Navy 040715 final v2

Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for CongressRonald o’RouRke, SpecialiSt in naval affaiRS

The DDG-51 program was initiated in

the late 1970s. The DDG-51 is a multi-

mission destroyer with an emphasis on

air defense (which the Navy refers to as

anti-air warfare, or AAW) and blue-water

(mid-ocean) operations. DDG-51s, like

the Navy’s 22 Ticonderoga- (CG-47) class

cruisers, are equipped with the Aegis

combat system, an integrated ship com-

bat system named for the mythological

shield that defended Zeus. CG-47s and

DDG-51s consequently are often referred

to as Aegis cruisers and Aegis destroyers,

respectively, or collectively as Aegis ships.

The Aegis system has been updated

several times over the years. Existing

DDG-51s (and also some CG-47s) are

being modified to receive an additional

capability for ballistic missile defense

(BMD) operations.

The first DDG-51 was procured in

FY85. A total of 72 have been procured

through FY15, including 62 in FY85-FY05

and 10 in FY10-16. During the period

FY06-FY09, the Navy procured three

Zumwalt- (DDG-1000) class destroyers

(see discussion below) rather than DDG-

51s. The first DDG-51 entered service in

1991, and a total of 62 were in service as

of the end of FY14. DDG-51s are built by

General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (GD/

BIW) of Bath, Maine, and Ingalls Ship-

building of Pascagoula, Miss., a division

of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII).

The DDG-51 design has been modi-

fied over time. The first 28 DDG-51s (i.e.,

DDGs 51 through 78) are called Flight I/II

DDG-51s. Subsequent ships in the class

(i.e., DDGs 79 and higher) are referred to

as Flight IIA DDG-51s. The Flight IIA de-

sign, first procured in FY94, implemented

a significant design change that included,

among other things, the addition of a he-

licopter hangar. The Flight IIA design has

a full load displacement of about 9,500

tons, which is similar to that of the CG-47.

The Navy is implementing a pro-

gram for modernizing all DDG-51s (and

CG-47s) so as to maintain their mission

and cost effectiveness out to the end of

their projected service lives. Older CRS

reports provide additional historical and

background information on the DDG-51

program.

procurement of first flight iii ddG-51 planned for fY16

The Navy wants to begin procur-

ing a new version of the DDG-51 design,

called the Flight III design, starting with

the second of the two ships scheduled for

procurement in FY16. The Flight III design

Naval ReadinessOn March 26, Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Admiral Michelle Howard testified to the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Readiness about the Navy’s 21st-century readiness posture.

Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Bordallo and distinguished members of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommit-tee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the current state of Navy readiness and the resources necessary to provide a ready Navy in the future as described in our fiscal year 2016 budget request. As we meet, the Navy and our sister services have entered a third year of fiscal uncertainty. In addition, new threats to our nation’s interests are emerging, and old tensions are surfacing. Today, it is my honor to represent all our active and reserve sailors, particularly the 41,000 sailors who are under way on ships and submarines or deployed in expeditionary roles overseas today. They are standing the watch and are ready to meet today’s security challenges. American citizens can take great pride in the daily contribu-tions of their sons and daughters who serve in Navy units around the world. We are where it matters, when it matters, ensuring the security that underpins the global economy and respond-ing to crises.

Last August, the George H.W. Bush carrier strike group, already forward present in the North Arabian Sea, quickly relocated to the North Arabian Gulf. Flying 20 to 30 combat sorties per day, this Navy-Marine Corps strike fighter team was the only coalition strike option to project power against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) from the skies over Iraq and Syria for 54 days. Similarly, USS Truxton (DDG-103) arrived in the Black Sea to establish U.S. presence and reassure allies a week after Russia invaded Crimea. In the Java Sea, USS Fort Worth (LCS-3), a littoral combat ship, and USS Sampson (DDG-102), a destroyer, were among the first to support the Indonesian-led search effort for Air Asia Flight 8501. This forward

continued on paGe 11 ➥continued on paGe 21 ➥

APRIl 07, 2015WWW.NPEO-kMI.COM

A PuBlICAtIoN www.NPeo-kmI.Com

07apR2015

plus:• USS

Maryland UNDOCkS

• lASER EYE PROTECTION

including:

Defense

innovations

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:

• A report from the Department of Defense Inspector General finding that it did

not reconcile its Fund Balance With Treasury account effectively, and providing

recommendations for resolving the problem.

• An account of the Navy’s newly launched Sexual Assault Prevention and

Response (SAPR) website, which provides training and resources about

preventing and reporting sexual assault.

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

CalenDar of events

Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Naval Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

DDG 51 Class Destroyer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

MH-60S Seahawk Test Aircraft Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Experts Discuss Maritime Power, International Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Ingalls Shipbuilding Awarded $604.3 Million Contract to Build DDG 121. . . . . . 4

USS Peleliu Decommissioned After 34 Years of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

littoral Combat Ships Contract Modification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

National Cutter Boat Pooling Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

CNO Stresses Versatility of Independence-Class lCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

laser Eye Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

USNS Fall river Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

PEO U&W Industry Day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

light Weight Wide Aperture Array and Wide Aperture Array Software Development and Engineering Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Norfolk Naval Shipyard Undocks USS Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Innovations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

WWW.NPEO-kMI.COM2 | APRIl 07, 2015

DDG 51 Class DestroyerThe U.S. Navy has awarded funding for the construction of DDG 122,

the fiscal year 2015 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer under contract at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, a business unit of General Dynamics. This $610.4 million contract modification fully funds this ship and was awarded in 2013 as part of a multiship competition for DDG 51 class destroyers. The total value of the five-ship contract is approximately $3.4 billion.

Fred Harris, president of Bath Iron Works, said, “This announcement al-lows us to continue efforts associated with planning and construction of DDG 122. We appreciate the leadership of Senators Collins and King and the strong support of our entire delegation in matters of national defense. We are grateful for their recognition of the contributions made by the people of BIW to the U.S. Navy’s important shipbuilding programs.”

There are currently three DDG 51 destroyers in production at Bath Iron Works, Rafael Peralta (DDG 115), Thomas Hudner (DDG 116) and Daniel Inouye (DDG 118). The shipyard began fabrication on DDG 115 in November 2011, and delivery to the Navy is scheduled for 2016. Fabrication

on DDG 116 began in November 2012, and that ship is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy in 2017. Fabrication has just begun on DDG 118, the first ship of the 2013 multiship award.

Bath Iron Works is also building the three ships in the planned three-vessel Zumwalt-class of destroyers, Zumwalt (DDG 1000), Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001) and Lyndon Johnson (DDG 1002).

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is a multimission combatant that offers defense against a wide range of threats, including ballistic missiles. It operates in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups, providing a complete array of anti-submarine (ASW), anti-air (AAW) and anti-surface (ASUW) capabilities. Designed for survivabil-ity, the ships incorporate all-steel construction and have gas turbine propulsion. The combination of the ships’ AEGIS combat system, the Vertical Launching System, an advanced ASW system, two embarked SH-60 helicopters, advanced anti-aircraft missiles and Tomahawk anti-ship and land-attack missiles make the Arleigh Burke class the most powerful surface combatant ever put to sea.

MH-60S Seahawk Test Aircraft ContractElbit Systems of America, LLC, a subsidiary

of Elbit Systems Ltd., was awarded a contract from Science Applications International Cor-poration to install, integrate and support flight evaluations of the Elbit Color Helmet Display and Tracking System (CHDTS) on MH-60S Se-ahawk test aircraft for the U.S. Navy. The contract value, which is in an amount that is not material to Elbit Systems, will be performed over a year.

The program is part of the U.S. Navy’s MH-60 Sierra’s Improved Targeting System

for the Seahawks’ Armed Helicopter Weapon Kits. The CHDTS will provide the pilots with both night and day capability to see color flight instrument symbols on their helmet-mounted display (HMD) modules. Additionally, the line-of-sight tracking system enables the pilots to interact with the flight navigation system, improves pilot and copilot situational aware-ness, and can also be used to control pilot or copilot slewable sensor systems. The system also presents a continuously calculated weapon

impact symbol for the pilot display, thus increasing system accuracy in the employment of installed weapon systems.

“We are pleased to provide U.S. naval avia-tors the CHDTS for their aircraft,” commented Raanan Horowitz, president and CEO of Elbit Systems of America. “The CHDTS will provide pilots with improved situational awareness through enhanced optics and symbology dis-played directly on their HMDs, allowing them to keep their eyes up and out.”

APRIl 07, 2015 | 3WWW.NPEO-kMI.COM

Experts Discuss Maritime Power, International SecurityMaritime security leaders gath-

ered at U.S. Naval War College (NWC) in Newport, R.I., March 25-26, to focus global military attention on seapower during the EMC Chair Symposium, “Mari-time Power and International Security.”

Experts from the military, academia, national security, cor-porate interests, United Nations, government and nongovernmen-tal organizations took part in the two-day event, which focused on power projection, deterrence, humanitarian assistance, special operations and security and strategies.

“NWC is home to Navy thought, and Naval War College should be leading the Navy and the nation on maritime issues,” said Derek Reveron, EMC chair, professor in national security affairs and organizer of the annual event. “This conference gives us the opportunity to do that.”

The symposium was timed to coincide with the March 13 release of a new maritime strategy by the U.S. sea services titled, “A Coop-erative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower: Forward, Engaged, Ready.”

The new maritime security, released by the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, outlines maritime priorities in support of the national interest. It replaces a similar 2007 document and accounts for changes in the global security environment, new strate-gic guidance and a changed fiscal environment.

One of the areas highlighted at the symposium, humanitar-ian assistance and disaster relief, is already being explored by experts from NWC and Harvard University.

The two schools currently ex-change faculty to discuss this topic and bring two different perspec-tives to the subject.

“As the number of humanitar-ian disasters expands (some due to natural disasters, others to conflict), we can expect that increased civil-military engagement will be required to meet the life-saving needs of affected populations,” said Vincenzo Bollettino, executive director of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, who was a member of the Humani-tarian Assistance and Disaster Relief panel at the symposium.

“It is imperative that we begin more systematic study of

civil-military engagement, both to help guide normative discussions about civil-military interaction as well as to inform conversations related to the efficiency of the response,” he added.

Both military and civilian groups are needed to assist when large disasters happen, according to Bollettino.

“Today’s humanitarian emergencies, particularly complex emergencies that entail aspects of natural disasters and conflict, require that both military and hu-manitarian actors better train for and participate in conversations about civil-military engagement,” he said. “These conversations should be taking place in multiple fora (military, academic, humani-tarian) and in various countries.”

Another aspect of maritime power was discussed in the power projection session, where a panelist focused on the changing nature of the challenges faced by the country.

“I think the biggest challenge facing the U.S. military is to adjust to the rise of small, smart and cheap weapons systems,” said T.X. Hammes, distinguished research fellow at National

Defense University, Washington, D.C., and panelist at the sym-posium. “Poor nations and even small groups will have access to precision, long-range weapons in significant numbers. Thus our base areas, supply convoys, fuel dumps, ammo dumps, and air and sea ports will be subject to attack. We have to figure out how to deal with this type of threat.”

The symposium touches on many aspects of maritime power in just a few days. Reveron says that addressing all of these issues in a short time is not intended to solve the problems, but to serve as a platform for the experts to think about the issues that will eventu-ally lead to answers.

“This event will help me and my colleagues think through these important issues and serves as an incubator for ideas,” said Reveron.

Reveron also said one of his aims is to encourage attendees to write about maritime issues after the event and hope they incorpo-rate some of the discussion points into their own writings.

By Daniel Kuester, U.S. Naval War College Public Affairs

Ingalls Shipbuilding Awarded $604.3 million Contract to Build DDG 121

Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Ingalls Shipbuilding division has

received a $604.3 million contract modification to fund construction of

the Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) Aegis guided missile destroyer DDG

121 for the U.S. Navy. The ship is the third of five DDG 51 destroyers

the company was awarded in June 2013.

“The DDG 51 program has been the backbone of Ingalls

Shipbuilding for the past three decades,” said DDG 51 Program

Manager George Nungesser. “We now have a hot production line

in the shipyard where we can maintain our highly skilled shipbuild-

ing crews in the same working areas for each ship. This will allow

increased learning and provide the most efficient way to reduce cost

and schedule while building quality ships for the U.S. Navy. We have

a lot of experience and talent throughout our program, and with the

facilities to build ships simultaneously, we will continue to improve as

each ship is launched.”

The five-ship contract, part of a multiyear procurement in the DDG

51 program, allows Ingalls to build ships more efficiently by buying bulk

material and moving the skilled workforce from ship to ship. With the

contract, Ingalls will be building DDGs over the next decade.

Ingalls has delivered 28 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to the Navy.

Destroyers currently under construction at Ingalls are John Finn (DDG

113), ralph Johnson (DDG 114), Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) and delbert

d. Black (DDG 119).

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are highly capable, multimission

ships that can conduct a variety of operations, from peacetime pres-

ence and crisis management to sea control and power projection, all in

support of the U.S. military strategy. DDGs are capable of simultane-

ously fighting air, surface and subsurface threats. The ship contains

a myriad of offensive and defensive weapons designed to support

maritime defense needs well into the 21st century.


USS Peleliu Decommissioned After 34 Years of ServiceHundreds of current and

former crew members, 10 previ-ous commanding officers and their family members crowded onto the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu (LHA 5) to bid farewell to the “Iron Nickel” during the ship’s decommissioning ceremony at Naval Base San Diego, March 31.

Tears wet the eyes of many of the former sailors and Ma-rines in attendance as the flag was hauled down, the watch was secured, and the crew of one of the most famous ships in the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet ceremoniously disem-barked the vessel for the final time.

Peleliu was named after the September 15 to November 27, 1944 Battle of Peleliu, in which 1,256 Marines gave their lives to take the island, which was being held by the Imperial Japanese Army.

Rear Admiral Marcus A. Hitchcock, the current director of Fleet and Joint Training at U.S. Fleet Forces Command, was the ship’s 18th command-

ing officer from March 2008 to September 2009 and served as the guest speaker for the ceremony.

Hitchcock talked not only about his time as commanding officer, but also about how he read many books and studied up on the ship’s namesake when he received orders to become the ship’s commanding officer. In addition, he spoke about howhe was fortunate enough to host a ship’s tour in the summer of 2009 for Marine veterans from the actual Battle of Peleliu.

“These marines had seen and done extraordinary things on a remote island called Peleliu. Like millions of their generation, they were commit-ted to keeping America free,” said Hitchcock. “They came to represent grit and determina-tion. It was fighting men like these for which this warship is named.”

Hitchcock also thanked all the plankowners and former crew members in attendance for their service to the ship over the past 34 years.

“From that first deployment onward, USS Peleliu and her crew demonstrated time and again that she always achieved the mission, to perfection, with style and in ways that had never been seen before,” said Hitch-cock. “Except on rare occasions, USS Peleliu never did it alone. She always had a teammate by her side—the U.S. Marine Corps.”

To close his remarks, Hitch-cock led the audience in three cheers to mark the grit and determination of all the sailors and marines who served on board Peleliu during her years of service.

Captain Paul C. Spedero, Peleliu’s last commanding of-ficer, read the decommissioning orders and gave the order to disembark the ship.

“From deputy chief of naval operations to commanding offi-cer, USS Peleliu, subject, decom-missioning of USS Peleliu,” read Spedero. “On 31 March, 2015, decommission USS Peleliu and transfer to the inactive reserve.

Executive officer, disembark the crew.”

During 34 years of service, Peleliu was homeported in both Long Beach and San Diego on the California coast as thou-sands of sailors and Marines called the ship home. Capable of launching a coordinated air and sea attack from one platform, Peleliu conducted 17 deployments, 178,051 flight operations, served 57,983 personnel and steamed approximately 1,011,946 nautical miles since being commissioned May 3, 1980 in Pascagoula, Miss.

After the decommissioning process is complete, Peleliu will be towed from San Diego to Hawaii to join the Navy’s reserve fleet. There, the last-of-its-class amphibious assault ship will take its place alongside its sister ship and first in class, the ex-USS Tarawa (LHA 1).

By Senior Chief Mass Com-munication Specialist (SW/AW) Donnie W. Ryan

Rear Admiral Marcus A. Hitchcock, director of fleet and joint training for U.S. Fleet Forces Command, offers three cheers during the decommissioning ceremony for the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu (LHA 5) at Naval Base San Diego. Peleliu is being decommissioned after more than 34 years of service. After the decommissioning process is complete, Peleliu will be towed from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to join the reserve fleet. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Antonio P. Turretto Ramos)


Littoral Combat Ships Contract ModificationU.S. Navy has issued a Lockheed Martin-led

industry team a contract modification for one fully funded 2015 littoral combat ship (LCS) valued at $362 million, along with $79 million in advanced procurement funding for a second ship. The balance of the second ship will be funded by December 31, 2015.

The advanced procurement dollars approved by Congress provides the funding required to maintain the cost and schedule of the final block buy option. The award also includes a priced op-tion for one additional fiscal year 2016 ship.

“We are proud to continue this partner-ship with the Navy in building the advanced Freedom-variant littoral combat ship, and we thank the Navy for maintaining the cost and schedule for the block buy,” said Joe North, vice president of Littoral Ship Systems at Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and

Training. “Thousands of people across the country contribute to this important program and will continue to do so as we transition to the new frigate upgrade in the coming years.”

The award comes as USS Freedom conducted a successful deployment to southeast Asia in 2013 and is currently operating out of her homeport in San Diego, Calif., while USS Fort Worth is deployed until 2016. USS Fort Worth is serving in the U.S. 7th Fleet to strengthen international relationships, visit more ports, engage in multire-gional naval exercises and further LCS capabilities using both manned and unmanned assets.

The contract modification is for construc-tion of LCS 21 and LCS 23, the 11th and 12th Freedom-variant ships. The first ship on this 2010 contract, the Milwaukee (LCS 5), was christened and launched in 2013, and is slated to be delivered to the Navy this summer. Detroit

(LCS 7) was launched in 2014. Little Rock (LCS 9) and Sioux City (LCS 11) are in construction, with LCS 9 christening and launch planned for this summer. Wichita (LCS 13) had its keel laid in February 2015. Billings (LCS 15), as well as Indianapolis (LCS 17) and to be named LCS 19, are in the construction phase.

Marinette Marine Corporation, a Fincantieri company, is building the ships in Marinette, Wis., with naval architect Gibbs & Cox of Arlington, Va., providing engineering support. Fincantieri has invested more than $100 million in the Marinette facility on upgrades that have increased efficiency and minimized energy consumption, an expansion that will allow for construction of more than two ships at a time, and process improve-ments that will speed up production.

Nearly 900 suppliers across 43 states are con-tributing to the Freedom-class LCS program.

National Cutter Boat Pooling ProgramIn the present state, each major Coast Guard cutter is permanently

assigned a set of cutter boats. While the parent cutter is in port or in programmed depot maintenance, the assigned cutter boat(s) remain idle, and not utilized for operational service. A strategy to improve readiness and lower life cycle costs is to centrally store and maintain the cutter boats.

As such, the U.S. Coast Guard Surface Forces Logistics Center (SFLC), Small Boat Product Line (SBPL), is seeking qualified sources to establish a National Cutter Boat Pooling (NCBP) Program for the over-the-horizon cutter boats (CB-OTH) MKII, MKIIIs and OTH IV cutter boats and trailers. Performance will include the transportation, storage, maintenance, repair and technical support services for a

rotatable pool of up to 125 boats and trailers deployed on cutters throughout the United States.

The SFLC SBPL mission is to develop and execute various altera-tion and technical support programs to upgrade and maintain in a more cost-effective and timely manner the material readiness of vari-ous boat hull, mechanical and electrical and electronic systems in order to meet major cutters operational needs. This contract is to provide the full spectrum of technical support encompassing all phases of the NCBP process. This contract will be under the administrative control of SFLC SBPL.

Primary point of contact: Kelly A. Wyatt [email protected], 410-582-4720


CNo Stresses Versatility of Independence-Class lCS

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Jonathan Greenert and Rep-

resentative Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) stressed the versatility of the Independence-

class littoral combat ships (lCS) April 1 at a press conference on board

Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola.

After touring the USS Independence (lCS 2) with the congressman, the

CNO highlighted the value of the lCS’s ability to be repackaged for multiple

missions.

“The thing that is of value about the lCS is that she has great volume,

high speed, and is modular,” said Greenert. “What that means is you can

change out packages to perform different missions.”

“Currently, the Independence is configured for mine countermeasures

operations, but she can be reconfigured for other missions including mari-

time security or anti-submarine warfare. These packages could be forward

deployed around the world in hot spots, where in a matter of a few days, the

ship could be changed as necessary to meet the demand.”

The ship has been testing its new anti-mine warfare technology in the

Gulf of Mexico since February 20, and will be docking between sorties at

NAS Pensacola throughout its training operation.

Greenert praised the experience of the crew testing the new lCS, saying

it allows the Navy to be more efficient with crew management.

“These sailors on board the ship are more senior than the average

sailor,” he said. “They’ve been in the Navy for four to six years. This enables

us to keep the crew to half of what it would normally be on a conventional

ship.”

The CNO also addressed the pace of construction for these new ships.

“In the future, I expect to see continued construction of the lCS

platform. We took a pause and decided we need 52 of these ships,” said

Greenert. “The secretary of defense asked us to take a look at this and see if

we could make these more survivable and more lethal. We’ve done that and

we are all guns ahead.”

Miller was thanked by the CNO for his work in Congress in aiding mili-

tary personnel and veterans. The representative likewise thanked the CNO

for letting him visit the ship.

“It’s been an outstanding tour of a great new capability that we have in

the United States Navy,” said Miller. “I appreciate not only seeing this great

vessel, but being able to talk to the men and women of the USS Indepen-

dence.”

Laser Eye ProtectionThe purpose of laser eye protection (LEP) is to reduce

the possibility of damage to the eye from a variety of laser threats. Threats to aircrew come from both unintentional friendly and unfriendly sources. Aircraft and pilot lasing incidents are increasing, with the majority of the incidents occurring at night during aircraft takeoff and landing. The Navy has been tasked to design, produce and deploy a mul-tiple wavelength spectacle to address the needs of fixed- and rotary-wing aircrew in fixed multiple wavelength laser threat environments.

Specific threat wavelengths and optical density (OD) requirements are contained in the classified and only persons with a “need-to-know” will be authorized access.

The lens shall be tested to demonstrate the wearer is protected throughout the entire safety zone as defined in ANSI Z136.7. Optical density shall be verified at each threat wavelength or wavelength range using laser sources of the appropriate wavelength. Laser source shall have a bandwidth no greater than 1nm. OD shall be verified throughout the entire specified wavelength protection bands where lasers were not used, using a measurement system of appropriate wavelength range and dynamic range for the OD being measured. Optical density and angular testing shall be performed to test the full protection of the safety zone, up to the frame edge when it falls within the safety zone projected angle.

Primary Point of Contact: Tyesha [email protected], (301) 757-6596

uSNS Fall River Repairs

The USNS Fall river (JHSV-4) has experienced hull

damage and MSC is looking for repair. The Navy is

considering one of two options.

Option 1: Contact damage with the pier appears to

be well above the water line. Permanent repairs may

be conducted pier side with the added requirement

that the internals are also examined and be included

in the repairs as needed. A repair plan proposal must

include access to this area for internal examination and

repairs.

Option 2: Temporary repairs may be performed for

the purpose of sealing the hull breaches. These repairs

will be for the purpose of allowing the vessel to shift to

a repair facility only. If ABS is able to view the internals

during the temporary repairs and is satisfied that there

is limited damage ABS would be willing to issue the

vessel an outstanding for dry-docking to match up with

the outstanding for the fuel tank repair.

The ship will be in Joint Expeditionary Base

little Creek until permanent/temp repairs can be

accomplished.


Peo u&w Industry DayThe Program Executive Office for

Unmanned Aviation and Weapons, PEO

(U&W), is planning to conduct an industry

day and follow-on idea days to provide op-

portunities for industry to learn about the

technology needs of PEO (U&W) with the

potential for follow-on briefings regarding

technologies that industry has developed.

This opportunity is open to all companies

that have new and innovative ideas to sup-

port the future of naval aviation unmanned

air system (UAS) and weapon programs.

The announcement for the industry day

and idea days constitutes a request for

information (RFI) notice for planning pur-

poses only. This RFI is issued for determin-

ing potential technologies and capabilities

to consider for the future of naval aviation

from industry and does not constitute an

invitation for bid, a request for proposal,

a request for quote, or an indication that

the government will contract for any of

the items and/or services identified in

response to this notice. No solicitation

documents exist at this time. Participation

in this RFI is neither mandatory nor is it

requisite to future participation by a con-

tractor in any future contract RFP.

Industry Day will be an opportunity

for industry to learn about the technology

needs of PEO (U&W) UAS and Weapon

programs. Industry Day will be held on

April 16, 2015 at the Bay District

Volunteer Fire Department Social Hall

at 46900 South Shangri-la Drive,

lexington Park, Md. 20653 near gate

2 of the Patuxent River Naval Air

Station.

The industry day website is at: http://

events.constantcontact.com/register/eve

nt?llr=cqbimhtab&oeidk=a07ealhdujd4b4

c4a7a

2015 peo (u&W) technology needs

oVeRARChING

• Cyber Security

• Data Management/Data Fusion

• Assured navigation and communications

in Anti-Access

Area-Denial (A2/AD) environments

• Non-GPS precision navigation and

geolocation in the maritime domain

• Operational dynamic resource

management

uNmANNeD AIR SyStemS (uAS)

• landing systems for sea-based UAS

(fixed wing and rotary wing)

• High bandwidth, low profile/drag,

through the rotor Beyond line Of Sight

(BlOS) communications for rotary-wing

aircraft

• Multivehicle, multisensor planning and

control

• Reducing bandwidth and/or operator

workload by converting sensor data into

actionable information

• Sensors for small UAS to detect

and avoid non-cooperative airborne

contacts

weAPoNS

• Net enabled/interoperable weapons

(including weapon to weapon

cooperative attack)

• Multimission capability

• Seeker capabilities in day/night,

all weather and cluttered

environments

• Expanded engagement envelope

• Insensitive Munitions Improvements

• Alternative weapons (e.g., directed

energy) for airborne applications

primary point of contact: Jessica l. Guy

[email protected]

projected agenda

7:30 Check In at Bay District Volunteer Fire Department

8:00 Welcome / Introduction

8:15 PEO(U&W) Worldview PEO(U&W)

8:45 Future of Naval Air Weapons PDPEO(U&W)W

9:00 Future of Naval Air UAVs PDPEO(U&W)U

9:15 Networking Break

9:45 SBIR Goals and Reporting Requirements NAVAIR SBIR PM

10:15 Small Business Requirements NAVAIR Small Business Office

10:45 Naval Air Warfare and Weapons S&T ONR Code 35

11:15 Lunch

12:30 Fleet Future Aviation Capability Needs Fleet Forces Command (TBD)

13:00 Future of Naval Unmanned Systems and Integration OPNAV N2/N6

13:30 Networking Break

14:00 Future of Naval Aviation Requirements OPNAV N98

14:30 Marine Aviation Requirements APW-72 (TBD)


Light Weight Wide Aperture Array and Wide Aperture Array Software Development and Engineering Services

Program Executive Office Submarines (PMS401) has issued a statement of work defining the efforts required for the program management, engineering, software develop-ment, logistics, configuration management, software integration test and evaluation, and Information Assurance (IA), of the Light Weight Wide Aperture Array (LWWAA) and Wide Ap-erture Array (WAA) systems. This effort includes exploring existing and new approaches to sensor processing and developing new or augment-ing existing capabilities as required to meet the acoustic processing needs for the Navy. The efforts defined herein are applicable to SSN688I, SSN21 and SSN 774 class submarines.

The successful contractor shall develop, test, and deliver a common operational LWWAA and WAA software to meet all requirements specified in the “AN/BQQ-10(V) LWWAA and WAA

In-Board Processing Specification” (PMS401-LWWAA/WAA Spec-01). The delivery and acceptance of the common LWWAA and WAA Software will be contingent on success-ful completion of qualification and acceptance testing.

The contractor is required to deliver the common LWWAA and WAA Software for TI-18 and TI-20 as GFE to acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf insertion (A-RCI) system integrator for system integration and shipboard installation. There are also other industry partners whom provide engineering services and support of the A-RCI sonar system. The contractor shall work in a collaborative environment with a consortium of Navy, Navy laboratories, academia, A-RCI prime system integrator, ownership monitoring ship developer, common acoustic cabinet developer, and other

industry partners to ensure continued success of the program. The contractor shall identify his approach to be used to support the “Open Source Initiative/Open Systems Architecture” to enable third-party applications and allow for the efficient integration of improvements with the submarine acoustic systems. The contractor shall leverage past experience involved in similar ef-forts and indicate the approach that will be used in delivering this effort.

Based on the rapid development cycle for A-RCI builds, it is highly encouraged that the contractor maintains a constant presence at the A-RCI system integration facility to support all integration efforts, fleet support is-sues, and common LWWAA and WAA system development.

Primary Point of Contact: Danielle C. Tyler [email protected], 202-781-0828

enterprise Air Surveillance RadarThe Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar

(EASR) will be one sensor in a new sensor

suite that is designed to meet the perfor-

mance needs contained in the Battlespace

Awareness Initial Capabilities Document.

EASR is to be fielded in two variants. Variant

1 is a single-face array rotating design to

provide SPS-48 and SPS-49 capabilities for

installation on amphibious warfare ships such

as new-construction America-class amphibi-

ous assault ships (lHA-8+), lPD, and lX(R),

and any other designated ship class. Variant

2 is a three-face fixed array design slated for

aircraft carriers and any other designated ship

class.

EASR is envisioned as a new radar

designed to be scalable and adaptable to

accommodate current and future mission

requirements for multiple platforms. EASR

will be the primary air surveillance radar

supporting ship self-defense, situational

awareness and Air Traffic Control (ATC) for

Ford-class carriers (CVN 79+). For other

ship classes, EASR will be the primary radar

for self-defense and situational awareness

and the backup radar for ATC. The solicita-

tion will address the EASR EMD phase and

production.

The objective of the issued solicitation is

to define the work necessary to design the

EASR and to build, integrate and test an EASR

engineering development model (EDM). This

SOW will include a base contract beginning

with design work leading to preliminary design

review and culminating at system acceptance

of the EDM at the end of testing at the Surface

Combat System Center, Wallops Island, Va.

woRkING GRouPS

Radar/Ship Integration Working Group

(RSIWG) is established to manage and

maintain the interfaces with the ship hull,

mechanical, and electrical (HM&E) systems.

The RSIWG is anticipated to meet monthly in

the Washington, D.C. area.

Combat System/Air Traffic Control Inte-

gration Working Group (C/ATIWG) is estab-

lished to manage interfaces and ensure that

the functional allocation and the performance

of EASR is fully utilized combat system (CS)

(including weapon system components,

electronic warfare systems, missiles and track

databases), cooperative engagement capabil-

ity (CEC) and air traffic control (ATC) system.

The C/ATIWG is anticipated to meet monthly

in the Washington, D.C. area.

Topside Integration Working Group

(TIWG) is established to study and manage

the electromagnetic environment aboard

the ship. The TIWG is anticipated to meet

quarterly in the Washington, D.C. area.

Cost & Affordability Working Group

(CAWG) is established to ensure that a

highly capable system is affordable by

coordinating the TOC model development

and affordability assessments for EASR.

The CAWG will establish TOC model as-

sumptions, evaluate life cycle cost metrics

and monitor the cost and earned value on

the contract. The CAWG will also interface

with the other IPTs. The CAWG is antici-

pated to meet quarterly in the Washington,

D.C. area.

System Safety Working Group (SSWG)

is established to study and manage system

and software safety issues. The govern-

ment will identify an EASR Principal For

Safety (PFS), who will co-chair the SSWG.

The SSWG will also interface with the CS

PFS. During this phase, the SSWG is an-

ticipated to meet quarterly in the Washing-

ton, D.C. area.

primary point of contact: John Butto

[email protected], 202-781-2549


Norfolk Naval Shipyard undocks uSS marylandOn February 21, Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY) successfully

undocked USS Maryland (SSBN 738).

SSBN 738 is now pier-side to finish its engineered refueling over-

haul, a complex, major shipyard availability at the submarine’s mid-

life point that enables the submarine to operate for its entire design

service life. Maryland has been at NNSY since December 2012.

According to Project Superintendent John Darlington, “The Mary-

land is in the end game now. We have less than 10 percent produc-

tion work remaining. The majority of the end game will involve testing

the systems that have been overhauled and upgraded.”

Some of the major jobs during the availability include ship sys-

tems overhaul, specifically the replacement of distilling plants with

a reverse osmosis unit; replacement of the service turbine genera-

tor rotor with a low-sensitivity rotor; installation of an upgraded 500

kilowatt motor generator; and local area network upgrades.

Undocking was achieved despite high winds challenging crane

service, unusually cold weather preventing the normal process of

washing down the dry dock, and several inches of snowfall. When it

became apparent the effort might fall short of maintaining the planned

undocking date, volunteers pitched in from around the shipyard to

assist.

“The team has shown great perseverance and refused to give

up,” said John Darlington. “It took the entire shipyard to help us get

through the snow event, and we have proven that when everyone

works together we can be successful. This is a proud project team

and we will continue to work together to give the shipyard more

successes in the future.”

According to Darlington, there are many challenges, not the least

of which is the number of people to be managed. “Due to the mag-

nitude of the effort and the span in time from pre-planning through

completion, the efforts of thousands of people are required. At the

peak we had greater than 1,000 personnel working the Maryland

each day. To date, over 5,821 different personnel have directly sup-

ported the Maryland’s availability. These availabilities are very chal-

lenging for the ship and the shipyard.”

In addition to the small amount of production work to still be

accomplished on the boat, system testing and certification and

ship’s force training will be conducted, culminating in sea trials

later this year.


is to feature a new and more capable radar called the Air and Missile

Defense Radar (AMDR). The version of the AMDR to be carried by the

Flight III DDG-51 is smaller and less powerful than the version that was

envisaged for a cruiser called the CG(X) that the Navy at one point was

planning to procure, but subsequently canceled. The Flight III DDG-

51’s AMDR is to have a diameter of 14 feet, while the AMDR envis-

aged for the CG(X) would have had a substantially larger diameter.

Multiyear procurement (MYp) in fY13-fY17

As part of its action on the Navy’s FY13 budget, Congress

granted the Navy authority to use a multiyear procurement (MYP)

contract for DDG-51s to be procured FY13-FY17. The Navy awarded

the contract on June 3, 2013. The Navy plans to use an engineer-

ing change proposal (ECP) to shift from the Flight IIA design to the

Flight III design during this MYP contract. If the Flight III design is not

ready to support the procurement of the first Flight III ship in FY16,

the Navy can delay issuing the ECP and shift the start of Flight III

procurement to FY17.

ddG-1000 pRoGRaM

The DDG-1000 program was initiated in the early 1990s. The DDG-

1000 is a multimission destroyer with an emphasis on naval surface fire

support (NSFS) and operations in littoral (i.e., near-shore) waters. The

DDG-1000 is intended to replace, in a technologically more modern

form, the large-caliber naval gun fire capability that the Navy lost when

it retired its Iowa-class battleships in the early 1990s, to improve the

Navy’s general capabilities for operating in defended littoral waters, and

to introduce several new technologies that would be available for use

on future Navy ships. The DDG-1000 was also intended to serve as the

basis for the Navy’s now-canceled CG(X) cruiser.

The DDG-1000 is to have a reduced-size crew of 142 sailors (com-

pared to roughly 300 on the Navy’s Aegis destroyers and cruisers) so

as to reduce its operating and support (O&S) costs. The ship incorpo-

rates a significant number of new technologies, including an integrated

electric-drive propulsion system and automation technologies enabling

its reduced-sized crew.

With an estimated full load displacement of 15,482 tons, the DDG-

1000 design is roughly 63 percent larger than the Navy’s current 9,500-

ton Aegis cruisers and destroyers, and larger than any Navy destroyer or

cruiser since the nuclear-powered cruiser long Beach (CGN-9), which

was procured in FY57.

The first two DDG-1000s were procured in FY07 and split-funded

(i.e., funded with two-year incremental funding) in FY07-FY08; the

Navy’s FY16 budget submission estimates their combined procurement

cost at $8,797.9 million. The third DDG-1000 was procured in FY09

and split-funded in FY09-FY10; the Navy’s FY16 budget submission

estimates its procurement cost at $3,490.8 million.

As shown in Table 1 below, the estimated combined procurement

cost for all three DDG-1000s, as reflected in the Navy’s annual budget

submission, has grown by $3,311.6 million, or 36.9 percent, since

the FY09 budget (i.e., the budget for the fiscal year in which the third

DDG-1000 was procured).

Table 1. Change in Estimated Combined Procurement Cost of DDG-1000, DDG-1001, and DDG-2002 (In millions, rounded to nearest tenth, as shown in annual Navy budget submissions)

Estimated combined

procurement cost (millions of dollars)

Change from prior

year’s budget submission

Cumulative change from

FY2009 budget submission

FY09 budget 8,977.1 — —

FY10 budget 9,372.5

+395.4 (+4.4%)

+395.4 (+4.4%)

FY11 budget 9,993.3

+620.8 (+6.6%)

+1,016.2 (+11.3%)

FY12 budget 11,308.8

+1,315.5 (+13.2%)

+2,331.7 (+26.0%)


+161.3 (+1.4%)

+2,493.0 (+27.8%)


+148.3 (+1.3%)

+2,641.3 (+29.4%)


+451.0 (+3.9%)

+3,092.3 (+34.4%)


+219.3 (+1.8%)

+3,311.6 (+36.9%)

Some of the cost growth in the earlier years in the table was caused

by the truncation of the DDG-1000 program from seven ships to three,

which caused some class-wide procurement-rated costs that had been

allocated to the fourth through seventh ships to be reallocated to the

three remaining ships.

The Navy states that the cost growth shown in the later years of the

table reflects, among other things, a series of incremental, year-by-year

movements away from an earlier Navy cost estimate for the program, and

toward a higher estimate developed by Cost Assessment and Program

Evaluation (CAPE) office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense

(OSD). As one consequence of a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach experi-

enced by the DDG-1000 program in 2010 (see “2010 Nunn-McCurdy

Breach, Program Restructuring, and Milestone Recertification” in Appen-

dix A), the Navy was directed to fund the DDG-1000 program to CAPE’s

higher cost estimate for the period FY11-FY15, and to the Navy’s cost

estimate for FY16 and beyond. The Navy states that it has been imple-

menting this directive in a year-by-year fashion with each budget submis-

sion since 2010, moving incrementally closer each year to CAPE’s higher

estimate. The Navy stated in 2014 that even with the cost growth shown

in the table, the DDG-1000 program as of the FY15 budget submission

was still about 3 percent below the program’s rebaselined starting point

for calculating any new Nunn-McCurdy cost breach on the program.

All three ships in the DDG-1000 program are to be built at GD/BIW,

with some portions of each ship being built by Ingalls Shipbuilding for

delivery to GD/BIW. Raytheon is the prime contractor for the DDG-

1000’s combat system (its collection of sensors, computers, related

software, displays, and weapon launchers). The Navy awarded GD/BIW

the contract for the construction of the second and third DDG-1000s on

September 15, 2011.

Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress

➥ continued fRoM paGe 1


SuRface coMbatant conStRuction induStRial baSe

All cruisers, destroyers and frigates procured since FY85 have been

built at General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) shipyard of Bath,

Maine, and Ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula, MS, a division of Hunting-

ton Ingalls Industries (HII). Both yards have long histories of building larger

surface combatants. Construction of Navy surface combatants in recent

years has accounted for virtually all of GD/BIW’s ship-construction work

and for a significant share of Ingalls’ ship-construction work. (Ingalls also

builds amphibious ships for the Navy.) Navy surface combatants are over-

hauled, repaired and modernized at GD/BIW, Ingalls, other private-sector

U.S. shipyards, and government-operated naval shipyards (NSYs).

lockheed Martin and Raytheon are generally considered the two

leading Navy surface combatant radar makers and combat system in-

tegrators. Northrop Grumman is a third potential maker of Navy surface

combatant radars. lockheed is the lead contractor for the DDG-51

combat system (the Aegis system), while Raytheon is the lead contrac-

tor for the DDG-1000 combat system, the core of which is called the To-

tal Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure (TSCE-I). lockheed has

a share of the DDG-1000 combat system, and Raytheon has a share

of the DDG-51 combat system. lockheed, Raytheon, and Northrop

competed to be the maker of the AMDR to be carried by the Flight III

DDG-51. On October 10, 2013, the Navy announced that it had selected

Raytheon to be the maker of the AMDR.

The surface combatant construction industrial base also includes

hundreds of additional firms that supply materials and components. The

financial health of Navy shipbuilding supplier firms has been a matter

of concern in recent years, particularly since some of them are the sole

sources for what they make for Navy surface combatants.

fY16 fundinG RequeSt

The Navy estimates the combined procurement cost of the two

DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY16 at $3,522.7 million. A

comparison with the cost of the two DDG-51s procured in FY15 sug-

gests that, within the estimated combined cost of $3,522.7 million for

the two FY16 DDG-51s, the Flight III DDG-51 might account for, very

roughly, $2 billion, while the other DDG-51 might account for, very

roughly, $1.5 billion. The potential difference of, very roughly, $500

million in cost between the two ships includes one-time design and

change-order costs for modifying the DDG-51 design to the Flight III

configuration, additional costs for the AMDR radar and associated

electrical power and cooling equipment, and some loss of shipyard

production learning curve benefits due to the change in the ship’s

design.

The two DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY16 have received

a total of $373.0 million in prior-year advance procurement (AP) funding.

The Navy’s proposed FY16 budget requests the remaining $3,149.7

million needed to complete the ships’ estimated combined procurement

cost. The Navy’s proposed FY16 budget also requests $75.0 million in

so-called cost-to- complete procurement funding to replace funding for

DDG-51s procured in FY10-FY12 that was canceled by March 1, 2013,

sequester. The Navy’s proposed FY16 budget also requests $433.4

million in procurement funding to complete construction of Zumwalt-

(DDG-1000) class destroyers procured in prior years, and $241.8 million

in research and development funding for development work on the

AMDR. The funding request for the AMDR is contained in Program

Element (PE) 0604522N (“Advanced Missile Defense Radar [AMDR] Sys-

tem”), which is line 118 in the Navy’s FY16 research and development

account.

issues for congress

fliGht iii ddG-51: ReadineSS of deSiGn foR pRocuReMent in fY16

One issue for Congress concerns the readiness of the Flight III de-

sign for procurement in FY16. As noted earlier, the Navy plans to shift to

procurement of the Flight III design with the second of the two DDG-51s

requested for procurement in FY16.

The Navy argues that the Flight III design will be ready for procure-

ment in FY16. If it is judged that the design is not ready, the Navy’s plan

allows for procurement of the first Flight III DDG-51 to be shifted to

FY17 or a later year.

At a February 25, 2015 hearing on Department of the Navy acquisi-

tion programs before the Seapower and Projection Forces subcom-

mittee of House Armed Services Committee, Department of the Navy

officials testified that

In October 2013, the Navy awarded the contract for devel-

opment of the AMDR, with options for up to nine low rate initial

production (lRIP) units. The AMDR radar suite will be capable of

providing simultaneous surveillance and engagement support for

long range BMD and area defense. The program continues to dem-

onstrate maturity in the design development as shown in successful

completion of the AMDR hardware critical design review (CDR) in

December 2014 and is on track for the system CDR in April 2015.

Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) detail design efforts for the

DDG Flight III design will continue in FY16, ultimately leading to over

90 percent detail design completion prior to construction on the first

Flight III ship.

In a February 2015 report to Congress on the status of the Flight III

design, the Navy stated that

with respect to systems and equipment levels of maturity for

Flight III, the AMDR is the only new development technology. The

AMDR has successfully completed Milestone B, a full system Pre-

liminary Design Review, a hardware Critical Design Review, and will

deliver its first full ship set of production equipment by early FY20.

The remaining equipment required to provide power and cooling to

the AMDR are all based on currently existing equipment and there-

fore induce low technical risk to the program. Given the tremendous

capability improvement AMDR provides to defeat emerging air and

ballistic missile threats over current radars, the low to moderate

technical risk associated with implementing this radar on an FY16

DDG 51 justifies execution of the ECP during the FY13-17 multiyear

procurement contract....

All major equipment development is on track to support DDG 51

Class implementation of the AMDR in FY16....

The Flight III program is supported by appropriate design execu-

tion, Systems Engineering Technical Reviews, and stakeholder rela-

tionships consistent with meeting requirements and overall pro-gram

schedule. Major supporting component developments for AMDR-S

[AMDR S band], PCMs [power conversion modules], and SSGTGs

[ship service gas turbine generators] are well underway by the as-

sociated Participating Resource Managers (PARMs) with schedules

and milestones that support the overall Flight III delivery targets.

Detail design was started in FY14 with the Program Office delivering


Government Furnished Information (GFI) to the shipyard services to

support continued Flight III development. Continued development of

GFI will support detail design fidelity leading to successful Preliminary

Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), and Production

Readiness Review (PRR) targeting 90 percent design completion sup-

porting start of construction.... PARM schedules are integrated with

anticipated in-yard need dates for construction and testing resulting

in successful light-off and delivery targeted for FY22. Management

approach to supporting construction, test and delivery will be consis-

tent with multiyear procedures already in place.

The DDG 51 AEGIS program office employs a risk manage-

ment plan based on the guidance pro-vided in applicable Defense

Acquisition documents, which were then tailored specifically to

the DDG 51 Flight III program. Risk management occurs in main

areas for Flight III: AMDR/RSC [Radar Suite Control] development,

combat system development and total ship design, including HM&E

[hull, mechanical, and electrical] modifications necessary to support

AMDR and the combat system.

DDG 51 Flight III risk management is tracked internally by a Risk

Management Board (RMB) which meets quarterly. Participants of

the RMB include the AEGIS program office, shipyard representa-

tives, and PARM (AMDR, SSGTG and PCM) representatives, along

with combat system and ship design team members. The purpose

of these meetings is to discuss and track the status on current risks,

along with introducing any additional risks that may need to be add-

ed to the risk register. Once a risk is entered into the risk register, it

is tracked through the life of the program. Quarterly RMB reviews

and numerical rescoring of the risk show trends and effectiveness of

mitigation efforts....

With respect to Flight III systems level of maturity, the AMDR is

the only new development technology. The AMDR has successfully

completed Milestone B, a full system Preliminary Design Review, a

hardware Critical Design Review, and will deliver its first full ship set

of production equipment by early FY20. The remaining equipment

required to provide power and cooling to the AMDR are all based

on currently existing equipment and therefore induce low technical

risk to the program. Given the tremendous capability improvement

AMDR provides to defeat emerging air and ballistic missile threats

over current radars, the low to moderate technical risk associated

with implementing this radar on an FY16 DDG 51 justifies execu-

tion of the ECP [Engineering Change Proposal] during the FY13-17

multiyear procurement contract.

This report has assembled the latest available design and

integration information based on the recent design reviews, as-

sumptions, decisions, and sources provided to address the ques-

tions posed. In summary, the AMDR technology has matured, ship

impacts are clearly understood, and design efforts are underway

for ECP development. The Navy's intention, as stated and sup-

ported by the contents of this report, is to integrate AMDR-S into

the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class ships beginning with the last ship

of FY16.

fliGht iii ddG-51: coSt, technical, and Schedule RiSk

Another issue for Congress concerns cost, technical, and schedule

risk for the Flight III DDG-51. Some observers have expressed concern

about the Navy’s ability to complete development of the AMDR and

deliver the first AMDR to the shipyard in time to support the construc-

tion schedule for a first Flight III DDG-51 procured in FY16. The Navy

could respond to a delay in the development of the AMDR by shifting

the procurement of the first Flight III DDG-51 to FY17 or a later year,

while continuing to procure Flight IIA DDG-51s. (The MYP that the Navy

has awarded for FY13-FY17 is structured to accommodate such a shift,

should it become necessary.) Some observers have also expressed

concern about the potential procurement cost of the Flight III DDG-51

design.

A February 2, 2015 press report stated:

The Navy began detailed design work on the Flight III variant...

in December and will conduct a preliminary design review [PDR] of

the program in July....

The program completed several significant milestones on

schedule in 2014 and is on track to do the same in 2015, Captain

Mark Vandroff, DDG-51 program manager, said Jan. 14...

The capabilities development document for Flight III was

validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council on October

28, 2014, Vandroff said, and preliminary design was completed that

same month. Detailed design work was initiated in December and

the program office plans to conduct PDR in July, he added.

The detailed design phase will last about two and a half years,

Vandroff estimated.

MaRch 2015 Gao RepoRt

A March 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report as-

sessing selected DOD acquisition programs stated the following in its

assessment of the DDG-51 program:

The Navy is undertaking Flight III detail design activities in fiscal

2015 concurrent with AMDR development—a strategy that could

disrupt detail design activities as AMDR attributes become more

defined. The Navy identifies AMDR integration as posing techni-

cal, cost and schedule risks to the Flight III program. In addition

to AMDR, Flight III changes include upgrades to the ships’ cooling

and electrical systems and other configuration changes intended

to increase weight and stability margins. The Navy reports that a

prototype of the cooling system is in operation at the vendor’s fac-

tory and is undergoing environmental qualification testing. However,

the Navy identifies cost and schedule risks to the Flight III program

associated with these cooling upgrades. The electrical system

upgrades include changes to the distribution system to add and

modify switchgear and transformers based on the system installed

on lHA 6.

The Navy plans to use engineering change proposals to the

existing Flight IIA multiyear procurement contracts to construct the

first three Flight III ships rather than establish new contracts for

detail design and construction. The Navy has allotted 17 months

to mature the Flight III detail design ahead of the planned solicita-

tion for these proposals and plans to award construction of the first

Flight III ship in fiscal 2016, with two follow-on ships in fiscal 2017.

To support this, per DoD policy the Navy sought congressional ap-

proval in 2014 to transfer funds and begin detail design in the fourth

quarter of fiscal 2014. However, this request was denied, post-

poning detail design start by several months. In September 2014,

the Navy notified Congress that a delayed detail design start may

prompt it to delay the introduction of AMDR until fiscal 2017.

Regarding the AMDR specifically, the report stated:


Technology and Design Maturity

All four of AMDR’s critical technologies—digital-beam-forming;

transmit-receive modules; software; and digital receivers/exciters—

are approaching full maturity, and program officials state that AMDR

is on pace to meet DDG 51 Flight III’s schedule requirements. In 2015,

the contractor is expected to complete an engineering development

model consisting of a single full-size 14-foot radar array—as opposed

to the final four array configuration planned for installation on DDG

51 Flight III—and begin testing in the contractor’s indoor facilities.

Following the critical design review, scheduled for April 2015, the

program plans to install the array in the Navy’s land-based radar test

facility in Hawaii for further testing in a more representative environ-

ment. However, the Navy has no plans to test AMDR in a realistic

(at-sea) environment prior to installation on the lead DDG 51 Flight III

ship. Though the Navy is taking some risk reduction measures, there

are only 15 months planned to install and test the AMDR prototype

prior to making a production decision. Delays may cause compound-

ing effects on testing of upgrades to the Aegis combat system since

the Navy plans to use the AMDR engineering development model in

combat system integration and testing.

In August 2014, AMDR completed its final preliminary design re-

view, which assessed both hardware and software. The total number

of design drawings required for AMDR has not yet been determined

and will be finalized at the program’s critical design review. However,

AMDR officials are confident that the robust technology in the proto-

type represents the physical dimensions, weight, and power require-

ments to support DDG 51 Flight III integration. The AMDR program

office provided an initial interface control document listing AMDR

specifications to the DDG 51 Flight III program office. Ensuring cor-

rect AMDR design parameters is important since the available space,

weight, power and cooling for DDG 51 Flight III is constrained, and

design efforts for the ship will begin before AMDR is fully matured.

The AMDR radar suite controller requires significant software

development, with 1.2 million lines of code and four planned builds.

The program also plans to apply an open systems approach to

available commercial hardware to decrease development risk and

cost. The program office identified that the first of four planned

builds is complete, has passed the Navy’s formal qualification

testing and will enter developmental testing next summer. Each

subsequent build will add more functionality and complexity. AMDR

will eventually need to interface with the Aegis combat management

system found on DDG 51 destroyers. This interface will be devel-

oped in later software builds for fielding in 2020, and the Navy plans

on conducting early combat system integration and risk reduction

testing prior to making a production decision.

Other Program Issues

AMDR still lacks a Test and Evaluation Master Plan approved

by DoD’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), as

required by DoD policy. DOT&E expressed concerns with the lack

of a robust live-fire test plan involving AMDR and the Navy’s self-

defense test ship. According to program officials, their current test

plan’s models will provide sufficient data to support validation and

accreditation and thus verify system performance.

Program Office Comments

According to the Navy, AMDR is on track to deliver a capability

30 times greater than the radar it will replace. To mitigate

development risk and deliver AMDR’s software at the earliest possible

delivery date, the contractor is implementing software development

approaches to improve productivity, in coordination with robust

testing, modeling, and live flight test simulations. Further, an AMDR

hardware facility—including a fully functioning portion of AMDR’s

processing equipment and a software integration lab—is operating at

the contractor’s facility to support iterative testing ahead of, and then

in support of, production of the engineering development model. In

December 2014, a hardware specific critical design review was suc-

cessfully completed demonstrating that technical performance mea-

sures are in compliance with requirements and the hardware design

is sufficiently mature to complete detailed design, and will proceed to

engineering development model array production.

deceMbeR 2014 cbo RepoRt

A December 2014 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on

the cost of the Navy’s shipbuilding programs stated:

[The Flight III DDG-51] configuration would incorporate the

new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), now under develop-

ment, which is larger and more powerful than the radar on earlier

DDG-51s. The effective operation of the AMDR in the new Flight

III configuration, however, will require increasing the amount of

electrical power and cooling available on a Flight III.

With those changes and associated increases in the ship’s

displacement, a DDG-51 Flight III destroyer would cost about

$300 million—or about 20 percent—more than a new Flight IIA

destroyer, CBO estimates. Thus, CBO expects that the average

cost per ship over the entire production run would be $1.9 billion,

or about 19 percent more than the Navy’s estimate of $1.6 billion.

CBO’s estimate of the costs of the DDG Flight IIA and Flight

III ships to be purchased in the future is a little less than it was

last year. Most of the decrease for the Flight III can be attributed

to updated information on the cost of incorporating the AMDR

into the Flight III configuration. The cost of the AMDR itself, ac-

cording to the Navy, has declined steadily through the develop-

ment program, and DoD’s Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation

(CAPE) office concurs with the reduced estimate. The Navy

decreased its estimate for the average price of a DDG-51 Flight

III ship from $1.8 billion in the 2014 plan to $1.6 billion in the 2015

plan, primarily as a result of continued reductions in the estimate

of the cost of the AMDR. Considerable uncertainty remains in

the DDG-51 Flight III program, however. Costs could be higher or

lower than CBO’s estimate, depending on the eventual cost and

complexity of the AMDR, along with associated changes in the

ship’s design to integrate the new radar.

flight iii ddG-51: Growth MarginAnother issue for Congress is whether the Flight III DDG-51

design would have sufficient growth margin for a projected 35- or

40-year service life. A ship’s growth margin refers to its capacity

for being fitted over time with either additional equipment or newer

equipment that is larger, heavier, or more power-intensive than the

older equipment it is replacing, so as to preserve the ship’s mission

effectiveness. Elements of a ship’s growth margin include interior

space, weight-carrying capacity, electrical power, cooling capac-

ity (to cool equipment), and ability to accept increases in the ship’s


vertical center of gravity. Navy ship classes are typically designed so

that the first ships in the class will be built with a certain amount of

growth margin. Over time, some or all of the growth margin in a ship

class may be used up by backfitting additional or newer systems

onto existing ships in the class, or by building later ships in the

class to a modified design that includes additional or newer

systems.

Modifying the DDG-51 design over time has used up some of

the design’s growth margin. The Flight III DDG-51 would in some

respects have less of a growth margin than what the Navy would aim

to include in a new destroyer design of about the same size. A Janu-

ary 18, 2013, press report stated, “In making decisions about the

[Flight III] ship’s power, cooling, weight and other margins, [DDG-51

program manager Captain Mark] Vandroff said [in a presentation at

a conference on January 15, 2013, that] the Navy wanted to ensure

that there was room to grow in the future, to allow for modernization

as well as capability upgrades when new weapons such as the elec-

tromagnetic railgun enter the fleet. Allowing for growth was balanced

with cost, and Vandroff said he thought the program did a great job

of coming up with an affordable solution to a leap-ahead capability

for the fleet.” In his presentation, Vandroff showed a slide comparing

the growth margins of the Flight III design to those of Flight IIA DDG-

51s procured or scheduled to be procured in FY10-FY14.

CRS-13

Figure 2. Navy Briefing Slide on DDG-51 Growth Margins Flight III DDG-51 Design Compared to Flight IIA DDG-51s

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited.

FY10 Flt IIA – FY16* Flt IIIService Life Allowance Comparison

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

Cooling SLA - Connected Loads

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

Electric Power SLA

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

KG SLA (ft)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

Weight SLA

FY16 Flt III with change to 3x4MW GTGS & 4160 VAC

Current

Baseline

450 VAC

450 VAC

450 VAC

4160 VAC

FY16 Flt III with change to 5x300T HES-C AC Units

Current

Baseline

5x300T ACs

5x200T AC

s

5x200T AC

s

5x200T AC

s

FY14 Flt IIA with SPQ-9B; FY16 Flt III with AMDR-S

Notes: 1. - * Second ship in FY16 is designated as the DDG 51 Flight III2. - FY10 values are calculated, out year values are projections based on Not to Exceed Design Budget Estimates

AMD

R-S ∆

SPQ-9B

∆

AMD

R-S ∆

SPQ-9B

∆


15

Current

Baseline Current

Baseline

Source: Presentation of Captain Mark Vandroff to Surface Navy Association, January 15-17, 2013; a copy of the slides was provided to CRS by the Navy Office of Legislative Affairs on January 28, 2013.

Note: SLA means service life allowance (i.e., growth margin).

CRS-13




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

Electric Power SLA

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

KG SLA (ft)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

Weight SLA


Current

Baseline

450 VAC

450 VAC

450 VAC

4160 VAC


Current

Baseline

5x300T ACs

5x200T AC

s

5x200T AC

s

5x200T AC

s



AMD

R-S ∆

SPQ-9B

∆

AMD

R-S ∆

SPQ-9B

∆


15

Current

Baseline Current

Baseline



notes:

1 - * Second ship in Fy16 is designated as the ddG 51 Flight III

2 - Fy10 values are calculated, out year values are projections based on not to Exceed

design Budget Estimates

CRS-13




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

Electric Power SLA

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

KG SLA (ft)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

Weight SLA


Current

Baseline

450 VAC

450 VAC

450 VAC

4160 VAC


Current

Baseline

5x300T ACs

5x200T AC

s

5x200T AC

s

5x200T AC

s



AMD

R-S ∆

SPQ-9B

∆

AMD

R-S ∆

SPQ-9B

∆


15C

urrent Baseline C

urrent Baseline



CRS-13




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

Electric Power SLA

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

KG SLA (ft)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

FY10

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY16

Weight SLA


Current

Baseline

450 VAC

450 VAC

450 VAC

4160 VACFY16 Flt III with change to 5x300T HES-C AC Units

Current

Baseline

5x300T ACs

5x200T AC

s

5x200T AC

s

5x200T AC

s



AMD

R-S ∆

SPQ-9B

∆

AMD

R-S ∆

SPQ-9B

∆


15

Current

Baseline Current

Baseline



A June 7, 2013 blog post stated:

The Navy is confident it has enough space, power and cooling

onboard the hull of its planned new line of destroyers to accom-

modate the planned high-powered Air and Missile Defense Radar

(AMDR), Captain Mark Vandroff, Naval Sea Systems Command

program manager for the DDG-51 shipbuilding program, told USNI

News in an interview on Thursday.

However, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (DDG-51) Flight III

would be limited in the amount of additional weapons the ship could

accommodate—including electromagnetic railguns and high-energy

lasers—without removing other capabilities.

“Depending on how heavy that railgun is, could you fit it on

a DDG? My answer is what on that DDG are you willing to live

without right now?” Vandroff said.

“You wouldn’t have the space and weight to put on some-

thing very large without something relatively sizable coming off.”

Supporters of the Navy’s proposal to procure Flight III DDG-51s

could argue that the ship’s growth margin would be comparable to

that of recently procured Flight IIA DDG-51s, and would be ad-

equate because the increase in capability achieved with the Flight

III configuration reduces the likelihood that the ship will need much

subsequent modification to retain its mission effectiveness over its

projected service life. They could also argue that, given technology

Flight III DDG-51 Design Compared to Flight IIA DDG-51s

FY10 Flt IIA- FY16 Flt III Service Life Allowance Comparison


advances, new systems added to the ship years from now might

require no more (and possibly less) space, weight, electrical power

or cooling capacity than the older systems they replace.

Skeptics could argue that there are uncertainties involved in pro-

jecting what types of capabilities ships might need to have to remain

mission effective over a 35- or 40-year life, and that building expensive

new warships with relatively modest growth margins consequently

would be imprudent. The Flight III DDG-51’s growth margin, they

could argue, could make it more likely that the ships would need to

be removed from service well before the end of their projected service

lives due to an inability to accept modifications needed to preserve

their mission effectiveness. Skeptics could argue that it might not be

possible to fit the Flight III DDG-51 in the future with a high-power (200

kW to 300 kW) solid-state laser (SSl), because the ship would not

have enough available electrical power or cooling capacity to support

such a weapon. Skeptics could argue that high-power SSls could

be critical to the Navy’s ability years from now to affordably counter

large numbers of enemy anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and anti-

ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) that might be fielded by a wealthy and

determined adversary. Skeptics could argue that procuring Flight III

DDG-51s could delay the point at which high-power SSls could be

introduced into the cruiser-destroyer force, and reduce for many years

the portion of the cruiser-destroyer force that could ultimately be back-

fitted with high-power SSls. This, skeptics could argue, might result in

an approach to AAW and BMD on cruisers and destroyers that might

ultimately be unaffordable for the Navy to sustain in a competition

against a wealthy and determined adversary.

flight iii ddG-51: issues Raised in January 2015 dot&e Report

Another issue for Congress concerns issues raised in a January

2015 report from DoD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation

(DOT&E)—DOT&E’s annual report for FY14. Regarding the Flight III

DDG-51 program, the report stated:

Executive Summary

• On March 6, 2014, the deputy secretary of defense

(DEPSECDEF) issued a Resource Management Decision

memorandum directing the Navy to develop a plan to conduct

at-sea testing of the self-defense capability of the DDG 51 Flight

III Destroyer with the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) and

Aegis Combat System. The plan was to be approved by DOT&E

and then adequately funded by the Navy. However, the Navy has

not provided any plan to DOT&E or planned funding to facilitate

the testing.

• On April 23, 2014, DOT&E issued a memorandum to USD(AT&l)

[Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technoogy, and

logistics—DoD’s acquisition executive] stating the intention to

not approve any operational test plan for an Early Operational

Assessment (EOA) of the AMDR due to non-availability of the

required AMDR hardware and software.

• On September 10, 2014, DOT&E issued a classified memorandum

to USD(AT&l) with a review of the Navy Program Executive

Office for Integrated Warfare Systems Design of Experiments

study. The study attempted to provide a technical justification to

show the test program did not require using a Self-Defense Test

Ship (SDTS) to adequately assess the self- defense capability of

the DDG 51 Flight III Class Destroyers. DOT&E found the study

presented a number of flawed rationales, contradicted itself, and

failed to make a cogent argument for why an SDTS is not needed

for operational testing....

Activity

• On March 6, 2014, DEPSECDEF issued a Resource Management

Decision memorandum directing the Navy to develop a plan

to conduct at-sea testing of the self-defense capability of the

DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer with the AMDR and Aegis Combat

System. The plan was to be approved by DOT&E and then

adequately funded by the Navy. To date, the Navy has not

provided any plan to DOT&E or funding in response to this

direction.

• On April 23, 2014, DOT&E issued a memorandum to USD (AT&l)

stating the operational test plan for an EOA of the AMDR could

not be approved because the required AMDR hardware and

software were not available as planned, per the 2010 DOT&E-

and Navy- approved Test and Evaluation Strategy, and as

briefed to the deputy assistant secretary of defense (strategic

and tactical systems) in 2012. A prototype AMDR array, coupled

to an upgraded radar controller using basic software for radar

control and simple search and track functionality, was expected

to be available. The lack of this hardware and software would

have limited the EOA to a “table-top” review of program

documentation, program plans, and available design data, which

would, in DOT&E’s view, not have been a worthwhile use of

resources.

• On September 10, 2014, DOT&E issued a classified

memorandum to USD(AT&l) that provided a review of the

Navy Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems

Design of Experiments study. The study attempted to provide a

technical justification to show the test program did not require

using an SDTS to adequately assess the self-defense capability

of the DDG 51 Flight III Class Destroyers. DOT&E found the

study presented a number of flawed rationales, contradicted

itself, and failed to make a cogent argument for why an SDTS is

not needed for operational testing.

Assessment

• DOT&E’s assessment continues to be that the operational test

programs for the AMDR, Aegis Modernization and DDG 51

Flight III Destroyer programs are not adequate to fully assess

their self-defense capabilities in addition to being inadequate to

test the following Navy-approved AMDR and DDG 51 Flight III

requirements.

• The AMDR Capability Development Document describes AMDR’s

IAMD mission, which requires AMDR to support simultaneous

defense against multiple ballistic missile threats and multiple

advanced anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) threats. The Capability

Development Document also includes an AMDR minimum track

range key Performance Parameter.

• The DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer has a survivability requirement

directly tied to meeting a self-defense requirement threshold


against ASCMs described in the Navy’s Surface Ship Theater

Air and Missile Defense Assessment document of July 2008. It

clearly states that area defense will not defeat all the threats,

thereby demonstrating that area air defense will not completely

attrite all ASCM raids and that individual ships must be capable

of defeating ASCM leakers in the self-defense zone.

• Use of manned ships for operational testing with threat

representative ASCM surrogates in the close-in, self-defense

battlespace is not possible due to Navy safety restrictions

because targets and debris from intercepts pose an unacceptable

risk to personnel at ranges where some of the engagements

will take place. The November 2013 mishap on the USS

Chancellorsville (CG 62) involving an ASCM surrogate target

resulted in even more stringent safety constraints.

• In addition to stand-off ranges (on the order of 1.5 to 5 nautical

miles for subsonic and supersonic surrogates, respectively),

safety restrictions require that ASCM targets not be flown

directly at a manned ship, but at some cross-range offset, which

unacceptably degrades the operational realism of the test.

• Similar range safety restrictions will preclude manned ship

testing of eight of the nine ASCM scenarios contained in

the Navy-approved requirements document for the Aegis

Modernization Advanced Capability Build 16 Combat System

upgrade as well as testing of the AMDR minimum track range

requirement against supersonic, sea-skimming ASCM threat-

representative surrogates at the land-based AMDR Pacific

Missile Range Facility test site.

• To overcome these safety restrictions for the lHA-6, littoral

Combat Ship (lCS), DDG1000, lPD-17, lSD-41/49, and CVN-

78 ship classes, the Navy developed an Air Warfare/Ship Self

Defense Enterprise modeling and simulation (M&S) test bed

that uses live testing in the close-in battlespace with targets

flying realistic threat profiles and manned ship testing for other

battlespace regions and softkill capabilities to validate and

accredit the M&S test bed. The same needs to be done for

the DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer with its AMDR. Side-by-side

comparison between credible live fire test results and M&S test

results form the basis for the M&S accreditation. Without an

SDTS with AMDR and an Aegis Combat System, there will not be

a way to gather all of the operationally realistic live fire test data

needed for comparison to accredit the M&S.

• The Navy needs to improve its Aegis Weapon System (AWS)

models that are currently provided by lockheed Martin’s Multi-

Target Effectiveness Determined under Simulation by Aegis

(MEDUSA) M&S tool.

• MEDUSA encompasses several components of the AWS

including the SPY-1 radar, Command and Decision, and Weapon

Control System. MEDUSA models AWS performance down to

the system specification and the Navy considers it a high-fidelity

simulation of AWS.

• However, it is not a tactical code model, so its fidelity is

ultimately limited to how closely the specification corresponds to

the Aegis tactical code (i.e., the specification is how the system

is supposed to work while the tactical code is how the system

actually works). This adds to the need for realistic live fire shots

to support validation efforts.

• Earlier test events highlight the limitations of specification

models like MEDUSA. During Aegis Advanced Capability Build

08 testing in 2011, five AWS software errors were found during

live fire events and tracking exercises. Three software errors

contributed to a failed SM-2 engagement, one to a failed ESSM

engagement, and one to several failed simulated engagements

during tracking exercises. Since these problems involved

software coding errors, it is unlikely that a specification model

like MEDUSA (which assumes no software errors in tactical

code) would account for such problems and hence it would

overestimate the combat system’s capability.

• By comparison, the Air Warfare/Ship Self Defense Enterprise M&S

test bed used for assessing USS San Antonio’s (lPD-17) self-

defense capabilities used re-hosted Ship Self-Defense System

Mk 2 tactical code.

• Since Aegis employs ESSM in the close-in, self-defense

battlespace, understandingESSM’s performance is critical to

understanding the self-defense capabilities of the DDG 51 Flight

III Destroyer.

• Past DOT&E annual reports have stated that the ESSM’s

operational effectiveness has not been determined. The Navy

has not taken action to adequately test the ESSM’s operational

effectiveness.

• Specifically, because safety limitations preclude ESSM firing in

the close-in self-defense battlespace, there are very little test

data available concerning ESSM’s performance, as installed on

Aegis ships, against supersonic ASCM surrogates.

• Any data available regarding ESSM’s performance against

supersonic ASCM surrogates are from a Ship Self-Defense

System-based combat system configuration, using a completely

different guidance mode or one that is supported by a different

radar suite.

• The cost of building and operating an Aegis SDTS is small

when compared to the total cost of the AMDR development/

procurement and the eventual cost of the 22 (plus) DDG 51

Flight III ships that are planned for acquisition ($55-plus billion).

Even smaller is the cost of the SDTS compared to the cost of the

ships that the DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer is expected to protect (ap-

proximately $450 Billion in new ship construction over the next 30

years).

• If DDG 51 Flight III Destroyers are unable to defend themselves,

these other ships are placed at substantial risk.

• Moreover, the SDTS is not a one-time investment for only

the AMDR/DDG 51 Flight III IOT&E [Initial Operational Test &

Evaluation], as it would be available for other testing that cannot

be conducted with manned ships (e.g., the ESSM Block 2) and as

the combat system capabilities are improved.

Recommendations

• Status of Previous Recommendations. There are three previous

recommendations that remain valid. The Navy should:

1. Program and fund an SDTS equipped with the AMDR and

DDG 51 Flight III Aegis Combat System in time for the DDG

51 Flight III Destroyer IOT&E.

2. Modify the AMDR, Aegis Modernization and DDG 51 Flight

III Test and Evaluation Master Plans to include a phase of


IOT&E using an SDTS equipped with the AMDR and DDG 51

Flight III Combat System.

3. Modify the AMDR, Aegis Modernization, and DDG 51 Flight

III Test and Evaluation Master Plans to include a credible

M&S effort that will enable a full assessment of the AMDR

and DDG 51 Flight III Combat System’s self-defense capa-

bilities.

• FY14 Recommendation.

1. The Navy should comply with the DEPSECDEF direction

to develop and fund a plan, to be approved by DOT&E,

to conduct at-sea testing of the self-defense of the DDG

51 Flight III Destroyer with the AMDR and Aegis Combat

System.

flight iii ddG-51: adequacy of aaW and bMd capability

Another issue for Congress is whether the Flight III DDG-51 will

have sufficient AAW and BMD capability to adequately perform future

AAW and BMD missions. The Flight III DDG-51 would have more

AAW and BMD capability than the current DDG-51 design, but less

AAW and BMD capability than was envisioned for the CG(X) cruiser,

in large part because the Flight III DDG-51 would be equipped with a

14-foot-diameter version of the AMDR that would have more sensi-

tivity than the SPY-1 radar on Flight IIA DDG-51s, but less sensitivity

than the substantially larger version of the AMDR that was envisioned

for the CG(X). The CG(X) also may have had more missile-launch

tubes than the Flight III DDG-51.

The Navy argues that while the version of the AMDR on the

Flight III DDG-51 will have less sensitivity than the larger version

of the AMDR envisioned for the CG(X), the version of the AMDR on

the Flight III DDG-51 will provide sufficient AAW and BMD capabil-

ity to address future air and missile threats. A March 2014 GAO

report assessing selected DoD acquisition programs stated:

The X-band portion of AMDR will be comprised of an

upgraded version of an existing rotating radar (SPQ-9B),

instead of the new design initially planned. The new radar will

instead be developed as a separate program at a later date

and integrated with the thirteenth AMDR unit. According to

the Navy, the upgraded SPQ-9B radar fits better within the

Flight III’s sea frame and expected power and cooling avail-

ability. Program officials state that the SPQ-9B radar will have

capabilities equal to the new design for current anti-air warfare

threats, it will not perform as well against future threats.

The Navy plans to install a 14-foot variant of AMDR on

Flight III DDG 51s starting in 2019. According to draft AMDR

documents, a 14-foot radar is needed to meet threshold re-

quirements, but an over 20-foot radar is required to fully meet

the Navy’s desired integrated air and missile defense needs.

However, the shipyards and the Navy have determined that a

14-foot active radar is the largest that can be accommodated

within the existing DDG 51deckhouse. Navy officials stated

that AMDR is being developed as a scalable design but a new

ship would be required to host a larger version of AMDR.

lack of Roadmap for accomplishing three things in cruiser-destroyer force

Another issue for Congress concerns the lack of an announced

Navy roadmap for accomplishing three things in the cruiser-destroyer

force:

• restoring ship growth margins;

• introducing large numbers of ships with integrated electric

drive systems or other technologies that could provide ample

electrical power for supporting future electrically powered

weapons (such as high-power, solid-state lasers); and

• introducing technologies (such as those for substantially

reducing ship crew size) for substantially reducing ship

operating and support (O&S) costs. (The potential

importance of high-power, solid-state lasers is discussed

in the previous section on the Flight III DDG-51’s growth

margin.)

The Navy’s pre-2008 plan to procure DDG-1000 destroyers and

then CG(X) cruisers based on the DDG-1000 hull design represented

the Navy’s roadmap at the time for restoring growth margins, and for

introducing into the cruiser-destroyer force significant numbers of

ships with integrated electric drive systems and technologies for sub-

stantially reducing ship crew sizes. The ending of the DDG-1000 and

CG(X) programs in favor of continued procurement of DDG-51s leaves

the Navy without an announced roadmap to do these things, because

the Flight III DDG-51 will not feature a fully restored growth margin,

will not be equipped with an integrated electric drive system or other

technologies that could provide ample electrical power for supporting

future electrically powered weapons, and will not incorporate features

for substantially reducing ship crew size or for otherwise reducing ship

O&S costs substantially below that of Flight IIA DDG-51s.

options for congressIn general, options for Congress concerning destroyer acquisition

include the following:

• approving, rejecting or modifying the Navy’s procurement,

advance procurement, and research and development funding

requests for destroyers and their associated systems (such as the

AMDR);

• establishing conditions for the obligation and expenditure of

funding for destroyers and their associated systems; and

• holding hearings, directing reports, and otherwise requesting

information from DoD on destroyers and their associated

systems.

In addition to these general options, below are some additional acqui-

sition options relating to destroyers that Congress may wish to consider.

adjunct Radar ShipThe Navy canceled the CG(X) cruiser program in favor of

developing and procuring Flight III DDG-51s reportedly in part on


the grounds that the Flight III destroyer would use data from off-

board sensors to augment data collected by its AMDR. If those

off-board sensors turn out to be less capable than the Navy as-

sumed when it decided to cancel the CG(X) in favor of the Flight

III DDG-51, the Navy may need to seek other means for aug-

menting the data collected by the Flight III DDG-51’s AMDR.

One option for doing this would be to procure an adjunct

radar ship—a non-combat ship equipped with a large radar

that would be considerably more powerful than the Flight III

DDG-51’s AMDR. The presence in the fleet of a ship equipped

with such a radar could significantly improve the fleet’s AAW

and BMD capabilities. The ship might be broadly similar to (but

perhaps less complex and less expensive than) the new Cobra

Judy Replacement missile range instrumentation ship (rendering

shown below), which is equipped with two large and powerful ra-

dars, and which has an estimated total acquisition cost of about

$1.7 billion. One to a few such adjunct radar ships might be

procured, depending on the number of theaters to be covered,

requirements for maintaining forward deployments of such ships,

and their homeporting arrangements. The ships would have little

or no self-defense capability and would need to be protected in

threat situations by other Navy ships.

flight iii ddG-51 with increased capabilities

Another option would be to design the Flight III DDG-51 to

have greater capabilities than what the Navy is currently envision-

ing. Doing this might well require the DDG-51 hull to be length-

ened—something that the Navy is not envisioning for the Flight III

design. Navy and industry studies on the DDG-51 hull design that

were performed years ago suggested that the hull has the poten-

tial for being lengthened by as much as 55 feet to accommodate

additional systems. Building the Flight III DDG-51 to a lengthened

configuration could make room for additional power-generation

and cooling equipment, additional vertical launch system (VlS)

missile tubes, and larger growth margins. It might also permit a

redesign of the deckhouse to support a larger and more capable

version of the AMDR than the 14-foot diameter version currently

planned for the Flight III DDG-51. Building the Flight III DDG-51

to a lengthened configuration would increase its development

cost and its unit procurement cost. The increase in unit procure-

ment cost could reduce the number of Flight III DDG-51s that the

Navy could afford to procure without reducing funding for other

programs.

ddG-1000 variant with aMdR

Another option would be to design and procure a version of the

DDG-1000 destroyer that is equipped with the AMDR and capable

of BMD operations. Such a ship might be more capable in some re-

gards than the Flight III DDG-51, but it might also be more expensive

to develop and procure. An AMDR-equipped, BMD-capable version

of the DDG-1000 could be pursued as either a replacement for the

Flight III DDG-51 or a successor to the Flight III DDG-51 (after some

number of Flight III DDG-51s were procured). A new estimate of the

cost to develop and procure an AMDR-equipped, BMD-capable

version of the DDG-1000 might differ from the estimate in the Navy’s

2009 destroyer hull/radar study (the study that led to the Navy’s de-

cision to stop DDG-1000 procurement and resume DDG-51 procure-

ment) due to the availability of updated cost information for building

the current DDG-1000 design.

new-design destroyerAnother option would be to design and procure a new-design

destroyer that is intermediate in size between the DDG-51 and DDG-

1000 designs, equipped with the AMDR, and capable of BMD opera-

tions. This option could be pursued as either a replacement for the

Flight III DDG-51 or a successor to the Flight III DDG-51 (after some

number of Flight III DDG-51s were procured). Such a ship might be

designed with the following characteristics:

• either the same version of the AMDR that is envisioned for the

Flight III DDG-51, or a version that is larger (but not as large as the

one envisioned for the CG[X]);

• enough electrical power and cooling capacity to permit the ship to

be backfitted in the future with a high-power SSl;

• more growth margin than on the Flight III DDG-51;

• producibility features for reducing construction cost per ton that

are more extensive than those on the DDG-51 design;

• automation features permitting a crew that is smaller than what

can be achieved on a Flight III DDG-51, so as to reduce ship O&S

costs;

• physical open-architecture features that are more extensive than

those on the Flight III DDG-51, so as to reduce modernization-

related life cycle ownership costs;

• no technologies not already on, or being developed for, other Navy

ships, with the possible exception of technologies that would

enable an integrated electric drive system that is more compact

than the one used on the DDG-1000; and

• DDG-51-like characteristics in other areas, such as survivability,

maximum speed, cruising range and weapons payload.

Such a ship might have a full load displacement of roughly

11,000 to 12,000 tons, compared to about 10,000 tons for the Flight

III DDG-51, 15,000 or more tons for an AAW/BMD version of the

DDG-1000, and perhaps 15,000 to 23,000 tons for a CG(X).

A March 18, 2013 press report states that

A recommended reevaluation of the next flights of lCSs [lit-

toral Combat Ships]... is only part of a classified memo, “Vision

for the 2025 Surface Fleet,” submitted late last year by the head

of Naval Surface Forces, Vice Admiral Tom Copeman, to Chief of


Naval Operations Admiral Jon Greenert....

Copeman, according to several sources familiar with the

document, also recommended against building the DDG 51

Flight III destroyers, a modification of the Arleigh Burke class

to be fitted with the new Air Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)

under development to replace the SPY-1 radars used in Aegis

warships. The AMDR, designed with higher power and fidel-

ity to handle the complex ballistic-missile defense mission,

will require significantly more electrical power than the current

system. And, while the AMDR apparently will fit into the DDG 51

hull, margins for future growth are severely limited.

Instead, sources said Copeman recommends creating a

new, large surface combatant fitted with AMDR and designed

with the power, weight and space to field “top-end energy

weapons” like the electromagnetic rail gun under development

by the Navy.

The new ship could also be developed into a replacement

for today’s Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers in the air defense

mission of protecting deployed aircraft carriers—a mission

Copeman says needs to be preserved. All flattops have a “shot-

gun” cruiser that accompanies them throughout a deployment,

but the missile ships are aging and, by 2025, only four will

remain in service to protect the fleet’s 11 carriers.

The Navy prefers cruisers over destroyers for the role

because of the bigger ships’ extra missile fire control channels,

their more senior commanders and a better ability to tow the

carrier should it be disabled.

While recommending against the Flight III, Copeman would

continue building the existing

DDG 51 Flight IIA variant until a new design is available.

An April 9, 2014 press report states:

The U.S. Navy is in the very early stages of developing a

new destroyer—called the Future Surface Combatant—which

will replace the existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and

enter service by the early 2030s, Navy leaders told Military.com.

Navy officials said it is much too early to speculate on hull

design or shape for the new ship but lasers, on-board power-

generation systems, increased automation, next-generation

weapons, sensors and electronics are all expected to figure

prominently in the development of the vessel.

The Future Surface Combatant will succeed and serve

alongside the Navy’s current Flight III DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-

class destroyer program slated to being construction in 2016.

Overall, the Secretary of the Navy’s long-range shipbuilding

plan calls for construction of 22 Flight III DDGs, Navy officials

said.

There are a handful of early emerging requirements regard-

ing what admirals want for the ship, Rear Adm. Tom Rowden,

director of surface warfare, told Military.com in an interview.

“I could not even draw a picture for you,” said Rowden, who

went on to explain that greater automation and integrated elec-

trical power are part of the calculus of early discussions.

He emphasized that the new ship will leverage successful

next-generation technologies already underway in other plat-

forms such as the DDG 1000 destroyer, littoral Combat Ship

and Ford-class aircraft carriers.

The Future Surface Combatant may draw from the DDG

1000’s high-tech electric drive system that propels the ship

while generating 58 megawatts of on-board electrical power.

On-board power will be in high demand as lasers and directed

energy weapons become more prominent, Rowden said.

“We are moving all ahead with respect to the development

of lasers as a weapon in the future. You can take the power that

is generated on the ship and convert that into a fire control so-

lution without having to shoot a missile that may cost a million

to ten million,” Rowden explained....

The largest aspect of emphasis for the nascent Future

Surface Combatant program is something Rowden called

modularity, a term referring to a technological ability to rap-

idly and effectively make adjustments as needed.

The new ship design will emphasize flexibility to ensure the

platform keeps pace with fast- moving technological change

and threats, he said....

“The modules that we install in the ship may have no

bearing or resemblance to what needs to be there when we

decommission the ship. The weapons and sensors will be

different. We have to think about how to move through the

design, manufacture and subsequent upgrades in the most

cost-effective and affordable fashion. We need to design that

into the ship,” he said.

legislative activity for fY16

fY16 fundinG RequeSt

The Navy estimates the combined procurement cost of the two

DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY16 at $3,522.7 million.

A comparison with the cost of the two DDG-51s procured in FY15

suggests that, within the estimated combined cost of $3,522.7

million for the two FY16 DDG-51s, the Flight III DDG-51 might ac-

count for, very roughly, $2 billion, while the other DDG-51 might

account for, very roughly, $1.5 billion. The potential difference of,

very roughly, $500 million in cost between the two ships includes

one-time design and change-order costs for modifying the DDG-51

design to the Flight III configuration, additional costs for the AMDR

radar and associated electrical power and cooling equipment, and

some loss of shipyard production learning curve benefits due to the

change in the ship’s design.

The two DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY16 have

received a total of $373.0 million in prior-year advance procure-

ment (AP) funding. The Navy’s proposed FY16 budget requests the

remaining $3,149.7 million needed to complete the ships’ estimated

combined procurement cost. The Navy’s proposed FY16 budget also

requests $75.0 million in so-called cost-to- complete procurement

funding to replace funding for DDG-51s procured in FY10-FY12 that

was canceled by March 1, 2013, sequester. The Navy’s proposed

FY16 budget also requests $433.4 million in procurement funding to

complete construction of Zumwalt- (DDG-1000) class destroyers pro-

cured in prior years, and $241.8 million in research and development

funding for development work on the AMDR. The funding request for

the AMDR is contained in Program Element (PE) 0604522N (“Ad-

vanced Missile Defense Radar [AMDR] System”), which is line 118 in

the Navy’s FY16 research and development account.


presence is possible because Navy planning and budget decisions continue to be guided by the three tenets the chief of naval operations (CNO) established when he first took office: Warfighting First, Operate Forward and Be Ready. Each of these tenets helps drive a strong focus on readi-ness—both now and in the future.

Actions of Congress helped stabilize readi-ness by supporting increases over sequestered funding levels through the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, and the subsequent authorization and appropriations acts for FY14 and this year. Nonetheless, we have not yet recovered from the readiness impact of over a decade of combat operations, exacerbated by the imposition of a lengthy continuing resolution and followed by budget sequestration in FY13, just as we were beginning to reset the force. These circum-stances created maintenance backlogs that have prevented us from getting ships back to the fleet on time and aircraft back on the flight line. We continue our efforts to rebuild the workforce in our public depots—both shipyards and aviation readiness centers—and reduce the number of lost operational days, but it will take years to dig out of a readiness hole.

The FY16 Navy budget submission is designed to continue our readiness recovery, restoring our required contingency operations capacity by 2018-2020 while continuing to pro-vide a sustainable forward presence. PB-16 is the minimum funding required to execute the na-tion’s defense strategy, though we still carry risks in two important mission areas, notably when confronted with a technologically advanced adversary or when forced to deny the objective of an opportunistic aggressor in a second region while already engaged in a major contingency. As the CNO stated in his recent testimony to the full committee, risk in our ability to deter and defeat aggression and project power despite anti-access/area-denial challenges mean “longer timelines to win, more ships and aircraft out of action in battle, more sailors, Marines and mer-chant mariners killed, and less credibility to deter adversaries and assure allies in the future.” That level of risk arises from capacity and readiness challenges as well as slower delivery of critical capabilities to the fleet, particularly in air and missile defense and overall ordnance capacity.

My testimony today will focus on the current readiness of the Navy, and our plan, sup-ported by our FY16 budget submission, to meet

the challenges to delivering future readiness. If we return to a sequestered budget in FY16, we will not be able to execute the defense strategy as it is conveyed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review and a revision will be required.

Current Navy Operations and Readiness

Employing a combination of forward-deployed naval force ships homeported overseas and rotationally deploying units from CONUS, our Navy sustains a global presence of about 100 ships and submarines. Their combat power and other capabilities include the contributions of embarked carrier air wings or other aviation units, Marine expeditionary units or elements of a special purpose Marine air/ground task force, Coast Guard detachments and special opera-tions units, among others. These capabilities are further enhanced by land-based or expeditionary Navy forces in theater. With additional ships training in home waters, approximately half the battle force is underway or deployed on any given day.

Every hour of every day around the globe we are executing missions. The sun never sets on the U.S. Navy. Ballistic missile submarines sustain the most survivable leg of our nation’s nuclear triad. Carrier strike groups (CSGs), amphibi-ous ready groups (ARGs) and attack submarines (SSNs) conduct named operations in support of the combatant commanders (COCOMs) or exercise with other nations to build the partnerships essential to the stability of the global system. Ballistic missile defense-capable cruisers and destroyers protect U.S. and allied sea and shore-based assets. Our units operate with other nations through exercises or through execut-ing theater security cooperation plans; activities essential to the stability of the global system. As an example, last month, USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) practiced the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea with the Chinese Navy, enhancing the professional 4 maritime relationship between the U.S. Seventh Fleet and the People’s Liberation Army-Navy. Our crews and platforms are trained and certified to execute their core capabilities across the spectrum of military operations and are ready to be re-tasked as required to meet the next challenge. This was the case in August 2014 when the George H.W. Bush CSG relocated from the Arabian Sea to the North Arabian Gulf and was on station, ready for combat operations, in less than 30 hours. The Navy is fundamentally

multimission and rapidly adjusts to meet new challenges that might require U.S. presence and power projection forces.

Navy will continue to sustain the readiness of our deployed forces under our FY16 budget submission, but it will require several years to fully recover the capability to rapidly respond to COCOM requirements for a major contin-gency. In addition to our forces that are globally deployed today, combined requirements include: three extra CSGs and three ARGs to deploy within 30 days to respond to a major crisis. However, on average, we have only been able to keep one CSG and one ARG in this readiness posture, one-third of the requirement. Assuming the best case of an on-time, sufficient and stable budget with no major contingencies, we should be able to recover from accumulated backlogs by 2018 for CSGs and 2020 for ARGs—five-plus years after the first round of sequestration.

Recovery of readiness also requires a com-mitment to protect the time required to properly maintain and modernize our capital-intensive force and to conduct full-spectrum training. Our updated force generation model—the Optimized Fleet Response Plan (OFRP)—is designed to meet this commitment as well as better align all elements that support readiness development. Achieving full readiness entails the restoration of required capacity to our public shipyards and aviation depots—primarily through hiring and workforce development. In addition to aviation depots backlogs, we must also overcome the chal-lenges of extending the service life of our legacy F/A-18 Hornet aircraft to 10,000 hours. Under-lying our plan is the need to operate the battle force at a sustainable level over the long term. With this plan, we recover our material readiness, keep faith with our sailors and their families by providing more predictability in the operations schedule, and control the pace of deployments.

Meeting Our Readiness Challenges

The Navy FY16 budget request continues to fully support the readiness of our deployed forces. The budget request sustains our credible and sur-vivable sea-based strategic deterrent and with con-tinued overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding meets the adjudicated requirements of the FY16 Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP). This includes at least two CSGs and two ARGs, operating forward, fully mission-capable and certified for deployment. We continue

Naval Readiness➥ continued fRoM paGe 1


to employ innovative approaches, including the use of new platforms like the joint high-speed vessel and the mobile landing platform, to ensure the Navy/Marine Corps team continues to meet the security requirements of our nation, while providing the opportunity to reset and sustain the material condition of the force. Greater use of capable auxiliaries helps relieve pressure on our overstretched amphibious fleet.

Generating the Force

Navy readiness is at its lowest point in many years. Budget reductions forced cuts to afloat and ashore operations, generated ship and aircraft maintenance backlogs, and compelled us to ex-tend unit deployments. Since 2013, many ships have been on deployment for eight to 10 months or longer, exacting a cost on the resiliency of our people, sustainability of our equipment, and service life of our ships.

Navy has managed force generation using the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) since it was adopted in 2003 and fully implemented in 2007. This cyclic process was designed to support readiness by synchronizing periodic deep maintenance and modernization with the fleet training required to achieve GFMAP forward presence objectives and provide contingency response capacity. However, the continued employment of our contingency response units to generate increased presence over the past decade has not only increased main-tenance requirements, it has also limited their availability to complete required maintenance and training. As with previous testimony of the last few years, this practice is unsustainable.

In 2013 and 2014, for example, naval forces provided 6 percent and 5 percent more forward presence, respectively, than allocated due to emer-gent operations and unanticipated contingencies. This unbudgeted employment amounted to great-er than 2,200 days in theater over that approved on the global force management plan in 2013 and greater than 1,800 days in theater over in 2014. We should operate the fleet at sustainable presence levels in order for the Navy to meet requirements, while still maintaining material readiness, giving ships time to modernize, and allowing them to reach their expected service lives.

This year, Navy began implementation of the Optimized Fleet Response Plan (OFRP) to address these challenges. Designed to stabilize maintenance schedules and provide sufficient time to maintain and train the force while continuing to meet operational commitments, OFRP aligns supporting processes and resources to improve overall readiness. Furthermore, it provides a more stable and predictable schedule for our sailors and

their families. We will continue OFRP implemen-tation across the FYDP.

Ship Operations

The baseline Ship Operations request for FY16 provides an average of 45 underway steam-ing days per quarter for deployed ships and 20 days non-deployed, and would support the highest priority presence requirements of the combatant commanders to include global presence for two CSGs, two ARGs and an acceptable number of deployed submarines. With OCO, ship operations are funded at 58 steaming days deployed/24 days non-deployed. The requested funding will meet the full adjudicated FY16 GFMAP ship presence requirement, support higher operational tempo for deployed forces and provide full operating funding for individual ship-level maintenance and training.

Air Operations (Flying Hour Program)

The Flying Hour Program funds opera-tions, intermediate and unit-level maintenance, and training for ten Navy carrier air wings, three Marine Corps air wings, fleet air support aircraft, training squadrons, reserve forces and various enabling activities. The FY16 baseline program provides funding to build required levels of readi-ness for deployment and sustain the readiness of units that are deployed. Navy and Marine Corps aviation forces are intended to achieve an average T-2.5/T-2.0 USN/USMC training readiness requirement with the exception of non-deployed

F/A-18 (A-D) squadrons. Because of shortfalls in available aircraft due to depot throughput issues, these squadrons are funded at the maximum ex-ecutable level while non-deployed, resulting in an overall readiness average of T-2.8/2.4. All squad-rons deploy meeting the T-2.0 readiness require-ment and OCO provides for additional deployed operating tempo above baseline funding.

Spares

The replenishment of existing, “off the shelf” spares used in ship and aircraft maintenance is funded through the Ship Operations and Flying Hour Programs. With OCO, those programs are fully funded in PB16. The provision of initial and outfitting spares for new platforms, systems and modifications is funded through the spares accounts. Traditionally, these accounts have been funded below the requirement due to limited funding or past execution issues. Due to the ulti-mate impact on readiness, PB16 sustains execut-able funding levels to reduce cross-decking and cannibalization of parts driven by large backlogs. This is complemented by Navy-wide efforts to improve execution of these accounts, which have shown considerable success in aviation spares over the last two years, and continues to be a focus area.

Readiness Investments Required to Sustain the Force: Ship and Aircraft Maintenance

The Navy maintenance budget requests are built upon proven sustainment models. They


are focused on continuing our ongoing invest-ment to improve material readiness of our surface combatants, and support the integration of new capabilities into naval aviation.

The FY16 baseline budget request funds 80 percent of the ship maintenance requirement across the force, addressing both depot and inter-mediate level maintenance for carriers, submarines and surface ships. OCO funding provides the remaining 20 percent of the full baseline require-ment to continue reduction of the backlog of life cycle maintenance in our surface ships after years of high operational tempo and deferred maintenance. This year, the additional OCO for maintenance reset ($557 million) includes fund-ing for aircraft carriers as well to address increased wear and tear outside of the propulsion plant as a result of high operational demands. Since much of this work can only be accomplished in drydock, maintenance reset must continue across the FYDP.

To address the increased workload in our public shipyards and improve on-time delivery of ships and submarines back to the fleet, the FY16 budget grows the shipyard workforce, reaching a high of 33,500 personnel in FY17, with additional investment in workforce training and develop-ment. One attack submarine (SSN) availability is moved to the private sector in FY16 with plans for two additional SSN availabilities in the private sector in FY17 to mitigate total workload. The FY16 budget includes $89.5 million in MILCON projects and $142M in restoration and modern-ization projects for naval shipyards in FY16, for a total capital investment of 8.7 percent in these important facilities.

The Fleet Readiness Centers (FRCs), Navy’s aviation depots, have been challenged to recover full productivity after hiring freezes, furlough, and overtime restrictions in FY13. They face a growing workload, particularly for the additional service life extension of our legacy F/A-18 Hornets. FRCs are aggressively hiring with a goal of reaching full capacity by the end of this year. The hiring of additional engineering support to address new repairs required to reach 10,000 hours of service life, reallocation of some of the workforce, and contracting for private sector support have all been undertaken to complete existing work-in-process at the FRCs, particularly for legacy Hornets. Field teams have been increased to improve flight line maintenance and understanding of the material condition of airframes coming to the depots. As new repairs and parts are identified and approved, kits are developed to ensure long-lead parts are readily available.

As a result of these challenges, the Aviation Depot Maintenance program is funded to an executable level of 77 percent in baseline, 83

percent with OCO for new work to be inducted in FY16. This funding level supports a total of 564 airframes and 1,834 engines/engine modules to be repaired.

Navy Expeditionary Combat Forces

Navy expeditionary combat forces support ongoing combat operations and enduring combatant commander requirements by deploy-ing maritime security, construction, explosive ordnance disposal, logistics and intelligence units to execute missions across the full spectrum of naval, joint and combined operations. In FY16, baseline funding is improved significantly over 10 prior years, providing 80% of the enduring requirement, with OCO supporting an additional 15% of the requirement.

Readiness Investments Required to Sustain the Force: Shore Infrastructure

The Navy’s shore infrastructure, both in the United States and overseas, provides essential support to our fleet. In addition to supporting op-erational and combat readiness, it is also a critical element in the quality of life and quality of work for our sailors, Navy civilians and their families. As we have done for several years, we continue to take risk in the long-term viability of our shore infrastructure to sustain fleet readiness under the current funding level. However, in FY16 our facilities sustainment is improved to 84 percent of the OSD Facilities Sustainment Model versus 70 percent this year. When restoring and moderniz-ing our infrastructure, we intend to prioritize life/safety issues and efficiency improvements to exist-ing infrastructure and focus on repairing only the

key components of our mission critical facilities. Less critical projects will remain deferred. Overall, the Department of the Navy will exceed the mandated capital investment of 6 percent across all shipyards and depots described in 10 USC 2476 with a 7.4 percent total investment in FY16. With the support provided by the Congress, Navy is on track to exceed the minimum investment in FY15 as well.

Looking Ahead

As we look to the future, the Navy will con-tinue to be globally deployed to provide a credible and survivable strategic deterrent and to support the mission requirements of the regional combat-ant commanders. Global operations continue to assume an increasingly maritime focus, and our Navy will sustain its forward presence, warfighting focus, and readiness preparations to continue op-erating where it matters, when it matters. We see no future reduction of these requirements and we have focused the FY16 Navy budget submission to address the challenges to achieving the necessary readiness to execute our missions. Any funding be-low this submission requires a revision of America’s defense strategy. Sequestration would outright damage the national security of this country.

In closing, we should recall that our sailors are the most important element of the future readiness of the Navy. Fortunately, they are the highest quality, most diverse force in our his-tory and continue to make us the finest Navy in the world. As the CNO says, “They are our asymmetric advantage.” On behalf of all our sailors (active and reserve), civilians and their families, let me reiterate our appreciation for the continued support of the members of the com-mittee.


ContraCt awarDs

The Navy is awarding indefinite-

delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple-

award contracts to 464 contractors that

will provide for their competition for

service requirements solicited by Naval

Sea Systems Command, Naval Air

Systems Command, Space and Naval

Warfare Systems Command, Naval

Supply Systems Command, Military

Sealift Command, Naval Facilities

Command, Strategic Systems Programs,

Office of Naval Research and the Marine

Corps. The 22 functional service areas

within the scope of the contracts include:

1) research and development support; 2)

engineering system engineering and

process engineering support; 3)

modeling, simulation, stimulation and

analysis support; 4) prototyping,

pre-production, model-making and fabric

support; 5) system design documenta-

tion and technical data support; 6)

software engineering, development,

programming and network support; 7)

reliability, maintainability and availability

support; 8) human factors, performance

and usability engineering support; 9)

system safety engineering support; 10)

configuration management support; 11)

quality assurance support; 12) informa-

tion system development, information

assurance and information technology

support; 13) ship inactivation and

disposal support; 14) interoperability, test

and evaluation, trials support; 15)

measurement facilities, range and

instrumentation support; 16) acquisition

logistics support; 17) supply and

provisioning support; 18) training

support; 19) in-service engineering, fleet

introduction, installation and checkout

support; 20) program support; 21)

functional and administrative support;

and 22) public affairs and multimedia

support. These contracts are in addition

to the existing 2,420 contracts previously

awarded under the SeaPort Enhanced

(SeaPort-e) acquisition program for

services procurements. The government

estimates a maximum of $5,300,000,000

of services will be procured per year via

orders issued under the SeaPort-e

multiple award contracts. The award of

these contracts is a result of the

SeaPort-e Rolling Admissions solicita-

tion. The SeaPort-e acquisition is

comprised of seven regional zones in

which task orders will be competed

based upon the principal place of

performance. These awards contain

provisions to set aside requirements for

small businesses, service-disabled

veteran-owned small businesses, 8a

business development program and

historically underutilized business zone

small businesses. Under these multiple

award contracts, each contractor will be

provided a fair opportunity to compete

for individual task orders solicited within

their zone or zones of performance. The

awards will have four-year periods of

performance. These contracts were

competitively procured via the Navy

Electronic Commerce Online website,

with 612 offers received and 464

contracts awarded. Contract funds will

be obligated at the time of task order

award and, multiple funding types with

varying expiration dates may be used,

consistent with the purpose for which the

funds were appropriated. The Naval

Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren

Division, Dahlgren, Va., is the contracting

activity (N00178-15-D-8053 -- N00178-

15-D-8516). The list of contractors

involved are: 11th Hour Search llC

doing business as 11 Hour Service,

Springfield, Va.; 2rbConsulting Inc.,

kirkland, Wash.; 3T Federal Solutions

llC, Austin, Texas; 838 Inc., Folsom,

Calif.; Abacus Technology Corp., Chevy

Chase, Md.; Acadia Cyber Solutions

llC, Rockville, Md.; AccessAgility llC

doing business as AccessAgility,

Bethesda, Md.; ActioNet Inc., Vienna,

Va.; Adsys Controls Inc., Irvine, Calif.;

Advance Digital Systems Inc. doing

business as ADS, Fairfax, Va.; Advanced

Technologies and laboratories Interna-

tional Inc., Gaithersburg, Md.; AEEC, llC

doing business as American Consultants,

Reston, Va.; Aerosol Monitoring &

Analysis, Hanover, Md.; Aerospace

Engineering & Support Inc. doing

business as AES, Ogden, Utah; AG

GRACE Inc., Frederick, Md.; Agile

Communications Inc., Thousand Oaks,

Calif.; Airport Properties Inc. doing

business as AP IT Solutions, California,

Md.; Alaris Companies, Petaluma, Calif.;

All Native Inc., Winnebago, Neb.; AllCom

Global Services Inc., lake Saint louis,

Mo.; Alliant keystone Consulting Partners

llC, Houston, Texas; Altus Technical

Solutions llC doing business as Altus

Technology Solutions, Severn, Md.;

AMEC Foster Wheeler Environment &

Infrastructure Inc., Blue Bell, Pa.;

Anglicoelectric llC, North Charleston,

S.C.; ANR Consulting Group Inc.,

Addison, Texas; Applied Information

Sciences Inc., Reston, Va.; Applied

Intellect, Wexford, Pa.; Applied Tech-

niques Corp. doing business as ATC,

Silverdale, Wash.; Appsential llC,

Bethesda, Md.; Aptima Inc., Woburn,

Mass.; Archimedes Global Inc., Wesley

Chapel, Fla.; Ardmore Consulting Group

Inc., Atlanta, Ga.; ARGO Systems llC,

Hanover, Md.; Arrow Solutions Group

Inc., Billings, Mont.; Arrowpoint Corp.,

Alexandria, Va.; Artel llC, Herndon, Va.;

ASJ IT Services llC, Chesapeake, Va.;

Assured Consulting Solutions llC,

Fairfax, Va.; Atlas Group ltd., Fairfax, Va.;

Atlas Technologies Inc., North Charles-

ton, S.C.; Audavi Corp., San Jose, Calif.;

Automation Technologies Inc. doing

business as ATI, Columbia, Md.; Avatar

Partners Inc, Huntington Beach, Calif.;

Avening Management and Technical

Services llC doing business as

AveningTech, la Plata, Md.; AVUM Inc.,

Agoura, Calif.; Bacik Group llC, Pelham,

Ala.; Banda Group International llC,

Chandler, Ariz.; Banneker Industries Inc.,

North Smithfield, R.I.; Barquin and

Associates Inc. doing business as

Barquin International, Washington, D.C.;

Bart & Associates Inc. doing business as

B&A, Mclean, Va.; BB&E Inc., Northville,

Mich.; BCF Solutions Inc., Arlington, Va.;

Beat llC doing business as Business

Enabled Acquisition & Technology, San

Antonio, Texas; Bennett Aerospace Inc.,

Cary, N.C.; Biscotti, Giacomo doing

business as ATCSI, Chesapeake, Va.;

Biswas Information Technology Solutions

Inc. doing business as BITS, Herndon,

2APrIl


Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Va.; Black knight Technology Inc.,

Fredericksburg, Va.; Black Tree Group

llC doing business as Black Tree Group,

Tampa, Fla.; Brace Management Group

Inc., Upper Marlboro, Md.; Brockwell

Technologies Inc., Huntsville, Ala.;

Buchanan & Edwards Inc., Arlington, Va.;

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co. Inc.,

kansas City, Mo.; Business Management

Associates Inc. , Alexandria, Va.; By light

Professional Services Inc., Arlington, Va.;

C² Technologies Inc., Vienna, Va.; C4

Planning Solutions llC, Blythe, Ga.;

Canterbury Resources Inc., Alexandria,

Va.; Canvas Inc., Huntsville, Ala.; Capital

Strategies llC, leesburg, Va.; CB&I

Federal Services llC, Baton Rouge, la.;

Celerity Government Solutions llC doing

business as Xcelerate Solutions, Mclean,

Va.; Centech Group Inc., Falls Church,

Va.; Centeva llC, South Jordan, Utah;

Certified Technical Experts Inc. doing

business as CTE, Montgomery, Ala.;

Chakrabarti Management Consultancy

Inc. doing business as CMCI, Fairfax, Va.;

Chenault-Herbert, Johnnie Maria doing

business as MCH Consulting Services,

Suffolk, Va.; Chenega Support Services

llC, San Antonio, Texas; Cherokee

Energy Management & Construction Inc.,

Virginia Beach, Va.; Cherokee Information

Services Inc. doing business as CIS,

Alexandria, Va.; Chimera Enterprises

International Inc., Edgewood, Md.; Chitra

Productions llC, Virginia Beach, Va.;

Chugach Information Technology Inc.,

Anchorage, Alaska; Clarus Group llC,

Overland Park, kan.; Clason Point

Partners Inc., Yonkers, N.Y.; Cline-Morin

Associates, Huntsville, Ala.; Command

Post Technologies Inc., Suffolk, Va.;

Companion Data Services llC,

Columbia, S.C.; Competitive Innovations

llC doing business as CI, Arlington, Va.;

Computek Inc. doing business as

Tidewater Naval Architects, Portsmouth,

Va.; Computing Technologies Inc.,

Fairfax, Va.; Control Point Corp., Goleta,

Calif.; Conviso Inc., luray, Va.; CorDel

Information Security Services llC doing

business as CorDel, Sunnyvale, Calif.;

Cornerstone Defense, Ellicott City, Md.;

Corp of Mercer University, The doing

business as Mercer Engrg Res Ctr,

Warner Robins, Ga.; Cosmic Software

Technology Inc., Princeton, N.J.; Cowan

& Associates Inc., Arlington, Va.; Creative

Information Technology Inc., Falls

Church, Va.; Creek Technologies Co.

doing business as Creek Tech, Beaver-

creek, Ohio; Crescent Allied Solutions

Inc., Irvine, Calif.; CRI Advantage Inc.,

Boise, Idaho; Crisis Response Co. llC,

Roanoke, Texas; Critical-Path-Solutions

Inc., Moorpark, Calif.; Cubic Applications

Inc., San Diego, Calif.; D9Tech Resources

llC, Virginia Beach, Va.; Dane llC,

Chantilly, Va.; Darkblade Systems Corp.,

Stafford, Va.; Data Intelligence llC,

Marlton, N.J.; Data Matrix Solutions Inc.,

Herndon, Va.; linda M. Davies doing

business as Comprehensive Professional

and Proposal Services (CP2S), Freder-

icksburg, Va.; Dayton T. Brown Inc.,

Bohemia, N.Y.; Defense Acquisition &

logistics Solutions llC doing business

as DAlS, Norfolk, Va.; Defense Venture

Holdings llC doing business as DVH,

Virginia Beach, Va.; DefTec Corp. doing

business as DefTec, Huntsville, Ala.;

Delex Systems Inc., Herndon, Va.;

DeVilliers Technology Solutions llC

doing business as DeVil-Tech, Stafford,

Va.; DeVine Consulting Inc., Fremont,

Calif.; Dial & Associates llC, California,

Md.; DigiFlight Inc., Columbia, Md.;

Digital Cloak llC, Stafford, Va.; Disk

Enterprise Solutions Inc., lexington Park,

Md.; Dnutch Associates Inc., Methuen,

Mass.; Dominion Energy Management

Inc., Ashland, Va.; Donnelly & Moore Inc.,

New City, N.Y.; DWBH llC doing

business as DWBH, Mclean, Va.;

Dynamic Animation Systems Inc. doing

business as DAS, Fairfax, Va.; Dynamic

Aviation Group Inc., Bridgewater, Va.; E.

k. Fox & Associates ltd., Fairfax, Va.;

E.M. Norton Enterprises Inc. doing

business as EMN Defense Services, San

Diego, Calif.; E3 Federal Solutions llC,

Arlington, Va.; Eagle TG llC, New

Braunfels, Texas; Eiden Systems Corp.,

Charlottesville, Va.; Elevan llC doing

business as Elevate Systems, San

Antonio, Texas; ElEVI Associates llC,

Columbia, Md.; EliteTech Associates llC

doing business as EliteTech Associates,

San Diego, Calif.; Emerging Technology

Ventures Inc., Alamogordo, N.M.;

EmeSec Inc. doing business as

EMESEC, Reston, Va.; Emprise Corp.,

ledyard, Conn.; Endyna Inc., Mclean,

Va.; Engenuity llC, Edgewater, Md.;

Enterprise Solutions & Management,

Chula Vista, Calif.; Enterprise Systems

Management llC, leonardtown, Md.;

Envistacom llC, Atlanta, Ga.; Ernst &

Young llP, Washington, D.C.; eScience

& Technology Solutions Inc., North

Charleston, S.C.; Evoke Research and

Consulting llC, Arlington, Va.; Excella

Consulting Inc., Arlington, Va.; Excelsior

Consulting Services Inc., Westmont, Ill.;

Expression Networks llC, Mclean, Va.;

FEDITC llC doing business as Federal

Integrated Engineering Consulting,

Rockville, Md.; Fednova Inc., Alexandria,

Va.; Filius Corp., Centreville, Va.; First

Division Consulting Inc., Arlington, Va.;

Five Stones Research Corp., Browns-

boro, Ala.; Fluor Intercontinental Inc.,

Greenville, S.C.; Foresight Engineering

P.C., Reston, Va.; FreeAlliance.com llC,

Washington, D.C.; Frontier Technology

Inc., Goleta, Calif.; Full Circle Computing

Inc., Exton, Pa.; G & H International

Services Inc., Washington, D.C.; G Force

Inc., Washington, D.C.; GAMA-1

Technologies llC, Greenbelt, Md.; GAP

Solutions Inc. doing business as GAPSI,

Reston, Va.; GeminiTech llC doing

business as GeminiTech, Waipahu,

Hawaii; Gemini Technologies Inc.,

Warrington, Pa.; General Infomatics Inc.,

Mclean, Va.; Geowireless Inc., North

Charleston, S.C.; Global Data Solutions

Inc. doing business as GDS, Blooming-

ton, Ill.; Global Infotek Inc., Reston, Va.;

Global Management Systems Inc. doing

business as GMSI, Washington, D.C.;

Global Productivity Solutions llC,

Clinton Township, Mich.; Global

Research and Technology Corp.,

Camarillo, Calif.; Global Technical

Services llC, Anchorage, Alaska;

Government Tactical Solutions llC,

Potomac Falls, Va.; GPH Consulting llC,

Charleston, S.C.; Green Expert Technol-

ogy Inc., Cherry Hill, N.J.; GRT Corp.,


Stamford, Conn.; Guardian Moving and

Storage Co. Inc., Hunt Valley, Md.;

Guardians of Honor llC, Oxon Hill, Md.;

Guerrero Professional Services Inc. doing

business as Dr. Diesel Technologies,

Temecula, Calif.; Cignus Consulting llC,

leesburg, Va.; Halfaker and Associates

llC, Arlington, Va.; Hana Industries Inc.,

Honolulu, Hawaii; Harris IT Services

Corp., Herndon, Va.; Hawk Associates

llC, Sierra Vista, Ariz.; HazTrain Inc.,

Waldorf, Md.; Helios Remote Sensing

Systems Inc., Rome, N.Y.; Higgins,

Hermansen, Banikas llC, Reston, Va.;

High Side Technology llC, California,

Md.; HigherEchelon Inc., Arlington, Va.;

Highlight Technologies llC, Fairfax, Va.;

Horizon Industries ltd., Vienna, Va.; The

Human Geo Group, Arlington, Va.;

Hyperion Inc., Reston, Va.; IAP World-

wide Services Inc., Cape Canaveral, Fla.;

i-Mazing Solutions Inc., Virginia Beach,

Va.; Impact Makers Inc., Richmond, Va.;

Inalab Consulting Inc., Stafford, Va.;

Independent Strategic Management

Solutions Inc. doing business as

ISMSolutions, Richland, Wash.; Indig-

enous Intelligence llC doing business as

Indigenous, Glen Burnie, Md.; IndraSoft

Inc., Reston, Va.; Indtai Inc., Sterling, Va.;

Infinity Systems Engineering llC,

Colorado Springs, Colo.; Ingenicomm

Inc., Chantilly, Va.; Innovative Technical

Solutions llC, Paducah, ky.; Innovative

Technologies Inc. doing business as ITI,

Chantilly, Va.; Innovatus Technology

Consulting, San Diego, Calif.; Inode Ink

Corp., Westminster, Colo.; Inserso Corp.,

Vienna, Va.; Integrated Data Services

Inc., El Segundo, Calif.; Integrated Design

Solutions llC, Bohemia, N.Y.; Integrated

Finance and Accounting Solutions llC

doing business as IFAS, Woodbridge,

Va.; Integrated Video Solutions llC doing

business as IVS, Chesapeake, Va.;

Integrity Consulting Engineering &

Security Solutions llC, Frederick, Md.;

Intelesis Technologies Corp. doing

business as Intelesis, San Diego, Calif.;

IntellecTechs Inc., Virginia Beach, Va.;

Intepros Federal Inc., Washington, D.C.;

Intercom Federal Systems Corp.,

leesburg, Va.; Invictus Technical

Solutions llC, Roseburg, Ore.; Iron Wind

Associates llC, Ashburn, Va.; ISHPI

Information Technologies Inc. doing

business as ISHPI, Mount Pleasant, S.C.;

iSoft Solutions llC, Virginia Beach, Va.;

J. Aguinaldo Group Inc., Hollywood, Md.;

JD Ross Consulting llC, Fredericksburg,

Va.; JlGov llC, Virginia Beach, Va.;

Johnston Pierce Engineering llC, Duluth,

Ga.; JTEl Solutions llC, Fredericksburg,

Va.; kairos Inc., California, Md.; karago-

zian & Case, Glendale, Calif.; kAYA

Associates Inc., Huntsville, Ala.; kearney

& Co. P.C., Alexandria, Va.; kelley's

logistics Support Systems Inc. doing

business as klSS, Dayton, Ohio;

kENTCO Corp. doing business as

ProteQ, Reston, Va.; kerberos Interna-

tional Inc., Temple, Texas; keThink SFS,

lexington Park, Md.; key Group Inc.,

Fillmore, Calif.; key Innovations Inc.,

Orlando, Fla.; key Management Solutions

llC doing business as kMS, Colorado

Springs, Colo.; keystone Advisors llC,

South Holland, Ill.; kforce Government

Solutions Inc., Fairfax, Va.; kinetic

Multimedia Systems Inc., Fort lauder-

dale, Fla.; kM Management Group llC

doing business as kM Systems Group,

Arlington, Va.; kMEA, National City, Calif.;

knowledge Based Systems Inc., College

Station, Texas; kova Global Inc., Virginia

Beach, Va.; kSJ & Associates Inc., Falls

Church, Va.; kyzen Consulting Services

Inc. doing business as Nu Staffing

Solutions, West Palm Beach, Fla.; land

Sea Air Autonomy llC doing business as

lSA Autonomy, Westminster, Md.;

leverage Information Systems Inc. doing

business as Federal Network Services,

Woodinville, Wash.; liberty IT Solutions

llC, Reston, Va.; limelight Consulting

Services Inc., Mechanicsburg, Pa.;

lingual Information System Technologies

Inc. doing business as lG-TEk, Elkridge,

Md.; link Tech, llC doing business as

link Technologies, las Vegas, Nev.; lJT

& Associates Inc., Columbia, Md.; loyal

Source Government Services llC,

Orlando, Fla.; lRH Group llC, Stafford,

Va.; lynker Technologies llC, leesburg,

Va.; lynxnet llC, Suffolk, Va.; MDA Tech-

nologies llC doing business as MDA

Technologies, Woodbridge, Va.; Maden

Tech Consulting Inc. doing business as

Maden Technologies, Arlington, Va.;

Mainstay Information Solutions, Arlington,

Va.; Management and Administrative

Support llC, Glen Burnie, Md.; Marine

Design Dynamics Inc. doing business as

MDD, Washington, D.C.; Markesman llC

doing business as Markesman Group,

Newport News, Va.; MARRS Services

Inc., Buena Park, Calif.; Mathematical

Research Inc. doing business as MRI

Technologies, Houston, Texas; MATH-

TECH Inc., Falls Church, Va.; MDA

Information Systems llC, Gaithersburg,

Md.; Media Fusion Inc. doing business as

MFI, Huntsville, Ala.; MICRO USA Inc.,

Poway, Calif.; Microhealth llC, Vienna,

Va.; Military Personnel Services Corp.,

Falls Church, Va.; Mora Consultants, San

Diego, Calif.; MorganFranklin Consulting

llC doing business as MorganFranklin,

Mclean, Va.; Na Alii Consulting & Sales

llC doing business as Na Alii, Honolulu,

Hawaii; Nationwide IT Services Inc.,

Alexandria, Va.; Native Hawaiian Veterans

llC, Honolulu, Hawaii; Neany Inc.,

Hollywood, Md.; Nester Consulting llC

doing business as Government CIO,

Washington, D.C.; Network Security

Services llC doing business as NSS,

Vienna, Va.; Nevada System of Higher

Education doing business as Desert

Research Institute, Reno, Nev.; NextGen

Inc., Fairfax, Va.; Nextrinsic Corp.,

Southfield, Mich.; Nextstep Technology

Inc. doing business as Rightstep

Services, Morgan Hill, Calif.; n-link Corp.,

Bend, Ore.; Noovis llC, Hanover, Md.;

NorthTide Group llC, Dulles, Va.; NTT

Data Federal Services Inc., Vienna, Va.;

Oakland Consulting Group Inc., lanham,

Md.; Obera llC, Herndon, Va.; Open San

Consulting llC, Atlanta, Ga.; OPTECH

llC, Troy, Mich.; Optimal Technologies

International llC doing business as OTI,

Orlando, Fla.; Optimum Software

Solutions Inc., Tallahassee, Fla.; Organic

Motion Inc., New York, N.Y.; Oroday Inc.

doing business as Digital Consulting

Services, Newbury Park, Calif.; Osi Vision

llC, San Antonio, Texas; OTD Solutions

& Services llC, North Charleston, S.C.;

ContraCt awarDs


O-Tech Solutions llC, Green Bay, Wis.;

PAE Applied Technologies llC, Fort

Worth, Texas; Pagnotta Engineering Inc.,

Exton, Pa.; Panaceapro Corp., Fairfax,

Va.; Paratusec llC, Warrenton, Va.; Parra

Consulting Group Inc., Middletown, Md.;

Iode Inc. doing business as I/O Test, Salt

lake City, Utah; PEMCCO Inc., Virginia

Beach, Va.; People, Technology and

Processes llC, lakeland, Fla.; Peo-

pleTec Inc. doing business as Peopletec,

Huntsville, Ala.; Performix Consulting llC

doing business as: Performix Consulting,

Mclean, Va.; Phase One Consulting

Group Inc., Alexandria, Va.; Phoenix Data

Corp., Indianapolis, Ind.; Pioneer

Technologies Inc., Fairfax, Va.; PITSC

Inc., Jacksonville, Fla.; Pl Systems llC,

Centreville, Va.; Plexus Installations Inc.

doing business as Plexus Communica-

tions Group, Baltimore, Md.; Point Rock

Solutions llC, lansdowne, Va.; Potomac

River Enterprise Solutions llC doing

business as PRES, Fredericksburg, Va.;

Pragmatics Inc., Reston, Va.; Precision

Air Inc., Manning, S.C.; Premier Inc.

doing business as Premier Analysis, Falls

Church, Va.; Prevailance Inc., Virginia

Beach, Va.; Product Data Integration

Technologies Inc. doing business as

Modulant, North Charleston, S.C.;

Productivity Apex Inc., Orlando, Fla.;

PROJECTXYZ Inc., Huntsville, Ala.;

Proofpoint Systems Inc. doing business

as Proofpoint, los Altos, Calif.; ProSidian

Consulting llC, Charlotte, N.C.; PUlAU

Corp., Orlando, Fla.; Qnexis Inc., Reston,

Va.; Quality Aero Inc. doing business as

Acquisition logistics Engrg, Worthington,

Ohio; Quantum Dynamics Inc., Mclean,

Va.; Radiation Safety & Control Services

Inc. doing business as RSCS, Stratham,

N.H.; RBR-Technologies, Annapolis,

Maryland; The Red Gate Group ltd.,

Chantilly, Va.; Red River Computer Co.

Inc., Claremont, N.H.; Reliable Systems

Solutions llC doing business as RSS

logistics, Orlando, Fla.; ReMilNet llC,

Jacksonville, Fla.; Renegade Technology

Systems Inc., Reston, Va.; The RHarvey

Group llC, Mclean, Va.; Ricardo Inc.,

Belleville, Mich.; Rigil Corp., lorton, Va.;

Riptide Software Inc., Oviedo, Fla.; RMW

Associates llC doing business as RMW

Associates, Camp Springs, Md.;

Rohmann Services Inc. doing business

as RSI, San Antonio, Texas; Rome

Research Corp. doing business as RRC,

Rome, N.Y.; RPI Group Inc., Fredericks-

burg, Va.; Ryan Consulting Group Inc.,

Indianapolis, Ind.; Saile Technologies

doing business as OnBridge Technolo-

gies, Foothill Ranch, Calif.; SAWTST llC,

Peachtree City, Ga.; Science and

Management Resources Inc. doing

business as SMR, Pensacola, Fla.;

Scientific and Commercial Systems Corp.

doing business as SCSC Quality

Assurance Services, Falls Church, Va.;

Seaward Services Inc., New Albany, Ind.;

Secure Data Inc., O Fallon, Ill.; Sehlke

Consulting llC, Arlington, Va.; Select-

Tech Services Corp., Centerville, Ohio;

Seville Staffing llC, Chicago, Ill.; Si

Global Inc., West Point, Ga.; Siena Group

llC, The doing business as A&M

Restoration Services, Cocoa Beach, Fla.;

SigmaRiver llC, Front Royal, Va.; Signet

Technologies Inc., Beltsville, Md.; Silver

Bear Technologies Inc. doing business as

SBT, Stafford, Va.; Sinergy Solutions llC,

Triangle, Va.; SJ Technologies Inc.,

Buford, Ga.; Skyward ltd., Dayton, Ohio;

SMS Data Products Group Inc. doing

business as SMS, Mclean, Va.; Social

Intelligence Corp., Santa Barbara, Calif.;

Sonawane WebDynamics Inc., Ashburn,

Va.; Southeast Safety Solutions llC

doing business as SES Solutions,

Huntsville, Ala.; SPC Business Consult-

ing, Waldorf, Md.; Special Applications

Group llC, Tampa, Fla.; Spectrum

Comm Inc., Newport News, Va.;

Spotswood Consulting doing business as

SC Wireless Solutions, Huntington

Beach, Calif.; SRR International Inc.,

loxahatchee, Fla.; Stafford Consulting

Co. Inc., Fairfax, Va.; Starry Associates

Inc., Annapolis, Md.; StellarPeak Corp.,

Mclean, Va.; Storsoft Technology Corp.,

Tampa, Fla.; Strategic Alliance Business

Group llC, Arlington, Va.; Strategic

Communications llC, louisville, ky.;

Strategic Resolution Experts Inc. doing

business as S R E, Martinsburg, W.Va.;

Strategic Resources Inc., Mclean, Va.;

Strategic Ventures Consulting Group

llC, Falls Church, Va.; Sumaria Systems

Inc., Danvers, Mass.; Sylvain Consulting

Inc. doing business as SAI, Albuquerque,

N.M.; Symtech Corp., Sarasota, Fla.;

Syneren Technologies Corp., College

Park, Md.; Synergy Business Innovation

& Solutions Inc., Arlington, Va.; Synergy

ECP llC doing business as Synergy

ECP, Columbia, Md.; Synesis7 Corp.,

Butte, Mont.; Syngineering llC,

Annandale, Va.; System Dynamics

International Inc. doing business as SDI,

Huntsville, Ala.; System Modeling Experts

llC doing business as SME, Mclean,

Va.; Systems and Proposal Engineering

Co. doing business as SPEC Innovations,

Manassas, Va.; Systems Integration/

Modeling and Simulation Inc., Tullahoma,

Tenn.; Systems Research Group Inc.

doing business as SRG, longwood, Fla.;

Systems Support Alternatives Inc. doing

business as SSA, Alexandria, Va.; Syzygy

Technologies Inc., San Diego, Calif.; T.J.

Drafting & Design Inc. doing business as

T.J., Christmas, Fla.; T3W Business

Solutions Inc., San Diego, Calif.; Tactical

Electronics & Military Supply llC, Broken

Arrow, Okla.; TATE Inc., Stafford, Va.;

Taygeta Scientific Inc., Monterey, Calif.;

TConneX Inc., Mclean, Va.; TD&S

Associates Inc. doing business as

Technology Decisions & Solutions, State

College, Pa.; TDI Technologies Inc., king

of Prussia, Pa.; TechAnax llC, Montclair,

Va.; Technologist Inc. doing business as

Technologist, Vienna, Va.; Technology

Management Co. Inc. doing business as

TMC, Albuquerque, N.M.; TechOp

Solutions International Inc. doing

business as TechOp, Stafford, Va.;

Teknologic llC, Edmonds, Wash.;

Tellenger Inc., Rockville, Md.; Teya

Services llC, Anchorage, Alaska;

Thousand Oaks Research and Develop-

ment Inc., Riverside, Calif.; TMG Inc.

doing business as The Moore Group,

Norfolk, Va.; Torres Advanced Enterprise

Solutions llC, Falls Church, Va.; Total

Technology Inc., Cherry Hill, N.J.;

Trailblazer Innovations Inc., Amherst, Va.;

Trident Proposal Management Inc. doing

business as Red Sky Production



Services, San Diego, Calif.; Trident

Technical Solutions llC doing business

as Ardent Eagle Solutions, St. Peters-

burg, Fla.; Tridentis PllC, Washington,

D.C.; Triumph Aerospace Systems,

Newport News Inc., Newport News, Va.;

Twintron Data Systems Inc. doing

business as Twintron, Marlton, N.J.;

Tyche Consulting llC, Rockville, Md.;

UniTech SoftSolutions Inc. doing

business as Unisofts, Ashburn, Va.;

United Support Services Inc., Oceanside,

Calif.; Vectrus Systems Corp., Colorado

Springs, Colo.; Venesco llC, Chantilly,

Va.; Veratics Inc., Indian Harbour Beach,

Fla.; Veris Group llC, Vienna, Va.;

Veteran Business Solutions llC,

Arlington, Va.; Virginia Electronic Systems

Inc. doing business as Virginia Electron-

ics, Virginia Beach, Va.; Virginia Tech

Applied Research Corp. doing business

as National Capital Region, Arlington, Va.;

Virtual Computing Technology, Carlsbad,

Calif.; Vision Engineering Solutions llC,

Orlando, Fla.; Visionary Consulting

Partners llC, Fairfax, Va.; Vista Interna-

tional Operations Inc., Rock Island, Ill.;

Vistra Communications llC, Tampa, Fla.;

Visual Connections, llC doing business

as: VC, Chevy Chase, Md.; VOTA

Consulting Corp., Coronado, Calif.;

VSolvIT llC doing business as Vsolvit,

Ventura, Calif.; Wambaw Creek llC,

North Charleston, S.C.; Ward ENG

Support Services Inc., Stafford, Va.; Web

Courseworks ltd. doing business as Web

Courseworks, Madison, Wis.; Weems

Design Studio Inc., Suwanee, Ga.; Weris

Inc., Potomac Falls, Va.; WIllCOR Inc.,

College Park, Md.; Xenotran Corp.,

linthicum Heights, Md.; Xgility llC,

Dulles, Va.; Yahya Technologies llC

doing business as Y-Tech, Brandywine,

Md.; Zachary Piper Solutions llC,

Mclean, Va.; Zero Point Inc., Virginia

Beach, Va.; Zia Engineering & Environ-

mental Consultants llC, las Cruces,

N.M.; MF lightwave Inc. doing business

as Custom Cable, Tampa, Fla.; FCN Inc.,

Rockville, Md.; Marieke Consulting Inc.,

Washington, D.C.; Man-Machine

Systems Assessment Inc. doing business

as MSA, El Paso, Texas; Drayton Drayton

and lamar Inc., Evans, Ga.; Federal

Integrated Systems Corp. doing business

as Fedsync, Alexandria, Va.; Career

Management Associates of Iowa llC,

Ankeny, Iowa; Jasper Solutions Inc.,

Huntington Station, N.Y.; Ultimate

knowledge Corp., Rancho Santa

Margarita, Calif.; Zillion Technologies Inc.,

Ashburn, Va.; New Wave People Inc.,

Princeton, N.J.; R2C llC doing business

as R2C Support Services, Huntsville, Ala.;

Software Information Resource Corp.

doing business as SIRC, Washington,

D.C..

Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson,

Ariz., is being awarded a $517,300,000

cost-plus-incentive-fee and cost-plus-

fixed-fee contract for the Evolved

Seasparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 2

engineering and manufacturing develop-

ment (EMD) requirements. This contract

will procure all necessary efforts to

design, qualify and test ESSM Block 2

and prepare the program for a suc-

cessful ‘Milestone C’ decision, currently

planned in FY18. The ESSM Block 2 is an

international cooperative effort to design,

develop, test, and procure ESSM Block

2 missiles. ESSM Block 2 provides en-

hanced ship self-defense. This contract

combines purchases for the Navy (40

percent) and the governments of Australia

(16.51 percent), Canada (13.77 percent),

Germany (6.44 percent), the Netherlands

(5 percent), Denmark (4.56 percent), Nor-

way (4.56 percent), Turkey (4.56 percent),

Spain (2.5 percent), Greece (1.5 percent),

and Portugal (.6 percent), as part of the

NATO Seasparrow Consortium. Work

will be performed in Tucson, Ariz., (67

percent); Norway (2 percent); Mckinney,

Texas (5 percent); Australia (3 percent);

the Netherlands (3 percent); Canada (3

percent); Germany (3 percent); Turkey

(2 percent); Andover, Massachusetts (2

percent); San Marco, Calif., (1 percent);

San Diego, Calif., (1 percent); San Jose,

Calif., (1 percent); Cincinnati, Ohio (1 per-

cent); Canton, N.Y., (1 percent); Greece (1

percent); Denmark (1 percent); and with 3

percent in various locations that each will

perform less than 1 percent of the effort,

and is expected to be completed by May

2019. Fiscal 2015 research, development,

test and evaluation funs and foreign Mili-

tary Sales contract funds in the amount

of $26,000,000 will be obligated at time

of award and will not expire at the end

of the current fiscal year. This contract

was not competitively procured. Full and

open competition need not be provided

for when precluded by the terms of

an international agreement or a treaty

between the U.S. and a foreign govern-

ment or international organization, or the

written directions of a foreign government

reimbursing the agency for the cost of the

acquisition of the supplies or services for

such government. The Naval Sea Sys-

tems Command, Washington, D.C., is the

contracting activity (N00024-15-C-5420).

Seemann Composites Inc., Gulfport,

Miss., is being awarded a $49,944,504

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity

contract with one cost-plus-fixed-fee

line item for the design, fabrication and

testing of various structural components

for naval surface and sub-surface vessels

using a proprietary Resin Infusion Mold-

ing Process (SCRIMP). This contract will

use an advanced composite fabrication

technique to design and fabricate proto-

type components, support installation,

perform material testing, and provide test

support to the government for various

marine components and structures using

the SCRIMP fabrication process to sup-

port the fleet. The company will provide

complete and tested prototypes and

end items as deliverables via individual

completion type delivery orders. Work

will be performed in Gulfport, Miss., and

is expected to complete by April 2020.

Fiscal 2015 research, development,

test and evaluation funds in the amount




was not competitively procured as it is a

follow-on to a Small Business Innovation

Research Phase III contract. The Naval

ContraCt awarDs


Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Divi-

sion, Ship System Engineering Station,

Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activ-

ity (N65540-15-D-0015).

General Dynamics Electric Boat

Corp., Groton, Conn., is being awarded

a $32,621,880 cost-plus-fixed-fee

modification to previously awarded

contract (N00024-13-C-4311) to provide

a nuclear regional maintenance depart-

ment (NRMD). Under the terms of the

contract, Electric Boat will provide NRMD

tasks in support of operational nuclear

submarines at the Naval Submarine

Support Facility, Naval Submarine Base,

New london, Conn. The contract will

also require project management, techni-

cal analysis, engineering and planning,

training, inspection and nuclear services

to accomplish intermediate-level nuclear

submarine maintenance, modernization,

and repairs in support of operational

nuclear submarines, including maintain-

ing and modernizing government-owned

facilities and equipment and providing

off-hull support of submarine mainte-

nance. Work will be performed in New

london, Conn., and is expected to be

completed by March 2015. Fiscal 2015

operations and maintenance (Navy) con-

tract funds in the amount of $29,621,880

will be obligated at time of award and

will expire at the end of the current fiscal

year. The Naval Sea Systems Command,

Washington, D.C., is the contracting

activity.

Lockheed Martin Space Systems

Co., Sunnyvale, Calif., is being awarded

a maximum $31,095,958 cost-plus-fixed-

fee, level of effort, completion contract

to provide the United kingdom (Uk) with

engineering and technical support ser-

vices and deliverable materials for the Uk

Trident II Missile System. This contract

provides for, but is not limited to, techni-

cal planning, direction, coordination, and

control to assure that Uk fleet ballistic

missile program requirements are identi-

fied and integrated to support planned

milestone schedules and emergent re-

quirements, re-entry systems Uk resident

technical support, operational support

hardware, and a Collaborative Reentry

Material Experiment deliverable. Work will

be performed in Sunnyvale, Calif., (79.49

percent); Cape Canaveral, Fla., (10.39

percent); Aldermaston, England (2.82

percent); St. Mary’s, Ga., (1.61 percent);

Colorado Springs, Colo., (1.54 percent);

82 other U.S. cities (1.54 percent); Palo

Alto, Calif., (1.42 percent); Silverdale,

Wash., (0.62 percent); Coulport, Scotland

(0.54 percent); and Borgo San Dalmazzo,

Italy (0.26 percent), with an expected

level-of-effort completion date of March

31, 2016 and deliverable items comple-

tion date of March 31, 2019. Uk contract

funds are being utilized in the amount

of $31,095,958. Contract funds will not

expire at the end of the current fiscal

year. This contract was a sole source

acquisition pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)

(4). The Department of the Navy, Strate-

gic Systems Programs Office, D.C., is the

contracting activity (N00030-15-C-002).

Lockheed Martin, Mission Systems

and Training, Baltimore, Md., is being

awarded a $13,297,144 cost-plus-

award-fee order against previously

awarded basic ordering agreement

N00024-15-G-2303 to provide engi-

neering and management services for

advance planning and design in support

of the post-shakedown availability

for USS Milwaukee (lCS 5). Work will

be performed in Hampton, Va., (50

percent); Baltimore, Md., (45 percent);

and Marinette, Wis., (5 percent), and is

expected to be completed by March

2016. Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and

conversion (Navy) funding in the amount



of the current fiscal year. The Supervisor

of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair,

Bath, Maine, is the contracting activity.

Raytheon Co., Integrated Defense

Systems, Sudbury, Mass., is being

awarded a $61,978,016 modification to

previously awarded contract N00024-

13-C-5115 to provide multiyear procure-

ment funding for two AN/SPY-1D(V)

transmitter group radar system ship

sets, select missile fire control system

(MFCS) Mk 99 equipment, and associ-

ated engineering services. This contract

modification provides fiscal 2015 fund-

ing to support Aegis Weapon System

(AWS) production requirements for DDG

121 and DDG 122. The AN/SPY-1D(V)

radar system and the MFCS Mk99 are

critical components of the AWS. Work

will be performed in Andover, Mass., (80

percent); Sudbury, Mass., (15 percent);

and Portsmouth, R.I. (5 percent), and is

expected to be completed by June 2019.

Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conver-

sion (Navy) funding in the amount of

$61,978,016 will be obligated at the time


of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea

Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is

the contracting activity.

General Dynamics National Steel

and Shipbuilding Co., San Diego, Calif.,

was awarded a not-to-exceed amount

$61,780,484 undefinitized contract action

to previously awarded cost-plus-award-

fee contract N00024-13-C-4404 on

March 31, 2015, for USS Makin Island

(lHD 8) fiscal 2015 phased maintenance

availability. A phased maintenance avail-

ability includes the planning and execu-

tion of depot-level maintenance, altera-

tions and modifications that will update

and improve the ship’s military and tech-

nical capabilities. Work will be performed

in San Diego, Calif., and is expected to

be completed by November 2015. Fiscal

2015 operations and maintenance (Navy)

and fiscal 2015 research, development,

test and evaluation funding in the amount


of award. Fiscal 2015 operations and

maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount

of $25,551,329 will expire at the end of

1APrIl



the current fiscal year. The Southwest

Regional Maintenance Center, San Diego,

Calif., is the contracting activity.

Astronics Test Systems Inc., Irvine,

Calif., is being awarded a $36,402,740

firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/

indefinite-quantity supply contract for the

manufacture, test and delivery of radio

frequency distribution and control sys-

tems (RFDACS) and system parts which

is a major subsystem within the common

submarine radio room installed on board

all submarine classes. The RFDACS

provides a means of routing signals and

information between the various antenna

systems and other submarine commu-

nication subsystems. Work will be per-

formed in Irvine, Calif., and is expected

to be completed by March 2020. Fiscal

2015 other procurement (Navy) funding in

the amount of $949,380 will be obligated

at time of award and will not expire at

the end of the current fiscal year. This

contract was competitively procured

via the Federal Business Opportunities

website, with two offers received. The

Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division

Newport, Newport, R.I., is the contracting

activity (N66604-15-D-1083).

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems

& Training, Moorestown, N.J., is being



11-C-5106 for Aegis Weapon System

and Aegis Combat System combat

systems engineering, in-country sup-

port services, and staging support to

fulfill Aegis Foreign Military Sales (FMS)

lifetime support requirements for the

Japan Maritime Self Defense Force, the

Republic of korea Navy, and the Spanish

Armada under the FMS Program. Work

will be performed in Moorestown, N.J.,

(95.15 percent); kumi, South korea (1.5

percent); Chinhae, South korea (1.4 per-

cent); kongsburg, Norway (0.86 percent);

Tokyo, Japan (0.5 percent); Sasebo,

Japan (0.23 percent); Maizuru, Japan

(0.14 percent); San Fernando, Spain (0.12

percent), and Yokohama, Japan (0.1 per-

cent), and is expected to be completed

by September 2015. FMS funding in the

amount of $17,690,000 will be obligated

at 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.

SFS Global LLC, Susanville, Calif.,

was awarded a $10,130,183 firm-fixed-

price contract on March 31, 2015, to

support Marine Corps vehicle main-

tenance services at Production Plant

Barstow, Barstow, Calif. This contract

contains options, which if exercised, will

bring the contract value to $24,325,457.

Work will be performed at Marine Corps

logistics Base, Barstow, Calif., and work

is expected to be completed September

2015. If the options are exercised, the

work will continue through June 2016.

Navy working capital funds in the amount

of $10,130,183 will be obligated at the

time of award and the funds will not


year. This was a sole-source 8(a) tribal

procurement. The Marine Corps logistics

Command, Albany, Ga., is the contract-

ing activity (M67004-15-C-0009).

BAE Systems Information and Elec-

tronic Systems Integration Inc., Green-

lawn, N.Y., is being awarded an $8,455,805

modification to a previously issued firm-

fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-

quantity contract (N00019-14-D-0004) to

exercise an option for the procurement of

22 AN/UPX-41 (C) digital interrogators for

the Navy (14) and the government of Japan

(8), and 57 Mode 5 identification friend or

foe field change kits for the Navy (45) and

the government of Japan (12). Work will

be performed in Greenlawn, N.Y., and is

expected to be completed in December

2016. No funds are being obligated at

time of award. Funds will be obligated

against individual delivery orders as they

are issued. This modification combines

purchases for the Navy ($5,808,440; 68.7

percent) and the government of Japan

($2,647,365; 31.3 percent) under the for-

eign military sales program. The Naval Air

Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md.,

is the contracting activity.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Baltimore,

Md., is being awarded an $8,291,108

cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order under

a previously awarded contract (N00024-

12-G-4329) for the accomplishment of

planning and support efforts for littoral

combat ships (lCS) 1 and 3. The services

provided will include: management

services, engineering support, transi-

tion efforts to lCS planning yard, Total

Ship Computing Environment work up,

installation and test; materials manage-

ment, shore based trainer maintenance

and configuration management, Navy

continuous training environment, support

and maintain selected ship systems soft-

ware baselines. Work will be performed

in San Diego, Calif., (50 percent); and

Morristown, N.J., (50 percent), and is

expected to be completed by April 2016.

Fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance

(Navy) contract funds in the amount of

$6,000,000 will be obligated at time of

award and will expire at the end of the

current fiscal year. This contract was not

competitively procured. The Naval Sea



Didlake Inc., Manassas, Va., is

being awarded a $7,947,400 firm-fixed-

price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quan-

tity contract for annual custodial ser-

vices at Naval Air Station Oceana, Naval

Weapons Station Yorktown, and Norfolk

Naval Shipyard and their outlying clinics

in the Hampton Roads area. The work to

be performed provides for annual cus-

todial services, but is not limited to, all

management, supervision, tools, materi-

als, supplies, labor, and transportation

services necessary to perform custodial

services for office space, restrooms and

other types of rooms. The maximum

dollar value including the base period

and four option years is $40,303,053.

Work will be performed in Portsmouth,

Va., (41 percent); Virginia Beach, Va., (40

percent); Yorktown, Va., (18 percent);

and outlying clinics in the Hampton

Roads area, Va., (1 percent), and is ex-

pected to be completed by April 2020.

Fiscal 2015 operation and maintenance

ContraCt awarDs



$7,618,481 are being obligated on this


current fiscal year. This contract is a

sole-source procurement awarded to a

SourceAmerica participating nonprofit

agency pursuant to the Javits-Wagner-

O’Day Act and the Federal Acquisition

Regulation Part 8. The Naval Facilities

Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic,

Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity

(N40085-15-D-0063).

Huntington Ingalls Inc., New-

port News, Va., is being awarded a

$7,300,000 modification to previously

awarded contract N00024-08-C-2110 for

onboard repair parts material procure-

ment to support outfitting Gerald R.

Ford (CVN 78). Work will be performed

in Newport News, Va., and is expected

to be completed by September 2015.

Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conversion



award and will not expire at the end of

the current fiscal year. The Supervisor

of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair,

Newport News, Va., is the contracting

activity.

Textron Inc., New Orleans, la.,

is being awarded an $84,087,094

modification to previously awarded

contract N00024-12-C-2401 to exercise

an option for construction of landing

craft, air cushions (lCACs) 102 and 103

and their associated technical manu-

als under the Ship to Shore Connector

(SSC) program. The SSC Program is the

functional replacement for the existing

fleet of lCAC vehicles, which are near-

ing the end of their service life. The SSC

program involves air cushion vehicles

designed for a 30-year service life. The

SSC mission is to land surface assault

elements in support of operational

maneuver from the sea, at over-the-

horizon distances, while operating from

amphibious ships and mobile landing

platforms. SSC provides increased

performance to handle current and fu-

ture missions, as well as improvements

which will increase craft availability and

reduce total ownership cost. Work will

be performed in New Orleans, la., (42

percent); Indianapolis, Ind., (20 percent);

Camden, N.J., (14 percent); Norway

(7 percent); Great Britain (4 percent);

livonia, Mich., (4 percent); Huntington,

Calif., (2 percent); Eatontown, N.J., (2

percent); San Diego, Calif., (2 percent);

Chanhassen, Minn., (1 percent); Corona,

Calif., (1 percent); and Gold Beach,

Ore., (1 percent), and is expected to be

completed by September 2019. Fiscal

2015 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy)

funding in the amount of $84,087,094

is being obligated at 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.


and Training, Moorestown, N.J., is being

awarded an $81,712,989 modifica-

tion to previously awarded contract

N00024-14-C-5114 to provide multiyear

procurement funding for Aegis Weapon

System (AWS) Mk 7 ship sets and as-

sociated special tooling and special test

equipment. The AWS represents the

core of the Aegis Combat System and

is comprised of the AN/SPY-1D(V) radar

system with the Multi-Mission Signal

Processor, Command and Decision

System Mk 2, Weapons Control System

Mk 8, Missile Fire Control System Mk

99, Operational Readiness and Test

System Mk 9, Aegis Display System

Mk 2, Aegis computer programs, Aegis

Combat Training System Mk 50, and

logistic support system. Work will be

performed in Moorestown, N.J., (85.5

percent); Clearwater, Fla., (13.1 percent);

and Akron, Ohio, (1.4 percent), and is

expected to be completed by Septem-

ber 2021. Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and

conversion (Navy) funding in the amount










09-C-5013 for Aegis Platform Systems

Engineering Agent activities and Aegis

Modernization Advanced Capability Build

engineering. Work will be performed in

Moorestown, N.J., (99 percent); Tewks-

bury, Mass., (0.6 percent); and Dahlgren,

Va., (0.4 percent), and is expected to be

completed by September 30, 2016. Fiscal

2014 and 2015 research, development,

test and evaluation; fiscal 2015 operations

and maintenance (Navy), and fiscal 2014

other procurement (Navy) funding in the


at time of award. Contract funds in the

amount of $24,245,792 will expire at the



D.C., is the contracting activity.

Lockheed Martin Space Sys-

tems Co., Sunnyvale, Calif., is being

awarded a not-to-exceed $59,000,000

undefinitized contract action (N00030-

15-C-0015) for Trident II D-5 Naviga-

tion Subsystem Strategic Systems

Program Shipboard Integration (SSI)

Increment 4, Increment 8 Inertial and

Increment 8 Non-Inertial efforts. Work

will be performed in Mitchell Field,

N.Y., (61 percent); Oldsmar, Fla., (22

percent); Huntington Beach, Calif., (11

percent); Clearwater, Fla., (5 percent);

and Cambridge, Mass., (1 percent), and

work is expected to be completed Dec.

31, 2016. Fiscal 2015 other procure-

ment (Navy) funds in the approximate

amount of $47,063,590 and United

kingdom funding in the approximate


at time of award. No contract funds will

expire at the end of the fiscal year. This

31MArCB



contract was a sole-source acquisition

in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)

(1) & (4). The Navy’s Strategic Systems

Programs, Washington, D.C., is the


V. Lopez Jr. & Sons General Engi-

neering Contractors Inc., Santa Maria,

Calif., is being awarded a maximum

amount $30,000,000 indefinite-delivery/

indefinite-quantity contract for painting

services at government shore-based

facilities in Guam. The work to be per-

formed provides for interior and exterior

painting requirements at various federal

and military installations on Guam. The

work includes all labor, safety controls,

transportation, materials, equipment and

supervision necessary to perform interior

and exterior painting, surface prepara-

tion on previously painted and unpainted

buildings, application of new paint,

taping and spackling work, replacement

of caulking and puttying, repair of flash-

ings and sheet-metal, repair of concrete

cracks and spalls, cutting and trimming

of trees and shrubs (obstructing perfor-

mance of work), painting of pavement

markings, and incidental related work.

Work on this contract will be performed

in Guam, and is expected to be complet-

ed by March 2020. Fiscal 2015 operation

and maintenance (Navy) contract funds

in the amount of $10,000 are obligated

on this award and will expire at the end


was competitively procured via the Navy


with eight proposals received. The Naval

Facilities Engineering Command, Mari-

anas, Guam, is the contracting activity

(N40192-15-D-2900).


Systems, Tewksbury, Mass., is being

awarded a $26,917,593 cost-plus-fixed-

fee design agent contract to provide

level-of-effort support for the develop-

ment environment infrastructure that

supports the complete development,

verification and support of the CVN 78

Dual Band Radar (DBR) and support of

testing to be accomplished at Wal-

lops Island Engineering Test Center

land-Based Test Site. This radar suite

is a single, integrated radar system

combining the AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function

Radar at X-Band and AN/SPY-4 Volume

Search Radar at S-Band. This radar

suite is a state of the art, high-perfor-

mance radar system with self-defense

anti-aircraft warfare mission. The design

agent contract described is intended to

provide the engineering services neces-

sary to fully mitigate numerous system

integration schedule risks that are being

tracked by the DBR program. This

contract will provide services necessary

to conduct follow on software interface

development efforts to resolve software

trouble reports discovered during land

based and at-sea testing. This contract

includes options which, if exercised,

would bring the cumulative value of

this contract to $50,821,247. Work will

be performed in Sudbury, Mass., (86

percent); Moorestown, N.J., (9 percent);

and Burlington, Mass., (5 percent),

and is expected to be completed by

December 2015. Fiscal 2015 shipbuild-

ing and conversion (Navy) and fiscal

2015 research, development, test and

evaluation funding in the amount of


of contract award and will not expire at


contract was not competitively 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


D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-

15-C-5335).

BAE Systems Southeast Shipyards

Mayport LLC, Jacksonville, Fla., is being

awarded an $18,336,160 modification to

a previously awarded multiship, multi-

option cost-plus-award-fee and cost-

plus-incentive-fee contract (N40024-

10-C-4406) to provide ship repairs, hull,

machinery, electrical, electronics, ship

alterations and piping for USS Philippine

Sea (CG 58). This modification is for the

selected restricted availability of USS

Philippine Sea to include hull, machinery,

electrical, electronics, ship alterations

and piping alteration and repair work. The

primary focus of this repair package is to

accomplish structural repairs and habit-

ability upgrades. Work will be performed

in Jacksonville, Fla., and is expected to

be completed by August 2015. Fis-

cal 2015 operations and maintenance

(Navy) and fiscal 2015 other procurement




current fiscal year. The Southeast Re-

gional Maintenance Center, Jacksonville,

Fla., is the contracting activity.

GFP-Yates, a joint venture, Uni-

versal City, Texas, is being awarded

$15,693,100 for firm-fixed-price task

order 0002 under a previously awarded

multiple award construction contract

(N69450-13-D-1763) for renovation and

repairs of Building 1, Chief of Naval Air

Training Headquarters at Naval Air Sta-

tion Corpus Christi, Texas. The work to

be performed provides for renovation

of an existing 1940s multi-story, wood

frame structure. The project will demol-

ish one wing; the remaining three wings

require extensive renovation, including

upgrades to the exterior envelope and

structure, a full interior renovation with

reconfiguration of spaces, and replace-

ment of all building mechanical, electrical

and fire protection systems. Support

projects include related utilities infra-

structure and civil site improvements.

Work will be performed in Corpus Christi,

Texas, and is expected to be completed

by May 2017. Fiscal 2015 operation


in the amount of $15,693,100 are being

obligated on this award and will expire at

the end of the current fiscal year. Three

proposals were received for this task

order. The Naval Facilities Engineering

Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, Fla.,


Sundt Construction Inc., Tempe,

Ariz., is being awarded $13,449,500 for

firm-fixed-price task order 0003 under a

ContraCt awarDs


previously awarded multiple award con-

struction contract (N62473-10-D-5408)

to design and construct a new engine

dynamometer facility at Marine Corps

logistics Base Barstow, Calif. The new

high-bay single-story facility will house

engine dynamometers to be supplied

by the government, as well as ancillary

equipment and systems to support the

dynamometer test process. The facility

shall be designed with acoustical mitiga-

tion measures to protect the safety of

the workers and those in the immediate

vicinity of the facility. The task order

also contains an option item and a

planned modification, which if exercised

would increase cumulative task order

value to $13,949,500. The work will be

performed in Barstow, California, and is

expected to be completed by October

2016. Fiscal 2015 military construction


$13,449,500 are being obligated on this

award and will not expire at the end of

current fiscal year. Seven proposals

were received for this task order. The

Naval Facilities Engineering Command,

Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the




awarded an $11,705,637 not-to-exceed

modification to previously awarded firm-

fixed-price contract (N00024-14-C-5114)

for the procurement of Aegis Ashore

Removable Equipment Units (REUs),

accomplishment of the required physical

modifications to the Production Test Cen-

ter (PTC) to accommodate the installation

of REUs and skid accessories, as well as

planning efforts in advance of system-

level testing for the Aegis Ashore Missile

Defense System (AAMDS) Host Nation #2

equipment set. The AAMDS is comprised

of a land-based version of the Aegis

weapon system, which serves as the core

of the AAMDS. Work will be performed in

Moorestown, N.J., and is expected to be

completed by August 2017. Fiscal 2015

Defense-wide procurement funding in the


at the time of award and will not expire

at the end of the current fiscal year. The

Naval Sea Systems Command, Washing-

ton, D.C., is the contracting activity.

MECTS Services Joint Venture,

New Town, N.D., is being awarded a

$10,932,036 modification to a previously

awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract

(N68335-13-C-0292) for additional

logistic services and spare/repair parts in

support of the Persistent Ground Surveil-

lance System. Work will be performed in

Fairfax, Va., (59 percent); Afghanistan (24

percent); Yuma, Ariz., (7 percent); China

lake, Calif., (5 percent); and Point Mugu,

Calif., (5 percent), and is expected to be

completed in September 2015. Fiscal

2015 operations and maintenance (Army)

funds in the amount of $1,150,000 are

being obligated on this award, all of

which will expire at the end of the current

fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center

Aircraft Division, lakehurst, N.J., is the


Electronic Metrology Laboratory

LLC, Franklin, Tenn., is being awarded

a $9,757,376 modification under a

previously awarded firm-fixed-price,

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity

contract to exercise option one for base

operations support services at Naval Air

Station Whiting Field and outlying fields.

The work to be performed provides for all

management, supervision, labor, equip-

ment, materials, supplies and tools nec-

essary to perform facilities management,

facilities investment, facility maintenance

services (non-family housing), pest con-

trol, utility plant and distribution system

operations and maintenance (chiller,

electrical, gas, wastewater, steam and

water), managed safety services, and

base support vehicles and equipment.

The total contract amount after exercise

of this option will be $19,460,652. Work

will be performed in Milton, Fla., (80

percent); and Outlying Fields (20 percent),

and is expected to be completed by

March 2016. Fiscal 2015 operation and

maintenance (Navy); fiscal 2015 Navy

working capital funds; fiscal 2015 Navy

family housing, and fiscal 2015 Defense

health program funds contract funds in

the amount of $7,755,360 are being obli-

gated on this award and will expire at the


Facilities Engineering Command, South-

east, Jacksonville, Fla., is the contracting

activity (N69450-14-D-8000).

Leebcor Services LLC, Williamsburg,

Va., is being awarded $8,188,374 for

firm-fixed-price task order 0003 under

a previously awarded multiple award con-

struction contract (N69450-14-D-1277)

for the repair of the Trident Refit Facility

Refit Wharf 2 located at Naval Subma-

rine Base, kings Bay, Ga. The work to

be performed provides for repairs that

include basic concrete restoration of

concrete piles, pile caps, edge beams

and mooring foundation and hardware.

Cathodic protection will be built into the

concrete structure to maintain the integ-

rity of the repair. ladders will be replaced

and a catwalk will be repaired. Fender

pile sacrificial anodes, fender wraps

and bonding systems will be repaired.

Work will be performed in kings Bay,

Ga., and is expected to be completed

by August 2016. Fiscal 2015 operation



obligated on this award and will expire at

the end of the current fiscal year. Three

proposals were received for this task

order. The Naval Facilities Engineering

Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, Fla.,



Systems, Tewksbury, Mass., is being



10-C-5126 to purchase DDG 1000

provisional item orders spares. Work will

be performed in Portsmouth, R.I., and is

expected to be completed by September

2016. Fiscal 2014 shipbuilding and con-

version (Navy) funding in the amount of








Whiting Turner Contracting Co.,

Inc., Baltimore, Md., is being awarded

a $38,490,000 firm-fixed-price contract

for mechanical and electrical system

improvements and repairs at Walter Reed

National Military Medical Center. Work

will be performed in Bethesda, Md., and

is expected to be completed by February

2017. Fiscal 2014 military construction

(Defense) contract funds in the amount

of $38,490,000 are being obligated on

this award and will not expire at the end


was competitively procured via the Navy


with three proposals received. The Naval

Facilities Engineering Command, Wash-

ington, D.C., is the contracting activity

(N40080-15-C-0156).

Piedmont Natural Gas Co. Inc.,

Charlotte, N.C., is being awarded a

$27,543,774 firm-fixed-price contract

for construction efforts to implement

a steam decentralization utility energy

services project at Marine Corps Base,

Camp lejeune. The work to be per-

formed provides for installation of new

energy efficient space and domestic

water-heating systems, and the removal

of existing steam equipment and dis-

tribution infrastructure at Hadnot Point

and French Creek, Courthouse Bay, and

Marine Corps Air Station New River.

This implementation will allow the U.S.

government to effectively improve the

efficiency, maintenance and reliability of

systems located in the aforementioned

facilities and reduce its energy consump-

tion resulting in utility cost avoidance and

compliance with mandatory laws and

statutes to reduce energy consumption.

Work will be performed in Jacksonville,

N.C., and is expected to be completed

by April 2017. The exact amount of the

contract will be determined by financing

at the time of award, but is estimated

to be approximately $37,898,833. No

funds will be obligated with this award.

The contract was procured under the

authority of Title 10 U.S. Code Section

2304(c)(5), statute expressly autho-

rizes or requires that the acquisition be

made through another agency or from

a specific source, as implemented by

Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-5.

The Energy Independence and Security

Act of 2007 authorizes agencies to use

appropriations, private financing, or a

combination to comply with its require-

ments for utility energy service contracts

for evaluations and project implementa-

tion. For this project, the Marine Corps

has agreed to pay for the costs of

services and construction from project

financing which will be obtained by

Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc. The

Naval Facilities Engineering Command,

Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Va., is the contract-

ing activity (N40085-15-C-7701).

Marvin Engineering Co., Inc.,

Inglewood, Calif., is being awarded

$24,990,472 for firm-fixed-price delivery

order 0013 against a previously issued

basic ordering agreement (N00019-

11-G-0009) for the procurement of 648

lAU-127 guided missile launchers for

the Navy (608), and the government

of Australia (40), to enable the F/A-18

aircraft to carry and launch AIM-120 and

AIM-9X missiles. Work will be performed

in Inglewood, Calif., and is expected to

be completed in October 2018. Fiscal

2013 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds

and foreign military sales funds in the


at time of award, of which $23,436,232

will expire at the end of the fiscal year.

This modification combines purchase for

the Navy ($23,436,232; 93.8 percent) and

the government of Australia ($1,554,240;

6.2 percent). The Naval Air Systems

Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the


The Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash., is

being awarded a $21,065,841 modi-

fication to a previously awarded cost

reimbursement type contract (N00019-

04-C-3146) for system development and

testing to resolve open trouble reports on

the existing P-8A Poseidon Test aircraft.

Work will be performed in Huntington

Beach, Calif., (51 percent); Seattle, Wash.

(47 percent); and Patuxent River, Md., (2

percent), and is expected to be complet-

ed in March 2017. Fiscal 2015 research,

development, test and evaluation (Navy)

funds in the amount of $19,970,000 will

be obligated at time of award, none of


year. The Naval Air Systems Command,

Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting

activity.

Logos Technologies Inc., Fairfax,

Va., is being awarded an $18,615,621

cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide

operations, maintenance, and logistics

services in support of kestrel Wide

Area Surveillance systems and sensors

deployed on Persistent Ground Surveil-

lance Systems and Persistent Threat

Detection Systems aerostats in support

of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Resolute Support mission for the Army.

Work will be performed in Fairfax, Va., (55

percent); Afghanistan (30 percent); Yuma,

Ariz., (5 percent); Raleigh, N.C., (5 per-

cent); and Pt. Mugu, Calif., (5 percent),

and is expected to be completed in De-

cember 2015. Fiscal 2015 operations and

maintenance (Army) funds in the amount

of $3,240,741 are being obligated at

time of award, all of which will expire at


contract was not competitively procured

pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The

Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division,

lakehurst, N.J., is the contracting activity

(N68335-15-C-0144).

Northrop Grumman Systems Corp.,

linthicum Heights, Md., is being awarded

$15,292,388 for modification P00149

under a previously awarded cost-plus-

fixed-fee contract (M67854-07-C-2072)

in support of Ground/Air Task-Oriented

Radar (G/ATOR) program managed

by Program Executive Officer land

Systems, Quantico, Va. This modification

incorporates a change order to imple-

ment Phase II of the computer program

reliability improvement plan within the

framework of the low rate initial produc-

tion contract. Work will be performed

in linthicum Heights, Md., (82 percent);

and Syracuse, N.Y., (18 percent), and

30MArCB

ContraCt awarDs


is expected to be completed by Dec.

31, 2016. Research, development, test

and evaluation funds in the amount

of $4,410,000 will be obligated at the

time of award. No contracts funds will

expire the end of the current fiscal year.

This modification is awarded against a

sole-source contract in accordance with

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Marine Corps

Systems Command, Quantico, Va., is the


BAE Systems Technology Solu-

tions & Services Inc., Rockville, Md., is

being awarded a $14,709,312 cost-plus-

fixed-fee contract for program and proj-

ect management and systems logistics

and engineering support of the Naval

Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division’s

air traffic control and landing system.

These efforts will include system certi-

fication; technical assistance; systems

test, evaluation and analysis; software

and hardware development, installation

and maintenance; test data acquisi-

tion, reduction and analysis; configura-

tion management; training support;

equipment manufacturing, refurbishing,

overhaul, and repair; and quality control.

Work will be performed in St. Inigoes,

Md., (49 percent); Patuxent River, Md.,

(49 percent); Norfolk, Va., (1 percent);

and San Diego, Calif., (1 percent), and

is expected to be completed in March

2016. Fiscal 2015 Navy working capital

funds in the amount of $1,250,000 are

being obligated at time of award, none

of which will expire at the end of the

current fiscal year. This contract was

not competitively procured pursuant

to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Warfare

Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River,

Md., is the contracting activity (N00421-

15-C-0012).

Joint Venture of Casco Bay

Engineering-CLD Consulting Engineers

LLC, Portland, Maine, is being awarded

a maximum amount $10,000,000 firm-

fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-

quantity, architect-engineering contract for

design and engineering services in sup-

port of utility and infrastructure projects

primarily in the Naval Facilities Engineer-

ing Command (NAVFAC) Mid-Atlantic

Public Works Department (PWD) Maine

area of responsibility (AOR). Task order

0001 is being awarded at $728,011 for

design of multiple utility system replace-

ment and upgrade projects at the Ports-

mouth Naval Shipyard, kittery, Maine.

Work for this task order is expected to be

completed by November 2015. All work

on this contract will be performed within

the NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic PWD Maine

AOR which includes Maine (70 percent);

New Hampshire (5 percent); Vermont

(5 percent); Massachusetts (5 percent);

Connecticut (5 percent); New York (5

percent); Rhode Island (4 percent) and

in the remainder of the U.S. (1 percent).

The term of the contract is not to exceed

60 months with an expected completion

date of March 2020. Fiscal 2015 Navy

working capital funds contract funds

in the amount of $728,011 are being

obligated on this award and will expire

at the end of the current fiscal year. This

contract was competitively procured via

the Navy Electronic Commerce Online

website, with eight proposals received.

The Naval Facilities Engineering Com-

mand, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Va., is the

contracting activity (N40085-15-D-6102).

L-3 Communication Integrated

Systems LP, Waco, Texas, is being

awarded an $8,180,126 firm-fixed-price

contract for the procurement of three

production installation kits (A-kits), one

spare A-kit required for the installation

of the upgraded auxiliary power unit in

the E-6B aircraft, and the installation

technical data package for the A-kit.

Work will be performed in Waco, Texas,

and is expected to be completed in

March 2016. This contract was not

competitively procured pursuant to

FAR.6.302-1. Fiscal 2014 and 2015

aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the


at time of award, none of which will




activity (N00019-15-C-0093).

Rockwell Collins Inc., Cedar Rap-

ids, Iowa, is being awarded a $7,824,175

modification to a previously awarded

firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-

13-C-0004) to upgrade the configuration

and operational properties of the EA-6B

Block I aircraft’s nuclear planning and ex-

ecution system. Work will be performed

in Richardson, Texas, and is expected to

be completed in September 2016. Fiscal

2014 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds


obligated on this award, none of which

will expire at the end of the current fiscal



activity.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed

Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth,

Texas, is being awarded a $6,808,493

modification to a previously awarded

cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00019-

15-C-0031) to provide interim contrac-

tor sustainment services in support of

the F-35 lightening II low rate initial

production lot aircraft for the Air Force.

Work will be performed at luke Air Force

Base, Glendale, Ariz., and is expected to

be completed in November 2015. Fiscal

2014 aircraft procurement (Air Force)

funding in the amount of $6,808,493 will

be obligated at time of award, none of




activity.

Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Fort

Worth, Texas, has been awarded a

maximum $7,098,324 firm-fixed-price

contract for gearbox assembly spare

parts in support of the H-1 helicopter.

This contract was a sole-source. This is a

54-base contract with no option periods.

location of performance is Texas with

a September 30, 2019, performance

completion date. Using military service

is Navy. Type of appropriation is fiscal

2015 Navy working capital funds. The

contracting activity is the Defense logis-

tics Agency Aviation, Philadelphia, Pa.

(W58RGZ12G0001-THGQ).



leading-edge technologies and innovations from around the world.

navy air/Sea looks at what the industrial complex—both friendly and

threat—are developing.

aerial Recovery of Small and Micro air vehiclesBrigham Young University

country of origin: united States

language: english

Due to recent directives from the Department of Defense, there is

great pressure to develop the technology behind unmanned aerial ve-

hicles (UAVs). UAVs are remotely piloted or autonomous aircraft that can

carry cameras, sensors, communications equipment or other payloads.

UAVs have proven their usefulness in military applications in recent

years. large UAVs have become an integral part of the U.S. arsenal.

large UAVs have executed surveillance and tactical missions in virtually

every part of the world. For example, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)

have become an essential tool for warfighters. While high-altitude, long-

endurance UAS like the Predator and Global Hawk provide persistent

intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, they are

a scarce resource that cannot be given specific data-gathering tasks

by individual troops. At the other end of the spectrum are backpack-

able small and micro air vehicles (MAVs), with wingspans less than 48

inches, which theoretically can be carried by every warfighter.

One drawback of MAVs is the recovery of the MAV after it has

completed its mission. Although the relatively low cost of MAVs may

suggest that they may be expendable (and thereby removing the need

for recovery), MAVs still contain critical and often classified technology

that needs to be kept out of enemy hands. Thus, innovative recovery

techniques are critical to ubiquitous use of MAV technology.

This concept relates generally to unmanned aerial vehicles, and

more specifically, to the aerial recovery of small and micro unmanned

aerial vehicles.

4 drawings

flight of Warplane GroupPetrenko L.P.

country of origin: ukraine

language: Russian

This invention relates to aircraft engineering. Proposed method com-

prises takeoff and flight of the main warplane and takeoff of the plane with

computer control and fire set. Said main warplane tail is equipped with the

first pawl for transmission there through the info messages and second

pawl to replenish smaller computer-control plane with hydrocarbons.

After takeoff of the main warplane, first pawl is turned and after ap-

proach of smaller plane it is pre-coupled with said main warplane to make

the info communication channel. Thereafter, second pawl is turned at sec-

ond main warplane to connect it with the second receiver pawl of second

pawl of smaller plane.

In the combat area, data is transmitted via data communication chan-

nel to smaller plane computer system to uncouple smaller plane from the

main warplane.

4 drawings

detecting Weather conditions including fog using vehicle onboard Sensors Google Inc.


language: english

Autonomous vehicles use various computing systems to aid in the

transport of passengers from one location to another. Some autono-

mous vehicles may require an initial input or continuous input from

an operator, such as a pilot, driver or passenger. Other autonomous

systems, for example autopilot systems, may be used when the system

has been engaged, which permits the operator to switch from a manual

mode (where the operator exercises a high degree of control over the

movement of the vehicle) to an autonomous mode (where the vehicle

essentially drives itself) to modes that lie somewhere in between.

Such vehicles are typically equipped with various types of sen-

sors in order to detect objects in the surroundings. For example, an

autonomous vehicle may include lasers, sonar, radar, cameras and other

devices which scan and record data from surroundings of the vehicle.

Sensor data from one or more of these devices may be used to detect

objects and their respective characteristics (position, shape, head-

ing, speed, etc.). This detection and identification is useful for the safe

operation of autonomous vehicle.

This design describes methods and systems for detecting weather

conditions including fog using vehicle onboard sensors are provided.

An example method includes receiving laser data collected from scans

of an environment of a vehicle, and associating, by a computing device,

laser data points of with one or more objects in the environment. The

Defense innovations



method also includes comparing laser data points that are unassoci-

ated with the one or more objects in the environment with stored laser

data points representative of a pattern due to fog, and based on the

comparison, identifying by the computing device an indication that a

weather condition of the environment of the vehicle includes fog.

8 drawings

launching facilityOAO Zavod im. V.A. Degtjareva

country of origin: Russia

language: Russian

This concept describes the launching facility for anti-aircraft missiles

including base, rack and frame with guides. The guides have a possibil-

ity of independent guidance from each other as to an angle of elevation

(meaning each launcher tube can be elevated separately). Installed on

the guides are remotely controlled devices of depression of a limit stop

retaining the missile. The guides are charged with target-missiles in

launching containers. Missiles are electrically connected to connectors

of the launching facility.

According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to enlarge

the technical capabilities of the launching facility and improving quality.

2 drawings

underwater Missile takeoffVPK NPO mashinostroenija


language: Russian

This design describes a method of missile takeoff from the

transporter-launcher containers (TlC) consists in inflation with the

gas which does not support combustion of sub-cap volume of TlC

with simultaneous ingress of gas through the obturator in the bottom

volume, after which the inflation is switched off when achievement of

the desired pressure in the sub-cap container volume, followed by in-

flation of the bottom volume of the container with gases from powder

pressure accumulator (PPA). The device for implementation of missile

takeoff from the TlC comprises an obturator, a PPA, a high-pressure

cylinder with an on-off valve connected to the sub-cap container

volume by the pipeline, a pressure indicator unit with the pipeline,

the opposite end of which is located in the sub-cap container

volume.

The reported benefit is the creation of conditions for reliable under-

water missile takeoff from TlC by eliminating hydraulic, oscillating and

vibrating effects on the missile housing.

Small armsKontsern Kalashnikov


language: Russian

Small arms have a barrel, a barrel receiver, a cover plate with a back

plate and a Picatinny rail, a bolt carrier with a bolt, a trigger and firing

mechanism, a retracting mechanism, and a gas fitting with a gas tube

and a piston. The Picatinny rail is installed on the cover plate of the

barrel receiver. The front shoe and the rear shoe, in which the gas fitting

is located, are installed on the barrel. In the upper part of the shoes

there are shaped projections of a dovetail type for interaction with the

Picatinny rail. The cover plate of the barrel receiver includes a bracket,

to which a fastener to be fixed to the barrel receiver is installed.

The Picatinny rail is provided with a longitudinal slot located in the

central part of the rail. The retracting mechanism is fixed in the rear part

of the cover plate of the barrel receiver. A gas tube fastener is installed

in the shoe.

According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to improve

reliability of attachment of a cover plate to a barrel receiver and enlarg-

ing functional capabilities of small arms.

6 drawings

aircraft Sighting System for close air combatEfanov Vasilij Vasil’evich


language: Russian

This invention relates to means of sighting at the planes. The

invention comprises an onboard radar station, a signal processor, a

display, and a communication unit with the missiles, an attack mode

switch, the sensors of flight altitude and aircraft bank, the switch of

displacement of field of view, a processor of sighting control, a unit

of indication of target on the angular position and a unit of indication

of target on the angular velocity. The unit of indication of target on

the angular position of the target comprises n threshold devices, a


setpoint device of signals, the OR element, the subtractor, the first and

second diodes. And the first and second inputs of the unit of indica-

tion of target are respectively the first inputs of n threshold devices

and the second input of the subtractor. The outputs of the first and

second diodes and the subtractor are respectively the first, second

and third outputs of the unit of indication of target on the angular

position of the target. The unit of indication of target on the angular ve-

locity of the target movement comprises the first NOT element, a shift

register, a generator of signals, n AND elements, n second NOT ele-

ments, n counters, a subtractor, the first and second diodes. And the

first, second and third inputs of the unit of indication of target on the

angular velocity of the target movement is the input of the first NOT

element and the first inputs of the first and second keys. The outputs

of the first, second devices and subtractor are respectively the first,

second and third output of the unit of indication of target.

The reported benefit is reducing the time of sighting.

fin buzz System and Method for assisting in unlocking a Missile fin lock Mechanism Raytheon Company


language english

A typical missile includes pairs of controllable steering fins disposed

on opposite sides of a missile fuselage. The fins are rotatable to provide

yaw, pitch, and roll control during missile flight. The fins are coupled to

rotatable shafts that extend into the fuselage and engage corresponding

control systems, generally through motors and associated gear linkages

that control the rotation of the fins.

Accurate flight of the missile depends on the proper function of the

steering fins, and it is desirable to avoid damage to the control systems

when the missile is carried external to an aircraft or during handling prior

to mounting on the aircraft. locking the steering fins in place when the

missile is not in use prevents control fin rotation and reduces the pos-

sibility of damage and wear on the steering fins and related fin control

systems. At the same time, the steering fins must be quickly and reliably

released so that they can perform their steering function when the mis-

sile is launched.

The invention relates to a mechanism for locking in place the steer-

ing fins of a missile, particularly when the missile is not in use, and more

particularly to a system and method for assisting in unlocking the fin

lock mechanism.

3 drawings

Rolling cruise MissilePavlov Viktor Andreevich


language: Russian

This design describes a two-stage rolling cruise missile (CM)

with five degrees of freedom of spatial movement includes a housing

stabilized as to the sixth degree of freedom by rotation in the form of a

rotation figure with wings, rudders and an active aerodynamic nozzle,

a single-duct control system, a steering gear, a detachable launching

accelerator with an axial turbo-jet engine with a gas-dynamic nozzle, a

cruise stage with an n duct system of formation of lift capacity in a rota-

tion mode and a small-size disposable turbo-jet engine with a folded air

intake, and a self-guidance head.

The reported benefit is a simpler control and stabilization of a cruise

missile, lower weight and dimensions of the cruise missile.

2 drawings

procedure for decreasing pilot landing vertical Speed after ejectionNPP Zvezda


language: Russian

This proposed procedure consists in application of powder engine.

Note here that said engine is actuated by electric signal from transducer

subject to altitude, pilot weight and pilot parachute landing vertical

speed. Proposed system is arranged with catapult seat bottom surface.

It consists of four-nozzle powder engine with minimum possible operat-

ing time and optimum direction of thrust and altitude-and-vertical speed

transducer direction, transducer outputting engine actuation instruction

subject to current altitude, pilot weight and pilot parachute landing verti-

cal speed. Pilot weight data is received by said transducer from seat

ACS at ejection.

Defense innovations



According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to decrease

speed after ejection.

2 drawings

Ship electric power plantGOUVPO SPbGU ITMO


language: Russian

A ship’s electric power plant includes main motor connected to

main generator, additional motor connected to additional generator, pro-

pulsion motor connected to propeller screw, main buses, power buses

of electric loads at the ship, plant control system, automatic switches,

current and voltage sensors, regulated reversible frequency converter,

input circuit of frequency converter, converter choke, power input

of regulated rectifier, data outputs of the sensors, rectifier controller,

capacitance accumulator of direct current circuit, direct voltage sensor,

local control unit, plant control system, additional frequency converter,

first and second frequency converters, additional choke and filter, first,

second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth automatic switches, input and out-

put phase voltage, propulsion motor, inverter controller.

According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to reduce

plant dimensions and weight, enhanced efficiency and electric power

quality, improved reliability without the use of transformer as galvanic

isolation.

1 drawing

event detection System user interface System coupled to Multiple Sensors Secretary of the U.S. Navy


language: english

Current structures such as armor, microelectronics, or critical

infrastructure systems lack effective, real-time sensing systems to

detect damage events of interest, such as an impact from a ballistic

object, a tamper event, a physical impact such as from debris (such

as airborne or space debris), or other damage events which may af-

fect structural integrity or cause failure.

Detection of armor or surface failures may be currently based

on aural indications or manual inspection after an event which could

be delayed due to ongoing use of equipment or operations. When a

critical armor or surface element becomes compromised, lives may

be placed at risk. Currently, there is no known way of effectively

detecting these failures immediately or as the event happens.

This concept describes a damage detection and remediation sys-

tem includes a sensing device for detecting damage events related

to a structure of interest. Such damage events may include impact

from a ballistic object, a tamper event, a physical impact, or other

events that may affect structural integrity or cause failure. Illustra-

tively, the sensing device is in communication with a measurement

system to determine damage criteria, and a processing system which

is configured to use the damage criteria to determine, for example,

a direction of the initiation point of a ballistic causing the damage

event.

25 drawings

integrated propulsion and attitude control System from a common pressure vessel for an interceptor

Raytheon Company


language: english

Interceptors such as self-propelled rockets, missiles or counter-mis-

sile missiles may be launched from air-, land- or sea-based platforms to

engage a target. The interceptor may be used offensively against

other platforms, fixed emplacements or other targets or defensively to


intercept and destroy enemy missiles. The interceptor may use explo-

sive or kinetic energy to defeat the target.

The interceptor is propelled by a rocket motor. Rocket propellant is

ignited and burns creating a high-pressure gas. This gas is expelled in a

generally axial direction through one or more main nozzles that convert

the high-pressure gas into a high-velocity gas.

The interceptor is maneuvered by an attitude control system (ACS).

In general, the ACS produces a “moment” offset from the center of

gravity of the interceptor that interacts with the main axial thrust vector

to change the attitude of the interceptor. This moment may provide

yaw, pitch and/or roll control. One approach known as “thrust vector

control” uses a servo motor to physically reorient the one or more main

nozzles to produce the desired moment. Another approach known as

“aerodynamic control” uses servo motor to physically deploy one or

more aerodynamic control surfaces such as fins. Some interceptors use

a combination of thrust vector control at low speed with aerodynamic

control at high speed. Another approach is to selectively ignite one

or more explosive guidance units placed on the airframe to generate

impulse moments to control the attitude. In any of these approaches,

a flight control system responds to guidance commands to command

the ACS to maneuver the interceptor. Guidance may be provided as a

command line-of-sight in which a targeting system tracks the target and

the interceptor, calculates the appropriate guidance commands that will

result in an intercept and send these commands to the interceptor to

execute, a “beamrider” in which an IR sensor mounted aft of the inter-

ceptor “rides” an IR beam from the platform to the target, or a Homing

Guidance (active, semi-active or passive) in which a sensor mounted

forward of the interceptor locks onto the target.

8 drawings

automated underwater image Restoration via denoised deconvolutionUS Navy


language: english

The quality of images taken underwater is vital to many military and

civilian applications involving mine detection, diver visibility, and search

and rescue. The ability to obtain better images at greater distances has

often been a central goal of underwater imaging projects. Unlike in the

atmosphere, where visibility can be on the order of miles, the visual

range in the underwater environment is rather limited, at best on the

order of tens of meters, even in the clearest waters. This is the result of

the combined attenuation effects from both absorption, i.e., photons

being absorbed into water molecules, phytoplankton cells, and detritus,

and scattering, i.e., photons being bounced away from the original path

into different traveling directions. It is mostly the effects of scattering by

water and particulates that make the water look dirty or less transpar-

ent, resulting in a blurred image seen by human eyes and recorded by

cameras.

Image quality representation is an interesting and important

research subject in digital image processing, especially with the rapid

expansion of digital cameras, scanners, and printers into the everyday

life of most households in recent years. Such devices would be of little

use if they did not provide an acceptable representation of the subject

of the image that was suitable for its intended purposes. The ability to

objectively differentiate qualities amongst different images is critical

in digital image processing, both for post-processing restoration of

degraded imageries and in real-time imaging enhancement.

This concept includes a computer-implemented method for auto-

matically retrieving information regarding optical properties of a scat-

tering medium including receiving a first digital image and a first image

quality value associated with the first digital image and sharpness of an

edge of the first digital image, producing an optimized image, trans-

forming the optimized image into an optimized optical transfer function,

receiving a second digital image and a second image quality value as-

sociated with the second digital image and sharpness of an edge of the

second digital image, identifying either the first or second digital image

as an optimized digital image, and transforming the optimized optical

transfer function into an optimized value of the optical parameter.

7 drawings

aeroheating of Sensor protected by integrating device SeekerSener Grupo De Ingenieria, S.A

country of origin: Spain

language: english

Nowadays most missile systems use imaging electro-optical (EO)

sensors to acquire and track targets, usually in combination with other

sensors means such as laser and radio frequency (RF) seekers. These

missiles can be widely classified into categories:

(a) Tactical missiles,

(b) High-altitude endo-atmospheric missile defense interceptors, and

(c) Space missile defense interceptors.

This invention relates to the protection of a missile electro-optical

(EO) seeker assembly, i.e. an EO sensor, from damage caused by an ex-

ternal high-speed air stream laden with dispersed multi-phase particles

due to (a) aero-heating by the hot gas of the oncoming stream invading

Defense innovations



the sensor cavity, with consequent severe degradation of the image due

to differential thermal expansion of the telescope structures, and (b)

erosion of the optical coatings by the abrasive particles suspended in

the high speed oncoming air as it occurs in certain geographical regions

of the planet.

16 drawings

Multi-Sensor event detection System US Navy


language: english

Currently, a number of event detection methods rely on human

observation. As an illustrative example, current minesweeping systems

are towed by a manned platform, such as a helicopter or surface ship.

Since there is some level of human situational awareness, direct obser-

vation is used to recognize if the sweep system being employed has

indeed swept a mine or not. Accordingly, tactical memorandums and

concept of operation documents for these systems explicitly state that

those manning the platform shall watch for a plume or explosion when

sweeping or neutralizing mines.

The fundamental concept of mine hunting and sweeping is shift-

ing from this perspective to an entirely unmanned operation. larger

countermeasure ships and helicopters are slated to be retired in favor of

smaller unmanned systems. For mine hunting systems, detailed meth-

ods of data collection and post mission analysis (PMA) are prescribed.

A human operator downloads and reviews every sonar image or other

data that the system collects.

For mine sweeping, however, PMA has been neglected due to the

use of manned platforms and human observations, as described previ-

ously. Current unmanned sweep systems record when the system is

energized and where it is. However, there are no provisions for recording

whether or not a mine firing has occurred. Further, if a mine firing has

occurred, there are no provisions for recording where the mine firing

occurred.

Accordingly, the judgment as to whether an area has been cleared

of naval sea mines to an acceptable level has to rely on vague position

and status data. Such vague data is inadequate for deciding whether to

risk lives and assets in moving them through an area that may or may

not be sufficiently cleared. Thus, if an unmanned sweeping capability is

desired, there is a need for a multi-sensor data collection system that

can detect, localize, and report mine firings that have been actuated by

an unmanned sweep system.

This design describes systems and methods to determine and as-

certain the occurrence of an event are provided. The event can manifest

its presence through transient signatures that alter short or long term

background sensor registered signals. The system can include multiple

sensors, one or more data recorders and data reporting devices. Event

data from each sensor is collected, recorded and reported. Data from

the various sensors is correlated to triangulate or otherwise localize the

occurrence of an event. The sensors can be incorporated on a single

device or can be a distributed set of independent sensors on separate

devices that share their information with the data collection system.

5 drawings

automatic cargo hook ReleaseSikorsky Aircraft Corp.


language: english

A utility VTOl aircraft’s ability to carry cargo externally is one of

its most important features. Such a utility VTOl aircraft is typically

equipped to externally carry any large, long or oddly shaped cargo

provided that the cargo is within the lifting capacity of the VTOl aircraft.

A significant advantage associated with a lifting capability of the VTOl

aircraft is that a cargo may be picked up from or delivered to locations

where access by other forms of transportation is difficult or impossible.

Additionally, the attached suspension systems do not require the VTOl

aircraft to land in order to deliver or pick up the cargo.

Typically, a VTOl aircraft carries external cargo either with a single-

point or a multipoint suspension system. A VTOl aircraft may have

three external cargo attachment hooks (suspension points) displaced

longitudinally on the bottom of the aircraft to carry external cargo—one

on the center line forward of the aircraft center of gravity (forward hook),

one on the center line substantially at the center of the aircraft’s center

of gravity (center hook), and one on the center line aft of the center of

gravity (aft hook). In a single-point suspension system, external cargo

may be independently attached to any attachment hook with up to three

independently attached cargo loads carried by each attachment hook.

However, in the case of a multipoint suspension system, typically, the

forward hook is attached to the front of the cargo and the aft hook is

attached to the rear of the cargo in a ‘Y’ shaped arrangement. This ar-

rangement stabilizes the cargo about the yaw axis, thereby significantly

reducing the cargo's ability to swing nose left or nose right. In some

VTOl aircraft, the suspension system may not be capable of automati-

cally releasing a cargo connected to a cargo hook. Improvements in

providing an automatic cargo hook interface that attaches to an existing


cargo hook release system of a VTOl aircraft and controlled by a flight

control computer would be well received in the art.

The subject matter disclosed in this relates generally to the field of

load-management systems in a vertical take-off and landing aircraft,

and more particularly, to an automatic cargo release harness assem-

bly that interconnects to an existing cargo hook release system of a

manned, unmanned, or piloted VTOl aircraft for a precision release of

one or more loads coupled to the cargo hook release system.

2 drawings

SubmarineThyssenKrupp Marine Systems GmbH

country of origin: Germany

language: english

Submarines having a drive which is independent of external air can

operate in Arctic waters over a longer period of time below a closed ice

sheet. However, with submerged travel below a closed ice sheet, those

emergency situations which render it necessary for the crew to leave the

submarine have been found to be fatal. In such a situation, the ice sheet

or ice layer prevents these persons from getting to above the ice sheet.

Against this background, it is the object of the invention to provide

a submarine, which renders it possible for the occupants to exit out of

the submarine to above the ice sheet, given submerged travel below a

closed ice sheet.

This object is achieved by a submarine having a drilling device

which is directed upwards and which is arranged in a pressure hull of

the submarine. The drilling device comprises a drill which is extendable

out of an opening of the pressure hull arranged on the upper deck side,

wherein a drilling head of the drill forms a closure body which closes

the opening of the pressure hull. Advantageous further developments

of this submarine are to be deduced from the dependent claims, the

subsequent description as well as the drawing. Hereby, according to the

invention, the features specified in the dependent claims in each case

per se but also in a suitable combination can further form the solution

according to the invention.

The basic concept of the invention is to equip the submarine with

a drilling device which is directed upwards. With such a drilling device,

with submerged travel below a closed ice sheet, it is possible to drill a

hole into this from below and particularly advantageously an exit hole

for the crew of the submarine. The occupants can leave the submarine

through this exit hole, for example in the case of an emergency, and get

on top of the ice sheet. For this, the drilling device is positioned on or

in the submarine, such that a drill arranged outside the submarine body

can be applied on the lower side of the ice sheet and drill through this,

when the submarine is located directly below the ice sheet. For creating

an exit hole in an ice sheet, the drill is usefully dimensioned such that it

can create a drill hole whose cross-section or diameter renders it pos-

sible for a person to climb through here. Preferably, the drill comprises

a drilling head whose diameter corresponds at least to the diameter of

an exit opening arranged on the submarine on the upper deck side, or

is larger. The drilling head can be similar to the drilling heads used in

tunnel advancing machines, and at an essentially plane face side, apart

from a centering tip arranged in its center, can comprise a multitude of

cutters. Apart from this, drilling heads having a conical tip and which

comprise several cutters running from the center of the drilling head to

its outer periphery can also be provided.

3 drawings

aerial observation SystemShilat Optronics Ltd

country of origin: israel

language: english

An aerial platform comprising a kite providing a level of directional

stability when elevated by the wind, and an inflated balloon attached

above the kite with a cord. The payload is attached to the kite. The

physical separation of the balloon from the kite isolates the payload

from shocks generated by the balloon. Additional isolation is provided

by use of an elastic attachment cord. Electric power is supplied to the

aerial platform by means of an optical fiber receiving optical power from

a ground-based source, and conversion of the optical power to electri-

cal power on board the platform. In order to provide a strong tether

line, the optical fiber is plaited with a jacket braided from high tensile

strength fibers. An aerial laser transmitter is described using a ground

based laser source transmitting laser power through an optical fiber to

an aerial platform for transmission from the platform.

The present invention seeks to provide a new lighter-than-air plat-

form, which can carry a payload useful for such tasks as aerial surveil-

lance, target designation, target pointing, laser range finding, wireless

relaying, and the like. The system differs in its flight characteristic prop-

erties from prior art lighter-than-air systems in that it comprises a novel

combination of a separated support balloon and a kite, with the payload

on the kite, and the balloon supplying buoyancy to the kite by means

of a line attached between the balloon and the kite below it. This differs

from prior art balloon/kite combinations, where the balloon and the kite

features are built as the same unitary structure. The use of separate

Defense innovations



kite and balloon modules provides a level of mechanical isolation of the

payload on the kite from the effects of buffeting of the balloon in the

wind. This isolation effect can be increased by use of a longer connect-

ing cord, or by use of a flexible section of the connecting cord, such as

a spring, or an elastomeric section. The combination kite/balloon also

has all of the known advantages of prior art kite/balloon systems, such

as the increased altitude achieved by the combination over that of a

balloon only, because of the increased dynamic lifting effect of the kite

section with increase in wind speed.

11 drawings

propeller ScrewShchepochkina Ju.A.


language: Russian

Vessel propeller screw contains hub with blades placed on propeller

shaft. The blades are mutually equally spaced and placed at an angle

to shaft longitudinal axis. Each blade is provided with at least one flow

diverter which is located on concave/convex side of a blade at an angle

to its radial axis. Flow diverter size is increasing in water flow movement

direction.

The reported benefit is increased thrust of propeller screw.

3 drawings

integrated Wing tankV.S. Ermolenko


language: Russian

This invention relates to aviation, to wing tanks of aircraft. Wing

tank(s) is (are) of the form of leakproof cylinders or cones located in

wing intracavity and serves (serve) as longitudinal load bearing element

of wing structure. Inside the tank, vertical permeable baffle plate of flat,

T-shaped cross-section or in the form of girder, channel bar or I-girder

is located. The tank can also be made from one outer wing end to the

second outer wing end.

The reported benefit is improved safety of wing structure.

4 drawings

Multi-Role aircraft with interchangeable Mission ModulesAbe Karem


language english

Aircraft development is a capital-intensive and usually lengthy

process. Further, because the viability of aircraft depends largely on

their weight, conservatism in design can have powerful consequences

on the viability of an aircraft. As a result of these two factors and other

considerations, any given aircraft tends to be specialized for one role or

mission during the design process.

At the same time, aircraft are used on and needed for a variety

of missions and roles. Aircraft carry different payloads, including for

example, passengers, cargo, sensors and munitions. Beyond payload,

other requirements can shape an aircraft design; for example, some

missions require flight in a certain speed regime, while other missions

require high fuel efficiency.

Prior art approaches to providing aircraft suitable for conducting

specific missions tend to either (i) design a distinct aircraft for a specific

mission, (ii) adapt an existing aircraft design for another mission through

modifications (iii) attempt to bridge multiple missions in the design stage

through an a priori requirement.

Each of these three prior art approaches has weaknesses. The first

approach, to design a distinct aircraft for a specific mission, is extremely

expensive and often impractical. In general, it has the least potential

to meet multiple diverse requirements, therefore limiting its market.

The second approach, post-hoc adaptation, is often used in adapting

aircraft to new missions similar to the original design mission. Even this

approach is expensive and time consuming, however. These difficulties

arise in part because of formidable certification and qualification re-

quirements. An example of aircraft post-hoc modification is the transfor-

mation of the lockheed l-188 Electra civilian passenger transport into

the lockheed P-3 Orion naval maritime surveillance aircraft. The original

mission (passenger transport) and the new mission (maritime surveil-

lance) have similar flight envelope requirements, in terms of speed and

altitude.

The third general approach, attempting bridge multiple missions

in the design stage through an a priori requirement, often entails ex-

traordinary costs and engineering effort. An example of this approach

would be the lockheed Martin F-35 family of supersonic fighter

aircraft, attempting commonality between the F-35B short takeoff


and vertical landing (STOVl) platform, the F-35C carrier based fighter

platform, and the F-35A land-based conventional takeoff supersonic

fighter platform. The F-35 program is renowned for being billions of

dollars over budget and years behind schedule; this results at least

in part from attempts to achieve high degrees of commonality among

the aircraft in the family. The Boeing competitor to the F-35, as

described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,897,078, struggled with similar issues in

attempting to bridge diverse mission requirements, while still retain-

ing some degree of parts-commonality among variants.

The '078 patent and all other extrinsic materials discussed herein

are incorporated by reference in their entirety. Where a definition or

use of a term in an incorporated reference is inconsistent or contrary

to the definition of that term provided herein, the definition of that

term provided herein applies and the definition of that term in the

reference does not apply.

In summary, aircraft are sometimes designed to be flexible, yet

this by-design flexibility can only go so far. Alternatively, different ver-

sions of aircraft are designed for specific needs, users, and missions.

Only a few prior art aircraft and aircraft related developments known

to the inventor have had elements of modularity, and no known prior

art aircraft have achieved complete or even extensive modularity.

A few cargo aircraft have carried their cargo in removable cargo

containers. Notably, the Fairchild XC-120 Packplane, Miles M.68

Boxcar, and kamov kA-226 are the instances known to the inven-

tor.

While these prior art aircraft carry their cargo payload in remov-

able containers, they cannot be said to be truly modular aircraft,

because they do not change containers to change missions or roles.

These prior art aircraft are really predominantly single-role transport

aircraft that happen to carry their cargo in an external container that

forms part of the aerodynamic fairing of the aircraft, rather than car-

rying their cargo in containers internal to the aerodynamic fairing of

the aircraft like most air freighters.

7 drawings

hatch of a ShipSiemens aktiengesellschaft


language: english

The electric current required on board ships docked in harbors is usu-

ally generated by on-board diesel engine generator units. During the op-

eration of said diesel engine generator units, not inconsiderable amounts

of diesel exhaust gases are generated and these include carbon dioxide

and nitrogen oxides among other things which are ecologically harmful.

Currently there are thoughts of supplying a ship docked in harbor

with electric current from onshore (onshore power supply) by means of a

flexible power supply line, a so-called cable line. Said electric current is

provided by means of an electric power supply network arranged in the

harbor and is transferred to the ship by means of the cable line. In this

case, it is conceivable to place the cable line over a randomly selected

position on the outer skin of the ship (ship's side). However, this could

damage the cable line. In addition, such cable lines placed randomly over

the side of the ship provide a source of accident (risk of stumbling etc.).

This design is for a hatch with an outer wall or skin of a ship includes

a guide device for guiding a flexible electrical line through the hatch to

provide the ship with electrical power.

5 drawings

aircraft under carriage front leg with integrated lift and directing control deviceooo Juridicheskaja firma Gorodisskij i partnery


language: Russian

This invention relates to landing gear, particularly, to device in-

tended for control the landing gear in lift and direction. landing gear led

comprises pole composed of two crossbars to make pivot point for leg

lifting, rotary pipe and sliding rod translating in rotary pipe in turn axis

and provided with wheels at its one end. Rotary pipe is arranged inside

said pole to turn relative to pivot axis and to extend beyond lift axis rela-

tive to position of wheels. Besides, it comprises the drive of leg rotation

relative to lift axis at interaction with airframe and, on opposite side,

with thrust point of lift located at a distance from lift axis. Note here that

Defense innovations



thrust point located at rotary pipe on the side opposite the wheels rela-

tive to lift axis.

According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to decrease

weight and number of hardware components required for landing gear

lift and turn.

1 drawing

airfield unit for emergent deceleration of aircraftkokorev Gennadij vasil'evich


language: Russian

This proposed device comprises landing strip elevated section.

landing strip section is laid on overpass with boards. Said overpass

is equipped with electrically driven winch and transducers for control

over aircraft run speed. Aircraft stopped at overpass, said transducers

actuated extending brake thrusts and extending barriers. Said overpass

is overlapped by six extending brake thrusts and two extending barriers.

Stopped aircraft is locked and towed by electrically driven winch to

runway.

According to the designers, the effect of this concept is for smooth

and safe deceleration.

29 drawings

high-Speed vessel Step from polymer compositesfGup krylovskij gosudarstvennyj nauchnyj tsentr


language: Russia

This invention relates to ship building, particularly to high-speed

boats made of polymer composites. This crosswise hollow step is

made of polymer composite comprises outer skin and damping ele-

ments composed by at least one plate (horizontally arranged dia-

phragm) located inside the step between skins of the vessel and step

to connect vertical lengthwise diaphragms in height decreasing to

vessel fore. Note here that lengthwise diaphragms on top and bottom

sides of damping elements are shifted in crosswise direction relative to

each other. lengthwise diaphragms and sidewall with skin and damp-

ing elements are glued together with the help of thrust foam plastic to

be secured to the skin and damping elements and covered by one or

several plies of reinforcing material. Vulcanizing-on angle-pieces are

welded on step sidewalls and step skin. Step cavities arranged one

above the other in one or two lengthwise cross-sections of the ves-

sel (relative to ship centerline plane) are filled with high-density foam

plastic.

According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to de-

crease shock loads, lower drag on rough sea.

5 drawings

airborne vehicleShchepochkina Ju.a.


language: Russian

An aircraft comprises fuselage, control cabin, delta wing, tail

plane, engines arranged above said wing and undercarriage. Head

parts of the wing and fuselage are connected by hollow prop equipped

with rudder arranged between said wing and fuselage. Wing head sec-

tion hangs over control cabin. Outer wing is arranged above fuselage

to retain rear landing gear. Cavities accommodating flywheels running

in opposite directions are made in the wing on both sides from central

line.


According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to afford

higher lift, mobility and stability.

3 drawings

device for launching and Recovering a towed Sonar thales Sa

country of origin: france

language: english

This design describes a device for launching and recovering a so-

nar comprising a linear reception antenna and a volume transmission

coil incorporated into a volume body referred to as a fish, said sonar

being towed by a surface vessel by means of a tow line comprising a

towing cable from which the tow fish is suspended, the linear antenna

being anchored behind the cable in relation to the vessel, said device

comprising a towing winch comprising a chassis secured to the

surface vessel and allowing the tow line to be wound onto and paid

out from a drum. The drum comprises two runners rotating about an

axis of rotation, means of coupling the two parts, the first part having

a cylindrical shape onto which the tow line is intended to be wound,

the second part forming a first end stop intended to accommodate the

tow fish.

14 drawings

Method for treating aircraft StructuresRosebank engineering pty ltd.

country of origin: australia

language: english

The fuselages of many aircraft consist of circumferential frame

members, longitudinal stringers, and a thin skin, all made from

lightweight aluminum. This construction allows for a balance of flight

properties and weight.

The sheets of aluminum that make up the skin are connected

together as lap joints by generally two to three rows of rivets. The

outer skin later is countersunk at each rivet location so the rivet head

is flush with the skin, resulting in optimal aerodynamic properties.

When the skin is subjected to the stresses of normal operation,

particularly in pressurized commercial aircraft, fatigue damage can

occur in the metal sheets and especially in high stress locations

around fasteners. The problem is exacerbated by the ingress of en-

vironmental elements and leads to the joint cracking. Crack growth,

if left undetected, can lead to catastrophic failure, as in the case of

Aloha Airlines Right 243 in 1988. As the aircraft reached its normal

flight altitude of 24,000 feet (7,300 m), a small section on the left

side of the roof ruptured. The resulting explosive decompression tore

off a large section of the roof, consisting of the entire top half of the

aircraft skin extending from just behind the cockpit to the fore-wing

area. It was subsequently discovered that the incident was caused

by the presence of multiple small cracks which arose as a result of

environmental degradation of the joint located aft of the front port

side passenger door. This phenomenon has subsequently been

termed “multisite damage.”

This design relates to methods for repairing a structural weak-

ness in an aircraft fuselage, or preventing the advancement of a

structural weakness in an aircraft fuselage. Cold spray methods such

as supersonic particle deposition have been shown to positively af-

fect structural characteristics of sheet metal and lap joints as used in

fuselage construction.

30 drawings

Defense innovations



GpS assisted torpedo Recovery Systemcountry of origin: united States

language: english

This invention relates generally to communications apparatuses and

methods, and in particular to a water-based vehicle location system.

Underwater vessels, such as unmanned underwater vehicles

(UUVs) and torpedoes, are used in a variety of military applications, for

example, surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, and defense. Often,

it is important to recover UUVs and torpedoes. For example, torpedoes

are often deployed but not armed for a variety of military training or stra-

tegic purposes. After a UUV or a torpedo has completed its task, it is

difficult to locate the underwater vessel because highly accurate global

positioning system location systems and radio frequency communica-

tions links are not available to underwater vessels. This makes the locat-

ing of an underwater vessel inaccurate resulting in a slow recovery and

an increased likelihood the underwater vessel will be lost, damaged, or

stolen.

Accordingly, there is a need and desire for an underwater ves-

sel recovery method and system for providing accurate geo-location

information to air, surface and underwater stations thereby enabling the

quick retrieval.

9 drawings

capacitor for high g-force applicationscountry of origin: united States

language: english

The present invention is directed to a capacitor capable of with-

standing relatively high g-forces, without failure. The invention is

particularly useful for electrolytic capacitors having a wound capacitor

element.

Wound capacitors, such as aluminum electrolytic capacitors, are

often used in environments where they are subject to relatively high vi-

bration, impact and centrifugal force. For example, capacitors are com-

monly incorporated into deep well drilling equipment and the electrical

circuitry of aircraft and spacecraft. Typical wound capacitors are rated

to withstand g-forces of up to 25 g. Subjecting the capacitor to higher

g-forces may result in failure of the capacitor.

U.S. Pat. No. 4,584,630 discloses a mounting spacer for an elec-

trolytic capacitor. The mounting spacer is a flexible plastic sheet, which

when folded and inserted inside the tubular casing provides alignment

and support for the capacitor section.

U.S. Pat. No. 4,987,519 discloses an aluminum electrolytic capaci-

tor having a fluoro-plastic member at each end of the capacitor ele-

ment. An inwardly directed annular bead deforms the case and engages

the fluoro-plastic member to create a seal.

U.S. Pat. No. 6,307,734 discloses an electrolytic capacitor having a

silicone potting compound surrounding the capacitor within the canister

(case). Indentation 108 in canister 102 compresses the silicone com-

pound against the capacitor element to maintain the capacitor element

firmly in place.

US Patent Application No. 2012/0154984 disclose an electrolytic

capacitor with a tape material wound around the outside of the capaci-

tor element. The metal case is crimped inward to engage the tape mate-

rial, thereby fixing the capacitor element in place relative to the case.

Despite the various prior art attempts to align, support and stabilize

a wound capacitor element in a case, there remains a long felt need for

a capacitor capable of functioning in high g-force applications.

Ship propulsion unitJuridicheskaja firma Gorodisskij i Partnery


language: Russian

This design describes a propulsion unit comprising at least one

stationary propulsive unit arranged at the ship aft. Propulsive unit

comprises a hollow bearing structure secured to ship hull. The cham-

ber has front and rear ends and is secured to bearing structure. Motor

is arranged inside said chamber. The shaft has first and second ends.

Propeller screw is engaged with motor.

The rudder can turn at the chamber rear end. Propulsive unit is

arranged to make shaft line form the vertical inclination angle of 1-8

degrees to water line so that chamber front end is located below than

chamber rear end relative to waterline.

The reported effect is an improvement of propulsion unit on vessels.

3 drawings

harmonized turret with Multiple Gimbaled Sub-SystemsDRS Sustainment Systems


language: english

This disclosure is generally related to machine support systems

and, in particular, to turret and gimbal support systems for line-of-sight

sensors and weapons on military vehicles.

On military vehicles, whether ground-, sea-, aircraft-, or space-

based, the placement and orientation of a sensor on a vehicle can be

important. A warfighter’s situational awareness, including that used

for driving/piloting, collision avoidance, navigation, covert observa-

tion, targeting, etc. may depend upon having the best, least obstructed

view. A line-of-sight sensor, which includes a sensor that requires an

unobstructed line in space to what it is sensing, should not be occluded

by the vehicle itself, human operators, large communication antennas,

or other protrusions.

In general, a novel mounting configuration of multiple slewable

pointable devices, such as line-of-sight sensors and weapons, is

described. One such example is a gimbaled line-of-sight sensor,

which itself can rotate 360 degrees, and a gimbaled gun, which

itself can rotate 360.degrees, both mounted on a turret platform that

rotates 360 degrees. The gimbals of the sensor and weapon are

mounted across from each other, opposite the central pivot point


of the rotating platform. In operation, if the weapon is in the way of

the sensor’s line-of-sight to an off-board target, then the turret is

rotated so that the sensor moves out from behind the weapon (and

the weapon moves out from front of the sensor). Conversely, if a situ-

ation occurs in which the sensor is in the way of the weapon’s line of

fire to the target, then the turret is rotated so that the weapon moves

out from behind the sensor (and the sensor moves out from front of

the weapon). In development, this has been informally called a “lazy

Susan design.”

This design can be utilized with pointable components that require

360-degree un-obstructed, line-of-sight capability without any “dead

zones.” For example, radars, lasers, and rocket-based weapon systems

can be used together. Two sensors can be used together, or two weapons

can be used together.

12 drawings

aerial delivery System with Munition adapter and latching ReleaseRoy Fox


language: english

Aerial delivery is a term used to describe extracting an item from an

aircraft in flight and then enabling a safe recovery of the item by use of

an aerodynamic decelerator, which is most often a parachute system.

Additionally, the aerial delivery operation is typically conducted from a

cargo-type aircraft. The process may utilize very specific aerial delivery

equipment and may adhere to very specific aerial delivery operational

procedures. Often, the extracted item consists of an aerial delivery

system containing cargo of some sort.

Two general types of extraction are utilized. Gravity extraction is

the technique of using positive aircraft pitch angle, or by using some

other force to cause the item to simply roll or slide out of the aircraft,

which is typically followed by a parachute being deployed by a lanyard

that is anchored to the aircraft. Parachute extraction is a technique

whereby a parachute is first deployed out the rear of the cargo com-

partment, and the parachute is used to pull the item from the aircraft.

Both techniques may conform to guidelines regarding length, weight,

mass, etc., of the item being extracted in order to achieve a safe ex-

traction operation. Generally speaking, relatively short and/or relatively

lightweight items may be gravity extracted, but relatively long and/or

relatively heavy items may preferably be parachute extracted, which

removes the item from the aircraft quickly to prevent it from adversely

affecting the aircraft’s center of balance.

The present disclosure relates to aerial delivery, particularly delivery

achieved via mid-air extraction from an aircraft, and systems and

related methods.

20 drawings

carrier Ship having a cargo Space that can be floodedTrautwein Albrecht


language: German

The invention relates to a carrier ship having at least one cargo

space, which is laterally bounded by two longitudinal walls extending

in a longitudinal direction of the carrier ship, wherein the cargo space

extends substantially over the entire length of the carrier ship and is

flooded, such that freight in the cargo space can be transported in a

floating manner. At least one of the longitudinal walls can be opened at

least nearly completely or at least in a plurality of partial pieces, such

that freight can be floated laterally into the flooded cargo space.

6 drawings

Defense innovations



coupling device, coupling System, and towing System, and Method for uncoupling and coupling an unmanned underwater vehicle

Atlas Elektronik GMBH


language German

The invention relates to a coupling device for uncoupling an

unmanned underwater vehicle and then coupling said unmanned un-

derwater vehicle again, comprising a data-transferring and an energy-

transferring towing-cable receptacle and a data-transferring and an

energy-transferring underwater-vehicle receptacle, wherein the coupling

device comprises a part of a coupling apparatus and a part of an un-

derwater positioning system. The invention further relates to a method

for uncoupling an unmanned underwater vehicle from a towing system

and coupling said unmanned underwater vehicle to said towing system,

wherein the coupling device and the unmanned water vehicle are below

a water surface during towing and the method comprises the steps of

uncoupling the unmanned water vehicle, subsequent performance of a

mission the uncoupled unmanned water vehicle, and then coupling the

unmanned underwater vehicle to the coupling device.

1 drawing

Missile WarheadIsraeli Military Industries Ltd.

country of origin: israel

language: english

The present invention relates to missile warheads especially un-

guided warheads designed to penetrate hard targets and in particular

multiple wall targets.

Warheads are often required to penetrate hard concrete or steel

targets of either one or multiple layers (walls) and to explode afterwards

inside a target cavity. Such warheads have an ogive or a conical nose

that assists the penetration by reducing the resistance forces.

This type of warhead is typically made of three sections: (1) a front

section, or nose, which is usually in the shape of an ogive or cone; (2)

the main section which includes the explosive charge and is usually cy-

lindrical; and (3) the aft section which seals the explosive charge within

the casing and holds a penetration fuse for explosive charge initiation.

The warhead which is typically a hollow cylindrically shaped casing,

made of high strength steel. Inside the hollow casing lies the explo-

sive charge, and in the rear end of the warhead the penetration fuse is

installed. This fuse is designed to initiate the explosive charge at the

proper moment, typically, at some predetermined time after the warhead

encounters the target.

In penetration warheads, special care is given to the design of the

forward penetration nose. The penetration nose must withstand con-

siderable loads, and also, guides the warhead’s path through the target

(being the first part of the warhead to come in contact with the target),

with minimal drag forces. The most widespread approach for penetra-

tion nose design is to use a conical or an ogive nose.

The present invention is to a penetration warhead having a conical

nose and structural ribs along the circumference of the nose. The special

penetration cone design gives the warhead the following characteristics:

• High durability due to reduced stress while penetrating several/

layered structural targets, without a significant increase in

weight.

• Correction of the penetration path, minimizing the “J effect,”

while penetrating several/layered structural targets which

increases the potential penetration depth.

• Minimizing ricochet of the warhead off structural targets and

assists in target penetration, when shallow approach angles and

high angles of attack are reached.

• Decreasing the accelerations acting on the rear part of the

warhead, thus decreasing the loads on the penetration fuse

(located in the rear of the warhead).

Radar Surveillance System Selex ES Ltd.

country of origin: united kingdom

language: english

The invention relates to a radar surveillance system. More spe-

cifically but not exclusively it relates to maritime surveillance radar

designed to detect small targets.


In maritime surveillance radar, the key objective is to distinguish ac-

tual targets from apparent targets. Apparent targets, or ‘false alarms’ are

those that may be caused, by a radar reflection of the sea surface being

categorized as a potential target, when no real object is present. This

problem has been the subject of much research over the past 70 years.

The problem is essentially achieving a robust decision criterion, based

on the mathematical probability that a particular reflection from the area

under surveillance is or is not a target.

In conventional maritime surveillance radars, the antenna

produces a fixed beam shape, which is scanned over the area of

interest, up to and including complete 360-degree coverage, in the

azimuth plane.

Such systems then use non-coherent azimuth integration of

amplitude information reflected from this area of interest to deter-

mine the threshold for declaration of target or not. Typical existing

processing schemes to statistically address this question include,

but are not limited to, thresholding the data after area averaging, ap-

plying an M out of N detection criteria, or thresholding post azimuth

filtering. In such maritime radar detection, the key discriminant is

the amplitude correlation of the target, if present, during the dwell

time, compared with the amplitude correlation of the background sea

clutter return. Hence if both target and sea clutter returns are each

highly correlated, a mathematically sound, automatic test hypothesis

is difficult, if not impossible to achieve. This results in either many

false targets being displayed or real targets being suppressed. Both

conditions are unacceptable as operator workload and search time

can become excessive in trying to achieve the functional role of

target detection.

4 drawings

Recovering capsized Watercraft incorporating Rapid filling and emptying ballast Systems Rubber Ducky IP Pty Ltd

country of origin: australia

language: english

In many water borne activities, water crafts, such as jet boats and

rescue craft, are used to move people and/or objects across the water.

The agility and power of such smaller vessels make them attractive for

water sports enthusiasts and thrill-seekers, for example. However, they

may be generally unsuitable for military use as they may not be adapted

for long deployment, nor be adapted to cope with the various weather

conditions prevalent at sea.

The speed at which smaller craft can travel makes them compara-

tively less stable than larger craft, such as navy frigates and destroyers,

especially in rough water. As a craft increases its velocity, the chance it

will capsize can increase. This is particularly the case for jet boats and

other forms of speed boat, and the capsized craft can be very difficult to

right—return to an upright position—in order to continue moving.

Devices have been designed to improve the stability of the craft

in the water, such as canting keels, which comprise a torpedo shaped

ballast body at the tip of an aerofoil. The moment of the ballast body

on the aerofoil is generally greater than that of the craft, and capsizing

is thereby prevented. However, when travelling normally, the ballast is

a deadweight which slows the craft, and such designs are generally

impractical for use in faster boats, such as jet boats, as they reduce the

speed and agility which make those craft attractive to use. Few practical

designs are capable of preventing capsizing.

It is, therefore, generally desirable to provide a craft that is capable

of righting.

19 drawings

System for carrying and dropping loads for a transport airplane MBDA

country of origin: france

language: english

Within the field of the present method, system and device, the

term load means any object able to be carried and dropped from a

plane. These could be particularly drones, freight, etc. Preferably, a

load corresponds to a piece of ammunition which, within the frame-

work of the present method, system and device, means a missile- or

Defense innovations



bomb-type projectile. Preferably, such projectile is part of a usual

weapon system with a military load and is provided with a propel-

ling system and guiding means adapted to fly it and guide it toward a

target to be damaged or destroyed. This can be particularly a guided

bomb or a cruising missile.

The present disclosure relates more precisely to a carrying and

dropping system for a military transport plane, wherein carrying the

missile is performed in the plane cargo compartment and dropping is

implemented through an opening arranged in the back the plane.

Numerous dropping systems are known, which generally use a

parachute for dropping a piece of ammunition being carried on board.

In such a case, the parachute being fastened to the piece of ammuni-

tion is in general inflated in the back of the plane so as to bring the

piece of ammunition toward the back outside the plane.

7 drawings

limiting MechanismNevskoe proektnokonstruktorskoe bjuro


language: Russian

This design pertains to an aircraft ammunition storage limiting mecha-

nism consisting of stopper, slider, thrust lever, handle, stopper support,

tie-rods and locknuts. Ammunition fixation on the shelf is executed by means

of a stopper. The stopper is made of a rod terminated in its upper part by a

cross piece for the tackle groove of products. The stopper is capable of turn-

ing and moving vertically due to an actuated handle. The handle is connect-

ed with tie-rods kinematically connected to the slider via a thrust lever. The

lever, in its turn, rests on locknuts to move the stopper down thus creating a

pressing force in the product groove and fixing it in place.

According to the designers, the effect of this concept is the creation of a

limiting mechanism allowing the retention of aircraft ammunition, of complex

configuration, on existing storing facilities in conditions of vessel rolling.

6 drawings

Shielding for a Gas turbine engine component Rolls Royce North American Technologies


language: english

Increasing the efficiency and performance of gas turbine engines

remains an area of interest. Some existing systems have various

shortcomings relative to certain applications. Accordingly,

there remains a need for further contributions in this area of

technology.

One embodiment of the present application includes a hot sec-

tion component of a gas turbine engine having a covering. The cov-

ering includes a protrusion and is attached to the hot section compo-

nent though a flexible retainer. In one form the covering is made from

ceramic matrix composite. The flexible retainer has a closed position

and an open position. The retainer secures the protrusion to the hot

section component when it engages part of the protrusion when in

the closed position.

System for Repair and Servicing of underwater production complexes in ice conditionsFGUP Krylovskij gosudarstvennyj nauchnyj tsentr


language: Russian

This proposed system comprises a carrier craft to be submerged

from support vessel which is equipped with underwater robot con-

nected with said surface support vessel via power cable, control

cable and preventer. Driving ballast tanks, shaped to circular sectors,

have vent valves arranged on top and sea grates at the bottom.

Equalizing ballast tanks are additionally incorporated with this sys-

tem. Said tanks are interconnected by equally-spaced rigid split fas-


teners around the outer edges (located equidistant from said circular

hull center) to make a circular hull of underwater carrier craft. The

carrier craft is equipped with compressed air cylinders, manipula-

tors, their control unit and propulsion-steering complex composed by

rotary propulsors with drives, compressed air systems and equalizing

ballast. Support vessel hull has underwater carrier craft and robot up

and down silo.

According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to en-

hanced operating performances.

6 drawings

corrosion Resistant Minesweeping cableUS Navy


language: english

There are many types of mines used to damage and destroy

marine vessels. Magnetic influence mines detonate on sensing a

change in the ambient magnetic field. The proliferation of relatively

inexpensive mines makes Mine Countermeasures (MCM) a necessary

and expensive challenge to counter the proliferation. Minesweeping

has historically been conducted by ships with nonmagnetic bottoms

(i.e., wood, fiber-glass). However, even ships with a nonmagnetic

bottom have a magnetic signature, and this magnetic signature can

be detected by influence mines having a sensor that detects changes

in the magnetic environment. More recently, aircraft (helicopters)

and remotely controlled unmanned vessels have been employed to

conduct minesweeping.

Examples of minesweeping methods include mechanical sweeps,

acoustic sweeps, and magnetic sweeps. Mechanical sweeps are

designed to sever the cables of moored mines with explosives or

abrasives. Acoustic sweeps are typically used to locate the positions

of mines, which can then be neutralized, typically by explosives.

Magnetic sweeps typically simulate a ship's magnetic signature, thus

causing the mine to detonate.

Magnetic influence minesweeper methods generate an electro-

magnetic current to create a magnetic field that simulates the mag-

netic signature created by the passage of a ship, thus “tricking” the

magnetic influence mine to detonate. A node in the electromagnetic

current typically is an electrode connected to a cable that is towed

by a vessel or helicopter, usually in saltwater. Saltwater is conduc-

tive, and thusly can act as a leg in an electrical circuit when conduct-

ing a magnetic sweep. Saltwater is also corrosive, and it is especially

corrosive to electrodes, where the electrode is in contact with an

electrical current, saltwater, sun, and air. With open loop sweeps, the

electrodes are in contact with at least three of these.

This design describes an improved corrosion-resistant magnetic

influence minesweeping cable. The cable produces a magnetic

field that simulates a ship’s magnetic signature as the ship passes

through the sea. It has an outer anode conductor made of titanium-

clad copper with mixed metal oxide at its aft end, an outer cathode

conductor made of nickel-clad copper at its forward end, an inner

conductor made of aluminum that runs the length of the cable, and

a steel core strength member that also runs the length of the cable.

The outer anode conductor is in electrical contact with the inner

conductor. The outer cathode conductor is insulated from the inner

conductor. The outer cathode conductor and the inner conductor

can be connected to an electrical power source onboard a towing

vessel.

7 drawings

high burning Rate tactical Solid Rocket propellantUS Navy


language: english

The present invention relates generally to solid rocket propel-

lants, and more particularly to solid rocket propellants, which have

a burn rate that is normally only achievable with a Class 1.1 explo-

sive, but have the safety of a Class 1.3 explosive.

Defense innovations



A Class 1 explosive is any substance or article, including a de-

vice, which is designed to function by explosion (i.e., an extremely

rapid release of gas and heat) or, which by chemical reaction

within itself, is able to function in a similar manner even if not

designed to function by explosion, unless the substance or

article is otherwise classed under provision of 49 CFR 173.50.

Class 1 explosives are divided into six divisions as follows:

Division 1.1 consists of explosives that have a mass explosion

hazard. Division 1.2 consists of explosives that have a projection

hazard but not a mass explosion hazard. Division 1.3 consists of

explosives that have a fire hazard and either a minor blast hazard or

minor projection hazard or both, but not a mass explosion hazard,

that is, a mass non-detonable hazard rating. Classes 1.4-1.6 are

slower burning explosives and are not suitable for rocket propel-

lants.

A need exists for extending the linear burning-rate of tacti-

cal (i.e., Class 1, Division 3, or Class 1.3) composite solid rocket

propellants for standard ship-borne missiles. The control of burning

rate may be viewed as an aspect of energy management, or how

the energy initially stored within the solid-propellant charge is al-

lowed to be released.

16 drawings

determining the adhesive Strength of biofilms on underwater protective coatings U.S. Navy


language: english

Biofilm formation on underwater optical devices constitutes an

initial step in the process of biofouling. Microorganisms, such as

diatoms and bacteria, form colonies on surfaces in seawater. Once a

biofilm is established, it serves as a foundation for barnacle larvae,

ulna spores (“green sea lettuce”), and other macro-fouling organ-

isms to settle, attach, and grow into macro-fouling colonies.

long before macro-fouling occurs on optical devices, biofilm

formation becomes problematic. Protective coatings are used on

optical surfaces of underwater vehicles primarily for their water

shedding capabilities upon surfacing. The coatings in current use

are generally hydrophobic, meaning they cause water to shed off an

optical device similar to rain drops sliding off leaves.

Unfortunately, even with the hydrophobic coatings on optical

devices, biofilms tend to form and the coatings lose their hydropho-

bicity and the affected optical devices lose their optical clarity. In

stationary seawater, biofilms can form within two weeks. Attempts

to create coatings that are optically clear, hydrophobic and antifoul-

ing have thus far proven to be unsuccessful.

This invention relates to the removal of biofilms which form on

outer surfaces of underwater optical devices. Despite the use of

protective coatings on such optical devices to inhibit the growth of

biofilms thereon, in due course biofilms adhere to the optical de-

vices. The invention is directed to determining the adhesive strength

of biofilms on protective coatings on such optical devices, and to

determining what water pressures and water jet configurations and

velocities are required to remove the biofilms and restore clarity to

the optical device.

3 drawings


Navy 040715 final v2

Documents