Sea Change: NAVSEA Charts Course for Navy of 21st Century

By HUNTER C. KEETER, Associate Editor, and RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor

In 2004, the Navy is poised at an important juncture, with its forces having been restructured following Operation Iraqi Freedom, and its leadership executing new plans for how the fleet will organize and deploy in support of the ongoing global war on terrorism. The transformation under way calls for enhanced capabilities and the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) is building the platforms that will redefine the fleet well into the next century.

With an annual budget that tops $20 billion, NAVSEA is the largest of the service’s five acquisition organizations, managing the development and procurement of the fleet’s vessels and weapon systems. In this special report, Sea Power discusses five platform programs at NAVSEA that are indicative of fundamental change, both operationally and in business practices, for the 21st century Navy.

These five ship programs are the first steps in the creation of a new Navy. Other transformational ships under development or construction are the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship; CG(X), the next-generation cruiser; LHA(R), the replacement for the Tarawa-class amphibious assault ship; the Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo/ammunition ship; and the future Maritime Prepositioning Force ship.

Operationally, the fleet will embrace flexible operations in the littorals — the world’s coastal regions where populations and resources are most densely located, and where conflicts are most likely to occur. NAVSEA’s newest vessels will work alongside current platforms in networked squadrons with new capabilities, such as those of unmanned vehicles operating undersea, on the surface, and in the air, to help the fleet function with fewer people and accomplish a more diverse variety of missions.

“We are not just providing new ships, but by networking our platforms together we are going to provide greater capability,” said Vice Adm. Phillip M. Balisle, NAVSEA commander.

The five programs highlighted in this report also represent substantial business process changes for the Navy. In other military services, the key issue may appear to be equipping the man. A relatively new concept is gaining appreciation in the naval engineering lexicon: human systems engineering — an approach to design and engineering where the human operator is of primary consideration in determining how a computer displays information, or how a mechanical device functions. In the Navy, the challenge is rather to man the equipment. Each of the five new development programs offers an opportunity to use a human systems engineering approach to reduce the number of people required to operate a vessel or system, saving money in the long term.

“It is very important for the future to build an affordable Navy, one that has the kinds of capabilities we need, and one that we can maintain and operate at a reasonable cost,” Balisle said. “This group of ships is going to play a major role in that effort.”

Despite the promised capabilities and savings associated with building the new fleet, the Navy continues to face a battle for resources to pay the high costs of buying its high-tech family of ships. Ronald O’Rourke, a military analyst for the Congressional Research Service, recently told Sea Power that Capitol Hill would be watching closely as the Navy seeks funding approval for lead ship construction in its new programs. In the years to come, as production rates are expected to increase for the new vessels, questions remain over how many of each new kind of ship the nation will be able to afford.

Should the Navy be unsuccessful in building the capabilities resident in these five programs, the consequences could be grave, according to the Navy and observers on Capitol Hill. The fleet would not function economically, given increasing demands for manpower to operate and maintain its legacy platforms. Also, the Navy would not be able to meet the country’s expectations in terms of low casualty rates and the brevity of engagement seen during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

“We would likewise lose the technological foundation — such as in the development of integrated electric power for propulsion and combat systems — that is critical to make the technological leap in capability that we ought to make in the future,” Balisle said.

Changing the nature of the Navy is not disassociated with changing the nation’s ability to support the Navy, Balisle said. He argued for maintaining state-of-the-art capability in shipbuilding as well as in the military, to keep the fleet viable.

“We may continue to win for some time into the future, through the ingenuity of our people, but we will set the Navy and the nation on a course that inevitably will bring inefficiency,” he said. “The consequences in the long term could be very detrimental to the nation, so we don’t plan to fail in this effort to build a new fleet.”

For DD(X), 2004 brings completion of preliminary design and an acquisition strategy that has been evolving since the turn of the century and the demise of the former Zumwalt-class DD-21 advanced destroyer, said Rear Adm. Charles S. Hamilton II, program executive officer for ships.

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council recently reviewed the latest version of the DD(X) capabilities descriptive document, which outlines the characteristics of the new ship that include: 80 vertical launch cells for missiles and two 155mm advanced gun systems with 600-round magazines with rocket-propelled, GPS-guided shells.

Of the engineering development ongoing with DD(X), both Balisle and Hamilton highlighted the integrated power system, which is of key importance not only to the success of DD(X), but to the future of the fleet. The DD(X)’s integrated power system ties ship propulsion power generation with ship electrical power generation and distribution. Hamilton said during a Sea Power interview that the linkage of these two systems will fundamentally change the way the fleet thinks about the application of electrical power at sea.

For example, sharing electrical power loads allows the ship to maximize speed when required, or to maximize weaponry and firepower — in the near term with the advanced gun system and missiles, and, in the longer term, with technologies that were once the stuff of science fiction, such as electromagnetic rail guns and directed energy.

“If we were to look back 50 years from now, the part of DD(X) that is going to make the fundamental change for the Navy is the integrated power system,” Hamilton said. “I liken that to the shift from sail to steam.”

Key challenges ahead for the DD(X) program include its affordability. Can the Navy afford to build two of these ships per year?

O’Rourke said the DD(X)’s mission also may become an issue of discussion. In the years ahead, how important will the Navy, the DoD, and the Congress view the fire support mission for which the DD(X)’s gun and missile armament is being developed?

The DD(X) program also faces the technical challenge of integrating several new technologies — more than have been included in any of the Navy’s previous ship classes. It remains to be seen if that could lead to delays and subsequent concerns about affordability.

The LCS is one of the Navy’s most ambitious acquisition programs, with the plan to contract for two lead ships in FY 2005 and FY 2006 encompassing design and construction approval within less than three years. Hamilton said the speed of the LCS acquisition requires both the government and industry to meet very demanding timelines.

“We have put an enormous amount of energy into achieving the goals of speed-to-market as a subset of satisfying the warfighting requirements for LCS,” Hamilton said.

The speed-to-market acquisition strategy for LCS is the new model not only for future naval shipbuilding, but more broadly for how systems and platforms are procured across the DoD. The speed-to-market approach — which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has championed — has already influenced how the Pentagon’s requirements process is being reshaped to favor flexibility and tailored approaches to contracting for capability and delivering performance rather than systems and hardware.

Three different designs for LCS have been developed over the last year with selection of one or two of those designs expected late this spring. Each approach has in common the technical challenge of delivering a “sea frame,” as NAVSEA has called the LCS hull, with the inherent load-carrying and speed capabilities to make all three of its missions possible. As the LCS program develops a vessel capable of higher speed regimes, NAVSEA is working to balance what Hamilton calls the “iron triangle” of payload, speed, and endurance. Maximizing one piece of that equation detracts from the other two, leading to a complex capability “trade space” that will be the deciding factor for winning designs.

In its first incarnation, the so-called “Flight 0,” LCS will be married to mission modules for antisubmarine warfare, mine warfare, and antisurface warfare. One of the keys to the combat capabilities of LCS and its business potential is defining the mission module interface specifications to include a broader range of makers of sensors and weapon systems, aircraft and unmanned systems. Other mission modules could be developed for LCS based on standard interfaces — including modules for the intelligence community, the medical community, and special operations forces.

For the LCS program, key challenges include whether the concept — a relatively small ship, armed with unmanned vehicles and other advanced technologies — represents the best approach to performing the three stated missions:

shallow-water mine countermeasures; antisubmarine warfare against advanced diesel submarines; and antisurface warfare against the threat from swarming small boats.

A second challenge for the LCS program is related to its force structure implications, O’Rourke said. There is as yet no DoD-approved force structure that includes LCS. The last approved Navy force was a 310-ship fleet plan based on the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. That review did not include LCS. Notably, Rumsfeld has more recently explicitly declined to endorse the Navy’s tentative goal of building a 375-ship fleet.

“We are a ForceNet pilot,” said Rear Adm. Dennis M. Dwyer, program executive officer for aircraft carriers, speaking of the command-and-control capabilities of the Navy’s next-generation aircraft carrier design, CVN 21. “This ship is the centerpiece of the carrier strike group. … The ship becomes a naval warfare command center wherever it goes.”

Dwyer noted that the CVN 21 will feature a series of flexible command centers, able to carry out “integrated strike planning for submarines, destroyers, cruisers, and the carrier air wing.” Such flexibility in design is all-important, he pointed out, because his team is designing a ship that will serve until 2064 and a class that could be steaming well into the 22nd century.

CVN 21’s flexibility will be possible because of open architecture and the ability to bring on special mission packages, such as for special operations or information warfare. The open concept envisions standardized computer hardware architecture that is transferable to any platform and able to accommodate a variety of software applications. This “plug-and-play” aspect will be the heart of the carrier’s integrated warfare system, which will also benefit from the designs of the DD(X) and LCS. The new carrier will use the same phased array antennas and multifunction radars as DD(X). (Dwyer will determine which systems may be retrofitted in the Nimitz-class carriers.) CVN 21 also will be equipped with the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile and the Ship Self-Defense System.

CVN 21 will be the first carrier class designed to operate a squadron of Joint Unmanned Air Combat Systems

(J-UCASs), scheduled to become operational in 2015. In addition, the Joint Precision Aircraft Landing System will be “our precision landing aid” on the new class, Dwyer said.

CVN 78, the first CVN 21 hull, will feature a simplified nuclear reactor, which will deliver the same performance as the reactor used by the Nimitz class at a reduced life-cycle cost, but will deliver up to three times the electrical power. This electricity will power all of the ship’s auxiliary systems, including the new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS), which is replacing the steam-powered catapult, and the Advanced Arresting Gear, which is replacing the older hydraulic-powered system. Two companies — Northrop Grumman and General Atomics — are competing to build both flight-deck systems. Full-scale models of the EMALS contenders are being tested at Lakehurst, N.J.; a competitive decision is scheduled for March.

The key design features of CVN 21 will allow significant reductions in the size of the ship’s crew because of reduced maintenance requirements and more efficient operations. Although a key performance parameter is a reduction of 500 crewmembers, Dwyer’s own goal is to reduce the crew by 900 (not including reductions in air wing personnel), including many from the air, weapons, engineering, and reactor departments.

Ordnance handlers in the weapons department should see major improvements in workload. In current carriers, a bomb might travel up to a quarter of a mile and take up to two hours “to get it to the roof,” Dwyer said. The new semi-autonomous weapons elevators and magazine handling equipment being designed for CVN 21 will greatly reduce the time and effort required for weapons handling.

The flight deck on CVN 21 will feature a smaller island, moved farther aft, and one less aircraft elevator, to free up more deck space and offer unrestricted operation of all four catapults. “Pit stops” will enable aircraft to receive fuel, weapons, and maintenance attention at one spot. An increased sortie generation rate — and hence warfighting capability — should result from these and other efficiencies.

While CVN 78 is being designed, Dwyer is looking ahead to spiral development for CVN 79. His team is working closely with the Office of Naval Research and a forum called Carrier Tech to bring focus on the latest technology. He is excited about the potential of modern electrical power distribution and storage (“I am building a city here!”), which will allow for systems such as directed-energy weapons.

CVN 21 should prove to be a good match for the chief of naval operation’s new “surge” deployment planning. The class is designed to be maintained with reduced depot-level shipyard periods, and its “plug-and-play” command centers will allow for flexibility in response to contingencies.

Dwyer sees “extremely strong” congressional support for CVN 21. “They recognize the need to have carriers.” In FY 2003, Congress “plussed up” the budget for CVN 21 by $160 million. The CVN 21 program has received $5 billion for design, research, and development. Dwyer said that CVN 78 will cost $6.7 billion in FY 2007 dollars. The program is “on target in both schedule and cost,” he said.

“The teaming arrangement itself is marvelous,” Rear Adm. John D. Butler, program executive officer for submarines, told Sea Power when speaking of the design and construction of the Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN). When Congress in 1998 told the Navy to preserve two builders of nuclear-powered ships, General Dynamics Electric Boat and Northrop Grumman Newport News joined to share the program and specialize in complementary components of the submarines.

Butler touted many advantages and noted no downsides to the teaming arrangement. The two shipbuilders — normally competitors — have been sharing knowledge and lessons learned, and helping each other in producing the Navy’s newest submarine. Butler noted an openness to considering ways to build the boats in a more cost-efficient way.

The lead boat — Virginia — is on schedule for delivery in June, and within budget. Late last year, the Secretary of the Navy decided to slow procurement of Virginia-class SSNs by cutting out two boats during the next five years. Butler noted that if the Navy should see fit to increase the procurement rate, he stands ready to take the necessary action.

“The Virginia is an easily upgradeable platform,” Butler said, and will support much in the way of spiral development. A 30-boat class is planned. Beyond that, there are no major hull changes planned, but the Navy is studying how to increase the payload of the class.

The Virginia will be the first submarine built for the Navy that has “racks” — beds — for every crew member. The boat will have a deploying crew of 117 personnel, compared with 133 personnel of the older Los Angeles-class SSN, which is equipped with 101 racks and must “hot-bunk” its crew.

The Secretary of the Navy will select the homeports of the Virginia-class SSNs. Butler said that the Navy is considering basing the USS Virginia and USS Texas in Groton, Conn., and the USS Hawaii and USS North Carolina in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, but that the proposal has not yet gone forward for approval.

The four Ohio-class nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines (SSGNs) being converted from ballistic-missile submarines will be equipped with a state-of-the-art communications center adapted from the one featured in the new Virginia-class SSN, said Butler. With some upgrades, the communications center will house capabilities in a frequency spectrum ranging from ultra-high to extra-low frequency communications.

All four Ohio SSGNs will be delivered in the same configuration, Butler said: armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles and equipped to carry 66 special operations forces and their equipment. Two missile tubes will feature a lock-in/lock-out capability for deploying special operations forces. The submarines will carry two underwater vehicles, either Advanced SEAL Delivery Systems or Dry Deck Shelters.

The Multiple All-Up-Round Canisters — designed by Northrop Grumman to house and launch Tomahawk missiles from the former Trident ballistic-missile tubes — are now under production, their design having been influenced by the lessons learned in the Giant Shadow experiment conducted last year. Future systems such as unmanned underwater vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles are planned for spiral development of the SSGNs.

Ship habitability is being addressed during the submarines’ conversion periods. Permanent berthing for the 66 special operations troops, as well as showers and lavatories, are being installed, as is a physical workout facility. An unclassified-level local area network also is being installed to allow the troops e-mail access to home.

Butler pointed out the advantages of converting the submarines at Navy shipyards and bringing industry yardworkers to the site. Because the boats are being refueled as well as being converted, completing the work at a Navy shipyard where both processes can be performed limits the time and expense to one dry-dock period instead of two for each submarine.

On Dec. 18, 2003, General Dynamics Electric Boat was awarded a $222 million Navy contract modification to convert the first boat, Ohio, to the SSGN configuration.