LPD-17

---

 

LPD 17 NAVY/MARINE CORPS WARFIGHTER AND SHIP DESIGNER IPT

CIC/TROOP OPS

WORKSHOP REPORT II
 
 
 
 

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………..ii
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………..1
II. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………2
III. DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………..3
IV. ISSUES ………………………………………………………………………………..13
V. ACTION……………………………………………………………………………….16
A. WORKSHOP AGENDA…………………………………………………………….A-1
B. POC LIST…………………………………………………………………………….B-1
C. CIC/TROOP OPS FUNCTIONS……………………………………………………C-1

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Verify functional requirements of CIC, Troops Ops, and TACLOG spaces on LPD 17
• Listen to the warriors' concerns/desires to achieve optimal warfighting "architecture" of CIC/Troop Ops (space/system arrangements)
• Exit with viable design criteria for each space

The workshop continued with focus groups identifying functions common to CIC and to Troop Ops/TACLOG - only one, command and decision making, appeared to require physical co-location of commanders and then the function only required physical proximity occasionally. With this in mind, NAVSEA representatives Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Douglas) developed a revised strawman space layout. The focus groups reconvened to review the draft design and to identify pertinent issues. Reformed, the members completed the workshop by refining issues pertinent to the revised arrangement. The PMS 317 Team plans to return in January 1998 to review drawings of options relative to space arrangement and to review planned C⁴I systems to meet space requirements. The following IPT actions resulted:

• TACLOG functions are integral with those of Troop Ops and permanent physical separation is not desired. The space should revert to the original title of Troop Operations and Logistics Center with TACLOG separated by a temporary bulkhead
• CIC and TOLC should be separated by a temporary bulkhead with direct access between the two spaces to facilitate interaction
• Equal situational awareness information should be provided to both CIC and TOLC to enhance performance of separate and common functions and to limit the need for constant physical co-location
• A common Mission Planning Room should be added to the design for Blue/Green face-to-face interaction during planning when co-location is most critical.

II. INTRODUCTION

LPD 17 CIC and Troop Ops designs have progressed to the study drawing stage so a fleet/Marine review was considered necessary to create functional definitions for both spaces and to determine if the proposed system/space arrangements satisfy those functions with a particular interest in the value of collocation for some operations. Embodied by the Navy and Marine Corps Warfighter and Ship Designer IPT Charter, signed by N85, COMPHIBGRU TWO, COMPHIBGRU THREE, Deputy MARFORLANT and Deputy CG I MEF, the IPT met on 16-17 October 1997 at the LPD 17 War Room (EWTGLANT, Little Creek). The charter directed the IPT to:

• Identify and validate the functions of CIC, Troops Ops, and TACLOG.

• Develop design concepts for space configuration and arrangement to meet the charter's objective.

• Develop a set of recommendations.

• Brief potential design options to leadership

• Refine or revise concepts as appropriate

• Translate concept into detailed space design and LPD 17 DataBase issues so as to begin the CCR (Configuration Change Request) process.

• Verify functional requirements of CIC, Troops Ops, and TACLOG spaces on LPD 17
• Listen to the warriors' concerns/desires to achieve optimal warfighting "architecture" of CIC/Troop Ops (space/system arrangements)
• Exit with viable design criteria for each space.

• Establish a common baseline of LPD 17, Design For Ownership, and specific space design background information
• Define the functions of CIC, Troops Ops, and TACLOG
• Link common functions of these three spaces
• Determine which common functions require physical co-location, physical access, and/or information access requirements
• Develop a general arrangement of these spaces and additional spaces as needed that can best meet these requirements
• Revise and refine this general arrangement of spaces to produce design criteria for NAVSEA implementation.
• Identify additional relevant issues pertinent to LPD 17 and resolve previously submitted LPD 17 Data Base Issues.

Key IPT members included representatives from Commander Amphibious Group Two, Commander Amphibious Group Three (COMPHIBRON SEVEN), I. MEF/15^th Communications Officer and G3, USS NASHVILLE, PCO USS OAK HILL, COMSURFWARDEVGRU, SWOSCOLCOM, MCCDC, COMNAVSURFLANT, PEO CLA, PMS 317, NSWC Dahlgren Division, and NAVSEA. The agenda and attendees are provided at Appendices A and B.
 
Return To Table of Contents

III. DISCUSSION

Overview. RADM (Ret) Picotte, Team 17, welcomed the IPT and provided overview and updates of the LPD 17 Program, extending to the Design for Ownership (DFO) process. In addition, he presented background information on Workshop I, briefed on pending action items from that Workshop and presented unresolved LPD 17 Design For Ownership Data Base Issues relevant to the IPT. He concluded by reinforcing the IPT Charter credo that the "IPT will create concepts that will enable LPD 17 Combat Information Center (CIC) and Troops Operations and Logistics Center (Troop Ops) spaces to support a One Team, One Fight approach for executing Naval Expeditionary Warfare missions, and enabling commanders to maintain direct, sustained dialogue." Status of action items is presented in Table 1 and the unresolved data base issues are listed in Table 2.
 

Marine Corps Perspective. COL Quinlan of PEO CLA echoed the welcome and provided thoughts on the Marine Corps viewpoint of the space issues and the Warfighter and Ship Designer IPT. In addition to conveying additional background information and stressing the need to make LPD 17 "Warrior Friendly", he recommended that the IPT "think future" and remember "one team, one fight."

Design Discussion. Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Douglas followed with key attributes of the background, design considerations and potential paradigms involved in CIC, Troop Operations, and TACLOG. An interesting comparison was drawn between 21st century's LPD 17 and H.M.S. Dreadnought of 1905. Both ships reflect innovative design, technology leaps, enhanced combat systems, and holistic approaches to design. Highlights of the remainder of the presentation are as follows: a. Background. Originally, CIC was meant to be deep inside the ship, but survivability studies indicated that there was less vulnerability within the superstructure so it was moved to the 02 level. The modification to remove CIWS enabled the spaces to be moved up to the 03 level, promoting access to the Pilot House. Troop Operations was originally intended to be only a Tactical Logistics space, TACLOG. However, it was recognized that there were advantages to improving interconnectivity and command and control for embarked Marines or other forces. The space then adopted the dual role of Troop Operations and Logistics Center. When the space was raised to the 03 Level, another space, formerly a CIWS related space, became available outboard of Troop Ops and separated from TOLC by a bulkhead. A bulkhead with door access separated CIC from Troop Ops. 03 Level Configuration shown in Figure 1.  

Key attributes of the spaces are listed as follows: (See Figure 2)

CIC - Organized into sensor, weapons, C2, and mission area

- JMCIS and ACDS available at command table

- Utilizes 2 or 3-man command table plus CO behind

- Large screen displays for overall situational awareness

Troop Ops - "Scaled down" Landing Force Operations Center

- JMCIS capable

-- Large screen displays

-- Same tactical picture as CIC

- Adjacent to CIC

- Shipboard Wide Area Network access to support USMC requirements

- IVCS and 23 TV provide voice connectivity and integrated video package to all operators, Navy and Marine.

b. Concerns. During Workshop I the need for a bulkhead or the removal of a bulkhead (Figure 3) between CIC and Troops Ops was discussed and several concerns were raised:

- Space configuration should not be thought of in conventional terms. Lighting differences between CIC and TACLOG today should not be a problem in the future as display boards and ASTABs replace grease pencils.

- Audio interference is probably a greater environmental challenge to sharing CIC and Troops Ops, but a paradigm shift in how we do business may be required. Noise management is of concern in any new arrangement.

- TACLOG should be closer to CIC air control - for information and status sharing. This might require part of TACLOG to be reoriented to be adjacent to CIC vice on the other side of Troop Ops.

- Marines require desk space in Troop Ops. Use a mission control type layout - Marines should be facing in the same direction, focused, and able to have face to face communications. "One team - one fight"

- Personnel sitting at consoles become focused on their task and greatly reduce ambient space noise.

- Ship to shore movement should be tied to Troop Ops

- There needs to be a single location where a Marine or embarked force commander may go to obtain a snapshot of what is happening from air, sea and ground operations to self defense.

c. Paradigms. With respect to these and potential concerns, the workshop briefer's

discussion referred to several related paradigms:

Light

Paradigm: CIC is a darkened space to facilitate vision of status boards and console.

Fact: CIC is not specified for low-level blue light - it is to be a low-level white light space and all displays must be clearly visible in that environment

Noise Level

Paradigm: CIC requires low noise levels and therefor should remain isolated from other shipboard functions

Fact: Reduced manning and improved station-to-station communications should reduce ambient noise levels within CIC.

Limited Access Space

Paradigm: CIC is a limited access space to protect classified information and to eliminate confusion in emergency situations

Fact: CIC can still be isolated for security or in emergency situations by closing the proposed SMART bulkhead between CIC and TOLC.

Separation of Functions

Paradigm: CIC and TOLC carry out different functions and should be separate spaces

Fact: During amphibious operations, CIC and TOLC provide mutual support in the planning and execution of the ship-to-shore movement.

Level of Activity

Paradigm: There needs to be a single location where a Marine or embarked force commander may go to obtain a snapshot of what is happening from air, sea and ground operations to self defense at any time

Fact: Equal information and situational awareness access in TOLC will provide an accurate snapshot. In addition activity levels vary. CIC maintains moderate to extreme levels during normal underway conditions and special operations/ship-to-shore movements. TOLC has a very low activity level increasing to extreme levels during later stages of workups and ship to shore movements. A typical comparison is provided in Figure 4.
 
 
 

d. Workshop Process. After Workshop I, the signed IPT charter called for an initial meeting to prioritize space functions and a second meeting to develop concepts and pro and cons for various space design issues. In Workshop II these meeting were combined and objectives accomplished by the following process:

• Two Focus groups identified CIC, Troop Ops and TACLOG functions
• Focus groups identified common functions that occur in two or more spaces
• Focus groups identified whether the common functions require information access, physical access or physical presence among commanders
• IPT consolidated and validated common functions, creating a single set

Based upon working group-identified functions, the IPT determined the following:

• Co-Location is best served by :
1. physical access
2. equal information access
1. physical presence in planning

• TACLOG functions are an integral part of Troops Operations and the spaces should be

of the ship-to-shore movements (serial loads - what, when, where), monitors changes to

Operations, directs Landing Force Logistics, responds to Landing Force requests, and

coordinates with Primary Control Ship (PCS)

• KSQ-1/PLRS should be treated as a sensor - and data is part of the Common Tactical Picture (CTP). Master needs to be located in Troop Ops

• The Boat control in CIC and movement group within TACLOG could be near each other.

• Both spaces need independent control of Large Screen Display (LSD) and ship's

simultaneous (multiple cameras at the same time). Also want independent control of

external communications.

• There is a need for UAV data. LPD 17 will need up-link and downlink to the UAVs and tap into the raw data coming down. Will need to display the data and integrate it with other C4I data (JMCIS and MAGTF C4I).

• CIC should stay as a separate/unique space from the Marine spaces, but there needs to

bulkhead such as is in place on USS CORONADO was recommended

• The sensor and track management functions need not be performed within CIC

• Flight Deck/Well Deck talks to DEBARK, DEBARK talks to CIC, CIC talks to PCS, PCS talks to TACLOG (XO and CCO is in DEBARK Control)

• MAGTF C4I footprint/architecture will get larger/great over time. Functions are

Workshop Process continued:

• Using these functions PMS 317 developed a strawman redesign of the spaces
• Focus Groups reviewed strawman design and provide comments and suggestions
• IPT consolidate comments on strawman design and provide to PMS 317.

First CIC and Troop Ops spaces were flip-flopped, CIC moving to the starboard side on the 03 Level. Tracker alley, the track and sensor management area of CIC was moved into the formerly unassigned CIWS space to starboard of CIC (once a possible location for TACLOG). This relocation would provide a secluded area for this function while still remaining accessible from CIC. It was also the best use of this space given the need to retain structural bulkheads.
 
 

Troop Ops and TACLOG would be integrated into a Troop Operations and Logistics Center, TOLC. However, a "smart bulkhead would be in place between the two spaces for separation depending upon mission requirement. TOLC = TACLOG + Troop Ops.

At the same time a "smart bulkhead" would separate CIC from TOLC for flexibility in future mission accomplishment. This would also allow direct access between TACLOG and the Primary Control function area of CIC as needed.

A Blue/Green Mission Planning space would be designed on the 02 or 03 levels to provide for direct side-by-side interaction during the critical planning and even execution phases.

Wrap-up. The workshop concluded with a review of outstanding issues and new issues raised during the course of the workshop. All action items from Workshop I were considered resolved. CDR Barbour of PMS 317 wrapped up the workshop by thanking the attendees for their forward thinking and willingness to accept change. He summarized the goals of the workshop and their accomplishment as follows:

• Verified functional requirements of CIC/Troop Ops
• Listened to the Warriors' concerns/desires to achieve optimal warfighting architecture of CIC/TROOP OPS (space/system arrangement)
• Exited with viable design criteria plan for each space.

IV. ISSUES

The following issues were raised during the course of the workshop. Those resolved will be entered into the LPD 17 Design for Ownership Issues DataBase for historical documentation. Those requiring resolution or which will impact LPD 17 will also be entered into the LPD 17 Design for Ownership Issues DataBase for further action by the PMS 317 Ownership Team and/or the Configuration Change Board.

1. Debark Control and TACLOG should be co-located on LPD 17. Are windows required in

DEBARK? TACLOG functions necessitate its co-location with Troop Ops and adjacency to

CIC (Primary Control Functions) so co-location with Debark is neither desired nor required.

Windows were determined not to be required in Debark Control although television access is.

1. Co-Location of Commanders (Blue/Green/Purple) in CIC/TACLOG/TROOP OPS was not deemed to be absolutely necessary if equal information/situational awareness was available, if easy access for face-to-face interaction was feasible and if a Mission Planning Space was created for side-by-side interaction during critical mission planning phases.

1. KSQ-1/PLRS Master Station position. A master station is required in TOLC

1. Sensor Operators and Track Managers do not need to be located in CIC. This was addressed in the revised strawman design where the functions and spaced were moved to an area accessible to CIC, but outboard of it and separated by a bulkhead.

1. Liberal use of remote cameras is required onboard LPD 17 for ship situational awareness, such as for passageways, Storage rooms, Flight deck, Well deck, Ammo holds, exterior of ship?

1. TOLC and CIC require independent control of Large Screen Display (LSD) in their respective spaces (eliminate master/slave console, want independent control)

1. Who is in charge of Joint Spaces? (is it a blue or green space). This was resolved in the workshop by not making it a joint space, but one which had the flexibility to be joined.

1. Amphibious Operations Space/Warroom/Planning/Briefing Space location. Warroom needs to be located near major C2 spaces (CIC and TOLC) to provide a briefing space/meeting rooms with tactical displays. If the ship gets simultaneous multi-missions, it will provide an area for future planning as CIC and TOLC execute current operations. A smaller layout like the room/space layout on the LHDs (Flag Plot/Crisis Action enter/LFOC) was recommended and it should not be called "Warroom" due to confusion aboard ship.

1. Speakers are still a necessity and should not all be replaced by Headsets.

1. It was recommended that the Mission Planning Center include:
1. Situational Awareness - internal/external ((JMCIS/GCCS-M/ACDS/MAGTF C4I)
2. VTC
3. CCTV/TV Briefing
4. Display capability/Large Screen Display (LSD)
5. Radio Communications
6. Table and 12 chairs

12. UAV connectivity and display is required for CIC, TOLC, JIC, and Mission Planning Center

13. There still exists a need for paper charts and hanging paper on walls.

14. Recommend investigating the feasibility of positioning DEBARK control as is done on the LSDs. With the CO in CIC for IA the XO will need to be located on the bridge so he would not be in Debark anyway. It will also facilitate access of information to all concerned.

15. Need to accommodate AFATDS functionality, What is the MAGTF C4I footprint for the LPD 17? MAGTF C4I equipment tends to be single mission/single function today, so for a multi-mission task, numerous systems will be needed. MAGTF C4I footprint will grow over the next few years until functions get merged in the same workstation.

16. What is the Special Warfare (JSOC/NSW) footprint and architecture? JSOC forces will come with unique radios/antenna and communication equipment. JSOC Forces will be aboard LPD 17 when it is the advance force ship.

17. What are the requirements for UUV/Remote Mine hunter/counter measures connectivity.

18. CIC/TOLC need independent control of lights, speakers, HVAC, etc. for each space.

19. An additional issue raised in this workshop addressed the need for antenna access for

portable radios brought onboard by embarked forces and providing a provision for them so as not to impact radar cross section considerations. Future growth in antenna access for possible additional radios should be included in planning.

20. Command and Control spaces on LPD 17 need the flexibility to be able to physically consolidate to meet mission requirements in the 21st century. Recommend "Smart Bulkheads", movable, collapsible bulkheads that are both sound and light insulated that were used in USS CORONADO's Joint Command Center, to separate TACLOG from CIC and Troop Ops and between CIC and TOLC.

21. The IPT supported the concept of consolidating the Combat Systems Maintenance Cental with Damage Control Central to form a single area for monitoring status and repair direction.

22. Recommend that the horseshoe table proposed for TROOP OPS (Figure 6) be dropped in favor of a table arrangement that faces a single direction.

The status of previously identified LPD 17 Data Base Issues is recorded in Table 4.

Return To Table of Contents

V. ACTION ITEMS

PMS 317 will develop alternative approaches to the space arrangement discussed in Figure 5 along with corresponding C⁴I systems. These will be presented at a third workshop in January 1998.

Return To Table of Contents

16 October 1997

Welcome, LPD 17 Overview and Design for RADM (Ret) Picotte, Team 17

Ownership update

Marine Corps Perspective COL Quinlan, PEO CLA

LPD 17 Design Process, CIC/TROOP OPS Mr. Douglas, NAVSEA 03K412

Space Design Overview Mr. Donnelly, PMS 317/PEO TAD

Space Functional Definitions Focus Groups

Functions Review IPT

Strawman Design Presentation Mr. Donnelly, PMS 317/PEO TAD

Strawman Design Review Focus Groups

17 October 1997

Strawman Design Review Continued Focus Groups

Review Refinements and compare designs IPT

Address New and Outstanding Issues IPT

Summary and Wrap Up CDR Barbour, PMS 317

LPD 17 HOME PAGE http://lpd17.nswc.navy.mil

LPD 17/EWTGLANT Warroom: Phone 1-800-445-1916, Fax 757-464-8599

Return To Table of Contents

CIC (Combat Information Center): Functions common with Troop Ops are bolded.

1. Situational Awareness . Coherent Tactical Picture (CTP) -- needs to be shared between C² spaces and should include Air, Surface, Land, Subsurface, Position Location Information in a Data Fusion format. Information Management (Blue/Green)
2. Sensor and Track Management - can be located elsewhere/different space than CIC
3. Navigation
4. Boat Control (ship-to-shore)
5. Air Control (air deconfliction, airspace management)
6. Information Management (Intel)
7. Weapons Control and Ship Self Defense
8. Command and Control (C2) from a mission perspective - two levels

ARG/TF level - external multi-platform

Communications External (SHF, EHF, UHF, HF, VTC, VHF, etc.)

Primary/Advisory Control (LCAC, AAAV, LCU, etc.), Landing Plan execution

(OTH Ops - LCACs are on their own, not directly controlled by Mother ship)

9. C2W Command and Control Warfare for C4I

10. Tactical Maneuvering and coordination with other Ships/Units

11. Equipment Configuration Control (CSRO)

12. Command (Decision Making) - flexible to support varying activity and able to surge

13. Logistics and Resupply (UNREP/VERTREP)

14. SAR - Search and Rescue

15. Mission Planning and Execution

16. Internal coordination control (DEBARK Control, local Air Control) vs. External/ARG Control (PCS, LCAC control, Breach Force Commander, Advance Force Ship, etc.)

TROOP OPS: Those functions that are common with CIC are bolded - those in common with TACLOG are in Italics

1. Coherent Tactical Picture
2. Intelligence Processing
3. Planning Future
4. Planning Near Term
5. Monitoring
6. Logistics
7. Resupply
8. Command
9. Weapons Coordination - Split ARG/no SACC
10. Fire Support Monitoring
11. TRAP - Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel
12. Air Movement Control
13. Coordinate with Primary Control Ship (PCS)