Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/13/2005 8:56:16 AM EDT
Northrop Grumman Wins Contract to Develop Shipboard Protection System for U.S. Navy

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., Sept. 13, 2005 -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has been selected by the U.S. Navy to develop the Shipboard Protection System, intended to enable naval vessels to counter asymmetric terrorist threats while moored to a pier, at anchor or during restricted maneuvering.

Under the terms of the $6 million contract, Northrop Grumman will provide surface combatants, amphibious ships and aircraft carriers with a fully integrated and seamless sensor, analysis and response system. The system will provide constant 360 degree situational-awareness and engagement capability to counter such threats, with no increase in manning.

"The Shipboard Protection System represents an important step forward in our anti-terrorism/force-protection program and lays the foundation for follow-on capabilities," said Rear Adm. William E. Landay, III, program executive officer for Littoral and Mine Warfare, NAVSEA. "It's about adding technology and automation to increase the range, flexibility and time a ship's crew has in which to react to potential threats."

During the first phase of the system development and demonstration effort, to be completed next March, Northrop Grumman will provide an integrated surface- surveillance system and non-lethal weapons and devices. The surface-surveillance system will incorporate electro-optical and infrared sensors, and radar into a common tactical-surveillance system.

"Northrop Grumman has assembled a world-class team of technologically advanced defense companies to provide the Navy with a total systems solution to protect ships and their crews," said John DeMaso, vice president of Northrop Grumman's Naval and Marine Systems Division. "By using a scalable, open-architecture design, the Shipboard Protection System can readily incorporate new technologies and expand to meet the Navy's force-protection needs."

For the first contract phase, Northrop Grumman will act as the system integrator; provide system design, mission-specific hardware, software, and firmware components; and implement performance-based logistics.

Other teammates and their charters include:


-- Ocean Systems Engineering Corporation, Carlsbad, Calif.,
which will provide situational awareness and non-lethal
engagement software, user interfaces and concepts of
operation;

-- Science Applications International Corporation, Bloomfield,
Ind., which will manage the system assembly and test, as well
as shipboard installation and logistics; and

-- General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Burlington,
Vt., which will be the lethal engagement systems integrator
and support the weapons-system safety certification.

The next phase of the Shipboard Protection System program, to be implemented in fiscal year 2007, will incorporate swimmer- and diver-detection capabilities, with an unmanned surface-vehicle capability to be added in the future. Additional future plans may include adding non-lethal technologies, providing capability to deal with air threats, and developing predictive-awareness tools.

The Shipboard Protection System program will be managed from Northrop Grumman's Naval and Marine Systems headquarters in Charlottesville, Va., with additional work to be performed at the company's locations in Annapolis, Md., and Ocean Springs, Miss.

Northrop Grumman's Naval and Marine Systems Division is a component of the company's Baltimore-based Electronic Systems sector, a world leader in the design, development and manufacture of defense and commercial electronics and systems including airborne radar, navigation systems, electronic countermeasures, precision weapons, airspace management systems, communications systems, space sensors, marine and naval systems, government systems and logistics services.

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:02:34 AM EDT
I don't think much work will be done at Ocean Springs MS.

Nice toys. I hope they work as advertised. However, ATFP is mainly a software-ie people-problem. If you train your people right and give them the proper ROE that is more effective than hardware.

That's the problem with the Navy. We tend to look to technology for answers to our problems. Unlike the USMC that looks to training. We need to be more like the USMC in that regard.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:19:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
I don't think much work will be done at Ocean Springs MS.

Nice toys. I hope they work as advertised. However, ATFP is mainly a software-ie people-problem. If you train your people right and give them the proper ROE that is more effective than hardware.

That's the problem with the Navy. We tend to look to technology for answers to our problems. Unlike the USMC that looks to training. We need to be more like the USMC in that regard.



Good insight, the only thing I'll add is that with the USN looking at smaller crews on ships, it might make sense to have a "360 degree" dedicated "sensor/shooter" system since they prolly' won't have as many Mark 1 eyeballs to spare.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:57:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
Good insight, the only thing I'll add is that with the USN looking at smaller crews on ships, it might make sense to have a "360 degree" dedicated "sensor/shooter" system since they prolly' won't have as many Mark 1 eyeballs to spare.

I still vote for sailors with .50 cals because it's cheaper, able to respond to different threats independently, and doesn't require shipboard power.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 10:05:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
Good insight, the only thing I'll add is that with the USN looking at smaller crews on ships, it might make sense to have a "360 degree" dedicated "sensor/shooter" system since they prolly' won't have as many Mark 1 eyeballs to spare.

I still vote for sailors with .50 cals because it's cheaper, able to respond to different threats independently, and doesn't require shipboard power.



Less manpower.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 10:57:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By dport:
I don't think much work will be done at Ocean Springs MS.

Nice toys. I hope they work as advertised. However, ATFP is mainly a software-ie people-problem. If you train your people right and give them the proper ROE that is more effective than hardware.

That's the problem with the Navy. We tend to look to technology for answers to our problems. Unlike the USMC that looks to training. We need to be more like the USMC in that regard.



Good insight, the only thing I'll add is that with the USN looking at smaller crews on ships, it might make sense to have a "360 degree" dedicated "sensor/shooter" system since they prolly' won't have as many Mark 1 eyeballs to spare.


You hit the nail on the head. With a destroyer crewed by 95 you have to have the ability to multitask your people.

Again the hardware is only part of the answer without the proper training a person sitting behind the controls of multiple guns is even less effective than a person without proper training behind one gun. Cinergy works both ways.

I also wonder how much maintenance the require beyond what is already installed. Defeats the purpose if: 1) the system has significant down time or 2) a system designed to reduce manpower needs alot of it to keep it operational.

As you can probably tell, I'm not a big fan of DDX. I do like LCS however.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 11:14:48 AM EDT
Although in many cases they are marginally trainable, (I'm sorry my views are based on being a First Lt on a cruiser and then Intel Officer and having an SK2 sit next to me and spew out all the information he was briefed on keeping confidential within an hour after the briefing over an open phone line with an unknown caller. RIMPAC 78 "Don't tell anybody anything about operating schedule for any reason." An hour later, I happened to be in the Supply Office and heard this guy tell the opfor intel gathereers everything they wanted to know. "We heard we couldn't deliver donuts next Monday?" "Yeah, we're going out on Rimpac and we --- and the ---is going to and the --- is") the average sailor is more likely to understand arcane ROE than some automatic system. The problem is still whether or not the ROE will allow engagement of a closely appropaching small craft in a port situation. Your sailor is still going to be able to put a burst or shot across the bow to turn away a potential threat and then engage if it keeps coming.The whole concept of an automated system in a foreign port where you have fishing boats, bum boats, Customs and Immigration, tu boats, pilot boats, etc etc etc all of whom expect to approach legally and maybe cut close around in restricted waters boggles the mind. How about mooring to a bouy in a busy port?
Top Top