ARLINGTON, Va. — The Coast Guard is seeking volunteers to help the U.K. Royal Navy train its engineering Sailors on board the Royal Navy’s ships. 

In a Nov. 27 message from Coast Guard headquarters, the service has solicited 11 personnel to fill engineering billets on Royal Navy ships and one other person — a yeoman, to provide shore-based administrative support for the 11 engineers. The 11 engineering personnel requested include three chief or first-class electrician’s mates, two chief or first-class machinery technicians, five first-class machinery technicians, and one damage controlman. 

The message said the Coast Guardsmen would be assigned “for a three-year tour with the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy (UKRN), on Royal Navy vessels. The UKRN has requested USCG support to help raise the level of engineering proficiency and specialty knowledge in the fleet.” 

Upon arrival in the United Kingdom, the Coast Guardsmen “would complete three months of orientation and training followed by sea assignments. There will only be one USCG member attached to each UKRN ship,” the message said. 

The Coast Guard has provided such personnel for Royal Navy ships in previous years.  

On Oct. 10,
2019, the last of nine P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft assigned to Patrol
Squadron 40 (VP-40) returned to Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington,
after more than six months deployed to the other side of the world. The
deployment represented the last in the Lockheed P-3 Orion for an active-duty VP
squadron, ending 57 years of regular VP deployments with the Orion.

VP-40 had
the honor of marking a similar milestone in 1967, when it returned from the
last deployment of the Martin SP-5B Marlin flying boat, which also marked the
end of the flying boat seaplane as U.S. Navy maritime patrol aircraft.

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

VP-40 is now in transition to the Boeing P-8A Poseidon and in a few months will join the other 11 active-duty VP squadrons flying the Poseidon, which began replacing the P-3C in overseas deployments in 2013.

Seapower received responses to
questions from personnel of VP-40 shortly before the end of the deployment.

Cmdr. Matt
McKerring, a naval aviator who commands VP-40, said his squadron deployed with
nine P-3Cs and 12 combat aircrews to three sites. Split-site deployments became
an occurrence more common since the end of the Cold War, when the Navy cut its
active-duty operational VP squadrons from 24 to 12 and its reserve VP squadrons
from 13 to two.

Split
Squadron Creates Resource, Communication, Mission Challenges

When VP-40
deployed in late March, its nine P-3Cs were divided between three sites in the
areas of operations in the U.S. 5th, 6th and 7th Fleets, a laydown which poses
challenges for a squadron.

“The challenges of a tri-site
deployment come down to three different categories: resources, communication and
mission,” McKerring said. “We are manned to operate as one major hub [24-hour
operations] with two detachment locations [single maintenance shift]. This
current deployment requires us to operate two hubs and one detachment location.
This has created a strain on our Sailors and forced us to multi-qualify across
our maintenance department in order to meet mission. 

“The other major resource challenge is
with the aircraft,” he said. “We are currently working with two models of
aircraft, and they are different between sites. This creates a challenge with
maintenance qualifications and aircrew experience. The major limitation from
the maintenance perspective is the parts supply. Our parts come from three
different locations and only one of [the locations] is within an hour of our
bases. This creates the logistical challenge of determining which location has
the parts and then scheduling parts supply flights in order to fix our aircraft
and get them back in the fight.” 

“Communication is an even an issue for
squadrons deployed in one location, but we have three locations in three
different countries, in two different time zones,” he said. “VP-40 has a truly
global presence for this deployment. The squadron overcomes communication
issues by scheduling face-to-face engagements with written recaps, sending out
a squadron newsletter and conducting frequent video teleconferences between
sites to ensure every remains on the same page.”

McKerring said the variety of missions
posed challenges.

“Just like the aircraft types, the
mission types being flown are different based on location,” he said. “Maintaining
proficiency among our aircrewmen in each of these mission types is difficult,
and we’ve had to get creative to ensure our performance remains at the peak
levels.” 

During the deployment, VP-40 primarily
was “tasked with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions,
specifically providing maritime domain awareness,” McKerring said.
“Additionally, with increased tensions in the Middle East, the Fighting Marlins
have provided a number of armed escorts for various U.S. and coalition assets
through high-threat areas. These escort missions are in support of the
International Maritime Security Construct, providing armed escort through the
Strait of Hormuz and Bab-al-Mandeb. VP-40 also remains prepared at all times to
perform our primary mission, which is antisubmarine warfare [ASW], should the
need arise.”

ASW a Perishable
Skill Among Operators

Maintaining the proficiency of
acoustic sensor operators amid numerous other missions is a challenge.
McKerring said that “a predominance of ISR missions does mean that sensor
operators focus mostly on electro-optical sensors, radar and ELINT [electronic
intelligence]. However, our aircrews maintain ASW proficiency using simulators
and Expendable Mobile ASW Training Target [EMATT] systems.”

During the Cold War, VP squadrons were
supported by fixed-site tactical support centers, also known as ASW operations centers.
The squadrons today are supported by mobile command centers that provide
command and control, intelligence and analysis support.

“This is certainly the busiest, most dynamic and successful deployment of which I have been a part.”

Cmdr. Matthew McKerring, naval aviator, commander of VP-40

“Our community operates with Mobile
Tactical Operations Center [MTOC] support now, and we could not be happier with
the support provided by MTOC-10,’ McKerring said. “Their OIC [officer in
charge], Lt. Cmdr. Brad Merritt, integrated his team with our squadron early in
our home cycle, and it has been very beneficial. By training together and then
deploying together, we build relationships in addition to the technical skills
required to succeed on a deployment like this.”

U.S. Navy maritime patrol crews often
have opportunities to operate with U.S. allies and partners. During this
deployment, VP-40 worked with Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force and German Navy
maritime patrol reconnaissance aircraft crews, and with ships from the United
Kingdom, France and Spain.

“This is certainly the busiest, most
dynamic and successful deployment of which I have been a part,” McKerring
said.  “This is my fifth P-3 deployment
and my seventh overall. Being in command also provides a completely different
perspective than from my junior officer days. My scope of awareness is
certainly a lot higher.”

He said “the P-3 is one of the last
unadulterated flying experiences left in military or civil aviation. Yes, there
is an autopilot, but there is no fly-by-wire system. Your control inputs
directly move the control surfaces. You feel one with machine as opposed to
simply operating a computer system. Also, flying low is one of the greatest
joys of aviation, and few fixed-wing aircraft fly lower than the P-3 at a
200-foot on-station altitude.

“Most importantly, however, is the
people,” he said. “I have been a part of many squadrons during my career, but
the Fighting Marlins I currently have the privilege to lead are the smartest,
most professional and hardest working Sailors I have ever seen. It is truly a
humbling experience. One major part of the P-3 team we will miss on the P-8 is
our flight engineers and in-flight technicians. These are enlisted Sailors that
fulfill major maintenance roles on our aircraft, and they have saved me and my
crew many times. I’m going to miss flying with them.”

Maintainers Laud P-3 But Cite Parts, Personnel Shortages

One of VP-40’s maintenance wizards is
Senior Chief Aviation Machinist Mate (Air Warfare) Roy A. Cedeno, who, with 23
years in the Navy and four VP deployments under his belt, said the P-3 “is one
of the strongest and most reliable aircraft I have had the pleasure to work on
during my Navy career. However, the biggest challenges during the last
deployment was getting good aircraft parts, and our maintainers had to work
more than normal working hours because of the shortage of trained P-3
personnel. Additionally, the extremely hot temperatures strained our aircraft
as well as our personnel. The outstanding group of leaders, maintainers and
aircrews are making the impossible miracle of continuing flying these
50-year-old exhausted warfighter aircraft because ‘we do what we do.” 

“It is both an honor and a challenge
sundowning the mighty P-3,” said Lt. William Knox, one of VP-40’s patrol plane
commanders. “We are the last of something truly great, and there is so much
history behind us. It truly is something special to be counted in that chapter
in naval aviation history. But, as anyone who has ever been in a similar
situation can attest, there is no such thing as normal, and every day is a new
challenge. We have risen to the occasion and it has made us all better pilots,
better officers and better Sailors because of it.”

A squadron tactical coordinator, Lt.
Austin Vorwald, echoed the sentiment.

“It’s a huge honor for me to still be
operating aircraft that have had such a long time in service,” he said. “It
still amazes me that something as old and as storied as the P-3 is still so
capable on station. A large majority of this credit goes to the maintainers who
continually troubleshoot and fix our planes though, and I’m continually humbled
by the amount of hard work they put in. It’s incredible to hold some small part
in closing out a hugely successful aircraft.”

McKerring will have that honor of
leading the Fighting Marlins into the transition to the P-8A, as will
approximately 70 percent of squadron personnel, those who will be with the
squadron at least through August 2020.

“I’m excited to learn a new aircraft
and take the things that I’ve learned from operating the P-3 and apply them to
the P-8 to improve upon its success,” Vorwald said. “Deploying as the last
active-duty P-3C squadron has given me a stack of lessons learned that I
believe can in some way benefit VP-40 and hopefully MPR as a whole in the
future.”

“Being Skipper for the last
active-duty maritime P-3 deployment is a great honor, but it is also a little
sad to write one of the final chapters in the proverbial P-3 history book,”
McKerring said. “After 57 years and counting, the P-3 has had one of the most
prodigious careers of any plane in the U.S. Navy and aviation history. This is
my third tour with the Fighting Marlins, going all the way back to 2004, and I
couldn’t be prouder to lead this squadron, which has shaped so much of my
professional career.”

Although
it is no longer in the regular fleet deployment cycles, the P-3 will continue
for several more years to be operated by several units, including two reserve
VP squadrons, VP-62 and VP-69, as well as VP-30, Special Projects Patrol
Squadron 2 (VPU-2), Scientific Development Squadron 1 (VXS-1) and Air Test and
Evaluation Squadron 30 (VX-30). 

The
EP-3E electronic reconnaissance version will continue to deploy from Naval Air
St Whidbey Island with detachments of Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron One
(VQ-1) until the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial vehicle is deployed in enough numbers
with signals intelligence capability.       

ARLINGTON, Va. — Adm. James L. Holloway III, the 20th chief of naval operations and a combat veteran of World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, died Nov. 26, according to the Naval Historical Foundation (NHF), an organization he headed after his retirement from active duty. 

The NHF confirmed his death early on Nov. 26 in a phone call. 

“It is with great sadness that the Naval Historical Foundation announces the passing of Admiral James L. Holloway III, the 20th chief of naval operations, a true Navy legend, son of a four-star admiral and former chairman of the Naval Historical Foundation,” the NHF said in its release on Holloway. 

“The NHF is humbled to pay homage to this incredible warrior and public servant. Admiral Holloway’s life was an inspiration, full of heroic accomplishments and achievements to which many might aspire, but few achieve. Admiral Holloway’s life was one of exemplary service, dedication, sacrifice, leadership and honor.” 

Holloway served as a surface warfare officer in WWII, as a naval aviator in the Korean War and as a carrier skipper, task force commander and numbered fleet commander during Vietnam. 

According to the Historical Foundation’s announcement and obituary on Holloway, he was born in Charleston, S.C., on Feb. 23, 1922, to James L. Holloway Jr. and Jean Gordon Hagood. His father was a member of the U.S. Naval Academy Class of 1919 and attained the rank of Admiral — distinguishing the Holloways as the only father-son pair in the Navy’s history to achieve that rank during active service. 

James L. Holloway III attended Saint James School near Hagerstown, Maryland, and upon graduation in 1939 entered the Naval Academy himself, graduating in 1942 as a member of the accelerated Class of 1943, where he was a member of the wrestling team. 

He served in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters during World War II, including North Atlantic convoy duty and in the western Pacific at Saipan, Tinian, Palau and Leyte Gulf campaigns as gunnery officer of the destroyer USS Bennion, according to his obituary. 

During the Battle of Surigao Strait in October 1944, the Bennion was heavily engaged and helped sink the battleship Yamashiro with torpedoes in addition to shooting down three Japanese aircraft. For his actions during the battle, Holloway received the Bronze Star Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal and the Philippine Presidential Unit Citation. 

“The NHF is humbled to pay homage to this incredible warrior and public servant. Admiral Holloway’s life was an inspiration, full of heroic accomplishments and achievements to which many might aspire, but few achieve.”

Naval Historical Foundation

Following WWII, Holloway reported for flight training and was designated a naval aviator, according to his NHF obituary. During the Korean War, he flew many combat sorties in a Grumman F9F-2 Panther, earning the Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals and the Korean Presidential Unit Citation. 

He was a pioneer in this early era of carrier-based jet aviation and completed two tours in the heavily contested war zone. During one particularly challenging time, the commanding officer of his squadron, Fighting Squadron 52, was shot down and Holloway found himself in the leadership role as commander. 

Shortly after the war, he served as a technical expert in the production of the critically acclaimed movie, “The Bridges at Toko-Ri,” a film that generated public awareness of the Korean War and the sacrifices of those who fought in it. 

From 1965 to 1967, he commanded the USS Enterprise, the Navy’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Holloway was the third commanding officer of the ship but the first to take her into combat. He was subsequently promoted to rear admiral and then vice admiral in 1970, commanding the U.S. 7th Fleet through the end of the Vietnam War. 

Holloway served as CNO from 1974 to 1978, including periods where he was acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a particularly challenging time in the history of our nation. His accomplishments as a flag officer earned him four Navy Distinguished Service Medals and two Defense Distinguished Service Medals. 

Following his naval service, Holloway continued in public service and authored “Aircraft Carriers at War: A Personal Retrospective of Korea, Vietnam, and the Soviet Confrontation,” a book that reflected his passion for analyzing history to better understand the present and future.

ARLINGTON, Va. — Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper is set to meet Nov. 25 with top U.S. Navy officials to discuss the way ahead in the wake of Secretary Richard V. Spencer’s sudden departure, a Pentagon spokesman said in a statement. Esper has proposed a retired Navy admiral to replace Spencer. 

Esper is meeting with Navy Undersecretary Thomas Modly, who is the acting civilian chief of the sea service, and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael M. Gilday, Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in the release.  

Esper “has asked for the resignation of [Spencer] after losing trust and confidence in him regarding his lack of candor over conversations with the White House involving the handling of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher,” Hoffman said.  

“I am deeply troubled by this conduct shown by a senior DOD official. Unfortunately, as a result, I have determined that Secretary Spencer no longer has my confidence to continue in his position. I wish Richard well.”

Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper

Chief Special Warfare Operator Edward Gallagher was tried by court martial for 10 crimes, including murder, allegedly committed during operations in Iraq, but was acquitted of the charges in July except for one count of posing for an unofficial picture with a human casualty, for which he was reduced in rank to petty officer first class.  

In a Nov. 24 tweet, President Trump said he “was not pleased with the way that Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher’s trial was handled by the Navy. He was treated very badly but, despite this, was completely exonerated on all major charges. I then restored Eddie’s rank.” 

“After Secretary Esper and Chairman [of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark A. Milley] spoke with the commander in chief on [Nov. 22] regarding the case of Gallagher, Secretary Esper learned that Secretary Spencer had previously and privately proposed to the White House — contrary to Spencer’s public position — to restore Gallagher’s rank and allow him to retire with his Trident pin,” the Defense Department release said. 

“When recently asked by Secretary Esper, Secretary Spencer confirmed that despite multiple conversations on the Gallagher matter, Secretary Esper was never informed by Secretary Spencer of his private proposal,” the release said. 

“Secretary Esper’s position with regard to [Uniform Code of Military Justice], disciplinary and fitness-for-duty actions has always been that the process should be allowed to play itself out objectively and deliberately, in fairness to all parties. However, at this point, given the events of the last few days, Secretary Esper has directed that Gallagher retain his Trident pin.” 

“I am deeply troubled by this conduct shown by a senior DOD official,” Esper said. “Unfortunately, as a result, I have determined that Secretary Spencer no longer has my confidence to continue in his position. I wish Richard well.” 

Spencer, who assumed office in July 2017, is a former Marine Corps helicopter pilot and business leader who worked to change the culture of the Navy and its business practices and warfighting readiness. He became frustrated with ongoing delays with the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford and its progress toward fleet service. Spencer openly criticized the Navy, congressionally imposed cost caps and the builder of the carrier, Huntington Ingalls, for the problems with the ship’s advanced weapons elevators. 

Trump said in the Nov. 24 tweet that he was disappointed with Spencer’s failure to address cost overruns from the contracting procedures of previous administrations.  

In his Nov. 24 resignation letter, Spencer said, “The rule of law is what sets us apart from our adversaries. Good order and discipline is what has enabled our victory against foreign tyranny time and again, from Capt. Lawrence’s famous order, “Don’t Give up the Ship,” to the discipline and determination that propelled our flag to the highest point on lwo Jima. The Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice are the shields that set us apart and the beacons that protect us all. Through my Title 10 authority, I have strived to ensure our proceedings are fair, transparent and consistent, from the newest recruit to the flag and general officer level. 

“Unfortunately, it has become apparent that in this respect I no longer share the same understanding with the commander in chief who appointed me. In regards to the key principle of good order and discipline, I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” 

In his resignation letter, Spencer continued: “The president deserves and should expect a secretary of the Navy who is aligned with his vision for the future of our force generation and sustainment. Therefore, with pride in the achievements we’ve shared and everlasting faith in the continued service and fidelity of the finest Sailors, Marines and civilian teammates on earth, I hereby acknowledge my termination as United States secretary of the Navy, to be effective immediately.” 

Esper proposed to Trump that Ambassador Kenneth J. Braithwaite II, current ambassador to Norway and a retired Navy Reserve rear admiral, be considered as the next Navy secretary. Braithwaite is a former naval aviator who flew P-3 maritime patrol aircraft and who later became a Navy public affairs officer. 

ARLINGTON, Va. — The continuing resolution currently in effect instead of an enacted fiscal 2020 budget already is taking a toll on the readiness of U.S. Navy units and acquisition plans, with two ship overhauls delayed indefinitely and more to come unless Congress acts soon, Navy officials said.  

Seven weeks into fiscal 2020, a CR is limiting Navy budget expenditures to 2019 levels, the sole year in the last decade in which the defense budget was enacted on time. When a CR is in effect, not only are expenditures and production orders limited but no new programs can be started. 

Inefficiencies also are induced that complicate government and industry planning, cause cash-flow problems and add costs to programs. The cascading effects include uncertainty in hiring workers and ordering materials. The uncertainty of the duration of the CR magnifies the problems for planners. 

“The No. 1 impact of a CR is instability,” said James F. Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, who spoke with Thomas W. Harker, assistant secretary of the Navy for financial management and comptroller, at a Nov. 15 media roundtable in the Pentagon. “It makes all your work unstable and inefficient.” 

Geurts said the Navy has had to postpone indefinitely the overhauls — called “availabilities” by the Navy — of two Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, USS Bainbridge and USS Gonzalez, which were supposed to start on Nov. 7 and Nov. 8, respectively.  

Burned by many years of CRs, the Navy has learned to plan few new program starts for the first quarter of a fiscal year to reduce the impact of a CR. 

Geurts presented an analysis of the effects of the six-month CR and a year-long CR to reporters. A six-month CR would force the Navy to delay the procurement of one Virginia-class submarine, one Navajo-class towing, salvage and rescue ship and two utility landing craft and the start of the refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) of the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis. It also would delay the production of 32 new training helicopter systems, 22 F-5 adversary jets, five F-35C strike fighters and three MQ-9 Reaper UAVs, the latter for the Marine Corps. The CR also would create a cash shortfall of $1 billion for maintenance, equipment and spare parts and delay 17 new-start research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) projects. 

“The No. 1 impact of a CR is instability.”

James F. Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition

A year-long CR would delay all of the above plus the completion of five ships; the start of the FFG(X) frigate program; the procurement of a KC-130J tanker aircraft; more than 500 weapons; and another seven RDT&E projects, plus 33 military construction projects. 

The RDT&E projects delayed would include new unmanned systems planned for the fleet such as the Large Unmanned Surface Vessel, Conventional Prompt Strike, Artificial Intelligence development, surface and shallow-water mine countermeasures development, and digital warfare. 

The one-year CR would restrict operations and maintenance with a shortfall of about $5.6 billion, which would result in the cancellation of 14 ship availabilities; shut down nondeployed carrier air wings and expeditionary squadrons; reduced flight hours for aircraft and steaming days for ships; delays in repairs of hurricane-damaged bases; and delays in Marine Corps unit training and exercises.    

Geurts said the top three procurement programs that would be impacted by a CR would be the new Advanced Helicopter Training System, the FFG(X) and the RCOH of the USS John C. Stennis. 

Geurts said the Navy has some flexibility to deal with anomalies in the budget to shore up some programs. The sea service is working on plans to keep the Columbia ballistic-missile submarine program from being affected and to start the construction program in 2021 on time despite the CR. 

The Columbia is the Navy’s top procurement priority.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s head of operational test and evaluation said the earliest the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter’s Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) could resume is mid-2020, when the Joint Simulation Environment is ready. That evaluation, paused earlier this year, must be completed before full-rate production of the F-35 can be approved.  

The full-rate production decision likely will be delayed until early fiscal 2021. The Defense Department is planning for low-rate initial production through Lot 14 of the F-35. Under low-rate production, more than 458 F-35s of all three variants have been fielded so far. The F-35A and F-35B have flown in combat.    

“So far the JOTT [Joint Operational Test Team] has conducted 91% of the open air test missions, actual weapons employment, cybersecurity testing, deployments and comparison testing with fourth-generation fighters, including the congressionally directed comparison test of the F-35A and the A-10C,” said Robert Behler, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation, testifying Nov. 13 before a joint hearing of the Readiness and Tactical Air and Land Force subcommittees of the House Armed Services Committee. “IOT&E events have assessed the F-35 across a variety of offensive and defensive roles.  

“Operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains below service expectations,” Behler said. “In particular, no F-35 variant meets the specified reliability or maintainability metrics. In short, [for] all variants, the aircraft are breaking more often and are taking longer to fix. However, there are several suitability metrics that are showing signs of improvement this year.  

“There are two phases of IOT&E remaining,” he said. “The first is electronic warfare testing against robust surface-to-air threats at the Point Mugu [California] Sea Range. The other is testing against dense surface and air threats in the Joint Simulation Environment [JSE] at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River [Maryland]. I would approve the start of these tests when the necessary test infrastructure is ready.  

“The Joint Simulation Environment is essential,” he said. “The JSE is a man-in-the-loop synthetic environment that uses actual [F-35] aircraft software. It is designed to provide scalable, high-fidelity, operationally realistic simulation. I would like to emphasize that the JSE will be the only venue available other than actual combat against peer adversaries. To adequately evaluate the F-35, due to the inherent limitations of open-air testing, these limitations do not permit a full and adequate test of the aircraft against the required types and density of modern threat systems, including weapons, aircraft, and electronic warfare that are currently fielded by our near-peer adversaries. Integrating the F-35 into the JSE is a very complex challenge, but is required to complete IOT&E, which will lead to my final IOTE report.” 

The current schedule indicates that the JSE will not be ready to start final phase of operational testing until July [2020], he said.    

Behler said that his organization has been closely with the F-35 Joint Program Office and the Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River to determine when the JSE will be ready. There are enormous challenges and there are a lot of unknown unknows still out there.  

“I do believe the JSE development — the “F-35 in a Box” integration into JSE — is on track,” said Lt. Gen. Eric T. Fick, program executive officer for the F-35, who also testified at the hearing.  

The F-35 in a Box is the simulation of the aircraft and its sensors that fits in the JSE.  

“To put it in context, we’re not only integrating the F-35 in a Box into this environment, we’re also integrating all of the blue and red threat vehicles — ground systems, airborne systems, weapons, electronic warfare — and all of the things that you need to bring a full 8-on-8 [aircraft] or greater scenario to life in a synthetic environment,” Fick said. “We’re trying to come as close to a combat environment without putting iron in the sky.”

ARLINGTON, Va. — The admiral in charge of undersea warfare requirements said the Harpoon anti-ship missile will be returning to the submarine force next year, restoring more lethality to the sub force. 

“I am happy to report that we will have the first refurbished [Harpoon] missiles delivered to the fleet in FY21,” said Rear Adm. Thomas Ishee, director of undersea warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, speaking Nov. 7 at the Naval Submarine League’s annual symposium in Arlington. 

In a demonstration in the 2018 Rim of the Pacific exercise, a Harpoon was fired from the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Olympia at a target ship, the first time one was fired from a U.S. Navy submarine since the UGM-84A Harpoons were withdrawn from the force in 1997. 

The UGM-84A is encapsulated to be fired from a torpedo tube and has a rocket booster to propel it above the surface of the water and into flight.

ARLINGTON, Va. — The admiral in charge of undersea warfare requirements said the U.S. Navy’s next-generation attack submarine (SSNX) will be revolutionary, not evolutionary. 

“We run up against the design margin of the Virginia class, and we will need a new submarine capable of carrying [payloads] and is capable of pacing the threat,” said Rear Adm. Thomas Ishee, director of undersea warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, speaking Nov. 7 at the Naval Submarine League’s annual symposium in Arlington.

See: Admiral in charge of procuring sub missiles praises Trident’s motor.  

The NSSN “will have improved mobility — think speed and stealth, both not ‘or,’” Ishee said. “It will have improved lethality — think magazine size and payload integration. It will have some levels of artificial intelligence to increase the warfighter decision space. It will have improved survivability, able to take a punch and still carry out the mission.” 

The admiral said the Navy has studies — “two starting now — to really inform our requirements process,” noting that the top-level requirements will be determined over the next year. 

Ishee said the timetable for the SSNX is not clear yet. 

“Since the end of the Cold War we have been making evolutionary changes to our SSNs,” he said. “The theme for SSNX is to look at revolutionary changes, so we are accelerating in the direction of a new class of fast-attack submarine.” 

In an earlier briefing, Rear Adm. Scott Pappano, the Navy’s program executive officer for the new Columbia-class ballistic-missile submarine, said that the SSNX, not the Columbia, will be the class that will feature automation that will significantly affect crew size of a submarine.

ARLINGTON, Va. — The admiral in charge of procuring and sustaining the U.S. Navy’s submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) has praised the reliability of the Trident missile’s rocket motor, a critical factor in the credibility of the U.S. strategic nuclear deterrent.

See: Navy’s next-gen attack submarine will be revolutionary, not evolutionary, admiral says.  

Vice Adm. Johnny Wolfe, director of Strategic Systems Programs, speaking Nov. 7 at the Naval Submarine League’s annual symposium in Arlington, said all of the five Trident missiles fired during tests and demonstrations in preceding 12 months “flew exactly as they were supposed to” and he noted that in one of the missiles the three rocket motors were almost 27 years old.  

“From a health perspective, our system is doing very, very well,” Wolfe said. 

“We are the only people that use the 1.1 [highly detonable] propellant,” he said. “There is no need to change that [for the next-generation Trident D5LE2 version]. We’re going to continue on producing those rocket motors because, if you look from a reliability perspective, that is the base contributor. We’re not going to change that. 

“We have seen no real degradation in our motors at all,” he said. “We have understanding of the properties of these motors if we see some type of gradual degradation. But what we are focused on is never being at that point, which is why we continue to produce the motors. We take older motors out as we can and [replace them] with newer ones.” 

The Trident SLBM is built by Lockheed Martin and deployed on Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines and will be deployed on the future Columbia-class ballistic-missile sub.

ARLINGTON, Va. — The commander of the U.S. Navy’s submarine forces said the sub fleet has focused on battle readiness in view of the current era of great power competition and is taking steps to increase its effectiveness, speed of technological development and integration with the larger Navy.  

“Undersea warfare, which underpins the survivable piece of strategic deterrence, is truly one of the last asymmetric advantages we have,” Vice Adm. Charles A. “Chas” Richard, commander of Submarine Forces, said Nov. 6 at the Naval Submarine League’s annual symposium here. “We have to earn the ability to say that. It is the thing our competitors have no answer for, although they’re working awfully hard to come up with one.” 

“Undersea warfare, which underpins the survivable piece of strategic deterrence, is truly one of the last asymmetric advantages we have.”

Vice Adm. Charles A. “Chas” Richard

“Part of that advantage lies in the inherent stealth of our platforms, something we have to guard very jealously and can’t take for granted,” Richard added. “But we’re going to have to be more innovative. We’re going to have more initiative, [in] the submarine force, across the Navy, across academia, across the defense industry.” 

Noting that the ability to avoid detection in the acoustic and electronic radiation realms is a submarine’s greatest asset, Richard said that “we need to add ‘disturbance of the environment’ as a way in which adversaries may be able to detect submarines in the future, such as wake detection. 

“We are never going to periscope depth again unless we want to,” he predicted.    

“One of the biggest challenges we still face in this nation today is that we are not fast enough in our ability to adapt,” the admiral said. “We’re just too slow, whether it’s rigorous development and testing of concepts or the enterprise-wide ability to feed technology at fleet-scale.”  

Mentioning the success of the U.S. space program in achieving the moon landing in 1969 only two and a half years after the disaster of the Apollo I fire, Richard said: “We have got to get back to a world where we can move at that kind of speed.” 

“A submarine force is more than a collection of boats,” he said. “When we go into battle it is the entire Navy that goes, not just submarines. I need every other piece of the Navy to be at the standards that my fleet can go to today.” 

Richard said the submarine force has established an aggressor squadron to assess the threat and present realistic threat simulation. He also is fostering competition between submarine crews. 

“We’re getting spectacular results,” the admiral said. “You ought to see what happens when you put two boats against each other head-to-head in an attack center. The book goes out the door in about the first five minutes. It’s a furious type of tactical development that’s going on.” 

“I could not be more proud of the submarine force and what they have accomplished in a little over a year, after they got the order to pivot to warfighting readiness,” he said. “In a word, it has been breathtaking to watch how the fleet responded to this. But we’re not done.”