House FY14 Mark

From here.

Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04), Chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, released today the legislative language of the Seapower Subcommittee’s mark of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Chairman Forbes and Ranking Member Mike McIntyre (NC) led the Seapower Subcommittee in producing a mark (PDF) which designates essential funding and sets priorities for the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.

Everyone in the news is probably going to talk about the CVN part of the mark. I'll be focusing on a few other highlights that caught my attention.

Page 8: Multiyear procurement authority for E-2D aircraft program. This is a pretty big deal, and a good deal for everyone. The big five programs in Naval Aviation today that give the United States the big jump on the rest of the world are, in order, the EA-18G, the E-2D, P-8, MH/SH-60, and UCLASS. I believe the US Navy can screw up everything else in naval aviation, but if they get these five programs right, naval aviation will own the future.

Page 12: Annual Comptroller General Report on the Amphibious Combat Vehicle Acquisition Program. I had the opportunity a few years ago to really get to know the EFV up close and personal. No question, it is the most amazing piece of ground equipment ever built for the Marine Corps. It was also completely unaffordable. With that history in mind, having the GAO watch the new program like a hawk with an annual report is likely a very healthy thing for the program and for the Marine Corps. Marines don't like publicity, but respond well to it. The GAO will serve as a useful public spotlight for this program.

Page 15: Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration Testing Requirement. Basically Congress is making a law that forces the Navy to conduct an inflight refueling of the X-47B from a tanker aircraft. With all due respect to Congress and the Senate, but if you seriously have to write this into law, isn't it time to be a bit more diligent with your responsibilities when it comes time to approving Flag Officer promotions? Seems to me there are other, more effective ways, to send a clear message to the naval aviation community. Naval aviation leadership must be running a shit show when Congress has to use direct language to tell that community how to test their most promising technology.

Page 16: Limitation on Milestone A Activities for Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike System Program. Quoted in full:

The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics may not award a Milestone A technology development contract with respect to the Unmanned Carrier-launched Surveillance and Strike system program until a period of 30 days has elapsed following the date on which the Under Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the software and system engineering designs for the control system and connectivity and aircraft carrier segments of such program can achieve, with low level of integration risk, successful compatibility and interoperability with the air vehicle segment selected for contract award with respect to such program.

This is such a big topic. I really need to write about this topic.

Items of Special Interest

These are some of the general issue requests included in the Mark. Some are very interesting.

Air and Missile Defense Radar deployment on naval vessels

The Navy has reported that the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) suite is being developed to fulfill Integrated Air and Missile Defense requirements for multiple ship classes. This suite consists of an S-band radar (AMDR-S), an X-band radar and a Radar Suite Controller. AMDR would provide multi-mission capabilities, simultaneously supporting long-range, exoatmospheric detection, tracking and discrimination of ballistic missiles, as well as Area and Self Defense against air and surface threats. For the ballistic missile defense capability, increased radar sensitivity and bandwidth over current radar systems are needed to detect, track, and support engagements of advanced ballistic missile threats at the required ranges, concurrent with Area and Self Defense against Air and Surface threats. For the Area Air Defense and Self Defense capability, increased sensitivity and clutter capability is needed to detect, react to, and engage stressing Very Low Observable/Very Low Flyer threats in the presence of heavy land, sea, and rain
clutter.

According to the Government Accountability Office report “Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs" (GAO-13-294SP) from March 2013, “the Navy plans to install a 14-foot variant of AMDR on Flight III DDG 51s starting in 2019. According to draft AMDR documents, a 14-foot radar is needed to meet threshold requirements, but an over 20-foot radar is required to fully meet the Navy's desired integrated air and missile defense needs.”

The committee supports the continued development of the AMDR capability, but is concerned about the physical limitations associated with the future deployment of this capability on the Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer Flight III. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, that addresses the following:

1. The capability requirements associated with the AMDR;
2. Required space, cooling and electrical distribution upgrades necessary to support AMDR on the Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer Flight III;
3. An assessment as to whether the limitations associated with the Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer Flight III will negatively impact the deployment on AMDR;
4. An assessment of the deployment of AMDR on other naval platforms including the San Antonio-class Amphibious Transport Dock; and
5. An assessment of the expansion capacity of the Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer Flight III to support further spiral development associated with future weapons.

What a great idea. Congress is basically saying they see that there appears to be some disagreement on how to proceed with AMDR, and is basically telling the Navy to make their case for the platform they want to field AMDR. Very smart - pass the popcorn. The thing is, and it is apparent someone in Congress must know this already, the Navy has actually been doing these assessments regularly, and those assessments are critical of DDG-51 Flight III as the way ahead. Bottom line, Navy needs a roadmap for a new major surface combatant. Everyone knows this. SWO leadership is worried about this though, because a new design is expensive, and would likely end up reducing the total ship numbers at the high end of surface warfare.

Littoral Combat Ship radar capabilities

The committee is concerned that the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) radars are not being optimally used to provide maximum protection. The USS Independence variant’s radar can rapidly and accurately detect and track small, fast moving targets at all altitudes; small surface targets in severe clutter; and rockets, artillery, and mortars launched from shore-based threats. The radar also can perform air and surface surveillance, target identification for weapon systems, and high-resolution splash spotting. The radar has successfully demonstrated simultaneous detection and tracking of air, surface (swarming small boats) and mortar targets in the world’s most challenging littoral environments. To ensure that the LCS program fully leverages the various capabilities of its modern radar technologies to protect this new class of ship, the committee encourages the Department of the Navy to fully utilize the capabilities provided by the current LCS radar suite and ensure that the embarked crew is fully trained on the radar's capabilities. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 3, 2014, on the steps the Navy has taken to enhance LCS sailors’ training on the radars full range of capabilities.

The radar in question here is made by SaaB North America. This looks and smells like a lobbyist has told Congressman Dan Maffei to add this nonsense into the mark.

Saab North America has a problem. They supposedly have this really great radar - just ask Congressman Maffei, but it really doesn't matter. The problem isn't the radar, the problem is the radar is tied to the combat system on the Austal variant of the LCS, and that combat system has a fatal flaw typical of software development in government. The UI is terrible.

The idea this is some training problem for the Navy is a hilarious load of lobbyist spin. The surface warfare community has a user interface into the combat system that is standard across the entire AEGIS line of warships. The Freedom class version has a combat system that uses a very similar interface to that of AEGIS, so when a sailor comfortable with the AEGIS system goes to work on a Freedom class ship, they pick up the combat system without any problems. But when a sailor goes to work on the combat system of an Independence class LCS, the combat system user interface is completely different. The DDG-1000 has a similar problem (but it's actually much worse!). Instead of making the combat system user interface look and feel like every other combat system in the fleet at the User Interface level, the LCS-2 combat system insists their user interface is better.

If I was the EADS lobbyist, I would meet with Dan Maffei's and deliver the fastest desktop, fastest laptop, and fastest smart phone on the market, but instead of mainstream operating systems - and the good Congressman is probably very comfortable with Windows XP or Windows 7, all those super awesome machines should all be loaded with Ubuntu OS. I would bet Congressman Maffei would decide to go back to his old computers before the meeting was over, because UI matters to users. Just like combat system UI matters to sailors.

AEGIS is government owned. These folks who complain about Lockheed Martin's monopoly in the Navy on the combat system are given chance after chance to compete, but they fail every time because no matter how good the technology is under the covers - and sometimes it is really fantastic - they lose to Lockheed Martin because they refuse to imitate the user experience of AEGIS that every sailor in the Navy is comfortable with. As an IT guy who develops enterprise systems for government, I laugh when observing a classic mistake contractors do far too often, and all I can say is these companies get exactly what they deserve when they get nothing. It isn't the Saab North American radar. That radar might be legitimately great, but it doesn't matter at all. The real problem is the software folks who insist their way of doing user interfaces for the US Navy is better than the way everyone in the US Navy does it. That's just stupid!

OK, so that is likely NOT what the Navy's report will say, but it is the real background on what this item in the Mark is all about. If you want confirmation, all you have to do is talk to the SWOs who have worked on combat systems on AEGIS ships and have seen both LCS combat systems. While there is supposedly a competition between the two combat systems, the Navy would be crazy to pick the combat system on the Austal version of LCS, because the UI has nothing in common with the UI of the combat systems used throughout the rest of the fleet. The capabilities are relatively the same, but the UI is not.

As a New Yorker, I was very amused when I saw this in the mark, because to be honest very smart politicians like Dan Maffei are exactly the kind of politicians we like, but in this case his constituent is trapped in a software nightmare scenario because the SaaB radar is integrated with the wrong combat system. Training issue? You bet, but it isn't the Navy who needs the training, it's the IT contractors responsible for UI of any combat system that wants to compete with Lockheed Martin who need training.

Long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels

Pursuant to section 231 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense provided the annual long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels on May 10, 2013, as informed by the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for fiscal years 2014-18. The Secretary also indicated that a force structure of “about 300 ships” would be necessary to support ongoing naval operations. The Secretary further highlights the “resourcing challenges outside the FYDP largely due to investment requirements associated with the SSBN(X) program”. The Secretary acknowledges that these ship construction pressures will precipitate higher fiscal requirements in the mid-term planning period (fiscal years 2024-33) requiring an annual investment of $19.8 billion per year in fiscal year 2013 constant dollars.

The committee believes that there will be significant pressures on the ship construction accounts that will result from the Ohio-class replacement ballistic missile submarine program, while concurrently supporting the balance of ship construction requirements. The committee also believes that a significant increase to the ship construction accounts is unsustainable in times of budget challenges. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the average ship construction investment over the last 30 years, in current dollars, is $16.0 billion. Therefore, to better understand the significance associated with even sustaining the current ship construction investment throughout the long-range plan, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committee by March 1, 2014, that provides an update to the long plan for the construction of naval vessels based on $16.0 billion across the entirety of the long-range plan and to assess the corresponding reductions in the shipbuilding plan. The Secretary of the Navy should also provide an assessment of this investment in terms of the health associated with the industrial base. 

This is another very smart idea. Basically, the House is taking Eric Labs $16 billion shipbuilding budget average and telling the Navy to deliver a theoretical shipbuilding plan using that number and include everything the Navy thinks they need.

Bob Work's probably sitting in his new CNAS office wondering why the House never gave him this opportunity! In all seriousness, every think tank with an interest in US naval power in Washington, DC should put together a report based on this request. Why not? If you read Ronald O'Rourke's shipbuilding reports for CRS, you would know he loves including those kind of reports for data point comparisons. On that note, maybe Bryan and I should write our own report too. Anyone seriously interesting in sponsoring that can send me an email.

Integration of high-energy laser weapons on surface combatants

The committee supports the Navy’s ongoing efforts to develop and field a high-energy laser weapon for surface ships, but is aware of significant challenges presented by integration of such a weapon into a surface combatant because of power and space limitations. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, on the Navy’s plan for addressing the challenges of power generation, storage, and delivery associated with the integration of high-energy lasers, electro-magnetic rail guns, high-power radars, electronic warfare systems, and other such energy-intensive technologies. 

Vice Admiral Hunt once suggested to me he believes LCS is an interesting candidate for fielding a laser or rail gun because of the power that can be generated by the turbines while the ship was underway on diesel engines. Now, LCS isn't exactly designed for that, and I don't know how either variant would redirect that power to a weapon system, but I wouldn't be surprised if both Austal and Lockheed Martin haven't thought about it. Seems to me that both companies would find a way to have their ship represented in this report, if indeed leveraging that turbine power for weapons systems is in fact feasible from a small design change perspective.