NewsLPD-17

 
 
 
 

LPD 17 NAVY/MARINE CORPS WARFIGHTER AND SHIP DESIGNER IPT

CIC/TROOP OPS

WORKSHOP REPORT II
 
 
 
 

16-17 October 1997
Table of Contents

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

A Navy and Marine Corps Warfighter and Ship Designer Integrated Product Team, the follow-on to the LPD 17 CIC/Troops Ops Functional Review Workshop I, was conducted on 16 and 17 October 1997 in the LPD 17 War Room at EWTGLANT with attendees from the acquisition and ship design communities interfacing with experienced Navy and Marine operators and representatives from Navy laboratories. Hosted by the LPD 17 Program Office (PMS 317), the fundamental objectives of the workshop were threefold: The IPT opened with RADM (Ret) Picotte of TEAM 17 providing an overview and update of the LPD 17 Program, extending to the Design for Ownership (DFO) process. In addition, he presented background information on Workshop I and ended by defining the exit criteria for the two days. COL Quinlan from PEO CLA then briefed the Marine Corps perspective, reiterating the need to "think 21st Century. They were followed by Mr. Will Donnelly from PMS 317 and Mr. Bill Douglas from NAVSEA 03 who explained the how and why of the CIC and Troops Ops/TACLOG arrangements, gave AGF 11's solution to co-location issues and then stressed the need not to be limited by paradigm considerations in the IPT's examination of the spaces.

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:

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 fleet Sailors and Marines. Good ideas and suggestions have been submitted and are now being considered for incorporation into ship design. This is a sustained procedure and in some cases the value of process may be enhanced by additional fleet/Marine review before detailed design commences. Based upon interest and request, one area where this review is appropriate and timely is in the proposed LPD 17 Combat Information Center (CIC) and Troop Operations and Logistics Center (Troops Ops) space configurations

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:

Participants were invited to determine how these spaces can best support external and internal situational awareness, realize the advantages of shared tactical picture, and avoid stove- piped C4I. Hosted by the LPD 17 Program Office (PMS 317), the fundamental objectives of the workshop were threefold: The IPT was able to achieve these objectives through the interactive Design for Ownership process as follows: The PMS 317 Team will then return in January 1998 with drawings of options relative space arrangement.

Key IPT members included representatives from Commander Amphibious Group Two, Commander Amphibious Group Three (COMPHIBRON SEVEN), I. MEF/15th 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.  

Figure 1. LPD 17 03 Level Top Down drawing view

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.

 
Figure 2 Overview of Current Arrangement of CIC/Troop Ops

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:

Figure 3. Current CIC/Troop Ops Space Arrangement with Bulkhead Removed

- 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.
 
 
 

 
 
Figure 4. Typical CIC and TOLC Activity Levels by Condition of Readiness

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:

The results are shown in Table 3. All of the functions are listed in Appendix C.
 

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

integrated. TACLOG is temporarily task organized and run/operated, monitors operations

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)

camera. Navy would like to have split screens for monitoring different spaces

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

external communications.

be flexibility to combine the spaces for possible 21st century requirements. A smart

bulkhead such as is in place on USS CORONADO was recommended

expanding. Boxes/systems are becoming automating but still single functions.

Workshop Process continued:

The strawman design discussed during the conclusion of the workshop was based on reversing the arrangement of the spaces and adding a Mission Planning Space in a separate location. Figure 5 displays the projected strawman rearrangement over the 03 Level drawing.

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.
 
 

Figure 5. Proposed Revised CIC/Troop Ops Space Arrangement

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:

CDR Barbour also reiterated the single action item from this workshop for PMS 317 to develop three variations of the Figure 5 arrangement and to brief the IPT when it reconvenes in January 1998.
Return To Table of Contents


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
11. TOLC - Troop Operation Logistic Center - needs antenna access for portable Marine radios

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.

Figure 6. Overview of Current Troop Ops Arrangement and Horseshoe Table

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

Navy and Marine Corps Warfighter and DesignerIntegrated Product Team Agenda - WORKSHOP II

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

WORKSHOP
Attendees
16-17 October 1997
Rank/NameCommand/Co.Phone/fax/email
1. MAJ Earl CruseNAVSEA(PMS317)(703)418-2513
2. CAPT Tim BoothNAVSEA(PMS317)(507)437-3388
[email protected]
3. LTCOL Larry RomaineSURFLANT CFMO/CCO(757)322-3150 Fax 3260
4. CWO 3 Larry PalmerCPG-2(757)464-8289 Fax 8641
5. MAJ John WasekI. MEF/15th Comm O(760)725-8859 DSN 365-8859
6. CAPT Carl WeiscopfCOMPHIBRON 7
COMPHIBGRU 3 REP
(619)556-5211 DSN 526
CPR7@ NOSC.NAVY
7. COL Mike QuinlanNAVSEA (OOM/PEO CLA(M))(703)602-6292 Fax 7150
[email protected]
8. RADM Picotte USN(Ret)ASC(757)424-3711 Fax (757)420-6910
9. William J. DonnellyPEO(TAD)(504)437-3539
[email protected]
10. MAJ Dan McGuninness1 MEF G3DSN 365-6266
[email protected]
11. Larry JohnsonLOGICON/SYSCON(LPD-17)(703)553-7822/7837
[email protected]
12. Fred ElksLOGICON/SYSCON(LPD-17)(703)553-7850
[email protected]
13. Billy DouglasNAVSEA 03K412(703)602-7345X418 FAX (703)602-3723
[email protected]
14. CDR Steve JoachimPCO USS Oak Hill
Rep for CPG-2
(757)464-8855
15. CAPT Craig P LambertCOMNAVSURFLANT N635M(757)322-3292
[email protected]
16. LT COL Tom HarlemanCOMSURFWARDEVGRU
USMC LNO/N73
(757)363-4984
[email protected]
17. CDR Ernest BartleyCOMSURFWARDEVGRU N7(757)363-4984
[email protected]
18. LT(USN) Lori MusclemanCOMSURFWARDEVGRU N7(757)363-4984
[email protected]
19. MAJ Tom HartshorneMCCDC.QuanticoDSN 278-6193
20. Ben RatermanNSWCDD(540)653-2886/2290
[email protected]
21. Dennis WarneNSWCDD T05(540)653-2291/2290
[email protected]
22. Jon SweigartNSWCDD(540)653-3675
[email protected]
23. Bill HeidtCOMPHIBGRU TWO(757)464-8874/8711
24. OSC ByrdUSS Nashville
25. LCDR Merv DialSWOS, Newport, RI(401)841-4962/3
[email protected]
26. Stan BrownTRW(703)685-6747/8913
[email protected]
27. LCDR Jim HenryCOMPHIBGRU TWO(757)464-8195/363-4986
[email protected]
27. Kendall KingASC(757)424-3711 Fax (757)420-6910
28. Wink CampbellASC(757)464-8604 Fax (757)464-8599
 
Return To Table of Contents
CIC, Troop Ops and TACLOG Functions
Detailed Discussion

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
Ship board level - self-contained/internal

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)