If the ongoing U.S. campaign against terrorist groups expands to
places like Somalia, Iraq or Indonesia, that could result in more
missions for the U.S. Navy SEALs, who have seen their role in land
warfare grow in recent years.
To improve their ability to quickly reach the battle zone, the
SEALs plan to buy several 65-foot submersibles, which would transport
them from a submarine to the shore. The SEALs view this vehicle
as a significant improvement over their current vehicle, because
it keeps them dry during the ride.
The submersible, called the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS)
has been in development since 1994, but the program experienced
delays in the early going. Tests are under way currently, and it
is not clear when the system will be deployed and operational.
The Navy office responsible for the development of ASDS declined
to comment for this article. Some aspects of this program are classified,
but Forecast International naval analyst Stuart Slade noted that
the secrecy surrounding the ASDS is to be expected, given the sensitive
nature of the SEAL missions. The vehicles, he said, “will
be valuable pieces of equipment.” As time goes on, Slade predicted,
“they will sink even more from the public gaze, because they
work best when people don’t know about them and are in doubt
about the capabilities.”
Naval special-warfare is about conducting clandestine insertions
and extractions of SEAL squads in unfriendly environments.
The SEALs, who operate from the sea, land or air, are highly trained
unconventional troops. There are currently six SEAL teams and two
SEAL delivery vehicle teams, equally divided between the East and
Weast coasts of the United States. Every team has 10 platoons of
16 men each, with an additional headquarters platoon and a 20-man
support element.
So far, the SEAL delivery teams have been using the wet submersibles
called the SEAL Delivery Systems or SDVs. With the SDVs, however,
SEALs often have to spend extended periods of time in cold ocean
water during long offshore transits, donning only a wet or a dry
suit. That can take a toll on their physical and mental performance.
Sometimes, SEALs have to warm themselves on the beach, before continuing
with their mission.
The Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has made the ASDS one of
its “flagship” acquisition programs (National Defense,
Feb. 2001). The program currently is managed by the Naval Sea Systems
Command. A NAVSEA spokeswoman said the ASDS currently is undergoing
deep-water tests in Hawaii, but she could not provide details.
When deployed, ASDS is expected to improve the effectiveness of
long-range operations, because the SEALs would be delivered to their
destinations better rested and better equipped. They also would
be able to conduct shore surveillance prior to landing.
Other Navies
Slade noted that these types of submersibles are found in other
navies. “There are a lot of similar craft around the world,”
he said. The Italians and Russians, for example, have used comparable
vehicles extensively. “The Russians have a very large fleet
of these types of boats,” he said. The ASDS is not reinventing
anything, he said, “because there is a good basis of design
art to work from.”
It’s taken a long time for the SEALs to get this capability,
because their original missions did not require such a vehicle,
Slade explained. The SEALs descended from the Cold War-era underwater
demolition teams, which would be sent to beaches to remove mines
and other obstacles. During World War II, the SEALs served as “frogmen
swimming around,” finding and removing mines or other explosives,
Slade said. Over time, they started operating on land, which increased
their demands for new combat equipment.
“We are seeing a change in equipment profiles dictated by
a change in operational requirements,” said Slade.
In a recent study, the Rand Corp.—a federally funded think-tank—outlined
recent developments in the ASDS program. The report is titled “Advanced
SEAL Delivery System: Perspectives and Options.” It was done
at the request of the Deep Submergence Directorate (PMS 395) of
the Naval Sea Systems Command.
Range, speed, payload and habitability are the reasons why the
SEALs need the ASDS, Rand said. “It provides a true ‘mini-sub’
capable of significantly extending the combat radius.”
The ASDS is battery-powered, shock-hardened and stealthy. It is
approximately 65 feet in length, 8 feet in diameter and weighs 60
tons. It can be transported in C-17 or C-5 military cargo airplanes.
When it’s attached to a submarine, it can submerge in waters
as deep as 800 feet. The main electric propulsion system is used
for high-speed transit and a thrusting capability is available for
low-speed maneuvering. The ASDS can travel at approximately 8 knots
to about 125 nautical miles.
The pilot is an experienced submariner, and a SEAL navigator sits
next to him. Additionally, the ASDS can carry six to eight fully
equipped SEALs.
The submarine platforms that transport the ASDS will be specifically
configured SSN 688-class boats. According to the Rand report, two
688 SSNs are currently being modified for this mission. The mini-sub
has a hyperbaric chamber that is used to lock swimmers in and out
from a bottom hatch at a variety of depths. It also serves to create
a passageway to the host submarine-mating trunk when the ASDS is
attached to the submarine’s hull. ASDS sensors include multiple
sonars and its navigation system has both a global positioning system
and an inertial guidance system.
It is no secret, however, that the ASDS program has traveled a
bumpy ride. “Because of the unique and challenging nature
of the development and production of the ASDS vehicle, the schedule
and the initial contract cost were significantly exceeded,”
said the Rand report.
SOCOM Acquisition Executive Harry Schulte told National Defense
in an interview last year that the testing had taken longer than
expected. “Longer means more money,” he said. The ASDS
“has been a struggle with the Navy and with [contractor] Northrop
Grumman,” said Schulte. He said that he expected that the
program would be restructured and possibly would receive more funding.
“What that will basically do is slip our second ASDS buy until
2003 and our third ASDS buy until 2005,” he said.
Northrop Grumman Corp. was awarded a design and manufacturing development
contract in 1994, for six boats. A company spokeswoman declined
to comment on the company’s current work on the program.
The first vehicle is estimated to cost $230 million. The program
received $48 million in fiscal 2001. The 2002 budget had not yet
been finalized at press time.
Slade said that one of the major problems with the program is a
shortage of funds. “If you throw in enough money, it will
work eventually,” he said.
“Any program like this has technical difficulties in it,”
Slade said. “It is very easy to over-specify development programs.”
He added that extensive testing is needed to identify and prevent
problems before the vehicles enter the fleet. “Faults are
always there, sometimes we hear about it, sometimes we don’t.”
According to the Rand report, during the earlier testing phase
in Hawaii, pilots and co-pilots said they were concerned about long-term
reliability problems. “While disruptive and costly, the problems
we observed were typical for such a complex, first-of-a-kind system
as the ASDS,” said the report. Rand recommended that the Navy
include more input from pilots and co-pilots in the design of ASDS.
Chicago Bridge and Iron was the initial manufacturer of the first
pressure hull, but subsequently dropped out of the program. Northrop
Grumman then selected Electric Boat Company to produce the follow-on
hulls.
The first ASDS was supposed to be delivered in fiscal year 2000,
said the Rand report. The program got off on a shaky start, said
Rand, because the requirements were not defined clearly enough.
This resulted in three vendors submitting contract bids with much
lower cost projections than what the government had estimated.
“Clearly, the vendors did not envision the same project as
the government did,” said the report. “This lack of
definition and catering to an unrealistic price resulted in a significant
number of design changes and decisions that resulted in dramatic
cost and schedule growth.”
The winner of the original contract was Westinghouse Corp., later
acquired by Northrop Grumman.
Rand analysts said that they believed that the ASDS program initially
suffered from lack of attention from upper management. “The
program did not benefit from the management experience that has
led Northrop Grumman to be a very successful provider of major weapons
systems,” said the report. “While suffering from a lack
of top management attention ... the project also suffered from poor
design decisions and poor vendor performance.” Northrop Grumman
cited problems with the composite outer hull and a so-called “vendor
material certification system” as reasons for delays and cost
increases, the study said.
But Rand analysts acknowledged that the company is turning the
program around, as a result of management changes during the past
two years. The most important change is the transition of ASDS from
an isolated project to a high-priority effort, benefiting from Northrop
Grumman’s “corporate design, development, production
and programmatic systems,” the report said. “While the
new technical and management approach has likely not solved all
of ASDS problems, we find that it is solid and comprehensive, which
will provide a good basis for identifying solutions when unanticipated
problems arise.”
According to Rand, the primary contractor has been working on ways
to reduce costs and focused on design simplifications and improvement
in the production of the next five systems. “These redesign
efforts will result in a higher quality, lower-cost product when
compared to ASDS-1,” Rand said.
Northrop Grumman, said the Rand study, is working on electrical
system optimization; improvements on the aft and body of the craft;
reduction of the number of external hull studs; the redesign of
the door and deployment mechanism, and a more efficient procurement
of materials and use of suppliers.
The company plans to save $10 million per boat as a result of these
initiatives, said Rand. “The current plan to realize these
savings is for the government to fund a $10 million detailed design
effort,” the report stated. The $10 million was supposed to
be split over two years: $6 million for 2000 and another $4 million
for 2001.
While the acquisition cost savings for ASDS are quantified, the
report said, there are no numbers available on potential savings
for life-cycle costs, which involve maintenance and operation. “Most
of [Northrop Grumman’s] cost reduction initiatives should
improve this area, because the ASDS design is greatly simplified,”
said the study. “However, a complete cost-benefit analysis
should include the full spectrum of life-cycle costs.”
Rand recommended that the government look into a multi-year procurement
of ASDS. “The primary advantage of multi-year contracts is
that the government often gets lower and more stable prices compared
with individually procured systems,” said the report. Multi-year
procurement contracts require congressional approval.
For the ASDS program, “the potential savings could be quite
significant,” Rand said. However, given the current state
of the program, it would probably be unrealistic to implement a
multi-year contract starting with ASDS-2. By the time that vehicle
is completed, cost estimates could change.