NDIA – Expeditionary Warfare Conference THANK YOU ADMIRAL HAMILTON FIRST OF ALL, MR. FIREMAN SENDS HIS APOLOGIES FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO ATTEND THIS NDIA. AS THE CHIEF NAVAL ARCHITECT, HE HAS A COUPLE OF TAKE AWAYS FROM TODAY’S SHORT INTRODUCTION. 19 OCTOBER 2004 Howard Fireman NAVSEA (SEA 05D) (202) 781-1113 FiremanH@navsea.navy.mil

Technology base of Naval Architecture Take Aways Technology base of Naval Architecture The key to Seabasing is Systems of Systems Engineering and the “Force Architecture” THE NAVY IN RECENT YEARS HAS MADE AN INVESTMENT IN HIGH SPEED VESSELS AND EXPERIMENTATION THE JOINT VENTURE, SWIFT, ONR X-CRAFT, LCS PROGRAMS ARE EXAMPLES OF THAT INVESTMENT. TO THE SHIP DESIGN COMMUNITY WE ARE LEARNING VAST ABOUTS OF INFORMATION AT THE SUB-SCALE AND FULL SCALE. WE ARE GATHERING DATA AND KNOWLEDGE IN THE AREAS OF HULL FORM DEVELOPMENT, SPEED-POWER, SEAWORTHINESS, MANEUVERABILITY, STRUCTURAL LOADS, ETC. THESE ARE THE INITIAL BUILDING BLOCKS FOR NAVSEA AS THE FUTURE HSC, LHC(X) PROGRAMS MATURE WITH RESPECT TO THE SEABASE FORCE ARCHITECTURE, THE NAVY IS EMBARKED ON PERFORMING THE EQUIVALENT FEDEX FUNCTION AS SEA. ANYTIME, ANYPLACE, ANY WEATHER, DAY OR NIGHT. THE INTEGRATION OF THE NAVAL FORCE ARCHTITECT AND OPERATIONALS IS ESSENTIAL. I DISCUSS MORE OF THIS IDEA LATER IN THE BRIEF

Hull Form Versus Performance Features Displacement Monohulls Multihulls SWATH & Variants Planing Hulls SES Hovercraft Hydrofoils Lifting Body & Hybrids Speed Seakeeping Payload Range 25-40knots SOA ~55 knots 14-30 knots 60 knots+ 60-65 knots 45-55 knots 30-70 knots 30-45 knots Excellent at Speed ARCS – Good at rest Excellent all Around High Accelerations Good with Ride control Moderate with Excellent High, Poor Low Speed Good Low Short Range Moderate Trans-Ocean High Excellent at High and Low Speed THE SHIP DESIGN COMMUNITY HAS LEARNED A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT ON HIGH PERFORMANCE VESSELS IN THE LAST 30 YEARS. THIS CHART HIGHLIGHTS SOME OF THE FEATURES THAT BOUND THE CAPABILITY OF THESE CONCEPTS AS THE FUTURE NAVY CONCEPT MATURES, THE PHYSICS OF THESE PLATFORMS WILL BE TRADED OFF. CONSIDERABLE MODELING AND SIMULATION OF THE PROS AND CONS FO THESE VESSELS MUST BE DONE

Requirements Analysis Iron Triangle (Speed, Endurance, Payload) Reality ($$) Performance Requirements (Beachable, Surface Connector Interfaces, Aviation, etc.) Art of the Possible Sensitivity Analysis Find the knee in the curves Process is “Validated Requirements” THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND ECONOMY BOUND THE DECISION MAKING. PROGRAM MANAGERS AND THE RESOURCE SPONSOR ALL TRADE OFF THE PARAMETERS OF THE IRON TRIANGLE. YOU CANNOT GET ALL THREE FOR CHEAP. WHEN YOU LAY ON TOP OTHER PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS THE ANAYSES BECOME MULTI-VARIABLES AND THE NUMBER OF COMBINATION OF POTENTIAL SHIP CONCEPTS EXPLODES. THE SHIP DESIGN COMMUNITY SUPPORTS THE PROGRAM OFFICE ON INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS TO FIND THE OPTIUM KNEE IN THE CURVE HOWEVER, AS WE DEVELOP THE SEABASING ARCHITECTURE NEW TOOLS TO SOLVE THE SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PROBLEM ARE REQUIRED SEABASING – A Systems of Systems Engineering Problem

Ship Technologies Critical technologies Beach interface Advanced high-speed hullforms Drag reduction Hull/propulsor integration High power density propulsion machinery Fuel efficient power generation machinery Hydrodynamic structural loads Transfer of cargo at sea (Sea State 4) Lightweight structures Non-ferrous ship structures Signatures Beach interface PART OF THE SEABASE DEVELOP WILL BE INVESTIGATION INTO SHIP TECHNOLOGIES THAT WILL MAKE A MORE EFFECTIVE SEABASE THE BEACH INTERFACE WHILE CHALLENGING IS AN AREA THAT WILL BE OF INTEREST TO ALMOST EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE.

DEFINE THE PROBLEM Sea Connector Concept Sea Base Advanced Support Base (ASB) High Speed Sealift (HSS), 3N CONUS 6000 nm High Speed Connector (HSC), 2B/2N 2000 nm 6000 nm 2000 nm Sea Base THE SECOND PART OF MY INTRODUCTION TALKS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEABASE ARCHITECTURE WHAT IS DISPLAYED AN AN ACADEMIC (NOT PROGRAM OF RECORD) VIEW OF A POTENTIAL SEABASE/SEA CONNECTOR CONCEPT I HIGHLIGHT THIS CONCEPT TO EXTEND OUR THINKING TO THE FUTURE. I BELIEVE THAT SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IS A NEW REALITY THAT MUST BE APPLIED. NEW TOOLS THAT LINK THE ENGINEERING COMMUMMITY TO THE OPERATIONAL COMMUNITY ARE PART OF THAT FUTURE. THIS NOTIONAL ARCHITECTURE HIGHLIGHTS THREE POSSIBLE SHIP TYPES. THEY INCLUDE HIGH SPEED SEALIFT, SEA CONNECTORS AND ASSAULT CONNECTORS. 200 nm Parent Concepts: 1B = High Speed Assault Connector (1B) Short Range, Medium to High Speed Beachable 2B/2N = High Speed Connector (2B) Medium Range, Medium to High Speed Beachable (2N) Medium Range, Medium to High Speed Not-Beachable 3N = High Speed Sealift (3N) Long Range, High Speed Not-Beachable OBJECTIVE High Speed Assault Connector (HSAC), 1B

NAVAL SHIP DESIGN Conventional vs New Approach Conventional Approach: Point Based Exploration of Design Space - Designs are manually generated - Time-consuming - Few data points - Limited knowledge gained from the few design points - Optimization is difficult due to competing performance and economic requirements. New Approach: Systematic Exploration of Design Space - An automated design process. Systematic exploration of design space Easily optimized to meet multiple, competing objectives. Naval power is shifting its focus from the blue-water, war-at-sea focus and the littoral emphasis to a broadened strategy in which naval forces are fully integrated into global joint operations against regional and transnational dangers. This shift in focus calls for non-traditional solutions that fall outside the traditional historical evolutionary databases. With shrinking budgets, there is a growing need to evaluate the “goodness” of a warship design using criteria other than the traditional size, speed, range, and payload capabilities. The US Navy has shifted its emphasis from designing ships to developing broad ship concepts and fleet architectures. These ship concepts and fleet architectures drive new design requirements and technologies to meet future military operations. Current methodologies for evaluating and determining these requirements, characteristics, cost and technologies are inadequate to meet the challenges from the shifts in operational and acquisition focus. The Conventional Approach generated a series of point designs, each focused on a particular interpolation of the requirements. These point designs are time consuming, which limited the number of designs that can be investigated, and little insight into the impacts of the requirements on the design. The New Approach provides for an automated design process based on a Design of Experiments, that generates many designs. The process allows for a more rigorous exploration of the design space. This allows for a better understanding of the impacts of design requirements on the platform characteristics and cost We need more information, more data in order to make the best choices in developing requirements and technology investments.

DESIGN SPACE EXPLORATION Dynamic Contour Profiler Example Placing Design Constraints Beam Draft Max Sustained Speed Cost Cost Beam Feasible Design Space Max Speed Draft Feasible Design Space Cost Increase Beam Constraint Decrase Draft Constraint Increase Max Speed Constraint Decrease Cost Constraint Beam This is a powerful visualization tool, the Contour Profiler, which allows you to select two variables and look at how the available design space changes with different constraints. It also, allows you to play “what if?” games with the designs and the requirements or the technologies The fist plot shows the feasible design space available to the designer (the white areas), when several design constraints are applied to the design space (the shaded areas). In this case we have constrained the maximum beam, draft, max sustained speed, and the lead ship cost. The next plot the designer has further restriction of the design space by increasing the max speed while reducing the cost of the platform, we can see the available feasible design space has been reduced. The final plot has the designer relaxing the max speed constraint, thus opening up the available design that can meet all the other design requirements. All this is being dome interactively while using JMP (a statistical software package). This system allows the designer to explore the many possibilities, within the design space, of the impacts design requirements have on the platform and associated cost. Cost Max Speed Draft Beam Feasible Design Space Relax Beam Constraint Maintain Draft Constraint Relax Max Speed Constraint Maintain Cost Constraint Draft Max Speed

Mapping Platform Characteristics to Fleet Requirements FLEET CAPABILITY/COST TRADE-OFF ENVIRONMENT Platform Trade Space Constrained by Desired/Required Fleet MoPs Required/Desired Fleet Performance Fleet Architecture Trade-Off Environment (Fleet MetaModel) Response A Input A Sea Connector Platform Trade-off Environment (MetaModel) High Speed Sealift High Speed Connector High Speed Assault Connector Response B Input B Platform Independent Input Variables Architecture Responses (MoP & MoEs) COST THE ULTIMATE DESIRE IS TO HAVE A AN ARCHITECTURE THAT MEETS A SET OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE. THIS IS KNOW EASY TASK. HOWEVER, WHEN LOOKING AT THIS PROBLEM AS AN FORCE ARCHITECTURE THE PROGRAM AND ENGINEEERING FOLKS CAN LOOK AT OPTIMIZING THE FORCE VICE SUBOPTIMIZING A PARTICULAR FORCE COMPONENT. Response C Input C Response D Input D

Sea Connectors - Concepts Sea Base Connector – L (SBC-L) (Concept) High Speed Vessel (HSV 2) High Speed Response Ship (HSRS) (Concept) High Speed Afloat Forward Staging Base (HSAFSB) (Concept) Logistics Support Vessel (LSV) Landing Craft, Tank, Air Cushion (LCTAC) (Concept) Landing Craft, Utility (Replacement) LCU-R (Concept) Landing Craft, Air Cushion Heavy (HLCAC) (Concept) Combat Logistics Vessel (CLV) (Concept)

QUESTIONS?