NewsLPD-17

LPD 17 Visual Display and

Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System Workshop

 

10 December 1997


Table of Contents

 

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

II.

INTRODUCTION

 

III.

DISCUSSION

 

IV.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

 

V.

ACTION

 

A.

WORKSHOP AGENDA

 

B.

POC LIST

 

C.

WELCOME PRESENTATION

 


I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 10 December 1997, TEAM 17 hosted representatives from NAVSEA, NSWC-Carderock, Fleet Training Group, and COMPHIBGRU Two in the LPD 17 War Room at Expeditionary Warfare Training Group Atlantic to discuss current Navy and International visual display requirements aboard ship and their impact upon planning for the Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System (AEM/S). This workshop is part of LPD 17’s Design for Ownership process where Fleet warriors, operators, maintainers and trainers contribute to ship design and system integration.

TEAM 17 is currently reviewing the applicability of the Advanced Enclosed Mast Sensor System and AEM/S optional designs for LPD 17. Intended to facilitate maintenance, limit corrosion and reduce radar cross section, the innovative shape and composition of the AEM/S will provide a significant upgrade to the LPD 17. As potential mast designs were reviewed, Team 17 recognized that a key variable in the design was the requirements for signal flags, pennants, day shapes, and dress ship in the 21st century. With a January deadline to select a near-term AEM/S baseline option, TEAM 17 scheduled this workshop.

Mr. John McIntire, NAVSEA 03D3/PMS 317D, initiated the workshop by outlining the goals as follows:

Discussion continued as Mr. Jeffrey Benson of NSWC briefed the attributes of the AEM/S, the rationale for its design, and background on its development and trials on USS ARTHUR W RADFORD. Team 17’s Kendall King outlined current visual display requirements and then facilitated discussion on projected needs. Mr. Lenny Wanex of NAVSEA 03W4H facilitated a discussion on the identification of performance requirements for alternative close-in tactical communications systems. Mr. Steve Farley of NAVSEA 03T1 concluded the formal presentations by outlining eight proposed design options for the Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System.

The results of the workshop validated visual display requirements, established the need for LPD 17 to accommodate those requirements, and then centered upon a recommended design option for the Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System. A port and starboard, deck mounted counterbalanced, hinged mast was recommended as the best option for LPD 17 to comply with current visual display requirements. The signal masts would only be raised when needed, enabling RCS reduction to be mandated. Future efforts should work toward developing technological solutions that alleviate the need for the current signal flag support structures so as to accommodate next-generation low signature ship designs.

 

Return to Table of Contents

II. INTRODUCTION

One of the strengths in the planning and design of LPD 17 has been the input and support of Sailors and Marines. Good ideas and suggestions have been submitted and are now being considered for incorporation into the ship design. When the issue arose as to which baseline Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System design option would best serve the future Sailors of LPD 17; Team 17 convened a Design for Ownership workshop. Hosted on 10 December 1997, representatives from NAVSEA, NSWC-Carderock, Fleet Training Group, and COMPHIBGRU Two met in the LPD 17 War Room at EWTGLANT to discuss current Navy and International visual display requirements aboard ship and their impact upon planning for the Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System (AEM/S).

The Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System is currently being tested aboard USS ARTHUR W. RADFORD and is being planned for inclusion on the LPD 17 Class. It is intended to reduce maintenance and enhance ship topside access, improve radar capabilities and support reduced radar cross section (RCS) – attributes that are desirable on LPD 17. As part of the planning for the mast, TEAM 17 has embarked upon an effort to examine form, fit and function on LPD 17 and to consolidate these efforts as a proof of concept for CVX and DD-21. Toward these ends the LPD 17 Topside team was required to investigate and then recommend a near-term baseline design option for further development by January 1998.

Participants from Fleet Training Group and COMPHIBGRU Two were invited during the workshop to review visual display requirements, help define and convey military and operational uses for these displays, and then assist in creating a AEM/S design that will serve LPD 17’s 21st Century needs. COMPHIBGRU Three also provided input. The agenda and the list of attendees are provided in Appendices A and B. The initial welcome/overview presentation is provided in Appendix C. Portions of the other presentations are included graphically in the Discussion section, Part III.

 

Return to Table of Contents

III. DISCUSSION

Welcome and Overview. Mr. John McIntire of NAVSEA PMS 317D/03D3 opened the session by providing background on the LPD 17 and its Design for Ownership (DFO) process. In design for ownership the planning and design of LPD 17 is dependent upon comments, suggestions, and recommendations from the Fleet and Marine Corps to ensure that the ship will meet their requirements and needs. The Visual Display and Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System workshop is a typical example of TEAM 17 seeking Fleet input prior to choosing a baseline design option. In addition, he indicated that the session could also serve as a forum for beginning discussion about future technological solutions to visual signaling and displays.

Mr. McIntire reiterated the key issue for the workshop was that the use of conventional methods for displaying signal flags will probably not be an option for the ultra-low signature ships of the future due to the radar cross section of the structure from which the flags are flown. While the LPD 17 could accommodate display via current methods and meet it's signature requirements, the same may not be true for future combatants. Therefore now is the time for LPD 17 to realize the advantages that the Advanced Enclosed Mast offers of lower radar signature, simplified mast construction, and lower cost while still serving Fleet visual display needs.

Focusing on this issue, the goals of the workshop were outlined as follows:

 

AEM/S Background. Mr. Jeffrey Benson of NSWC – Carderock followed with an introduction to the Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System and background on its testing aboard USS ARTHUR W RADFORD.

The design itself seeks to limit radar signature by shape (hexagonal shape and 10 degree slope) and enclosing key radar components. The mast is a large composite structure, 711/2 feet high and weighing 30 tons, whose structural integrity has been demonstrated by testing. The upper half of the mast is radar frequency transparent, permitting the transmission of selective radar frequencies and integrated communication energy through the mast’s surface. The lower half of the mast is radar reflective and the entire mast is part of an integrated EMI/EMP management system.

Testing to date on USS ARTHUR W RADFORD and lessons learned from the DDG-51 program has revealed payoffs in radar cross section reduction (RCSR). Exposed mast-mounted HM&E equipment, combat system and comms antennas dominate ship radar cross section. At the same time, radar-absorbing materials and structural shaping do not provide adequate RCS reduction. LPD 17’s stick mast and mast equipment accounts for 8% of the ship’s RCS while Applying AEM/S to the LPD 17 architecture will demonstrate "substantial reduction" in mast and mast Equipment RCS.

Figure 1 provides a baseline side view of the mast.

 

The resulting advantages to LPD 17 provided by the AEM/S appear to be substantial as concluded by Mr. Benson. These include the potential for meeting topside radar signature reduction goals and improving sensor performance while reducing maintenance. At the same time the AEM/S would reduce ownership costs by facilitating sensor upgrading and modernization over the 40-year service life of the class. All weather accessibility to mast sensor systems will also be an attribute to installing the AEM/S on LPD 17 as well as providing a proof of concept for CVX and DD-21.

The audience raised several questions at this point. (1) A cone shape was considered, but rejected for the AEM/S – a cone always gives a radar return while a faceted (hexagonal) shape will provide a lower signature median and only when the emitter is perpendicular to a specific facet or side. (2) Topside weight was a consideration and the differences between the stick and AEM/S mast is about an equal tradeoff. (3) The mast can be painted several times but the full number of coats to be applied before degradation of mast performance has not been determined. Embedded coloring was recommended. (4) There is a possible impact from stack gas residue, but cleaning systems, such as a semi-automatic sprinkler or hose system are being considered. (5) Component change out is facilitated by a mast detachable joint, i.e. that allows the top to be lifted off to replace a radar. The Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System on LPD 17 is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System on LPD 17

 

One element of the AEM/S planning led to this workshop. The optimum mast design would not have a provision for signal halyards because such accessories detract from RCS reduction efforts. Therefore, how are visual display requirements on the AEM/S accommodated?

Visual Display Overview. During the workshop a mast visual display requirements presentation was provided. Refined by direct input from COMPHIBGRU Two and FTG operators, this overview was intended to establish requirements for visual displays, the references or source documents for those requirements, the impact on AEM/S (number of halyards), the identification of performance requirements for replacement systems, - and a possible recommendation on future shipboard visual signaling needs. The results of the presentation and associated dialogue led to Table 1.

Display

Reference

Requirement/Comments

ENSIGN

NTP 13/Navy Regs

Flown from Single halyard from Foremast. Required for near land operations and battle

COMMISSIONING PENNANT

NTP 13/Navy Regs

Semi-permanent display from aft mast – replaced by personal flag

UNION JACK

Navy Regs

Flown from yardarm when general court martials and courts of inquiries held onboard ship

PERSONAL FLAG

NTP 13/Navy Regs

Replaces commissioning pennant when ARG commander., flag officer, etc., embarked

AWARD FLAGS

NTP 13

Single Halyard PUC,NUC, MUC and Battle E are already displayed on bridge wings. Energy Conservation and Environmental flags, etc. are not.

ABSENTEE PENNANTS

NTP 13

Up to 3 separate halyards. Sometimes not used as counter terrorism precaution – 6th Fleet

CHURCH/JEWISH WORSHIP PENNANT

NTP 13/Navy Regs Public Law

Single halyard as Ensign Flown when chaplain onboard conducting church or Jewish worship services

PREP

NTP 13/ATP 1

Single halyard - for colors

DRESS/FULL DRESS

NTP 13/Navy Regs

Ensigns flown from each masthead. Need attachments to mast for Full Dress ship

FOREIGN ENSIGN

NTP 13

Single halyard from mast for ceremonies in foreign ports

STBD (SOPA)

NTP 13/ATP 1

Used Inport – as indication for senior officer present afloat

Day Shapes

COLREGS-Inland Rules

Where best seen –maximum halyards for underwater ops. Merchant ships use pole placed on foc’sle

International Code of Signals

PUB102

Publication exempts warships, but remains internationally recognized signals – up to two halyards required.

Treaty Signals

INCSEA

Requires 2 Halyards YVI Other treaties require Ensign

Tactical

ATP I VOL II-

Required 3 Halyards (5 Flags)

 

ATP II VOL II

Required (convoy) 1 Halyard

 

ACP 113/131

Same as ATP I Vol. II

 

Visual Display Conclusions: In examining the implications of Table 1, the group came to the following consensus for LPD 17. If only the minimum number of halyards were installed, the ship design would need to allow for:

 

Discussion also included input on operational usage of signal flags. COMPHIBGRU Two and FTG representatives as well as comments submitted by COMPHIBGRU Three established the need for retaining the use of signal flags for tactical reasons and for communications with Allies, Friendly, and Partners in Peace navies. Although it was understood that such visual displays may eventually become outdated as future low RCS signature 21st century ships enter service, the LPD 17 may very well have to be a transition ship – accommodating visual display until the capability is replaced.

For instance, in a swept channel/port entry/sortie, daylight transit signal flags remain a viable means of tactical maneuvering communications during electronic silence. It remains the fastest means for silent communications that is fully understood by all navies, without language interpretation challenges. The consensus of the workshop was that signal flags remain a requirement for the LPD 17 class design until alternative means are uniformly accepted internationally.

The workshop also addressed other visual display requirements currently in use that may not be essential. Each is a candidate for further consideration and possible initiatives to change the requirements as follows:

 

Note: A sufficient change to ATP 1 might be to make certain displays, (e.g. absentee indicators) optional, rather than to delete the meanings or the use of these flags all together.

A brief discussion was led by NAVSEA 03W4H to determine rough performance requirements for visual display replacement systems. Based on our current capabilities with signal flags, the replacement systems would have to:

  1. Be visible with aided vision for the following conditions and ranges:
  2. Be visible for 180o minimum from each side of the ship
  3. Be repeatable for 360o coverage
  4. Be able to be encoded within 5 minutes
  5. Be able to be decoded within 2 minutes
  6. Be internationally understood
  7. Not violate Emission Control Communications (EMCOM) conditions while operational
  8. Maintain line of sight
  9. Not require use of cryptological devices
  10. Be able to be displayed continuously as required for operations without degradation or alteration

An optimum replacement would be one that could be sent from a keyboard, could be automatically detected by a sensor on the receiving ship and receipted for, automatically decoded and displayed without human intervention, visible at longer ranges both day and night (and all weather), and have reduced counter-detection. Such a system could be used to replace signal flags as well as flashing light communications, but it would have to be readily compatible or transferable to Allied and Friendly navies.

Design Discussion. Mr. Steve Farley, NAVSEA 03T1, concluded the presentations with an overview of the AEM/S design options. Pros and cons for each option were also presented. The resulting discussion of each item led to a recommended option for LPD 17. Three comments were expressed as designs were considered: (1) The ship will not always need minimum RCS (inport, etc.); and (2) At times when minimum RCS is required the need for electronic silence and visual signaling and communications (as a substitute for electronic communications) will be paramount; (3) That signal flags, pennants, day shapes, and halyards were not RCS offenders – rather the support structure (i.e. yardarms, masts, etc.) required for their display were the offenders.

 

OPTION 1 - Deletion of Flags 

Advantages

  • Eliminates RCSR concerns
  • Reduces manning requirements for operation
  • Safety improvement
  • Minimizes maintenance requirements
  • Saves in production and access

Issues

  • Eliminates capability for "silent communication"
  • Limits communication internationally (via flags)
  • COLREG required day shapes are not met
  • Needs to take include task lights, warning lights, etc.
  • Eliminates ceremonial and traditional display usage

Workshop Conclusion  

  • Will not support visual display requirements or signal flags on LPD 17  

 

OPTION 2 – Fixed Yardarms

Advantages

  • Fixed yardarms are simple to construct even when shared
  • Maintains traditional methods of using flags
  • Meets COLREG requirements
  • Retains "silent communication" methods
  • Meets RCSR requirements
  • Provides location for yardarm blinkers

 

 

Issues

  • Provides temptation to install antennas on yardarms
  • Access required for maintenance
  • Potential radar interference/blockage
  • Complicates radar upgrade strategy
  • One possibility discussed was to make the yardarms moveable vertically so that they could be accessed from the deck and/or moved to reduce RCS 

Workshop Conclusion 

  • Meets LPD 17 signal flag requirements - but not considered best option. Also provides little flexibility if yardarms are no longer required in later ships of the class. To ease maintenance of halyards, halyard rigging could be designed to be dropped from the yard to the deck via an internal release located within the mast (similar to highway lighting at major intersections). Third best option

 

OPTION 2A – Telescoping Yardarms

Advantages

  • Alleviates need for maintenance access from within the mast
  • Removes temptation to install additional antennas
  • Meets COLREG requirements
  • Meets RCSR requirements extended 

 

 

Issues

  • Potential for increased maintenance
  • Installation cost will be higher than fixed variant
  • More opportunities for corrosion

Workshop Conclusion 

  • Too many moving parts

 

OPTION 3 – Hoist Method

Advantages

  • Lower RCS (considering the lack of a yardarm)
  • No access complications
  • No structural impact on mast design (no yardarm)
  • Meets COLREG requirements

 

Issues

  • Nontraditional method of displaying flags may cause signal errors
  • Proximity of flags to the mast limits visibility
  • Limited visibility will increase the number of flags
  • Increased manning resulting from more flags. May require increased spacing to eliminate tangling  

Workshop Conclusion 

  • Group considered the difficulty in reading the flags using this method of display a major concern. Group thought there would be problems with flags not clearing one another so they fly free; and confusion in reading the flags due to the above and the fact that the halyards are aligned on top of one another.
  • Visibility of flags, particularly on the lower part of halyard was questionable. Secondly, group was also unsure as to how the slanting halyards would work.

 

OPTION 4 – Fixed Masts

Advantages

  • Decouples flag and AEM/S mast requirements
  • Maintains traditional methods of using flags
  • Meets COLREG requirements
  • Retains "silent communication" methods
  • Meets RCSR Requirements
  • Low tech / low cost

Issues

  • Possible radar interference
  • Maintenance Access

 

Workshop Conclusion 

  • Not considered to be an improvement, little flexibility, and has maintenance impact.

 

OPTION 4A - Telescoping Masts

Advantages

  • Decouples flag and AEM/S mast requirements
  • Maintains traditional methods of using flags
  • Meets COLREG requirements
  • Retains "silent communication" methods
  • Meets RCSR Requirements
  • Easily accessed for maintenance

Issues

  • Possible radar interference
  • More opportunities for corrosion
  • Will require deck space or well in the deck which by ship arrangements must be accommodated.

Workshop Conclusion

  • Too many moving parts. Based on HUMV telescoping mast. However, a version of this with simpler mechanics, modeled option 4B, was recommended. Second best option.

 

OPTION 5 – Mast Face Hoists

Advantages

  • Low RCSR (no external equipment other than rigging)
  • Limited access requirements

Issues

  • Non-traditional way of reading flags may cause signal errors
  • Radar interference considerations

  • Potential wearing of mast surfaces.
  • Additional halyards will increase manning requirements
  • Does not support display of day shapes
  • Flags vary in size/configuration making displays by this option difficult

Workshop Conclusion 

  • Non-traditional ways of viewing flags which does not allow for prescribed order, outboard to inboard, etc. Questions of visibility also arose as well as the ability to duplicate displays on both sides of mast

 

OPTION 6 – Projected Images

Advantages

  • Unlimited display flexibility, could possibly substitute for dress ship flags
  • Can operate "digital" flags from a PC with "1" Signalman
  • No exterior hardware (flags, halyards, shackles, pulleys, yardarms, etc.)
  • Can be used "around the clock"- replaces signal lights

  • Ultimate RCSR solution aside from Option 1
  • Maintains tradition "electronically"
  • Could substitute for dress ship flags?
  • Acquisition cost vs. ownership cost savings
  • Technology could be implemented away from the mast
  • LEAP, technology could transition to DD21

Issues

  • Non-traditional way of reading flags may cause signal errors
  • Need to investigate effects of bright sunlight, color, etc.
  • Technology availability
  • Allies and other nations would require technological upgrades to be compatible
  • Requires alternative to display day shapes

Workshop Conclusion 

  • Requires a technological solution that can be incorporated by other ships and other navies. Since LPD 17 is going to be operating during the transitory period, this option alone would not work for LPD 17. However, LPD 17 mast design should consider the ability to accommodate similar future developments. Overall, (with the right technology) a form of this option is recommended for follow-on low signature ships. An Omni-directional modulated light was mentioned as one option.

 

Preferred Option - OPTION 4B – Hinged (Lowering/Raising) Masts

Advantages

  • Decouples flag and AEM/S mast requirements
  • Maintains traditional methods of using flags
  • Meets COLREG requirements
  • Retains "silent communication" methods

  • Meets RCSR Requirements
  • Easily accessed for maintenance
  • Position anywhere on forward deck house or just aft of mast. Flag bags built into mast enclosure
  • Normally down at sea except when in use
  • Uses simple raising and lowering mechanism, much like whip antennas use to reduce the complexity of moving parts since it pivots on cantilever joint

Issues

  • Strength of movable masts and deck space to lay them down
  • Possible radar interference, but again amount of time in upright position is reduced.
  • More opportunities for corrosion and SSDG exhaust has potential roasting effect, but is limited by reduced amount of time in upright position

Workshop Conclusion 

  • Engineered solution to meet LPD 17 transitory requirement between current and 21st century signal flag usage. Using simple whip antenna technology to reduce concern for too many moving parts. Masts are only raised when needed or inport so that optimum RCS reduction is maintained. Also does not require flag usage and visual display requirement changes. Maintains signal flag capability to communicate with Allies and Friendly ships while maintaining non-electronic tactical signaling ability.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

IV. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions were derived from the workshop:

  1. 21st Century Requirements

B. Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System on LPD 17 Advantages

C. Current Minimum Visual Display Requirements on LPD 17

D. Necessity for Signal Flags

E. Necessity for Day Shapes

F. Future Visual Display Requirements

Union Jack from the yardarm

Award flags

Absentee Pennants/SOPA

PREP for colors

Alleviation of current signal flag support structure through development of alternative close-in signaling capability is desired. Replacement systems would have to meet the following requirements:

  1. Be visible with aided vision for the following conditions and ranges:
  2. Be visible for 180o minimum from each side of the ship
  3. Be repeatable for 360o coverage
  4. Be able to be encoded within 5 minutes
  5. Be able to be decoded within 2 minutes
  6. Be internationally understood
  7. Not violate Emission Control Communications (EMCOM) conditions while operational
  8. Maintain line of sight
  9. Not require use of crypto
  10. Be able to display continuously as required for operations without degradation or alteration

An optimum replacement would be one that could be sent from a keyboard, could be automatically detected by a sensor on the receiving ship and receipted for, automatically decoded and displayed without human intervention, visible at longer ranges both day and night (and all weather), and have reduced counter-detection. Such a system could be used to replace signal flags as well as flashing light communications, but it would have to be readily compatible or transferable to Allied and Friendly navies.

Merchant ships use day shape poles. This or some similar other system where provisions for rigging/staging day shapes when needed is a possibility. Daytime lights (for instance, a daytime strobe for restricted in ability for maneuver) with greater visibility might be another possibility.

Treaty/INCSEA/International Code of Signals may require as many as three halyards. Efforts should be made to simplify these signals, exclude war ships from compliance (as is already done in some cases) or to permit VHF Bridge-to-Bridge VHF communications as a means to convey information previously conveyed by signal flags.

G. Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System Options

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

V. ACTION ITEMS

  1. PMS 317 use AEM/S Option 4B near term baseline design planning.
  2. 2. PMS 317 will pursue reducing flag size requirements on LPD 17
  3. 2. PMS 317 initiate input via sponsor or through the Naval Expeditionary Warfare Engineering Product Team for determination of future visual signaling requirements and appropriate.
  4. Return to Table of Contents


    Appendix A

    LPD 17 Visual Display and Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System Workshop Agenda 10 December 1997

    0830

    Introduction/Welcome

    J. McIntire, PMS 317D

    0850

    Overview of Advanced Enclosed Mast/ System Development

    J. Benson, NSWC-CD

    0930

    Identification of performance requirements for alternative close-in tactical communications systems.

    L. Wanex NAVSEA 03W4H

    0910

    Review of requirements relating to signal flags, pennants and day shapes and visual communications requirements (Includes COLREG Requirements)

    K. King, Ownership Team (Team 17)

    1000

    Military uses for signal flags, et al and possible alternatives in the 21st century

    Round Table Discussion

    1030

    Review of Advanced Enclosed Mast Options For LPD

    S. Farley, NAVSEA RCS Engineer

    1100

    Discussion of signal flag alternatives and Mast design options

    Round Table Discussion

    1145

    Summary and Wrap up

    J. McIntire, PMS 317D

     

    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


    Appendix B

    WORKSHOP

    Attendees

    10 December 1997

    NAME

    ORG

    PHONE#

    FAX#

    E-MAIL

     

     

     

     

     

    Benson, Jeff

    NSWC Team 17

    (301) 227-1087

    -1020

    [email protected]

    Berrios, Gilberto SMC

    FTG

    (757) 363-4151

     

     

    Boozer, Joe SMCS

    FTG

    (757) 363-4151

     

     

    Campbell, Wink

    ASC

    (757) 464-8604

    464-8599

    [email protected]

    Casper, Robert, Lt

    CPG-2

    (757) 464-8677

     

    [email protected]

    Erikson, Mark CDR

    N8 CPG-2

    (757) 464-8699

     

    [email protected]

    Farley, Steve

    NAVSEA 03T1

    (207) 442-5284

     

    [email protected]

    Hungerford, Milo QMC

    FTG

    (757) 363-4809

     

     

    Jones, Betty

    A&T, Team 17

    (703) 418-8690

    -8651

    [email protected]

    King, Kendall

    ASC, Team 17

    (757) 424-3711

    420-6910

    [email protected]

    Lorenzawa, Richard

    QMCS FTG

    (757) 363-4809

     

     

    Luebke, Bill CAPT

    PMS 317

    (703) 413-4999

    418-2527

     

    Marsh, Robert SMC

    FTG

    (757) 363-4151

     

     

    McIntire, John

    NAVSEA 03D3

    (504) 437-3542

     

    [email protected]

    Picotte, Len

    ASC, Team 17

    (757) 424-3711

     

    [email protected]

    Rockwood, James

    CPG-2

    (757) 464-8815

     

     

    Wanex, Lenny

    NAVSEA 03W4H

    (703) 602-1895

    -4746

    [email protected]

    Weingart, Steve CDR

    FTG OIC

    (757) 464-8888

     

    [email protected]

     

    Return to Table of Contents


     

    Appendix C

    Welcome and Overview Presentation

     

    Return to Table of Contents