WASHINGTON
— Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer named a future Arleigh Burke-class
guided-missile destroyer, DDG 133, in honor of former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn, who
represented Georgia from 1972 to 1997, the secretary’s public affairs office
said in a release.

“Senator
Nunn’s impact on the Navy and Marine Corps team cannot be overstated,” Spencer
said. “His leadership in the Senate, specifically as the long-serving chairman
of the Senate Armed Services Committee, helped streamline the military chain of
command and strengthen our Navy and Marine Corps team. I am pleased that
Senator Nunn’s legacy of service to our nation will continue in the future USS
Sam Nunn.”

Nunn
served in the U.S. Coast Guard 1959 to 1960 and remained in the Coast Guard
Reserve until 1968. A Democrat, he was elected to the Georgia House of
Representatives in 1968 and in 1972 was first elected to the U.S. Senate.
During his tenure as a senator, Nunn served as chairman of the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He helped
draft the Department of Defense Reorganization Act and the Nunn-Lugar
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which helped Russia and the former Soviet
republics to secure and destroy their excess nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons.

Arleigh
Burke-class destroyers conduct a variety of operations, from peacetime presence
and crisis response to sea control and power projection. USS Sam Nunn will be
capable of fighting air, surface and subsurface battles simultaneously, with
offensive and defensive weapons systems designed to support maritime warfare,
including integrated air and missile defense and vertical launch capabilities.

USS Sam
Nunn will be constructed by Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula,
Mississippi. The ship will be 509 feet long, have a beam of 59 feet and be
capable of traveling in excess of 30 knots.

ARLINGTON,
Va.— Raytheon Missile Co. will build a new block upgrade of the Tomahawk cruise
missile for the U.S. Navy even as the company takes older missiles into a recertification
program to return them to service.

“Tomahawk has
returned to production [after a one-year gap],” said Chris Daily, Raytheon’s
Tomahawk program manager, speaking to reporters May 7 at the Sea-Air-Space Expo
in National Harbor, Md. “All production beginning in fiscal ’20 will be Block 5.”

He said the
fiscal 2020-2021 production — 90 missiles per year — will emerge as Block 5
versions.

The Block 5
version is an upgrade of the Block 4 Tomahawk, with upgrades such as navigation
and communications improvements.

A subversion,
Block 5A, will be the Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST), equipped with a multimode
seeker that retains a land-attack capability.

“The MST is
going to be a great addition to the fleet,” Daily said.

Another, the
Block 5B, will be a Block V armed with the Joint Multiple Effects Warhead and
will be fielded in 2024-2025.

Daily said
the Block 4 Tomahawks being recertified after 15 years in service also will
emerge as Block 5 versions. The first deliveries will occur in 2020.

“Tomahawk will be in the
fleet until the 2050s,” Daily said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Rear Adm. Danelle Barrett began her May 8 presentation at Sea-Air-Space 2019 with a cost comparison. A Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier costs some $13 billion, she said. A troublemaker can build a capable hacking device that could disrupt systems on a Ford carrier and potentially every other U.S. Navy platform, for about $9.97.

Given that Navy
computers rely on the same off-the-shelf providers as industry and the bad guys,
Barrett described how she is doing what she can to ensure that data gets
delivered safely and quickly to who needs it, without fear of being encumbered
by attackers.

Navy ships have
“about 50 different systems” funneling data to commanding officers, Barrett
said, who in turn have a limited amount of random access memory “to figure out
what to do with all that.”

The Navy needs the
right infrastructure, with machines capable of using artificial intelligence
(AI) to sift through the stream of data and provide the most important facts.

As an example,
Barrett cited the considerations the carrier Abraham Lincoln’s commander and
crew would face when planning a trip through the Straits of Hormuz.

“Things are tense
with the Iranians. We want a safe transit,” Barrett said.

Every key player
on the Lincoln wants to know specifics relative to his or her own job, she
said.

“The navigator
needs to know, can I navigate safely through at [a given] course and speed. The
chief engineer wants … data on problems I might have with the plant. The
communications officer wants to make sure I don’t drive out of my satellite
footprint. The intel folks, those on tactical watch and battle watch, need it,
too. The last time [a carrier] went through, about 20 nautical miles away, Iranian
UAVs came over to harass the ship,” Barrett said.

The Navy does not
have this capability — to provide data and ensure security to the lowest
possible element later — today, Barrett said. She also pointed out that
mischief likely would not manifest itself as some bold and splashy operation.

Rather, “They
would mess with the data just a little bit … just enough to make you make a
really bad calculation,” Barrett said. “It’s not going to be noticeable if it’s
coming from a very sophisticated adversary.”

Barrett is
spearheading a course that would have the right systems in place as quickly as
possible. Stove-piping of approval for new systems, or delivery of data, will
not work for her. The process will use “stuff that industry is doing,
leveraging the exact same products,” and will provide interoperability. The
Navy must be able to get its hands on the next fastest thing, get it installed
and have it functioning — before enemies upgrade their own capabilities.

“The environment
to the left of the boom is going to get more complicated,” she said.

Already, ships are
inundated with data from scores of sensors in and under the surface and in the
air, she said. Soon, thousands of such devices are going to be funneling such
information. Managing the data, Barrett said, will require ensuring that its
quality is as good as it can be. Commanders should be able to get what they
need within, say, a two-hour window of their next major milestone.

“If I could do that today, I’d have a huge
operational advantage,” Barrett said. “It’s a tall order. But we’ll get there.”

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Artificial intelligence in all its forms, from machine learning algorithms to unmanned systems, is a sure thing for the sea services and its partners, but there is still much to determine in terms of the technological and operational challenges it presents for warfighting.

In a panel discussion on May 8 at Sea-Air-Space, U.S. Coast
Guard Rear Adm. David Dermanelian, assistant commandant for C4IT and commander
of Coast Guard Cyber Command, framed the conversation as a relevant, real-world
issue for the sea services.

“This is not the art of the future. It’s happening today,” Dermanelian
said.

U.S. Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Christian Wortman, vice chief
of naval research, said the Corps has an expansive approach to AI and is
seeking to embed it into everything the service does, including machine
learning to make war more efficient and help make more informed decisions. But
he stressed that users “can’t look at this in isolation,” and the Marines also
need enhanced network capabilities and to use the cloud so algorithms can take
advantage of the data that is harvested.

U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Casey Morton, who was on day three of
his job as program executive officer of Unmanned and Small Combatants, said his
service is “firmly” moving in the direction of adding more unmanned elements to
its assets, from unmanned surface vehicles to unmanned underwater vehicles and
beyond.

“They are going to be a part of our team,” Morton said. “It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when and how fast and how can we get there.”

Right now, he believes the Navy is not yet at human-machine
teaming but is working toward that future where Sailors and machines work
closely together. He cautioned that there are still a lot of unanswered
questions about AI, like what infrastructure it will need, where it will be
based in the fleet, how it will be supported, if it will be forward-deployed
and other policy issues.

“We are at the early stages of this still,” Morton said. “There
are a lot of questions here that are still unanswered.”

The U.S. Maritime Administration’s Christopher Walher, who
focuses on the education programs of MARAD’s six state maritime academies, sees
AI as a pedagogical challenge, since sometimes subject matter experts are too
advanced to be excellent teachers, often skipping over critical points that, to
them, appear obvious.

He prefers a “crawl, walk, run” approach to the training
pipeline, where MARAD leverages a training process so AI can manage what it
excels at and humans can focus on their strengths, much like the current relationship
between smartphones and users.

Key for MARAD going forward will be working with other organizations, including a meeting the agency has next month with AI experts so they can share information, versus starting from ground zero on research and development.

“As we talk about crawl, walk, run in the Maritime
Administration, we are the little ship that could,” he said. “We don’t have a
lot of money for R&D.”

Steven Escaravage, senior vice president for the Strategic
Innovation Group at Booz Allen Hamilton, briefly went over his company’s 60
current programs that involve machine learning and robotics, including areas
like sensor data processing, electronic warfare, predictive maintenance and
optimized planning.

Escaravage said the field of AI in the last six to 12 months
has focused on taking what has been written about and researched in the lab and
tried to operationalize those concepts so they can be used in real-world
environments. He said while AI has suffered from being overhyped, there are
some rich capabilities for it today.

“Although today’s capabilities are probably over-extended
and somewhat brittle, what’s going to happen in a matter of months is going to
be real capability that changes pretty much everything we do.”

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — U.S and Canadian sea service officers
and industry leaders looked forward to more seamless coordination and better
times for shipbuilding, which one U.S. Navy vice admiral said was just recently
emerging from a “readiness divot.”

“We’d flirted dangerously, we had been shrinking the Navy
for 40-plus years,” said Vice. Adm. William Merz, a panelist in “The Future of
Shipbuilding” program here at Sea-Air-Space on May 7.

Fellow speaker Rear Adm. Casper Donovan of the Royal
Canadian Navy brought insight into Canada’s 20-year shipbuilding program. “It’s
a great time to be in shipbuilding. For the first time, we have a long-term
shipbuilding strategy,” Donovan remarked of Canada’s approach.

Could Canada be setting an example for its neighbors to the
south in the U.S. sea services, who are still dealing with the effects of automatic
spending cuts under budget sequestration? That word — sequestration — came up a
lot during the hour-long discussion.

But fiscal years 2019 and 2020 seem to be helping the U.S.
Navy turn the corner, Merz said. The 2020 shipbuilding plan that is “now on the
streets” stresses adaptability, efficiency and agility and includes funding for
the Navy’s purchase of two Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers, CVNs 80 and
81, and funding for the Columbia class of nuclear submarines, among several
programs.

“We will pay for
Columbia class, a very expensive ship,” Merz added.

The shipbuilding news is also better for the U.S. Coast
Guard, of course, with its 6/3/1 cutter construction strategy well underway,
which fits under the National Defense Strategy, said another panelist, Coast
Guard Rear Adm. Douglas Schofield.

“We’re finally recapitalizing a good portion of the Coast
Guard fleet,” Schofield told the audience for the panel discussion, which was
moderated by Matt Paxton, president of the Shipbuilders Council of America, and
included Steve Eckberg of General Dynamics NASSCO.

The Coast Guard’s Schofield highlighted the construction of new station boats, the new fast-response cutters, the delivery of the eighth national security cutter, the start of construction on the first Heritage-class offshore patrol cutter and the new contract to build three new polar security cutters for the Arctic, an area of renewed focus for the Coast Guard.

“The partnership with industry is now more important than
ever,” he said.

All panelists agreed that the “boom/bust” cycle hurts
shipyards and private industry, because when the yards stand down from military
ship construction, it’s very hard to engage them again. They go out of business
or move on the construction of civilian-sector vessels.

NATIONAL HARBOR,
Md. — The meeting of Navy leaders with submarine shipbuilding industry
officials, planned for this month, will focus on integrating the production of
the Columbia-class ballistic missile sub and the future Virginia-class attack
boats, the Navy’s top acquisition executive said May 7.

The biggest issue is removing any conflict in the production of the two classes of submarines, which will be built by the same two shipyards — Newport News and Electric Boat, James Geurts, the assistant Navy secretary for research, development and acquisition, told reporters after his luncheon speech at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space exposition. The concern is the impact on Columbia if Virginia production “gets out the box,” Geurts said. That issue could become acute in five years when both submarines are in serial production.

The planned
meeting was announced by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson, who
said it would seek to add back some of the schedule margin for Columbia that
has been eroded by production problems. Maintaining the schedule for Columbia
is crucial, because the first boat must be ready for its strategic deterrence
patrol in 2031 when the first of the Ohio-class ballistic missile subs is
forced to retire.

If any conflict in production emerges, Geurts said, the priority will be Columbia.

One another
current acquisition issue, Geurts minimized the impact from President Donald
Trump’s decision to reverse the Navy’s budget proposal to retire the aircraft
carrier Harry S. Truman rather than put it through the planned mid-life nuclear
refueling and overhaul, which would give it 25 years of additional service
life. Geurts said the change affected very little money in the fiscal 2020
budget, which is being processed in Congress. The cost of keeping Truman in service
and paying for the refueling and overhaul will be worked into the fiscal 2021
budget, and “we’ll do what needs to be done,” he said.

In his speech at
the Navy League luncheon, Geurts urged the industry and Navy officials in the
audience not to focus on sequestration and other budget problems but look at
what the Navy has accomplished in the last 18 months. “I’ve been incredibly
impressed with how fast this organization has changed,” he said.

He said the Navy
has saved about $30 billion through acquisition reform and has accelerated some
production systems by six to eight months, and industry is saving money through
innovation. He noted that the Navy would deliver 12 ships this year, more than
it has produced in decades. “We are getting tools out to the fleet,” he said.

NATIONAL
HARBOR, Md. — The first seven of Block II F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike
fighters have been inducted into the service-life modernization (SLM) at
Boeing’s St. Louis, Missouri, facility, while next month the company’s San
Antonino facility will induct its first Super Hornet.

Bob Kornegay,
Boeing’s capture team lead for F/A-18, briefing
reporters May 7 at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Expo in National Harbor,
Maryland, said the inducted jets will emerge as Block III Super Hornets with
their 6,000-hour life extended to 10,000 flight hours.

Boeing plans to process 40 Super Hornets
per year through the SLM sites, with production running through 2033.

Kornegay
described the Block III Super Hornet as having conformal over-wing fuel tanks,
freeing up two wing pylons for more weapons. The new version also will be
equipped with the Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked
(DTP-N), which incorporates the Tactical Targeting Network Technology
and produces a common operating picture. The Block II Infrared Search and Track
sensor will be installed in a centerline pod. With some additional coating
applied, the Block III will have a smaller radar cross-section and will feature
the Advanced Cockpit System.

This year the Navy issued a contract for
the fourth multiyear procurement for the Super Hornet, ordering 78 new Block
III Super Hornets over fiscal years 2019, 2020 and 2021. Production is planned
to continue through 2023, with 12 Super Hornets per year for three years.  

The two Super Hornets selected by Boeing
to be the test jets for the Block III program have been inducted into the
factory and will be ready to turn over the Navy at the end of the year, said Jennifer Tebo, director of Development
for the F/A-18 and EA-18G. This event had been accelerated by one year.

The conformal
fuel tanks were flown in February and March.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The new generation of Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen who are entering the force and in the early stages of their careers is, well, different. Such is the consensus among the three senior enlisted leaders who spoke at Sea-Air-Space 2019 on May 7.

On one hand, these
young people come into military service with an unprecedented technological
savvy. On the other, they have a greater need to know why they are given the
tasks they must complete. And they must be placed in the right jobs — with the
understanding that they should know how to perform other tasks necessary to
support the warfighting mission. 

“From my
perspective, as I’m looking at the Sailor standing in front of me, is there are
too many choices and options in time management,” said Master Chief Petty
Officer of the Navy Russell Smith. 

Young Sailors
understandably are attracted to service by incentives like tuition assistance
and the ability to take college courses while deployed on ships. Still, Smith
said, those Sailors must know how to do their jobs. 

“What you’re
expected to do under high stress in the middle of the night, with things
exploding around you or the ship sinking,” is critical, Smith said. So too is
the “ability to continue the fight.” 

Leaders, Smith
said, need to convince their younger charges that goals like the achievement of
associate degrees are worthwhile.

“Stay with us. We’ll
help you get there — but focus on your job,” Smith said. 

Smith said he
spent too much time in the accession pipeline to believe that the next
generation of Navy leaders is not up to the task. 

“By any measure,
we have more capable Sailors today than any time in our nation’s history,”
Smith said, mentioning that performance and retention went up due to recent
efforts to bolster physical standards and boot camp requirements. 

Sgt. Maj. Robin Fortner
of the Quantico, Virginia-based Marine Corps Systems Command, discussed the
need to show new recruits what the service can offer them. 

“We have to make
sure we have the right incentives for those with the right skills to stay,”
said Fortner, who was standing in on the panel for Sergeant Major of the Marine
Corps Ronald Green. 

Master Chief of
the Coast Guard Jason Vanderhaden emphasized the need to allow the service’s
young men and women to specialize in fields that are compatible with individual
skill sets. 

“They want to get
really good at their jobs,” Vanderhaden said. 

But like his
fellow panelists, Vanderhaden stressed that these Coastguardsmen also must be
able to perform missions like damage control, law enforcement or helicopter
landings that may be outside of their ratings. As the smallest armed service,
the Coast Guard needs everyone possible to fulfill mission requirements, he
said. Moreover, as the service gains from technological advances associated
with the largest recapitalization in service history, young members’ skill sets
must grow accordingly to keep pace. 

NATIONAL HARBOR,
Md. — The Navy is investing $21 billion in a multiphase program to improve the
efficiency of its government shipyards, which have struggled to get ships and
submarines back into service on time. The program is called the Shipyard
Industrial Optimization Plan, said Steve Lagana, program manager for the plan
in the Naval Sea Systems Command Industrial Division.

Speaking at a NAVSEA
briefing at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space exposition May 7, Lagana
said the plan was developed in response to criticism from Congress, which has
complained about ships and submarines languishing in the yards or unable to get
in for required maintenance. A prime example of the problem is the three Los
Angeles-class attack boats that have lost their certification to sail due to
the overdue maintenance. The USS Boise has been waiting 18 months for its
required yard period.

The plan was
developed by a team of 40 engineers, Lagana said. The first two phases of the
plan were surveys of the yards and detailed analysis of the problems. Those
studies showed enormous inefficiencies created by the physical layout of the
yards, which had facilities providing parts or services to the dry docks in
some cases more than a mile apart.

Lagana showed
diagrams of the existing arrangements at the major yards and the planned
realignments, which would produce more compact and efficient facilities. At the
Puget Sound and Norfolk yards, the facilities serving submarines and
nuclear-power carriers would be separated and combined with their supporting
components.

“This is a whole
new way of thinking about the problem,” Lagana said. Ships in the yards do not
produce a lethal Navy, he said.