Sea Power: You lead one of the Navy's largest program executive
offices--how would you describe your responsibilities?
COBB: I am
responsible for construction of new Aegis guided-missile destroyers [the
Arleigh Burke DDG-51 class] and life-cycle support for the surface
combatants that are in commission--Aegis destroyers and cruisers, Spruance-class
destroyers, and the FFGs [Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile
frigates]. We have 27 guided-missile cruisers in commission, 27 Aegis DDGs,
and roughly 70 other surface combatants.
The third part of
my job is Navy theater air defense. It includes area missile defense,
which is the low end of ballistic missile defenses against Scud-type
[theater ballistic] missiles, and Navy theater ballistic missile
defense--which goes against higher, faster, longer-range ballistic
missiles.
My job also
includes responsibility for several other programs--the Standard Missile
program, for example--and a number of ship-defense and combat-system
programs, including the Cooperative Engagement Capability [CEC] program.
With some exceptions, I am responsible for most weapon-acquisition
programs for combatant ships.
What does
life-cycle support entail?
COBB: Life-cycle
support involves the maintenance and modernization for commissioned ships
and systems. Life-cycle support includes periodic major overhauls and
shorter selected-restricted availabilities for ship maintenance and
modernization. The cruiser-conversion program, for example, is one of the
most significant life-cycle support issues we're working on today.
You report to
the chief of naval operations for your life-cycle support mission, right?
COBB: That's
correct. I report to two people. I report to the chief of naval operations
[Adm. Jay L. Johnson] for fleet support through Admiral Nanos at NAVSEA
[Vice Adm. George P. Nanos Jr., commander, Naval Sea Systems Command]. I
also report to the secretary of the Navy [Richard Danzig] through Dr.
Buchanan [H. Lee Buchanan III, the assistant secretary of the Navy for
research, development, and acquisition] under my acquisition hat. I have
different chains of command for each function.
How is the
merger of the Aegis program with the PEO for Theater Air Defense working
out--has it achieved the goals for consolidation?
COBB: In May
1998, we placed one officer in charge of many systems that have to do with
surface combatants when we combined the PEO [Program Executive Office] for
Surface Combatants and the PEO for Theater Air Defense. There is no
question that the merger has improved the integration of our present
systems and that of the new systems that are being developed for surface
combatants. It has already started to bear fruit. We are in the process
now of refining the organization and making some personnel changes to
better define what we ought to be as a total organization, but that's a
normal thing that's going to go on for several years.
The
reorganization was an important step forward and has helped both
organizations become more effective. As an example, we were able to get
the Navy Theater Wide [Ballistic Missile Defense] program through
acquisition "Milestone One" in the last few months--a
significant achievement. The briefings to the secretary of defense and his
staff were greatly simplified by having a single point of contact for both
the Navy Theater Wide program and for the pieces that go into the
program--the missile, the computer program, the peripherals. It has
greatly enhanced that process and made for a fairly straightforward
transition.
The merger's
other ad-vantage involves the tradeoffs that you make when you are
building a new ship. For example, how much new technology are you going to
be able to put on an Aegis destroyer during its five years of
construction? We're continually being exposed to new technology with
commercial-off-the-shelf equipment. Through the engineering change
process, we are not only able to build a new ship, but we're able to
incorporate necessary changes in technology during construction. We're
able to make those decisions from both a financial and a warfighter's
perspective--all under the same organization. This greatly enhances our
ability to engineer these systems correctly and to save money in doing so.
Is the merger
saving money?
COBB: Not yet,
but it will soon. We're still a relatively new organization and are
developing those kinds of metrics [i.e., performance measures], but it's a
good question. Certainly, the procedures and the systems-engineering
approach eventually are going to lead to savings. We will consolidate many
of our larger contracts. Along with contract administration, there are a
whole host of administrative processes that cost money, and we will
generate significant savings when we consolidate several of our contracts
and realize the obvious efficiencies.
Another area
where savings will be made involves the reduction in total-ownership costs
for our ACAT one and two [high-cost acquisition category I and II]
programs. Each one has a performance initiative in place to reduce
total-ownership costs. I estimate we will save a total of approximately $1
billion over the course of the Future-Years Defense Plan. That program is
an outgrowth of the emphasis of the secretary of Navy, but now that we're
one organization it makes it much easier to identify where those savings
are. We have greater visibility, and we avoid having people work at
cross-purposes.
Multiyear
contracting also generates significant cost savings, correct?
COBB: I'm glad
you mentioned that. The multiyear contract for Aegis [the March 1998
multiyear contract for 14 Arleigh Burke-class DDG-51 Aegis ships] was a
great triumph. It occurred before our reorganization, but it is a superb
example of the contract savings I'm talking about. The multiyear contract
for Aegis destroyers saved the government $1.4 billion in documented
savings, so we essentially paid for two extra destroyers as a result of
the way that the contract was negotiated with Bath [Bath Iron Works] and
Ingalls [Ingalls Shipbuilding Inc.].
Will multiyear
contracts be used for the remaining ships in the class?
COBB: The Navy is
still deciding what to do with the 02 and 03 contracts [contracts
projected for 2002 and 2003] to close out the Aegis buy.
There are 24
Aegis DDGs under contract now and 27 in the fleet. Is it going to be a
multiyear buy or a competition between Bath and Ingalls for a proportion
of ships for each shipyard? We don't know the answer yet. We're in
discussions right now with the assistant secretary of the Navy, Dr.
Buchanan.
Do you plan
substantial system upgrades for these last DDG-51 ships?
COBB: Absolutely.
A ship's design evolves over time. DDG 51, [USS] Arleigh Burke,
doesn't look anything like the latest DDG that we just commissioned, USS Higgins
[DDG 76]. There are all kinds of new systems on it. The
engineering-control system has been significantly upgraded. The combat
system has been significantly upgraded. The helicopter-landing lights are
now inboard and recessed. All outside lighting, including the helo deck,
is coordinated through a LAN [local-area computer network] and controlled
from a single box. Virtually every system on the ship has been upgraded.
DDG 79, Oscar
Austin, will be commissioned next year as our first "Flight IIA"
ship. DDG 79 and the remaining ships in the class will have two permanent
hangars for SH-60s [Seahawk helicopters]. That is a significant departure
from the design of DDG 51 through 78.
This will give
the ship improved ASW [antisubmarine warfare] and ASMD [antiship missile
defense] capabilities.
COBB: It sure
will! As a matter of fact, speaking of ASW, as ships get built down the
line, the SQQ-89 system--the heart of our ASW system--gets more and more
digital. The more it gets digital, the more you can remove their big
cabinets. The latest version of the SQQ-89 is much smaller and much more
efficient than the old system.
One other
significant thing about DDG 79 is that it is our first ship completely
designed by computer-aided design [CAD]. We saved money by designing it by
computer. Bath and Ingalls work very closely together in this
computer-aided design project. They are both on the same sheet of
music--it is quite elegant. I'm happy to report that the DDG program is
doing just fine. The ships are coming out on time and under budget.
During his
first year in office, Secretary Danzig has placed added emphasis on
improving a Sailor's working and living conditions aboard ship. Are these
priorities reflected in ship-design and modernization programs?
COBB: Absolutely.
We are improving the interior habitability and living conditions on our
ships by backfitting new equipment on ships that are already in the fleet
and by installing it on ships under construction.
Take our
reverse-osmosis desalinators, for example. They are what another
generation of Sailors would call "evaporators"--they make fresh
water and are tremendous machines. One of the quality-of-life challenges
you once faced at sea was to provide sufficient fresh water. With the old
boiler steam [propulsion] plants, you always had to worry about
water--there was frequent water rationing on smaller ships. Our new ships,
of course, don't have boilers; they have gas turbines. Even with gas
turbines, distilling plants were inefficient and maintenance-intensive.
With the new reverse-osmosis machines, however, you make more fresh water
than you can possibly use and the mean time between failures is way down.
All but seven of the DDGs have been backfitted right now.
Another
improvement is the new and efficient trash compactor. It's a tremendous
machine that allows us to comply with the environmental restrictions on
disposing of trash and garbage over the side. Sailors don't have large
amounts of trash lying around awaiting disposal on a barge--the compactor
makes compressed disks that you just dispose of when you can. We also will
put the new sit-up racks [berths] into the new DDGs as soon as space and
crew size allow. Sailors can actually sit up and work in the rack.
A number of
quality-of-life improvements relate to "Smart Ship" technology
that we are incorporating into the DDGs and the cruisers. Most ships now
have ATMs [automatic-teller machines]--the old pay line is fast going by
the boards. We are greatly reducing the amount of paper that's on the
ship--freeing up space for other purposes.
Smart Ship
technologies also will enable us to reduce the size of the crew--the goal
for DD-21 [next-generation land-attack destroyer] is under 100. It's an
ambitious goal, but if they are able to achieve it, the savings over the
life of that ship compared to a DDG--which has a crew of roughly 300--are
enormous. It is on the order of billions of dollars. The other thing about
a smaller crew is that you have more space for improved habitability or
other purposes.
Other
quality-of-life improvements include e-mail--you now can e-mail your
spouse while at sea. We now have TV-DTS--Television-Direct to Ships and a
robust VTC [video teleconferencing] capability. The most important thing I
can do as a PEO is to get combat capability to the fleet and to improve
the quality of life for Sailors. One way to do this is to make equipment
better--make it so that it does not require as much maintenance.
In Yorktown [a
Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser], the prototype Smart Ship, we
took a very structured engineering approach to reduce the amount of
preventive maintenance on that ship by 47 percent--without affecting the
readiness of the combat system. That translates to less work for
Sailors--or 10 to 20 people you don't need on that ship anymore. That is
the kind of quality-of-life improvement that we're talking about on the
Smart Ship.
And, with less
maintenance, perhaps more liberty for the Sailor?
COBB: Absolutely.
This is more of a fleet issue, but I participate as part of my
fleet-support mission with both type commanders [Naval Surface Force
commanders with the U.S. Atlantic and U.S. Pacific Fleets]. Each has very
innovative programs underway to attack the interdeployment-training cycle,
and we talk regularly. The marriage of technological, procedural, and
policy change will enable us to improve a Sailor's quality of life
significantly. I am one of the people who facilitates the technology that
allows it to happen.
All of the
systems commands and the fleet are pulling together to improve
interoperability; how do you play in that effort?
COBB: We have a
substantial role and have made significant improvements. CNO directed
NAVSEA to become the focal point for interoperability in the Navy under
SEA 05 [Warfare Systems Directorate]. We focused first on [aircraft
carrier] battle groups. During their predeployment cycle, they go through
a very structured procedure at sea to run all the systems to see if they
work together.
Ashore, we use
the computers and simulators of the Distributed Engineering Plant--a group
of shore stations--to take a battle group at sea and "plug in"
to see how all their systems work--communications, information systems,
and the like. We can identify any significant problems many months before
they deploy. We are on our fourth battle group now, and it has allowed us
to integrate the [acquisition] stovepipes in our more complex world. The
systems being built have to be able to interact through computerized
information and communication systems. The idea of interoperability is to
test all those systems before they go on deployment. We have a lot more to
do, but compared to where we were two or three years ago, it has been a
real success story. This emphasis on interoperability also greatly
enhanced our ability to handle the Y2K problem [computer-software problems
associated with the year 2000 date change].
Are our allies
addressing the interoperability issue?
COBB: Yes. The
issue is worked on three levels--the Navy level, the joint [multiservice]
level, and the coalition level. It is not enough to make sure that your
own systems talk to each other-- we have to make sure that you can talk to
an Air Force commander. We do pretty well at that now compared to where we
were at Desert Storm--look at Kosovo. We are concentrating now on the
Navy's battle groups and joint warfare. The business of our allies is
beyond my scope of responsibility.
Mr. Hamre
[Deputy Secretary of Defense John J. Hamre] has said that our allies need
to put greater emphasis on the technology needed to fight a modern war.
COBB: I'm aware
of that, yes. We do, however, have a very close cooperative relationship
with a number of our allies in foreign military sales. In the case of
Japan, they have built four Aegis destroyers with our systems--the Kongo-class
guided-missile destroyer--and they are considering an option to buy two
more. Many of the systems on that ship are U.S.-built, although some are
Japanese. Lockheed Martin and other contractors integrated both the
Japanese and U.S. systems. The U.S. Seventh Fleet has a very close
cooperative relationship with them in the Western Pacific.
Our other
relatively new program involves Spain. We are providing the Aegis combat
system to their new frigate--the F100 Bazan class. They will build four of
these frigates. I attended the keel-laying ceremony for the first ship
earlier this year. Several other countries are talking to us about the
possibility of buying Aegis, and we are very excited about that.
Japan also is
very interested in our Navy Theater Wide and Area BMD programs--as well
they should be since two missiles have been fired over their country [by
North Korea]. We are talking to them about working together to develop
part of the missile that goes with the Navy Theater Wide program.
The Navy has
several PEOs responsible for surface ships--separate PEOs for
expeditionary warfare's amphibious and logistics ships, the DD-21 program,
aircraft carriers, and surface combatants. Does this stovepiping hamper
systems integration across platforms?
COBB: The
challenges are being met without too many problems, but the process is
complicated by having a large number of ships that are in existence even
as we design new ships for the future. One challenge involves legacy
systems--systems that have been around a long time supported by the normal
supply system. A challenge occurs when you have a ship with both
new and legacy systems--a combination of the two. What do you do about
configuration control?
I meet with my
fellow PEOs regularly to talk about these problems and discuss how we can
help. There are many IPTs [integrated-process teams] in place to look at
these issues across the PEOs. Integration may not be seamless, but it is a
challenge that certainly can be met. It is a matter of coordination.
Do your
regular meetings with Admiral Nanos and NAVSEA's Executive Steering
Committee assist in this process?
COBB: Absolutely.
We also have close working relationships from a personal standpoint. One
of the things that we do is talk about organizational issues and strategic
planning. For example, as the Aegis program winds down and the DD-21
program winds up, how do we organize ourselves? The last Aegis destroyer
will still be in commissioned service sometime after 2040. We may want to
merge my organization with DD-21 at some point in the future. I don't
know. That decision is years away, but it is something we are going to
talk about in the next couple of years if we are to maintain our
destroyers, cruisers, and the DD-21 program properly.
You also have
industrial-base considerations.
COBB: Absolutely.
I should say that our relationship with industry has continued to improve.
It will get closer still as the number of companies goes down, new
industry teams are formed, and these companies recommit themselves to
working with us to save money and meet schedules.
The future for
the Navy's surface combatant warships promises to be exciting, don't you
think?
COBB: Yes, I do.
For example, we are developing the Cooperative Engagement Capability--an
exciting new capability being tested at sea right now on four ships. CEC
provides the ability to take sensors and net them together to put weapons
on target in a different way. You also have a network for passing of all
kinds of information in ways that we have never done before.
This means that a
ship that does not hold [i.e., track or have a firing solution for] a
target on its own radar is going to be able to shoot missiles at the
target based on information obtained from another ship. That will vastly
increase the battle group's battle space, but the other thing that CEC
brings is the ability to transmit and receive an incredible amount of
information over the network in real time. We have never had this
capability, and it will enable the joint warfighter to participate too.
Frankly, we had
some tough interoperability challenges that we had to solve on the
[guided-missile cruisers] Hue City and Vicksburg in 1997 and
1998, but they are mainly behind us now. Recent reports indicate we've
made lots of progress here. The first all-CEC battle group will deploy in
2003. CEC will spark a revolutionary development in our warfare doctrine.
How would you
describe your leadership style?
COBB: The most
important thing we can do around here is to take care of our people. My
leadership style is to be a mentor. Nobody is indispensable, so I am
active in the business of training my potential relief. I expect all
senior leaders to do the same thing. I am committed to getting the level
of responsibility down as far as it can go in our organization so our
younger people can learn and be trained. We monitor that pretty carefully.
I also think you
do much better when you are on a business-like even keel--treating
everybody the right way. I have a very complex organization with many
things happening. I also have to deal with Congress almost every day, with
the giants of industry, and with other staffs. All of that lends itself to
people who are calm, cool, and collected. I think that the synergy of what
my organization is trying to do with NAVSEA under Admiral Nanos is very
important. You can do anything if you don't care who gets the credit!
In closing, is
there anything else you would like to say to the readers of Sea Power?
COBB: I would
like to take this opportunity to pass my personal thanks to Navy League
members for their important and unswerving support to our nation's sea
services. We need them to continue their work as advocates on our behalf.
Due in no small measure to their good work, I continue to believe that the
Navy is on track for the 21st century. The road ahead won't be easy--there
will be budget fights, political pressures, and real enemy forces with
which we have to contend, but I am confident we will prevail.
|
