Home » Military Personnel » PEO IWS Rear Adm. Jon Hill Named Next MDA Deputy Director

PEO IWS Rear Adm. Jon Hill Named Next MDA Deputy Director

Rear Adm. Jon Hill, Program Executive Officer, Integrated Warfare Systems, speaks at a roundtable during the 2016 Sea-Air-Space Exposition in May. US Navy photo.

Rear Adm. Jon Hill, Program Executive Officer, Integrated Warfare Systems, speaks at a roundtable during the 2016 Sea-Air-Space Exposition in May. US Navy photo.

Rear Adm. Jon Hill was selected to serve as the next deputy director of the Missile Defense Agency, keeping a Navy voice in discussions about national and international ballistic missile defense.

Hill has served as the Program Executive Officer for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) since July 2014, and he worked as director for cruiser and destroyer combat systems in PEO IWS and Aegis Combat Systems major program manager before that. As Aegis MPM he oversaw the delivery of Naval Integrated Fire Control and Counter Air (NIFC-CA) and Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) capabilities to the first cruisers and destroyers.

Hill’s extensive knowledge of these systems will carry over to the MDA position – MDA is in charge of the operations of the Aegis Ashore site in Romania, and it coordinates with the Navy on developing and fielding the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capability. PEO IWS and MDA regularly conduct tests together on components of MDA’s Ballistic Missile Defense System, such as Aegis BMD and the Standard Missile-3 and SM-2 missiles.

Four years ago, Vice Adm. Jim Syring – who had also served as PEO IWS – assumed command of MDA, the first time a Navy admiral had led the agency, in a nod to the increasing role of naval systems in national and international ballistic missile defense. Hill’s assignment as deputy director will keep naval knowledge and experience in the agency’s top leadership.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves was confirmed by the Senate earlier this month to serve as MDA director. No timeline has been announced yet for Greaves and Hill beginning their work at MDA.

  • Curtis Conway

    Rear Adm. Jon Hill is the man of the hour, and the man for the job. No one will understand the issues concerning IAMD and the differences of the various baselines on our cruisers and destroyers than him. Perhaps he will advocate for a new frigate that can be an extension of the planned FORCEnet-21 with the new AN/SPY-6(V) with 9-RMAs, and a few missiles. That would make a great NIFC-CA control platform out front, or between the beach and the force, while the new frigate mans an ASW screen.

    • Hurricane

      It is not the RDML’s job at IWS (nor will it be at MDA) to politic for a new class of ships. However, here at NAVSEA, we are working on studies and analysis for a new ship. I don’t know what that ship will look like, or what type of ship (CG, DDG, FFG, etc) it might be. There is still a lot of work to be done in that area. Additionally, a ship the size of an OHP FFG does not have the infrastructure (power/cooling (SWaP)) to be outfitted with AMDR (SPY-6). SPY-6 needs to be on the larger Flight III DDGs, and whatever larger ships we have in the 2030+ timeframe. Although, I do agree with you that undersea warfare needs improvement and having a capable ASW(USW) picket ship is a step in the right direction.

      • Curtis Conway

        In my opinion the capable FFG concept will provide the greatest return for the investment. However, a BMD ship is a concept that needs exploring as well. We have two command ships that will require replacement in the coming years, and probably should shoehorn an Icebreaker with like capability into the mix in the future. We have an immediate need for BMD capability on all surface platforms equipped with a non-rotating 3D AESA GaN radar, and capable of launching missiles. Expanding aviation capability is always a good thing in this day and age, and in the BMD ship and hybrid Icebreaker could double as a cruiser/hybrid platform. The Carrier On-board Delivery (COD) aircraft is moving to the CMV-22 Osprey platform which makes anything with a large deck a potential landing site. The addition of the F-35B Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter makes it possible to operate from any aviation deck equipped with Thermion, and can handle the weight. An aviation platform with an AEW&C STOVL/VSTOL platform on-board could come in very handy in an Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2AD) environment. it would seem it is past time to invest in these capabilities. The tanker version of the V-22 factors in here too.

        • A BMD Icebreaker operating in the Artic would spin Ivan up more than Aegis Ashore ever did. One face w 120 degree coverage on a turret should do it. (See the USNS Observation Island for an example.)

          • Curtis Conway

            OH HO . . . if we are going to dream, make it a nuke, with a big tall hangar topside in front of the flight deck, and a lower hangar deck aft with an elevator. Make the flight deck have a run from aft starboard to forward port at about a 30-40 degree angle. Spaces for a Marine Reaction Force and their equipment. The Command Center would be COMBATSS-21 on steroids. The gun would need to be able to support the new HVPs. One might even put an ASW helo on board. Hovercraft ? . . but not as large as an LCAC/SSC, would come in real handy. I would still use the 69 RMA array face with 148 on four faces total. Russian submarines could surprise you from any side. This won’t be like a missile test in the Pacific.

          • “Russian submarines could surprise you from any side” – assuming our boats would let them get close. Build more attack subs and bring back tactical nuclear weapons. Nothing like a Mk 45 ASTOR for blowing a hole in the ice.

          • Actually nuclear powered ice breakers aren’t such a bad idea. I think that the Russians may have built one or two some years back.

          • Curtis Conway

            Icebreakers use electrical propulsion so . . . yeah . . . nukes make a lot of sense. I think that the LPD-17 Hull modified (different bow) would do it, or they could just make a nuke LHA-6 Class and use that.

      • Curtis Conway

        The AMDR SPY-6 comes in all kinds of power & cooling requirements because the radar is scalable. As stated in my comment the “new AN/SPY-6(V) with 9-RMA” only has 36 Radar Module Assemblies total in four array faces that are the primary sources of weight, and power and cooling consumption, and provides the same coverage of a SPY-1 radar on current Aegis surface combatants. No, it will easily fit but the mack must be changed to receive that assembly. The GaN radar will do the job nicely. You just have to have the weapon. If you are working for NAVSEA and have not done your basic analysis on the Raytheon website for AMDR (Google Search) then I am concerned. The 36 array face AN/SPY-6(V) with 9 RMAs per side consumes much less power, cooling, and occupies much less space with their accumulated weight than the 148 RMA antenna having 37 RMAs per array face. That is what has been the challenge on the DDG-51 Flt III.

  • Curtis Conway

    Megan did a good job on the article.

  • Stephen

    It needs to be bigger than what you can provide.

    We failed to organize a coordinated response after the quake. An idea was to tap the Navy for a SeaBee Battalion & a RO-RO ship for water & power. State nixed it because it might look like an invasion. It was argued that the SeaBees would not be perceived that way & was lost. We ended up bringing an extension cord from the DR, providing the displaced president with AC.

    All the while cruise-ships continued making port-calls at Labadee for watersports & beach entertainment. A commandeered cruise-ship could have supplied electricity & drinking water to Port-au-Prince. (I think they should have charged $5 pp to assist in recovery.)

    That place is still a mess; I cannot imagine the impact of this storm…