Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prepared by:
Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Research, Development, and Acquisition
1000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, DC 20350-1000
FEBRUARY 2015
Introduction
The Department of the Navy (DoN) submits this Report to Congress on the DDG 51 Flight III design status as directed by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S.Rept.112-173). The Department is committed to the acquisition of the DDG 51 Flight III destroyers with an integrated Air and
Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) to meet the requirements for Integrated Air and Missile Defense
(IAMD) capabilities. After several years of study, analysis, requirements validation, and prototype
testing, the AMDR S-Band system is poised for successful integration into the DDG 51 Class ships
as the Flight III upgrade.
This report summarizes the background of the DDG 51 Class program, explains the new AMDR
system, describes the final scope of the engineering change proposal (ECP) required to field the
ADMR on a DDG 51 hull, depicts the resulting Flight III ship configuration, and outlines the way
forward to ensure this vital capability reaches the Fleet as quickly as possible. This report will also
show that with respect to systems and equipment levels of maturity for Flight III, the AMDR is the
only new development technology. The AMDR has successfully completed Milestone B, a full
system Preliminary Design Review, a hardware Critical Design Review, and will deliver its first
full ship set of production equipment by early FY 2020. The remaining equipment required to provide power and cooling to the AMDR are all based on currently existing equipment and therefore
induce low technical risk to the program. Given the tremendous capability improvement AMDR
provides to defeat emerging air and ballistic missile threats over current radars, the low to moderate
technical risk associated with implementing this radar on an FY 2016 DDG 51 justifies execution
of the ECP during the FY 2013-2017 multiyear procurement contract.
The specific language in the NDAA for FY13, section 125, is as follows:
Multiyear procurement authority for Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and associated systems (sec.
125). The committee believes that continued production of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers is critical to provide required forces for sea based ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities. The Navy
envisions that, if research and development activities yield an improved radar suite and combat
systems capability, they would like to install those systems on the destroyers in fiscal years 2016
and 2017, at which time the designation for those destroyers would be Flight III. Should the Navy
decide to move forward with the integration of an engineering change proposal (ECP) to incorporate a new BMD capable radar and associated support systems during execution of this multiyear
procurement, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees, no later than with the budget request for the year of contract award of such an ECP. The report will contain a description of the final scope of this ECP, as well as the level of maturity of the
new technology to be incorporated on the ships of implementation and rationale as to why the maturity of the technology and the capability provided justify execution of the change in requirements
under that ECP during the execution of a multiyear procurement contract.
The DDG 51 Class Program has awarded a total of 76 ships from 1985 to 2017 between two shipbuilders, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) and Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII). Most
recently, 10 were awarded in June 2013 under Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) authority for FY1317. Sixty-two ships have been delivered. Of the remaining 14, six are in various stages of construction and will deliver in 2016 and beyond. The Flight III configuration will be integrated via
the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) process onto the last three ships of the FY13-17 MYP: one
ship in FY16 and both FY17 ships. A follow-on FY18 MYP will continue the production line.
Prior to Flight III, the program has produced three flights (I, II and IIA). Flights II and IIA included
important modifications for changing mission requirements and technology updates, thus demonstrating the substantial capacity and flexibility of the base DDG 51 hull form. Flight II introduced
enhanced capability in Combat Systems and Electronic Warfare. Flight IIA constituted a more significant change to the ship by incorporation of an organic dual hangar/dual helicopter aviation facility, extended transom, zonal electrical power distribution (ZEDS), enhanced missile capacity, and
reconfigured primary radar arrays. The combined scope and means for integrating the changes for
Flight III is similar to the approach used in the Flight IIA upgrade. Additionally, during Flight IIA
production in the middle of the FY98-01 MYP, the class was significantly upgraded with a new radar, the AN/SPY-1D(V), and an improved combat management computing plant, AEGIS Baseline
7.1. The previous ship system changes were successfully executed by ECPs introduced via the existing systems engineering processes on both Flight II and IIA in support of the ongoing construction program. This methodology takes advantage of Navy and prime contractor experience with the
proven processes while offering effective and efficient introduction of the desired configuration
changes. It also provides the more affordable and effective approach toward producing this enhanced ship capability in lieu of starting a new ship design to incorporate the same capabilities into
a new production line for ship construction.
DDG 51 Flight III will be the third evolution of the original DDG 51 Class and will achieve the
U.S. Navys critical need for an enhanced surface combatant integrated IAMD capability. Flight III
will build on the warfighting capabilities of DDG 51 Flight IIA ships, providing this capability at
the earliest feasible time. Its defining characteristics include integration of the AMDR, associated
Combat Systems elements, and related Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical (HM&E) changes into a
modified repeat Flight IIA design. AMDR will give Flight III ships the ability to conduct simultaneous AAW and BMD operations. Flight III will contribute to mitigating the capability gaps identified in the Maritime Air and Missile Defense of the Joint Force (MAMDJF) Initial Capabilities
Document (ICD). The integrated Flight III ship system as delivered will meet the program requirements as stated in the DDG 51 Class Flight III Capabilities Development Document (CDD).
DDG 51 Flight III will execute four primary missions: (1) Integrated Air and Missile Defense, (2)
Anti-Surface Warfare, (3) Anti-Submarine Warfare, and (4) Strike Warfare, and will have the ability to plan, coordinate and execute alternate warfare commander responsibilities for either anti-air
warfare or ballistic missile defense.
The core changes between Flight IIA and Flight III and the systems technological maturity for
those changes are shown in Figure 2 and below. In addition to the incorporation of AMDR-S and
HM&E upgrades, the AMDR system will be integrated into the AEGIS Combat System. The evolution of the AEGIS Combat System as it pertains to the DDG 51 Class is shown in Figure 3, a progression that will continue with the incorporation of AMDR and other technologies as shown in
Figure 4.
Technological Maturity
AMDR
DDG 51 Selected
Radar Hull Study (June November 2009)
Evaluated incorporating IAMD capabilities into DDG 51 and DDG 1000 hull
DDG 51 with 14 foot AMDR-S w/ SPY-3 and AEGIS Combat System selected
Additional power generation and cooling required - Recommended additional study in
power and AMDR Integration
DDG 51 Restart CNOs Evaluation Board (CEB) (23 December 2009)
Endorsed Flight III Upgrade Study
MAMDJF Gate 2 Review/ Resources & Requirements Review Board (R3B) (2 March 2010)
Validated results and findings of MAMDJF Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
Approved AMDR program to proceed to Gate 2
Approved DDG 51 Flight III as preferred hull to proceed to Gate 2
Cancelled CG(X) program
DDG 51 Flight III Defined
Flight Upgrade Study, Year 1 (February 2010 January 2011)
Technology Characterization
Trade Studies (assessed technology options for cost benefit)
Ship Concept Studies
Cost Analysis Comparison of the Flight III (IAMD) Ship Concepts
R3B held 11 February 2011
Approved 4,160 VAC power architecture on Flight III option with AMDR S and X
Bands
Flight Upgrade Study, Year 2 (February May 2012)
Refined DDG 51 Flight III Ship Concepts
Evaluated 450 VAC architecture without AMDR X-Band, but with SPQ-9B
Supported Flight III CDD Requirements
Cost Analysis Comparison of Flight III Concepts
R3B held 11 June and 24 July 2012
Approved to proceed to Gate 3
Approved 4,160 VAC power architecture over the legacy 450 VAC distribution
system
Approved SPQ-9B as the X-Band radar
10
Boat Ops
NAVOSH
Compliance
SWARM
CBR Contamintn,
Detect, and Info
NVD
Compatibility
Survivability
Crypto Support
OCM Defense
Sustainment
Electronic
Warfare
Offensive ASuW
Energy
Embedded Trng
Systems
Overpressure
Training
Acoustic Signature
EMP
Radar
Capabilities
Net Ready
Magnetic Signature
Environ Limiting
Conditions
Replenish at Sea
Force Protection
Sustained Speed
ESOH
Cost
Endurance
Human System
Integration
Service Life
Schedule
Human Factors
Engineering
Strike Operations
Reliability
Information
Assurance
Thermal
Radiation
Manpower
Modular Open
Systems
Training
Proficiency
METOC Support
Undersea
Warfare
Aviation Facilities
NSFS
UW Shock
Aviation Ordnance
New or modified
requirements driving
costed change
Vulnerability
Requirements effectively
unchanged from Flight IIA ORD
11
12
MPDU
RCPS
RSC
RTSS
UPS
13
of the legacy DDG 51 Class AN/SPY-1D(V) arrays. Enhanced power and multi-beam operation
provides advanced, robust BMD detection and
discrimination. AMDR-S will be capable of detecting a target half the size at twice the distance
compared with its predecessor.
Physically arranging all the AMDR equipment
into the DDG 51 ship was a major portion of the
preliminary design effort. Much of the equipment needs to be in close proximity to the array
faces to minimize high data rate cabling lengths.
This required placement of most of the processing and control cabinets in the combat tower,
on the 03 Level. A key advantage of AMDR is
the elimination of radar waveguides. In previous
shipboard radars, the installation of waveguides
require significant material and manpower.
Figure 6 - AMDR Digital Array
Figures 6 and 7 show the AMDR planar array and its components. Each of the four arrays is made
up of 37 building blocks called Radar Module Assemblies (RMAs). Each of these two foot RMA
cubes is a self-contained radar transmitter and receiver and are stacked together to form the required size array. The array employs an egg-crate structure to maintain flatness and hold the array
components. Liquid cooling is embedded within the system, and allows for Transmit-Receive Integrated Multichannel Module (TRIMM) replacement without the need for liquid disconnects. Modular radiator/radome panels can be replaced using simple tools while at sea. Although only slightly
larger than the AN/
SPY-1D(V), the
AMDR array is considerably heavier and
deeper. Fitting the
new AMDR arrays
into the deckhouse
requires ship structural modifications to
accommodate the
arrays. Use of smaller section modulus,
high strength beams
plus some local bulk
bulkead details
(notching) provide
sufficient clearance
without the need for
a major structural
Figure 7 - AMDR Array Plate and Radar Module Assembly
redesign.
Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release.
14
Component
Radar Modular Assembly
Radiator
Radar Control Processing Cabinet
Array Interface Unit Cabinet
Digital Signal Processing Cabinet
Digital Beam Forming Cabinet
RSC Cabinet
Other ship impacts, including the
RTSS Cabinet
arrangements, electrical, and cooling
Ship Wiring
requirements of the AMDR are adOLBFN
dressed later in this report.
Inertial Navigation System
AMDR development has been ongo- Array Integration Components
ing since 2006, with critical technol- Non RF LRU
ogy elements as well as some subArray Mechanical Structure
systems developed prior to the Engineering Development Model (EDM) Array NFR Fixture
Calibration Radar Modular Assembly
development phase. Since contract
award, multi-disciplinary incremen- Digital Beamformer (DBF)
tal preliminary and critical design
Digital Receiver Exciter (DREX)
reviews have been conducted on all Transmit-Receive Integrated Multiitems (e.g. component, subassembly,
channel Module
or configuration item), and have
Array Cooling System
been chaired and moderated by inLow Rate Initial Production Cabinet
dependent reviewers. Navy and inDREX & DBF CDR
house independent subject matter
Power Distribution System
experts participated in all reviews.
Figure 8 provides a general view of
the primary structural elements of
the DDG 51 deckhouse in the area
of the array installation. To accommodate the size and weight of the
AMDR arrays, resizing of many of
the structural elements was necessary.
Status
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
15
16
17
19
ships, and the transformers specifically used for the Flight III are modified
units based on the LHD 8 design.
These units are planned to be contracted as Class Standard Equipment
(CSE) using the DDG 51 Class shipbuilders procurement process and
will be competitively awarded. The
three transformers will be arranged to
allow any combination of SSGTGs and
transformers to provide power to the
legacy 450 VAC electric distribution
system. This flexibility allows the
Figure 15 - Typical Dynamic Modeling Analysis Output
operator to select the best plant configuration depending on the need to balance fuel economy, redundancy, and survivability (battle
damage) while providing power to any and all portions of the ships combat and HM&E systems.
The AMDR system requires power to the processing cabinets at 208 VAC. Conditioning equipment is provided by the AMDR vendor as a complete system, as depicted in Figure 14. First converted through a single transformer, the power is filtered and conditioned by three notch filters and
three UPS cabinets to provide power conditioning and control. The UPS units also provide uninterrupted power via the battery cabinets, in the event of a loss of ships power. The conditioned power is then distributed to the various AMDR processing cabinets, and to the AMDR arrays.
Steady state analysis of the Electric Plant in various configurations has shown the architecture to be
sound, safe, and capable of providing sufficient power for all Flight III needs. Extensive analysis is
underway by the Flight III team to ensure all transient plant reactions and abnormal configurations
are accounted for, using a Dynamic Model Analysis (DMA) tool. A study guide was established by
the Navy team including PMS 400D, PMS 320, and SEA05 to define the effort. Figure 15 shows a
typical analysis output. The overall approach for each investigation concentrates on applying worst
case assumptions, identifying potential issues, then refining the modeling parameters for more accurate analysis. The DMA study analyzes transients, power quality, power continuity, and survivability. The results provide guidance to refine the plant configurations and amend the CONOPS to
afford the best practices which will be the basis of ships operations and crew training.
To date the DMA has completed the studies on transient analysis, power quality analysis, and work
is underway for the continuity analysis. The continuity analysis will look at any scenario, including
load shedding, where predicted transients are outside the design parameters, to ensure that the EP
protection gear will prevent system damage. The final phase of the study, scheduled for summer
2015, is a survivability analysis that will look at battle damage and recovery.
More electrical power is nearly always associated with increased heat loads, and the addition of
AMDR to the DDG 51 Class requires upgrades to the ships cooling capability. The existing Flight
IIA Air Conditioning (AC) plants, or chillers, are replaced with a modified system that increases
20
21
formed the base for the ACB 20 integration recommendation to OPNAV N96 Surface Warfare Tactical Requirements Group (SWTRG) process. The decision to include AMDR in ACB 20 was
made at a senior Flag level review.
PEO IWS 1.0 (AEGIS) and IWS 2.0, with input from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, are executing a rigorous systems engineering approach to develop the lower level requirements. Through this
process, the team has identified a set of Use Cases that define how the radar and combat system
will interact. The team is also defining the functional architecture of the system and the interface
design plan. Any hardware interfaces of AEGIS architecture are defined in the Flight III ECPs,
while the software portions will follow on a schedule to support software integration.
Although the Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is not until 2023, PEO IWS 1.0 is developing a
test asset, the Combat System Interface Support Equipment (CS ISE), that will allow for early risk
reduction testing between AMDR and AEGIS. The test asset will include early limited prototyping
of various architectures and will be used to demonstrate the maturity of selected critical interfaces.
Testing with AMDR will occur in FY17 to support the AMDR Milestone C decision.
The Flight III Combat Information Center (CIC) will be rearranged to most effectively enable
IAMD, BMD, and other mission CONOPS. TI-16 hardware, currently under development for
DDG 121 and follow, will continue to be used for the Flight III upgrade. The CDS (Common Display System) consoles allow flexible configuration, in that each console can be designated for a
22
wide variety of combat responsibilities. For the Flight III design, four additional consoles are added to allow Alternate Warfare Commander roles in the Fleet IAMD mission. Figures 17 and 18
show two typical configurations of the Flight III CIC.
Space for two Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) consoles is required by the Flight III CDD, which
is reserved in the forward starboard corner of the CIC. The next few years will likely bring rapid
advances in UAV technology, and the DDG 51 Class will be ready to incorporate UAVs as required. Modification to one of the two helo hangars is expected, and would be necessary to accommodate UAVs and the associated support equipment. Note: The UAV change is only a space reservation within CIC. There is no physical change planned or scheduled. The space reservation supports a foreseeable future change based on existing Flight IIA operations.
There are several other changes being incorporated on the Flight IIA ships that are necessary enablers for Flight III modifications.
The removal of SPY-1D(V) relieved the requirement for the dedicated SPY cooling skid. However, the Mk 99 Fire Control System (FCS) also received cooling water supply from this skid, so to
provide cooling water to the Mk 99 System a new FCS cooler is being procured. The FCS cooler is
physically smaller than the SPY cooler. The new cooler leverages the design of 1044A type cool-
Figure 18 - CIC Arrangement, Notional Air and Missile Defense Commander (Alternate)
23
ing skids, used on CG 47 Class ships, with improvements for corrosion control and user interface. This reduces developmental efforts and maximizes parts commonality for the Fleet.
Electronic Equipment Fluid Coolers (EEFCs) are introduced on Flight IIA ships on DDG 119 to
eliminate two large cooling skids. The EEFCs are point of service coolers for the combat system
equipment throughout the ship. The implementation of this change enabled removal of the Sonar
Equipment Cooling Skid and the Control and Display (C&D) Cooling Skid. The removal of this
equipment is necessary to make room for the Flight III 4,160 VAC switchgear and other equipment.
Another enabling technology being incorporated prior to Flight III is Integrated Power Node
Center (IPNC). Implemented on DDG 121 and follow ships as a cost reduction initiative, the IPNCs will replace the current DDG 51 400Hz electrical service architecture, removing the single
large converter, over 100 pieces of support equipment, and a large amount of cabling. The IPNCs are point of service converters (there will be eight on the Flight IIA ships), which will retain
the same functionality as displaced equipment. Space vacated by the older 400 Hz frequency
converter allows optimal location of the Flight III PCMs.
Figure 19 diagrams the significant integration testing of AMDR with the AEGIS Weapon System.
24
26
The CEU equipment displaces crew bunks previously in Crew Living Space 2.
The Flight III CDD requires
increased accommodations,
which is accomplished by
adding a starboard side enclosure on the 01 Level, and
by increasing most officer
staterooms to a three-rack
configuration. The new starboard side enclosure is
shown in Figure 23, just aft
of the now stacked Rigid
Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB)
configuration. The existing
boat davit retained the
Figure 21 - Preliminary Arrangements of Forward PCM and
AMDR CEUs
stacked boat height requirement even after the RMS
was removed, so no new procurement is required for this change.
There are also arrangements changes in the machinery spaces as a result of the additional switchgear and EP protection gear. Preliminary design efforts have shown feasible locations for all major
equipment. General arrangements will be further refined in Detail Design.
27
Beyond arrangement there are associated effects to the ships weight and KG. To maintain acceptable margin for future growth, the Flight III team was able to improve the ships reserve buoyancy by increasing the flight deck beam above the waterline, combined with cross flooding ducts to
raise the ships limiting displacement to 10,700 tons (increased from 10,300 tons). This design
change allowed an increase in inner-bottom structural weight to lower the ships center of gravity
(KG), an approach that was also used for the design of the Flight IIA ships. Increased inner-bottom
structure has the added benefit of further strengthening the hull girder, thereby improving resistance
to underwater explosives.
The DDG 51 Class ships have been densely outfitted and internal space (volume) limited for some
time. Other SWaP-C allowances are within reasonable design practices and the CDD requirements.
Current ship design parameters are listed below.
Select Flight III Characteristics and Service Life Margins
Displacement: 9709 ltons
KG:
24.96 ft
Electric Load: 5,458 kW
Cooling Load: 1,206 rtons
Displacement SLA:
991 ltons (10.2%)
KG SLA:
.62 ft
Electric SLA: 1,904 kW (40%)
Cooling SLA: 294 rtons (20%)
Impacts to all subsystems continues to be refined, with the DDG 51 Class Design Agent (BIW)
now maintaining configuration control of the ECP packages. The design agents from both DDG
51 shipbuilders, BIW and HII, are under contract to continue development of the Flight III ECPs.
28
Conclusion
This report has provided a description of the final scope of the ECP required to field the ADMR on
a DDG 51 hull, and has detailed the level of maturity of the new technology to be incorporated on
these ships, beginning with one of the two DDG 51s in FY 2016. With respect to Flight III systems
level of maturity, the AMDR is the only new development technology. The AMDR has successfully completed Milestone B, a full system Preliminary Design Review, a hardware Critical Design
Review, and will deliver its first full ship set of production equipment by early FY 2020. The re-
29
maining equipment required to provide power and cooling to the AMDR are all based on currently
existing equipment and therefore induce low technical risk to the program. Given the tremendous
capability improvement AMDR provides to defeat emerging air and ballistic missile threats over
current radars, the low to moderate technical risk associated with implementing this radar on an FY
2016 DDG 51 justifies execution of the ECP during the FY 2013-2017 multiyear procurement contract.
This report has assembled the latest available design and integration information based on the recent design reviews, assumptions, decisions, and sources provided to address the questions posed.
In summary, the AMDR technology has matured, ship impacts are clearly understood, and design
efforts are underway for ECP development. The Navy's intention, as stated and supported by the
contents of this report, is to integrate AMDR-S into the DDG 51 ARLEIGH BURKE Class ships
beginning with the last ship of FY16. The AMDR-S integration with the proven AEGIS Combat
System into the DDG 51 Flight IIA by ECP is the shortest path to meet fleet requirements for cost
effective IAMD capability with the lowest technical and cost risk.
30
Additional Reading:
Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 05D), DDG 51 Class Flight Upgrade Technical Concept Study, Year 1, Ser 05D/054, 23 Feb 2011. (FOUO, Limited Distribution)
Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 05D), DDG 51 Class Flight Upgrade Technical Concept Study, Year 2, Ser 05D/434, 14 Dec 2012. (FOUO, Limited Distribution)
Capabilities Development Document (CDD) for the DDG 51 Flight III, JROCM 122-14, 28 October 2014
Future DDG (Radar/Hull) Study Final Report (U), Dated 10 November 2009 (CLASSIFIED
Document)
Maritime Air and Missile Defense of the Joint Forces (MAMJDF) Initial Capabilities Document
(ICD) Dated 01 May 2006 (CLASSIFIED Document)
Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) Top Level Radar Performance (TLRP) for AMDR SBand, Appendix F document, dated 10 November 2009 (CLASSIFIED Document)
Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) Capability Development Document (CDD), JROCM
123-13, 27 June 2013 (CLASSIFIED Document)
Surface Ship Theater Air and Missile Defense Assessment (SSTAMDA) Summary Study Report, N86/8S177518, 09 Jul 08 (CLASSIFIED Document)
31
Acronym List
AAW
AC
ACB
ADM
AIU
AMDR
AoA
APDU
ASUW
ASW
AWS
BIW
BMD
C&D
C5I
CALOW
CEB
CD
CDD
CDLMS
CDR
CDS
CEU
CIC
CONEMP
COI
CONOPS
CPP
CSE
CSER
CSG
DAB
DBFS
DMA
DREX
DSPS
ECP
EEFC
EDM
EP
ESG
Anti-Air Warfare
Air Conditioning
AEGIS Capability Build
Acquisition Decision Memorandum
Array Interface Unit
Air and Missile Defense Radar
Analysis of Alternatives
Array Power Distribution Unit
Anti-Surface Warfare
Anti-Submarine Warfare
AEGIS Weapon System
General Dynamics Bath Iron Works
Ballistic Missile Defense
Control and Display
Command, Control, Communications,
Computers, Combat System, and Intelligence
Coastal and Littoral Offshore Warfare
CNOs Evaluation Board
Contract Design
Capability Development Document
Common Data Link Management System
Critical Design Review
Common Display System
Cooling Electronics Unit
Combat Information Center
Concept of Employment
Concept of Integration
Concept of Operations
Capability Phasing Plan
Class Standard Equipment
Combat System Equipment Room
Carrier Strike Group
Defense Acquisition Board
Digital Beamforming System
Dynamic Modeling Analysis
Digital Receiver Exciter
Digital Signal Processing System
Engineering Change Proposal
Electronic Equipment Fluid Cooler
Engineering Development Model
Electric Plant
Expeditionary Strike Group
ESSM
FCS
FLODES
FTS
HES/C
HFP
HII
HM&E
HWIL
IAMD
ICD
iCDR
INS
IOC
IPNC
IPR
IR
ISE
JROC
KW
LIC
LRIP
MAMDJF
MDA
MPDU
MW
MYP
NIFC-CA
O&S
OIPT
OSA
PARM
PCM
R3B
RCPS
RCS
RHIB
RMA
RMS
RSC
32
rTons
RTSS
S&T
SETR
SEWIP
SFR
SIL
SLA
SSGTG
SWaP-C
SWTRG
SYSCOM
TI
TRIMM
TRM
TSDR
UAV
UPS
USW
VLS
VSD
ZEDS
33