Raytheon is unique because we don’t build platforms,
so we have a different set of specialties in those kinds of
supply chains. True, there is some overlap in both
worlds, but I think it’s a different picture if you’re in the
platform world than if you’re in an electronic one.
What naval-related programs do you consider
successes for your company?
SMITH: Zumwalt [DDG 1000] is by far, not just for
the company, but for DoD [Department of Defense].
It’s been declared by DoD to be a model program. It’s
been declared by the Navy to be a model program in
front of Congress.
If you look at Air Warfare Destroyer in Australia,
that’s an ongoing success. It’s not as mature as Zumwalt
is yet, but they’re doing all the right things, learning
On a smaller scale, the radar programs that we do
are good. Our mine warfare systems are doing very
well right now. I think [we have] 1,200 programs in
this business and probably 35 to 40 percent of them are
We’re winding down our participation in the Aegis
program, but we had … 35 percent or so of the dollar
value of Aegis. But that was last funded in 2006, so if
we haven’t delivered [it yet], we’re just about to deliver the last ship set of that multiyear buy.
If more DDG 51 Arleigh Burke guided-missile
destroyers are built, would your company still
have participation in Aegis that way?
SMITH: I would believe so. It’s hard for Aegis to work
without some high power.
Since the Navy wants to limit Zumwalt production, how is that going to affect your business
in regard to producing the big combat systems
and integrating them?
SMITH: It’s pure speculation at this point, not because
we don’t know what the Navy wants to do, but
because we don’t know what happens after that. For
example, if the Navy produces three DDG 51s, that
has a finite dollar value to us. If they produce 12, it’s
something else. I don’t want to speculate about what
it could be.
It’s important to understand that, for us and for
other big players, none of these are ones and zeros.
You’re not either in or you’re out, you’re in all of them
just in different modes.
We believe that the Zumwalt combat system, which
was designed on a clean sheet of paper as an open architecture combat system for which the Navy owns all of
the code … will eventually find its way into whatever
future service combatant [the Navy chooses].
Do you think that things like the Dual-Band
Radar, the Mk57 launcher and the undersea
warfare system that you put on the Zumwalt
are transferable to other platforms?
SMI TH: Sure. The Dual-Band Radar is already going to
the [Ford-class] carrier. If it can go to a carrier, it can
go on the big amphibs.
The question becomes: Which platforms do you
want or do you need? Unfortunately, it’s not a want
question anymore. Do you need that capability? Once
you make those decisions then it’s … which ones do
you want or do you need missile-launching capability
on? And the way Zumwalt was done, [with] 15 years
of very rigorous thinking and design reviews [and]
engineering analysis, has allowed each one of those
[systems] to be modular. So you can, in fact, pick this
piece out and put it somewhere else.
In terms of cost, the big advantage to the Zumwalt
is it has 100 to 150 less people than a DDG 51, and
people are the operating costs. So it’s very difficult, if
not impossible, to engineer a legacy system to create
that dramatic an impact on operating cost.
SEAPOWER / MAY 2009