Naval Aviation Vision
Naval Aviation Vision
mil/nae
e serve at a time when our nation is simultaneously at war and facing a financial environment never before witnessed by those currently serving in uniform. Balancing the challenges of war and the needs for national defense amidst fiscal realities demands that Naval Aviation fulfill more global commitments while it operates within the margins of tighter budget constraints. These challenges will be successfully overcome. As the Honorable Leon Panetta said when he became the 23rd Secretary of Defense on 1 July 2011: While tough budget choices will need to be made, I do not believe in the false choice between fiscal discipline and a strong national defense. We will all work together to achieve both. America has a preeminent leadership role in an interconnected world sustained by the confluence of its diplomatic, intelligence, economic, and military resources. Preserving this role helps protect Americas national interests, which are global in character and realized in part by a military strategy aligned with the nations diplomatic strategy. The United States must contend with the emergence of near-peer states that can, and will, challenge global economic and regional order, and we must continue to meet the challenges of extremism by non-state entities for many years to come. A military strategy that addresses both of these challenges is one that: provides capabilities for global reach and dominance of the sea as well as the air and space above it, builds and sustains coalitions with other nations, and is supported by credible combat capability throughout the spectrum of conflict. The success of this strategy hinges on a military capable of influencing and dominating the worlds maritime domain. Providing resources to fulfill this strategy poses a considerable challenge given the budgetary pressures imposed by Americas budget deficit and rising debt. In this environment, a force focused on global reach and accessrather than intervention and occupationis the best option, employing deterrence through global presence, sea control, mission flexibility and, when necessary, interdiction. Such a strategy is critical to developing the mutual support inherent in friendly coalitions and leveraging that support to preserve the integrity of vital sea lines of communication. The naval force needed today and in the future must be able to exert sea control, ensure access, deter conflict, defeat any threat, provide prompt striking power, and reassure allies and partners. Americas Navy and Marine Corpsand in particular Naval Aviationare well suited to these tasks. Naval Aviation represents a uniquely capable Navy and Marine Corps warfighting and peacekeeping partnership. Deployed with aircraft carriers
and amphibious assault ships or as expeditionary units, Naval Aviation forces require no permanent overseas bases. They move at will across the worlds oceans, seas, and littorals, and they extend the effects of the sea base deep inland. They provide our nations leaders with offshore options. These manned and unmanned multimission forces are trained, equipped, and deployed to provide a range of responses to threats and crises, and their presence fosters coalitions in peace and war. Naval Aviation is critical to an evolving military shaped by war and fiscal pressures. The vision of Naval Aviation conveyed in this document is aligned to meet international responsibilities and national imperatives. As the architecture for near- and long-term strategic, operational, and fiscal decisions, it describes where Naval Aviation is today, outlines the transitions necessary for tomorrow, acknowledges the people at the heart of every operational success, and emphasizes the enterprise culture necessary to unveil efficiencies in the name of force sustainment. We share this vision to inform and guide the actions of those serving Naval Aviation today, and those whose support is critical to our continued success.
l etter
from
l eadership
ii
Table of ConTenTs
letter from the leadership of naval aviation . . . . . . . . i naval aviation Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 naval aviation Tomorrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
airCrafT Carriers
a taLe of two CeNteNNiaLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 NavaL aviatioN iN aCtioN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 where we are GoiNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 traNsformatioN roadmaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
ShIpS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 FuTure CArrIer AIr WINg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 amphibious assaulT ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 FuTure AVIATION COmbAT eLemeNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 mANNed ANd uNmANNed AIrCrAFT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 unmanned sysTems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 navy TaCTiCal airCrafT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 marine Corps TaCTiCal airCrafT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 navy heliCopTers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 marine Corps assaulT supporT airCrafT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 marine Corps unmanned TaCTiCal supporT sysTems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 navy mariTime paTrol and reConnaissanCe airCrafT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 navy and marine Corps Training, logisTiCs, and operaTional supporT airCrafT . . . . . . . . . . 49 speCialized naval airCrafT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 WeApONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 long-range sTandoff Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 mid-range sTandoff Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 direCT-aTTaCk Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Torpedoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 air-To-air Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 non-kineTiC Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
AIr-SeA bATTLe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 NeTWOrkINg ANd INFOrmATION dOmINANCe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 INTegrATION ANd INTerOperAbILITy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 reduCINg TOTAL OWNerShIp COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 AIrSpeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 mArINe COrpS COmmANd ANd CONTrOL TrANSFOrmATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 mArINe COrpS LOgISTICS TrANSFOrmATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Naval aviatioN visioN JaNuary 2012
iii
CapabiLities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97 SCIeNCe ANd TeChNOLOgy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 naval aviaTion enTerprise s&T objeCTives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102 naval aviaTion and green energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 peopLe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 The FACeS OF NAVAL AVIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 NavaL aviatioN eNterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 CrOSS-FuNCTIONAL TeAmS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 CONTrIbuTIONS TO reAdINeSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
naval air Warfare CenTer Weapons division naval air Warfare CenTer airCrafT division
FLeeT reAdINeSS CeNTerS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 reSeArCh, deVeLOpmeNT, TeST, ANd eVALuATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
l etter
from
l eadership
iv
century, Navy and Marine Corps Aviation grew and developed alongside each otherthey shared many of the same aircraft and training facilities, they went into battle together against the same foes, and they took losses and shed blood together. The unique nature of expeditionary warfare, however, dictated that the two air services would also diverge in many important ways. The Marine Corps can rightfully claim its own firsts and significant accomplishments in the air. Marines conducted U.S. Naval Aviations first bombing raid in force on 14 October 1918, when Marine Day Squadron 9 dropped 17 bombs on a railroad junction in German-occupied Belgium. Although others had developed the tactic, Marine pilots were the first to implement the new idea of dive-bombing in organized combat during an attack on Sandinista forces in Nicaragua on 17 July 1927. Marine aviators served alongside their fellow leathernecks on the front line in places such as Guadalcanal during World War II, where the Cactus Air Force not only struck well-defended Japanese targets from the air, but also had to endure air attacks and nightly shellings from Japanese naval forces in return. Marine pilots have flown from aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and small combatants; they have flown from jungle strips, mountainous fire support bases, and desert airfields; and they have gone into combat in nearly every clime on the planet, from the frigid mountains of Korea, to the steaming jungles of Central America, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific, to the low deserts of Iraq and the high deserts of Afghanistan. And Marines have also gone into space, from John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth in 1962, to George Zamka, commander aboard Shuttle Endeavor in 2010. Marine Corps Aviations chief mission has always been to support Marine infantry on the groundin the Solomons Islands, at Okinawa, at the Chosin Reservoir, at Khe Sanh, at Kuwait City, at Fallujah, and in Kandahar Province. Marine Corps Aviation is an integral part of the Marine 9-1-1 forcea fact well-illustrated in March 2011, when an amphibious ready group and its expeditionary unit were the primary forces to execute strikes as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn off the coast of Libya. As two centennials come to an end, representing the combined service lives of two distinct yet conjoined armed forces, a new set of centennials beckons. This document outlines where Navy and Marine Corps Aviation are todayand where they are going in the first few decades of the next 100 years.
Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard USS Kearsarge (LHD 3). The Harriers conducted air strikes on Gadhafi loyalist ground forces, halting an armored column 10 miles south of the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. The Growlers shared sensor data with French Rafales, British Tornados, U.S. Air Force F-16s, and aircraft from other NATO countries. We were the only NATO airborne electronic attack platform during Odyssey Dawn, said Lieutenant Matthew Driskill, an electronic systems operator with VAQ-129. Were made to be plugged into any sort of multinational conflict or air operation and used effectively to support those assets. The ability to network with other allied aircraft proved invaluable. Another first for Odyssey Dawn was the engagement of P-3C Orions against the Libyan Coast Guard vessel Vittoria and two smaller craft firing indiscriminately at merchant vessels in the port of Misrata on 28 March. The Orions struck with AGM-65 Maverick missiles, the first time this ordnance has been fired on a hostile vessel by a P-3C. The Navys strong presence in the Mediterranean positioned naval forces to participate in Odyssey Dawn on short notice. Then Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead stated, Thats what you get when you have a global Navy thats forward all the time. We dont surge, and we dont ride to the sound of the guns. Were there . . . ready to conduct combat operations.
Harvest HAWK deployed to Afghanistan for the first time in October 2010 with Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron (VMGR) 352. The system saw its first combat on 4 November, supporting Marines in Sangin. One Hellfire was fired and five enemy insurgents were killed, with no civilian casualties or property damage during the firefight. By August 2011, Harvest HAWK systems had fired 42 Hellfire and 11 Griffin missiles, flown more than 1,300 flight hours, and spotted 11 roadside bombs. Television monitors provide detailed ground images, allowing operators to engage targets with laser-guided bombs with pinpoint accuracy. Harvest HAWK was the weapon of choice to neutralize insurgents in Marjah, where civilian casualties and property damage were major concerns. The system is capable of hitting time-sensitive as well as stationary targets. During night operations, Marines can track insurgents back to their bases and then take out an entire roadside bomb operation. Our Marines now have their very own eye in the sky able to track and eliminate enemy threats, shortening the kill chain, said Captain Michelle Guidry, program manager for the KC-130J and Harvest HAWK.
10
plant. Ronald Reagan also encountered radioactive contamination during relief f light operations off northern Japan. U.S. forces were nonetheless able to conduct operations without pause. The fleet delivered five high-pressure water pumps from Sasebo and 100 nuclear, biological, and chemical suits and masks to the government of Japan for employment at the troubled plant. The Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group diverted from its planned mission in the Central Command area of responsibility to conduct operations off the coast of east Honshu. Ronald Reagan, with 3,200 Sailors, 2,480 aviators and air wing personnel, and 85 aircraft, conducted flight operations and served as a refueling platform for helicopters from the Japan Self-Defense Force and Coast Guard and civilian authorities involved in rescue and recovery efforts. Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Admiral Patrick M. Walsh, emphasized the importance of U.S. forward presence in the region to support humanitarian crises and deter aggression. When you think about what you can do with a force that is forward, ready, and has relationships already established in the region, look at Operation Tomodachi.
11
12
13
14
15
The first AAG dead-load arrestment at the test site occurred in March 2011, and delivery of AAG system subcomponents for CVN 78 construction are scheduled to begin in the spring of 2012. In addition to traditional aircraft and advanced systems, unmanned aircraft are an increasingly important part of Naval Aviation, supplementing manned systems in nearly every mission category. In the coming decades, successors to the current MQ-4C system will provide improved capability in the maritime surveillance role, and unmanned aircraft will also play a greater part in combat missions as technologies currently being developed for the X-47B and Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike systems continue to mature. These examples are just a few of the many critical programs in Naval Aviations sweeping recapitalization. The platforms, systems, weapons, and personnel described in this section represent Naval Aviations future. Advancing and sustaining Naval Aviation warfighting capabilities at an affordable cost is essential to national defense. Collectively and collaboratively, Naval Aviation leaders will work diligently to bring these new capabilities to the fleet while preserving our current readiness.
16
Transformation roadmaps
ShIpS
airCrafT Carriers
The U.S. Navys aircraft carriers, with their embarked carrier air wings, provide the right balance of forward presence and surge capability to conduct warfighting and peacetime operations around the globe in support of national priorities. Sailing the worlds oceans, each carrier strike group possesses a versatile, independent, and deadly striking force capable of engaging targets hundreds of miles at sea or inland. The mobility and operational independence of aircraft carriers provides a unique level of access that does not require host-nation support. Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers can remain on-station for months at a time, replenishing ordnance, spare parts, food, consumables, and aircraft fuel while conducting air strikes and other critical missions. This capability demonstrates the carriers remarkable operational flexibility and self-reliance that is so vital to conducting time-critical strike operations. Aircraft carriers and their strike groups are always within reach of where they need to be and are ready on arrival. The Navys 11 aircraft carriers became a completely nuclear-powered force in May 2009 with the decommissioning of the last conventionally powered carrier and the delivery of USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77). USS Enterprise (CVN 65) will be inactivated in fiscal year 2013 after 51 years of service, resulting in a fleet of all Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. The last Nimitz-class carrier will serve until 2059. In 2004, a new design was approved to ensure the aircraft carriers role as the centerpiece of the 21st-century carrier strike group. Construction of Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the lead ship of the new class of aircraft carriers, began in 2008. The Ford class is the first new aircraft carrier design in more than 40 years. The Ford design boasts improved nuclear reactors and converts all auxiliary systems outside the main propulsion plant from steam to electric power. This change will greatly reduce the requirement for costly steam, hydraulic, and pneumatic piping and the repair of those distributed systems. The improved reactor and zoned electrical distribution system will also increase electrical generating capacity by nearly 300 percent. This will enable new technologies such as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and advanced command-and-control systems. The new ship design, based on the Nimitz hull, also includes an advanced arresting gear system, dual-band radar, joint precision approach and landing system, and redesigned flight and hangar decks. The redesigned flight deck allows greater flexibility during aircraft turnaround and launch-and-recovery cycles, leading to a 25-percent increase in daily sortie generation rate capability. The second ship of the Ford class, John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), began advanced construction phase in December 2010; the first ceremonial steel cutting was conducted in February 2011. Kennedy is the planned force-level replacement for USS Nimitz (CVN 68). To meet the demands of 21st-century warfare, Nimitz- and Ford-class aircraft carriers will deploy long-range manned and unmanned strike aircraft. Advanced weapons and sensors, combined with high-speed sealift platforms, tiltrotor aircraft, and advanced amphibious assault vehicles, will generate more flexible combat power. Joint concepts of operation, centered on the aircraft carrier, will leverage the military strengths of all the services, bringing cooperative muscle to the fight and a potent synergy across the warfare continuum.
17
When compared to their Nimitz-class counterparts, manpower requirements for Ford-class ships and their embarked air wings will be reduced by as many as 1,200 Sailors. These manpower reductions, coupled with improved reliability and reduced maintenance requirements, will enable the Navy to realize total operating cost savings of more than $5 billion during the life of each ship. The design approach and spiral development of the Ford class will reduce risk by introducing new technologies and capabilities at an affordable pace. Armed with advanced aircraft such as the F/A-18 Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler, F-35C Lightning II, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System, these new aircraft carriers will provide maritime combat power well into the future.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The smaller UAS types usually provide a shorter-duration line-of-sight reconnaissance capability at the unit level. These lightweight, cost-effective UASs have become integral and essential tools for ground and maritime forces and have become ubiquitous throughout the operational environment. All services currently employ a variety of systems, from large to small UASs. In addition to these, several demonstration technologies are under way that are pushing the boundaries of mission possibilities for unmanned systems. The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator is developing technologies for a carrier-capable, low-observable UAS that will contribute to follow-on acquisition programs such as the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System and other future carrier air wing aircraft. The X-47B made its first flight in February 2011, and carrier integration activities and surrogate aircraft testing is in progress to validate the various interfaces required to control the aircraft. The unmanned systems cross-functional team was established in 2011 to identify and address issues associated with the effective development, integration, and fielding of unmanned systems in the Navy and Marines Corps. The team is responsible for unmanned issues in all domainsair, surface, undersea, and ground. It provides an organizational architecture to coordinate sharing of information, enhance collaboration
opportunities, and facilitate the actions of participating organizations. It also makes recommendations to senior leaders, coordinates resolution of identified barriers and issues across all stakeholder organizations, and oversees the efficient fielding of unmanned systems. The UAS family of systems provides the Navy and Marine Corps with a tiered, joint, interoperable UAS architecture for battle space awareness, maritime domain awareness, force protection, and force application required by supported commanders. UASs are tailored to support specific force levels, from strike groups to individual ships, aircraft, and ground units. Because of their increasing presence, importance, and integration on the maritime and littoral battlefields, the roadmaps for unmanned systems are now included alongside the manned aircraft platforms in the mission categories they serve.
30
31
2012
2032
F/A-18A/B/C/D
F-35C
F/A-18E/F BL II
F/A-18E/F BL I/II
32
33
remote vehicle control-and-connectivity segment, a carrier segment, and connectivity to existing Defense Department tasking, processing, exploitation, and dissemination systems. The system will be integrated into carrier-controlled airspace operations and it will be maintained in accordance with standard fleet processes as tailored for unmanned application. It will contain balanced survivability attributes that will be effective in specified tactical situations. Formal acquisition and contracting strategies are in development.
2012
2032
EA-18G
EA-18G w/ NGJ
EA-6B
E-2C
E-2D
34
35
2012
2032
F/A-18A/C/D
AV-8B
EA-6B
Naval aviatioN tomorrow: a ircraft
36
navy heliCopTers
2012
2032
MH-60r
SH-60B/F
37
MH-60R/S Seahawk
The MH-60R and MH-60S multimission combat helicopters are the pillars of the naval helicopter concept of operations for the 21st century. These two variants share 85 percent commonality to facilitate maintenance and logistics support. For the first time, they were deployed as carrier air group squadrons embarked on aircraft carriers and strike group escort ships under the leadership of carrier air wing commanders. The expeditionary squadrons deploy as detachments embarked on LHAs/LHDs, surface combatants, and logistics vessels. The MH-60R/S aircraft are integral components of littoral combat ship mission modules, with the MH-60R supporting anti-submarine and surface modules and the MH-60S supporting surface warfare and mine countermeasures modules. The MH-60R/S Replacement is envisioned for the 2032 time frame when the Seahawks reach the end of their planned service lives.
38
39
MH-53E Replacement
The MH-53E Sea Dragon continues to conduct dedicated airborne mine countermeasures and vertical on-boarddelivery, heavy-lift missions in the fleet. Future plans include transitioning the mine countermeasures capability from the Sea Dragon to the MH-60S and identifying an MH-53E Replacement for the Navys future heavy-lift capability. Initial operational capability will be required in the 2026 time frame.
2012
2032
HH-60H
MH-60S
MH-53E
MQ-8B
40
MV-22B Osprey
The MV-22B Osprey is a tiltrotor vertical/short takeoff and landing aircraft designed as the medium-lift replacement for the Vietnam-era CH-46E Sea Knight assault support helicopter. The Osprey can operate as a helicopter or as a turboprop aircraft and incorporates advances in composite materials, airfoil design, fly-by-wire controls, and digital avionics. It has twice the speed, six times the range, and three times the payload of the aircraft it replaces. In February 2011 the V-22 program surpassed 100,000 flight hours and has successfully deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan and aboard U.S. naval shipping. It currently supports combat operations in the Central Command area of responsibility. 41
2012
2032
AH-1Z
AH-1Z
AH-1W
UH-1Y
UH-1Y UH-1N
MV-22B
MV-22B CH-46E
42
43
2012
2032
kC-130t
kC-130J
kC-130J
CH-53E
CH-53k
44
RQ-21A Integrator
The RQ-21A Integrator Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System will provide a tactical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability for Navy special warfare operators, amphibious assault ships, and Marine Corps battalion- and company-sized units. The Integrator is a 135-pound unmanned aerial vehicle (fully loaded) with a 37-pound payload consisting of an electro-optical/infrared sensor ball and communications relay package. The Integrator completed its first operational test phase in January 2011 at the Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. The Marine Corps procured two early operational capability systems in 2011. The Navy will begin procurement in fiscal year 2012 with the purchase of two early operational capability systems.
Scan Eagle
Scan Eagle is a 40-pound vehicle with a cruising speed of 50 knots and a ceiling of 15,000 feet. Designed to fly missions of 15 hours or more, it is used for both land- and ship-based operations. The Scan Eagle system includes the Sky Wedge hydraulic launcher, the Sky Hook retrieving system, and a mobile ground-control element. The vehicle is equipped with a nose-mounted inertial-stabilized camera turret that carries either a digital camera or infrared sensor. The Scan Eagle system is being used to fill a capability gap on an interim basis; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance services will be partially replaced by the RQ-21A beginning in fiscal year 2013.
RQ-11B Raven B
The Raven B provides small Marine Corps units with near-real-time reconnaissance and surveillance information. The system consists of a ground control station, three air vehicles, and a field support kit. The system has an endurance of up to two hours with a range of 10 kilometers. It provides day/night live video feedback to users by way of a laptop-based ground control station with color electro-optical, black-and-white low-light, and infrared payloads. Raven B systems are currently being upgraded to a digital data link. 45
2012
2032
rQ-7B
rQ-21A
SCAN EAGLE
rQ-11B
WASP III
Wasp III
The Wasp III is a micro aerial vehicle that weighs approximately one pound and has an endurance of 45 minutes and a five-kilometer range. It shares a common ground control station with the RQ-11B Raven B. The Marine Corps is fielding 135 Wasp III systems to answer an urgent operational need for additional man-portable unmanned aircraft systems. A program of record decision is expected in fiscal year 2012 following fleet evaluation.
46
EP-3E Aries / Future Family of Airborne ISR, Targeting, and Information Operations System
The EP-3E Aries is the Navys premier manned airborne intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), targeting, and information operations platform. Upgrades to the aircraft have created significant multi-intelligence, data-fusion, and cue-to-kill targeting capabilities essential to support current overseas contingency operations. Though optimized for the anti-surface warfare targeting mission in the maritime and littoral environments, recent capability upgrades have improved EP-3E mission effectiveness in supporting warfighters in all environments around the globe. Multi-intelligence sensors, data links, and a flexible and dependable P-3 airframe ensure effective support to conventional and nonconventional warfare operations. With the end of the EP-X program, Naval Aviation is developing a family-of-systems construct to be in place by the end of the decade to recapitalize the airborne capabilities currently provided by the Aries aircraft. Those systems include the MQ-4C, the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System and the MQ8B. Until then, investment in the EP-3E Joint Common Configuration program will ensure Aries mission systems keep pace with current and emerging threats.
2012
2032
P-8A P-3C
EP-3E
BAMS-D
MQ-4C
48
navy and marine Corps Training, logisTiCs, and operaTional supporT airCrafT
Training Aircraft
T-6b TeXan ii joinT primary Trainer
Navy and Marine Corps primary pilot training is transitioning to the T-6B Texan II as the T-34C TurboMentor is retired after more than 30 years of service. The T-6A will continue to be used for naval flight officer and Air Force combat systems officer training.
T-45C
The T-45C Goshawk will be the single advanced strike trainer for tailhook pilots and naval flight officers as the T-39G/N Sabreliner is retired and the T-45A aircraft is retrofitted to the T-45C configuration. All T-45A cockpits will be digitized through the required avionics modernization program, which consists of a glass cockpit upgrade with two multifunction displays, mission display processor, recorder, and cockpit controls. The virtual mission training system program will integrate a virtual multimode radar capability into the T-45C to enable basic tactical skills training that will prepare students for the advanced tactical jet aircraft of the future. By 2020, work will have begun to identify a replacement for the T-45C as this aircraft reaches the end of its service life.
49
2012
t-6A/B
2032
t-6A/B t-34C
t-39G/N t-45C
t-45A/C
50
51
2012
2032
t-44A/C
tC-12B
tH-57B/C
tH-57D
52
C-40a Clipper
The C-40A Clipper is a Boeing 737-700 next-generation aircraft equipped with an oversized cargo door that offers multiple passenger and cargo configurations. The Clipper is replacing the aging C-9 Skytrain and C-20G Gulfstream fleet. The venerable C-9 has served the fleet exceptionally well for years, but with an average aircraft age of more than 36 years maintenance costs are steadily rising. The C-40A has increased range, capacity, and fuel efficiencies to support sea-based logistics.
kC-130j herCules
The KC-130J will replace the C-130T. With increased performance, fuel efficiency, and maintenance reliability, the KC-130J is fully compliant with the Communications Navigation Surveillance/Air Traffic Management System and comes equipped with an electronic flight deck. Scheduled for delivery in fiscal year 2017 this aircraft can transport up to 35,000 pounds of cargo (or 75 passengers) 1,800 nautical miles at 350 knots.
53
2012
2032
C-9B
C-40A C-40A
C-130t
kC-130J
54
uC-12W huron
The Marine Corps is replacing UC-12B/F aircraft with the UC-12W Huron, which will provide light-lift capability through 2032. With a crew of three and a maximum range of 1,900 nautical miles, the Huron can transport up to eight passengers while flying at a speed of 279 knots at an altitude of 35,000 feet. The UC-12W is a deployable light-lift aircraft equipped with aircraft survivability equipment and has the radios necessary to operate in the Marine Corps Aviation Command and Control System.
55
2012
UC-12B/F
2032
UC-12W UC-12W
UC-35C/D
UC-35Er
C-20G
C-20g replaCemenT
Marine Corps Aviation has identified a need to replace the C-20G to support Marines. Range, payload, and performance characteristics similar to those of the C-20G will be required.
56
57
2012
UC-12F/M
2032
C-26D
C-20A/D
C-37A/B C-37A/B
C-12 Replacement
A C-12 Replacement aircraft will be identified to replace the Navys current fleet of UC-12F/M Huron and C-26D Metroliner aircraft to provide light-lift capability through 2032.
58
59
2012
2032
E-6B
F-5N/F
F-16A/B
E-6B Mercury
Derived from Boeings 707 aircraft, the E-6B supports U.S. Strategic Command with command, control, and communications capabilities to direct and employ strategic forces. Designed to support a flexible nuclear deterrent posture, the E-6B uses very-low-frequency emergency communications for U.S. Strategic Command airborne command post missions and airborne launch control of ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Block I program (initial operational capability in 2013) is designed to improve the mission communication systems of the aircraft and increase efficiencies between airborne command post and Navy communications personnel. The internet protocol/bandwidth expansion program (2013) and the Block II program (2015) both provide increases in line-of-sight and satellite-based data links to allow for greater data throughput supporting high-capacity communications. The service life extension program (2011) ensures continued airframe viability well into the 21st century.
60
61
2012
2032
C-2A
VH-3D
VH-60N
62
WeApONS
long-range sTandoff Weapons
AGM-84H/K Standoff Land-Attack Missile Expanded Response
The Standoff Land Attack MissileExpanded Response (SLAM-ER) is a long-range, highly precise, air-launched strike missile capable of attacking fixed and mobile land targets as well as surface ships. Terminal control of the weapon is achieved when the pilot designates the impact point on the imaging infrared scene transmitted by the weapon to the cockpit display. Man-in-the-loop commands are sent to the SLAM-ER by way of a data-link pod carried by the launching (or secondary control) aircraft. An analysis of alternatives is defining a follow-on weapon solution to meet the maritime standoff strike mission currently filled by SLAM-ER and Harpoon Block 1C.
63
military utility of a programmable warhead with increased effects of penetration and blast against the full range of targets, from area to hardened targets. Multimission Tomahawk adds a moving target seeker and upgraded data link to the existing Tactical Tomahawk missile. The Tomahawk program office is currently investigating industry seeker technologies for maritime interdiction that could potentially be integrated into the existing Block IV weapon system. Additional studies have been initiated to develop a next-generation supersonic cruise missile capability for Tomahawk that will increase responsiveness against time-critical targets.
2012
2032
SLAM-Er
HArPooN
toMAHAWk BL II/III
toMAHAWk BL IV
64
65
2012
2032
HArM BL V
HArM BL V / AArGM
JSoW-A/C
JSoW-A/C-1
SDB II
66
direCT-aTTaCk Weapons
General Purpose Bombs
Mark 80/BLU series General Purpose 500-, 1,000-, and 2,000-pound bombs provide blast and fragmentation effects against a variety of non-hardened targets and are used extensively for direct attack, close air support, and suppression missions. The thermally protected warhead is used for Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), Laser JDAMs, Dual Mode Laser-Guided Bombs (DMLGBs), and Low Collateral Damage Bombs (LCDBs). General Purpose bombs are expected to remain in the inventory through 2032.
67
2012
2032
GP BoMBS
GP BoMBS
LGB
JDAM
LCDB
LCDB
68
2012
2032
MAVErICk
toW
JAGM
HELLFIrE
APkWS II roCkEtS
69
70
Torpedoes
MK-54
By 2032, the MK-54 will have replaced the current inventory of MK-46 and MK-50 lightweight torpedoes. The MK-54 was created by combining the homing section of the MK-50 with the propulsion unit and warhead of the MK-46 (improved for better performance in shallow water), and adding commercial off-the-shelf technology. The MK-54 has both analog and digital fire control capabilities in addition to a software upgrade capability. Aircraft capable of employing the MK-54 are the SH-60F, MH-60R, P-3C, and P-8A (in 2013). Still in the design phase, a special variant of the MK-54the HighAltitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weaponis an air-launch accessory that allows fixed-wing aircraft to employ the MK-54 torpedo outside the current air-launch envelope. Beginning in 2016 this variant will provide the P-8A Poseidon with the ability to engage undersea targets with precision at high altitude and long range without the need for dedicated attack runs. Future developments may include a data link allowing in-flight control and midcourse guidance by 2019.
71
2012
Mk-46
2032
Mk-50
Mk-54
Mk-54
72
air-To-air Weapons
AIM-9X Block II/P3I Sidewinder
The AIM-9X Sidewinder is a major upgrade to the AIM-9M short-range air-to-air missile that provides U.S. fighters with the ability to defeat tomorrows advanced threats. The AIM-9X system contains a focal-plane-array guidance-control section, a highly maneuverable airframe, and signal processors that enhance kinematics and infrared countermeasure capabilities. The AIM-9X Block II/Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I) program will provide warfighters with increased lethality, high off-boresight capability, and a data link to take full advantage of increased kinematics and range. When combined with the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, AIM-9X provides a first-look, first-shoot weapon option. Sidewinder was originally a within visual-range missile; with modernization, it has become a beyond visual-range missile.
73
2012
AIM-9M
2032
74
75
non-kineTiC Weapons
AN/ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System
The AN/ALQ-99 is the primary electronic attack capability carried on Navy and Marine Corps EA-6Bs and Navy EA18Gs. Introduced during the Vietnam War, it consists of up to five externally mounted transmitter pods and an onboard system. The system jams high-power surveillance, acquisition, and tracking radars. The onboard system intercepts and automatically processes radar signals to jam diverse radar threats with very high radiated power. The modular architecture of the jammer system, which facilitates optimizing transmitters and antennas for a given frequency range, also facilitates tailored mission configurations. The EA-6B and EA-18G can carry up to five ALQ-99 tactical jammer podstwo under each wing and one under the fuselage.
76
77
78
ransitions are complex and must be planned, coordinated, and executed very carefully. Many entities are involved: the program office responsible for the transitioning platform or system; personnel from Naval Air System Command (NAVAIR) who provide the program office with the technical expertise necessary to enact the transition; Director, Air Warfare (N88), which connects warfighting requirements to resources and funding; the staff of the type wing commander, responsible for both the incumbent and transitioning type/model/series aircraft; fleet introduction teams that represent the concerns of the squadrons that actually fly, operate, and maintain new aircraft and systems; and the fleet itself, on whose shoulders rests the responsibility to maintain specific warfighting capabilities with old platforms while learning to fly and tactically employ new ones. The squadron is where much of the heavy lifting occurs. Pilots and naval flight officers already qualified in one type/model/series aircraft must be cycled back through the fleet replacement squadron to learn how to fly and operate new platforms and systems. Aircrews transitioning from the SH-60B/F helicopter to the MH-60R/S, for example, change to a glass cockpit where information on airspeed, attitude, altitude, heading, engine performance, and more is presented on a video display instead of analog gauges. SH-60 maintenance crews must be trained on how to fix and sustain the MH-60 while remaining qualified to preserve the SH-60 until it is completely gone from the squadron. Integrating air and ship systems, such as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), pose additional design, test, and installation challenges. EMALS is a completely new launch system designed for a new carrier class that required simultaneous system and ship design, as well as the design and construction of a test facility at Lakehurst. Since the test facility had to be completed first, it accelerated many design decisions for the overall system and the 79
ship, such as the configuration of the EMALS trough. While launch energies and other key performance parameters were already known, EMALS hardware had to be designed and tested to meet many other shipboard requirements, such as shock, vibration, deck loads, electromagnetic effects, and the impact of the harsh flight deck environment on the launch motors located in the trough (salt spray, heat, cold, humidity, fire extinguishing agents, etc.). Another challenging transition is integrating unmanned systems into the air wing of the future. The Unmanned Combat Aircraft System Demonstrator program will help manage this risk through the phased testing of shipboard digital messaging and a control architecture using manned surrogates and the X-47B unmanned aircraft for operations on and around the carrier, including launch and recovery. The program will ensure that the technologies and operational procedures are available to support Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System development. The Aviation/Ship Integration team is the executive agent for upgrading legacy ships to meet new aviation requirements. NAVAIR teams support Naval Sea Systems Command at the Program Executive Office (PEO) for Carriers, the PEO for Littoral Combat Ships, and the PEO for Ships to meet the aviation requirements of new vessels such as Ford-class carriers, Freedom/Independence-class littoral combat ships, Zumwalt-class destroyers, Spearhead-class joint high speed vessels, and LHA (R). The Aviation/Ship Integration team leverages mid-life availabilities of carriers and amphibious assault ships to incorporate major aviation facility upgrades. An example of this is the joint effort between NAVAIR, Naval Sea Systems Command, and the F-35 Joint Program Office to manage the integration of F-35Bs with LHDs and F-35Cs with CVNs. The sum of all transitions across the Naval Aviation Enterprise is subject to the realities of current and future defense fiscal environments. This fact, coupled with the increasing complexity of new products and the rising costs to maintain current inventory, presents significant challenges in terms of affordability. Even as we test and deliver new platforms and systems, we must also upgrade and maintain those currently in the fleet, and do so throughout their complete life cycleswhich can be 30 years or more.
The following section outlines several initiatives and concepts that are helping Naval Aviation fight better, organize its resources more effectively, and meet the many challenges of transition in the coming decades. Here also are descriptions of the vital tools and capabilities at Naval Aviations disposal that are implementing the vision.
80
81
The forces they direct are organized to conduct integrated operations across all domains: attacking in depth to disrupt the ability of adversaries to use command and control to employ anti-access and area denial weapon systems; destroying or neutralizing weapon systems within effective range of U.S. forces; and defeating an adversarys weapons to preserve essential joint forces to sustain offensive and defensive operations. Aging hardware, the accelerating anti-access and area denial threats to global stability, and U.S. national interests demand the adoption of a smarter, more collaborative approach to addressing this challenge. Air-Sea Battle provides a framework to deter, defend against, and defeat aggression by adversaries employing anti-access and area-denial strategies and capabilities. It will also advance the longstanding U.S. role as a trusted partner to maintain the safety and openness of the global commons.
82
83
(NIDE). In a time of decreasing resources, substantial investments in platforms and systems must be leveraged and their capabilities integrated across all missions and domains through flexible, adaptive networks. Creating a networked family of systems will generate effects greater than the sum of individual components. To achieve alignment, the NAE and NIDE are laying the foundation for compatible processes to deliver integrated capability. The primary tools are the Naval Aviation integrated capabilities packages and the information dominance roadmaps such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and integrated targeting and fire control. Requirements, resourcing, acquisition, validation, and science and technology efforts will be synchronized among the enterprises. Solutions such as common waveforms, radios, and network management approaches, and modular computing environments will culminate in machine-to-machine collaboration at the mission software application level. This collaboration of platforms and systems will first aim to deliver sufficient targeting for future weapons, enabling more flexibility with less complexity. The right technology solutions will also enable better fire control, electronic warfare battle management, sensor fusion, and unmanned systems. Follow-on increments will lead to a collaborative family of systems where platforms, weapons, and unmanned systems are capable of joining an integrated, survivable, and flexible network and discovering other nodes of information. These assets will rapidly assemble actionable knowledge in an ad hoc manner and work together across domains, providing dynamic mission execution as never before.
84
85
86
87
The supplier network initiatives objective is to work with DCMA and other Defense Department services to develop a comprehensive understanding of who is supporting Naval Aviation Enterprise programs and to identify program and portfolio risks and opportunities for risk mitigation and cost improvements. The production management initiative recognizes that NAVAIRs current portfolio of programs is shifting from a research-and-development-centric to a production-centric mode, and we must have insights into production planning and performance, as well as into the processes, tools, training, and business disciplines to manage product quality, delivery, and cost performance. The business collaboration initiative engages industry in a three-tiered strategy focused on obtaining greater efficiency and productivity. The Joint Management Council (JMC) is an important part of NAVAIRs overarching business collaboration strategy with industry and directly supports better buying power initiatives. The JMC looks at critical common processes such as supplier management, production/manufacturing/cost-of-poor-quality rates, proposal quality/cycle time, and alignment with government science and technology to illuminate affordability and cycle-time reduction opportunities. The JMC examines these issues within a portfolio of programs and is considered the middle level of NAVAIRs tiered engagement strategy. In contrast, the program management review is a lower-tier process focused on program-specific issues and the business collaborative exchange is the upper-tier process looking at enterprise-wide issues and NAVAIR strategic initiatives. The enculturation (or changing the culture) initiative helps build the professional work force for total ownership cost improvements through effective should-cost management. Enculturation includes the dissemination of skills and knowledge through focused training and development, assisting program offices with planning and management through project consulting, and managing knowledge. We are making progress on our transition challenges using Naval Aviation Enterprise principles and by collaborating with industry, DCMA, and other Defense Department services on specific areas of improvement. The goal is to develop and incorporate acquisition strategies and business efficiencies that enable effective shouldcost management and reduce the total ownership costs of our platforms and systems.
88
89
airspeed
AIRSpeed is the name of the Naval Aviation Enterprises continuous process improvement effort. This term encompasses all improvement tools and methodologies that produce readiness, improve quality of life for Sailors, Marines, and civilians, and assist with meeting cost constraints. The industry-proven tools used under the AIRSpeed effort include Theory of Constraints, Lean, Six Sigma, barrier removal teams, and Kaizen initiatives. Their application to the processes associated with Naval Aviation maintenance, supply, and administration is driving the development of improved operating practices that deliver greater readiness with greater efficiency. Because of its scope and flexibility, AIRSpeed can be tailored to the needs of multiple areas within the Naval Aviation Enterprise. AIRSpeed enables readiness production by increasing the speed, reliability, and predictability of the processes associated with integrated maintenance and supply replenishment. It has contributed to reductions in the cycle time of aircraft, engine, and component repair and overhaul, leading to fewer items in the repair pipeline and more of them available for fleet use. Within the systems commands, AIRSpeed and similar continuous process improvement tool sets reduce the response times and costs of processes employed in the course of acquiring, testing, and sustaining new aircraft, weapons, and their related systems.
90
91
92
Capabilities
fleeT readiness CenTers
Naval Aviations maintenance and repair organization developed a new way of doing business in 2005, when the Base Realignment and Closure Act mandated a consolidation of depots and intermediate maintenance detachments into the eight fleet readiness centers (FRCs) that exist today. FRCs provide Naval Aviation with maintenance, repair, and overhaul products and services that enable the fleet to project power around the globe. The FRCs mission is to produce quality airframes, engines, components, and support equipment, and provide services that meet the Naval Aviation Enterprises aircraft ready for tasking goals with improved effectiveness and efficiency. Every year, the FRCs produce more than 500 aircraft, more than 5,000 engines and engine modules, and more than 600,000 aircraft components for naval aircraft at every fleet concentration area in the continental United States. The FRCs have a combined workforce of approximately 18,000 personnel in locations around the world. With three FRCs on the East Coast, three on the West Coast, Support Equipment Facilities in Solomons Island, Md., and FRC Western Pacific in Atsugi, Japan, the FRCs are geographically dispersed and positioned to provide maximum aircraft maintenance and repair support at the lowest cost and highest efficiency. This streamlined enterprise enables the Navy to move industrial maintenance capability closer to warfighters when needed for greater efficiency, agility, and speed. In 2010, for example, this included conducting 219 depot-level repairs on aircraft at sea. The past decade of worldwide combat operations has generated significant wear and tear on Naval Aviation equipment and personnel. One of the challenges of keeping aging aircraft operational is the premature failure of parts and their replacement when the original equipment manufacturer is out of business or no longer manufactures them. One of the FRCs innovative solutions to this problem is the direct digital manufacturing of metallic components and other tools. Another is the use of aluminum and magnesium cold-spray technologies to re-deposit metal for repair of H-60 and H-1 helicopter transmission gearbox casings, which will result in significant material savings. Digital manufacturing and similar technologies provide Level III maintenance activities with the capability to restore formerly unserviceable cases to ready-for-issue condition. Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers, is also procuring and developing back-scatter X-ray technology that will result in significant man-hour reductions in the time required to inspect wing fittings, hinge points, and hard mounting flanges for the F/A-18 and other systems. This technology will eliminate the need to remove the wing from the aircraft for nondestructive inspections. Other technological solutions include advanced composite manufacturing, rapid manufacturing technology, and three-dimensional manufacturing processes. To mitigate environmental and durability issues with paint processes, FRCs are investigating the use of robotic paint stripping to reduce workers exposure to hazardous materials and new advanced coating technologies such as powder coating and nonchromate paints to provide more durable surface finishes. Naval Aviation faces major challenges in the future with the transition of legacy systems to new platforms. The FRCs ensure new systems have the right support when they are fielded and legacy platforms are safely flown until the last one is retired. They are preparing facilities and capabilities to support transitions such as replacing the P-3 with the P-8A. While preparing for this transition, maintenance and sustainment of the aging P-3 will present additional challenges that must be managed, such as corrosion caused by age, re-winging, and periodic repairs. With the F-35, the FRCs are building new capability to support the Joint Strike Fighters new engines and to provide maintenance for an aircraft that will operate in demanding physical environments. The EA-18G, MV-22, AH-1Z, UH-1Y, CH-53K, E-2D, MQ-4C, MQ-8B, and Naval Aviations other new platforms will similarly all demand new maintenance and support technologies and facilities.
93
94
95
systems for a range of military, government, allied, and private-sector programs. The sea range hosts numerous exercises (joint task force, composite training unit, combat systems ship qualification test, etc.) that verify tactics, techniques, and procedures of various weapon systems such as Harpoon, the Standard Missile family, AGM-84H/K, Rolling Airframe Missile, Tomahawk, and Joint Standoff Weapon C-1. San Nicolas Island is located 60 miles south of Point Mugu within the NAWCWD sea range. This 14,500-acre island provides a 10,000-foot runway, hangar, and logistic support in a controlled maritime test environment. Test facilities include missile and target launch facilities, littoral target impact areas, radar tracking and instrumentation, electrooptical/laser targeting, telemetry, and communication equipment. Located within these three sites are more than 40 laboratories and nearly 2,000 facilities suited for developing and testing weapon systems up to fifth generation. NAWCWD is home to the largest applied research center outside the Naval Research Laboratory, with more than 100 research scientists, physicists, chemists, and mathematicians generating more than 100 innovative patent actions annually. NAWCWDs leading research chemist recently discovered a unique way to convert biomass-based alcohol (butanol) into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel using a sustainable green process, helping Naval Aviation and the Navy advance the goal of fielding the Great Green Fleet. NAWCWD has charge over NAVAIRs Test Wing Pacific Echelon IV command composed of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 30 and VX-31. The wing has an inventory of 53 manned/unmanned aircraft of 21 types/models/ series, providing operationally experienced test pilots, naval flight officers, and engineers executing ground and airborne testing evaluation of the NAEs weapon and warfare systems.
96
97
day, tests were conducted on the F-35B, V-22, E-2D, P-8A, F/A-18, MH-60, VH-3, and CH-53. The workload will continue to increase with the F-35B and C. NAWCAD also operates numerous engineering laboratories at Patuxent River specializing in systems engineering, cost, air vehicle engineering, propulsion and power, human systems, weapons, energetics, warfare analysis, avionics, research, and intelligence. Patent holders representing 33 inventions developed in the NAWCAD labs were honored in the past year for their work. Many of these inventions directly support warfighters. Working with the Navy and Marine Corps multimission tactical unmanned air systems program office, NAWCAD recently integrated and tested two ground control stations for the RQ-8B Fire Scout. NAWCAD efforts included: procurement, fabrication, integration, and installation of internal communications cabinets; integration of air vehicle operator, mission payload operator, and exterior communications cabinets; and fabrication of antenna mounts and interconnecting cables. In April 2011, these Fire Scout systems deployed to Central Command to provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance services in northern Afghanistan. The Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst is the critical link between Naval Aviation and carrier strike groups worldwide. Lakehurst is the Navys lead engineering support activity for existing aircraft launch and recovery equipment and support equipment, as well as for the development and test of new systems such as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear. In 2011, the C-2, T-45, E-2D, and F/A-18E/F aircraft completed successful test launches from EMALS. The NAWC Training Systems Division in Orlando, Fla., is responsible for research, development, test, evaluation, acquisition, and product support of training systems. Simulation and training are key to ensuring military preparedness and to adapting to new and changing roles and missions. The research, development, and acquisition teams of Training Systems Division, in concert with their military and private industry partners, deliver aviation training systems that enhance capabilities, reduce risk, and lower costs. In 2010 and 2011, the division developed tactical operational flight trainers for the MH-60R and EA-18G with full mission and weapon system simulations, an avionics maintenance trainer for the MH-60R, and an air crew tactical team trainer for the P-3C designed to be easily adapted for P-8A Poseidon crews when that aircraft joins the fleet.
98
99
100
101
102
103
After World War II, however, the crop fell out of favor and is now largely regarded as a minor non-food crop in Europe and a weed in North America. Camelina moved to the forefront of the renewable fuels scene only in 2009. It is best grown in rotation with dryland wheat during the part of the cycle when the land would otherwise lie fallow. As a result, camelina does not compete with food crops, and requires little irrigation. It has even been shown to enhance the yield of subsequent crops by up to 15 percent. In addition, the oil it produces is more cold-tolerant than other biofuel feedstocks. On 22 April 2010 (Earth Day), what appeared to be a routine flight of the Green Hornet attracted hundreds of onlookers. For the first time, the jet was powered with a 50/50 blend of camelina-based biofuel and petroleum-based fuel. The flight, one of a series of test flights held in 2010 and 2011 at Patuxent River, marked the first time an aircraft has flown faster than the speed of sound on a biomass-derived fuel. Since that first flight, Naval Air Systems Command has also tested other versions of the F/A-18 Hornet, the EA-6B Prowler, T-45A Goshawk, and AV-8B Harrier fixed-wing aircraft using a 50/50 blend of camelina-based fuel and JP-5. Rotary-wing aircraft biofuel tests were also conducted on the MV-22 Osprey and the MH-60S Seahawk. The MH-60S was tested on both camelina- and algae-based biofuels. In September, 2011, the Blue Angels even flew an entire air show on the biofuel blend. The final scheduled test included the MQ-8B Fire Scout vertical takeoff and landing unmanned aerial vehicle. The first military unmanned aircraft to operate with biofuel flew for an hour checking performance and handling. All aircraft tested showed no perceivable differences in flying characteristics or power levels, proving that biofuel-blended fuels can be used to operate combat aircraft and add to the nations energy security.
104
people
The Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) total force strategy reflects the belief that Naval Aviations competitive advantage is, and always will be, its dedicated and highly talented people. The primary goal of this strategy is to enrich, shape, and deliver a proficient, diverse, and cost-effective total force comprising Sailors and Marines, government civilians, and contract support personnel. Their job is to perform all of the functions required for Naval Aviation to fight and win in combat. The total force strategy relies on readiness and capability demand signals from the fleet to define work requirements clearly, shape the workforce correctly, and affect budgeting and programming decisions positively. It is a living management toolone that is continually assessed, improved, and refined to maintain relevance and effectiveness. To accomplish this goal, the NAE will continue to work across the total force supply chain to overcome systemic barriers and constraints adversely impacting our ability to deliver the right force with the right readiness, at the right time. The NAE will apply the tools of continuous process improvement to attack those barriers so we build capability efficiently and transition to new platforms successfully. 105
The NAE has implemented metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of recruiting, training, and assigning personnel. These metrics are already helping to assess readiness and the performance of the end-to-end total force supply chain. The NAE will focus on improving the capability and capacity of the total force so that it is better prepared to meet the challenges of the future. To accomplish this, the NAE will work to improve the forces technical skill sets through better training and an emphasis on continuous learning. In the years ahead, new type/model/series aircraft, unmanned systems, and a new class of aircraft carrier will enter the fleet, providing new capabilities to warfighters and changing manpower requirements. The NAE will assess the personnel support requirements of these transitioning platforms, use that information to drive training strategies, and grow the total force required to support the future of Naval Aviation.
106
FpO
Unit: USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) My contribution to Naval Aviation includes providing clean and bright fuel and lubricating oil to embarked aircraft, support equipment, and amphibious assault vehicles. My job is multifaceted, as I participate on teams that enforce safety precautions and maintain fuel quality. My job also involves participating in training exercises with fire-fighting crews and damage control parties. My crewmates and I are responsible for major roles in launching and recovering naval aircraft quickly and safely aboard ship. We frequently work in a fast-paced and often potentially hazardous environment: the flight deck, in all climatic conditions. Our most important task is maintaining the safety of our fellow U.S. personnel. Naval Aviation has given me the opportunity to play a key role in executing our mission: helping naval aircraft support and transport Marines and equipment, afloat and ashore.
107
FpO
108
I am responsible for the safe and successful operation of all avionics systems on the KC-130J. My contribution to Naval Aviation is to ensure our avionics systems are fully operational and able to meet the speedy deployments of VMGR-152 in the Pacific Theater to support humanitarian missions, training exercises, and combat deployments to Afghanistan. Being technically proficient, helping to make missions safe, and training Marines to be successful technicians are my most important contributions to Naval Aviation. Naval Aviation means to me that America has greater presence in the world, not only by having the most powerful Navy but also having the capability to arrive anywhere on Earth to engage enemies, put troops on the ground, or provide humanitarian relief at a moments notice. It means that by combining an expeditionary force like the Marine Corps with self-contained air support you give the naval services an advantage over other armed forces.
109
Chief Aviation Boatswains Mate (Aircraft Handling) (AW/SW) Anthony A. Thomas Sr.
Title: Crash and Salvage Leading Chief Petty Officer Unit: USS Enterprise (CVN 65) Most of my professional career of more than 20 years has been immersed in Naval Aviation. I have served on the decks of USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), USS George Washington (CVN 73), and Enterprise. In addition, Ive trained corpsmen on the helicopter flight deck of the hospital ship USNS Comfort (TAH 20). Launching and recovering aircraft on Enterprise is a unique and very rewarding task. There are many complex and ongoing challenges aboard a 50-year-old aircraft carrier that, through persistence and dedication to duty, make my job gratifying. Ensuring my Sailors are safe, trained, and understand their positions is my top priority. It is my responsibility to train more than 1,000 Sailors of our ship and air wing in aircraft firefighting safety, and I know we are ready to respond when needed. As we get ready for the ships 22nd and final deployment, I could not be more proud of my team on the flight deck and their contributions to Naval Aviation.
110
111
The NAE has a set of principles that form the basis of behavior and action. These principles encourage leaders to share information and participate in dialogue that result in informed decision-making, and places the welfare of Naval Aviation ahead of individual organizational interests. This is the bedrock of the enterprise culture, and it is inextricably linked to the following principles: Consistently apply cross-functional process thinking Establish and maintain process discipline Use consistent, integrated, and hierarchical metrics Ensure full and consistent transparency of data, information, and activities Establish and maintain accountability for actions and results Apply an integrated governance structure Maintain a total ownership cost perspective Tie efforts to a single fleet-driven metric: Naval Aviation forces efficiently delivered for tasking.
112
Cross-funCTional Teams
CURRENT READINESS
The Current Readiness Cross-Function Team brings operators and providers together to produce ready for tasking Naval Aviation assets at a cost the nation can afford. The team accomplishes this by working together with leadership teams and the other Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) teams to identify and resolve barriers in producing the right readiness at the right time at the right cost. These leadership teams are composed of Navy wing and Marine Corps group commanders, program managers, resource sponsors, and leaders from provider commands representing 20 different type/model/series aircraft groupings, an Air-Launched Weapons Team, a Carrier Readiness Team, and the Naval Aviation Production Team, as well as the 30-plus staffs that make up the NAE. The Current Readiness CrossFunctional Team is also the NAE single-process owner for training readiness. The Maintenance and Supply Chain Management Team, a sub-team within Current Readiness, oversees maintenance and supply processes to ensure the production of prescribed levels of equipment ready for tasking at reduced product line costs. This team focuses on the efficiency and effectiveness of all integrated logistics support processes, including material requirements forecasting, scheduling, contracting, purchasing, buying management, inventory management, distribution, repair induction, planning, scheduling, diagnostics, repair, quality assurance, and analysis.
TOTAL FORCE
The Total Force Cross-Functional Team delivers the technically superior, diverse, and cost-effective total force required to fight and win in combat. The team enriches the skills of Sailors, Marines, and civilians by adding technical skill sets and programmatic improvements to Naval Aviation training. It uses innovations like the People-Master Aviation Plan tool, manpower war games, and other workforce planning initiatives, and conducts manpower and manning risk
113
assessments for transitioning air systems. It also optimizes the delivery of Sailors and Marines by examining current processes, identifying systemic barriers and constraints, and assigning resources to tackle them through continuous process improvement.
FUTURE READINESS
The Future Readiness Cross-Functional Team improves the reliability, maintainability, and availability of Naval Aviation systems at optimized costs. During the fiscal year 2012 and 2013 budget cycles, 12 future readiness/total ownership cost initiatives were advanced for funding with an investment of more than $300 million and a calculated return on investment of $2.4 billion. The team increases awareness of requirements and acquisition processes as well as systems engineering technical reviews and independent logistics assessments for new programs. In addition, the team leverages science and technology projects for future systems and facilitates the transition to programs of record.
114
ConTribuTions To readiness
The Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) is a partnership as well as a way of doing business. It relies on its members to take action under their command and control responsibilities, to commit the necessary resources (e.g., time, people, funding) and to lend their personal resolve so the best interests of Naval Aviation are served in a collaborative manner. The cultural changes, improvements in aircraft and personnel readiness, cost avoidance, and outright savings that have resulted from the NAE are helping to ensure the right readiness continues to be produced more efficiently. Quality data and a culture of collaboration have provided Naval Aviations leaders with the insight and information that assists them in managing the transitions and readiness that are required, and gauging the potential impact of efficiency initiatives before they are implemented. Qualitative contributions attributable to NAE actions and processes include: the establishment of metrics and processes that link readiness to resource requirements, resulting in better budgeting and execution; increased transparency and the elimination of stovepiped decisions; the development of a culture of continuous process improvement; and the top-down implementation of best behavior by leadership. Quantitative contributions include a dramatic flattening in the cost growth of flying naval aircraft for the past six years, avoiding as much as $4 billion in increased costs if the growth had gone unchecked. NAE future readiness initiatives now in the fiscal year 2012 budget will result in a $1.5-billion return on investment over the remaining life of those systems. Proposed fiscal year 2013 initiatives could return as much as $900 million. Fleet readiness centers originated by the NAE significantly changed how Naval Aviation maintenance is performed, and they have implemented process changes that surpassed a $1-billion goal of reduced costs, ahead of Base Realignment and Closure Commission timelines. We remain a warfighting organization first and foremost, but we must do it in a cost-effective way. Across the NAE, its clear that the Navy and Marine Corps team gets it, whether it is $192,000 saved annually at Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 24 at Kaneohe, Hawaii, which implemented a new cross-service repair process for the P-3 intercommunications system, or process improvements employed at Fleet Readiness Center Northwests paint shop that reduced unanticipated maintenance delays. (This process improvement prevented significant undocumented rework removing rust that accumulated on parts during handoffs. Designated parts were immediately sent for nondestructive inspection and rust prevention, resulting in saving more than $1.2 million.) Many more such examples can be found across Naval Aviation as this culture continues to grow.
115
116
summary
aval Aviation is a warfighting force that is integral to the ability of the Navy, Marine Corps, and joint forces to deter or win regional conflicts and major power wars. Our aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, carrier air wings, aviation combat elements, and maritime patrol and reconnaissance forces maintain a combat-ready posture that is deployed forward as an instrument of our nations will. We understand the importance of cooperative multinational relationships because no one nation has the resources required to guarantee the complete safety of the worlds oceans and the air space above them. As a key component of a global force for good, Naval Aviation provides not only sea-based combat power to resolve conflict and protect national and international interests, but also sea-based peace power to provide disaster relief and humanitarian assistance. Naval Aviation is a warfighting enterprise that will continue to develop, deliver, and sustain the aircraft, weapons, and systems our Sailors and Marines need to serve America in defense of freedom. We embrace the privilege of this awesome responsibility with pride, determination, and enthusiasm.
117
summary
118
image CrediTs
i-ii 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Cover design by Jennifer Faunce U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Deven B. King Photo by Erik Hildebrandt U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class James R. Evans Composite of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps photos by Ken Collins Photo by Erik Hildebrandt U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Gary Granger Jr. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Corporal Samantha H. Arrington U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Dylan McCord Lockheed Martin Photo by Phaedra Loftis U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Julio Rivera U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Brooks B. Patton Jr. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tony D. Curtis U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Joseph M. Buliavac U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist John Lill U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Julio Rivera U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Steve Smith U.S. Marine Corps photo by Corporal Reece E. Lodder U.S. Navy photo by Liz Goettee U.S. Navy photo by Kelly Schindler U.S. Navy photo By Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Andrew Rivard U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Sebastian McCormack U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Bryan Blair U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Rebekah Adler U.S. Marine Corps photo by Staff Sergeant James R. Richardson U.S. Marine Corps photo by Corporal Richard A. Tetreau U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist William Lovelady U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Nathan Parde U.S. Navy photo by Richard Stewart U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Nardel Gervacio Photo by Ted Carlson Photo by Erik Hildebrandt Photo by Erik Hildebrandt U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Rosa A. Arzola U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jonathan Sunderman i ii-iv
11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 29-30 31-32 33-34 35-36 37-38 39-40 41-42 43-44 45-46 47-48 49-50 51-52 53-54 55-56 57-58 59-60 61-62 63-64 119
65-66 67-68 69-70 71-72 73-74 75-76 77-78 79-80 81-82 83-84 85-86 87-88 89-90 91-92 93-94 95-96 97-98 99-100 101-102 103-104 105-106 107-108 107 (l) 107 (r) 107 (l) 108 (r) 109-110 109 (l) 109 (r) 110 (l) 110 (r) 111-112 113-114 115-116 117-118 119-120 121-122
U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Orrin Batiste U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Apprentice Michael Feddersen U.S. Marine Corps photo by Staff Sergeant James R. Richardson U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Betsy Lynn Knapper U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Timothy A. Hazel U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Shawn J. Stewart U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Walter M. Wayman Photo by Andy Wolfe, courtesy Lockheed Martin U.S. Navy photo by Lieutenant Marques Jackson Photo by Ted Carlson U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Apprentice Brian Read Castillo U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Josue L. Escobosa U.S. Marine Corps photo by Private First Class Kevin A. Crist U.S. Marine Corps photo by Gunnery Sergeant Scott Dunn U.S. Navy photo provided by FRC East U.S. Navy photo provided by NAWCWD U.S. Navy photo U.S. Navy photo by Greg Vojtko Photo by Christian Turner, AFFTC Aerial Photographer US Navy Photo by MC1 Rachel McMarr U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Walter M. Wayman U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Travis J. Kuykendall Photo by Tara Collis, courtesy SAIC U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist 3rd Class Ryan McLearnon U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist 3rd Class Katherine K. Barkley U.S. Marine Corps photo courtesy of VMA-214 U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Jesse L. Gonzalez U.S. Navy photo by Lieutenant Aaron Kakiel U.S. Marine Corps photo courtesy of VMGR-152 U.S. Navy photo by Senior Chief Mass Communications Specialist Dave Nagle U.S. Marine Corps photo courtesy of HMM-265 Composite of U.S. Navy photos by Ken Collins U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Benjamin Crossley U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Benjamin Crossley U.S. Navy photo by Liz Wolter U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Alexander Tidd U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Travis K. Mendoza
image credits
120
aCknoWledgmenTs
Naval Aviation Vision January 2012
RDML Paul Grosklags, USN Vice Commander, Naval Air Systems Command Gary E. Shrout Naval Aviation Enterprise Strategic Communication Coordinator
Project Sponsor
Project Director
Project Manager
Suzy Lang
Managing Editor
Colin E. Babb Ken Collins
Thanks to the many others in Naval Aviation who contributed to the creation of this document. Special thanks to the members of the strategic planning and communications team from for their expertise in writing, editing, and designing this document.
121
ackNowledgmeNts
122