Integrated Warfare Systems Office Consolidates Programs, Cuts Costs

Still to Come: Leveraging Investments Across the Fleet to Generate $2 Billion in Savings

By PATRICIA KIME
Sea Power Correspondent

Many critics in Washington predicted more than a year ago that the realignment of the Navy’s integrated warfare systems (IWS) under one acquisition umbrella would not last because its size and complexity would pose impassable barriers to success. Today, Rear Adm. Charles T. Bush, the program executive officer in charge of IWS, offers this news: programs have been tightened, support costs are down, and open architecture — the conversion of the service’s diverse information system protocols into a universal network — is becoming reality.

Still to come are $2 billion in long-term savings, due in large part to IWS’ leveraging of hardware systems across the Navy’s new acquisition programs.

The Navy’s Integrated Warfare Systems Program Executive Office (IWS PEO) quietly celebrated its first anniversary Nov. 1, 2003, marking a year of birth and transformation in an office that inherited 27 different programs with 528 employees. The office was created when John J. Young Jr., Navy assistant secretary for research, development, and acquisition, reorganized the responsibilities of those who oversee development and acquisition at Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA).

Young realigned the program executive offices to streamline NAVSEA’s acquisition efforts for ships, aircraft, submarines, and weapons systems. Where the Navy once had six program executive offices, it now has five:

· Integrated Warfare Systems Program Executive Office, responsible for combat systems aboard submarines and surface ships (with a few exceptions).

· Program Executive Office Ships, overseeing ship construction and support of all non-nuclear platforms.

· Program Executive Office Littoral and Mine Warfare, heads explosive ordnance disposal, special warfare, mine warfare, and unmanned vehicles.

· Program Executive Office Submarines.

· Program Executive Office Carriers.

According to its charter, the IWS PEO is responsible for surface ship and submarine combat systems, missiles (except the Trident ballistic missile and Tomahawk cruise missile), radars, launchers (except Trident), electronic warfare, and gun systems. It is directed to integrate the software programs for combat systems on all ships and submarines and must coordinate antisubmarine warfare area projects across the other program executive officers. In addition, it oversees the construction and purchase of new integrated warfare systems.

The reorganization was done to place like systems under one flag officer to streamline the acquisition process.

“We did two things that made a lot of sense,” Young said. “We took a look at ship issues that affect all ships, to look where we could join materials, and, for combat systems, we stood up a combat IWS to integrate them. We planned to do our best to not reinvent systems.”

The creation of a one-stop shop for integrated warfare systems drew fire from critics who couldn’t see separating combat systems from their platforms. But Young viewed it as a cost-saving opportunity and efficiency measure, especially as the Navy formulates its acquisition plans for several major ship systems, including its future destroyer (DD(X)), the next aircraft carrier (CVN 21), the Littoral Combat Ship, and an AEGIS systems modernization project.

“We’ve got the world’s best combat systems, but it’s a challenge to integrate capabilities and a cost to maintain them,” Young said in a recent interview. “Very quickly, we decided to start marching through on sharing combat systems.”

To form IWS PEO, Bush first established the office and started realigning programs. He reduced 27 programs to seven and will cut about 140 personnel. His staff worked with defense industry companies to ensure they understood the transformation, and he began a long process of streamlining and cutting costs while maintaining readiness of 150 surface systems and 10 major combat systems in the fleet.

“We listened to what we were told: ‘Reduce, stop the redundancies, and right size.’ We did that,” Bush said. “We reduced 27 programs to seven. In some cases, that has been tumultuous.”

The initial cost-saving has been significant, Bush said. He managed to reduce office support costs of roughly $190 million to about $118 million. Most was accomplished through trimming redundancies.

The IWS PEO office is divided into five major areas, not including staff, technical support, programs, and acquisitions directors:

· Integrated combat systems, overseeing surface combatants, submarines, carrier and advanced ship combat systems, and open architecture.

· Above-water sensors.

· Surface-ship weapons and launchers, including current surface-to-air missile launcher systems, future systems, and naval surface-fire support.

· Undersea systems, including antisubmarine warfare and other undersea systems.

· Command-and-control networks for naval fires, command centers, and sensor netting.

“We first looked at all warfare systems, period. And then you get into a span of control issues. How big do you want us to be? You could go back to the days of BuOrd [Bureau of Ordnance], and some will say we look like BuOrd now, but you can only have so much span of control within a PEO,” Bush said of the process of divvying up systems in his office.

For Bush, IWS PEO’s first anniversary marked a completion of office structure issues and a move toward stabilization. For a year or two, the office will operate as created, with Bush monitoring output and efficiencies. “We took the risk and now we need to stabilize and see how we do,” he said. “The accomplishments this year, in my opinion, are eye-watering, but how do I know that I didn’t cut too much? I don’t know. So, we watch.”

In the coming year, Bush wants to meet an original goal of reducing total office support costs by 50 percent. He aims to get open architecture started across the board, with legacy and developing systems. And he plans to move forward on the Navy’s quest for a joint composite tracking network — a net that would provide joint forces with a common picture of the combat theater.

The Navy has an ambitious calendar for purchasing new networks, upgrading older weapons systems, and developing new combat systems that can be used and modified to work on various platforms. Add a new office into the mix to coordinate the purchasing, and it is a challenge to see the cost-savings opportunities. But Bush says spending reductions will be enormous. He estimates the Navy can save at least $2 billion in the long term.

“If you look in the budget for software development for DD(X), which is going to be the most sophisticated ship we’ve ever built, there’s almost $3 billion in code. CVN 21 is coming right behind it. Do you want to build another baseline for CVN 21? Do you want to take any of the $3 billion that we are putting in DD(X) and move it to CVN 21? I would think so. The CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] would fire me if we didn’t,” Bush said.

Bush said that if IWS PEO moves much of the expandable DD(X) network architecture, combat systems, and computing plan directly to CVN 21, he’ll save at least half the start-up costs of completely new systems for the carrier. “I’m telling you, it’s avoiding billions,” Bush said. “It allows us to modernize and pace the threat with the money that we have.”

Change always comes at a price, and as in the case of the NAVSEA realignment, it meant cutting jobs and streamlining processes — a difficult task for any enterprise, let alone a bureaucracy. But in one year’s time, Young, Bush, and company feel they are proving that IWS PEO was the way to go.

“This was a risk area and there were people concerned that we would seriously disrupt ongoing successful programs. I can’t overstate how pleased I am that all the teams have assimilated and are working together,” Young said.