August 18, 2020 | International, Naval

Top US Navy chief talks connecting tech, recovering from accidents

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is on the brink of what could be a major shift in how it operates, but first the service's top officer wants a plan to both field technologies that have been lagging for years and develop a path forward to add new unmanned tech to the mainstream fleet.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday took on his latest role in August 2019 and has since been vocal about not just the need to field new tech, but also figuring out how it all fits together.

In an exclusive July 16 interview with Defense News, the CNO talked about developing and executing his plans, as well as what it will take for the Navy to recover from a series of high-profile accidents and scandals.

The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Congress has been asking how the Navy plans to integrate unmanned surface vessels, and whether the service is prematurely committing to them.

We've got a family of unmanned systems we're working on. Undersea, we've got extra-large, large and medium unmanned underwater vehicles; on the surface we have small, medium and large unmanned surface vessels; and in the air we have a number of programs.

What I've asked the N9 [warfare systems directorate] to do is come to me with a campaign plan that ties all those together with objectives at the end. I've got a bunch of horses in the race, but at some point I have to put my money down on the thoroughbred that's going to take me across the finish line so I can make an investment in a platform I have high confidence in and that I can scale.

What I've found is that we didn't necessarily have the rigor that's required across a number of programs that would bring those together in a way that's driven toward objectives with milestones. If you took a look at [all the programs], where are there similarities and where are there differences? Where am I making progress in meeting conditions and meeting milestones that we can leverage in other experiments? At what point do I reach a decision point where I drop a program and double down on a program that I can accelerate?

Observers have questioned whether the Navy has a concrete idea of what it wants these unmanned surface vessels to do. What's the progress on that front?

The concept of operations that the fleet is working on right now will be delivered in the fall, and that talks conceptually about how we intend to employ unmanned in distributed maritime operations. The other piece of this is, what would a day-to-day laydown look like of unmanned forward?

The Navy has got to be forward: For obvious reasons we don't want the fight back here; the Navy exists to operate forward. That's where we need to be in numbers. And with unmanned, if you are not there at the right time, you are irrelevant.

There has to be a number of unmanned [systems] forward. I can't just decide to rally unmanned out of San Diego or in the Pacific northwest at a time when they'll be too late to need.

You've talked about a “Manhattan Project” to get a reliable network to deploy overseas that can bind together all these new platforms. Where are you with that?

That's a critical piece of this, and a really important point of discussion with respect to unmanned, whether that's in the air, on the sea or under the sea, is the Navy Tactical Grid. Coming into the job, the projections for the Navy Tactical Grid was for delivery in about 2035. I knew that was way, way too late.

We're investing in netted weapons, netted platforms, netted headquarters — but we don't have a net.

So, on a handshake with [then-Air Force Chief of Staff] Gen. [David] Goldfein, I said: “Look, I am all in, and my vision is that the Navy Tactical Grid would be the naval plug into JADC2 [Joint All-Domain Command and Control].”

So the Navy Tactical Grid is a very critical piece of the unmanned campaign plan because it becomes the main artery for controlling all those unmanned platforms. Without it, I have a bunch of unmanned that I shouldn't be building because I can't control it very well. I need to put a team of the best subject matter experts that I have on the Navy Tactical Grid to deliver it here within the next few years.

As part of its mark on the National Defense Authorization Act, both the House and the Senate made moves to slow down the development of the large unmanned surface vessel. They cited technical glitches with the Littoral Combat Ship program and the Ford class that have resulted in delays. Do you have concerns about slowing down that development, or is there merit to taking a slower, more iterative approach to fielding technologies?

First of all, I actually agree with Congress on this. It is frustrating when you get marks on “large unmanned surface vessel” because they are concerned with the command and control of the missile systems that we could potentially put on those platforms or other systems.

I go back to the campaign plan: The approach has to be deliberate. We have to make sure that the systems that are on those unmanned systems with respect to the [hull, mechanical and electrical system], that they are designed to requirement, and perform to requirement. And most importantly, are those requirements sound?

I go back to: Do I really need a littoral combat ship to go 40 knots? That's going to drive the entire design of the ship, not just the engineering plant but how it's built. That becomes a critical factor.

So if you take your eye off the ball with respect to requirements, you can find yourself drifting. That has to be deliberate.

With respect to the systems we are putting on unmanned vessels, I'd say we absolutely learned from LCS and Ford; those have to be proven systems that are prototyped and land-based tested before we start doubling down and going into production.

The littoral combat ships are quickly coming off the lines. Is the Navy prepared for them?

There are things in the near term that I have to deliver, that I'm putting heat on now, and one of them is LCS. One part is sustainability and reliability. We know enough about that platform and the problems that we have that plague us with regard to reliability and sustainability, and I need them resolved. That requires a campaign plan to get after it and have it reviewed by me frequently enough so that I can be sighted on it. Those platforms have been around since 2008 — we need to get on with it.

We've done five deployments since I've been on the job, we're going to ramp that up two and a half times over the next couple of years, but we have got to get after it. LCS for me is something, on my watch, I've got to get right.

I also have to deliver both the mine and anti-submarine warfare modules. These ships are probably going to [start going] away in the mid-2030s if the [future frigate] FFG(X) build goes as planned. But I need to wring as much as I can out of those ships as quickly as I can.

Have you seen any significant successes with the ship?

I do think we have it about right with manning. We were honest with ourselves that the original design wasn't going to do it. I really like the blue-and-gold construct because I get way more [operational availability] than I would with just the single crew.

So I can get these ships out there in numbers doing the low-end stuff in, let's say, 4th Fleet where I wouldn't need a DDG [destroyer]. The Navy deployed the LCS Detroit to South America — the 4th Fleet area of operations — last year on a counternarcotics mission, and it returned earlier this month. Those are the kinds of missions for which the LCS is perfectly suited. I can deploy these things with a [law enforcement detachment] and a signals intelligence capability, and I can do that on LCS with carry-on gear. It's the right kind of platform for that.

Also in 5th Fleet, those maritime security missions that we were heavily sighted on in the late 1990s and early 2000s: They still exist, I'd just prefer to do them with an LCS instead of a DDG if I can.

What other programs have caught your attention?

In unmanned, whether it's the MQ-4C Triton [long-range surveillance drone] or the MQ-25 Stingray [carrier-based tanker drone], I've got to put heat on those. We have to get them out there in numbers, operating with a high level of confidence, so we can leverage what we learn across the rest of the unmanned build.

In the wake of the Fat Leonard bribery scandal, the fatal accidents in 2017 and now the most recent fire onboard the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard, there are questions about systemic issues in the Navy. What are your thoughts about that?

The Pentagon and Washington, D.C., drives you to focus on things. One of things [the late Air Force Col.] John Boyd talked about was that the priorities, even in a highly technical world, need to be on people, ideas and machines in that order. The issues we've faced in the Navy over the past few years all come back to people. They all come back to culture.

If I draw it to Fat Leonard or to the 2017 Comprehensive Review or the review we did with the SEALs, most of that is cultural. Ninety-five percent of it is people-focused. It really comes down to leadership. That is not lost on me. It is easy in this building not to pay attention to it, but it is on my mind, and at the fleet commander level those are the things we talk most about: people, training, attitude.

It's premature to judge the outcome of the investigation into Bonhomme Richard, but what questions do you have as you look at the scale of that disaster?

This is a very, very serious incident that I think will force the Navy to stand back and reevaluate itself. We've got to follow the facts. We've got to be honest with ourselves and we've got to get after it. My intention, once the investigations are done, is to make this available for the public to debate, including what we need to do to get after any systemic problems that we might have.

But one of things I did on the Sunday [after the fire broke out] was I read the report of the Miami fire back in 2012. That was the last mass conflagration in a shipyard environment that we had. There were a number of recommendations coming out of that incident.

One of the questions I have is: Did we fully and adequately implement those recommendations? Because that fire was probably the most recent similar mass conflagration we've had. We learned from that. When we completed the investigation, did we just leave it in the rearview mirror, or did we — no kidding — take it seriously?

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/08/17/top-us-navy-chief-talks-connecting-tech-recovering-from-accidents/

On the same subject

October 29, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

Italy defense budget rebounds despite coronavirus crisis
Tom Kington ROME — Italy has announced a major boost to its defense budget even as the country spends millions of euros battling the devastating effect of COVID-19 on its economy. Overall defense ministry spending is up 9.6 percent this year to €15.3 billion (U.S. $18.1 billion), with the procurement budget emerging as the big winner as it rises by 26 percent from last year if coupled with top-up spending from the industry ministry. “This is a very positive budget for the armed forces, especially for procurement during this challenging economic climate,” said Paolo Crippa, a defense analyst at the CESI think tank in Rome. The figures are included in Italy's 2020 budget, which should have been released in the spring, but was held up by the COVID-19 crisis which hit Italy hard in March and is now threatening the country again. This year's €15.3 billion defense ministry spending compares to just under €14 billion last year, signaling a halt in a series of year-on-year falls. Procurement takes up €2.8 billion of the budget, up 50 percent on last year, but for a true picture of Italian procurement spending the annual top-up for domestic procurement provided by the Italian industry ministry must be added, which amounts to €2.64 billion, also up from last year. The total to spend on procurement therefore comes to €5.45 billion, up 26 percent on last year's €4.32 billion. Of the other two other spending categories in the ministry budget, Maintenance and Operations rises 23 percent to €2.15 billion, while personnel spending remains stable at €10.4 billion. “The rise in M&O spending follows claims by generals that cuts were damaging military readiness,” said Crippa. The budget was drawn up by defense minister Lorenzo Guerini, a member of the center-left Democratic Party which governs in a coalition government with the anti-establishment Five Star party. Since first entering government in 2018, Five Star has softened its anti-military stance, which saw it initially push to scrap the F-35 program. This year, the F-35 program receives €800 million to help conclude the purchase of the first 28 of Italy's planned 90 aircraft buy. A further €126 million is also budgeted to get the purchase of the next 27 aircraft underway. Other ongoing programs that get more funding in 2020 include the purchase of 650 new VTLM 2 vehicles – an upgrade of the army Lince vehicle, as well as a mid-life refurbishment for Italy's Storm Shadow missiles and the purchase of T-345 and T-346 jet trainers. Further programs also getting a dose of regular funding are Italy's new, €1.17 billion LHD vessel the Trieste, a €2 billion acquisition of 150 new Centauro II wheeled tanks and a €974 million purchase of 16 new CH-47F helicopters. Comparing the total envisaged price tag of some programs in the budget to the price listed in last year's budget reveals costs are rising. A plan to buy four new U-212 NFS submarines has risen from €2.35 billion to €2.68 billion this year, a hike of over €300 million. The ongoing purchase of ten PPA naval vessels has risen over €400 million to €4.27 billion. Some programs appear for the first time in the budget, including two new “DDX” destroyers for the Navy. No money is earmarked in 2020 but €4.5 million is due to be used for a de-risking study beginning in 2021. A second new entry is a listing for a “multi-mission, multi-sensor” Gulfstream G-550 jet. Without stating how many aircraft Italy plans to order, the budget gives the total price tag of the program as €1.23 billion and states that funding will start in 2021. The capabilities of the platform listed include command-and-control, “electronic superiority” and “electronic protection of forces.” An Italian analyst who declined to be named said the program was a reprisal of a long nurtured Italian plan for a sensor platform dubbed JAMMS, which would offer signals intelligence, communications relay and radar capabilities. The Italian Air Force declined to comment on the program. An illustration of the aircraft in the budget document resembles Israel's “Shavit” Signals Intelligence Gulfstream. Italy already flies two Gulfstream 550 Conformal Airborne Early Warning aircraft it purchased from Israel's IAI in 2012 as part of a swap deal under which Israel purchased 30 M-346 trainers from Italian firm Leonardo. The budget document states that after getting underway, the new program will take onboard future technology advancements and the benefits of “international cooperation accords.” The analyst said, “There is a plan to buy the platform now since the Gulfstream G550 is going out of production, then add Israeli systems in return for purchases by Israel from Italian industry.” Programs on the military's wish list which do not have any funding earmarked yet also get a mention in the budget document, starting with investment in the U.K.-led Tempest program for a future sixth-generation fighter. But the absence of cash for the program, which the U.K. and Sweden have already invested in, risked making Italy the weakest partner in the trio, wrote Italian defense publication RID. “In this way, there is the risk that Italy's ability to influence the development decreases and it will be weaker when it comes to future talks on the dividing of manufacturing,” the publication stated. The document also confirms Italy's interest in joining the U.S. Future Vertical Lift helicopter initiative to build next generation helicopters, which is currently being pursued by the United States only. Government officials have already mulled investing in the program using funds paid out by the EU to help the Italian economy rebound from COVID-19. Analysts have suggested that buying into FVL may overlap with work by Italy's Leonardo to build the AW249, a replacement for Italy's AW129 Mangusta attack helicopter. This year, the plan to complete a €2.7 billion purchase of 48 of the AW249 helicopters receives funding in the budget. “There is cash for the successor to the AW129 but seeing the mention of the FVL confirms Italy is also interested in that initiative,” said Crippa. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/10/28/italy-defense-budget-rebounds-despite-covid-crisis/
October 3, 2018 | International, Aerospace

Northrop Grumman Awarded $171 Million for Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile Contract
Contract finalizes seventh full rate production lot of AARGM, providing unmatched protection from surface-to-air threats LOS ANGELES – Oct. 2, 2018 – The U.S. Navy has awarded Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) a $171 million contract for Lot 7 full rate production (FRP) of the AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM). The contract will deliver advanced capability to U.S. warfighters as well as the Italian Air Force and Royal Australian Air Force to counter the accelerating proliferation of surface-to-air threats. “The rapid proliferation of today's threats require the most advanced solution to detect and defeat surface-to-air-threats and protect our nation and allies,” said Cary Ralston, vice president and general manager, defense electronic systems, Northrop Grumman. “AARGM is an affordable, game-changing solution and we are proud to provide this capability to the warfighter.” AARGM is a supersonic, air-launched tactical missile system, upgrading legacy AGM-88 HARM systems with capability to perform destruction of enemy air defense missions. AARGM is the most advanced system for pilots, with in-cockpit, real-time electronic order of battle situational awareness against today's modern surface-to-air threats. It is able to rapidly engage traditional and non-traditional advanced land- and sea-based air-defense threats, as well as striking, time-sensitive targets. AARGM is a U.S. Navy and Italian Air Force international cooperative major acquisition program with the U.S. Navy as the executive agent. AARGM is currently deployed and supporting operational requirements for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps. The missile is integrated into the weapons systems on the FA-18C/D Hornet, FA-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft. The Italian Air Force (ItAF) recently completed operational testing of AARGM on their Tornado Electronic Combat and Reconnaissance (ECR) aircraft. A series of flight tests culminated with direct hits on critical air defense threat targets, confirming the operational effectiveness and suitability of AARGM on the Italian Air Force Tornado and allowing the Italian Air Force to transition AARGM into operational squadrons. Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in autonomous systems, cyber, C4ISR, space, strike, and logistics and modernization to customers worldwide. Please visit news.northropgrumman.com and follow us on Twitter, @NGCNews, for more information. https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-awarded-171-million-for-advanced-anti-radiation-guided-missile-contract
March 17, 2021 | International, Other Defence

DoD SBIR/STTR Component BAA Pre-Release: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) HR001121S0007
The DoD Small Business and Technology Partnerships Office announces the pre-release of the following Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) topic: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), HR001121S0007 STTR Topic HR001121S0007-06: “R&D Automated Profit Incentive Determination (RAPID),” published at: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/7478362958224363af5729528cdff22e/view IMPORTANT DATES: March 16, 2021: Pre-release begins April 8, 2021: BAA opens, begin submitting proposals in DSIP May 11, 2021: BAA closes, full proposals must be submitted in DSIP no later than 12:00 p.m. ET Full topics and instructions are available at the links provided above.

All news