REINVENTING NAVAL SHIP DESIGN

JAY PRAKASH JHA

2015AMX5509

CONTENTS

1. SHIPS AS SYSTEMS

2. CUSTOMERS AND THEIR ROLE

3. STUDIES IN THE FIELD

4. TRANSITIONING TECHNOLOGY

5. ANTICIPATING FUTURE NEEDS

6. NEW MANDATE FOR CROSS PLATFORM INTEGRATION

7. FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION

8. REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION

9. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OF NEW SHIPS

10. COST DRIVERS

11. CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION/ABSTRACT

1. Though NAVSEA is the main stakeholder in naval ship design, NAVY is relying on collaboration and partnership with shipbuilders, warfare centers and regulatory bodies

2. Process redefinition where new elements are added for betterment

3. Joint interoperability and higher levels of cross fighting unit integration.

4. New concepts includes

a.) application of Modelling and Simulation(M&S)

b.) use of Integrated Digital Environment (IDE)

c.) application of open systems approach

d.) implementation of joint technical architecture (JTA)

1. SHIPS AS SYSTEMS

Design features of ships before

1980/cold war

Productive rather than innovative

Risk avoidance

Stovepipeddesign

Meet chronically

compressed schedules

End of cold war

Alternative concepts and improved processes

Affordable package, reduced total

ownership cost (TOC)

Consideration of SHIP AS A SYSTEM

Included other “integral” elements

of a design

WHO IS THE CUSTOMER?

Driving factors/ demands for old designs:

1. Shortcuts that suited our need for EXPEDIENCY.

2. limited outside interactions to a streamlined dialog with our principal external customers

3. Converging on a stable set of requirements

POSTULATED END PRODUCT

DRIVING FACTORS FOR THE NEW DESIGN:

1. Influenced by Defense acquisition Board (DAB)

2. Shipbuilding programs coming in ACAT 1D category

3. Multiple customers whose motive and agendas are not always consistent

4. Requirements determination and technology investment processes far more complex

5. Working and simulation between platform design managers and warfare system engineers.

greater interaction and dialogue between engineering work and management of complex configurations at the force level

MORE STUDIES – LESS TIME

1. Analysis of alternatives (AoA) by an independent study agent has become the standard format within which engineering of any depth is executed.

2. AoA proceedings are controlled externally to NAVSEA and AoA study plan is approved.

3. A independent AoA study director is appointed who is the senior analyst from the Centerfor Naval Analysis

4. Navy ship design professionals are one party among many that participate in AoA process.

AoA STUDY DIRECTOR

AoA

NAVAL SHIP DESIGN

TRANSITIONING TECHNOLOGY

1. Technology transition :

a.) enhancing performance

b.) enhancing affordability

c.) mission critical imperative

2. Mission is combining technologies that work together to provide a new performance plateau

3. Support the use of concurrently developed R&D hardware and associated managed risktechniques

4. Application of design bucket approach ( space, weight and service allocations) that allowsto accommodate parallel developments

ANTICIPATING FUTURE NEEDS

FUTURE DEMANDS

Application of connectivity and

bandwidth for advanced weapons

Application of IDE for accessing

engineering results and capturing

engineering products

Mid life installations with minimum cost and

disruption

Establishing private sector planning yards for

maintenance of configuration

EMERGENCE OF FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION

1. NAVSEA strategic plan underlines importance of Total Ship Functional Allocation Board (TSFAB)

2. Function is to focus systems engineering requirements and resources towards integrated warfighting capability

3. It would operate under framework of Force Warfare Systems Engineering Board (FWSEB)

NEW PATH TO REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION

1. The mantra is being better, cheaper and faster when it comes to DefenseAcquisition Execution level

2. They have adopted a Quality Function Deployment (QFD) approach that involve various stakeholders

they participate in value judgements and seek inputs

3. The trend in navy R&D programmes has a preference for performance demonstrations and risk reduction efforts

4. They are no longer delivering qualified hardware and configuration controlled code

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OF NEW SHIPS

1. Though there is industry involvement, navy retains the lead for technical work during the segment

2. Navy will issue a draft ship performance specification to the industry or the teams will be tasked to develop their own

3. “Section 845 other authority agreements” which is primarily a cost sharing agreement

4. “Smart product model” is presented to the industry where they are given the performance specification.

5. At the end of contract design, the company presents the specification to NAVY for review

based on review, the industry may be asked to perform some or all of the Ship Detail Design

REALISTIC LOOK AT COST DRIVERS

1. All performance requirements are considered tradable against cost.

2. Industry can challenge requirements designated as Key Performance Parameters (KPPs)

3. Navy is committed to the Cost As An Independent Variable (CAIV) and has placed its trust in industry to deliver the best performance in dollar

4. Requirement floor – hierarchy of performance

LOOKING BACK: WHAT DID NOT WORK

1. Changes under acquisition reform believed to be an excursion from past practice and sailing into dangerous uncharted waters.

2. Total package procurement the need of the hour- where navy will oversee and direct the work

3. Often leads to delay and disruption

4. Cost is always a hidden segment

5. The government should have the ability to influence what the contractor incorporates in the design.

6. Anticipation of cost growth important to accommodate government directed changes

CONCLUSION

1. A new pattern of systems engineering processes is emerging and consensus building efforts are underway

how best to tailor our engineering strategy with the new environment

2. Articulation of comprehensive plan to mold processes to meet our needs in achieving acceptable levels of risk and cost realism

3. Examine the causes of past problems

4. Craft the curative measures in our emerging programs.