Good Morning and thank you ADM Padgett for your kind introduction. I am appreciative of the opportunity to speak here today.
This is an extremely busy time within SSP. Today we are:
- Ensuring TRIDENT II is supported on Ohio Class submarines through 2042
- Conducting or designing Life Extension efforts in all the functional subsystems of the SWS
- Support PEO SUBS as we begin the development of the OHIO Replacement Program (ORP)
- Preparing for Entry into Force of the New START treaty-this will happen on Saturday
- Under the New START treaty we assume responsibility of about 70% of the 1550 nuclear assets permitted for the US
- Our system reliability remains at an all time high, evidenced by 134 consecutive successful flight tests and our annual Strategic Weapons System (SWS) planning numbers provided to US Strategic Command (STRATCOM)
Simply said, we have challenges ahead.
This morning I will address three topics:
- Our efforts to support TRIDENT II life through the 2042 Ohio Class program
- Our efforts to support PEO SUBS in the development and deployment of the ORP
- Finally, I will highlight the major industrial base con-cern that we face today
SSP’s Core Mission -Strategic Deterrence
TRIDENT II (OS)
- Latest and most capable missile
- 13″4 consecutive successful missile flight tests
Life Extension
- Increase missile Ufa to match Ohio Class Ufa (2042)
- Modernize electronics, maintain 1lngla population of missiles
- Maintain demonstrated performance
- Improve Mk4A warhead
- Initiate MkSA warhead Life Extension Program
OHIO Replacement Program (ORP)
- TRIDENT II Strategic Weapon System is the baseline for(QRP)
- Demand signal exists to identify/mature required technology
Today we are an all TRIDENT II force. We have transitioned not only the submarine force but we have also modified the entire shore base structure to TRIDENT II-specifically Strategic Weapons Facility (SWFPAC) buildings and processing capability.
An underlying philosophy to the 5 sub bullets under Life Extension is the concept of Homogeneity. As SSP proceeds forward with Life Extension we will strive to ensure we maintain one population of missiles and guidance systems. We will do this from a performance perspective. This greatly eases the STRA TCOM target planning, SSBN load out issues, missile processing efforts and Launch Control Console (LCC) for the program.
We are also taking measures as we make modifications to ensure we maintain demonstrated performance. This is no small task. Our TRIDENT II design requirement is lower than our demonstrated performance. Said another way, we are significantly exceeding our required performance. If we were to fall back to our Capability Development Document (CDD) requirement we would drive a demand signal for a great number of assets to meet the STRA TCOM plan. This increase in missiles or platforms is something that in today’s constrained fiscal environment would be unacceptable.
We have proven we can execute this concept through our efforts on the MK4A warhead Life Extension (LE) effort. Not only have we successfully implemented COTS HW and SW in this system we achieved significant cost reductions. We intend to do the same in missile and guidance LE efforts as well as the MK5A effort we have recently initiated.
All this effort leads directly to the ORP program where the TRIDENT II SWS-all functional subsystems-Navigation, Launcher, Fire Control, Missile, Guidance and Reentry are the baseline for the ORP. In order to continue to meet program requirements and cost constraints we must ensure we fully utilize the commercial technologies available to us.
If you look at the TRIDENT II SWS in terms of its subsystems-starting in the lower left hand comer.
Trident II (D5) Missile …. We continue to fly 4 Follow-on CINC Evaluation Tests (FCET) flights per year-minimum based on our high reliability. This limited set of flights provide SSP the appropriate sample size. As we look to the future, our flight tests will increase for 05LE testing. Starting in FY 12 and running through FY22 we will have additional test flights, above the normal FCET flights, to evaluate the missile and guidance LE efforts.
The MK6LE guidance system has completed Critical Design Review (CDR). The flight hardware is built and in test for a 1st QTR 12 flight. The D5LE missile completed system CDR last week. We will begin production of initial flight systems immediately and our first missile LE flight is 4th QTR 13 LOC of the combined Missile and Guidance systems are FY 17.
In reentry systems the MK4A LE program has achieved JOC and we have initiated the MK5A efforts this year.
In Shipboard System Integration (SSI) we will implement our efforts in increments. Using Open architecture for subsystem integration we are on track. Starting first with launcher and FC we will move to the data recording system and finally to navigation and FC. All shipboard efforts utilize to the maximum extent possible COTS hardware and software.
As Admiral Johnson just briefed, OHIO Replacement has conducted its Milestone-A mtg and is about to enter into the Technology Development phase. SSP is supporting from a number of aspects, most specifically integrating the 05 SWS into the SSBN through a Common Missile Compartment concept with the UK as a strategic partner. We are conducting this effort under the Polaris Sales Agreement, which we execute in SSP.
The DS Life Extension Concept is being implemented to affordably extend the life of the missile system.
The effort entails modifications to 4 of the missiles electronics packages; these packages required update due to obsolescence and aging issues:
- Command Sequencer (receives preset power and pre-set data from fire control and converts it into a format useable by the reentry system)
- Missile Inverter (the out-of-line safety element for the missile; installed only an alert status. All power for the missile is routed through the inverter)
- Interlocks (contains the logic and safety blocking elements that control missile interface signals)
- Flight Control Electronics Assembly (controls the missile during boost and post boost flight by converting guidance system inputs into steering valve commands)
In an effort to contain costs, no changes were made to mission requirement as part of the modifications meaning no additional capabilities were designed into the packages. Additionally, each package was designed to meet the same form, fit and function of the package it replaced, keeping the deployed system as one population. The maintenance of one population will have a significant impact on lowering the number of flight tests required to certify and validate the design, thereby lowering cost. This was all done with the goal of maintaining the high-demonstrated performance of the missile system.
I am able to report today that equipment has been built-it exists … we have begun testing that equipment . . . and, Critical Design Review is complete on all 4 packages.
The other side of the System Life Extension effort involves the MK6 Guidance System.
Like the effort for the missile system:
- The goal for the MK6LE was to affordably extend the life of the system to at least the end of the Ohio SSBN life of2042
- The driver was addressing obsolescence issues, and
- Maintaining demonstrated performance was the program requirement
The effort involved redesign of:
- Electronics Assembly, and Guidance Inertial Measurement Unit
Guidance is ahead of missile, all engineering is complete and flight H/W testing is underway. In a moment I will show you how an innovative testing philosophy has helped the program lower total ownership costs and increased our technical confidence prior to flight.
Implementing Changes to the Trident II SWS
1. Maintain a comprehensive network of shore based testing facilities
2. SSP has defined the Trident II SWS as a collection of distinct elements and enforces strict adherence to a comprehensive library of coordinated interfaces between system elements
Allows for different contractors to develop or modernize different elements in parallel Maintains overall system characteristics
Allows for modernization of individual components or subsystems with minimal full scale flight testing.
3. Example: Mark 6A Guidance System Complete replacement of the missile’s guidance subsystem Components and subsystem rigorously tested at SSP’s shore based test facilities, including F-16 flight testing via a special wing mounted guidance test pod
Compatibility with other subsystems assured through strict adherence to coordinated interfaces
Able to certify with minimal flight test
While Admiral Johnson laid out the ORP schedule to begin construction in 2019 and IOC in 2029, SSP has a significantly different schedule to support. As you can see here I have separated Flight hardware on the top from Shipboard systems on the bottom.
The LE efforts I just detailed, all of them, in all the functional subsystems must be completed by 2024 in order to support the baseline install for ORP. This is our challenge.
We are executing to complete all efforts by 2019 with the exception of the Electrostatic Gyro Navigator (ESGN) replacement. The ESGN effort will be conducted between the FY 19 and FY24 refresh periods.
These efforts not only for the baseline for ORP but are the majority of the effort required to get Ohio SSBNs through 2042.
It is paramount that SSP’s unique critical skills, technical knowledge, and industrial capabilities are reinvigorated and maintained to support the Strategic Weapon System. The SWS has unique aspects that are not common to the commercial market. Areas such as :
- Radiation hardened electronics
- Solid rocket motor propellant-specifically class 1.1 nitro based propellant. We require this class of propel-lant due to our constrained volume and safety on the SSBN.
- Guidance systems which do not rely on GPS.
- Precision navigation systems that are supportable over an extended period of time
As we look to the future toward 2080 of the SWS there could be any number of options:
1. Requalification of current system, restart of D5LE prodution line
2. Follow on life extension period to current efforts
3. Follow-on SWS (new missile, etc.)
The decision on which path we take is not one that is required to be made now. Topics such as the next Arms Control agreement, the status of certain industrial bases, and of course the threats we face will all play major roles in determining the next set of system requirements. What I am certain of is the fact we have embarked on the correct architecture path to minimize the impacts of any decision-whether it affects the shipboard systems or the night hardware.
This is my number one industry concern-the status of the Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) industry.
The original TRIDENT II motor service life goal was 25 years based on material. As time has progressed we continue to gain confidence that our assessment is correct and we now believe we can achieve 30-years of effective motor life from our assets.
This requires that we remain in production through the Five Year Defense Plan (FYDP) at a minimum sustaining rate of 12 motor sets per year.
However, outside decisions are significantly affecting our program’s efforts. The recent NASA decision with regard to Shuttle and Aries as well as the USAF’s decision to eliminate the warm line at A TK has placed significant overhead burden on SSP’s costs. We are working closely with ATK to mm1m1ze impacts and A TK has been aggressive targeting overhead reduction opportunities.
My opinion is this is not an SSP issue-or a Navy issue-or potentially a DoD issue. This is a National issue that requires a comprehensive strategy for R&D and production. I say this because it is an issue that crosses Government department boundaries and significantly affects National capability in multiple areas-from strategic deterrence to space launch to intelligence capability.
Graphically you can see the significant reduction in volume of propellant production on the years. The key drivers over the last few years has been the shuttle boosters and the MMII production segments. These have ended. The uncertainty of NASA’s future plans is driving the SRM-sometimes not always in the best direction.
Congress is aware of the issue and we have been working closely with OSD(IP) for the better part of 12 months to draft a report on future actions. This is the challenge-how should OSD act or react to the uncertainty in the industry sector?
SSP faces the reality of being the only major program in production at A TK ‘s facilities. In addition, we are the only program in production of Class I. I type propellant. The AF uses 1.3 as does commercial applications due their ability to simply increase the volume of the launch tubes.
SSP will continue to actively engage in this area and ensure we are, to the maximum extent possible, driving the solution.
We are working hard to make sure the OHIO and OHIO replacement submarines have a reliable, survivable, effective SWS capability for the long term
Likewise, we understand the need to focus on affordability as we do that.
We understand the technology and skill set required to successfully execute the SWS mission requires an investment to sustain the unique skills required. These skill sets must be maintained across all the function subsystems.
While there is great attention to design details and cost planning for the platform we can not take our eyes off the significant SWS effort that will run in parallel to the platform effort, and delivers the mission package.
I am here to ensure you that SSP will remain focused and attentive to the details of the SWS to ensure we deliver an effective mission capability.
