Interview with Rear Adm. Michael Sharp SPAWAR Vice Commander ASN Chief Engineer Acting DASN C41/Space

CHIPS, Fall, 2004

The goal sounds simple enough: Provide warfighters with battlespace information that is optimally relevant, timely, accurate and usable. In reality, however, creating the architecture to align myriad frequencies, protocols and systems--all the bits and bytes that cut across platforms and warfighting missions--proves much more challenging.

It's a complex subject Rear Adm. Michael A. Sharp knows well because no matter which of the four hats he wears, questions regarding interoperability, integrated systems and capability-based acquisition are never far away.

As the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Vice Commander, Sharp has a vital role in developing FORCEnet and network centric-capable systems for the warfighter. "FORCEnet has become part of our language.... It is the standards and architectures that allow all of our individual programs to work together," explained Sharp, who has been Vice Commander since December 2002.

As the Chief Engineer for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, Sharp implements capability-based acquisition for the Navy to develop systems that are born with net-centric potential. "The RDA Chief Engineer has always been looked at as an honest broker," said Sharp, who served as a nuclear attack submarine commanding officer earlier in his career. "When we're involved with an architecture, it allows us to determine what's best for the Navy--and not necessarily what's best for an individual systems command."

As the 30-year veteran prepares for retirement this fall, Sharp discussed with CHIPS what FORCEnet development obstacles have been overcome and where capability-based acquisition is heading.

CHIPS: Could you tell us about your responsibilities in each of your assignments?

Rear Adm. Sharp: I actually wear four hats. But they're all very closely related, which is how I can manage to juggle them all. I am the third Chief Engineer for ASN (RDA), Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. The first two engineers primarily operated out of NAVSEA (Naval Sea Systems Command) because they were physically located there. When I became the first SPAWAR Vice Commander to be located in Washington D.C., Secretary John J. Young, ASN (RDA), thought it would be a good fit for his chief engineer, and it's worked out very well.

The chief engineer job is focused on C4ISR. The challenge that SPAWAR has had is putting together a capabilities-based architecture. Capabilities-based products are a similar challenge for Secretary Young. We get Navy acquisitions organizations involved--NAVSEA, NAVAIR (Naval Air Systems Command), SPAWAR, MARCORSYSCOM (Marine Corps Systems Command) and NAVSUP (Naval Supply Systems Command)--but we also have to work in the joint arena because our Navy architecture must fit into the larger joint and coalition architecture. That is a mandate for FORCEnet.

The chief engineer hat gives me a role in acquisition that I wouldn't have solely as Vice Commander. Personally, it gives me the ability to operate in whatever swim lane I choose to. The acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy position came up earlier this year when Dr. Dale Euler moved to U.S. Special Forces Command, and Secretary Young asked if I could take on that role.

It has fit quite well too because I'm looking at the specific attributes of the major command and control programs that I deal with. The focus is on how the programs fit into the acquisition and less on how they fit into the big picture of architecture development. We help develop acquisition strategy and documents, and support the PEO C4I and Space and the program offices. I'm also the Navy representative to the Base Realignment and Closure subgroup for C4I. That has given me some insight into where we are trying to go jointly.

CHIPS: When did that role come up?

Rear Adm. Sharp: I've been doing it for about a year. While I can't discuss the specifics of the deliberations, the BRAC process is based upon public law, and the Services are responding to military-value questions. The BRAC process includes measuring the capacity we have across the Services in specific capability areas--C4ISR in my case.

Right now, each of the Services and we at SPAWAR are responding to a set of military value-based questions. We want to quantify attributes that constitute military value and decide what critical elements the Navy and the other Services will need over the next 20 years. The process will continue throughout the year, and then some time early next year each of these subgroups will work through their Office of the Secretary of Defense-led working groups and submit proposals that will eventually go to the Secretary of Defense.

The difference in this BRAC compared to the ones in the 1990s is that this round is being driven from the OSD level. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld really wants joint solutions, and while the Services are submitting their inputs, this year the process is being driven from the joint/OSD perspective.