framework for analyzing modular adaptable and flexible
play

Framework for Analyzing Modular, Adaptable and Flexible Surface - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Framework for Analyzing Modular, Adaptable and Flexible Surface Combatants Dr. Norbert Doerry Dr. Philip Koenig SNAME Maritime Convention October 25-27, 2017 Houston, Texas Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 1 Distribution is Unlimited


  1. Framework for Analyzing Modular, Adaptable and Flexible Surface Combatants Dr. Norbert Doerry Dr. Philip Koenig SNAME Maritime Convention October 25-27, 2017 Houston, Texas Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 1 Distribution is Unlimited

  2. Motivation Actual Service Life Cruisers: 26.3 years Destroyers: 25.4 years Frigates: 19.8 years 96 as of 9-1-17 Philip Koenig, Don Nalchajian, and John Hootman, “Ship Service Life and Naval Force Structure,” ETS 2008. Since World War II, the Navy has not been successful in keeping surface combatants operationally relevant for their design service life. Modularity and Flexibility technologies that can help keep ships operationally relevant have been well known since mid 70’s, but have not been systematically adopted Current requirements and decision processes do not inherently consider the value of modularity and flexibility in keeping ships operationally relevant Can REAL OPTIONS THEORY help? Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 2 Distribution is Unlimited

  3. Approved for Public Release Distribution is Unlimited Open-Loop vs Closed-Loop Systems • Current Acquisition System acts like an open-loop system Open – Command = Requirements Loop – Must get the requirements (aim point) nearly perfect for good outcome (but the target is moving fast and changing directions) • Flexible-Adaptable Acquisition Command System Outcome allows in-service course correction – “Control authority” becomes a more important attribute – System is corrected in-service to respond to changing needs. Closed • Aim point is automatically corrected Loop by feedback to hit the target – Real Options Analysis provides guidance for designing the “Controller” and the “System” Controller System Outcome Command + - 9/1/2017 3

  4. Modular, Adaptable, Flexible Ship Technologies Container Stacks Modular Hull Ship Off-Board Vehicles SS Curtiss (T-AVB 4) Electronic Modular Enclosures Aperture Stations Mission Bay Weapons Modules Flexible Infrastructure Flexible Open Open HVAC Infrastructure (FI) Structure Open Open Power Lighting Open Open Data Outfitting Cable Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 4 Distribution is Unlimited

  5. Need to rapidly evolve a ship over its service life to reflect evolving needs S&T R&D Flexible Features Configuration Design Modularity Budgeting Service Life Allowances Program Management to enable adaptability Capability Modernization Flexible Capability + - Process Adaptable Ship Needed Intelligence – Adversary Capabilities Force Architecture analysis Changing CONOPS Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 5 Distribution is Unlimited

  6. Real Options Analysis • An “Option” is the right to buy or sell an asset for a given price on or before a given date. – Options must be purchased – Options have an expiration date – Options enable deferring a decision • Real Options Analysis – Provides insight on the value of an option to determine if purchasing it is advantageous – Can be better than traditional Net Present Value analysis • Recognizes that not all pertinent information is available at time of purchase • Accounts for volatility and unknowns • Recognizes that managers can make better decisions when pertinent information becomes known. Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 6 Distribution is Unlimited

  7. Options “ON” versus Options “IN” • Options “on” are reactive – Can always modernize even if modularity and flexibility features not incorporated. – Includes option to “abandon” which results in ships not meeting expected service life. • Options “in” are proactive – Features paid for up front to enable managers to make affordable decisions in the future as uncertainty resolves. Real Options Analysis helps determine the type and quantity of Options “in” that should be incorporated in a ship design Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 7 Distribution is Unlimited

  8. Prerequisites for successful use of Real Options • A financial model must exist • Uncertainties must – exist – affect decisions when leadership is actively managing the project – affect the results of the financial model • Management must – have strategic flexibility or options make mid-course corrections when actively managing the projects – be smart enough and credible enough to execute the options when it becomes optimal to do so Mun, J. 2006. Real Options Analysis, 2nd ed. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons. Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 8 Distribution is Unlimited

  9. Challenges • Traditional Real Options Analysis monetizes the entire problem – Uncertainties impact future cash flows – Goal is typically to maximize profit, recognizing risk • Warships don’t exist to make money – Goal is to minimize magnitude of “capability gap” over service life • Especially during Major Combat Operations – Funding is constrained • Degree of constraint depends on perceptions of threat Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 9 Distribution is Unlimited

  10. Affordability • Affordability is the willingness to spend budget authority on a system. Defense Spending as a Share of the • Depends on Economy (GDP) – Relative value with respect https://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/FY16-Budget/ to other investments – Geopolitical Threat – Fiscal Environment – Industrial Base Defense Spending as a Share of Total Federal Spending Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 10 Distribution is Unlimited

  11. Difference between pre-planned product improvement and real options Pre-Planned Product Improvement: (decisions made up front) Initial Upgrade 1 Upgrade 2 Configuration Time Real Options: (decisions deferred until uncertainty is resolved) Upgrade 1A Upgrade 2A Which Which Initial Upgrade 1B Upgrade 2B Upgrade? Upgrade? Configuration Upgrade 1C Upgrade 2C Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 11 Distribution is Unlimited

  12. Proposed Process Uncertainty Space Design Vector Development Tool Development Tool Uncertainty Space Design Vector Design Vector Design Vector Uncertainty Space Uncertainty Space Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Uncertainty Space Uncertainty Space Configuration Vector Development Tool Uncertainty Space Uncertainty Space Uncertainty Space Uncertainty Space Uncertainty Space Uncertainty Space Uncertainty Space Uncertainty Space Uncertainty Space Configuration Configuration Configuration Uncertainty Space Uncertainty Space Uncertainty Space Vector Vector Vector Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Configuration Operational Relevance Evaluation Tool Year 20 100% 90% 80% Superior 70% 60% Acceptable 50% 40% Not Acceptable - Constrained 30% 20% Not Acceptable - 10% Unconstrained 0% Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 12 Distribution is Unlimited

  13. Design Vector • Consists of DESIGN VECTOR – Initial Ship Configuration at Modular Hull Ship NO 64 cell VLS WM A delivery Mission Bay NO 32 cell VLS WM B Container Stack NO 5 inch gun WM A – Initial set of tactics Weapon Modules A 2 37 mm gun WM C – Modernization process Weapon Modules B 1 37 mm gun WM C Weapon Modules C 4 SEA-RAM WM C • The Design Vector is the starting Aperture Station A 3 CIWS WM C Aperture Station B 2 ATT SWAP-C point for the Configuration Vector Boats 2 • Aircraft 2 SPS-64 AS B A study would normally compare EME YES SPS-67 AS B multiple Design Vector alternatives Flexible Infrastructure YES SPY-1D AS A x 3 Removal routes YES – Evaluate the associated Electrical SLA 1 MW Tactics standard configuration vectors within Cooling SLA 280 tons 3 month modernization every 2 multiple Uncertainty Spaces to 800 mt Weight SLA availablility years determine performance .5 meters 9 month modernizaition every 6 KG SLA availability – Statistics of the multiple years configuration vectors are used to compare Design Vector alternatives. Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 13 Distribution is Unlimited

  14. Uncertainty Space • Defines the environment in which the configuration vector evolves – World conflict state UNCERTAINTY SPACE • Establishes Affordability constraints World Conflict State Adversary 1 ASW level Peace 8 • Establishes severity of capability gaps Adversary 1 conflict No Adversary 1 AAW level 7 Adversary 2 conflict No Adversary 1 SW level 7 – Potential adversary capabilities Adversary 3 conflict No Adversary 2 ASW level 4 Adversary 2 AAW level 5 – Availability of key technologies Key Technology 1 No 3 available Adversary 2 SW level • Evaluated periodically Key Technology 2 No 2 available Adversary 3 ASW level – Typically Annually Key Technology 3 No 5 available Adversary 3 AAW level • May be modeled as a Markov Chain Key Technology 4 No 5 available Adversary 3 SW level – The values for this year depend stochastically only on the values for the prior year. Approved for Public Release 9/1/2017 14 Distribution is Unlimited

Recommend


More recommend