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

December 24, 2018 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR

Airports to go on counter-attack with 'killer' devices and bazookas
The Telegraph, Charles Hymas All Britain airports are increasing or reviewing their defences because of fears of copycat attacks ... following the chaos at Gatwick that ruined the travel plans of 140,000 people Britain's major airports are to step up security with military-grade detection systems that would help them counter Gatwick-style drone incidents by launching their own “killer drones” or shooting them down with firearms. The move emerged as Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary, and Gavin Williamson, the Defence Secretary, prepared to meet today (Monday) to review progress on the police investigation and measures to protect the public from future attacks. All airports in Britain are increasing or reviewing their defences because of fears of copycat attacks, according to Whitehall sources, following the chaos at Gatwick that ruined the travel plans of 140,000 people. Gatwick is expected to be the first to operate detection technology designed to be as sophisticated as that being used by the crack RAF and Army signals teams deployed to the airport last week. It allows personnel to detect, track and photograph drones at a distance of more than 1km and up to 5km. Whitehall sources said options for countering the threat included airports deploying their own drones, firing bazookas with projectiles that trapped them in nets, or deploying police with shotguns to shoot them down. The military team was due to remain at Gatwick until the airport's own defence system was operational, possibly for the two weeks over Christmas. Stewart Wingate, the chief executive of Gatwick, said: “We are equipping ourselves with capabilities to detect and defeat drones.” A Whitehall source said: “The first thing is to detect when a drone is coming in and having enough distance in which to do that. Second is being able to track the signal.” The Metis Skyperion technology, thought to be used by the military, deploys cameras, laser rangefinders, radar and radio frequency scanners to pinpoint the drone. To install a similar system at a major airport could cost up to pounds 5m, according to one expert. To track the drone to its operator would require additional sensors that even the military has not deployed at Gatwick. Finding the culprit becomes easier if they remain in sight of their device. Gatwick declined to reveal the measures it was considering to “defeat” or “disrupt” any further attacks. Police at Heathrow are testing a SkyWall 100 bazooka, a shoulder-launched weapon that fires a projectile containing a net. “Some of the airports are putting up enhanced firearms capabilities, most are doing increased police patrols inside and outside,” said a Whitehall source. “Airports are also assessing and monitoring potential launch sites.” Legislation will be rushed through in the new year to enable electronic jamming by airports, bigger drone exclusion zones and new police powers. https://nationalpost.com/news/world/airports-to-go-on-counter-attack-with-killer-devices-and-bazookas
June 12, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - June 11, 2020
DEFENSE MICROELECTRONICS ACTIVITY Lockheed Martin Corp., Owego, New York (HQ0727-16-D-0001); BAE Systems Information and Electronics, Nashua, New Hampshire (HQ0727-16-D-0002); General Dynamics Mission Systems, Bloomington, Minnesota (HQ0727-16-D-0003); Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Linthicum Heights, Maryland (HQ0727-16-D-0004); Cobham Advanced Electronics Solutions Inc., Lansdale, Pennsylvania (HQ0727-16-D-0005); Raytheon Co., El Segundo, California (HQ0727-16-D-0006); The Boeing Co., Hazelwood, Missouri (HQ0727-16-D-0007); and Honeywell International Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico (HQ0727-16-D-0008), are being awarded a maximum $10,271,000,000 modification on existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, Advanced Technology Support Program IV (ATSP4) contracts. The modification raises the ceiling on the current ATSP4 contracts from $7,200,000,000 to $17,471,000,000. ATSP4 are multiple-award, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts for engineering services designed to resolve problems with obsolete, unreliable, unmaintainable, underperforming, or incapable electronics hardware and software through development of advanced technology insertions and applications to meet the requirements of the Department of Defense for a quick reaction capability. With all options exercised, the ordering period goes until March 31, 2026. The contracts were competitively procured via a February 2015 solicitation resulting in nine proposals and eight awards. No funds are being obligated on award. Funding will occur through individual task orders. The Defense Microelectronics Activity, McClellan, California, is the contracting activity. NAVY Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $368,194,942 not-to-exceed, undefinitized contract modification (P00036) to previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm-target, firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract N00019-17-C-0001. This modification provides for the procurement of five F-35A Lightning II lot 14 aircraft, one F-35B lot 14 combat aircrafts and associated red gear for the government of Italy. It also authorizes the common capability scope of work at the Final Assembly and Checkout Facility in Cameri, Italy. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (35%); Cameri, Italy (28%); El Segundo, California (15%); Warton, United Kingdom (8%); Orlando, Florida (4%); Nashua, New Hampshire (3%); Baltimore, Maryland (3%); San Diego, California (2%); various locations within the continental U.S. (1.3%) and various locations outside the continental U.S. (0.7%). Work is expected to be complete by June 2023. Non-Department of Defense funds for $184,429,857 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. DRS Systems Inc., Melbourne, Florida, is awarded a $120,009,046 not-to-exceed, cost-plus-incentive-fee, firm-fixed-price, cost undefinitized contract to provide non-recurring engineering to design, develop, integrate and test engineering development models and production representative models of weapons replaceable assemblies for the AN/AAQ-45 Distributed Aperture Infrared Countermeasure system. Work will be performed in Dallas, Texas (61%); San Diego, California (31%); Fort Walton Beach, Florida (7%); and Melbourne, Florida (1%), and is expected to be complete by June 2024. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $23,497,884 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-20-C-0041). Harper Construction Co. Inc., San Diego, California, is awarded a $65,165,290 firm-fixed-price contract for the design and construction of a high-bay maintenance hangar for the Bell Boeing V-22 aircraft at Naval Base Coronado. The contract also contains one unexercised option and two planned modifications, which will increase the cumulative contract value to $66,148,955, if exercised. Work will be performed in San Diego, California. The work to be performed provides for the design and construction of a steel-framed and high-bay maintenance hangar for aircraft, to include one and a half modules of hangar space and associated airfield pavement for aircraft ingress and egress to hangars. The new facility will contain high-bay space, shops and maintenance space, operation, training, administrative space and supporting site infrastructure improvements. The project also includes construction of a hangar access apron. The option, if exercised, provides for reconstruction of the existing north parking lot. The planned modifications, if issued, provide for furniture, fixtures and audiovisual equipment. Work is expected to be complete by January 2023. Fiscal 2019 military construction (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $644,756 and fiscal 2020 military construction (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $64,520,534 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website and seven proposals were received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity (N62473-20-C-0553). Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded $31,065,000 for a not-to-exceed, undefinitized contract modification (P00006) to previously issued order 0097 against basic ordering agreement N00019-14-G-0020. This modification provides supplier non-recurring engineering, development of design documentation and the creation of modification instructions for the developmental test fleet in support of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft for the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and non-Department of Defense (DOD) participants. Work will be performed in El Segundo, California (85%); and Fort Worth, Texas (15%). These efforts will support service life extensions and enable the developmental test fleet to maintain currency with delivered technology. Work is expected to be complete by February 2022. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $3,698,820; fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Air Force) funds in the amount of $3,698,820 and non-DOD participant funds in the amount of $1,602,360 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Fukunaga & Associates Inc.,* Honolulu, Hawaii, is awarded a $30,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, architect-engineering contract with a maximum amount of $30,000,000 for architect-engineer services for various utility projects and other projects primarily under the cognizance of Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii. The initial task order is being awarded at $929,417 for the replacement of a 24-inch waterline at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii. The work to be performed provides for architect-engineer services for utility projects with associated multi-discipline architect-engineer support services. The type of design and engineering services expected to be performed under this contract are primarily for request for proposal (RFP) documentation for the design-bid-build utility projects with associated multi-discipline architect-engineering support services for new construction, alteration, repair and installation of mechanical systems and associated facilities. Other design and engineering services may include, but are not limited to, design-build RFP documentation, engineering investigations/concept studies, functional analysis concept development/charrettes and post construction award services. Work for this task order is expected to be complete by March 2021. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Navy) (O&M,N) contract funds in the amount of $929,417 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months with an expected completion date of June 2025. Future task orders will be primarily funded by O&M,N funds. This contract was competitively procured via the beta.SAM website and two proposals were received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii, is the contracting activity (N62478-20-D-5037). Leidos Inc., Reston, Virginia, is awarded a $7,456,371 firm-fixed-price and cost reimbursement task order under the General Services Administration One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (GSA OASIS). This indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract is also for a wide range of operational, analytical and management support services in support of the U.S. Marine Corps Central Command. Work will be performed in Tampa, Florida (90%); and Bahrain (10%). Work is expected to be complete by June 2021. If all options are exercised, work will continue through December 2025. This task order includes a 12-month base period, four 12-month option periods and one six-month option period, which, will bring the cumulative value of this task order to $48,846,236 if exercised. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Marine Corps) funds in the amount of $7,456,371 will be obligated at the time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This task order was competitively solicited via the GSA OASIS Pool 1 and four proposals were received. The Marine Corps Installations National Capital Region-Regional Contracting Office, Quantico, Virginia, is the contracting activity (M00264-20-F-0227). ARMY INTEC Group LLC,* Paducah, Kentucky (W912QR20D0021); Dawn Inc.,* Warren, Ohio (W912QR-20-D-0022); RJ Runge,* Port Clinton, Ohio (W912QR-20-D-0023); G.M. Hill Engineering Inc.,* Jacksonville, Florida (W912QR-20-D-0024); and Nisou LGC JV LLC,* Detroit, Michigan (W912QR-20-D-0025), will compete for each order of the $45,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for Great Lakes and Ohio River Division mission boundaries construction services. Bids were solicited via the internet with 16 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 10, 2023. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky, is the contracting activity. Dyncorp International LLC, Fort Worth, Texas, was awarded a $22,161,082 hybrid (cost-no-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee, time-and-materials) contract modification (P00055) for aviation maintenance services. Bids were solicited via the internet with five received. Work will be performed Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Afghanistan; and Iraq with an estimated completion date of Nov. 30, 2020. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Army) funds in the amount of $22,161,082 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-19-C-0025). Alliant Techsystems Operations LLC, Plymouth, Minnesota, was awarded a $16,986,480 modification (P00074) to contract W15QKN-13-C-0074 for Global Positioning System receiver for precision guidance kit M1156. Work will be performed in Plymouth, Minnesota, with an estimated completion date of June 3, 2024. Fiscal 2020 procurement of ammunition (Army) funds in the amount of 16,986,480 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Newark, New Jersey, is the contracting activity. U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND T3i Inc., Imperial Beach, California, was awarded a $26,413,688 maximum single award “C” type contract (H92240-20-C-0003) with options included to extend services for survival, evasion, resistance, escape and personnel recovery training in support of Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) enterprise requirements. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $384,347 are being obligated at the time of award. The work will be performed in various locations in the U.S. and may continue through fiscal 2026, if all options are exercised. The contract was awarded competitively using Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15 procedures with six proposals received. NSWC, Coronado, California, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY Raytheon BBN Technologies Corp., Cambridge, Massachusetts, was awarded a $12,039,376 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a research project under the Fast Network Interface Cards (FastNICs) program. The FastNICs program will speed up applications such as the distributed training of machine learning classifiers by 100 times through the development, implementation, integration and validation of novel, clean-slate network subsystems. Work will be performed in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Seattle, Washington, with an expected completion date of June 2024. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $1,670,000 are being obligated at time of award. This contract was a competitive acquisition under an open broad agency announcement and eight offers were received. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity (HR0011-20-C-0089). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Oshkosh Defense LLC, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, has been awarded a maximum $10,836,726 firm-fixed-price, requirements contract for pneumatic tires for palletized load system vehicle wheels. This was a competitive acquisition with one response received. This is a three-year contract with no option periods. Locations of performance are Wisconsin and New Jersey, with a June 10, 2023, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2023 Army working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Warren, Michigan (SPRDL1-20-D0065). *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2217371/source/GovDelivery/
April 6, 2021 | International, Naval

Navy submarine suffered long-term damage to ballast tank from errant test: report
An internal Defence Department report has pulled back the curtain on the damage caused by an errant test on one of Canada's four submarines last year, suggesting some of the damage is permanent and could continue to pose a risk over the long term.

All news