CONCEPT EXPLORATION CONCEPT EXPLORATION LESSONS LEARNED CDR Norbert Doerry USN & Phil Sims CDR Norbert Doerry USN & Phil Sims CDR Norbert Doerry, USN Distribution Statement A: ASNE DAY 2002 PMS 377RB Approved for Public Release; 29 April 2002 Distribution is unlimited doerryn@navsea.navy.mil
Agenda Introduction New Ship Studies New Ship Studies Modified Repeat / Conversion Studies Systems Engineering Systems Engineering Future Research Opportunities 2
Introduction - What is JCC(X)? Mobile, self-sustaining sea based battle management capability management capability An in-theater command and control headquarters should land-based facilities become unavailable, constrained or threatened threatened A replacement for existing maritime p g command and control ships 3
Command Ships Today ... At A Glance ... At A Glance USS CORONADO USS LASALLE - (AGF-11) ( AGF-3) COMFIFTHFLT COMPOUND BAHRAIN ● 3rd Fleet, San Diego ● 6th Fleet, Gaeta ● CREW: 25 OFF / 31 CPO & 389 ENL ● CREW: 24 OFF / 32 CPO & 404 ENL ● CJTF/MCC: 263 OFF/77 CPO & 420 ENL ● CJTF/MCC: 193 OFF/ 27 CPO & 365 ENL USS MOUNT WHITNEY USS BLUE RIDGE - (LCC-20) (LCC-19) ● 5th Fleet, Bahrain ● Staff: 80 Off/110 ENL/20 CIV ● 2nd Fleet, Norfolk f ● 7th Fleet, Yokosuka ● CREW: 42 OFF / 42 CPO & 605 ENL ● CREW: 40 OFF / 44CPO & 650 ENL ● CJTF/MCC: 362 OFF/45 CPO & 321 ENL ● CJTF/MCC: 358 0FF/36 CPO & 499 ENL 4
What are the Required Capabilities? Capabilities? Capable of hosting an embarked Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) Commander and component Task Force (CJTF) Commander and component staffs Hotel Services ➣ Flexible Mission Space Fl ibl Mi i S ➣ Robust C4ISR Suite based on Commercial Off-The-Shelf ➣ (COTS) technology Mobile M bil Speed ➣ Range ➣ Survivable Interoperable with Joint services, allied and coalition forces and Non-Government coalition forces, and Non-Government Organizations (NGO) as needed 5
Concept Exploration Activities Conduct an Analysis of Alternatives ➣ Find out what the product should do ➣ Find out what the product should do Develop Operational Requirements (ORD) ➣ Precisely define user’s expectations Develop Acquisition Documentation ➣ Gain approval to proceed into development Develop System Requirements and Procurement Develop System Requirements and Procurement Documentation ➣ Includes P-SPEC, RFP, SOW, etc ➣ Place next development stage under contract Develop Cost Estimates ➣ Support Budgeting Process (PPBS) ➣ Support Budgeting Process (PPBS) A ship design is no longer a product of Concept Exploration A ship design is no longer a product of Concept Exploration 6
Ship Studies A tool for Developing Requirements p g q Top-level mission system description Alternatives Al i Required C4ISR functions Key Ship Type of Platform Concept of Design Operations Drivers Alternatives Alternatives ➣ New Design Ships ➣ New Design Ships ➣ Modified Repeats Assessment ➣ Conversions ➣ SLEPS Key Ship Design Drivers C 2 Capability Size of Staff ➣ Dedicated Command ➣ Dedicated Command MSC vs Navy Crew Ship ➣ Part of a Distributed Survivability Option Option Speed 7
New Ship Studies - Design Space AOA is interested in Cost vs Capability The incremental cost of a particular Th i t l t f ti l capability depends on the order in which capabilities are added which capabilities are added Averaging cost of adding a capability across multiple ship p y p p concepts provides a better metric AB BA JCC(X) new ship studies employed a systematic examination of the impact of design variables under study 8
Planning New Ship Studies “Parallel - Serial Process” Design Space Study 1 Design Space Study 1 Design Space Study 2 Design Space Study 2 Design Space Study 3 Design Space Study 3 S l Select t U d t Update U d t Update Baseline(s) Baseline(s) Baseline Planning Planning Costing Costing “Classic” “Classic” “Cl “Cl i ” i ” Design Spiral Design Spiral Requirements Performance is too slow! is too slow! CONOPS CONOPS D Design i 9
New Ship Concept Study Study Guide Development IPS characterization Manning Estimation C4ISR Suite Definition ASSET Modeling Adjust IPS TSS Analysis C Costing ti Assess CONOPS TSS = Total Ship Survivability IPS = Integrated Power System 10
Challenges in Comparing Ship Concepts Ship Concepts Changing Sets of Assumptions Naval Architects and the Learning Curve N l A hit t d th L i C The “Artistic” component of Naval Architecture Architecture ➣ Lack of Reproducible Results Synergistic effects of different feature sets Synergistic effects of different feature sets Operator error Synthesis Tool bugs Synthesis Tool bugs ... (undocumented features) Need to Identify and Control Errors Need to Identify and Control Errors 11
Controlling Errors in Concept Comparisons Comparisons Develop Study Guides ➣ Document Assumptions and Processes D t A ti d P Limit impact of the Learning Curve ➣ Conduct Studies in Blocks ➣ Conduct Studies in Blocks ➣ Use the same design team Use “Design of Experiments” to define Use Design of Experiments to define concept requirements and analyze results Automate comparison of synthesis tool Automate comparison of synthesis tool (ASSET) results to identify anomalies Use regression analysis to identify potential g y y p discontinuities 12
Presenting Results: Contour Maps Contour Maps Manning MSC Navy Survivability Low Medium Medium High Fast Large Large Slow Fast Medium Slow Slow Fast Small Slow Greater than 18,000 m tons Staff Ship Trends often more Trends often more 15,000 to 18,000 m tons 12,000 to 15,000 m tons 12 000 to 15 000 m tons Size Si e Speed Speed Important than Important than Important than Important than Less than 12,000 m tons Actual Values Actual Values Light Ship Displacement 13
Presenting Results: Cost Capability Curves Cost Capability Curves Range for ships Ship Survivability p y with significant with significant R Range for ships f hi threat exposure with less threat exposure Probability of Survival Optimal Configuration for given cost Sub-Optimal Configuration for given cost Cost of Additional Features 14
Modified Repeat / Conversion Studies Conversion Studies More Difficult than new design Hard to obtain accurate technical data Hard to obtain accurate technical data ➣ ➣ To keep study costs down ... Eliminate less promising candidates using compelling ➣ arguments instead of modeling arguments instead of modeling Limit modeling to the minimum required to show cost ➣ effectiveness Modified Repeats are generally not cost effective if 1 : if 1 M difi d R t ll t t ff ti The mission of the baseline ship is significantly different, ➣ or More than two hulls are required ➣ JCC(X) studies showed that Modified Repeats and JCC(X) studies showed that Modified Repeats and Conversions, while sometimes competitive, are not Conversions, while sometimes competitive, are not , , p p , , clearly more cost effective than new designs. clearly more cost effective than new designs. Note 1: Covich and Hammes, 1983 15
Conversion Example Destroyer/Submarine Tender Destroyer/Submarine Tender Advantages Disadvantages • Large Low Mileage Ships • Large Low Mileage Ships • Precision scrapping of 27% • Precision scrapping of 27% • Technically Feasible • New work is inefficient • 73% of light ship is “free” ➣ Waterfront vice Shop • Resulting ship unattractive R lti hi tt ti ➣ Hull H ll ➣ Machinery ➣ Poor Seakeeping ➣ Electric plant ➣ Single Screw Steam Plant ➣ Low sustained speed (19 kts) ➣ Low sustained speed (19 kts) ➣ Forced Fit solution ➣ 15 year old hull ➣ Cost rivaling a new ship Study Based on Industrial Efficiency Study Based on Industrial Efficiency Not on detailed ship modeling Not on detailed ship modeling Not on detailed ship modeling Not on detailed ship modeling 16
Systems Engineering Classic Systems Engineering Process Typical Interpretation Requirements Analysis Requirements Analysis System Analysis Requirements and Control Analysis (Balance) Functional Analysis / Allocation Requirements Loop Functional Synthesis Synthesis Analysis Allocation Design Verification Loop Synthesis TIME Verification Actual Practice Product Analysis of Operational Req., Identify Derived Identify Derived Baseline Policy and Imposed Req. y p q Requirements Requirements Requirements Requirements Process continues for Functional Analysis / Allocation each successive TIME Synthesis Synthesis Product Baseline Product Baseline Verification 17
Recommend
More recommend
