VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT L. WALTERS, USN DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

(SURFACE WARFARE)

BANQUET ADDRESS: NA VY MODERNIZATION

AND SUSTAINABZLZTY Washington, D.C., he also served as Chairman of the NATO Seasparrow Steering Committee which consisted of seven N A TO member nations.

In September 1977, VAdm. Walters reported as Com- mander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group Eight. This Command en- tailed serving on numerous occasions at sea as a Battle Group Commander in both the Sixth Fleet and Second Fleet. In No- vember 1979, he reported to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations as a Director, in the Navy Program Information Center. In May 1981, VAdm. Walters reported to his present duty as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Surface Warfare).

Vice Admiral Walters’ awards include the Legion of Merit with two Gold Stars, in lieu of second and third awards; the Bronze Star and Navy Commendation Medals with Bronze V for Combat; the Joint Service Commendation Medal; the Combat Action Ribbon; and numerous campaign ribbons and Unit awards.

THE SPEAKER

is a native of Oblong, Illinois. Following a year of Navy en- listed duty he entered fhe U.S. Navaf Academy in 1945 and graduated with the Class of 1949. His first assignment was aboard the battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) where he partici- pated in the invasion of Inchon during the Korean War, He subsequently served in USS Keppler (DDE-765), USS Norfolk (DL-I), and successively on the Staffs of Commander Battle Division Two and Commander Cruiser Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.

Later, he served with the commissioning crew of USS Berkeley (DDG-15) and then commissioned USS Brooke (FFG-I) as Commanding Officer, This was followed by a tour as Executive Office of USS Providence (CLG-6) and as Com- manding Officer of USS Belknap (CG-26).

In assignments ashore, VAdm. Walters has served on the Staff of the Chief of Naval Operations; as a Project Manager for Anti-Ship Mksile Defense in the Naval Ordnance Systems Command; as Commanding Officer Naval Ship Weapon Sys- tems Engineering Station, Port Hueneme; as Project Manager for Surface Ships, Naval Material Command; and as Deputy Commander for Surface Combatant Ships, Naval Sea Systems Command.

Vice Admiral Walters attended the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California graduating with a BSEE degree and attended Auburn University, where he graduated with an MBA. He also attended the Armed Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia and the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama. During his last tour in

BANQUET ADDRESS

1 APPRECIATE THE HONOR AND OPPORTUNITY TO AD- DRESS THIS SESSION of the American Society of Naval Engineers. For here in this banquet hall are gathered those who constitute the three elements of Navy mod- ernization and sustainability. There are those who generate the requirements, members of the operating forces and OPNAV. There are those who define and refine the requirements, those people from the systems commands and those described by one of the past chiefs of naval material as “suburban support contractors.” And lastly, and most importantly, the system and equip- ment designers and suppliers.

This organization provides a magnificent technical forum for the discussion of issues that hopefully will prevent misinformed decisions, either from the requir- ing or supplying aspect. My boss, the CNO, recently observed that there was an amazing amount of energy developed in the Washington area, but that 95% was dissipated in internal losses. Hopefully you can help reduce these losses.

Additionally, I am appreciative of the captive audi- ence for my thoughts.

The future for surface ships and combat systems is the brightest in history since the advent of breech loading guns. New technology will change sea warfare dramatically. Tomahawk and Harpoon will provide dis- tributed offensive power to surface ships. Offensive strike capability no longer resides solely in aircraft. The Aegis system, towed arrays, and other new weapons sys- tems are designed to destroy the Soviet Navy. Surface ships can and will be deployed worldwide with the capa-

53 Naval Engineers Journal, July 1984

BANQUET ADDRESS WALTERS

bility to exercise sea control and influence the outcome of operations ashore.

The Arleigh Burke Class destroyer, the lead ship of which is currently being authorized by Congress in fiscal year 1985, is our number one surface program. It will replace our aging DDG-2 and 37 class ships. It will have vertical launch capability for either Tomahawk, ASROC, or surface-to-air-missiles. Threat responsive- ness has been increased in all mediums with the Aegis weapon system, the tactical towed array sonar (SQR-19), and the semi-active laser guided projectile. This ship has been designed with warfighting capability and survivability unprecedented in any previous destroyer. The first delivery is anticipated in 1989.

Tomahawk will provide potential strike capability, conventional or nuclear, in every surface combatant. This will restore a standoff range to the Navy, as well as the capability for saturating and penetrating enemy de- fenses. This compounds the targeting problem for any potential adversary. Scores of ships become a threat, not ju& a dozen aircraft carriers. These ships supple- ment aircraft in some scenarios, replace them in others, but in all cases provide additional firepower, added flex- ibility and increased aircraft survivability.

The new Aegis radar and weapon system is deployed in the CG-47 class and is designed into the DDG-51 class. This phased array radar has a detect, track, and engage capability in a heavy electronic warfare environ- ment. It can engage numerous hostiles simultaneously and will be a significant anti-air warfare force multiplier in any naval force. It revolutionizes the anti-air warfare contribution of surface forces. Ticonderoga, the lead ship of the class, has recently returned from a successful deployment off Beirut.

Just as with any other significant advancement, Aegis has had its share of detractors and disbelievers. On the way home from deployment, we detoured Ticonderoga south to the Atlantic fleet weapons range off Puerto Rico to undergo a second operational evaluation. I am proud to say that last week the Ticonderoga put on a fantastic display of surface to air missilery, fulfilled our expectations and reinforced our need for more of this capability in the fleet as fast as we can build it.

In other areas of surface warfare, we are also achiev- ing noteworthy improvements. We are bringing amphi- bious forces much needed new capability. Our new ships, such as the LSD-41 and LHD-1 class, are big im- provements over the ships they replace. They are better designed for the mission,, they are more versatile and they will possess capable defensive systems and im- proved survivability features. All new amphibs are de- signed to handle helicopters and landing craft air cush- ioned. The ability to operate helos and LCAC brings a whole new dimension to modern amphibious warfare, featuring over-the-horizon attack, surprise and diver- sion. The whole amphibious warfare effort is designed to provide better Navy support for our Marine Corps. With the addition of the maritime prepositioned ships and new seaborne, off-shore, off-loading facilities the Navy-Marine Corps team in concert with the Military Sealift Command will keep us on the leading edge of the

54 Naval Engineers Journal, July 1984

rapid deployment force concept. Both Navy and indus- trial design innovations coupled with commercial tech- nology have been brought to bear in this area.

After 25 years of near-neglect, we have commenced building a new mine countermeasures force. We have five MCM-1 class ships authorized and the first are under construction at two shipyards. The smaller coastal mine countermeasure ship, the MSH-1, is in the final stage of contractor selection and award. This has been a unique program, starting with a simple circular of requirements - leaving the how to do it to industry. The results thus far have been most gratifying and a credit to our shipbuilding industry.

Many of you participated in these developments, and to a large degree are responsible for these additional ca- pabilities.

One of the better practices that the Navy has adopted is that of involving the shipbuilders earlier in the ship design process. We need complete and open communi- cation between industry and the Navy. We need ideas from the defense industry on virtually all aspects of naval warfare, from concepts, to materials, to methods to reduce acquisition costs and increase reliability. We need efficiency and productivity improvements. MIL- SPECS serve a purpose but with rapidly changing tech- nology we would be remiss if we didn’t on occasion question their validity or application. The size and capability of our fleet is ultimately an affordability issue.

Those who have the authority to change, those of you in the change approval process, should guard against the not-invented-here syndrome. My advice to those of you proposing innovation, seemingly bucking the end- less tide, is to follow the old Latin proverb - “non illi- getimi carborundum est.” A good idea is generally pic- torially represented by a light bulb coming on, but re- member, only 4% of the power in an incandescent bulb results in light, the other 96% is heat.

The Aegis ship program has had notable success with innovation. In addition to the Aegis radar and weapon system, they have adopted high strength-low alloy steel, NAVTRUSS, air cooled 400hz solid state electric power converters, and delivery of a fully tested ship - in- cluding missile and gun firings. The common law mar- riage of the combat systems engineer and the naval ar- chitect in the Aegis shipbuilding project appears to have been a good decision.

I am concerned that in the final analysis, we are not giving adequate priority to endurance in our ships. En- durance may be a factor in ship survivability, yet in DDG-51, we ultimately made sacrifices in speed and en- durance, the long standing number two priority in the top level requirement. Although we made considerable progress in new propulsion plants, I believe we have not given power density an equivalent effort to that routine- ly done in aircraft design.

Ship silencing is another fruitful area for innovation as noise is a hazard to both the ship and its people. We’ve adopted some lessons learned from submarine design but we have a long way to go. How much thought has gone into our auxiliary machinery develop-

WALTERS BANQUET ADDRESS

ment to have performance in a quieter environment? I wonder if technology will allow machinery design that would make it quieter, rather than having to rely solely on sound isolation. Can machinery be built more quiet without greater cost so we can take advantage of both quiet operation and hull isolation?

We particularly need to reduce the manning level associated with our new combat systems. I perceive that manning is merely a result of whatever system we install in our ships, rather than at the outset of the design, to constrain manpower just as we would any other resource. Manpower is a significant life-cycle cost, not only in the direct sense such as salaries, but also in the more insidious indirect ways, like having to drive a big- ger ship around forever because there are more people onboard. Not only is the initial indirect cost higher in the ship acquisition cost, but most of the other life cycle costs are ship-size devices.

Similarly, I think we are slow to adopt labor saving devices. We have not done well in adopting new materi- als in our ships that will either make them more surviv- able or easier to maintain. Submarines are designed for smaller crews, both for operations and maintenance. Can this philosophy be applied to surface ships without dictating a minimum manned ship? One of my admirals has coined the expression “UCATS,” - underutilized, currently available technology.

I am often asked where we are going with advance hulI forms.

Air cushion vehicles offer speed and amphibian capa- bility, and we will introduce this capability with our new LCAC this year.

Hydrofoils offer speed and seakeeping, but because of the lightweight required to “fly,” they are payload limited and expensive. Performance-wise, we are very satisfied with our PHM squadron in Key West. However, the future for hydrofoils is not clear.

The surface effect ship offers speed, seakeeping, and a large-volume boxy hull. No sophisticated machinery is required and in the high length to beam design we get good performance with diesel power; hence good effi- ciency and improved endurance. Both the new mine hunter class and multi-mission patrol boat have surface effect ship hull forms in a competitive position for selec- tion. While the U.S. Navy has done much research and development of the surface effect ship hull form, it wasn’t until a commercial shipbuilder built some craft at a cost that was competitive with monohulls, that we can finally see a near term reality. Additionally, we are advised that recent underwater shock tests performed in the private sector have proved that this particular hull form can withstand shock four or five times greater than a similar monohull. This hull form has future po- tential in several applications.

The small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH) is another interesting hull form that shows excellent prom- ise of seakeeping: the ability to remain on station - operating - no matter what the environment. It also, like the surface effect ship, could have a boxy super- structure, well adapted to aircraft use. But the key to SWATH utilization is cost. We must make the acquisi-

tion costs competitive to monohulls. I believe that we can do that. We will continue to seek application of this hull form, but our first concern is to achieve a cost com- petitive design.

One of the most significant differences between naval ships and other ships, besides the obvious combat sys- tems, is the degree of survivability. Survivability is the euphemism du jour that describes a “tough” ship: de- signed to be “tough,” constructed to sustain the punish- ment of enemy action, to minimize loss of personnel, and expected to be operated in “harm’s way.”

Some of the threats to our tough ships change. The close quarter broadsides of old caused us to armor the sides heavily. But ship losses due to plunging fire from distant naval gun duels reminded us to also armor the decks. Now the seaskimming missiles with shaped- charge warheads are forcing us to reevaluate the use of different armoring schemes. The type of survivability feature that we need often changes with the threat.

But some threats have not changed. Their emphasis is too often cyclical, as previously-learned lessons are rein- forced by recent experience. Fire has always been a special terror for sailors. The British found in the Falk- lands that combustible materials, including curtains, furniture, acoustic tiling, mattress and cable insulation contributed to smoke and fumes that inhibited effective firefighting and increased total damage. The presence of heavy black smoke was named repeatedly as the number one cause of the inability to effectively combat fires. Smoke was spread by the ventilation system and pene- trated through jarred or warped watertight and fume- tight doors. The normal damage control methods of de- smoking the ship proved ineffective.

One of the most valuable lessons learned from that conflict had to do with protective clothing. The British found that multiple layers of clothing, regardless of composition, provided the best means of personnel pro- tection. The Royal Navy is developing and issuing a two layer battle dress suit of fire retardant cotton which in- cludes complete head cover and gloves. The protective suit, gloves and head gear will be vacuum packed into a 4 by 6 inch package. We are pursuing the acquisition of similar clothing.

I don’t sense that industry is seeking our business in the passive fire safety and survivability areas. Could there be a lack of communication that is not bringing the requirement and supplier together? We have rekin- dled our interest, the requirement exists and we are looking for cost effective solutions.

Cautionary exhortations to not “gold plate” can usually be categorized as motherhood and apple pie. But better really is the enemy of good enough. A simple reliable system that works every time is better than the system that has 25% more capability, demands more re- sources to buy and maintain, but only works erratically.

I am not convinced that we are the “leading light” in all aspects of naval equipments and weapons systems. While I like to think that we in the United States always have the right answer, I suspect that other nations may already have some system that we are only thinking about developing. Look for some reverse technology

55 Naval Engineers Journal, July 1984

BANQUET ADDRESS WALTERS

transfer. It takes talent to know when the other guy has better systems or equipment.

Generally acquisition and sustainability are under- stood to be concepts that compete with each other for resources. Because so much of our acquisition is man- aged centrally, yet sustained in the field, we in Wash- ington often become myopic in our view of things. Ac- quisition and sustainability require a delicate balance.

Often the effort required to sustain a system is dic- tated by the design developed in the acquisition process. My favorite example is the DD-963 waste heat boiler. The concept was noble, but the packaging led to its downfall.

maintenance items with one of our

Mobilize your calibration, electronic test equipfnent, tools, and other I - ACI A.C.I., Inc. (714) 546-0886 - 2118 S Grand, Santa Ana, Ca 92705

Many technology oriented groups spawn individuals who want to be on the leading edge of innovation and the development of new systems, and shy away from the daily tasks required to sustain the system once fielded. A few are even guilty of looking at spare parts and sup- port as the profit maker. These people we don’t need on our team. What we need are contractors with good pro- ducts, good management and mutual interest in our na- tion’s defense at reasonable cost. The bottom line is that our needs far exceed the dollars to execute. I believe that better systems need not cost more. I have no desire to gold plate, either the hardware, or the exhaustive docu- mentation - the myriad plans, studies, etc. - or in testing. Much of my time is spent explaining and de- fending why systems cost so much. We must find ways to make the dollar go farther.

In conclusion, surface warfare is on the offensive, with new potential, new capabilities and superb people. While we still use defensive acronyms to describe some of our capabilities, like “area defense” and “point de- fense,” there is a shift in emphasis to the offense. We are becoming the “threat.” And I wish Admiral Gorsh- kov, or any other Potential Adversary, sleepless nights.

Thank you and good night.

in an immrtant sales role If you’re looking for new challenges and fresh objectives whilst using the expertise and experience

you’ve gained, think about a career with Marconi Command and Control Systems - a newly formed company utilising years of Marconi experience and expertise in advanced electronic systems.

We’re currently seeking to appoint a Principal Sales Engineer for our Naval Control System Group based in Leicester. You’ll be involved in a wide range of activities from identifying potential business, obtaining enquiries and liaising with our Engineering and Commercial staff in preparing tenders through to presenting proposals to overseas navies. In addition, you’ll be keeping up to date with new technology in the field and maintaining liaison with The Royal Navy, R & D establishments, MOD Procurement Executive and others.

It’s a challenging and demanding role calling for an ex-Naval Officer, of the rank of Lt. Commander, with Engineering qualifications.

We offer an attractive salary together with a wide range of large-group benefits including relocation assistance to the Leicester area, surrounded by attractive countryside and noted for low-priced housing and excellent amenities.

Interested? Then why not telephone Sue Pike on Leicester (0533) 871481, ext. 37 for an informal discussion or write to her at Marconi Command & Control Systems Limited, New Parks, Leicester LE3 1 UF.

Marconi Command & Control Systems

56 Naval Engineers Journal, July 1984