1. 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)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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)

11. QUESTIONS?