Tweet
Sub Conference Focuses On What Navy Needs Next
MIT event included representatives from military, academia, industry
By Jennifer Grogan Published on 2/17/2008
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=d2bee3 ... ccbe516732
Cambridge, Mass. — The submarine industry used to know what the Navy wanted: more submarines with all the newest technology to win the arms race and the Cold War.
While the military focuses on ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Navy downsizes, executives in the submarine business are wondering where they should invest their research money: What it is that the Navy wants next?
“We could sit and talk about science projects and things that fly out of ships, but we have to have other people who look at this process or come into it at some point and determine what joint war-fighters really need,†said Karl Hasslinger, director of Washington operations for Electric Boat. “That's the only way these things are going to be funded.â€
Leaders from industry and the military attended a conference on submarine force experimentation last week, run by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program.
Top submarine officers were present to respond to a request from industry and academia for direction. Researchers were there to deliver the message that the Navy should make it easier for them to submit their ideas on how to improve a submarine or address problems that may not even exist yet.
The Navy's customary way of doing business, of posing a problem to industry and asking for a solution, worked when it came to torpedoes and missiles. Now that companies are also focusing on emerging technologies like unmanned underwater and aerial vehicles, the traditional ways of dealing with their proposals may be inadequate or even counterproductive, Hasslinger said.
Others on the business side lamented the lack of federal research and development funding, and the stiff competition for existing resources.
Exacerbating the problem, the Navy has shortened the time between submarine deployments, which is typically when experimentation with new technologies takes place.
Rear Adm. William Hunter Hilarides challenged the audience in Cambridge to find the next “killer appâ€â€” an application that would make the military stand up and say, “That's it!â€
“When we have a weapons system whose worth is self-evident, money seems to show up,†said Hilarides, program executive officer for submarines.
Vice Adm. John J. Donnelly, commander of the Submarine Force, quoted Thomas Edison: Make it a practice to keep on the lookout for novel and interesting ideas that others have used successfully; your idea has to be original only in its adaptation to the problem you are working on.
While it would be nice to have all the bells and whistles on an unmanned aerial vehicle, he said that launching it from a submarine at periscope depth, controlling it and receiving video may be good enough for now.
“We have a tendency to ask, and design for, more capability than we can afford,†Donnelly said.
••••••• €¢â€¢
When the military does turn its attention from Iraq and Afghanistan to submarines, it's often to question how many are needed, instead of figuring out what new advances in technology they should carry.
Hilarides said that it's not that the Navy hasn't focused on payloads — intelligence-gathering and war-fighting capabilities like off-board vehicles, sensors and weapons — but that without the platforms (submarines), there cannot be payloads.
The two U.S. submarine manufacturers, Electric Boat in Groton and Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia, have asked the Navy for years to increase Virginia-class submarine production from one a year to two, to help stabilize the workforce and decrease construction costs.
When Virginia-class procurement began in the 1990s, the Department of Defense projected the rate would increase to two per year in fiscal 2002. That date was pushed back again and again as the war strained the entire defense budget.
Now the time is right to be more vocal about requirements for payloads, Hilarides said.
The Navy has decided to increase Virginia-class submarine production from one to two per year in 2011 instead of 2012.
Four Trident ballistic-missile submarines have been converted to conventional strike and special operations support platforms, the SSGNs, with the USS Ohio already out on deployment.
A redesigned Virginia-class bow has large-diameter tubes that will allow the submarines to carry vehicles, sensors and other equipment in addition to missiles. The tubes are similar to those on an SSGN, so investments in experimentation with SSGNs now should apply to the Virginia class.
“It's an exciting prospect and an opportunity to make up for lost time,†Hasslinger said, adding that the submarine force risks losing relevance if it does not stay innovative and take advantage of advances in technology.
“We can't just keep getting better at what we're good at, what we've been doing for a long time,†said Owen R. Cote Jr., associate director of the MIT Security Studies Program.
Donnelly said the Navy's acquisition process has historically not been as agile as needed to quickly field changing technology, and now the nation's adversaries are changing quite rapidly and adapting. China's arms build-up should be watched and smaller nations such as Iran are becoming bolder in their confrontations with U.S. forces, he said.
The Navy needs payloads and sensors; the systems to deploy them; improved communications at different speeds and depths; and the ability to protect Special Operations Forces and a submarine's crew in the shallow water, where going deep and fast is not an option, he said.
“The time is right for innovation,†he said.
MIT event included representatives from military, academia, industry
By Jennifer Grogan Published on 2/17/2008
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=d2bee3 ... ccbe516732
Cambridge, Mass. — The submarine industry used to know what the Navy wanted: more submarines with all the newest technology to win the arms race and the Cold War.
While the military focuses on ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Navy downsizes, executives in the submarine business are wondering where they should invest their research money: What it is that the Navy wants next?
“We could sit and talk about science projects and things that fly out of ships, but we have to have other people who look at this process or come into it at some point and determine what joint war-fighters really need,†said Karl Hasslinger, director of Washington operations for Electric Boat. “That's the only way these things are going to be funded.â€
Leaders from industry and the military attended a conference on submarine force experimentation last week, run by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program.
Top submarine officers were present to respond to a request from industry and academia for direction. Researchers were there to deliver the message that the Navy should make it easier for them to submit their ideas on how to improve a submarine or address problems that may not even exist yet.
The Navy's customary way of doing business, of posing a problem to industry and asking for a solution, worked when it came to torpedoes and missiles. Now that companies are also focusing on emerging technologies like unmanned underwater and aerial vehicles, the traditional ways of dealing with their proposals may be inadequate or even counterproductive, Hasslinger said.
Others on the business side lamented the lack of federal research and development funding, and the stiff competition for existing resources.
Exacerbating the problem, the Navy has shortened the time between submarine deployments, which is typically when experimentation with new technologies takes place.
Rear Adm. William Hunter Hilarides challenged the audience in Cambridge to find the next “killer appâ€â€” an application that would make the military stand up and say, “That's it!â€
“When we have a weapons system whose worth is self-evident, money seems to show up,†said Hilarides, program executive officer for submarines.
Vice Adm. John J. Donnelly, commander of the Submarine Force, quoted Thomas Edison: Make it a practice to keep on the lookout for novel and interesting ideas that others have used successfully; your idea has to be original only in its adaptation to the problem you are working on.
While it would be nice to have all the bells and whistles on an unmanned aerial vehicle, he said that launching it from a submarine at periscope depth, controlling it and receiving video may be good enough for now.
“We have a tendency to ask, and design for, more capability than we can afford,†Donnelly said.
••••••• €¢â€¢
When the military does turn its attention from Iraq and Afghanistan to submarines, it's often to question how many are needed, instead of figuring out what new advances in technology they should carry.
Hilarides said that it's not that the Navy hasn't focused on payloads — intelligence-gathering and war-fighting capabilities like off-board vehicles, sensors and weapons — but that without the platforms (submarines), there cannot be payloads.
The two U.S. submarine manufacturers, Electric Boat in Groton and Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia, have asked the Navy for years to increase Virginia-class submarine production from one a year to two, to help stabilize the workforce and decrease construction costs.
When Virginia-class procurement began in the 1990s, the Department of Defense projected the rate would increase to two per year in fiscal 2002. That date was pushed back again and again as the war strained the entire defense budget.
Now the time is right to be more vocal about requirements for payloads, Hilarides said.
The Navy has decided to increase Virginia-class submarine production from one to two per year in 2011 instead of 2012.
Four Trident ballistic-missile submarines have been converted to conventional strike and special operations support platforms, the SSGNs, with the USS Ohio already out on deployment.
A redesigned Virginia-class bow has large-diameter tubes that will allow the submarines to carry vehicles, sensors and other equipment in addition to missiles. The tubes are similar to those on an SSGN, so investments in experimentation with SSGNs now should apply to the Virginia class.
“It's an exciting prospect and an opportunity to make up for lost time,†Hasslinger said, adding that the submarine force risks losing relevance if it does not stay innovative and take advantage of advances in technology.
“We can't just keep getting better at what we're good at, what we've been doing for a long time,†said Owen R. Cote Jr., associate director of the MIT Security Studies Program.
Donnelly said the Navy's acquisition process has historically not been as agile as needed to quickly field changing technology, and now the nation's adversaries are changing quite rapidly and adapting. China's arms build-up should be watched and smaller nations such as Iran are becoming bolder in their confrontations with U.S. forces, he said.
The Navy needs payloads and sensors; the systems to deploy them; improved communications at different speeds and depths; and the ability to protect Special Operations Forces and a submarine's crew in the shallow water, where going deep and fast is not an option, he said.
“The time is right for innovation,†he said.