The engineers behind the development of so many cutting-edge U.S. Navy systems have long dreamed of creating a laser weapon that could defeat the fleet’s enemies. Now, they may be closer than ever to making that dream a reality.

Earlier this year, the Navy installed the first Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN) on the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Dewey.

The system came out of Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Dahlgren Division in Virginia as part of Program Executive Office Integrated Warfare Systems, and it promises to radically change the way the Navy responds to a variety of threats at sea.

Check out the digital edition of the June Seapower magazine here.

NSWC Dahlgren is the same group that worked on the Laser Weapon System (LaWS), which had a similar purpose: blasting unmanned aircraft out of the sky with a concentrated beam. Perhaps “dazzling” is a more accurate way to describe what LaWS does to airborne drones.

LaWS was a 30-kilowatt laser that was installed on the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce in 2014. It underwent a few years of testing and experiments but ultimately never was slated for operational use. LaWS did provide a lot of the lessons learned for the latest generation of ODIN.

ODIN took just two and a half years for the Navy to move the system from an approved idea through design, construction and testing to actual installation aboard the Dewey — a notable achievement in defense program development.

“The Pacific Fleet Commander identified this urgent counter-intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance need, and the chief of naval operations directed us to fill it as quickly as possible,” said Cmdr. David Wolfe, head of the directed energy program within the Integrated Warfare Systems program executive office.

An Infant System More Advanced Than Its Predecessors

The ODIN program is still in its infancy, but the Navy hopes to roll it out with other ships in the fleet over the next couple of years. The sea service is concerned with the growing prevalence of enemy unmanned aircraft and seeks ways to counter this threat.

The Navy hopes to learn lessons from the installation of ODIN on the Dewey, which will inform commanders about how the system could be implemented on other ships in the future. ODIN, like LaWS, could lead to the development of other laser weapon systems.

The Navy requested $299 million for shipboard laser systems in its fiscal 2019 budget.

Bradley Martin, a senior policy researcher at the Rand Corp., said ODIN is not going to be used like laser weapons you would see in science fiction movies, but rather as something that would scramble a unmanned aerial vehicle’s optical sensor. UAVs right now aren’t a threat to attack a ship, so destroying them quickly isn’t necessary.

“Typically, a UAV is not going to be used as a striking kind of weapon,” Martin said.

Instead, the laser would cause a drone to “lose its way” and eventually crash because it loses the ability to target and navigate. Any adversary using the drone to conduct surveillance of Navy activities would lose access to that asset.

Martin said that laser weapons have shown increasing maturity in recent years.

“Based on everything I’ve seen, [ODIN] is well-developed and on its way to being delivered,” he said. “It’s one of those cases where a naval warfare center was pretty much the main agency responsible for it, and it seems to have worked out pretty well.”

Cost-Effective Solution Best Suited for Smaller Surface Combatants

This type of system is best suited for surface combatants like cruisers and destroyers. Theoretically, it could be put on any class of ship, but ODIN is not a point-defense type of weapon so installing it on other types of vessels might be counterproductive, Martin noted.

The ultimate scenario when it comes to lasers for anyone in Navy leadership is a powerful laser weapon that would be precise in targeting and capable of destroying enemy craft without the need to use expensive munitions that cost millions for each shot. But the technology appears to be nowhere near that kind of capability.

However, as ODIN shows, this is not the only way to make lasers useful as weapons. ODIN works by emitting an infrared light that interferes with electronic sensors. This disrupts a drone’s ability to target or even navigate, which can cause a threat to crash harmlessly into the water.

ODIN will have some of the same limitations all lasers have: rain, smog and smoke could limit its effectiveness, but it’s another tool in the Navy’s toolbox.

ODIN has turned out to be a cost-effective weapon in a number of ways. Devoting power to a laser is less expensive than destroying an aerial threat such as a drone. Also, the system was developed rapidly and for not a lot of money (at least by Defense Department standards).

“It’s a well-developed concept and something that’s in the millions — not many millions — of dollars, and it could be used across the fleet,” Martin said.

He added that he believes we’ll see widespread use of this kind of technology in the Navy within a couple of years. “It’s an urgent need, and it could be used in very short order,” he said.

Martin called it a “good news story” for the Navy.

“A lot of the things they develop, it takes a long time and has to go to somebody outside the Navy to do the work,” Martin said.

Other systems in addition to ODIN are worth watching. With the Navy, Lockheed Martin has been developing the High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) system. HELIOS recently underwent a successful critical design review and could itself be installed on a destroyer.

“HELIOS will provide an additional layer of protection for the fleet — deep magazine, low cost per kill, speed-of-light delivery and precision response,” Brendan Scanlon, HELIOS program director at Lockheed, said in a statement. “Additional HELIOS systems will accelerate the warfighter learning curve, provide risk reduction for future laser weapon system increments and provide a stronger demand signal to the supply base.”

Editor’s note: This is the second straight month that Seapower has taken an in-depth look at the profound structural changes ahead for the U.S. Marine Corps. Within the May issue, in “Rejoined at the Hip,” we examined how the Corps is reintegrating with the Navy. Here, we examine structural changes that will be required to make that shift and how those changes affect the Corps’ conduct of expeditionary warfare.

A profound structural shift is coming to the U.S. Marine Corps over the next decade.

The Corps in late March announced new force design initiatives intended to make the service the sea-based force it once was. To describe these collectively as a tectonic shift might be an understatement.

Check out the digital edition of the June Seapower magazine here.

Under the new plan, the Marine Corps will totally divest itself of law enforcement and tank battalions, decrease infantry battalions from 24 to 21, slash artillery cannon batteries from 21 to just five, reduce amphibious vehicle companies from six to four, and cut the number of helicopter and tilt-rotor squadrons.

Specifically, the Corps will deactivate Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 264; Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 462; Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 469; Marine Wing Support Groups 27 and 37; the 8th Marine Regiment Headquarters Company; and 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines. The service also will deactivate Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 367 and relocate it to Camp Pendleton, California. And there will be 10 F-35B and C Lightning II joint strike fighters per squadron instead of 16.

Why are the Marines making this shift? It’s all about making the future “Fleet Marine Force” a modernized force with “new organic capabilities” by 2030, the Corps said in a statement.

“Throughout this 10-year initiative, the Marine Corps will be making investments in capabilities to include increasing long-range precision fires, advanced reconnaissance capabilities, unmanned systems and resilient networks,” the statement reads. “Future budget requests will include an expanded list of viable unmanned capabilities that will create significant opportunity for industries across the country.”

It is a dramatic departure from what the Corps has been doing since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Marine Corps essentially acted as a second land army, despite its origins as an amphibious force. But the Marines always believed this was a temporary diversion and that they would at some point get back to the sea. Now, it appears that is really happening.

Arming and Manning to Match ‘Great Power Competition’

But the Marines have spent the better part of two decades investing in equipment and structuring itself in an entirely different way, so these 10 years of changes will not be easy. To make them happen, the Marines believe they need to get smaller and start eliminating “legacy” capabilities that don’t match up with future strategy.

This will result in a major personnel reduction — a total force cut of 12,000 over the next decade.

As a result of this shift, III Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) will become a major focal point for the service. The Marines expect to have three Marine Littoral Regiments (MLRs) that can handle sea denial and sea control in maritime spaces as part of III MEF — a far cry from the work the Marines were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan but more in line with the service’s amphibious roots.

The realignment places a bigger emphasis on the Pacific Ocean, and the Marines will operate three Marine expeditionary units (MEUs) there to support the realignment.

Jonathan Wong, associate policy researcher at Rand Corp., said the most impactful changes have nothing to do with divesting or investing in certain forces or equipment but in how the Marine Corps will approach warfare. And the focus is countering a “Great Power Competitor” — the People’s Republic of China.

“The Marines realize that the Navy will face great difficulty projecting power in the Pacific in the future; there are too many accurate, long-range Chinese missiles for that to be feasible,” Wong said.

“So, the Marines’ response is to scatter themselves across islands in the Pacific before a conflict with sensors and long-range rockets and missiles of their own. This puts them in a position to degrade China’s missile advantage and protect the fleet. Being a supporting asset to the Navy is a wholly new way of thinking for today’s Marines. This is the biggest change of all.”

Indeed, the Marines say they expect to expand long-range fires, including a 300% increase in rocket artillery capacity along with anti-ship missiles, which they hope will “profoundly enhance our ability to support the fleet commander in sea control and denial.”

There are other major adjustments to the characteristics of the future force beyond more long-range attack capabilities. Infantry battalions also will be smaller and lighter. The Marines will double the number of unmanned aircraft squadrons. There will be an increase in littoral maritime mobility, including a new light amphibious warship. And the service expects to make big investments in directed-energy systems, electronic warfare, loitering munitions and other cutting-edge technologies.

Lower Budgets Bring About ‘All-In’ on Optimized Force for Peer Conflict

“If defense budgets were on the upswing, the Marine Corps could try to make this concept a reality while preserving their ability to project power, conduct crisis response, wage counter-insurgencies, or any of the other missions that the [Corps] has taken on in the past 20 years,” Wong said. “However, [Commandant Gen. David] Berger believes — rightfully so, I think — that budgets will be flat or decline in the near future. This forces the Marine Corps to make a choice: be a jack of all trades and master of none or go all-in on a force optimized for peer conflict. The Marine Corps has chosen to go all-in, so the reorganization is necessary to enable that.”

Wong said a forceful execution of this plan could improve the “initiative and decision-making abilities of its leadership up and down the chain of command” over the next decade.

“Instead of deploying as battalions in defined battlespaces, companies or even platoons will be operating beyond the range of support, sometimes without reliable communications,” he added. “This will force commanders to trust their subordinates to a much greater extent. Those subordinates will be forced to make decisions with truly nothing more than commander’s intent.”

He added: “I hesitate to make any predictions about force designs or capabilities 10 years hence, but I am very certain that the decision-making qualities of Marine leaders will be forced to mature dramatically if the Marine Corps follows through with their new operating concept.”

The U.S. Navy wants Sailors to toughen up.

That’s not to suggest Sailors lack in the toughness department. But working in today’s Navy can be stressful, and Sailors need the tools to handle the burden. Soon they may get them — thanks to a program in its pilot stage, Warrior Toughness.

The 3-year-old program — confined to the crews of some Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, principally the USS Maryland — could one day be used all across the sea service.

Check out the digital edition of the April Seapower magazine here.

Rear Adm. Michael D. Bernacchi, commander of Submarine Group 10, told Seapower that the program is a new approach to making sure Sailors are prepared for stressful jobs.

“What we were looking to do was to arm Sailors with additional tools to allow them to deal with stress so that they could perform better in stressful situations — both chronic and acute stress,” he said.

In creating the program, Bernacchi took lessons from the Navy SEALs, who are famous for their ability to adapt and even thrive in the most stressful situations imaginable.

“We wanted to adapt that to the general Sailor to give them more tools, whether that be standing the midwatch or dealing with a fire or whatever the case may be, you could respond well in any stressful situation and recall information,” he said.

Back to the Basics of Mind, Body, Soul

Bernacchi said there was nothing “new or magical” about the Warrior Toughness Program — it’s just about getting back to the basics of the mind, body, and soul and recognizing that they are all integral to the success of individuals.

“It’s about training your mind, understanding why it does the things that it does, making sure you’re in physical shape, understanding Navy core values — it’s a lot of different things, and we took a lot of it from the SEALs,” he said.

Right now, the program is just being tested on submarines, where Sailors have to deal with a lot of chronic stress just from living in that environment. However, Bernacchi envisions developing a fleet version that could be used in individual units.

When it was first rolled out at Navy Recruit Training Command, some Sailors were a little bit hesitant to embrace the new way of approaching training, but eventually most were on board, he said.

“When we started it at boot camp, most people didn’t want to do it,” he said. “I remember it getting called ‘recruit yoga’ and all kinds of other things. But you saw a huge increase in the performance of divisions, and then people wanted it. That’s the same thing we’ve seen here [aboard submarines].”

But what does the Warrior Toughness program look like from a Sailor’s point of view? Master Chief Matthew Glisson, Sub Group 10’s engineering department master chief (EDMC) and the Warrior Toughness lead, said there are many components. “There are psychology and a mindfulness techniques,” he said. “We’ve got a breathing technique called ‘recalibrate’ … where one learns to focus. The other benefit is that it lowers the heart rate.”

Another technique practiced in Warrior Toughness is the “body scan” — where a Sailor tenses as many muscles in their body as possible to find out where the tension is located. Then there’s “mental rehearsal,” where a Sailor envisions, in as much detail as possible, a stressful scenario and then rehearses what their immediate actions would be and where they can draw on certain tools to cope with and perform in that situation.

Four Pilot Programs on Four Subs — Then Off to Study the Data

Four pilot programs on four submarines will be up and running by the end of 2020, including the one that started on the USS Maryland last October. The next pilot will launch in April, and then another a month after. Once Warrior Toughness gathers enough data from the first three, the program will determine which sub should get the fourth pilot. After the fourth, the program will examine the data, see what has been and what has not been successful, and then potentially create a larger program from it.

The program’s exists because the Navy recognized that it hadn’t ever focused on the issue of stress, Bernacchi said. “We have never in the Navy sat down and taught you, ‘Hey, this is how you physically deal with stress,'” he said. “No one’s ever taught me how to meditate before. No one’s ever taught me, ‘Hey, this is how chemistry in your brain works.’ I’ve never had a psychologist sit there and explain to me that this is the chemical reaction when fear strikes, and this is how you counter it.”

Cmdr. Michael Paisant, commanding officer of the USS Maryland Gold crew, said the crew has already just about reached the “run” phase of “crawl-walk-run” with this program.

“We’re still trying to figure out — specifically on board — how we’re going to apply it,” he said. “In the training cycle we just came out of, we found a lot of uses in the strategic and tactical warfare simulator training environment, and we were able to apply stress management and mindfulness exercises.”

For example, during a portion of the training that involved piloting the submarine into ports, Sailors underwent breathing and mindfulness exercises as well as a visualization exercise as they went through each stage of the navigation process. The crew is also looking at ways to apply Warrior Toughness in a maintenance environment and not just operationally.

Paisant acknowledged that some of the crew was skeptical of the program at first, but since it began he says there’s been a lot of buy-in.

“They initially may have thought it would be another thing added to their plate, which it is not,” he said. “It’s focused on the individual Sailor, and on being a better spouse, a better leader. I think they’ve seen the benefits of it, and I’ve had a lot of folks say, ‘Hey, I do this all the time now. I do this in my personal life.’ I think my crew has really embraced it.”

Bernacchi hopes to see the program continue to evolve and eventually make all Sailors ready to protect the nation while dealing with any kind of stress — even the worst trauma imaginable. “When we take a missile hit to a carrier and lose 1,300 Sailors, are we going to be able to take a knee, gather ourselves, and then turn around and deliver the blow to kill the enemy who did that?” he said. “The answer is, we have to. But I don’t want to wait. Throughout our history we’ve shown we can do that, but it takes time to adapt. It takes time to get over the shock.

“The next battle, because of the speed of weaponry and everything else, we may not have that time,” he added. “So, I need to have Sailors who are ready to fight from the very second it goes off. And that’s what this is about.”

The Persian Gulf is one of the most important commercial shipping regions in the world — and also one of the most fraught with danger for shippers in recent years.

While most people think of the U.S. Navy alone in patrolling the Gulf, the sea service is slowly building a coalition of countries to help maintain security for shippers, relying on allies with shared interests to help them keep a sharp eye on the region and any problems that may arise.

Check out the digital edition of November’s Seapower magazine here.

Australia reportedly became the latest to join a U.S.-led naval group to protect commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman in the wake of alleged attacks by Iran against vessels in those waters — allegations that Iran denies. But even before recent tensions with the Iranians, the two gulfs have been important choke points for shipping, making the area of high interest to commercial shipping and the nations who rely on the cargo that travels through it.

“The United States believes that the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce are important principles based upon international law that should be preserved by a collective effort of the international community,” Lt. Pete Pagano, spokesman for Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, U.S. 5th Fleet, based in Bahrain, said via email. “As such, the recent attacks on international shipping that threaten the freedom of navigation in the region require an international solution.”

The U.S. 5th Fleet-led International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC) includes international partners Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Australia and the United Kingdom. This group conducts maritime domain awareness and surveillance of the region to create a common operational picture that helps the partners protect maritime shipping there.

“The operation is designed to preserve the free flow of commerce and deescalate regional tensions,” Pagano said. “The IMSC is active and engaged in this vital mission with each partner nation determining their own level of participation.”

The group was created in recognition of just how critical it is that the maritime domain be secure for commerce, especially in this region.

“As we join together with other concerned nations, our posture and patrols increase our surveillance of the maritime transit lanes — it is purely preventive and defensive in nature — nonprovocative and de-escalatory,” Pagano said. “With that said, recent aggressive attacks on Saudi infrastructure and international tankers at sea provide great impetus for all forces in this region to be prepared to defend themselves. The IMSC allows for, augments and synchronizes that defensive posture and readiness of partner nations as a prudent precaution.”

Nations Committed to Joint Shipping Lane Defense

In mid-September, Vice Adm. Jim Malloy, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), kicked off the opening ceremony for the IMSC main planning conference aboard the HMS Cardigan Bay.

“In light of recent threats to international shipping, representatives reaffirmed their nations’ continued commitment to safeguarding freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea, and the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al Mandeb and discussed multinational efforts aimed at enhancing maritime security throughout key waterways in the region,” according to a U.S. Central Command statement.

The 5th Fleet also leads the CMF, which focuses on illegal trafficking, terrorism and smuggling — and it includes one task force, CTF-150, that is keenly focused on keeping the maritime domain secure.

CMF covers about 3.2 million square miles of international waters and includes 33 member nations: Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, The Netherlands,  New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, The Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, UAE, United Kingdom, United States and Yemen.

“The 33 nations that comprise CMF are not bound by either a political or military mandate,” U.S. Naval Forces Central Command says on its website. “CMF is a flexible organization. Contributions can vary from the provision of a liaison officer at CMF HQ in Bahrain to the supply of warships or support vessels in task forces, and maritime reconnaissance aircraft based on land. We can also call on warships not explicitly assigned to CMF to give associated support, which is assistance they can offer if they have the time and capacity to do so whilst undertaking national tasking.”

CMF started about a decade ago as a mechanism to bring Gulf countries into a joint group with the United States to tackle challenges in that region, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“They identify threats, share information and coordinate activities to intercept bad actors in the Persian Gulf,” Clark said. “CTF-150, which is a coalition or combined task force run by 5th Fleet, draws more broadly from countries that have an interest in keeping Persian Gulf waterways safe and free from threats. It’s more focused on protecting shipping lanes than strictly counter-trafficking or counter-terror efforts.”

As a result, CTF-150 includes countries from outside the Gulf that have a vested interest in keeping the shipping lanes there open, which means countries such as Turkey, Pakistan or even Japan. Even European countries provide some help occasionally.

The CMF and CTF-150 “have been pretty successful in terms of maintaining situational awareness, because you have a like-minded group of countries, giving you more eyes,” Clark said.

That said, the presence of other countries is nowhere near as ubiquitous as that of the United States. The CMF is successful more in terms of situational awareness and increasing collaboration between nations — the U.S. Navy still is doing most of the heavy lifting, Clark noted.

“Thus far, it’s been more of a messaging success than an operational one,” he said. “The countries that have come [into CMF] have been major players, but haven’t necessarily sent over lot of ships, and maybe ships they sent over would have been sent to CTF-150 anyway.”

Either way, one could argue that the CMF and CTF-150 have led to a reduced threat of terrorist attacks on the waterways, Clark said.

At well north of $100 billion for 12 vessels, the Columbia-class ballistic-missile submarine will be the most expensive new undertaking for the U.S Navy since the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier program. And everyone is hoping development and production goes a lot smoother for the new sub than the Ford class of carriers.

The Navy is trying to replace its aging fleet of 14 Ohio-class ballistic-missile subs, which carry nuclear-tipped Trident missiles and serve as the nation’s sea-based strategic deterrent. The sheer per-vessel cost of the Columbia class prompts one to draw comparisons to the $13-billion-per-ship Ford program — and that’s reason for concern considering the struggles throughout the carrier’s development.

Check out the digital edition of October’s Seapower magazine here.

Cost increases and schedule delays were a hallmark of the program during design, development and production, and the class still has its share of challenges. USNI reported earlier this year that the Ford had to spend months in dry dock to deal with problems with the ship’s nuclear power plant, and another report indicated that most of the carrier’s Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWEs) were not operational.

However, Columbia and Ford are certainly two very different programs, and the Navy believes it has a handle on the new sub.

Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman Bill Couch told Seapower in an e-mail that the Columbia-class program is working hard to tackle challenges early and make sure the sub stays on schedule.

“The Columbia Class Submarine Program is executing schedule risk and cost-reduction activities (e.g., advance construction, continuous production of missile tubes) and closely manages technology development and engineering/integration efforts,” he said. “Additionally, the shipbuilder [General Dynamics Electric Boat] is executing a plan to meet the highest design maturity target for any shipbuilding program [83%] at construction start.”

The program has run into some issues early. Officials discovered a problem last year with the submarine missile tube welds that reportedly cost $27 million and a year of work to fix.

However, the Navy says that issue isn’t affecting the schedule.

“General Dynamics Electric Boat [GDEB] and the Navy continue to work together to manage schedule impacts caused by the missile tube welding defects, with currently no impact to lead ship delivery schedule,” Couch said. “Margin remaining to the missile compartment due to the missile tube deliveries is under review.”

He added that Columbia-class deliveries are still aligned with the retirements of Ohio-class submarines to ensure the nation’s strategic deterrence requirements are met.

Additionally, he said a potential fiscal 2020 continuing resolution is unlikely to affect the program.

The program hit a big milestone earlier this year, with Huntington Ingalls Industries hosting a ceremony at its Newport News Shipbuilding division — which is working with GDEB on the program — on May 23 to celebrate cutting the first steel for the program.

“The first cut of steel is a major construction milestone that signifies our shipyard and submarine industrial base are ready to move forward with production,” Jason Ward, Newport News’ vice president for Columbia-class construction, said in a statement.

“We have worked to engage the submarine industrial base and leveraged lessons learned from the successful Virginia-class program to building the Columbia-class submarines in the most efficient and affordable manner to provide the best value to the Navy.”

On March 6, the Navy announced that it had established Program Executive Office Columbia (PEO CLB) to focus entirely on the “Navy’s No. 1 acquisition priority,” according to a Navy statement.

“This is the Navy’s most important program and establishing a new PEO today will meet tomorrow’s challenges head-on,” James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for acquisition, research and development, said in the statement. “The evolution from initial funding to construction, development and testing to serial production of 12 SSBNs will be crucial to meeting the National Defense Strategy and building the Navy the nation needs. PEO Columbia will work directly with resource sponsors, stakeholders, foreign partners, shipbuilders and suppliers to meet national priorities and deliver and sustain lethal capacity our warfighters need.”

Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said that there are reasons to be optimistic about the Columbia-class program despite the challenges of the Ford class.

For one thing, the Ford-class program had a lot more new technologies creating compounding risk, as opposed to the Columbia program, he said. He noted that there were some new technologies to watch, such as an all-electric propulsion plant and a new kind of propulsor assembly.

However, the Navy has done some advance work on that technology to reduce risk, Clark said.

“On the propulsion plant, the Navy built a land-based prototype to get the technical risk burned down,” he said. “The Navy spent quite a bit of time trying to tackle [the technical risk] by prototyping and demonstrating. But you can never completely eliminate the risk. They lost some time and margin because of technical challenges not fully tackled.”

And while the program has margin built in, the recent problems — particularly with the missile tubes — risk eliminating that margin early and creating no room for error with still many years left until the first sub is scheduled for delivery in 2028.

The good news is that the Navy may be through the hard part, Clark said.

“On the manufacturing side, I think there’s just having to do some rework and some more effort to test and inspect things before they get pushed out to the construction yard, which will introduce a little bit of schedule delay — but it is somewhat bounded,” he said. “I think compared to the Ford, the risks with Columbia are smaller in number, more bounded, and relatively understood.”

Ever since the V-22 Osprey entered service for the first
time in 2007 — nearly two decades after its first flight — the tilt-rotor aircraft
has been in heavy use by the U.S. Marine Corps and has seen action in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya and Kuwait. But there is one stubborn problem that continues
to plague the program: readiness.

The aircraft was long delayed in reaching the field due
in no small part to deadly accidents during its development and a hefty price
tag, but when it finally did arrive, the V-22 gave the Marines the versatility
the service craved — an aircraft that could land on the deck of an amphibious
assault ship like a helicopter but speed off like a fixed-wing aircraft when
necessary. While the battles over development and procurement are long over,
the Pentagon continues to struggle with a stubbornly low availability rate for
an aircraft that serves not just the Marines but also the U.S. Navy and the U.S
Air Force.

Currently, four out of 10 of its Ospreys are unavailable
for combat, according to the Marine Corps, which means the program is a long
way from the goal of 80% overall readiness set by former Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis. Several media outlets reported earlier this year that the overall
readiness rate of the aircraft was even more dismal — 52%.

The question of why readiness is so low is complicated,
but the uniqueness of the aircraft may be a large factor.

Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at the Teal
Group, said that the limited number of users of the V-22 makes it tough to have
an adequate stock of V-22 spares available.

“Normally, a pool of users — services and countries — can
share costs and inventories, but the Marines are the only sizeable user, and
the [Air Force] CV-22 community probably focuses on its own systems and
missions,” Aboulafia said. Even when the Navy gets [Carrier Onboard Delivery]
V-22s, the Marines will still oversee budgeting. Adequate provisioning is
further complicated by the shipborne nature of the platform.”

But the Marine Corps says that while the overall availability rate may be low, training and deployed squadrons have higher overall readiness levels. The service also says it’s taking significant steps to improve the aircraft’s overall readiness.

Better Readiness With Block C

Capt. Christopher Harrison, a Marine Corps spokesman,
said that while the availability of the Marine MV-22 fleet is currently at
around 60%, he also noted that training squadrons and deployed aircraft, which
have a common Block C configuration, regularly report an 80% mission-capable
rate.

The Marine Corps is trying to improve availability with
the V-22 Readiness Program (VRP), which Harrison described as a “top
priority” of the service, Harrison said.

“VRP takes a holistic approach to readiness recovery by
providing contract maintenance support, increased engineering support and
improved training for our maintainers and increased component supply depth and
breadth,” he said in an email response to questions from Seapower.
“VRP also consists of two major aircraft modification plans: The Common
Configuration-Readiness and Modernization [CC-RAM] initiative and nacelle improvements.”

CC-RAM aims to improve on availability rates by
modernizing older Block B aircraft with upgraded avionics and components to
produce the Block C, which are in production now. In addition to having “readiness
enhancements,” making more of the fleet in the Block C configuration
streamlines maintenance and sustainment, Harrison said.

Meanwhile, the nacelle improvement initiative includes
improving wiring harnesses and making the nacelle easier to maintain, he said. “We
believe we’ll see an additive positive effect on readiness by introducing more
reliable systems, streamlined procedures and improved maintainability.”

Analytics in Use to Improve MCR

In addition to those two initiatives, the Marines are using analytics to reduce scheduled maintenance and spot emerging trouble areas, which could improve mission-capable rates by as much as 15%, he claimed.

CC-RAM started in January 2018 and four aircraft are
currently undergoing modifications.

“The Osprey is our most in-demand and deployed aircraft,”
Harrison said. “At any given moment, five to seven VMMs are forward-deployed.
The MV-22 transformed the way the Marine Corps conducts assault support.
Capable of self-deploying, the Osprey’s speed, range and lift allows it to
sustain and move the MAGTF [Marine Air-Ground Task Force] anywhere in the world,
and it is routinely at center stage for humanitarian assistance operations.”

Boeing — which produces the aircraft jointly with Bell —
said in a statement that fleet enhancements and upgrades that are funded
through the Defense Department budget outyears include an improved engine inlet
separation system; a cockpit engine health indicator; component reliability and
safety improvements for swashplate, rudder, conversion actuators, O2N2
concentrator and shaft-driven compressor; and rotor blade time-on-wing
improvements.

Bell Boeing received a performance-based logistics and
engineering (PBL&E) contract in January that includes other initiatives
meant to boost the reliability of the aircraft. “Bell Boeing have the
flexibility to incorporate data analytics into maintenance efforts, yielding
innovative approaches such as predictive and condition-based maintenance to
improve aircraft availability and readiness,” their statement reads.

The company supports three customers: the MV-22 for the
Marine Corps, the CV-22 for Air Force Special Operations Command, and the
CMV-22 for the Navy. In all, more than 350 aircraft are scheduled to be built,
Boeing said.

“Bell Boeing is also executing a supply chain contract,
which includes the purchase, repair, stocking and delivery for more than 200
part numbers,” the statement notes.

A total of 129 Block B Ospreys will get the CC-RAM
upgrade, Boeing said. The last of those aircraft was built in 2011. “Boeing
expects to see a marked improvement in the mission-capable rate of Ospreys that
go through CC-RAM,” according to the company.

The company also expects to see “marked improvement” in
availability rates through the nacelle improvement initiative.

Other investments are being
made to address the problem of the mission-capable rate. Boeing reportedly
spent $115 million and two years transforming a 350,000-square-foot facility
near Philadelphia into a fuselage factory for V-22s. The facility will be home
to the CC-RAM program, making it a key part of the push to improve readiness.

After years
and years of waiting, the last variant of the Joint Strike Fighter — the F-35C Lightning
II — is officially operational. But it’s still a couple of years away from
making an impact on the high seas — and some questions about the plane remain.

The U.S. Navy
on Feb. 28 declared that the F-35C, the aircraft carrier-capable variant of the
fifth-generation stealth fighter, had reached initial operational capability
(IOC). The Marine Corps vertical-lift F-35B and the Air Force conventional F-35A
variants already have been declared operational.

The first
F-35C squadron, Strike Fighter Squadron 147, completed carrier qualifications
aboard the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) as a precursor to IOC. All that remains is
a couple of years of preparations until the first squadron deploys aboard the
Carl Vinson.

However,
issues still surround the aircraft, which was plagued by development and
production delays over its history.

A report
issued in March by nonprofit watchdog Project on Government Oversight declared
that the F-35 was “far from ready to face current or future threats,” citing
data that allegedly shows “unacceptably low” mission-capable rates. The
watchdog group also stated that the F-35 was initially promised at $38 million
per plane but that they now average $158.4 million apiece.

Despite all
the questions that surrounded the program for years, the plane is here. And the
Navy is preparing to introduce its variant into the fleet.

The IOC was a
joint declaration between the Navy and Marine Corps, because the aircraft will
be flown by both services. In the six months before that, the “last couple of
pieces” began coming together for the program — training, crews and the like,
Brian Neunaber, one of two national deputies for the Navy’s F-35 program, said in
an interview with Seapower.

“So we have
airplanes,” Neunaber said. “VFA-147 immediately reported to Carrier Air Wing
Two. It’s involved with unit-level training, and they will commence air-wing
workups, probably in the middle of next year.”

That said,
the F-35C is still a couple years away from actual deployment. Their first ship
— the Carl Vinson — is in drydock at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for repairs and
modernization after concluding a busy deployment cycle.

“She’ll come
out of the shipyard in the middle of 2020, and shortly thereafter the entire
air wing will start working up with Carl Vinson, and sometime in the middle of
2021,” the first deployment is expected, Neunaber said, noting that the
deployment after that would probably take place six months later, and
eventually all carriers would be flying the F-35C.

The Vinson’s F-35C
squadron will consist of 10 planes. Every air wing in the fleet eventually each
will have a squadron of 10 aircraft before the Navy goes to two squadrons per
carrier, he said. The program of record stands at 340 F-35Cs, Neunaber added.

Doubts, Praise for F-35C

Of the three JSF
variants, the F-35C is the one that is “not in a particularly good place,” said
Richard Aboulafia, Teal Group’s vice president of analysis.

Aboulafia said
he believes that, though the Navy is going ahead with purchasing the aircraft,
the sea service isn’t enthusiastic about the F-35C. He noted that the Navy
wants to keep buying the F-35C’s predecessor, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and
that appetite hasn’t seemed to diminish as the F-35C finally reaches IOC.

The Navy has
a lot of reasons to hedge its bets, he argued.

“Why pay the
up-front price at all — rather than wait for someone else to drive down the
cost?” he said, also noting that the Navy “is less convinced themselves that [the
F-35C] has much value at sea. There’s also an institutional preference for
twin-engine fighters.”

Aboulafia also
claimed the F-35C could diminish the Navy’s case for large-deck carriers. “If
the [F35B] works, and Marines deploy Bs and Cs together and the difference isn’t
all that great, then you have a situation where the case for large carriers is
a little undercut,” he said.

In a worst-case
scenario — at least for a sea service that wants to keep operating a fleet of
large aircraft carriers — the Navy could lose support for even a carrier fleet
of 10 ships and see an argument for smaller carriers supplemented by amphibious
ships gain a lot of steam, Aboulafia argued.

Though many
have expressed doubts about the Navy’s enthusiasm about the F-35C, the service
has continued to publicly and emphatically support the fighter. The Navy argues
that the F-35C offers the latest in technology and is perfectly suited to fight
a modern war.

“The F-35C is
ready for operations, ready for combat and ready to win,” the commander of Naval
Air Forces, Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller, said in a statement following the
declaration of the fighter’s IOC. “We are adding an incredible weapon system
into the arsenal of our carrier strike groups that significantly enhances the
capability of the joint force.”

Capt. Max
McCoy, commodore of the Navy’s Joint Strike Fighter Wing, predicted that the
F-35C would make us “more combat effective than ever before.”

“We will
continue to learn and improve ways to maintain and sustain F-35C as we prepare
for first deployment,” McCoy added in a statement. “The addition of
F-35C to existing carrier air wing capability ensures that we can fight and win
in contested battlespace now and well into the future.”

Most talk about unmanned underwater vehicles centers around the sonar, battery, and other aspects of the technology and what it can do. But one effort would aim to improve the capability of UUVs by making them easier to recover.

It’s known as the Airborne Surface Quad Thruster Interface Device, or ASQUID, and it was on display at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space symposium on Wednesday.

Today, UUVs are recovered from the water via what is known as a Rigid-Hulled Inflatable Boat (RHIB), a small boat that must be manned by Sailors. But that can be dangerous, as it means human beings have to handle a UUV that can weigh upward of 800 pounds while at times battling rough seas. It’s also limiting, because RHIBs can only go so far from shore or ship.

ASQUID, however, is a recovery system that allows an MH-60S helicopter to lift them straight out of the sea, said Timothy Currie, technical program manager for aviation systems at Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City.

“We designed this with internal funding,” he told Seapower following his presentation. “We attach it to an MH-60S helicopter, fly it out on station, lay it down and let it go.”

The device is used to recover Mk 18 mine countermeasures UUVs, but his office envisions making it adaptable to other systems.

It’s called a quad-thruster because it has four thrusters that a Sailor uses to control it, positioning it in place so that the UUV can be scooped up and lifted out of the water.

Currie says this technology could protect Sailors by keeping them out of the minefield.

“It’s a recovery device. I have really nothing to do with the [UUV] system itself,” he said. “This is a prototype we’d like to make scalable for all UUVs.

“Right now, they use a RHIB boat to take it out there really slowly, and anytime there’s a sea state, it starts moving around and gets really dangerous. This takes it much, much farther.” he added. “The biggest advantage is it takes the man out of the minefield.”

It will be a busy 2019 for the Littoral Combat Ships, with
six vessels set to be commissioned by the end of the year, a program official
said at Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space symposium on Wednesday.

Three of the commissionings — for LCSs 13, 16 and 18 — have already occurred
this year, with the commissionings of LCSs 15, 17 and 20 to follow in the
coming months, said Neal White, deputy program manager, Littoral Combat Ships.

In addition, LCSs 9 and 12 are set to transition to sustainment this year, and
there will be three keel layings: LCSs 25, 27 and 28.

The Navy is winding down the LCS program and plans to build a total of 33 ships
over the life of the program before transitioning to building the
next-generation frigate.

Dubbed the FFG(X), it was announced in Department of Defense request for
information in 2017, and the Navy has chosen five shipbuilders to submit
designs for a fleet of approximately 20 guided-missile frigates. The first ship
would be purchased as early as 2020, meaning that the current LCS design may be
modified to fit the new platform.

Lockheed Martin builds the Freedom variant of the ships (odd-numbered ships)
and Austal USA builds the Independence variant (even-numbered ships).

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The Navy and industry must do a better job at collaborating and monitoring progress throughout the entire acquisition process if the service hopes to improve how acquisition is done, a panel said at Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space symposium May 7.

Vice Adm. Nicholas Hine, 2nd Sea Lord with the Royal British Navy, said there is a need to monitor industry partners throughout the acquisition process, as “too often” the government just hands money to them and doesn’t check up, opting to deal with problems late in the acquisition process when major changes might need to be made.

Rear Adm. Michael Johnston, Coast Guard deputy commandant for mission support, said that both sides need to focus on the end mission goal.

“We always vet a team on the contractor side and really are with them every day,” he said. “We’re part of the risk meetings. That’s how we get at where we are in a program at every given time, and monitor the program early and often so we make minor adjustments.”

Vice Adm. Michael Moran, the Navy’s principal military deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, said that the Navy needs to focus on real-time decision-making. He said that’s what happened in the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile program — a program that would normally take eight to nine years to field that only took four years as a result.

“Robust engagement between industry and government teams, sharing the models, enabling real-time decision-making — that’s a must for us,” Moran said. “That’s just a must.”