Navy 1.3 (March 17, 2015)

A PublicAtion

Positioning the navy for Future ResponsibilitiesNavy Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert describes the current Navy and what it will look like with current funding.

As the chartlet below shows, about 95

ships (one-third of the Navy) are deployed

around the globe protecting the nation’s

interests. This is our mandate: to be where it

matters, when it matters.

StRAtegic guidAnce

The governing document for president’s

budget for fiscal year 2016 (PB-16) is the

Secretary of Defense’s 2014 Quadrennial

Defense Review (QDR). The QDR uses the

president’s 2012 Defense Strategic Guid-

ance (DSG) as a foundation and builds on

it to describe the Department of Defense’s

role in protecting and advancing U.S.

interests and sustaining global American

leadership. The DSG and its 10 primary

missions of the U.S. armed forces have

guided Navy’s planning for the past three

years. Validated by the QDR, those missions

remain the baseline against which I measure

our posture in various fiscal scenarios. Also,

2020 is the “benchmark” year identified by

the DSG, and that remains the timeframe on

which my assessments are focused.

The QDR’s updated strategy is built on

three pillars: protect the homeland; build

security globally; and project power and win

decisively. In support of these, it requires

the Navy to “continue to build a future Fleet

that is able to deliver the required pres-

ence and capabilities and address the most

important warfighting scenarios.”

In order to improve its ability to meet

the nation’s security needs in a time of in-

creased fiscal constraint, the QDR also calls

for the joint force to “rebalance” in four key

areas: (1) rebalancing for a broad spectrum

of conflict; (2) rebalancing and sustaining

our presence and posture abroad; (3) rebal-

ancing capability, capacity, and readiness

within the joint force; and, (4) rebalancing

tooth and tail. To satisfy these mandates

of the QDR strategy, the Navy has been

compelled to make tough choices between

capability, capacity, and readiness across

a wide range of competing priorities. Our

fundamental approach to these choices has

not changed since I assumed this position.

We continue to view each decision through

the lens of the tenets I established when I

CONtiNued ON pAGe 28➥CONtiNued ON pAGe 40 ➥

www.nPeo-kmi.com MAR2015

plus:• GAO WeAPON

SySTemS RePORT • keel-lAyING

FOR The USS COlORADO

17

evaluation of Aircraft ejection Seat Safety when using Advanced Helmet SensorsBy RANdOlph R. StONe

The DoD Inspector General determined

whether DoD aircraft ejection seats meet air-

crew survivability and equipment airworthiness

requirements for pilots and aircrew wearing

helmet-mounted displays (hmDs), night vision

goggles (NVGs), or both during flight opera-

tions.

bAckgRound

This report is in response to a request

from Congress through the National Defense

Authorization Act (NDA A) for fiscal year

2015. Congress requested the DoD Office of

Inspector General (OIG) provide a report that

outlines which DoD ejection seat equipped

aircraft meet the aircrew survivability and

equipment airworthiness requirements for

pilots and aircrew wearing hmDs and NVGs.

Congress’ concern is that the incorporation

of modern hmDs, such as the joint helmet-

mounted cueing system (JhmCS), increases

the risk to pilots during high-speed ejec-

tions. Specifically, they are concerned that

the aerodynamic forces can lift the helmet

off the pilot, causing high neck tension loads

during high-speed ejections. They are also

concerned that ejection criteria in the DoD

military handbook 516B, “Airworthiness

Certification Criteria,” February 2008, (mIl-

hDBk-516B) for airworthiness certification

criteria are not being met; specifically they

cited that the 5 percent risk of major injury

resulting from an aircraft ejection event was

not being met for legacy fighters or fifth-

generation tactical aircraft.

mARCh 17, 2015WWW.NPeO-kmI.COm

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

Positioning the Navy for Future Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

evaluation of Aircraft ejection Seat Safety When Using Advanced helmet Sensors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Automated Detection Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

eDIVO mobile App . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Revitalized ShipShape Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Surface Ship Anti-Torpedo hard-kill Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

keel-laying for Submarine Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Navy Ordnance in Foreign Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Annual Assessment of Selected Navy Weapon Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Contract Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table of ConTenTs

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

• A summary of a the revised maritime strategy recently released by the Navy, which

emphasizes operating forward and engaging partners across the globe. A link to the

report is provided.

• An update on the Navy’s destroyer program. The DDG 51 modernization program

has successfully met two milestones, including successful installation and testing of

baseline 9 combat systems on two destroyers. Additionally, the next Arleigh Burke-

class destroyer will be named in honor of the first master chief petty officer of the Navy,

Delbert D. Black.

march 17-18, 2015

precision Strike Forum

Springfield, Va.

www.precisionstrike.org

march 18, 2015

Special topics Breakfast

Speaker: Sean J. Stackley

Arlington, Va.

www.navyleague.org

march 30-April 1, 2015

Joint undersea Warfare technology

San Diego, Calif.

www.ndia.org/meetings/5260

April 2, 2015

Coast Guard intelligence industry day

Chantilly, Va.

www.afcea.org

April 12-15, 2015

Sea-Air-Space

National harbor, md.

www.seaairspace.org

Calendar of evenTs

WWW.NPeO-kmI.COm2 | mARCh 17, 2015

Automated Detection SoftwareSentient has delivered the first Kestrel automated detection soft-

ware to NAVAIR for use within the Mission Control System package for the MQ-8 Fire Scout. The MQ-8 Fire Scout is an unmanned heli-copter that provides U.S. Navy ships with reconnaissance, situational awareness, aerial fire and precision targeting support for ground, air and sea forces. “Automated video analysis tools like Kestrel help maxi-mize the value of the EO/IR sensor package to the tactical operator,” said Captain Jeff Dodge, program manager from NAVAIR.

Kestrel automatically detects hard-to-see objects within the EO/IR sensor data feed in real-time. Kestrel specializes in detecting small objects on the surface of the ocean, including boats, rubber rafts and people overboard or vehicles and people moving on land. “With well over 15,000 hours of operational in-theatre experience on both manned and unmanned ISR platforms, Sentient has optimized the Kestrel software to perform effectively in the most challenging condi-tions,” said Tom Bleier, director of business development at Sentient. He added, “Kestrel has been recognized by a growing number of agencies and operators as the gold standard in ISR video analytics. We are pleased to reach this milestone with an important program of record.”

ediVo mobile AppThe Navy launched a new app

march 11 named eDIVO, designed

to provide junior officers and chief

petty officers with quick access to

information and resources all con-

veniently located within one mobile

application.

The eDIVO app is the creation

of two junior officers, lieutenant

Charlie hymen and lieutenant John

harry, who were frustrated with the

arduous task of sifting through nu-

merous websites and documents in

search of military guidance. Today,

their idea and determination has

led to the eDIVO app, developed

by the Navy and now available for

free in the App Store and Google

Play Store.

The eDIVO app aggregates

publicly available information pro-

viding quick access to more than

44 documents and 8,300 pages

of information in one convenient

place, significantly decreasing the

amount of time it takes to search

for frequently needed information.

In addition, the eDIVO app works

disconnected thus enabling use

anywhere, whether ashore or afloat.

“The basic concept was to

design a mobile app to help division

officers and chief petty officers

with their day-to-day management

of personnel and divisional affairs,

as well as give them the tools to

succeed as effective leaders,” said

hymen. “Actually seeing our app

turn into a reality is very fulfilling.”

“We are thrilled to see this app

launched today in both the Apple

and Android platforms because

we understand firsthand how this

product will make life easier for the

division officer,” said harry.

eDIVO is a bring-your-own-

device tool available for smart-

phones and tablets, and allows the

division officers to find applicable

information such as basic military

requirements, evaluation writing,

sexual assault and harassment,

legal issues, enlisted advancement,

equal opportunity, and navigation

basics. It is designed to help DIVOs

take the appropriate steps when

faced with typical situations they

encounter day to day.

Beta testers of eDIVO have

given the app positive reviews. lt.

j.g. David Galiyas, assistant plans

and policies officer, Amphibious

Squadron (COmPhIBRON) 6 said,

“Instead of spending countless

hours searching for instructions,

forms and other essential admin-

istration, division officers have

all of the necessary tools at their

fingertips, and can spend more time

leading and developing their sailors.

I can’t stress enough how much of

a positive impact eDIVO will have

on the Surface Navy.”

Also included with the app

is a Rules of the Road quiz that

includes a question bank of more

than 1200 questions (and answers)

ensuring that those standing watch

are equipped with the resources

and training they need to keep their

ships safe.

lt. j.g. hans lauzen, eDIVO

tester and combat information

center officer, USS Essex (lhD 2)

stated, “eDIVO revolutionizes the

way a DIVO can work, and brings

being a naval officer into the 21st

century. Being able to access

key publications, helpful tips, and

Rules of the Road quizzes from my

phone, I am able to immediately

make an impact within my division.

It even works on airplane mode so I

can use it on the high seas!”

The division officer app was

developed by the U.S. Navy Sea

Warrior Program and produced

under an agile development pro-

cess that allowed an operational

utility prototype to be released

within six months. This process was

specifically designed to develop

the eDIVO app and future apps on

a short timeline and small budget.

Tracen Technologies Inc., a com-

pany that specializes in integrated

mobile and web solutions, was the

software developer.

mARCh 17, 2015 | 3WWW.NPeO-kmI.COm

Revitalized ShipShape ProgramThe Navy and Marine Corps Public Health

Center (NMCPHC) announced the launch of the revitalized ShipShape Program, March 9.

The ShipShape Program helps participants achieve healthy weight loss and maintain a healthy weight by facilitating changes in eating and exercise habits. The program aligns to the missions of the 21st Century Sailor and Marine Initiative and Navy Medicine to maintain a healthy, fit and ready force.

“We spearheaded an intensive ShipShape Program improvement initiative to enhance curriculum content, facilitator training and participant involvement which we feel in-creases the value and impact of the program,” said Commander Connie Scott, health promotion and wellness department head at NMCPHC. “We led an in-depth review to assess service member success rates after completing the program, surveyed current ShipShape Program facilitators on best prac-tices and recommendations, reviewed Ship-Shape Program participant evaluations and conducted a contemporary literature review on management of overweight and obesity in our efforts to improve the program.”

“Additionally, we would like to recognize our ShipShape Program facilitators who are essential in providing the needed program

outreach assisting servicemembers in meeting readiness requirements, and also provide a resource to improve the health of our benefi-ciaries and civilian staff,” said Scott.

NMCPHC modernized the ShipShape Program curriculum and reporting forms, unveiled a new logo, adopted “Get Ready. Get Fit. Get Healthy” as its tagline and redesigned the ShipShape Program website, which has garnered more than 6,000 unique visits since October 2014.

“Over the last two years, approximately 43 percent of active duty fitness enhance-ment program participants who successfully completed the ShipShape Program have met Navy body composition assessment standards within six months of completing the program,” said Sally Vickers, ShipShape Program manager at NMCPHC. “Through the updated ShipShape Program, we look forward to helping more active duty and reserve service members, beneficiaries, and government civilians meet their weight man-agement goals.”

The updated ShipShape Program curric-ulum ensures that each of the program’s eight sessions covers three essential components for weight management: mindset, nutrition and physical activity. It also integrates engag-

ing activities that promote both participant interaction and individual accomplishments.

Reporting form revisions include a consolidated attendance roster and reporting form, auto-population features for follow-up reporting, and other updated features that provide an easy-to-use tool for participant tracking.

“In addition to the overall redesign of the program, we also focused on increasing interaction between ShipShape Program facilitators and NMCPHC as the program manager,” said Vickers. “We established a forum via milSuite for facilitators to ask questions, share their experiences, and pro-vide program feedback.”

Since November 2014, NMCPHC has trained and/or recertified approximately 130 ShipShape Program facilitators from across the Navy.

The ShipShape Program is the official Navy weight management program that assists active duty and reserve military servicemem-bers, beneficiaries, and government civilians with making healthy behavior changes to reach their weight management goals. The program is administered at local medical treat-ment facilities and clinics, shipboard com-mands and other ashore facilities.


Keel-Laying for Submarine Colorado Continuing a time-honored shipbuilding

tradition, on Saturday, March 7, Ship Sponsor Annie Mabus laid the keel of the submarine Colorado, marking the ceremonial start of con-struction for the 15th ship of the Virginia class.

The event was hosted by General Dynam-ics Electric Boat at its Quonset Point facility and attended by local and Congressional dig-nitaries, Navy officials and more than 1,000 employees and family members. Mabus, the daughter of Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, chalked her initials on a steel plate to be affixed in the submarine. Electric Boat em-ployee John Alves then welded Mabus’ initials onto the plate.

“Here in Quonset Point and in Groton, in Newport News and around the country, thou-sands and thousands of exceptionally skilled shipbuilders will build the USS Colorado, the most advanced ship in the world,” said Navy Secretary Mabus. “No one builds warships as well as America. No one.”

Along with the other ships of the Virginia class, Colorado represents a revolution in submarine design, construction and mission capability. Its contract delivery date to the Navy is August 2017.

Virginia-class submarines have been delivered on budget and ahead of schedule, and displace 7,800 tons, with a hull length

of 377 feet and a diameter of 34 feet. They are capable of speeds in excess of 25 knots and can dive to a depth greater than 800 feet, while carrying Mark 48 advanced capability torpedoes, Tomahawk land-attack missiles and unmanned underwater vehicles. In April 2014, the Navy awarded a $17.6 billion contract—the largest in Navy shipbuilding history—to build 10 additional vessels.

“Colorado will be a testament to the dedi-cation of the employees of Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding; our supplier network; the leadership of the U.S. Navy, and our supporters in Congress,” said Jeffrey S. Geiger, president of Electric Boat.

Serving as the backdrop for the ceremony was the 100-foot, 1,600-ton module that will contain Colorado’s engine room.

Surface Ship Anti-torpedo Hard-kill capabilityThe NAVSeA Program executive Office Submarines, Undersea

Warfare Systems Program Office (PmS 415) has been tasked to de-

velop a surface ship anti-torpedo hard-kill capability for high-value unit

platforms (carriers and combat logistics force ships).

This capability will be developed through two separate but associ-

ated programs: the torpedo warning system (TWS) and the counter-

measure anti-torpedo (CAT). The TWS will serve as a stand-alone de-

tection, alert and tactical control system, and will provide the detection

capability necessary for the ship to evade, decoy or defeat the torpedo

using existing or future tactics and countermeasures in addition to

the CAT. The CAT will be developed separately as a hard-kill counter-

measure. TWS and CAT are associated but independent acquisition

programs, each with its own defined mission. The CAT will continue

development as a common countermeasure for all platforms.

The CAT is a high-performance system, including a self-

propelled underwater vehicle that contains complex electronic and

mechanical subassembly systems for providing propulsion, steering,

navigation, and target detection. The system technologies include

acoustic sonar, guidance and control electronics, electrical power,

hydraulic systems, mechanical pumps, and propulsion. The manu-

facturing processes required to support production must achieve

a high level of quality and reliability, and include the necessary

environmental (temperature, shock, vibrations, underwater pressure,

etc.) test capabilities and certified production test equipment. In ad-

dition, some functional item replacement (FIR) and/or torpedo sec-

tions may require highly accelerated stress screen testing in order to

meet reliability requirements.

The CAT consists of the anti-torpedo torpedo (ATT) and the all up

round equipment (AURe). The ATT is a small-diameter, quick-reaction

hard-kill torpedo countermeasure used to disable incoming threat

torpedoes. The ATT will search, home, terminal home and fuse on its

target using technology developed under sponsorship of the Office of

Naval Research. It consists of the following five major sections:

nose, warhead, command and control, powerplant and tail. The ATT is

housed in an AURe, which consists of a thin-walled composite

canister, electrical cabling to enable communication between the ATT

and fire control, and energetics for launching the ATT and the ATT

canister.


navy ordnance in Foreign countriesBy lORiN t. VeNABle

The DoD Inspector General examined

management’s assertion of audit readiness1

for the existence, completeness, rights and

obligations, and presentation and disclosure

of the Department of the Navy’s (DON)2 ord-

nance located in foreign countries and U.S.

territories as of September 30, 2014. DON

asserted audit readiness of the existence,

completeness, rights and obligations, and

presentation and disclosure of DON ord-

nance, excluding that in the custody of

the Army, on February 28, 2013. This

examination is the third in a series of exami-

nations of DON ordnance.3 DON manage-

ment is responsible for its assertion of audit

readiness.

This examination was conducted in

accordance with examination engagement

standards established by the American

Institute of Certified Public Accountants

and with generally accepted government

auditing standards. Those standards require

examining, on a test basis, evidence sup-

porting DON’s assertion of audit readiness

of the existence, completeness, rights and

obligations, and presentation and disclosure

of its mission-critical assets and performing

other procedures considered necessary.

The DoD Inspector General performed

the examination using information obtained

from Naval Supply Systems Command–

Global logistics Support Ammunitions,

marine Corps Systems Command, and

DON Commands for the existence, com-

pleteness, rights and obligations, and pre-

sentation and disclosure of DON ordnance

located in foreign countries and U.S. terri-

tories as of September 30, 2014. The DON

Ordnance Information System (OIS)4 is the

accountable property (computer) system of

record for ordnance assets. As of Septem-

ber 30, 2014, the DON ordnance universe

located in foreign countries and U.S. ter-

ritories in OIS consisted of 138,670,045 as-

sets. The Inspector General tested a non-

statistical sample of 15,830,545 assets for

existence, 4,171,512 assets for complete-

ness, and 20,002,057 assets for rights.5

examples of ordnance assets tested range

from missiles and torpedoes to sonobuoys

and small arms ammunition.

During existence testing, assets were

selected from a list that included the entire

ordnance inventory at DON activities

visited; the OIS records were compared to

the on-hand quantities. A discrepancy was

noted if the Inspector General could not

physically verify an asset or if there was a

record-keeping error, meaning the asset

was physically verified but did not match

the OIS record. For existence testing, the

Inspector General reviewed 15,830,545

assets and identified a total of 761 dis-

crepancies. Of the 761 discrepancies, 168

assets could not be physically verified.

These assets consisted of empty pallets,

shipping container assemblies, or ammuni-

tion chests. The command explained that

these assets were sometimes reused and

reconfigured without properly updating OIS

records; therefore, the Inspector General

could not physically verify these assets.

The remaining 593 discrepancies were

considered record-keeping errors. On-hand

quantities for cartridges were greater than

OIS quantities at two different sites. As

a result, these assets were understated

in OIS. DON has procedures to research,

identify the status, and correct OIS records.

No larger ordnance assets, such as missiles

or torpedoes, were missing.

During completeness testing, the

Inspector General selected assets from

DON activities and compared the on-hand

quantities to the OIS records. The Inspec-

tor General reviewed 4,171,512 assets

for completeness and identified 1,500

discrepancies, which were the result of a

record-keeping error from a single lot of

7.62-millimeter cartridges. The OIS record

for this lot was understated by 1,500

cartridges.

The DON assertion of audit readiness

for the existence, completeness, rights and

obligations, and presentation and dis-

closure of its ordnance located in foreign

countries and U.S. territories as of Sep-

tember 30, 2014, is stated fairly in accor-

dance with DoD Financial Improvement and

Audit Readiness Guidance Wave 3 mission

Critical Asset existence and Completeness

Audit.

inteRnAl contRolS

According to Office of management and

Budget Circular A-123, internal controls

should assure the safeguarding of assets

from waste, loss, unauthorized use or mis-

appropriation as well as assure compliance

with laws and regulations. The Inspector

General did not identify any reportable

inventory or internal control deficiencies

during the examination.

Lorin T. Venable is the CPA Assistant Inspector General, Financial Management and Reporting

Footnotes

1. Audit readiness in accordance with the November 2013 DoD

Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Guidance Wave 3

mission Critical Asset existence and Completeness Audit.

2. DON includes both Navy and U.S. marine Corps activities.

3. The Inspector General issued two prior reports: ordnance

categorized as inside the contiguous U.S. (DoD IG Report No.

DODIG-2014-047, march 25, 2014) and afloat ordnance (Report

No. DODIG-2015-003, October 2, 2014). Therefore, ordnance

categorized as inside the contiguous U.S. and afloat in the

DON’s Ordnance Information System was excluded from this

examination.

4. OIS is the system of record for DON’s ordnance; however some

commands still use the legacy computer system “Retail Ordnance

logistics management System.” When the Inspector General uses

the term OIS, it collectively refers to both systems.

5. The Inspector General was able to test a large quantity of assets

because each piece of ordnance is tracked individually. For example,

an individual bullet counts as one asset.


Navy Reserve Rear Admiral (lower half) Ron J. Maclaren has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. maclaren is currently serving as director, Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office, Defense logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, Va.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) John d. Alexander has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. Alexander is currently serving as commander, Task Force Seven Zero, and commander, Carrier Strike Group Five, yokosuka, Japan.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Brian K. Antonio has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. Antonio is currently serving as program executive officer for littoral Combat Ships, Washington, D.C.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Ronald A. Boxall has been nominated for appoint-ment to the rank of rear admiral. Boxall is currently serving as commander, Carrier Strike Group Three, San Diego, Calif.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Robert p. Burke has been nominated for appoint-ment to the rank of rear admiral. Burke is currently serving as director of opera-tions, U.S. Naval Forces europe-Africa; deputy commander, U.S. Sixth Fleet; and commander, Submarine Group eight, Naples, Italy.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Matthew J. Carter has been nominated for appoint-ment to the rank of rear admiral. Carter is currently serving as commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Japan, and commander, Navy Region, yokosuka, Japan.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Christopher W. Grady has been nomi-nated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. Grady is currently serving as commander, Carrier Strike Group One, San Diego, Calif.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Michael e. Jabaley Jr., has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. Jabaley is currently serving as deputy commander for undersea warfare, SeA-07, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Colin J. Kilrain has been nominated for appoint-ment to the rank of rear admiral. kilrain is currently serving as commander, Special Operations Command, U.S. Pacific Command, Camp h. m. Smith, hawaii.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Andrew l. lewis has been nominated for appoint-ment to the rank of rear admiral. lewis is currently serving as commander, Carrier Strike Group Twelve, Norfolk, Va.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) deWolfe h. Miller has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. miller is currently serving as commander, Carrier Strike Group Two, Norfolk, Va.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) terry J. Moulton has been nominated for appoint-ment to the rank of rear admiral. moulton is currently serving as commander, Navy medicine east, and commander, Naval medical Center, Portsmouth, Va.

Rear Adm. (lower half) Ron J. MacLaren

Rear Adm. (lower half) Ron J. MacLaren

Rear Adm. (lower half) Brian K. Antonio

Rear Adm. (lower half) Michael E. Jabaley Jr.

Rear Adm. (lower half) John D. Alexander

Rear Adm. (lower half) Christopher W. Grady

Rear Adm. (lower half) Ronald A. Boxall

Rear Adm. (lower half) Colin J. Kilrain

Rear Adm. (lower half) Robert P. Burke

Rear Adm. (lower half) Andrew L. Lewis

PeoPle Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Rear Adm. (lower half) DeWolfe H. Miller

Rear Adm. (lower half) Terry J. Moulton


Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Bret J. Muilenburg has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. muilenburg is currently serving as commander, Naval Facilities engineering Command Pacific, Pearl harbor, hawaii.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) John p. Neagley has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. Neagley is currently serving as deputy commander, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, San Diego, Calif.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Nancy A. Norton has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral, and will be assigned as director, Warfare Integration Directorate, N2/N6F, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, District of Columbia. Norton is currently serving as director for

command, control, communications and cyber (C4), J6, U.S. Pacific Command, Camp h. m. Smith, hawaii.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) patrick A. piercey has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. Piercey is currently serving as commander, Carrier Strike Group Nine, San Diego, Calif.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Charles A. Richard has been nomi-nated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. Richard is currently serving as commander, Submarine Group Ten, kings Bay, Ga.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Robert d. Sharp has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. Sharp is currently serving as director of intelligence, J2, U.S. Special Operations Command, macDill Air Force Base, Fla.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) paul A. Sohl has been nominated for appoint-ment to the rank of rear admiral. Sohl is currently serving as commander, Fleet Readiness Centers, and assistant commander for logistics and industrial operations (AIR-6.0), Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, md.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) hugh d. Wetherald has beennominated for appoint-ment to the rank of rear admiral. Wetherald is currently serving as commander, expeditionary Strike Group Seven, and commander, Amphibious Force, U.S. Seventh Fleet, Okinawa, Japan.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Mark R. Whitney has been nominated for appoint-ment to the rank of rear admiral. Whitney is currently serving as deputy commander, logistics, maintenance, and industrial operations, SeA-04, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C.

Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Ricky l. Williamson has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral. Williamson is currently serving as commander, Navy Region mid Atlantic, Norfolk, Va.

Navy Captain John G. hannink has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral and for assignment as deputy judge advocate general of the Navy. hannink is currently serving as a Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group fellow, Newport, R.I.

Rear Admiral (lower half) Kyle J. Cozad will be assigned as commander, Patrol and Reconnaissance Group, Norfolk, Virginia. Cozad is currently serving as commander, Joint Task Force Guantanamo, U.S. Southern Command, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Rear Adm. (lower half) Patrick A. Piercey

Rear Adm. (lower half) Bret J. Muilenburg

Rear Adm. (lower half) Robert D. Sharp

Rear Adm. (lower half) Charles A. Richard

Rear Adm. (lower half) John P. Neagley

Rear Adm. (lower half) Paul A. Sohl

Rear Adm. (lower half) Nancy A. Norton

Rear Adm. (lower half) Hugh D. Wetherald

Rear Adm. (lower half) Mark R. Whitney

Rear Adm. (lower half) Ricky L. Williamson

PeoPle Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Rear Adm. (lower half) Kyle J. Cozad


AiM-9X Block ii Air-to-Air Missile (AiM-9X Block ii)

The AIm-9X Block II is a Navy-led program to acquire short-

range air-to-air missiles for the F-35, the Navy’s F-18 and the Air

Force’s F-15, F-16 and F-22A fighter aircraft. It is designed to detect,

acquire, intercept and destroy a range of airborne threats. Block II

includes hardware and software upgrades intended to improve the

range from which the AIm-9X can engage targets, target discrimina-

tion and interoperability. It was designated a major defense acquisi-

tion program in June 2011.

program performance (fiscal year 2015 dollars in millions)

As of 12/2011 Latest 08/2014 Percent Change

Research and development cost

$180.0 $374.0 107.8

Procurement cost $4,051.3 $3,248.8 -19.8

Total program cost

$4,231.3 $3,622.9 -14.4

Program unit cost $.705 $.604 -14.4

Total quantities 6,000 6,000 0.0

Acquisition cycle time (months)

39 45 15.4

The AIm-9X Block II entered production in June 2011 with mature

critical technologies, a stable and demonstrated design and produc-

tion processes that had been demonstrated on a production line but

were not in control. In July 2013, the Navy suspended operational

testing due to missile performance issues. The program resumed op-

erational testing in June 2014 after identifying root causes and fixes

for these issues. The program expects a full-rate production deci-

sion in June 2015,more than a year later than initially planned. The

program added a low-rate initial production lot in June 2014, nearly

tripling the planned number of missiles procured before its full-rate

production decision.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Raytheon Missile Systems

Program office: Patuxent River, Md.

Funding needed to complete:

• R&D: $237.9 million • Procurement: $2,613.5 million • Total funding: $2,851.4 million

Procurement quantity: 4,885

tecHnology And deSign mAtuRity

AIm-9X Block II entered operational testing with its critical technolo-

gies mature and its design stable and demonstrated. According to the

Navy’s may 2011 technology readiness assessment, Block II involves the

integration of mature technologies, including a new active optical target

detector/datalink, an upgraded electronics unit and new operational flight

software. The program estimates that 85 percent of Block II components

are unchanged from Block I. The Navy suspended operational testing on

the AIm-9X Block II in July 2013 due to missile performance deficiencies

related to hardware in the inertial measurement unit and concerns about

the missile’s target acquisition time, the latter of which required a software

fix. The contractor delivered solutions to these issues in January 2014 and

the program re-entered operational testing in June 2014. Operational test-

ing is expected to be complete in January 2015.

PRoduction mAtuRity

AIm-9X Block II began production in June 2011, with manufactur-

ing processes that had been demonstrated on a pilot production line but

were not in control. Since the start of production, the program has further

matured its processes, and program officials stated that they are now

at a manufacturing readiness level that indicates they are in control. A

production-related issue with the hardware for the inertial measurement unit

contributed to the Navy’s decision to suspend operational testing in 2013.

Specifically, under certain vibration conditions, the unit’s hinges would fail.

The program office reports that changes to the inertial measurement unit’s

hinge production process have resolved this issue.

otHeR PRogRAm iSSueS

The suspension of operational testing delayed the program’s full-

rate production decision from April 2014 to June 2015. Production of

AIm-9X Block II continued during the suspension of operational testing,

but the program office did not accept delivery of any additional missiles.

ANNUAl ASSeSSmeNT OF SeleCTeD NAVy WeAPON PROGRAmS

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducts an annual assessment of DoD weapon system acquisitions, an area on GAO’s high-risk list. “DoD and Con-

gress have taken meaningful steps to improve the acquisition of major weapon systems, yet programs continue to experience cost and schedule overruns,” the report

states. “Further, GAO has emphasized the need to sustain the implementation of acquisition reforms and complete developmental testing before beginning production.

With the continuing budgetary pressures, DoD cannot afford to miss opportunities to address inefficiencies in these programs to free up resources for higher priority

needs.”

Navy Air/Sea has pulled the Navy programs from the report and listed them here.


To avoid a break in production, the program added another low-rate

production lot in 2014 to procure 705 missiles, which is the same quan-

tity that would have been procured in the first full-rate production lot.

Program officials said they will accept the risk associated with concur-

rent production and testing of the missiles, and the costs of any retrofits,

rather than further delaying acquisition. Program officials now estimate

that they will procure a total 1,086 Block II missiles, or approximately

18 percent of the planned procurement quantity of 6,000 Block II mis-

siles, during low rate production. This is a nearly threefold increase over

original estimates.

PRogRAm oFFice commentS

In commenting on a draft of the assessment, Navy officials noted

that the AIm-9X Block II program is meeting cost and performance

expectations. Program officials also stated that deficiencies discovered

during operational testing were corrected via manufacturing and soft-

ware improvements. Program officials further noted that the program

remains on schedule to successfully complete operational testing,

achieve initial operational capability and begin full-rate production.

Air and Missile defense Radar (AMdR)

The Navy’s Air and missile Defense Radar (AmDR) is a next-

generation radar system designed to provide ballistic missile defense,

air defense and surface warfare capabilities. AmDR will consist of an

S-band radar for ballistic missile and air defense, an X-band radar for

horizon search and a radar suite controller that controls and integrates

the two radars. AmDR will initially support DDG 51 Flight III. The Navy

expects AmDR to provide a scalable radar architecture that can be

used to defeat advanced threats.

program performance (fiscal year 2015 dollars in millions)



$2,060.0 $1,573.9 -23.6


Total program cost $8,636.0 $3,458.0 -60.0

Program unit cost $.319 $.221 -30.7

Total quantities 27,102 15,652 -42.2


80 223 178.8

AmDR’s four critical technologies are approaching full maturity, and

officials believe they will meet DDG 51 Flight III's schedule requirements.

The program completed its final preliminary design review in August

2014, and anticipates a critical design review in April 2015. The

contractor is producing an engineering development model consisting

of a full-size, single faced array and the required software. This array

will go through testing at the contractor’s indoor facilities and then be

installed and tested at the Navy’s land-based test facility after critical

design review—but program officials stated it will not be tested at

sea prior to installation on DDG 51. DoD’s Director, Operational Test

and evaluation (DOT&e), has not approved the Test and evaluation

master Plan due to scope concerns with the Navy’s planned testing

activities.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Raytheon

Program office: Washington, D.C.

Funding needed to complete:

• R&D: $657.7 million • Procurement: $3,396.8 million • Total funding: $4,054.5 million

Procurement quantity: 22


All four of AmDR's critical technologies—digital-beam-forming;

transmit-receive modules; software; and digital receivers/excit-

ers—are approaching full maturity, and program officials state that

AmDR is on pace to meet DDG 51 Flight III's schedule require-

ments. In 2015, the contractor is expected to complete an engineer-

ing 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 contrac-

tor’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 environment. 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 compounding 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 review, 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 prototype represents the

physical dimensions, weight and power requirements 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

correct 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 for-

mal 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 developed 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.



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.


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

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

ment risk and deliver AmDR’s software at the earliest possible deliv-

ery date, the contractor is implementing software development ap-

proaches 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 successfully completed demonstrating that technical per-

formance measures 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.

Ch-53K heavy lift Replacement helicopter (Ch-53K)

The marine Corps’ Ch-53k heavy-lift helicopter is intended

to transport armored vehicles, equipment, and personnel to

support operations deep inland from a sea-based center of

operations. The Ch-53k is expected to replace the legacy

Ch-53e helicopter and provide increased range and payload,

survivability and force protection, reliability and maintainability,

and coordination with other assets, while reducing total

ownership cost.

program performance (Fy15 dollars in millions)



$4,637.7 $6,735.2 45.2

Procurement cost $12,898.2 $18,559.2 43.9

Total program cost $17,535.9 $25,335.5 44.5

Program unit cost $112.409 $126.677 12.7

Total quantities 156 200 28.2


119 163 37.0

The Ch-53k program continues to move forward toward production,

but has not yet fully matured its critical technologies or demonstrated that its

design can perform as expected. Failures found during qualification testing

have led to a number of unexpected redesigns, which have delayed testing

and production. While the ground test vehicle has been delivered, and is

currently undergoing tests, problems with qualification of parts have delayed

delivery of the first few test aircraft as well as initial testing and first flight,

thereby adding risk to the program's ability to execute its schedule.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation


Funding needed to complete: • R&D: $2,171.6 million • Procurement: $18,559.2 million • Total funding: $20,759.1 million



The Ch-53k program's two critical technologies— which are housed

within the main rotor blade and main gearbox—have yet to achieve full ma-

turity nearly 10 years after the program began system development. These

technologies have successfully been tested using the program's ground

test vehicle and will continue to be evaluated when the program begins

operational flight testing, which is expected to occur in 2015. Unanticipated

design changes to non-critical technology components have caused de-

lays. For example, the Ch-53k relies on a number of gear boxes which do

not house critical technologies. Several of those gear boxes have suffered

setbacks during qualification testing, which has resulted in unanticipated re-

designs and schedule delays. In addition, the rear module assembly, which

is part of the main gear box, but not associated with the critical technology

it houses, required a modest redesign. Testing has also revealed problems

with vibration in the drive shaft as well as temperature issues with the top

deck engine exhaust. According to the program office, resolutions to these

issues have been determined and the necessary redesigns have been

made. Program officials reported that the unanticipated number of rede-

signs has lead to schedule delays and changes to test plans. For example,

the program’s first test flight, which was already delayed by one year, will be

further delayed while the program determines solutions to issues found in

qualification testing. Some of these solutions will be temporary, allowing the

program to move forward with testing while they simultaneously incorporate

a long-term solution. In one example, qualification testing of the main gear


box rear assembly found that three gears—module output, input idler, and

tail take-off—were not working as planned and would require redesigns. In

the meantime, a temporary solution has been reached that will allow further

testing but not full envelope testing.

pROduCtiON MAtuRity

The program’s ground test vehicle was delivered in October 2012

and is currently undergoing full aircraft systems testing. Initial testing of

this aircraft, commonly referred to as “light off,” began 11 months later

than planned. According to program officials, production of the first en-

gineering demonstration model test aircraft is complete, but the failures

in qualification testing have prevented the program from moving forward

with the first test flight. The program is taking steps to address these

issues but qualification test failures add risk to the program's ability to

execute its schedule. Production of the three remaining engineering test

aircraft is ongoing, but has been hampered by the same issues that have

delayed the first test flight. Qualification failures resulted in instances

where fully qualified parts are not available for incorporation onto test

aircraft. In these instances, the program has substituted parts that,

while qualified as safe for flight, have not yet been fully qualified. These

parts will be substituted in the assembly process to enable test aircraft

production to continue. As successfully tested, qualified parts become

available, they will have to be retrofitted on the test aircraft, which could

add further risk to the production and flight test schedule.

pROGRAM OFFiCe COMMeNtS

The program office concurred with this assessment and noted that

it continues to address component, subsystem and system issues as

they arise in testing. Also, they noted that performance of the program

continues to indicate that the system will meet technical and mission

requirements.

ddG 1000 Zumwalt Class destroyer (ddG 1000)

The Navy’s DDG 1000 destroyer is a multimission surface ship

designed to provide advanced capability for littoral operations and

land-attack in support of forces ashore. The ship will feature an electric-

drive propulsion system, a total ship computing environment, and an

advanced gun system. The lead ship was launched in October 2013, but

delivery (comprised of the ship’s hull, mechanical and electrical systems)

has slipped from October 2014 until at least August 2015. Construction

is under way on the remaining two ships in the class.




$2,412.7 $10,608.0 339.7



Program unit cost $1,151.823 $7,498.954 551.1

Total quantities 32 3 -90.6


128 248 93.8

While the DDG 1000’s design is largely mature and the program has made

progress in developing its critical technologies and delivering mission system

equipment, the program faces significant risks as ongoing development and

shipboard testing of technologies may result in design changes. The delivery

of the lead ship's hull, mechanical and electrical systems is now expected in

August 2015, causing a schedule breach to the program’s baseline. The Navy

faces significant challenges in meeting that date. Shipboard testing of the hull,

mechanical and electrical systems is lagging behind schedule, which will likely

affect the timing of installation and activation of any remaining mission system

equipment, as well as verification that the integrated combat systems, ship sys-

tems and support systems can meet performance requirements.

program essentials

Prime contractor: BAE Systems, Bath Iron Works, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Raytheon


Funding needed to complete: • R&D: $328.1 million • Procurement: $960.4 million • Total funding: $1,288.6 million


teChNOlOGy MAtuRity

The DDG 1000 program has made progress in developing its criti-

cal technologies, but only three of 11 are fully mature and the remaining

eight will not be demonstrated in a realistic environment until activation

on the lead ship. As of September 2014, almost all of the equipment for

the mission systems had been delivered and installed for the first and

second ships, and the shipbuilder had begun energizing the ship's gas

turbine generators—a key element of the integrated power system. Once

energized, the program can begin to activate and test the propulsion and

electrical systems without reliance on power from the shore. The program

reported that the multifunction radar is installed on the lead ship, but testing

of modifications to the radar to include the volume search capability is still

ongoing. The program estimates that the shipboard radar will not begin

activation until late 2015. According to program officials, seven software

releases for the total ship computing environment have been completed

to support lead ship activation and delivery, comprising 98 percent of the

program’s software development efforts. The program reported that land-

based testing of the advanced gun system and tactical guided flight tests of

the long-range land-attack projectile have been completed.

deSign And PRoduction mAtuRity

The DDG 1000 design is largely mature, but ongoing development

and shipboard testing of technologies may result in design changes. As of

September 2014, the program reported that construction of the first two

ships was 92 and 79 percent complete, respectively. however, slower than

anticipated progress with the shipboard test program and compartment

completions delayed delivery of the lead ship’s hull, mechanical, and electri-

cal systems beyond the program’s baseline schedule of October 2014. While

the Navy has not yet approved a revised baseline or determined the cost and

schedule impacts of the delay, delivery is now expected in August 2015.


Shipboard testing of the hull, mechanical and electrical systems is

lagging behind schedule and will likely affect the timing of activation of


any remaining mission system equipment, as well as verification that the

ship can meet performance requirements. Consequently, there will be little

time to identify and fix any problems prior to achieving initial operational

capability. In a January 2014 assessment, DoD’s Director, Operational Test

and evaluation noted risks with the program's development and test strat-

egy and recommended that the Navy develop a strategy to mitigate the

risk of not delivering substantial mission capability until after final contract

trials. According to program officials, they are now reviewing the strategy

of delivering lead ship hull, mechanical and electrical systems followed

by subsequent installation, activation and testing of the ship's mission

systems to an approach that resembles a more traditional approach that

delivers the ship with the mission systems tested and activated to the

maximum degree possible with the projected delivery date.


In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the Navy generally

agreed with our findings and provided additional information. The Navy

stated that the DDG 1000 program has made significant progress in

the test and activation phase to support the earliest possible dockside

and machinery trials leading to delivery of the ship’s hull, mechanical,

and electrical systems. For example, the Navy noted that the program

successfully energized the lead ship’s electrical system, brought the

engineering Control System and Total Ship Computing environment

online, activated three of four generators and both propulsion motors,

and began rotating port shafting. In addition, the Navy added that initial

radar testing has been completed and combat system integration has

been initiated, making extensive use of engineering development mod-

els to provide early risk reduction and ensure a successful transition to

shipboard operational use. The Navy also provided technical comments,

which were incorporated where appropriate.

F-35 liGhtNiNG ii pROGRAM (F-35)

DoD’s F-35 program is developing a family of stealthy, strike fighter

aircraft for the Navy, Air Force, marine Corps and U.S. allies, with the

goal of maximizing commonality to minimize life-cycle costs. The carrier-

suitable variant will complement the Navy F/A-18e/F. The Air Force

variant is expected to replace the air-to-ground attack capabilities of

the F-16 and A-10, and complement the F-22A. The short take-off and

vertical landing (STOVl) variant is expected to replace the marine Corps

F/A-18 and AV-8B aircraft.




$41,283.2 $62,000.1 50.2




Total quantities 2,866 2,457 -14.3


116 237 104.3

Since starting development in 2001, the F-35 program has invested bil-

lions of dollars and procured 179 low-rate production aircraft for the United

States. however, key gaps in product knowledge persist. One of the critical

technologies—the aircraft prognostic and health management system—is

not mature and the program continues to experience design changes. De-

velopmental testing is progressing, but much of the testing remains, which

will likely drive more changes. While manufacturing efforts remain steady,

less than 40 percent of the program's critical manufacturing processes are

mature—despite the 110 aircraft produced—and problems with the aircraft’s

engine have delayed aircraft deliveries and testing. Software development

and testing remains a significant risk. Further delays in development may put

future milestones at risk.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Lockheed Martin, Pratt and Whitney

Program office: Arlington, Va.


Procurement quantity: 2,264

teChNOlOGy MAtuRity

eight of the program’s nine critical technologies are considered fully

mature. The prognostics and health management system—part of the

Autonomic logistics Information System (AlIS) and critical to fleet opera-

tion and sustainment—is approaching maturity, but slower than expected

software development has delayed its completion. The program made ad-

justments to the helmet-mounted display to address performance shortfalls

and determined that the current helmet’s performance was sufficient for the

marine Corps’ initial operational capability in 2015. The program is develop-

ing a next-generation helmet that will further enhance night vision and optical

performance, and expects this expanded capability to be available in 2016

to support Air Force and Navy initial operational capability.

deSiGN MAtuRity

Although the aircraft designs were not stable at their critical design

reviews in 2006 and 2007, all baseline engineering drawings have since

been released. however, issues discovered in testing continue to drive

changes. For example, in 2013, the STOVl test aircraft developed

multiple bulkhead cracks during durability testing. Program officials

have identified the likely cause of the cracks and plan to incorporate

design changes into future production. Fielded aircraft will be retrofitted

during their normal scheduled maintenance. In addition, a critical part

of the carrier variant’s arresting hook system, the pivot pin, had to be

redesigned. The new pin was tested during sea trials in November 2014.

With nearly half of developmental testing remaining, the program faces

the risk of further design changes.

pROduCtiON MAtuRity

DoD plans to invest about $40 billion in procuring 179 U.S. aircraft

through 2014. Aircraft manufacturing deliveries remain steady and the

contractor has delivered 110 aircraft to date. The contractor uses statisti-

cal process controls as one means to assess critical manufacturing

processes. less than 40 percent of those processes are currently matured

to best practice standards. In 2014, late software deliveries and fleet-wide

groundings due to an engine fire delayed aircraft deliveries. In addition,

part shortages further delayed aircraft deliveries and decreased produc-

tion efficiency.



Software development and testing remains a key risk as software

is critical to providing required capabilities. To achieve initial operat-

ing capability, the marine Corps and Air Force will accept aircraft with

the basic capabilities provided by software Blocks 2B and 3I respec-

tively, while the Navy intends to wait for the full suite of capabilities

provided by Block 3F. According to DoD officials, Block 2B

development testing is currently about three months behind

schedule. The program has pulled additional resources to focus

on finishing 2B development and testing and made changes to

their test plan, such as rescoping 2B operational testing. Although

the program continues to experience delays, their fleet release

dates have not been adjusted. Any delays experienced in

development testing could put initial operational test and

evaluation and full-rate production at risk. In June 2014, an

aircraft engine caught fire just before take-off. This incident

grounded the entire fleet for about one month, and resulted in flight

restrictions and regular engine inspections. While a root cause

analysis was conducted that identified a short-term fix to allow the

resumption of testing, a final long-term solution has not yet been

identified.


In addition to providing technical comments, the program office

noted that it appreciates GAO’s review in assisting the program by

identifying areas for improvement. The program continues to

make slow but steady progress and is executing across the entire

spectrum of acquisition, including development, production and

operations and sustainment of fielded aircraft. The development

program continues to execute to the baseline approved during

the march 2012 milestone B recertification. The biggest technical

concern in development is still the timely delivery of software

capability to the warfighter. The program implemented changes in

how software is developed, tested, measured, and controlled. how-

ever challenges remain in speed and quality of software

development. Other technical risks the program will continue

to monitor are engine and aircraft durability, reliability and

maintainability, reprogramming labs for the United States

and our partners, and logistics information system

maturity.

Gerald R. Ford Class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (CVN 78)

The Navy developed the Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft

carrier to serve as the future centerpiece of the carrier strike

group. The lead ship, CVN 78, is over 80 percent complete

and will introduce new propulsion, aircraft launch and

recovery, weapons handling, and survivability capabilities

to the carrier fleet. early construction is under way for the

first follow-on ship, CVN 79 and the Navy now expects to

award the detail design and construction contract in the first

half of 2015.



Research and development cost $5,087.7 $4,903.1 -3.6


Total program cost

$37,680.5 $36,295.9 -3.7

Program unit cost $12,560.151 $12,098.639 -3.7



137 155 13.1

The Navy awarded a construction contract for CVN 78 in September

2008 when five of the ship’s 13 critical technologies were mature and

with only 65 percent of the ship's three-dimensional model complete.

Since then, the lead ship’s procurement costs have grown by almost 23

percent from $10.5 billion to $12.9 billion—the limit of the ship’s current

legislated cost cap—with four technologies still immature. The ship's

critical technologies continue to experience developmental challenges,

which poses risks to the ship’s testing and delivery schedule. CVN 79 is

also subject to a cost cap of $11.5 billion and its program office has ad-

opted a new two-phased approach to construction to manage its costs.

While this strategy may enable the Navy to meet the cost cap, it will also

transfer some ship construction to the phase following delivery.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Huntington Ingalls Industries


Funding needed to complete: • R&D: $404.5 million • Procurement: $15,977.0 million • Total funding: $16,401.1 million


teChNOlOGy ANd deSiGN MAtuRity

The Navy reported nine of CVN 78's 13 critical technologies are now

fully mature, with the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (emAlS)

fully maturing this year. Critical technologies are installed and shipboard

testing is under way; land-based testing continues for emAlS, ad-

vanced arresting gear (AAG), and dual band radar (DBR). While emAlS

has launched aircraft on land, it has not yet done so in a sea-based

environment in its four-launcher configuration. Due to land-based testing

failures, the Navy modified AAG's test strategy to ensure the ship begins

flight deck certification in 2016. however, this approach means the

system will begin arresting certain aircraft on CVN 78 before complet-

ing land-based testing on other aircraft types, risking discovery of new

issues after ship delivery. The Navy is also unlikely to demonstrate full

maturity of a DBR component radar until the completion of shipboard

testing, scheduled to begin in January 2015. Further, the Navy will not

install DBR on the follow-on ship (CVN 79) as planned, but intends to

purchase an alternative radar at a lower cost. Given the concurrency in

testing critical technologies, ship testing and construction, CVN 78 risks

further delays. For example, as a result of prior testing, the Navy imple-

mented changes to the design of several key systems, including AAG,

emAlS, and DBR. As construction progresses, the shipbuilder is also


discovering “first-of-class” design changes, which it is using to update

the design model to inform CVN 79 construction.

pROduCtiON MAtuRity

With CVN 78 production over 80 percent complete, the shipbuilder

appears to have resolved many of the challenges we noted in our Sep-

tember 2013 report. however, the lagging effect of these issues and a

concurrent test program is creating a backlog of activities that threaten

the ship’s delivery date and could increase costs. early construction is

under way for the first follow-on ship, CVN 79 with about 20 percent of

the ship's overall construction effort complete.

OtheR pROGRAM iSSueS

In 2007, Congress established a procurement cost cap of $10.5 billion

for CVN 78. Since then, legislation increased the cost cap by almost 23

percent to $12.9 billion as the ship's procurement costs increased. Cost

and analyses offices in the Office of the Secretary of Defense estimated

CVN 78's total cost could exceed the cost cap by $300-$800 million. Deliv-

ering CVN 78 under its cost cap depends on the Navy’s plan to defer work

and costs to the ship's post-delivery period—a strategy that could obscure

true costs and likely result in delivery of an incomplete ship. To meet CVN

79’s cost cap of $11.5 billion, the Navy is assuming unprecedented ef-

ficiency gains in construction by the shipbuilder and plans to adopt a new

two-phased acquisition approach that will shift some construction after

delivery. The Navy recently delayed the CVN 79 detail design and construc-

tion contract and extended the ship's construction preparation contract.

The Navy and DoD have not yet resolved whether a full ship shock trial will

be required for CVN 78. Navy officials stated that DoD’s Director, Opera-

tional Test and evaluation has not approved the Navy's plan to defer this

trial to CVN 79. According to the Navy, conducting this trial on CVN 78

would result in additional post-delivery costs and schedule delays. The

Navy is awaiting a final determination by the Under Secretary of Defense for

Acquisition, Technology and logistics in march 2015.


In addition to providing technical comments, the program office

noted that the Navy is committed to completing CVN 78 and CVN 79

within their respective cost caps. The Navy and shipbuilder continue to

take aggressive steps to control CVN 78 costs and drive affordability, as

evidenced by stable cost performance over the past three years. Steps

were taken to manage the shipboard test program to ensure cost per-

formance remains stable. The Navy deferred some non-critical work not

required at delivery to allow the shipbuilder to focus on critical activities

to support delivery and provide the Navy the opportunity to complete

work at a lower cost through competition. Deferred work cost is ac-

counted for within the ship's end cost and thus is accounted for within

the cost cap. For CVN 79, the Navy is executing a two-phase delivery

strategy, whereby select system installations will occur in a Phase 2

construction period, minimizing obsolescence risk and increasing op-

portunity for competition. All costs for both phases of construction are

included within the cost cap.

Joint precision Approach and landing System increment 1A (JpAlS inc 1A)

JPALS Increment 1A is a Navy-led program to develop a GPS-based landing system for aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships to

support operations with Joint Strike Fighter and Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System. The program intends to provide reliable precision approach and landing capability in adverse environmental conditions. We assessed increment 1A, and as a result of restructuring, previously planned additional increments are no longer part of the program.




$838.9 $1,563.6 86.4

Procurement cost $225.8 $504.2 123.2





75 TBD TBD

The latest cost data do not reflect the June 2014 restructuring of the

program as a new acquisition program baseline has not been approved.

JPAlS Increment 1A began development in July 2008, and both

of the program’s currently identified critical technologies were demon-

strated in a realistic environment during flight testing in 2013. Program

officials reported completing baseline software development as of

April 2012. The program began system-level development testing in

July 2012 and sea-based testing in December 2012, completing 108

approaches as of July 2013 with no major anomalies reported. Accord-

ing to program officials, no critical manufacturing processes have been

identified as JPAlS relies primarily on off-the-shelf components. In

march 2014, the JPAlS program reported a critical Nunn-mcCurdy unit

cost breach and a new cost and schedule baseline is currently being

developed.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Raytheon

Program office: Lexington Park, Md.



teChNOlOGy, deSiGN, ANd pROduCtiON MAtuRity

In June 2014, the JPAlS program was restructured to accelerate the

development of aircraft auto-land capabilities. The program's technol-

ogy and design maturity will need to be reassessed to account for

this alteration of capabilities, and the program has not yet determined

what changes are required. Prior to this restructuring, the program had

completed a number of activities to mature its technology and design.

JPAlS Increment 1A began development in July 2008, and, according

to program officials, the two currently identified critical technologies

were demonstrated in a realistic environment during sea-based flight

testing in 2013. JPAlS functionality is primarily software-based, and the

program's baseline software development and integration efforts were


complete as of April 2012. JPAlS Increment 1A held a critical design

review in December 2010 and released its all of its expected design

drawings at that time. The program began testing a system-level proto-

type in July 2012, 19 months after its critical design review. Sea-based

testing of the system in its current configuration began in December

2012, and program officials reported completing 108 approaches as of

July 2013, with no major anomalies identified. The program also com-

pleted 70 ship-based auto-landing demonstrations using legacy aircraft

as of November 2013. According to JPAlS officials, the Increment 1A

program has not identified any critical manufacturing processes, as the

system's hardware is comprised primarily of off-the-shelf components.

The program has accepted delivery of eight engineering development

models, seven of which were considered production-representative.


In 2013, the Navy conducted a review of its precision approach

and landing capabilities to address budget constraints and affordability

concerns. In light of these concerns, as well as other military service

and civilian plans to continue use of current landing systems, the Navy

restructured the JPAlS program. The program was reduced from seven

increments to one intended to support the Joint Strike Fighter and Un-

manned Carrier-launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System. The

Navy also accelerated the integration of auto-land capabilities originally

intended for the future increments, and eliminated both the integration

of JPAlS with other sea-based legacy aircraft and the land-based ver-

sion of the system. These changes increased the development funding

required for auto-land capabilities and reduced system quantities, result-

ing in unit cost growth and a critical Nunn-mcCurdy unit cost breach

reported in march 2014. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisi-

tion, Technology, and logistics certified the restructured program and

directed the Navy to continue risk reduction efforts to incorporate the

auto-land capabilities and return for a new development start decision

no later than June 2016. The Navy plans to conduct a preliminary design

review for the new system in Fy16 and a critical design review in Fy17.


In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the program noted that

it concurred with our review. The Nunn-mcCurdy unit cost breach was a

direct result of a reduction in quantities and an acceleration of auto-land

capability into the JPAlS baseline. The quantity reduction was due to

changes in the planned transition to GPS-based landing systems. The

Navy decided to terminate both JPAlS legacy aircraft integration efforts

and ground based systems, and accelerate auto-land capabilities to meet

Joint Strike Fighter and Unmanned Carrier-launched Airborne Surveillance

and Strike System requirements. The Joint Strike Fighter will utilize JPAlS

interim capability as part of its Block 3F software, and the Unmanned

Carrier-launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System will utilize JPAlS

as a baseline capability for its precision approach landing requirement. The

restructured JPAlS eliminates future incremental development.

lhA 6 America Class Amphibious Assault Ship (lhA 6)

The Navy’s lhA 6 class will replace the lhA 1 Tarawa-class amphibious

assault ships. The lhA 6 class is based on the fielded lhD 8 and consists of

three ships. The ships feature enhanced aviation capabilities and are designed

to support marine Corps assets in an expeditionary strike group. lhA 6

construction began in December 2008 and the ship was delivered in April 2014.

lhA 7 construction began in July 2013, and delivery is expected in December

2018. The Navy intends to competitively award a contract for lhA 8 in Fy16.




$234.0 $424.1 81.2



Program unit cost $3,368.138 $3,364.743 -0.1



146 182 24.7

lhA 6 began construction in December 2008 with mature technolo-

gies, but an incomplete design. The ship delivered in April 2014, after a

20-month delay, and has begun post-delivery activities. This includes a

may 2015 planned maintenance period where an estimated $42

million will be spent modifying the flight deck to accommodate the Joint

Strike Fighter. lhA 7, which largely shares the lhA 6 design, began

construction in July 2013. In October 2014, the Navy modified the ship’s

construction contract to incorporate changes to the flight deck at a cost

of up to $40 million, but the program is unsure if these changes will

affect the December 2018 planned delivery date. Changes to lhA 8 are

more significant and include the addition of a well deck. The program

is working with two shipyards and intends to competitively award a

contract to one of the yards in Fy16.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Huntington Ingalls Industries




teChNOlOGy, deSiGN, ANd pROduCtiON MAtuRity

All lhA critical technologies were mature when the program awarded

its first construction contract in June 2007. Although not considered critical

technologies, the program identified six additional subsystems necessary to

achieve capabilities, which were also considered mature. One subsystem,

the Joint Precision Approach and landing System, was restructured to focus

on aircraft auto-land capabilities and is it is uncertain when the system will

be ready for installation. In the interim, the lhA class will use backup aviation

control systems to meet requirements. Program officials do not anticipate any

new critical technologies for lhA 8. The Navy took delivery of the lead ship

(lhA 6) in April 2014, 20 months later than the contracted delivery date. lhA

6 began construction in December 2008 with only 65 percent of its design

completed, as measured by a combination of two- and three-dimensional

design products. Subsequent design quality issues resulted in more design

changes than anticipated, along with higher levels of rework. The ship is now


conducting crew familiarization and tests of the combat and mission sys-

tems. Post shakedown availability, a planned maintenance period, is currently

scheduled to begin in may 2015. During this period, the Navy plans to spend

an estimated $42 million to modify the ship’s flight deck to cope with exhaust

and downwash from the Joint Strike Fighter. Construction of lhA 7—which

largely shares the lhA 6 design—began in July 2013. In October 2014, the

Navy modified the ship’s construction contract to incorporate changes to the

flight deck to accommodate the Joint Strike Fighter, which may cost up to

$40 million. Other design changes to lhA 7 include a new firefighting system

and updates to the radar and the command, control, communications, com-

puters and intelligence systems. Program officials are unsure if these changes

will cause a delay to lhA 7’s expected delivery date of December 2018 as

the shipbuilder continues to incorporate the additional work into the ship's

construction schedule. Design changes to lhA 8 will be more significant, as

the Navy is incorporating a well deck that accommodates two landing craft,

and work is under way on design modifications to reduce the ship’s acquisi-

tion and life cycle costs. The Navy is working with the two shipyards that it

determined were capable of building the ship without major recapitalization

to assist with this effort, and intends to competitively award an advanced

procurement and detail design contract to a single shipyard in Fy16.


As a result of the high level of rework during construction of lhA 6 that

led to cost growth and schedule delays, the shipbuilder is pursuing over 120

lessons learned and affordability initiatives for work on lhA 7. The Navy has

also included contract incentives to improve the shipbuilder’s performance on

lhA 7. however, workforce issues with the yard have contributed to poor cost

performance especially in fabricating the ship’s hull. In response, the shipbuilder

has revised the way it tasks, supervises, and accomplishes work in an effort

to improve quality and hold its employees accountable. Program officials note

that although it is too early to determine the effectiveness of the shipbuilder’s

actions, the revised strategy appears to be improving cost performance on

lhA 7.


In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the program office stated

that the delivery date for lhA 7 was extended to December 2018 as a result of

negotiations incorporating the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35B) environmental effect

design solutions into the contract. They also stated that the shipyard has made

significant performance improvement in the hull shop in recent months, and

further stated that if the shipbuilder’s production progress on lhA 7 continues

at the current pace, an early delivery may be achievable. Regarding lhA 8, the

program office stated a draft request for proposals was issued in January 2015

as part of a competitive acquisition approach involving the detail design and

construction of lhA 8 and T-AO(X) Fleet Oiler Replacement (ships 1 through 6)

and the contract design support for lX(R). The program office plans to issue an

amendment in September 2015 to incorporate updates to the lhA 8 technical

data package as a result of early industry involvement affordability efforts.

littoral Combat Ship (lCS)

The Navy’s lCS is designed to perform mine countermeasures, anti-

submarine warfare and surface warfare missions. It consists of the ship it-

self, or seaframe, and the mission package it deploys. The Navy bought the

first four seaframes in two designs—the Freedom variant, a steel monohull

(lCS 1 and odd numbered ships) and the Independence variant, an alumi-

num trimaran hull (lCS 2 and even numbered ships)—and subsequently

awarded a contract for a block buy of up to 10 ships to both contractors.

We assessed both seaframe designs.


As of 05/2004 Latest 09/2014

Percent Change


$939.5 $3,357.5 257.4

Procurement cost $499.5 $17,773.3 3, 458.2

Total program cost $1,439.0 $21,334.6 1 382.6



Acquisition cycle t ime (months) 41 106 158.5

Cost data are for the seaframe only. Research and development

funding includes detail design and construction of two ships.

The lCS seaframe program has demonstrated the maturity of 16

of its 18 critical technologies. The program continues to make design

changes based on lessons learned from the delivered ships. The next

contract award is currently planned for fiscal year 2016, when 24 of the

seaframes will already be delivered, under construction or under contract.

Several test events—including total ship survivability trials on one vari-

ant—have taken place in the past year, but not all of the test reports have

been completed. The Navy delayed initial operational capability for the

Independence variant, lCS 2, from January 2014 until September 2015.

The secretary of defense directed the Navy to assess options evaluating

capability and cost for a future small surface combatant. Based on the

results of the study, additional changes will be required for the program.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Austal USA, Lockheed Martin

Program office: Washington Navy Yard, D.C.



teChNOlOGy MAtuRity

Sixteen of the 18 critical technologies for both lCS designs are mature

and have been demonstrated in a realistic environment. however, the Navy

indicated that the remaining two are also mature because the overhead

launch and retrieval system was demonstrated through last year’s deploy-

ment of lCS 1, and lCS 2’s aluminum structure was demonstrated based

on its performance in trials and maritime exercises. yet the Navy stated that

the maturity of these technologies has not been formally validated—and no

date has been set to do so. Unknowns also remain regarding lCS 2’s hull

structure, and test events are scheduled through 2016.

deSiGN ANd pROduCtiON MAtuRity

To date, the Navy has accepted delivery of four seaframes; lCS 5

through lCS 16 are in various stages of construction and lCS 17 through 24

are under contract. The next contract award is planned for 2016. The Navy

continues to incorporate changes into follow-on ship designs, including an


updated radar starting on lCS 17, and Freedom class gunfire control system

improvements. lCS 1 and 2 do not meet certain performance requirements

and face capability limitations due to weight growth during construction. As

a result, these ships lack the required amount of service life allowance—the

margin to accommodate future changes—without removing weight over

the ship’s lifetime. The Navy declared initial operational capability for the

Freedom variant when lCS 1 deployed to Singapore in march 2013. DoD’s

test authority reported in December 2013 on the results of this early fielding

with the surface warfare mission package. It noted a number of issues with

the seaframe and its planned capabilities, including survivability. The Freedom

variant began formal operational testing in fiscal year 2014 and completed

total ship survivability trials in October 2014, but the results are not yet avail-

able. DoD and Navy test officials have not yet assessed the survivability or

cyber defense capabilities of the Independence variant. The Navy continues

to develop and test the lCS 2 combat system, and the software and system

integration necessary to achieve baseline capabilities will not be complete

until September 2015. lCS 2 completed rough water trials in January 2014,

the results of which are pending completion of a final test report. The Navy

discovered cracks in the mission bay following this testing and imposed a

weight limit on the lCS 2 and lCS 4 launch and recovery systems. In lieu

of completing final contract trials on the Independence variant, the Navy's

Board of Inspection and Survey conducted a one-day special trial in August

2014, and the Navy does not plan to complete the acceptance trial for lCS

2. According to the Navy, the initial operational capability of lCS 2 has been

delayed until September 2015 as a result of funding restrictions for one type

of mission package.


In February 2014, the secretary of defense directed the Navy to contract

for no more than 32 ships, citing concerns about the ships’ survivability and

lethality. The secretary also directed the Navy to create a task force to evalu-

ate a range of cost and capability options for a future small surface combat-

ant, including an improved lCS. The Navy recommended a modified lCS

to satisfy DoD’s small surface combatant requirement and plans to buy 20

additional lCS hulls, which will be reclassified as frigates, starting in Fy19.


In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the program office noted

that it continues to test the long-term behavior of the lCS 2’s aluminum hull.

The program office is modifying lCS 1 and 2 designs to ensure they meet

service life allowance requirements. The lCS 2 Combat System is functional

and is supporting developmental testing onboard lCS 2. Both variants of

lCS achieved operational and developmental testing milestones. In 2015,

lCS will achieve Initial Operational Capability for the lCS 2 variant. The intent

of the lCS 2 Special Trial was to identify deficiencies, test the ship and deliver

a report card to US Fleet Forces Command. The scope included standard

underway demonstrations. The program office indicated that, with over four

years of robust developmental testing the performance of the ship, and its

systems are well understood. The program office also provided technical

comments, which were incorporated where deemed appropriate.

littoral Combat Ship - Mission packages (lCS Mp)

The littoral Combat Ship (lCS) will provide mine countermeasures

(mCm), surface warfare (SUW), and antisubmarine warfare (ASW) capa-

bility using mission packages. Packages include weapons and sensors

launched and recovered from lCS seaframes. The Navy plans to deliver

capability incrementally and has set interim requirements below the

baseline requirements for some of the planned increments. We assessed

mission packages’ progress against the threshold requirements that

define the baseline capabilities currently expected for each package.




NA $2,396.1 NA


Total program cost $3,982.7 $6,706.6 NA

Program unit cost $62.230 $104.791 NA



NA NA NA

The current estimate does not include $3.6 billion of procurement

funding for life cycle replacement and modernization of mission

systems.

The lCS seaframe program has demonstrated the maturity of

16 of its 18 critical technologies. The program continues to make

design changes based on lessons learned from the delivered ships.

The next contract award is currently planned for Fy16, when 24 of

the seaframes will already be delivered, under construction or under

contract. Several test events—including total ship survivability trials

on one variant—have taken place in the past year, but not all of the

test reports have been completed. The Navy delayed initial operational

capability for the Independence variant, lCS 2, from January 2014

until September 2015. The secretary of defense directed the Navy to

assess options evaluating capability and cost for a future small surface

combatant. Based on the results of the study, additional changes will

be required for the program.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Austal USA, Lockheed Martin

Program office: Washington Navy Yard, D.C.



teChNOlOGy MAtuRity

Sixteen of the 18 critical technologies for both lCS designs

are mature and have been demonstrated in a realistic environment.

however, the Navy indicated that the remaining two are also mature

because the overhead launch and retrieval system was demonstrated

through last year’s deployment of lCS 1, and lCS 2’s aluminum struc-

ture was demonstrated based on its performance in trials and maritime

exercises. yet the Navy stated that the maturity of these technolo-

gies has not been formally validated—and no date has been set to do

so. Unknowns also remain regarding lCS 2’s hull structure, and test

events are scheduled through 2016.


deSiGN ANd pROduCtiON MAtuRity

To date, the Navy has accepted delivery of four seaframes; lCS 5

through lCS 16 are in various stages of construction and lCS 17 through

24 are under contract. The next contract award is planned for 2016.

The Navy continues to incorporate changes into follow-on ship designs,

including an updated radar starting on lCS 17, and Freedom class gunfire

control system improvements. lCS 1 and 2 do not meet certain perfor-

mance requirements and face capability limitations due to weight growth

during construction. As a result, these ships lack the required amount of

service life allowance—the margin to accommodate future changes—

without removing weight over the ship’s lifetime. The Navy declared initial

operational capability for the Freedom variant when lCS 1 deployed to

Singapore in march 2013. DoD’s test authority reported in December

2013 on the results of this early fielding with the surface warfare mission

package. It noted a number of issues with the seaframe and its planned

capabilities, including survivability. The Freedom variant began formal

operational testing in Fy14 and completed total ship survivability trials in

October 2014, but the results are not yet available. DoD and Navy test of-

ficials have not yet assessed the survivability or cyber defense capabilities

of the Independence variant. The Navy continues to develop and test the

lCS 2 combat system, and the software and system integration neces-

sary to achieve baseline capabilities will not be complete until September

2015. lCS 2 completed rough water trials in January 2014, the results of

which are pending completion of a final test report. The Navy discovered

cracks in the mission bay following this testing and imposed a weight limit

on the lCS 2 and lCS 4 launch and recovery systems. In lieu of complet-

ing final contract trials on the Independence variant, the Navy's Board of

Inspection and Survey conducted a one-day special trial in August 2014,

and the Navy does not plan to complete the acceptance trial for lCS 2.

According to the Navy, the initial operational capability of lCS 2 has been

delayed until September 2015 as a result of funding restrictions for one

type of mission package.


In February 2014, the secretary of defense directed the Navy to

contract for no more than 32 ships, citing concerns about the ships'

survivability and lethality. The secretary also directed the Navy to create

a task force to evaluate a range of cost and capability options for a future

small surface combatant, including an improved lCS. The Navy recom-

mended a modified lCS to satisfy DoD’s small surface combatant require-

ment and plans to buy 20 additional lCS hulls, which will be reclassified as

frigates, starting in Fy19.


In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the program office

noted that it continues to test the long-term behavior of the lCS 2’s alu-

minum hull. The program office is modifying lCS 1 and 2 designs to en-

sure they meet service life allowance requirements. The lCS 2 Combat

System is functional and is supporting developmental testing onboard

lCS 2. Both variants of lCS achieved operational and developmental

testing milestones. In 2015, lCS will achieve Initial Operational Capabil-

ity for the lCS 2 variant. The intent of the lCS 2 Special Trial was to

identify deficiencies, test the ship and deliver a report card to U.S. Fleet

Forces Command. The scope included standard underway demonstra-

tions. The program office indicated that, with over four years of robust

developmental testing the performance of the ship, and its systems are

well understood. The program office also provided technical comments,

which were incorporated where deemed appropriate.

Mobile user Objective System (MuOS)

The Navy’s mUOS, a satellite communication system, is expected

to provide a worldwide, multiservice population of mobile and fixed-site

terminal users with increased narrowband communications capacity and

improved availability for small terminal users. mUOS will replace the Ultra

high Frequency (UhF) Follow-On (UFO) satellite system currently in op-

eration and provide interoperability with legacy terminals. mUOS consists

of a network of satellites and an integrated ground network. We assessed

both the space and ground segments.




$3,863.5 $4,654.1 20.5



Program unit cost $1,186.518 $1,267.659 6.8



90 NA NA

latest acquisition cycle time could not be calculated because the most

recent mUOS program baseline does not provide dates for initial opera-

tional capability.

The mUOS program's critical technologies are mature, its design is

stable, and according to the program office, the manufacturing metrics

it monitors remain stable. The first satellite was launched in February

2012—26 months later than planned at development start—and the sec-

ond was launched in July 2013. Shipment of a third satellite was delayed

about four months due to problems with the UhF legacy payload and was

launched in January 2015. The first two satellites currently provide legacy

satellite communications to the warfighter, though more advanced com-

munications using the mUOS waveform are not yet operational. According

to the program, development of the waveform was completed in December

2012 and continues to be updated. however, challenges with integrating

the waveform with terminals and ground systems persist.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Lockheed Martin Space Systems

Program office: San Diego, Calif.



teChNOlOGy, deSiGN ANd pROduCtiON MAtuRity

The mUOS program's technologies are mature and its design is stable.

The first two satellites are on orbit and currently provide operational support

to the warfighter in the form of legacy UhF satellite communications. A third

satellite was launched in January 2015 and will begin on-orbit testing before

it is accepted for operational use. Two other satellites are being built, with a

sixth planned for procurement in 2022. We could not assess whether critical


manufacturing processes were in control as the program does not collect

statistical process control data. however, program officials indicated that

there has been no significant change in metrics used to assess production

maturity, such as number of defects per 1,000 hours of labor, amount of

deferred work and associated risk, and rate of resolving nonconformance

issues. Also, the number of manufacturing defects on the space segment

has decreased over time, according to the program.


Due to problems with uncommanded shutdowns of the UhF legacy

payload during testing, delivery of the third production satellite is delayed

until June 2015. The fourth production satellite will now constitute the third

satellite for launch, which was ready to ship to the launch site in October

2014. Though the delay constitutes a four-month schedule breach, the

program reported there are no cost or performance implications because

the satellite is procured under a fixed-price incentive contract and the UhF

payloads on orbit are providing sufficient capability. The program office does

not expect subsequent satellites to be affected by the same issues, and

expects deliveries will meet scheduled dates. Since 2007, we have reported

that synchronizing delivery of mUOS satellites with compatible Joint Tactical

Radio System (JTRS) handheld, manpack, and Small Form Fit (hmS) termi-

nals—developed by the Army as the first operational terminals to incorporate

the mUOS waveform—has been a challenge. launching mUOS satellites is

important to sustain legacy UhF communications, but use of over 90 per-

cent of mUOS’ planned capability is dependent on resolving issues related

to integrating the mUOS waveform, hmS terminals, and ground systems.

The mUOS program completed waveform lab testing using a generic

hardware platform in December 2012. According to program officials, mUOS

successfully demonstrated initial porting and integration of the waveform

with hmS in 2013 and has since upgraded waveform software to improve

performance. however, operational testing of the waveform, hmS terminal

and ground system—initially planned for June 2014—has been delayed due

to reliability issues. The program extended testing to fix software issues and

continues to work with the Army’s hmS program. The program office stated

that operational testing is on track to be completed by December 2015—an

18-month delay—though this will also delay the Army’s fielding of mUOS-

capable radios. The risk of similar integration issues occurring with future

terminals will be reduced, according to program officials, with the recent

opening of mUOS labs to all terminal developers for testing and once military

standard requirements are published and accessible to industry. The mUOS

waveform has been available for integration on other terminal platforms

since January 2013, with the latest version released in July 2014.


In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the Navy provided tech-

nical comments which were incorporated as appropriate.

MQ-4C triton unmanned Aircraft System (MQ-4C triton)

The Navy’s mQ-4C Triton is intended to provide persistent maritime

intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability. Triton will op-

erate from five land-based sites worldwide as a part of a family of maritime

patrol and reconnaissance systems. Based on the Air Force RQ-4B Global

hawk air vehicle, the Triton is a critical part of the Navy’s plan to recapitalize

its airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets by the end

of the decade.




$3,327.4 $3,992.4 20.0



Program unit cost $194.385 $182.378 -6.2



92 120 30.4

The Triton program’s single, identified critical technology is mature.

While the design is stable, recent growth in drawings indicates that the

program overestimated design stability at the 2011 critical design review.

After delays related to software and hardware challenges, the Triton

completed initial flight testing and flew its first test aircraft across the

country to maryland, where the Navy will integrate and test the mission

systems in preparation for the Triton’s low-rate production decision in

December 2015. Triton faces design and production risks as a result of an

ambitious schedule to meet the estimated date for the start of production

and supplier quality management challenges. In addition, the program’s

schedule for development testing extends significantly into production,

increasing the risk of cost and schedule growth late in the program.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation





The program’s single critical technology—a hydrocarbon sensor—is

mature. At the program’s critical design review in 2011, the design was

considered stable as the Navy reported that more than 90 percent of its

total estimated design drawings were releasable. Since then, the total

number of design drawings has increased significantly. When adjusted for

this increase, the program would have only had 56 percent of its draw-

ings released at the critical design review. Program officials noted that the

drawings releasable at that time included those for the air vehicle only, and

did not include other components, including the ground station, which ac-

counted for the largest increase in drawings.

pROduCtiON MAtuRity

The Navy faces supplier quality management challenges that could

impact its readiness to begin Triton production in December 2015. DoD

has issued at least eight corrective action requests that require the prime

contractor to conduct a root cause analysis or take other actions. most of

the requests are related to supplier material and quality management is-

sues. The wing represents one of the program’s most significant challenges.

DoD reported that the wing supplier has not yet demonstrated that it can

produce a wing that conforms to required specifications. Quality issues

have already delayed delivery of the wings for two of the developmental test


aircraft by at least five months. The Navy is still working to identify and miti-

gate key manufacturing risks for each major supplier and plans to conduct

the executive production readiness review in may 2015, at which time it will

reassess Triton manufacturing processes and develop a plan to ensure that

those processes are sufficiently mature before the low-rate initial production

decision in December 2015.


The program anticipates conducting significant amounts of test-

ing concurrent with production. Triton flight testing was delayed due

to problems with the performance of the aircraft’s flight management

computer and the aircraft’s wing and tail. Following the resolution of

these issues, all three developmental test aircraft were flown across the

country to Naval Air Station Patuxent River by December 2014, where

the Navy expects to integrate and test the aircraft’s mission systems.

The program faces an ambitious schedule in which the Navy expects

to complete approximately 13,000 of 25,000 total developmental test

points before seeking approval to begin production in December 2015.

The remaining 12,000 test points will be completed during production. In

addition, the Navy has delayed the start of fatigue testing on the aircraft

until 2017, two years after the start of production. According to program

officials, this testing has been delayed twice as costs have increased

and funding has been diverted to other development activities. Based

on the current production schedule, the Navy will have ordered at least

34 aircraft, and delivered at least 22, before the full results of this testing

are available in 2023. Without knowledge about the long-term durabil-

ity of the aircraft, the Navy may have to initially limit its missions or its

lifespan. Our previous work suggests that such concurrency in test-

ing and production can increase the risk of discovering deficiencies in

production that could require costly design changes and modifications

to systems already produced.


In addition to providing technical comments, the program office noted

that the mQ-4C Triton UAS program continues to demonstrate success

during its system development and demonstration phase as evidenced

by completion of initial envelope expansion in march 2014 and the ferry

of all three test aircraft to Patuxent River in late calendar year 2014. While

the program has experienced delays to wing delivery for the two system

demonstration test articles, production planning is on schedule for aircraft

delivery in support of Initial Operational Test & evaluation. The program

is on track to conduct its operational assessment in summer 2015 and is

conducting supplier production readiness reviews in preparation for the

milestone C/low-Rate Initial Production decision review in the first quarter

of fiscal year 2016. The Triton Unmanned Aircraft System program benefits

from strong support within the Department of the Navy.

MQ-8 (Fire Scout)

The Navy’s mQ-8 unmanned aerial vehicle is intended to provide

real-time imagery and data in support of intelligence, surveillance and

reconnaissance missions. The mQ-8 system is comprised of one or

more air vehicles with sensors, a control station and ship equipment to

aid in launch and recovery. The air vehicle launches and lands vertically,

and operates from ships and land. The mQ-8 is intended for use in vari-

ous operations, including surface, anti-submarine and mine warfare. We

assessed the latest variant, the mQ- 8C.




$633.4 $896.3 41.5






104 170 63.5

The mQ-8 program reported a Nunn-mcCurdy unit cost breach of the

critical threshold, resulting in a program restructuring that will incorporate

the planned upgrades to the range, endurance and payload for the mQ-8C.

According to program officials, these upgrades rely on mature technolo-

gies and designs derived from earlier efforts. mQ-8C will continue with

developmental testing and will transition to operational testing in the fourth

quarter of Fy15. Program officials told us that the program will re-enter the

acquisition process at production, which is scheduled for march 2016, and

may go directly to full-rate production, depending on the success of testing.

We could not assess the planned maturity of the program’s production

processes as they do not utilize our best practice metrics.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Northrop Grumman





According to the program office, mQ-8C has 90 percent commonality

with the previously developed mQ-8B, with the primary difference being

structural modifications to accommodate the mQ-8C’s larger airframe and

fuel system. The mQ-8C relies on mature technologies common to the

mQ-8B and has completed all of its planned engineering design drawings

as of August 2014. First flight for the mQ-8C occurred in October 2013. The

program will continue with developmental testing and transition to opera-

tional testing in the fourth quarter of Fy15. Despite the separate iteration

of development, the mQ-8C did not have a separate system development

decision which, according to program officials, was not required.

pROduCtiON MAtuRity

The program has already procured some mQ-8C aircraft under the

Navy’s rapid deployment capability procurement process, which enabled

the program to bypass many standard acquisition practices. Program

officials stated that, as result of the restructuring, the mQ-8C variant will

enter the acquisition process at production, which is currently scheduled for

march 2016. however, the program may bypass the low-rate decision and

proceed straight into full-rate production depending on the success of de-

velopmental and operational testing. We could not assess whether critical


manufacturing processes were in control as the program does not collect

data on statistical process controls or assess process capabilities using

manufacturing readiness levels. The program office collects metrics on the

status of production from the prime contractor, such as discovery of manu-

facturing defects and adherence to delivery schedules. Program officials

noted that the mQ-8C air vehicle is a commercial airframe procured by the

government and provided directly to the prime contractor as government

furnished equipment for conversion to a mQ-8C. The prime contractor is

responsible for integration of the avionics and working with the aircraft man-

ufacturer to modify the commercial airframe with increased capacity fuel

tanks, new electrical systems, and provisions for the unmanned avionics.


The program reported a Nunn-mcCurdy unit cost breach of the criti-

cal threshold in April 2014. The breach was triggered after the program

included the capabilities of the mQ-8C into the program of record and

reduced quantities, leading to an average unit cost increase of 71 percent

over the original baseline. In June 2014, the program was certified as es-

sential to national security and allowed to proceed. The restructured pro-

gram will incorporate the upgraded mQ-8C, as well as radar and weapons

capabilities, such as those developed by the Navy.


In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the program office stat-

ed the restructured mQ-8 program realizes the Navy’s investments in both

the mQ-8B and mQ-8C variants and improves alignment with the Navy's

small surface combatant fleet requirements. Recent test events provide

high confidence in the maturity of the system and have contributed greatly

to reducing the risk to successful completion of planned operational test-

ing and fleet introduction. The program office and the Navy also provided

technical comments, which were incorporated where appropriate.

Ship to Shore Connector Amphibious Craft (SSC)

The Navy’s SSC is an air-cushioned landing craft intended to trans-

port personnel, weapon systems, equipment and cargo from amphibious

vessels to shore. SSC is the replacement for the landing Craft, Air Cush-

ion, which is approaching the end of its service life. The SSC is designed

to deploy in Navy well deck amphibious ships, such as the lPD 17 class,

and for use in assault and non-assault operations. The program entered

system development in July 2012 and held its production readiness

review in September 2014.




$589.5 $564.2 -4.3



Program unit cost $57.354 $55.535 -3.2



135 135 0.0

The program’s one critical technology, the fire suppression system, is

mature. Two other significant technologies are still recognized by the program

as potential risk areas. The SSC’s critical design review took place in Septem-

ber 2014—six months later than planned, which SSC officials stated was due

primarily to the prime contractor’s efforts to transition all subcontractors to

fixed-price type contracts. The program reported that only 79 percent of ex-

pected engineering design drawings were releasable at the time of the review.

The SSC also held its production readiness review in September 2014 and

determined that the program was ready to begin fabrication of the test and

training craft, which began in November 2014. With recent schedule changes,

the program plans to exercise options for a total of eight craft before the

delivery of the test craft, currently projected for may 2017.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Textron, Inc.




teChNOlOGy MAtuRity

The SSC program’s single identified critical technology, the fire sup-

pression system, is mature. Two other technologies—the gas turbine engine

and the command, control, communication, computer and navigation (C4N)

system—were identified by DoD as watchlist items in 2010 because they could

need further development or modifications for integration with SSC. In Decem-

ber 2014, a Navy technology review panel revisited these items and found that

no new development was necessary, but recommended steps for further test-

ing. The program recognizes the watchlist items, along with integration of the

drive train, as potential risk areas. The prime contractor is establishing endur-

ance testing of the entire drive train— including the engine—which is currently

planned for early 2016. According to program officials, software development

for the C4N system is meeting expectations. The program currently anticipates

that more than half the total lines of software code required will be reused from

existing code.

deSiGN MAtuRity

The SSC’s critical design review took place in September 2014—six

months later than planned. According to program officials, the delay

was due primarily to the prime contractor’s efforts to transition all subcon-


tractors to fixed-price type contracts, which proceeded more slowly than

anticipated. This also led to delays in transferring design deliverables to the

Navy. The program reported that 515 of 651 expected engineering design

drawings, or 79 percent, were releasable to the manufacturer at critical

design review. According to program officials, two weeks after the critical

design review, the amount of releasable drawings increased to 552, or 85

percent of the expected amount. Our prior work in weapons acquisition

indicates that successful completion and release to manufacturing of at

least 90 percent of design drawings by critical design review is a best prac-

tice that demonstrates design stability and readiness to proceed to system

demonstration.

pROduCtiON MAtuRity

The SSC held its production readiness review in September 2014—only

two weeks after its design review—and determined that the program was

ready to begin fabrication of the test and training craft, which started in

November 2014. Fabrication of the second craft started two months later in

January 2015. The delivery of the test and training craft is a critical event as

it represents the first opportunity to demonstrate that the SSC’s capabilities

meet requirements before committing to production. however, the program

currently plans to enter low-rate production in February 2015, more than

two years before the estimated delivery of the test vehicle. In addition, due

to delays in the production decision and test schedules, the program plans

to exercise low-rate production options for two additional craft and will

now have a total of eight under contract prior to delivery of the test craft,

currently projected for may 2017. Our prior work has shown that programs

with concurrency in development and production run the risk of cost and

schedule overruns if deficiencies in the design are not discovered until late

in testing and retrofits are required for previously produced craft.


According to the Navy, SSC is a technically mature, low risk pro-

gram. The Navy-led contract design incorporated lessons learned from

30 years of Navy landing craft, air cushion production and operational

experience. A detail design and construction contract was awarded in

July 2012. The program successfully held the design review and produc-

tion readiness review in September 2014, assessing design maturity and

readiness, material and component availability, and the industry team’s

ability to start and sustain fabrication. At the design review, the com-

mand's chief engineer approved the product baseline. Production on the

first two crafts began in November 2014 and January 2015, respectively.

The program is currently conducting developmental testing, including

reliability growth testing, to support the initial production decision. The

program office also provided technical comments, which were incorpo-

rated where deemed appropriate.

Vh-92A presidential helicopter Replacement program

The Navy’s Vh-92A (formerly designated VXX) program provides

new helicopters for executive transport of the president, vice presi-

dent, heads of state and others. A successor to the terminated Vh-71

program, Vh-92A’s fleet of 21 operational aircraft (includes trainers) and

two test aircraft replaces 19 legacy Vh-3D and Vh-60N, two trainers and

two test aircraft. The program entered development in April 2014; the

Navy awarded a development contract in may 2014. Until Vh-92As are

available, the Navy is extending legacy fleet availability.


As of Latest Percent Change


NA $2,646.0 NA

Procurement cost NA $2,072.0 NA

Total program cost NA $4,718.0 NA

Program unit cost NA $205.130 NA

Total quantities NA 23 NA


NA 75 NA

The Vh-92A program is using an existing commercial aircraft and incor-

porating mature technologies. While no new technologies are involved, the

government-provided fully configured mission communication system has

yet to be tested in an aircraft. The number of design drawings will be final-

ized at the critical design review, in July 2016. To reduce risk, the program

is using engineering development models to demonstrate installation of the

Vh-92A unique mission communication system and determine the place-

ment of 14 additional antennas. Flight testing of the system’s performance

is scheduled to begin in may 2017. The program's schedule anticipates

concurrent development testing and production; most aircraft will be under

contract before test results are known. To reduce overall program risk, the

Navy awarded a fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract for development.

program essentials

Prime contractor: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation





The Vh-92A entered system development with its mission communica-

tion system (mCS), a new system that's technology is critical to the mission,

approaching full maturity. While it’s been tested in a laboratory, the full mCS

has yet to be flown on board an aircraft. The program will modify a com-

mercially available aircraft for the Vh-92A using mostly upgraded technolo-

gies that are already on the legacy fleet. The sole exception is the mCS;

according to the program office, some of its components will undergo minor

modifications to integrate them into the new aircraft. One significant integra-

tion and design risk for the program is the installation of the 14 additional an-

tennas on the airframe. lockheed martin, a subcontractor, is integrating the

government-provided mCS with a modified Sikorsky S-92 airframe and con-

ducting antenna co-site analysis to properly place the antennas and identify

any interference issues. According to the program office, a fully configured

mission communication system is scheduled for flight testing beginning in

mid-2017. The program does not plan to conduct a system-level preliminary

design review until September 2015, or about 17 months after development

start. The requirement to conduct this review was deferred until after devel-

opment start. The number of design drawings required for the program will

be finalized at the critical design review, currently planned for July 2016.


pROduCtiON MAtuRity

The Navy is buying two engineering development and four system

demonstration aircraft models. These assets will be used to demonstrate

production readiness, as well as the design and maturity of the mCS.

The initial engineering model was delivered to lockheed martin in the

first quarter of 2015. It will undergo a series of tests including ice testing,

before returning to Sikorsky in 2016. The low-rate initial production deci-

sion is currently scheduled for January 2019. A total of 12 units will be

produced in two low-rate production lots. The remaining five units will be

acquired in full-rate production. The program plans to utilize a concurrent

development and production strategy, with nearly 80 percent of planned

aircraft buy will be under contract before developmental testing results

are made known. This runs the risk of costly retrofits to existing systems if

problems are discovered late in testing. The program office conducted a

schedule risk assessment in October 2014, and plans to do so annually.


In may 2014, the Navy awarded a fixed-priced incentive (firm target)

contract with a target price of $1.24 billion to Sikorsky Aircraft Corpora-

tion, to support the Vh-92A development effort. This contract type is

designed to control costs and limit risk to the government. A target cost,

target profit, profit adjustment formula and maximum amount that may

be paid to the contractor by the government, known as a ceiling price,

were negotiated. The government and contractor share savings in the

event of cost under-runs, and they share cost (up to a point) in the event

of over-runs. To ensure these negotiated terms are met, the program

must maintain the stability of the requirements and design by limiting the

number of approved changes. The program office has a change control

process in place which requires three layers of review, of which the last

two require senior leadership approval.


According to the program office, the program’s acquisition strategy

is based on a foundation of four key elements: a fixed-price incentive

(firm target) contract; integrating mature components with no critical

technology elements; using an in-production air vehicle; and maintain-

ing the original airworthiness certification authority to certify the Vh-92A

configuration. During calendar year 2014, the program completed

its acquisition and development milestones as planned. Further, the

program office also noted that cost estimates remain unchanged from

the baseline approved at the milestone B review. The Vh-92A fleet of 21

operational aircraft, including training assets, and two test aircraft will

replace 19 legacy Vh-3D and Vh-60N, two training and two test aircraft.

The program is on track to complete its preliminary design review later

this year. The program office also provided technical comments, which

were incorporated as appropriate.

ddG 51 Flight iii destroyer (ddG 51 Flight iii)

The DDG 51 Flight III destroyer will be a multimission ship designed to

operate against air, surface, and subsurface threats. As compared to exist-

ing Flight IIA ships, Flight III ships will provide increased ballistic missile and

area air defense capabilities. Planned configuration changes for Flight III

include replacing the SPy-1D(V) radar—currently used on Flight IIA ships—

with the new Air and missile Defense Radar (AmDR). The Navy plans to

acquire a total of 22 Flight III ships, beginning with a lead ship in Fy16.

CuRReNt StAtuS

The Navy is undertaking Flight III detail design activities in Fy15 concur-

rent with AmDR development—a strategy that could disrupt detail design

activities as AmDR attributes become more defined. The Navy identifies

AmDR integration as posing technical, 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 factory

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 solicitation for these

proposals and plans to award construction of the first Flight III ship in Fy16,

with two follow-on ships in Fy17. To support this, per DoD policy the Navy

sought congressional approval in 2014 to transfer funds and begin detail

design in the fourth quarter of Fy14. however, this request was denied,

postponing 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 Fy17.

estimated program Cost and Quantity (Fy15 dollars):

Total program: $42,829.0 million

Research and development: $3,990.0 million

Procurement: $38,839.0 million

Quantity: 22 (procurement)

NeXt MAJOR pROGRAM eVeNt

Award of first Flight III engineering change proposal, Fy16.


According to the Navy, AmDR and Flight III development continue

on schedule to support implementation on a Fy16 ship. Recent comple-

tion of critical design review for AmDR hardware mitigates potential

that Flight III detail design will be impacted. The Navy plans to report

additional details of this strategy to Congress in early 2015.


Fleet Replenishment Oiler (t-AO(X))

The Fleet Replenishment Oiler (T-AO(X)) program is intended to

replace the Navy’s 15 existing T-AO 187 Class Fleet Oilers, which are

nearing the end of their service lives. Its primary mission is to provide

replenishment of bulk petroleum products, dry stores/packaged cargo,

fleet freight, mail, and personnel to other vessels while under way. The

Navy plans to procure the first T-AO(X) in Fy16 and the remaining 16

ships at a rate of one per year beginning in Fy18.

CuRReNt StAtuS

The Navy has completed cost and capabilities trade studies,

which suggest that T-AO(X) will be able to meet minimum capability

requirements within projected costs utilizing existing ship designs and

technologies. The Navy plans to employ military unique systems for

specific functions, such as under way replenishment. According to an

October 2014 technology readiness assessment, the program’s three

critical technologies— associated with the ship's underway replen-

ishment system known as electric Standard Tension Replenishment

Alongside method (e-STReAm)—are fully mature based on the results

of land-based and at-sea prototype testing. The most notable of these

technologies, heavy e-STReAm, allows the transfer of cargo at double

the standard speed or, alternatively, double the standard load weight.

These technologies are required to meet the more robust requirements

for under way replenishment associated with the new Ford-class aircraft

carriers. The program was granted a waiver for the requirement to

conduct competitive prototyping prior to system development start. Ac-

cording to Navy officials, under the revised T-AO(X) acquisition strategy,

the Navy anticipates competitively awarding a fixed-price incentive type

contract in Fy16 for lead ship detail design and construction with op-

tions for five follow-on ships at a rate of one per year beginning in Fy18.

Navy officials indicated that the remaining ships will also be acquired at

a rate of one ship per year under two additional contracts. The Navy has

identified industrial base instability as a program execution risk, which

may compel lead ship construction to begin prior to completion of three-

dimensional product modeling design—a strategy that has caused cost

growth and schedule delays in other Navy programs and is inconsistent

with best practices.


Total program (FY11-19): $1,823.3 million

Research and development (FY11-14): $55.4 million

Procurement (FY16-19): $1,767.9 million

Quantity: 3


System development start, may 2016



disagreed that industrial base instability may result in premature start

to lead ship construction. According to the program office, before con-

struction start is authorized, the shipbuilder must successfully complete

a production readiness review to demonstrate mature ship design and

adequate production planning.

Next-Generation Jammer (NGJ)

The Navy’s Next-Generation Jammer (NGJ) is being developed as

an external jamming pod system fitted on eA-18G Growler aircraft. It

will replace the AlQ-99 jamming pod system and provide enhanced

airborne electronic attack capabilities to disrupt and degrade enemy

air defense and ground communication systems. The Navy plans to

field capabilities in three increments for different radio frequency rang-

es, beginning with Increment 1 (mid-band) in 2021, with Increments 2

and 3 (low- and high-band) to follow. We assessed Increment 1.

CuRReNt StAtuS

In July 2013, DoD approved NGJ Increment 1’s entry into technology

development, but its start was delayed by a bid protest. In January 2014,

the Navy affirmed a $280 million technology development contract award

to Raytheon after GAO sustained portions of BAe Systems' bid protest.

Program officials state that the protest resulted in a six-month delay to the

program. The start of system development is now planned for February

2016 and the system’s initial operational capability is delayed until 2021.

Prior to the bid protest, the Navy completed a 33-month technology

maturation phase during which four contractors competitively prototyped

technologies and subsystems for Increment 1. The program currently has

seven identified critical technologies-transmit/receive modules, circula-

tors, apertures for two separate arrays, and a power generation system-

all of which are expected to be approaching full maturity by the start of

system development. The Navy has identified four overarching risks for

the NGJ Increment 1 program-meeting weight and power requirements,

integrating the jamming pods with the aircraft, and maturing critical tech-

nologies. According to program officials, they have developed strategies

to mitigate these risks, including introducing a weight management con-

trol plan; developing power generation prototypes; refining aircraft-pod

integration requirements; and monitoring technology maturation plans. In

June 2014, the Navy completed two systems engineering reviews on the

integration of the NGJ with the eA-18G aircraft and the program plans

to conduct a preliminary design review in September 2015, five months

before the start of system development.


Total program: $6,284 million

Research and development: $2,830 million

Procurement: $3,450 million

Quantity: 8 (development), 114 (procurement)



System development start, February 2016.



provided technical comments, which were incorporated where deemed ap-

propriate.

Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)

The Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 1 is a Navy-

led program that plans to leverage previous technology demonstration

efforts to field an air-launched, long-range, anti-surface warfare missile.

The program is using an accelerated acquisition model. It plans to field

an early operational capability on Air Force B-1 bombers in 2018 and

Navy F/A-18 aircraft in 2019. DoD is currently developing requirements for

Increment 2, which could include air-, surface- or sub-surface launched

systems.

CuRReNt StAtuS

The OASuW Increment 1 program was initiated in Fy13 in re-

sponse to an urgent operational need for an improved air-launched,

anti-surface warfare capability. The program builds upon the Defense

Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) long-Range Anti-

Ship missile (lRASm) program and the Air Force’s Joint Air-to-Surface

Standoff missile-extended Range (JASSm-eR) program. Under the

lRASm program, DARPA and the Navy conducted two demonstrations

using modified JASSm-eR missiles, and although the missiles hit their

targets, the testing was limited and not intended to be operationally

realistic. In February 2014, the under secretary of defense for acquisi-

tion, technology and logistics approved an accelerated acquisition

approach for the OASuW Increment 1 program consisting of five

decision points that align with key systems engineering reviews and

test events. This approach will also use an integrated developmental

and operational test program and will not include a formal, separate

initial operational test and evaluation period. Schedule is the key driver

for the program because of the urgent need. however, the program's

accelerated approach entails certain risks. For example, the program’s

eight critical technologies—which include hardware and software

related to targeting and low-altitude flight—are not all expected to be

demonstrated in a realistic environment until the critical design review

in 2016. Also, this approach includes concurrent system-level testing

and production, which can increase the risk of late design changes.

DARPA competitively awarded the first lRASm contract in 2009, but

subsequent contracts to complete missile development and produc-

tion have been, and are planned to be, awarded on a sole source

basis. The Navy plans to pursue a competitive acquisition strategy for

OASuW Increment 2.




Procurement: $335.6 million

Quantity: 110


Critical design review, February 2016


In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the program of-

fice stated its strategy uses an integrated and concurrent design,

integration and test program to meet the accelerated schedule. The

knowledge point reviews, which they define differently than GAO,

are meant to manage this timeline and concurrency. The program

intends to meet statutory requirements associated with milestone B

at its third knowledge point in Fy16.

Ohio-Class Replacement (OR)

The Navy’s Ohio-class Replacement (OR) will replace the cur-

rent fleet of Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) as they

begin to retire in 2027. The Navy began technology development in

January 2011 in order to avoid a gap in sea- based nuclear deter-

rence between the Ohio-class’s retirement and the production of a

replacement. The Navy is working with the United kingdom to de-

velop a common missile compartment for use on OR and the United

kingdom’s replacement SSBN. OR will initially carry the Trident II

D5le missile.

CuRReNt StAtuS

The Navy is continuing to develop and evaluate new technolo-

gies to incorporate into OR, including an X- stern configuration; a

new propulsor; and an extended-life drive shaft that, according to

program officials, will increase the platform’s availability. According

to program officials, the Navy continues to prototype and test the X-

stern and propulsor technologies on a scale model to minimize risk.

In 2014, the contractor and the Navy completed ship specifications

and set the ship’s length, both major milestones, as it commits to

the space available for ship systems. The program plans to complete

83 percent of the design disclosures—the detailed plans used on

the shop floor—prior to the start of construction. In October 2014,

the program awarded a contract for production of 17 missile tubes,

one of the boat’s critical subsystems. According to program officials,


these tubes will support the quad pack prototype, testing, and also

the United kingdom’s replacement SSBN. Officials stated that they

are continuing to investigate cost saving options including

maximizing equipment reuse from Virginia- and Ohio-class

submarines and also leveraging manufacturing techniques,

such as robotic welding and modular construction. According to

program officials, the Navy is also investigating alternate contract-

ing strategies such as a joint-class block buy with Virginia-class

submarines or multi-year contracting, which may provide for addi-

tional savings by allowing for volume discounts in material pur-

chases. multi-year contracting is allowed by statute if, among other

things, the design is stable, technical risk is not excessive, and the

costs estimates are realistic. It is typically not used with lead ship

construction because of the unknowns inherent in Navy lead ship

construction.



Research and development: $11,801 million

Procurement: $83,974.7 million

Quantity: 12

next mAjoR PRogRAm eVent

Development request for proposal release decision point


In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the Navy provided

technical comments, which were incorporated where appropriate.

unmanned Carrier-launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (uClASS) System

The Navy's UClASS system is expected to address a gap

in persistent sea-based intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance

and targeting (ISR&T), and provide precision strike capabilities.

The system is made up of three key segments: an air segment;

a carrier segment; and a control system and connectivity

segment.

CuRReNt StAtuS

GAO reported in September 2013 that, while the Navy planned

to manage UClASS as a technology development program, its

acquisition strategy encompassed activities associated with a

program in system development. As such, the Navy would

develop, produce and field a system before initiating key

oversight mechanisms and reviews that typically govern system

development programs. GAO recommended that the Navy hold

a formal review to enter system development following the

system-level preliminary design review, scheduled for the end of

the first quarter of Fy16. The Navy did not agree with that recom-

mendation, and a formal review has not yet been scheduled. The

Navy considers all four identified critical technologies to be mature,

based on demonstrations of an unmanned system from a carrier.

Four firm-fixed-price contracts to develop preliminary designs for

the unmanned aerial vehicle segment were awarded in August 2013

and completed in may 2014, with the Navy assessing each proposed

design for technical maturity and its ability to meet requirements.

Congress and DoD have continued to debate UClASS requirements

during 2014, raising the possibility of further specification changes.

To the extent that changes are made or proposed designs differ

from the preliminary designs, the Navy may need to perform further

validation. The release of the request for proposals for the design,

fabrication, test and delivery of the air segment has been repeatedly

delayed and is now expected to occur after a review of all of DoD’s

ISR&T programs is completed. DoD and program officials have

emphasized the need to carefully synchronize UClASS development

and carrier availability for testing to keep the program on schedule.

Further delays may affect that synchronization and increase program

risk.


Total program: TBD


Procurement: TBD

Quantity: TBD


Release request for proposals for design, fabrication, test and

delivery of air segment, TBD


The Navy provided technical comments, which were incorpo-

rated as appropriate.


took office: Warfighting First, Operate Forward,

Be Ready.

oVeRView

Sequestration deeply affected the Navy

budget in Fy13, and we have not yet recov-

ered. Stabilized funding in Fy14 and 2015

provided by the BBA, along with an additional

$2.2 billion above Navy’s requested budget in

Fy15, provided limited relief from sequestered

Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) funding

levels and helped Navy’s overall posture. how-

ever, the cumulative effect of budget shortfalls

over these years has forced the Navy to accept

significant risk in key mission areas, notably

if the military is confronted with a technologi-

cally advanced adversary or forced to deny

the objective of an opportunistic aggressor

in a second region while engaged in a major

contingency.

By “risk,” we mean that some of our

platforms will arrive late to the combat zone,

and engage in conflict without the benefit of

markedly superior combat systems, sensors

and networks, or desired levels of munitions

inventories. In real terms, this means longer

timelines to achieve victory, more military and

civilian lives lost, and potentially less credibility

to deter adversaries and assure allies in the

future.

The PB-14 Future years Defense Program

(FyDP) submission was the baseline required

by Navy to carry out all 10 DSG missions.

Over the last three years, however, the Navy

funding under sequestration and the BBA was

$25 billion less than the PB-13/14 submis-

sions, shortfalls that manifest in the continued

erosion of our warfighting advantages in many

areas relative to potential adversaries. PB-16

represents the bare minimum to execute the

DSG in the world we face, but still results in

high risk in two of the most challenging DSG

missions that depend on adequate numbers of

modern, responsive forces. Should resources

be further reduced below PB-16 levels, and

certainly if sequestered, the DSG will need to

be revised.

If budgeted at PB-16 levels, we assess

that the Navy of 2020 will:

• Include 304 ships in the battle force, of

which about 115 will be deployed. This

global deployed presence will include

more than two carrier strike groups (CSG)

and two amphibious ready groups (ARG)

deployed, on average.

• In the best case, provide “surge” capacity

of about three CSGs (by approximately

2018) and three ARGs (by approximately

2020), not deployed, but ready to respond

to a contingency.

• Deliver forces to conduct the DSG primary

mission—deter and defeat aggression—but

with higher risk compared to PB-14 due to

capacity and readiness challenges.

• Conduct, but with greater risk, the

DSG primary mission—project power

despite anti-access/area denial (A2/AD)

challenges—against a technologically

advanced adversary compared to PB-14.

This is principally due to the slower delivery

of new critical capabilities, particularly in air

and missile defense, and overall ordnance

capacity.

The Navy revised the accounting guide-

lines for its battle force according to require-

ments set forth in the Fy15 National Defense

Authorization Act. Numbers in this statement

are not directly comparable to those used in

prior testimony. The NDAA prohibits inclusion

of “…patrol coastal ships, non-commissioned

combatant craft specifically designed for com-

bat roles, or ships that are designated for po-

tential mobilization.” Ships that were counted

last year, but are no longer counted, are patrol

craft (PC) and hospital ships (T-Ah).

To ensure the Navy remains a balanced

and ready force while complying with the

reduction in funding below our PB-14 plan, we

were compelled to make difficult choices in

PB-16, including: slowing cost growth in com-

pensation and benefits; deferring some ship

modernization; deferring procurement of 18 of

Navy’s most advanced aircraft; delaying over

1,000 planned weapons procurements; and

continuing to reduce funding for base facilities

sustainment, restoration and modernization.

Deferments in PB-16 compound modernization

delays we were compelled to accept in PB-15

due to budget constraints.

Additional challenges are on the horizon. In

the long term beyond 2020, I am increasingly

concerned about our ability to fund the Ohio

replacement ballistic missile submarine (SSBN)

program—our highest priority program—within

our current and projected resources. The Navy

cannot procure the Ohio replacement in the

2020s within historical shipbuilding funding

levels without severely impacting other Navy

programs.

Sequestration in Fy13 resulted in a $9

billion shortfall in Navy’s budget, as compared

to the PB-13 submission. This instance of se-

questration was not just a disruption; it created

readiness consequences from which we are

still recovering, particularly in ship and aircraft

maintenance, fleet response capacity, and ex-

cessive CSG and ARG deployment lengths. As

I testified in November 2013, march 2014 and

January 2015, the continuing resolution and

sequestration reductions in Fy13 compelled

us to reduce both afloat and ashore opera-

tions, which created ship and aircraft mainte-

nance and training backlogs. To budget for the

procurement of ships and aircraft appropriated

in Fy13, Navy was compelled to defer some

purchases to future years and use prior year

investment balances to mitigate impacts to

programs in Fy13 execution. The most visible

impacts occurred in operations and mainte-

nance funded activities. Specific impacts to

Navy programs include:

• Canceled five ship deployments

• Delayed deployment of USS Harry S.

Truman strike group by six months

• Inactivated, instead of repaired, USS Miami

• Reduced facilities restoration and

modernization by about 30 percent (to

about 57 percent of the requirement)

• Reduced base operations, including port

and airfield operations, by about 8 percent

(to about 90 percent of the requirement)

• Furloughed civilian employees for six

days, which, combined with a hiring freeze

and no overtime for six months, reduced

our maintenance and sustainment output

through lost production and support from

logisticians, comptrollers, engineers,

contracting officers and planners

• Canceled fleet engagements and most port

visits, except for deployed ships

While the Navy was able to reprioritize

within available resources to continue to oper-

ate in Fy13, this is not a sustainable course for

future budgets. The actions we took in 2013 to

mitigate sequestration only served to transfer

bills amounting to over $4 billion to future

years for many procurement programs—those

carryover bills were addressed in Navy’s Fy14

and Fy15 budgets. If we were sequestered

Positioning the navy for Future Responsibilities➥ CONtiNued FROM pAGe 1


again, we would be forced to degrade current

and future fleet readiness.

Shortfalls caused by the Fy13 seques-

tration remain in a number of areas, and the

Navy is still working to recover from them.

For example, we have not yet caught up from

shipyard maintenance backlogs. We are work-

ing through shipyard personnel capacity issues

to determine when ships can be fit back into

the maintenance cycle and are balancing that

against operational demands on the ships to

ensure we meet the global force management

requirement for combatant commands. The re-

sult of maintenance and training backlogs has

meant delayed preparation for deployments,

forcing us, in turn, to extend the deployments

of those units already on deployment. Since

2013, many CSGs, ARGs and destroyers have

been on deployment for eight to 10 months or

longer. This comes at a cost to the resiliency of

our people, sustainability of our equipment and

service lives of our ships.

maintenance and training backlogs

have also reduced Navy’s ability to maintain

required forces for contingency response to

meet combatant command operational plan

requirements. Although the requirement calls,

on average, for three additional CSGs and

three additional ARGs to deploy within 30 days

for a major crisis, Navy has only been able to

maintain an average of one group each in this

readiness posture. Root causes can be traced

to the high operational tempo of the fleet, lon-

ger than expected shipyard availabilities and

retirements of experienced shipyard workers,

but the Fy13 sequestration exacerbated the

depth of this problem and interfered with our

efforts to recover.

Assuming a stable budget and no major

contingencies for the foreseeable future, I

estimate it is possible to recover from the

maintenance backlogs that have accumulated

from the high operational tempo over the last

decade of war and the additional effects of

sequestration by approximately 2018 for CSGs

and approximately 2020 for ARGs, five-plus

years after the first round of sequestration. This

is a small glimpse of the readiness “price” of

sequestration.

wHeRe we ARe todAy

Before describing our Fy16 submission, I

will discuss the Navy’s current posture, which

established the baseline for our PB-16 budget.

Congress’s passage of the BBA averted

about $9 billion of an estimated $14 billion

reduction we would have faced under se-

questration in Fy14. It enabled us to fund all

planned ship and aircraft procurement in Fy14,

but cumulatively the shortfalls increased risk

in Navy’s ability to execute DSG missions. The

BBA still left a $5 billion shortfall below PB-14

in our investment, operations and mainte-

nance accounts. (Congress subsequently

added $3.4B in Fy14, which added an SSN

and increased the Navy’s Ship modernization,

Operations and Sustainment Fund (SmOSF)).

The shortage in funding compelled us to

reduce procurement of weapons (many missile

types) and aircraft spare parts, defer asymmet-

ric research and development projects, cancel

repair and maintenance projects for facilities

ashore and defer procurement of maintenance/

material support equipment for the fleet.

The recent passage of the Fy15 NDAA

and Consolidated and Further Continuing

Appropriations Act averted about $2 billion of

the estimated $13 billion reduction that Navy

would have faced under sequestration; an

$11 billion shortfall remains (as compared to

PB-14). Although the funding enabled us to

continue the refueling and complex overhaul

of the USS George Washington (CVN 73),

Navy was forced to balance its portfolio to

mitigate the shortfall by making choices be-

tween capability, capacity and readiness. We

were compelled to further reduce the capacity

of weapons and aircraft, slow moderniza-

tion and delay upgrades to all but the most

critical shore infrastructure. As I described in

testimony in march 2014, PB-15 represented

another iterative reduction from the resources

we indicated were necessary to fully resource

the DSG missions, making Navy less ready

to successfully deter and defeat aggression

and project power despite A2/AD challenges.

Continuing along this budget trajectory means

that by 2020, Navy will not have recovered

sufficient contingency response capacity to

execute large-scale operations in one region

while simultaneously deterring another adver-

sary’s aggression elsewhere. Also, we will lose

our advantage over adversaries in key warf-

ighting areas such as anti-surface warfare,

anti-submarine warfare, air-to-air warfare, and

integrated air and missile defense.

ouR StRAtegic APPRoAcH to Pb-16

In developing our PB-16 submission,

we evaluated the warfighting requirements

to execute the primary missions of the DSG.

These were informed by: (1) current and pro-

jected threat, (2) global presence requirements

defined by the Global Force management

Allocation Plan (GFmAP), and (3) warfighting

scenarios as described in Combatant Com-

manders’ Operation Plans (OPlANs) and sec-

retary of defense-approved defense planning

scenarios (DPS). We used these warfighting

scenarios to assess our ability to execute more

than 50 end-to-end capabilities, also known as

“kill chains” or “effects chains.” These chains

identify all the elements needed to provide

a whole capability, including sensors, com-

munications (networks), operators, platforms

and weapons. To arrive at a balanced program

within fiscal guidance, we focused first on

building appropriate capability, then delivering

it at a capacity we could afford. Six budget

priorities guided us:

First, maintain a credible, modern and

survivable sea-based strategic deterrent.

An F/A-18E Super Hornet from the Eagles of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 115 prepares to launch from the USS

George Washington. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Paolo Bayas]


Under the New START Treaty, the Navy

SSBN force will carry about 70 percent of

the U.S. strategic nuclear warheads by 2020.

Our PB-16 request sustains today’s 14-ship

SSBN force, the Trident D5 ballistic mis-

sile and support systems, and the nuclear

command, control and communications

(NC3) suite. The Ohio-class SSBN will begin

retiring, one per year, beginning in 2027. To

continue to meet U.S. Strategic Command

presence and surge requirements, PB-16

continues to support construction of the first

Ohio replacement SSBN in 2021 for delivery

in 2028 and first deterrent patrol in 2031.

As part of the Navy’s Nuclear enterprise

Review, our PB-16 submission also adds ap-

proximately $2.2 billion across the FyDP to:

(1) increase shipyard and nuclear strategic

weapons facilities (SWF) capacity by funding

required civilian end-strength; (2) accelerate

investments in shipyard infrastructure; (3)

fund additional manpower associated with

nuclear weapons surety; and (4) fund key

nuclear weapons training systems.

Second, sustain forward presence of

ready forces distributed globally to be where

it matters, when it matters. We continue to

utilize cost-effective approaches such as for-

ward basing, forward operating and forward

stationing ships in the Asia-Pacific, europe

and the middle east. Rotational deploy-

ments will be stabilized and more predictable

through continued implementation of an

improved deployment framework called the

Optimized Fleet Response Plan (O-FRP). We

will distribute our ships to align mission and

capabilities to global regions, ensuring high-

end combatants are allocated where their

unique capabilities are needed most. We

will meet the adjudicated Fy16 GFmAP; this

represents about 45 percent of the global

geographic combatant commander (GCC)

requests. Sourcing all GCC requests

would require about 450 combatant ships

with requisite supporting structure and readi-

ness.

Third, strengthen the means (capability

and capacity) to win in one multiphase con-

tingency operation and deny the objectives

of—or impose unacceptable costs on—an-

other aggressor in another region. PB-16

prioritizes investments to close gaps in criti-

cal kill chains, but accepts risk in capacity

or in the rate at which some capabilities are

integrated into the fleet.

Fourth, focus on critical afloat and

ashore readiness. PB-16 helps improve the

overall readiness of our non-deployed forces,

but not to our satisfaction. With a stable

budget and no major contingencies for the

foreseeable future, I estimate it is possible to

recover from the maintenance backlogs by

approximately 2018 for CSGs and approxi-

mately 2020 for ARGs. Facilities sustainment,

restoration and modernization (FSRm) funds

are increased for Fy16 to arrest the decline

of facilities conditions, but then FSRm funds

are inadequate for the remainder of the

FyDP, in order to fund afloat readiness. Our

budget constraints prevent us from fund-

ing all but the most critical shore facility

upgrades in Fy17 and beyond.

Fifth, sustain or enhance Navy’s asym-

metric capabilities in the physical domains,

as well as in cyberspace and the electromag-

netic spectrum. PB-16 prioritizes capabili-

ties to deal with adversary threats, including

electromagnetic spectrum and cyber capa-

bilities and those capabilities that provide

joint access developed in concert with other

services under the Joint Concept for Access

and maneuver in the Global Commons

(formerly known as Air-Sea Battle). In line

with USCyBeRCOm priorities, we are invest-

ing in cyber defense-in-depth and expan-

sion of cyber defense initiatives to tactical

platform information technology systems,

boundary defense solutions for ships, and

security improvements for our C4I systems.

Sixth, sustain a relevant industrial base,

particularly in shipbuilding. We will continue

to evaluate the impact of our investment

plans on our industrial base, including ship

and aircraft builders, depot maintenance fa-

cilities, equipment and weapons manufactur-

ers, and science and technology researchers.

The government is the only customer

for some of our suppliers, especially in

specialized areas such as nuclear power.

PB-16 addresses the health of the indus-

trial base by sustaining adequate capacity,

including competition, where needed and

viable. While prioritizing required capabilities,

we also sought to sustain a viable industrial

base.

wHAt we cAn do

As described earlier, due to the impact

of prior year shortfalls and modernization

deferrals in the PB-16 FyDP, we still face

significant risk in executing at least two of

10 primary missions of the DSG in 2020. The

2014 update to the 2012 Force Structure

Assessment (FSA) and other Navy analysis

describe the baseline of ships needed to

support meeting each mission. Against that

baseline and using a rigorous assessment of

over 50 capabilities (with appropriate capac-

ity) necessary to be tactically successful

(called end-to-end kill chain analysis), we

conclude that with PB-16, the Navy of 2020

will support each of the 10 DSG missions as

follows:

The littoral combat ship USS Fort Worth (LCS 3) and the guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) conduct a replenishment-at-sea from the Military Sealift Command fleet replenishment oiler USNS Pecos (T-AO 197) during exercise Foal Eagle 2015. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Daniel M. Young]


1. PRoVide A StAbilizing PReSence

PB-16 will meet the adjudicated

presence requirements of this mission. By

increasing the number of ships forward

stationed and forward based, and by im-

proving our deployment preparation pro-

cess called the Optimized Fleet Response

Plan (O-FRP), presence improves in some

global regions as compared to previous

budget submissions. The Navy of 2020:

• Provides a global presence of about

115 ships (same as PB-15); an

increase over an average of 95 ships

deployed today.

• Increases presence in the Asia-

Pacific region. This includes forward

deploying an additional SSN to Guam,

the most capable DDG to Japan,

mobile landing platform (mlP), joint

high speed vessel (JhSV), both

littoral combat ship (lCS) variants,

mQ-8C, P-8A, eA-18G, upgraded F/A-

18e/F, and e-2D. mQ-4C Triton high

endurance unmanned aerial vehicles

will operate from Guam in 2017. This

presence will assure allies, shape

and deter. however, a major maritime

operation will require substantial naval

forces to swing from other theaters or

surge forward from CONUS bases.

• “Places a premium on U.S. military

presence in—and in support of—

partner nations” in the middle east,

by increasing presence by 40 percent

to about 36 ships in 2020. Though

not counted in Navy’s battle force,

10 of our patrol craft (PC) serve as

forward deployed naval forces (FDNF)

operating out of Bahrain, and seven

lCS will join them by the end of 2020.

In 2016, Navy’s first mobile landing

platform/afloat forward staging

base (mlP/AFSB) will augment the

on-station AFSB-Interim (a modified

dock landing ship) to support special

operations forces and augment mine

countermeasure capability.

• Continues to evolve our posture

in europe by meeting ballistic

missile defense (BmD) european

Phased Adaptive Approach (ePAA)

requirements with four BmD-capable

guided missiles destroyers (DDG)

in Rota, Spain, and two land-based

sites in Poland and Romania. The first

two DDGs arrived in 2014 and all four

will be in place by the end of 2015.

Additional presence in europe will be

provided by forward operating JhSVs

and rotationally deployed combatants.

• Will provide innovative, low-cost

and small-footprint approaches to

security in Africa and South America

by deploying one JhSV, on average,

to each region. Beginning in Fy15,

we will deploy one hospital ship (T-

Ah), on average, and, beginning in

Fy16, add one PC ship, on average,

to South America. AFSBs forward

operating in the middle east could

also provide additional presence in

Africa as required. As available, we

are deploying ships for shorter periods

(two months at the most) in theaters

other than those which they would be

primarily assigned (e.g., AFRICOm and

SOUThCOm).

2 counteR-teRRoRiSm And iRRegulAR wARFARe (ct/iw)

We will have the capacity to con-

duct widely distributed CT/IW missions.

This mission requires special opera-

tions forces, Navy expeditionary combat

capabilities such as explosive ordnance

disposal (eOD), combined explosive

exploitation cells (CeXC), intelligence

exploitation teams (IeT), and a variety of

platforms that can accommodate adaptive

force packages. PB-16 procures a third

mlP/AFSB in Fy17 for delivery in Fy20,

and funds an enhanced SOF capability on

all three AFSBs, which provides more ro-

bust medical facilities, improved C4I, and

increased accommodation for aircraft, and

other SOF-specific equipment. PB-16 also

procures ten mQ-8C Fire Scout systems

for deployments aboard lCS, which are

fundamentally multimission.

3. deteR And deFeAt AggReSSion

Navy inherits and continues to

experience high risk in this warfighting

mission. Our FSA described the ship force

structure necessary to meet this mission’s

requirement: to be able to conduct one

large-scale operation and “simultaneously

be capable of denying the objectives of—

or imposing unacceptable costs on—an

opportunistic aggressor in a second re-

gion.” According to the FSA, the Navy has

a requirement for a force of 11 CVN, 88

large surface combatants (DDG and CG),

48 attack submarines (SSN), 12 SSBN, 11

large amphibious assault ships (lhA/D),

12 amphibious transport docks (lPD), 11

dock landing ships (lSD), 52 small surface

combatants, 10 JhSV, 29 combat logistics

force (ClF) ships and 24 command and

support ships.

Provided sufficient readiness is

restored and maintained across the fleet,

this globally distributed force will yield a

steady state deployed presence of more

than two CSG and two ARG, with three

CSG and three ARG ready to deploy

within 30 days in response to a contin-

gency (“surge”). PB-16 puts Navy on a

path to procure the right mix of ships as

defined by the FSA; however, the 2020

Battle Force will have a shortfall of small

surface combatants due to a gap in FFG

and mCm retirements and lCS deliver-

ies. Other sources of risk in this primary

mission are less aircraft, modern sensors,

networks and weapon procurements

across the FyDP. Slowed modernization

across the fleet is a serious concern.

4. conduct StAbility And counteRinSuRgency oPeRAtionS

The Navy of 2020 will be able to meet

the requirements of this DSG mission.

5. PRoject PoweR deSPite Anti- AcceSS/AReA deniAl (A2/Ad) cHAllengeS

Our power projection capability and

reconstitution of weapons systems and

modernization programs to enable joint

assured access have been deferred due

to budget constraints over the last three

years. This reduces options and de-

creases our ability to assure access in all

domains (space, air, surface, subsurface

and cyber). Over the last three years,

funding shortfalls required us to reduce

procurement in weapons by over 4,000

planned quantities. We continue to take

risk in capacity in order to preserve invest-

ments in developing future capabilities.


This reduced procurement of weapons

and deferring of air and missile defense

capabilities, coupled with joint force defi-

ciencies in wartime information transport,

C2 resiliency and airborne ISR, will result

in high risk in conducting this DSG mis-

sion if we are faced with a technologically

advanced adversary.

6. counteR weAPonS oF mASS deStRuction

This mission has two parts: (1) inter-

dicting weapons of mass destruction as

they proliferate from suppliers, and (2)

defeating the means of delivery during an

attack. PB-16 will continue to meet the

requirements for this mission by providing

sufficient deployed CSG, ARG and surface

combatants, as well as Navy special war-

fare personnel (SeAl) and eOD platoons,

to address the first part. For the second

part, BmD-capable DDG exist in sufficient

numbers to meet the majority of GCC

presence requirements under the GFmAP,

and can be postured to counter weapons

delivered by ballistic missiles in regions

where threats are more likely to originate.

That said, missile defense capacity in

some scenarios remains a challenge.

7. oPeRAte eFFectiVely in SPAce And cybeRSPAce

Our PB-16 submission continues to

place priority on cyber efforts to build the

Navy’s portion of the DoD’s Cyber mission

Forces and strengthen our cyber defense

capabilities afloat and ashore. We have

accessed about 80 percent of the 1,750

cyber operators that will form 40 cyber

mission teams by the end of 2016; we

will continue to recruit, hire and train this

force.

Additionally, we will align Navy net-

works with a more defensible DOD Joint

Information environment (JIe) through the

implementation of the Next Generation en-

terprise Network (NGeN) ashore and Con-

solidated Afloat Networks and enterprise

Services (CANeS) at sea. We will continue

funding for the launch and sustainment of

the mobile User Objective System (mUOS),

DoD’s newest and most robust solution for

extending narrowband ultra high frequency

satellite communications (SATCOm) con-

nectivity ashore, in flight, and at sea. Also

critical to assured command and control,

PB-16 continues funding the installation

and sustainment of the Navy multiband

Terminal (NmT), our newest and most ro-

bust solution for giving surface and subma-

rine forces access to wideband super high

frequency and extremely high frequency

SATCOm connectivity.

8. mAintAin A SAFe, SecuRe, And eFFectiVe nucleAR deteRRent

This mission is the Navy’s top priority

in any fiscal scenario, and our PB-16

submission meets its requirements. Our

sea-based strategic deterrent remains

safe, secure, credible, and effective today,

but Navy is also implementing 27 specific

actions based on the DoD Nuclear enter-

prise Review recommendations, including

oversight, training, policy and process

improvements, funded with an additional

PB-16 investment of over $400 million in

Fy16 and over $2 billion across the FyDP.

Our PB-16 submission satisfies

STRATCOm demand for at-sea SSBN

availability through the end of the current

Ohio class’s service life. Navy’s PB-16

submission also funds nuclear com-

mand, control and communications (NC3)

modernization, Trident D5 ballistic missile

life extension program (leP) to main-

tain a 2017 initial operational capability

(IOC), and common missile compartment

development on a 2019 delivery timeline.

Continued Congressional support for

Naval Reactors’ Department of energy

(Doe) funding is essential to maintain

life-of-the-ship core reactor design and

development synchronization with our

Ohio replacement shipbuilding schedule,

which ensures lead ship procurement in

2021, and refueling of the land-based pro-

totype. Naval Reactors’ Doe budget also

includes the second year of funding for

the Spent Fuel handling Project (SFhP),

recapitalization of which is critical to the

Navy’s refueling and defueling schedule

The Military Sealift Command fleet replenishment oiler USNS Laramie (T-AO-203) transits alongside the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) during a replenishment-at-sea. [Photo courtesy of U.S.

Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Magen F. Weatherwax]


of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and

submarines.

9. deFend tHe HomelAnd And PRoVide SuPPoRt to ciVil AutHoRitieS

PB-16 will maintain an appropriate

capacity of aircraft carriers, surface com-

batants, amphibious ships and aircraft

that are not deployed and are ready for all

homeland defense missions.

10. conduct HumAnitARiAn, diSASteR RelieF, And otHeR oPeRAtionS

Navy’s global presence and training is

sufficient to conduct these operations.

modeRnizAtion

The following paragraphs describe specific

PB-16 programs that influence our ability to

conduct the missions required by the DSG, and

the impact of programmatic action:

SHiPbuilding

Navy shipbuilding priorities remain

largely consistent with PB-15. Navy will

procure 48 ships across the Fy16-20 period.

Fourteen battle force ships will be delivered

in Fy16 alone. PB-16:

• maintains funding to support RDTe and

advanced procurement of the first Ohio

replacement SSBN, our highest priority

program. Without increased shipbuilding

funding in Fy21 and beyond, Ohio

replacement SSBN funding will

consume the majority of Navy’s annual

shipbuilding budget and degrade other

shipbuilding programs. Appropriations

for SSBN recapitalization are historically

consistent with the last period of SSBN

procurement between 1974 and 1990.

• Fully funds USS George Washington

(CVN 73) refueling and complex

overhaul.

• Procures 10 Arleigh Burke-class DDG

(one Flight IIA and nine Flight III) in

the FyDP, two per year, resulting in

an inventory of 72 by 2020. The first

Flight III DDG, which will incorporate

the advanced AN/SPy-6 radar (formerly

called the air and missile defense radar,

or AmDR), will be procured in Fy16 and

delivered in Fy21.

• Procures 10 Virginia-class SSNs in

the FyDP, two per year, resulting in an

inventory of 22 Virginia-class submarines

(51 total SSNs of all types) by 2020.

• Funds the final nine lCS (Flt 0+) across

the FyDP (three per year Fy16–18).

Then beginning in Fy19, Navy will

procure new Small Surface Combatants

(two in Fy19, three in Fy20) based on

upgraded variants of the lCS that Navy

will designate as frigates (FF). There

will be no construction gap between

procurement of the last lCS (Flt 0+) and

the first frigate. The new frigate will offer

improvements in capability, lethality and

survivability.

• Funds replacement of lSD amphibious

ships with the lX(R) starting with

advanced procurement in Fy19 and

procurement of the first lX(R) in Fy20.

lX(R) serial production will begin in

Fy22.

• Procures a 12th lPD, which will be

developed in parallel with the lX(R)

program and incorporate targeted

design and construction initiatives

to increase affordability. Adding lPD

28 to the inventory will help mitigate

expeditionary capability and amphibious

lift shortfalls.

• Funds four fleet oilers (T-AO(X)) across

the FyDP beginning in Fy16. T-AO(X)

replaces the aging single hull fleet

oiler. This new procurement ensures

continued combat logistics support to

our ships.

• Funds five fleet salvage ships (T-ATS(X))

across the FyDP beginning in Fy17.

These new ships replace the two

aging salvage class ships with a single

class while improving capability and

performance.

combAtAnt SHiP modeRnizAtion

In parallel with shipbuilding, PB-16 con-

tinues modernization of in-service platforms

to allow our combatants to remain relevant

and reach their expected service lives.

The ship modernization program does not

keep pace to deal with high-end adversary

weapons systems by 2020. Flight I and

II of the Arleigh Burke-class DDG began

mid-life modernization in Fy10; 13 will have

completed hull mechanical and electrical

(hm&e) modernization by the end of 2016,

and six of these ships will have also com-

pleted combat systems modernization. In

Fy17, we will begin to modernize the Flight

IIA DDGs. however, due to fiscal constraints

we were compelled to reduce the combat

systems procurements of one DDG Flight

IIA per year, starting in Fy16. This will result

in some destroyers not receiving combat

systems upgrades when originally planned

to allow them to pace the threat, particularly

in anti-air warfare (AAW) and ballistic missile

defense (BmD).

In order to maintain force structure that

provides air defense commander support

to the CSGs, Navy will induct two guided

missile cruisers (CGs) into phased mod-

ernization in Fy15 and an additional two in

Fy16. This will place a total of four ships

in modernization with the intent that each

ship period will be limited to four years. We

are committed to modernizing a total of 11

CGs in the current modernization program.

Without any phased modernization program,

the CG class will retire, without replacement,

at the end of their service lives between

2020 and 2030. Using the Congressionally

directed 2/4/6 plan, the final retirements

will occur between 2036 and 2039. Under

the Navy’s original PB-15 plan, the final CG

retirement would have occurred in 2045, at a

significantly reduced cost to

the Navy, and would have relieved pressure

on a shipbuilding account largely consumed

in the 2030s with building Ohio replacement

SSBNs and aircraft carriers. We request

Congressional support for Navy’s original

plan.

Nine of 12 Whidbey Island-class lSDs

have undergone a mid-life update and

preservation program; two are currently

being modernized; and one more will be

inducted into phased modernization in

Fy16. modernization of seven Wasp-class

large deck amphibious assault ships (lhD)

was delayed by two years, and they will

now complete mid-life modernization by

Fy24. modernization of the eighth lhD,

USS makin Island, will be addressed in

subsequent budget submissions.

wARFigHting cAPAbility

AViAtion

PB-16 continues our transition, albeit

more slowly than desired, to the future air

wing. This transition will dramatically

improve our capabilities and warfighting

capacity across critical “kill chains.” But,

funding shortfalls have stretched (deferred)

modernization plans in this area. This delay

will call into question our ability to deal

with near peer competitors, especially if

directed to carry out our DoD campaign

plan in the 2020 timeframe. Specifically, we


will continue to field more advanced land-

based maritime patrol aircraft (manned and

unmanned) to evolve our ISR, ASW and sea

control capabilities and capacity. To further

these objectives, PB-16 provides the follow-

ing capabilities:

• Navy Integrated Fire Control-Counter

Air (NIFC-CA) Increment I capability will

field with the e-2D Advanced hawkeye

aircraft in 2015, with four air wings

transitioned to the e-2D by 2020. This

integrates aircraft sensor and ship

weapons capabilities, improving lethality

against advanced air and missile threats.

however, we deferred two e-2D outside

the FyDP (procure 24 vice 26).

• The F-35C lightning II, the carrier-

based variant of the joint strike fighter,

is scheduled to achieve IOC in 2018.

however, F-35C procurement will be

reduced by 16 airframes (from 54 to 38)

across the PB-16 FyDP when compared

to PB-15. The F-35C, with its advanced

sensors, data sharing capability, and

ability to operate closer to threats, is

designed to enhance the air wing’s ability

to find targets and coordinate attacks.

• Continued support for a service life

extension program (SleP) for the legacy

F/A-18A-D hornet to meet our strike

fighter inventory needs while integrating

the F-35C. With SleP modifications,

some of these aircraft will achieve as

much as 10,000 lifetime flight hours, or

4,000 hours and (16 years) beyond their

originally-designed life.

• To address Navy electronic attack

requirements, eA-18G will reach

full operational capability in Fy17.

Replacement of the aging AlQ-99

jamming pods begins in Fy21, when

the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ)

Increment I, featuring upgraded

capabilities against mid-band

frequencies, reaches IOC. NGJ Increment

II research and development on low band

frequencies remains funded for Fy16.

• All components of an improved air-to-air

“kill chain” that employs infrared (IR)

sensors to circumvent adversary radar

jamming will be delayed another year.

PB-16 increased funding to procure an

additional 28 Infrared Search and Track

(IRST) Block I sensor pods for F/A-18e/F

Super hornet, for a total of 60, across the

FyDP; however, the IRST Block I sensor

system will field in 2018 (versus 2017

under PB-15) and the improved longer-

range IRST Block II will not deliver until

2022 (versus 2019 under PB-15).

• Improvements continue to the air-to-air

radio frequency “kill chain” that defeats

enemy jamming at longer ranges. By

2020, 380 jamming protection upgrade

kits for F/A-18e/F Super hornets and

eA-18G growler will be delivered. But, we

were compelled to defer 180 kits beyond

the FyDP.

• Integrates the Small Diameter Bomb

II (SDB II) on the F/A-18 by Fy20, and

procures 1,590 units across the FyDP to

enhance carrier air wing precision strike

capabilities.

• V-22 (Navy variant) aircraft have been

selected as the solution to the aging C-2

carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft.

PB-16 procures 24 aircraft over the

FyDP with an IOC of Fy 2021. The V-22

(Navy variant) extends the range and in

increases the flexibility of strike group

resupply.

• Navy’s commitment to the Unmanned

Carrier-launched Airborne Surveillance

and Strike System (UClASS) program

continues. however, a DoD-wide

Strategic Portfolio Review will delay

UClASS air vehicle segment contract

award by at least one year. The

remaining UClASS carrier integration

and connectivity and control system

segments will continue and are funded

through the FyDP.

long RAnge StRike

Our precision strike capabilities and

capacity will be critical to success in any

foreseeable future conflict. Potential adver-

saries have already fielded and continue to

develop advanced, long range weapons that

will require effective counters. We remain

challenged in this area. Accordingly, PB-16:

• Funds Virginia payload module (VPm)

RDT&e and SCN to accelerate inclusion

of VPm on at least one Virginia-class

Block V SSN per year in Fy19 and 2020.

VPm will enable Virginia-class SSNs to

mitigate the loss of SSGN strike capacity

as they begin to retire in 2026. VPm will

more than triple the Tomahawk land

attack missile (TlAm) Block IV strike

capacity of a VA-class SSN from 12 to 40

missiles.

• Supports the existing Tactical Tomahawk

cruise missile inventory by extending

service life through investments in critical

capability enhancements and vital

parts to achieve maximum longevity.

PB-16 adds 100 Tomahawks in Fy16.

Production deliveries will now continue

through Fy18, which minimizes factory

impact until the start of Tomahawk

Block IV inventory recertification and

modernization beginning in Fy19.

• Invests in future capability by

commencing an analysis of alternatives

for the next generation land attack

weapon (NGlAW), with a planned fleet

introduction in the 2024-2028 timeframe,

at least a decade prior to the sundown of

TlAm Block IV in the 2040s.

Anti-SuRFAce wARFARe

Navy remains challenged in this mission

area due to both capability and capacity

shortfalls. To deal with potential adversaries’

long-range anti-ship cruise missiles and mari-

The Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Louisiana (SSBN 743) returns home following a strategic deterrent

patrol. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Ahron Arendes]


time air defenses, PB-16 implements a plan to

deliver a family of anti-surface warfare (ASuW)

capabilities. The program maintains current

ASuW capability inherent in the harpoon mis-

sile, Standoff land Attack missile-expanded

Response (SlAm-eR), Joint Standoff Weapon

(JSOW) C-1, and mk48 Advanced Capability

(ADCAP) torpedoes. In the near term, we are

pursuing options to develop an improved,

longer-range ASuW capability by leveraging

existing weapons to minimize technical risk,

costs, and development time.

Five of 10 patrol craft in the Arabian Gulf

have been upgraded with short-range Griffin

missiles, and the other five will receive them

by the end of 2015. Additionally, PB-16 funds

enhanced ASuW lethality for lCS by integrat-

ing surface-to-surface missiles (hellfire long-

bow) onto those platforms starting in 2017.

Navy is evaluating which missile to select to

provide upgraded lCS (frigates) an additional

and even longer range over-the-horizon

missile capability. Also, PB-16 continues to

accelerate acquisition of the long range anti-

ship missile (lRASm) air-launched variant,

which will achieve early operational capability

on F/A-18e/F aircraft in Fy19.

Anti-SubmARine wARFARe

PB-16 sustains our advantage in the

undersea domain by delivering the following

capabilities, although capacity challenges

persist:

• Procures 47 P-8A Poseidon maritime

patrol aircraft, replacing the legacy

P-3C Orion’s capability and completing

the transition by Fy19. We continue

investments in the development of a

high-altitude anti-submarine warfare

capability (hAAWC), which is composed

of a mk 54 torpedo kit and software

support system.

• Continues installation of ASW combat

systems upgrades for DDGs and

improved multifunction towed arrays

(mFTA) for DDGs and CGs. Both

installations will be complete on all DDGs

forward based in the Western Pacific by

2018.

• Continues upgrades to all our P-8A

and ASW helicopters in the Western

Pacific with sonobuoys and advanced

torpedoes by 2018; however, in PB-16

we were compelled to reduce weapons

capacity, which equated to cancelling

240 mk 54 lightweight torpedoes.

• Procures 145 mk 48 ADCAP torpedoes

over the FyDP to reduce a wartime

requirement shortfall from 30 percent to

20 percent, and invests in modularity and

endurance improvements to enable more

efficient production, better performance,

and future upgradability.

• Improves surface ASW capability in

the lCS ASW mission Package by

employing an mFTA in concert with

variable depth sonar (VDS) in 2016.

• Defers recapitalization of our ocean

surveillance ship, T-AGOS(X), from Fy

2020 to outside the FyDP, a reflection of

our intent to extend the service life of our

current T-AGOS vessels.

• Develops and builds the large

displacement unmanned undersea

vehicle (lDUUV) in the FyDP to augment

submarine capabilities. We will use Office

of Naval Research Innovative Naval

Prototype large UUVs to train our fleet

operators, preparing them for lDUUV

Fleet introduction in the early 2020s.

electRomAgnetic mAneuVeR wARFARe

PB-16 puts Navy on a path to maneuver

more freely in the electromagnetic spectrum,

while strengthening our capability to degrade

adversaries’ ability to do so. It maintains our

investment in the Ships’ Signals exploita-

tion equipment (SSee) Increment F, which

equips ships with a capability to interdict

the communications and address and offset

elements of adversary kill chains by 2020.

PB-16 adds an advanced geo-location capa-

bility to SSee Increment F, which contributes

to defeating the “left side” of the adversary’s

ballistic missile kill chain and C4ISR systems.

It also increases our investment in upgraded

electromagnetic sensing capabilities for

surface ships via the Surface electronic

Warfare Improvement Program (SeWIP)

Block 2 that will deliver in 2016, procuring an

additional 14 systems. PB-16 begins low rate

initial production of SeWIP Block 3 in 2017

to add jamming and deception capabilities to

counter advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.

PB-16 also stands up Real-Time Spectrum

Operations (RTSO) as a program of record.

RTSO will provide ships and strike groups

the ability to sense, control, and plan the use

of spectrum, detect interference, notify the

operators of spectrum issues and provide

recommended actions allowing for com-

mand and control of the electromagnetic

spectrum.

Our cyber capability continues to afford

the Navy a competitive advantage, but we

are growing increasingly concerned about

potential vulnerabilities that could affect

combat readiness. Recognizing these risks,

in Fy15 the Navy stood up a dedicated task

force to evaluate our cybersecurity posture

and manage our investment portfolio to

ensure we are spending money where it

matters most. In addition to evaluating our

cyber risk and informing our budget process,

the task force will also recommend changes

to the Navy’s acquisition and management

of our networks and cyber-connected

systems.

mine wARFARe

To enhance our ability to counter mines

in the middle east and other theaters, our

PB-16 program sustains investments in the

An E/A-18G Growler from the Shadowhawks of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 141 prepares to make an arrested landing on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Chris Cavagnaro]


lCS mine countermeasures mission pack-

age (mCm mP), completing initial testing

of its first increment in 2015 and achiev-

ing full operational capability in 2019. The

mCm mP provides significantly faster rates

of waterspace mine clearance over legacy

counterparts. PB-16 also sustains our interim

AFSB, USS Ponce, in service through at least

Fy17. USS Ponce provides forward logistics

support and command and control to mCm

ships and helicopters, allowing them to

remain on station longer and sustain a more

rapid mine clearance rate. In the near term,

PB-16 continues funding for mk 18 kingfish

unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV) and

Sea Fox mine neutralization systems de-

ployed to the Arabian Gulf today, as well as

increased maintenance and manning support

for forward-deployed mh-53 airborne mine

countermeasures platforms and Avenger-

class mCm ships forward based in Bahrain.

ReAdineSS

AFloAt ReAdineSS

PB-16 funds ship operations to 45/20

(deployed/non-deployed) steaming days

per quarter. overseas contingency operations

(OCO) funds an additional 13/4 days

(deployed/non-deployed), providing the

training and operations required to meet our

Fy16 GFmAP commitment. PB-16 baseline

funds ship maintenance to 80 percent of the

requirement, with OCO funding the remaining

20 percent, to continue life cycle mainte-

nance reset of CVNs and surface force ships.

To address the workload to be completed in

our public shipyards, Navy funds additional

workforce (up to 33,500 full-time equivalent

workers by Fy17) and will send selective

submarines to private shipyards in Fy16 and

Fy17.

With respect to the Flying hour Program,

PB-16 achieves deployed readiness levels of

T2.5/T2.0 (USN/USmC) in accordance with

guidance for all carrier air wing (CVW) aircraft.

Navy funds aviation depot maintenance to 83

percent of the requirement, which puts the

depots at capacity. As aviation depot mainte-

nance throughput improves, the associated

F/A-18 flying hours and depot maintenance

budgets will increase to the more notional

level of 77 percent. PB-16 increases Navy

expeditionary Combat Command Fy16 base

funding from 42 percent to 80 percent. OCO

funds the remaining 20 percent.

Due to extended depot repair time,

F/A-18A-D availability is reduced and short-

falls in aircraft will be borne by non-deployed

forces. As more legacy F/A-18s approach

their 6,000 hour design life and are inducted

for assessment and life extension to 8,000 or

10,000 hours, aviation depots are experi-

encing production challenges resulting in

longer-than-expected repair cycle times for

these aircraft. Navy has taken steps to better

maintain and repair these legacy aircraft

and expects to improve depot productivity

by 2017, with the backlog fully recovered

by 2019. In PB-16, flying hours for these

aircraft will reflect the maximum executable

profile and achieve T2.0 for deployment, with

tailored T-ratings through the training cycle.

year after year, the Navy has consis-

tently provided more global presence than

authorized and adjudicated by the GFmAP.

In 2013 and 2014, for example, Naval forces

provided 6 percent and 5 percent more

forward presence, respectively, than planned

due to emergent operations and unantici-

pated contingencies. This unbudgeted usage

amounted to greater than 2,200 days in

theater over that planned in 2013 and greater

than 1,800 days in theater over that planned

in 2014. We should operate the fleet at sus-

tainable presence levels, in order for the Navy

to meet requirements while still maintain-

ing material readiness, giving ships time to

modernize and allowing them to reach their

expected service lives.

ASHoRe ReAdineSS

To comply with fiscal constraints, we are

compelled to continue accepting risk in shore

infrastructure investment and operations.

PB-16 prioritizes nuclear weapons support,

base security, and airport/seaport operations

while maintaining our commitment to quality

of life programs for our sailors and families.

We are funding the sustainment, restoration,

and modernization of our facilities at a level

to arrest the immediate decline in the overall

condition of our most critical infrastructure.

Although Fy16 marks an improvement in the

facilities funding when compared to PB-15,

Navy is still below the DoD goal for facilities

sustainment. Facilities sustainment also de-

clines in the PB-16 FyDP in order to preserve

the operational readiness of our fleet. When

restoring and modernizing our infrastruc-

ture, we intend to prioritize life/safety issues

and efficiency improvements to existing

infrastructure and focus on repairing only the

most critical components of our mission criti-

cal facilities. By deferring less critical repairs,

especially for non-mission-critical facilities,

we are allowing certain facilities to degrade

and causing our overall facilities maintenance

backlog to increase. We acknowledge this

backlog must eventually be addressed.

Navy will exceed the minimum 6 percent

in capital investment in naval shipyards and

depots described in 10 USC 2476, with a

projected 7.4 percent in Fy16. Additionally,

we are on track to exceed the target in Fy15

with a projected 6.3 percent investment. Our

naval shipyards and depots are critical to

maintaining the warfighting readiness of our

force, and Navy will continue to prioritize in-

vestments to address the most critical safety

and productivity deficiencies.

Audit ReAdineSS

Navy is on course to achieve full audit-

ability on all four financial statements by the

end of Fy17, a legislative mandate. An audit

of the Schedule of Budgetary Activity (SBA)

began in December 2014. This initial audit is

a critical step to identify any weaknesses in

business systems and business processes.

The Navy’s Audit Plan has been greatly

improved by lessons learned from our sister

Service, the United States marine Corps,

which achieved a clean audit on their SBA

in 2013.

The remaining challenge to meeting

the Fy17 mandate is to achieve auditabil-

ity on the other major financial statement,

Navy’s balance sheet. audit readiness on

the balance sheet depends primarily on the

accuracy of the multibillion-dollar asset line;

the Navy has been executing a plan to bring

service-wide accountability for major assets

(by amounts and value) into compliance with

financial audit standards. The Navy is confi-

dent that it will be able to undergo an audit of

all of its financial statements by Fy17 to meet

the Congressional requirement.

FAmily ReAdineSS

Family readiness is fully integrated into

our Navy’s call to be ready. PB-16 continues

to provide support for critical programs that

support our sailors and their families so

that they can adapt to, and cope with, the

challenges of balancing military commit-

ment with family life. Navy fleet and family

support centers ensure military families

are informed, healthy, and resilient through

robust programs that include: relocation as-

sistance; non-medical and family counseling;

personal and family life education; personal

financial management services, information

and referral services; deployment assistance,


domestic violence prevention and response

services, exceptional family member liaison;

emergency family assistance and transition

assistance. Increased stress and longer

family separations have amplified program

demand and underlined the importance of

these support programs and services to

ensure the psychological, emotional, and

financial well-being of our sailors and their

families.

Navy child and youth programs continue

to provide accessible, affordable, and high-

quality child and youth development pro-

grams through child development centers,

youth centers, child development homes and

contract child care spaces. All Navy child

development centers are DoD certified and

nationally accredited, and provide consistent,

high-quality care at affordable rates based on

total family income.

militARy conStRuction

The PB-16 military construction program

includes 38 projects valued at almost $1 billion

to invest in our construction worldwide. We

have prioritized funding to enable IOC of

new platforms such as lCS, P-8A, F-35C,

mh-60 and mQ-4C through the construction of

hangars, mission control centers, and various

support and training facilities.

We are also supporting combatant com-

mander requirements by constructing a land-

based Aegis site in Poland and upgrading port

facilities in Bahrain. A portion of mIlCON funds

will recapitalize infrastructure in three naval

shipyards and improve the resiliency of utilities

systems at seven bases. Three projects will

improve the quality of life for our sailors and

their families by addressing unaccompanied

housing issues in Florida and maryland and

constructing a new child development center

in Japan.

HeAltH oF tHe FoRce

We measure and track the health of our

force using Navy-wide metrics on recruiting,

retention, manning levels; unit operational

tempo; individual tempo (how often individual

Sailors are away from home); morale; stress;

sexual assault rates; suicide rates; alcohol-

related incidents, and other factors. Based on

a comprehensive study of these metrics and

trends, today we rate the overall health of our

Navy force as good.

Our sailors are our most important asset,

they are our “asymmetric advantage,” and we

have invested appropriately to keep a high

caliber all-volunteer force. At work, the Navy

is committed to providing our sailors a

challenging, rewarding professional experi-

ence, underpinned by the tools and resources

to do their jobs right. Our obligations don’t

stop at the bottom of the brow. I remain

focused on dealing with enduring challenges

that relate to the safety, health, and well-being

of our people, no matter where they are lo-

cated. We also support our Navy families with

the proper quality of life in terms of compen-

sation, professional and personal develop-

ment, and stability (i.e., deployment predict-

ability). Navy’s 21st Century Sailor Office

(OPNAV N17), led by a flag officer, continues

to integrate and synchronize our efforts to

improve the readiness and resilience of sailors

and their families. Specific initiatives that we

continue to support in PB-16:

21St centuRy SAiloR PRogRAmS

Suicide Prevention

Preventing suicide is a command-led

effort that leverages a comprehensive

array of outreach and education. We

continue to raise awareness regarding

the combination of indicators most com-

mon to suicide-prone individuals such

as post-traumatic stress, relationship

problems, legal and financial problems,

periods of transition and mental health

issues. We have launched several key

initiatives including: (1) mandatory

operational stress control (OSC) skills

training for units within six months of de-

ployment, (2) new guidance for Navy unit

commanders and health professionals

to reduce access to lethal instruments

under certain conditions, (3) an interac-

tive, scenario-based suicide prevention

training tool, (4) an OSC curriculum

specific to our Reserve sailors, and (5)

specialized Chaplain Corps professional

development training on suicide preven-

tion. Our sailors continue to learn about

the bystander intervention tool known as

“A.C.T.” (Ask–Care–Treat). We also invest

in the resilience of our people to help

them deal with any challenge.

Resilience

Our research shows that a sailor’s

ability to steadily build resilience is a key

factor in navigating stressful situations.

education and prevention initiatives train

sailors to recognize operational stress

early and to use tools to manage and re-

duce its effects. Our Operational Stress

Control (OSC) program is the foundation

of our efforts to teach sailors to recog-

nize stressors in their lives and mitigate

them before they become crises. We ex-

panded our OSC mobile training teams,

developed bystander intervention to the

fleet training, and deployed resiliency

counselors on our aircraft carriers and

large deck amphibious ships. The 21st

Century Sailor Office is also conducting

a Total Sailor Fitness curriculum review

and developing a resilience management

system to automate the collection and

reporting of all destructive behaviors

and better coordinate and integrate our

resilience efforts. We also launched a

new campaign across the fleet in 2015

called “every Sailor, every Day,” which

emphasizes personal responsibility and

peer support, so that Sailors are even

more empowered to look out for and

help other sailors.

Sexual Assault

The Navy continues to pursue

a deliberate strategy in combatting

sexual assault. We continue to focus

on preventing sexual assaults, ensuring

victims are fully supported, improving

investigation programs and processes,

and ensuring appropriate accountability.

These efforts include making sexual

assault forensic exams available on all

ships and 24-7 ashore, having a cadre

of professional and credentialed sexual

assault response coordinators and

victim advocates, special victim trained

investigators and JAGs, and ensuring

commands take all reports of sexual

assault seriously and support the victim.

We will enhance our response efforts

by full implementation of deployed re-

siliency counselors on large deck ships,

enhanced NCIS investigative capability

using specially training master-at-arms,

and continued legal assistance to vic-

tims through our Victims legal Counsel

program.

Sustaining a professionalized

response and victim advocacy system

remains the top priority, but prevent-

ing sexual assaults in the first place

is an imperative. Our strategy fo-

cuses on improving command climate,

strengthening deterrence measures,

and encouraging bystander interven-

tion. To facilitate the latter, we trained

facilitators to lead small, peer-group


interactive discussions using various

scenarios. likewise, we have focused

on raising awareness and accountabil-

ity regarding retaliation to reduce the

potential for re-victimization. A RAND

survey of DoD found that 53 percent of

retaliation is “social” or “peer,” so we

are focusing in on that area. Navy ef-

forts are aligned with SeCDeF direction

to enhance first line supervisor skills

and knowledge in recognizing signs of

possible acts of retaliation. Recent Navy

survey results show that prevalence

of sexual assaults is decreasing, but

we remain fully committed to creating

and sustaining a culture where sailors

understand the importance of treating

shipmates with dignity and respect at all

times, in all places.

mAnPoweR

end Strength

PB-16 supports an Fy16 Navy active

end strength of 329,200 and reserve end

strength of 57,400. It appropriately bal-

ances risk, preserves capabilities to meet

current Navy and joint requirements,

fosters growth in required mission areas,

and provides support to sailors, Navy

civilians and families. Programmatic

changes tied to force structure and

fact-of-life additions resulted in modest

PB-16 active component end strength

growth. examples of force structure-re-

lated changes include retaining person-

nel for CVN 73 and its air wing, restoring

manpower to nine cruisers that will

remain in operation, and building crews

for new construction destroyers (DDG

51, DDG 1000) and submarines (Virginia

class). PB-16 end strength remains fairly

stable across the FyDP, reaching ap-

proximately 330, 000 active and 58,900

reserves in Fy20.

Sea duty

Navy continues to emphasize and

reward sea duty. Aggregate fleet man-

ning (what we call “fill”) increased from

93 percent in Fy13 to 96 percent in

Fy14, the equivalent of roughly 3,500

more sailors aboard surface ships. Also,

we are very close to achieving our goal

of ensuring that more than 90 percent

of our sailors are serving in jobs at the

required grade with requisite experi-

ence and training (what we call “fit”).

Navy is committed to reducing deploy-

ment lengths to seven months, but in

recognition of those who have been

experiencing longer deployments (over

220 days), in 2014 we began providing

additional pay called hardship duty pay-

tempo (hDPT).We have also incentivized

and rewarded sea duty, in general, by

increasing sea pay.

PeRSonnel mAnAgement

Recruiting and Retention

Navy recruiting and retention re-

main strong, although retaining person-

nel in certain critical skills continues

to present a challenge, particularly as

the demands we place on sailors and

their families remain high. The threat

of looming sequestration, along with

a recovering economy, is a troubling

combination. We are beginning to see

downward trends in retention, par-

ticularly among pilots, nuclear-trained

officers, SeAls and highly-skilled

sailors in information technology,

Aegis radar and nuclear specialties.

We are using all tools at our disposal,

including special and incentive pays,

to motivate continued service in these

critical fields.

gender integration

Integrating women across the force

remain top priorities, because they allow

the Navy to tap into the nation’s rich

talent pool. Over 96 percent of all Navy

jobs are currently available to women,

and we expect to open all occupa-

tions by early next year. We are also

focused on retaining women warfighters

by increasing career flexibility through

initiatives like the Career Intermission

Program, which allows servicemembers

to take a hiatus from their careers for up

to three years to pursue personal priori-

ties before re-entering the force. One of

our major thrusts in Fy16 is to increase

female accessions of both officer and

enlisted in order to provide greater

female representation in all operational

units by 2025. We are setting a goal of

increasing female enlisted accessions

to 25 percent and changing the mix of

ratings available to provide greater op-

erational opportunity for women to serve.

Integration of women into the submarine

force is tracking well.

diversity

Demonstrating our continued

commitment to diversity, Navy recently

established a diversity policy review

board, chaired by the vice chief of

naval operations. Individual community

self-assessments focused on diversity

trend analysis are also vetted at my level

to ensure each warfighting enterprise

remains free of barriers to advancement

and committed to equal opportunity to

our entire talent pool without regard to

race, gender, country of origin or religion.

Additionally, Navy offers a range of

science, technology, engineering and

mathematics (STem) education and

outreach programs to generate interest

by the nation’s youth in these fields and

open up opportunities for them to con-

sider potential Navy careers where STem

expertise could be applied.

Quality of Service

Navy continues to invest in projects

designed to improve sailors’ quality of

service, which has two components:

(1) quality of work, and (2) quality of

life. Further, all funds saved through

“compensation reform” are directly

invested in quality of work and quality of

life programs. PB-16 invests in quality of

service initiatives such as barracks and

training building improvements, greater

travel and schools, expanded use of

tactical trainers and simulators, and

increased funding for spare parts and

tools. It also leverages smart technol-

ogy devices and applications through an

“eSailor” initiative to enhance training,

communication and sailor career man-

agement ashore and afloat.

talent management

As our economy improves and the

labor marketplace becomes even more

competitive, the battle for America’s

talented youth in service continues to

heighten. Today’s generation, while

remarkably similar in their desire to serve

as the rest of us, have different expecta-

tions for a career of service. meanwhile,

our personnel policies and information

systems are rooted in the assumptions

of a previous era. much like any legacy

weapons system, that personnel and

learning structure is in need of modern-

ization. Thus, we are examining initia-

tives to modernize how we manage our


future force, for example: (1) phase out

strict year-group management practices

in favor of a milestone-based promo-

tion system, (2) improve lateral flows

between reserve and active components

to offer more agile pathways of service,

and (3) upgrade our information technol-

ogy, software and tools to enable a more

mobile, flexible and accurate personnel

delivery system. Further, we plan to build

upon our cultural strengths through a

number of family-centered initiatives,

such as expanded child development

and fitness resources, along with greater

career flexibility for dual-military and

dual-professional families to grow to-

gether while serving our nation.

transition Assistance

A new transition goals, plans,

success (GPS) curriculum replaced

the 20-year-old Transition Assistance

Program (TAP) to improve career readi-

ness standards and assist separating

sailors. The mandatory five-day core

curriculum provides Veterans Affairs

benefits briefings, the Department of

labor employment workshop, financial

management and budgeting, and military

to civilian skills crosswalk. moreover, the

DoD military life Cycle (mlC) Transition

model, implemented in 2014 in the Navy,

is working to begin a sailor’s transition

preparation early in their career, by pro-

viding opportunities to align with civilian

standards long before their intended

separation, to achieve their post-military

goals for employment, education, techni-

cal training, or starting a business.

cHARActeR deVeloPment

At all levels in the Navy, we emphasize a

culture of integrity, accountability, and ethical

behavior. All of these make up the charac-

ter of our leaders. Good character enables

unconditional trust throughout our ranks. This

is essential to succeed as a unified, confident

and interdependent team. It must be inherent

in all our operations.

Navy continues to emphasize character

development as a priority in our overall leader

development efforts, which are outlined in

Navy’s 2013 Navy leader Development

Strategy. In 2014, we established the Naval

leadership and ethics Center (formerly

known as the Command leadership School),

which serves as the means by which we

guide our efforts. This new command,

alongside our Senior enlisted Academy,

and leadership and ethics programs at the

Naval War College, expands and improves

character development initiatives at every

level. We are developing an ethics curriculum

(courses and modules) that will be embed-

ded in schoolhouses across the fleet. We

are also strengthening our Navy leader

Development Continuum, which is the way

in which we facilitate development of both

officers and enlisted throughout all phases of

their careers. We are not learning alone; we

draw insights and share best practices with

our sister services. The Navy is committed to

inculcating into every member of our profes-

sion the key attribute of good character. It

reflects our Navy heritage and the citizens of

our nation expect that we uphold the highest

standards of behavior and performance in

the execution of duties.

nAVy ReSeRVe FoRce

Our Navy responded to extraordinary

challenges over 13 years of war with the help

of reserve sailors. The men and women of our

Navy Reserve have increasingly put their civilian

careers on hold in order to operate forward,

provide critical support to fleet and combatant

commanders, and enhance the performance of

the joint force.

The Navy Reserve is a valuable hedge

against an uncertain and challenging security

environment; they augment the fleet with unique

skills to see us through any challenge. Since

9/11, reserve contributions to the active duty

Navy component have been significant—over

73,000 Navy Reserve sailors were mobilized

in support of global contingency operations,

providing tens of thousands of “boots on the

ground” in Iraq, kuwait, Bahrain, Afghanistan and

the horn of Africa, as well as supporting key mis-

sions like those at Joint Task Force-Guantanamo

Bay. On any given day, nearly 25 percent of the

Navy Reserve force directly supports the Navy

worldwide—about 15,000 sailors.

Based on our annual assessment of the

active/reserve mix, PB-16 continues invest-

ments in expanding critical capabilities within

the Reserve component including: (1) surge

maintenance, by selectively targeting reservists

who bring specific, valuable civilian skill sets to

the Navy total force; (2) intelligence support, by

realigning end strength to support this vital mis-

sion; (3) cyber warfare, by ensuring the appro-

priate mix of reserve manning to augment the

active Navy capability; and, (4) high value unit

escort, by leveraging the Navy Reserve’s ability

to fill short notice requirements using Reserve

coastal riverine force units to assume CONUS

high value unit escort missions from the Coast

Guard. PB-16 maintains several vital reserve ca-

pabilities, including all of the Navy-unique fleet

essential airlift assets (C-40A and C-130). These

enable the Navy to meet short-notice, mission-

critical airlift requirements more responsively

than any other logistics option. It also supports

airborne electronic attack by fully funding a

reserve airborne electronic attack squadron,

which is an integral component of Navy’s cyclic

operational expeditionary airborne electronic

attack deployment capability.

concluSion

For the last three years, the Navy has been

operating under reduced top-lines

generating capability shortfalls amounting

to $25 billion less than the president’s budget

requests. With each year that the Navy re-

ceives less than requested, the loss of force

structure, readiness and future investments

cause our options to become increasingly

constrained. Navy has already divested 23

ships and 67,000 personnel between 2002 and

2012. And we have been assuming significant

risk by delaying critical modernizations of our

force to keep pace and maintain technological

advantage.

Unless naval forces are properly sized,

modernized at the right pace, ready to deploy

with adequate training and equipment and

able to respond with the capacity and speed

required by combatant commanders, they will

not be able to carry out the defense strategy,

as written. most importantly, when facing

major contingencies, our ability to fight and

win will not be quick or as decisive as required.

To preclude a significantly diminished global

security role for the nation’s military, we must

address the growing mismatch in ends, ways

and means.

The world is more complex, uncertain and

turbulent; this trend will likely continue. Our

adversaries’ capabilities are modernizing and

expanding. It is, therefore, vital to have an

adequate, predictable and timely budget to

remain an effective Navy. PB-16 proposes the

best balance of Navy capabilities for the autho-

rized amount of funding, and enables the Navy

to conduct the ten primary missions outlined in

the president’s DSG and the QDR. But, there

is considerable risk. PB-16 is the absolute

minimum funding needed to execute our DSG.

Should resources be further reduced below

PB-16 levels, the DSG will need to be revised.

If sequestration is implemented in Fy16, it will

damage our national security.


AiRwoRtHineSS PRoceSS

The airworthiness certification process is employed by the Navy and

Air Force to evaluate aircraft airworthiness prior to flight. The certification

verifies that a specific air vehicle system can be safely maintained and op-

erated within its described flight envelope and can safely attain, sustain and

terminate a flight in accordance with approved usage limits (such as range,

speed, weight, altitude and safety). Airworthiness certification is required

for any fixed-wing and unmanned vehicle that is new or has had any modifi-

cations to its configuration and/or performance envelope. The airworthiness

certification requirements are listed in multiple DoD guides, handbooks,

military standards, instructions and regulations. The two main criteria are

mIl-hDBk-516B and the Joint Service Specification Guides (JSSGs)-2010,

October 1998. Both documents are for guidance only and cannot be cited

as a contractor requirement.

mIl-hDBk-516B establishes the airworthiness certification criteria to

be used in determining airworthiness of all manned, unmanned, fixed- and

rotary-wing air vehicle systems. It is a foundational document that is used

by the system program manager, chief/lead systems engineer and contrac-

tors to define their air system’s airworthiness certification basis. The criteria

can be tailored and applied at any point throughout the life of an air vehicle

system when an airworthiness determination is necessary and whenever

there is a change to the functional or product baseline. The handbook has

several sections for each function of the aircraft. each section is matched

with a corresponding JSSG. Specifically, mIl-hDBk-516B Section 9, “Crew

Systems,” outlines the elements required for verification of escape and

egress systems, and life support systems. The mIl-hDBk-516B provides

a generalized list of typical data required for airworthiness approval from

the services, such as validation, testing and analyses reports used in the

certification of aircraft systems. In all instances, complete and accurate

documentation of both applicability and system-specific measurable criteria

values are critical to ensuring consistent, timely and accurate airworthiness

assessments.

mIl-hDBk-516B provides a listing of required documents for verifica-

tion of various aircraft systems, and the JSSG-2010-11, “Crew Systems,

emergency egress handbook,” is a template and establishes a common

framework to be used by government-industry program teams for develop-

ing program-unique requirements documents for air systems. By design,

the JSSG is written as a template for requirements and verification criteria

with blanks that need to be completed by the program office in order to

make the requirements meaningful. The JSSG captures the essential perfor-

mance objectives needed for aviation systems that are often buried within

the how-to detail specifications and military standards. To help program

teams understand the basis for each requirement, the JSSG defines the

rationale for requirements and guidance on how to apply or tailor them.

In this way, program teams can more easily adapt or modify the JSSG

sample requirement statements to meet the specific needs of an individual

program.

mIl-hDBk-516B states, “Verify that the escape systems shall be safe

for human use and compatible with the aircraft.” It then cites the JSSG-

2010-11, which includes detailed requirements, such as egress system

acceleration limits. mIl-hDBk-516B also indicates that where the life

support system interfaces with other air vehicle subsystems, it should not

degrade the normal or failure modes of operation ofthose subsystems such

as the escape system. Additionally, the system should satisfy the physi-

ological requirements of the occupants during mission, escape and survival.

Although the NDA A cites a 5 percent requirement, mIl-hDBk-516B dated

February 2008 does not cite a 5 percent probability of human incapacitating

injury. however, the “ASC/eN Air worthiness Certification Criteria expanded

Version of mil-hDBk-516B” dated September 2005, which is specific to the

Air Force, lists a 5 percent requirement, but mIl-hDBk-516B dated Febru-

ary 2008 supersedes it. Both the Navy and Air Force use the 5 percent

as a best practice. likewise, the JSSG-2010-11, which is referenced by

mIl-hDBk-516B, states that the escape system shall provide a means

that allows the crew to abandon the aircraft, within the systems’ defined

performance envelope, with no injuries that will compromise their survival.

It does not cite the 5 percent probability of major injury as a requirement.

however, the JSSG-2010-11 states that analysis shall be provided to show

that all reasonable precautions have been taken to reduce the potential for

injury during the ejection process.

Both the Air Force and Navy use these handbooks to develop and

establish their own policies and procedures for granting airworthiness certi-

fications. The following discusses the current Air Force and Navy airworthi-

ness policies.

AiR FoRce

The Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 62-6, “USAF Airworthiness,” and

Air Force Instruction (AFI) 62-601, “USAF Airworthiness,” both dated June

2010, establish the formal airworthiness assessments process to ensure

that Air Force operated aircraft are airworthy over their entire life cycle and

maintain high levels of safety. The process assigns the Air Force life Cycle

management Center, engineering and Technical management/Services

Directorate (AFlCmC/eN-eZ) as the technical airworthiness authority

and serves as an independent body overseeing airworthiness assess-

ments. AFlCmC/eN-eZ issues the military type certificate that provides

the evidence that the aircraft system type design is in full compliance with

its approved certification basis. each aircraft platform program office is

responsible for granting the military certificate of airworthiness for each

individual aircraft showing it in compliance with the military type certificate.

AFlCmC/eN-eZ as the technical authority also provides technical guidance

and recommendations to the aircraft Program Office to determine if modifi-

cations to individual aircraft affect military certificate of airworthiness and/or

the military type certificate.

The airworthiness certification takes into account the complete airframe

and any items worn, installed or operated on or any modifications to the

aircraft. The human System Division (hSD) within AFlCmC performs safe-

to-fly assessments specific to items worn, by the aircrew during flight. hSD

performs integration testing on new items, evaluates system flight safety,

and then provides safe-to-fly recommendations to the aircraft program

offices. In order to be considered safe to fly, the item should not cause any

unacceptable hazards to the user, crew or aircraft, not interfere with proper

use of other mission equipment, and not modify or change a configuration/

system that is covered by a technical order.

Although hSD does not grant airworthiness certifications, they provide

a safe-to-fly recommendation that helps support the platform airworthiness

certification process.

Evaluation of Aircraft Ejection Seat Safety When Using Advanced Helmet Sensors➥ CONtiNued FROM pAGe 1


The aircraft program office review all the risks associated with their spe-

cific aircraft, the safe-to-fly recommendations, and then make a determina-

tion to accept any risks and provide military certificate of airworthiness.

nAVy

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Instruction 13034.1D, “Flight

Clearance Policy for Air Vehicles and Aircraft Systems,” dated march 2010,

establishes policy, responsibilities and procedures for executing airworthi-

ness reviews resulting in NAVAIR flight clearances for all Navy air vehicles

and aircraft systems. Flight clearance is the formal evidence that an

engineering assessment has been successfully completed by the cognizant

technical areas, which indicates the aircraft system can be operated with an

acceptable level of technical risk. The NAVAIR Flight Clearance Office (AIR

4.0P) maintains the overall responsibility for the Navy’s flight clearances and

is the ultimate release authority.

All new or modified aircrafts, avionics, software, man-mounted equip-

ment and modifications must go through the flight clearance and airwor-

thiness process. The flight clearance process involves an independent

engineering assessment of airworthiness, safety of flight, and risk. The intent

of assessing safety of flight is to show that the level of risk (hazard to the

system, personnel, property, equipment and environment) has been appropri-

ately identified by the Technical Area experts, reviewed and accepted by the

appropriate authority. every system has to independently meet airworthiness

criteria. For example, the headgear and escape system each go through

the verification and certification process individually at a component level

and then again at the system level to achieve full ejection system integrated

performance for the overall air system configuration. This process builds up

to achieve the overall aircraft system airworthiness certification.

Helmet-mounted deViceS

Both the Navy and Air Force use the standard fixed-wing aircrew hGU-

55/P helmet that is shown in Figure 1. It weighs about 2.67 pounds with the

oxygen mask and visor and designed to withstand windblasts of up to 450

knots equivalent air speed (keAS). Adding the night vision systems and the

helmet-mounted cueing systems, which are affixed to the top/front of the

hGU-55/P, can increase the overall helmet weight to almost 5 pounds, de-

pending upon the type of NVG or hmD. Shown in Figure 2 are four NVG and

hmD systems: AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggle (NVG), AN/AVS-10 Panoramic

NVG (PNVG) (Air Force only), JhmCS, and the helmet-mounted Integrated

Targeting (hmIT) system (Air Force only). helmets with NVG or PNVG weigh

4.31 pounds and 4.88 pounds, respectively. Both the NVG and PNVG are to

be removed before ejection, as stipulated in the Naval Air training and operat-

ing procedures (NATOPS) and Air Force flight manuals. If the aircrew do not

remove and stow the NVG or PNVGs before ejection, the ejection forces will

dislodge them from the helmet mount and possibly cause injury.

Two helmet systems support weapon cueing: JhmCS for the Navy and

Air Force, and hmIT for the Air Force only. JhmCS with helmet weighs 4.33

pounds for the day version and 4.81 for the JhmCS helmet with NVGs. The

hmIT with helmet weighs 4.77 pounds for the day version and 3.95 pounds

for the night version without NVG and 5.05 pounds with NVGs. Both systems

are certified to the same windblast level as the base helmet. however, hmDs

are not removed and stowed because they are designed to provide facial

protection during ejection.

ejection SeAtS

Advanced concept ejection Seat ii (AceS ii)

The Air Force has 5,208 ejection seats in its inventory supporting 12

aircraft types. Of those seats, approximately 2,813 are the Advanced Con-

cept ejection Seat II (ACeS II), which is currently the primary ejection seat in

operational use by the Air Force. Originally produced and first introduced by

mcDonnell Douglas in 1978, ACeS II is now being built by United Technolo-

gies Corporation (UTC), Aerospace System (UTAS), in Colorado Springs,

Colo., and supports six aircraft platforms.

The ACeS II is designed to structurally support windblast forces at a

maximum velocity of 600 keAS and an altitude of 60,000 feet. It provides

“safe open-air” ejections for aircrew between 140 to 211 pounds nude body

weight and between 0 to 450 keAS. Above 500 keAS, limb flail becomes

an issue and may lead to injuries. The Air Force notes in their flight manu-

als that aircrew weighing less than 140 pounds nude body weight have a

higher risk of injury above 350 keAS due to drogue chute deployment. The

ACeS II seat is used in all aircraft variants that support hmDs and/or NVGs.

The Inspector General focused specifically on the ACeS II seat because

that is where the majority of hmDs and/or NVGs are used, and did not look

at other ejection seat equipped aircraft using other seat types because

they do not use hmDs and/or NVGs or do not support speeds above 350

keAS during their flight operation; thus, they are outside the scope of this

evaluation.

nAVy AiRcRew common ejection SeAt (nAceS)

The Navy has 2,986 ejection seats, with 12 seat variants that support

nine aircraft types. Of those seats, approximately 1,958 are Navy Aircrew

Common ejection Seats (NACeS), also known as SJU-17 (Table 1). The

NACeS SJU-17 is the common ejection seat designed for incorporation

into the F-18, eA-18G and T-45 aircraft.

It is built by martin Baker and was introduced in 1991 in the F-18C/D

aircraft variant, with all other F-18 variants being upgraded to the NACeS

seat. The Navy is upgrading to this seat because it is the only seat that can

support the JhmCS, with other seat variants able to support only NVGs.

The NACeS was certified up to 600 keAS and up to 60,000 feet. It provides

“safe open-air” ejections for aircrew between 136 to 213 pounds nude body

weight and 0 to 450 keAS. however, within the NATOPS, the Navy notes

the safe ejection envelope is reduced to 0 to 350 keAS when the aircrew is

wearing the JhmCS.

Aircraft Seat Type # of Seats

AVS-9 (NVG)

JHMCS

T/AV-8B SJU-4, SJU-13, SJU-14

147 X

EA-6B GRUEA-7 152 X

F-18 A/B/C/D SJU-5, SJU-6 142 X

F-18 A/B/C/D/E/F

SJU-17 1354 X X

EA-18G SJU-17 206 X X

F-5 Northrop Improved Rocket

47

S-3 ESCAPAC IE-1 12

T-6 MK-US16LB 510

T-38C MK-US16T 20

T-45 SJU-17 398

AceS 5

The ACeS 5 ejection is seat currently under development by UTAS.


UTAS completed testing in February 2010 and provided results to the Air

Force for verification. The Air Force has not completed qualification test-

ing on the seat. Because the seat is not completely qualified, it was not

included in this evaluation. The ACeS 5 is designed to provide safe ejec-

tion for aircrew weighting between 103 to 245 pounds nude body weight

from 0 to 600 keAS. The seat has a passive head and neck protection,

arm and leg restraints and a new parachute. The seat is also compatible

with current hmDs and/or NVGs.

mk16 – uS16e ejection SeAt

The mk16 developed by martin Baker was selected by lockheed

martin as the ejection seat for the System Development and Demonstra-

tion phase of the F-35 program. The seat is designed to provide safe

ejection for aircrew weighing between 103 to 245 pounds nude body

weight from 0 to 600 keAS. The Inspector General did not analyze the

F-35 seat because a limited number have been delivered, there is limited

ejection data, and the F-35 program is still conducting qualification test-

ing of the overall aircraft system.

ejection SeQuence

ejection is a multi-phase event that exerts several different forces on

the pilot in approximately two seconds (Figure 3). An F-16 ACeS II mode

2 ejection at 600 keAS was used to describe the ejection sequence. A

typical ejection sequence lasts two to three seconds from initiation to

parachute inflation. When the pilot first pulls the ejection handles the

canopy blows off, and the pilot is subjected to approximately 4,000

pounds of upward thrust from the seat catapult, as shown in Figure 3

Phase A and B. This upward force causes a downward reaction on the

pilot’s body and can force the head down. The upward force is usually

enough to dislodge NVGs; however, the pilot should have removed the

NVGs before ejection in accordance with proper procedure.

Once the pilot clears the aircraft, she/he will experience windblast

forces of up to 1,200 pounds per square foot at 600 keAS, as shown

in Figure 3 Phase B to C. This pushes the pilot’s head back against the

seat; limbs are also pushed towards the back of the ejection seat by the

wind. At this stage if the helmet is not properly positioned and the chin

straps not tight enough, the windblast may cause the helmet to pull up

on the head and neck.

About 0.4 seconds into the ejection sequence, a rocket fires to stabilize the

seat followed immediately by the drogue parachute being deployed, which exerts

approximately 7,600 pounds of backward force on the pilot, as shown in Figure 3

Phase B to C. This slows the pilot’s freefall and further stabilizes the seat.

At about 1.8 seconds the main parachute then deploys exerting ap-

proximately 3,000 pounds of force on the pilot’s body and the ejection seat

falls away, as shown in Figure 3 Phases C thru e. The pilot then falls under

parachute at a rate of up to 25 feet per second. Finally, the pilot may absorb

up to 2,938 foot-pounds of energy at ground impact.

Overall, ejection is a violent and dynamic event, which happens

extremely quickly once the ejection handles are pulled. If the pilot is not in

proper ejection position and does not follow proper procedures, serious

injuries or death can occur.

The evaluation focused on the initial phases of the ejection, which include the

upward forces on the pilot and the initial windblasts experienced by the pilot while

leaving the aircraft and entering the wind stream. The initial phases of ejection are

where hmDs and/or NVGs are most likely to be the contributing factor to pilot

safety and are the focus of the NDA A request due to the aerodynamic forces at

high speeds. The parachute deployment and parachute landing fall phases of the

ejection were not evaluated because these areas are outside the NDA A request.

ejection dAtA eVAluAtion SummARy

The Air Force and Navy provided flight hours and ejection data that con-

tained aircraft type, model, speed that the ejection occurred, and the type of

injury sustained. The Inspector General limited the data from the Air Force and

Navy to only ejection seat equipped aircraft that fly with hmDs and/or NVGs,

and further limited it to the Air Force ACeS II and Navy NACeS seats due to

their prevalence and them being the only seats used with hmDs and/or NVGs.

The Inspector General did not evaluate the F-35 ejection seat because it is

currently still in development, the aircraft has not finished testing, and there is

limited ejection data. The Inspector General bound the ejection data and flight

hours to fiscal years 1995-2014, and selected Fy95 as the bounding condition

because night vision goggles were first introduced to the fleet that year.

AiR FoRce ejection dAtA

The Air Force provided the OIG ejection data for Fy95-14, which

covered 203 ACeS II ejections on hmDs and/or NVGs-compatible aircraft.

Of the 203 ejections, 189 (93 percent) occurred within the safe ejection

envelope of 0 to 450 keAS. Fourteen (7 percent) of those ejections occurred

outside the envelope, above 450 keAS (Figure 4).

Of 189 ejections occurring below 450 keAS, 24 (12 percent) resulted in a

major or fatal injury. A major injury is considered broken limbs, except fingers

Figure 3. ejection Phases Source: Air Force

Figure 4. Air Force ejection Speed Breakdown On hmd-Compatible Aircraft


and toes, internal injuries, and severe burns. There were 24 major and fatal

injuries that occurred below 450 keAS: four due to windblast, one due to

ejection shock, nine due to parachute landing fall, six due to ground impact

(impacting the ground or other object during the ejection phase), and four be-

ing caused by items such as burns and hypothermia. All of the ejections that

occurred above 450 keAS since 1995 resulted in a major or fatal injury. Data

show several injuries are occurring during the parachute-landing phase and

not during the initial ejection or windblast phase of the ejection (Figure 5).

head and spinal injuries accounted for eight (4 percent) of the injuries

within the 0 to 450 keAS design envelope. Across the complete ejec-

tion data set, which contains ejections occurring at 0 to 750 keAS, 13 (6

percent) of the major or fatal injuries were spinal or head injuries with most

occurring at higher speeds outside the seat performance envelope.

Further analysis showed that 25 out of 203 total ejections involved

hmDs and/or NVGs (Figure 6). Of those 25 ejections, six ejections were

fatal and two resulted in major injuries. The fatal injuries were broken

down as follows: three due to ground impact, two due to windblast, and

one due to drowning. Also of the six fatal ejections with hmDs and/or

NVGs, four were outside the 0 to 450 keAS safe ejection envelope. The

two major injuries were due to windblast and ejection forces, of which

one was outside the safe ejection envelope. The remaining 17 ejections

resulted in minor or no injuries.

Based on the ejection data, most Air Force aircraft ejections occur

within the prescribed seat envelope and result in minor injuries (Figure 7).

The data support the f light manual, which indicates that there is higher

probability of major or fatal injury above 450 keAS.

nAVy ejection dAtA

The Navy provided ejection data from Fy95 through Fy14 for all

aircraft variants. This data was then reduced to only ejection data for

hmDs and/or NVGs capable aircraft that contained speed data, which

resulted in 94 data points. Upon analysis of the 94 ejections, we found

that 88 (94 percent) occurred within the safe ejection envelop of 0 to

450 keAS and six (6 percent) of the ejections occurred outside the

envelope (Figure 8).

The data shows that 28 (32 percent) of the ejections that occurred below

450 keAS resulted in a major or fatal injury. For the ejections that occurred

above 450 keAS, five resulted in a major or fatal injury (Figure 9). The data

support the NATOPS, which indicates that there is higher probability of major

or fatal injury above 450 keAS.

The ejection data did not always include the overall cause of the injuries

and types of injuries sustained by the aircrew. Furthermore, due to the lack of

detail in the Navy’s data, it could not be determined if the aircrew were wear-

ing NVGs and/or hmDs at the time of ejection; thus the Inspector General

could not conclude that it contributed to the injury. The reasons why the

Navy’s data lacked detail was not evaluated, as it was outside the scope of

this evaluation.

SAFety RiSk AnAlySiS eVAluAtion SummARy

The Navy and Air Force’s safety risk assessments, part of the airworthi-

ness assessment process were evaluated. Both the Navy and Air Force con-

ducted safety risk assessments for the JhmCS and accepted the additional

risk to its aircrew. The joint Air Force and Navy program team conducted

multiple system-level tests for their respective aircraft at various airspeeds

and with manikins of different sizes and weights to understand the impact of

JhmCS to an ejection event. The program found that the JhmCS display unit

remained intact and met requirements to 450 keAS; however, the JhmCS

display unit was stripped from the helmet at 600 keAS, leaving the pilot with

a visor-less hGU-55/P helmet. They further noted that the integrated chin/

nape strap (ICNS) that functions to stabilize and hold the JhmCS and helmet

on the aircrew may induce higher neck tension loads primarily during high-

speed ejections, above 450 keAS. Consequently, the JhmCS was qualified

to 450 keAS for module retention and facial protection based on that being

Figure 5. Cause of injury for all ejections

Figure 6. ejections with helmet-Mounted devices

OtherGround ImpactParachute Landing FallParachute Opening ShockEjection ShockWindblast

Figure 8. Navy ejection Speed Breakdown

Minor Major Fatal


the qualification speed for the hGU-55/P helmet and the flight manual rec-

ommended top speed for safe ejection.

The Air Force stated in its safe-to-fly recommendation that there is no

indication that the JhmCS adds significant risk over the current hGU-55/P

helmet with ICNS. The Air Force recommended that the JhmCS be em-

ployed without operational flight restrictions; however, the Air Force recom-

mended that aircrew flying with it perform neck exercises to strengthen neck

muscles. The Navy stated in its risk acceptance letter that JhmCS placed ad-

ditional weight and aerodynamic drag and lift on the aircrew helmet, causing

additional forces to act on the aircrew during ejection. The Navy determined

JhmCS represented a serious risk (1D according to mIl-STD-882e). The

Navy determined that low-weight pilots have a higher probability of injury

and thus have limited their use within the NATOPS. The Navy approved the

JhmCS for the F/A-18 for all aircrew except for low-weight pilots, weigh-

ing less than 136 pounds, due to the increased risk of injury. Both services

accepted the risks and they mitigate risks to the aircrew through restriction

and procedures identified in the flight manuals. however, neither service

conducted risk assessments on NVGs because, according to procedure,

they are to be stowed before ejection. Regardless of the helmet system being

worn, if aircrew do not properly wear the helmet at all times and follow proper

ejection procedure, they are susceptible to head and neck injuries in the

event of an ejection.

Furthermore, the ejection data obtained from the Navy and Air Force

safety centers was analyzed to determine the actual rate of ejection and

probability of injury. Based on analysis of the ejection data combined with the

number of flight hours, the Inspector General determined that the rate of ejec-

tion is 1.99e-5 per flight hour for the Navy F-18 and 1.68e-5 per flight hour for

Air Force ACeS II-equipped aircraft, respectively. The Navy F-18 flies an aver-

age of 258,134 hours per year and the Air Force ACeS II-equipped aircraft fly

an average 634,988 hours per year. The Inspector General calculated the rate

of major and fatal injury for the Navy is 5.72e-6 and 2.96e-6 per flight hour,

respectively. The rate of major and fatal injury for the Air Force is 1.82e-6 and

1.36e-6 per flight hour, respectively (Table 2).

table 3. ejection Rates

Service Average Flight Hours

Rate of Ejection

per Flight Hour

Rate of Minor Injury

per Flight Hour

Rate of Major Injury

per Flight Hour

Rate of No Injury

per Flight Hour

Rate of No Injury

per Flight Hour

Navy (F-18)

258,1341.99E-

056.32E-06 5.72E-06

2.96E-06

4.93E-06

Air Force (HMD

Capable Aircraft)

634,9881.68E-

051.08E-05 1.82E-06

1.33E-06

2.90E-06

Using mIl-STD-882e, which defines the safety risk acceptance process

and assuming that a major or fatal injury would be designated as a cata-

strophic consequence, the probability of occurrence would be identified as a

1D (catastrophic/remote). This level of risk is usually accepted by the program

management office; in this case the aircraft program executive offices.

Finding A

ejection Seats with Aircrew wearing Hmds and/or nVgs meet criteria

DoD ejection seat equipped aircraft with aircrew wearing NVGs and/

or hmDs meet airworthiness criteria in accordance with mIl-hDBk-516B

and have been certified safe-to-fly by the appropriate Navy and Air Force

safety acceptance authorities. however, both services noted that there is an

increased risk of neck injury during high-speed ejections with hmDs and/or

NVGs above 450 keAS, and an increased potential of neck injuries for low-

weight pilots. To mitigate these risks, the services placed warnings, notes,

cautions and restrictions in the flight manuals.

diScuSSion

The analysis of the ejection seat documentation, ejection data, and

safety risk analyses for the NVGs and hmDs showed that the seats meet

mIl-hDBk-516B airworthiness criteria. The ejection seats were deemed

airworthy and provide safe ejections between 0-450 keAS for aircrew weigh-

ing between 136–213 pounds for the Navy NACeS seat and aircrew weighing

between 140–211 pounds for the Air Force ACeS II seats. The flight manuals

for ejection seat equipped aircraft state that ejections outside these limits

pose a greater risk of injury and identify the specific procedures to follow to

ensure safe ejection. Both the Navy and Air Force have conducted safety risk

assessments and certified the ejection seats with hmDs and NVGs as airwor-

thy. however, both services have placed warning, notes, cautions and restric-

tions in their flight manuals in regards to ejecting with specific hmDs and

directing the removal of the NVGs to mitigate potential risks to the aircrew.

The Navy and Air Force noted during their risk assessments that there

is an increased risk of injury with the JhmCS above 450 keAS and for

low-weight pilots wearing JhmCS. The Navy cites in their NATOPS that

the addition of the JhmCS reduces the safe ejection speed to 350 keAS

and restricts pilots under 136 pounds from flying with the JhmCS to

maintain safe ejection conditions. The Air Force flight manuals inform pi-

lots that the JhmCS failed above 450 keAS thus the safe ejection speeds

are lower for aircrew not within the proper weight limits. Furthermore, the

analysis of the Navy and Air Force ejection data showed that most ejec-

tions were occurring below 350 keAS. Additionally, the rate of ejection

for the Navy F-18 and Air Forces ACeS II seat are 1.99e-5 per f light hour

and 1.68e-5 per flight hour, respectively, which makes ejection a remote

possibility. Furthermore, the average probability of major or fatal injury is

2.95e-6, which is an order of magnitude smaller.

The Inspector General believes, based on the evaluation of the safety

and ejection data and the calculations of rate of ejection and probability of

major or fatal injury, that the ejection seats with hmDs and/or NVGs meet

mIl-hDBk-516B criteria. Additionally, if the aircrew is within the prescribed

safe ejection operational limits, the addition of hmDs and/or NVGs does

not significantly increase the risk of major injury. Finally, it was determined

that regardless of the helmet system being worn, if aircrews do not properly

wear the helmet at all times and follow proper ejection procedures; they are

susceptible to an increased risk of head and neck injuries in the event of an

ejection.

RecommendAtion A

Although the ejection systems with hmDs and/or NVGs have been

deemed airworthy by their respective services, the Inspector General

recommends that the Navy and Air Force:

1. Continue to evaluate technology that would improve the overall

safety of the pilot during ejections.

2. ensure consistent documentation of aircraft ejection data to

increase the data available for ejections with hmD and/or NVGs

thus improving the safety risk analysis. The data should include


aircraft speed at time of ejection, whether aircrew was wearing

hmD and/or NVGs, and type of injury sustained.

3. ensure increased emphasis during training, annual checkrides, and

continually stress awareness that aircrew follow proper ejection pro-

cedures as identified in NATOPS and the Air Force flight manuals.

dePuty ASSiStAnt SecRetARy oF tHe nAVy, AiR PRogRAmS commentS

The deputy assistant secretary of the Navy, air programs, agreed with

the three recommendations, but did not provide details on how the Navy

will implement the recommendations. The deputy indicated that invest-

ments in developing advanced escape systems and head-mounted dis-

play technologies as integrated systems could expand the safe ejection

envelope to the aircraft’s full certified airspeed and enable the services to

modify and/or remove the existing warnings, notes, cautions, and restric-

tions. The deputy also noted that other Navy activities may be responsible

for implementing the recommendations.

ReSPonSe

Comments from the deputy assistant secretary of the Navy, air pro-

grams, do not address all the specifics of the recommendations. There-

fore, the Inspector General requests further comments in response to the

final report. For each recommendation, the comments should:

• state what technology or actions are being pursued to improve

the overall safety of the pilots during ejection,

• provide a plan for how ejection data will be collected,

• explain how training will be improved, and

• estimate implementation dates.

AiR FoRce liFe cycle mAnAgement centeR,

HumAn SyStemS diViSion, commentS

The Air Force life Cycle management Center, human Systems Divi-

sion, agreed with the three recommendations and will implement them as

follows.

1. The Air Force is implementing the ACeS II Safety and Sustain-

ability Improvement Program (SSIP), which will address both

sustainment and safety improvements for ACeS II seats. SSIP

will focus on improved recovery parachutes to minimize para-

chute landing fall injuries, faster deploying drogue parachutes for

increased stability, passive head and neck protection, and limb

restraints.

2. The Air Force already captures ejection data to include airspeed,

whether the aircrew was wearing hmDs and/or NVGs, and injuries

sustained within the Air Force Safety Automated System, which is

the database of record for safety investigations. Although the Air

Force does not specifically require the recording of other hmDs be-

ing worn, this information is normally captured and reported during

the investigations. however, the comments noted that additional

improvements to the Air Force Safety Automated System will be

pursued to capture the use of other hmDs.

3. The human Systems Division through the Air Force life Cycle

management Center, aircraft program offices, and Air education

and Training Command and using commands can communicate

the need for increased emphasis on proper ejection procedure.

however, the proper emphasis and training methodology is

ultimately up to Air education and Training Command and using

commands for implementation.

ReSPonSe

Comments from the Air Force life Cycle management Center, human

System Division, address all specifics of the recommendations, and no

further comments are required.

Finding b

jSSg Handbook needs to be updated

The JSSG, “Crew Systems, emergency egress handbook,” dated

October 1998 has not been revised or updated as required by DoD 4120.24-

m, “Defense Standardization Program (DSP), Policies and Procedures.” The

handbook should be reviewed and validated every five years. Not updating

the handbook can result in the specifications becoming out dated and not

taking into account advancements in technology, changes in the industry or

new policy.

diScuSSion

The JSSG-2010-11 had not been validated in accordance with DoD

4120.24-m, “Defense Standardization Program (DSP), Policies and Proce-

dures.” DoD 4120.24-m requires standards and handbooks to be reviewed

every five years to verify that they are valid and do not require revision or can-

celation. The JSSG-2010-11 had not been reviewed since October 1998 when

the document was originally issued. Additionally, a review of the document

showed that it does not address helmet-mounted devices and the expanded

pilot population to accommodate the wider range of operational weights.

RecommendAtion b

The Inspector General recommends that the Navy and Air Force review

and update the JSSG to reflect changes in policy and technology that have

occurred in the last 16 years.

dePuty ASSiStAnt SecRetARy oF tHe nAVy, AiR PRogRAmS, commentS

The deputy assistant secretary of the Navy, air programs, partially agreed

with the recommendation. The deputy acknowledged that there is a need to

update the JSSG, “Crew Systems emergency egress handbook”; however,

he stated that the current document does not directly result in outdated

specifications nor does it fail to take advantage of advanced technologies.

The deputy also stated that the document provides guidance when develop-

ing system requirements and that opportunity exists to apply state-of-the-art

technology and current policy via the system specification. In addition, the

deputy pointed out that an update would require coordination across the

services.

ReSPonSe

The Inspector General agrees that the document does not preclude

the program from applying state-of-the-art technology within the system

specification. however, that the deputy assistant secretary of the Navy, air

programs, should coordinate with the Air Force during the review and revision

of JSSG-2010-11.

AiR FoRce liFe cycle mAnAgement centeR,

HumAn SyStemS diViSion, commentS

The Air Force life Cycle management Center, human Systems Division,

agreed and will begin compiling updated injury criteria for an Air Force


Airworthiness Bulletin to serve as interim guidance until the JSSG-2010-11

can be updated. The comments also stated that a complete review and

revision of JSSG-2010-11 will be coordinated with the Navy by June 2016.

ReSPonSe

Comments from the Air Force life Cycle management Center,

human Systems Division, address the specifics of the recommendation,

and the actions meet the intent of the recommendation. The Inspector

General requests that the Air Force life Cycle management Center, hu-

man Systems Division, provide the DoD OIG with a copy of the Air Force

Airworthiness Bulletin when it is completed in June 2015 and a copy of

the updated JSSG-2010-11 when it completed in June 2016.

APPendix A

Scope and methodology

The Inspector General conducted this evaluation from August

21, 2014, through January 12, 2015, in accordance with the Council

of Inspectors General on Integrity and efficiency Quality Standards for

Inspection and evaluation.

This evaluation was limited to only ejection seat equipped aircraft

that fly with NVGs and/or hmDs. The evaluation was limited to the Air

Force ACeS II and Navy NACeS seats due to their prevalence and them

being the only seats used with hmDs and/or NVGs. The F-35 ejection

seat was not evaluated because the F-35 is still in development, the

aircraft has not finished qualification testing, and there is limited ejection

data.

The DoD IG first met with the Air Force materiel Command, life

Cycle management Center, and its human Systems Division to get an

overview of ejection history, ejection forces, and determine which aircraft

use ejection seats and hmDs and/or NVGs. The risk assessment for

each NVG and/or hmD and evaluated ejection data provided by the Air

Force Safety Center were then evaluated to determine if the configura-

tions met airworthiness criteria. Subsequently, the Inspector General met

with the Naval Air Systems Command, Air Crew Systems, and repeated

the process.

ejection data and flight hours from Fy 1995 to 2014 were ana-

lyzed. Fy 1995 was selected as the bounding condition because it is

the year night vision goggles were introduced to the air fleet. During

the analysis of the ejection data, aircraft that do not support NVGs and/

or hmDs were disregarded and prepared a controlled/limited dataset.

The data were then categorized (or organized) by aircraft type, ejection

speed, and injury level. From that limited dataset, which ejections oc-

curred within the envelope was determined. The overall ejection rate and

probability of serious or fatal injury were calculated to determine if it met

the airworthiness criteria.

The safety risk assessments conducted by each service for

each hmDs and/or NVGs were also reviewed, specifically for how

the safety risks were calculated. The Inspector General reviewed

safety risk assessment for the JhmCS and hmIT system. how-

ever, no safety risk assessment was done by either Service for

NVGs.

APPendix b

management comments on Finding A and Response

deputy Assistant Secretary of the navy, Air Programs comments

The deputy assistant secretary of the Navy, air programs, cited that

the report was socialized within Naval Air Systems Command/Air Crew

Systems, NAVAIRSySCOm, and stakeholders including the assistant

secretary of the Navy (research, development and acquisition) and the

chief of naval operations staff. however, the responsibility of implement-

ing the recommendations does not fall solely on NAVAIRSySCOm; other

Navy activities may be responsible for implementation.

Response

The Inspector General agrees that NAVAIRSySCOm is not solely

responsible for implementing the recommendations. however, it is

requested that NAVAIRSySCOm provide support to the Navy activities

implementing the recommendations contained within this report.

Air Force life cycle management center, Human Systems division, comments

The Air Force life Cycle management Center, human Systems

Division, generally agreed with Finding A. The comments noted that

when the ACeS II seat was originally developed, it was not accepted

through the current airworthiness process, however it was later

reviewed using the current process and deemed airworthy in accor-

dance with mIl-hDBk-516B criteria. The comments from Air Force

life Cycle management Center, human Systems Division, further

stated the report answers the question posed by Congress; however,

it does not fully address the complexity of the issues presented by

the combination of ejection seats, hmDs, pilot weight, and ejection

speed. The report does not quantify the increased risk of low-weight

pilots wearing hmDs and/or NVGs. In addition, the comments stated

that the risk of light weight pilots sustaining a major injury could

be as high as 40 percent, which is stated in the “Report on health

and Safety Risks Associated with ejection Seats,” may 2014, that it

provided to Congress. however, there have not been any low-weight

pilot ejections since 1995 with or without hmD and/or NVGs; thus,

there is no operational data to validate the prediction.

Response

The DoD OIG acknowledges that the ACeS II seats were origi-

nally accepted under a legacy process through an executive engineer-

ing Independent Review Team, which reviewed the aircraft program

prior to first flight and after successful completion of the test program

to show the platform was airworthy. The Inspector General also

acknowledges that the legacy platforms were then reviewed through

the current airworthiness process to show they meet mIl-hDBk-516B

criteria. The “Report on health and Safety Risks Associated with ejec-

tion Seats,” may 2014 was reviewed during the evaluation; however,

the 43-precent of major injury for low-weight pilots would be at aircraft

velocities close to 600 keAS. Furthermore, the cited report does not

quantify the risk in accordance with mIl-STD-882e principles and

only provides a piece of the overall risk analysis for low-weight pilots.

The actual ejection data show that, in general, ejections are occurring

below 450 keAS with very few occurring at 600 keAS. Additionally, the

Air Force flight manuals and this report document that there is an in-

creased chance of major injury for low-weight pilots or pilots within the

acceptable seat weight limits if the ejections occurs over 450 keAS.

Thus, there was no change to Finding A.

Randolph R. Stone is the Deputy Inspector General for Policy

and Oversight.


ConTraCT awards Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Northrop Grumman Corp. electronic

Systems, linthicum heights, md., is being

awarded a $113,276,299 modification

under a previously awarded contract

(m67854-07-C-2072) to exercise an option

for procurement of two additional Ground/

Air Task-Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) low-rate

initial production (lRIP) systems. exercise

of this option brings the total production

of G/ATOR lRIP systems to six systems.

Work will be performed in linthicum

heights, md. (55 percent); east Syracuse,

N.y. (24 percent); Stafford Springs, Conn.

(5 percent); Wallingford Center, Conn. (2

percent); San Diego, Calif. (5 percent);

Camarillo, Calif. (1 percent); Big lake,

minn. (3 percent); londonderry, N.h. (2

percent); high Point, N.C. (2 percent); and

Woodbridge, Ill. (1 percent), and is ex-

pected to be completed by October 2017.

Fiscal 2013 procurement (marine Corps)

funds in the amount of $1,396,263, fiscal

2014 procurement (marine Corps) funds

in the amount of $4,320,179, fiscal 2015

procurement (marine Corps) funds in the

amount of $80,992,517 and fiscal 2015 re-

search, development, test and evaluation

funds in the amount of $22,230,000 will be

obligated at the time of award. Contract

funds in the amount of $1,396,263 will

expire at 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

contracting activity.

Delphinus Engineering Inc., eddys-

tone, Pa. (N65540-15-D-0004); General

Dynamics Information Technology Inc.,

Chesapeake, Va. (N65540-15-D-0005);

Q.E.D. Systems Inc., Va. Beach, Va.

(N65540-15-D-0006); AmSeC llC, Va.

Beach, Va. (N65540-15-D-0007); BAE

Systems Inc., Norfolk, Va. (N65540-

15-D-0008); Epsilon Systems Solu-

tions Inc., Portsmouth, Va. (N65540-

15-D-0009); and L3 Unidyne Inc., Norfolk,

Va. (N65540-15-D-0010), are each being

awarded multiple award indefinite-delivery/

indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee

contracts, with an estimated ceiling

amount of $90,687,638 for Delphinus

engineering Inc.; $89,860,189 for General

Dynamics Information Technology Inc.;

$87,002,697 for Q.e.D. Systems Inc.;

$83,037,863 for AmSeC llC; $94,497,395

for BAe Systems Inc.; $94,646,444 for

epsilon Systems Solutions Inc.; and

$96,342,264 for l3 Unidyne to provide en-

gineering and technical services in support

of the Navy modernization Program which

provides installation and technical services

for hull, mechanical and electrical systems

on U.S. Navy vessels and those of allied

navies. The mission of the Navy modern-

ization Program is to provide hull, mechan-

ical and electrical services and deploying

technologies that improve availability,

increase reliability, ship mission readiness,

and decrease maintenance and workload

requirements for machinery systems and

components. This contract combines

purchases for the U.S. Navy (95 percent)

and the government of Poland (5 percent).

Foreign military sales to Greece, Australia

and Taiwan, are also possible under future

options. Work will be performed in various

fleet homeports and work is expected to

be completed in march 2018. No contract

funds will be obligated at the time of award

under the base contract. Contract funds

will be awarded on a task order basis.

Contract funds will not expire at the end of

the current fiscal year. This contract was

competitively procured through the Navy

electronic Commerce Online and Federal

Business Opportunities websites, with

seven offers received. The Naval Surface

Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Ship

System engineering Station, Philadelphia,

Pa., is the contracting activity.

Lockheed Martin, Baltimore, md., is

being awarded a $41,247,030 fixed-price

incentive fee modification to previously

awarded contract (N00024-11-C-2300)

to provide procurement and engineering

efforts to incorporate seven fiscal 2014

weight optimization changes and install

SeaRAm in the place of the Rolling Air-

frame missile (RAm) on lCS 17 as well as

associated engineering support. lock-

heed martin will provide labor and material

support services for the procurement and

engineering support, and marinette marine

Corp. will conduct the design and produc-

tion changes onboard the hulls. Work

will be performed in marinette, Wis., and

is expected to be completed by Decem-

ber 2019. Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and

conversion (Navy) funding in the amount

of $18,847,827 will be obligated at time of

award and will not expire at the end of the

current fiscal year. The Supervisor of Ship-

building, Conversion, and Repair, Bath,

maine, is the contracting activity.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Baltimore,

md., is being awarded a $34,557,223

modification to previously awarded

contract N00024-11-C-2300 to exercise

options for class services efforts and

special studies, analyses and reviews for

the littoral Combat Ship (lCS) program.

lockheed martin will provide engineering

and design services as well as affordability

efforts to reduce acquisition and lifecycle

costs for the Freedom variant lCS. Work

will be performed in hampton, Va. (32

percent); marinette, Wis. (27 percent);

moorestown, N.J. (22 percent); and Wash-

ington, D.C. (19 percent), and is expected

to be complete by march 2016. Fiscal

2014 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy)

funding in the amount of $8,000,000 will

be obligated at time of award and will not

expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

The Naval Sea Systems Command, Wash-

ington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

United Technologies, Pratt &

Whitney, Military Engines, east hartford,

Conn., is being awarded a $33,928,095

modification to a previously awarded

cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-

14-C-0026). This modification provides

for retrofit modifications to the production

thrust recovery, lift systems, and control-

ler systems for low rate initial production

VII F135/600 and F135/100 propulsion

systems. Work will be performed in

Oklahoma City, Okla., and is expected to

be completed in December 2016. Fiscal

2013 aircraft procurement (Navy/marine

Corps and Air Force); fiscal 2014 aircraft

procurement (Navy/marine Corps); and

international partner funds in the amount

of $33,928,095 will be obligated at time

13MArCh


ConTraCT awards

12MArCh

Kollsman Inc., merrimack, N.h.,

is being awarded a $73,400,000 firm-

fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-

quantity contract for the Common laser

Range Finder—Integrated Capability.

This contract provides for the low-rate

initial production and full-rate production

for a maximum of up to 1,500 systems,

contractor logistics support, training, tech-

nical data, and spare parts. Work will be

performed in merrimack, N.h., and work

is expected to be completed march 2020.

Fiscal 2015 procurement funds (marine

Corps) in the amount of $7,566,927 will be

obligated at time of award under delivery

order 0001 and will not expire at the end

of the current fiscal year. This contract

was competitively procured via the Federal

Business Opportunities website, with

three offers received. The marine Corps

Systems Command, Quantico, Va., is the

contracting activity (m67854-15-D-6001).

Hamilton Sundstrand Co., Pomona,

Calif., is being awarded a $12,304,295

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity

contract incorporating cost-plus-fixed-fee

line items for engineering and technical

services to maintain, troubleshoot, repair

and modernize the Central Atmosphere

monitoring System (CAmS) mk I, mk II and

IIA units to ensure their safe operation in

support of U.S. Navy submarines. A CAmS

unit monitors the amount of gases in the

submarine atmosphere, and is considered

mission-essential equipment and vital to

the deployment of U.S. Navy submarines.

Services will also include specialized

classroom training for shipboard person-

nel on the operation of the CAmS. Work

will be performed in New london, Conn.

(20 percent); San Diego, Calif. (20 percent);

Norfolk, Va. (15 percent); Bremerton, Wash.

(10 percent); kings Bay, Ga. (10 percent);

Portsmouth, N.h. (10 percent); Philadelphia,

Pa. (5 percent); Pearl harbor, hawaii (5

percent); and Guam (5 percent), and is ex-

pected to complete by march 2020. Fiscal

2014 other procurement (Navy) funding in

the amount of $58,692 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 in accordance

with FAR 6.302-1 - only one responsible

source and no other supplies or services

will satisfy agency requirements. The

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock

Division, Ship System engineering Station,

Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity

(N65540-15-D-0012).

of award, $19,920,721 of which will expire

at the end of the current fiscal year. This

contract combines purchases for the U.S.

Navy/marine Corps ($30,269,708; 89.22

percent); the U.S. Air Force ($79,982; .24

percent); and the international partners

($3,578,405; 10.54 percent). The Naval Air

Systems Command, Patuxent River, md.,

is the contracting activity.

Environet Inc., honolulu, hawaii

(N62478-10-D-4019); FOPCO Inc., kapo-

lei, hawaii (N62478-10-D-4020); Pioneer

Contracting Co. Ltd, Wahiawa, hawaii

(N62478-10-D-4021); Raass Brothers Inc.,

Provo, Utah (N62478-10-D-4022); San

Juan Construction Inc., montrose, Colo.

(N62478-10-D-4023); and TOMCO Corp.,

honolulu, hawaii (N62478-10-D-4024)

were awarded a $12,500,000 firm-fixed-

price contract modification on a previously

awarded multiple award contract on march

6, for construction projects located within

the Naval Facilities engineering Command

hawaii area of responsibility. The work to

be performed provides for but is not limited

to labor, supervision, tools, materials and

equipment necessary to perform new

construction, repair, alteration and related

demolition of existing infrastructure based

on design-build or design-bid-build (full

plans and specifications) for infrastructure

within the state of hawaii. Work will be per-

formed in Oahu, hawaii, and is expected

to be completed by September 2015. No

funds will be obligated at time of award;

funds will be obligated on individual task

orders as they are issued. The Naval Facili-

ties engineering Command, hawaii, Pearl

harbor, hawaii, is the contracting activity.

Dawson-Hawaiian Builders I, honolulu,

hawaii, is being awarded an $11,834,000

firm-fixed-price contract for the design and

construction of an armory addition and

renovation at marine Corps Base hawaii.

The work to be performed provides for

design and renovation of the existing build-

ing and the existing covered unenclosed

weapons cleaning area and constructs

additions located at each end of the existing

building, and new unenclosed covered

weapons cleaning areas. The project will

demolish the existing gear wash facility.

The contract also contains one unexercised

option, which if exercised would increase

cumulative contract value to $13,019,000.

Work will be performed in kaneohe Bay,

hawaii, and is expected to be completed by

August 2017. Fiscal 2015 military construc-

tion (Navy) contract funds in the amount

of $11,834,000 are being obligated on this

award and will not expire at the end of the

current fiscal year. This contract was com-

petitively procured via the Federal Business

Opportunities website, with eight proposals

received. The Naval Facilities engineering

Command, Pacific, Joint Base Pearl harbor-

hickam, hawaii, is the contracting activity

(N62742-15-C-1316).

Austal USA LLC, mobile, Ala., is being

awarded a $6,502,918 modification to

previously awarded contract (N00024-

11-C-2301) to exercise an option for special

studies, analyses and review efforts for

the littoral Combat Ship (lCS) program.

Austal will provide engineering and design

services to reduce acquisition and life cycle

costs for the Independence variant lCS.

Work will be performed in mobile, Ala. (72

percent), and Pittsfield, massachusetts (28

percent), and is expected to be complete

by march 2016. Fiscal 2014 shipbuild-

ing and conversion (Navy) funding in the

amount of $2,000,000 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.


Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Pacific Consolidated Industries

LLC, Riverside, Calif., is being awarded

an $18,179,476 ceiling-priced, indefinite-

delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the

procurement of up to 11 liquid oxygen/

nitrogen generators (two pilot production

units and nine production units), including

technical data, training material and test-

ing. Work will be performed in Riverside,

Calif., and is expected to be completed

in march 2020. Fiscal 2015 aircraft

procurement (Navy) funds in the amount

of $6,026,362 will be obligated at time of

award, none of which will expire at the

end of the current fiscal year. This contract

was solicited via an electronic request for

proposals; one offer was received. The

Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division,

lakehurst, N.J., is the contracting activity

(N68335-15-D-0019).

Atlas North America LLC, Va. Beach,

Va., is being awarded a $14,085,779

firm-fixed-priced, indefinite-delivery/

indefinite-quantity requirements contract

for depot level repair, maintenance, modi-

fications, engineering services and spare

parts for the AN/SlQ-60 Surface mine

Neutralization System (SmNS) to support

the Navy for the currently deployed mine

countermeasures legacy systems. The

SmNS provides neutralization of shallow

and deep-water mines located by the

AN/AQS-24A mine Detecting Set, and/

or other mine countermeasures as-

sets. The system is used by Navy ships

and helicopters. This contract includes

options which, if exercised, would bring

the cumulative value of this contract to

$76,469,768. Work will be performed in

Panama City Beach, Fla. (60 percent);

Bahrain (25 percent); Va. Beach, Va. (10

percent); S. korea (2.5 percent); Japan

(2.5 percent), and is expected to be

completed by march 2016. No funding

is being obligated at time of award. No

funds will expire at the end of the cur-

rent fiscal year. This contract was not

competitively procured in accordance with

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as implemented by

FAR 6.302-1 (a) (2) - only one responsible

source and no other supplies or services

will satisfy agency requirements. Naval

Surface Warfare Center Panama City Divi-

sion, Panama City, Fla., is the contracting

activity (N61331-15-D-0012).

Triton ETD LLC, Breinigsville, Pa., is

being awarded a $6,616,860 firm-fixed-

price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity

contract for the procurement of up to

500 teardowns, evaluations and repairs

for produced I/J Band microwave power

modules in support of the Airborne Threat

Simulation Organization in support of

the U.S. National Guard. Work will be

performed in Breinigsville, Pa., and is

expected to be completed in march 2020.

Fiscal 2013 National Guard and Reserve

equipment funds in the amount of $3,292

are being obligated at time of award, all of

which will expire at the end of the current

fiscal year. This contract was not competi-

tively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1.

The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons

Division, China lake, Calif., is the contract-

ing activity (N68936-15-D-0012).

SupplyCore Inc., Rockford, Ill., has

been awarded a maximum $90,000,000

firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indef-

inite-quantity contract for maintenance,

repair, and operations supplies contract

for North central region. This contract was

a competitive acquisition and 10 offers

were received. This is a five-year base

contract with no option periods. loca-

tion of performance is Ill. with a march

10, 2020, performance completion date.

Using military services are Army, Navy, Air

Force, marine Corps and federal civilian

agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal

year 2015 defense working capital funds.

The contracting activity is the Defense

logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadel-

phia, Pa. (SPe8e3-15-D-0013).

11MArCh

Long Wave Inc., Okla. City, Okla., is

being awarded an $8,583,356 indefinite-

delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-

fixed-fee contract for Very low Frequen-

cy (VlF)/low Frequency (lF) transmitter

and antenna support engineering ser-

vices. This five-year contract includes no

option periods. Work will be performed

at Government VlF/lF facilities world-

wide to include the United States, Puerto

Rico, Australia, Italy, Japan, and Iceland

(70 percent), and the contractor’s facility

in Okla. City, Okla. (30 percent). Work

is expected to be completed march 11,

2020. No funds will be obligated at the

time of award. Funding will be obligated

via task orders beginning in fiscal 2015.

The types of funding to be obligated

include operations and maintenance

(Navy), research, development, test

and evaluation, and other procurement

(Navy). Contract funds will not expire at

the end of the current fiscal year. This

contract was competitively procured via

a 100 percent small business set-aside

solicitation via publication on the Federal

Business Opportunities website and the

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Com-

mand e-Commerce Central website, with

one proposal received. The Space and

Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific,

San Diego, Calif., is the contracting

activity (N66001-15-D-0068).

Huntington Ingalls Inc., Newport

News Shipbuilding, Newport News, Va.,

is being awarded an $8,396,093 cost-

plus-fixed-fee modification to previously

awarded contract (N00024-14-G-2114)

for fiscal 2015 propulsion plant engineer-

ing activity support for CVN 68 class life

cycle management. engineering support

services include analyses, configuration

management and recommendations for

ship change documents. Work will be per-

formed in Newport News, Va., and is ex-

pected to complete by march 2016. Fiscal

2015 operations and maintenance (Navy)

contract funds in the amount of $8,396,093

will be obligated at the time of award and

will expire at the end of the current fiscal

year. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Con-

version and Repair, Newport News, Va., is

the contracting activity.


Lion-Vallen Industries, Dayton, Ohio,

is being awarded a $24,996,000 firm-

fixed-price requirements contract for

logistics services to manage, support,

and operate the marine Corps Con-

solidated Storage Program Individual

Issue Facility and Unit Issue Facility

warehouse network. Contractor sup-

port consists of managing individual

combat clothing equipment, chemical,

biological, radiological, and nuclear

defense equipment, special training

allowance pool, soft-walled shelters

and camouflage netting, and contrac-

tor-owned contractor-operated Asset

Visibility Capability system. Work will

be performed in Barstow, Calif. (23

percent); Camp lejeune, N.C. (18

percent); Camp Pendleton, Calif. (13

percent); Okinawa, Japan (10 percent);

miramar, Calif. (9 percent); Camp

Geiger, N.C. (7 percent); Twentynine

Palms, Calif. (4 percent); Cherry Point,

N.C. (4 percent); kaneohe Bay, hawaii

(3 percent); yuma, Ariz. (2 percent);

Beaufort, South Carolina (2 percent);

Iwakuni, Japan (2 percent);

New River, N.C. (2 percent); and

Bridgeport, Calif. (1 percent). Work is

expected to be completed in Febru-

ary 2016. Fiscal 2015 operations

and maintenance funds in amount of

$24,996,000 are being obligated at

the time of award and funds will expire

at the end of the current fiscal year.

This was a sole source contract in

accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(1),

as implemented by the FAR 6.302-1,

only one source. The marine Corps

logistics Command, Albany, Ga.,

is the contracting activity (m67004-

15-D-0001).

Thermo-Fisher Scientific, Franklin,

massachusetts, is being awarded a

$19,900,325 firm-fixed-price contract

for the provision of thermoluminescent

dosimetry equipment and accessories

to be used by Department of the Navy

personnel who work in the vicinity of

radioactive equipment. The equipment

being procured is considered commer-

cial-off-the-shelf. Personnel dosimetry

is used to measure an individual’s radi-

ation exposure and to aid in minimiz-

ing exposure. Personnel dosimetry has

medical, epidemiological, and legal

significance and must be conscien-

tiously practiced by trained personnel

with the appropriate approved equip-

ment. Work will be performed in West

Bethesda, md., and work is expected

to be completed in march 2020. Fiscal

2013 other procurement (Navy) fund-

ing in the amount of $11,888 will be

obligated at time of award. Contract

funds will expire at the end of the cur-

rent fiscal year. This contract was not

competitively procured in accordance

with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) - only one

responsible source and no other sup-

plies will satisfy agency requirements

(FAR 6.302-1). Only one source will

satisfy the agency’s needs because it

is essential to have complete compat-

ibility and interchangeability between

the new and existing systems. The

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Card-

erock Division, West Bethesda, md.,

is the contracting activity (N00167-

15-D-0001).

Lockheed Martin Corp., Information

Systems and Global Services, king

of Prussia, Pa., is being awarded a

$7,922,203 modification to a previ-

ously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee

contract (N00019-10-C-0064) for soft-

ware development in support of the

Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control

System, including system engineer-

ing, software, hardware deployment

and support, and management efforts

required to field the system. This

contract combines purchases for the

U.S. Navy ($7,853,820; 99 percent)

and the government of the United

kingdom ($68,383; 1 percent) under

the foreign military sales (FmS) pro-

gram. Work will be performed in king

of Prussia, Pa., and is expected to be

completed in November 2017. Fiscal

2015 research, development, test and

evaluation; fiscal 2015 other procure-

ment, (Navy); fiscal 2015 operations

and maintenance (Navy); fiscal 2011,

2012, 2014 shipbuilding and conver-

sion (Navy), and FmS contract funds

in the amount of $7,922,203 are being

obligated on this award, $1,231,980 of

which will expire at the end of the cur-

rent fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems

Command, Patuxent River, md., is the

contracting activity.

ERAPSCO, Columbia City, Ind., is

being awarded a $20,427,800 modifica-

tion to a previously awarded firm-fixed-

price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quan-

tity contract (N00421-14-D-0025) to

exercise an option for the procurement

of up to 5,000 AN/SSQ-125 sonobuoys.

Work will be performed in Deleon

Springs, Fla. (52 percent), and Columbia

City, Ind. (48 percent), and is expected

to be completed in October 2017.

No funding will be obligated at time

of award. Funds will be obligated on

individual delivery orders as they are is-

sued. The Naval Air Systems Command,

Patuxent River, md., is the contracting

activity.

Rockwell Collins Inc., Government

Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is being

awarded an $11,490,540 modification to

a previously awarded firm-fixed-price,

indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity

contract (N00019-15-D-5501) for the

procurement of 1,695 ancillary equip-

ment items for the AN/ARC-210

family of electronic protection radio

equipment for domestic and foreign

military sales aircraft. Work will be per-

formed in Cedar Rapids, Iowa,

and is expected to be completed in

September 2018. Contract funds will

not be obligated at the time of award.

The Naval Air Systems Command,

Patuxent River, md., is the contracting

activity.

10MArCh

9MArCh

ConTraCT awards

Documents

Navy 1.3 (March 17, 2015)