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.

“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.”

Rear Adm. Michael D. Bernacchi, commander, Submarine Group 10

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.”

“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.”

Cmdr. Michael Paisant, commanding officer, USS Maryland Gold crew

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.”

Since August, Adm. Mike Gilday has
led the world’s most powerful navy as the 32nd chief of naval operations. The son
of a Sailor and a native of Lowell, Massachusetts, he is a surface warfare
officer who graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and holds master’s degrees
from the Harvard Kennedy School and the National War College.

At sea, he deployed with USS Chandler
(DDG 996), USS Princeton (CG 59) and USS Gettysburg (CG 64). He commanded
destroyers USS Higgins (DDG 76) and USS Benfold (DDG 65) and subsequently
commanded Destroyer Squadron 7, serving as sea combat commander for the Ronald
Reagan Carrier Strike Group.

As a flag officer, he served as commander, Carrier Strike Group 8, embarked aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), and as commander, U.S. Fleet Cyber Command and U.S 10th Fleet.

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

His staff assignments include the
Bureau of Naval Personnel, staff of the CNO and staff of the vice CNO. Joint
assignments include executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and naval aide to the president.

As a flag officer, he served in joint
positions as director of operations for NATO’s Joint Force Command Lisbon; as
chief of staff for Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO; director of
operations, J3, for U.S. Cyber Command; and as director of operations, J3, for
the Joint Staff. He recently served as director, Joint Staff.

Gilday answered questions from Senior
Editor Richard R. Burgess in writing.

Why the renewed
emphasis on mastering fleet-level warfare?

GILDAY: The nature of
war at sea today is changing. Maritime operations stretch from the seabed to
space and across the electromagnetic spectrum. Long-range missiles that fly at
supersonic and hypersonic speed have decreased the amount of time a commander
has to make decisions, and the emergence of cyber and space as warfighting
domains have created a much more complex operating environment for our Sailors.
 

To meet these challenges, our fleets must
be the operational center of warfare. Fleet commanders must own the physical
and virtual battlespace they are responsible for and drive the fight, if
required to do so.

“We fight and win as a team, and we are better when we integrate more closely with the Marine Corps. We will build capability with our most natural partner, tying more closely with them at all levels.”

However, to be able to fight as a fleet,
we must exercise as a fleet. We have made great investments in our maritime
operational centers [MOCs], which gives fleet commanders the ability to do just
that. We need to exercise — and the only way to do that is with iron out there
at scale. 

Upcoming fleet exercises, like Large
Scale Exercise 2020, will leverage operational concepts like Distributed
Maritime Operations, Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations and Littoral Operations
in a Contested Environment. Combined with war-gaming, future exercises will
serve as the key opportunity for experimentation and the development and
testing of alternative concepts. These exercises and experiments will inform
doctrine and tactics, and future fleet headquarters requirements, capacity and
size, and investments in future platforms and capabilities.

Going forward, we must leverage experience from combatant command, joint and other service exercises to better prepare the Navy to integrate, support and lead the joint force in a future fight.

The Optimized Fleet Readiness Plan and Dynamic Force Employment, in theory, would seem to be in tension. How should the Navy ensure a sustainable personnel tempo while keeping adversaries off balance?

GILDAY: People are our most important resource, and the Navy cannot succeed without its Sailors — they are our asymmetric advantage.

While we strive to have a predictable model for our Sailors and their families, it’s important to remember that sometimes the world gets a vote, which may require us to respond at a moment’s notice — and differently than we planned.  

In which aspects do you see integration with the U.S. Marine Corps as having the greatest potential for improving naval power?

GILDAY: We fight and win as a team, and we are better when we integrate more closely with the Marine Corps. We will build capability with our most natural partner, tying more closely with them at all levels.

Together, we will build Navy-Marine Corps integration by aligning concepts, capabilities, programming, planning, budgeting and operations to provide integrated American naval power to the Joint Force. Opportunities for increased integration include our cyberspace operations, war-game and exercise programs, development of the Naval Tactical Grid, and potential Dynamic Force Employment options. 

Alongside the United States Marine Corps, our Navy is the bedrock of integrated American naval power.

Where
do you see the best application of unmanned systems for naval warfare?

GILDAY: Unmanned is an
important part of the future. It must be a central component of our future
battle force to support the way we want to fight in a distributed way. Going
forward, I believe there will be a requirement for seaborne-launched vehicles
to deliver effects downrange, likely using a mix of manned and unmanned assets.
Ultimately, we must leverage technology to expand our reach, lethality and
warfighter awareness in undersea, surface and air domains. We must continue to
experiment more with unmanned, and we need to do it with greater speed. 

Based on your experience, what does the Navy need to do to be prepared for war in the cyber domain?

GILDAY: Cybersecurity is commanders’ business. Commanders need to own it. Commanders must understand the status of their networks and systems and the potential operational risk they are assuming if readiness has degraded.

Going forward, we need to invest in training and retaining the best and brightest, and in cyber infrastructure; treat the network ([Navy-Marine Corps Intranet], ONE-NET, afloat networks) like the warfighting platform it is, giving priority to ensure it is secure and defended; defend forward — disrupt threats before they reach our networks; develop cyber-resiliency (think shipboard damage control) — identify, protect, detect, react and restore the network; integrate MOC to MOC, across the fleets and interagency, in every major exercise and operation; [and] partner with other services, interagency, industry, allies and partner nations.

“We must ensure the fleet’s readiness today so we can deliver credible ready forces tomorrow. This includes the prioritization of force design and the delivery of naval forces capable of imposing lethal power to any adversary and aggressive pursuit of increased lethality and modernization across the Navy.”

What have you learned the most about your role so far as a member of the Joint Chiefs?

GILDAY: My role as a Joint Chief is one that I take extremely seriously, and it is important that I provide the president, secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs the best military advice I can. That is why I spend a lot of time studying and thinking about near-peer competitors, potential adversaries and our future force.

What are the main priorities of the Navy’s 2021 budget?

GILDAY: The Navy’s first acquisition priority is recapitalizing our strategic nuclear deterrent. We will continue to drive affordability, technology development and engineering integration efforts to support Columbia’s [ballistic-missile submarine] fleet introduction on time or earlier, maintain mastery of the undersea domain and sustain a formidable forward presence through our aircraft carrier fleet.

We must ensure the fleet’s readiness today so we can deliver credible ready forces tomorrow. This includes the prioritization of force design and the delivery of naval forces capable of imposing lethal power to any adversary and aggressive pursuit of increased lethality and modernization across the Navy.

How do you explain the lower shipbuilding budget and the early ship retirements given the need for a larger fleet?

GILDAY: The fiscal 2021 budget supports implementation of the National Defense Strategy, which remains our guidepost and drives our decision-making. While we are committed to building the largest Navy we can, the capacity reductions in the recent budget submissions were made with the service’s priorities of strategic deterrence, readiness, lethality and modernization in mind. We remain focused on maximizing the naval power of our ships, aircraft, unmanned vehicles, weapons and systems we have today in our fleet.

Our balanced approach in our budget submission provides a Navy ready to fight today while committing to the training, maintenance and modernization to provide a Navy ready to fight tomorrow. Naval power is critical to implementing the National Defense Strategy. But naval power is not just a function of fleet size: It is a combination of the readiness, lethality and capacity of that fleet.

Our
No. 1 priority is the Columbia-class ballistic-missile submarine. This request
also heavily invests in readiness accounts, such as ship and aircraft depot
maintenance and modernization, manpower, live virtual constructive training,
steaming days, and flying hours. It invests in new systems to make our fleet
more lethal, including increasing our weapons inventory, bolstering the range
and speed of those weapons, exploring directed energy weapons, and
incorporating new technologies such as hypersonics. This request grows our
fleet in size, generating sustainable, capable capacity.

The
configurations in some older platforms require a significant amount of
modernization, and we believe that the significant investment necessary for modernization
necessary to ensure platforms can operate in contested environments is better
utilized in other programs.

Looking to the next 10 years, how can the Navy best balance the funding needs between current readiness and new acquisition

GILDAY: Mission No. 1 for every Sailor — active and Reserve, civilian and uniform — is the operational readiness of the fleet.

We
must ensure the fleet’s readiness so we can deliver credible ready forces. This
includes the prioritization of force design and the delivery of naval forces
capable of imposing lethal power to any
adversary. That must be balanced with an aggressive pursuit of increased
lethality and modernization across the Navy, against the constraints of our
budget topline. 

Going forward, we will continue to
prioritize investments using the National Defense Strategy as our
guidepost. 

With the nuclear deterrent as the Navy’s No. 1 priority, what concerns do you have about the Columbia SSBN being on track to deploy on time?

GILDAY: Lead-ship construction for Columbia began in 2020 and the Navy continues to identify opportunities to drive schedule and cost margin. While the construction schedule is aggressive, it is achievable. The Navy is actively overseeing shipbuilders as they manage the submarine and aircraft carrier industrial base suppliers to minimize risk and incorporate recent lessons learned.

Why is the Navy asking for more Sailors
for the fleet?

GILDAY: To operate effectively as a force, we
need to properly man our ships, submarines and aviation squadrons, and this
budget request supports that effort with a 2% increase in active-duty Sailors (plus
7,300 from fiscal 2020 to 2021). Recruiting, developing and retaining a
high-quality military and civilian workforce is essential for our warfighting
success.

How is the budget strengthening the nation’s sealift capability?

GILDAY: We have a three-prong approach to strengthening our sealift capability, which includes the procurement of commercial vessels with 20 to 25 years of life remaining at a cost of $30 million, as opposed to acquiring new vessels at a cost of $300 million, $400 million or $500 million. Additionally, the Navy is conducting at service life extension [SLE] on existing sealift ships, which includes six service life extensions, put in place last year. The Navy intends to increase SLEs from six to 10 in 2021. 

When it comes to evaluating new naval technologies and
concepts in an operational environment, the U.S. 4th Fleet could be called “the
fleet for innovation.”

Christopher Heagney is the science adviser to Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. 4th Fleet, detailed from the Office of Naval Research (ONR). In this capacity, Heagney is helping to ensure the Chief of Naval Research-managed $2.1 billion annual science and technology (S&T) budget meets the fleet’s needs.

Check out the digital edition of the February/March Seapower magazine here.

He also leads a team he calls the “innovation cell,”
helping the Navy get new capabilities into the hands of warfighters. Other
members of the cell include Robert
Trost, an econometrician from the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), and Ted
Venable, a retired Navy captain and F/A-18 pilot and the unmanned aircraft system (UAS)
and counter illicit trafficking program manager on the staff. 

“We’re essentially technology scouts,” Heagney said.
“We’re out looking for the latest and greatest technologies being developed by
DoD labs, industry and academia that we can pull forward and bring to the fleet
to solve operational needs.”

Exercises like Unitas bring navies and coast guards
together, but for the U.S. it is also an opportunity for experimentation when a
variety of assets are combined such as Coast Guard cutters, Military Sealift
Command expeditionary fast transports (EPFs) and UAS like ScanEagle, Puma and V-BAT.

A top priority for the fleet commander is persistent
maritime domain awareness. “When I talk to my counterparts at the other fleets,
that’s really the big thing,” Heagney said. “If it’s not No. 1, it’s No. 2 or 3
on their list of priorities. ‘What is out there in the maritime domain that I
don’t know about?’ That’s been a naval objective since the beginning of time,
and it’s something we still struggle today with. We have overhead satellites,
unmanned surface and subsurface and aerial vehicles, and we still can’t get
enough. So, how can we help scratch that itch of the commander? That’s really
what we’re trying to get at.”

Because intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance is
a capability gap for the theater, Venable said, the team needs to get creative.
“We are resource-limited in aircraft and ships, so we have worked together with
industry to provide unmanned maritime aircraft — both land-based and sea-based.
Some are programs-of-record [POR] and then there are non-POR aircraft. We had a
large UAS operate from El Salvador International Airport and Panama’s
International Airport in 2009 and 2010 to help the partner nations in the
counter-narcotics detection and the monitoring role,” Venable said. 

“We’re essentially technology scouts. “We’re out looking for the latest and greatest technologies being developed by DoD labs, industry and academia that we can pull forward and bring to the fleet to solve operational needs.”

Christopher Heagney, science adviser to Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. 4th Fleet

The Stark Aerospace’s Heron deployment to Panama was
successful, helping the Panamanians seize more than 12 metric tons of cocaine,
Venable said. The team also experimented with the ship-based AeroVironment Puma
AE (all-environment) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Puma AE is a handheld UAV
and contractor-owned/contractor-operated (COCO). “Most of the operations we do
are COCO, because we can contract for services instead of owning the airplane
and having to worry about the training and maintenance. We contract for a
flight-hour requirement, and the company is responsible for satisfying that.

“One of the technologies we’ve been looking at is very
simple, but will help in the landing of our UAVs,” Venable said. “It’s an
optical landing system by Planck Aerosystems that uses something like a QR code
that is about 3 feet square, and the aircraft scan it, locks on and lands on
it.”

4th Fleet Covers Theater Friendly to
Innovation

Venable said there are three key factors that make the 4th
Fleet area of operations a good place to do the testing. “One, it’s a benign
environment; two, it’s right in our backyard and three, we have assets and air
space available to industry to come down and demonstrate their technology
either as a proof of concept or in an actual operational deployment. It’s
mutually beneficial to the company and the Navy.”

Heagney said the innovation cell also focuses on theater
security and cooperation and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
(HA/DR). Whether it’s a hurricane, earthquake, flood or a country that becomes
unstable, C4F has had to respond. “As a naval force, we respond rapidly when
we’re called forward. So, we’re interested in what kind of technologies can we
find that will help with that mission, whether its medical, or moving supplies,
or conducting search and rescue. We want to find where people are in the most
need when a disaster hits and make sure our response can get what they need to
them. We focus on medical and HA/DR because we don’t have a major kinetic
priority,” he said. “We have a little more flexibility to focus on things other
than warheads on foreheads.”

Key to the success of the innovation efforts are the
experiment designs, data collection, analysis and reports that capture what
they did and why it’s important. 

Trost was an economics professor for 33 years. He’s
involved in designing the experiments, collecting the data during the
experiments and providing the post-mission analyses.

“I design the data collection analysis plans and pass
them on to Ted and Chris for comments,” Trost said. “After the experiments are
complete, I write up the results and again get their comments.”

In updating data or improving computer models and
simulations, the right data must be collected and it must be in the appropriate
format.

“We might look at 10 things and only two or three of them
turn out successful,” Heagney said. “It’s important for the warfighters to know
what works and what doesn’t.  We can help
find that out. And we have the data to back that up.”

Some of the experiments require little or no supervision
or intervention. “We’ve been working with a SBIR [Small Business Innovation
Research] and RIF [Rapid Innovation Fund] project for a new coating for
aircraft. We’ve taking aluminum panels called coupons that have the new
coating, as well as some with no coating, and we’ve taken them to sea aboard a
leased commercial vessel for at-sea data collection,” Heagney said. “We’re
getting real, no-kidding at-sea data on how do these perform in the environment
that our aircraft operate in. Instead of having an F-18 corrode because we
picked the wrong one, we let these corrode and we pick the perfect one.”

The U.S. 4th Fleet is responsible for 14 million square
miles of water from the Caribbean Sea, Atlantic and Pacific oceans. While it
has a lot of ocean, it doesn’t have a lot of ships. But the 4th Fleet does have
platforms, such as the Military Sealift Command expeditionary fast transport
USNS Spearhead (T-EPF 1), which supports a number of logistics and theater
security cooperation missions, and leased offshore support vessels, which can
be used as platforms for testing. 

With the Navy procuring 24 mine countermeasure (MCM) mission
packages for littoral combat ships (LCS), Heagney and his team are looking at
how they can employ components of those mission packages even if an LCS is not
available.

“If we think of LCS as the truck, and the mission package
as the payload, why can’t we use another vessel of opportunity to accomplish
that mission with an MCM adaptive force package? We’re stepping up and saying,
‘Well, we’ve got an EPF if you want to try it on other ships — what other ships
do we have that could potentially do this? The EPF is a good one.’ ”

Heagney points to a test with Naval Warfare Development
Command using a British Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, the RFA Mounts Bay, to use
elements of the LCS MCM mission package from a vessel of opportunity, as a good
example. The test used elements of the mission package such as the Common
Unmanned Surface Vessel (CUSV), the Knifefish UUV, Airborne Laser Mine
Detection System (ALMDS), Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS), the Mark
18 Mod 1 Swordfish, and the Mark 18 Mod 2 Kingfish UUVs and involved LCS
Squadron (LCSRON) 2 Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 2 and HSC-28 and Explosive
Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit (EODMU) 2. 

“It’s not necessarily the capability of that one
particular system, because we assume the vehicle does what it’s supposed to do,”
Heagney said. “We want to develop a concept for doing it. It’s proving that we
can get it on the ship, that there is battery storage and the ability to
recharge them, that there are procedures down so we can actually get it to the
crane and be able to safely deploy the vehicle in the water and then be able to
recover it. That’s what we want to demonstrate, because I If you put in the
water and tell it to ‘go find mines’ it will find mines, right? But it’s all
the ability to launch and recover and do that from multiple ships. I think
that’s what really adds to the punch that the Navy can deliver. We’re not just
tied to these couple ships to do this mission.”

“We don’t really have mine equities, but our sister
fleets — 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th— definitely do. And we can test it
here for their benefit. We can be the theater innovation,” Heagney added. “It’s
really a benefit for the Navy as a whole.”

‘Unparalleled Opportunities’ to Test, Refine
New Capabilities

“Fourth fleet offers unparalleled opportunities to test
and refine new capabilities and tactics in a risk-controlled environment,
versus a well-resourced, determined, creative adversary that also has a high
capture benefit,” said Rear Adm. Don Gabrielson, commander of the 4th Fleet. “This
team values every opportunity to contribute to national security and is
dedicated to partnering with the U.S. Coast Guard and all our partner nations
in bringing every resource to bear. These innovative systems operate in an
unparalleled learning environment with real national security benefits. We
are grateful for their contributions.”

Heagney said, “When we’re going and doing these
innovation events, we bring scientists out with us. We want them to get out of
the lab and see what it’s like to interface with the fleet.”

A lot of the demonstrations and testing sound simple and
straightforward, but the devil is in the details.

“It is amazing the simple things that you think, ‘Oh yeah, that should be no problem,’ ” Heagney said. “But when you get out on the water, on a new or different ship, things just go south really quick. The maritime environment is crazy difficult. When we take a brand-new technology, and it’s the first time an operator has seen it, and you put in the water, you will be shocked by the results you have. And that’s why we do what we do. We learn.”

Edward Lundquist spoke with the U.S. 4th Fleet innovation cell at Mayport, Florida.

The Port of Los Angeles waterfront in San Pedro is home to the Pacific Battleship Center (PBC) and Battleship Iowa (BB 61) Museum. With its 16-inch guns, Tomahawk missiles and other weapons, the 45,000-ton Iowa was once a forceful and imposing instrument of “battleship diplomacy.” Even moored as a museum, Iowa still conveys a powerful message about the importance of the U.S. Navy today and into the future.

Check out the digital edition of the February/March Seapower magazine here.

Located
next to the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles is one of the busiest
in the world with 270 berths, 17 marinas with 3,800 boat slips, 20-plus cargo
terminals, and 75 container cranes and a cruise ship terminal that moves more
than a million cruise passengers each year. While the Iowa is a magnet there to
veterans and naval buffs, it also serves a wider audience. The ship educates
the public on why the Navy and maritime commerce are so important.

“We’ve
worked hard to change our audience from those with a natural affinity, such as
veterans and history buffs, into public engagement,” said Jonathan Williams, president
and CEO of Pacific Battleship Center, the nonprofit organization tasked to
operate the Battleship Iowa Museum.

While
history at the museum is important, the relevancy of the surface Navy to the
public is probably the most important component.

“Surface
warriors understand the importance of their own community and their
contribution to the Navy and the nation. But a museum’s purpose is to educate
the public, and we see our role expanding to educate the public on the
importance of the role of the surface Navy,” Williams said.

“A
large percentage of the general public has no idea of the breadth of the surface
Navy’s role and how it affects the average person’s life. In my opinion,
there’s no better place to do that than right here in the largest port in the
United States, because our Navy helps maintain safe and secure sea lanes to
ensure the passage of all that wonderful cargo that we enjoy as American
consumers and the exports and humanitarian assistance that we send overseas and
all of those different things that make our country what it is.”

Despite
the size of the port, most Los Angeles residents have never been inside it. “There
are young people who live 5 miles from here who have never been on a ship or
even seen one up close,” Williams said.

“Earlier
this year, we announced plans to become the National Museum of the Surface Navy
at Battleship Iowa. We’re in the final design process of our capital campaign
package to raise the necessary funds,” Williams added.

“We’ve worked hard to change our audience from those with a natural affinity, such as veterans and history buffs, into public engagement.”

Jonathan Williams, president and CEO, Pacific Battleship Center

“This
transition will have a tremendous impact locally and regionally and,
ultimately, will raise awareness about the relevancy of the surface Navy today.
As we develop the National Museum of the Surface Navy concept, our capital
campaign package discusses each one of the components of the surface Navy and
why they’re important — not only reflecting on the past in the historical
context of ‘look at this artifact,’ or ‘look at this historical story,’ but why
that component is a relevant aspect of maintaining the future of our country
and international relations.”

Williams
said the focus is on the basics.

“We
realized that only ship lovers like us really care to go inside to see the nuts
and bolts of a ship. The majority of the general public is more interested in
the human connection versus technical facts, which drives a broader level of
storytelling. We have worked really hard to change our audience over the past
seven years from the natural affinity audience of veterans and history buffs to
more of a public engaging audience.”

According
to Williams, the National Museum of the Surface Navy will be more than a
museum. “We want to become the place where we can have conversations about
international trade, safe and secure commerce at sea, disaster response, and
important facets of the surface Navy’s impact to society. We have our wardroom
and our CPO [chief petty officer] mess and our fantail available for meetings,
presentations and seminars. The ship itself can serve to stimulate these
discussions.”

Home
to Exhibits — and a Connection to Active-Duty Sailors

Iowa
is not just a Navy museum — it showcases other maritime themes as well. One
5,000-square-foot former berthing compartment is now Robert Ballard’s “Lost at
Sea” exhibit. The formula seems to be working. According to TripAdvisor, the
Battleship Iowa Museum is the fourth most popular museum of 131 and the sixth
most popular of 623 tourist attractions in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.

“We announce the arrival of every veteran who walks aboard.”

JONATHAN WILLIAMS

In
fact, the Battleship Iowa Museum already hosts junior naval officers attending the
basic division officer course at Surface Warfare Officers School who come up
from San Diego for instruction in the history and heritage of the surface Navy.
CPO selects come to the ship from Port Hueneme and San Diego each year for
indoctrination. “We do a lot of enlistments, re-enlistments, retirements and promotion
ceremonies. We also have Army, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard coming here,”
Williams said. “It’s not just Navy.”

The
ship has become a home to various organizations. American Legion Post 61
transferred from Sacramento to San Pedro and is based aboard the Iowa. The U.S.
Naval Sea Cadets Battleship Iowa Division holds its meetings on the ship, and
there is a weekly amateur radio club. The new Battleship Iowa Surface Navy
Association Chapter held its first meeting in the wardroom recently, with more
than half of its membership in attendance.  

The
museum offers two STEM programs to encourage students to learn about science,
technology, engineering and math. One is called “Day of Discovery” with Los
Angeles Unified School District — the second largest school district in the
country. The other is called “STEM at Sea” for any other school district in Los
Angeles or Orange County. “We currently focus on 4th through 6th grades,”
Williams said. “We have trained volunteer tour guides that help us deliver the
program.”

The
emphasis on educating the public doesn’t mean veterans are forgotten. The USS
Iowa association holds its reunion on the ship every four years and meets at
other locations around the country on the other three years.

“We
announce the arrival of every veteran who walks aboard,” Williams said.

Rear
Adm. Mike Shatynski, the chairman of the PBC’s board of directors, said veterans
are still an important part of the Iowa family. “The Iowa would be razor blades
now if not for veterans. As a veteran that has found a home aboard Iowa, I can
speak for my shipmates that it fills that hole in our lives that we have had
since we left active duty. Without exaggeration, I can tell you that Iowa has
changed and saved many lives.” 

Serving
aboard Iowa today is serving as a nexus between the military and the civilian
world for transitioning service members.

“One
of the things we didn’t realize is the organic nature of the ship and how being
part of the crew here today has helped vets and civilians alike bridge that gap
and provide a comfortable environment to be part of something greater than
themselves,” Williams said. “Veterans have always found in service to one’s
country something that’s greater than themselves, feeling like they’re part of
something bigger.

“And
today the ship and this organization continues that experience by organically
helping veterans’ transition into the civilian world — we’re integrating both
civilians and vets aboard a ship platform versus walking into a building or a
workforce development center. We’re hosting a lot of seminars and programs to
build on this unique environment, and we are working with partners like Reboot
out of San Diego, LA County Department of Mental Health, the Wounded Warrior
Project as well, and we’ve received some funding from Philadelphia Gear and the
Johnny Carson Foundation to make this happen.”

According
to Dave Way, the museum’s curator, the Pacific Battleship Center employs 16
full-time employees, with 390 part-timers and several contract personnel who
run the concessions. And there are several hundred volunteers, who Way
described as “incredible beyond words.”

In
addition to grants and corporate sponsorships, the PBC receives revenue from
ticket sales, hosting events and receptions, sleepovers by Boy Scouts and other
groups participating in Camp Battleship, which has 210 original berths, and
even filming by Hollywood production companies.

The
ship has both contractor and volunteers to help maintain the ship in a
condition “satisfactory to the Secretary of the Navy.” The original teak decks,
for example, have been a challenge to maintain. Way said it’s difficult to find
enough quality teak and the oakum caulking needed to make the decks watertight,
so new planking is being installed using Douglas Fir and is being bolted to the
deck.

A
significant donation came from the state of Iowa to keep their namesake ship in
good material condition. It’s no surprise that a big ship in a saltwater
environment needs plenty of upkeep, and the Iowa team takes maintenance
seriously. For example, the active anti-corrosion system uses an electrical
current to protect the hull.

Williams
said that raising money for any historic ship is a challenge, but he is
encouraged by the fact that the organization already has a large donor list of
about 36,000 people who have supported the Iowa, many of which have already
shown interest in the National Museum of the Surface Navy transition. Surprisingly,
Williams said the supporters don’t mind being asked again for donations.

“I
tend to find that we will actually turn off a donor if we don’t ask them to
support the programs or maintain the ship condition. Donors like to make an
impact and involving them in the organization allows them to become a part of
something greater than themselves.” 

Other
Historic Navy Ships Find Access Becoming a Challenge

Other
large historic Navy ships open to visitors find similar challenges as well as opportunities.

Norfolk
is well-known as a Navy town, but it’s not as easy to get on base to take a
tour and see the ships as it once was. According to Stephen Kirkland is the
director of Nauticus National Maritime Center and the Battleship Wisconsin at
Waterside in Norfolk, for many people who come to visit Williamsburg and
Virginia Beach, this is as close as they’re going to get.

Kirkland
said he and his staff have two kinds of visitors. There are the aficionados who
are passionate about the Navy and its ships, especially battleships. “They’re
going to come to see us. We get visitors who have been aboard all four of the
Iowa class ships.”

But,
Kirkland said, “The majority of our guests have no conception. It’s our job and
privilege to give them a better understanding.”

It’s
not just about telling the story of the USS Wisconsin, Kirkland said. “How can
we use this ship to tell the story of the U.S. Navy, and why it’s so important
to our nation and the world?”

Kirkland said his team is trying different ways to get people aboard the ship, such as concerts or holiday-themed events such as Halloween, to appeal to a wider audience. He said Wisconsin is the first battleship to offer an “escape room,” where people must solve a series of problems and figure out how to get out of the room.

“We did it to reach those people who might not come aboard for any other reason than that. But once we get them on the ship, they will immediately have an understanding of how impressive it is. And with that comes more eyeballs and more funding. That’s important, because we’ve got to make sure the ship is in good shape for years to come,” he said.

ARLINGTON,
Va. — The fielding of the RQ-21A Blackjack unmanned aerial system achieved full
operational capability in 2019, Navy’s program manager said.

Col. John
Neville, the Blackjack’s program manager for the Program Executive Office-Unmanned
and Strike Weapons, told Seapower at the Surface Navy Association gathering
here that all 21 systems for the Marine Corps and 10 for the Navy have been delivered
to fleet and training units.

The
Blackjack, built by Boeing’s Insitu, is a twin-boom, single-engine, small
tactical unmanned aerial vehicle that carries modular payloads mostly for
surveillance. It is pneumatically launched and is recovered using a skyhook
arrestment system. A single Blackjack system includes five UAVs, two ground
control stations, various payloads and a set of launch and recovery systems.

The Blackjack
now equips four Marine UAV squadrons plus a fleet replacement detachment. The
Marine Corps deploys the Blackjack with its Marine expeditionary units onboard
amphibious warfare ships. The 10 systems for the Navy have been delivered to
Navy Special Warfare Command and made two deployments in 2019.

Neville said
the Blackjack has demonstrated “great reliability.”

He said that
with fielding complete, his office is concentrating on sustainment of the
Blackjack and also on Foreign Military Sales. Two nations, Canada and Poland,
have procured the Blackjack and Neville said there are more possible sales “on
the horizon.”

Foreign sales will help to
bring down the cost of the Blackjack, he said.

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.       

The
growing military capabilities and escalating belligerence of China, Russia and
Iran are increasing the possibility that the U.S. Navy’s unarmed and
thin-skinned support and supply ships — and even U.S. commercial cargo vessels
— could face hostile action for the first time since World War II.

The potential that these ships and their crews of civilian mariners could be exposed to deadly weapons was strengthened when the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps said he might need these and other unconventional vessels to augment or replace traditional amphibious warships to transport and sustain his Marines during expeditionary operations in heavily contested littoral waters.

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

This
emerging danger and the need for a broader concept of expeditionary vessels was
bluntly stated by Gen. David H. Berger in his “Commandant’s Planning Guidance,”
released July 17, in which he said:

“Our
nation’s ability to project power and influence beyond its shores is
increasingly challenged by long-range precision fires; expanding air, surface
and subsurface threats; and the continued degradation of our amphibious and
auxiliary ship readiness. The ability to project and maneuver from strategic
distances will likely be detected and contested from the point of embarkation
during a major contingency. Our naval expeditionary forces must possess a
variety of deployment options, including L-class and E-class ships, but also
increasingly look to other available options such as unmanned platforms, stern
landing vessels, other ocean-going connectors, and smaller more lethal and more
risk-worthy platforms. We must continue to seek the affordable and plentiful at
the expense of the exquisite and few when conceiving of the future amphibious
portion of our fleet.”

L-class
ships are the traditional amphibious platforms, such as amphibious assault
ships (LHA) and amphibious transport docks (LPD), which are built to military
standards and crewed by uniformed Sailors. E-class ships are newer types of
auxiliary or support vessels, such as the expeditionary transport dock (ESD) ships
and expeditionary fast transports (EPF), which are operated by the Military
Sealift Command (MSC), are built to commercial classification and crewed mainly
by civilian mariners.

Berger Suggests More ‘Black-Bottom’ Ships

In his guidance, Berger also suggests using
“commercially available ships and craft that are smaller and less expensive”
and “a wider array of smaller ‘black-bottom’ ships” that “might supplement the
maritime preposition and amphibious fleets.” Black-bottom ships usually refer
to commercial vessels.

In
March, Dakota Wood, a retired Marine officer and
defense analyst at The Heritage Foundation, released the Marine Corps edition
of the foundation’s “Rebuilding America’s Military” series. In that report,
Wood said, “The supporting amphibious fleet is limited to a small number of
ships and only a portion of those would be available for an operation in one
part of the world.” He recommended the naval services “redefine amphibious
shipping and support capability requirements to account for combat operations
in a contested littoral environment in support of a naval campaign.” The
Marines, Wood said, “must work with the Navy to develop smaller, lower cost
ships that are better suited to the type of dispersed operational posture
implied by LOCE [Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment],” which is a
new Marine concept for expeditionary operations.

Earlier this year, the Center of
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments released a detailed report focused on the
maritime logistic forces, calling them “inadequate to support” the national
defense strategy and “major military operations against China or Russia.” Echoing
Berger’s views, CSBA said the logistic fleet was too small and had the wrong
types of ships to transport and sustain U.S. forces in waters defended by enemy
missiles, submarines and aircraft. Failing to remedy those shortcomings, the
report said, “could cause the United States to lose a war and fail its allies
and partners in their hour of need.”

Fortunately,
MSC and other defense organizations have recognized this growing danger and are
taking steps to better prepare those ships and crews for possibly going into
harm’s way. And the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have joined in developing an
Integrated Naval Force Structure Assessment for next year that could address
Berger’s need for a larger and more diverse expeditionary support fleet and the
associated risk to the logistical and sealift ships if they have to operate in
contested waters.

The
threat to those support forces was recognized in 2017 by the MSC commander at
the time, Rear Adm. Dee Mewbourne, who told Seapower, “The debate over
whether we’re in contested waters is over. We are sailing in contested waters,”
and the threat could get worse. With the “adversaries’ rapid improvements” in
military capabilities while his command has remained relatively static, “the
capability of an adversary will exceed our capability. We need to bend the
curve” and to change directions to be able “to operate in all the changing
environments from peace to full combat.”

“When our ships are sailing in a contested environment, the threats they could face are evolving all the time.”

Navy Capt. Hans Lynch

Mewbourne
said what worried him was the Navy’s slow response to the German submarine
threat during the World War II cost America at least 600 merchant ships and
more than 1,000 mariners. And in the Pacific, the Navy had to fight for sea
control to be able to support the campaign against Japan. Now he sees growing
threats from China’s rapidly improving military capabilities, a resurgent Russia
and even from violent extremists in the Middle East, indicated by missile
attacks on unarmed ships.

In
response, Mewbourne said, MSC established a training division “to prepare our
mariners to sail in contested water,” to ensure they are aware that the decades
of uncontested seas are gone, and they know how to avoid enemy detection and to
survive if attacked. He is now deputy commander of the U.S. Transportation
Command (TRANSCOM), which oversees MSC and the other logistical ships operated
by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), led by retired Rear Adm. Mark Buzby,
who strongly endorsed CSBA’s findings.

TACAD
Trains Mariners to Operate in Contested Waters

In
2017, MSC also created the Tactical Advisor (TACAD) program, which uses Navy
Reserve officers, who are licensed mariners in their civilian jobs, to provide
training and guidance to the officers of MSC vessels on how to operate in a
hostile environment. That new capability was tested during a short-notice “turbo
activation” of 33 MSC and MARAD ships in September, in which five sealift
vessels conducted convoy operations against simulated enemy threats, with the
support of TACAD officers.

“When
our ships are sailing in a contested environment, the threats they could face
are evolving all the time,” said Navy Capt. Hans Lynch, MSC’s Atlantic
Commodore and who directed the East Coast activation. “The biggest threats we
face include hostile submarines and mines, and these are the threats we were
training for during the turbo activation.” They trained the crews to “sail
their ships as quietly as possible” to prevent detection of their
electromagnetic signatures “because our ships also could face anti-ship
ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, fighter aircraft and enemy bombers,” Lynch
said in a TRANSCOM release.

Each
of those MSC ships sailed with a TACAD, who in addition to providing training
served as liaison between the Navy and the civilian crews. “The TACAD program
is a relatively new concept but is based on years of experience and past
lessons learned,” said Cmdr. Vincent D’Eusanio, the TACAD on one of the convoy
ships and MSC’s TACAD program manager. “During World War II, we lost lots of
merchant ships and mariners. Some of this was a result of not knowing how to
sail a merchant ship in a hostile environment. When the Navy began to train
mariners to counter threats, like the German U-boats, our losses dwindled.”

“We
really need to continue to apply energy to the TACAD program,” Lynch said. “I
think we need to expand what they are being exposed to” beyond the MSC sealift
fleet “to other platforms and the combatant ships and aircraft to better
understand what they bring to the table and broaden their experience.”

The
Navy announced Oct. 31 that Marines and Sailors from the Fleet Anti-Terrorist
Security Team Central Command embarked on the MSC chartered commercial vessel
Arc Liberty from Oct. 21 to Oct. 24 during a transit of the Strait of Hormuz,
where Iran has seized two commercial ships and shot down a Navy RQ-4 Triton
unmanned aircraft.

Rear
Adm. Michael A. Wettlaufer, the current MSC commander, said he did not think
the threat to his ships was anything new. “It was always a possibility that our
ships could go into harm’s way.” What may be new “is the expanded
acknowledgement of ‘Great Power Competition’ — sort of noncombat at this time
but potentially some level of conflict,” Wettlaufer said in an interview with Seapower.

“What
are we doing? We’re training like crazy, because that’s what we do. We’re the
military,” he said.

Because
most of the military’s maritime logistics and support ships are leased or on
contract with commercial firms or are in MARAD’s reserve fleet, and MSC does
not get access to them until they are activated, Wettlaufer said, “We rely on
some of that training to occur at the [mariners] union level.” MSC provides an
unclassified basic operation course and has started an advanced course for
senior mariners.

“At
the MSC level, our own sealift folks have the same process. And, with the MSC
force that is operating all the time … in a continuing contested environment — physical, kinetic, information and cyber — our folks are
training all the time,” he said.

Turbo
Activation ‘Great for the Mariners’

Wettlaufer
said the convoy operation during the turbo activation was “great for the
mariners because they don’t often get a change to steam in formation. … Those
are skill sets that need to be mastered.” The TACADs assigned to those ships
brought Navy communications equipment on board, which is necessary because “you
can’t do anything if you can’t communicate as the Navy and the joint force
needs us to do.”

For
the activation, the admiral said he deployed the MSC commodores for the
Atlantic and Pacific, who are active Navy captains on his staff. And his flag
aide at Norfolk headquarters is a strategic sealift officer (SSO), a licensed
mariner who helps him understand how the commercial fleets work. MSC has more
than 2,000 TACADs and SSOs it can deploy to advise and assist civilian mariners
during missions. They are mainly Navy Reserve officers and in some cases are graduates
of one of the federally supported maritime academies who have a reserve
commitment, which they fulfill when activated as TACADs.

Wettlaufer noted that after the Cold War ended “the maritime academies stopped teaching some of the military things that we used to teach … and that created a hole in knowledge. That’s one of the reasons the TACAD program is there, to try to bridge that gap on what the Navy might need and how we operate between a master and the captain of a Navy ship.

“We are looking at a holistic approach to the problem. But the real point here is warfighting effectiveness. That is our job. We support the warfighter. We support the joint force, and if we can’t do that, then we’re not contributing to warfighting and effectiveness.”

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.

“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

“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.

The U.S. Navy is taking some new initiatives
to sustain the ships of its busy fleet, including additional oversight, new
contracting strategies, shipyard workload stability and capital investment in
shipyard infrastructure.

The initiatives are focused on getting ships and submarines through their maintenance periods on time and back to the fleet to meet the requirements of combatant commanders. As the fleet — run hard by decades of war or crisis — grows in numbers, the challenge becomes greater.

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

In an Aug. 23 release, James
Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition,
announced that the Department of the Navy was establishing a new deputy
assistant secretary of the Navy for sustainment (DASN-S) to develop, monitor
and, implement policy and guidance throughout the Navy who “will enable us to
better plan, program, budget and execute the Navy’s sustainment mission.” 

“Sustainment
is as critical as new construction to ensure the Navy is ready to deploy,”
Geurts added. “This position will allow us to improve and align the complex
drivers of maintenance and modernization completion — that in turn will
increase our output to the fleet. We have to get better, and this will help.” 

“We have grown the size of the naval shipyards from 33,850 [workers] to over 36,100 in the past three years. The goal was to get to 36,100 by the start of [fiscal 2020]; we actually got there a year early. That is good news, and that capacity is starting to yield some results to deliver the last eight of the last nine carriers [from maintenance] on time.”

Vice Adm. Thomas Moore, Naval Sea Systems Command

The
new DASN-S will have funding oversight and will “manage Navy and Marine Corps
sustainment and life-cycle management policies,” the release said. The new
position was authorized by Congress in the 2018 National Defense Authorization
Act. 

The new deputy “will help facilitate and
ensure we are putting the same level of aggressiveness into new tools, new ways
of doing business, new ways to contract for that effort, making sure that
they’ve got the full horsepower of the secretariat as [Naval Sea Systems
Command Vice] Adm. [Thomas] Moore’s teams execute that effort,” Geurts said in
an Aug. 23 media roundtable at the Pentagon, which Moore also attended.  

Moore said at the event that the Navy had been
focusing on building the workforce at its shipyards — necessary because the
backlog of ship maintenance occurred in part due to a shortage of skilled
workers.

“We have grown the size of the naval shipyards
from 33,850 [workers] to over 36,100 in the past three years,” he said. “The
goal was to get to 36,100 by the start of [fiscal 2020]; we actually got there a year early. That is good news,
and that capacity is starting to yield some results to deliver the last eight
of the last nine carriers [from maintenance] on time.” 

Moore said the Navy also is focused on getting
workers qualified more quickly by establishing learning centers. 

“Right now, what we are seeing is that [for]
the average worker — from the time we bring them in the door to the time they
are a productive person — we have cut the time in about half. … Even though
half my workforce has less than five years of experience, that trend is also
starting to turn in the right direction.” 

Moore also said the 20-year Shipyard
Infrastructure Optimization Plan (SIOP), implemented in March 2018 for aircraft
carriers and submarines in Navy-owned shipyards, has already “resulted in
significant investments in capital expenditures, great support from the Navy
and the budgets in ’18, ’19 and ’20 and great support from [Congress]. That is
a key enabler.” 

He pointed out that many shipyards are
hundreds of years old and the SIOP is engaged in building them into 21^st
century naval facilities by modernizing dry docks, replacing outmoded equipment
and improving workflow. In the 2021 budget proposal, the Navy plans to include an initiative
like SIOP to come up with creative ways to make capital investments in private shipyards.   

“We will look at dry-dock capacity, capital
expenditures, etc.,” Moore said. “It’s a little bit different to execute the
plan because, unlike in the public sector where we own everything and we can
budget for this, this [involves] individual private companies, and so, we’re
working with [Geurts] to come up with some creative ways as to how we could go
execute this. For instance, we could do like we do with small business
innovative research. The Navy would have a pool of money and, if industry came
to us with a good idea in their yard, maybe we could self-fund some of
it.”  

Geurts said that the Navy is looking at other
shipyards that could be certified for Navy work, even though they have no
current Navy contracts.  

The
Navy is also executing a Perform to Plan initiative that identifies performance
gaps and barriers to execution so they can be addressed to improve performance,
according to the Aug. 23 release. 

USS Boise Illustrates Submarine Upkeep Challenges

Moore spoke of submarine maintenance being the
toughest challenge, noting that the extensive delay in returning the Los
Angeles-class attack submarine USS Boise to service was “the poster child” of
that challenge. The Boise completed its last deployment in 2015 and lost its
dive certification in 2017. He said the Boise delay caused the Navy to
recognize that the sea service did not have enough shipyard capacity for its submarines.  

There are only two private shipyards capable
of handling work on nuclear-powered submarines: Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport
News Shipbuilding in Virginia and General Dynamics Electric Boat in
Connecticut. These companies are occupied with construction of new submarines.  

“We were kidding ourselves that we could get
the work done,” Moore said. “In many ways, Boise caused us to really take a
hard look at what we needed to do in the naval shipyards and, also, caused us
to recognize that we would like to have some surge capacity in the private
sector, working with both Newport News and [Electric Boat] to give them work
when it makes sense. We have had some challenges with them the first time for
them to do submarine maintenance work in a long time. It is different than
building submarines. And so, they have had some proficiency challenges, which
we are working our way through.  

“We have to be careful that we’re not stepping
into the new construction lane with everything going on with Columbia [ballistic-missile
submarine] and [Virginia-class attack submarine] Block V, etc.,” he said.
“Newport News has expressed a very strong interest in developing a capacity to
do submarine sustainment over the long haul similar to what they do with carrier
maintenance today.” 

“In many ways, Boise caused us to really take a hard look at what we needed to do in the naval shipyards and, also, caused us to recognize that we would like to have some surge capacity in the private sector.”

VICE ADM. THOMAS MOORE

Moore said the Boise “will actually start at
Newport News probably in April 2020.” 

He explained that delays can be described in
terms of maintenance delay and idle time, the latter being the time a submarine
is idle awaiting the beginning of maintenance. Some idle time results when the
Navy squeezes more operational time out of a sub deployment, causing a boat to
miss its slot in the maintenance schedule. 

“What the data told us is that, if you
consider the variables to be idle time and maintenance delays, 80% of that was
due to the maintenance delays, and only about 20 percent of it was idle time,”
Moore said. “What we have focused on first from a systems standpoint is to fix
the maintenance delays and that is by growing the capacity of the shipyard.
We’re starting to see those maintenance delays [were cut] in half between ’18
and ’19 [and] the amount of workload carryover between what we saw at its peak
in ’16 to today has been reduced by 75%.” 

The idle time is coming down as well because
of the Navy’s initiatives — “down to about 1,800 total days of idle time, of
which 1,200 is Boise,” Moore said. “When you take Boise off the table, it’s
really relatively small and my expectation is that, by the end of fiscal ’20,
we will have no more idle time.”  

For the Surface Fleet, Enticing Private Yards to
Build Capacity 

In the private shipyards, where much surface
ship maintenance takes place, the Navy is working to entice growth in capacity.
Results so far are positive. 

“The data is getting better,” Moore said.
“Last year, we delivered 16% of our DDGs [guided-missile destroyers] on time.
“This year, it was up to about 40%, and we are forecasting that the next eight
DDGs will be on time.”

“Currently, 75% of the DDGs are on plan to
their life-cycle health assessment and, by 2023, we will have gotten the other
25% back on plan,” he added. “The [nuclear power community] have always been
very meticulous about staying onto the class maintenance plan. We’ve been a
little bit less rigorous on the surface side of the house probably over the
last 10 to 15 years, and we’ve paid the price for that.”  

Moore said that part of the success is
attributed to a new contracting strategy: “bundling [shipyard] availabilities
together so that they have an opportunity to project workload out,” enabling
shipyards to see the stability of enough work to cut costs and maintain the  workforce.

He said the Navy was not happy with the cost
and schedule performance of cost-plus contracts with a single company for five
years at a time. The service then switched to fixed-price contracts for one ship at a time, but
this made the private shipyards reluctant to hire additional workers when they
did not know if they would win the next contract. With the shipyard reluctant, hiring lagged behind the workload, resulting in delays in
delivery back to the fleet. Bundling fixed-price contracts is the new plan. 

Moore has been working with Geurts on bundling
availabilities together so that if a shipyard wins, it is “going to win
availabilities over a two-, three-, four-year period head-to-toe, then you’ve
got a stable plan and you can then go make capital investments in your plan,
and you can hire to have that workforce trained.”  

“My priority for the fleet is, ships come in on time, ships go out on time and they go out with all the work done.”

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

Another factor in delayed delivery is having maintenance
plans that aren’t executable. Moore said that working with the fleets to
provide an executable, level-loaded plan for the shipyards, staying away from
overloading them, is yielding progress in tackling the workload.  

Moore
said that NAVSEA’s “partnership with the fleets has been as good as it has ever been in
the 25 years [that] I’ve been a maintenance provider.” 

The Navy also is reducing quality assurance
checkpoints by 50%, which will cut shipyards’ costs. Moore cited the example of
a DDG hull being painted at a Vigor shipyard adjacent to a commercial ferry also getting fresh
paint. Vigor’s president pointed out to Moore that painting the DDG cost four
times more and took twice as long as the ferry work — and the difference was the
Navy’s onerous checkpoints. The ferry’s painter also provided a warranty. Moore
said the Navy will conduct a pilot project this year with two ships under a
contract with a warranty. 

“In return, we’ll reduce the checkpoints, and
let’s see if we can get the cost and the schedule down,” Moore said. “There are
a number of things out there like that that, over years, we have just added
bureaucracy into the system that really doesn’t add any value to get the work
done.” 

Geurts, referring to the Navy’s 30-year
maintenance and modernization plan that supplements the 30-year shipbuilding
plan, said: “We’ve got to get those balanced up right so that we cannot only
deliver the capabilities needed but sustain them to provide the operational
commanders the capabilities they need.  

“My priority for the fleet is, ships come in
on time, ships go out on time and they go out with all the work done,” he said.
“The fleet uses the term ‘on time in full.’ So, my priority is getting
credibility in the system so that a fleet commander is confident when they turn
a ship over to us to go do the maintenance work that it comes out on time and
in full. 

“Part of the rigging for speed is not just
delivering in peacetime, it’s really getting prepared for wartime,” he said.
“Ready to me means ready tonight to fight and then ready for the fights that
are coming in the future. It’s not just about meeting a schedule or a budget
target. If we can’t do the peacetime stuff well with credibility, we’re really
going to struggle in wartime mode.” 

Geurts said that sustaining the lethality of the
fleet is a matter of maximizing availability, capacity and capacity, and “the
trick is getting those synchronized and mutually supporting, not competing. To
some degree, if you spend too much time worrying about new construction but you
don’t worry about maintenance, then you’re not maximizing that investment. If
all you are doing is worrying about maintenance and not tracking the costs and
trying to drive that cost down, you won’t have money to modernize and build new
things.”

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.

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

“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.”