NATO SEASPARROW Case Study: Taking International Cooperation to the Next Level 25 January 2011 10.RB.1/14/2011 1
Theme for ComDef West 2011: Architecture for Coalition Cooperation NATO SEASPARROW Case Study: Taking International Cooperation to the Next Level Objective of Today s Presentation: Present a new model for international cooperation Goal of today s presentation: Encourage other cooperative projects to seek new opportunities for sustaining and expanding cooperation In the past, cooperation was optional; today it s essential 10.RB.1/14/2011 2
Outline Overview of NATO SEASPARROW Consortium Principles of Cooperation: The Foundation of the Consortium s Continued Success Traditional Model vs. NATO SEASPARROW s Evolved Model of Cooperation The Missing Element: Mission Assurance NATO SEASPARROW Project Has Taken International Cooperation to the Next Level: Instilling a New Culture of Cooperation Summary 10.RB.1/14/2011 3
NATO SEASPARROW Project Largest and most successful cooperative weapons project in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 12 Member Nations or Participating Governments Established in 1968 to provide cooperative ship self-defense capability against anti-ship cruise missiles Authority vested in a series of Department of Defense/Ministry of Defense-level Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) Governance provided by the NATO SEASPARROW Project Steering Committee (NSPSC) Joint military/industrial Consortium that benefits by sharing costs and sharing work Entering 43rd year of successful international cooperation 10.RB.1/14/2011 4
NATO SEASPARROW Member Nations AUSTRALIA 3 Classes 15 Ships BELGIUM 1 Class 2 Ships CANADA 1 Class 12 Ships DENMARK 3 Classes 9 Ships GERMANY 3 Classes 15 Ships GREECE 2 Classes 14 Ships NETHERLANDS 2 Classes 6 Ships NORWAY 1 Class 5 Ships PORTUGAL 2 Class 5 Ships SPAIN 1 Class 5 Ships TURKIYE 3 Classes 16 Ships UNITED STATES 9 Classes ~100 Ships NATO SEASPARROW Consortium plays a vital role in the global maritime partnership 10.RB.1/14/2011 5
Evolved SEASPARROW Missile (ESSM) Block 1 is the Consortium s Premier Product ESSM provides: Ship self-defense capability and bridges the gap with local area defense systems such as Standard Missile ESSM is designed to defeat: Agile missile threats and traditional air threats Small, maneuvering (asymmetric) surface threats Low Velocity Air Threats (e.g., helicopters, UAVs) RIM-162 ESSM Block 1 firing from a Mk41 Vertical Launching System 10.RB.1/14/2011 6
Capability Through Versatility MK 29 GMLS (Trainable) AEGIS (US/SP/NO) DDG Flt IIA, CG 47 MK 48 GMVLS MK 41 VLS (Quadpack) ESSM TFC/APAR (GE/NE) ANZAC (AT) DCIII (CA/GE/ GR/NE/ TK) MK 56 DPELS Mk 57AVLS/ MFR (US) DDG 1000 RNSSMS/SSDS (US) CVN, LHA(R), LHD, CV 21 STANFLEX (DE) 10.RB.1/14/2011 7
10.RB.1/14/2011 8
Terms of Consortium Participation Fundamental Principles of Cooperation One nation, one vote, all votes equal Principle of unanimity Quid Pro Quo understanding (benefits directly related to cost) Nations are partners, NOT customers Steering Committee provides direction and oversight (each nation is represented by one Steering Committee Member) NATO SEASPARROW Project Office supports all partner nations Provides infrastructure to execute Consortium requirements Cooperative solutions seek to meet each nation s unique requirements (not off the shelf solutions) U.S. procures supplies and services on behalf of member nations Duty free entry of material among partners All partners benefit from cost-sharing and work-sharing Partners share recurring & non-recurring costs Work-share opportunities are made available through an extensive subcontracting network (18 first-tier companies in 10 countries) 10.RB.1/14/2011 9
Memorandums of Understanding 10.RB.1/14/2011 10
NATO SEASPARROW Project Direction/Execution NATO SEASPARROW Project Steering Committee (NSPSC) NATO SEASPARROW Project Office (NSPO) NSPO Project Execution One Member from each Participating Government Semi-annual Meetings Responsible for MOU Implementation / Execution Provides Executive Direction Configuration Control Direction: Budgets / funding System requirements Other Consortium Issues Decisions Executive Agency of NSPSC Executes NSPSC Direction Works on behalf of Participating Governments Internationally Staffed International Government Support Organizations Industry Partners Fleet Units 10.RB.1/14/2011 11
Share Non-Recurring Costs Avoids Duplication Int l Subcontractor Network (Work Sharing) Share Common Support Costs Economies of Scale (Combined Procurements) Shared Infrastructure Costs Non-FMS Purchase of Supplies and Services Shared Technology and Data Standardization Interoperability Joint Fleet Exercises Common Threat, Firing, and Readiness Analyses Joint Tactics Development and Training Economic Military 10.RB.1/14/2011 12
Development Savings EMD (baseline missile) $155M (46%) Improvements (e.g. S2S/LVAT) ~50% Production Missile/Canister Unit Cost $150M (20%) Production Support (~$15M yr) $200M (50%) Production Facilitization $ 22M (50%) In-Service Common in-service engineering $120M (66%) efforts over MOU (FY 2001-2015) (~$8M per year) 10.RB.1/14/2011 13
RIM-7 SEASPARROW THREAT DRIVERS Air-to-air missile adapted for surface use RIM-162 Evolved SEASPARROW Missile (ESSM) Block 1 Kinematic upgrade ESSM Block 2 Seeker upgrade 10.RB.1/14/2011 14
Traditional Cooperative Model Worked well for many cooperative projects for many years Tends to be product-focused What happens after the product is delivered? 10.RB.1/14/2011 15
NATO SEASPARROW s mission is to deliver capability to the Consortium fleets Delivering capability involves more than the traditional model of cooperation can provide Delivering capability requires a new perspective on cooperation NATO SEASPARROW s cooperative culture focuses on the entire detect/assess control engage cycle Requires utilitarian solutions for maximum application (nations have different sensors, different fire control systems, etc) 10.RB.1/14/2011 16
Elements Missing from the Traditional Cooperative Model 10.RB.1/14/2011 17
Traditional Cooperative Model 10.RB.1/14/2011 18
10.RB.1/14/2011 19
Cooperative firing analyses Common threat definition Expanded firing/ training databases Common tactics ILMF/DLMF coordination Parts sharing & pooling 10.RB.1/14/2011 20
10.RB.1/14/2011 21
NATO SEASPARROW s Evolved Model for Cooperation 10.RB.1/14/2011 22
10.RB.1/14/2011 23
Traditional cooperative model is adequate Traditional cooperative model has overlooked new opportunities for cooperation Mission assurance is the 4th element of a new model for cooperation NATO SEASPARROW s approach sustains and expands international cooperation Adding the fourth element is essential in delivering capability to the partner nations Key factor in meeting the partner nations expectations for performance NATO SEASPARROW s untraditional approach has filled a void in the traditional cooperative model 10.RB.1/14/2011 24
10.RB.1/14/2011 25