An Interview with CAPT Tom Anderson, USN, Littoral Combat Ship Program Manger, PEO Littoral Combat Ships Conducted by CAPT Edward Lundquist, USN (Ret)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SURFACE SITREP Page 1 P PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPPP PP PPP PPPPPPP PPPP PPPPPPPPPP Volume XXXIII, Number 2 July 2017 An Interview with CAPT Tom Anderson, USN, Littoral Combat Ship Program Manger, PEO Littoral Combat Ships Conducted by CAPT Edward Lundquist, USN (Ret) What can you tell us about the testing and evaluation being We had already conducted the IOT&E for the Freedom (monohull) conducted for the littoral combat ship (LCS) seaframes? variant awhile back in USS Fort Worth (LCS 3). So both variants In 2016, we completed Initial Operational Test and Evaluation have achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) and both have (IOT&E) in the Independence-variant, with multiple associated now deployed. tests, including at-sea firing of SEARAM, which is the ship’s Anti- Ship Cruise Missile system. It was successful, scoring a direct hit In 2016, we also conducted live-fire testing in the form of shock on BQM target drones. We also conducted swarm raids by surface trials in both variants aboard USS Milwaukee (LCS 5) and USS fast attack craft. One of the strengths of LCS, with its focused- Jackson (LCS 6). mission Surface Warfare (SUW) mission package embarked, is its So both variants have been through their ability to counter swarm raids. With initial operational testing. the 57mm and the 30 mm guns, we Yes. We had already conducted the IOT&E went out and conducted successful for the Freedom variant awhile back in LCS 3 operations against swarm raids, (in 2013). Now both variants have completed scoring mission kill hits on multiple IOT&E, achieved IOC, and both have now high speed maneuverable seaborne deployed. So those were major milestones in targets (HSMST). Another area ’16. tested, where major concerns had been raised in advance of One of the past criticisms of the program the testing on the Independence was that we were buying ships before (trimaran hull) variant, was cyber completing testing to prove their ability to defense. The ship was designed meet their performance requirements. All more than a decade ago, and the along we had confidence in the ships’ ability enemy had changed, so the cyber to meet their requirements through analysis posture on the ship had to change. and developmental testing. Now that we’ve Additionally, LCS was designed for completed Initial Operational Testing of the a small crew, and that required ships, as well as the live-fire shock trials in flexibility offered by automation. both variants on LCS 5 and LCS 6, we have the But flexibility can also mean cyber- Objective Quality Evidence (OQE). vulnerabilities. When you design a ship where a crewmember can sit at any console and operate any The volume of testing conducted in LCS is pretty impressive. piece of equipment, to the cyber folks that equals vulnerability, so For example, before shock trials, we conducted “Total Ship we had to make some changes to the systems to account for that. Survivability Test (TSST)” to see how the crews perform in response We worked with industry to retire risks / mitigate vulnerabilities, to casualties, and to make sure that we had their responses and develop a pretty significant remediation package that was modeled right. Then we take the ship out for an event like Full installed in USS Coronado (LCS4, and has since been installed Ship Shock Trials (FSST) to see how the system or systems perform in all follow-on ships). IOT&E cyber testing in LCS 4 went very in a shock event. Together we have the human performance well, showing marked improvement over prior testing in USS and the system performance modeled following an underwater Independence (LCS 2). So overall, we had a successful IOT&E explosion, and you can say the ship meets its requirements or and received an evaluation of “Effective and Suitable” from it doesn’t. These are exceptional opportunities not only for the Commander Operational Test and Evaluation Force (OPTEVFOR). program to capture data, but for crews to train with the Navy’s subject matter experts and experience some, hopefully, once-in- a-lifetime casualty response experiences. Page 2 May 2017 with each “shot” until we have enough data to say that the model Was the ship is sound and that we have our arms around system performance. manned up with the full crew for There must be a lot of external factors that must be considered shock testing? when conducting shock testing. Yes. Absolutely – I had no appreciation for it before coming into this job. We have people on the charge ship that have to arm and So it was a chance deploy that 10,000-pound explosive, so there are significant for them to respond safety concerns - weather considerations such as sea states, and as if it were an there is a 40-mile exclusion area for thunderstorms, because you actual casualty? don’t want the charge to be set off by a bolt of lightning. We Correct. When we did the testing about a hundred miles off the coast to minimize look at survivability environmental impact / risk. We need to ensure that we’re of the ship, we not harming any marine mammals, so the time of year we can consider multiple execute the trial is limited by whale migration patterns. We had threats. During aircraft that fly around in advance of the shot to make sure the TSST, we assessed area around the ship is clear of marine mammals. We put extra performance under observation boats in the water to look for marine mammals, and multiple scenarios, we had a specially configured boat with veterinarians that were such as an anti-ship on board in case a marine mammal was harmed during the course cruise missile hit, of the event (none were). There was a 3-hour window after the a Rocket Propelled shot for the aircraft and the marine mammal observers to see if Grenade hit, or striking a mine. The crews got to train for, and there’s any kind of harmed marine mammal in the area. That, in respond to, simulated casualties based on multiple threat addition to everything happening onboard, to make sure the ship weapons. For the shock trial we are dealing with live charges and is ready to handle the shot. The Navy hadn’t conducted a shock actual system performance following an underwater detonation. trial in eight years – last one we did was the LPD back in 2008. So So, the crews got to experience and respond to what is controlled needless to say, there was a lot of effort expended in preparation chaos associated with setting off a 10,000-pound charge in close and then a long summer of execution. proximity to a ship. There must be a lot of lessons learned, and not just for the LCS There are some misconceptions about what the “shock trial” is program. about. A shock trial is not a test of the ship’s ability to survive We were able to bring the LCS program, as well as the entire Navy against a mine. The trial is about two things: it’s about ensuring technical community, back up to speed on shock trials. Keep in that the computer modeling of the ship is correct (i.e. that there mind we didn’t just do one, we did two -- LCS 6 and then LCS 5. is solid correlation with data obtained during trial), because really we qualify the ship through modeling – we make sure that Were there any surprising discoveries? through our models we understand how the ship will perform; Most of the learning took place in advance of the shot. You learn it’s also looking at the performance of the systems in a shock most of the equipment-related issues you have to work through environment. Shipboard equipment is qualified individually in during shock qualification testing. advance of the trial. For example, we put the diesel engines on a raft out on a lake and detonated a charge near them and monitored their performance to a shock standard. And then if they performed well, great. If they had an issue, we figured out the issue, got it resolved, and then tested again. That equipment testing took place before the ship went to sea for a shock trial. During the shock trial we are seeing how the systems, as they interact with each other, perform. Trials were accomplished by conducting a series of detonations involving 10,000-pound explosive charges at different distances from the ship. We had hundreds of instruments for acceleration and stress readings throughout the ship. We detonate the charge closer to the ship Page 3 In the Independence variant, What about your model? we had more Grade B systems Were you able to validate your stay online than we initially model? Was it pretty close? envisioned. Equipment The short answer is yes, that performance requirements was a good piece that came out are broken into categories. of it on both variants. There Grade A equipment has to be was less risk going into the fully functional after a shock testing on the Freedom variant, event. Grade B equipment is because the Navy has a long not required to function, but history and solid understanding cannot break, fly apart, and of steel monohulls. We clearly injure people or Grade A pieces had less experience with the of equipment. Through the trial aluminum trimaran design. we learned that a significant We did have some learning amount of Grade B equipment with regard to structural was functional even after the performance in the way of third shot, which is good.