Page images

Question. Previously, the Navy has justified the submarine requirement based on the need to operate close to shore. With the introduction of the LCS, what is the role of the submarine in littoral combat?

Answer. Submarines remain critical contributors to U.S. undersea preeminence including waters in the littoral environment. Their technical and operational capabilities pose significant obstacles to potential adversaries who would seek to use the oceans to attack our interests.

Submarines provide the United States an asymmetric advantage by projecting power from under the sea, sustaining U.S. Forces in distant anti-access and area denial environments, and in denying enemies sanctuary by providing persistent intelligence, surveillance, tracking, and rapid engagement.

The submarine's characteristics make it uniquely capable of conducting clandestine missions in the littoral environment including:

• Independent operations even when faced with a hostile enemy.

• Extensive unreplenished operations.

• Undersea warfare battlespace dominance.

• Surface warfare against large surface ships or combatants.

• Clandestine electronic, acoustic and visual Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR).

• Strike with surprise from within an adversary's defense umbrella.

• Clandestine SOF support.

Question. Do you think that the LCS would benefit from more experimentation to determine its role before commencing a new development program?

Answer. Lessons learned from Navy experimentation with small high-speed ships and innovative hull forms such as the High Speed Vessel (HSV-X1), TRITON, and SLICE are invaluable in helping to formulate the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) role. We continue to rely on these vessels to inform us in areas such as modularity, common launch and recovery systems, and off-board vehicle operations. Vessels such as Hybrid Deep Vee Demonstrator (HDV(D)-100), Hybrid Small Waterplane Area Craft (HYSWAC), and X-CRAFT, will provide hydrodynamic information for potential LCS candidates. Other efforts include studies/analysis by the Naval War College, Naval Warfare Development Center, and industry. Together, experimentation and analysis have laid a solid foundation for the LCS sea frame and mission module CONOPs.

Question. What are the initial cost estimates, per unit, of the LCS?

Answer. The LCS Flight 0 Preliminary Design Request For Proposals issued on February 28, 2003, states that the Cost as an Independent Variable target for the LCS and the installed core mission systems is $220 million fiscal year 2005 dollars threshold and $150 million fiscal year 2005 dollars objective. This includes: detail design; basic ship construction costs; procurement, installation, and integration of the core systems; outfitting and post delivery costs; and testing. The mission packages are estimated to cost $30 million to $100 million each fiscal year 2005 dollars depending on the warfare mission that the module is supporting.

CVN-21 Aircraft Carrier

Question. The CVN-21 is the new transformational aircraft carrier for the Navy. It is, in fact, a merger of the CVNX-1 and CVNX-2 capabilities that were presented last year.

Please provide a brief description of the capabilities you envision for this new carrier.

Answer. The CVN 21 Class aircraft carriers will expand the capabilities of the NIMITZ Class in the following areas:

• An increase in sortie generation rate from 140 fixed wing sorties/day to 160/ day sustained for 30 days. To achieve this sortie rate, new technology and improved design concepts are being pursued to CVN 21 that will feature:

Enhanced/reconfigured flight deck:

• Four electromagnetic catapults (EMALS).

• Re-designed flight deck arrangement for "pit stop" servicing.

• Three aircraft elevators for enhanced aircraft movement and servicing.

• Smaller/lighter island design.

• Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG).

• Two hangar bays vice three (reduced weight, more parking area).

• Improved weapons handling/aircraft servicing efficiencies:

• Weapons elevator technology improvements.

• Dedicated weapons sponson for handling and servicing ordnance outside the hull.

• Improved weapons flow from magazine to flight deck.

• Upper stage elevator optimized for weapons throughput to aircraft. Additionally, CVN 21 will have:

Enhanced Self-Defense:

• Multi-Function Radar and Volume Surveillance Radar,

• Dynamic armor system;

• Anti-torpedo torpedo; and

• Enhanced ship self defense system using ESSM. New Nuclear Propulsion Plant:

• All electric auxiliary systems;

• Zonal electrical distribution system;

• 300% increase in electrical generation capacity over NIMITZ; and

• Maximum use of reconfigurable spaces with standard distribution panels. Survivability Improvements:

• 5' underbottom/enhanced magazine protection;

• Ship righting moment improvements; and

• Enhanced underwater protection. Engineering Improvements:

• Enhanced service life allowance (5%-7.5%) at delivery allows for predicted growth throughout the life of the ship; and

• Computer design model using CATIA improves affordability of ship design changes and alterations.

Question. In fiscal year 2003, Congress provided an additional $160 million for acceleration of the CVNX-1 carrier.

Is it your intention to use these additional funds instead for CVN-21?

Answer. Yes, these funds will be used for efforts originally planned for CVNX, now designated CVN 21.

Question. How, specifically, do you intend to use the $160 million in additional funds?

Answer. In fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated $160 million over the President's request to accelerate existing CVNX-1 design efforts (propulsion/electric plant, HM&E, & Total Ship Integration efforts). This funding was required for the program definition, design maturity, and workforce maturity needed to support advanced construction efforts. The additional funds provide a level-loaded workforce in the peak design years, completion of the requirements definition needed to support award of a detailed design and advanced construction contract in fiscal year 2004, and supports advanced construction efforts in fiscal years 2004-2006 by reducing both schedule and cost risk. Efforts are as follows:

Program definition

• Complete ship specifications.

• Refine detailed ship build strategy and shipyard facilities plan.

• Develop detailed construction schedule.

• Refine detailed ship design schedule based on construction schedule. Design maturity

• Complete 2nd revision of propulsion plant diagrams.

• Complete system diagrams for affected hull, mechanical, and electrical systems.

• Accelerate reactor compartment arrangement development.

• Supports future construction schedule.

• Supports more efficient implementation of design tools.

• Supports more efficient design and construction plan.

• Accelerate other propulsion plant and ship arrangement development to reduce cost and schedule risk and support flexibility in construction planning.

Workforce maturity

• Accelerating effort allows design force to ramp to peak design manning by end of 2003.

• Initiates 3-5 years of level-loaded design force in fiscal years 2004-2008 (vice large inefficient spike).

• Allows use of experienced designers and engineers made available from other projects at Northrup Grumman Newport News and Electric Boat (CVN 77, VIRGINIA Class, and SSGN).

Question. The current funding profile for the CVN-21 is a request for split funding of construction between fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Who knows what the budgets will look like 5 years from now, but we would like to know the rationale for split funding of this ship construction program.

Is there any issue, other than affordability, that drives you to such a proposal?

Answer. Affordability is the only driver for the split funding proposal.

Question. It is our understanding that such a proposal would increase the cost of the lead ship. Is that accurate?

Answer. The split funding proposal has no impact on the cost of the lead ship.

Question. What is the current estimate of the additional costs incurred in the program due to split funding of construction?

Answer. As stated above, there are no additional costs incurred by split funding ship construction.

Question. What and when is the next Milestone for this program?

Answer. The CVN 21 program is currently projecting a 3rd Quarter Fiscal Year 2004 Milestone B Defense Acquisition Board decision by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics. The purpose of the Milestone B decision is to approve the program's entry into the System Development and Demonstration Phase.

Question. What business-reengineering processes did you use for the design of the ship? For example, you have rearranged weapons movement.

Answer. A three-step process was used to evaluate technologies and design concepts to be pulled forward from CVNX-2 and to recommend changes to improve capability beyond the CVNX-1 baseline. In the first step, six subject matter expert (SME) teams and three cross-functional teams were formed. SME teams examined discreet areas, while cross-functional teams examined areas impacting the entire ship. The team structure is listed below:

• Weapons Movement SME Team;

• Flight Deck SME Team;

• Hangar Bay/Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Department SME Team;

• Integrated Island SME Team;

• Survivability SME Team;

• Material Movement SME Team;

• Sortie Generation Cross Functional Team;

• Weight & Stability Cross Functional Team; and

• Manpower Reduction Cross Functional Team.

The teams performed an assessment of each technology or design feature within their area of responsibility to evaluate affordability, schedule risk, contribution to warfighting capability, and impact on ship's manpower, weight, stability, and support systems. In addition, the cross functional teams summarized the combined impacts on weight and stability, manpower, and sortie generation rate resulting from the total package of technologies/design concepts that were recommended. These evaluations were uniformly conducted and documented according to guidance prepared by the program office. Over 100 participants representing 12 different organizations, including industry, the science and technology community, fleet representatives, and other Navy organizations participated in this effort.

In the second step of the process, team recommendations were considered by the Concept Ship Executive Panel (CSEP). The CSEP was chaired by the Program Manager and included representatives from the Navy staff (N785—Head, Aircraft Carrier Programs), the Naval Sea Systems Command, the Naval Air Systems Command, the Office of Naval Research, and the Fleet. The CSEP considered the team proposals and, taking into account total ship impact, risk, and the cost/benefit analyses, recommended the CVN-21 concept ship for consideration by the Program Executive Office (PEO) for Carriers. PEO Carriers concurrence with the concept ship constituted the third step in the process.

Following PEO Carriers concurrence, the program office tasked Northrop Grumman Newport News (NGNN) with transforming the concept ship into a preliminary ship design. During this on-going process, NGNN, with appropriate participation by the Government, is refining and iterating the original concepts into workable designs that can be effectively integrated into the ship and meet operational requirements.

Question. Was this based on the results of a process reengineering study?

Answer. No. Processes currently in place for CVNX-1 are being utilized for CVN21.

CVN-77 Aircraft Carrier

Question. The CVN-77, also known as the George H.W. BUSH, is to be the final ship of the CVN-68 NIMTTZ Class aircraft carriers. The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes approximately $1.2 billion in procurement funds and $311 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds for the CVN-77.

In fiscal year 2003, this Committee raised concerns about the Navy's decision to use legacy technology; especially the multi-function radar and volume search radar, rather than advancing technology for the CVN-77 as planned.

The Congress eventually provided an additional $90 million above the budget request in 2003 to advance "potentially transformation technologies" for the CVN-77. What are your plans for the expenditure of these funds?

Answer. As noted in the CVN-77 fiscal year 2003 Report to Congress dated February 15, 2003, the Navy held meetings with industry and government participating acquisition managers to investigate the following potential technology candidates:

• Full Service Integrated Networks—Wireless ICAN applications;

• Integrated Advanced Strike And Mission Planning Capabilities—SESS Information Operations Center (SIOC) Integration;

• Full Service Integrated Networks—Radio Room Automation;

• Common Flexible Island—Mast Clamp Current Probe;

• Common Flexible Island—Composite Mast;

• Multi-Modal Display Workstation & Integrated Advanced Strike And Mission Planning Capabilities—CV-TSC Technologies;

• Integrated Advanced Strike And Mission Planning Capabilities—Naval Strike Warfare Planning Center (NSWPC) Ready Room Technologies; and

• Integrated Advanced Strike And Mission Planning Capabilities—-Joint Fires Network (JFN) and Naval Strike Warfare Planning Center (NSWPC) Integration.

The Navy has further evaluated the specified technologies based on refined cost estimates, execution plans, risk plans, and a more detailed assessment of ship construction schedule impact. The following technologies are being pursued for implementation on CVN-77:

• Full Service Integrated Networks—Radio Room Automation;

• Common Flexible Island—Mast Clamp Current Probe;

• Common Flexible Island—Composite Mast;

• Multi-Modal Display Workstation & Integrated Advanced Strike And Mission Planning Capabilities—CV-TSC Technologies;

• Integrated Advanced Strike And Mission Planning Capabilities—NSWPC Ready Room Technologies; and

• Integrated Advanced Strike And Mission Planning Capabilities—JFN and NSWPC Integration.

Question. Will these be technologies that could be transitioned to the CVN-21? Answer. Any transformational technologies incorporated into CVN-77 will be included in the CVN-21 concept.

DD(X) Destroyer Program

Question. The Navy is continuing its development of the DD(X), the transformational destroyer program.

Please provide a brief description of the capabilities you envision for this new destroyer.

Answer. DD(X) is the centerpiece of a family of ships that will deliver a broad range of core capabilities to the Fleet. DD(X) will provide a baseline for spiral technology and engineering development to support a range of future surface ships including the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the next generation cruiser, CG (X) .

DDQC) is a multi-mission surface combatant tailored to be the primary family of ships provider for volume fires and precision strike. Armed with an array of landattack weapons including the Long Range Land Attack Projectile fired from the Advanced Gun System (AGS) and Tactical Tomahawk, DD(X) will provide persistent, distributed, long-range, precision attack needed in support of Marine Corps' future expeditionary operations in the littorals and for our joint forces operating deep inland. DD(X) is a critical enabler for the Navy's Sea Strike vision, which includes the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare, Ship-to-Objective Maneuver, and Operational Maneuver From the Sea concepts.

DD< X i will take advantage of advanced stealth technologies to be less detectable and less vulnerable to enemy attacks than the ships it will replace. A tumblehome hull form combined with an integrated deckhouse and apertures will significantly reduce radar cross-section and infrared signatures. An enhanced soft kill capability, including the latest in countenneasure technology, such as NULKA and TORCH enhanced by precise infrared and radar detection capabilities, will improve survivability in any combat environment. DD(X)'s active and passive sensors and countermeasures will force foes to close to much closer ranges allowing the robust combat systems more time to engage and kill targets.

An open architecture, distributed combat system will support a "plug and play" environment in which to operate AGS, an Advanced Vertical Launching System (VLS) and a Multi-Function Radar/Volume Search Radar (MFR/VSR) suite. With counter-fire target acquisition capability, MFR/VSR will significantly enhance the survivability of maneuver forces and indirect fire assets operating ashore. In addition to anti-air weapons, such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and Standard Missile, the Advanced VLS will house land attack missiles and will have the capability to carry and launch missiles to support a Ballistic Missile Defense mission. With a fully netted command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) capability including Cooperative Engagement Capability, the remote launch of DD(X) missiles by another unit will be possible.

DD (X) will have an Integrated Undersea Warfare (IUSW) Suite. This bifocal sonar system, coupled with an embarked air detachment will make DEHX) the most capable blue water USW platform afloat. Augmented by an integrated organic mineavoidance system, DIXX) will be able to operate in any battlespace. Advanced hull materials coupled with rafting of main engineering components and the latest in hull treatments will ensure DD(X) is the quietest and most magnetically stealthy combatant afloat.

Other significant DD(X) features include an Integrated Power System to allow rapid reconfiguration of power, reduced acoustic noise and a spiral to rail gun and the potential for directed-energy weapons aboard CGKX).

Question. What are the major technological issues that must be resolved with respect to the development of the DD(X) and do you believe you have a plan to successfully address these issues?

Answer. The major technological challenge with respect the development of the DDf X) is the concurrent design, build test of the ten Engineering Development Models (EDMs) listed below:

• Advanced Gun System.

• Integrated Power System.

• Dual Band Radar.

• Total Ship Computing Environment.

• Peripheral Vertical Launching System.

• Integrated Deckhouse & Apertures.

• Autonomic Fire Suppression System.

• Infrared Mockups.

• Hull Form Scale Model.

• Integrated Undersea Warfare System.

There is a plan in place that includes extensive land at-sea testing of the EDMs as part of a comprehensive risk mitigation approach to be performed within the scope of the DD(X) design agent contract (fiscal years 2002-2005). Using the spiral development approach, the test plan will allow the DD(X) program to manage risk through test demonstrations that provide continuous feedback to the DD(X) system design.

Question. What are the major design issues that must be resolved with respect to the development of the DD(X) and do you believe you have a plan to successfully address these issues?

Answer. The major design challenge is associated with integration activities. Signatures, human system integration, electromagnetic interference and compatibility, damage control automation, and Cost As an Independent Variable (CAIV) are examples of interrelated design attributes. The plan being executed is the development of the ship design through a total ship system design process, with iterative baselines established for critical analysis. The process yields a design at pre-established decision points that is balanced to maximize achieving a total ship performance within the CAIV goal. The resulting design can be further iterated through trade studies to analyze a requirements change or to optimize priority performance in a given mission area. The discipline of the process and flexibility allowed by the process tools are key to the successful design cycle process.

The composition of the Design Agent Team is another key to the successful design process. The Team contains both shipbuilders (Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Pascagoula, MS, and Bath Iron Works, Bath, ME), and a National Team that includes Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Defense Limited Partnership, and NorthropGrumman Information Technology.

Question. The Navy is proposing a spiral development approach to the DIXX), which in itself is rather "transformational." Is this a spiral development plan that meets the criteria established by Secretary Aldridge? One of the challenges of managing a spiral development program is having a solid test and evaluation plan that allows sufficient testing at the end of each spiral based on a approved set of criteria. Do you have a test and evaluation plan?

Answer. The DIXX) spiral development approach was approved by Secretary Aldridge when the DD21 Program was restructured to DIXX) in November 2001.

The DIXX) Test and Evaluation Master Plan is under development and being engineered to specifically address evaluation of the DIXX) Flight I baseline. There is

« PreviousContinue »