Navy Readiness OverviewNavy Readiness Overview
Pat Tamburrino, Jr. ADCNO for Fleet Readiness & Logistics
February 2010
The Cost of the Navy We Operate
The Fiscal Challenge
1953 End Korean War
1966 Vietnam War
1973 Vietnam Withdrawal
End of Cold War
1990-91 Gulf War I
9/11/01Al Qaeda Attacks
2003Gulf War II
Source: Library for Integrated Learning and Technology, Illinois State
Note: Outlays lag budget reductions by about 2-4 years
Constant$FY06
Historical trends support
a likely decrease in
funding
National Defense OutlaysFY00 ($B)
50
150
250
350
1952 1964 1976 1988 2000 2012
450
2015?
1953 End Korean War
1966 Vietnam War
1973 Vietnam Withdrawal
End of Cold War
1990-91 Gulf War I
9/11/01Al Qaeda Attacks
2003Gulf War II
Source: Library for Integrated Learning and Technology, Illinois State
Note: Outlays lag budget reductions by about 2-4 years
Constant$FY06
Historical trends support
a likely decrease in
funding
National Defense OutlaysFY00 ($B)
50
150
250
350
1952 1964 1976 1988 2000 2012
450
2015?
• The Fiscal challenges facing the Navy are well-documented
• We are a Nation fighting two wars
• The demand for Naval Forces from COCOMs continues unabated
• Resources of all types are precious commodities
Navy Insufficiently Resourced To Meet COCOM Demand
The New Normal
• Less than 25% of Navy at sea
– 2 of 12 CV / CVNs deployed
• zero capable of surge
• Minimal boots-on-the-ground
– Naval Support Activity, Bahrain
• Expeditionary Forces
– EOD supporting maritime mission only
– Naval Construction Force peacetime training / deployment
– minimal maritime security, logistics and training
Sept. 11, 2001 No OCO Funding Partial OCO Funding
• 14+ ships in Theater
• 24,000+ Navy personnel
– 10K afloat
– 14K ashore, including IAs
• Close Air Support & Recon
• 46% of OIF/OEF TACAIR
• Airborne Electronic Attack
– 75% in OIF / 100% in OEF
• Mobile Ashore Support Terminal (C4I, HA/DR)
• Provin. Reconstr. Teams
• SEABEE Regiment
– C2 Joint Eng. Force (RC South)
– 2 SEABEE Battalions
– OEF construction of FOBs
• 22 EOD Detachments
– Route Clearance & Forensics
– Iraqi Police training
• Riverine (Haditha Dam)
– 6500 Km waterway security
• Maritime Security Ops
– Anti-Piracy, VBSS, NEO, Oil Platforms, Umm Qasr
• Customs, Civil Affairs
• 143 of 285 ships/subs U/W
– 5 CVNs / 3 Large Decks
– 17 attack subs
• 3 CSGs deployed, plus:
– 3 surge capable in 30 days
– 1 surge capable in 90 days
• CENTCOM commitments
• Independent Deployers
– 50+ Exercises: Pacific / Africa Partnerships, RIMPAC, UNITAS, Foal Eagle, Talisman Sabre, Cobra Gold, Provide Promise / Comfort, etc.
• Global Maritime Security
• Sea Control, Deterrence
• Theater Security Cooperation
– counter-IED
– building partnerships
• HA/DR (131 projects)
– Indonesia Tsunami Relief
– Pakistan Earthquake
• Expeditionary Guard, Training, Combat Readiness Commands
CENTCOM Theater
F L E E T R E S P O N S E P L A N (
July 1, 2003 )
*Includes $281M NECC OCO requirement.
**Includes $106M Aviation Depot and $967M FHP OCO requirement.
Maintain (to ESL)
Aviation Depot Maint $1,789
Ship Maintenance $6,373M
NECC $572M
Support Accounts $2,439M
• Targets and T&E Ranges $798M
• Aviation Support $1,066B
• Ship Maintenance Support /
Logistics Support $575M
$18.0B $20.8B $24.7B
Afloat Readiness
Train
Ship Operations $313M
Flying Hour Program $1,492M
NECC $295M
Support Accounts $715M
• Fleet Training $172M
• Training Ranges $282M
• CNMOC $229M
• Ship Operations Support $31M
3+1+1 $3.6B / $24.4B Ship Ops $1,365M
NECC $289M*
FHP $1,979B**
Safety of Operations
Ship Operations $1,375M
Flying Hour Program
$5,447M
Cost to......Own …Own and Train …Own, Train and
Employ 3+2+1
Maintain Total $11.2B SOO Total $6.8B Train Total $2.8B
3+2+1 $3.9B / $24.7B Ship Ops $1,455M
NECC $322M*
FHP $2,192**
* NECC Ao of 40+38+33 is equivalent to 3+2+1 and is RFF driven
Maintain the Force
EOD $196M
NCD $230M
RIVERINE $40M
MESF $76M
ELSG $11M
MDSU $10M
Non-Ao Units $9M (MCASTCOM, NEIC, COMCAM LANT)
Maintain Total $572M
NECC
40+38+33* $322M / $1,189M
EOD $6M
NCD $10M
RIVERINE $1M
MESF $5M
ELSG $7M
MDSU $4M
Train the Force
EOD $91M
NCD $114M
RIVERINE $21M
MESF $47M
ELSG $10M
MDSU $5M
Non-Ao Units $7M (MCASTCOM, NEIC, COMCAM LANT)
Train Total $295M
40+19+16 $289M / $1,156M
EOD $76M
NCD $133M
RIVERINE $25M
MESF $43M
ELSG $3M
MDSU $4M
Non-Ao Units $5M
(MCASTCOM, NEIC, COMCAM LANT)
Cost to......Own …Own and Train …Own, Train and
Employ 40+38+33 *
$0.6B $0.9B $1.2B
Facility Life-Cycle
Must Fund Each Dimension For All Facilities to Reach Full Service Life
AN OIL DEPLETION TIMETABLE
Recreated from Fortune Magazine 29 Sep 08 Original information from BP p.l.c. “Statistical Review of World Energy”
How long until the oil runs out? That’s a tricky question. Reliable information on oil reserves isn’t easy to come by – it’s sometimes shrouded in secrecy and often disputed. (Simmons believes Middle Eastern reserve numbers are highly inflated.) One view comes courtesy of BP’s respected “Statistical Review of World Energy,” which the oil giant has been publishing annually for 57 years based on data gathered from government sources, industry journals, and independent estimates. The chart at left shows a country-by-country breakdown of how things look right now.
Affording the Cost of the Navy We’re Building
Bottom Line Up Front
Trends in the “cost to own and operate” the Fleet point to an unaffordable future
• Everyone of us must proactively drive to continuously reduce total life cycle costs
Today’s fiscal environment demands that every dollar invested in sustaining today’s Navy & building tomorrow’s
Navy be spent effectively and efficiently
Operational concepts should inform design & integration of
ship hull, weapons, and communications systems, mission
modules, manning and training plans, and infrastructure
requirements. We must understand how these factors,
individually, and as a whole, impact the life cycle cost of our
Surface Fleet.
- CNO letter of 3 AUG 09
Refresher - What is the Total Ownership Cost (TOC)?
“Total Ownership Cost” includes all manning and maintenance associated with
research, development, procurement, training, operation, logistical support, and disposal of an individual weapon system,
including the total supporting infrastructure that plans, manages, and executes that
weapon system program over its full life. It also includes the cost of requirements for common support items and systems that
are incurred because of introduction of that weapon system.
Cradle to Grave Direct Platform Costs
Production & Deployment
Operations & Support
B B C C
TOTAL OWNERSHIP COST CHALLENGES
Production Development O&S 62% 31% 7%
NOW
Engineering & Manufacturing Development Manufacturing Development
Engineering &
Cost, Technical, and Programmatic Uncertainty NOW
Ability to Influence TOC Decreases Over Time
SIGNIFICANT UPWARD PRESSURES ON TOTAL OWNERSHIP COSTS
PROGRAM FUNDING LEVEL
MATERIAL COST INCREASES
LABOR COST INCREASES – PENSION LIABILITY
Three Primary TOC Challenges
1. Life Cycle Costs are set early
– Understanding & influencing the cost drivers is essential
– Need to increase the focus on TOC at every decision point
2. The majority of the 2020 Battle Force exists today
– Platforms must achieve their Expected Service Life
– 222 of today’s 285 ships are required in 2020
3. Life cycle costs of next generation systems must be more fully understood
– Increased fidelity of sustainment strategies is essential
– The F-35 Challenge is representative of the future
Challenge #1: Life Cycle Costs Are Set Early
Functional
Solution Analysis
Concept
Refinement
Technology
Development
System Development &
Demonstration
Production &Deployment
Operations & Support
CD A B
FRP DR
C DRR IOC FOC
UCAS
CG(X)
AH1Z BAMS
P8
E2D
JSF (STOVL)
DDG-1000
LHA6
EA18G
VTUAV (Firescout)
LCS LHD8
CVN78
H46
LPD4
F/A-18 C
CVN68
F/A-18E/F
P3
EA6B
E2C
CVN63
UH1Y
MH60 (R\S)
MV22
DDG51
LPD17
SSN774
Weapon Systems Profile… Most Platforms Post-Milestone B… Significant Cost Already Locked In
A B
80% of Life Cycle costs have been determined
80
LC
C C
um
ula
tive
%
Life Cycle costs actually
expended
CH53K
PLATFORM FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 AIRCRAFT CARRIER TYPE 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12
SUBMARINE 71 72 71 71 72 73 71 70 67 68 67 68 66
SURFACE COMBATANT 107 111 113 112 111 109 105 102 106 110 115 116 122
AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE SHIP 32 31 32 34 34 33 33 33 33 33 32 32 31
COMBAT LOGISTICS TYPE 30 31 31 30 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33
SEA BASING 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 4 6 9 9
COMMAND AND SUPPORT 17 17 17 17 17 19 20 22 24 27 30 30 32
MINE WARFARE 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 11 10 282 287 289 289 291 291 287 288 292 299 307 311 315
PLANNING ONLY
Challenge #2 - Majority Of 2020+ Battle Force Exists Today
Key Issues • 222 of the 285 Platforms in commission today will be in the 2020 Battle Force • Essential that we identify/exploit efficiencies/opportunities to reduce
costs • SYSCOM work to date outstanding! Need to accelerate and press
harder!
Challenge # 3 - Life Cycle Costs Of Next Generation Systems Must Be More Fully Understood
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
TY
($B
)
PB09 Funding
Projected Shortfall
Aviation, Ship, & Sub Operation and Maintenance
Requirement vs. PB09 Funding
FY
Affording the Cost of the Navy We’re Building
–
Courses of Action
Integrating Affordability into Policy Gate Review/Program Health Process
• Improved Emphasis on Affordability, Sustainment, and TOC
• In Early Gates (i.e. Gates 1 – 4)
– Emphasis on Understanding Projected Costs and Drivers
– Early Cost Containment / Cost Reduction Strategy Discussion
• In Later Gates (i.e. Gates 5 and beyond)
– Emphasis on Life Cycle Sustainment Strategy supported by Life Cycle Funding Profile
– Assessment of Cost Reduction Strategies Against Projection
– Review Affordability in Context of Allocated Resources
Incorporated into Feb 2010 SECNAVINST 5000.2E release
ACQUISITION PROCESS TOTAL OWNERSHIP COST REVIEWED
PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV
MDD MS-A
SFR
PDR
PDR
SRR1
SRR2
ITR ASR
Technology Demonstration
Technology Development
Prototypes
MS-B
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
CDR
TRR
FRR
SVR/ PRR
MS-C
MSA SRTD SATD EMD
DoD 5000.2 (Old)
SRR
SFR
PDR
CDR
TRR
FRR
MS-B MDD IOC
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
Technology Development
ITR ASR
CA 2 wks
Production & Deployment
MS-A
MS-C
MSA TD EMD
SVR/PRR
Production & Deployment
> 10-15 YEARS
PASS 1 PASS 2
GATES GATES 3 4 5 2 1 3 4 5 6 6.1 2 1
DoD 5000.2 (New)
Materiel Solution Analysis
Materiel Solution Analysis
3 6.4 2 6.3 1 6.2
TOTAL OWNERSHIP COST REVIEWED AT EACH GATE
Measuring TOC Forecasts Against Performance
• Improved forecasting capability
• Improved “scoring” capability
• Innovative sustainment strategies
What is Required?
What Data Sources Capture Cost Reduction Performance?
## $
## $
## $
## $
## $
## $
## $
RDT&E
A B C IOC FOC
$$
FYDP $$
LRIP
Remaining LC FYs $$ by Year
FRP – Qty/Period
Note any life - cycle assumption changes
CURRENT TOC ESTIMATE DATE
FY# FY## FY# # FY## FY## FY##
PROCUREMENT
MILCON
MPN
OM
MP
CURRENT SCP
Prior Yrs Spent
LAST GATE SCP/ ESTIMATE
$$
M/T
Y
TOC
OBJECTIVE
## $
## $
## $
## $
## $
## $
## $
RDT&E
A A B B C C IOC IOC FOC FOC
$$
FYDP $$
LRIP
Remaining LC FYs $$ by Year
FRP – Qty/Period
Note any life - cycle assumption changes
CURRENT TOC ESTIMATE DATE
FY# FY## FY# # FY## FY## FY##
PROCUREMENT
MILCON
MPN
OM
MP
CURRENT SCP
Prior Yrs Spent
LAST GATE SCP/ ESTIMATE
$$
M/T
Y
TOC
OBJECTIVE
Affordability Initiatives Process
Key Characteristics:
• Continuous across POM and PR cycles; not a one-time event
• Integrated with N8 ISPP Development process
• Inclusive of the Providers and Resource Sponsors
• VCNO/ASN(RDA) ensure integrity of the process via Provider Forum
• N4 executive agent for the process; coordinates initial initiative screening and maintains repository
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
Select
Implement
Further Develop
Deferred
Plan
POM-12
Select
Implement
Further Develop
Deferred
Plan
Select
Implement
Further Develop
Deferred
Plan
Select
Implement
Further Develop
Deferred
Plan
PR13
POM-14
PR15
POM 12 Selection Process: • Key screening criteria:
Investment, Benefit and Timing • All required investments and
potential benefits (across ROs) considered
• No TOA Decrements until VCNO/N8 agreement
• Reflect risk in TOA adjustments
22
Process Overview
28-Mar-10 For Official Use Only
Institutionalize Process to Continuously Identify and Pursue Cost Reduction Opportunities
NAVAIR
NAVSEA
SPAWAR
NAVSUP
CNIC/ NAVFAC
Category 1 In Progress
Category 2 Proposed:
Ready
Category 3 Proposed Not Ready
Technically Mature?
Category 4 Ideas
Not Screened
To be tracked in affordability initiatives repository
Source of Initiative/Idea
Assigned Category
Not Screened
$0 Required Investment
$ Required Investment
N
Initiatives also segmented by
“product-related” and “process-related”
Y
High confidence in savings?
Parking Lot A
Requires greater
technical maturity
Parking Lot B
Needs improvement in
savings confidence
N
Hybrid ROI*/
Payback
FYDP ROI/
Payback
Life Cycle ROI/
Payback
ROI Analysis ROI
Comparison
Initiatives scored within the Top 15 in
all three ROI analysis categories
Y
Screen #1 Screen #2
Screen #3
54
44 32
13 10 12
(472 Initiatives)
(28)
(129)
(106)
(209)
*Hybrid ROI/Payback = 60% FYDP/40% Life Cycle
SYSCOM Projects – Making a Difference
• MH-60S Early Investments in Reliability
– LCC reduced ~ 83%...by investment in component reliability
• System Standardization Efforts
– Reducing variation in shipboard systems - an opportunity for $800M+ in savings
• Implementing Open Architecture
– Parallel effort to System Standardization Efforts
• Performance Based Logistics
– Leveraging to reduce backlog and increase parts availability
• Common Submarine Radio Room
– $770M cost avoidance for submarines
– Looking to expand to surface combatants
• Virginia Class
– Driving to a specific affordability goal
Way Ahead
• Think well past the POM/PR…Create and exploit every opportunity to reduce cost
• Develop Catalog of Initiatives that Reduce TOC
- Build Base of Unfunded Affordability Initiatives with ROI Potential
• Develop TOC Performance Capture Methodology
- Identify Data Sources with Fidelity to Facilitate Senior Leadership Decision Making
"I think it is irresponsible on my part simply because of something that may appear important in the near term to deliver something to my Navy that years or a decade later will be problematic to operate because of the cost.“ -CNO
Questions
HH-60H MH-60S
$6.6M Spent on Reliability
What Changed
Components (APUC in $ thousand) MFBHR = Mean Flying Hours Between Removal
APUC = Average Production Unit Cost
Reliability Change
(50 Percent Improvement) 2.4 Hrs. MFHBR 3.6 Hrs. MFHBR
Acquisition Strategy Early Investment In Reliability
$592.3M $107.2M
Investments in Reliability reduces the logistics footprint…dramatically reducing life cycle costs
Est. 20-yr LCC $M FY03
(LCC reduced by ~ 83 percent)
Commonality Results Summary
NAVSEA piloted industry commonality approaches that demonstrated both a reduction in number of equipment designs and TOC savings
NAVSEA Commonality Pilots Results Summary
System
Sub - Systems
in Scope
Variant Reduction Opportunity Projected TOC Benefits (3)
Current # of
Variants # of
Recommended Variants
% Reduction in Variants
TOC Benefits ($M )
% TOC Benefits (% of Spend)
Machinery Control Systems (1)
• Workstations • PLC Cards • VME Cards • UPS Units
• 24 • 63 • 58 • 18
• 8 • 31 • 14 • 5
• 67% • 51% • 76% • 72%
$59 M - $80 M (over 7 years)
22% - 30%
Fluid Systems (1) • Centrifugal Pumps – Seawater and Freshwater
• 240 • 116 • 52% $105 M (over 20 years)
11%
Interior Communications (Voice
Systems) (1)
• PBXs • ICTs • CAAS • Telephone Terminals
• 45 • 3 • 7 • 6
• 4 • 2 • 1 • 1
• 91% • 33% • 86% • 83%
$272 M (over 20 years)
14%
Compressed Air Systems (2) • Air Compressors
• Reducing Manifolds • 37 • 291
• 7 • 112
• 81% • 62%
$130 M (over 25 years) 23%
Lighting and Generator Controls Systems (2)
• Lighting Fixtures • Voltage Regulators • Governor Controls
• 117 • 39 • 9
• 57 (prelim.) • <3 ( prelim.) • 3 (prelim.)
• 51% (prelim.) • 92% ( prelim.) • 67% (prelim.)
$250.4M (over 30 years) TBD
Climate Control Systems • Vaneaxial Fans • 192 • 43 • 78%
(preliminary) Commodities contract
being developed TBD
Total Lifecycle Benefits Opportunity $816 M - $837 M 16%
System
Sub - Systems
in Scope
Variant Reduction Opportunity Projected TOC Benefits (3)
Current # of
Variants # of
Recommended Variants
% Reduction in Variants
TOC Benefits ($M )
% TOC Benefits (% of Spend)
Machinery Control Systems (1)
• Workstations • PLC Cards • VME Cards • UPS Units
• 24 • 63 • 58 • 18
• 8 • 31 • 14 • 5
• 67% • 51% • 76% • 72%
$59 M - $80 M (over 7 years)
22% - 30%
Fluid Systems (1) • Centrifugal Pumps – Seawater and Freshwater
• 240 • 116 • 52% $105 M (over 20 years)
11%
Interior Communications (Voice
Systems) (1)
• PBXs • ICTs • CAAS • Telephone Terminals
• 45 • 3 • 7 • 6
• 4 • 2 • 1 • 1
• 91% • 33% • 86% • 83%
$272 M (over 20 years)
14%
Compressed Air Systems (2) • Air Compressors
• Reducing Manifolds • 37 • 291
• 7 • 112
• 81% • 62%
$130 M (over 25 years) 23%
Lighting and Generator Controls Systems (2)
• Lighting Fixtures • Voltage Regulators • Governor Controls
• 117 • 39 • 9
• 57 (prelim.) • <3 ( prelim.) • 3 (prelim.)
• 51% (prelim.) • 92% ( prelim.) • 67% (prelim.)
$250.4M (over 30 years) TBD
Climate Control Systems • Vaneaxial Fans • 192 • 43 • 78%
(preliminary) Commodities contract
being developed TBD
Total LCC Benefits $816 M - $837 M 16%
Performance Based Logistics (PBLs)
•• Navy buys comprehensive performance Navy buys comprehensive performance packagepackage…… not individual partsnot individual parts
•• Multiple yearMultiple year, , longlong--term agreementsterm agreements •• Incentivize contractor investmentIncentivize contractor investment……
improve reliabilityimprove reliability…… reduce reduce consumptionconsumption
•• Early Early PBLsPBLs more like Performance more like Performance Based Supply contractsBased Supply contracts
PBLs Increase Readiness, Improve Reliability, & Reduce TOC
PB
L R
ep
air
ab
les
P
erf
orm
an
ce
Reduced Backorders
40K to
13K
Reduced B\O Avg Age
271 days
to 189 days
Reduced B\Os >180 days
17K to 4K
Increased Availability
70% to
78%
Increased PBL Program
$35M Obs to
$1,156M Obs
199
8 -
2008
RESULTSRESULTS
Risk Shifts Risk Shifts from from GovGov’’tt to to
Vendor for Vendor for
ObsolescenceObsolescence, , ReliabilityReliability, ,
Surge Surge & & moremore
Acquisition Strategy… F/A-18 Support Example
PBL At Earliest Opportunity Maximizes Reduction of LCC and Inventory Investment
PBL At Earliest Opportunity Maximizes Reduction of LCC and Inventory Investment
Sustainment Through Over 20 PBLs
F/A-18 Integrated Readiness Support Teaming (FIRST) PBL
• 5 year, $955M award to Boeing
• Cost plus initially… fixed price today
• Contract covers 73% of aircraft
• Covers all E/F parts & ILS elements
• Multiple funding
� NWCF, APN, DWCF, FMS
• Improved response times lead to reduced investment
• Supports the E/A-18G Growler as well
F404 GE
APU *Honeywell
Tires * Michelin
F414 Fleet
Support
/C&A
ARC 210 * Rockwell
SMUGGE
CAINSII* NGC
ALR-67v3 *Raytheon
Support Equipment *
Multiple OEMs
EIBUGE
TBD
SMS *GE
ALQ-126B *BAE/Jax
AMC*General
Dynamics
AESA BoeingSep 09
Turbines Honeywell
TBD
SHARPRaytheon
TBD
Fuel Control *
Honeywell
HUD/DDI Rockwell
F414 Depot Component
GE
GCU GE
Apr 10
Litening *NGCTBD
ATFLIRRaytheon
TBD
FIRST Boeing
F404 GE
APU *Honeywell
Tires * Michelin
F414 Fleet
Support
/C&A
ARC 210 * Rockwell
SMUGGE
CAINSII* NGC
ALR-67v3 *Raytheon
Support Equipment *
Multiple OEMs
EIBUGE
TBD
SMS *GE
ALQ-126B *BAE/Jax
AMC*General
Dynamics
AESA BoeingSep 09
Turbines Honeywell
TBD
SHARPRaytheon
TBD
Fuel Control *
Honeywell
HUD/DDI Rockwell
F414 Depot Component
GE
GCU GE
Apr 10
Litening *NGCTBD
ATFLIRRaytheon
TBD
FIRST Boeing
Common Radio Room (CRR)
Seawolf
Au
tom
ate
d
Rad
io R
oo
m
Au
tom
ate
d
Rad
io R
oo
m
Mission Need
Ship Classes Targeted
Unique New Construction
Solutions
Sustainable Common Solution
Virginia
SSBN
Los Angeles
External Comms System (ECS)
Integrated Radio Room (IRR)
Manual radio control
DDG 51
LCS 1
LCS 2
DDG 1000
Lockheed Martin
General Dynamics
Raytheon
Common Radio Room (CRR)
SSGN
Manual radio control
Integrated Radio Room (IRR)
TOC Savings / Potential
• S/W development, sustainment, and accreditation
• Test & Integration processes
• Training pipelines
Eliminated multiple:
• S/W development, sustainment, and accreditation
• Test & Integration processes
• Training pipelines
Eliminate multiple:
Possible Elimination
~3 billets/ship
PEO Subs
PEO Ships
Common Submarine
Radio Room
(CSRR)
$700M
Cost Avoidance
Automated Radio Communications (ARC)
Opportunity to Extend Common Suites to C4I
$94M
$2.0 B
$2.4 B 8 Ship MYP Contract (Block III) Transition to 2/yr VA in a MYP contract with EOQ material buys
Anticipated to achieve savings of $200M per hull
No further initial investment required to achieve this savings
Confidence this savings can be delivered is high
Design for
Cost Reduction
Capability Neutral ~$500-600M $100M $106M
Capability Reduction N/A N/A N/A
$106M
$2.2 B
$2.1 B
Proposed Potential Realized Investment /ship /ship
Chart is not to scale
Data as of Dec 2008
Realized Savings per Hull to Date
$200M
Proposed Potential Realized Investment /ship /ship
Target is $2B (FY05$) by FY12
VA Class Cost Reduction Status
*Note - Investments in Construction Performance (Build Plan/Span Reduction/ Producibility/LEAN) were part of, and funded through, the design for cost reduction effort.
Construction Performance
Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) $90M $20M $12.7M
Build Plan/Span Reduction/ Producibility/LEAN *See Note $80M $43.8M
NPES Initial Outfit $10M $40M $37.5M
Navy’s Dashboard for VIRGINIA Class Cost Reduction
• 15 deployments starting with the ship delivered 2015 (SSN785)
• Data from first EDSRAs (2012-2014) into engineering decisions
• Data from O&I level maintenance
• Data from sea operations, including deployments
• May require changes to Block III Technical Baseline Letter
• Reduced depot availability to 36 months
• Reduction in TOC – TBD • Against 2009 baseline (expanded class)
• Average acquisition costs of Block IV ships will be no greater than the average cost of Block III ships (adjusted for inflation)
VA Class Cost Reduction Status (cont’d)
Display (H/W)
Processing System (H/W)
Operating System
Middleware
Competition to develop
Common S/W Components
and Capabilities
within Objective
Architecture
COTS Computing Systems
Separate Contracts
Platform System Engineering Agent (PSEA)
CurrentCurrent--Platform Based DevelopmentPlatform Based Development FutureFuture--Capability Based DevelopmentCapability Based Development
PSEAPSEA
SBSB
PSEAPSEA
PYPY
PSEAPSEA
PYPY
TTWCS
CS IntegratorCS Integrator
Prime Sys Prime Sys IntegInteg
SEWIP
SQQ-89
ADDC
Aegis Mk 7
CIWS
CS IntegratorCS Integrator
Ship BuilderShip Builder
SEWIP
ATC
GUNS
SSDS
CS IntegratorCS Integrator
Ship BuilderShip Builder
Other ESM
MIW
Other C&D
Common
Asset Library
Many Vendors
Many Current Systems Have Their Own Sensor Control, Decide / Assess, Track
Management, and Weapon Control Function
…
…
Planning Yard
Decouple H/W from S/W
H/W System Engineering & Component /
Capability Competition
Systems Engineering Model Based on OA that Utilizes Standards-based Interfaces to Network and improves commonality and functionality
Ship Builder
SUW
UV Control
External Comms Domain
Display Domain
Vehicle Control Domain
Track Mgmt Domain
Comm Control Domain
Infrastructure Domain
Sensor Mgmt Domain
Weapon Mgmt Domain
Ship Control Domain
Support Domain
Implementing Open Architecture Third-Party Surface Combat Systems Development
Top Related