DDG 51 Flight III RTC (Final)

REPORT TO CONGRESS

DDG 51 FLIGHT III SHIPS AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR ENGINEERING CHANGE PROPOSAL

Prepared by: Assistant Secretary of the Navy Research, Development, and Acquisition 1000 Navy Pentagon Washington, DC 20350"1000

FEBRUARY 2015

The estimated cost of report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $15030 for the 2015 Fiscal Year. This includes $30 in expenses and $15000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2015Jan26 RefID: 4 "42B2CD8

Distribution Distributi on Statement A ! Approved for Public Release.

Introduction

The Department of the Navy (DoN) submits this Report to Congress on the DDG 51 Flight III design status as directed by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S.Rept.112"173). The Department is committed to the acquisition of the DDG 5 1 Flight III destroyers with an integrated Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) to meet the requirements for Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) capabilities. After several years of study, analysis, requirements validation, and prototype testing, the AMDR S"Band system is poised for successful integration into the DDG 51 Class ships as the Flight III upgrade. This report summarizes the background of the DDG 51 Class program, explains the new AMDR system, describes the final scope of the engineering ch ange proposal (ECP) required to field the ADMR on a DDG 51 hull, hu ll, depicts the resulting Flight III ship configuration, and outlines the wa y forward to ensure this vital capability reaches the Fleet as quickly as possible. possible. This report will also show that with respect to systems and equipment levels o f maturity for Flight III, the AMDR is the only new development technology. The AMDR has successfully completed completed Milestone B, a full system Preliminary Design Review, a hardware Critical Design Review, and will deliver its first full ship set of production equipment by early FY 2020. The remaining equipment required to to provide power and cooling to the AMDR are all based on currently cu rrently existing equipment and therefore induce low technical risk to the program. Given the tremendous capability improvement AMDR AMDR provides to defeat emerging air and ballistic missile threats threats over current radars, the low to moderate technical risk associated with implementing this radar on an FY 2016 DDG 51 justifies execution of the ECP during the FY 2013"2017 multiyear procurement contract. The specific language in the NDAA for FY13, section 125, is as follows: “Multiyear procurement authority for Arleigh Burke!class destroyers and associated systems (sec. 125). The committee believes that continued production of Arleigh Burke!class destroyers is critical to provide required forces for sea based ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities. The Navy envisions that, if research and development activities yield an improved radar suite and combat comba t systems capability, they would like to install those systems systems on the destroyers in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, at which time the designation for for those destroyers would be Flight III. Should the Navy decide to move forward with the integration of an engineering change proposal (ECP) to incorporate a new BMD capable radar and associated support systems during execution of this multiyear procurement, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees, no later than with the the budget request for the year of contract award of such an ECP. The re port will contain a description of the final scope of this ECP, as well as the level level of maturity of the new technology to be incorporated on the ships of implementation and rationale as to why the maturity of the technology and the capability provided justify execution of the change in requirements under that ECP during the execution ex ecution of a multiyear procurement contract.”


2

Background & Requirements

The ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG 51) Class ship is a multi"mission surface combatant capable of meeting 21st century warfighting requirements. It operates offensively offensively and defensively, inde pendently, or as part of Carrier Strike Groups (CSG), Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESG), and Missile Defense Action Groups in multi"threat environments that include Air, Surface, and Su bsurface threats. Ships will respond to Low Intensity Conflict / Coastal and Littoral Littoral Offshore Warfare (LIC/ (LIC/ CALOW) Scenarios as well as Open Ocean Conflict p roviding and augmenting Power Projection, Forward Presence Requirements, and Escort Escort Operations at sea. DDG 51 Class primary missions are to: 





Conduct simultaneous Anti"Air Warfare (AAW) and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) operations Detect, track, and identify air targets, and acquire and engage hostile targets with weapons Detect, track, and identify ballistic missile targets, and acquire and en gage hostile targets with anti" ballistic ballistic missile weapons



Conduct Electronic Warfare



Conduct Strike Warfare against land targets







Detect, locate, classify, and track submarines and conduct Anti"Submarine Warfare (ASW) operations and engagements Detect, locate, classify, and track surface contacts and conduct Anti"Surface Warfare (ASUW) operations and engagements Gather, display, and evaluate surface, subsurface, and air intelligence

!"#$%& ( ) !*"#+, --- ./&%0,"120* 3"&4 Distribution Distributi on Statement A ! Approved for Public Release.

3

The DDG 51 Class Program has awarded a total of 76 ships from 1985 to 2017 between two ship builders, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) and Huntington Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII). Most recently, 10 were awarded in June 2013 under Multi"Year Procurement (MYP) authority for FY13" 17. Sixty"two ships have been delivered. Of the remaining 14, six are are in various stages of construction and will deliver in 2016 and beyond. The Flight III configuration configuration will be integrated via the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) process onto the last three ships of the FY13"17 MYP: one ship in FY16 and both FY17 ships. ships. A follow"on FY18 MYP will continue the production line. Prior to Flight III, the program has produced three flights (I, II and IIA). Flights II and IIA included important modifications for changing mission requirements and technology updates, thus d emonstrating the substantial capacity and flexibility of the base DDG 51 hull form. form. Flight II introduced enhanced capability in Combat Systems and Electronic Warfare. Flight IIA constituted a more significant change to the ship by b y incorporation of an organic dual hangar/dual hang ar/dual helicopter aviation facility, extended transom, zonal electrical power distribution (ZEDS), enhan ced missile capacity, and reconfigured primary radar arrays. arrays. The combined scope and means for integrating the changes for Flight III is similar to the approach used in the Flight Flight IIA upgrade. Additionally, during Flight IIA production in the middle of the FY98"01 MYP, the class was significantly upgraded with a new radar, the AN/SPY"1D(V), and an improved combat management computing plant, AEGIS Baseline 7.1. The previous ship system changes were successfully executed by ECPs introduced introduced via the existing systems engineering processes on both Flight II and IIA in support of the ongoing construction program. This methodology takes advantage of Navy and prime contractor experience with the proven processes while offering effective and efficient introduction of the the desired configuration changes. It also provides the more more affordable and effective approach toward toward producing this enhanced ship capability in lieu of starting a new ship design to incorporate the same capabilities into a new production line for ship construction. DDG 51 Flight III will be the third evolution of the original DDG 51 Class and will achieve th e U.S. Navy’s critical need for for an enhanced surface combatant integrated IAMD IAMD capability. Flight III will build on the warfighting capabilities of DDG 51 Flight IIA ships, providing this capability at the earliest feasible time. Its defining characteristics characteristics include integration of the AMDR, associated Combat Systems elements, and related Hull, Mechanical, a nd Electrical (HM&E) changes into a modified repeat Flight IIA design. AMDR will give Flight III ships the ability to conduct simultaneous AAW and BMD operations. operations. Flight III will contribute to mitigating the capability gaps identified in the Maritime Air and Missile Defense of the Joint Force (MAMDJF) Initial Capabilities Document (ICD). The integrated Flight III ship system as delivered will meet the program requirements as stated in the DDG 51 Class Flight III Capabilities Development Document (CDD). DDG 51 Flight III will execute four primary missions: (1) Integrated Air and Missile Defense, (2) Anti"Surface Warfare, (3) Anti"Submarine Warfare, and (4) Strike Warfare, and will have the ability to plan, coordinate and execute alternate warfare commander responsibilities for either anti"air warfare or ballistic missile defense.


4

The core changes between betwee n Flight IIA and Flight III and the systems s ystems technological maturity for those changes are shown in Figure Figure 2 and below. In addition to the incorporation of AMDR "S and HM&E upgrades, the AMDR system system will be integrated into the AEGIS Combat System. The evolution of the AEGIS Combat System as it pertains to the DDG 51 Class is shown in Figure 3, 3 , a progression that will continue with the incorporation of AMDR and other technologies as shown in Figure 4.

!"#$%& 5 ) 6%"70%8 !*"#+, --- 9+02#&:

!"#$%& ((( )*+&,-+

.,/%01"1$#/2" 32&45#&*

AMDR

In Engineering & Manufacturing Development, LRIP scheduled for FY 2017

MT"5 Gas Turbine Generator

Fielded on DDG 1000 class

4160VAC Electric Plant

Fielded on LHA 6 Class

300 Ton A/C Plant

In operation at vendor plant, environmental qualification in progress progress

4160VAC 4160VAC to 1000VDC Power Conversion Module

Fielded on DDG 1000 Class


5

D i s t r i b u t i o n S t a t e m e n t A !

A p p r o v e d f o r P u b l i c R e l e a s e .

6

!"#$%& ; — <=>-? <=>-? 90/0@"*","&: =A1*$,"12

!"#$%& B ) C1:, D&E&2, <=>-? F0:&*"2&:

Flight III Chronology

Flight III is an incremental upgrade to the DDG 51 Class, and includes tailored engineering mod ifications to this proven ship class to accommodate the larger, more powerful, and enhanced enhan ced AMDR S for more electrical power, increased increased "Band system. The shipboard changes are driven by the need for system cooling capability, re"arrangements and added volume to make room for the AMDR system, and structural changes to restore restore acceptable growth margin for the life of the ship. ship. All major equipment development is on track to support sup port DDG 51 Class implementation of the AMDR in FY16. The current baseline design for the DDG 51 Flight III has traceability back to the DDG 113 design and the Radar Hull Study performed in 2009 that evaluated the DDG 51 Class and resulted in selection of the preferred preferred hull for the AMDR. The timeline below depicts the key studies, important analysis results, supporting design reviews, and Navy leadership decisions that led to restarting the DDG 51 production line and to the anticipated Detail Design of the Flight III ECPs over the past five years.


7

DDG 51 Selected

Radar Hull Study (June – November 2009) 

Evaluated incorporating IAMD capabilities into DDG 51 and DDG 1000 hull



DDG 51 with 14 foot AMDR "S w/ SPY"3 and AEGIS Combat System S ystem selected



Additional power generation and cooling required " Recommended additional study in power and AMDR Integration

DDG 51 Restart CNO’s Evaluation Board (CEB) (23 December 200 9) 

Endorsed Flight III Upgrade Study

MAMDJF Gate 2 Review/ Resources & Requirements Review Board (R3B) (2 March 2010) 

Validated results and findings of MAMDJF Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)



Approved AMDR program to proceed to Gate 2



Approved DDG 51 Flight III as preferred hull to proceed to Gate 2



Cancelled CG(X) program

DDG 51 Flight III Defined

Flight Upgrade Study, Year 1 (February 2010 – January 2011) 

Technology Characterization



Trade Studies (assessed technology options for cost benefit)



Ship Concept Studies



Cost Analysis Comparison of the Flight III (IAMD) Ship Concepts



R3B held 11 February 2011



Approved 4,160 VAC power architecture a rchitecture on Flight III option with AMDR S and X Bands

Flight Upgrade Study, Year 2 (February – May 2012) 

Refined DDG 51 Flight III Ship Concepts



Evaluated 450 VAC architecture without AMDR X"Band, but with SPQ"9B



Supported Flight III CDD Requirements



Cost Analysis Comparison of Flight III Concepts



R3B held 11 June and 24 July 2012 Approved to proceed to Gate 3 Approved 4,160 VAC power architecture over the legacy 450 VAC distribution system Approved SPQ"9B as the X"Band radar 






8

DDG 51 Flight III Approved

Flight III, Gate 3 R3B (October 2012) 

Approved Flight III CDD and Concept of Operations (CONOPs) for Joint Staffing

Flight III Preliminary Design (May 2012 – April 2014) 

In Progress Reviews (IPRs) A, B, C, and D co nducted to converge design, manage changes, and retain Space, Weight, Power, and Cooling Service Life Allowance (SWaP"C SLA)

Flight III Contract Design (July 2013 – October 2 015) 

Develop Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs)

AMDR Capability Development Document (CDD) Approved

Signed by CNO (20 April 2013) Validated and signed by the JROC (27 June 2013)

AMDR Vendor Selected

Award Contract for AMDR S"Band and Radar Suite Controller (October 2013) 

Award protested, start of work delayed



Protest withdrawn, work started (January 2014)

DDG 51 Flight III Preliminary Design Concurrence

Flight III Total Ship Design Review (TSDR) (18 March 2014) 



Tailored Systems Engineering Technical Review (SETR) event to evaluate Flight III Preliminary Design and early Contract Design deliverables Report Stakeholder Steering Board’s concurrence and approval for the Flight III Preliminary Design to proceed to System Functional Review (SFR)

DDG 51 Flight III ECPs Approved

Flight III Gate 4/5 R3B (20 March 2014) 

Approved core change ECPs ECP s for Flight III

Flight III Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) (06 May 2014) 

Concurrence on Flight III readiness for Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) IPR


9

Flight III DAB IPR (03 June 2014) 



Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) of 19 June 2014 approved the acquisition plan Approved Flight III Contract Design (CD) actions to proceed with Detail D esign

Flight III CD Draft ECP Development (April 2014 – October 2014) DDG 51 Flight III Functional Baseline Approved

Flight III System Functional Review (01 October 2014) 



Tailored Systems Engineering Technical Review event to evaluate Flight III Preliminary Design conclusion and Contract Design pro gress Report Stakeholder Steering Board’s concurrence and approval for the Flight III Functional Baseline

DDG 51 Flight III Capability Development Document (CDD) Approved

Flight III signed by the CNO (08 May Ma y 2014) Flight III CDD validated and signed by b y the JROC (28 October 2014)

AMDR Hardware Baseline Approved

AMDR Hardware Critical Design Review (CDR) (03 December 2014) 



Systems Engineering Technical Review (SETR) event to evaluate hardware design Report Stakeholder Steering Board’s concurrence and approval for the AMDR Functional Baseline

Meeting the Requirements

Throughout the five year span of evaluation and refinement as the ship concept was being matured, the Flight III ship capability requirements were also being clarified and validated. A meticulous and concerted effort was applied in considering the secondary effects of ship impacts created from the Flight III changes to avoid degrading de grading or compromising the existing DDG 51 Flight IIA requirements. A substantial milestone milestone achievement was reached on 28 October 2014 when the Flight III CDD was validated and approved by the JROC. The Flight III CDD requirements reflect an achievable set of goals for upgrading the DDG 51 Class with the AMDR S"Band. The new requirements that could only be met by modifying the ship include the IAMD, SWaP"C SLA, Manpower, and Alternate Warfare Commander requirements. requirements. As shown in Table 1, the majority majority of the remaining CDD requirements are met by the current DDG 51 Class design.


10

!"# %"&'(&)*+," %*&*)"-"&. /!%%.0

6-7"& 1#.-") 2--&345-". /612.0

!"# 1#.-") 2--&345-". /!12.0

E2@61F B()D<3*+,"

@"&-3,*< A*5+,73+9 1#.-") /@A10 B"<<.

C(*- 6D.

1G2H;

BCH B(+-*)3+-+I ="-",-I*+: 8+'(

E@= B()D*-343<3-#

15&J3J*43<3-#

H*:*& B&(.. 1",-3(+ /HB10

B&#D-( B&#D-( 15DD(&15DD(&-

6B; 6B; ="'"+. ="'"+." "

15.-*3+)"+-

8+'&*&": /8H0 139+*-5&" (' 1-*,K.

L<",-&(+3, G*&'*&"

6''"+.3J" 215G

L+"&9#

8H 139+*-5&" (' F5<< *+: 15D"&.-&5,-5&"

L)4"::": M&+9 1#.-").

6J"&D&"..5&"

M&*3+3+9

2,(5.-3, 139+*-5&"

L;%

E"- H"*:#

;*9+"-3, 139+*-5&"

L+J3&(+ A3)3-3+9 B(+:3-3(+.

H"D<"+3.7 *- 1"*

?(&," %&(-",-3(+

15.-*3+": 1D"":

L16F

1"<' ="'"+."I A(N 1<(N

B(.-

L+:5&*+,"

F5)*+ 1#.-") 8+-"9&*-3(+

1"&J3," A3'"

1,7":5<"

6D"&*-3(+ *+: 15.-*3+*43<3-# /6O10 B(.-

F5)*+ ?*,-(&. L+93+""&3+9

1-&3K" 6D"&*-3(+.

8+'(&)*-3(+ 2..5&*+,"

M7"&)*< H*:3*-3(+

;*+D(N"&

;(:5<*& 6D"+ 1#.-").

M&*3+3+9 %&('3,3"+,#

2<-"&+*-" G*&'*&" B())*+:"& ?5+,-3(+

;LM6B 15DD(&-

2J3*-3(+ ?*,3<3-3".

E1?1

8+-"9&*-": 23& *+: ;3..3<" ="'"+." /82;=0 (' >(3+- ?(&,".

1D*,"I G"397-I %(N"& *+: B((<3+9 H"<3*43<3-# 1"&J3," A3'" 2<<(N*+," 2<<(N*+," /1G*%PB 1A20

2J3*-3(+ 6&:+*+," "#$ %& '%()*)#( &#+,)&#'#-./ (&)0)-1 2%/.#( 234-1#

5#+,)&#'#-./ 234-1#( *&%' 67)13. 889 :5;< =,. 47(> '#. 4-( &#+,)&)-1 -% /3)? '%()*)24.)%-/

H*:*& B*D*43<3-3".

Q+:"&."* G*&'*&" QG 17(,K @5<+"&*43<3-#

5#+,)&#'#-./ #**#2.)0#7> ,-234-1#( *&%' 67)13. 889 :5;

G0@*& ( ) !*"#+, --- 9HH D&I$"%&7&2,: ?$770%8

Systems Engineering Approach

ECP development is a fundamental systems engineering app roach; an approach currently implemented in the DDG 51 program that has been continuously updated and improved since the program’s inception in the early 1980s and has resulted in the successful delivery of 62 DDG 51 Class destroyers. The last three ships of the FY13"17 MYP are designated as Flight III beginning with one of the FY16 ship. The Flight III is a modified repeat of the existing existing baseline and will be centered on the addition of an a n IAMD capability in the form of the AMDR "S, associated enhanced com bat systems elements and requisite supporting HM&E changes. These changes will be incorporated via discrete ECPs with the same proven processes and rigor that produced successful Flight II and IIA upgrades to the class. The list of the specific ECPs and the full scope of the Flight III change change is shown on the following page.


11

Mandatory Flight III Core IAMD Changes

Install AMDR S "Band System and Radar Suite Control (RSC) Replace the AN/SPY"1D(V) Radar with the AMDR S"Band and Radar Suite Controller, including related processors, cooling equipment, and power distribution equipment Add (3) Electronic Equipment Fluid Coolers (EEFC) to support AMDR "S equipment Install Technology Insertion 16 Upgrades (TI 16+) Modify Common Data Link Management System S ystem (CDLMS) with Tech Refresh due to Obsolescence Deckhouse structure redesign changes to support array s ystem weight Roll"down habitability changes to accommodate AMDR S"Band equipment

Mandatory Flight III Core IAMD Changes (continued)

Electrical Plant Upgrades Procure and Install (3) 4,160 VAC Ship S hip Service Gas Turbine Generators (SSGTGs) Modify 450 VAC distribution equipment and protection scheme Procure and Install 4,160 VAC distribution equipment an d protection schemes Procure and Install (3) 4,160 to 450 4 50 VAC Ship Service Transformers Procure and Install (2) 4,160 VAC to 1,000 VDC Power Conversion Modules (PCM) Modify seawater pump for 4,160 VAC SSGTGs Install HeptaFluoroPropane (HFP) firefighting system for SSGTG modules Redesign the Fire Control System water cooler Replace 5x 200 rTon Air Conditioning (AC) plants with 5x 300 rTon HES/C AC plants Install flooding cross"connects & expand hull in way of flight deck (FLODES) Increase inner " bottom bottom structure Other Directed Changes

Install habitability changes to increase accommodations Changes that will be effected to the AEGIS combat system to integrate AMDR into AEGIS will be included in the Advanced Capability Build (ACB) represented in the AEGIS Combat S ystems Evolution, as shown in Figure 4.


12

AMDR System Description

The AMDR suite consists of an S"Band radar (AMDR "S), X"Band radar (SPQ"9B), and a Radar Suite Controller Controller (RSC). AMDR "S is a new development IAMD radar providing sensitivity for long range detection and engagement of advanced threats. The X"Band radar is a horizon"search radar based on existing technology. The RSC provides radar resource management and coordination for both S and X"Band, and interface interface to the combat system. system. The SPQ"9B, radar is already slated for installation on the FY14 Flight IIA ships, and will not be further further addressed in this report. Figure 5 shows the primary components of the AMDR system. s ystem. The AMDR "S and RSC development is managed by PEO Integrated Warfare Systems (IWS) 2.0 (Above Water Sensors), and is contracted to Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems. Systems. The planar array faces employ a digital beam"forming architecture, which replaces the analog waveguide system

!"#$%& J –
<%%08 -2,&%L0E& K2", <%%08 614&% H":,%"@$,"12 K2", 911*"2# =*&E,%12"E: K2", H"#",0* F&07L1%7"2# ?8:,&7 H"#",0* ?"#20* 6%1E&::"2# ?8:,&7 !%&I$&2E8 G"7& ?8:,&7

C6HK D96? D?9 DG?? K6?

C0"2 614&% H":,%"@$,"12 K2", D0M0% 912,%1* 6%1E&::"2# ?$@:8:,&7 D0M0% ?$",& 912,%1**&% D&0*)G"7& ?"7$*0,"12 ?$@:8:,&7 K2"2,&%%$/,"@*& 614&% ?$//*8


13

of the legacy DDG 51 Class AN/SPY"1D(V) arrays. Enhanced power and multi" beam beam operation provides advanced, robust BMD detection and discrimination. AMDR "S will be capable of detecting a target half the size at twice the distance compared with its predecessor. Physically arranging all the AMDR equipment into the DDG 51 ship was a major portion of the preliminary design effort. Much of the equipment needs to be in close c lose proximity to the array faces to minimize high data rate cabling lengths. This required placement of most of the prop rocessing and control cabinets in the combat tower, on the 03 Level. A key advantage of AMDR is the elimination of radar waveguides. In previous shipboard radars, the installation of waveguides require significant material and manpower. !"#$%& N )
14

Figure 8 provides a general view of the primary structural elements of the DDG 51 deckhouse in the area of the array installation. installation. To accommodate the size and weight of the AMDR arrays, resizing of many of the structural elements was necessary. Other ship impacts, including the arrangements, electrical, and cooling requirements of the AMDR are addressed later in this report. AMDR development has been ongoing since 2006, with critical technology elements as well as some subsystems developed prior to the Engineering Development Model (EDM) development phase. Since contract award, multi"disciplinary incremental preliminary and critical design reviews have been conducted on all items (e.g. component, subassembly, or configuration item), and have been chaired and moderated by independent reviewers. Navy and in" house independent subject matter experts participated in all reviews.

Component

Status

Radar Modular Assembly Radiator Radar Control Processing Cabinet Array Interface Unit Cabinet Digital Signal Processing Cabinet Digital Beam Forming Cabinet RSC Cabinet RTSS Cabinet Ship Wiring OLBFN Inertial Navigation System Array Integration Components Non RF LRU Array Mechanical Structure Array NFR Fixture Calibration Radar Modular Assembly Digital Beamformer (DBF) Digital Receiver Exciter (DREX) Transmit@Receive Integrated Multichannel Module Array Cooling System Low Rate Initial Production Cabinet DREX & DBF CDR Power Distribution System

Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete

G0@*& 5 ) 917/12&2, "9HD ?,0,$:

Within these reviews, the topic areas map to the Navy’s Technical Review Manual (TRM) and the conduct and closure of these interim Critical Design Reviews (iCDRs) (iCDRs) are formally tracked and reported at monthly reviews. Table 2 lists the iCDRs performed, all of which included Nav y participation. AMDR Hardware and Systems Preliminary Design Reviews were conducted 21 May and 27 AuAu gust 2014, respectively. On 3 December 2014, a Hardware CDR was was successfully completed which demonstrated that all Technical Performance Measures are compliant with requirements and that the hardware design is of sufficient maturity to complete detail de sign and proceed to producproduc tion of the Engineering Development Model array. The AMDR program is on track to deliver d eliver a substantial performance improvement over the currently fielded AN/SPY"1D(V), with 30 times greater sensitivity. sensitivity. In order to deliver this needed capa bility on time and to mitigate development risk, the AMDR acquisition approach includes Agile software development and a robust testing strategy that includes mod eling and simulation anchored


15

with live flight tests. tests. Raytheon has implemented implemented an Agile software development process for im proved productivity, earliest possible delivery of tactical software, software, and improved testability. Additionally, an AMDR Hardware in"the"Loop (HWIL) facility, which includes a fully functioning portion of an AMDR array as well as all the back "end processing equipment, and a Software S oftware Integration Lab (SIL), consisting of another set of AMDR back "end processing equipment, have been installed and are operating at the contractor facility in in Sudbury, MA. The purpose of these facilities, shown in Figure 9, is to support iterative hardware and software testing ahead of, and then in support of, the EDM array. AMDR is on !"#$%& P ) H&EQ+1$:& ?,%$E,$%& schedule to meet delivery dates for land based testing.

!"#$%& R )

16

Electric Plant and Cooling Upgrades

Second to the AMDR installation, the Electric Plant (EP) upgrades yield the next largest change and ship im pact, and have been an area of focus for the Flight III design team. The DDG 51 Flight IIA SSGTGs generate 450 VAC power, while the Flight III SSGTGs will create 4,160 VAC; providing the additional electrical power necessary to meet the perfor!"#$%& (S ) !*"#+, --- =*&E,%"E 6*02, 912E&/, mance requirements of the more powerful AMDR system. Figure 10 depicts the Flight III EP and distribution system system with 4,160 VAC power that is converted to both 1,000 VDC for the AMDR System and stepped down to 450 VAC for all other electrical ship systems. systems. Total installed EP power for the existing Flight IIA ships is 9.0 MW (3x 3,000 KW) while the Flight III ships will have 11.5 MW (3x 3,850 3,85 0 KW). To minimize both risk and cost, the 4,160 4 ,160 VAC SSGTGs are derived from the Rolls Royce MT"5 developed for DDG 1000, reducing development cost and providing commonality. The new 4,160 VAC (termed “high"side”) equipment and cabling imposes additional protection and increased standoff clearances for safety safety and survivability. While 4,160 VAC is new to DDG 51 Class, within within the Navy the 4,160 VAC system and equipment is used in many man y other ship classes and the DDG 51 program has leveraged the existing high voltage requirements, standards, and other ship program experiences. Additionally, the EP incorporates the existing Flight IIA 450 VAC power distribution system (termed “low"side”) to save substantial cost in complete redesign and testing. Figure 12 shows shows the Electrical Electrical Plant one line diagram, with the 450 VAC system shown in black and the 4,160 VAC side depicted in blue. To integrate the 4,160 VAC into the DDG 51 EP, modifications to the SSGTG technical and performance specifications were necessary to ac!"#$%& (( ) BT(NS 3<9 ??>G> 9

17



!"#$%& (5 ) !*"#+, --- =*&E,%"E 6*02, .2&)U"2& H"0#%07V H"0#%07V WX"#+):"M& &I$"/7&2, "2 @*$&Y 1 8

count for differences between the DDG 1000 and DDG 51 Class electric plants. Modification to the DDG 1000 SSGTG (MT"5) is necessary to meet the electric power quality performance measures of the AMDR suite and the existing Flight IIA capability requirements. requirements. These changes are already under government contract, managed by the Electric Ships Office (PMS 320), with CDR completed in January 2015. The generator modifications are underway with PDR scheduled for February 2015. SSGTG production contract was awarded in January 2015, with the first hardware deliv- !"#$%& (; ) 69C ) 614&% 912A&%:"12 C1M$*& eries in fall fall 2017. Shore power for the Flight III is provided via existing low"side connection, although provisions have been made to ena-

count for differences between the DDG 1000 and DDG 51 Class electric plants. Modification to the DDG 1000 SSGTG (MT"5) is necessary to meet the electric power quality performance measures of the AMDR suite and the existing Flight IIA capability requirements. requirements. These changes are already under government contract, managed by the Electric Ships Office (PMS 320), with CDR completed in January 2015. The generator modifications are underway with PDR scheduled for February 2015. SSGTG production contract was awarded in January 2015, with the first hardware deliv- !"#$%& (; ) 69C ) 614&% 912A&%:"12 C1M$*& eries in fall fall 2017. Shore power for the Flight III is provided via existing low"side connection, although provisions have been made to ena ble high"side shore power should 4,160 VAC pier service becomes more common in the future. High"side power is not available when on 450 VAC shore power; in the event that AMDR arrays need to be activated, the ship will need to bring one of the three SSGTGs online. In concert with the development of the revised 4,160 VAC SSGTGs, two types of power conversion are required for the Flight III electrical distribution distribution system. PCMs are being introduced to sup ply 1,000 VDC to the AMDR system. Two, 1.4 megawatt PCMs are being procured to convert 4,160 VAC from the SSGTGs to to 1,000 VDC for the AMDR arrays. These machines have been competitively awarded under the contract management of PMS 320. Like the SSGTGs, these units are similar to those used on DDG 1000, 1000 , but have been modified mod ified to meet the power quality requirements for for the the AMDR. The two fully redundant units will be installed on the Flight III ships, located fore and aft for maximum survivability. Operation of these two PCMs will allow load sharing between the two for maximum redundancy, or isolated operation by only one unit for maximum survivability and im proved fuel economy. The other power conversion involves three 4,160 VAC to 450 VAC step"down transformers. These units are standard equipment on larger !"#$%& (B )

19

ships, and the transformers specifically used for the Flight III are modified units based on the LHD 8 design. These units are planned to be contracted as Class Standard Equipment (CSE) using the DDG 51 Class ship builder’s procurement process and will be competitively awarded. The three transformers will be arranged to allow any combination of SSGTGs and transformers to provide power to the legacy 450 VAC electric distribution system. This flexibility flexibility allows the !"#$%& (J ) G8/"E0* H8207"E C1M&*"2# <20*8:": .$,/$, operator to select the best plant configuration depending on the need to balance fuel economy, redundancy, and survivability (battle damage) while providing power to any an y and all portions of the ship’s combat and an d HM&E systems. The AMDR system requires power to the processing cabinets at 208 VAC. Conditioning equipment is provided by the AMDR AMDR vendor as a complete system, system, as depicted in Figure 14. First converted through a single transformer, the power is filtered and conditioned by three notch filters and three UPS cabinets to provide power conditioning and control. The UPS units also provide uninteruninterrupted power via the battery cabinets, in the event of a loss of ship’s power. The conditioned power is then distributed to the various AMDR processing cabinets, and to the AMDR arrays. Steady state analysis of the Electric Plant in variou s configurations has shown the architecture to be sound, safe, and capable of providing sufficient sufficient power for all Flight III needs. Extensive analysis is underway by the Flight III team to ensure all transient plant reactions and abnormal configurations are accounted for, using a Dynamic Model Model Analysis (DMA) tool. tool. A study guide was established established by the Navy team including PMS 400D, PMS 320, and SEA05 to define the effort. Figure 15 shows a typical analysis output. The overall approach for each investigation investigation concentrates on applying worst case assumptions, identifying potential issues, then refining the modeling parameters for more a ccurate analysis. The DMA study analyzes transients, power qu ality, power continuity, and surviva bility. The results provide guidance to refine the plant configurations and amend the CONOPS to afford the best practices which will be the basis of ships operations and crew training. To date the DMA has completed co mpleted the studies on transient analysis, power quality analysis, and work is underway for the continuity analysis. The continuity analysis will will look at any scenario, including load shedding, where predicted transients are outside the design parameters, to ensure that the EP protection gear will prevent system damage. The final phase of the study, scheduled for summer 2015, is a survivability analysis that will look at battle d amage and recovery. More electrical power is nearly always associated with increased h eat loads, and the addition of of AMDR to the DDG 51 Class Class requires upgrades to to the ship’s cooling capability. capability. The existing Flight IIA Air Conditioning (AC) plants, or chillers, are replaced with a mod ified system that increases


20

cooling from five 200 refrigeration ton (rTon) units to five 300 rTon units. units. Flight III will leverage the new 300 rTon High Efficiency Small Capacity (HES"C) system already being developed and scheduled for installation in the LPD Class ships. ships. Based on the existing 200 rTon AC plant condenser, the HES"C employs oil free magnetic bearings for reduced friction and reduced !"#$%& (N ) 6%1,1,8/& X=?Z9 ;SS %,12
Combat System Integration

AMDR will be integrated integrated into the AEGIS combat system system via the software in ACB 20. The hardware will remain the TI"16 suite, with added processors and consoles to meet the Flight III requirements. The inclusion of AMDR into AEGIS ACB 20 was based on the extensive analysis a nalysis through the PEO IWS led Capability Phasing Plan (CPP) process. The CPP utilizes disciplined, disciplined, analytical, coordinated processes to assess capability gaps and identify and prioritize combat system solutions for ACB 20. CPP analytical factors include: 

Threat Assessment



Fleet Warfighting Capability Gaps



Kill Chains



Schedules



Cost Estimates



External Reliance



Risks



Concept of Employment (CONEMP), Concept of Integration (COI).

The CPP working group coordinated coo rdinated across the Fleet, PEOs, System Commands (SYSCOMs), Missile Defense Agency (MDA), (MDA), Science and Technology (S&T) and Industry. Industry. The CPP process mapped the results of the gap assessments with candidate warfighter capabilities, applying kill" chain analysis and cost estimation for integration into the AEGIS combat system. The result Distribution Distributi on Statement A ! Approved for Public Release.

21

formed the base for the ACB 20 integration recommendation to OPNAV N96 Surface Warfare Tactical Requirements Group (SWTRG) process. The decision to include AMDR in ACB ACB 20 was made at a senior Flag level review. PEO IWS 1.0 (AEGIS) and IWS 2.0, with input from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, Ra ytheon, are executing a rigorous systems systems engineering approach to develop the lower level requirements. Through this process, the team has identified a set of Use Cases that define how the radar and combat system will interact. The team is also defining the functional architecture of the the system and the interface design plan. Any hardware interfaces of AEGIS architecture are defined in the the Flight III ECPs, while the software portions will follow on a schedule to support software integration. Although the Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is not until 2023, PEO IWS 1.0 is developing a test asset, the Combat System Interface Support Equipment (CS ISE), that will allow for early risk reduction testing between AMDR and AEGIS. Th e test asset will include early limited prototyping of various architectures and will be used to demonstrate the maturity of selected critical interfaces. Testing with AMDR will occur in FY17 to support the AMDR Milestone C decision. The Flight III Combat Information Center (CIC) will be rearranged to most effectively enable IAMD, BMD, and other mission mission CONOPS. TI"16 hardware, currently under development for DDG 121 and follow, will continue to be used for the Flight III upgrade. The CDS (Common Dis play System) consoles allow flexible configuration, in that each console can be designated for a

!"#$%& (O ) 917@0, -2L1%70,"12 9&2,&% W9-9YT [1,"120* ?"2#*& ?+"/ -

22

wide variety of combat responsibilities. responsibilities. For the Flight III design, four additional consoles are added to allow Alternate Warfare Warfare Commander roles in the Fleet IAMD mission. mission. Figures 17 and 18 show two typical configurations of the Flight III CIC. Space for two Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) consoles is required by the Flight III CDD, which is reserved in the forward starboard corner of the CIC. The next few years will likely bring rapid advances in UAV technology, and the DDG 51 Class will be ready to incorporate UAVs as required. Modification to one of the the two helo hangars is expected, and would be necessary to accommodate UAVs and the associated support support equipment. Note: The UAV change is only a space reservation within CIC. There is no physical change planned or scheduled. The space reservation reservation sup ports a foreseeable future change based on existing Flight IIA operations. There are several other changes being bein g incorporated on the Flight IIA ships that are ne cessary ena blers for Flight III modifications. modifications. The removal of SPY"1D(V) relieved the the requirement for the dedicated SPY cooling skid. However, the Mk 99 Fire Control System (FCS) also received cooling water supply from this skid, so to provide cooling water to the Mk 99 System a new FCS cooler is being procured. The FCS cooler is physically smaller than the SPY cooler. The new cooler leverages the design of 1044A type cool-

!"#$%& (P ) 9-9 <%%02#&7&2,T [1,"120* <"% 02M C"::"*& H&L&2:& 917702M&% W<*,&%20,&Y


23

ing skids, used on CG 47 Class ships, with improvements for corrosion control and user interface. This reduces developmental efforts efforts and maximizes parts commonality for the Fleet. Electronic Equipment Fluid Coolers (EEFCs) are introduced on Flight IIA ships on DDG 119 to eliminate two large cooling skids. The EEFCs are point of service service coolers for the combat system equipment throughout the ship. The implementation of this change enabled removal of the Sonar Equipment Cooling Skid and the Control and Display (C&D) Cooling Skid. The removal of this equipment is necessary to make room for the Flight III 4,160 VAC switchgear and other equipment. Another enabling technology being incorporated prior to Flight III is Integrated Power Node Center (IPNC). Implemented on DDG 121 and follow follow ships as a cost reduction initiative, the IP NCs will replace the current DDG 51 400Hz electrical service architecture, removing the single single large converter, over 100 pieces of support equipment, and a large amount of cabling. cabling. The IP NCs are point of service converters (there will be eight on the Flight IIA IIA ships), which will retain the same functionality as displaced equipment. Space vacated by the older 400 Hz frequency converter allows optimal location of the Flight III PCMs. Figure 19 diagrams the significant integration testing of AMDR with the AEG IS Weapon System.


24



!"#$%& (R ) -? <=>-? G&:,"2# .A&%A"&4 2 5

Ship Integration and Impacts

Flight III configuration with AMDR and necessary electric plant and cooling upgrades impose a number of ship arrangement changes to the DDG 51 Class ship. Additional equipment requires the representative number of machinery arrangements or relocations of displaced equipment in several ship spaces, as well as the expansion expan sion of deckhouse volume by adding a starboard enclosure similar to what was done on DDG 91 through through DDG 96 for the Remote Minehunting System (RMS). The added weight of these systems and structural impacts require additional efforts to retain sufficient future growth margins for ship stability in terms of weight and KG (center of gravity). A rigorous systems engineering effort was undertaken during preliminary design to mitigate these impacts. Growth margins will be successfully obtained by ex ecuting the modifications described in the paragraphs below. Figure 20 shows the arrangement arrangement of the AMDR array rooms, and the processing cabinets in Radar Room 2. The two fan rooms outboard of Radar Room 2 will be upsized to to handle the added cooling needs of this equipment. Two propylene glycol based Cooling Equipment Units (CEUs) are added below decks on the 2nd

Ship Integration and Impacts

Flight III configuration with AMDR and necessary electric plant and cooling upgrades impose a number of ship arrangement changes to the DDG 51 Class ship. Additional equipment requires the representative number of machinery arrangements or relocations of displaced equipment in several ship spaces, as well as the expansion expan sion of deckhouse volume by adding a starboard enclosure similar to what was done on DDG 91 through through DDG 96 for the Remote Minehunting System (RMS). The added weight of these systems and structural impacts require additional efforts to retain sufficient future growth margins for ship stability in terms of weight and KG (center of gravity). A rigorous systems engineering effort was undertaken during preliminary design to mitigate these impacts. Growth margins will be successfully obtained by ex ecuting the modifications described in the paragraphs below. Figure 20 shows the arrangement arrangement of the AMDR array rooms, and the processing cabinets in Radar Room 2. The two fan rooms outboard of Radar Room 2 will be upsized to to handle the added cooling needs of this equipment. Two propylene glycol based Cooling Equipment Units (CEUs) are added below decks on the 2nd Platform, as shown shown in Figure 21. The CEUs are based on existing DDG 1000 units. PCMs and switchgear for 1,000 VDC are placed in the two power conversion rooms, with the forward space shown in Figure 21. Additional equipment is located in Combat System Equipment Room (CSER) #2 and the Power Supply Room, shown in Figure 22.

!"#$%& 5S ) S; U&A&* 6%&*"7"20%8 <%%02#&7&2,:


26

The CEU equipment dis places crew bunks previously in Crew Living Space 2. The Flight III CDD requires increased accommodations, which is accomplished by adding a starboard side enclosure on the 01 Level, and by increasing most officer staterooms to a three"rack configuration. The new star board side enclosure is shown in Figure 23, just aft of the now stacked Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB) configuration. The existing boat davit retained the !"#$%& 5( ) 6%&*"7"20%8 <%%02#&7&2,: 1L !1%40%M 69C 02M
!"#$%& 55 ) 6%&*"7"20%8 0%%02#&7&2,: 1L 9?=D]5 02M 614&% ?$//*8 D117


27

!"#$%& 5; ) S( U&A&* 0%%02#&7&2,: :+14"2# 2&4 &2E*1:$%&

Beyond arrangement there are associated effects effects to the ship’s weight weight and KG. To maintain acceptable margin for future growth, the Flight III team was able to improve the ship’s reserve buoyancy by increasing the flight deck beam above the waterline, combined with cross flooding ducts to raise the ship’s limiting displacement to 10,700 tons (increased from 10,300 tons). This design change allowed an increase in inner " bottom bottom structural weight to lower the ship’s center center of gravity (KG), an approach that was also also used for the design of the Flight IIA ships. ships. Increased inner " bottom bottom structure has the added benefit of further strengthening the h ull girder, thereby improving resistance to underwater explosives. The DDG 51 Class ships have been densely outfitted and internal space (volume) limited for some time. Other SWaP"C allowances are within reasonable design practices and the CDD requirements. Current ship design parameters are listed below. Select Flight III Characteristics and Service Life Margins Displacement: 9709 ltons KG: 24.96 ft Electric Load: 5,458 kW Cooling Load: 1,206 rtons

Displacement SLA: 991 ltons (10.2%) KG SLA: .62 ft Electric SLA: 1,904 kW (40%) Cooling SLA: 294 rtons (20%)

Impacts to all subsystems continues to be refined, with the DDG 51 Class Design Agent (BIW) now maintaining configuration control of the ECP packages. The design agents from both DDG DDG 51 shipbuilders, BIW and HII, are under contract to continue development of the Flight III ECPs.


28

Flight III Program Execution and Risk Management

The Flight III program is supported by appropriate design ex ecution, Systems Engineering Technical Reviews, and stakeholder relationships consistent with meeting requirements and overall program schedule. Major supporting component developments for AMDR "S, PCMs, and SSGTGs are well underway by the associated Participating Resource Managers (PARMs) with schedules and milestones that support the overall Flight III delivery targets. Detail design was started started in FY14 with the Program Office delivering Government Furnished Information (GFI) to the ship yard services to support continued Flight III III development. Continued development of GFI will support detail design fidelity leading to successful Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), and Production Readiness Review (PRR) targeting 90% design completion supEvent Schedule porting start of construction. Significant Flight Q4 2014 III milestone dates for design and construction Begin Detail Design are captured in Table 3. PARM schedules are Start Construcon Q3 2017 integrated with anticipated in"yard need dates AEGIS Light"Of Q3 2020 for construction and testing resulting in successful light"off and delivery targeted for Delivery Q3 2021 FY22. Management approach to supporting supporting G0@*& ; ) !*"#+, --- ?E+&M$*& construction, test, and delivery will be consistent with multi"year procedures already in place. The DDG 51 AEGIS program office employs a risk management plan based on the guidance provided in applicable Defense Acquisition documen ts, which were then tailored specifically to the DDG 51 Flight III program. Risk management occurs in main areas areas for Flight III: III: AMDR/RSC development, combat system development and total ship design, including HM&E modifications necessary to support AMDR and the combat system. DDG 51 Flight III risk management is tracked internally by a Risk Management Board (RMB) which meets quarterly. Participants of the RMB include the AEGIS program office, shipyard representatives, and PARM (AMDR, SSGTG, and P CM) representatives, along with combat system and ship design team members. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss and track track the status on current risks, along with introducing any additional risks that may n eed to be added to the risk register. Once a risk is entered into the risk register, it is tracked through the life of the program. Quarterly RMB reviews and numerical rescoring of the risk show trends a nd effectiveness of mitigation efforts.

Conclusion

This report has provided a description of the final scope of the ECP required to field the ADMR on a DDG 51 hull, and has detailed the level of maturity of the new technology to be incorporated on these ships, beginning with one of the two DDG 51s in FY 2016. With respect to Flight III systems systems level of maturity, the AMDR AMDR is the only new development technology. The AMDR has successfully completed Milestone B, a full system Preliminary Design Review, a hardware Critical Design Review, and will deliver its first full ship ship set of production equipment by early FY 2020. The re-


29

maining equipment required to provide power and cooling to the AMDR are all based on currently existing equipment and therefore induce induce low technical risk to the program. program. Given the tremendous capability improvement AMDR provides to defeat emerging air and ballistic missile threats over current radars, the low to moderate technical risk associated with implementing this radar on an FY 2016 DDG 51 justifies execution of the ECP during the FY 2013"2017 multiyear procurement contract. This report has assembled the latest available design and inte gration information based on the recent design reviews, assumptions, decisions, and sources provided to address the questions posed. In summary, the AMDR technology has matured, ship impacts are clearly understood, and design efforts are underway for ECP development. The Navy's intention, as stated stated and supported by the contents of this report, is to integrate AMDR "S into the DDG 51 ARLEIGH BURKE Class ships beginning with the last ship of FY16. The AMDR "S integration with the proven AEGIS Combat System into the DDG 51 Flight IIA by b y ECP is the shortest path to meet fleet requirements for cost effective IAMD capability with the lowest technical and cost risk.


30

Additional Reading:

Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 05D), DDG 51 Class Flight Upgrade Technical Concept Study, Year 1, Ser 05D/054, 23 Feb 2011. (FOUO, Limited Distribution) Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 05D), DDG 51 Class Flight Upgrade Technical Concept Study, Year 2, Ser 05D/434, 14 Dec 2012. (FOUO, Limited Distribution) Capabilities Development Document (CDD) for the DDG 51 Flight III, JROCM 122"14, 28 October 2014 Future DDG (Radar/Hull) Study Final Report (U), Dated 10 November 2009 (CLASSIFIED Document) Maritime Air and Missile Defense of the Joint Forces (MAMJDF) Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Dated 01 May 2006 (CLASSIFIED Document) Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) Top Level Radar Performance (TLRP) for AMDR S" Band, Appendix F document, dated 10 November 2009 (CLASSIFIED Document) Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) Capability Development Document (CDD), JROCM 123"13, 27 June 2013 (CLASSIFIED Document) Surface Ship Theater Air and Missile Defense Assessment (SSTAMDA) Summary Study Re port, N86/8S177518, 09 Jul 08 (CLASSIFIED Document)


31

Acronym List

AAW AC ACB ADM AIU AMDR AoA APDU ASUW ASW AWS BIW BMD C&D C5I

CALOW CEB CD CDD CDLMS CDR CDS CEU CIC CONEMP COI CONOPS CPP CSE CSER CSG DAB DBFS DMA DREX DSPS ECP EEFC EDM EP ESG

Anti"Air Warfare Air Conditioning Conditioning AEGIS Capability Build Acquisition Decision Memorandum Array Interface Unit Air and Missile Defense Radar Analysis of Alternatives Array Power Distribution Unit Anti"Surface Warfare Anti"Submarine Warfare AEGIS Weapon System General Dynamics Bath Iron Works Ballistic Missile Defense Control and Display Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat System, and Intelligence Coastal and Littoral Offshore Warfare CNO’s Evaluation Board Contract Design Capability Development Document Common Data Link Management System Critical Design Review Common Display System Cooling Electronics Unit Combat Information Center Concept of Employment Concept of Integration Concept of Operations Capability Phasing Plan Class Standard Equipment Combat System Equipment Room Carrier Strike Group Defense Acquisition Board Digital Beamforming System Dynamic Modeling Analysis Digital Receiver Exciter Digital Signal Processing System Engineering Change Proposal Electronic Equipment Fluid Cooler Engineering Development Model Electric Plant Expeditionary Strike Group

ESSM FCS FLODES FTS HES/C HFP HII HM&E HWIL IAMD ICD iCDR INS IOC IPNC IPR IR ISE JROC KW LIC LRIP MAMDJF MDA MPDU MW MYP NIFC"CA O&S OIPT OSA PARM PCM R3B RCPS RCS RHIB RMA RMS RSC

Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Fire Control System Full Load Displacement Enhancement System Frequency Time System High Efficiency Small Compressor HeptaFluoroPropane Huntington Ingalls Industries Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical Hardware in"the"Loop Integrated Air and Missile Defense Initial Capabilities Document Interim Critical Design Review Inertial Navigation System Initial Operational Capability Integrated Power Node Center In Progress Review Infra"Red Interface Support Equipment Joint Requirements Oversight Council KiloWatt Low Intensity Conflict Low Rate Initial Production Maritime Air and Missile Defense of the Joint Force Missile Defense Agency Main Power Distribution Unit MegaWatt Multi"Year Procurement Navy Integrated Integrated Fire Control Control " Counter Air Operation and Sustainability Overarching Integrated Product Team Other System Attributes Participating Resource Manager Power Conversion Module Resource Requirements Review Board Radar Control Processing Subsystem Radar Cross Section Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat Radar Module Assembly Remote Minehunting System Radar Suite Controller


32

rTons RTSS S&T SETR SEWIP SFR SIL SLA SSGTG SWaP"C SWTRG SYSCOM TI TRIMM TRM TSDR UAV UPS USW VLS VSD ZEDS

Tons of Refrigeration Capability Real"Time Simulation Subsystem Science and Technology Systems Engineering Technical Review Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program System Functional Review Software Integration Lab Service Life Allowance Ship Service Gas Turbine Generator Space, Weight, Power, and Cooling Surface Warfare Tactical Requirements Group System Command Technology Insertion Transmit "Receive Integrated Multichannel Module Technical Review Manual Total Ship Design Review Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Uninterruptible Uninterruptible Power Supply Undersea Warfare Vertical Launching System Variable Speed Drive Zonal Electrical Distribution System


33

DDG 51 Flight III RTC (Final)

Recommend Documents