Michael Fabey WashingtonBudget woes put Navy
combat system at risk
H
ardly a month goes by without news of successful
Aegis combat system tests, especially when it comes
to ballistic missile defense (BMD) improvements and
operations. At the same time, U.S. Navy of cials continue to
tout future radar work to provide an even better Aegis shield.
But the ships’ Aegis systems face a great threat: the budget-
ary noose that promises to choke of funding for modernization
programs needed to improve the equipment, components and
software of combat systems aboard cruisers and destroyers.
The Navy’s fi scal 2016 budget request includes $3.5 billion
for two DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, including
DDG 124, the fi rst of the Flight III Burkes, which will feature
the air and missile defense radar (AMDR).
The Navy wants $242 million in fi scal 2016, up from $130
million the previous year, for AMDR, which is meant to an-
chor shipboard BMD forces in coming years.
AMDR is one of the linchpin technologies for facing coun-
tries with strong anti-access forces—for example, China,
which is developing the DF-21 ballistic missile, a possible
threat to aircraft carrier strike groups.
“We have a pilot array,” says Tad Dickenson, AMDR pro-
gram director for prime contractor Raytheon. By June, Ray-
theon will have a fully built array for testing.
Raytheon met the December deadline for the AMDR
critical design review, notes Capt. Mark Vandrof , program
manager, DDG 51 acquisition. “I’ve got a lot of confi dence in
AMDR,” he adds.
There is less confi dence that the Navy will get the funding
it needs to make Aegis upgrades in coming years. Testifying
Feb. 26 before the House Appropriations Committee, Adm.
Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, warned that
proposed budget cuts would immediately and directly af ect
modernization funding, including the programs meant to im-
prove the Navy’s fl eet of cruisers and destroyers.
There is little fi nancial wiggle room for the Navy with the
cuts being planned under the Budget Control Act, Greenert
says. The service has to keep its money intact for operations
and maintenance, putting modernization at risk. And that
means BMD funding is also in jeopardy. “That’s a key part
of modernization,” he notes.
Some of that modernization should involve better, and in
some cases more realistic, testing, says the Pentagon’s of ce
of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E).
As stated in its annual report this year: “DOT&E’s assess-
ment continues to be that the operational test programs
for the AMDR, Aegis modernization and DDG 51 Flight IIIdestroyer programs are not adequate to fully assess their
self-defense capabilities in addition to being inadequate to
test the following Navy-approved AMDR and DDG 51 Flight
III requirements.”
Naval Sea Systems Command (Navsea), meanwhile, is put-
ting Aegis through the testing wringer. “The Navy’s test and
system model accreditation program includes requirements
validation at subsystem, system and system-of-system levels
using hardware-in-the-loop, software-in-the-loop, modeling
and simulation, land-based testing and at-sea testing, includ-
ing the current Self Defense Test Ship for self-defense weap-
on testing,” Navsea reports. “The Navy continues to regularly
review and evaluate the DDG 51 Flight III test program to
ensure it reliably meets program requirements.”
Recent successful tests show the ef ectiveness of the Ae-
gis shields. Three short-range ballistic missile targets were
launched this winter almost simultaneously from NASA’s
Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia. Two Aegis BMD destroyers,
DDG 64 USS Carney and DDG 66 USS Gonzalez, acquired
and tracked the targets, while the advanced Aegis destroyer
DDG 52 USS Barry participated in associated operations.
The Aegis BMD ships conducted simulated Standard Mis-
sile-3 Block IB guided missile engagements with the Distrib-
uted Weighted Engagement Scheme (DWES) capability en-
abled. DWES provides automated engagement coordination
between multiple Aegis BMD ships to determine which ship
is best positioned as the shooter, thereby reducing duplica-
tion of BMD engagements and missile expenditures while
ensuring threat coverage. Several fi re control, discrimination
and engagement functions were exercised. The test did not
include an attempted intercept.
The test was designated Flight Test Other (FTX)-19. This
was the fi rst fl ight test to assess the ability of the Aegis BMD
4.0 weapon system to simulate an engagement response to
a raid consisting of three short-range, separating ballistic
missile targets. This was also the fi rst time Aegis BMD 4.0
ships used DWES with live targets.
DWES helps ships conserve missiles. In a BMD attack on a
ship or other asset protected by Aegis, there is concern about
making sure the Aegis-equipped ships have enough weaponry.
The real question now is: Will the Navy have enough mon-
ey to make Aegis as ef ective as the service wants it to be? cTarget Aegis
DEFENSE ANALYSISDTI14 MARCH 30 -APRIL 12, 2015 AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AviationWeek.com/dtiNavy of cials warn budget cuts
could choke of funding for planned
missile defense improvements
for destroyers and cruisers. Photo
shows USS Dewey fi ring an SM-2
missile during the Valiant Shield
2014 exercise in the Pacifi c.U.S. NAVY