navy 033115 final
DESCRIPTION
http://www.kmimediagroup.com/images/magazine-pdf/Navy_033115_Final.pdfTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Coast Guard Cutter Procurement By Ronald o’RouRke, SpecialiSt in naval affaiRS
The Coast Guard’s program of record
(POR) calls for procuring eight national secu-
rity cutters (NSCs), 25 offshore patrol cutters
(OPCs), and 58 fast response cutters (FRCs)
as replacements for 90 aging Coast Guard
cutters and patrol craft. The NSC, OPC and
FRC programs have a combined estimated
acquisition cost of about $21.1 billion, and
the Coast Guard’s proposed fiscal year 2016
budget requests a total of $449.9 million in
acquisition funding for the three programs.
NSCs are the Coast Guard’s largest and
most capable general-purpose cutters. They
have an estimated average procurement cost
of about $684 million per ship. The first four
are now in service, the fifth through seventh
are in various stages of construction, and long
lead time materials are being procured for the
eighth. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY16
budget requests $638 million for the NSC
program, including $91.4 million in acquisition
funding for the NSC program.
OPCs are to be smaller, less expensive
and, in some respects, less capable than
NSCs. They have an estimated average
procurement cost of about $484 million per
ship. The first OPC is to be procured in FY17.
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY16 budget
requests $18.5 million in acquisition funding
for the OPC program.
FRCs are considerably smaller and less
expensive than OPCs. They have an esti-
mated average procurement cost of about
$73 million per boat. A total of 32 have been
funded through FY15. The 11th was commis-
sioned into service on January 24, 2015, and
the 12th is scheduled to be commissioned
in March 2015. The Coast Guard’s proposed
FY16 budget requests $340 million in acquisi-
tion funding for the FRC program.
The Future of Naval AviationVice Admiral Paul Grosklags,
Principal Military Deputy, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition), Rear Admiral Michael C. Manazir, Director Air Warfare, and Lieuten-ant General Jon Davis, Deputy Com-mandant for Aviation testified before the Seapower Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Navy’s plans for its aviation programs going forward.
There are several central themes to our 2016 Naval Aviation Budget plan: fifth-generation fighter/attack capability; netted persistent multi-role intelligence, surveillance, recon-naissance and targeting; supporting capabilities such as electronic attack, maritime patrol, and vertical lift; advanced strike weapons programs; readiness recovery; and targeted modernization of the force for relevance and sustainability.
First, we are acquiring F-35 fifth-generation fighter/attack aircraft while maintaining sufficient tactical aviation (TACAIR) inventory capac-ity. Our plan will integrate fifth-generation technologies into the carrier air wing and expeditionary forces while maintaining and modernizing the capability of the current TACAIR fleet. The F-35B and F-35C will replace Marine Corps F/A-18 and AV-8B air-craft significantly increasing capabilities across the range of military operations of Marine sea- and land-based MAGTFs. The F-35C, F/A-18E/F and EA-18G provide complemen-tary capabilities that enhance the versatility, lethality, survivability and readiness of our air wings. F/A-18A-F and AV-8B aircraft will continue to receive capability enhancements to sustain their lethality well into the next decade. Future avionics upgrades will enable network-centric operations for integrated fire control, situational awareness and transfer
of data to command-and-control nodes.
To meet the demand for persistent, multirole intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability, the Navy and Marine Corps are building a bal-anced portfolio of manned and unmanned aircraft focused on mis-sions in the maritime environment. The Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system will provide a persistent aircraft carrier-based ISR&T and strike capability as an integral part of carrier air-wing operations no later than the early part of the next decade. MQ-4C Triton will provide persistent land-based maritime ISR and complement our P-8 multi-mission maritime aircraft (MMA); MQ-8 Fire Scout will provide ISR support to our frigates and other suitably-equipped air-capable ships; and smaller unmanned systems such as the RQ-21A Small Tactical Un-manned Aircraft System (STUAS)
and RQ-7B Marine Corps tactical UAS (MCTUAS) will provide the shorter dura-tion, line-of-sight reconnaissance capability integral at the unit level.
The fiscal year 2016 budget request enables naval aviation to continue recapital-ization of our aging fleets of airborne early warning, maritime patrol and vertical lift platforms. The department is recapitalizing our fleet of E-2C airborne early warning aircraft with the E-2D, maritime patrol and reconnaissance with the P-8A, airborne electronic attack with the EA-18G, and car-rier onboard delivery (COD) with the V-22. E-2D integrates a new electronically-scanned radar that provides a two-generation leap in technology with the capability to detect and
continued on paGe 8 ➥continued on paGe 19 ➥
MARCh 31, 2015www.NPeO-kMi.COM
Rear Adm. Michael C. Manazir
Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags
Lt. Gen.Jon Davis
A PubliCAtion www.nPeo-kmi.Com
plus:• PACFLT SeNiOR
LeAdeRS MeeT• FRANk C. JONeS
AwARd
31 MaR2015
![Page 2: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
EditorialEditor
Jonathan Magin [email protected]
Managing EditorHarrison Donnelly [email protected]
Copy EditorCrystal Jones [email protected]
CorrespondentsJ.B. Bissell • Kasey Chisholm • Catherine Day
Michael Frigand • Nora McGann
Art & DesignArt Director
Jennifer Owers [email protected]
Ads and Materials ManagerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected]
Senior Graphic DesignerScott Morris [email protected]
Graphic Designers Andrea Herrera [email protected]
Amanda Paquette [email protected]
KMI Media GroupChief Executive Officer
Jack Kerrigan [email protected]
Publisher and Chief Financial OfficerConstance Kerrigan [email protected]
Editor-In-ChiefJeff McKaughan [email protected]
ControllerGigi Castro [email protected]
Trade Show CoordinatorHolly Foster [email protected]
Operations, Circulation & ProductionOperations Administrator
Bob Lesser [email protected]
Circulation & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected]
CirculationDenise Woods [email protected]
Subscription InformationNavy Air/Sea
is published 50 times a year by KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2015
Corporate OfficesKMI Media Group
15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300 Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USA
Telephone: (301) 670-5700Fax: (301) 670-5701
Web: www.NPEO-kmi.com
Table of ConTenTs
exClusive subsCriber ConTenTSubscribers to Navy Air/Sea receive exclusive weekly content. this week’s exclusive content includes:
• An update from the Naval Research Lab about research on types of rubber
with the potential to provide better corrosion protection for amphibious assault
vehicles.
• An article about the visit of the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy,
Mike Stevens, to U.S. Naval Station Rota.
March 30-April 1, 2015
Joint undersea Warfare technology
San diego, Calif.
www.ndia.org/meetings/5260
April 2, 2015
coast Guard intelligence industry day
Chantilly, Va.
www.afcea.org
April 12-15, 2015
Sea-air-Space
National harbor, Md.
www.seaairspace.org
April 22, 2015
nRo industry day
Chantilly, Va.
www.afcea.org/events/nro/15/
May 5-7, 2015
auvSi’s unmanned Systems
Atlanta, Ga.
www.auvsishow.org/auvsi2015
June 23-25, 2015
Mega Rust
Newport News, Va.
www.navalengineers.org
September 1-2, 2015
fleet Maintenance & Modernization
Symposium
San diego, Calif.
www.navalengineers.org/events
Calendar of evenTs
The Future of Naval Aviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and issues for Congress . . . . 1
Communications and Networks discovery and invention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Open Call for Nominations: Frank C. Jones Award for Vessel Alternations and Repair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
NSwC Crane Advanced Planning Briefings for industry 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Navy Networking environment Shore Modernization Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
STRATCOM Commander emphasizes Need to Modernize Nuke Triad . . . . . . . 5
Planning for Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Surface Ship Sonar domes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
PACFLT Senior enlisted Leaders discuss Mission Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Contract Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
www.NPeO-kMi.COM2 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 3: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Communications and networks Discovery and invention
Communications technology that can
provide seamless, robust connectivity is
at the foundation of the Sea Power 21
Vision “... to have the right information, at
the right place, at the right time ....” The
performance of command and control (C2)
systems and decision-making at all levels
of command depends critically on reliable,
interoperable, survivable, secure and
timely communications and networking.
The current evolution of naval
warfighting from a platform-centric to a
network-centric paradigm depends on
successfully meeting the implied need for
significantly enhanced communications
and networking capabilities of C2, sensor
and weapon systems. These systems are
deployed on a variety of platforms and us-
ers, both manned and unmanned, operat-
ing under challenging battlefield conditions
(lack of infrastructure, mobility, spectrum,
interference, multipath, atmospherics,
size/weight/power constraints, etc.) in dif-
ferent environments (space, terrestrial and
undersea).
The goal of the Communications and
Networking Program within the Office of
Naval Research (ONR) Code 311 is to
overcome these challenges by developing
measurable advances in technology that
can directly enable and enhance end-to-
end connectivity and quality-of-service
for mission-critical information exchange
among such widely dispersed naval,
joint, and coalition forces. The vision is to
provide high throughput, robust communi-
cations and networking to ensure all warf-
ighters—from the operational command
to the tactical edge—have access to the
data, information, and resources neces-
sary to make timely, accurate decisions
while performing their assigned missions
or tasks.
Proposals for potential fiscal year
2016 exploratory development/Applied
Research (Budget Activity 2) projects are
sought under the following focus areas.
highly innovative ideas in other general
communications and networking areas
that are not within the designated focus
areas below, but nonetheless are impor-
tant to the Navy/Marine Corps, as deter-
mined under the synopsis section above
may also be considered:
• Nanosat optical and RF
communications: Novel architectures,
techniques and technologies specially
focused on the hard problems.
• interference-aligned digital chaos for
scalable spectrally-efficient LPi/LPd
networking.
• dynamic scheduling, routing and
topology control to efficiently and
reliably deliver critical/high priority
data to multiple nodes over directional
tactical wireless network.
• innovative techniques for data
forwarding and bridging networks
with different routing mechanisms,
protocols (e.g., iP and non-iP) and QoS
parametrics.
• Software-defined wireless networking
architectures/protocols, and
exploratory paradigms for control
(centralized/distributed), network state
sensing (link state, latency, etc.), and
resource utilization.
FunDinG AnD AwArD
The Office of Naval Research (ONR)
plans to award four to five technology
development contracts (particularly cost-
plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) type contracts) and
grants that represent the overall value to
the government in accordance with the
evaluation criteria. The Office of Naval
Research is seeking participants for this
program that are capable of supporting
the goals described in this announcement.
Offerors have the opportunity to be cre-
ative in the selection of the technical and
management processes and approaches
to address the research topics.
The overall funding amount for this pro-
gram is approximately $2 million and ONR
plans to fund $300,000 to $500,000 per year
per award using Applied Research funds
(Budget Activity 2). however, lower and
higher cost proposals will be considered.
The average funding level of past awards
was approximately $400,000 per year. The
period of performance for projects may be
from one to three years, with an estimated
start date of on or about January 16, 2016,
subject to date of final award and availability
of new fiscal year funds.
ONR has funded related technology
development under numerous programs.
if offerors are enhancing work performed
under other ONR or dod projects, they
must clearly identify the point of de-
parture and what existing work will be
brought forward and what new work
will be performed under this BAA. The
award(s) will be made for the full perfor-
mance period requested.
ContACts
Questions of a technical nature should be
submitted to:
dr. Santanu das
Office of Naval Research
875 North Randolph Street—Suite 1115
Arlington, VA 22203-1995
703-588-1036
Questions of a Business nature, and
suggestions for improvement, should be
submitted to:
alexander Gorelik
Office of Naval Research
875 North Randolph Street
Arlington, VA 22203-1995
703-588-2550
Questions of a security nature should be
submitted to:
diana pacheco
Office of Naval Research
Security department, Code 43
One Liberty Center
875 N. Randolph Street
Arlington, VA 22203-1995
MARCh 31, 2015 | 3www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 4: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
nswC Crane Advanced Planning briefings for industry 2015
Naval Surface warfare Center, Crane division (NSwC Crane) is excited to be hosting its Ad-
vanced Planning Briefings for industry (APBi) meeting on April 1, 2015 at the westGate Academy.
This year’s theme is “Collaborating for innovative, Lasting Solutions.”
The purpose of the APBi meeting is to provide industry and academia with information
on future NSwC Crane technology efforts, requirements, potential contract opportunities and
how to do business with NSwC Crane. The APBi forum provides presentation and discussion
on how industry/academia and NSwC Crane can collaborate and build thriving partnerships
to ensure future warfighter success.
The meeting will include presentations from senior leadership covering the three mission
focus areas: electronic warfare, special missions and strategic missions.
DAte & time:
wednesday, April 1, 2015
Onsite Registration: 0700 - 0800
AGenDA For 2015 nswC CrAne APbi:
0700 - 0800 Onsite Registration/Check-in
0800 - 0810 introduction & Administrative Remarks
0810 - 0820 welcome & Opening Remarks
0820 - 0840 NSwC Crane Strategic direction
0840 - 0900 NAVSeA Service Contracts Guest Speaker - Ms. Sharon Rustemier
0900 - 0910 Q&A for NAVSeA Service Contracts
0910 - 0930 Break
0930 - 0950 NSwC Crane deputy for Small Business
0950 - 1000 Q&A for Small Business
1000 - 1030 Current Contract Landscape
1030 - 1045 Q&A for Contracts Landscape
1045 - 1215 Morning Networking and Lunch
1215 - 1230 Strategic Missions Focus Area
1230 - 1245 Special Missions Focus Area
1245 - 1300 electronic warfare Mission Focus Area
1300 - 1320 Q&A for Mission Focus Areas
1320 - 1345 NSwC Crane Science & Technology emphasis
1345 - 1355 Q&A for Science & Technology
1355 - 1530 Afternoon Networking and Break Out Rooms
1530 - 1600 Cyber initiative and NSwC Crane’s Current Approach (Panel discussion)
1600 - 1615 Q&A for Cyber Awareness Panel
1615 - 1630 Closing Remarks
loCAtion:
westGate Academy Conferencing & Training Center
13598 east westGate drive
Odon, iN 47562
Cost & reGistrAtion:
There is no cost to attend this meeting; however, registration is required.
PrimAry Point oF ContACt:
patrick conger
Procurement Technician
812-854-3684
open Call for nominations: Frank C. Jones Award for Vessel Alternations and repair
Deadline: Tuesday, March 31, 2015
The American Society of Naval engi-
neers (ASNe) is seeking nominations for
the Frank C. Jones Award for exceptional
achievement in the field of major vessel
maintenance and alterations. The award
recognizes individual naval engineering
professionals who, over a period of at
least 10 years culminating in the current
year, have substantially and significantly
contributed to their agency’s intermedi-
ate- and/or depot-level ship maintenance
and/or alteration programs involving the
complex work of managing, planning,
preparation and/or execution of exten-
sive repairs, overhauls, upgrades and/or
modernizations.
The Frank C. Jones award will be pre-
sented during Fleet Maintenance & Mod-
ernization Symposium 2015 or another
suitable venue depending on availability
of the recipient.
PreVious winners inCluDe:
• Charles Zerbe, U.S. Coast Guard Yard
• Guy Victor holsten, OPNAV N43
• william F. Clifford, BAe Systems Ship
Repair
• Craig Flynn, NUwC division Newport
• dr. Thomas J. Murphy, Norfolk Ship
Support Activity
Please mail or fax one copy of the original
nomination for delivery by March 31, 2015 to:
AwArDs Committee CoorDinAtor
American Society of Naval engineers
1452 duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Fax: (703) 836-7491
or email a scanned copy to
www.NPeO-kMi.COM4 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 5: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
STRATCOM Commander Emphasizes Need to Modernize Nuke Triad
Stretching from under the sea to sat-ellite orbit to cyber-space, U.S. Strategic Command’s areas of responsibility cover the globe, STRAT-COM’s commander, Navy Admiral Cecil D. Haney, said March 24 during a news brief-ing at the Pentagon.
“For 70 years, we have deterred and assured. And while our nation’s nuclear enterprise is safe, secure and effective, we cannot take it for granted any longer,” the admiral told reporters.
“For decades, we have sustained while others have modernized their strategic nuclear forces, developing and utilizing counter-space activi-ties, increasing the sophistica-tion and pervasive nature of
their cyber capabilities and proliferating these emerging strategic capabilities around the globe,” he said.
Russia is modern-izing their nuclear triad, which is bombers, missiles and submarine-launched missiles, and
associated industrial base, Haney said, and Russian Presi-dent Vladimir Putin continues to provoke the international community.
“China has developed a ca-pable submarine and interconti-nental ballistic missile force and has recently demonstrated their counter-space capabilities,” the admiral said.
“North Korea claims to have possession of a miniaturized warhead and frequently parades their KN-O8 nuclear-capable ballistic missile,” Haney said.
“And Iran recently launched a space vehicle that could be used as a long-range strike platform,” he added.
STRATEGIC DETERRENCE
But strategic deterrence is more than nuclear deterrence, the admiral noted.
It also includes space—a contested, congested and competitive environment—and cyberspace, where intrusions around the globe are also increasing at an unprecedented and alarming rate, Haney said.
President Barack Obama’s proposed defense budget for 2016 balances national priori-ties with fiscal realities, the admiral said, noting it “leaves no margin to absorb new risks.”
The United States simply cannot afford to underfund its strategic capabilities, he said.
“Any cuts to the presi-dent’s budget, including those imposed by sequestration, will hamper our ability to sustain and modernize our joint military forces and put us at real risk of making our nation less secure and able to address future threats,” Haney said.
Deterrence is a whole-of-government effort; no combat-ant commander can do it alone, the admiral said.
“It requires us all to work together … so that we can provide the nation with the req-uisite capability for our national security,” he said.
By Claudette Roulo, DoD News, Defense Media Activity
navy networking environment shore modernization support
Navy information dominance Forces (NAVidFOR) is a readiness
Type Commander (TYCOM) with the global responsibility of identifying
and submitting requirements for all Navy information dominance capa-
bilities. The NAVidFOR Shore Modernization and integration
directorate (NAVidFOR N46) was established to consolidate
man-, train- and equip-focused activities in support of Navy enterprise
network integration; command, control, communications, computers,
collaboration and intelligence shore modernization; fleet strategic com-
munications; and cybersecurity/portfolio management responsibilities
for the domain.
NAVidFOR N46 is the TYCOM lead for planning and executing
information environment integration, consolidation, readiness reporting
and modernization efforts in support of Naval Networking environment
(NNe), Joint information environment (Jie), and Unified Capabilities
initiatives.
The NNe strategy was established to guide the department of
Navy towards a future net-centric enterprise environment that will
provide a highly secure and reliable enterprise-wide voice, video and
data network environment. The NNe will include the Next-Generation
enterprise Network, Consolidated Afloat Networks and enterprise
Services, Marine Corps enterprise Network, and OCONUS Navy enter-
prise Network.
Transition to the NNe is critical to enabling the Navy’s cyber opera-
tions mission and providing warfighters with seamless connectivity and
information-sharing capabilities on a global, regional and local scale.
Additionally, achieving the target state NNe will serve as a key enabler
to realizing the Jie.
Jie is a framework defining the capabilities required to provide a
secure information environment across the department of defense.
Jie will be comprised of a shared information technology (iT) infra-
structure, enterprise services and a single security architecture in order
to achieve full spectrum superiority, improve mission effectiveness,
increase security and realize iT efficiencies.
As such, the Contracting department, NAVSUP Fleet Logis-
tics Center (FLC), Norfolk, Va., intends to negotiate a single-award,
firm-fixed-price (FFP) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract
under FAR Part 12 Acquisition of Commercial items and FAR Part 15
Contracting by Negotiation.
Adm. Cecil Haney
MARCh 31, 2015 | 5www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 6: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Planning for successinvolving 23 countries and taking place
across Africa’s Gulf of Guinea, exercise
Obangame express 2015 is one of the larg-
est military exercises in Africa. The annual
U.S. Africa Command-sponsored multi-
national exercise is designed to increase
maritime safety and security in the Gulf of
Guinea.
in order to be successful, an exercise
this broad in scope needs almost a year
of planning from a collective network of
navies. Like the exercise itself, preparation
for it involved a network approach from all
participating nations.
The exercise is an opportunity for Afri-
can, european, South American and U.S.
ally and partner maritime forces to work
together, share information and refine tac-
tics, techniques and procedures intended
to assist Gulf of Guinea maritime nations
in building their capacity to monitor and
enforce their territorial waters. The ability to
govern their seas counters problems such
as trafficking of persons and illegal material,
oil bunkering, drug trade, illegal fishing and
piracy.
“when talking about piracy and illegal
fishing, that affects the global economy,”
said Commander Sean Rutter, exercise con-
trol group lead and planner for Obangame
express 2015. “if a sea lane is disrupted,
it hurts more than just the local economy,
so that’s why it’s important for all these
countries to get involved, and we’re thank-
ful they do.”
Organizing a new exercise begins with
the basics. Planners identify participat-
ing nations and locations, and consider
available manpower and equipment from
all involved when setting the stage for the
next Obangame express. This year marked
participation of ships from the United king-
dom, France, Belgium, Brazil, Germany and
the United States as well as Portuguese
maritime surveillance aircraft and vessels
from all the Gulf of Guinea nations.
These assets play a critical role in de-
termining what training is possible, but the
African host nations ultimately decide what
needs to be done with these assets. every
nation sets its own priorities, so scenarios in-
volving one nation may play toward counter-
piracy, and another nation’s is built around
stopping illicit trafficking or illegal fishing.
Some of these objective goals, such as
honing skills in certain areas or deterring
certain types of crime, are common; multiple
partners may work on the same scenario.
when plans become action and the
documents are replaced with personnel on
ships, land and in the air, exercise planners
stay involved to ensure the exercise plays
out correctly. The exercise control group
(eCG) creates the scenarios and then sets
them into motion to spur the exercise into
taking action.
“here we constitute the brains of the
exercise,” said Cameroon Navy Command-
er emmanuel Sone, an exercise planner and
liaison officer for Obangame express 2015.
“we want to make sure everything is going
according to plan. we don’t just sit back
and observe.”
The planners monitor the action from a
remote room at the kofi Annan international
Peacekeeping Training Center in Accra,
Ghana. working on laptops in a makeshift
work center, they manage multiple scenarios
from Angola to the ivory Coast, 2,000 miles
away in real time. The eCG also monitors and
evaluates the actions of 51 ships, 21 maritime
operations centers and six aircraft taking part
in the scenario.
As a scenario plays out on the gulf, the
eCG throws additional challenges at the
participants such as handling a medical
emergency during a boarding. These
eCG injects help guide the exercise
along and tests the partner nation’s capa-
bilities.
“By injecting scenarios into the exer-
cise, you can make sure the overall objec-
tives are met,” said Sone.
After it’s all over, the experience gained
by participants has a real-world impact
as they hone skills needed for informa-
tion sharing and teamwork. The lessons
learned from this exercise are also used to
improve future exercises and strengthen
the global network of navies.
“it has brought together the Gulf
of Guinea nations to tackle a common
enemy,” said Commodore Mark Yawson,
flag officer fleet, Ghana navy. “Now there’s
awareness, information sharing and
interoperability among the Gulf of Guinea
maritime states, and even including the
civilian maritime agencies. This has de-
creased illegal activity in the gulf.”
By Mass Communication Specialist 1st
Class (SW/AW) David R. Krigbaum
www.NPeO-kMi.COM6 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 7: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
PACFlt senior enlisted leaders Discuss mission readiness
Senior enlisted leaders met at U.S. Pacific Fleet (PACFLT) headquarters
for the annual Senior enlisted Leadership Training Symposium (SeLTS)
March 23-25.
The symposium allows senior enlisted leaders from around the Pacific
Fleet to gather and review the effectiveness of current policies and ways
to improve mission readiness in open-forum discussions. it also provides
an opportunity for the participants to interact with U.S. Pacific Fleet Master
Chief Marco Ramirez and various flag officers.
“The tyranny of distance in the Pacific is so massive, and a lot of these
senior enlisted leaders are so spread out,” said Ramirez. “So the main
objective of SeLTS is to bring them all together so that they can look at each
other and get to know one another and discuss the issues that we have and
to see how PACFLT runs. This allows them to get an understanding of what
can be done better to support the Navy’s mission.”
Rear Admiral Robert Girrier, PACFLT deputy commander, spoke with
SeLTS participants about the importance of synchronization between
commands and understanding the hierarchy of guidance as well as the
important roles that each of these leaders play at their commands.
“You know what right looks like and that’s why you’re here ... you bring
an incredible source of coaching and mentorship that’s important for the
command climate, and the functioning and wholeness of the team,” said
Girrier. “That’s a huge part of your job that goes beyond your technical
expertise.”
Girrier went on to add that the best way to take care of their team is to
bring all of their sailors home as winners, which is what their families and
America are counting on.
A main focus of the discussions was Sexual Assault Prevention and Re-
sponse (SAPR) and the importance of sailors being the first line of defense.
“Bystander intervention is one of the big things going on: shipmates
looking after shipmates,” said Todd Schafer, PACFLT executive director and
chief of staff. “we have to continue working on that. we need to get to the
left of some of these problems and stop them before they happen. we have
to spread that message as leadership.”
The symposium provides the leaders the opportunity to assemble and
exchange ideas, knowledge and personal insights to ensure they have a
common objective to strengthen sailor and mission readiness.
“One of the most beneficial parts of SeLTS is when you bring in all the
senior enlisted leaders from other branches and you can get a better idea of
what’s going on between the branches,” said Command Master Chief John
Ullery, commander, Navy Region hawaii. “You get to understand some the
challenges these leaders face and we
can all see what each other’s challenges are and hopefully find a way to col-
lectively solve them to better support our commands and sailors.”
Over a span of three days, the symposium included team-building exer-
cises, discussions about updating instructions, and CPO 365 training.
By Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Brian M. Wilbur, U.S.
Pacific Fleet Public Affairs
Surface Ship Sonar DomesUTC Aerospace Systems
has received a contract from the
Naval Surface warfare Center-
Crane, ind., to provide sonar
domes for surface combat ships.
The five-year, indefinite-delivery,
indefinite-quantity contract is
valued at up to $39 million and
covers deliveries through 2020
to the U.S. Navy and foreign
military sales. in addition to
the sonar domes, the contract
includes shipping, installation
and transportation fixtures,
engineering and field services,
inspection and repairs. work will
be performed by the engineered
Polymer Products (ePP) team in
Jacksonville, Fla., which is part of
the Aerostructures business unit.
UTC Aerospace Systems is a unit
of United Technologies Corp.
A sonar dome is an acousti-
cally transparent housing that
surrounds the sonar transducer
array used for detection, naviga-
tion and ranging. The dome
permits acoustic energy to pass
through with minimal sound
transmission interference. The
contract covers two types of
sonar domes: a sonar composite
dome (SCd) and a sonar dome
rubber window (SdRw).
The SCd, mounted on the
keel of FFG-7 frigates, uses a
patented composite system de-
signed to provide optimal struc-
tural and acoustic performance
to the ship's sonar system. This
allows for enhanced discovery
and classification of underwater
targets. SCds replaced tradi-
tional rubber domes on U.S. and
allied Navy frigates in 1997; they
require less maintenance and
are expected to last more than
30 years even under the most
extreme operating conditions.
The SdRw, bow-mounted
on ddG-51 class destroyers as
well as on CG-47 class cruisers,
is a specialized rubber wire-re-
inforced structure that houses a
ship’s sonar system. The rubber’s
energy absorption and reflec-
tion properties enhance a ship’s
detection capability. ePP has
produced more than 300 SdRws
in the past four decades.
“Our proven ability to provide
advanced acoustic products that
maximize sonar system perfor-
mance gives our sailors a signifi-
cant at-sea advantage,” said Aero-
structures President Marc duvall.
“Our dedicated team of engineers
and manufacturing experts at ePP
is committed to delivering superior
acoustic technologies in support
of the U.S. Navy’s most advanced
surface combatants. we look
forward to the opportunity to build
upon our longstanding relationship
with the U.S. Navy with this sonar
dome contract.”
U.S. Pacific Fleet Master Chief Marco Ramirez speaks with senior enlisted leaders at Pacific Fleet headquarters during the Senior Enlisted Leadership Training Symposium. The symposium is an annual event where senior enlisted leaders from across the Pacific Fleet gather to review the effectiveness of current policies and ways to improve mission readiness in open-forum discussions. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Brian M. Wilbur]
MARCh 31, 2015 | 7www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 8: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
track existing and emerging air-to-air and cruise missile threats in support of Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD). P-8A combines the proven reliability of the commercial 737 airframe with avionics that enable integration of modern sensors and robust communications. We have deployed our third P-8A squadron and are on a path to replace the P-3C by the end of the decade. Electronic attack capabilities, both carrier-based and expeditionary, continue to mature with the fielding of EA-18G squadrons while we continue development of the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) to replace the legacy ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System. Finally, the department is planning to recapitalize its fleet of C-2A COD aircraft with an extended range variant of the V-22. The decision closes a capacity gap in the COD capability within an existing program of record.
The Navy and Marine Corps are partici-pating in joint future vertical lift efforts to identify leverage points for future rotorcraft investment. In FY16 the department continues to modernize vertical lift capability and capac-ity with procurement of MH-60R, AH-1Z, UH-1Y and MV-22B, and the continued development of the CH-53K and VH-92A (presidential helicopter replacement). The Spe-cial Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-CR), designed to support U.S. and partner security interests throughout the CENTCOM, EUCOM and AFRICOM areas of responsibility (AOR), leverages these vertical lift investments. The unparalleled speed and range of the MV-22B, together with the KC-130J and joint tanker assets, provides both SPMAGTF-CR with the operational reach to respond to crises through-out any AOR.
Within our FY16 budget request, the department continues investment in advanced strike weapons programs. These include Air Intercept Missiles (AIM-9X/BLK II and AIM-120D); Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II); Tac-tical Tomahawk Cruise Missiles (TACTOM/BLK IV); the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM); the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guid-ed Missile (AARGM); the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM); and the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS II).
These capabilities enable our Navy and Ma-rine Corps warfighters to deter and dominate potential adversaries in any environment.
TACTICAL AVIATION
F-35B/F-35C Lightning IIThe F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
will form the backbone of U.S. air combat superiority for decades to come. Delivering this transformational capability into front line forces as soon as possible remains a top priority. JSF will replace legacy tactical fighter fleets of the Navy and Marine Corps with a dominant, multirole, fifth-generation aircraft, capable of projecting U.S. power and deterring potential adversaries. The Fiscal Year 2016 President’s Budget requests $1 billion RDT&E and $3.1 billion APN.
The F-35 program is executing well across the entire spectrum of acquisition, to include development and design, flight test, produc-tion, fielding and base stand-up, sustainment of fielded aircraft, and stand up of a global sustainment enterprise. To date, all variants of F-35 have flown close to 28,000 hours close to 11,000 hours for the F-35B and more than 3,000 for the F-35C. Our overall assessment is that steady progress is being made on all aspects of the program. However, F-35 does continue to have its risks, inclusive of software development and integration. However, discipline instilled several years ago in the way software is developed, lab tested, flight tested, measured and controlled has resulted in im-proved and more predictable outcomes.
The program is in the final stages of flight test for Block 2B software; Block 3i software is anticipated to deliver all planned capabilities; and Block 3F, which has the most software development risk driven by data fusion, is improving. Data fusion enables the aircraft to integrate onboard capabilities with informa-tion from multiple other sources, such as non-F-35 aircraft, satellites and ground stations, to provide the pilot complete and accurate battlespace awareness. This multiplatform fu-sion is the most complex remaining develop-mental activity and is being closely monitored. Block 3F complexity and technical challenges, combined with a delay in the start of 3F flight testing may result in delivery up to four to six months late. Overall, the Block 2B configura-tion, which will support the Marine Corps’ F-35B initial operational capability (IOC) will deliver during the summer of 2015 and is tracking to plan; Block 3i, the same capability as Block 2B but hosted on new and improved computers, is expected to be ready by the end
of calendar year 2015, and Block 3F capability will enable Navy to IOC the F-35C variant in 2018 along with the Marine Corps its first F-35C in 2020.
The program has delivered 124 aircraft to test, operational and training sites, with the production line running approximately two months behind schedule. Due to government/industry manufacturing management initia-tives, production deliveries are improving and the current delays do not pose any long-term schedule or program delivery risks.
Affordability remains a top priority. We have made it clear to the program management team and the F-35 industrial base that the JSF must finish development within the time and money allocated; continue to drive cost out of aircraft production; and reduce life cycle costs. To that end the program has engaged in a multipronged approach to reduce costs across production, operations and support. The government/industry team is reducing air-craft production costs through “blueprint for affordability” initiatives and reducing F-135 engine costs via ongoing engine “war on cost” strategies. These efforts include up-front con-tractor investment on cost reduction initiatives mutually agreed upon by the government and contractor team. This arrangement motivates the contractors to accrue savings as quickly as possible in order to recoup their investment, and benefits the government by realizing cost savings at the time of contract award. The goal is to reduce the flyaway cost of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) F-35A to between $80 and $85 million dollars by 2019, which is anticipated to commensurately decrease the cost to the Marine Corps F-35B and Navy F-35C vari-ants. The program has set a goal of decreasing overall operating and support life cycle cost by 30 percent.
F/A-18 OverviewThe F/A-18 Hornet continues to meet
readiness and operational commitments. There are 26 Navy Super Hornet strike fighter squad-rons and a total inventory of 521 F/A-18E/Fs; deliveries and squadron transitions will continue through 2018. There are nine Navy and 11 Marine Corps F/A-18 A-D active strike fighter squadrons and a total inventory of 614 Hornets. Super Hornets and F/A-18A-D Hornets have conducted more than 214,000 combat missions since September 11, 2001.
The Future of Naval Aviation➥ continued fRoM paGe 1
www.NPeO-kMi.COM8 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 9: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
F/A-18 A/B/C/D HornetThe FY16 president’s budget requests
$371.2 million in APN to implement aircraft commonality programs, maintain relevant capability, improve reliability and ensure struc-tural safety of the inventory of 614 F/A-18 A-D Hornets. $148.2 million is for the service life extension program (SLEP).
The F/A-18A-D was designed for, and has achieved, a service life of 6,000 flight hours. These aircraft have performed as expected through their design life. Service life manage-ment of this aircraft is intended to extend this platform beyond its designed 6,000 flight hours. Through detailed analysis, inspections and structural repairs, as required, the DoN has been successful in achieving 8,000 flight hours for many aircraft and is pursuing a strategy to go as high as 10,000 flight hours on select aircraft. Continued investment in SLEP, the high flight hour (HFH) inspection program, program related engineering, and program related logistics is critical for our flight hour extension strategy.
In order to maintain warfighting relevancy in a changing threat environment, we will continue to procure and install advanced systems such as the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), high order language mission computers, ALR-67v3, ALQ-214v5, Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS), APG-73 radar enhancements, advanced targeting forward looking infrared (ATFLIR) upgrades, and LITENING for the Marine Corps on selected F/A-18A-D aircraft.
F/A-18 E/F Super-HornetThe F/A-18E/F will be a mainstay of
Navy’s aviation carrier air wing strike fighter force through 2035. The FY16 president’s bud-get requests $507.1 million in APN to imple-ment aircraft commonality programs, maintain relevant capabilities, improve reliability and ensure structural safety of the Super-Hornet fleet; and $153 million RDT&E to support the flight plan spiral capability development, development of advanced electronic attack and counter-electronic attack, and F/A-18E/F Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP).
The F/A-18E/F significantly improves the survivability and strike capability of the carrier air wing. The Super-Hornet provides increased combat radius and endurance, and a 25 percent increase in weapons payload over F/A-18A-D Hornets. The production program continues to deliver on-cost and on-schedule.
The Super-Hornet uses an incremental approach to incorporate new technologies and
capabilities, to include Digital Communica-tion System Radio, MIDS Joint Tactical Radio System, JHMCS, ATFLIR with shared real-time video, accurate navigation, digital memory device, distributed targeting system, infrared search and track and continued advancement of the APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar.
$19.7 million of the 2016 RDT&E supports the F/A-18E/F SLAP requirement. The F/A-18 E/F fleet, on average, has flown approximately 36 percent of the design life of 6,000 flight hours. The remaining design service life will not be adequate to meet long-term op-erational commitments through 2035. In 2008 the Navy commenced a three-phase F/A-18E/F SLAP to analyze actual usage versus structural test results and determine the feasibility of extending F/A-18E/F service life from 6,000 to 9,000 flight hours via a follow-on SLEP. The F/A-18E/F SLAP will identify the necessary in-spections and modifications required to achieve 9,000 flight hours and increase total arrested landings and catapults beyond currently defined life limits. This extension is assessed as low risk. The service life management plan philosophy has been applied to the F/A-18E/F fleet at an earlier point in its life cycle than the F/A-18A-D. This will facilitate optimization of fatigue life expended, flight hours, and total landings, thereby better aligning aircraft service life with fleet requirements.
AV-8B HarrierSince the beginning of the war on terror,
the AV-8B Harrier has been a critical part of the strike fighter inventory for the joint force. This aircraft has flown more than 54,000 hours
in combat since 2003 with zero losses from the enemy in the air but six losses on the ground when the enemy broke through our forces at Bastion air base in 2012. The FY16 president’s budget requests $83.3 million in APN funds to continue the incorporation of obsolescence replacement/readiness management plan systems, electrical and structural changes, inven-tory sustainment and upgrade efforts to offset obsolescence and attrition, LITENING Pod upgrades, and F402-RR-408 engine safety and operational changes.
The FY16 president’s budget requests $39.9 million in RDT&E funds to continue design, development, integration and test of various platform improvements, to include Engine Life Management Program, Escape Systems, Joint Mission Planning System updates, Link 16 Digital Interoperability integration, Opera-tional Flight Program (OFP) block upgrades to various mission and communication systems, navigation equipment, weapons carriage, coun-termeasures, and the obsolescence replacement/readiness management plan.
The AV-8B continues to deploy in support of operational contingencies. Each Marine expeditionary unit (MEU) deploys with embarked AV-8Bs. The AV-8B, equipped with LITENING targeting pods and a video downlink to ROVER ground stations, preci-sion strike weapons, Intrepid Tiger II EW pods and beyond visual range air-to-air radar guided missiles, continues to be a proven, invaluable asset for the Marine air ground task force (MAGTF) and joint commander across the spectrum of operations. One squadron has flown more than 3,400 hours of strike sorties against ISIS with an average combat radius
An AV-8B Harrier II hovers over the flight deck while demonstrating its vertical and short takeoff and landing capabilities aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4) during flight operations. Boxer is underway conducting sea trials off the coast of Southern California. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Robert R. Sanchez]
MARCh 31, 2015 | 9www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 10: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
of 900 miles. Digital improved triple ejector racks have allowed us to load up to six preci-sion guided munitions per aircraft, with tanks, guns, and Litening Pods exponentially increas-ing the combat viability of this platform. In FY16 the airborne variable message Format terminals will be installed in AV-8B to replace the current digital-aided close air support (CAS) technology. The program will continue development of the H6.2 Operational Flight Program to integrate Federal Aviation Admin-istration compliant Navigation Performance/Area Navigation (RNP/RNAV) capability, an update to the LITENING Common OFP to implement improvements to moving target tracking, and correct additional software defi-ciencies identified through combat operations. The program will also work on the H7.0 OFP which will integrate Link 16 functionality. As an out-of-production aircraft, the AV-8B program will continue its focus on sustain-ment efforts to mitigate significant inventory shortfalls, maintain airframe integrity, achieve full fatigue life expended, and address reli-ability and obsolescence issues of avionics and subsystems.
Operations Odyssey Dawn, Enduring Freedom, and today’s Operation Freedom Sentinel confirm the expeditionary advantages of short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) capabilities. Placing the Harrier as the closest multirole fixed-wing asset to the battlefield greatly reduces transit times to the battlefield and enables persistent CAS without strategic tanking assets. Airframe sustainment initiatives, capability upgrades, and obsolescence mitiga-tion is essential and must be funded to ensure the AV-8B remains lethal and relevant.
FA-XXThe department is preparing to conduct
an analysis of alternatives (AoA) to address the anticipated retirement of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft beginning in the mid-2020 timeframe. The FA-XX AoA will consider the widest possible range of materiel concepts while balancing capability, cost, schedule and sup-portability considerations. It will assess manned, unmanned and optionally manned approaches to fulfill predicted 2030-plus mission require-ments. Analysis will consider baseline programs of record (current platforms), evolutionary or incremental upgrades to baseline programs (including derivative platforms), and new de-velopment systems or aircraft to meet identified gaps in required capability. The FY16 budget requests $5.0 million in RDT&E to conduct this AoA.
Strike Fighter Inventory ManagementThe department remains challenged with
end of life planning for F/A-18A-D and AV-8B aircraft that reach the end of their service life before replacement aircraft (F-35B/C) can be fully delivered into service. In the FY16 budget request the department was forced to cut 16 F-35Cs from the budget (FY16-20), delaying the stand-up of the first Marine Corps F-35C squadron by one year and delaying subsequent F-35C squadron transitions by two years each. Strike fighter inventory management risk increases with the FY16 budget request, further increasing the gap between supply and the department’s master aviation plan demand.
The near-term inventory challenge is due to a combination of reduced strike fighter procure-ment, higher than planned TACAIR utilization rates, and F/A-18A-D and AV-8B depot facility production falling short of the 2013 and 2014 required output. Aggressive efforts across the department were instituted in 2014 to improve depot throughput and return more aircraft back to the fleet. Aviation depots are expected to improve productivity through 2017, and fully recover the backlog of F/A-18A-D by 2019 and Harrier by 2016; at which time the focus will shift towards F/A-18E/F service life extension. The Marines ran an independent readiness review of their AV-8B program to recover to a T-2.0 readiness level within their AV-8B fleet, meet their operational requirements and ensure they had an adequate bridge to the F-35. By following the plan, the AV-8B fleet should be in the green in 17 months.
The Navy and USMC strike fighter force continues to meet their operational commitments. However, we anticipate the inventory pressure to remain relatively constant through FY16 as we experience peak depot inductions of F/A-18A-D aircraft reaching 8,000 hours and entering exten-sive high flight hour (HFH) service life extension inspections, repairs and modifications.
Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) / EA-18G Growler
The FY16 president’s budget request includes $108.5 million in APN to implement aircraft commonality programs, maintain relevant capabilities, improve reliability and ensure structural safety of the Growler fleet; $56.9 mil-lion in RDT&E for Flight Plan spiral capability development, design and integration of jamming techniques optimization improvements, evolution-ary software development and related testing; and $398.8 million RDT&E for NGJ Increment 1 and $13.0 million RDT&E for NGJ Increment 2.
In 2009, the Navy began the transition from EA-6Bs to EA-18Gs. The EA-18G is a
critical enabler of the joint force, bringing fully netted capabilities that provide electromagnetic spectrum dominance in an electromagnetic ma-neuver warfare environment. The first EA-18G squadron deployed to Iraq in an expeditionary role in November 2010 in support of Opera-tion New Dawn, and subsequently redeployed to Italy on short notice in March 2011 in support of Operations Odyssey Dawn and Uni-fied Protector. The first carrier-based EA-18G squadron deployed in May 2011. Three active component Navy expeditionary squadrons, nine of 10 carrier based squadrons, and one reserve squadron have completed, or are in, transition to the EA-18G.
The 10 carrier based EA-18G squadrons will fulfill Navy requirements for airborne electronic attack; six expeditionary EA-18G squadrons will provide the joint, high-intensity AEA capability required by the joint forces commander, which was previously fulfilled by the Navy and Marine Corps EA-6B. The Navy will be divested of EA-6Bs by 2015; the Marine Corps by 2019 leaving the E/A-18G as the only viable AEA platform in the DoD inventory. The inventory objective is 153 EA-18G aircraft. Since their initial deployment, Growlers have flown more than 2,300 combat missions, have expended approximately 6 percent of the 7,500 flight hour life per aircraft, and are meeting all operational commitments.
Next Generation Jammer (NGJ)NGJ is a new electronic warfare capability
that will replace the 42-year-old ALQ-99, currently the only Navy and Joint airborne tactical jamming system pod. The ALQ-99 has limited capability to counter tactically and tech-nically advanced threats, is increasingly difficult and costly to maintain, and has a vanishing industrial supplier base. The Navy and Depart-ment of Defense (DoD) require NGJ to meet current and emerging EW threats. NGJ will have the necessary power and digital techniques to counter increasingly advanced and sophis-ticated adversary electronic warfare search, surveillance, and targeting-radars and com-munications systems. NGJ will be DoD’s only comprehensive tactical AEA capability—sup-porting all services and joint/coalition partners, and will be implemented in three increments: Mid-Band (Increment 1), Low-Band (Incre-ment 2), and High-Band (Increment 3). NGJ is designed to provide improved capability in support of joint and coalition air, land and sea tactical strike missions and is critical to the Na-vy’s vision for the future of strike warfare. FY16 funding is vital to maintain schedule, allowing
www.NPeO-kMi.COM10 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 11: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
the program to complete technology matura-tion and risk reduction (TMRR) and transition into the engineering and management develop-ment (EMD) phase. Initial concept studies and formal program stand-up will begin in FY16 for Increment 2.
Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) / EA-6B Prowler
The FY16 president’s budget request includes $15.5 million in RDT&E for electronic warfare (EW) counter response, $2.8 million RDT&E for MAGTF EW, $23.2 million in APN for airborne electronic attack (AEA) systems, $9.8 million in APN for all EA-6B series aircraft, and $7.7 million APN for MAGTF EW.
Currently, there are 37 EA-6Bs in the Navy and Marine Corps, which are distributed to three Marine Corps and one Navy operational squadron, one Navy flight test squadron, and one Marine Corps training squadron. The total includes five Navy ICAP II aircraft and 32 ICAP III aircraft. All ICAP III EA-6Bs are operated by the Marine Corps. Final retirement of the EA-6B from the DoN inventory will be in 2019.
Marine aviation is on a path toward a distributed AEA ‘system of systems’ that is a critical element in achieving the MAGTF EW vision: A composite of manned and unmanned surface, air and space assets on a fully collabora-tive network providing the MAGTF command-er control of the electromagnetic spectrum when and where desired. Included in this plan are the ALQ-231 Intrepid Tiger II communica-tions jammer, UAS EW payloads, a Software reprogrammable payload and an EW services
architecture to facilitate collaborative networked EW battle management.
Intrepid Tiger II development and procure-ment is in response to Marine Corps require-ments for increased precision EW capability and capacity across the MAGTF and provides EW capability directly to tactical commanders without reliance upon the limited availability of the low density/high demand EA-6B Prowler. Intrepid Tiger II is currently carried on AV-8B and F/A-18 A++/C/D aircraft, has successfully completed nine deployments, and is currently deployed with both the 11th and 24th MEUs. Integration on Marine Corps rotary-wing air-craft is scheduled to be completed by the fourth quarter of FY15. Development of an Intrepid Tiger II counter-radar capability for the pen-etrating jammer mission will begin in FY16.
E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE)The FY16 president’s budget requests $272.1
million in RDT&E for continuation of added capabilities, to include in-flight air refueling, tactical targeting network technology (TTNT), secret Internet protocol router chat, advanced mid-term interoperability improvement pro-gram, multifunctional information distribution system/joint actical radio system TTNT, counter electronic attack, sensor netting, and data fusion. In the third year of a 26 aircraft Multi-Year Pro-curement (MYP) contract covering FY14-18, the budget requests $1,053 million in APN for five full rate production (FRP) Lot 4 aircraft, advance procurement (AP) for FY17 FRP Lot 5 aircraft; and Economic ordering quantity funding for the MYP for FY18.
The E-2D AHE is the Navy’s carrier-based Airborne early warning and battle management command and control system. The E-2D AHE provides Theater Air and missile defense and is capable of synthesizing information from multiple onboard and off-board sensors, making complex tactical decisions and then dissemi-nating actionable information to joint forces in a distributed, open-architecture environ-ment. E-2D is also a cornerstone of the naval integrated fire control–counter air (NIFCA-CA) capability.
Utilizing the newly developed AN/APY-9 Mechanical/Electronic Scan Array radar and the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system, the E-2D AHE works in concert with tactical aircraft and surface-combatants equipped with the Aegis combat system to detect, track and defeat air and cruise missile threats at extended ranges.
The first Fleet E-2D squadron (VAW-125) was designated “safe for flight” in January 2014. IOC was achieved in October 2014.
ASSAULT SUPPORT AIRCRAFT
MV-22The FY16 president’s budget requests $87.9
million in RDT&E for continued product im-provements, including engineering development of a Navy variant of the MV-22; and $1.48 bil-lion in APN for procurement and delivery of 19 MV-22s (Lot 20). FY16 will be the fourth year of the 2nd V-22 MYP contract covering FY13-17. The funds requested in the FY16 president’s budget fully fund Lot 20 and procure long-lead items for FY17 Lot 21 MV-22 aircraft. The APN request includes $126.1 million to support operations and safety improvement programs (OSIPs), including correction of defi-ciencies and readiness improvements. The FY16 request includes funding starting in FY18 to procure a Navy variant in support of the carrier onboard delivery mission.
MV-22 Osprey vertical flight capabilities, coupled with the speed, range, endurance of fixed-wing transports, are enabling effective ex-ecution of current missions that were previously unachievable. In 2014, a second Marine Corps SPMAGTF-CR was stood up in CENTCOM and the 12th and final MV-22 for HMX-1 “Greenside” logistics and passenger transport was delivered for support of the presidential transport mission. As the V-22 fleet approaches the 300,000 flight hour milestone it has proven to be the safest Marine Corps rotorcraft.
The second MYP, which began in FY13, will procure at least 93 MV-22s over five years
An MV-22B Osprey from the Greyhawks of Marine Medium-lift Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 161 takes off from the flight deck of the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD 2). Essex is underway conducting an amphibious squadron and Marine expeditionary unit integration training exercise with Amphibious Squadron (PHIBRON) 3 and the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (15th MEU) in preparation for an upcoming deployment. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Sean P. Gallagher]
MARCh 31, 2015 | 11www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 12: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
and results in savings of approximately $1 billion when compared to single year procure-ments. The stability of the MYP supports the Marine Corps’ retirement of legacy aircraft, benefits the supplier base and facilitates cost reductions on the part of both the prime con-tractor and sub-tier suppliers.
Due to extremely high demand for MV-22 capability from the combatant commanders (COCOMs), and a resultant high operational tempo in 2014, the mission capability rates leveled-off and did not continue the year over year improvements seen since 2010. This was primarily due to our inability to train enlisted maintainers in the numbers and qualifications standard we need to sustain such a high demand signal. Right now we have 13 full operational capability squadrons, with two in build, and are executing to an overall 15 squadron demand signal. We are shifting resources and modify-ing standup, transition, and training plans, but the demand for the capabilities this aircraft brings to the COCOMs is creating growing pains. While we are confident these issues will be overcome, there has been an impact on our readiness rates. Despite a readiness rate decre-ment, the cost per flight hour has continued to decrease, with a total reduction of nearly 28 percent since 2010. FY16 OSIP provides a necessary and stable source of crucial modifica-tion funding as the Ospreys work to improve readiness and continue to reduce operating cost.
Concurrent with our readiness and support initiatives, we are adding capabilities to the MV-22 that will make it even more valuable to the COCOMs. First, we are expanding the number of aerial refueling platforms that can re-fuel an MV-22, increasing the range of available options to capitalize on its long-range capabili-ties. We are also developing a mission kit to al-low the MV-22 to deliver fuel to other airborne platforms. We see this as a critical enabler for both shore- and sea-based operations. We plan to deliver this capability by the summer of 2017 concurrent with the first Western Pacific deployment of the F-35B. We are also looking at options that will enable the delivery of preci-sion-guided munitions from the MV-22, which will enhance its ability to operate autonomously and increase the lethality of our force. Finally, an important capability that is a priority for entire aviation force is digital interoperability (DI). We are testing and deploying the initial configuration of an onboard suite of electronics that will allow the embarked troop commander to possess unprecedented situational awareness via real time transmission of full motion video and other data generated by multiple air and
ground platforms throughout the battlespace. This DI suite will also be able to collect, in real time, threat data gathered by existing aircraft survivability equipment and off board data to accompanying attack platforms, thereby shortening the kill chain against ground and air based threats.
In ongoing operations in the Middle East, the MV-22 has become the tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel (TRAP) platform of choice to rescue downed aircrew in hostile territory. Currently, Marines are on alert in Central Command to recover American and coalition aircrew executing strike operations. The speed, range, and aerial refueling capability have allowed the Osprey’s to remain in strategic locations throughout the area poised for rescue operations. With an unrefueled mission radius of 423 nautical miles, the Osprey can reach greater distances around the battlefield to increase the likelihood of recovering isolated personnel as the speed and altitude envelopes provide better survivability for the TRAP force and recovered aircrew.
CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement ProgramThe FY16 president’s budget requests
$632.1 million RDT&E to continue the EMD phase of the CH-53K program. Since enter-ing into developmental test in December 2013 the ground test vehicle (GTV) has completed bare head light-off and shakedown light-off has commenced. Over the last year, the GTV has accumulated over 180 test hours. The first flight vehicle, engineering development model (EDM) 1, has completed its bare head light-off and initial bladed ground runs. The program is currently on schedule to execute its first flight by the end of 2015. During FY16, the program will continue to execute developmental test flights, deliver the final EDM, and continue assembly of system demonstration test article aircraft, which will be production representative aircraft utilized for operational test.
The CH-53K will provide land- and sea-based heavy-lift capabilities not resident in any of today's platforms and contribute directly to the increased agility, lethality, and presence of joint task forces and MAGTFs. The CH-53K will transport 27,000 pounds of external cargo out to a range of 110 nautical miles, nearly tripling the CH-53E’s lift capability under similar environmental conditions, while fitting into the same shipboard footprint. The CH-53K will also provide unparalleled lift capability under high-altitude and hot weather conditions, greatly expanding the commander’s operational reach.
Compared to the CH-53E, maintenance and reliability enhancements of the CH-53K will improve aircraft availability and ensure cost effective operations. Additionally, surviv-ability and force protection enhancements will dramatically increase protection for both aircrew and passengers. Expeditionary heavy-lift capabilities will continue to be critical to suc-cessful land and sea-based operations in future anti-access, area-denial environments, enabling sea-basing and the joint operating concepts of force application and focused logistics.
Over the past 13 years, the CH-53 com-munity accumulated over 95,000 combat flight hours. During this period, we suffered 10 aircraft losses, nine in combat and one in training. As our CH-53E community approaches 30 years of service, these sustained and unprecedented operational demands have prematurely aged our heavy-lift assault support aircraft, making it ever more challenging to maintain and underscoring the importance of its replacement, the CH-53K King Stallion. To keep the H-53E viable until the King Stallion enters service, the FY16 president’s budget requests $46.9 million in APN for both near- and mid-term enhancements. For both the USN MH-53E and USMC CH-53E helicopters these modifications include condition-based maintenance software upgrades, Kapton wiring replacement installations, and improved Engine Nacelles. The FY16 budget request includes non-recurring engineering for upgrades to the MH-53E’s antiquated cockpit. These critical safety and avionics upgrades will address obsolescence issues within the cockpit and increase overall situational awareness and mission effectiveness by improving minefield navigation displays, adding area navigation (RNAV) capability, and providing moving map and hover displays. Ad-ditionally, non-recurring engineering and kit pro-curements for the Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (EGI) will allow the MH-53E to utilize the full capabil-ity of the APX-123 transponder. The Marine Corps’ CH-53E fleet is continuing with the T-64 Engine Reliability Improvement Program, critical survivability upgrade (CSU), satellite communi-cations (SATCOM) kit installations, and smart multi-function color display (SMFCD) procure-ments and installations.
ATTACK AND UTILITY AIRCRAFT
UH-1Y // AH-1ZMarine Corps Cobra and Huey attack
and utility aircraft have been critical for the success of the Marines in harm’s way and over the past 10 years, these aircraft have flown over
www.NPeO-kMi.COM12 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 13: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
196,000 hours in combat. The FY16 president’s budget requests $27.2 million in RDT&E for continued product improvements; and $856.2 million in APN for 28 H-1 upgrade aircraft: 12 UH-1Y and 16 AH-1Z. The program is a key modernization effort designed to resolve exist-ing safety deficiencies and enhance operational effectiveness of the H-1 fleet. The 85 percent commonality between the UH-1Y and AH-1Z will significantly reduce life cycle costs and the logistical footprint, while increasing the main-tainability and deployability of both aircraft. The program will provide the Marine Corps with 349 H-1 aircraft through a combination of new production and a limited quantity of remanufactured aircraft.
The H-1 Upgrades Program is replacing the Marine Corps’ UH-1N and AH-1W helicop-ters with state-of-the-art UH-1Y “Yankee” and AH-1Z “Zulu” aircraft. The new aircraft are fielded with integrated glass cockpits, world-class sensors, and advanced helmet-mounted sight and display systems. The future growth plan includes a digitally-aided, close air support system designed to integrate these airframes, sensors, and weapons systems together with ground combat forces and other capable DoD aircraft. Integration of low-cost weapons such as the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II provides increased lethality while reducing collateral damage.
The UH-1Y aircraft achieved IOC in Au-gust 2008 and FRP in September 2008. The “Yankee Forward” procurement strategy priori-tized UH-1Y production in order to replace the under-powered UH-1N fleet as quickly as possible. The last UH-1N was retired from service as of December 2014. The AH-1Z program received approval for FRP in No-vember 2010 and achieved IOC in February 2011. As of February 2015, 148 aircraft (109 UH-1Ys and 39 AH-1Zs) have been delivered to the Fleet Marine Force. An additional 60 aircraft are on contract and in production. Lot 1-7 aircraft deliveries are complete for both the UH-1Y and AH-1Z. Lot 8 and 9 deliver-ies are complete for the UH-1Y, and Lot 10 UH-1Y deliveries are in progress and ahead of schedule.
The H-1 program is in the process of integrating both the UH-1Y and AH-1Z into the larger digitally interoperable programs of the Marine Corps. With the integration of Intrepid Tiger II, the HMLA community will now be able to provide the MAGTF command-ers with all six essential functions of Marine Air. Additionally, these aircraft will incorporate soft-ware reprogrammable payload (SRP) to utilize
diverse networks and waveforms thus allowing maneuverability within the spectrum. SRP will employ systems as Link-16, Tactical Targeting Network Technology, Adaptive Networking Wideband Waveform and the Soldier Radio Waveform.
MH-60 (Overview)MH-60 Seahawks have consistently met
readiness and operational commitments. There will be 38 Navy Seahawk squadrons with 275 MH-60S and 280 MH-60R aircraft when transitions from the SH-60B, SH-60F, and HH-60H are complete. Production and squad-ron transitions will continue through 2017. Over the last 12 years of combat operations, deployed ashore and aboard our aircraft carri-ers, amphibious ships, and surface combatants at sea, Navy H-60 helicopters have provided vital over-watch and direct support to troops in combat across multiple theaters of operation and variety of missions; including support to special operations forces, air ambulance, surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, logistics support and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief.
MH-60R SeahawkThe FY16 president’s budget requests $970
million in APN for 29 helicopters. The produc-tion program continues to deliver on-cost and on-schedule.
The MH-60R multi-mission helicopter provides strike group protection and adds sig-nificant capability in its primary mission areas of Undersea Warfare and Surface Warfare; the latter including fast attack craft/fast in-shore attack craft (FAC/FIAC) threat response capabilities. The MH-60R is the sole organic air anti-submarine warfare (ASW) asset in the carrier strike group (CSG) and serves as a key contributor to theater level ASW. The MH-60R also employs advanced sensors and com-munications to provide real-time battlespace management with a significant, active or passive, over-the-horizon targeting capability. Secondary mission areas include Search and Rescue, Vertical Replenishment, Naval Surface Fire Support, Logistics Support, Personnel Transport and Medical Evacuation.
The $21.4 million RDT&E request sup-ports the MH-60R Test Program, consisting of numerous system upgrades and pre-planned product improvements, to include the digital rocket launcher (DRL) with APKWS II, heli-copter infra-red suppression system, multifunctional information distribution system - low volume terminal (LVT) block upgrade 2,
and the VHF omnidirectional ranging/instru-ment landing system.
MH-60S SeahawkThe FY16 president’s budget requests $28
million in APN for annualized support of the final deliveries of aircraft, trainers, ground support equipment, and publications required to complete the production program of 275 helicopters. The production program continues to deliver on-cost and on-schedule. The MH-60S multi-mission helicopter provides strike group protection and adds significant capability in its primary mission areas of mine warfare and surface warfare. Secondary mission areas include combat search and rescue, support to special operations forces, vertical replenishment, logistics support, personnel transport and medi-cal evacuation.
The $5.2 million RDT&E request supports the MH-60S Test Program, consisting of system upgrades for airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM), armed helicopter FAC/FIAC de-fense, and the commencement of a service life assessment program.
Armed Helo Block 3A Operational Test (OT) was completed in June 2007 and Block 3B (added Link 16 capability) OT was com-pleted in November 2009. Test and Evaluation (T&E) of fixed forward firing weapon (FFW) (20mm gun system) was completed in FY12. T&E of initial FFW unguided rocket (UGR) capability was completed in FY13. T&E for digital rocket launcher APKWS II and expanded UGR capability for the FAC/FIAC threat is in work and planned to complete in FY16. Planned airborne mcm initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) and Follow-On Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) pe-riods were changed to operational assessments, with the final IOT&E aligned with LCS mine counter measures mission package IOT&E.
EXECUTIVE SUPPORT AIRCRAFT
VH-3D/VH-60N Executive Helicopter SeriesThe VH-3D and VH-60N are safely per-
forming the executive lift mission worldwide. As these aircraft continue to provide seamless vertical lift for the president of the United States, the DoN is working closely with HMX-1 and industry to sustain these aircraft until a presidential helicopter replacement platform is fielded. The FY16 president’s budget requests an investment of $76.1 million of APN to con-tinue programs that will ensure the in-service presidential fleet remains a safe and reliable platform. Ongoing VH-60N efforts include
MARCh 31, 2015 | 13www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 14: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
the cockpit upgrade program, engine upgrade program, and a communications suite upgrade (wide band line of sight) that provides surviv-able access to the strategic communications net-work. The continuing structural enhancement program and the obsolescence management program applies to both VH-60N and VH-3D. The program has significantly reduced the cost and schedule of the VH-3D Cockpit upgrade program by focusing on critical obsolescence issues. These technology updates for legacy plat-forms will be directly leveraged for the benefit of the ensuing replacement program (VH-92A).
VH-92A Presidential Helicopter Replacement Aircraft
The FY16 president’s budget request includes $507.1 million of RDT&E to fund the VH-92 EMD contract and associated government activities. Significant progress has been made in the past year with completion of the Milestone B Review in March, receipt of the acquisition decision memorandum in April, award of the EMD contract to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in May, completion of the system requirements review in August and completion of the Integrated Baseline Review in November. The Sikorsky S-92A aircraft will be used to execute the acquisition strategy of integrating mature subsystems into an air vehicle that is currently in production. Initial contractor testing on an S-92A aircraft is planned for 2015 and early 2016, and the criti-cal design review is planned for the 4th quarter of FY16. The first of the planned operational inventory of 21 aircraft could begin fielding as early as 2020.
FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT
KC-130JThe DoN plans to procure two KC-130Js
and continue product improvements. Targeted improvements include aircraft survivability through advanced electronic countermeasure modernization and obsolescence upgrades to the Harvest HAWK ISR/weapon mission kit.
Fielded throughout our active force, the KC-130J brings increased capability, perfor-mance and survivability with lower operating and sustainment costs to the MAGTF. Forward deployed in support of ongoing operations since 2005, the KC-130J continues to deliver Marines, fuel and cargo whenever and wherever needed. In 2015 the KC-130J remains in high demand, providing tactical air-to-air refueling, assault support, close air support (CAS) and multi-sensor imagery reconnaissance (MIR)
capabilities, in support of special purpose MAGTFs and deployed MEUs.
First deployed in 2010, the roll-on/roll-off Harvest HAWK mission kit for the KC-130J continues to provide extended MIR and CAS capabilities. With almost 7,000 hours flown, over 200 Hellfire missile and 90 Griffin muni-tion combat engagements, this expeditionary mission kit has proven its worth and made the KC-130J even more indispensable for Marines on the ground. All six mission kits have been fielded, and funding included in the FY16 budget request will be used to maintain operational relevance of this mission system through compatibility with additional Hellfire variants and an improved full motion video data-link.
The Marine Corps has funded 53 of the 79 KC-130J aircraft in the program of record. The three aircraft included in the FY13 budget would complete the Active component (AC) re-quirement of 51 aircraft. However, the Marine Corps began using the AC backup aircraft to accelerate the Reserve component (RC) transi-tion from the legacy KC-130T aircraft to the more capable and efficient KC-130J in FY14. The aircraft requested in the FY16 president’s budget will continue to increase KC-130J inventory as we strive to achieve full operational capability in the RC. Delays in procurement would force the Marine Corps to sustain the KC-130T aircraft longer than planned at an increased cost.
It is also important to note that the U.S. Air Force C-130J procurement is expected to end in 2022. If the Marine Corps procures KC-130Js at a rate of two per year from FY16-22, we will have approximately 12 aircraft remaining to procure in order to reach the program of record
(POR) of 79 aircraft. This POR is expected to complete in 2029. After the USAF completes its C-130J procurement, NAVAIR will no longer be able to leverage USAF contracting services. Given the loss of USAF contracting services and the uncertainty of additional foreign military sales, the Navy and Coast Guard customers potentially could have a significant unit cost increase.
MARITIME SUPPORT AIRCRAFT
P-8A PoseidonThe P-8A Poseidon recapitalizes the mari-
time patrol asw, anti-surface warfare (ASuW) and armed ISR capability currently resident in the P-3C Orion. The P-8A combines the proven reliability of the commercial 737 airframe with avionics that enables integration of modern sensors and robust communications. The P-8A’s first operational deployment was completed in June 2014, and continuous 7th Fleet operational deployments are under way. As of February 2015, four fleet squadrons have completed transition to P-8A. All fleet squad-rons are scheduled to complete transition by the end of FY19. The P-8A program is meeting all cost, schedule and performance parameters in accordance with the approved Acquisition Program Baseline.
Boeing has delivered 21 aircraft (low rate initial production (LRIP) I/II/III) to the fleet as of February 2015, and three remaining LRIP III aircraft are scheduled to deliver by May 2015. LRIP IV (13 aircraft), and FRP 1 (16 aircraft) are under contract and will start delivering in May 2015. FRP 2 (nine aircraft) is planned to award in June 2015. The FY16 president’s budget procures 47 P-8As over the FYDP and
A UH-1Y Venom Huey helicopter conducts night flight operations aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu (LHA 5) during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise 2014. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Daniel Viramontes]
www.NPeO-kMi.COM14 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 15: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
sustains the P-3C to P-8A transition. In FY16 the warfighting requirement remains 117 air-craft; however, the fiscally constrained inventory objective for 109 aircraft will provide adequate capacity at acceptable levels of risk.
As fleet deliveries of the Increment 1 con-figuration accelerate, integration and testing of P-8A Increment 2 capability upgrades continues. P-8A Increment 2 Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) 1 “Early Multi-Static Active Coherent (MAC)” FOT&E commenced November 15, 2014. The Navy is on track to field the ECP 1 “Early MAC” capability in Fiscal Year 2015 followed by Increment 2 ECP 2 “Full MAC” capabilities in FY16. The Increment 2 ECP 3 contract for High Altitude ASW Weapons Capability capabilities was awarded in December 2014.
P-3C OrionThe aging P-3 fleet will continue to provide
critical ASW, ASuW and ISR support for joint and naval operations worldwide until the fleet completes transition to P-8A. The FY16 budget request provides $3.1 million in funding required to manage P-3C aircraft mission systems obso-lescence during the transition. As of December 2014, 61 P-3 special structural inspection-kits have been installed (zero remaining); 87 Zone 5 modifications completed (last three aircraft in work); and 20 Outer Wing Installations com-pleted (last nine aircraft in work).
The P-3 aircraft is well beyond the original planned fatigue life of 7,500 hours for critical components, with an average airframe usage of over 18,400 hours. The FY16 request contin-ues to fund the P-3 Fatigue Life Management Program so the Navy can maintain sufficient capacity to successfully complete the transition to P-8A.
EP-3 Aries Replacement/SustainmentThe EP-3E Aries is the Navy’s premier
manned maritime intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting (MISR&T) plat-form. The joint airborne signals intelligence (SIGINT) common configuration includes multi-intelligence sensors, robust communica-tion, and data links employed by the flexible and dependable P-3 air vehicle to ensure ef-fective MISR&T support across the full range of military operations. The FY11 National Defense Authorization Act directed Navy to sustain EP-3E airframe and mission systems relevance to minimize SIGINT capability gaps until the systems are fully recapitalized with a platform or family of platforms that in the aggregate provide equal or better capability
and capacity. The FY16 request maintains the retirement dates from the previous year that were extended by one year to FY19 and FY20, respectively.
Navy ISR family of systems approach shifts focus from platforms to payloads. The future force will rapidly respond to changing threats with modular, scalable, netted sensors and pay-loads on a range of sea and shore-based manned and unmanned systems, establishing persistent maritime ISR when and where it is needed.
Navy’s ISR&T transition plan will deliver in-creased capacity and persistence by the end of the decade. However, due to fiscal and end strength constraints, the department will accept some risk in near-term capability and capacity. The FY16 budget request reduces risk compared to the previous fiscal year and the Navy continues to work with joint staff, DoD, and the fleet to optimize the ISR transition plan. The transition plan remains largely unchanged from FY15.
AIRLIFT/CARGO UTILITY AIRCRAFT
COD Recapitalization (Navy V-22 Variant)The C-2A fleet, which provides long-range
logistical support to carrier strike groups, will reach the end of its service life in the mid-2020s with continued sustainment investment. The Navy is planning to recapitalize the COD capa-bility with an extended range variant of the V-22. FY16 investments support an affordable COD recapitalization plan that procures a version of the V-22 Osprey under the existing program of record (POR).
The Navy’s variant of V-22 has been a com-ponent of the POR since program inception. This transition strategy allows the Navy to recapitalize the aging C-2 COD capability in an affordable manner and evolve the aerial logistics concept of operations from the CVN-centric “hub and spoke” model to a flexible sea base support concept.
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS)
MQ-4C Triton UASThe FY16 president’s budget enables MQ-
4C Triton entry into production with three LRIP aircraft in FY16.
The FY16 president’s budget requests $227.2 million in RDT&E to continue Triton develop-ment activities, $150.9 million in RDT&E for Triton modernization, and $548.8 million of APN for procurement of the first lot of LRIP aircraft and for procurement of long lead materi-als for the second lot of LRIP aircraft.
Triton will start establishing five globally-distributed, persistent maritime ISR orbits beginning in FY18, as part of the Navy’s Mari-time ISR&T transition plan. MQ-4C Triton test vehicles have completed 21 total flights as of February 2015 and are on schedule to begin sensor integration testing this spring. This rigor-ous integrated flight test program will support Milestone C planned for FY16. The MQ-4C Triton is a key component of the Navy mari-time patrol reconnaissance Force. Its persistent sensor dwell, combined with networked sensors, will enable it to effectively meet ISR require-ments in support of the Navy maritime strategy.
The Navy currently maintains an inventory of four USAF Global Hawk Block 10 UAS, as part of the BAMS demonstrators, or BAMS-D program. These aircraft have been deployed to CENTCOM’s AOR for over six years. BAMS-D recently achieved over 14,000 flight hours in sup-port of CENTCOM ISR tasking. These assets are adequate to cover all Navy needs through FY18.
Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration (UCAS-D)
The FY16 president’s budget requests no funding for the UCAS-D program. The UCAS-D program is in its final year of funding ($35.9M in RDT&E for FY15). With the com-pletion of the Autonomous Aerial Refueling test flights this spring, the demonstration will come to a successful close. The X-47B has met dem-onstration objectives and reduced technical risk by transferring lessons learned to the UCLASS program. The X-47B demonstrators have paved the way for the proficient introduction of a sea-based unmanned aircraft system by digitizing the carrier controlled environment, achieving precision landing navigation performance, demonstrating a deck handling solution, and refining the concept of operations.
Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) System
The UCLASS system will provide the carrier strike group (CSG) with a persistent unmanned ISR&T and precision strike capability that is available organically to the CSG and compre-hensively to the joint force. The CSG is often the first responder for the nation. The UCLASS sys-tem will enhance the CSG’s capability and versa-tility and enable sustained 24/7 operations from a single aircraft carrier. The FY16 president’s budget requests $134.7 million in RDT&E for UCLASS system development efforts. This fund-ing will continue progress on the control system & connectivity, carrier segments and the govern-ment lead system integrator efforts, while the
MARCh 31, 2015 | 15www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 16: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
department conducts a strategic portfolio review of ISR&T systems and the future composition of the carrier air wing.
The UCLASS system will be integrated with carrier air wing operations, increasing the effectiveness of current CSG ISR&T capabili-ties (airborne, surface, and sub-surface) begin-ning in the Fiscal Year 2022 timeframe. Once deployed, the UCLASS System will inher-ently provide reach-back to Navy and national architectures for command and control and for tasking, processing, exploitation, and dis-semination. The UCLASS system will achieve these capabilities through the development and integration of a carrier-suitable, semi-autono-mous, unmanned air system; a control system and connectivity segment; and Nimitz/Ford-class carriers. The development and integration effort is overseen by the government as the lead systems integrator, providing system-of-systems integration for the UCLASS Program.
MQ-8 Vertical Takeoff and Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV) Fire Scout
The MQ-8 Fire Scout is an autonomous system designed to operate from any suitably-equipped air-capable ship, carry modular mission payloads, and operate using the tactical control system and line-of-sight tactical common data link. The FY16 president’s budget requests $52.8 million of RDT&E, to continue development of the MQ-8C endurance upgrade, to include inte-gration of ISR payloads, radar and short range air to surface weapons. Funding will also be used to continue payload and frigate integration with the MQ-8B and MQ-8C. The request for $142.5 million in APN procures MQ-8C air vehicles; MQ-8 system mission control systems; ancillary, trainers and support equipment; technical sup-port; modifications based on engineering chang-es; and logistics products and support to outfit suitably-equipped air-capable ships and train the associated aviation detachments. Commonality of avionics, software, and payloads between the MQ-8B and MQ-8C has been maximized. The MQ-8B and MQ-8C air vehicles will utilize the same ship-based mission control system and other ship ancillary equipment.
Fire Scout was deployed to Afghanistan from May 2011 until August 2013, and amassed more than 5,100 dedicated ISR flight hours in support of U.S. and coalition forces. Since 2012, the MQ-8B Fire Scout has flown more than 7,500 hours from Navy Frigates, performing hundreds of autonomous ship board take-offs and landings in support of special operations forces and Navy operations. The MQ-8C Fire Scout continues developmental test and has completed phase
II dynamic interface testing aboard the Navy destroyer USS Jason Dunham. The MQ-8C has flown more than 400 flight hours since October of 2013. The Fire Scout program will continue to support integration and testing for LCS-based mission modules.
Tactical Control System (TCS)The FY16 president’s budget requested $8.6
million in RDT&E for the MQ-8 System’s tactical control system (TCS). TCS provides a standards-compliant open architecture with scalable command and control capabilities for the MQ-8 Fire Scout system. In FY16 TCS will continue to transition the Linux operat-ing system to a technology refreshed mission control system, and enhance the MQ-8 System’s automatic identification system and sensor track generation integration with ship systems. The Linux operating system conversion overcomes hardware obsolescence issues with the Solaris-based control stations and provides lower cost software updates using DoD common applica-tion software. In addition, the TCS Linux up-grade will enhance collaboration with the Navy’
future UAS Common Control System.
Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (STUAS) RQ-21A Blackjack
The FY16 president’s budget requests $11.1 million in RDT&E ($4.7 million USN, $6.4 million USMC); $55.0 million in APN for three Navy systems to support Naval Special Warfare; and $84.9 million in PMC for four RQ-21A sys-tems (which includes 20 air vehicles) to address Marine Corps ISR capability requirements cur-rently supported by service contracts. This Group 3 UAS will provide persistent ship- and land-based ISR support for expeditionary tactical-level maneuver decisions and unit level force defense and force protection missions. Blackjack entered LRIP in 2013, completed IOT&E in the second quarter of FY15, with full rate production planned for the first quarter of FY16.
The RQ-21’s current configuration includes full motion video, communications relay package and automatic identification systems. The air vehicle’s payload bay allows for rapid deployment of signal intelligence payloads. The Marine Corps is actively pursuing technological developments for the RQ-21 system in an effort to provide the MAGTF and Marine Corps Forces Special Op-erations Command with significantly improved capabilities. Initiatives include over-the-horizon communication and data relay ability to integrate the system into future networked digital environ-ments; electronic warfare and cyber payloads to increase non-kinetic capabilities; and change
detection radar and moving target indicators to assist warfighters in battlespace awareness and force application.
RQ-7B Shadow Marine Corps Tactical UAS (MCTUAS)
The FY16 president’s budget requests $0.7 million in RDT&E for the RQ-7B Shadow to continue joint development efforts and govern-ment engineering support and $3.8 million in APN to acquire PRC-152A radios and weather-ization kits.
STRIKE WEAPONS PROGRAMS
Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM) Block IV Cruise Missile Program
The FY16 president's budget requests $184.8 million in WPN for procurement of an additional 100 TACTOM weapons and associated support, $28.0 million in OPN for the Tomahawk support equipment, and $17.7 million in RDT&E for capability updates of the weapon system. WPN resources will be for the continued procurement of this versatile, combat-proven, deep-strike weapon system in order to meet ship load-outs and combat requirements. OPN resources will address the resolution of Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Con-trol Station obsolescence, interoperability, and information assurance mandates. RDT&E will be used to continue engineering efforts for A2/AD navigation and communication upgrades.
Tomahawk provides an attack capability against fixed and mobile/moving targets, and can be launched from both surface ships and submarines. The current variant, TACTOM, preserves Tomahawk’s long-range precision-strike capability while significantly increasing responsiveness and flexibility. TACTOM’s improvements include in-flight retargeting, the ability to loiter over the battlefield, in-flight missile health and status monitoring, and battle damage indication imagery, providing a digital look-down “snapshot” of the battlefield via a satellite data link. Other Tomahawk improve-ments include rapid mission planning and execution via global positioning system (GPS) onboard the launch platform and improved anti-jam GPS.
Tomahawk Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC)
The FY16 president’s budget for TMPC requests $7.5 million in RDT&E and $43.2 million OPN for continued system upgrades and sustainment. TMPC is the mission planning and strike execution segment of the
www.NPeO-kMi.COM16 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 17: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Tomahawk Weapon System. TMPC devel-ops and distributes strike missions for the Tomahawk Missile; provides for precision targeting, weaponeering, mission and strike planning, execution, coordination, control and reporting. TMPC provides combat-ant commanders and maritime component commanders the capability to plan and/or modify conventional Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile missions. TMPC optimizes all aspects of the Tomahawk missile technol-ogy to successfully engage a target. TMPC is a Mission Assurance Category 1 system, vital to operational readiness and mission effectiveness of deployed and contingency forces. Planned upgrades support integration, modernization and interoperability efforts necessary to keep pace with missile upgrades. These required upgrades keep pace with new imagery formats, threat changes, improved GPS denied navigation capability, mission planning timeline improvements, upgraded communications architecture. Additionally, cybersecurity mandates will be implemented to reduce TMPC vulnerability to cyber-attacks. These upgrades are critical for the support of over 180 TMPC operational sites worldwide, afloat and ashore, to include: cruise missile support activities (inclusive of US STRATCOM), Tomahawk strike and mission planning cells (5th, 6th, 7th fleet), carrier strike groups, surface and subsurface firing units and labs/training classrooms.
Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 1 Weapon
The FY16 president’s budget requests $285.8 million in RDT&E for the comple-tion of technology maturation and initiation
of integration and test of the air-launched OASuW/Increment 1 program. Increment 1 leverages the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) weapon demonstration effort. Incre-ment 1 provides combatant commanders the ability to conduct ASuW operations against high-value surface combatants protected by integrated air defense system with long-range surface-to-air missiles and denies the adversary the sanctuary of maneuver. The OASuW/Increment 1 program is a DoN led joint program, scheduled to field on the B-1 by the end of FY18 and the F/A-18E/F by the end of FY19.
Next Generation Strike Capability (NGSC)The FY16 budget requests $9.6 million for
initiation of efforts to develop a next genera-tion strike capability (NGSC). As part of a long-term strike weapons strategy, NGSC will study long-range, survivable, multimission, multiplatform conventional strike capabil-ity options planned to IOC in the mid-2020 timeframe. NGSC will become the follow-on acquisition program to the current OASuW/Increment I (LRASM) and Tomahawk weapon system modernization programs. The NGSC program will commence an analysis of alternatives (AoA) during FY16. The AoA will assess existing weapons systems, emergent technologies, and industry internal research and development activities; develop potential program of record costs, schedules, and risk assessments; and conduct additional threat assessments based on projected scenarios and operational environments. This analytical data will inform performance and relevant technology requirements to be matured as part
of potential NGSC materiel solution(s) and associated kill-chain(s).
Sidewinder Air-Intercept Missile (AIM-9X)The FY16 president’s budget requests
$76.0 million in RDT&E and $96.4 mil-lion in WPN for this joint DoN and USAF program. RDT&E will be applied toward the engineering manufacturing development phase of critical hardware obsolescence redesign, Development test of missile v9.4 software, and the design and development of joint chiefs of staff directed insensitive munitions improve-ments. WPN funding is requested for produc-tion of a combined 227 all-up-rounds and captive air training missiles and missile-related hardware. The AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder missile is the newest in the Sidewinder family and is the only short-range infrared air-to-air missile integrated on Navy, Marine Corps and USAF strike-fighter aircraft and Marine Corps attack helicopters. This fifth-generation weapon incorporates high off-boresight acqui-sition capability and increased seeker sensitiv-ity through an imaging infrared focal plane array seeker with advanced guidance process-ing for improved target acquisition; data link capability; and advanced thrust vectoring capability to achieve superior maneuverability and increase the probability of intercept of adversary aircraft.
Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM/AIM-120D)
The FY16 president’s budget requests $32.2 million in RDT&E for continued software capability enhancements and $192.9 million in WPN production of a combined 167 all-up-rounds and captive air training missiles and missile-related hardware. AMRAAM is a joint USAF and DoN weapon that counters exist-ing aircraft and cruise-missile threats. It uses advanced counter-electronic attack capabilities at both high and low altitudes, and can engage from beyond visual range as well as within visual range. AMRAAM provides an air-to-air first look, first shot, first kill capability, while working within a networked environment in support of the Navy’s theater air and missile defense mission area. RDT&E will be applied toward software upgrades to counter emerg-ing electronic attack threats for AIM-120C/D missiles.
Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II)The FY16 president’s budget requests
$97.0 million in RDT&E for continued development of the Department of the Air
An F/A-18C Hornet from the Stingers of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 113, left, and two F/A-18C Hornets from the Mighty Shrikes of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 94, fly in formation before landing aboard the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70). Carl Vinson is deployed in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility supporting Operation Inherent Resolve, strike operations in Iraq and Syria as directed, maritime security operations, and theater security cooperation efforts in the region. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John Philip Wagner, Jr.]
MARCh 31, 2015 | 17www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 18: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Force led joint service SDB II weapon and bomb-rack program. SDB II provides an ad-verse weather, day or night standoff capability against mobile, moving, and fixed targets, and enables target prosecution while minimizing collateral damage. SDB II will be integrated into the internal carriage of both DoN vari-ants of the joint strike fighter (F-35B and F-35C) as well as the Navy’s F/A-18E/F. The joint miniature munitions bomb rack unit (JMM BRU) BRU-61A/A is being developed to meet the operational and environmental integration requirements for internal bay car-riage of the SDB II in the F-35B and F-35C, and external carriage on F/A-18 E/F. JMM BRU entered technology development in June 2013.
Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)The FY16 president’s budget requests
$0.4 million in RDT&E to address software integration and interoperability following the completion of efforts associated with opera-tional testing in FY15, and $21.4 million in WPN to begin Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) software integration, continuation of telemetry instrumentation kit (TIK) non recurring engineering and re-life efforts, and shutdown of the JSOW production line. The department’s decision to terminate JSOW C-1 production was due to fiscal constraints, an analysis of targets determining there was suf-ficient inventory to handle current operational needs, and the ongoing focus to fund future capabilities. The DoN has submitted a final 2014 termination Selected Acquisition Report and Congressional notification. The Navy is preparing a transition plan to address the production termination decision and docu-ment the planned use of RDT&E, WPN, and O&M resources to complete JSOW C-1 operational test activities, missile and TIK pro-duction, CATM conversions, and long-term weapon system operation & support.
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) & AARGM Extended Range
The FY16 president’s budget requests $12.9 million of RDT&E for Block 1 follow-on development and test program, $38.4 million of RDT&E for AARGM extended range (ER) development, and $122.3 million of WPN for production of 138 all-up-rounds and captive training missiles. The AARGM cooperative program with the Italian Air Force transforms the High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) into an affordable, lethal and flexible time-sensitive strike weapon system for
conducting destruction of enemy air defense missions. AARGM adds multi-spectral target-ing capability and targeting geo-specificity to its supersonic fly-out to destroy sophisti-cated enemy air defenses and expand upon the HARM target set. The program achieved IOC on the F/A-18C/D aircraft in July 2012, with forward deployment to U.S. Pacific Command, and integration is complete for AARGM with release of H-8 System Configu-ration Set for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. The development of an AARGM-ER modifica-tion program, involving hardware and software improvements, will begin in FY16. This effort will increase the weapon system’s survivability against complex, new and emerging threat systems and enable launch platforms greater stand-off range.
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)The FY16 president’s budget requests
$25.9 million in RDT&E to begin a five-year integration effort of JAGM Increment 1 onto the Marine Corps AH-1Z in support of an initial operational capability by FY19. JAGM is a Department-of-the-Army led, joint pre-Major Defense Acquisition Program. JAGM is a direct attack/close-air-support missile program that will utilize advanced seeker technology and be employed against land and maritime station-ary and moving targets in adverse weather and will replace the Hellfire and TOW II missile systems. In November 2012, the joint chiefs of staff authorized the JAGM incremental requirements and revalidated the DoN’s AH-1Z Cobra aircraft as a threshold platform. JAGM
Increment 1 is expected to achieve Milestone B certification in FY15.
Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II)
The FY16 president’s budget requests $53.5 million in PANMC for procurement of 1,834 APKWS II precision guidance kits. APKWS II provides an unprecedented precision guidance capability to DoN unguided rocket inventories, improving accuracy and minimizing collateral damage. Program production continues on schedule, meeting the needs of our warfight-ers in today’s theaters of operations. IOC was reached in March 2012 on the Marine Corps’ AH-1W and UH-1Y.These platforms have expended more than 170 APKWS II weapons in combat. Marine Crops AH-1Z platforms will be certified to fire APKWS II in Fiscal Year 2015. The Navy successfully integrated APKWS II on the MH-60S for an Early operational capability in March 2014 and is on track to finalize a similar effort for the MH-60R in March 2015.
CONCLUSION
We are an agile strike and amphibious power projection force in readiness, and such agility requires that the aviation arm of our naval strike and expeditionary forces remain strong. Mr. Chairman, and distin-guished committee members, we request your continued support for the department’s FY16 budget request for our naval aviation programs.
An EA-18G Growler from the Cougars of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 139 launches from the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70). The Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group is deployed in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility supporting Operation Inherent Resolve, maritime security operations, strike operations in Iraq and Syria as directed, and theater security cooperation efforts. [Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy/by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John Philip Wagner, Jr.]
www.NPeO-kMi.COM18 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 19: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
The NSC, OPC and FRC programs pose several oversight issues for
Congress. Congress’s decisions on these programs could substantially
affect Coast Guard capabilities and funding requirements, and the U.S.
shipbuilding industrial base.
Background
olDer shiPs to be rePlACeD by nsCs, oPCs AnD FrCs
The 91 planned NSCs, OPCs and FRCs are intended to replace
90 older Coast Guard ships—12 high-endurance cutters (wheCs),
29 medium-endurance cutters (wMeCs), and 49 110-foot patrol craft
(wPBs). The Coast Guard’s 12 hamilton- (wheC-715) class high-
endurance cutters entered service between 1967 and 1972. The Coast
Guard’s 29 medium-endurance cutters include 13 Famous- (wMeC-
901) class ships that entered service between 1983 and 1991, 14
Reliance (wMeC-615) class ships that entered service between 1964
and 1969, and two one-of- a-kind cutters that originally entered service
with the Navy in 1944 and 1971 and were later transferred to the Coast
Guard. The Coast Guard’s 49 110-foot island- (wPB-1301) class patrol
boats entered service between 1986 and 1992.
Many of these 90 ships are manpower-intensive and increasingly
expensive to maintain, and have features that in some cases are not
optimal for performing their assigned missions. Some of them have
already been removed from Coast Guard service: eight of the island-
class patrol boats were removed from service in 2007 following an
unsuccessful effort to modernize and lengthen them to 123 feet; the
one-of-a-kind cutter that originally entered service with the Navy
in 1944 was decommissioned in 2011; and hamilton-class cutters
are being decommissioned as new NSCs enter service. A July 2012
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report discusses the generally
poor physical condition and declining operational capacity of the Coast
Guard’s older high-endurance cutters, medium-endurance cutters, and
110-foot patrol craft.
missions oF nsCs, oPCs AnD FrCs
NSCs, OPCs and FRCs, like the ships they are intended to replace,
are to be multimission ships for routinely performing seven of the Coast
Guard’s 11 statutory missions, including
• search and rescue (SAR);
• drug interdiction;
• migrant interdiction;
• ports, waterways and coastal security (PwCS);
• protection of living marine resources;
• other/general law enforcement; and
• defense readiness operations.
Smaller Coast Guard patrol craft and boats contribute to the per-
formance of some of these seven missions close to shore. NSCs, OPCs
and FRCs perform them both close to shore and in the deepwater
environment, which generally refers to waters more than 50 miles from
shore.
nsC ProGrAm
National Security Cutters (Figure 1), also known as Legend-
(wMSL-750) class cutters, are the Coast Guard’s largest and most
capable general-purpose cutters. The Coast Guard’s POR—the ser-
vice’s list, established in 2004, of planned procurement quantities for
various new types of ships and aircraft—calls for procuring eight NSCs
as replacements for the service’s 12 hamilton-class high-endurance
cutters. The Coast Guard’s FY15 five-year Capital investment Plan (CiP)
estimates the total acquisition cost of the eight ships at $5.504 billion,
or an average of about $688 million per ship.
NSCs are larger and technologically more advanced than hamilton-
class cutters. The Coast Guard states that
Of the Coast Guard’s white-hull patrol cutter fleet, the NSC is
the largest and most technologically sophisticated in the Coast
Guard. each NSC is capable of operating in the most demanding
open ocean environments, including the hazardous fisheries of
the North Pacific and the vast approaches of the Southern Pacific
where much of the American narcotics traffic occurs. with robust
command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, sur-
veillance and reconnaissance (C4iSR) equipment, stern boat launch
and aviation facilities, as well as long-endurance station keeping,
the NSCs are afloat operational-level headquarters for complex law
enforcement and national security missions involving multiple Coast
Guard and partner agency participation.
NSCs are built by ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula, Miss., a ship-
yard that forms part of huntington ingalls industries (hii).
The four NSCs are now in service (the fourth was commissioned
into service on december 6, 2014), the fifth through seventh are in vari-
ous stages of construction, and the eighth was funded in FY15.
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY16 budget requests $91.4 million in
acquisition funding for the NSC program for structural enhancements on
the first two NSCs and post-delivery activities on NSCs 5 through 8.
oPC ProGrAm
Offshore Patrol Cutters (Figure 2) are to be smaller, less expensive
and, in some respects, less capable than NSCs. The Coast Guard’s
Coast Guard Cutter Procurement➥ continued fRoM paGe 1
figure 1
MARCh 31, 2015 | 19www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 20: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
POR calls for procuring 25 OPCs as replacements for the service’s 29
medium-endurance cutters. Under the Coast Guard’s FY15 five-year
CiP, it appears (based on programmed annual funding levels) that the
first OPC is to be procured in FY18. The FY15 CiP estimates the total
acquisition cost of the 25 ships at $10.523 billion, or an average of
about $421 million per ship.
The Coast Guard’s request for proposal (RFP) for the program,
released on September 25, 2012, establishes an affordability requirement
for the program of an average unit price of $310 million per ship, or less, in
then-year dollars (i.e., dollars that are not adjusted for inflation) for ships 4
through 9 in the program. This figure represents the shipbuilder’s portion
of the total cost of the ship; it does not include the cost of government-
furnished equipment (GFe) on the ship, or other program costs—such as
those for program management, system integration, and logistics—that
contribute to the above-cited figure of $421 million per ship.
The service states that OPCs
will complement the Coast Guard’s current and future fleet to
extend the service’s operational capabilities. The OPC will replace
the service’s 210-foot and 270-foot medium endurance cutters. it
will feature increased range and endurance, powerful weapons, a
larger flight deck, and improved command, control, communica-
tions, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
(C4iSR) equipment. The OPC will accommodate aircraft and small
boat operations in all weather.
The Coast Guard’s acquisition strategy for the first 9 to 11 ships in
the program is as follows:
The OPC procurement shall implement a two-phase down select
strategy. Phase i entails a full and open competition for preliminary and
contract design (P&Cd) awarded to a maximum of three offerors. The
Coast Guard intends to competitively award the Phase i contract in
Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. P&Cd will culminate in a contract design review
(kdR). After kdR, the three contractors will submit proposals which will
result in a down selection to one contractor to continue with Phase ii.
(h) Phase ii award is planned for FY ... Phase ii’s down selec-
tion will be accomplished by exercising one option with a single
contractor for detail design (dd) with additional options for long
lead time materials, lead ship and eight to ten follow ships. dd will
start after option exercise and be complete upon delivery of the
first ship. The contractor will present the OPC design at the initial
critical design reviews (iCdR) and final critical design review (FCdR)
followed by a production readiness review (PRR). during Phase ii
contract performance, the contractor will be encouraged to submit
a fixed price proposal (before construction begins on the hull #6) for
option hulls #6 through #11 (LRiP 2). if the priced effort is deemed
fair and reasonable the contractor shall be eligible for hulls #10 and
#11. if not, the contract will continue with the FPi structure and the
contract will end with hull #9.
At least eight shipyards expressed interest in the program. The
firms were:
• Bollinger Shipyards of Lockport, La.;
• eastern Shipbuilding Group of Panama City, Fla.;
• General dynamics Bath iron works (Gd/Biw) of Bath, Maine;
• huntington ingalls industries (hii) of Pascagoula, Miss.;
• Marinette Marine Corporation of Marinette, wash.;
• General dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (Gd/
NASSCO) of San diego, Calif.;
• Vigor Shipyards of Seattle, wash.; and
• VT halter Marine of Pascagoula, Miss.
On February 11, 2014, the Coast Guard announced that it had
awarded Phase i Preliminary and Contract design (P&Cd) contracts to
Bollinger, eastern and Gd/Biw. A February 11, 2014, Coast Guard news
release on the award stated:
The U.S. Coast Guard today awarded three firm-fixed-price
contracts for preliminary and contract design (P&Cd) for the offshore
patrol cutter (OPC) acquisition project. The contracts were awarded
to Bollinger Shipyards Lockport LLC (Lockport, La.), eastern Ship-
building Group inc. (Panama City, Fla.), and General dynamics, Bath
iron works (Bath, Maine). The total value of the award is approxi-
mately $65 million.
Awarding multiple design contracts ensures that competition is
continued through to a potential down-select for detailed design and
construction, establishes a fixed-price environment for the remainder
of the contract, and incorporates a strategy to maximize affordability.
This strategy was developed by analyzing lessons learned from other
major government shipbuilding programs and through collaboration
with industry on how to best design and produce the most affordable
OPC ... The Coast Guard issued the P&Cd request for proposal (RFP)
Sept. 25, 2012. Responses were received in January 2013, and the
Coast Guard conducted a thorough evaluation of proposals based
on technical, management, past performance and price factors. To
support the effort to acquire an affordable OPC, the Coast Guard
engaged industry prior to RFP release through industry day events,
one-on-one meetings and providing opportunities for potential of-
ferors to review and comment on OPC draft technical packages,
specifications and solicitation language.
hii and VT halter Marine reportedly filed protests of the Coast
Guard’s award decision on February 24 and 25, respectively. The Coast
Guard issued stop work orders to Bollinger, eastern and Gd/Biw pending
GAO’s rulings on the protests. On June 5, 2014, it was reported that GAO
had rejected the protests, and that the Coast Guard had directed Bol-
linger, eastern and Gd/Biw to resume their work.
figure 2
www.NPeO-kMi.COM20 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 21: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY16 budget requests $18.5 million
in acquisition funding for the OPC program for technical and project
management ($4.7 million) and design and development work ($13.8
million). The Coast Guard states, “The Administration’s [FY16 budget]
request includes a [proposed legislative] General Provision permitting a
transfer [of additional funding] to the OPC project if the program is ready
to award the next phase of vessel acquisition in FY16.”
FrC ProGrAm
Fast response cutters (Figure 3), also called Sentinel- (wPC-1101)
class patrol boats, are considerably smaller and less expensive than
OPCs, but are larger than the Coast Guard’s older patrol boats.25 The
Coast Guard’s POR calls for procuring 58 FRCs as replacements for
the service’s 49 island-class patrol boats. The FY15 CiP estimates the
total acquisition cost of the 58 cutters at $3.928 billion, or an average of
about $68 million per cutter. The Coast Guard states that
The planned fleet of FRCs will conduct primarily the same
missions as the 110’ patrol boats being replaced. in addition, the
FRC will have several increased capabilities enhancing overall
mission execution. The FRC is designed for rapid response, with
approximately a 28 knot speed capability, and will typically operate
in the coastal zones. examples of missions that FRCs will complete
include SAR, migrant interdiction, drug interdiction and ports water-
ways and coastal security.
FRCs will provide enhanced capabilities over the 110’s includ-
ing improved C4iSR capability and interoperability; stern launch and
recovery (up through sea state 4) of a 40 knot, Over-the-horizon, 7 m
cutter boat; a remote operated, gyro stabilized Mk38 Mod 2, 25 mm
main gun; improved sea keeping; and enhanced crew habitability.
The FRC program received approval from dhS to enter full-rate
production on September 18, 2013. A total of 32 FRCs have been
funded through FY15. The 11th was commissioned into service on
January 24, 2015, and the 12th is scheduled to be commissioned in
March 2015.
FRCs are currently built by Bollinger Shipyards of Lockport, La.
Bollinger’s contract with the Coast Guard originally included annual
options for building a total of up to 34 FRCs through FY14, but some
of the annual options were not exercised by the Coast Guard to their
maximum possible quantities, and Bollinger’s contract wound up cov-
ering the 32 FRCs. (The Coast Guard on February 27, 2015, exercised
a final option under the contract with Bollinger for ships 31 and 32.)
Ship awards under that contract are now completed.
The Coast Guard holds the data rights for the Sentinel-class
design and on February 27, 2015, issued a request for proposals (RFP)
for a contract that will include options for the acquisition of up to 26
FRCs (i.e., the remaining 26 ships in the program). Proposals from bid-
ders are due by June 5, 2015.
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY16 budget requests $340 million
in acquisition funding for the FRC program.
nsC, oPC AnD FrC FunDinG in Fy13-Fy16 buDGet submissions
Table 1 shows annual acquisition funding for the NSC, OPC, and
FRC programs in the Coast Guard’s FY2013-FY2016 budget submis-
sions.
Table 1. NSC, OPC, and FRC Funding in FY2013-FY2016 Budget Submissions (millions of then-year dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
NSC program
FY13 budget
683 0 0 0 0
FY14 budget
616 710 38 0 45
FY15 budget
638 75 130 30 47
FY16 budget
91.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a
OPC program
FY13 budget
30 50 40 200 530
FY14 budget
25 65 200 530 430
FY15 budget
20 90 100 530 430
FY16 budget
18.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
FRC program
FY13 budget
139 360 360 360 360
FY14 budget
75 110 110 110 110
FY15 budget
110 340 220 220 315
FY16 budget
340 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total
FY13 budget
852 410 400 560 890
FY14 budget
716 885 348 640 585
FY15 budget
768 505 450 780 792
FY16 budget
449.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a
figure 3
MARCh 31, 2015 | 21www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 22: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
issues for congress
PlAnneD nsC, oPC AnD FrC ProCurement QuAntities
One potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the Coast
Guard’s planned NSC, OPC and FRC procurement quantities. The
POR’s planned force of 91 NSCs, OPCs and FRCs is about equal
in number to the Coast Guard’s legacy force of 90 high-endurance
cutters, medium-endurance cutters, and 110-foot patrol craft. NSCs,
OPCs and FRCs, moreover, are to be individually more capable than
the older ships they are to replace. even so, Coast Guard studies have
concluded that the planned total of 91 NSCs, OPCs and FRCs would
be considerably fewer ships than the number that would be needed to
fully perform the service’s statutory missions in coming years, in part
because Coast Guard mission demands are expected to be greater in
coming years than they were in the past. CRS first testified about this
issue in 2005.
The Coast Guard estimates that with the POR’s planned force
of 91 NSCs, OPCs and FRCs, the service would have capability or
capacity gaps in six of its 11 statutory missions—search and rescue
(SAR); defense readiness; counter-drug operations; ports, waterways
and coastal security; protection of living marine resources (LMR); and
alien migrant interdiction operations (AMiO). The Coast Guard judges
that some of these gaps would be “high risk” or “very high risk.”
Public discussions of the POR frequently mention the sub-
stantial improvement that the POR force would represent over the
legacy force. Only rarely, however, have these discussions explicitly
acknowledged the extent to which the POR force would nevertheless
be smaller in number than the force that would be required, by Coast
Guard estimate, to fully perform the Coast Guard’s statutory missions
in coming years. discussions that focus on the POR’s improvement
over the legacy force while omitting mention of the considerably
larger number of cutters that would be required, by Coast Guard
estimate, to fully perform the Coast Guard’s statutory missions in
coming years could encourage audiences to conclude, contrary to
Coast Guard estimates, that the POR’s planned force of 91 cutters
would be capable of fully performing the Coast Guard’s statutory
missions in coming years.
in a study completed in december 2009 called the Fleet Mix Analy-
sis (FMA) Phase 1, the Coast Guard calculated the size of the force
that in its view would be needed to fully perform the service’s statutory
missions in coming years. The study refers to this larger force as the
objective fleet mix. Table 2 compares planned numbers of NSCs, OPCs
and FRCs in the POR to those in the objective fleet mix.
Table 2. Program of Record Compared to Objective Fleet Mix From Fleet Mix Analysis Phase 1 (2009)
Ship typeProgram of
Record (POR)
Objective Fleet Mix From FMA
Phase 1
Objective Fleet Mix compared to POR
Number %
NSC 8 9 +1 +13%
OPC 25 57 +32 +128%
FRC 58 91 +33 +57%
Total 91 157 +66 +73%
As can be seen in Table 2, the objective fleet mix includes 66 ad-
ditional cutters, or about 73 percent percent more cutters than in the
POR. Stated the other way around, the POR includes about 58 percent
percent as many cutters as the objective fleet mix.
As intermediate steps between the POR force and the objective
fleet mix, FMA Phase 1 calculated three additional forces, called FMA-1,
FMA-2, and FMA-3. (The objective fleet mix was then relabeled FMA-4.)
Table 3 compares the POR to FMAs 1 through 4.
Table 3. POR Compared to FMAs 1 Through 4 (From Fleet Mix Analysis Phase 1 (2009))
Ship typeProgram of Record
(POR) FMA-1 FMA-2 FMA-3
FMA-4 (Objective Fleet Mix)
NSC 8 9 9 9 9
OPC 25 32 43 50 57
FRC 58 63 75 80 91
Total 91 104 127 139 157
FMA-1 was calculated to address the mission gaps that the Coast
Guard judged to be “very high risk.” FMA-2 was calculated to address
both those gaps and additional gaps that the Coast Guard judged to be
“high risk.” FMA-3 was calculated to address all those gaps, plus gaps
that the Coast Guard judged to be “medium risk.” FMA-4—the objective
fleet mix—was calculated to address all the foregoing gaps, plus the
remaining gaps, which the Coast Guard judge to be “low risk” or “very
low risk.” Table 4 shows the POR and FMAs 1 through 4 in terms of their
mission performance gaps.
figure 4. projected Mission demands vs. projected capability/performance
From Fleet Mix Analysis Phase 1, Executive Summary
www.NPeO-kMi.COM22 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 23: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Table 4. Force Mixes and Mission Performance Gaps (From Fleet Mix Analysis Phase 1 (2009)—an X mark indicates a mission performance gap)
Missions with
performance gaps
Risk levels of these
performance gaps
Program of
Record (POR)
FMA-1 FMA-
2 FMA-
3
FMA-4 (Objective Fleet Mix)
Search and Rescue
(SAR) capability
Very high X
Defense Readiness
capacity Very high X
Counter Drug capacity
Very high X
Ports, Waterways, and Coastal
Security (PWCS)
capacity
High X X
Living Marine
Resources (LMR)
capability and
capacity
High X X [all gaps
addressed]
PWCS capacity
Medium X X X
LMR capacity
Medium X X X
Alien Migrant
Interdiction Operations
(AMIO) capacity
Low/very low
X X X X
PWCS capacity
Low/very low
X X X X
Figure 4, taken from FMA Phase 1, depicts the overall mission
capability/performance gap situation in graphic form. it appears to be
conceptual rather than drawn to precise scale. The black line descend-
ing toward zero by the year 2027 shows the declining capability and
performance of the Coast Guard’s legacy assets as they gradually age
out of the force. The purple line branching up from the black line shows
the added capability from ships and aircraft to be procured under the
POR, including the 91 planned NSCs, OPCs and FRCs. The level of ca-
pability to be provided when the POR force is fully in place is the green
line, labeled “2005 Mission Needs Statement.” As can be seen in the
graph, this level of capability is substantially below a projection of Coast
Guard mission demands made after the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001 (the red line, labeled “Post-9/11 CG Mission demands”), and
even further below a Coast Guard projection of future mission demands
(the top dashed line, labeled “Future Mission demands”). The dashed
blue lines show future capability levels that would result from reducing
planned procurement quantities in the POR or executing the POR over a
longer time period than originally planned.
FMA Phase 1 was a fiscally unconstrained study, meaning that the
larger force mixes shown in Table 3 were calculated primarily on the ba-
sis of their capability for performing missions, rather than their potential
acquisition or life-cycle operation and support (O&S) costs.
Although the FMA Phase 1 was completed in december 2009, the
figures shown in Table 3 were generally not included in public discus-
sions of the Coast Guard’s future force structure needs until April 2011,
when GAO presented them in testimony. GAO again presented them in
a July 2011 report.
The Coast Guard completed a follow-on study, called Fleet Mix
Analysis (FMA) Phase 2, in May 2011. Among other things, FMA Phase
2 includes a revised and updated objective fleet mix called the refined
objective mix. Table 5 compares the POR to the objective fleet mix from
FMA Phase 1 and the refined objective mix from FMA Phase 2.
Table 5. POR Compared to Objective Mixes in FMA Phases 1 and 2 (From Fleet Mix Analysis Phase 1 (2009) and Phase 2 (2011))
Ship typeProgram of
Record (POR)
Objective Fleet Mix from FMA
Phase 1
Refined Objective Mix
from FMA Phase 2
NSC 8 9 9
OPC 25 57 49
FRC 58 91 91
Total 91 157 149
As can be seen in Table 5, compared to the objective fleet mix from
FMA Phase 1, the refined objective mix from FMA Phase 2 includes 49
OPCs rather than 57. The refined objective mix includes 58 additional cut-
ters, or about 64 percent more cutters than in the POR. Stated the other
way around, the POR includes about 61percent as many cutters as the
refined objective mix.
Compared to the POR, the larger force mixes shown in Table 3 and
Table 5 would be more expensive to procure, operate, and support than
the POR force. Using the average NSC, OPC and FRC procurement cost
figures presented earlier, procuring the 58 additional cutters in the refined
objective mix from FMA Phase 2 might cost an additional $10.7 billion, of
which most (about $7.8 billion) would be for the 24 additional FRCs. (The
actual cost would depend on numerous factors, such as annual procure-
ment rates.) O&S costs for these 58 additional cutters over their life cycles
(including crew costs and periodic ship maintenance costs) would require
billions of additional dollars.
The larger force mixes in the FMA Phase 1 and 2 studies, moreover, in-
clude not only increased numbers of cutters, but also increased numbers of
Coast Guard aircraft. in the FMA Phase 1 study, for example, the objective
fleet mix included 479 aircraft—93 percent more than the 248 aircraft in the
POR mix. Stated the other way around, the POR includes about 52 percent
as many aircraft as the objective fleet mix. A decision to procure larger
numbers of cutters like those shown in Table 3 and Table 5 might thus also
imply a decision to procure, operate, and support larger numbers of Coast
Guard aircraft, which would require billions of additional dollars. The FMA
Phase 1 study estimated the procurement cost of the objective fleet mix of
157 cutters and 479 aircraft at $61 billion to $67 billion in constant FY2009
dollars, or about 66 percent more than the procurement cost of $37 billion to
$40 billion in constant FY2009 dollars estimated for the POR mix of 91 cut-
ters and 248 aircraft. The study estimated the total ownership cost (i.e., pro-
curement plus life-cycle O&S cost) of the objective fleet mix of cutters and
MARCh 31, 2015 | 23www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 24: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
aircraft at $201 billion to $208 billion in constant FY2009
dollars, or about 53 percent more than the total ownership
cost of $132 billion to $136 billion in constant FY2009 dol-
lars estimated for POR mix of cutters and aircraft.
Potential oversight questions for Congress
include the following:
• Under the POR force mix, how large a performance
gap, precisely, would there be in each of the missions
shown in Table 4? what impact would these
performance gaps have on public safety, national
security, and protection of living marine resources?
• how sensitive are these performance gaps to
the way in which the Coast Guard translates its
statutory missions into more precise statements of required mission
performance?
• Given the performance gaps shown in Table 4, should planned numbers
of Coast Guard cutters and aircraft be increased, or should the Coast
Guard’s statutory missions be reduced, or both?
• how much larger would the performance gaps in Table 4 be if planned
numbers of Coast Guard cutters and aircraft are reduced below the POR
figures?
• has the executive branch made sufficiently clear to Congress the
difference between the number of ships and aircraft in the POR force
and the number that would be needed to fully perform the Coast
Guard’s statutory missions in coming years? why has public discussion
of the POR focused mostly on the capability improvement it would
produce over the legacy force and rarely on the performance gaps it
would have in the missions shown in Table 4?
FunDinG leVel oF CoAst GuArD’s ACQuisition ACCount
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the funding
level in the Coast Guard’s acquisition account, known formally as the acqui-
sition, construction, and improvements (AC&i) account. The Coast Guard
has testified that acquiring the ships and aircraft in its POR on a timely basis
while also adequately funding other Coast Guard acquisition programs
would require a funding level for the AC&i account of roughly $1.5 billion to
$2.5 billion per year.
As shown in Table 6 below, the Administration’s FY13 budget submis-
sion programmed an average of about $1.5 billion per year in the AC&i
account. As also shown in the table, subsequent budget submissions have
reduced that figure to roughly $1 billion or $1.1 billion per year.
The Coast Guard has testified that funding the AC&i account at a level
of about $1 billion per year would make it difficult to fund various Coast
Guard acquisition projects, including a new polar icebreaker and improve-
ments to Coast Guard shore installations. Coast Guard plans call for procur-
ing OPCs at an eventual rate of two per year. if each OPC costs roughly
$400 million, procuring two OPCs per year in an AC&i account of about $1
billion per year would leave about $200 million per year for all other AC&i-
funded programs.
At an October 4, 2011 hearing on the Coast Guard’s major acquisition
programs before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommit-
tee of the house Transportation and infrastructure Committee, the following
exchange occurred:
REPRESENTATIVE FRANK LOBIONDO: Can you give us your take on
what percentage of value must be invested each year to maintain current
levels of effort and to allow the Coast Guard to fully carry out its missions?
ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, COMMANDANT OF THE COAST
GUARD: i think i can, Mr. Chairman. Actually, in discussions and
looking at our budget—and i’ll give you rough numbers here, what
we do now is we have to live within the constraints that we’ve been
averaging about $1.4 billion in acquisition money each year.
if you look at our complete portfolio, the things that we’d like
to do, when you look at the shore infrastructure that needs to be
taken care of, when you look at renovating our smaller icebreakers
and other ships and aircraft that we have, we’ve done some rough
estimates that it would really take close to about $2.5 billion a year,
if we were to do all the things that we would like to do to sustain our
capital plant.
So i’m just like any other head of any other agency here, as
that the end of the day, we’re given a top line and we have to make
choices and trade-offs and basically, my trade-offs boil down to
sustaining frontline operations balancing that, we’re trying to recapi-
talize the Coast Guard, and there’s where the break is and where we
have to define our spending.
An April 18, 2012 blog entry stated:
if the Coast Guard capital expenditure budget remains un-
changed at less than $1.5 billion annually in the coming years, it
will result in a service in possession of only 70 percent of the as-
sets it possesses today, said Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mark Butt.
Butt, who spoke April 17 [2012] at [a] panel [discussion] during
the Navy League Sea Air Space conference in National harbor,
Md., echoed Coast Guard Commandant Robert Papp in stat-
ing that the service really needs around $2.5 billion annually for
procurement.
At a May 9, 2012, hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY13 bud-
get before the homeland Security subcommittee of the Senate Appro-
priations Committee, Admiral Papp testified, “i’ve gone on record saying
that i think the Coast Guard needs closer to $2 billion dollars a year [in
acquisition funding] to recapitalize—[to] do proper recapitalization.”
At a March 12, 2014 hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY15
budget before the homeland Security subcommittee of the house Ap-
propriations Committee, Admiral Papp stated:
well, that’s what we've been struggling with, as we deal with the
five-year plan, the capital investment plan, is showing how we are able
to do that. And it will be a challenge, particularly if it sticks at around
$1 billion [per year]. As i've said publicly, and actually, i said we could
probably—i've stated publicly before that we could probably construct
Table 6. Funding in AC&i Account in FY2013-FY2016 Budgets (Millions of dollars, rounded to nearest tenth)
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 Avg.
FY13 budget
1,217.3 1,429.5 1,619.9 1,643.8 1,722.0 1,526.5
FY14 budget
951.1 1,195.7 901.0 1,024.8 1,030.3 1,020.6
FY15 budget
1,084.2 1,103.0 1,128.9 1,180.4 1,228.7 1,145.0
FY16 budget
1,017.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
www.NPeO-kMi.COM24 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 25: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
comfortably at about 1.5 billion [dollars] a year. But if we were to take
care of all the Coast Guard’s projects that are out there, including shore
infrastructure that that fleet that takes care of the Yemen [sic: inland] wa-
ters is approaching 50 years of age, as well, but i have no replacement
plan in sight for them because we simply can't afford it. Plus, we need
at some point to build a polar icebreaker. darn tough to do all that stuff
when you're pushing down closer to 1 billion [dollars per year], instead of
2 billion [dollars per year].
As i said, we could fit most of that in at about the 1.5 billion [dollars
per year] level, but the projections don't call for that. So we are scrub-
bing the numbers as best we can.
At a May 14, 2013 hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY14 budget
before the homeland Security Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, Admiral Papp stated the following regarding the difference
between having about $1.0 billion per year rather than about $1.5 billion per
year in the AC&i account:
well, Madam Chairman, $500 million—a half a billion dollars—is
real money for the Coast Guard. So, clearly, we had $1.5 billion in the
[FY]13 budget. it doesn't get everything i would like, but it—it gave
us a good start, and it sustained a number of projects that are very
important to us.
when we go down to the $1 billion level this year, it gets my highest
priorities in there, but we have to either terminate or reduce to minimum
order quantities for all the other projects that we have going.
if we’re going to stay with our program of record, things that have
been documented that we need for our service, we're going to have to
just stretch everything out to the right. And when we do that, you cannot
order in economic order quantities. it defers the purchase. Ship builders,
aircraft companies—they have to figure in their costs, and it inevitably
raises the cost when you're ordering them in smaller quantities and
pushing it off to the right.
Plus, it almost creates a death spiral for the Coast Guard because
we are forced to sustain older assets—older ships and older aircraft—
which ultimately cost us more money, so it eats into our operating funds,
as well, as we try to sustain these older things.
So, we'll do the best we can within the budget. And the president
and the secretary have addressed my highest priorities, and we'll just
continue to go on the—on an annual basis seeing what we can wedge
into the budget to keep the other projects going.
Although the annual amounts of acquisition funding that the Coast
Guard has received in recent years are one potential guide to what Coast
Guard acquisition funding levels might or should be in coming years, there
may be other potential guides. For example, one could envision potential
guides that focus on whether Coast Guard funding for ship acquisition and
sustainment is commensurate with Coast Guard funding for the personnel
that in many cases will operate the ships. Observations that might be made
in connection with this example based on the Coast Guard and Navy budget
submissions include the following:
• Using figures from the FY14 budget submission, the Coast Guard has
about 12.9 percent as many active duty personnel as the Navy. if the
amount of funding for the surface ship acquisition and sustainment part
of the AC&i account were equivalent to 12.9 percent of the amount of
funding in the Navy’s shipbuilding account, this part of the AC&i account
would be about $1.8 billion per year.
• Again using figures from the FY2014 budget submission, funding in the
Navy’s shipbuilding account is equivalent to about 51 percent of the
Navy’s funding for active duty personnel. if Coast Guard funding for
surface ship acquisition and sustainment were equivalent to 51 percent
of Coast Guard funding for military pay and allowances, this part of the
AC&i account would be about $1.7 billion per year.
MultiyeaR pRocuReMent (Myp) and Block Buy contRactinG
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the potential
for using multiyear contracting (i.e., multiyear procurement (MYP) or block
buy contracting) in acquiring new cutters. with congressional approval,
certain department of defense (dod) programs for procuring ships,
aircraft, and other items employ MYP or block buy contracting to reduce
procurement costs. Compared to the standard or default approach of
annual contracting, MYP and block buy contracting have the potential for
reducing procurement costs by several percent.
The statute that governs the use of MYP—10 U.S.C. 2306b—makes
MYP available with congressional approval not only to dod, but to other
government departments, including dhS, the parent department of the
Coast Guard. Congress also has the option of providing the Coast Guard
with authority to use block buy contracting, as it has done for the Navy.
All three of the Navy’s year-to-year shipbuilding programs—the Virginia-
class attack submarine program, the ddG-51 destroyer program, and
the littoral combat ship (LCS) program—currently use MYP or block buy
contracting. in contrast, the Coast Guard has not used MYP or block buy
contracting for any of its cutter procurement programs.
Section 223 of the howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Trans-
portation Act of 2014 (S.2444/P.L. 113-281 of december 18, 2014) states:
Sec. 223. MultiyeaR pRocuReMent autHoRity foR offSHoRe patRol cutteRS.
in fiscal year 2015 and each fiscal year thereafter, the secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may enter into, in
accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, multiyear
contracts for the procurement of offshore patrol cutters and associated
equipment.
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
• has the Coast Guard considered using MYP or block buy contracting
for procuring NSCs, OPCs or FRCs? if not, why not?
• what would be the potential savings of using MYP or block buy
contracting for procuring the final two or three NSCs, for procuring
OPCs or for procuring FRCs?
• what are the potential risks or downsides of using MYP or block buy
contracting for procuring NSCs, OPCs or FRCs?
opc pRoGRaM: fy16 fundinG RequeSt
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the FY16
funding request for the OPC program. As shown in Table 1, the amount
requested—$18.5 million—is $71.5 million less than the $90 million that
was projected for the OPC program for FY16 under the FY15 budget
submission. As also noted earlier, the Coast Guard states, “The Adminis-
tration’s [FY16 budget] request includes a [proposed legislative] General
Provision permitting a transfer [of additional funding] to the OPC project
if the program is ready to award the next phase of vessel acquisition in
FY16.” Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
MARCh 31, 2015 | 25www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 26: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
• why was the program’s FY16 funding request reduced from the $90
million projected under the FY15 budget submission to $18.5 million?
• who will determine whether “the OPC project if the program is
ready to award the next phase of vessel acquisition in FY 16”? what
criteria will be used to make this determination?
• if additional funding is not transferred to the OPC program, what
effect will this have on the program’s schedule?
opc pRoGRaM: coSt, deSiGn and acquiSition StRateGy
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the Coast
Guard’s acquisition strategy for the offshore patrol cutter. Potential
oversight questions for Congress include the following:
• has the Coast Guard fully incorporated into the OPC acquisition
strategy lessons learned from the NSC and FRC programs? what, in
the Coast Guard’s view, are those lessons?
• As mentioned earlier, the Coast Guard’s RFP for the OPC program
establishes an affordability requirement of an average unit price of
$310 million per ship, or less, in then-year dollars for ships 4 through 9
in the program. how was the $310 million figure determined?
• what process is the Coast Guard using to evaluate trade-offs in
OPC performance features against this target construction price?
what performance features have been reduced or eliminated to
meet the target construction price?
• how much confidence does the Coast Guard have that the OPC
that emerges from the trade-off process could be built within the
Coast Guard’s target construction price?
• As mentioned earlier, the Coast Guard plans to evaluate the preliminary
and contract design (P&Cd) proposals and then award one of the
competitors a contract for detailed design development and ship
construction. what process does the Coast Guard plan to use in
evaluating the P&Cd efforts? what evaluation factors does the Coast
Guard plan to use, and how much weight will be assigned to each?
2012 testimony
Some of the above questions have been discussed over the past two
years at hearings on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY13 and FY14 budgets.
For example, at a March 6, 2012 hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed
FY13 budget before the homeland Security Committee of the house Ap-
propriations Committee, Admiral Robert J. Papp, then-commandant of the
Coast Guard, stated:
when i came in as commandant, i realized that this [the OPC pro-
gram] was the most expensive project that the Coast Guard has ever
taken on, honestly, as each [of the] 25 ships are a significant invest-
ment. And i also understood looking out at the horizon and seeing the
storm clouds that restrict the budgets coming up there we needed to
build a ship that was affordable.
we rescrubbed the requirements. we have battled ourselves
within the Coast Guard to make sure we're asking for just exactly what
we need, nothing more nothing less. And i have said three things to
my staff as we go on forward—affordable, affordable, affordable.
And now i’m very pleased to say that just last week that the
department [dhS] has reviewed—we passed a major milestone
with acquisition decision event number two which validated our
requirements for the type of cutter that we’re looking for and we
are ready to go towards the preliminary and contract design work
this next year.
Later in the hearing, the following exchange occurred:
ADERHOLT: And there has been a discussion as to the capability
of the OPC with objective design being more capable than the—than
the threshold capability. what is the current plan and capability of the
OPC and what capability thresholds are you considering?
PAPP: we—the driving one as i said is affordability, but having
said that—and i’m not—i’m not trying to be funny here, but the—the
sea-keeping capability being, you know, to operate in Sea State 5
is probably the most important to us right now because with fewer
national security cutters, at least fewer than the hindrance posed
that we have right now.
None of our medium endurance cutters—the 210-foot and
270-foot [medium-endurance] cutters that we have—can operate
in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and they do not have the
long legs to be able to send them out in the—on some of the longer
deployments that we do in the Pacific.
So it has to be able to launch the aircraft and boats in Sea State
5, you know, which is standard offset in the Bering Sea and also
have endurance that we’ll be able to keep it out there on station.
And i believe it was 45 days [of operation at sea] we’re looking for
without refueling.
2013 testimony
At an April 16, 2013 hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Trans-
portation subcommittee of the house Transportation and infrastructure
Committee on the FY14 budget for the Coast Guard and maritime trans-
portation, the following exchange occurred:
REPRESENTATIVE DON YOUNG: Admiral, i understand this
morning you told the corporation you're going to reconsider the
requirement for the offshore patrol cutter and reopen the design com-
petition; if that is correct, how long will this delay construction of much
of the needy cutters, i mean, how long was—what will happen?
ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP, COMNMANDANT OF THE COAST
GUARD: Sir, that wasn't quite an accurate report, i said that we
remain committed to the offshore patrol cutter and i was asked if
the ability to operate in Sea State-5 was hard and fast and i said
the highest requirement for the offshore patrol cutter is affordabil-
ity and as we evaluate the candidate vessels we may need to go
back and look at some of the requirements, i'm hopeful that we
don't have to.
i think we hammered off these requirements, in fact reduce some
of them when i came in as (inaudible) [sic: Commandant?] because
i want to make sure this ship is affordable and i've reported to this
subcommittee and other sub-committees that we are intent on making
this an affordable ship for the Coast Guard.
if we had opened it up to revise the see keeping capability there
probably would be a delay but i have no intent to open that up at
this point, we'd have to evaluate all the candidates that we have
and i’m hopeful that we'll find three candidates that look affordable
because we're going to need to operate this ship in Alaska and it’s
going to need to be able to launch and recover boats and aircraft
while operating the Bering Sea.
Similarly, at an April 16, 2013 hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed
FY14 budget before the homeland Security subcommittee of the
house Appropriations Committee, the following exchange occurred:
www.NPeO-kMi.COM26 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 27: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
REPRESENTATIVE (UNKNOWN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ad-
miral, there’s been much discussion as to the capability of the OPC
specifically the requirement to operate at sea state 5. Admiral, why
is this requirement important? And if the current proposals come
in too high, will you decrease the sea state requirement in order to
meet the target price?
ADMIRAL PAPP: i would not like to do that because that would
probably delay the process, but we may have to recomplete the request
for proposals by changing that standard. The reason we need the stan-
dard is because we'll have only eight national security cutters and while
they are tremendously capable ships, they can't be in the same places
as 12 high-endurance cutters were that they are replacing.
we’ve been comfortable with 12 high-endurance cutters because
that gave us enough to operate in the Bering Sea and in the Gulf of
Alaska and the broad ranges of the—of the Pacific given the fact that
we’ll have fewer ships, in fact, we'll only have six national security
cutters out on the west Coast because we need to keep two on the
east Coast. we need to make sure that the offshore patrol cutters are
capable of operating in Alaska.
The 270-foot medium-endurance cutters that we have were origi-
nally intended to be able to operate everywhere. we've tried to operate
them in Alaska. You can't launch and recover boats and you can’t
launch and recover aircraft. They just aren't—cannot survive the sea
state up there. And that is our—that is our world of work. we have to be
able to launch boats for our boarding teams to go aboard fishing ves-
sels. we need to be able to launch helicopters for search and rescue.
So this requirement for sea state 5 has been our highest priority
on that ship. i’m sorry. it’s not been the highest priority. The highest
priority has been affordability. And when people have asked me what
are the three most important things about the offshore patrol cutter, i’ve
constantly said, affordability, affordability, affordability. So that will be
the driving factor on our down select for these three candidates and i'm
hopeful that all three will not only be affordable but be able to survive in
sea state 5—i’m sorry, not survive, but operate in sea state 5.
september 2012 GAo report
Regarding the Coast Guard’s requirements development process for the
OPC, a September 2012 GAO report states:
Coast Guard took Positive steps to improve requirements Development and Consider Affordability for the offshore Patrol Cutter
The Coast Guard took some steps to improve the requirements
development process for the offshore patrol cutter—the largest acquisi-
tion in dhS’s acquisitions portfolio and, according to officials, the first
acquisition in the deepwater surface fleet in which the Coast Guard
had complete control over the requirements development process. The
Coast Guard undertook studies and analysis that, in part, considered
the measurability and testability as required by guidance of the following
four key performance parameters: operating range, operational sustain-
ment and crew, speed and patrol endurance. For example, the range
requirement, which is the distance the cutter can travel between refuel-
ing, is clearly stated as a minimum acceptable requirement of 8,500
nautical miles at a constant speed of 14 knots to a maximum level of
9,500 nautical miles. Although cutters typically transit at various speeds
over the course of a patrol, the Coast Guard conducted analysis to de-
termine that the 14 knots speed at the minimum and maximum ranges
would provide enough days between refueling given the percentage
of time that the Coast Guard normally operates at certain speeds. By
developing a measurable range requirement, the Coast Guard helped
to promote a clear understanding of offshore patrol cutter performance
by potential shipbuilders and sought to balance the cost of additional
range with the value that it provides. Furthermore, officials at the inde-
pendent test authority—the Navy’s Commander Operational Test and
evaluation Force—told us that they have been actively involved through
the requirements development process and many of their questions
regarding testability have been resolved.
Two other key performance parameters—seakeeping and interop-
erability—are not as consistent with the Coast Guard’s guidelines of
measurability and testability as identified in the Major Systems Acquisi-
tion Manual. For example the seakeeping key performance parameter
described in the requirements document states that the offshore patrol
cutter shall be able to launch small boats and helicopters in 8.2- to 13.1-
foot waves. however, in the specifications document, which is used to
translate the requirements document into a level of detail from which
contractors can develop a reasonably priced proposal, the Coast Guard
states that the offshore patrol cutter shall be able to launch small boats
and helicopters in no more than 10.7 foot waves while transiting in a di-
rection that minimizes the pitch and roll of the vessel—an important de-
tail not specified in the requirements document. Further, the interoper-
ability key performance parameter states that the Coast Guard must be
able to exchange voice, video and data with the department of defense
and homeland Security agencies. however, it does not list specific
external partners or substantial details regarding the systems required
to exchange data and the types and size of these data that could be
examples of measurability and testability. This key performance param-
eter does not make this distinction between parts of the military that the
Coast Guard operates with most often, such as the U.S. Navy and the
intelligence community, and simply requires interoperability with all of
dod. Similarly, the interoperability key performance parameter does not
specify the dhS agencies for which the Coast Guard must exchange
data with, which makes this parameter difficult to test. Coast Guard’s in-
dependent testing officials agreed that this key performance parameter,
as currently written, is not testable in a meaningful way and stated that
there are ongoing efforts to improve the clarity of this requirement.
during the requirements development process for the offshore
patrol cutter, the Coast Guard also made some decisions with
respect to affordability. The following are examples where the Coast
Guard made capability trades that are expected to help lower the
program’s acquisition cost:
• Speed—after a series of analyses, the Coast Guard decided to
reduce the minimum acceptable speed from 25 to 22 knots thereby,
according to officials, potentially eliminating the need for two diesel
engines. According to a study completed by the Coast Guard, this
trade could reduce the acquisition cost of each cutter by $10 million.
• Stern Launch—the Coast Guard removed the stern launch ramp
capability from the offshore patrol cutter design. while this trade-
off may inhibit the launch and recovery of small boats in certain
conditions, such as substantial roll or side-to-side movement of
the vessel, Coast Guard officials stated that it will reduce the cost
of the cutter because a stern launch ramp requires the cutter to be
heavier, thus adding cost.
• C4iSR—the Coast Guard eliminated a minimum requirement for an
integrated C4iSR system and instead is requiring a system built with
interfaces to communicate between different software programs.
MARCh 31, 2015 | 27www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 28: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
According to Coast Guard officials, the Coast Guard now plans to
use a Coast Guard-developed software system—Seawatch—rather
than the more costly lead systems integrator-developed software
system currently installed on the national security cutter, even though
this system does not provide the Coast Guard with the capability to
exchange near real-time battle data with dod assets.
The improvements and affordability decisions that the Coast Guard
has made in its requirements development process for the offshore
patrol cutter are even more evident when compared with the process for
generating requirements for its other major cutter—the national security
cutter. due to the nature of the lead systems integrator strategy that the
Coast Guard initially used to buy the national security cutter, integrated
Coast Guard Systems developed the requirements, designed and
began producing the national security cutter before the requirements
document was completed. The Coast Guard did not have an opera-
tional requirements document at the time the Coast Guard awarded
the construction contract for the first cutter in 2004, but the Coast
Guard documented the requirements in 2006. Further, even as the third
national security cutter was in production, Coast Guard was refining the
requirements and, in January 2010, made the decision to clarify some
key performance parameters such as anti-terrorism/force protection
and underwater mine detection because the existing requirements were
not testable. To further remedy the lack of clear requirements, Coast
Guard officials stated that they are currently developing a second ver-
sion of the requirements document that improves the specificity and
definition of many of the national security cutter’s requirements and will
be used as criteria during operational testing. To date, the Coast Guard
has not reduced the national security cutter’s capability for the purpose
of affordability as it has done for the offshore patrol cutter. however, ac-
cording to Coast Guard officials, there is a revised acquisition program
baseline under review which will reflect an ongoing effort to lower the
acquisition cost of the vessel.
Regarding the potential accuracy of the Coast Guard’s estimated pro-
curement cost for the OPC, given the known procurement cost of the
NSC, the September 2012 GAO report states:
major Cutter requirements and missions have similarities, but Costs Vary Greatly and Concerns remain about Affordability
The requirements and missions for the national security cutter and
the offshore patrol cutter programs have similarities, but the actual cost
for one National Security Cutter compared to the estimated cost of one
offshore patrol cutter varies greatly. even though the Coast Guard took
steps to consider affordability while developing the requirements for
the offshore patrol cutter, those affordability decisions do not explain
the magnitude in the difference between these two costs....
This comparison raises questions whether the offshore patrol cutter
could be a less expensive, viable substitute for the National Security Cut-
ter or whether there are assumptions built into the offshore patrol cutter
cost estimate, not related to requirements, which are driving the estimat-
ed costs down. with respect to the first, dhS, motivated by concerns
about the affordability of the national security cutter program, completed
a Cutter Study in August 2011 which included an analysis to examine the
feasibility of varying the combination of objective—or optimal perform-
ing—offshore patrol cutters and national security cutters in the program
of record. Through this analysis, dhS found that defense operations is a
key factor in determining the quantity of national security cutters needed
and that the Coast Guard only needs 3.5 national security cutters per
year to fully satisfy the planned requirement for defense-related missions.
dhS concluded that with six national security cutters the Coast Guard
can meet its goals for defense operations and mitigate some of the near-
term capacity loss of the five national security cutter fleet modeled in the
Cutter Study. dhS Program Analysis and evaluation officials stated that
this, in conjunction with other information, helped to inform the decision
to not include the last two National Security Cutter hulls—hulls 7 and 8—
in the fiscal years 2013-2017 capital investment plan. however, the dhS
Cutter Study also notes that the time line for the two acquisitions makes
a trade-off between the national security cutter and the offshore patrol
cutter difficult since the national security cutter program is in production
whereas the Offshore Patrol Cutter program is only in the design phase.
Similarly, we have reported that the Coast Guard may face an opera-
tional gap in its ability to perform missions using major cutters due to the
condition of the legacy fleet.
with respect to the second possibility that there are assumptions
built into the offshore patrol cutter cost estimate that are driving the
estimated costs down, the Coast Guard included three key assump-
tions in the offshore patrol cutter’s life cycle cost estimate, generally
not related to the cutter’s key requirements, which lower the esti-
mated cost in comparison to the actual cost of the national security
cutter. These three assumptions are:
• Learning Curve. The Coast Guard assumes that the shipyard(s)
will generally continue to reduce the labor hours required to build
the offshore patrol cutter through the production of all 25 vessels.
This may prove optimistic, particularly for later ships in the class,
because the amount of additional learning per vessel–or efficiencies
gained during production due to improving the manufacturing
process to build the ship in a way that requires fewer labor hours–
typically decreases over time in a shipbuilding program.
• Military versus Commercial Standards. The life cycle cost estimate
assumes that certain areas of the offshore patrol cutter’s construction
and material would reflect an average of 55 percent commercial
standards—or construction standards that are typically used for
military sealift ships that provide ocean transportation—and 45
percent military standards—or construction standards typically used
for Navy combat vessels. Any changes in this assumption could have
a significant effect on the cost estimate because military standards
require more sophisticated construction applications, particularly in
the areas of shock hardening and signature reduction, to prepare
a ship to survive battle. Such sensitivity could help to explain the
difference in costs between the Offshore Patrol Cutter program and
the National Security Cutter program and officials stated that the
latter program is being built to about 90 percent military standards.
• Production Schedule. The cost estimate reflects the Coast
Guard’s plan to switch from building one offshore patrol
cutter per year to building two offshore patrol cutters per year
beginning with the fourth and fifth vessel in the class. if the
Coast Guard cannot achieve or maintain this build rate due to
budget constraints, it may choose to stretch the schedule for the
program which in turn could increase costs.
Coast Guard program officials generally agreed that these three
variables are important to the cost of the offshore patrol cutter and are
key reasons why the Coast Guard expects one offshore patrol cutter
www.NPeO-kMi.COM28 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 29: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
to cost less than half of one national security cutter. however, these of-
ficials recognized that the cost estimate for the offshore patrol cutter is
still uncertain since the cutter has yet to be designed—thus, the national
security cutter’s actual costs are more reliable. Coast Guard program
officials also added that the cost estimate for the offshore patrol cutter
is optimistic in that it assumes that the cutter will be built in accordance
with the current acquisition strategy and planned schedule. They noted
that any delays, design issues, or contract oversight problems—all of
which were experienced during the purchase of the national security
cutter—could increase the eventual price of the offshore patrol cutter.
nSc pRoGRaM: pReliMinaRy and opeRational teStinG
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the results
of preliminary and operational testing of the NSC. A June 2014 GAO
report stated:
The Coast Guard has some knowledge about the performance of
the national security cutter, gained through operational deployments and
preliminary test events, and the field portion of operational testing was
recently conducted. The Coast Guard has been operating the vessel
since 2008, conducted a preliminary operational test in 2011, and has
received certifications to fully operate and maintain helicopters as well
as, according to officials, to use the cutter’s information technology sys-
tems on protected networks. in addition, Coast Guard program officials
stated that the national security cutter has demonstrated most of its key
performance parameters through a myriad of non-operational tests and
assessments, but a few key performance parameters, such as those
relating to the endurance of the vessel and its self-defense systems have
yet to be assessed. Verification of an asset’s ability prior to operational
testing may be beneficial, but, as we have previously found, only opera-
tional testing can ensure that an asset is ready to meet its missions.
Prior to testing, the Coast Guard encountered several issues that
require retrofits or design changes to meet mission needs based upon
operations, certifications, and non-operational testing. The total cost of
these changes is not yet known, but changes identified to date have to-
taled approximately $140 million, about one-third of the production cost
of a single national security cutter. The Coast Guard must pay for all of
these and future changes due to the contract terms under which the first
three ships were constructed and because the warranty on the remain-
ing ships does not protect the Coast Guard against defects costing more
than $1 million. Table 4 lists the retrofits and design changes costing
more than $1 million. The table does not include all changes because the
Coast Guard did not have data for some of the modifications. in addition
to the $140 million in identified changes, the Coast Guard has estab-
lished a program to supply the national security cutter with cutter small
boats for an additional $52.1 million because the small boats originally
planned to be delivered with the vessel did not meet requirements.
Additional changes may be needed because the Coast Guard has
not fully validated the capabilities of the national security cutter, though
seven vessels have been delivered or are in production. This situation
could result in the Coast Guard having to spend even more money in the
future, beyond the current changes, to ensure the national security cutter
fleet meets requirements and is logistically supportable. For example,
the cutter is experiencing problems operating in all intended environ-
ments. The national security cutter requirements document states that
the cutter will conduct assigned missions in a full spectrum of climate
and maritime weather conditions, to include tropical, dry, temperate, and
arctic climates. This document adds that although the national security
cutter will operate in regions in which ice is frequently encountered, it will
not have an ice-breaking mission. however, Coast Guard engineering
reports from december 2012 discuss problems operating in both warm
and cold climates. These reports discuss several warm weather prob-
lems, including cooling system failures, excessive condensation forming
“considerable” puddles on the deck of the ship, and limited redundancy
in its air conditioning system—which, among other things, prevents the
use of information technology systems when the air conditioning system
needs to be serviced or repaired. in addition, according to operational re-
ports, during a recent deployment, the commanding officer of a national
security cutter had to impose speed restrictions on the vessel because
of engine overheating when the seawater temperature was greater than
77 degrees. Cold climate issues include the national security cutter not
having heaters to keep oil and other fluids warm during operations in
cold climates, such as the arctic. Further, Coast Guard operators state
that operating near ice must be done with extreme caution since the ice
can move quickly and can “spell disaster” if the national security cutter
comes in contact with it. Senior Coast Guard officials acknowledged
that there are issues to address and stated that the Coast Guard has not
yet determined what, if any, fixes are necessary and that it depends on
where the cutter ultimately operates ...
The Coast Guard has also encountered several issues with the
C4iSR [command and control, communications, computers, intel-
ligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] system that have required
significant and costly changes, including replacing the original system.
The original C4iSR system, which cost $413 million to develop and
field, was designed and built as a tightly integrated system bundling
large commercial and government software programs with contractor-
proprietary software, which made it difficult and costly to main-
tain—primarily due to its unique characteristics and large size. For
example, according to program officials, the Coast Guard relied on the
contractor to conduct even basic system updates, which required new
software code because of how the system was integrated.
As a result, in 2010, the Coast Guard began replacing the C4iSR
software in two steps. First, to address immediate issues, the Coast
Guard separated the weapons and command and control/naviga-
tion portions of the software but maintained the ability to share data
between these portions of the system. Second, the Coast Guard has
developed and is now installing a new software package that shares
data between proven systems, which makes the system easier to
maintain. For example, the communication/navigation system is largely
based upon the Navy’s Global Command and Control System, a long-
standing system maintained by dod. in addition, the combat system is
adapted from the Navy’s Aegis system. while the previous version of
the C4iSR system also contained this software, the Coast Guard’s new
configuration keeps these systems independent to improve perfor-
mance and maintenance, while still allowing data to be passed back
and forth between the software packages within the system.
The Coast Guard has spent nearly $2 million to develop this new
system, called Seawatch, which will have to be further developed for
each asset on which it is fielded. For example, it will cost an additional
$88.5 million in acquisition funds to purchase the software and hard-
ware needed to field the system on the national security cutters.
fRc pRoGRaM: opeRational teStinG
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the results
of operational testing of the FRC. A June 2014 report on Coast Guard
acquisition programs states that:
MARCh 31, 2015 | 29www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 30: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
dhS approved the fast response cutter and [the] hC-144
[maritime patrol aircraft] for full-rate production in September 2013
and October 2012, respectively. however, neither asset met all key
requirements during initial operational testing. The fast response
cutter partially met one of six key requirements while the hC-144 met
or partially met four of seven. The fast response cutter was found
to be operationally effective (with the exception of its cutter boat)
though not operationally suitable, and the hC-144 was found to be
operationally effective and suitable. As we have previously found
for department of defense (dod) programs, continuing with full-rate
production before ensuring that assets meet key requirements risks
replicating problems in each new asset until such problems are cor-
rected. dhS officials stated that they approved both assets for full-
rate production because the programs had plans in place to address
most major issues identified during testing, such as supplying the fast
response cutter with a small boat developed for the national security
cutter. however, dhS and Coast Guard acquisition guidance are not
clear regarding when the minimum performance standards should
be met, such as prior to entering full-rate production. For example,
dhS and Coast Guard guidance provide that the Coast Guard should
determine if the capability meets the established minimum perfor-
mance standards, but do not specify when this determination should
be made. By comparison, dod acquisition guidance requires that
specific minimum performance standards, which are defined at the
time assets are approved for system development, be met prior to
entering full-rate production.
in addition, dhS and Coast Guard acquisition guidance do not
clearly specify how agency officials determine when a breach oc-
curs and what triggers the need for a program manager to submit
a performance breach memo. According to dhS and Coast Guard
acquisition guidance, when programs fail to meet key performance
parameters, program managers are required to file breach memo-
randums stating that the program did not demonstrate the required
capability. even though threshold key performance parameters on
the hC-144 and fast response cutter were not met during operational
testing, the Coast Guard did not report that a breach had occurred.
Acquisition guidance is unclear as to whether or not failing to meet
key requirements during operational testing constitutes a breach.
According to Coast Guard officials, if the Coast Guard plans to re-test
or re-design a deficiency in order to meet the threshold value, then a
breach has not yet occurred. For example, the fast response cutter
small boat did not meet the threshold seakeeping requirement, but a
new cutter small boat has since been tested on its own and fielded
to all fast response cutters. The Coast Guard plans to test this new
cutter small boat with the fast response cutter during follow on test-
ing. Program officials are confident that the cutter’s new small boat
meets this requirement and that—therefore—a breach has not oc-
curred. dhS acquisition guidance specifies the performance criteria
used to determine whether or not a breach has occurred, but does
not identify a triggering event for determining when a breach occurs.
dhS’s Program Accountability and Risk Management officials stated
that a program breach is not necessarily related to its performance
during initial operational testing, which they state is a snapshot of
a single asset’s performance during a defined test period. without
clear acquisition guidance, it is difficult to determine when or by what
measure an asset has breached the threshold values of its key perfor-
mance parameters and—therefore—when to notify dhS and certain
congressional committees ...
COTF [Commander, Operational Test and evaluation Force]
determined in July 2013 that the fast response cutter, without the
cutter’s small boat, is operationally effective— meaning that testers
determined that the asset enables mission success. The cutter’s
small boat was determined to not be seaworthy in minimally ac-
ceptable sea conditions and therefore could not support the cutter’s
mission set. Further, COTF determined that the fast response cutter
is not operationally suitable because a key engine part failed, which
lowered the amount of time the ship was available for missions to an
unacceptable level. despite the mixed test results, COTF and dhS
testers as well as Coast Guard program officials all agree that the fast
response cutter is a capable vessel. Ultimately, COTF recommended
that the Coast Guard proceed to field the vessel, but also recom-
mended that the issues with the cutter’s small boat be remedied
expeditiously and that follow-on operational testing be conducted
once corrective actions have been implemented. Since the test,
the Coast Guard has delivered a new small boat that meets the fast
response cutter’s needs and determined that the engine part failure
was an isolated event.
The Navy also examined the extent to which the fast response
cutter meets key requirements. The test demonstrated that it partially
met only one out of its six key requirements; the other five require-
ments did not meet minimum performance levels or were not tested.
Table 2 displays each key performance parameter for the fast re-
sponse cutter, the test results, and a discussion of these results.
The Coast Guard proactively sought to test the fast response cut-
ter early in the acquisition process, but early testing limited the ability
to fully examine the vessel. For example, the Coast Guard did not
test the top speed of the vessel due to a fuel oil leak. As noted above,
dhS approved the fast response cutter for full-rate production, but
directed the program to develop corrections for the issues identified
during operational testing and to verify those corrections through
follow-on operational testing by the end of FY15.
legislative activity for fy16
summAry oF APProPriAtions ACtion on Fy16 ACQuisition FunDinG reQuest
Table 7 summarizes appropriations action on the Coast Guard’s
request for FY16 acquisition funding for the NSC, OPC and FRC
programs.
Table 7. Summary of Appropriations Action on FY2016 Acquisi-tion Funding Request (Figures in millions of dollars, rounded to nearest tenth)
Request Request House
Appropriations Committee
Senate Appropriations
Committee Final
NSC program
91.4
OPC program
18.5
FRC program
340
TOTAL 449.9
www.NPeO-kMi.COM30 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 31: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
ConTraCT awards Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
adGc Bonita pipeline Jv, San-
tee, Calif., (N62473-15-d-2419); CJw
Construction inc., Santa Ana, Calif.,
(N62473-15-d-2420); kear Civil Corp.,
Phoenix, Ariz., (N62473-15-d-2421); Mar-
tin Brothers Construction, Sacramento,
Calif., (N62473-15-d-2422); and Orion
Construction Corp., Vista, Calif., (N62473-
15-d-2423), are each being awarded a
firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indef-
inite-quantity multiple award construc-
tion contract for new construction, repair
and renovation, of wet utilities projects
at various locations within the Naval Fa-
cilities engineering Command (NAVFAC)
Southwest area of responsibility (AOR).
The maximum dollar value including the
base period and four option years for all
five contracts combined is $99,000,000.
The work to be performed provided for
new construction, repair and renovation,
primarily by design-build or secondarily by
design-bid-build, of wet utilities projects.
Types of projects may include, but are
not limited to: water, steam, wastewater,
storm sewer, pumping stations, treat-
ment plants, storage tanks and related
work. All structures (including buildings)
that are integral parts of the water, steam
and wastewater networks are included.
work on these contracts will be performed
within the NAVFAC Southwest AOR
including, but not limited to, California (90
percent), Arizona (6 percent), Nevada (1
percent), Colorado (1 percent), Utah (1
percent), and New Mexico (1 percent). The
terms of the contracts are not to exceed
60 months, with an expected completion
date of March 2020. Fiscal 2015 operation
and maintenance (Navy) contract funds
in the amount of $25,000 are obligated
on this award and will expire at the end of
the current fiscal year. This contract was
competitively procured as a set-aside for
small businesses via the Federal Business
Opportunities website with 11 propos-
als received. These five contractors may
compete for task orders under the terms
and conditions of the awarded contracts.
No task orders are being issued at this
time. The Naval Facilities engineering
Command, Southwest, San diego, Calif.,
is the contracting activity.
a&d Gc inc., Santee, Calif.,
(N62473-15-d-2403); Bristol General
Contractors LLC, Anchorage, Alaska,
(N62473-15-d-2404); Cox Construction
Co., Vista, Calif., (N62473-15-d-2405);
i.e.-Pacific inc., escondido, Calif.,
(N62473-15-d-2406); insight Pacific LLC,
Anaheim, Calif., (N62473-15-d-2407);
and Penick Nordic JV iV, La Mesa, Calif.,
(N62473-15-d-2418), are each being
awarded a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-
delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award
construction contract for new con-
struction and repair of general building
construction projects at various locations
within the Naval Facilities engineering
Command (NAVFAC) Southwest area of
responsibility (AOR). The maximum dollar
value including the base period and four
option years for all six contracts com-
bined is $99,000,000. The work to be per-
formed provides for new construction and
repair within the North American industry
Classification System Code 236220,
primarily by design-build or secondarily
by design-bid-build, of general build-
ing construction. Types of projects may
include, but are not limited to: administra-
tion buildings, school buildings, hospitals,
auditoriums, fire stations, gymnasiums,
office buildings, hangars, laboratories and
parking structures. work on these con-
tracts will be performed within the NAV-
FAC Southwest AOR including, but not
limited to, California (90 percent), Arizona
(6 percent), Nevada (1 percent), Colorado
(1 percent), Utah (1 percent), and New
Mexico (1 percent). The terms of the
contracts are not to exceed 60 months,
with an expected completion date of
March 2020. Fiscal 2015 operation and
maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the
amount of $30,000 are being obligated
on this award and will expire at the end of
the current fiscal year. This contract was
competitively procured as a set-aside for
small businesses via the Federal Business
Opportunities website, with 42 propos-
als received. These six contractors may
compete for task orders under the terms
and conditions of the awarded contracts.
No task orders are being issued at this
time. The Naval Facilities engineering
Command, Southwest, San diego, Calif.,
is the contracting activity.
Rolls-Royce corp., indianapolis,
ind., is being awarded a $93,553,851
modification to a previously awarded
indefinite-delivery, requirements contract
(N00019-14-d-0016) to exercise an op-
tion to provide intermediate, depot-level
maintenance and related logistics support
for approximately 223 in-service T-45
F405-RR-401 Adour engines and Mkii gas
turbine starters. work will be performed at
the Naval Air Station (NAS) Meridian, Miss.,
(47 percent); NAS kingsville, Texas (46
percent); NAS Pensacola, Fla., (6 percent);
and NAS Patuxent River, Md., (1 percent),
and is expected to be completed in March
2016. No funds will be obligated at time of
award; funds will be obligated on individual
delivery orders as they are issued. The Na-
val Air Systems Command, Patuxent River,
Md., is the contracting activity.
lockheed Martin Mission Systems
and training, Moorestown, N.J., is being
awarded a $51,642,334 modification to
previously awarded contract (N00024-
14-C-5106) for fiscal 2015 Aegis Modern-
ization (AMOd) production requirements.
This contract modification is for the
production of Multi-Mission Signal Pro-
cessor equipment sets; Ballistic Missile
defense 4.0.2 equipment; Aegis weapon
System AMOd Upgrade equipment; and
associated spares, special tooling, and
test equipment, to support the fielding of
AMOd capabilities to the fleet. work will
be performed in Moorestown, N.J., (54
percent); Clearwater, Fla., (45 percent);
and Owego, N.Y., (1 percent), and is
expected to be completed by July 2017.
Fiscal 2015 other procurement (Navy) and
fiscal 2015 defense-wide procurement
funding in the amount of $51,642,334 will
be obligated at the time of award and will
not expire at the end of the current fiscal
year. The Naval Sea Systems Command,
washington, d.C., is the contracting
activity.
lockheed Martin corp., Baltimore,
Md., is being awarded a $19,026,599
27 MArCh
MARCh 31, 2015 | 31www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 32: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
task order under previously awarded ba-
sic ordering agreement (BOA) (N00024-
12-G-4329) for littoral combat ship fleet
maintenance sustainment support. The
BOA was initially awarded to Lockheed
Martin for the design and construction of
the Freedom-class littoral combat ship.
Lockheed Martin currently adminis-
ters and performs fleet maintenance
requirements through both the use of
its resources and the original equipment
manufacturer, and the use of nationwide
subcontractors that are capable of work-
ing on systems and subsystems. work
will be performed in San diego, Calif.,
and is expected to be completed by
September 2015. Fiscal 2015 operations
and maintenance (Navy) contract funds
in the amount of $19,026,599 will be
obligated at time of award and will expire
at the end of the current fiscal year. The
Southwest Regional Maintenance Center,
San diego, Calif., is the ordering/con-
tracting activity.
exelis inc., information Sys-
tems division, herndon, Va., is being
awarded an $18,240,767 modification to
previously awarded contract (N00174-
11-d-0002) to exercise option four for
the continued procurement of post-pro-
duction maintenance support of Navy
crew fixed site systems. This action is
to fulfill a requirement for equipment,
maintenance and support for the Joint
Service explosive Ordnance disposal
Counter Radio Controlled improvised
explosive device electronic warfare
(JSeOd CRew) program. The JSeOd
CRew program provides all military ex-
plosive ordnance disposal services with
a new electronic warfare capability to
counter the threat from improvised ex-
plosive devices. work will be performed
in Boalsburg, Pa., and is expected to
be completed by March 2016. No funds
are being obligated at the time of award.
No contract funds will expire at the end
of the current fiscal year. The Naval
Surface warfare Center indian head
explosive Ordnance disposal Technol-
ogy division, indian head, Md., is the
contracting activity.
Raytheon co., integrated defense
Systems, Sudbury, Mass., is being
awarded a $16,663,927 firm-fixed-price
delivery order under previously awarded
basic ordering agreement (N00024-
14-G-5105) for fiscal 2015 Aegis mod-
ernization production requirements. This
delivery order covers the production of
Multi-Mission Signal Processor Ordnance
Alteration (ORdALT) kits, kill assessment
system ORdALT kits and spares, radio
frequency coherent combiner kits, high
voltage power supply sidewall capaci-
tors, traveling waves tube monitoring
circuits, and stabilized master oscillator
ORdALT kits, as well as test and installa-
tion efforts, in support of the Aegis Mod-
ernization (AMOd) program. The AMOd
program fields combat system upgrades
that will enhance the anti-air warfare
and Ballistic Missile defense capabilities
of Aegis-equipped Arleigh Burke-class
destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruis-
ers. This delivery order includes options
which, if exercised, would bring the
cumulative value of this delivery order
to $24,821,438. work will be performed
in Norfolk, Va., (42 percent); Andover,
Mass., (38 percent); Burlington, Mass.,
(12 percent); and Sudbury, Mass., (8 per-
cent), and is expected to be completed
by May 2017. Fiscal 2015 other procure-
ment (Navy); fiscal 2015 defense-wide
procurement and fiscal 2015 research,
development, test and evaluation funding
in the amount of $16,663,927 will be
obligated at the time of award and will
not expire at the end of the current fiscal
year. The Naval Sea Systems Command,
washington, d.C., is the contracting
activity.
Raytheon co., integrated defense
Systems, San diego, Calif., is being
awarded a $16,091,864 modification to
previously awarded contract (N00024-
14-C-5128) to exercise an option for
continuing platform systems engineering
agent support of the Ship Self defense
System (SSdS) Mk 2 development for
aircraft carrier/amphibious Moderniza-
tion Advanced Capability Build (ACB)
12/Technical insertion 12 (ACB12/Ti12).
work to be performed includes the
achievement of key milestones for non-
recurring platform systems engineering
to further mature the ACB 12, a tactical
product. ACB 12 is slated for deploy-
ment, initially on CVN 78, CVN 72, and
Lhd 2, then to be extended to CVN 73
and other SSdS Mk 2 enabled platforms.
work will be performed in San diego,
Calif., (90 percent); Tewksbury, Mass.,
(2.5 percent); Portsmouth, R.i. (2.5 per-
cent); St. Petersburg, Fla., (2.5 percent);
and Tucson, Ariz., (2.5 percent); and is
expected to be completed by december
2015. Fiscal 2011 shipbuilding and con-
version (Navy) and fiscal 2015 research,
development, test and evaluation funding
in the amount of $1,187,942 will be
obligated at time of award. Funds in the
amount of $977,942 will expire at the end
of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea
Systems Command, washington, d.C., is
the contracting activity.
lockheed Martin corp., Mis-
sion Systems and Training, Manassas,
Va., is being awarded not-to-exceed
$9,078,625 for delivery order 1195 under
previously awarded basic ordering agree-
ment (N00104-10-G-A109) for the repair
of the AN/UYQ-70 advanced display
system and the Navy’s current generation
of commercial-off-the-shelf display and
processor systems for tactical and com-
mand, control, communication, computer
intelligence (C41) applications for target
acquisition and tracking, weapons con-
trol, theater air defense, anti-submarine
warfare, battle group communication,
and airborne surveillance and control.
work will be performed at Virginia Beach,
Va., (10 percent), and various Lockheed
Martin repair units located throughout the
U.S. (90 percent), and work is expected
to be completed by April 2016. Fiscal
2015 working capital funds (Navy) in the
amount of $4,448,526 will be obligated
at the time of award and these funds will
not expire before the end of the current
fiscal year. One company was solicited
for the non-competitive requirement and
one offer was received in response to this
solicitation in accordance with 10 U.S.C.
ConTraCT awards
www.NPeO-kMi.COM32 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 33: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
2304(c)(1). The Naval Supply Systems
Command weapon Systems Support,
Mechanicsburg, Pa., is the contracting
activity (N00104-10-G-A-109).
Bae Systems, honolulu, hawaii, is
being awarded an $8,433,456 modifi-
cation to previously awarded contract
(N00024-14-C-4412) to support the
repair and alteration of USS O’kane
(ddG 77). USS O’kane is undergoing a
scheduled drydocking selected repair
availability which is the opportunity in
the ship's life cycle to primarily conduct
repair and alteration to systems and
hull not available when the ship is
waterborne. work is being performed
in honolulu, hawaii, and is expected
to complete by November 2015. Fis-
cal 2015 operations and maintenance
(Navy) contract funds in the amount of
$8,433,456 will be obligated at time of
award and will expire at the end of the
current fiscal year. The Pearl harbor
Naval Shipyard and intermediate Main-
tenance Facility, Pearl harbor, hawaii, is
the contracting activity.
iGov technologies inc., Reston,
Va., is being awarded a $7,400,323 firm-
fixed-price task order under a previously
awarded NASA contract (NNG07dA27B)
for Marine Corps enterprise Network
(MCeN) Secret internet Protocol Router
(SiPR) (MCeN-S) enterprise Service
Stacks (eSS). The scope of this effort in-
cludes procuring and delivery of a tech-
nical solution, (i.e., hardware, software,
and infrastructure), support services,
user training, and lifecycle sustainment
support to replace MCeN SiPR eSS.
This task order includes options which,
if exercised would bring the cumulative
value of this order to $9,341,310. work
will be performed at Marine Corps Base
Quantico, Quantico, Va., (44 percent);
Camp Pendleton, Calif., (14 percent);
Camp Lejeune, N.C., (7 percent); Camp
Foster, Okinawa, Japan (7 percent);
enterprise iT Center, kansas City, Mo.,
(7 percent); Panzerkaserne-Barracks,
Boblingen, Germany (7 percent); Marine
Corps Base kaneohe Bay, kaneohe Bay,
hawaii (7 percent); and Marine Forces
Reserve, New Orleans, La., (7 percent).
work is expected to be completed on
March 31, 2020. Fiscal 2013 procure-
ment (Marine Corps) funds in the
amount of $7,400,323 will be obligated
at the time of award and will expire at
the end of the current fiscal year. This
task order was competitively procured
through the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Solutions for
enterprise-wide Procurement Contract
holders; with four offers received. Ma-
rine Corps System Command, Quantico,
Va., is the contracting activity (M67854-
15-F-4444).
Raytheon Missile Systems,
Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a
$26,000,000 ceiling-priced undefinitized
contract action for critical missile subas-
semblies and supporting components
for 300 Lot 15 AiM-9X missiles for the
Navy and Air Force. work will be per-
formed in keyser, w.Va., (42.3 percent);
Santa Clarita, Calif., (34.6 percent);
and hillsboro, Ore., (23.1 percent),
and is expected to be completed in
december 2017. Fiscal 2015 missile
procurement (Air Force) and weapons
procurement (Navy) funds in the amount
of $11,404,620 are being obligated on
this award, none of which will expire at
the end of the current fiscal year. This
contract was not competitively procured
pursuant to 10 U.S.C 2304(c)(1). This
contract combines purchases for the Air
Force ($16,755,556; 64.44 percent) and
Navy $9,244,444; 35.56 percent). The
Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent
River, Md., is the contracting activity.
Bae Systems San diego Ship Re-
pair, San diego, Calif., is being awarded
a $16,771,463 modification to previously
awarded cost-plus-award-fee/incentive-
fee contract (N00024-10-C-4407) for
USS San Diego (LPd 22) fiscal 2015
selected restricted availability. A select
restricted availability includes the
planning and execution of depot-level
maintenance, alterations and modifica-
tions that will update and improve the
ship's military and technical capabili-
ties. This modification includes options
which, if exercised, would bring the
cumulative value to $18,796,615. work
will be performed in San diego, Calif.,
and is expected to be completed by
November 2015. Fiscal 2015 operations
and maintenance (Navy) funding in the
amount of $16,771,463 will be obligated
at time of award and will expire at the
end of the current fiscal year. The South-
west Regional Maintenance Center, San
diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.
Raytheon co., el Segundo, Calif.,
is being awarded $16,380,000 for firm-
fixed-price delivery order 0062 against
a previously issued basic ordering
agreement (N00019-10-G-0006) for
the procurement of six AN/APG-79
Active electronically Scanned Array
radar systems in support of the F/A-18
e/F aircraft. work will be performed in
Forest, Miss., (50 percent); Andover,
Mass., (30 percent); and el Segundo,
Calif., (20 percent), and is expected to
be completed in March 2017. Fiscal
2013 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds
in the amount of $16,380,000 are being
obligated on this award, all of which will
expire at the end of the current fiscal
year. The Naval Air Systems Command,
Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting
activity.
dZSp 21 llc, Marlton, N.J., is be-
ing awarded $13,861,642 for modifica-
tion P00066 under a previously awarded
cost-plus-award-fee contract (N40192-
13-C-3001) to exercise an option for
base operations support services at
Joint Region Marianas. The work to be
performed provides for general manage-
ment and administration services; port
operations; ordnance; supply material
management; facility management;
26 MArCh
MARCh 31, 2015 | 33www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 34: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
northrop Grumman Systems
corp., St. Augustine, Fla., is being
awarded a $42,096,911 modification
to a previously awarded indefinite-
delivery/indefinite-quantity contract
(N00019-14-d-0022) to provide depot-
level maintenance and services in sup-
port of 44 F-5N/F aircraft for the Navy
and Marine Corps Reserves. Services
to be provided include aircraft inspec-
tions, repairs, overhauls, emergency re-
pairs, modification, engineering support
and procurement of structural com-
ponents required to sustain continued
safe, reliable and available operations.
work will be performed in St. Augus-
tine, Fla., (96 percent); Springville, Utah
(3 percent); and emmen, Switzerland (1
percent), and is expected to be com-
pleted in March 2016. Fiscal 2015 oper-
ations and maintenance (Navy Reserve)
and 2013 National Guard and Reserve
equipment funds in the amount of
$2,499,866 are being obligated at time
of award, all of which will expire at the
end of the current fiscal year. The Naval
Air Systems Command, Patuxent River,
Md., is the contracting activity.
tactical engineering & analy-
sis inc., San diego, Calif., is being
awarded a potential $19,651,998
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity,
cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide
tactical data link systems support to
include research; systems engineering;
software engineering; configuration
management; human factors engineer-
ing for software design; system-level
hardware and software integration;
test analysis and reporting; and quality
assurance support. This is one of three
multiple award contracts. each award-
ee will have the opportunity to compete
for task orders during the ordering pe-
riod. This three-year contract includes
one two-year option period, which, if
exercised, would bring the potential
value of this contract to $33,275,314.
work will be performed San diego,
Calif., and work is expected to be
completed March 24, 2018. No funding
will be obligated at the time of award.
Funding will be obligated via task or-
ders are issued. Contract funds will not
expire at the end of the current fiscal
year. The types of funding to be obli-
gated include research, development,
test and evaluation, foreign military
sales, and operations and maintenance
(Navy). This contract was competitively
procured via full and open solicitation
via publication on the Federal Business
Opportunities website and the Space
and Naval warfare Systems Command
e-Commerce Central website, with four
proposals received and three were se-
lected for award. The Space and Naval
warfare Systems Center Pacific, San
diego, Calif., is the contracting activity
(N66001-15-d-0073).
computer Sciences corp., San
diego, Calif., is being awarded a po-
tential $17,844,438 indefinite-delivery/
indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee
multiple award contract to provide
tactical data link systems support to
include research; systems engineering;
software engineering; configuration
management; human factors engineer-
ing for software design; system-level
hardware and software integration;
test analysis and reporting; and quality
assurance support. This is one of three
multiple award contracts. each award-
ee will have the opportunity to compete
for task orders during the ordering pe-
riod. This three-year contract includes
one two-year option period, which, if
exercised, would bring the potential
value of this contract to $30,136,398.
work will be performed in San diego,
Calif., and work is expected to be
completed March 24, 2018. No funding
will be obligated at the time of award.
Funding will be obligated via task or-
ders are issued. Contract funds will not
expire at the end of the current fiscal
year. The types of funding to be obli-
gated include research, development,
test and evaluation, foreign military
sales, and operations and maintenance
(Navy). This contract was competitively
procured via full and open solicitation
via publication on the Federal Business
Opportunities website and the Space
and Naval warfare Systems Command
e-Commerce Central website, with four
proposals received and three were se-
lected for award. The Space and Naval
warfare Systems Center Pacific, San
diego, Calif., is the contracting activity
(N66001-15-d-0072).
odyssey Systems consulting
Group, wakefield, Mass., is being
awarded a potential $16,023,035
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity,
cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide
tactical data link systems support to
include research; systems engineering;
software engineering; configuration
management; human factors engineer-
ing for software design; system-level
hardware and software integration;
25MArCh
facility investment; electrical; waste-
water; steam; water; base support
vehicles and equipment; and environ-
mental. After award of this option, the
total cumulative contract value will be
$869,433,858. work will be performed at
various installations in the U.S. territory
of Guam, and work under this option
period is expected to be completed
June 2015. Fiscal 2015 working capital
funds (Navy, Transportation, defense);
fiscal 2015 operation and maintenance
(Navy, Air Force, Army, Air National
Guard, and defense); fiscal 2015 family
housing operation and maintenance
(Navy); fiscal 2015 defense health
Program funds; and fiscal 2015 defense
Commissary Agency account contract
funds in the amount of $13,296,230 are
being obligated on this award and will
expire at the end of the current fiscal
year. The Naval Facilities engineering
Command, Marianas, Guam, is the
contracting activity.
ConTraCT awards
www.NPeO-kMi.COM34 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 35: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
test analysis and reporting; and qual-
ity assurance support. This is one of
three multiple award contracts. each
awardee will have the opportunity
to compete for task orders during
the ordering period. This three-year
contract includes one two-year option
period, which, if exercised, would bring
the potential value of this contract to
$27,128,654. work will be performed
in wakefield, Mass., (20 percent), and
San diego, Calif., (80 percent), and
work is expected to be completed
March 24, 2018. No funding will be
obligated at the time of award. Funding
will be obligated via task orders are
issued. Contract funds will not expire
at the end of the current fiscal year.
The types of funding to be obligated
include research, development, test
and evaluation, foreign military sales,
and operations and maintenance
(Navy). This contract was competitively
procured via full and open solicitation
via publication on the Federal Business
Opportunities website and the Space
and Naval warfare Systems Command
e-Commerce Central website, with four
proposals received and three were se-
lected for award. The Space and Naval
warfare Systems Center Pacific, San
diego, Calif., is the contracting activity
(N66001-15-d-0074).
Beechcraft corp., wichita, kan.,
is being awarded an $11,703,143 firm-
fixed-price contract for the procure-
ment of one UC-12w aircraft for the
Navy, including engineering technical
services. work will be performed in
wichita, kan., and is expected to be
completed in July 2016. Fiscal 2015
aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in
the amount of $11,703,143 are being
obligated on this award, none of which
will expire at the end of the current
fiscal year. This contract was not
competitively procured pursuant to 10
U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Sys-
tems Command, Patuxent River, Md.,
is the contracting activity (N00019-
15-C-2017).
Wartsila defense industries,
Chesapeake, Va., is being awarded
$7,602,804 for firm-fixed-price task
order 0003 under a previously awarded
contract (N00025-13-d-0001) for water
jet alterations and repairs for the im-
proved Navy Lighterage System (iNLS).
The work to be performed provides
for water jet condition assessments,
alterations, repairs, and inventory parts
management for the iNLS. work will
be performed in Jacksonville, Fla., (86
percent), Norfolk, Va., (13 percent), and
San diego, Calif., (1 percent), and is
expected to be completed by March
2016. Fiscal 2014 and fiscal 2015 other
procurement (Navy) and fiscal 2015
operation and maintenance (Navy) con-
tract funds in the amount of $7,602,804
are being obligated on this award; of
which $35,000 will expire at the end of
the current fiscal year. One proposal
was received for this task order. The
Naval Facilities engineering Command,
washington, d.C., is the contracting
activity.
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
Rolls Royce corp., indianapolis,
ind., is being awarded a $59,513,856
indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity
contract for integrated logistics sup-
port services for kC-130J aircraft
propulsion systems (installed and
spares), including supplies. work will
be performed in indianapolis, ind.
(41 percent); winnipeg, Canada (21
percent); Oakland, Calif., (16 percent);
Sterling, Va., (14 percent); Al Mubarak,
kuwait (2.1 percent); iwakuni, Japan (2
percent); Cherry Point, N.C., (1.3 per-
cent); Miramar, Calif., (1.3 percent); and
Fort worth, Texas (1.3 percent), and is
expected to be completed in Febru-
ary 2016. Fiscal 2015 operations and
maintenance (Navy and Navy Reserve)
and foreign military sales funds in the
amount of $21,216,339 will be obli-
gated at time of award, $16,252,549 of
which will expire at the end of the cur-
rent fiscal year. This contract was not
competitively procured pursuant to the
FAR 6.302-1. This contract combines
purchases for the Navy ($54,981,135;
92.38 percent) and the government of
kuwait ($4,532,721; 7.62 percent). The
Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent
River, Md., is the contracting activity
(N00019-15-C-0009).
Battelle Memorial institute,
Columbus, Ohio, is being awarded a
$15,000,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee modi-
fication under a previously awarded
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
contract (N62583-11-d-0515) to
exercise option period four for envi-
ronmental services and technologies
support at Naval Facilities engineer-
ing and expeditionary warfare Center,
Port hueneme, Calif. The work to be
performed provides for environmental
services and technology support to
satisfy overall operational objectives
of the Navy and Marine Corps
installations and to other federal
organizations worldwide. Support
services include technology implemen-
tation, technical consultation, research
and development, testing and evalu-
ation, administrative support, range
cleanup, sustainability and manage-
ment, site operation and maintenance,
climate change initiatives, green and
sustainable remediation practices de-
velopment, leadership in environmental
and energy design support, and training.
The total contract amount after exercise
of this option will be $75,000,000. No
task orders are being issued at this time.
work will be performed at various instal-
lations worldwide; and work for this
option is expected to be completed in
March 2016. No funds will be obligated
at time of award; funds will be obligated
on individual task orders as they are
issued. The Naval Facilities engineer-
ing and expeditionary warfare Center,
Port hueneme, Calif., is the contracting
activity.
24 MArCh
MARCh 31, 2015 | 35www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 36: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
ConTraCT awards
Bae Systems controls inc., Fort
wayne, ind., has been awarded a
maximum $383,033,935 firm-fixed-
price, requirements-type contract for
support of multiple weapon systems
platforms. estimated value cited is
based on demand quantities for the
life of the contract. This contract
was a sole-source acquisition. This
is a five-year base contract with one
five-year option period. Location of
performance is indiana, with a March
19, 2020, performance completion
date. Using military services are
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps
and defense Logistics Agency. Type
of appropriation is fiscal year 2015
defense working capital funds. The
contracting activity is the defense
Logistics Agency Aviation, Richmond,
Va., (SPe4AX-15-d-9414).
Raytheon Missile Systems,
Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a
$109,583,490 cost-only contract for
procurement of long lead material
in support of fiscal 2015 Standard
Missile-6 (SM-6) and Standard Mis-
sile-2 (SM-2) full rate production
requirements and spares. work will
be performed in Camden, Ark., (64.5
percent); Andover, Mass., (17.2 per-
cent); San Jose, Calif., (6.5 percent);
Middletown, Conn., (3.3 percent);
warrington, Pa., (2.2 percent); San
diego, Calif., (2.1 percent); San
Carlos, Calif., (1.1 percent); Joplin,
Mo., (0.9 percent); Reisterstown, Md.,
(0.8 percent); Milwaukie, Ore., (0.7
percent); Tucson, Ariz., (0.4 percent);
Tampa, Fla., (0.2 percent); and Mesa,
Ariz., (0.1 percent), and is expected to
be completed by March 2018. Fiscal
2015 weapons procurement (Navy)
and fiscal 2015 operations and mainte-
nance (Navy) funding in the amount of
$18,980,806 will be obligated at time
of award and funds in the amount of
$3,556,495 will expire at the end of the
current fiscal year. This contract was
not competitively procured in accor-
dance with 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(1), as
implemented in FAR 6.302-1 - the
supplies or services required are avail-
able from only one responsible source
and no other type of supplies or ser-
vices will satisfy agency requirements.
The Naval Sea Systems Command,
washington Navy Yard, washing-
ton, d.C., is the contracting activity
(N00024-15-C-5408).
lafayette Group inc., Vienna,
Va., is being awarded a potential
$92,739,725 indefinite-delivery/indefi-
nite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee mul-
tiple award contract to provide techni-
cal assistance as well as research and
development for the advancement
of interoperable communications to
federal, state, local, tribal and non-
governmental entities, and to support
other command, control, communica-
tions, computers and intelligence ef-
forts. This is one of two multiple award
contracts. each awardee will have the
opportunity to compete for task orders
during the ordering period. This five-
year contract includes no options peri-
ods. work will be performed in Vienna,
Va., (50 percent), and at government
facilities throughout the United States
and its territories (50 percent). work is
expected to be completed March 22,
2019. No funds will be obligated at the
time of award. Funding will be obligat-
ed via task orders as they are issued.
The types of funding to be obligated
include operation and maintenance
(Navy) and interagency agreements
through federal agencies such as the
department of homeland Security
and the department of Commerce.
Contract funds will not expire at the
end of the current fiscal year. This
contract was competitively procured
via Request for Proposal N66001-
13-R-0006 published on the Federal
Business Opportunities website, and
the Space and Naval warfare Systems
Command e-Commerce Central web-
site, with two offers received. Space
and Naval warfare Systems Center
Pacific, San diego, Calif., is the
contracting activity (N66001-
15-d-0028).
Science applications interna-
tional corp., McLean, Va., is being
awarded a potential $83,818,576
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity,
cost-plus-fixed-fee multiple award con-
tract to provide technical assistance
as well as research and development
for the advancement of interoperable
communications to federal, state, local,
tribal and non-governmental entities,
and to support other command, con-
trol, communications, computers and
intelligence efforts. This is one of two
multiple award contracts. each award-
ee will have the opportunity to compete
for task orders during the ordering
period. This five-year contract includes
no options periods. work will be per-
formed in McLean, Va., (50 percent),
and at government facilities throughout
the United States and its territories (50
percent). work is expected to be com-
pleted March 22, 2019. No funds will be
obligated at the time of award. Funding
will be obligated via task orders as
they are issued. The types of funding
to be obligated include operation and
maintenance (Navy) and interagency
agreements through federal agencies
such as the department of homeland
Security and the department of Com-
merce. Contract funds will not expire at
the end of the current fiscal year. This
contract was competitively procured
via Request for Proposal N66001-
13-R-0006 published on the Federal
Business Opportunities website, and
the Space and Naval warfare Systems
Command e-Commerce Central web-
site, with two offers received. Space
and Naval warfare Systems Center Pa-
cific, San diego, Calif., is the contract-
ing activity (N66001-15-d-0029).
leidos inc., Reston, Va., is be-
ing awarded a maximum amount
$50,000,000 firm-fixed-price,
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
architect-engineering contract for de-
sign or architect engineering services
for the implementation of National en-
vironmental Policy Act and executive
Order 12114, environmental effects
23 MArCh
www.NPeO-kMi.COM36 | MARCh 31, 2015
![Page 37: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
Abroad of Major Federal Actions-
Aircraft homebasing and Related
Operational issues. The work to be
performed provides for the prepara-
tion of various documents to support
the proposed infrastructure-related
actions with respect to aircraft home
basing issues. examples of taskings
required to complete this work may
include analysis of home basing of
aircraft, construction, renovation, and/
or demolition of airfield facilities and
infrastructure; base realignment and
closure actions; and proposed opera-
tional actions related to aircraft home
basing. Additionally, other tasks,
studies, surveys or documents may
be required to complete the environ-
mental planning documents includ-
ing, but not limited to, environmental
documentation for aircraft readiness
and training operations at the home
base locations and within department
of defense-managed airspace and
Navy/Marine Corps training ranges.
The principle geographic area cov-
ered by this contract encompasses
Naval Facilities engineering Com-
mand (NAVFAC) Atlantic’s area of
responsibility (AOR) and the adjacent
waters of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans, including the continental
United States, the Caribbean, europe
and North Africa. Additionally, tasks
associated with this contract may be
assigned anywhere in the world. This
contract may address task orders to
support joint service or global efforts
including the entire NAVFAC Atlantic
and NAVFAC Pacific AORs worldwide.
No task orders are being issued at
this time. All work on this contract
will be performed within the NAVFAC
Atlantic AOR including, but not limited
to, Virginia (30 percent), California
(30 percent), Florida (20 percent), and
washington (20 percent). The term
of the contract is not to exceed 60
months with an expected completion
date of March 2020. Fiscal 2015 op-
eration and maintenance (Navy) con-
tract funds in the amount of $10,000
are obligated on this award and will
expire at the end of the current fiscal
year. This contract was competitively
procured via the Navy electronic
Commerce Online website with five
proposals received. The Naval Facili-
ties engineering Command, Atlantic,
Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity
(N62470-15-d-8005).
northrop Grumman Systems
corp., Charlottesville, Va., is being
awarded an $18,100,000 indefinite-
delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-
fixed-priced, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and
cost-type contract for the production
of the wSN-7 navigation system and
spares and technical support in as-
sociation with production. The AN/
wSN-7(V) ring laser gyro navigator
system is a self-contained inertial
navigator designed for Navy surface
ships. work will be performed in Char-
lottesville, Va., and work is expected
to be completed by december 2021.
Contract funds will not be obligated
at time of award. Funding will not
expire at the end of the current fiscal
year. This contract was not competi-
tively procured in accordance with
authority 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)( 1) - only
one responsible source. The Naval
Sea Systems Command, washing-
ton, d.C., is the contracting activity
(N00024-15-d-5208).
the Boeing co., huntington
Beach, Calif., is being awarded a
$12,878,533 cost-plus-incentive-fee
contract to provide design agent
and technical engineering services in
support of the AN/USQ-82(V) Gigabit
ethernet data Multiplex Systems
(GedMS) program. GedMS is a third-
generation shipboard network used
for ddG 51 class destroyers. GedMS
transfers inputs and/or outputs for the
machinery control systems, damage
control system, steering control sys-
tem, AeGiS combat system, naviga-
tion displays, and interior communi-
cations alarms and indicators. This
contract includes options which, if
exercised, would bring the cumulative
value of this contract to $39,991,521.
This contract combines purchases
for the Navy (91 percent) and the
governments of Australia (3 percent),
korea (3 percent), and Japan (3 per-
cent) under the foreign military sales
program. The work will be performed
in huntington Beach, Calif., (72
percent); Arlington, Va., (11 percent);
Bath, Maine, (9 percent); Pascagoula,
Miss., (3 percent); Georgetown, d.C.,
(3 percent); Richardson, Texas (1
percent), and Fairfax, Va., (1 percent),
and is expected to be completed by
March 2016. Fiscal 2014 shipbuild-
ing and conversion (Navy) funding
in the amount of $3,179,520 will be
obligated at time of award and will not
expire at the end of the current fiscal
year. This contract was not competi-
tively procured in accordance with
authority FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii) – only
one responsible source and
no other supplies or services will
satisfy agency requirements. The
Naval Surface warfare Center,
dahlgren division, dahlgren, Va., is
the contracting activity (N00178-
15-C-2016).
WR Systems ltd., Fairfax, Va.,
is being awarded a $12,429,742
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity,
cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price
contract for engineering and program
support services for the Relocatable
Over-the-horizon Radar system. work
will be performed in Chesapeake, Va.,
and work is expected to be completed
by March 31, 2018. Fiscal 2015 opera-
tions and maintenance (Navy) funds
in the amount of $500,000 will be
obligated at the time of award, and
will expire by the end of the current
fiscal year. The contract was not
competitively procured in accordance
with 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(1) with
one offer received in response to
this solicitation. Naval Supply
Systems Command Fleet
Logistics Center, Norfolk, Va., is the
contracting activity (N00189-15-d-
Z021).
MARCh 31, 2015 | 37www.NPeO-kMi.COM
![Page 38: Navy 033115 final](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051121/579053af1a28ab900c8d4431/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
the concourse Group llc,
Annapolis, Md., is being awarded a
maximum amount $29,000,000 time
and material, indefinite-delivery/indef-
inite-quantity contract for professional
services in support of the department
of the Navy’s Public Private Venture
Program. The work to be performed
provides for all aspects of special
venture acquisitions, including family
and unaccompanied housing public
private ventures, enhanced use leas-
ing, and other public-private venture
opportunities such as energy, utilities,
and lodging. work includes assistance
in both pre- and post-deal closing
environments to include pro forma
development, financial proposal analy-
sis, budget and audit reviews, reviews
of financial and bank statements,
and project cash flow distribution. All
support shall be consistent with the
privatization approach adopted by the
department of the Navy. work will be
performed primarily in Annapolis, Md.,
and washington, d.C., and the term
of the contract is not to exceed 36
months with an expected completion
date of March 2018. Fiscal 2015 family
housing operation and maintenance
(Navy and Marine Corps) contract
funds in the amount of $10,000 are
being obligated on this award and will
expire at the end of the current fiscal
year. No task orders are being issued at
this time. This contract was competi-
tively procured via the Navy electronic
Commerce Online website, with three
proposals received. This contract
action is a re-award as a result of cor-
rective action taken due to a Govern-
ment Accountability Office protest. The
Naval Facilities engineering Command,
Atlantic, Norfolk, Va., is the contracting
activity (N62470-15-d-6009).
Systems application & tech-
nologies inc., Oxnard, Calif., is being
awarded a $16,368,016 modification to
a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-
fee contract (N68936-13-C-0083) to
exercise an option for maintenance
and operations of aerial and seaborne
target assets and associated equip-
ment for the U.S. Navy, and the govern-
ments of Japan and Australia. work will
be performed at the Naval Air warfare
Center weapons division (NAwCwd),
Point Mugu, Calif., (45 percent); Naval
Surface warfare Center, Port huen-
eme, Calif., (40 percent); NAwCwd
China Lake, Ridgecrest, Calif., (7
percent); white Sands Missile Range,
Las Cruces, N.M., (3 percent); Pacific
Missile Range Facility, kauai, hawaii (2
percent); Utah Test and Training Range,
Salt Lake City, Utah (2 percent); and
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc,
Calif., (1 percent). work is expected
to be completed in March 2016. Navy
working capital funds and management
and operations of the major range and
test facility base funds in the amount
of $8,803,543 will be obligated at time
of award, none of which will expire at
the end of the current fiscal year. This
option combines purchases for the U.S.
Navy ($15,876,975; 98 percent), and
the governments of Japan ($327,360; 2
percent) and Australia ($163,680; 1 per-
cent) under the Foreign Military Sales
program. The Naval Air warfare Center
weapons division, China Lake, Calif., is
the contracting activity.
trijicon inc., wixom, Mich., is
being awarded $6,934,400 for de-
livery orders 0005 and 0006 under a
previously awarded firm-fixed-price,
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
contract (M67854-12-d-1000) for
8,800 TA31 rifle combat optics with
M4 reticles. work will be performed in
wixom, Mich., and is expected to be
completed by January 14, 2016. Fis-
cal 2013 procurement (Marine Corps)
funds in the amount of $6,934,400
will be obligated at the time of award
and funds will expire at the end of the
current fiscal year. The Marine Corps
Systems Command, Quantico, Va., is
the contracting activity.
Mtu america inc., Novi, Mich.,
is being awarded a $6,868,800
firm-fixed-price contract for three ship-
sets of propulsion system hardware
and two spare marine gears for the
israeli Navy Super dvora fast patrol
boats. This contract involves Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) to israel (100
percent). This contract to support the
israeli Navy under FMS case iS-P-
LhC is a follow-on effort, which was
previously performed under contract
N00104-06-C-k058. This contract
will provide the propulsion system
equipment necessary to support the
ongoing fleet maintenance and life
cycle support of the israeli Navy. work
will be performed in Friedrichshafen,
Germany (70 percent), and kristine-
hamn, Sweden (30 percent), and is
expected to be completed by March
2017. FMS funding in the amount of
$6,868,800 will be obligated at the
time of award, and contract funds will
not expire at the end of the current
fiscal year. This contract was not com-
petitively procured in accordance with
authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(4) and
FAR 6.302-4 international Agreement.
The government of israel is desig-
nated the sole source in its letter of
offer and acceptance. The Naval Sea
Systems Command, washington, d.C.,
is the contracting activity (N00024-
15-C-4127).
uRS federal Services inc.,
Germantown, Md., is being awarded a
$6,636,797 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract
for program management services in
support of the Broad Area Maritime
Surveillance-demonstrator Program
Office. work will be performed in
Germantown, Md., (75 percent), and
Patuxent River, Md., (25 percent), and
is expected to be completed in March
2016. Fiscal 2015 operations and main-
tenance (Navy) funds in the amount of
$5,600,000 are being obligated on this
award, all of which will expire at the
end of the current fiscal year. This con-
tract was not competitively procured
pursuant 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Na-
val Air warfare Center Aircraft division,
Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting
activity (N00421-15-C-0020).
20 MArCh
ConTraCT awards Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
www.NPeO-kMi.COM38 | MARCh 31, 2015