In his Jan. 25, 2012 plenary address to this week’s “West 2012,” held in San Diego under co-sponsorship of the Armed Forces Communications Electronics Association (AFCEA) and United States Naval Institute (USNI), NAVSPECWARCOM Commander Rear Adm. Sean Pybus, USN, directed a slice of his comments toward the movie and the current media situation surrounding Naval Special Warfare.

Describing the media relationship as “red hot,” Pybus observed, “As community leader, it’s pretty hot in that kitchen right now. And it’s very different for us.”

Referring to “operations done” and “significant casualties suffered” by Naval Special Warfare over the past two years, Pybus noted, “We are getting a lot more media, and the spotlight continues to follow us. 2012 is also our 50^th Anniversary of SEAL Teams in the United States Navy and so our intent throughout 2012 is to – for the most part – quietly celebrate that milestone and use that as a point of reflection, and in some cases celebration for the community. That draws press as well.”

“And then we have a movie coming out in just two weeks – Act of Valor,” he continued. “And I want to provide the audience with some background as to the ‘why’ and ‘wherefore’ of this particular movie.”

A Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewman (SWCC) assigned to Special Boat Team (SBT) 20 navigates a rigid-hull inflatable boat while SEALs from a West Coast based SEAL team board a yacht for a scene in the upcoming film Act of Valor. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Kathryn Whittenberger

“Five years ago we were having trouble getting sufficient numbers of high quality and high quality diverse recruits into the front door of our training center, BUD/S, which is right here in San Diego – in Coronado,” he explained. “We decided that perhaps a movie, perhaps a documentary, some film might draw those recruits to our front door. So it was decided, after talking with the Navy and having Navy support, that we would enter into an agreement with a production team in Hollywood to make a film. So, five years later, we don’t need recruits. We have a lot of people knocking on our door. But we are still interested in high quality and high quality diverse recruits. So the movie is ready to go. We had an agreement. We will carry out our part of that agreement. The movie will move forward. And we will look for opportunities to capture interest and recruitment – as will the U.S. Navy – from the movie. So that is what it is. I hope, personally, to be ‘one and done’ with the sanctioned movie business for a while. But hope is not a course of action and we will see what the future brings.”

“There will be other movies coming out,” he added. “There will be a book, American Sniper, which in a couple weeks’ time will be number one on the New York Times best seller list. There are numbers of other books coming out; some fiction and quite frankly, many fantasy. So you will have to determine which is which. But this is why I say our media brand, the ‘SEAL brand,’ out there is red hot.”

Referring to the SEALs who appear in the upcoming movie, Pybus said, “The decision was taken four years ago that, that would make the movie more real. And I think they have done a very good job. We directed them to do that – a handful of SEALs – and they did as ordered; not with great excitement, because they have other things to do. But at the time it was important enough that we had to get our recruiting sorted away – and they did a great job with that.”

Acknowledging that “most are still in the service today” and “doing normal jobs as per their career timeline,” he offered, “I talked to them two days ago – just to properly thank them again. And as this movie comes forward they are being asked to do a lot of things. At the moment we are not actively participating in the rollout of the movie. The directors, the production team, will roll that out. They would love to have the guys who helped make the movie help roll it out. But at the moment we’re taking a passive – a modest – position, acknowledging that it is a sanctioned movie and there are SEALs that are in it. And I think they bring value to it…”

“I’m proud they did as they were asked to do,” he added. “It’s a good result. And they will be expected to do what they normally would be expected to do now – as mid-grade officers and senior petty officers now – and still doing great things for us. But I don’t want to make them Hollywood stars and they don’t want to be that.”

Pybus expanded to another media issue when an audience member asked his thoughts about the new book, American Sniper, by Chris Kyle, and “how true to reality” it was.

Beginning with professional praise for the author, whom he described as “very well regarded in our special warfare community,” Pybus expressed his own personal reservations about some of the book’s contents.

“I would like to think that your reputation as a Naval Special Warfare operator or enabler would be sufficient when you transition to civilian life…that you would be quietly proud of that and move forward as you transition into your next life,” he offered. “That certainly doesn’t always happen. I think some of our people have a story to tell and they want to tell it.”

“But at the end of the day I prefer that they not, because I do think, even though that book was cleared through some department filters for security and probably meets the criteria for not revealing classified information, it does talk a lot about one particular capability we have. And everyone reads books, including our adversaries and potential adversaries. So I just do think that at the end of the day it tells more than I am comfortable being told. Others are more blatantly fiction or fantasy.”

Personal reservations aside, he reiterated his description of the author as “a good SEAL with a great reputation.”

Reflective of the lessons learned over the past decade of war, JLTV is viewed as filling the tactical wheeled vehicle capability gap created by evolving tactical mobility and protection requirements that are not satisfied by the Up-Armored HMMWV.

A BAE Systems JLTV variant with trailer, during testing in Australia. Photo courtesy of BAE Systems

“Both the Army and the U.S. Marine Corps have identified critical capability gaps in their respective light tactical vehicle fleets,” said Program Executive Officer for Combat Support and Combat Service Support (PEO CS&CSS) Kevin M. Fahey. “JLTV is the most cost-effective program to meet capability gaps for the light tactical vehicles with the most demanding missions.”

JLTV is comprised of two variants, based on a common vehicle automotive platform: a two-seat and a four-seat variant, and a companion trailer (JLTV-T). The two-seat variant has one base vehicle platform, the Utility (JLTV-UTL). The four-seat variant has two base vehicle platforms, the General Purpose (JLTV-GP) and the Close Combat Weapons Carrier (JLTV-CCWC). Each base vehicle platform will also be configured as a mission package configuration through the installation of mission packages designed to maximize commonality while meeting the specific needs of the user.

The program completed its 27-month technology development (TD) phase in spring 2011.

“The technology development (TD) phase for this program did exactly what it was intended to do – provide the basis for the cost-informed trades that resulted in a common Army and Marine Corps requirement,” said Program Executive Officer Land Systems Marine Corps William E. Taylor. “It serves as a model for how the services looking forward should operate in a cost-constrained budget environment.”

A General Tactical Vehicles JLTV variant during testing in the United States. U.S. Army photo by David McNally

As outlined in the RFP, the EMD contracts “will provide for fabrication, assembly, integration, testing and test support, and related requirements in accordance with the contract and the JLTV Purchase Description. Each JLTV Contractor shall deliver 22 prototype vehicles. Additional deliverables include ballistic structures, armor coupons, additional test assets, and contractor furnished kits, trailers and data requirements.”

EMD contract awards are currently planned for June of 2012 and projected to run 27 months for contractors (33 months for program office).

“The refined 27-month acquisition strategy is designed to put a premium on driving down costs, reducing risk and getting vehicles into the hands of Warfighters quicker,” government program representatives note.

The current acquisition strategy for the follow-on production and deployment (PD) phase calls for the initial production contract to be solicited in Fiscal Year 2015, with the government planning to award one firm fixed price contract consisting of a base three year low rate initial production (LRIP) contract with an option of a five year multi-year contract for full rate production (FRP).

Significantly, the “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices” documentation released in conjunction with the defense secretary’s comments points to a “Reasonable Reductions/Responsible Risks” programmatic approach, noting that “In order to sustain the highest priority investments, we made substantial reductions to programs that…are deemed excess to requirements…” One example offered of those programs “deemed excess to requirements” was HMMWVs, with the notation, “terminated upgrades and focused modernization resources on the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.”

Hope does spring eternal, so some observers see a glimmer of hope for cooperative system progress in two different service announcements over the past month that seem to reflect their own unique interest in what appears to be the same system capability for a vertical takeoff and landing unmanned cargo aircraft.

The recent round of activity started when the United States Navy’s Office of Naval Research (ONR) released a broad agency announcement targeting the development and demonstration of sensor and control technologies for autonomous cargo vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft in unprepared and hostile environments.

Designated as the Autonomous Aerial Cargo Utility System (AACUS) Innovative Naval Prototype (INP), the announcement outlines the development of advanced autonomous capabilities to enable rapid cargo delivery by unmanned and potentially optionally manned Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) systems.

“AACUS-enabled vehicles should provide affordable and reliable rapid response cargo delivery to distributed small units in demanding, austere locations and environments,” it states. “AACUS encompasses the development and implementation of VTOL-based obstacle detection and avoidance, as well as autonomous landings at unprepared off-field non-cooperative landing sites, including dynamic contingency planning to the point of landing with goal-based supervisory control by any field personnel with no special training.”

The K-MAX unmanned helicopter takes off from Camp Dwyer with its sling load of 3,500 pounds of food and supplies for troops at Combat Outpost Payne in the first unmanned vertical takeoff unmanned aerial vehicle delivery of cargo in a combat zone, Dec. 17, 2011. Is it possible that other services might leverage the Marine Corps' unmanned cargo delivery efforts? U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Justin M. Boling

According to the supporting concept of operations (CONOPS), AACUS is “an Innovative Naval Prototype (INP) sponsored by the Office of Naval Research (ONR). The goal of the AACUS INP is to develop and demonstrate intelligent autonomous capabilities for a future aerial cargo and utility system that provides rapid, affordable, reliable, shipboard-compatible, supply and casualty evacuation. AACUS technology is intended to support and/or enhance these missions when other cargo and insertion/extraction options are not available, or when the risk of using manned aircraft is too high.”

While acknowledging that the AACUS INP is “focused on the sensor suite and interface development,” the CONOPS does offer a number of vehicle specifications “for context,” including:

• Operations at greater than 12,000 feet density altitude;
• Delivering multiple in-stride cargo drops over round trip distances with a threshold of 150 nautical miles and an objective of 365 nautical miles;
• Able to carry a threshold of 1,600 lpounds and an objective of 5,000 pounds of payload internally, and;
• Travel at speeds of 110 knots threshold and 250 knots objective.

Just a few weeks later, on Jan. 6, 2012, The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Fort Dix, N.J., on behalf of the U.S. Army Logistics Innovation Agency (LIA), released a new request for information reflecting interest in “exploring future (7-10 years out) capability concepts for Cargo Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Information gained from the future concepts presentations will be used to form the basis for future analysis and assessment of the Cargo UAS utility within the Army.”

“Concepts shall include aerial delivery of cargo directly to the point-of-need or point-of-effect to tactical combat range of 300 nautical miles (KM) with cruising airspeeds of 250 knots or greater with vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capability,” it stated, adding other attributes like the “Ability to carry  between 5,000 and 8,000 pounds of all classes of supply to include but not limited to ammunition, water, fuel, etc. internally and externally” and the “Ability to operate takeoff/land at sea level on a standard day and to takeoff/land at 95 F, 12,000 feet Density Altitude (DA) with appropriate payloads.”

The Army is planning to host a Cargo UAS industry day in mid-February to allow interested contractors “who have experience, knowledge, and/or concepts concerning the development and use (concept of operations) of a Cargo UAS … to present their concepts/ideas to government representatives from LIA, the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. …”

Hope springs eternal…

The release of the Marine Corps OEF reset strategy accompanies the December 2011 release of the “Ground Equipment Reset Playbook” and comes approximately 18 months after the mid-June 2009 release of the Marine Corps’ earlier Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) Ground Equipment Reset Plan.

In his preface to the earlier OIF reset plan, then-Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James T. Conway, observed, “In Iraq, we are moving into the most long awaited phase of operations – the reset of our equipment and redeployment of the force.

“For the last five-plus years have placed an unprecedented demand on our ground mobility assets and equipment sets,” he wrote. “The accelerated wear and tear from the harsh operating environment has far exceeded normal usage rates during peacetime. Many items have been destroyed or damaged beyond salvage. Reset will include all actions required to repair, replace, or modernize the equipment and weapons systems. As our numbers grow in Afghanistan, this effort is critical to the sustainment of our Corps.”

The new OEF reset strategy draft, formally dated Jan. 1, 2012, opens with a message from Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos, in which he acknowledges that, “Sustained combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade have placed an unprecedented demand on our ground equipment. The accelerated degradation to the service life of our ground equipment, resulting from these harsh environments, has far exceeded normal peacetime usage rates. Many items have been destroyed or damaged beyond repair. We must align our force structure requirements, acquisition plans and maintenance strategies to ensure our reset program supports the rapid reconstitution of our force. We also must conduct this reset in stride because our Corps continues to be forward deployed and forward engaged in response to unforeseen threats as well as the many ongoing Combatant Commander requirements for amphibious forces.”

“This OEF Ground Equipment Reset Strategy charts the way forward,” Amos adds. “It will guide the planning and execution of logistics tasks needed to restore our combat capability. I require the personal commitment of every Marine to ensure our equipment is repaired and returned quickly to the war fighter.”

The strategy itself stresses that, as the Marine Corps draws down from the current campaign, “[I]t is vital that ground equipment returning from OEF is fully reset in order to posture the Marine Corps for the nation’s next crisis.”

“A fully reconstituted Marine Corps will be trained, equipped, and postured to enable Combatant Commanders to rapidly employ Marine forces in the post-OEF security environment,” it adds. “While the focus of this document is on reset of ground equipment returning from OEF, it is important to understand how the reset strategy fits into ongoing operations and the larger force reconstitution effort. The Marine Corps does not anticipate a post-OEF “operational pause” whereby the service will have the luxury of focusing exclusively on reset and reconstitution. The Marine Corps must remain ready to respond to unforeseen crises, reconstitute III Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF), continue to source Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU), and meet the ever-increasing demand for theater security cooperation. This means equipment reset will occur in stride with current operations and the larger reconstitution effort to ensure operating forces and strategic programs are fully equipped with mission capable equipment.”

Identified factors guiding the planning and execution of OEF ground equipment include:

• Ensuring compliance with the Commandant’s Planning Guidance;
• Quickly reestablishing presence in the Pacific and achieve improved readiness across the force;
• Ensuring ground equipment reset is integrated with equipment modernization objectives, long-term support costs and strategic investment plans;
• Ensuring ground equipment reset spending is applied as authorized, documented and assessed against available Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds, and;
• Ensuring the velocity of reset efforts is balanced against the need for depot level overhauls, refresh actions or full replacement of end items in order to protect the long-term health and readiness of critical ground equipment.

The NIEs, semi-annual events conducted at Ft. Bliss, Texas and White Sands Missile Range, N.M., by the Army’s 2^nd Brigade/1^st Armored Division, are designed to integrate and mature the Army’s tactical network. The most recently completed event in the series was NIE 12.1, which was conducted from late-October to mid-November 2011 [NIE 12.1 designated the first NIE of fiscal year ‘12].

However, even before the start of NIE 12.1, the Army, through the Systems of Systems Integration (SoSI) Directorate, released a second “sources sought” request to garner industry system participation for the follow-on NIE 12.2, scheduled to occur in the April/May 2012 timeframe.

The October 2011 announcement called for industry representatives with mature technologies to offer additional candidate systems under evaluation (SUEs) to go to the field with 2/1 AD for the spring 2012 NIE.

Systems were sought “against a narrow set of specific, identified gaps in the current and evolving networked equipment solution set.”

The identified NIE 12.2 gaps included:

• Multichannel Radio;
• Low-Cost- Low-SWaP Tactical Cross Domain Solution;
• Small Form Factor, Modular Transit Case Based Company Command Post;
• Tactical Router, and;
• Improved Operational Energy.

The most recent announcement, released in early January, repeats the call for industry participation for the follow-on NIE 13.1, which is currently planned for the October/November 2012 timeframe.

Specific gaps identified in the current and evolving networked equipment solution set for NIE 13.2 include:

• Multi-Channel Tactical Radio;
• Mission Command on the Move (MCOTM);
• Low-Cost-Low-SWaP Tactical Cross Domain Solution;
• Joint Participation Capability (US & Allies);
• Aviation Extension;
• Small Form Factor, Modular Transit Case SATCOM Terminal and Baseband;
• Mission Command In-Garrison Training; and
• Improved Operational Energy.

For example, it is likely that the identified gap for a Multi-Channel Tactical Radio, at least in part, is related to the “graceful termination” of the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Ground Mobile Radio (GMR).

“This sources sought notice seeks candidates against a specific set of gaps, rather than the broader areas of specific interest released in the previous two notices,” said Erin Deronghe, division chief of portfolio integration management, System of Systems Integration (SoSI) Directorate. “In the first two NIEs [NIE 11.2 and 12.1], the Army established a network baseline and is now building upon it – these specific gaps will seek mature material solutions to enhance that baseline. In addition, we are soliciting industry for more non-networked solutions to contribute to more rapid acquisition and fielding of the best of these key technologies to the warfighter.”

The recent announcement also highlights the implementation of fundamental changes in the way that the Army develops, evaluates, tests, and delivers networked capability to its operating forces. The objective of the new Agile Process is to improve efficiency and effectiveness, reducing the amount of time and resources necessary to respond to the rapid changes in soldier requirements associated with current operations, emergent information technology and modifications to the Army force structure.

“By employing the NIE and agile process, we are providing industry the network framework and architectural concept to develop their systems and capabilities. This new acquisition approach is an aggressive effort seeking mature technology from both large and small industry partners to fill hardware and software need,” said Col. Dan Hughes, director, System of Systems Integration Directorate.

Interested candidates must respond to the solicitation by Feb. 3, 2012, in order to be considered for participation in NIE 13.1.

The envisioned projectile could be employed on platforms like the M203, M320, MK13 EGLM, and Milkor MK14, M32 and M32A1 multi-shot grenade launchers.

According to a recently released request for information, “Special operations forces (SOF) missions require teams and individuals to be capable of stopping a vehicle/vessel and clearing a space. Each KIBOSH LVNLDS shall be capable of being shot from a 40 mm low velocity grenade launcher from over a distance of 150 feet and effectively dispensing the contents of a liquid or gas payload the size, shape and weight of a 12 gram Crossman CO2 cartridge into a vehicle, vessel, or room without going all the way into the space and harming individuals inside.”

Although USSOCOM is currently in the process of formally categorizing system performance attributes into various levels and priority of requirements, the recent announcement was accompanied by a rough listing of desired performance characteristics for LVNLDS.

Target sets identified are:

Primary

• Vehicle roofs (sheet metal with headliner);
• Boat roofs (3/4” glass reinforced fiberglass with foam core); and
• Doors (steel door with foam core).

Secondary

• Window/windshield
• Wall (3/4” wood or particle board).

With a primary desired range of more than 150 feet and a secondary desired range of more than 300 feet, additional identified performance characteristics include:

• Round expected to be shot at targets at 60-90 degrees;
• Round capable of puncturing target material (but not go all the way through) and dispense greater than 90 percent of the liquid or gas payload inside target;
• Round to provide visual confirmation of where round hit target (day and night);
• Payload to stay attached to target after hitting target so that payload will remain on target (through employment of glue, hooks, spikes, etc.);
• Payload to provide for antenna release/deployment after impact for payloads with transmitters/receivers;
• Payload to allow for visual/IR LED/acoustic beacon clearance after impact with these payloads, and;
• Payload to allow for deployment of flash bang type material.

Noting that the intent of the RFI “is to identify those companies that possess the technical expertise, current production facilities, and integration and test capability to assemble, test, and produce systems in quantities of 30 or more per month,” the announcement adds, “Those not able to provide all preferred features are still encouraged to submit information on the features currently available in their products and propose an applicable schedule for those features that are not.”

According to a recent government announcement, the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division (NSWCDD) is seeking information “on readily available commercial based solutions that have proven field trials and/or prototype testing focused in the areas of magnifying optics detection, environmental adaptation, and automated variable power attenuation.”

The technologies would support a conceptual two-level LROI that would provide a lower level light beam to facilitate visual warning and a higher level light beam that would provide temporary visual suppression.

According to the announcement, the notional LROI would “deliver the correct irradiance to affect a targeted individual’s vision, providing a clear, unambiguous warning at a distance of 3,000 meters (approximately 3,300 yards, or 1.6 nautical miles), an increased range over previous systems. At a minimum, this extended range capability will provide increased tactical decision-making time to facilitate structured escalation of force (EoF) tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) across a broad range of military operations (ROMO). Further, the LROI system enhances Joint Force operations in assessing the intent of personnel and controlling a potential threat as early as possible.”

The LROI would provide a significant enhancement in capabilities over current shorter-range systems like “Dazzler,” which can be used for signaling or as a non-lethal deterrent to any hostile force approaching the ship.

The LROI announcement acknowledges that the individual underlying technologies associated with the LROI are considered mature, but adds that it is the integration and control of those technologies into a cohesive non-lethal capability is new. As a result, “the government plans on working with industry in a collaborative basis to explore technology advancements and alternatives to aid in accelerating maturation of system and subsystem capabilities needed to satisfy LROI design attributes and operational requirements.”

Based on current market analysis and preliminary technical readiness evaluation, four focus areas have been identified for the current activity: magnifying optics detection (addressing the possibility of an approaching individual using direct view optics); environmental adaptation (addressing the long range implications of humidity, airborne particulates or atmospheric refraction); automated variable power attenuation (to ensure appropriate personnel safety while maintaining desired performance); and expeditionary configured power sources (reliable power sources compatible with an expeditionary warfare operating environment).

THAAD is the only missile defense system with the operational flexibility to intercept in both the endo- and exo-atmospheres to provide versatile capability to the warfighter.

Reflecting on the significance of the recent contract award, Lockheed Martin Corporate Business Development Vice President Dennis Cavin noted that the company was “very excited and delighted to confirm the first international sale of the THAAD missile defense system to the United Arab Emirates. This is the first FMS sale – U.S. government to the government of the U.A.E. – for the THAAD program, and is a milestone as we look at the development of this program and its future globally.”

“Combined with their 2008 procurement of the PAC-3 system, the U.A.E. will have – when THAAD is delivered – a very robust integrated missile defense architecture – actually the best in the world,” he added. “THAAD is the only endo-/exo- capability that exists today, and it leverages Lockheed Martin’s hit-to-kill technology, which is the most lethal technology that exists in the world today.”

“PAC-3 is an area defense/smaller footprint [system],” he explained. “The THAAD system is a terminal high altitude [system], which is a much broader area capability; and it goes against much more robust and stressing kinds of missile threats. PAC-3 is an air defense and a missile defense system. THAAD is strictly a missile defense system.”

The U.A.E. procurement is for two fire units, with 96 interceptors, support equipment and training.

Cavin emphasized that the U.A.E. and U.S. THAAD systems provide “the same capability,” noting that the terminology “doesn’t allow for any misgivings or misunderstandings.”

Since 2005, the THAAD development program has completed 12 flight tests, with nine intercepts in nine attempts.

Lockheed Martin is currently under contract for four THAAD batteries for the U.S. Army. A contract for the delivery of the first two U.S. Army batteries (24 interceptors in each battery) was awarded to Lockheed Martin in late 2006 and the U.S. Army activated its first THAAD battery at Fort Bliss, Texas in late May 2008.

Deliveries of the first 48 missiles are slated to be completed this summer.

Contracts for batteries three and four were awarded in late 2010 and early 2011 respectively, with deliveries of those 48 missiles scheduled to begin in the middle of 2012.

“We have a bid in for the next two batteries [five and six] now,” added Lockheed Martin THAAD Vice President and Program Manager Tom McGrath. “We will be negotiating over the next 3 – 6 months, probably closer to 3 months, with the U.S. government, and these U.A.E. buys will add to those purchases that the U.S. is already planning.”

“It does increase our [production] rate somewhere between 50 and 100 percent,” he added, noting that the current “planned build rate” at Lockheed Martin’s Pike County Facility in Troy, Ala., is four interceptors per month, but for the last quarter the plant has been achieving a rate of five per month.

Because the delivery of those interceptors reflects an operational capability issue, Cavin said, “Our customer, the United Arab Emirates, have asked us not to discuss in the open the delivery schedules.”

Representative examples of these unique “tools of the trade” can be traced back to the very beginnings of the Teams themselves.

Recalling the Teams’ historical foundation, Chief Jim “Patches” Watson, the curator emeritus of the UDT-SEAL Museum in Fort Pierce, Fla., stated that members of his team, UDT-21, began to be sent to various schools such as jungle warfare and jump school to add to their existing qualifications.

“We were all open circuit [divers], closed circuit [divers], and mixed-gas qualified. At that time there was a mixed-gas rig.  And we were all also airborne [qualified]. To be in UDT you did not have to be airborne. That was a voluntary thing. UDT did not have an airborne capability – according to the book.” Those additional qualifications became core skills when the first two SEAL Teams were established in January 1962.

Small Arms

In terms of early weapons, Watson noted, “The AR-15 had just come out. Armalite was making it – not Colt. Eugene Stoner had developed it. Our original weapon would have been the [M3] ‘grease gun,’ since that was the basic weapon in UDT. But [Lt. Cmdr.] Roy [Boehm, first executive officer of SEAL Team TWO] bought the first 66 AR-15s on open purchase [on the open market]. A lot of things he did got him in a little trouble because they weren’t really by the book, but he did what was best for his men. Then we got a warning order of possibly going south in late ’62 or ’63, when everything was happening down there with Fidel [Castro, during the Cuban missile crisis.] So [Boehm] and a master chief by the name of Andrews … were going up and down Virginia Beach Boulevard to places like surplus stores, buying cammies [camouflage uniforms], because there were no cammies in the system at that time. They also bought [Smith & Wesson] Combat Masterpiece .38s as a sidearm with the AR-15.” Revolvers were appreciated as sidearms because they would quickly drain and be ready for firing on exiting the water during a beach insertion. An original plank owner of SEAL Team TWO, Watson served three tours in Vietnam during his 20-year Navy career, spending 11 years as an active-duty SEAL.

SEALs shown in Vietnam in 1967, with typical weapons for the period. The SEAL in the background is carrying a Stoner 63, the one in the middle an AR-15 or M16, and the nearest one an M16A1. National Archives photo

“I … went to Vietnam in January of ’67,” he continued. “I was a chief [petty officer]. And the way [we] were doing it then was that after you came back, you went to different places like China Lake, Colt, Smith & Wesson – different weapons companies and everything – and they would pick our brains to see what they could do to give us better equipment.”

“Two things came out in the ’Nam era that I was very much involved with,” he said. “One was a 40 mm ‘pump.’ When I left China Lake they asked me what I thought of the M79 [grenade launcher]. I said that it was great, but one shot at a time don’t get it. And I motioned my arms like I had a shotgun in my hands, asking, ‘Can’t you give us something that will hold four or five rounds?’ Well, they came up with something that had three in the tube and one in the chamber. There were only 16 of them ever made. We’ve got serial number 4 at the [UDT-SEAL] Museum. Serial number 1 is at the Navy Museum in Washington and serial number 2 is at Crane. And guess where serial number 13 is? [At a] museum in Saigon! I went back in ’95 and almost fell over when I walked into that room.”

Watson also addressed his personal involvement in the development of a new combat shotgun modification.

“A guy there knew I was a shotgun lover,” he stated. “I had an Ithaca Model 37 – a standard Ithaca with five rounds. And he developed what they call ‘The Duck Bill’ and put an extension on the loader. It held eight rounds. And it had a choke on it so that if I used #4 buck [shot] it had a 2 foot high by 12 foot wide pattern at 20 meters. In the bush that was the thing to have – and I walked point all three trips.”

Another early SEAL Team weapon acquisition, Watson offered, was the Smith & Wesson MK 22 Mod 0, based on the manufacturer’s Model 39 9mm semi-automatic pistol, more popularly called the “Hushpuppy.” It was developed under the Swimmer (later SEAL) Weapons System (SWS) development program, and designed and delivered by the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, Md. “[They] built a suppressor for it and also used a slide lock so that when you fired it you didn’t even hear the function of the weapon. And it was good! All you heard was the hammer drop.” When the powers that be asked why the weapon was needed, Watson said, they were told it was needed for the dogs and the ducks when SEALs went into villages. “They said, ‘Ducks?’ So they turned around and called it the hushpuppy, I guess because they didn’t want to call it the hushducky.”

“That’s basically how a lot of the special weapons and special equipment was done,” he added.

Choosing his words carefully, Watson went on to describe some of the ancillary equipment provided to the early SEAL Teams.

“There were very special kinds of things available, and the engineers, especially at China Lake – God bless them – made us goodies that just shook [the enemy’s] cage,” Watson said.

Other SEAL-unique weapons have included the Smith & Wesson M76 submachine gun, the Stoner 63, (a weapon system with interchangeable elements allowing the creation of variants ranging from a short-barreled assault rifle to a belt-fed light machine gun), and various forerunners of the M4 carbine that is widely used today.

Special Boats

Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen (SWCC) transit the Salt River in northern Kentucky during pre-deployment, live-fire training. SWCCs attached to Special Boat Team (SBT) 22 based in Stennis, Miss., employ the Special Operations Craft Riverine (SOC-R), which is specifically designed for the clandestine insertion and extraction of U.S. Navy SEALs and other special operations forces along shallow waterways and open water environments. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist 2nd Class Jayme Pastoric

Similarly, a number of specialized or adapted vessels were developed for the riverine combat environment in Vietnam. These included the SEAL Team Assault Boat (STAB), the Patrol Boat River (PBR), Heavy SEAL Support Craft (HSSC), Light SEAL Support Craft (LSSC), and others.

The special boats also provide several excellent examples of platform evolution, as the Patrol Boat Riverine (PBR) of the Vietnam era (32 feet long; beam of 11 feet, 8 inches; draft of 2 feet) was subsequently replaced by systems like the River Assault Craft (RAC), in turn replaced by today’s Special Operations Craft-Riverine (SOC-R). One of the success stories of the riverine boats, the SOC-R has seen heavy use since 9/11, and comprises an item of core equipment for the Special Boat Teams. With twin diesels driving waterjets, the SOC-R is quick – with a top speed above 40 knots – and maneuverable, draws only two feet of water, and is very heavily armed.

Patrol boats have also evolved from the PB MK III (65 feet long; beam of 18 feet; draft of 6 feet) and MK IV (a 68-foot-long improvement over the MK III). In 1996, the Naval Special Warfare community began fielding its MK V Special Operations Craft (SOC), designed to support medium-range insertion and extraction of special operations forces in low- to medium-threat environments. The craft measure 82 feet in length; 17 feet, 6 inches in beam; and have a top speed in excess of 50 knots.

A Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is launched from a MK V Special Operations Craft off the coast of San Clemente Island. This was the first time a Scan Eagle had been launched from this kind of platform, paving the way for possible future UAV operations. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Michelle L. Kapica

It is important to recognize that the men operating the boats have always been special operations forces in their own right, and today Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen (SWCC) are a vital part of NAVSPECWARCOM.

Today the exposure to the special boats begins in the earliest days of Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) training, with team building exercises and tactical training activities conducted with the Inflatable Boat Small (IBS).

Another small boat that is a ubiquitous part of operational planning is the combat rubber raiding craft (CRRC). Approximately 15 feet, 5 inches in length, the CRRCs are used for the clandestine short range insertion and extraction of Navy SEALs and other special operations forces.

Other small surface platforms used to support SEAL Team operations over the last few decades have included several sizes of Rigid Inflatable Boats (RIB; the current workhorse is the 11-meter NSW RIB).

At the largest end of the surface ship size spectrum, by early 1993 the Navy took delivery of Cyclone (PC 1), the first of 14 Patrol Coastal class ships that were under the operational and administrative control of the NSW Special Boat Squadrons, and which perform coastal patrol, interdiction, and naval special warfare support missions. Eventually, all the PCs were transferred from the NSW inventory, with the bulk of them going to the Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard in support of homeland defense.

The future of NSW surface mobility will likely be enhanced through a number of emerging programs like the Combatant Craft, Medium (CCM), seen as a replacement for the 11-meter RIB; and Combatant Craft, Heavy (CCH), a possible replacement for the MK V.

On Land

A Desert Patrol Vehicle (DPV) during a training exercise on the Silver Strand at Coronado. The DPV was a three-man vehicle used for many long-range desert operations, including close air support or combat search and rescue missions. The vehicle was armed with a variety of weapons, including the Browning .50-caliber heavy machine gun, the MK 19 40 mm grenade launcher, and the M60 7.62 mm machine gun. U.S. Navy photo by JO2 Ray Mooney

It was an environment far different from a riverine delta that mandated another item of equipment to reflect the teams’ expanding geographic reach.

The Desert Patrol Vehicle (DPV)/Light Strike Vehicle was a modified Chenoweth off-road 2 x 4 racing vehicle with 2,000 cc gasoline engine. The 161-inch-long vehicles had a payload weight of 1,500 pounds, a top speed in excess of 60 mph, and a range in excess of 200 miles. The addition of a third seat for a gunner and additional mounts for weapon systems enhanced system survivability. Originally designated Fast Attack Vehicles (FAV), they were purpose-built for airfield assaults, but they proved very useful in other roles as well. As one of the main modes of land travel by SEAL Teams during Operation Desert Storm, the DPVs were used to help liberate the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait City and provide security for the U.S. ambassador upon his return.

And another representative land mobility equipment example emerged a decade later, when the challenges of a different operational setting would be met by the Ground Mobility Vehicle – Navy (GMV-N) a SEAL-modified “Humvee” that employs a multitude of weapons and is fitted with a modular armor kit and remote weapons system.

SEAL Delivery Vehicles

Along with unique categories of land systems, over the years the SEAL Teams have also received specialized equipment to support their underwater operations.

For individuals, the original heritage of open circuit compressed air (SCUBA) and closed-circuit 100 percent oxygen systems evolved from its UDT ancestry [see sidebar] and would eventually be joined by closed-circuit mixed-gas rebreathers.

By the early ’90s, for example, the closed-circuit oxygen and closed-circuit mixed-gas combination included the MK 25, known as the Draeger, and the MK 16 Underwater Breathing Apparatus (UBA).

A SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) rises from the extended cradle of its Dry Deck Shelter on the aft deck of a U.S. Navy Guided Missile Submarine (SSGN). The SDV represents a long-standing SEAL capability, developed and perfected over decades, while the SSGNs represent a major new capability to NSW, with accommodation for more than 60 special operations forces personnel, a dry-deck shelter, and dedicated lock-out chambers. Official U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Senior Chief Petty Officer (Diver) Andrew McKaskle

Along the way, the SEALs were also equipped with several generations of SEAL Delivery Vehicles (SDVs) designed to carry combat swimmers and their cargo in fully-flooded compartments on missions like underwater mapping and terrain exploration, location and recovery of lost or downed objects, and reconnaissance.

“My very first SDV ride was in 1969,” recalled Pat Broderick. “It was a MK 7 Mod 0.”

Prior to the MK 7, Broderick noted that there had been an earlier MK 6 platform, which he described as being “like a prototype.” It was patterned after the French PR-77 submersible.

“The MK 7 was developed around 1966 and went into service around ’67 or ’68,” Broderick explained. “It was made by General Dynamics Convair Division. It was about 50 inches tall, the beam was around 36 inches, and the length was a little over 15 feet. It held four guys – including the pilot.” The MK 7 was originally called the “Modified TRASS” after the Italian TRASS 4-man submersible from which it took many of its features.

“They operated off submarines – USS Perch [APSS/LPSS-313] and USS Tunny [APSS-282] and later off the USS Grayback [LPSS-574],” he said. The Perch and the Tunny had to come to the surface to rig the thing out on the deck. And the Grayback had a floodable hangar that you could use to launch the thing right from the submarine.”

“The MK 7 went up to a Mod 6,” he added. “Each submersible improvement introduced more capability, but it was basically the same boat, which had something like a 1.75-horsepower motor. The Mod 6 incorporated a Doppler navigation system and a forward-looking sonar. And those components actually went into the MK 8 and MK 9 boats as well – the very same stuff.”

According to Broderick, the MK 7, Mod 6 went out of service in the 1980-81 time frame, overlapping the introduction of the MK 8, Mod 0 that had begun to enter service in about 1976.

The SDV MK 8 was propelled by an all-electric propulsion system powered by rechargeable silver-zinc batteries. Buoyancy and pitch attitude were controlled by a ballast and pitch system, with control in both horizontal and vertical planes provided through a manual control stick to the rudder, elevator, and bow planes.

“The ‘Nine Boat’ [MK 9] was introduced about the same time,” Broderick said. “It was a two-person craft that was supposed to be used as an ‘attack craft’ – for ship attacks, so to speak. It only carried two passengers: a pilot and a navigator. And there was a compartment for a payload. It was a flat boat – like 36 inches tall and about 6 feet wide. So the guys would lay down in it side by side. It also had a surface propulsion gas motor and we used propane to run it. But that didn’t work out too well so after a few years we removed that from the boat.”

“They were built by a group of retired frogmen who worked up in China Lake,” he explained. “And in ’76 that program moved from China Lake to Panama City, so they were really built by the Navy. There was another version of the MK 8 that a contractor built, but it didn’t meet the requirements, so they kind of scrapped that and built the MK 8 on their own.”

In the fall of 2006, representatives at the Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Surface Warfare Center –Panama City (NSWC PC) announced completion of the Mod 1 modernization program for the fleet of MK 8 SDVs, named the Gator class in honor of Jim “Gator” Parks.

As described in the announcement, the modernization program was conducted under the direction and leadership of Program Executive Office, Littoral and Mine Warfare’s Naval Special Warfare Program Office (PMS NSW) and included upgrading approximately 40 percent of the vehicle’s systems, mainly covering areas of life support, command and control, navigation, and communication.

SDV system upgrades included: increased diver air capacity, installation of an onboard Windows-based computer, improved diver communications, addition of satellite communication capability, reduction of GPS signal acquisition time, and improved electronics performance and reliability.

In parallel with the “wet boat” SDV designs, the mid-1990s also saw the emergence of a new concept for a battery-powered “dry interior” submersible that would provide increased range, payload, on-station loiter time, endurance, and communication/sensor capacity over existing SDV designs. Designated as the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS), the new design was approximately 65 feet long and 8 feet in diameter (displacement 60 tons), operated in a “shirt-sleeve” environment by a two-person crew (a submarine-qualified officer pilot and a SEAL-qualified co-pilot).  The Navy accepted delivery of the first ASDS on June 26, 2003: In November 2008, the ASDS suffered irreparable damage from a fire which broke out during battery recharging as part of its routine maintenance. Currently, NSW is looking to take advantage of existing technologies and acquire a family of lower-cost submersibles and host shelter modifications to meet its validated undersea requirements.

Another possible glimpse into the future came in a spring 2009 U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) request for information “for a host-launched, Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS) vehicle that will provide Special Operation Forces (SOF) shallow water undersea operations similar to those currently performed on the MK 8 Mod 1 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV).”

Offering a possible operational scenario, the announcement added, “The new SWCS will transport SOF personnel and equipment in a wet environment into littoral waters and harbors. […] Operating in a free-flooding ‘wet’ vehicle, the SWCS passengers and crew transit for extended durations (i.e. up to 12 hours) in a wet, variant temperature environment while breathing from SCUBA gear.”

Asked about the most significant capability that the SDVs introduced to the SEAL Teams, Broderick offered, “The fact that nobody knows you’re there is probably the most significant part. When I was in SDV Team One I had a guy who was kind of an older Vietnam-era SEAL guy and he said, ‘The first time anybody knows you’re there is when your head comes out of the water on the beach.’”

Dry Deck Shelters

Broderick pointed to another related system that came into use shortly after the “Eight Boats” and “Nine Boats.” Designed to give a submarine host ship the capability of launching and recovering SDVs while submerged, the Dry Deck Shelter (DDS) consists of three pressure modules constructed as a single integral unit: a hangar in which the SDV and other system equipment is stowed; a transfer truck to allow passage between modules and the host ship; and a hyperbaric chamber for decompression and recompression treatment of divers.

“I think it was about ’81-’82 that we did the eval[uation] on them,” Broderick said. “There have been some additional piping and electrical connectors put into them over the years, but it is basically the same system that it’s always been.”

Most recently, the Navy has announced plans to modify several DDS under an “extension” program initially called DDSX. According to preliminary government announcements, the DDSX program will include things like a 50-inch extension to be welded to the aft end of the existing hangar, improvements to the DDS hangar outer door to allow remote operation (unlock, open/close, lock), and the development of improvements to assist personnel in the deployment and retrieval of the track and cradle system from the extended shelter.

As noted earlier, the systems mentioned here serve only as representative examples of the myriad items of unique equipment that have supported Naval Special Warfare over the past five decades. But the examples all point to a common thread. To paraphrase Watson’s observations on the membership of the original and subsequent SEAL Teams: Special operations equipment is a different breed of gear.

This article first appeared in Navy Seals 50: Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Establishment of the U.S. Navy SEALs.

The most recent Army interest is focused on reducing the weight of the plates that are inserted into soft armor carriers to provide the wearer with increased levels of ballistic protection.

As a replacement for the original Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI), today’s  Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert (ESAPI) plates provide protection capable of defeating the most prevalent threats on the battlefield today.

As with other current technology designs, the ESAPI design consists of three major inputs:

1. ceramic strike-face
2. a composite backing, and
3. integration and assembly of the ceramic strike-face and composite backing.

However, while dramatically enhancing soldier protection, the use of front and back ESAPI plates adds 10.9 pounds to the weight a warfighter carries into combat.

The latest Army explorations were described in a recent announcement issued by the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC) in cooperation with Program Executive Office Soldier/PM-Soldier Protection Equipment and Marine Corps Systems Command/PM-Infantry Combat Equipment, calling for “concept papers from industry and academia for Personal Armor Light Weight Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert.”

According to the announcement, the desired outcome of the effort is “to develop a light weight ESAPI armor system that is 10 percent lighter than the currently fielded ESAPI. The end state prototypes shall conform to the performance requirements of the Purchase Description CO/PD 04-19 in its entirety while realizing a 10 percent weight reduction.”

Referring to the three major inputs in current plate designs noted above, the project description explains that, “The three major inputs of a composite armor system are themselves dependent variables of a multitude of independent variables. Concepts must identify the independent variables to be investigated, how they will be measured and the analysis of the main and interaction effects of these variables. All concepts must be focused towards the objective of developing a final system configuration that results in a minimum of the objective weight reduction.”

“The proposed technical approach must clearly identify how and why the effort will be successful,” it continues. “Substantiating data and analysis of the proposed approach must be included. Concepts without supporting technical information will be weighed negatively. Concept technology must be scalable to full rate production. Concepts should be programmed with incremental build/test/analyze iterations with specific technical milestones. Technical approaches should include a well planned Design of Experiments to analyze the main effects and interaction effects of the independent variables to be investigated.”

It is anticipated that the main effort should last no more than one calendar year and will culminate with delivery of a final report, along with plate prototypes for independent government test and evaluation.

Subsequent phases as option years to any contract may be included to conduct further exploration and capitalize on the successful material solutions and/or processes found during the main effort.

In addition to benefits from efforts to lighten the ESAPI plate, future warfighters may also benefit from the availability of new XSAPI plates that are designed to meet potential emerging threats. Increased protection levels in current XSAPI designs come at a cost in weight of 12 pounds.