations and networking to ensure all warf-

ighters—from the operational command

to the tactical edge—have access to the

data, information, and resources neces-

sary to make timely, accurate decisions

while performing their assigned missions

or tasks.

Proposals for potential fiscal year

2016 exploratory development/Applied

Research (Budget Activity 2) projects are

sought under the following focus areas.

highly innovative ideas in other general

communications and networking areas

that are not within the designated focus

areas below, but nonetheless are impor-

tant to the Navy/Marine Corps, as deter-

mined under the synopsis section above

may also be considered:

• Nanosat optical and RF

communications: Novel architectures,

techniques and technologies specially

focused on the hard problems.

• interference-aligned digital chaos for

scalable spectrally-efficient LPi/LPd

networking.

• dynamic scheduling, routing and

topology control to efficiently and

reliably deliver critical/high priority

data to multiple nodes over directional

tactical wireless network.

• innovative techniques for data

forwarding and bridging networks

with different routing mechanisms,

protocols (e.g., iP and non-iP) and QoS

parametrics.

• Software-defined wireless networking

architectures/protocols, and

exploratory paradigms for control

(centralized/distributed), network state

sensing (link state, latency, etc.), and

resource utilization.

FunDinG AnD AwArD

The Office of Naval Research (ONR)

plans to award four to five technology

development contracts (particularly cost-

plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) type contracts) and

grants that represent the overall value to

the government in accordance with the

evaluation criteria. The Office of Naval

Research is seeking participants for this

program that are capable of supporting

the goals described in this announcement.

Offerors have the opportunity to be cre-

ative in the selection of the technical and

management processes and approaches

to address the research topics.

The overall funding amount for this pro-

gram is approximately $2 million and ONR

plans to fund $300,000 to $500,000 per year

per award using Applied Research funds

(Budget Activity 2). however, lower and

higher cost proposals will be considered.

The average funding level of past awards

was approximately $400,000 per year. The

period of performance for projects may be

from one to three years, with an estimated

start date of on or about January 16, 2016,

subject to date of final award and availability

of new fiscal year funds.

ONR has funded related technology

development under numerous programs.

if offerors are enhancing work performed

under other ONR or dod projects, they

must clearly identify the point of de-

parture and what existing work will be

brought forward and what new work

will be performed under this BAA. The

award(s) will be made for the full perfor-

mance period requested.

ContACts

Questions of a technical nature should be

submitted to:

dr. Santanu das

Office of Naval Research

875 North Randolph Street—Suite 1115

Arlington, VA 22203-1995

703-588-1036

[email protected]

Questions of a Business nature, and

suggestions for improvement, should be

submitted to:

alexander Gorelik


875 North Randolph Street


703-588-2550

[email protected]

Questions of a security nature should be

submitted to:

diana pacheco


Security department, Code 43

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph Street


[email protected]

MARCh 31, 2015 | 3www.NPeO-kMi.COM

nswC Crane Advanced Planning briefings for industry 2015

Naval Surface warfare Center, Crane division (NSwC Crane) is excited to be hosting its Ad-

vanced Planning Briefings for industry (APBi) meeting on April 1, 2015 at the westGate Academy.

This year’s theme is “Collaborating for innovative, Lasting Solutions.”

The purpose of the APBi meeting is to provide industry and academia with information

on future NSwC Crane technology efforts, requirements, potential contract opportunities and

how to do business with NSwC Crane. The APBi forum provides presentation and discussion

on how industry/academia and NSwC Crane can collaborate and build thriving partnerships

to ensure future warfighter success.

The meeting will include presentations from senior leadership covering the three mission

focus areas: electronic warfare, special missions and strategic missions.

DAte & time:

wednesday, April 1, 2015

Onsite Registration: 0700 - 0800

AGenDA For 2015 nswC CrAne APbi:

0700 - 0800 Onsite Registration/Check-in

0800 - 0810 introduction & Administrative Remarks

0810 - 0820 welcome & Opening Remarks

0820 - 0840 NSwC Crane Strategic direction

0840 - 0900 NAVSeA Service Contracts Guest Speaker - Ms. Sharon Rustemier

0900 - 0910 Q&A for NAVSeA Service Contracts

0910 - 0930 Break

0930 - 0950 NSwC Crane deputy for Small Business

0950 - 1000 Q&A for Small Business

1000 - 1030 Current Contract Landscape

1030 - 1045 Q&A for Contracts Landscape

1045 - 1215 Morning Networking and Lunch

1215 - 1230 Strategic Missions Focus Area

1230 - 1245 Special Missions Focus Area

1245 - 1300 electronic warfare Mission Focus Area

1300 - 1320 Q&A for Mission Focus Areas

1320 - 1345 NSwC Crane Science & Technology emphasis

1345 - 1355 Q&A for Science & Technology

1355 - 1530 Afternoon Networking and Break Out Rooms

1530 - 1600 Cyber initiative and NSwC Crane’s Current Approach (Panel discussion)

1600 - 1615 Q&A for Cyber Awareness Panel

1615 - 1630 Closing Remarks

loCAtion:

westGate Academy Conferencing & Training Center

13598 east westGate drive

Odon, iN 47562

Cost & reGistrAtion:

There is no cost to attend this meeting; however, registration is required.

PrimAry Point oF ContACt:

patrick conger

Procurement Technician

[email protected]

812-854-3684

open Call for nominations: Frank C. Jones Award for Vessel Alternations and repair

Deadline: Tuesday, March 31, 2015

The American Society of Naval engi-

neers (ASNe) is seeking nominations for

the Frank C. Jones Award for exceptional

achievement in the field of major vessel

maintenance and alterations. The award

recognizes individual naval engineering

professionals who, over a period of at

least 10 years culminating in the current

year, have substantially and significantly

contributed to their agency’s intermedi-

ate- and/or depot-level ship maintenance

and/or alteration programs involving the

complex work of managing, planning,

preparation and/or execution of exten-

sive repairs, overhauls, upgrades and/or

modernizations.

The Frank C. Jones award will be pre-

sented during Fleet Maintenance & Mod-

ernization Symposium 2015 or another

suitable venue depending on availability

of the recipient.

PreVious winners inCluDe:

• Charles Zerbe, U.S. Coast Guard Yard

• Guy Victor holsten, OPNAV N43

• william F. Clifford, BAe Systems Ship

Repair

• Craig Flynn, NUwC division Newport

• dr. Thomas J. Murphy, Norfolk Ship

Support Activity

Please mail or fax one copy of the original

nomination for delivery by March 31, 2015 to:

AwArDs Committee CoorDinAtor

American Society of Naval engineers

1452 duke Street

Alexandria, VA 22314

Fax: (703) 836-7491

or email a scanned copy to

[email protected]


STRATCOM Commander Emphasizes Need to Modernize Nuke Triad

Stretching from under the sea to sat-ellite orbit to cyber-space, U.S. Strategic Command’s areas of responsibility cover the globe, STRAT-COM’s commander, Navy Admiral Cecil D. Haney, said March 24 during a news brief-ing at the Pentagon.

“For 70 years, we have deterred and assured. And while our nation’s nuclear enterprise is safe, secure and effective, we cannot take it for granted any longer,” the admiral told reporters.

“For decades, we have sustained while others have modernized their strategic nuclear forces, developing and utilizing counter-space activi-ties, increasing the sophistica-tion and pervasive nature of

their cyber capabilities and proliferating these emerging strategic capabilities around the globe,” he said.

Russia is modern-izing their nuclear triad, which is bombers, missiles and submarine-launched missiles, and

associated industrial base, Haney said, and Russian Presi-dent Vladimir Putin continues to provoke the international community.

“China has developed a ca-pable submarine and interconti-nental ballistic missile force and has recently demonstrated their counter-space capabilities,” the admiral said.

“North Korea claims to have possession of a miniaturized warhead and frequently parades their KN-O8 nuclear-capable ballistic missile,” Haney said.

“And Iran recently launched a space vehicle that could be used as a long-range strike platform,” he added.

STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

But strategic deterrence is more than nuclear deterrence, the admiral noted.

It also includes space—a contested, congested and competitive environment—and cyberspace, where intrusions around the globe are also increasing at an unprecedented and alarming rate, Haney said.

President Barack Obama’s proposed defense budget for 2016 balances national priori-ties with fiscal realities, the admiral said, noting it “leaves no margin to absorb new risks.”

The United States simply cannot afford to underfund its strategic capabilities, he said.

“Any cuts to the presi-dent’s budget, including those imposed by sequestration, will hamper our ability to sustain and modernize our joint military forces and put us at real risk of making our nation less secure and able to address future threats,” Haney said.

Deterrence is a whole-of-government effort; no combat-ant commander can do it alone, the admiral said.

“It requires us all to work together … so that we can provide the nation with the req-uisite capability for our national security,” he said.

By Claudette Roulo, DoD News, Defense Media Activity

navy networking environment shore modernization support

Navy information dominance Forces (NAVidFOR) is a readiness

Type Commander (TYCOM) with the global responsibility of identifying

and submitting requirements for all Navy information dominance capa-

bilities. The NAVidFOR Shore Modernization and integration

directorate (NAVidFOR N46) was established to consolidate

man-, train- and equip-focused activities in support of Navy enterprise

network integration; command, control, communications, computers,

collaboration and intelligence shore modernization; fleet strategic com-

munications; and cybersecurity/portfolio management responsibilities

for the domain.

NAVidFOR N46 is the TYCOM lead for planning and executing

information environment integration, consolidation, readiness reporting

and modernization efforts in support of Naval Networking environment

(NNe), Joint information environment (Jie), and Unified Capabilities

initiatives.

The NNe strategy was established to guide the department of

Navy towards a future net-centric enterprise environment that will

provide a highly secure and reliable enterprise-wide voice, video and

data network environment. The NNe will include the Next-Generation

enterprise Network, Consolidated Afloat Networks and enterprise

Services, Marine Corps enterprise Network, and OCONUS Navy enter-

prise Network.

Transition to the NNe is critical to enabling the Navy’s cyber opera-

tions mission and providing warfighters with seamless connectivity and

information-sharing capabilities on a global, regional and local scale.

Additionally, achieving the target state NNe will serve as a key enabler

to realizing the Jie.

Jie is a framework defining the capabilities required to provide a

secure information environment across the department of defense.

Jie will be comprised of a shared information technology (iT) infra-

structure, enterprise services and a single security architecture in order

to achieve full spectrum superiority, improve mission effectiveness,

increase security and realize iT efficiencies.

As such, the Contracting department, NAVSUP Fleet Logis-

tics Center (FLC), Norfolk, Va., intends to negotiate a single-award,

firm-fixed-price (FFP) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract

under FAR Part 12 Acquisition of Commercial items and FAR Part 15

Contracting by Negotiation.

Adm. Cecil Haney


Planning for successinvolving 23 countries and taking place

across Africa’s Gulf of Guinea, exercise

Obangame express 2015 is one of the larg-

est military exercises in Africa. The annual

U.S. Africa Command-sponsored multi-

national exercise is designed to increase

maritime safety and security in the Gulf of

Guinea.

in order to be successful, an exercise

this broad in scope needs almost a year

of planning from a collective network of

navies. Like the exercise itself, preparation

for it involved a network approach from all

participating nations.

The exercise is an opportunity for Afri-

can, european, South American and U.S.

ally and partner maritime forces to work

together, share information and refine tac-

tics, techniques and procedures intended

to assist Gulf of Guinea maritime nations

in building their capacity to monitor and

enforce their territorial waters. The ability to

govern their seas counters problems such

as trafficking of persons and illegal material,

oil bunkering, drug trade, illegal fishing and

piracy.

“when talking about piracy and illegal

fishing, that affects the global economy,”

said Commander Sean Rutter, exercise con-

trol group lead and planner for Obangame

express 2015. “if a sea lane is disrupted,

it hurts more than just the local economy,

so that’s why it’s important for all these

countries to get involved, and we’re thank-

ful they do.”

Organizing a new exercise begins with

the basics. Planners identify participat-

ing nations and locations, and consider

available manpower and equipment from

all involved when setting the stage for the

next Obangame express. This year marked

participation of ships from the United king-

dom, France, Belgium, Brazil, Germany and

the United States as well as Portuguese

maritime surveillance aircraft and vessels

from all the Gulf of Guinea nations.

These assets play a critical role in de-

termining what training is possible, but the

African host nations ultimately decide what

needs to be done with these assets. every

nation sets its own priorities, so scenarios in-

volving one nation may play toward counter-

piracy, and another nation’s is built around

stopping illicit trafficking or illegal fishing.

Some of these objective goals, such as

honing skills in certain areas or deterring

certain types of crime, are common; multiple

partners may work on the same scenario.

when plans become action and the

documents are replaced with personnel on

ships, land and in the air, exercise planners

stay involved to ensure the exercise plays

out correctly. The exercise control group

(eCG) creates the scenarios and then sets

them into motion to spur the exercise into

taking action.

“here we constitute the brains of the

exercise,” said Cameroon Navy Command-

er emmanuel Sone, an exercise planner and

liaison officer for Obangame express 2015.

“we want to make sure everything is going

according to plan. we don’t just sit back

and observe.”

The planners monitor the action from a

remote room at the kofi Annan international

Peacekeeping Training Center in Accra,

Ghana. working on laptops in a makeshift

work center, they manage multiple scenarios

from Angola to the ivory Coast, 2,000 miles

away in real time. The eCG also monitors and

evaluates the actions of 51 ships, 21 maritime

operations centers and six aircraft taking part

in the scenario.

As a scenario plays out on the gulf, the

eCG throws additional challenges at the

participants such as handling a medical

emergency during a boarding. These

eCG injects help guide the exercise

along and tests the partner nation’s capa-

bilities.

“By injecting scenarios into the exer-

cise, you can make sure the overall objec-

tives are met,” said Sone.

After it’s all over, the experience gained

by participants has a real-world impact

as they hone skills needed for informa-

tion sharing and teamwork. The lessons

learned from this exercise are also used to

improve future exercises and strengthen

the global network of navies.

“it has brought together the Gulf

of Guinea nations to tackle a common

enemy,” said Commodore Mark Yawson,

flag officer fleet, Ghana navy. “Now there’s

awareness, information sharing and

interoperability among the Gulf of Guinea

maritime states, and even including the

civilian maritime agencies. This has de-

creased illegal activity in the gulf.”

By Mass Communication Specialist 1st

Class (SW/AW) David R. Krigbaum


PACFlt senior enlisted leaders Discuss mission readiness

Senior enlisted leaders met at U.S. Pacific Fleet (PACFLT) headquarters

for the annual Senior enlisted Leadership Training Symposium (SeLTS)

March 23-25.

The symposium allows senior enlisted leaders from around the Pacific

Fleet to gather and review the effectiveness of current policies and ways

to improve mission readiness in open-forum discussions. it also provides

an opportunity for the participants to interact with U.S. Pacific Fleet Master

Chief Marco Ramirez and various flag officers.

“The tyranny of distance in the Pacific is so massive, and a lot of these

senior enlisted leaders are so spread out,” said Ramirez. “So the main

objective of SeLTS is to bring them all together so that they can look at each

other and get to know one another and discuss the issues that we have and

to see how PACFLT runs. This allows them to get an understanding of what

can be done better to support the Navy’s mission.”

Rear Admiral Robert Girrier, PACFLT deputy commander, spoke with

SeLTS participants about the importance of synchronization between

commands and understanding the hierarchy of guidance as well as the

important roles that each of these leaders play at their commands.

“You know what right looks like and that’s why you’re here ... you bring

an incredible source of coaching and mentorship that’s important for the

command climate, and the functioning and wholeness of the team,” said

Girrier. “That’s a huge part of your job that goes beyond your technical

expertise.”

Girrier went on to add that the best way to take care of their team is to

bring all of their sailors home as winners, which is what their families and

America are counting on.

A main focus of the discussions was Sexual Assault Prevention and Re-

sponse (SAPR) and the importance of sailors being the first line of defense.

“Bystander intervention is one of the big things going on: shipmates

looking after shipmates,” said Todd Schafer, PACFLT executive director and

chief of staff. “we have to continue working on that. we need to get to the

left of some of these problems and stop them before they happen. we have

to spread that message as leadership.”

The symposium provides the leaders the opportunity to assemble and

exchange ideas, knowledge and personal insights to ensure they have a

common objective to strengthen sailor and mission readiness.

“One of the most beneficial parts of SeLTS is when you bring in all the

senior enlisted leaders from other branches and you can get a better idea of

what’s going on between the branches,” said Command Master Chief John

Ullery, commander, Navy Region hawaii. “You get to understand some the

challenges these leaders face and we

can all see what each other’s challenges are and hopefully find a way to col-

lectively solve them to better support our commands and sailors.”

Over a span of three days, the symposium included team-building exer-

cises, discussions about updating instructions, and CPO 365 training.

By Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Brian M. Wilbur, U.S.

Pacific Fleet Public Affairs

Surface Ship Sonar DomesUTC Aerospace Systems

has received a contract from the

Naval Surface warfare Center-

Crane, ind., to provide sonar

domes for surface combat ships.

The five-year, indefinite-delivery,

indefinite-quantity contract is

valued at up to $39 million and

covers deliveries through 2020

to the U.S. Navy and foreign

military sales. in addition to

the sonar domes, the contract

includes shipping, installation

and transportation fixtures,

engineering and field services,

inspection and repairs. work will

be performed by the engineered

Polymer Products (ePP) team in

Jacksonville, Fla., which is part of

the Aerostructures business unit.

UTC Aerospace Systems is a unit

of United Technologies Corp.

A sonar dome is an acousti-

cally transparent housing that

surrounds the sonar transducer

array used for detection, naviga-

tion and ranging. The dome

permits acoustic energy to pass

through with minimal sound

transmission interference. The

contract covers two types of

sonar domes: a sonar composite

dome (SCd) and a sonar dome

rubber window (SdRw).

The SCd, mounted on the

keel of FFG-7 frigates, uses a

patented composite system de-

signed to provide optimal struc-

tural and acoustic performance

to the ship's sonar system. This

allows for enhanced discovery

and classification of underwater

targets. SCds replaced tradi-

tional rubber domes on U.S. and

allied Navy frigates in 1997; they

require less maintenance and

are expected to last more than

30 years even under the most

extreme operating conditions.

The SdRw, bow-mounted

on ddG-51 class destroyers as

well as on CG-47 class cruisers,

is a specialized rubber wire-re-

inforced structure that houses a

ship’s sonar system. The rubber’s

energy absorption and reflec-

tion properties enhance a ship’s

detection capability. ePP has

produced more than 300 SdRws

in the past four decades.

“Our proven ability to provide

advanced acoustic products that

maximize sonar system perfor-

mance gives our sailors a signifi-

cant at-sea advantage,” said Aero-

structures President Marc duvall.

“Our dedicated team of engineers

and manufacturing experts at ePP

is committed to delivering superior

acoustic technologies in support

of the U.S. Navy’s most advanced

surface combatants. we look

forward to the opportunity to build

upon our longstanding relationship

with the U.S. Navy with this sonar

dome contract.”

U.S. Pacific Fleet Master Chief Marco Ramirez speaks with senior enlisted leaders at Pacific Fleet headquarters during the Senior Enlisted Leadership Training Symposium. The symposium is an annual event where senior enlisted leaders from across the Pacific Fleet gather to review the effectiveness of current policies and ways to improve mission readiness in open-forum discussions. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Brian M. Wilbur]


track existing and emerging air-to-air and cruise missile threats in support of Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD). P-8A combines the proven reliability of the commercial 737 airframe with avionics that enable integration of modern sensors and robust communications. We have deployed our third P-8A squadron and are on a path to replace the P-3C by the end of the decade. Electronic attack capabilities, both carrier-based and expeditionary, continue to mature with the fielding of EA-18G squadrons while we continue development of the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) to replace the legacy ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System. Finally, the department is planning to recapitalize its fleet of C-2A COD aircraft with an extended range variant of the V-22. The decision closes a capacity gap in the COD capability within an existing program of record.

The Navy and Marine Corps are partici-pating in joint future vertical lift efforts to identify leverage points for future rotorcraft investment. In FY16 the department continues to modernize vertical lift capability and capac-ity with procurement of MH-60R, AH-1Z, UH-1Y and MV-22B, and the continued development of the CH-53K and VH-92A (presidential helicopter replacement). The Spe-cial Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-CR), designed to support U.S. and partner security interests throughout the CENTCOM, EUCOM and AFRICOM areas of responsibility (AOR), leverages these vertical lift investments. The unparalleled speed and range of the MV-22B, together with the KC-130J and joint tanker assets, provides both SPMAGTF-CR with the operational reach to respond to crises through-out any AOR.

Within our FY16 budget request, the department continues investment in advanced strike weapons programs. These include Air Intercept Missiles (AIM-9X/BLK II and AIM-120D); Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II); Tac-tical Tomahawk Cruise Missiles (TACTOM/BLK IV); the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM); the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guid-ed Missile (AARGM); the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM); and the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS II).

These capabilities enable our Navy and Ma-rine Corps warfighters to deter and dominate potential adversaries in any environment.

TACTICAL AVIATION

F-35B/F-35C Lightning IIThe F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

will form the backbone of U.S. air combat superiority for decades to come. Delivering this transformational capability into front line forces as soon as possible remains a top priority. JSF will replace legacy tactical fighter fleets of the Navy and Marine Corps with a dominant, multirole, fifth-generation aircraft, capable of projecting U.S. power and deterring potential adversaries. The Fiscal Year 2016 President’s Budget requests $1 billion RDT&E and $3.1 billion APN.

The F-35 program is executing well across the entire spectrum of acquisition, to include development and design, flight test, produc-tion, fielding and base stand-up, sustainment of fielded aircraft, and stand up of a global sustainment enterprise. To date, all variants of F-35 have flown close to 28,000 hours close to 11,000 hours for the F-35B and more than 3,000 for the F-35C. Our overall assessment is that steady progress is being made on all aspects of the program. However, F-35 does continue to have its risks, inclusive of software development and integration. However, discipline instilled several years ago in the way software is developed, lab tested, flight tested, measured and controlled has resulted in im-proved and more predictable outcomes.

The program is in the final stages of flight test for Block 2B software; Block 3i software is anticipated to deliver all planned capabilities; and Block 3F, which has the most software development risk driven by data fusion, is improving. Data fusion enables the aircraft to integrate onboard capabilities with informa-tion from multiple other sources, such as non-F-35 aircraft, satellites and ground stations, to provide the pilot complete and accurate battlespace awareness. This multiplatform fu-sion is the most complex remaining develop-mental activity and is being closely monitored. Block 3F complexity and technical challenges, combined with a delay in the start of 3F flight testing may result in delivery up to four to six months late. Overall, the Block 2B configura-tion, which will support the Marine Corps’ F-35B initial operational capability (IOC) will deliver during the summer of 2015 and is tracking to plan; Block 3i, the same capability as Block 2B but hosted on new and improved computers, is expected to be ready by the end

of calendar year 2015, and Block 3F capability will enable Navy to IOC the F-35C variant in 2018 along with the Marine Corps its first F-35C in 2020.

The program has delivered 124 aircraft to test, operational and training sites, with the production line running approximately two months behind schedule. Due to government/industry manufacturing management initia-tives, production deliveries are improving and the current delays do not pose any long-term schedule or program delivery risks.

Affordability remains a top priority. We have made it clear to the program management team and the F-35 industrial base that the JSF must finish development within the time and money allocated; continue to drive cost out of aircraft production; and reduce life cycle costs. To that end the program has engaged in a multipronged approach to reduce costs across production, operations and support. The government/industry team is reducing air-craft production costs through “blueprint for affordability” initiatives and reducing F-135 engine costs via ongoing engine “war on cost” strategies. These efforts include up-front con-tractor investment on cost reduction initiatives mutually agreed upon by the government and contractor team. This arrangement motivates the contractors to accrue savings as quickly as possible in order to recoup their investment, and benefits the government by realizing cost savings at the time of contract award. The goal is to reduce the flyaway cost of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) F-35A to between $80 and $85 million dollars by 2019, which is anticipated to commensurately decrease the cost to the Marine Corps F-35B and Navy F-35C vari-ants. The program has set a goal of decreasing overall operating and support life cycle cost by 30 percent.

F/A-18 OverviewThe F/A-18 Hornet continues to meet

readiness and operational commitments. There are 26 Navy Super Hornet strike fighter squad-rons and a total inventory of 521 F/A-18E/Fs; deliveries and squadron transitions will continue through 2018. There are nine Navy and 11 Marine Corps F/A-18 A-D active strike fighter squadrons and a total inventory of 614 Hornets. Super Hornets and F/A-18A-D Hornets have conducted more than 214,000 combat missions since September 11, 2001.

The Future of Naval Aviation➥ continued fRoM paGe 1


F/A-18 A/B/C/D HornetThe FY16 president’s budget requests

$371.2 million in APN to implement aircraft commonality programs, maintain relevant capability, improve reliability and ensure struc-tural safety of the inventory of 614 F/A-18 A-D Hornets. $148.2 million is for the service life extension program (SLEP).

The F/A-18A-D was designed for, and has achieved, a service life of 6,000 flight hours. These aircraft have performed as expected through their design life. Service life manage-ment of this aircraft is intended to extend this platform beyond its designed 6,000 flight hours. Through detailed analysis, inspections and structural repairs, as required, the DoN has been successful in achieving 8,000 flight hours for many aircraft and is pursuing a strategy to go as high as 10,000 flight hours on select aircraft. Continued investment in SLEP, the high flight hour (HFH) inspection program, program related engineering, and program related logistics is critical for our flight hour extension strategy.

In order to maintain warfighting relevancy in a changing threat environment, we will continue to procure and install advanced systems such as the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), high order language mission computers, ALR-67v3, ALQ-214v5, Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS), APG-73 radar enhancements, advanced targeting forward looking infrared (ATFLIR) upgrades, and LITENING for the Marine Corps on selected F/A-18A-D aircraft.

F/A-18 E/F Super-HornetThe F/A-18E/F will be a mainstay of

Navy’s aviation carrier air wing strike fighter force through 2035. The FY16 president’s bud-get requests $507.1 million in APN to imple-ment aircraft commonality programs, maintain relevant capabilities, improve reliability and ensure structural safety of the Super-Hornet fleet; and $153 million RDT&E to support the flight plan spiral capability development, development of advanced electronic attack and counter-electronic attack, and F/A-18E/F Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP).

The F/A-18E/F significantly improves the survivability and strike capability of the carrier air wing. The Super-Hornet provides increased combat radius and endurance, and a 25 percent increase in weapons payload over F/A-18A-D Hornets. The production program continues to deliver on-cost and on-schedule.

The Super-Hornet uses an incremental approach to incorporate new technologies and

capabilities, to include Digital Communica-tion System Radio, MIDS Joint Tactical Radio System, JHMCS, ATFLIR with shared real-time video, accurate navigation, digital memory device, distributed targeting system, infrared search and track and continued advancement of the APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar.

$19.7 million of the 2016 RDT&E supports the F/A-18E/F SLAP requirement. The F/A-18 E/F fleet, on average, has flown approximately 36 percent of the design life of 6,000 flight hours. The remaining design service life will not be adequate to meet long-term op-erational commitments through 2035. In 2008 the Navy commenced a three-phase F/A-18E/F SLAP to analyze actual usage versus structural test results and determine the feasibility of extending F/A-18E/F service life from 6,000 to 9,000 flight hours via a follow-on SLEP. The F/A-18E/F SLAP will identify the necessary in-spections and modifications required to achieve 9,000 flight hours and increase total arrested landings and catapults beyond currently defined life limits. This extension is assessed as low risk. The service life management plan philosophy has been applied to the F/A-18E/F fleet at an earlier point in its life cycle than the F/A-18A-D. This will facilitate optimization of fatigue life expended, flight hours, and total landings, thereby better aligning aircraft service life with fleet requirements.

AV-8B HarrierSince the beginning of the war on terror,

the AV-8B Harrier has been a critical part of the strike fighter inventory for the joint force. This aircraft has flown more than 54,000 hours

in combat since 2003 with zero losses from the enemy in the air but six losses on the ground when the enemy broke through our forces at Bastion air base in 2012. The FY16 president’s budget requests $83.3 million in APN funds to continue the incorporation of obsolescence replacement/readiness management plan systems, electrical and structural changes, inven-tory sustainment and upgrade efforts to offset obsolescence and attrition, LITENING Pod upgrades, and F402-RR-408 engine safety and operational changes.

The FY16 president’s budget requests $39.9 million in RDT&E funds to continue design, development, integration and test of various platform improvements, to include Engine Life Management Program, Escape Systems, Joint Mission Planning System updates, Link 16 Digital Interoperability integration, Opera-tional Flight Program (OFP) block upgrades to various mission and communication systems, navigation equipment, weapons carriage, coun-termeasures, and the obsolescence replacement/readiness management plan.

The AV-8B continues to deploy in support of operational contingencies. Each Marine expeditionary unit (MEU) deploys with embarked AV-8Bs. The AV-8B, equipped with LITENING targeting pods and a video downlink to ROVER ground stations, preci-sion strike weapons, Intrepid Tiger II EW pods and beyond visual range air-to-air radar guided missiles, continues to be a proven, invaluable asset for the Marine air ground task force (MAGTF) and joint commander across the spectrum of operations. One squadron has flown more than 3,400 hours of strike sorties against ISIS with an average combat radius

An AV-8B Harrier II hovers over the flight deck while demonstrating its vertical and short takeoff and landing capabilities aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4) during flight operations. Boxer is underway conducting sea trials off the coast of Southern California. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Robert R. Sanchez]


of 900 miles. Digital improved triple ejector racks have allowed us to load up to six preci-sion guided munitions per aircraft, with tanks, guns, and Litening Pods exponentially increas-ing the combat viability of this platform. In FY16 the airborne variable message Format terminals will be installed in AV-8B to replace the current digital-aided close air support (CAS) technology. The program will continue development of the H6.2 Operational Flight Program to integrate Federal Aviation Admin-istration compliant Navigation Performance/Area Navigation (RNP/RNAV) capability, an update to the LITENING Common OFP to implement improvements to moving target tracking, and correct additional software defi-ciencies identified through combat operations. The program will also work on the H7.0 OFP which will integrate Link 16 functionality. As an out-of-production aircraft, the AV-8B program will continue its focus on sustain-ment efforts to mitigate significant inventory shortfalls, maintain airframe integrity, achieve full fatigue life expended, and address reli-ability and obsolescence issues of avionics and subsystems.

Operations Odyssey Dawn, Enduring Freedom, and today’s Operation Freedom Sentinel confirm the expeditionary advantages of short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) capabilities. Placing the Harrier as the closest multirole fixed-wing asset to the battlefield greatly reduces transit times to the battlefield and enables persistent CAS without strategic tanking assets. Airframe sustainment initiatives, capability upgrades, and obsolescence mitiga-tion is essential and must be funded to ensure the AV-8B remains lethal and relevant.

FA-XXThe department is preparing to conduct

an analysis of alternatives (AoA) to address the anticipated retirement of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft beginning in the mid-2020 timeframe. The FA-XX AoA will consider the widest possible range of materiel concepts while balancing capability, cost, schedule and sup-portability considerations. It will assess manned, unmanned and optionally manned approaches to fulfill predicted 2030-plus mission require-ments. Analysis will consider baseline programs of record (current platforms), evolutionary or incremental upgrades to baseline programs (including derivative platforms), and new de-velopment systems or aircraft to meet identified gaps in required capability. The FY16 budget requests $5.0 million in RDT&E to conduct this AoA.

Strike Fighter Inventory ManagementThe department remains challenged with

end of life planning for F/A-18A-D and AV-8B aircraft that reach the end of their service life before replacement aircraft (F-35B/C) can be fully delivered into service. In the FY16 budget request the department was forced to cut 16 F-35Cs from the budget (FY16-20), delaying the stand-up of the first Marine Corps F-35C squadron by one year and delaying subsequent F-35C squadron transitions by two years each. Strike fighter inventory management risk increases with the FY16 budget request, further increasing the gap between supply and the department’s master aviation plan demand.

The near-term inventory challenge is due to a combination of reduced strike fighter procure-ment, higher than planned TACAIR utilization rates, and F/A-18A-D and AV-8B depot facility production falling short of the 2013 and 2014 required output. Aggressive efforts across the department were instituted in 2014 to improve depot throughput and return more aircraft back to the fleet. Aviation depots are expected to improve productivity through 2017, and fully recover the backlog of F/A-18A-D by 2019 and Harrier by 2016; at which time the focus will shift towards F/A-18E/F service life extension. The Marines ran an independent readiness review of their AV-8B program to recover to a T-2.0 readiness level within their AV-8B fleet, meet their operational requirements and ensure they had an adequate bridge to the F-35. By following the plan, the AV-8B fleet should be in the green in 17 months.

The Navy and USMC strike fighter force continues to meet their operational commitments. However, we anticipate the inventory pressure to remain relatively constant through FY16 as we experience peak depot inductions of F/A-18A-D aircraft reaching 8,000 hours and entering exten-sive high flight hour (HFH) service life extension inspections, repairs and modifications.

Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) / EA-18G Growler

The FY16 president’s budget request includes $108.5 million in APN to implement aircraft commonality programs, maintain relevant capabilities, improve reliability and ensure structural safety of the Growler fleet; $56.9 mil-lion in RDT&E for Flight Plan spiral capability development, design and integration of jamming techniques optimization improvements, evolution-ary software development and related testing; and $398.8 million RDT&E for NGJ Increment 1 and $13.0 million RDT&E for NGJ Increment 2.

In 2009, the Navy began the transition from EA-6Bs to EA-18Gs. The EA-18G is a

critical enabler of the joint force, bringing fully netted capabilities that provide electromagnetic spectrum dominance in an electromagnetic ma-neuver warfare environment. The first EA-18G squadron deployed to Iraq in an expeditionary role in November 2010 in support of Opera-tion New Dawn, and subsequently redeployed to Italy on short notice in March 2011 in support of Operations Odyssey Dawn and Uni-fied Protector. The first carrier-based EA-18G squadron deployed in May 2011. Three active component Navy expeditionary squadrons, nine of 10 carrier based squadrons, and one reserve squadron have completed, or are in, transition to the EA-18G.

The 10 carrier based EA-18G squadrons will fulfill Navy requirements for airborne electronic attack; six expeditionary EA-18G squadrons will provide the joint, high-intensity AEA capability required by the joint forces commander, which was previously fulfilled by the Navy and Marine Corps EA-6B. The Navy will be divested of EA-6Bs by 2015; the Marine Corps by 2019 leaving the E/A-18G as the only viable AEA platform in the DoD inventory. The inventory objective is 153 EA-18G aircraft. Since their initial deployment, Growlers have flown more than 2,300 combat missions, have expended approximately 6 percent of the 7,500 flight hour life per aircraft, and are meeting all operational commitments.

Next Generation Jammer (NGJ)NGJ is a new electronic warfare capability

that will replace the 42-year-old ALQ-99, currently the only Navy and Joint airborne tactical jamming system pod. The ALQ-99 has limited capability to counter tactically and tech-nically advanced threats, is increasingly difficult and costly to maintain, and has a vanishing industrial supplier base. The Navy and Depart-ment of Defense (DoD) require NGJ to meet current and emerging EW threats. NGJ will have the necessary power and digital techniques to counter increasingly advanced and sophis-ticated adversary electronic warfare search, surveillance, and targeting-radars and com-munications systems. NGJ will be DoD’s only comprehensive tactical AEA capability—sup-porting all services and joint/coalition partners, and will be implemented in three increments: Mid-Band (Increment 1), Low-Band (Incre-ment 2), and High-Band (Increment 3). NGJ is designed to provide improved capability in support of joint and coalition air, land and sea tactical strike missions and is critical to the Na-vy’s vision for the future of strike warfare. FY16 funding is vital to maintain schedule, allowing


the program to complete technology matura-tion and risk reduction (TMRR) and transition into the engineering and management develop-ment (EMD) phase. Initial concept studies and formal program stand-up will begin in FY16 for Increment 2.

Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) / EA-6B Prowler

The FY16 president’s budget request includes $15.5 million in RDT&E for electronic warfare (EW) counter response, $2.8 million RDT&E for MAGTF EW, $23.2 million in APN for airborne electronic attack (AEA) systems, $9.8 million in APN for all EA-6B series aircraft, and $7.7 million APN for MAGTF EW.

Currently, there are 37 EA-6Bs in the Navy and Marine Corps, which are distributed to three Marine Corps and one Navy operational squadron, one Navy flight test squadron, and one Marine Corps training squadron. The total includes five Navy ICAP II aircraft and 32 ICAP III aircraft. All ICAP III EA-6Bs are operated by the Marine Corps. Final retirement of the EA-6B from the DoN inventory will be in 2019.

Marine aviation is on a path toward a distributed AEA ‘system of systems’ that is a critical element in achieving the MAGTF EW vision: A composite of manned and unmanned surface, air and space assets on a fully collabora-tive network providing the MAGTF command-er control of the electromagnetic spectrum when and where desired. Included in this plan are the ALQ-231 Intrepid Tiger II communica-tions jammer, UAS EW payloads, a Software reprogrammable payload and an EW services

architecture to facilitate collaborative networked EW battle management.

Intrepid Tiger II development and procure-ment is in response to Marine Corps require-ments for increased precision EW capability and capacity across the MAGTF and provides EW capability directly to tactical commanders without reliance upon the limited availability of the low density/high demand EA-6B Prowler. Intrepid Tiger II is currently carried on AV-8B and F/A-18 A++/C/D aircraft, has successfully completed nine deployments, and is currently deployed with both the 11th and 24th MEUs. Integration on Marine Corps rotary-wing air-craft is scheduled to be completed by the fourth quarter of FY15. Development of an Intrepid Tiger II counter-radar capability for the pen-etrating jammer mission will begin in FY16.

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE)The FY16 president’s budget requests $272.1

million in RDT&E for continuation of added capabilities, to include in-flight air refueling, tactical targeting network technology (TTNT), secret Internet protocol router chat, advanced mid-term interoperability improvement pro-gram, multifunctional information distribution system/joint actical radio system TTNT, counter electronic attack, sensor netting, and data fusion. In the third year of a 26 aircraft Multi-Year Pro-curement (MYP) contract covering FY14-18, the budget requests $1,053 million in APN for five full rate production (FRP) Lot 4 aircraft, advance procurement (AP) for FY17 FRP Lot 5 aircraft; and Economic ordering quantity funding for the MYP for FY18.

The E-2D AHE is the Navy’s carrier-based Airborne early warning and battle management command and control system. The E-2D AHE provides Theater Air and missile defense and is capable of synthesizing information from multiple onboard and off-board sensors, making complex tactical decisions and then dissemi-nating actionable information to joint forces in a distributed, open-architecture environ-ment. E-2D is also a cornerstone of the naval integrated fire control–counter air (NIFCA-CA) capability.

Utilizing the newly developed AN/APY-9 Mechanical/Electronic Scan Array radar and the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system, the E-2D AHE works in concert with tactical aircraft and surface-combatants equipped with the Aegis combat system to detect, track and defeat air and cruise missile threats at extended ranges.

The first Fleet E-2D squadron (VAW-125) was designated “safe for flight” in January 2014. IOC was achieved in October 2014.

ASSAULT SUPPORT AIRCRAFT

MV-22The FY16 president’s budget requests $87.9

million in RDT&E for continued product im-provements, including engineering development of a Navy variant of the MV-22; and $1.48 bil-lion in APN for procurement and delivery of 19 MV-22s (Lot 20). FY16 will be the fourth year of the 2nd V-22 MYP contract covering FY13-17. The funds requested in the FY16 president’s budget fully fund Lot 20 and procure long-lead items for FY17 Lot 21 MV-22 aircraft. The APN request includes $126.1 million to support operations and safety improvement programs (OSIPs), including correction of defi-ciencies and readiness improvements. The FY16 request includes funding starting in FY18 to procure a Navy variant in support of the carrier onboard delivery mission.

MV-22 Osprey vertical flight capabilities, coupled with the speed, range, endurance of fixed-wing transports, are enabling effective ex-ecution of current missions that were previously unachievable. In 2014, a second Marine Corps SPMAGTF-CR was stood up in CENTCOM and the 12th and final MV-22 for HMX-1 “Greenside” logistics and passenger transport was delivered for support of the presidential transport mission. As the V-22 fleet approaches the 300,000 flight hour milestone it has proven to be the safest Marine Corps rotorcraft.

The second MYP, which began in FY13, will procure at least 93 MV-22s over five years

An MV-22B Osprey from the Greyhawks of Marine Medium-lift Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 161 takes off from the flight deck of the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD 2). Essex is underway conducting an amphibious squadron and Marine expeditionary unit integration training exercise with Amphibious Squadron (PHIBRON) 3 and the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (15th MEU) in preparation for an upcoming deployment. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Sean P. Gallagher]


and results in savings of approximately $1 billion when compared to single year procure-ments. The stability of the MYP supports the Marine Corps’ retirement of legacy aircraft, benefits the supplier base and facilitates cost reductions on the part of both the prime con-tractor and sub-tier suppliers.

Due to extremely high demand for MV-22 capability from the combatant commanders (COCOMs), and a resultant high operational tempo in 2014, the mission capability rates leveled-off and did not continue the year over year improvements seen since 2010. This was primarily due to our inability to train enlisted maintainers in the numbers and qualifications standard we need to sustain such a high demand signal. Right now we have 13 full operational capability squadrons, with two in build, and are executing to an overall 15 squadron demand signal. We are shifting resources and modify-ing standup, transition, and training plans, but the demand for the capabilities this aircraft brings to the COCOMs is creating growing pains. While we are confident these issues will be overcome, there has been an impact on our readiness rates. Despite a readiness rate decre-ment, the cost per flight hour has continued to decrease, with a total reduction of nearly 28 percent since 2010. FY16 OSIP provides a necessary and stable source of crucial modifica-tion funding as the Ospreys work to improve readiness and continue to reduce operating cost.

Concurrent with our readiness and support initiatives, we are adding capabilities to the MV-22 that will make it even more valuable to the COCOMs. First, we are expanding the number of aerial refueling platforms that can re-fuel an MV-22, increasing the range of available options to capitalize on its long-range capabili-ties. We are also developing a mission kit to al-low the MV-22 to deliver fuel to other airborne platforms. We see this as a critical enabler for both shore- and sea-based operations. We plan to deliver this capability by the summer of 2017 concurrent with the first Western Pacific deployment of the F-35B. We are also looking at options that will enable the delivery of preci-sion-guided munitions from the MV-22, which will enhance its ability to operate autonomously and increase the lethality of our force. Finally, an important capability that is a priority for entire aviation force is digital interoperability (DI). We are testing and deploying the initial configuration of an onboard suite of electronics that will allow the embarked troop commander to possess unprecedented situational awareness via real time transmission of full motion video and other data generated by multiple air and

ground platforms throughout the battlespace. This DI suite will also be able to collect, in real time, threat data gathered by existing aircraft survivability equipment and off board data to accompanying attack platforms, thereby shortening the kill chain against ground and air based threats.

In ongoing operations in the Middle East, the MV-22 has become the tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel (TRAP) platform of choice to rescue downed aircrew in hostile territory. Currently, Marines are on alert in Central Command to recover American and coalition aircrew executing strike operations. The speed, range, and aerial refueling capability have allowed the Osprey’s to remain in strategic locations throughout the area poised for rescue operations. With an unrefueled mission radius of 423 nautical miles, the Osprey can reach greater distances around the battlefield to increase the likelihood of recovering isolated personnel as the speed and altitude envelopes provide better survivability for the TRAP force and recovered aircrew.

CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement ProgramThe FY16 president’s budget requests

$632.1 million RDT&E to continue the EMD phase of the CH-53K program. Since enter-ing into developmental test in December 2013 the ground test vehicle (GTV) has completed bare head light-off and shakedown light-off has commenced. Over the last year, the GTV has accumulated over 180 test hours. The first flight vehicle, engineering development model (EDM) 1, has completed its bare head light-off and initial bladed ground runs. The program is currently on schedule to execute its first flight by the end of 2015. During FY16, the program will continue to execute developmental test flights, deliver the final EDM, and continue assembly of system demonstration test article aircraft, which will be production representative aircraft utilized for operational test.

The CH-53K will provide land- and sea-based heavy-lift capabilities not resident in any of today's platforms and contribute directly to the increased agility, lethality, and presence of joint task forces and MAGTFs. The CH-53K will transport 27,000 pounds of external cargo out to a range of 110 nautical miles, nearly tripling the CH-53E’s lift capability under similar environmental conditions, while fitting into the same shipboard footprint. The CH-53K will also provide unparalleled lift capability under high-altitude and hot weather conditions, greatly expanding the commander’s operational reach.

Compared to the CH-53E, maintenance and reliability enhancements of the CH-53K will improve aircraft availability and ensure cost effective operations. Additionally, surviv-ability and force protection enhancements will dramatically increase protection for both aircrew and passengers. Expeditionary heavy-lift capabilities will continue to be critical to suc-cessful land and sea-based operations in future anti-access, area-denial environments, enabling sea-basing and the joint operating concepts of force application and focused logistics.

Over the past 13 years, the CH-53 com-munity accumulated over 95,000 combat flight hours. During this period, we suffered 10 aircraft losses, nine in combat and one in training. As our CH-53E community approaches 30 years of service, these sustained and unprecedented operational demands have prematurely aged our heavy-lift assault support aircraft, making it ever more challenging to maintain and underscoring the importance of its replacement, the CH-53K King Stallion. To keep the H-53E viable until the King Stallion enters service, the FY16 president’s budget requests $46.9 million in APN for both near- and mid-term enhancements. For both the USN MH-53E and USMC CH-53E helicopters these modifications include condition-based maintenance software upgrades, Kapton wiring replacement installations, and improved Engine Nacelles. The FY16 budget request includes non-recurring engineering for upgrades to the MH-53E’s antiquated cockpit. These critical safety and avionics upgrades will address obsolescence issues within the cockpit and increase overall situational awareness and mission effectiveness by improving minefield navigation displays, adding area navigation (RNAV) capability, and providing moving map and hover displays. Ad-ditionally, non-recurring engineering and kit pro-curements for the Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (EGI) will allow the MH-53E to utilize the full capabil-ity of the APX-123 transponder. The Marine Corps’ CH-53E fleet is continuing with the T-64 Engine Reliability Improvement Program, critical survivability upgrade (CSU), satellite communi-cations (SATCOM) kit installations, and smart multi-function color display (SMFCD) procure-ments and installations.

ATTACK AND UTILITY AIRCRAFT

UH-1Y // AH-1ZMarine Corps Cobra and Huey attack

and utility aircraft have been critical for the success of the Marines in harm’s way and over the past 10 years, these aircraft have flown over


196,000 hours in combat. The FY16 president’s budget requests $27.2 million in RDT&E for continued product improvements; and $856.2 million in APN for 28 H-1 upgrade aircraft: 12 UH-1Y and 16 AH-1Z. The program is a key modernization effort designed to resolve exist-ing safety deficiencies and enhance operational effectiveness of the H-1 fleet. The 85 percent commonality between the UH-1Y and AH-1Z will significantly reduce life cycle costs and the logistical footprint, while increasing the main-tainability and deployability of both aircraft. The program will provide the Marine Corps with 349 H-1 aircraft through a combination of new production and a limited quantity of remanufactured aircraft.

The H-1 Upgrades Program is replacing the Marine Corps’ UH-1N and AH-1W helicop-ters with state-of-the-art UH-1Y “Yankee” and AH-1Z “Zulu” aircraft. The new aircraft are fielded with integrated glass cockpits, world-class sensors, and advanced helmet-mounted sight and display systems. The future growth plan includes a digitally-aided, close air support system designed to integrate these airframes, sensors, and weapons systems together with ground combat forces and other capable DoD aircraft. Integration of low-cost weapons such as the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II provides increased lethality while reducing collateral damage.

The UH-1Y aircraft achieved IOC in Au-gust 2008 and FRP in September 2008. The “Yankee Forward” procurement strategy priori-tized UH-1Y production in order to replace the under-powered UH-1N fleet as quickly as possible. The last UH-1N was retired from service as of December 2014. The AH-1Z program received approval for FRP in No-vember 2010 and achieved IOC in February 2011. As of February 2015, 148 aircraft (109 UH-1Ys and 39 AH-1Zs) have been delivered to the Fleet Marine Force. An additional 60 aircraft are on contract and in production. Lot 1-7 aircraft deliveries are complete for both the UH-1Y and AH-1Z. Lot 8 and 9 deliver-ies are complete for the UH-1Y, and Lot 10 UH-1Y deliveries are in progress and ahead of schedule.

The H-1 program is in the process of integrating both the UH-1Y and AH-1Z into the larger digitally interoperable programs of the Marine Corps. With the integration of Intrepid Tiger II, the HMLA community will now be able to provide the MAGTF command-ers with all six essential functions of Marine Air. Additionally, these aircraft will incorporate soft-ware reprogrammable payload (SRP) to utilize

diverse networks and waveforms thus allowing maneuverability within the spectrum. SRP will employ systems as Link-16, Tactical Targeting Network Technology, Adaptive Networking Wideband Waveform and the Soldier Radio Waveform.

MH-60 (Overview)MH-60 Seahawks have consistently met

readiness and operational commitments. There will be 38 Navy Seahawk squadrons with 275 MH-60S and 280 MH-60R aircraft when transitions from the SH-60B, SH-60F, and HH-60H are complete. Production and squad-ron transitions will continue through 2017. Over the last 12 years of combat operations, deployed ashore and aboard our aircraft carri-ers, amphibious ships, and surface combatants at sea, Navy H-60 helicopters have provided vital over-watch and direct support to troops in combat across multiple theaters of operation and variety of missions; including support to special operations forces, air ambulance, surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, logistics support and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief.

MH-60R SeahawkThe FY16 president’s budget requests $970

million in APN for 29 helicopters. The produc-tion program continues to deliver on-cost and on-schedule.

The MH-60R multi-mission helicopter provides strike group protection and adds sig-nificant capability in its primary mission areas of Undersea Warfare and Surface Warfare; the latter including fast attack craft/fast in-shore attack craft (FAC/FIAC) threat response capabilities. The MH-60R is the sole organic air anti-submarine warfare (ASW) asset in the carrier strike group (CSG) and serves as a key contributor to theater level ASW. The MH-60R also employs advanced sensors and com-munications to provide real-time battlespace management with a significant, active or passive, over-the-horizon targeting capability. Secondary mission areas include Search and Rescue, Vertical Replenishment, Naval Surface Fire Support, Logistics Support, Personnel Transport and Medical Evacuation.

The $21.4 million RDT&E request sup-ports the MH-60R Test Program, consisting of numerous system upgrades and pre-planned product improvements, to include the digital rocket launcher (DRL) with APKWS II, heli-copter infra-red suppression system, multifunctional information distribution system - low volume terminal (LVT) block upgrade 2,

and the VHF omnidirectional ranging/instru-ment landing system.

MH-60S SeahawkThe FY16 president’s budget requests $28

million in APN for annualized support of the final deliveries of aircraft, trainers, ground support equipment, and publications required to complete the production program of 275 helicopters. The production program continues to deliver on-cost and on-schedule. The MH-60S multi-mission helicopter provides strike group protection and adds significant capability in its primary mission areas of mine warfare and surface warfare. Secondary mission areas include combat search and rescue, support to special operations forces, vertical replenishment, logistics support, personnel transport and medi-cal evacuation.

The $5.2 million RDT&E request supports the MH-60S Test Program, consisting of system upgrades for airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM), armed helicopter FAC/FIAC de-fense, and the commencement of a service life assessment program.

Armed Helo Block 3A Operational Test (OT) was completed in June 2007 and Block 3B (added Link 16 capability) OT was com-pleted in November 2009. Test and Evaluation (T&E) of fixed forward firing weapon (FFW) (20mm gun system) was completed in FY12. T&E of initial FFW unguided rocket (UGR) capability was completed in FY13. T&E for digital rocket launcher APKWS II and expanded UGR capability for the FAC/FIAC threat is in work and planned to complete in FY16. Planned airborne mcm initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) and Follow-On Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) pe-riods were changed to operational assessments, with the final IOT&E aligned with LCS mine counter measures mission package IOT&E.

EXECUTIVE SUPPORT AIRCRAFT

VH-3D/VH-60N Executive Helicopter SeriesThe VH-3D and VH-60N are safely per-

forming the executive lift mission worldwide. As these aircraft continue to provide seamless vertical lift for the president of the United States, the DoN is working closely with HMX-1 and industry to sustain these aircraft until a presidential helicopter replacement platform is fielded. The FY16 president’s budget requests an investment of $76.1 million of APN to con-tinue programs that will ensure the in-service presidential fleet remains a safe and reliable platform. Ongoing VH-60N efforts include


the cockpit upgrade program, engine upgrade program, and a communications suite upgrade (wide band line of sight) that provides surviv-able access to the strategic communications net-work. The continuing structural enhancement program and the obsolescence management program applies to both VH-60N and VH-3D. The program has significantly reduced the cost and schedule of the VH-3D Cockpit upgrade program by focusing on critical obsolescence issues. These technology updates for legacy plat-forms will be directly leveraged for the benefit of the ensuing replacement program (VH-92A).

VH-92A Presidential Helicopter Replacement Aircraft

The FY16 president’s budget request includes $507.1 million of RDT&E to fund the VH-92 EMD contract and associated government activities. Significant progress has been made in the past year with completion of the Milestone B Review in March, receipt of the acquisition decision memorandum in April, award of the EMD contract to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in May, completion of the system requirements review in August and completion of the Integrated Baseline Review in November. The Sikorsky S-92A aircraft will be used to execute the acquisition strategy of integrating mature subsystems into an air vehicle that is currently in production. Initial contractor testing on an S-92A aircraft is planned for 2015 and early 2016, and the criti-cal design review is planned for the 4th quarter of FY16. The first of the planned operational inventory of 21 aircraft could begin fielding as early as 2020.

FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT

KC-130JThe DoN plans to procure two KC-130Js

and continue product improvements. Targeted improvements include aircraft survivability through advanced electronic countermeasure modernization and obsolescence upgrades to the Harvest HAWK ISR/weapon mission kit.

Fielded throughout our active force, the KC-130J brings increased capability, perfor-mance and survivability with lower operating and sustainment costs to the MAGTF. Forward deployed in support of ongoing operations since 2005, the KC-130J continues to deliver Marines, fuel and cargo whenever and wherever needed. In 2015 the KC-130J remains in high demand, providing tactical air-to-air refueling, assault support, close air support (CAS) and multi-sensor imagery reconnaissance (MIR)

capabilities, in support of special purpose MAGTFs and deployed MEUs.

First deployed in 2010, the roll-on/roll-off Harvest HAWK mission kit for the KC-130J continues to provide extended MIR and CAS capabilities. With almost 7,000 hours flown, over 200 Hellfire missile and 90 Griffin muni-tion combat engagements, this expeditionary mission kit has proven its worth and made the KC-130J even more indispensable for Marines on the ground. All six mission kits have been fielded, and funding included in the FY16 budget request will be used to maintain operational relevance of this mission system through compatibility with additional Hellfire variants and an improved full motion video data-link.

The Marine Corps has funded 53 of the 79 KC-130J aircraft in the program of record. The three aircraft included in the FY13 budget would complete the Active component (AC) re-quirement of 51 aircraft. However, the Marine Corps began using the AC backup aircraft to accelerate the Reserve component (RC) transi-tion from the legacy KC-130T aircraft to the more capable and efficient KC-130J in FY14. The aircraft requested in the FY16 president’s budget will continue to increase KC-130J inventory as we strive to achieve full operational capability in the RC. Delays in procurement would force the Marine Corps to sustain the KC-130T aircraft longer than planned at an increased cost.

It is also important to note that the U.S. Air Force C-130J procurement is expected to end in 2022. If the Marine Corps procures KC-130Js at a rate of two per year from FY16-22, we will have approximately 12 aircraft remaining to procure in order to reach the program of record

(POR) of 79 aircraft. This POR is expected to complete in 2029. After the USAF completes its C-130J procurement, NAVAIR will no longer be able to leverage USAF contracting services. Given the loss of USAF contracting services and the uncertainty of additional foreign military sales, the Navy and Coast Guard customers potentially could have a significant unit cost increase.

MARITIME SUPPORT AIRCRAFT

P-8A PoseidonThe P-8A Poseidon recapitalizes the mari-

time patrol asw, anti-surface warfare (ASuW) and armed ISR capability currently resident in the P-3C Orion. The P-8A combines the proven reliability of the commercial 737 airframe with avionics that enables integration of modern sensors and robust communications. The P-8A’s first operational deployment was completed in June 2014, and continuous 7th Fleet operational deployments are under way. As of February 2015, four fleet squadrons have completed transition to P-8A. All fleet squad-rons are scheduled to complete transition by the end of FY19. The P-8A program is meeting all cost, schedule and performance parameters in accordance with the approved Acquisition Program Baseline.

Boeing has delivered 21 aircraft (low rate initial production (LRIP) I/II/III) to the fleet as of February 2015, and three remaining LRIP III aircraft are scheduled to deliver by May 2015. LRIP IV (13 aircraft), and FRP 1 (16 aircraft) are under contract and will start delivering in May 2015. FRP 2 (nine aircraft) is planned to award in June 2015. The FY16 president’s budget procures 47 P-8As over the FYDP and

A UH-1Y Venom Huey helicopter conducts night flight operations aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu (LHA 5) during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise 2014. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Daniel Viramontes]


sustains the P-3C to P-8A transition. In FY16 the warfighting requirement remains 117 air-craft; however, the fiscally constrained inventory objective for 109 aircraft will provide adequate capacity at acceptable levels of risk.

As fleet deliveries of the Increment 1 con-figuration accelerate, integration and testing of P-8A Increment 2 capability upgrades continues. P-8A Increment 2 Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) 1 “Early Multi-Static Active Coherent (MAC)” FOT&E commenced November 15, 2014. The Navy is on track to field the ECP 1 “Early MAC” capability in Fiscal Year 2015 followed by Increment 2 ECP 2 “Full MAC” capabilities in FY16. The Increment 2 ECP 3 contract for High Altitude ASW Weapons Capability capabilities was awarded in December 2014.

P-3C OrionThe aging P-3 fleet will continue to provide

critical ASW, ASuW and ISR support for joint and naval operations worldwide until the fleet completes transition to P-8A. The FY16 budget request provides $3.1 million in funding required to manage P-3C aircraft mission systems obso-lescence during the transition. As of December 2014, 61 P-3 special structural inspection-kits have been installed (zero remaining); 87 Zone 5 modifications completed (last three aircraft in work); and 20 Outer Wing Installations com-pleted (last nine aircraft in work).

The P-3 aircraft is well beyond the original planned fatigue life of 7,500 hours for critical components, with an average airframe usage of over 18,400 hours. The FY16 request contin-ues to fund the P-3 Fatigue Life Management Program so the Navy can maintain sufficient capacity to successfully complete the transition to P-8A.

EP-3 Aries Replacement/SustainmentThe EP-3E Aries is the Navy’s premier

manned maritime intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting (MISR&T) plat-form. The joint airborne signals intelligence (SIGINT) common configuration includes multi-intelligence sensors, robust communica-tion, and data links employed by the flexible and dependable P-3 air vehicle to ensure ef-fective MISR&T support across the full range of military operations. The FY11 National Defense Authorization Act directed Navy to sustain EP-3E airframe and mission systems relevance to minimize SIGINT capability gaps until the systems are fully recapitalized with a platform or family of platforms that in the aggregate provide equal or better capability

and capacity. The FY16 request maintains the retirement dates from the previous year that were extended by one year to FY19 and FY20, respectively.

Navy ISR family of systems approach shifts focus from platforms to payloads. The future force will rapidly respond to changing threats with modular, scalable, netted sensors and pay-loads on a range of sea and shore-based manned and unmanned systems, establishing persistent maritime ISR when and where it is needed.

Navy’s ISR&T transition plan will deliver in-creased capacity and persistence by the end of the decade. However, due to fiscal and end strength constraints, the department will accept some risk in near-term capability and capacity. The FY16 budget request reduces risk compared to the previous fiscal year and the Navy continues to work with joint staff, DoD, and the fleet to optimize the ISR transition plan. The transition plan remains largely unchanged from FY15.

AIRLIFT/CARGO UTILITY AIRCRAFT

COD Recapitalization (Navy V-22 Variant)The C-2A fleet, which provides long-range

logistical support to carrier strike groups, will reach the end of its service life in the mid-2020s with continued sustainment investment. The Navy is planning to recapitalize the COD capa-bility with an extended range variant of the V-22. FY16 investments support an affordable COD recapitalization plan that procures a version of the V-22 Osprey under the existing program of record (POR).

The Navy’s variant of V-22 has been a com-ponent of the POR since program inception. This transition strategy allows the Navy to recapitalize the aging C-2 COD capability in an affordable manner and evolve the aerial logistics concept of operations from the CVN-centric “hub and spoke” model to a flexible sea base support concept.

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS)

MQ-4C Triton UASThe FY16 president’s budget enables MQ-

4C Triton entry into production with three LRIP aircraft in FY16.

The FY16 president’s budget requests $227.2 million in RDT&E to continue Triton develop-ment activities, $150.9 million in RDT&E for Triton modernization, and $548.8 million of APN for procurement of the first lot of LRIP aircraft and for procurement of long lead materi-als for the second lot of LRIP aircraft.

Triton will start establishing five globally-distributed, persistent maritime ISR orbits beginning in FY18, as part of the Navy’s Mari-time ISR&T transition plan. MQ-4C Triton test vehicles have completed 21 total flights as of February 2015 and are on schedule to begin sensor integration testing this spring. This rigor-ous integrated flight test program will support Milestone C planned for FY16. The MQ-4C Triton is a key component of the Navy mari-time patrol reconnaissance Force. Its persistent sensor dwell, combined with networked sensors, will enable it to effectively meet ISR require-ments in support of the Navy maritime strategy.

The Navy currently maintains an inventory of four USAF Global Hawk Block 10 UAS, as part of the BAMS demonstrators, or BAMS-D program. These aircraft have been deployed to CENTCOM’s AOR for over six years. BAMS-D recently achieved over 14,000 flight hours in sup-port of CENTCOM ISR tasking. These assets are adequate to cover all Navy needs through FY18.

Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration (UCAS-D)

The FY16 president’s budget requests no funding for the UCAS-D program. The UCAS-D program is in its final year of funding ($35.9M in RDT&E for FY15). With the com-pletion of the Autonomous Aerial Refueling test flights this spring, the demonstration will come to a successful close. The X-47B has met dem-onstration objectives and reduced technical risk by transferring lessons learned to the UCLASS program. The X-47B demonstrators have paved the way for the proficient introduction of a sea-based unmanned aircraft system by digitizing the carrier controlled environment, achieving precision landing navigation performance, demonstrating a deck handling solution, and refining the concept of operations.

Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) System

The UCLASS system will provide the carrier strike group (CSG) with a persistent unmanned ISR&T and precision strike capability that is available organically to the CSG and compre-hensively to the joint force. The CSG is often the first responder for the nation. The UCLASS sys-tem will enhance the CSG’s capability and versa-tility and enable sustained 24/7 operations from a single aircraft carrier. The FY16 president’s budget requests $134.7 million in RDT&E for UCLASS system development efforts. This fund-ing will continue progress on the control system & connectivity, carrier segments and the govern-ment lead system integrator efforts, while the


department conducts a strategic portfolio review of ISR&T systems and the future composition of the carrier air wing.

The UCLASS system will be integrated with carrier air wing operations, increasing the effectiveness of current CSG ISR&T capabili-ties (airborne, surface, and sub-surface) begin-ning in the Fiscal Year 2022 timeframe. Once deployed, the UCLASS System will inher-ently provide reach-back to Navy and national architectures for command and control and for tasking, processing, exploitation, and dis-semination. The UCLASS system will achieve these capabilities through the development and integration of a carrier-suitable, semi-autono-mous, unmanned air system; a control system and connectivity segment; and Nimitz/Ford-class carriers. The development and integration effort is overseen by the government as the lead systems integrator, providing system-of-systems integration for the UCLASS Program.

MQ-8 Vertical Takeoff and Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV) Fire Scout

The MQ-8 Fire Scout is an autonomous system designed to operate from any suitably-equipped air-capable ship, carry modular mission payloads, and operate using the tactical control system and line-of-sight tactical common data link. The FY16 president’s budget requests $52.8 million of RDT&E, to continue development of the MQ-8C endurance upgrade, to include inte-gration of ISR payloads, radar and short range air to surface weapons. Funding will also be used to continue payload and frigate integration with the MQ-8B and MQ-8C. The request for $142.5 million in APN procures MQ-8C air vehicles; MQ-8 system mission control systems; ancillary, trainers and support equipment; technical sup-port; modifications based on engineering chang-es; and logistics products and support to outfit suitably-equipped air-capable ships and train the associated aviation detachments. Commonality of avionics, software, and payloads between the MQ-8B and MQ-8C has been maximized. The MQ-8B and MQ-8C air vehicles will utilize the same ship-based mission control system and other ship ancillary equipment.

Fire Scout was deployed to Afghanistan from May 2011 until August 2013, and amassed more than 5,100 dedicated ISR flight hours in support of U.S. and coalition forces. Since 2012, the MQ-8B Fire Scout has flown more than 7,500 hours from Navy Frigates, performing hundreds of autonomous ship board take-offs and landings in support of special operations forces and Navy operations. The MQ-8C Fire Scout continues developmental test and has completed phase

II dynamic interface testing aboard the Navy destroyer USS Jason Dunham. The MQ-8C has flown more than 400 flight hours since October of 2013. The Fire Scout program will continue to support integration and testing for LCS-based mission modules.

Tactical Control System (TCS)The FY16 president’s budget requested $8.6

million in RDT&E for the MQ-8 System’s tactical control system (TCS). TCS provides a standards-compliant open architecture with scalable command and control capabilities for the MQ-8 Fire Scout system. In FY16 TCS will continue to transition the Linux operat-ing system to a technology refreshed mission control system, and enhance the MQ-8 System’s automatic identification system and sensor track generation integration with ship systems. The Linux operating system conversion overcomes hardware obsolescence issues with the Solaris-based control stations and provides lower cost software updates using DoD common applica-tion software. In addition, the TCS Linux up-grade will enhance collaboration with the Navy’

future UAS Common Control System.

Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (STUAS) RQ-21A Blackjack

The FY16 president’s budget requests $11.1 million in RDT&E ($4.7 million USN, $6.4 million USMC); $55.0 million in APN for three Navy systems to support Naval Special Warfare; and $84.9 million in PMC for four RQ-21A sys-tems (which includes 20 air vehicles) to address Marine Corps ISR capability requirements cur-rently supported by service contracts. This Group 3 UAS will provide persistent ship- and land-based ISR support for expeditionary tactical-level maneuver decisions and unit level force defense and force protection missions. Blackjack entered LRIP in 2013, completed IOT&E in the second quarter of FY15, with full rate production planned for the first quarter of FY16.

The RQ-21’s current configuration includes full motion video, communications relay package and automatic identification systems. The air vehicle’s payload bay allows for rapid deployment of signal intelligence payloads. The Marine Corps is actively pursuing technological developments for the RQ-21 system in an effort to provide the MAGTF and Marine Corps Forces Special Op-erations Command with significantly improved capabilities. Initiatives include over-the-horizon communication and data relay ability to integrate the system into future networked digital environ-ments; electronic warfare and cyber payloads to increase non-kinetic capabilities; and change

detection radar and moving target indicators to assist warfighters in battlespace awareness and force application.

RQ-7B Shadow Marine Corps Tactical UAS (MCTUAS)

The FY16 president’s budget requests $0.7 million in RDT&E for the RQ-7B Shadow to continue joint development efforts and govern-ment engineering support and $3.8 million in APN to acquire PRC-152A radios and weather-ization kits.

STRIKE WEAPONS PROGRAMS

Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM) Block IV Cruise Missile Program

The FY16 president's budget requests $184.8 million in WPN for procurement of an additional 100 TACTOM weapons and associated support, $28.0 million in OPN for the Tomahawk support equipment, and $17.7 million in RDT&E for capability updates of the weapon system. WPN resources will be for the continued procurement of this versatile, combat-proven, deep-strike weapon system in order to meet ship load-outs and combat requirements. OPN resources will address the resolution of Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Con-trol Station obsolescence, interoperability, and information assurance mandates. RDT&E will be used to continue engineering efforts for A2/AD navigation and communication upgrades.

Tomahawk provides an attack capability against fixed and mobile/moving targets, and can be launched from both surface ships and submarines. The current variant, TACTOM, preserves Tomahawk’s long-range precision-strike capability while significantly increasing responsiveness and flexibility. TACTOM’s improvements include in-flight retargeting, the ability to loiter over the battlefield, in-flight missile health and status monitoring, and battle damage indication imagery, providing a digital look-down “snapshot” of the battlefield via a satellite data link. Other Tomahawk improve-ments include rapid mission planning and execution via global positioning system (GPS) onboard the launch platform and improved anti-jam GPS.

Tomahawk Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC)

The FY16 president’s budget for TMPC requests $7.5 million in RDT&E and $43.2 million OPN for continued system upgrades and sustainment. TMPC is the mission planning and strike execution segment of the


Tomahawk Weapon System. TMPC devel-ops and distributes strike missions for the Tomahawk Missile; provides for precision targeting, weaponeering, mission and strike planning, execution, coordination, control and reporting. TMPC provides combat-ant commanders and maritime component commanders the capability to plan and/or modify conventional Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile missions. TMPC optimizes all aspects of the Tomahawk missile technol-ogy to successfully engage a target. TMPC is a Mission Assurance Category 1 system, vital to operational readiness and mission effectiveness of deployed and contingency forces. Planned upgrades support integration, modernization and interoperability efforts necessary to keep pace with missile upgrades. These required upgrades keep pace with new imagery formats, threat changes, improved GPS denied navigation capability, mission planning timeline improvements, upgraded communications architecture. Additionally, cybersecurity mandates will be implemented to reduce TMPC vulnerability to cyber-attacks. These upgrades are critical for the support of over 180 TMPC operational sites worldwide, afloat and ashore, to include: cruise missile support activities (inclusive of US STRATCOM), Tomahawk strike and mission planning cells (5th, 6th, 7th fleet), carrier strike groups, surface and subsurface firing units and labs/training classrooms.

Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 1 Weapon

The FY16 president’s budget requests $285.8 million in RDT&E for the comple-tion of technology maturation and initiation

of integration and test of the air-launched OASuW/Increment 1 program. Increment 1 leverages the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) weapon demonstration effort. Incre-ment 1 provides combatant commanders the ability to conduct ASuW operations against high-value surface combatants protected by integrated air defense system with long-range surface-to-air missiles and denies the adversary the sanctuary of maneuver. The OASuW/Increment 1 program is a DoN led joint program, scheduled to field on the B-1 by the end of FY18 and the F/A-18E/F by the end of FY19.

Next Generation Strike Capability (NGSC)The FY16 budget requests $9.6 million for

initiation of efforts to develop a next genera-tion strike capability (NGSC). As part of a long-term strike weapons strategy, NGSC will study long-range, survivable, multimission, multiplatform conventional strike capabil-ity options planned to IOC in the mid-2020 timeframe. NGSC will become the follow-on acquisition program to the current OASuW/Increment I (LRASM) and Tomahawk weapon system modernization programs. The NGSC program will commence an analysis of alternatives (AoA) during FY16. The AoA will assess existing weapons systems, emergent technologies, and industry internal research and development activities; develop potential program of record costs, schedules, and risk assessments; and conduct additional threat assessments based on projected scenarios and operational environments. This analytical data will inform performance and relevant technology requirements to be matured as part

of potential NGSC materiel solution(s) and associated kill-chain(s).

Sidewinder Air-Intercept Missile (AIM-9X)The FY16 president’s budget requests

$76.0 million in RDT&E and $96.4 mil-lion in WPN for this joint DoN and USAF program. RDT&E will be applied toward the engineering manufacturing development phase of critical hardware obsolescence redesign, Development test of missile v9.4 software, and the design and development of joint chiefs of staff directed insensitive munitions improve-ments. WPN funding is requested for produc-tion of a combined 227 all-up-rounds and captive air training missiles and missile-related hardware. The AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder missile is the newest in the Sidewinder family and is the only short-range infrared air-to-air missile integrated on Navy, Marine Corps and USAF strike-fighter aircraft and Marine Corps attack helicopters. This fifth-generation weapon incorporates high off-boresight acqui-sition capability and increased seeker sensitiv-ity through an imaging infrared focal plane array seeker with advanced guidance process-ing for improved target acquisition; data link capability; and advanced thrust vectoring capability to achieve superior maneuverability and increase the probability of intercept of adversary aircraft.

Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM/AIM-120D)

The FY16 president’s budget requests $32.2 million in RDT&E for continued software capability enhancements and $192.9 million in WPN production of a combined 167 all-up-rounds and captive air training missiles and missile-related hardware. AMRAAM is a joint USAF and DoN weapon that counters exist-ing aircraft and cruise-missile threats. It uses advanced counter-electronic attack capabilities at both high and low altitudes, and can engage from beyond visual range as well as within visual range. AMRAAM provides an air-to-air first look, first shot, first kill capability, while working within a networked environment in support of the Navy’s theater air and missile defense mission area. RDT&E will be applied toward software upgrades to counter emerg-ing electronic attack threats for AIM-120C/D missiles.

Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II)The FY16 president’s budget requests

$97.0 million in RDT&E for continued development of the Department of the Air

An F/A-18C Hornet from the Stingers of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 113, left, and two F/A-18C Hornets from the Mighty Shrikes of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 94, fly in formation before landing aboard the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70). Carl Vinson is deployed in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility supporting Operation Inherent Resolve, strike operations in Iraq and Syria as directed, maritime security operations, and theater security cooperation efforts in the region. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John Philip Wagner, Jr.]


Force led joint service SDB II weapon and bomb-rack program. SDB II provides an ad-verse weather, day or night standoff capability against mobile, moving, and fixed targets, and enables target prosecution while minimizing collateral damage. SDB II will be integrated into the internal carriage of both DoN vari-ants of the joint strike fighter (F-35B and F-35C) as well as the Navy’s F/A-18E/F. The joint miniature munitions bomb rack unit (JMM BRU) BRU-61A/A is being developed to meet the operational and environmental integration requirements for internal bay car-riage of the SDB II in the F-35B and F-35C, and external carriage on F/A-18 E/F. JMM BRU entered technology development in June 2013.

Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)The FY16 president’s budget requests

$0.4 million in RDT&E to address software integration and interoperability following the completion of efforts associated with opera-tional testing in FY15, and $21.4 million in WPN to begin Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) software integration, continuation of telemetry instrumentation kit (TIK) non recurring engineering and re-life efforts, and shutdown of the JSOW production line. The department’s decision to terminate JSOW C-1 production was due to fiscal constraints, an analysis of targets determining there was suf-ficient inventory to handle current operational needs, and the ongoing focus to fund future capabilities. The DoN has submitted a final 2014 termination Selected Acquisition Report and Congressional notification. The Navy is preparing a transition plan to address the production termination decision and docu-ment the planned use of RDT&E, WPN, and O&M resources to complete JSOW C-1 operational test activities, missile and TIK pro-duction, CATM conversions, and long-term weapon system operation & support.

Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) & AARGM Extended Range

The FY16 president’s budget requests $12.9 million of RDT&E for Block 1 follow-on development and test program, $38.4 million of RDT&E for AARGM extended range (ER) development, and $122.3 million of WPN for production of 138 all-up-rounds and captive training missiles. The AARGM cooperative program with the Italian Air Force transforms the High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) into an affordable, lethal and flexible time-sensitive strike weapon system for

conducting destruction of enemy air defense missions. AARGM adds multi-spectral target-ing capability and targeting geo-specificity to its supersonic fly-out to destroy sophisti-cated enemy air defenses and expand upon the HARM target set. The program achieved IOC on the F/A-18C/D aircraft in July 2012, with forward deployment to U.S. Pacific Command, and integration is complete for AARGM with release of H-8 System Configu-ration Set for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. The development of an AARGM-ER modifica-tion program, involving hardware and software improvements, will begin in FY16. This effort will increase the weapon system’s survivability against complex, new and emerging threat systems and enable launch platforms greater stand-off range.

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)The FY16 president’s budget requests

$25.9 million in RDT&E to begin a five-year integration effort of JAGM Increment 1 onto the Marine Corps AH-1Z in support of an initial operational capability by FY19. JAGM is a Department-of-the-Army led, joint pre-Major Defense Acquisition Program. JAGM is a direct attack/close-air-support missile program that will utilize advanced seeker technology and be employed against land and maritime station-ary and moving targets in adverse weather and will replace the Hellfire and TOW II missile systems. In November 2012, the joint chiefs of staff authorized the JAGM incremental requirements and revalidated the DoN’s AH-1Z Cobra aircraft as a threshold platform. JAGM

Increment 1 is expected to achieve Milestone B certification in FY15.

Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II)

The FY16 president’s budget requests $53.5 million in PANMC for procurement of 1,834 APKWS II precision guidance kits. APKWS II provides an unprecedented precision guidance capability to DoN unguided rocket inventories, improving accuracy and minimizing collateral damage. Program production continues on schedule, meeting the needs of our warfight-ers in today’s theaters of operations. IOC was reached in March 2012 on the Marine Corps’ AH-1W and UH-1Y.These platforms have expended more than 170 APKWS II weapons in combat. Marine Crops AH-1Z platforms will be certified to fire APKWS II in Fiscal Year 2015. The Navy successfully integrated APKWS II on the MH-60S for an Early operational capability in March 2014 and is on track to finalize a similar effort for the MH-60R in March 2015.

CONCLUSION

We are an agile strike and amphibious power projection force in readiness, and such agility requires that the aviation arm of our naval strike and expeditionary forces remain strong. Mr. Chairman, and distin-guished committee members, we request your continued support for the department’s FY16 budget request for our naval aviation programs.

An EA-18G Growler from the Cougars of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 139 launches from the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70). The Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group is deployed in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility supporting Operation Inherent Resolve, maritime security operations, strike operations in Iraq and Syria as directed, and theater security cooperation efforts. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John Philip Wagner, Jr.]


The NSC, OPC and FRC programs pose several oversight issues for

Congress. Congress’s decisions on these programs could substantially

affect Coast Guard capabilities and funding requirements, and the U.S.

shipbuilding industrial base.

Background

olDer shiPs to be rePlACeD by nsCs, oPCs AnD FrCs

The 91 planned NSCs, OPCs and FRCs are intended to replace

90 older Coast Guard ships—12 high-endurance cutters (wheCs),

29 medium-endurance cutters (wMeCs), and 49 110-foot patrol craft

(wPBs). The Coast Guard’s 12 hamilton- (wheC-715) class high-

endurance cutters entered service between 1967 and 1972. The Coast

Guard’s 29 medium-endurance cutters include 13 Famous- (wMeC-

901) class ships that entered service between 1983 and 1991, 14

Reliance (wMeC-615) class ships that entered service between 1964

and 1969, and two one-of- a-kind cutters that originally entered service

with the Navy in 1944 and 1971 and were later transferred to the Coast

Guard. The Coast Guard’s 49 110-foot island- (wPB-1301) class patrol

boats entered service between 1986 and 1992.

Many of these 90 ships are manpower-intensive and increasingly

expensive to maintain, and have features that in some cases are not

optimal for performing their assigned missions. Some of them have

already been removed from Coast Guard service: eight of the island-

class patrol boats were removed from service in 2007 following an

unsuccessful effort to modernize and lengthen them to 123 feet; the

one-of-a-kind cutter that originally entered service with the Navy

in 1944 was decommissioned in 2011; and hamilton-class cutters

are being decommissioned as new NSCs enter service. A July 2012

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report discusses the generally

poor physical condition and declining operational capacity of the Coast

Guard’s older high-endurance cutters, medium-endurance cutters, and

110-foot patrol craft.

missions oF nsCs, oPCs AnD FrCs

NSCs, OPCs and FRCs, like the ships they are intended to replace,

are to be multimission ships for routinely performing seven of the Coast

Guard’s 11 statutory missions, including

• search and rescue (SAR);

• drug interdiction;

• migrant interdiction;

• ports, waterways and coastal security (PwCS);

• protection of living marine resources;

• other/general law enforcement; and

• defense readiness operations.

Smaller Coast Guard patrol craft and boats contribute to the per-

formance of some of these seven missions close to shore. NSCs, OPCs

and FRCs perform them both close to shore and in the deepwater

environment, which generally refers to waters more than 50 miles from

shore.

nsC ProGrAm

National Security Cutters (Figure 1), also known as Legend-

(wMSL-750) class cutters, are the Coast Guard’s largest and most

capable general-purpose cutters. The Coast Guard’s POR—the ser-

vice’s list, established in 2004, of planned procurement quantities for

various new types of ships and aircraft—calls for procuring eight NSCs

as replacements for the service’s 12 hamilton-class high-endurance

cutters. The Coast Guard’s FY15 five-year Capital investment Plan (CiP)

estimates the total acquisition cost of the eight ships at $5.504 billion,

or an average of about $688 million per ship.

NSCs are larger and technologically more advanced than hamilton-

class cutters. The Coast Guard states that

Of the Coast Guard’s white-hull patrol cutter fleet, the NSC is

the largest and most technologically sophisticated in the Coast

Guard. each NSC is capable of operating in the most demanding

open ocean environments, including the hazardous fisheries of

the North Pacific and the vast approaches of the Southern Pacific

where much of the American narcotics traffic occurs. with robust

command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, sur-

veillance and reconnaissance (C4iSR) equipment, stern boat launch

and aviation facilities, as well as long-endurance station keeping,

the NSCs are afloat operational-level headquarters for complex law

enforcement and national security missions involving multiple Coast

Guard and partner agency participation.

NSCs are built by ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula, Miss., a ship-

yard that forms part of huntington ingalls industries (hii).

The four NSCs are now in service (the fourth was commissioned

into service on december 6, 2014), the fifth through seventh are in vari-

ous stages of construction, and the eighth was funded in FY15.

The Coast Guard’s proposed FY16 budget requests $91.4 million in

acquisition funding for the NSC program for structural enhancements on

the first two NSCs and post-delivery activities on NSCs 5 through 8.

oPC ProGrAm

Offshore Patrol Cutters (Figure 2) are to be smaller, less expensive

and, in some respects, less capable than NSCs. The Coast Guard’s

Coast Guard Cutter Procurement➥ continued fRoM paGe 1

figure 1


POR calls for procuring 25 OPCs as replacements for the service’s 29

medium-endurance cutters. Under the Coast Guard’s FY15 five-year

CiP, it appears (based on programmed annual funding levels) that the

first OPC is to be procured in FY18. The FY15 CiP estimates the total

acquisition cost of the 25 ships at $10.523 billion, or an average of

about $421 million per ship.

The Coast Guard’s request for proposal (RFP) for the program,

released on September 25, 2012, establishes an affordability requirement

for the program of an average unit price of $310 million per ship, or less, in

then-year dollars (i.e., dollars that are not adjusted for inflation) for ships 4

through 9 in the program. This figure represents the shipbuilder’s portion

of the total cost of the ship; it does not include the cost of government-

furnished equipment (GFe) on the ship, or other program costs—such as

those for program management, system integration, and logistics—that

contribute to the above-cited figure of $421 million per ship.

The service states that OPCs

will complement the Coast Guard’s current and future fleet to

extend the service’s operational capabilities. The OPC will replace

the service’s 210-foot and 270-foot medium endurance cutters. it

will feature increased range and endurance, powerful weapons, a

larger flight deck, and improved command, control, communica-

tions, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance

(C4iSR) equipment. The OPC will accommodate aircraft and small

boat operations in all weather.

The Coast Guard’s acquisition strategy for the first 9 to 11 ships in

the program is as follows:

The OPC procurement shall implement a two-phase down select

strategy. Phase i entails a full and open competition for preliminary and

contract design (P&Cd) awarded to a maximum of three offerors. The

Coast Guard intends to competitively award the Phase i contract in

Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. P&Cd will culminate in a contract design review

(kdR). After kdR, the three contractors will submit proposals which will

result in a down selection to one contractor to continue with Phase ii.

(h) Phase ii award is planned for FY ... Phase ii’s down selec-

tion will be accomplished by exercising one option with a single

contractor for detail design (dd) with additional options for long

lead time materials, lead ship and eight to ten follow ships. dd will

start after option exercise and be complete upon delivery of the

first ship. The contractor will present the OPC design at the initial

critical design reviews (iCdR) and final critical design review (FCdR)

followed by a production readiness review (PRR). during Phase ii

contract performance, the contractor will be encouraged to submit

a fixed price proposal (before construction begins on the hull #6) for

option hulls #6 through #11 (LRiP 2). if the priced effort is deemed

fair and reasonable the contractor shall be eligible for hulls #10 and

#11. if not, the contract will continue with the FPi structure and the

contract will end with hull #9.

At least eight shipyards expressed interest in the program. The

firms were:

• Bollinger Shipyards of Lockport, La.;

• eastern Shipbuilding Group of Panama City, Fla.;

• General dynamics Bath iron works (Gd/Biw) of Bath, Maine;

• huntington ingalls industries (hii) of Pascagoula, Miss.;

• Marinette Marine Corporation of Marinette, wash.;

• General dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (Gd/

NASSCO) of San diego, Calif.;

• Vigor Shipyards of Seattle, wash.; and

• VT halter Marine of Pascagoula, Miss.

On February 11, 2014, the Coast Guard announced that it had

awarded Phase i Preliminary and Contract design (P&Cd) contracts to

Bollinger, eastern and Gd/Biw. A February 11, 2014, Coast Guard news

release on the award stated:

The U.S. Coast Guard today awarded three firm-fixed-price

contracts for preliminary and contract design (P&Cd) for the offshore

patrol cutter (OPC) acquisition project. The contracts were awarded

to Bollinger Shipyards Lockport LLC (Lockport, La.), eastern Ship-

building Group inc. (Panama City, Fla.), and General dynamics, Bath

iron works (Bath, Maine). The total value of the award is approxi-

mately $65 million.

Awarding multiple design contracts ensures that competition is

continued through to a potential down-select for detailed design and

construction, establishes a fixed-price environment for the remainder

of the contract, and incorporates a strategy to maximize affordability.

This strategy was developed by analyzing lessons learned from other

major government shipbuilding programs and through collaboration

with industry on how to best design and produce the most affordable

OPC ... The Coast Guard issued the P&Cd request for proposal (RFP)

Sept. 25, 2012. Responses were received in January 2013, and the

Coast Guard conducted a thorough evaluation of proposals based

on technical, management, past performance and price factors. To

support the effort to acquire an affordable OPC, the Coast Guard

engaged industry prior to RFP release through industry day events,

one-on-one meetings and providing opportunities for potential of-

ferors to review and comment on OPC draft technical packages,

specifications and solicitation language.

hii and VT halter Marine reportedly filed protests of the Coast

Guard’s award decision on February 24 and 25, respectively. The Coast

Guard issued stop work orders to Bollinger, eastern and Gd/Biw pending

GAO’s rulings on the protests. On June 5, 2014, it was reported that GAO

had rejected the protests, and that the Coast Guard had directed Bol-

linger, eastern and Gd/Biw to resume their work.

figure 2


The Coast Guard’s proposed FY16 budget requests $18.5 million

in acquisition funding for the OPC program for technical and project

management ($4.7 million) and design and development work ($13.8

million). The Coast Guard states, “The Administration’s [FY16 budget]

request includes a [proposed legislative] General Provision permitting a

transfer [of additional funding] to the OPC project if the program is ready

to award the next phase of vessel acquisition in FY16.”

FrC ProGrAm

Fast response cutters (Figure 3), also called Sentinel- (wPC-1101)

class patrol boats, are considerably smaller and less expensive than

OPCs, but are larger than the Coast Guard’s older patrol boats.25 The

Coast Guard’s POR calls for procuring 58 FRCs as replacements for

the service’s 49 island-class patrol boats. The FY15 CiP estimates the

total acquisition cost of the 58 cutters at $3.928 billion, or an average of

about $68 million per cutter. The Coast Guard states that

The planned fleet of FRCs will conduct primarily the same

missions as the 110’ patrol boats being replaced. in addition, the

FRC will have several increased capabilities enhancing overall

mission execution. The FRC is designed for rapid response, with

approximately a 28 knot speed capability, and will typically operate

in the coastal zones. examples of missions that FRCs will complete

include SAR, migrant interdiction, drug interdiction and ports water-

ways and coastal security.

FRCs will provide enhanced capabilities over the 110’s includ-

ing improved C4iSR capability and interoperability; stern launch and

recovery (up through sea state 4) of a 40 knot, Over-the-horizon, 7 m

cutter boat; a remote operated, gyro stabilized Mk38 Mod 2, 25 mm

main gun; improved sea keeping; and enhanced crew habitability.

The FRC program received approval from dhS to enter full-rate

production on September 18, 2013. A total of 32 FRCs have been

funded through FY15. The 11th was commissioned into service on

January 24, 2015, and the 12th is scheduled to be commissioned in

March 2015.

FRCs are currently built by Bollinger Shipyards of Lockport, La.

Bollinger’s contract with the Coast Guard originally included annual

options for building a total of up to 34 FRCs through FY14, but some

of the annual options were not exercised by the Coast Guard to their

maximum possible quantities, and Bollinger’s contract wound up cov-

ering the 32 FRCs. (The Coast Guard on February 27, 2015, exercised

a final option under the contract with Bollinger for ships 31 and 32.)

Ship awards under that contract are now completed.

The Coast Guard holds the data rights for the Sentinel-class

design and on February 27, 2015, issued a request for proposals (RFP)

for a contract that will include options for the acquisition of up to 26

FRCs (i.e., the remaining 26 ships in the program). Proposals from bid-

ders are due by June 5, 2015.

The Coast Guard’s proposed FY16 budget requests $340 million

in acquisition funding for the FRC program.

nsC, oPC AnD FrC FunDinG in Fy13-Fy16 buDGet submissions

Table 1 shows annual acquisition funding for the NSC, OPC, and

FRC programs in the Coast Guard’s FY2013-FY2016 budget submis-

sions.

Table 1. NSC, OPC, and FRC Funding in FY2013-FY2016 Budget Submissions (millions of then-year dollars)

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2018

FY2019

FY2020

NSC program

FY13 budget

683 0 0 0 0

FY14 budget

616 710 38 0 45

FY15 budget

638 75 130 30 47

FY16 budget

91.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a

OPC program

FY13 budget

30 50 40 200 530

FY14 budget

25 65 200 530 430

FY15 budget

20 90 100 530 430

FY16 budget

18.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a

FRC program

FY13 budget

139 360 360 360 360

FY14 budget

75 110 110 110 110

FY15 budget

110 340 220 220 315

FY16 budget

340 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total

FY13 budget

852 410 400 560 890

FY14 budget

716 885 348 640 585

FY15 budget

768 505 450 780 792

FY16 budget

449.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a

figure 3


issues for congress

PlAnneD nsC, oPC AnD FrC ProCurement QuAntities

One potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the Coast

Guard’s planned NSC, OPC and FRC procurement quantities. The

POR’s planned force of 91 NSCs, OPCs and FRCs is about equal

in number to the Coast Guard’s legacy force of 90 high-endurance

cutters, medium-endurance cutters, and 110-foot patrol craft. NSCs,

OPCs and FRCs, moreover, are to be individually more capable than

the older ships they are to replace. even so, Coast Guard studies have

concluded that the planned total of 91 NSCs, OPCs and FRCs would

be considerably fewer ships than the number that would be needed to

fully perform the service’s statutory missions in coming years, in part

because Coast Guard mission demands are expected to be greater in

coming years than they were in the past. CRS first testified about this

issue in 2005.

The Coast Guard estimates that with the POR’s planned force

of 91 NSCs, OPCs and FRCs, the service would have capability or

capacity gaps in six of its 11 statutory missions—search and rescue

(SAR); defense readiness; counter-drug operations; ports, waterways

and coastal security; protection of living marine resources (LMR); and

alien migrant interdiction operations (AMiO). The Coast Guard judges

that some of these gaps would be “high risk” or “very high risk.”

Public discussions of the POR frequently mention the sub-

stantial improvement that the POR force would represent over the

legacy force. Only rarely, however, have these discussions explicitly

acknowledged the extent to which the POR force would nevertheless

be smaller in number than the force that would be required, by Coast

Guard estimate, to fully perform the Coast Guard’s statutory missions

in coming years. discussions that focus on the POR’s improvement

over the legacy force while omitting mention of the considerably

larger number of cutters that would be required, by Coast Guard

estimate, to fully perform the Coast Guard’s statutory missions in

coming years could encourage audiences to conclude, contrary to

Coast Guard estimates, that the POR’s planned force of 91 cutters

would be capable of fully performing the Coast Guard’s statutory

missions in coming years.

in a study completed in december 2009 called the Fleet Mix Analy-

sis (FMA) Phase 1, the Coast Guard calculated the size of the force

that in its view would be needed to fully perform the service’s statutory

missions in coming years. The study refers to this larger force as the

objective fleet mix. Table 2 compares planned numbers of NSCs, OPCs

and FRCs in the POR to those in the objective fleet mix.

Table 2. Program of Record Compared to Objective Fleet Mix From Fleet Mix Analysis Phase 1 (2009)

Ship typeProgram of

Record (POR)

Objective Fleet Mix From FMA

Phase 1

Objective Fleet Mix compared to POR

Number %

NSC 8 9 +1 +13%

OPC 25 57 +32 +128%

FRC 58 91 +33 +57%

Total 91 157 +66 +73%

As can be seen in Table 2, the objective fleet mix includes 66 ad-

ditional cutters, or about 73 percent percent more cutters than in the

POR. Stated the other way around, the POR includes about 58 percent

percent as many cutters as the objective fleet mix.

As intermediate steps between the POR force and the objective

fleet mix, FMA Phase 1 calculated three additional forces, called FMA-1,

FMA-2, and FMA-3. (The objective fleet mix was then relabeled FMA-4.)

Table 3 compares the POR to FMAs 1 through 4.

Table 3. POR Compared to FMAs 1 Through 4 (From Fleet Mix Analysis Phase 1 (2009))

Ship typeProgram of Record

(POR) FMA-1 FMA-2 FMA-3

FMA-4 (Objective Fleet Mix)

NSC 8 9 9 9 9

OPC 25 32 43 50 57

FRC 58 63 75 80 91

Total 91 104 127 139 157

FMA-1 was calculated to address the mission gaps that the Coast

Guard judged to be “very high risk.” FMA-2 was calculated to address

both those gaps and additional gaps that the Coast Guard judged to be

“high risk.” FMA-3 was calculated to address all those gaps, plus gaps

that the Coast Guard judged to be “medium risk.” FMA-4—the objective

fleet mix—was calculated to address all the foregoing gaps, plus the

remaining gaps, which the Coast Guard judge to be “low risk” or “very

low risk.” Table 4 shows the POR and FMAs 1 through 4 in terms of their

mission performance gaps.

figure 4. projected Mission demands vs. projected capability/performance

From Fleet Mix Analysis Phase 1, Executive Summary


Table 4. Force Mixes and Mission Performance Gaps (From Fleet Mix Analysis Phase 1 (2009)—an X mark indicates a mission performance gap)

Missions with

performance gaps

Risk levels of these

performance gaps

Program of

Record (POR)

FMA-1 FMA-

2 FMA-

3

FMA-4 (Objective Fleet Mix)

Search and Rescue

(SAR) capability

Very high X

Defense Readiness

capacity Very high X

Counter Drug capacity

Very high X

Ports, Waterways, and Coastal

Security (PWCS)

capacity

High X X

Living Marine

Resources (LMR)

capability and

capacity

High X X [all gaps

addressed]

PWCS capacity

Medium X X X

LMR capacity

Medium X X X

Alien Migrant

Interdiction Operations

(AMIO) capacity

Low/very low

X X X X

PWCS capacity

Low/very low

X X X X

Figure 4, taken from FMA Phase 1, depicts the overall mission

capability/performance gap situation in graphic form. it appears to be

conceptual rather than drawn to precise scale. The black line descend-

ing toward zero by the year 2027 shows the declining capability and

performance of the Coast Guard’s legacy assets as they gradually age

out of the force. The purple line branching up from the black line shows

the added capability from ships and aircraft to be procured under the

POR, including the 91 planned NSCs, OPCs and FRCs. The level of ca-

pability to be provided when the POR force is fully in place is the green

line, labeled “2005 Mission Needs Statement.” As can be seen in the

graph, this level of capability is substantially below a projection of Coast

Guard mission demands made after the terrorist attacks of September

11, 2001 (the red line, labeled “Post-9/11 CG Mission demands”), and

even further below a Coast Guard projection of future mission demands

(the top dashed line, labeled “Future Mission demands”). The dashed

blue lines show future capability levels that would result from reducing

planned procurement quantities in the POR or executing the POR over a

longer time period than originally planned.

FMA Phase 1 was a fiscally unconstrained study, meaning that the

larger force mixes shown in Table 3 were calculated primarily on the ba-

sis of their capability for performing missions, rather than their potential

acquisition or life-cycle operation and support (O&S) costs.

Although the FMA Phase 1 was completed in december 2009, the

figures shown in Table 3 were generally not included in public discus-

sions of the Coast Guard’s future force structure needs until April 2011,

when GAO presented them in testimony. GAO again presented them in

a July 2011 report.

The Coast Guard completed a follow-on study, called Fleet Mix

Analysis (FMA) Phase 2, in May 2011. Among other things, FMA Phase

2 includes a revised and updated objective fleet mix called the refined

objective mix. Table 5 compares the POR to the objective fleet mix from

FMA Phase 1 and the refined objective mix from FMA Phase 2.

Table 5. POR Compared to Objective Mixes in FMA Phases 1 and 2 (From Fleet Mix Analysis Phase 1 (2009) and Phase 2 (2011))

Ship typeProgram of

Record (POR)

Objective Fleet Mix from FMA

Phase 1

Refined Objective Mix

from FMA Phase 2

NSC 8 9 9

OPC 25 57 49

FRC 58 91 91

Total 91 157 149

As can be seen in Table 5, compared to the objective fleet mix from

FMA Phase 1, the refined objective mix from FMA Phase 2 includes 49

OPCs rather than 57. The refined objective mix includes 58 additional cut-

ters, or about 64 percent more cutters than in the POR. Stated the other

way around, the POR includes about 61percent as many cutters as the

refined objective mix.

Compared to the POR, the larger force mixes shown in Table 3 and

Table 5 would be more expensive to procure, operate, and support than

the POR force. Using the average NSC, OPC and FRC procurement cost

figures presented earlier, procuring the 58 additional cutters in the refined

objective mix from FMA Phase 2 might cost an additional $10.7 billion, of

which most (about $7.8 billion) would be for the 24 additional FRCs. (The

actual cost would depend on numerous factors, such as annual procure-

ment rates.) O&S costs for these 58 additional cutters over their life cycles

(including crew costs and periodic ship maintenance costs) would require

billions of additional dollars.

The larger force mixes in the FMA Phase 1 and 2 studies, moreover, in-

clude not only increased numbers of cutters, but also increased numbers of

Coast Guard aircraft. in the FMA Phase 1 study, for example, the objective

fleet mix included 479 aircraft—93 percent more than the 248 aircraft in the

POR mix. Stated the other way around, the POR includes about 52 percent

as many aircraft as the objective fleet mix. A decision to procure larger

numbers of cutters like those shown in Table 3 and Table 5 might thus also

imply a decision to procure, operate, and support larger numbers of Coast

Guard aircraft, which would require billions of additional dollars. The FMA

Phase 1 study estimated the procurement cost of the objective fleet mix of

157 cutters and 479 aircraft at $61 billion to $67 billion in constant FY2009

dollars, or about 66 percent more than the procurement cost of $37 billion to

$40 billion in constant FY2009 dollars estimated for the POR mix of 91 cut-

ters and 248 aircraft. The study estimated the total ownership cost (i.e., pro-

curement plus life-cycle O&S cost) of the objective fleet mix of cutters and


aircraft at $201 billion to $208 billion in constant FY2009

dollars, or about 53 percent more than the total ownership

cost of $132 billion to $136 billion in constant FY2009 dol-

lars estimated for POR mix of cutters and aircraft.

Potential oversight questions for Congress

include the following:

• Under the POR force mix, how large a performance

gap, precisely, would there be in each of the missions

shown in Table 4? what impact would these

performance gaps have on public safety, national

security, and protection of living marine resources?

• how sensitive are these performance gaps to

the way in which the Coast Guard translates its

statutory missions into more precise statements of required mission

performance?

• Given the performance gaps shown in Table 4, should planned numbers

of Coast Guard cutters and aircraft be increased, or should the Coast

Guard’s statutory missions be reduced, or both?

• how much larger would the performance gaps in Table 4 be if planned

numbers of Coast Guard cutters and aircraft are reduced below the POR

figures?

• has the executive branch made sufficiently clear to Congress the

difference between the number of ships and aircraft in the POR force

and the number that would be needed to fully perform the Coast

Guard’s statutory missions in coming years? why has public discussion

of the POR focused mostly on the capability improvement it would

produce over the legacy force and rarely on the performance gaps it

would have in the missions shown in Table 4?

FunDinG leVel oF CoAst GuArD’s ACQuisition ACCount

Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the funding

level in the Coast Guard’s acquisition account, known formally as the acqui-

sition, construction, and improvements (AC&i) account. The Coast Guard

has testified that acquiring the ships and aircraft in its POR on a timely basis

while also adequately funding other Coast Guard acquisition programs

would require a funding level for the AC&i account of roughly $1.5 billion to

$2.5 billion per year.

As shown in Table 6 below, the Administration’s FY13 budget submis-

sion programmed an average of about $1.5 billion per year in the AC&i

account. As also shown in the table, subsequent budget submissions have

reduced that figure to roughly $1 billion or $1.1 billion per year.

The Coast Guard has testified that funding the AC&i account at a level

of about $1 billion per year would make it difficult to fund various Coast

Guard acquisition projects, including a new polar icebreaker and improve-

ments to Coast Guard shore installations. Coast Guard plans call for procur-

ing OPCs at an eventual rate of two per year. if each OPC costs roughly

$400 million, procuring two OPCs per year in an AC&i account of about $1

billion per year would leave about $200 million per year for all other AC&i-

funded programs.

At an October 4, 2011 hearing on the Coast Guard’s major acquisition

programs before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommit-

tee of the house Transportation and infrastructure Committee, the following

exchange occurred:

REPRESENTATIVE FRANK LOBIONDO: Can you give us your take on

what percentage of value must be invested each year to maintain current

levels of effort and to allow the Coast Guard to fully carry out its missions?

ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, COMMANDANT OF THE COAST

GUARD: i think i can, Mr. Chairman. Actually, in discussions and

looking at our budget—and i’ll give you rough numbers here, what

we do now is we have to live within the constraints that we’ve been

averaging about $1.4 billion in acquisition money each year.

if you look at our complete portfolio, the things that we’d like

to do, when you look at the shore infrastructure that needs to be

taken care of, when you look at renovating our smaller icebreakers

and other ships and aircraft that we have, we’ve done some rough

estimates that it would really take close to about $2.5 billion a year,

if we were to do all the things that we would like to do to sustain our

capital plant.

So i’m just like any other head of any other agency here, as

that the end of the day, we’re given a top line and we have to make

choices and trade-offs and basically, my trade-offs boil down to

sustaining frontline operations balancing that, we’re trying to recapi-

talize the Coast Guard, and there’s where the break is and where we

have to define our spending.

An April 18, 2012 blog entry stated:

if the Coast Guard capital expenditure budget remains un-

changed at less than $1.5 billion annually in the coming years, it

will result in a service in possession of only 70 percent of the as-

sets it possesses today, said Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mark Butt.

Butt, who spoke April 17 [2012] at [a] panel [discussion] during

the Navy League Sea Air Space conference in National harbor,

Md., echoed Coast Guard Commandant Robert Papp in stat-

ing that the service really needs around $2.5 billion annually for

procurement.

At a May 9, 2012, hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY13 bud-

get before the homeland Security subcommittee of the Senate Appro-

priations Committee, Admiral Papp testified, “i’ve gone on record saying

that i think the Coast Guard needs closer to $2 billion dollars a year [in

acquisition funding] to recapitalize—[to] do proper recapitalization.”

At a March 12, 2014 hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY15

budget before the homeland Security subcommittee of the house Ap-

propriations Committee, Admiral Papp stated:

well, that’s what we've been struggling with, as we deal with the

five-year plan, the capital investment plan, is showing how we are able

to do that. And it will be a challenge, particularly if it sticks at around

$1 billion [per year]. As i've said publicly, and actually, i said we could

probably—i've stated publicly before that we could probably construct

Table 6. Funding in AC&i Account in FY2013-FY2016 Budgets (Millions of dollars, rounded to nearest tenth)

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 Avg.

FY13 budget

1,217.3 1,429.5 1,619.9 1,643.8 1,722.0 1,526.5

FY14 budget

951.1 1,195.7 901.0 1,024.8 1,030.3 1,020.6

FY15 budget

1,084.2 1,103.0 1,128.9 1,180.4 1,228.7 1,145.0

FY16 budget

1,017.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a


comfortably at about 1.5 billion [dollars] a year. But if we were to take

care of all the Coast Guard’s projects that are out there, including shore

infrastructure that that fleet that takes care of the Yemen [sic: inland] wa-

ters is approaching 50 years of age, as well, but i have no replacement

plan in sight for them because we simply can't afford it. Plus, we need

at some point to build a polar icebreaker. darn tough to do all that stuff

when you're pushing down closer to 1 billion [dollars per year], instead of

2 billion [dollars per year].

As i said, we could fit most of that in at about the 1.5 billion [dollars

per year] level, but the projections don't call for that. So we are scrub-

bing the numbers as best we can.

At a May 14, 2013 hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY14 budget

before the homeland Security Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations

Committee, Admiral Papp stated the following regarding the difference

between having about $1.0 billion per year rather than about $1.5 billion per

year in the AC&i account:

well, Madam Chairman, $500 million—a half a billion dollars—is

real money for the Coast Guard. So, clearly, we had $1.5 billion in the

[FY]13 budget. it doesn't get everything i would like, but it—it gave

us a good start, and it sustained a number of projects that are very

important to us.

when we go down to the $1 billion level this year, it gets my highest

priorities in there, but we have to either terminate or reduce to minimum

order quantities for all the other projects that we have going.

if we’re going to stay with our program of record, things that have

been documented that we need for our service, we're going to have to

just stretch everything out to the right. And when we do that, you cannot

order in economic order quantities. it defers the purchase. Ship builders,

aircraft companies—they have to figure in their costs, and it inevitably

raises the cost when you're ordering them in smaller quantities and

pushing it off to the right.

Plus, it almost creates a death spiral for the Coast Guard because

we are forced to sustain older assets—older ships and older aircraft—

which ultimately cost us more money, so it eats into our operating funds,

as well, as we try to sustain these older things.

So, we'll do the best we can within the budget. And the president

and the secretary have addressed my highest priorities, and we'll just

continue to go on the—on an annual basis seeing what we can wedge

into the budget to keep the other projects going.

Although the annual amounts of acquisition funding that the Coast

Guard has received in recent years are one potential guide to what Coast

Guard acquisition funding levels might or should be in coming years, there

may be other potential guides. For example, one could envision potential

guides that focus on whether Coast Guard funding for ship acquisition and

sustainment is commensurate with Coast Guard funding for the personnel

that in many cases will operate the ships. Observations that might be made

in connection with this example based on the Coast Guard and Navy budget

submissions include the following:

• Using figures from the FY14 budget submission, the Coast Guard has

about 12.9 percent as many active duty personnel as the Navy. if the

amount of funding for the surface ship acquisition and sustainment part

of the AC&i account were equivalent to 12.9 percent of the amount of

funding in the Navy’s shipbuilding account, this part of the AC&i account

would be about $1.8 billion per year.

• Again using figures from the FY2014 budget submission, funding in the

Navy’s shipbuilding account is equivalent to about 51 percent of the

Navy’s funding for active duty personnel. if Coast Guard funding for

surface ship acquisition and sustainment were equivalent to 51 percent

of Coast Guard funding for military pay and allowances, this part of the

AC&i account would be about $1.7 billion per year.

MultiyeaR pRocuReMent (Myp) and Block Buy contRactinG

Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the potential

for using multiyear contracting (i.e., multiyear procurement (MYP) or block

buy contracting) in acquiring new cutters. with congressional approval,

certain department of defense (dod) programs for procuring ships,

aircraft, and other items employ MYP or block buy contracting to reduce

procurement costs. Compared to the standard or default approach of

annual contracting, MYP and block buy contracting have the potential for

reducing procurement costs by several percent.

The statute that governs the use of MYP—10 U.S.C. 2306b—makes

MYP available with congressional approval not only to dod, but to other

government departments, including dhS, the parent department of the

Coast Guard. Congress also has the option of providing the Coast Guard

with authority to use block buy contracting, as it has done for the Navy.

All three of the Navy’s year-to-year shipbuilding programs—the Virginia-

class attack submarine program, the ddG-51 destroyer program, and

the littoral combat ship (LCS) program—currently use MYP or block buy

contracting. in contrast, the Coast Guard has not used MYP or block buy

contracting for any of its cutter procurement programs.

Section 223 of the howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Trans-

portation Act of 2014 (S.2444/P.L. 113-281 of december 18, 2014) states:

Sec. 223. MultiyeaR pRocuReMent autHoRity foR offSHoRe patRol cutteRS.

in fiscal year 2015 and each fiscal year thereafter, the secretary of

the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may enter into, in

accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, multiyear

contracts for the procurement of offshore patrol cutters and associated

equipment.

Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:

• has the Coast Guard considered using MYP or block buy contracting

for procuring NSCs, OPCs or FRCs? if not, why not?

• what would be the potential savings of using MYP or block buy

contracting for procuring the final two or three NSCs, for procuring

OPCs or for procuring FRCs?

• what are the potential risks or downsides of using MYP or block buy

contracting for procuring NSCs, OPCs or FRCs?

opc pRoGRaM: fy16 fundinG RequeSt

Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the FY16

funding request for the OPC program. As shown in Table 1, the amount

requested—$18.5 million—is $71.5 million less than the $90 million that

was projected for the OPC program for FY16 under the FY15 budget

submission. As also noted earlier, the Coast Guard states, “The Adminis-

tration’s [FY16 budget] request includes a [proposed legislative] General

Provision permitting a transfer [of additional funding] to the OPC project

if the program is ready to award the next phase of vessel acquisition in

FY16.” Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:


• why was the program’s FY16 funding request reduced from the $90

million projected under the FY15 budget submission to $18.5 million?

• who will determine whether “the OPC project if the program is

ready to award the next phase of vessel acquisition in FY 16”? what

criteria will be used to make this determination?

• if additional funding is not transferred to the OPC program, what

effect will this have on the program’s schedule?

opc pRoGRaM: coSt, deSiGn and acquiSition StRateGy

Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the Coast

Guard’s acquisition strategy for the offshore patrol cutter. Potential

oversight questions for Congress include the following:

• has the Coast Guard fully incorporated into the OPC acquisition

strategy lessons learned from the NSC and FRC programs? what, in

the Coast Guard’s view, are those lessons?

• As mentioned earlier, the Coast Guard’s RFP for the OPC program

establishes an affordability requirement of an average unit price of

$310 million per ship, or less, in then-year dollars for ships 4 through 9

in the program. how was the $310 million figure determined?

• what process is the Coast Guard using to evaluate trade-offs in

OPC performance features against this target construction price?

what performance features have been reduced or eliminated to

meet the target construction price?

• how much confidence does the Coast Guard have that the OPC

that emerges from the trade-off process could be built within the

Coast Guard’s target construction price?

• As mentioned earlier, the Coast Guard plans to evaluate the preliminary

and contract design (P&Cd) proposals and then award one of the

competitors a contract for detailed design development and ship

construction. what process does the Coast Guard plan to use in

evaluating the P&Cd efforts? what evaluation factors does the Coast

Guard plan to use, and how much weight will be assigned to each?

2012 testimony

Some of the above questions have been discussed over the past two

years at hearings on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY13 and FY14 budgets.

For example, at a March 6, 2012 hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed

FY13 budget before the homeland Security Committee of the house Ap-

propriations Committee, Admiral Robert J. Papp, then-commandant of the

Coast Guard, stated:

when i came in as commandant, i realized that this [the OPC pro-

gram] was the most expensive project that the Coast Guard has ever

taken on, honestly, as each [of the] 25 ships are a significant invest-

ment. And i also understood looking out at the horizon and seeing the

storm clouds that restrict the budgets coming up there we needed to

build a ship that was affordable.

we rescrubbed the requirements. we have battled ourselves

within the Coast Guard to make sure we're asking for just exactly what

we need, nothing more nothing less. And i have said three things to

my staff as we go on forward—affordable, affordable, affordable.

And now i’m very pleased to say that just last week that the

department [dhS] has reviewed—we passed a major milestone

with acquisition decision event number two which validated our

requirements for the type of cutter that we’re looking for and we

are ready to go towards the preliminary and contract design work

this next year.

Later in the hearing, the following exchange occurred:

ADERHOLT: And there has been a discussion as to the capability

of the OPC with objective design being more capable than the—than

the threshold capability. what is the current plan and capability of the

OPC and what capability thresholds are you considering?

PAPP: we—the driving one as i said is affordability, but having

said that—and i’m not—i’m not trying to be funny here, but the—the

sea-keeping capability being, you know, to operate in Sea State 5

is probably the most important to us right now because with fewer

national security cutters, at least fewer than the hindrance posed

that we have right now.

None of our medium endurance cutters—the 210-foot and

270-foot [medium-endurance] cutters that we have—can operate

in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and they do not have the

long legs to be able to send them out in the—on some of the longer

deployments that we do in the Pacific.

So it has to be able to launch the aircraft and boats in Sea State

5, you know, which is standard offset in the Bering Sea and also

have endurance that we’ll be able to keep it out there on station.

And i believe it was 45 days [of operation at sea] we’re looking for

without refueling.

2013 testimony

At an April 16, 2013 hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Trans-

portation subcommittee of the house Transportation and infrastructure

Committee on the FY14 budget for the Coast Guard and maritime trans-

portation, the following exchange occurred:

REPRESENTATIVE DON YOUNG: Admiral, i understand this

morning you told the corporation you're going to reconsider the

requirement for the offshore patrol cutter and reopen the design com-

petition; if that is correct, how long will this delay construction of much

of the needy cutters, i mean, how long was—what will happen?

ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP, COMNMANDANT OF THE COAST

GUARD: Sir, that wasn't quite an accurate report, i said that we

remain committed to the offshore patrol cutter and i was asked if

the ability to operate in Sea State-5 was hard and fast and i said

the highest requirement for the offshore patrol cutter is affordabil-

ity and as we evaluate the candidate vessels we may need to go

back and look at some of the requirements, i'm hopeful that we

don't have to.

i think we hammered off these requirements, in fact reduce some

of them when i came in as (inaudible) [sic: Commandant?] because

i want to make sure this ship is affordable and i've reported to this

subcommittee and other sub-committees that we are intent on making

this an affordable ship for the Coast Guard.

if we had opened it up to revise the see keeping capability there

probably would be a delay but i have no intent to open that up at

this point, we'd have to evaluate all the candidates that we have

and i’m hopeful that we'll find three candidates that look affordable

because we're going to need to operate this ship in Alaska and it’s

going to need to be able to launch and recover boats and aircraft

while operating the Bering Sea.

Similarly, at an April 16, 2013 hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed

FY14 budget before the homeland Security subcommittee of the

house Appropriations Committee, the following exchange occurred:


REPRESENTATIVE (UNKNOWN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ad-

miral, there’s been much discussion as to the capability of the OPC

specifically the requirement to operate at sea state 5. Admiral, why

is this requirement important? And if the current proposals come

in too high, will you decrease the sea state requirement in order to

meet the target price?

ADMIRAL PAPP: i would not like to do that because that would

probably delay the process, but we may have to recomplete the request

for proposals by changing that standard. The reason we need the stan-

dard is because we'll have only eight national security cutters and while

they are tremendously capable ships, they can't be in the same places

as 12 high-endurance cutters were that they are replacing.

we’ve been comfortable with 12 high-endurance cutters because

that gave us enough to operate in the Bering Sea and in the Gulf of

Alaska and the broad ranges of the—of the Pacific given the fact that

we’ll have fewer ships, in fact, we'll only have six national security

cutters out on the west Coast because we need to keep two on the

east Coast. we need to make sure that the offshore patrol cutters are

capable of operating in Alaska.

The 270-foot medium-endurance cutters that we have were origi-

nally intended to be able to operate everywhere. we've tried to operate

them in Alaska. You can't launch and recover boats and you can’t

launch and recover aircraft. They just aren't—cannot survive the sea

state up there. And that is our—that is our world of work. we have to be

able to launch boats for our boarding teams to go aboard fishing ves-

sels. we need to be able to launch helicopters for search and rescue.

So this requirement for sea state 5 has been our highest priority

on that ship. i’m sorry. it’s not been the highest priority. The highest

priority has been affordability. And when people have asked me what

are the three most important things about the offshore patrol cutter, i’ve

constantly said, affordability, affordability, affordability. So that will be

the driving factor on our down select for these three candidates and i'm

hopeful that all three will not only be affordable but be able to survive in

sea state 5—i’m sorry, not survive, but operate in sea state 5.

september 2012 GAo report

Regarding the Coast Guard’s requirements development process for the

OPC, a September 2012 GAO report states:

Coast Guard took Positive steps to improve requirements Development and Consider Affordability for the offshore Patrol Cutter

The Coast Guard took some steps to improve the requirements

development process for the offshore patrol cutter—the largest acquisi-

tion in dhS’s acquisitions portfolio and, according to officials, the first

acquisition in the deepwater surface fleet in which the Coast Guard

had complete control over the requirements development process. The

Coast Guard undertook studies and analysis that, in part, considered

the measurability and testability as required by guidance of the following

four key performance parameters: operating range, operational sustain-

ment and crew, speed and patrol endurance. For example, the range

requirement, which is the distance the cutter can travel between refuel-

ing, is clearly stated as a minimum acceptable requirement of 8,500

nautical miles at a constant speed of 14 knots to a maximum level of

9,500 nautical miles. Although cutters typically transit at various speeds

over the course of a patrol, the Coast Guard conducted analysis to de-

termine that the 14 knots speed at the minimum and maximum ranges

would provide enough days between refueling given the percentage

of time that the Coast Guard normally operates at certain speeds. By

developing a measurable range requirement, the Coast Guard helped

to promote a clear understanding of offshore patrol cutter performance

by potential shipbuilders and sought to balance the cost of additional

range with the value that it provides. Furthermore, officials at the inde-

pendent test authority—the Navy’s Commander Operational Test and

evaluation Force—told us that they have been actively involved through

the requirements development process and many of their questions

regarding testability have been resolved.

Two other key performance parameters—seakeeping and interop-

erability—are not as consistent with the Coast Guard’s guidelines of

measurability and testability as identified in the Major Systems Acquisi-

tion Manual. For example the seakeeping key performance parameter

described in the requirements document states that the offshore patrol

cutter shall be able to launch small boats and helicopters in 8.2- to 13.1-

foot waves. however, in the specifications document, which is used to

translate the requirements document into a level of detail from which

contractors can develop a reasonably priced proposal, the Coast Guard

states that the offshore patrol cutter shall be able to launch small boats

and helicopters in no more than 10.7 foot waves while transiting in a di-

rection that minimizes the pitch and roll of the vessel—an important de-

tail not specified in the requirements document. Further, the interoper-

ability key performance parameter states that the Coast Guard must be

able to exchange voice, video and data with the department of defense

and homeland Security agencies. however, it does not list specific

external partners or substantial details regarding the systems required

to exchange data and the types and size of these data that could be

examples of measurability and testability. This key performance param-

eter does not make this distinction between parts of the military that the

Coast Guard operates with most often, such as the U.S. Navy and the

intelligence community, and simply requires interoperability with all of

dod. Similarly, the interoperability key performance parameter does not

specify the dhS agencies for which the Coast Guard must exchange

data with, which makes this parameter difficult to test. Coast Guard’s in-

dependent testing officials agreed that this key performance parameter,

as currently written, is not testable in a meaningful way and stated that

there are ongoing efforts to improve the clarity of this requirement.

during the requirements development process for the offshore

patrol cutter, the Coast Guard also made some decisions with

respect to affordability. The following are examples where the Coast

Guard made capability trades that are expected to help lower the

program’s acquisition cost:

• Speed—after a series of analyses, the Coast Guard decided to

reduce the minimum acceptable speed from 25 to 22 knots thereby,

according to officials, potentially eliminating the need for two diesel

engines. According to a study completed by the Coast Guard, this

trade could reduce the acquisition cost of each cutter by $10 million.

• Stern Launch—the Coast Guard removed the stern launch ramp

capability from the offshore patrol cutter design. while this trade-

off may inhibit the launch and recovery of small boats in certain

conditions, such as substantial roll or side-to-side movement of

the vessel, Coast Guard officials stated that it will reduce the cost

of the cutter because a stern launch ramp requires the cutter to be

heavier, thus adding cost.

• C4iSR—the Coast Guard eliminated a minimum requirement for an

integrated C4iSR system and instead is requiring a system built with

interfaces to communicate between different software programs.


According to Coast Guard officials, the Coast Guard now plans to

use a Coast Guard-developed software system—Seawatch—rather

than the more costly lead systems integrator-developed software

system currently installed on the national security cutter, even though

this system does not provide the Coast Guard with the capability to

exchange near real-time battle data with dod assets.

The improvements and affordability decisions that the Coast Guard

has made in its requirements development process for the offshore

patrol cutter are even more evident when compared with the process for

generating requirements for its other major cutter—the national security

cutter. due to the nature of the lead systems integrator strategy that the

Coast Guard initially used to buy the national security cutter, integrated

Coast Guard Systems developed the requirements, designed and

began producing the national security cutter before the requirements

document was completed. The Coast Guard did not have an opera-

tional requirements document at the time the Coast Guard awarded

the construction contract for the first cutter in 2004, but the Coast

Guard documented the requirements in 2006. Further, even as the third

national security cutter was in production, Coast Guard was refining the

requirements and, in January 2010, made the decision to clarify some

key performance parameters such as anti-terrorism/force protection

and underwater mine detection because the existing requirements were

not testable. To further remedy the lack of clear requirements, Coast

Guard officials stated that they are currently developing a second ver-

sion of the requirements document that improves the specificity and

definition of many of the national security cutter’s requirements and will

be used as criteria during operational testing. To date, the Coast Guard

has not reduced the national security cutter’s capability for the purpose

of affordability as it has done for the offshore patrol cutter. however, ac-

cording to Coast Guard officials, there is a revised acquisition program

baseline under review which will reflect an ongoing effort to lower the

acquisition cost of the vessel.

Regarding the potential accuracy of the Coast Guard’s estimated pro-

curement cost for the OPC, given the known procurement cost of the

NSC, the September 2012 GAO report states:

major Cutter requirements and missions have similarities, but Costs Vary Greatly and Concerns remain about Affordability

The requirements and missions for the national security cutter and

the offshore patrol cutter programs have similarities, but the actual cost

for one National Security Cutter compared to the estimated cost of one

offshore patrol cutter varies greatly. even though the Coast Guard took

steps to consider affordability while developing the requirements for

the offshore patrol cutter, those affordability decisions do not explain

the magnitude in the difference between these two costs....

This comparison raises questions whether the offshore patrol cutter

could be a less expensive, viable substitute for the National Security Cut-

ter or whether there are assumptions built into the offshore patrol cutter

cost estimate, not related to requirements, which are driving the estimat-

ed costs down. with respect to the first, dhS, motivated by concerns

about the affordability of the national security cutter program, completed

a Cutter Study in August 2011 which included an analysis to examine the

feasibility of varying the combination of objective—or optimal perform-

ing—offshore patrol cutters and national security cutters in the program

of record. Through this analysis, dhS found that defense operations is a

key factor in determining the quantity of national security cutters needed

and that the Coast Guard only needs 3.5 national security cutters per

year to fully satisfy the planned requirement for defense-related missions.

dhS concluded that with six national security cutters the Coast Guard

can meet its goals for defense operations and mitigate some of the near-

term capacity loss of the five national security cutter fleet modeled in the

Cutter Study. dhS Program Analysis and evaluation officials stated that

this, in conjunction with other information, helped to inform the decision

to not include the last two National Security Cutter hulls—hulls 7 and 8—

in the fiscal years 2013-2017 capital investment plan. however, the dhS

Cutter Study also notes that the time line for the two acquisitions makes

a trade-off between the national security cutter and the offshore patrol

cutter difficult since the national security cutter program is in production

whereas the Offshore Patrol Cutter program is only in the design phase.

Similarly, we have reported that the Coast Guard may face an opera-

tional gap in its ability to perform missions using major cutters due to the

condition of the legacy fleet.

with respect to the second possibility that there are assumptions

built into the offshore patrol cutter cost estimate that are driving the

estimated costs down, the Coast Guard included three key assump-

tions in the offshore patrol cutter’s life cycle cost estimate, generally

not related to the cutter’s key requirements, which lower the esti-

mated cost in comparison to the actual cost of the national security

cutter. These three assumptions are:

• Learning Curve. The Coast Guard assumes that the shipyard(s)

will generally continue to reduce the labor hours required to build

the offshore patrol cutter through the production of all 25 vessels.

This may prove optimistic, particularly for later ships in the class,

because the amount of additional learning per vessel–or efficiencies

gained during production due to improving the manufacturing

process to build the ship in a way that requires fewer labor hours–

typically decreases over time in a shipbuilding program.

• Military versus Commercial Standards. The life cycle cost estimate

assumes that certain areas of the offshore patrol cutter’s construction

and material would reflect an average of 55 percent commercial

standards—or construction standards that are typically used for

military sealift ships that provide ocean transportation—and 45

percent military standards—or construction standards typically used

for Navy combat vessels. Any changes in this assumption could have

a significant effect on the cost estimate because military standards

require more sophisticated construction applications, particularly in

the areas of shock hardening and signature reduction, to prepare

a ship to survive battle. Such sensitivity could help to explain the

difference in costs between the Offshore Patrol Cutter program and

the National Security Cutter program and officials stated that the

latter program is being built to about 90 percent military standards.

• Production Schedule. The cost estimate reflects the Coast

Guard’s plan to switch from building one offshore patrol

cutter per year to building two offshore patrol cutters per year

beginning with the fourth and fifth vessel in the class. if the

Coast Guard cannot achieve or maintain this build rate due to

budget constraints, it may choose to stretch the schedule for the

program which in turn could increase costs.

Coast Guard program officials generally agreed that these three

variables are important to the cost of the offshore patrol cutter and are

key reasons why the Coast Guard expects one offshore patrol cutter


to cost less than half of one national security cutter. however, these of-

ficials recognized that the cost estimate for the offshore patrol cutter is

still uncertain since the cutter has yet to be designed—thus, the national

security cutter’s actual costs are more reliable. Coast Guard program

officials also added that the cost estimate for the offshore patrol cutter

is optimistic in that it assumes that the cutter will be built in accordance

with the current acquisition strategy and planned schedule. They noted

that any delays, design issues, or contract oversight problems—all of

which were experienced during the purchase of the national security

cutter—could increase the eventual price of the offshore patrol cutter.

nSc pRoGRaM: pReliMinaRy and opeRational teStinG

Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the results

of preliminary and operational testing of the NSC. A June 2014 GAO

report stated:

The Coast Guard has some knowledge about the performance of

the national security cutter, gained through operational deployments and

preliminary test events, and the field portion of operational testing was

recently conducted. The Coast Guard has been operating the vessel

since 2008, conducted a preliminary operational test in 2011, and has

received certifications to fully operate and maintain helicopters as well

as, according to officials, to use the cutter’s information technology sys-

tems on protected networks. in addition, Coast Guard program officials

stated that the national security cutter has demonstrated most of its key

performance parameters through a myriad of non-operational tests and

assessments, but a few key performance parameters, such as those

relating to the endurance of the vessel and its self-defense systems have

yet to be assessed. Verification of an asset’s ability prior to operational

testing may be beneficial, but, as we have previously found, only opera-

tional testing can ensure that an asset is ready to meet its missions.

Prior to testing, the Coast Guard encountered several issues that

require retrofits or design changes to meet mission needs based upon

operations, certifications, and non-operational testing. The total cost of

these changes is not yet known, but changes identified to date have to-

taled approximately $140 million, about one-third of the production cost

of a single national security cutter. The Coast Guard must pay for all of

these and future changes due to the contract terms under which the first

three ships were constructed and because the warranty on the remain-

ing ships does not protect the Coast Guard against defects costing more

than $1 million. Table 4 lists the retrofits and design changes costing

more than $1 million. The table does not include all changes because the

Coast Guard did not have data for some of the modifications. in addition

to the $140 million in identified changes, the Coast Guard has estab-

lished a program to supply the national security cutter with cutter small

boats for an additional $52.1 million because the small boats originally

planned to be delivered with the vessel did not meet requirements.

Additional changes may be needed because the Coast Guard has

not fully validated the capabilities of the national security cutter, though

seven vessels have been delivered or are in production. This situation

could result in the Coast Guard having to spend even more money in the

future, beyond the current changes, to ensure the national security cutter

fleet meets requirements and is logistically supportable. For example,

the cutter is experiencing problems operating in all intended environ-

ments. The national security cutter requirements document states that

the cutter will conduct assigned missions in a full spectrum of climate

and maritime weather conditions, to include tropical, dry, temperate, and

arctic climates. This document adds that although the national security

cutter will operate in regions in which ice is frequently encountered, it will

not have an ice-breaking mission. however, Coast Guard engineering

reports from december 2012 discuss problems operating in both warm

and cold climates. These reports discuss several warm weather prob-

lems, including cooling system failures, excessive condensation forming

“considerable” puddles on the deck of the ship, and limited redundancy

in its air conditioning system—which, among other things, prevents the

use of information technology systems when the air conditioning system

needs to be serviced or repaired. in addition, according to operational re-

ports, during a recent deployment, the commanding officer of a national

security cutter had to impose speed restrictions on the vessel because

of engine overheating when the seawater temperature was greater than

77 degrees. Cold climate issues include the national security cutter not

having heaters to keep oil and other fluids warm during operations in

cold climates, such as the arctic. Further, Coast Guard operators state

that operating near ice must be done with extreme caution since the ice

can move quickly and can “spell disaster” if the national security cutter

comes in contact with it. Senior Coast Guard officials acknowledged

that there are issues to address and stated that the Coast Guard has not

yet determined what, if any, fixes are necessary and that it depends on

where the cutter ultimately operates ...

The Coast Guard has also encountered several issues with the

C4iSR [command and control, communications, computers, intel-

ligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] system that have required

significant and costly changes, including replacing the original system.

The original C4iSR system, which cost $413 million to develop and

field, was designed and built as a tightly integrated system bundling

large commercial and government software programs with contractor-

proprietary software, which made it difficult and costly to main-

tain—primarily due to its unique characteristics and large size. For

example, according to program officials, the Coast Guard relied on the

contractor to conduct even basic system updates, which required new

software code because of how the system was integrated.

As a result, in 2010, the Coast Guard began replacing the C4iSR

software in two steps. First, to address immediate issues, the Coast

Guard separated the weapons and command and control/naviga-

tion portions of the software but maintained the ability to share data

between these portions of the system. Second, the Coast Guard has

developed and is now installing a new software package that shares

data between proven systems, which makes the system easier to

maintain. For example, the communication/navigation system is largely

based upon the Navy’s Global Command and Control System, a long-

standing system maintained by dod. in addition, the combat system is

adapted from the Navy’s Aegis system. while the previous version of

the C4iSR system also contained this software, the Coast Guard’s new

configuration keeps these systems independent to improve perfor-

mance and maintenance, while still allowing data to be passed back

and forth between the software packages within the system.

The Coast Guard has spent nearly $2 million to develop this new

system, called Seawatch, which will have to be further developed for

each asset on which it is fielded. For example, it will cost an additional

$88.5 million in acquisition funds to purchase the software and hard-

ware needed to field the system on the national security cutters.

fRc pRoGRaM: opeRational teStinG

Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the results

of operational testing of the FRC. A June 2014 report on Coast Guard

acquisition programs states that:


dhS approved the fast response cutter and [the] hC-144

[maritime patrol aircraft] for full-rate production in September 2013

and October 2012, respectively. however, neither asset met all key

requirements during initial operational testing. The fast response

cutter partially met one of six key requirements while the hC-144 met

or partially met four of seven. The fast response cutter was found

to be operationally effective (with the exception of its cutter boat)

though not operationally suitable, and the hC-144 was found to be

operationally effective and suitable. As we have previously found

for department of defense (dod) programs, continuing with full-rate

production before ensuring that assets meet key requirements risks

replicating problems in each new asset until such problems are cor-

rected. dhS officials stated that they approved both assets for full-

rate production because the programs had plans in place to address

most major issues identified during testing, such as supplying the fast

response cutter with a small boat developed for the national security

cutter. however, dhS and Coast Guard acquisition guidance are not

clear regarding when the minimum performance standards should

be met, such as prior to entering full-rate production. For example,

dhS and Coast Guard guidance provide that the Coast Guard should

determine if the capability meets the established minimum perfor-

mance standards, but do not specify when this determination should

be made. By comparison, dod acquisition guidance requires that

specific minimum performance standards, which are defined at the

time assets are approved for system development, be met prior to

entering full-rate production.

in addition, dhS and Coast Guard acquisition guidance do not

clearly specify how agency officials determine when a breach oc-

curs and what triggers the need for a program manager to submit

a performance breach memo. According to dhS and Coast Guard

acquisition guidance, when programs fail to meet key performance

parameters, program managers are required to file breach memo-

randums stating that the program did not demonstrate the required

capability. even though threshold key performance parameters on

the hC-144 and fast response cutter were not met during operational

testing, the Coast Guard did not report that a breach had occurred.

Acquisition guidance is unclear as to whether or not failing to meet

key requirements during operational testing constitutes a breach.

According to Coast Guard officials, if the Coast Guard plans to re-test

or re-design a deficiency in order to meet the threshold value, then a

breach has not yet occurred. For example, the fast response cutter

small boat did not meet the threshold seakeeping requirement, but a

new cutter small boat has since been tested on its own and fielded

to all fast response cutters. The Coast Guard plans to test this new

cutter small boat with the fast response cutter during follow on test-

ing. Program officials are confident that the cutter’s new small boat

meets this requirement and that—therefore—a breach has not oc-

curred. dhS acquisition guidance specifies the performance criteria

used to determine whether or not a breach has occurred, but does

not identify a triggering event for determining when a breach occurs.

dhS’s Program Accountability and Risk Management officials stated

that a program breach is not necessarily related to its performance

during initial operational testing, which they state is a snapshot of

a single asset’s performance during a defined test period. without

clear acquisition guidance, it is difficult to determine when or by what

measure an asset has breached the threshold values of its key perfor-

mance parameters and—therefore—when to notify dhS and certain

congressional committees ...

COTF [Commander, Operational Test and evaluation Force]

determined in July 2013 that the fast response cutter, without the

cutter’s small boat, is operationally effective— meaning that testers

determined that the asset enables mission success. The cutter’s

small boat was determined to not be seaworthy in minimally ac-

ceptable sea conditions and therefore could not support the cutter’s

mission set. Further, COTF determined that the fast response cutter

is not operationally suitable because a key engine part failed, which

lowered the amount of time the ship was available for missions to an

unacceptable level. despite the mixed test results, COTF and dhS

testers as well as Coast Guard program officials all agree that the fast

response cutter is a capable vessel. Ultimately, COTF recommended

that the Coast Guard proceed to field the vessel, but also recom-

mended that the issues with the cutter’s small boat be remedied

expeditiously and that follow-on operational testing be conducted

once corrective actions have been implemented. Since the test,

the Coast Guard has delivered a new small boat that meets the fast

response cutter’s needs and determined that the engine part failure

was an isolated event.

The Navy also examined the extent to which the fast response

cutter meets key requirements. The test demonstrated that it partially

met only one out of its six key requirements; the other five require-

ments did not meet minimum performance levels or were not tested.

Table 2 displays each key performance parameter for the fast re-

sponse cutter, the test results, and a discussion of these results.

The Coast Guard proactively sought to test the fast response cut-

ter early in the acquisition process, but early testing limited the ability

to fully examine the vessel. For example, the Coast Guard did not

test the top speed of the vessel due to a fuel oil leak. As noted above,

dhS approved the fast response cutter for full-rate production, but

directed the program to develop corrections for the issues identified

during operational testing and to verify those corrections through

follow-on operational testing by the end of FY15.

legislative activity for fy16

summAry oF APProPriAtions ACtion on Fy16 ACQuisition FunDinG reQuest

Table 7 summarizes appropriations action on the Coast Guard’s

request for FY16 acquisition funding for the NSC, OPC and FRC

programs.

Table 7. Summary of Appropriations Action on FY2016 Acquisi-tion Funding Request (Figures in millions of dollars, rounded to nearest tenth)

Request Request House

Appropriations Committee

Senate Appropriations

Committee Final

NSC program

91.4

OPC program

18.5

FRC program

340

TOTAL 449.9


ConTraCT awards Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

adGc Bonita pipeline Jv, San-

tee, Calif., (N62473-15-d-2419); CJw

Construction inc., Santa Ana, Calif.,

(N62473-15-d-2420); kear Civil Corp.,

Phoenix, Ariz., (N62473-15-d-2421); Mar-

tin Brothers Construction, Sacramento,

Calif., (N62473-15-d-2422); and Orion

Construction Corp., Vista, Calif., (N62473-

15-d-2423), are each being awarded a

firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indef-

inite-quantity multiple award construc-

tion contract for new construction, repair

and renovation, of wet utilities projects

at various locations within the Naval Fa-

cilities engineering Command (NAVFAC)

Southwest area of responsibility (AOR).

The maximum dollar value including the

base period and four option years for all

five contracts combined is $99,000,000.

The work to be performed provided for

new construction, repair and renovation,

primarily by design-build or secondarily by

design-bid-build, of wet utilities projects.

Types of projects may include, but are

not limited to: water, steam, wastewater,

storm sewer, pumping stations, treat-

ment plants, storage tanks and related

work. All structures (including buildings)

that are integral parts of the water, steam

and wastewater networks are included.

work on these contracts will be performed

within the NAVFAC Southwest AOR

including, but not limited to, California (90

percent), Arizona (6 percent), Nevada (1

percent), Colorado (1 percent), Utah (1

percent), and New Mexico (1 percent). The

terms of the contracts are not to exceed

60 months, with an expected completion

date of March 2020. Fiscal 2015 operation

and maintenance (Navy) contract funds

in the amount of $25,000 are obligated

on this award and will expire at the end of

the current fiscal year. This contract was

competitively procured as a set-aside for

small businesses via the Federal Business

Opportunities website with 11 propos-

als received. These five contractors may

compete for task orders under the terms

and conditions of the awarded contracts.

No task orders are being issued at this

time. The Naval Facilities engineering

Command, Southwest, San diego, Calif.,

is the contracting activity.

a&d Gc inc., Santee, Calif.,

(N62473-15-d-2403); Bristol General

Contractors LLC, Anchorage, Alaska,

(N62473-15-d-2404); Cox Construction

Co., Vista, Calif., (N62473-15-d-2405);

i.e.-Pacific inc., escondido, Calif.,

(N62473-15-d-2406); insight Pacific LLC,

Anaheim, Calif., (N62473-15-d-2407);

and Penick Nordic JV iV, La Mesa, Calif.,

(N62473-15-d-2418), are each being

awarded a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-

delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award

construction contract for new con-

struction and repair of general building

construction projects at various locations

within the Naval Facilities engineering

Command (NAVFAC) Southwest area of

responsibility (AOR). The maximum dollar

value including the base period and four

option years for all six contracts com-

bined is $99,000,000. The work to be per-

formed provides for new construction and

repair within the North American industry

Classification System Code 236220,

primarily by design-build or secondarily

by design-bid-build, of general build-

ing construction. Types of projects may

include, but are not limited to: administra-

tion buildings, school buildings, hospitals,

auditoriums, fire stations, gymnasiums,

office buildings, hangars, laboratories and

parking structures. work on these con-

tracts will be performed within the NAV-

FAC Southwest AOR including, but not

limited to, California (90 percent), Arizona

(6 percent), Nevada (1 percent), Colorado

(1 percent), Utah (1 percent), and New

Mexico (1 percent). The terms of the

contracts are not to exceed 60 months,

with an expected completion date of

March 2020. Fiscal 2015 operation and

maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the

amount of $30,000 are being obligated

on this award and will expire at the end of

the current fiscal year. This contract was

competitively procured as a set-aside for

small businesses via the Federal Business

Opportunities website, with 42 propos-

als received. These six contractors may

compete for task orders under the terms

and conditions of the awarded contracts.

No task orders are being issued at this

time. The Naval Facilities engineering

Command, Southwest, San diego, Calif.,

is the contracting activity.

Rolls-Royce corp., indianapolis,

ind., is being awarded a $93,553,851

modification to a previously awarded

indefinite-delivery, requirements contract

(N00019-14-d-0016) to exercise an op-

tion to provide intermediate, depot-level

maintenance and related logistics support

for approximately 223 in-service T-45

F405-RR-401 Adour engines and Mkii gas

turbine starters. work will be performed at

the Naval Air Station (NAS) Meridian, Miss.,

(47 percent); NAS kingsville, Texas (46

percent); NAS Pensacola, Fla., (6 percent);

and NAS Patuxent River, Md., (1 percent),

and is expected to be completed in March

2016. No funds will be obligated at time of

award; funds will be obligated on individual

delivery orders as they are issued. The Na-

val Air Systems Command, Patuxent River,

Md., is the contracting activity.

lockheed Martin Mission Systems

and training, Moorestown, N.J., is being

awarded a $51,642,334 modification to

previously awarded contract (N00024-

14-C-5106) for fiscal 2015 Aegis Modern-

ization (AMOd) production requirements.

This contract modification is for the

production of Multi-Mission Signal Pro-

cessor equipment sets; Ballistic Missile

defense 4.0.2 equipment; Aegis weapon

System AMOd Upgrade equipment; and

associated spares, special tooling, and

test equipment, to support the fielding of

AMOd capabilities to the fleet. work will

be performed in Moorestown, N.J., (54

percent); Clearwater, Fla., (45 percent);

and Owego, N.Y., (1 percent), and is

expected to be completed by July 2017.

Fiscal 2015 other procurement (Navy) and

fiscal 2015 defense-wide procurement

funding in the amount of $51,642,334 will

be obligated at the time of award and will

not expire at the end of the current fiscal

year. The Naval Sea Systems Command,

washington, d.C., is the contracting

activity.

lockheed Martin corp., Baltimore,

Md., is being awarded a $19,026,599

27 MArCh


task order under previously awarded ba-

sic ordering agreement (BOA) (N00024-

12-G-4329) for littoral combat ship fleet

maintenance sustainment support. The

BOA was initially awarded to Lockheed

Martin for the design and construction of

the Freedom-class littoral combat ship.

Lockheed Martin currently adminis-

ters and performs fleet maintenance

requirements through both the use of

its resources and the original equipment

manufacturer, and the use of nationwide

subcontractors that are capable of work-

ing on systems and subsystems. work

will be performed in San diego, Calif.,

and is expected to be completed by

September 2015. Fiscal 2015 operations

and maintenance (Navy) contract funds

in the amount of $19,026,599 will be

obligated at time of award and will expire

at the end of the current fiscal year. The

Southwest Regional Maintenance Center,

San diego, Calif., is the ordering/con-

tracting activity.

exelis inc., information Sys-

tems division, herndon, Va., is being

awarded an $18,240,767 modification to


11-d-0002) to exercise option four for

the continued procurement of post-pro-

duction maintenance support of Navy

crew fixed site systems. This action is

to fulfill a requirement for equipment,

maintenance and support for the Joint

Service explosive Ordnance disposal

Counter Radio Controlled improvised

explosive device electronic warfare

(JSeOd CRew) program. The JSeOd

CRew program provides all military ex-

plosive ordnance disposal services with

a new electronic warfare capability to

counter the threat from improvised ex-

plosive devices. work will be performed

in Boalsburg, Pa., and is expected to

be completed by March 2016. No funds

are being obligated at the time of award.

No contract funds will expire at the end

of the current fiscal year. The Naval

Surface warfare Center indian head

explosive Ordnance disposal Technol-

ogy division, indian head, Md., is the

contracting activity.

Raytheon co., integrated defense

Systems, Sudbury, Mass., is being

awarded a $16,663,927 firm-fixed-price

delivery order under previously awarded

basic ordering agreement (N00024-

14-G-5105) for fiscal 2015 Aegis mod-

ernization production requirements. This

delivery order covers the production of

Multi-Mission Signal Processor Ordnance

Alteration (ORdALT) kits, kill assessment

system ORdALT kits and spares, radio

frequency coherent combiner kits, high

voltage power supply sidewall capaci-

tors, traveling waves tube monitoring

circuits, and stabilized master oscillator

ORdALT kits, as well as test and installa-

tion efforts, in support of the Aegis Mod-

ernization (AMOd) program. The AMOd

program fields combat system upgrades

that will enhance the anti-air warfare

and Ballistic Missile defense capabilities

of Aegis-equipped Arleigh Burke-class

destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruis-

ers. This delivery order includes options

which, if exercised, would bring the

cumulative value of this delivery order

to $24,821,438. work will be performed

in Norfolk, Va., (42 percent); Andover,

Mass., (38 percent); Burlington, Mass.,

(12 percent); and Sudbury, Mass., (8 per-

cent), and is expected to be completed

by May 2017. Fiscal 2015 other procure-

ment (Navy); fiscal 2015 defense-wide

procurement and fiscal 2015 research,

development, test and evaluation funding


obligated at the time of award and will

not expire at the end of the current fiscal

year. The Naval Sea Systems Command,


activity.

Raytheon co., integrated defense

Systems, San diego, Calif., is being



14-C-5128) to exercise an option for

continuing platform systems engineering

agent support of the Ship Self defense

System (SSdS) Mk 2 development for

aircraft carrier/amphibious Moderniza-

tion Advanced Capability Build (ACB)

12/Technical insertion 12 (ACB12/Ti12).

work to be performed includes the

achievement of key milestones for non-

recurring platform systems engineering

to further mature the ACB 12, a tactical

product. ACB 12 is slated for deploy-

ment, initially on CVN 78, CVN 72, and

Lhd 2, then to be extended to CVN 73

and other SSdS Mk 2 enabled platforms.

work will be performed in San diego,

Calif., (90 percent); Tewksbury, Mass.,

(2.5 percent); Portsmouth, R.i. (2.5 per-

cent); St. Petersburg, Fla., (2.5 percent);

and Tucson, Ariz., (2.5 percent); and is

expected to be completed by december

2015. Fiscal 2011 shipbuilding and con-

version (Navy) and fiscal 2015 research,

development, test and evaluation funding


obligated at time of award. Funds in the

amount of $977,942 will expire at the end

of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea

Systems Command, washington, d.C., is

the contracting activity.

lockheed Martin corp., Mis-

sion Systems and Training, Manassas,

Va., is being awarded not-to-exceed

$9,078,625 for delivery order 1195 under

previously awarded basic ordering agree-

ment (N00104-10-G-A109) for the repair

of the AN/UYQ-70 advanced display

system and the Navy’s current generation

of commercial-off-the-shelf display and

processor systems for tactical and com-

mand, control, communication, computer

intelligence (C41) applications for target

acquisition and tracking, weapons con-

trol, theater air defense, anti-submarine

warfare, battle group communication,

and airborne surveillance and control.

work will be performed at Virginia Beach,

Va., (10 percent), and various Lockheed

Martin repair units located throughout the

U.S. (90 percent), and work is expected

to be completed by April 2016. Fiscal

2015 working capital funds (Navy) in the

amount of $4,448,526 will be obligated

at the time of award and these funds will

not expire before the end of the current

fiscal year. One company was solicited

for the non-competitive requirement and

one offer was received in response to this

solicitation in accordance with 10 U.S.C.

ConTraCT awards


Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

2304(c)(1). The Naval Supply Systems

Command weapon Systems Support,

Mechanicsburg, Pa., is the contracting

activity (N00104-10-G-A-109).

Bae Systems, honolulu, hawaii, is

being awarded an $8,433,456 modifi-

cation to previously awarded contract

(N00024-14-C-4412) to support the

repair and alteration of USS O’kane

(ddG 77). USS O’kane is undergoing a

scheduled drydocking selected repair

availability which is the opportunity in

the ship's life cycle to primarily conduct

repair and alteration to systems and

hull not available when the ship is

waterborne. work is being performed

in honolulu, hawaii, and is expected

to complete by November 2015. Fis-

cal 2015 operations and maintenance

(Navy) contract funds in the amount of

$8,433,456 will be obligated at time of

award and will expire at the end of the

current fiscal year. The Pearl harbor

Naval Shipyard and intermediate Main-

tenance Facility, Pearl harbor, hawaii, is


iGov technologies inc., Reston,

Va., is being awarded a $7,400,323 firm-

fixed-price task order under a previously

awarded NASA contract (NNG07dA27B)

for Marine Corps enterprise Network

(MCeN) Secret internet Protocol Router

(SiPR) (MCeN-S) enterprise Service

Stacks (eSS). The scope of this effort in-

cludes procuring and delivery of a tech-

nical solution, (i.e., hardware, software,

and infrastructure), support services,

user training, and lifecycle sustainment

support to replace MCeN SiPR eSS.

This task order includes options which,

if exercised would bring the cumulative

value of this order to $9,341,310. work

will be performed at Marine Corps Base

Quantico, Quantico, Va., (44 percent);

Camp Pendleton, Calif., (14 percent);

Camp Lejeune, N.C., (7 percent); Camp

Foster, Okinawa, Japan (7 percent);

enterprise iT Center, kansas City, Mo.,

(7 percent); Panzerkaserne-Barracks,

Boblingen, Germany (7 percent); Marine

Corps Base kaneohe Bay, kaneohe Bay,

hawaii (7 percent); and Marine Forces

Reserve, New Orleans, La., (7 percent).

work is expected to be completed on

March 31, 2020. Fiscal 2013 procure-

ment (Marine Corps) funds in the


at the time of award and will expire at

the end of the current fiscal year. This

task order was competitively procured

through the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration Solutions for

enterprise-wide Procurement Contract

holders; with four offers received. Ma-

rine Corps System Command, Quantico,

Va., is the contracting activity (M67854-

15-F-4444).

Raytheon Missile Systems,

Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a

$26,000,000 ceiling-priced undefinitized

contract action for critical missile subas-

semblies and supporting components

for 300 Lot 15 AiM-9X missiles for the

Navy and Air Force. work will be per-

formed in keyser, w.Va., (42.3 percent);

Santa Clarita, Calif., (34.6 percent);

and hillsboro, Ore., (23.1 percent),

and is expected to be completed in

december 2017. Fiscal 2015 missile

procurement (Air Force) and weapons

procurement (Navy) funds in the amount

of $11,404,620 are being obligated on

this award, none of which will expire at


contract was not competitively procured

pursuant to 10 U.S.C 2304(c)(1). This

contract combines purchases for the Air

Force ($16,755,556; 64.44 percent) and

Navy $9,244,444; 35.56 percent). The

Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent

River, Md., is the contracting activity.

Bae Systems San diego Ship Re-

pair, San diego, Calif., is being awarded

a $16,771,463 modification to previously

awarded cost-plus-award-fee/incentive-

fee contract (N00024-10-C-4407) for

USS San Diego (LPd 22) fiscal 2015

selected restricted availability. A select

restricted availability includes the

planning and execution of depot-level

maintenance, alterations and modifica-

tions that will update and improve the

ship's military and technical capabili-

ties. This modification includes options

which, if exercised, would bring the

cumulative value to $18,796,615. work

will be performed in San diego, Calif.,


November 2015. Fiscal 2015 operations

and maintenance (Navy) funding in the


at time of award and will expire at the

end of the current fiscal year. The South-

west Regional Maintenance Center, San

diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.

Raytheon co., el Segundo, Calif.,

is being awarded $16,380,000 for firm-

fixed-price delivery order 0062 against

a previously issued basic ordering

agreement (N00019-10-G-0006) for

the procurement of six AN/APG-79

Active electronically Scanned Array

radar systems in support of the F/A-18

e/F aircraft. work will be performed in

Forest, Miss., (50 percent); Andover,

Mass., (30 percent); and el Segundo,

Calif., (20 percent), and is expected to

be completed in March 2017. Fiscal

2013 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds

in the amount of $16,380,000 are being

obligated on this award, all of which will

expire at the end of the current fiscal

year. The Naval Air Systems Command,

Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting

activity.

dZSp 21 llc, Marlton, N.J., is be-

ing awarded $13,861,642 for modifica-

tion P00066 under a previously awarded

cost-plus-award-fee contract (N40192-

13-C-3001) to exercise an option for

base operations support services at

Joint Region Marianas. The work to be

performed provides for general manage-

ment and administration services; port

operations; ordnance; supply material

management; facility management;

26 MArCh


northrop Grumman Systems

corp., St. Augustine, Fla., is being

awarded a $42,096,911 modification

to a previously awarded indefinite-

delivery/indefinite-quantity contract

(N00019-14-d-0022) to provide depot-

level maintenance and services in sup-

port of 44 F-5N/F aircraft for the Navy

and Marine Corps Reserves. Services

to be provided include aircraft inspec-

tions, repairs, overhauls, emergency re-

pairs, modification, engineering support

and procurement of structural com-

ponents required to sustain continued

safe, reliable and available operations.

work will be performed in St. Augus-

tine, Fla., (96 percent); Springville, Utah

(3 percent); and emmen, Switzerland (1

percent), and is expected to be com-

pleted in March 2016. Fiscal 2015 oper-

ations and maintenance (Navy Reserve)

and 2013 National Guard and Reserve

equipment funds in the amount of

$2,499,866 are being obligated at time

of award, all of which will expire at the

end of the current fiscal year. The Naval

Air Systems Command, Patuxent River,

Md., is the contracting activity.

tactical engineering & analy-

sis inc., San diego, Calif., is being

awarded a potential $19,651,998

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity,

cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide

tactical data link systems support to

include research; systems engineering;

software engineering; configuration

management; human factors engineer-

ing for software design; system-level

hardware and software integration;

test analysis and reporting; and quality

assurance support. This is one of three

multiple award contracts. each award-

ee will have the opportunity to compete

for task orders during the ordering pe-

riod. This three-year contract includes

one two-year option period, which, if

exercised, would bring the potential

value of this contract to $33,275,314.

work will be performed San diego,

Calif., and work is expected to be

completed March 24, 2018. No funding

will be obligated at the time of award.

Funding will be obligated via task or-

ders are issued. Contract funds will not


year. The types of funding to be obli-

gated include research, development,

test and evaluation, foreign military

sales, and operations and maintenance

(Navy). This contract was competitively

procured via full and open solicitation

via publication on the Federal Business

Opportunities website and the Space

and Naval warfare Systems Command

e-Commerce Central website, with four

proposals received and three were se-

lected for award. The Space and Naval

warfare Systems Center Pacific, San

diego, Calif., is the contracting activity

(N66001-15-d-0073).

computer Sciences corp., San

diego, Calif., is being awarded a po-

tential $17,844,438 indefinite-delivery/

indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee

multiple award contract to provide







test analysis and reporting; and quality

assurance support. This is one of three



for task orders during the ordering pe-

riod. This three-year contract includes

one two-year option period, which, if

exercised, would bring the potential


work will be performed in San diego,

Calif., and work is expected to be

completed March 24, 2018. No funding

will be obligated at the time of award.

Funding will be obligated via task or-

ders are issued. Contract funds will not


year. The types of funding to be obli-

gated include research, development,

test and evaluation, foreign military

sales, and operations and maintenance











(N66001-15-d-0072).

odyssey Systems consulting

Group, wakefield, Mass., is being



cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide







25MArCh

facility investment; electrical; waste-

water; steam; water; base support

vehicles and equipment; and environ-

mental. After award of this option, the

total cumulative contract value will be

$869,433,858. work will be performed at

various installations in the U.S. territory

of Guam, and work under this option

period is expected to be completed

June 2015. Fiscal 2015 working capital

funds (Navy, Transportation, defense);

fiscal 2015 operation and maintenance

(Navy, Air Force, Army, Air National

Guard, and defense); fiscal 2015 family

housing operation and maintenance

(Navy); fiscal 2015 defense health

Program funds; and fiscal 2015 defense

Commissary Agency account contract

funds in the amount of $13,296,230 are

being obligated on this award and will


year. The Naval Facilities engineering

Command, Marianas, Guam, is the

contracting activity.

ConTraCT awards


test analysis and reporting; and qual-

ity assurance support. This is one of

three multiple award contracts. each

awardee will have the opportunity

to compete for task orders during

the ordering period. This three-year

contract includes one two-year option

period, which, if exercised, would bring

the potential value of this contract to

$27,128,654. work will be performed

in wakefield, Mass., (20 percent), and

San diego, Calif., (80 percent), and

work is expected to be completed

March 24, 2018. No funding will be

obligated at the time of award. Funding

will be obligated via task orders are

issued. Contract funds will not expire

at the end of the current fiscal year.

The types of funding to be obligated

include research, development, test

and evaluation, foreign military sales,

and operations and maintenance











(N66001-15-d-0074).

Beechcraft corp., wichita, kan.,

is being awarded an $11,703,143 firm-

fixed-price contract for the procure-

ment of one UC-12w aircraft for the

Navy, including engineering technical

services. work will be performed in

wichita, kan., and is expected to be

completed in July 2016. Fiscal 2015

aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in

the amount of $11,703,143 are being

obligated on this award, none of which

will expire at the end of the current

fiscal year. This contract was not

competitively procured pursuant to 10

U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Sys-

tems Command, Patuxent River, Md.,

is the contracting activity (N00019-

15-C-2017).

Wartsila defense industries,

Chesapeake, Va., is being awarded

$7,602,804 for firm-fixed-price task

order 0003 under a previously awarded

contract (N00025-13-d-0001) for water

jet alterations and repairs for the im-

proved Navy Lighterage System (iNLS).

The work to be performed provides

for water jet condition assessments,

alterations, repairs, and inventory parts

management for the iNLS. work will

be performed in Jacksonville, Fla., (86

percent), Norfolk, Va., (13 percent), and

San diego, Calif., (1 percent), and is

expected to be completed by March

2016. Fiscal 2014 and fiscal 2015 other

procurement (Navy) and fiscal 2015

operation and maintenance (Navy) con-

tract funds in the amount of $7,602,804

are being obligated on this award; of

which $35,000 will expire at the end of

the current fiscal year. One proposal

was received for this task order. The

Naval Facilities engineering Command,


activity.


Rolls Royce corp., indianapolis,

ind., is being awarded a $59,513,856

indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity

contract for integrated logistics sup-

port services for kC-130J aircraft

propulsion systems (installed and

spares), including supplies. work will

be performed in indianapolis, ind.

(41 percent); winnipeg, Canada (21

percent); Oakland, Calif., (16 percent);

Sterling, Va., (14 percent); Al Mubarak,

kuwait (2.1 percent); iwakuni, Japan (2

percent); Cherry Point, N.C., (1.3 per-

cent); Miramar, Calif., (1.3 percent); and

Fort worth, Texas (1.3 percent), and is

expected to be completed in Febru-

ary 2016. Fiscal 2015 operations and

maintenance (Navy and Navy Reserve)

and foreign military sales funds in the

amount of $21,216,339 will be obli-

gated at time of award, $16,252,549 of

which will expire at the end of the cur-

rent fiscal year. This contract was not

competitively procured pursuant to the

FAR 6.302-1. This contract combines

purchases for the Navy ($54,981,135;

92.38 percent) and the government of

kuwait ($4,532,721; 7.62 percent). The

Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent

River, Md., is the contracting activity

(N00019-15-C-0009).

Battelle Memorial institute,

Columbus, Ohio, is being awarded a

$15,000,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee modi-

fication under a previously awarded

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity

contract (N62583-11-d-0515) to

exercise option period four for envi-

ronmental services and technologies

support at Naval Facilities engineer-

ing and expeditionary warfare Center,

Port hueneme, Calif. The work to be

performed provides for environmental

services and technology support to

satisfy overall operational objectives

of the Navy and Marine Corps

installations and to other federal

organizations worldwide. Support

services include technology implemen-

tation, technical consultation, research

and development, testing and evalu-

ation, administrative support, range

cleanup, sustainability and manage-

ment, site operation and maintenance,

climate change initiatives, green and

sustainable remediation practices de-

velopment, leadership in environmental

and energy design support, and training.

The total contract amount after exercise

of this option will be $75,000,000. No

task orders are being issued at this time.

work will be performed at various instal-

lations worldwide; and work for this

option is expected to be completed in

March 2016. No funds will be obligated

at time of award; funds will be obligated

on individual task orders as they are

issued. The Naval Facilities engineer-

ing and expeditionary warfare Center,

Port hueneme, Calif., is the contracting

activity.

24 MArCh


ConTraCT awards

Bae Systems controls inc., Fort

wayne, ind., has been awarded a

maximum $383,033,935 firm-fixed-

price, requirements-type contract for

support of multiple weapon systems

platforms. estimated value cited is

based on demand quantities for the

life of the contract. This contract

was a sole-source acquisition. This

is a five-year base contract with one

five-year option period. Location of

performance is indiana, with a March

19, 2020, performance completion

date. Using military services are

Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps

and defense Logistics Agency. Type

of appropriation is fiscal year 2015

defense working capital funds. The

contracting activity is the defense

Logistics Agency Aviation, Richmond,

Va., (SPe4AX-15-d-9414).

Raytheon Missile Systems,

Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a

$109,583,490 cost-only contract for

procurement of long lead material

in support of fiscal 2015 Standard

Missile-6 (SM-6) and Standard Mis-

sile-2 (SM-2) full rate production

requirements and spares. work will

be performed in Camden, Ark., (64.5

percent); Andover, Mass., (17.2 per-

cent); San Jose, Calif., (6.5 percent);

Middletown, Conn., (3.3 percent);

warrington, Pa., (2.2 percent); San

diego, Calif., (2.1 percent); San

Carlos, Calif., (1.1 percent); Joplin,

Mo., (0.9 percent); Reisterstown, Md.,

(0.8 percent); Milwaukie, Ore., (0.7

percent); Tucson, Ariz., (0.4 percent);

Tampa, Fla., (0.2 percent); and Mesa,

Ariz., (0.1 percent), and is expected to

be completed by March 2018. Fiscal

2015 weapons procurement (Navy)

and fiscal 2015 operations and mainte-

nance (Navy) funding in the amount of

$18,980,806 will be obligated at time

of award and funds in the amount of

$3,556,495 will expire at the end of the

current fiscal year. This contract was

not competitively procured in accor-

dance with 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(1), as

implemented in FAR 6.302-1 - the

supplies or services required are avail-

able from only one responsible source

and no other type of supplies or ser-

vices will satisfy agency requirements.

The Naval Sea Systems Command,

washington Navy Yard, washing-

ton, d.C., is the contracting activity

(N00024-15-C-5408).

lafayette Group inc., Vienna,

Va., is being awarded a potential

$92,739,725 indefinite-delivery/indefi-

nite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee mul-

tiple award contract to provide techni-

cal assistance as well as research and

development for the advancement

of interoperable communications to

federal, state, local, tribal and non-

governmental entities, and to support

other command, control, communica-

tions, computers and intelligence ef-

forts. This is one of two multiple award

contracts. each awardee will have the

opportunity to compete for task orders

during the ordering period. This five-

year contract includes no options peri-

ods. work will be performed in Vienna,

Va., (50 percent), and at government

facilities throughout the United States

and its territories (50 percent). work is

expected to be completed March 22,

2019. No funds will be obligated at the

time of award. Funding will be obligat-

ed via task orders as they are issued.

The types of funding to be obligated

include operation and maintenance

(Navy) and interagency agreements

through federal agencies such as the

department of homeland Security

and the department of Commerce.

Contract funds will not expire at the

end of the current fiscal year. This

contract was competitively procured

via Request for Proposal N66001-

13-R-0006 published on the Federal

Business Opportunities website, and

the Space and Naval warfare Systems

Command e-Commerce Central web-

site, with two offers received. Space

and Naval warfare Systems Center

Pacific, San diego, Calif., is the

contracting activity (N66001-

15-d-0028).

Science applications interna-

tional corp., McLean, Va., is being



cost-plus-fixed-fee multiple award con-

tract to provide technical assistance

as well as research and development

for the advancement of interoperable

communications to federal, state, local,

tribal and non-governmental entities,

and to support other command, con-

trol, communications, computers and

intelligence efforts. This is one of two



for task orders during the ordering

period. This five-year contract includes

no options periods. work will be per-

formed in McLean, Va., (50 percent),

and at government facilities throughout

the United States and its territories (50

percent). work is expected to be com-

pleted March 22, 2019. No funds will be

obligated at the time of award. Funding

will be obligated via task orders as

they are issued. The types of funding

to be obligated include operation and

maintenance (Navy) and interagency

agreements through federal agencies

such as the department of homeland

Security and the department of Com-

merce. Contract funds will not expire at


contract was competitively procured

via Request for Proposal N66001-

13-R-0006 published on the Federal

Business Opportunities website, and

the Space and Naval warfare Systems

Command e-Commerce Central web-

site, with two offers received. Space

and Naval warfare Systems Center Pa-

cific, San diego, Calif., is the contract-

ing activity (N66001-15-d-0029).

leidos inc., Reston, Va., is be-

ing awarded a maximum amount

$50,000,000 firm-fixed-price,


architect-engineering contract for de-

sign or architect engineering services

for the implementation of National en-

vironmental Policy Act and executive

Order 12114, environmental effects

23 MArCh



Abroad of Major Federal Actions-

Aircraft homebasing and Related

Operational issues. The work to be

performed provides for the prepara-

tion of various documents to support

the proposed infrastructure-related

actions with respect to aircraft home

basing issues. examples of taskings

required to complete this work may

include analysis of home basing of

aircraft, construction, renovation, and/

or demolition of airfield facilities and

infrastructure; base realignment and

closure actions; and proposed opera-

tional actions related to aircraft home

basing. Additionally, other tasks,

studies, surveys or documents may

be required to complete the environ-

mental planning documents includ-

ing, but not limited to, environmental

documentation for aircraft readiness

and training operations at the home

base locations and within department

of defense-managed airspace and

Navy/Marine Corps training ranges.

The principle geographic area cov-

ered by this contract encompasses

Naval Facilities engineering Com-

mand (NAVFAC) Atlantic’s area of

responsibility (AOR) and the adjacent

waters of the Atlantic and Pacific

Oceans, including the continental

United States, the Caribbean, europe

and North Africa. Additionally, tasks

associated with this contract may be

assigned anywhere in the world. This

contract may address task orders to

support joint service or global efforts

including the entire NAVFAC Atlantic

and NAVFAC Pacific AORs worldwide.

No task orders are being issued at

this time. All work on this contract

will be performed within the NAVFAC

Atlantic AOR including, but not limited

to, Virginia (30 percent), California

(30 percent), Florida (20 percent), and

washington (20 percent). The term

of the contract is not to exceed 60

months with an expected completion

date of March 2020. Fiscal 2015 op-

eration and maintenance (Navy) con-

tract funds in the amount of $10,000

are obligated on this award and will


year. This contract was competitively

procured via the Navy electronic

Commerce Online website with five

proposals received. The Naval Facili-

ties engineering Command, Atlantic,

Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity

(N62470-15-d-8005).

northrop Grumman Systems

corp., Charlottesville, Va., is being

awarded an $18,100,000 indefinite-

delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-

fixed-priced, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and

cost-type contract for the production

of the wSN-7 navigation system and

spares and technical support in as-

sociation with production. The AN/

wSN-7(V) ring laser gyro navigator

system is a self-contained inertial

navigator designed for Navy surface

ships. work will be performed in Char-

lottesville, Va., and work is expected

to be completed by december 2021.

Contract funds will not be obligated

at time of award. Funding will not


year. This contract was not competi-

tively procured in accordance with

authority 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)( 1) - only

one responsible source. The Naval

Sea Systems Command, washing-

ton, d.C., is the contracting activity

(N00024-15-d-5208).

the Boeing co., huntington

Beach, Calif., is being awarded a

$12,878,533 cost-plus-incentive-fee

contract to provide design agent

and technical engineering services in

support of the AN/USQ-82(V) Gigabit

ethernet data Multiplex Systems

(GedMS) program. GedMS is a third-

generation shipboard network used

for ddG 51 class destroyers. GedMS

transfers inputs and/or outputs for the

machinery control systems, damage

control system, steering control sys-

tem, AeGiS combat system, naviga-

tion displays, and interior communi-

cations alarms and indicators. This

contract includes options which, if

exercised, would bring the cumulative


This contract combines purchases

for the Navy (91 percent) and the

governments of Australia (3 percent),

korea (3 percent), and Japan (3 per-

cent) under the foreign military sales

program. The work will be performed

in huntington Beach, Calif., (72

percent); Arlington, Va., (11 percent);

Bath, Maine, (9 percent); Pascagoula,

Miss., (3 percent); Georgetown, d.C.,

(3 percent); Richardson, Texas (1

percent), and Fairfax, Va., (1 percent),


March 2016. Fiscal 2014 shipbuild-

ing and conversion (Navy) funding


obligated at time of award and will not


year. This contract was not competi-

tively procured in accordance with

authority FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii) – only

one responsible source and

no other supplies or services will

satisfy agency requirements. The

Naval Surface warfare Center,

dahlgren division, dahlgren, Va., is

the contracting activity (N00178-

15-C-2016).

WR Systems ltd., Fairfax, Va.,

is being awarded a $12,429,742


cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price

contract for engineering and program

support services for the Relocatable

Over-the-horizon Radar system. work

will be performed in Chesapeake, Va.,

and work is expected to be completed

by March 31, 2018. Fiscal 2015 opera-

tions and maintenance (Navy) funds

in the amount of $500,000 will be

obligated at the time of award, and

will expire by the end of the current

fiscal year. The contract was not

competitively procured in accordance

with 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(1) with

one offer received in response to

this solicitation. Naval Supply

Systems Command Fleet

Logistics Center, Norfolk, Va., is the

contracting activity (N00189-15-d-

Z021).


the concourse Group llc,

Annapolis, Md., is being awarded a

maximum amount $29,000,000 time

and material, indefinite-delivery/indef-

inite-quantity contract for professional

services in support of the department

of the Navy’s Public Private Venture

Program. The work to be performed

provides for all aspects of special

venture acquisitions, including family

and unaccompanied housing public

private ventures, enhanced use leas-

ing, and other public-private venture

opportunities such as energy, utilities,

and lodging. work includes assistance

in both pre- and post-deal closing

environments to include pro forma

development, financial proposal analy-

sis, budget and audit reviews, reviews

of financial and bank statements,

and project cash flow distribution. All

support shall be consistent with the

privatization approach adopted by the

department of the Navy. work will be

performed primarily in Annapolis, Md.,

and washington, d.C., and the term

of the contract is not to exceed 36

months with an expected completion

date of March 2018. Fiscal 2015 family

housing operation and maintenance

(Navy and Marine Corps) contract

funds in the amount of $10,000 are

being obligated on this award and will


year. No task orders are being issued at

this time. This contract was competi-

tively procured via the Navy electronic

Commerce Online website, with three

proposals received. This contract

action is a re-award as a result of cor-

rective action taken due to a Govern-

ment Accountability Office protest. The

Naval Facilities engineering Command,

Atlantic, Norfolk, Va., is the contracting

activity (N62470-15-d-6009).

Systems application & tech-

nologies inc., Oxnard, Calif., is being


a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-

fee contract (N68936-13-C-0083) to

exercise an option for maintenance

and operations of aerial and seaborne

target assets and associated equip-

ment for the U.S. Navy, and the govern-

ments of Japan and Australia. work will

be performed at the Naval Air warfare

Center weapons division (NAwCwd),

Point Mugu, Calif., (45 percent); Naval

Surface warfare Center, Port huen-

eme, Calif., (40 percent); NAwCwd

China Lake, Ridgecrest, Calif., (7

percent); white Sands Missile Range,

Las Cruces, N.M., (3 percent); Pacific

Missile Range Facility, kauai, hawaii (2

percent); Utah Test and Training Range,

Salt Lake City, Utah (2 percent); and

Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc,

Calif., (1 percent). work is expected

to be completed in March 2016. Navy

working capital funds and management

and operations of the major range and

test facility base funds in the amount

of $8,803,543 will be obligated at time

of award, none of which will expire at


option combines purchases for the U.S.

Navy ($15,876,975; 98 percent), and

the governments of Japan ($327,360; 2

percent) and Australia ($163,680; 1 per-

cent) under the Foreign Military Sales

program. The Naval Air warfare Center

weapons division, China Lake, Calif., is


trijicon inc., wixom, Mich., is

being awarded $6,934,400 for de-

livery orders 0005 and 0006 under a

previously awarded firm-fixed-price,


contract (M67854-12-d-1000) for

8,800 TA31 rifle combat optics with

M4 reticles. work will be performed in

wixom, Mich., and is expected to be

completed by January 14, 2016. Fis-

cal 2013 procurement (Marine Corps)

funds in the amount of $6,934,400

will be obligated at the time of award

and funds will expire at the end of the

current fiscal year. The Marine Corps

Systems Command, Quantico, Va., is


Mtu america inc., Novi, Mich.,

is being awarded a $6,868,800

firm-fixed-price contract for three ship-

sets of propulsion system hardware

and two spare marine gears for the

israeli Navy Super dvora fast patrol

boats. This contract involves Foreign

Military Sales (FMS) to israel (100

percent). This contract to support the

israeli Navy under FMS case iS-P-

LhC is a follow-on effort, which was

previously performed under contract

N00104-06-C-k058. This contract

will provide the propulsion system

equipment necessary to support the

ongoing fleet maintenance and life

cycle support of the israeli Navy. work

will be performed in Friedrichshafen,

Germany (70 percent), and kristine-

hamn, Sweden (30 percent), and is

expected to be completed by March

2017. FMS funding in the amount of

$6,868,800 will be obligated at the

time of award, and contract funds will

not expire at the end of the current

fiscal year. This contract was not com-

petitively procured in accordance with

authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(4) and

FAR 6.302-4 international Agreement.

The government of israel is desig-

nated the sole source in its letter of

offer and acceptance. The Naval Sea

Systems Command, washington, d.C.,

is the contracting activity (N00024-

15-C-4127).

uRS federal Services inc.,

Germantown, Md., is being awarded a

$6,636,797 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract

for program management services in

support of the Broad Area Maritime

Surveillance-demonstrator Program

Office. work will be performed in

Germantown, Md., (75 percent), and

Patuxent River, Md., (25 percent), and

is expected to be completed in March

2016. Fiscal 2015 operations and main-

tenance (Navy) funds in the amount of

$5,600,000 are being obligated on this

award, all of which will expire at the

end of the current fiscal year. This con-

tract was not competitively procured

pursuant 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Na-

val Air warfare Center Aircraft division,

Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting

activity (N00421-15-C-0020).

20 MArCh

ConTraCT awards Compiled by KMI Media Group staff


Navy 033115 final

Documents