a. This Mission Need Statement (MNS) provides requirements for expeditionary force surface combatants for the 21st Century. The multi-mission capabilities are comprised of the combat suite and the hull, mechanical and electrical systems needed to establish and ensure battlespace dominance for expeditionary, interagency, joint and allied forces. These forces must operate wherever required, particularly in littoral waters, to enable joint maritime expeditionary force operations and project precise strike power ashore. The mission capabilities must be fully interoperable with other naval, interagency, joint and allied forces. b. This unclassified MNS in part addresses the Department of Defense "Defense Planning Guidance, FY 1995 - 1999," dated 28 September 1993, requiring the United States to: "...continue to field first rate military forces capable of performing their missions in a wide range of operations." (p.1) "...capitalize on advanced technology and modernize our weapons and support systems selectively to ensure we retain superior capabilities" (p.14) c. This MNS should guide 21st Century surface combatant design, research, development and acquisition program decisions, service and joint doctrine, and cooperative efforts with U.S. allies.
Mission Area Analyses were conducted as part of the
Destroyer Variant Study and 21st Century Surface
Combatant Study. These analyses determined that changes
in doctrine, operational concepts, tactics, organization
and training are not sufficient to address deficiencies.
a. U.S. or Allied doctrine: Doctrine changes required
without a 21st Century surface combatant would include:
Acceptance of regional hegemony of Third World military
powers; inability to project expeditionary force strike
power from the sea; severely degraded ability to project
precise strike power against land targets; inability to
maintain meaningful, visible forward presence for
coalition building. b. Operational concepts: A 21st
Century surface combatant, optimized to leverage
technology to perform multiple roles in both open ocean
and littoral warfare environments, will be needed to
execute the operational concepts contained in the Joint
Maritime Strategy. c. Tactics: Tactics calling for
insertion of sea based forces into littoral waters early
in a crisis or conflict to deter, contain or control
aggression early will entail unacceptable risk to other
naval expeditionary and land-based forces. Further, these
tactics would be based on obsolescent technology through
out inability to cost-effectively modernize existing
surface ships and maintain our technology edge over
potential adversaries. d. Organization: Increased forward
basing and double crewing of surface combatants were
deemed to be infeasible alternatives to acquisition of a
21st Century surface combatant. These alternatives would
provide insufficient assets for crisis management or
joint warfighting in a single or nearly simultaneous two
MRC contingency. e. Training: Future surface combatants
must be ready to fight simultaneous multi-warfare
engagements in littoral warfare that will proceed so
rapidly crew response times will be insufficient, and
place the crew and ship at risk. Training alternatives
offering the potential to maintain force capability in a
smaller force manned with fewer personnel rely heavily on
holistic, embedded training. This training capability
must be an integral part of the total ship architecture
called out as a mission need in a 21st Century Combatant.
Without the opportunity to implement this training
initiative, the Navy will be forced to continue and
expand expensive, off-board training programs. a. Alternative design concepts include: (1) new conventional
ship designs (2) a mod repeat DDG 51 (3) Advanced/unconventional
hull forms (4) Modular ship b. The ongoing DDG 51 acquisition
program could potentially address this need through a mod repeat
program by capitalizing on advanced technology. However, to do
this, it would need to employ a significantly different
architectural approach in the design. c. As part of their
shipbuilding programs, various Allies have combat, hull,
mechanical and electrical system programs ongoing or under
development that offer possible cooperative opportunities. These
subsystem designs will be examined. All meaningful cooperative
opportunities can be realized without a formal cooperative
development program for a 21st Century surface combatant. (1) Architecture - The ship design must employ a total
ship architectural/engineering approach that optimizes
life cycle cost and performance; minimizes operating
conflicts; permits rapid upgrade and change in response
to evolving operational requirements; allows
computational and communication resources to keep
technological pace with commercial capabilities; and
provides the capability to survive and fight hurt. More
specifically this implies physical element modularity;
functional sharing of hardware; open systems information
architecture; ship wide resource management; automation
of Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4I),
combat engineering, and navigation functions; integrated
ship wide data management; automation and minimization of
maintenance and administrative functions; and embedded
training. The approach should also promote commonality of
design among ship classes. (2) Design - Consideration
should be given to the maximum use of modular designs in
the surface combatant's infrastructure. Emerging
technologies must be accounted for during the
developmental phase. Modern, flexible information
processing must be built into any new weapon system.
Since communication and data systems hold the greatest
potential for growth, and therefore obsolescence, their
installations must be modularized as much as possible to
allow for future upgrades. Use standard man-to-machine
interfaces among the systems onboard. The man-to-machine
interfaces should be consistent with existing user
friendly systems. (3) Personnel - The ship must be
automated to a sufficient degree to realize significant
manpower reductions in engineering, combat systems, ship
support and Condition III watchstanding requirements.
Reduced manning concepts used by NATO Navies should be
reviewed to leverage advanced technologies and future
advanced technology concepts in an effort to minimize
shipboard manning requirements. Preventive maintenance
manpower requirements must be reduced by incorporating
self-analysis features in equipment designs, and by
selecting materials and preservatives which minimize
corrosion. A Manpower, Personnel and Training (MPT)
analysis will be performed in accordance with OPNAVINST
5311.7 (HARDMAN). This analysis will recommend options to
exploit the use of technology to reduce MPT requirements.
Trade-offs which reduce MPT requirements will be favored
during design and development. Final MPT determination
will be documented and validated in a Navy Training Plan
in accordance with OPNAVINST 1500.8 (4) Backfit - Major
functional elements of a 21st Century surface combatant
must be applicable to other forward fit ship construction
programs. Consideration must also be given to the ability
to retrofit into existing AEGIS cruisers and destroyers;
however this must not be done at the expense of achieving
performance in new construction. b. Operational
Constraints. (1) The 21st Century surface combatant must
remain fully functional and operational in all
environments, whether conducting independent or force
operations, in heavy weather or in the presence of
electromagnetic, nuclear, biological and chemical
contamination and/or shock effects from nuclear and
conventional weapon attack. (2) Any 21st Century surface
combatant must meet the survivability requirements of
Level III as defined in OPNAVINST 9070.1. Topside system
components shall be decontaminable through use of a
countermeasure wash down system and portable
Decontamination (DECON) methods. (3) The 21st Century
surface combatant must provide helicopter and unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV) landing and hangaring facilities,
and ammunition storage for operational support of
multi-mission armed helicopters. (4) The ship must be
able to operate in U.S., foreign, and international
waters in full compliance with existing U.S. and
international pollution control laws and regulations. (5)
All ship and combat system elements must make use of
standard subsystems and meet required development
practices. The 21st Century surface combatant must be
fully integrated with other U.S. Navy, Marine Corps,
joint and allied forces, and other agencies (e.g.,
Theater Air Defense Architecture) in combined,
coordinated operations. For example, linkage with
standard data based from the Defense Mapping Agency (DMA)
will minimize ancillary costs and promote maximum
interoperability with the widest number of weapon and
sensor systems. Joint goals for standardization and
interoperability with the widest number of weapon and
sensor systems. Joint goals for standardization and
interoperability will be achieved to the maximum feasible
extent. (6) The ship must be able to embark Special
Operations Forces (SOF) when required for selected
missions. (7) The ship must be able to transit through
the Panama Canal (PANAMAX). 3. NON-MATERIAL ALTERNATIVES
4. POTENTIAL MATERIEL ALTERNATIVES
5. CONSTRAINTS a. Key Boundary
Conditions.
6. JOINT POTENTIAL DESIGNATOR The
Joint Potential Designator (JPD) is Joint Interest.
6/22/95