RDML Sharp MINWARA

Sea Mine Warfare: An Assessment Update : 

Sea Mine Warfare: An Assessment Update 23-26 July 2001 RDML M. A. Sharp, Program Executive Officer

Slide2: 

PMS490 PMS210 PMSNSW PMSMDS PMSEOD RMS MCM 1 Class MHC 51 Class CLOSED LOOP DEGAUSSING ZODIAC F-470 PEO-MUW VSW MCM REMOTE ORDNANCE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEM ASSAULT BREACHING MCS 12 MARINE MAMMAL SYSTEM ALMDS AN/AQS-14 AN/ALQ-141 AN/AQS-20 PMS411 PMS403 SQQ-34(V)CV-TSC EMATT/MK 30 Targets DD-21 AN/SQQ-89(V) LMRS Program Executive Office Mine and Undersea Warfare

PEO Top Four: 

PEO Top Four Create a Navy Plan for Battle Space Dominance Under-the-Sea Determine the Way Ahead for Naval Mining Conduct End-to-End Assessment of Organic Mine Counter Measures Capability Dedicated MIW Forces Roadmap to the Navy after Next

Slide4: 

SHALLOW MEDIUM DEEP Current Mining Capability No Requirement MK 56 MK 56 MK 65/63/62 QUICKSTRIKE MK 67 SLMM QS & SLMM QS & SLMM 150 fsw 600 fsw MK 60 CAPTOR

Current Status of USN Mines: 

Current Status of USN Mines Quickstrike Mk 62/63/65 Support for older Mods fully funded Mod 3 procurement initiated this fiscal year Air platform integration and algorithm development above core Submarine Launched Mobile Mine (SLMM) Mk 67 Demil/Disposal directed by PR99 Retention directed by POM02 SPP Limited support until maintenance is reestablished in FY04 Out of Service by 2010 Mine Mk 56 Demil/Disposal directed by PR99 Retention of contingency quantity directed by POM02 SPP Minimal support for safety issues only Out of Service by 2010 Encapsulated Torpedo (CAPTOR) Mk 60 Demil/Disposal directed by PR99 Out of service by end of this fiscal year Some components retained for possible future mines developments

Slide6: 

SHALLOW MEDIUM DEEP Mining Capability Beyond 2010 No Requirement No Capability MK 65/63/62 QuickStrike 150 fsw 600 fsw

Year 2010 Problem: 

Year 2010 Problem Limited Inventory-Shallow or Medium (Bottom) Water Only No Medium (Moored) or Deep Capability No Covert Mining Capability Infrastructure Atrophy Reduced budget No New development Planned or Programmed U. S. Navy Core Competency Threatened with Extinction

US Naval Mines Inventory: 

US Naval Mines Inventory

Mining Infrastructure S&T and Development Work Force: 

Mining Infrastructure S&T and Development Work Force Core Infrastructure = 36 WY Core Infrastructure S&T = 15 WY Dev = 21 WY Total = 36 WY Desert Storm

Slide10: 

Mine Node Mine Node U.S. Mining Vision - Integrated Littoral Battlespace Dominance

‘Top 4’ – Organic MCM: 

‘Top 4’ – Organic MCM Will Organic MCM Systems satisfy the operational mine warfare requirements? Led by overarching IPT Composed of three separate but related IPTs Analysis Research System Engineering IPTs composed of N7/N8/PEO MUW, SURFLANT, CMWC, CSS representatives Provided interim report mid June, final report NLT 30 September

Objectives: 

Objectives Determine the technical capabilities of complete suite of organic systems (seven) and C4I in a coordinated (net-centric) warfighting role Requirements CONOPS Technical Performance Describe capabilities and shortfalls Identify “holes,” issues, and recommendations Formulate alternatives to shortfalls Recommend solutions

E2E Assessment Team: 

E2E Assessment Team CINCLANTFLT CMWC N752 PMA-299 N763 N77 N78 N74 2nd FLT Executive Board Co-chairs CAPT Lambert (PMS 403) CAPT Jimenez (PMS 210) Analysis Research Systems Engineering Core Team Cells Review Panel CAPT Briggs (PMS 490) K. Haas (PMS 210) T. Stefanick (PMS 210)

Assessment Process: 

Assessment Process Integrate Concept of Operations and Employment AMCM LMRS RMS System Technical Parameters Probability of detection Probability of neutralization Endurance False alarm rate Other … Assessment Methodology Measures of effectiveness Modeling Fleet expertise Review Panel Communications / Data flow Baseline Scenario Development Threats TACSITs Environmen Asset Availability Identify Capabilities and Shortfalls Prioritize and Rank Recommendations MIW Operational Requirements

Slide15: 

‘Top 4’ - Dedicated MIW Forces Roadmap to the Navy after Next MCM’s/MHC’s/New Payloads; Plan for improvement not clear or funded. MCS Replacement Valid need for dedicated ship? Expected life of Inchon Realistic plan for way ahead Convert existing ship? New Construction of a unique ship? Build an additional ship of an existing class? MH-53 vs. MH-60

Slide16: 

‘Top 4’ - Improving USW Battle Space Dominance Advancing USW as a concept that includes ASW and MUW Shallow water operations means we no longer have the luxury to keep ASW and MUW separate. Assured access requires an Undersea Warfare Approach.

Slide18: 

‘Top 4’ - Improving USW Battle Space Dominance USW ESG refocused Cross platform, leveraged efforts approach Eliminate program redundancies/stovepipes Capability and mission based Marries ASW and MUW to assure access Modified SUBTECH process IPTs to explore future technologies which could contribute to mission accomplishment Outcomes to affect FY02/03 execution and POM 04 planning

Slide19: 

Questions?

Differences from Force 21: 

Differences from Force 21 Scope of Force 21 included dedicated MCM, End to End (E2E) analysis addresses only organic E2E is a technical assessment addressing interoperability of the suite of systems vs. a strictly operational analysis End to End study addresses C4I to a much greater degree than Force 21 Level of analysis of individual system timelines more detailed in End to End study End to End study uses most recent system performance estimates, rather than notional estimates or ORD thresholds

Slide21: 

12 MHC-51 Class ships 2 Overseas Homeported 14 MCM-1 Class ships 4 Overseas Homeported Dedicated Forces 1 MCS-12 Class ship An Integrated Force of Ships, Helicopters and Divers