1. ASNE Symposium Date April 16, 2008 Perry D. Haymon Technical Director Northrop Grumman Corporation Topside Design/Integration from the Shipyard Point of View

2. 2 Integrated Topside - Definition A multi-disciplined approach for designing or laying out the external configuration of a ship.

3. 3 Materials Naval Architecture Aviation Signatures Survivability HM&E C4I Combat Systems EM Issues Topside Design -Composites -RAM/RAS -EO/IR -Windows -Boats/Anchors -RAS/FAS -Lights -Vents -Nets -Helo Control Systems -RAST -TACAN -GSI -IFF -Air Wake -Structures -Hull Form/ Shaping -Arrangements -Sensors -Launchers -Guns -Countermeasures -Shock -Damage Control -Recoverability -Firefighting -HF -NAV -SATCOM -VHF/UHF -RCS -Acoustic -Visual -IR -EMC -EMI -Blockage Safety A Multi-Disciplined Approach Integrated NAVSEA’s Definition Topside Design Incorporates Many Disciplines -Safety Nets -Life Lines/Stanchions -RADHAZ -Pointing/Firing Cut Outs

4. 4 Integrated Topside - Traditional view

5. 5 Integrated Topside – Antenna Challenge! Performance (bandwidth, multiple simultaneous links, etc.) Topside weight (ship stability) Topside antenna blockage (“clutter”) Mutual interference (EMI) Signature (RCS, IR) Maintenance/Manning Total Operational Costs Increasing threat

6. What are our concerns?

7. 7 First – Design Requirements Loading –Marine Environments Seaway Loading –Wave Slap/Green-Water Loading, Sea Conditions, Ship Motion/Accelerations Salt Fog/Salt Spray, Corrosion –Vibration Shipboard Vibration Blade Rate –Shock UNDEX – Direct Mounted Equipment HM&E –Weight, Power and Cooling –Maintenance Life Cycle Material Selection

8. 8 Integrated Topside - Structural Challenge! Systems must operate where a Navy ship operates.

9. 9 Second – Physical Integration Arrangements –Foot Print vs. Surface Area Attachment Methods –Foundations vs. Perimeter attachments –Internal Structural supports Transitions

10. 10 Third – Can we build/integrate it? Requirements development and design MUST incorporate shipyard producibility aspects –Environment –Production Capabilities –Tolerances –Craft Skill Level

11. 11 Fourth – Unfamiliar/Uncomfortable The Risk – Input from areas we do not understand –Real/Perceived $1

12. What do we need to know?

13. 13 Everything Stove pipes limits success –Stove pipes produce great products but integration piece is lacking Every Discipline must be actively involved in the designs –Equipment Manufacturers –System Integrators –Software Developers –Physical Integrator

14. What do we need to do?

15. 15 Leave our comfort Zone Learn to communicate across disciplines –Understand each others pain –Have open and honest discussion concerning compromise Get involved early in sub-system designs –It easier to modify designs early in the process to support integration Understand stove pipes will not work –Stove pipe organizations are not the problem – communication is the problem –Need to learn to work across existing stovepipes

16. 16 A Stove Pipe Success

17. 17 Summary Everyone needs to feel pain Compromise can and will work Communicate

18. 18