Carderock Division’s
Innovation Center – Overview
and a Case Study
Presentation to
SI4000 Summer AY2007
Systems Engineering Colloquium
16 August 2007
Mr. Daniel Dozier
Director of the Innovation Center
1
Outline
• The Innovation Center
– Innovation Center Process
– Process Elements
– Project Selection Criteria
– Team Member Selection Criteria
– Project Record
• One Case Study
• Conclusion
2
NAVSEA Warfare Centers
Warfare Center Headquarters
Washington Navy Yard, DC
Keyport, WA
Newport, RI
Carderock, MD
Indian Head, MD
Dahlgren, VA
Approx. 20,500 Employees
Port Hueneme, CA
Corona, CA
Panama City, FL
Crane, IN
3
Carderock Division
Southeast Alaska
Acoustic Measurement Facility
(SEAFAC)
Ketchikan, AK
Fox Island
Laboratory and
Bremerton, WA
Acoustic Research Detachment
Bayview, ID
3,188 Employees
$1.2B Organization
64% S&E’s
36% Other
Naval Ship Systems
Engineering Station
Philadelphia, PA
Carderock Division
Headquarters
West Bethesda, MD
Special Trials Facility
Patuxent River, MD
Combatant Craft
Division
Norfolk, VA
Acoustic Trials
Detachment
USNS Hayes
Cape Canaveral, FL
Memphis Detachment
Large Cavitation
Channel
Memphis, TN
South Florida
Testing Facility
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
4
Alignment to the Enterprises
Carderock Division
Requirements
NAVSURFOR
NAVSUBFOR
NAVAIRFOR
NETWARCOM
NECC
Doing what industry:
• Won’t do (profitability, liability)
• Shouldn’t do (technical authority,
certification)
• Can’t do (specialized facilities)
Providing
ENTERPRISES
Providers
NAVAIR, NAVSEA,
NAVSUP, SPAWAR
PEOs
Enablers
OPNAV N7/N4/
BUPERs
• Technical Authority/ Technical Authority
Support
• Advice to Smart Buyer
• Solutions to Complex Engineering
Problems
• Advance the Knowledge Base
Providers to the Enterprise Construct
5
Carderock Core Equities
• Ship Integration and Design
• Hull Forms and Propulsors
• Machinery Systems and Components
• Structures and Materials
• Environmental Quality Systems
• Vulnerability and Survivability Systems
• Signatures, Silencing Systems, & Susceptibility
Core Equities within Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
6
The Innovation
Center Defined
• “Innovation” = Creativity + Implementation
• Carderock Division’s Innovation Center
Charter:
“Provide a mechanism to have 3-to-6member, full-time, multi-disciplined,
dedicated teams investigate high risk/high
payoff solutions to Navy engineering and
R&D challenges or problems and perform
accelerated exploration of new ideas”
7
Innovation Center
Process Elements
1. Proposals solicited
2. Project selected
3. Team stood up
4. “Form/Storm/Norm/Perform” Phases
5. “Diverge/converge”/productive work
6. Peer Reviews
7. Final presentations
8. Report preparation
9. Team Member Re-Entry
8
Project Selection
Criteria
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
New idea - project or process-oriented
“High risk/high payoff” (odds of success no more than 50%)
Not otherwise being pursued
Requires cross-functional expertise/teaming
At least one “interested customer” or “Champion” willing to
consider continuing development after project completion
Nominally doable in 6 months
Majority of expertise required on team resident within NAVSEACarderock
Directorate-level management support to commit personnel for
project duration
Project directly supports Navy objectives
9
Criteria for Team
Member Selection
•
•
•
•
Knowledgeable and/or strongly interested
Demonstrated or potential capability to work in
a team environment with members from other
organizations
Trusted & empowered by senior management
to fairly represent organization
Primary job responsibility for 6-months’
duration of Team (Full-time, if possible)
10
Innovation Center
18 year history w/ follow-on Efforts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Unmanned Underwater Vehicle [‘89]
Semi-Submerged Surface Ship [’89]
Tipjet Vertical Launch & Recovery Sensor Platform
[‘89]
Quiet Surface Ship Propulsor/Hull Concepts [’90]
Automated Ship Hull Husbandry Vehicle [‘91]
Advanced Submarine Stern Cluster [’92]
Advanced Submarine Sail Cluster [’92]
21st Century Destroyer Technology Drivers [‘92]
System Technology Assessment Resource [‘93]
Autonomic Ship [‘93]
Maritime Pre-positioning & Sustainment Ship System
[’94]
Dual Use and Commercialization of Technologies
Small Combatant [’95]
Littoral Warfare Fire Support Ship & Reduced Manning
[’95]
Concurrent Engineering of Layered Systems [’96]
Leading Edge Advanced Prototyping for Ships [’96]
17. Integrated Hull & Deck Topside Design
(DeckOps 2020) [’97]
18. Low Signature Options for Future Submarines
(CLASSIFIED) [’98]
19. Low Maintenance Surface Ships [’98]
20. Carrier Islands [’99]
21. Mobile Forward Expeditionary Operating
Base/Craft [’00]
22. Unmanned Surface Vehicle [’01]
23. High Speed Sealift [’02]
24. Advanced Logistics Delivery System [’02]
25. Surface Combatant Optimized for Unmanned
Vehicle Operations [’03]
26. Cascading Payloads for Littoral Warfare –A
Submerged Focus [’03]
27. Unmanned Naval Surface Combatant [’04]
28. Automated Maintenance Management & Asset
Readiness System [’04]
29. Sea Base Transfer of Personnel & Cargo [’05]
30. Unmanned Vehicles Sentry System [‘05]
11
31. Life Cycle Cost Reduction for Surface Ships
[‘06]
Innovation Center
Current Follow-on Efforts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Unmanned Underwater Vehicle [‘89]
17.
Semi-Submerged Surface Ship [’89]
18.
Tipjet Vertical Launch & Recovery Sensor Platform
[‘89]
19.
Quiet Surface Ship Propulsor/Hull Concepts [’90]
20.
Automated Ship Hull Husbandry Vehicle [‘91]
21.
Advanced Submarine Stern Cluster [’92]
Advanced Submarine Sail Cluster [’92]
22.
21st Century Destroyer Technology Drivers [‘92]
23.
System Technology Assessment Resource [‘93]
24.
Autonomic Ship [‘93]
Maritime Pre-positioning & Sustainment Ship System 25.
[’94]
26.
Dual Use and Commercialization of Technologies
Small Combatant [’95]
Littoral Warfare Fire Support Ship & Reduced Manning 27.
28.
[’95]
Concurrent Engineering of Layered Systems [’96]
Leading Edge Advanced Prototyping for Ships [’96] 29.
30.
Navy Laboratory Collaboration
31.
Integrated Hull & Deck Topside Design
(DeckOps 2020) [’97]
Low Signature Options for Future Submarines
(CLASSIFIED) [’98]
Low Maintenance Surface Ships [’98]
Carrier Islands [’99]
Mobile Forward Expeditionary Operating
Base/Craft [’00]
Unmanned Surface Vehicle [’01]
High Speed Sealift [’02]
Advanced Logistics Delivery System [’02]
Surface Combatant Optimized for Unmanned
Vehicle Operations [’03]
Cascading Payloads for Littoral Warfare –A
Submerged Focus [’03]
Unmanned Naval Surface Combatant [’04]
Automated Maintenance Management & Asset
Readiness System [’04]
Sea Base Transfer of Personnel & Cargo [’05]
Unmanned Vehicles Sentry System [‘05]
12
Life Cycle Cost Reduction for Surface Ships
[‘06]
Unmanned Vehicles Sentry
System for Assets at Sea
•
•
Explore a system of unmanned
systems to protect a SeaBase
Follow-on efforts: established a
consortium of government
laboratories to further explore a
scalable UV Sentry system to protect
assets at sea
– Continuing to socialize for external
funding
13
Case Study
Cascading Payloads for Littoral Warfare – A
Submerged Focus
14
Innovation Center
Project KAPPA
Cascading Payloads for Littoral Warfare – A Submerged Focus
Final Brief
11 December 2003
Surface Warfare Center Division
Littoral Gap Filler
l
Problem: “Littoral Gap”
– Proliferation of low-cost means of access denial raises
cost of U.S. power projection
– Missions across the spectrum of engagement in
littoral environments require flexible payloads
l
Why KAPPA? KAPPA is a “littoral gap” filler
–
–
–
–
–
–
12 / 11 / 2003
Flexible payload volume with flexible ocean interface
More maneuverable
Stealthy
Higher risk tolerance = Can afford occasional exposure
Increase stand-off for mother ship
Frees mother ship for other missions
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
6
Cascading Payloads
Mother Ship
(e.g., SSN, surface ship)
KAPPA Craft
“Littoral Gap”
Payloads (e.g., UUVs, UAVs, ROVs, etc.)
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
7
Team Composition
Mentors
Consultants
Core: Full-time
Core
Team
Collaboration: 20-50% Time
Consultants: Focused input
Mentors: Content and
Process Direction
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
8
Project Schedule
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
Phase 1
Requirements Definition
Peer Review 1
Phase 2
Concepts Generation
And Development
Peer Review 2
Phase 3
Concepts and Requirements
Refinement
Final Brief
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
9
Team Charter
Develop design concepts for a
submersible craft functioning as
part of a “cascading payloads”
chain for improved littoral warfare
operations.
- Revised July 9, 2003
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
10
Phase 1 Summary
Requirements Definition
l
Identified primary mission areas
l
Developed 5 mission scenarios in primary mission areas
– ISRT 1 – Airborne littoral ISRT collection
– ISRT 2 – Submerged littoral ISRT collection
– ISRT 3 – Intelligence on vessel movements
– Littoral ASW/ASuW 1
– MIW 1 – Mine reconnaissance
l
Developed initial craft requirements
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
11
Flight 0 Craft Requirements
Initial
Requirement
Threshold
Objective
Burst Speed
VA Max + 4 knots
VA Max + 9 knots
Cruise Speed
12.5 knots
16 knots
Depth
300 ft
VA Max Operating Depth
Endurance
12 days
30 days
Range
Classified
Classified
Ship’s Crew
11
7
Payload Specialists Up to 6
Up to 6
4500 ft3
4500 ft3
Payload Volume
Driving requirements to begin sizing vehicle
Not a comprehensive requirements list!
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
12
Craft Size Target
Type 212
1830 tons
ASDS
Kilo
STURGEON
VIRGINIA
3360 tons
4800 tons
7800 tons
55 tons
0
1000
2000
NR-1
400 tons
3000
4000
5000
Improved
TUPI
SSGN
2425 tons
18750 tons
LOS
ANGELES
12 / 11 / 2003
SCORPENE
COLLINS
1590 tons
3350 tons
6900 tons
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
13
Phase 2 Summary
Concepts Generation & Development
l
Developed concepts to “50% solution”
– Meet all threshold requirements
– Equal volume for Command & Control (C&C),
–
–
–
–
l
Payload Interface Module (PIM)
Composite non-pressure hull
No permanent sail
PEM Fuel Cell + Lithium Ion battery
Unmanned Engine Room (ER)
Assessed relative merits of concepts
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
15
Phase 2 Results
Shape Comparison
Shape 4A
Shape 2B
Superior
Shape 1
Unacceptable Marginal Equal
Shape 1
Ocean Interface
Maneuvering
Sensor Performance
Shape 2B
Resistance
Acoustic Signature
Shock Survivability
Propulsion Redundancy
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
Shape 4A
16
Phase 3
Concepts & Requirement Refinement
l Goals
– Review/Revise mission scenarios
– Review/Revise craft requirements
– Select and balance final design option(s) to
“75% Solution”
– Develop CONOPS
– Identify follow-on work & research
– Review/Incorporate feedback from Peer Review 2
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
18
Flight 0 Craft Requirements
Revised
Requirement
Threshold
Objective
Burst Speed
25 knots
VA Max + 4 knots
Cruise Speed
10 knots (was 12.5)
16 knots
Depth
300 ft
VA Max Operating Depth
Endurance
12 days
30 days
Range
Classified
Classified
Ship’s Crew
11
7
Payload Specialists Up to 4 (was 6)
Payload Volume
4500 ft3
Up to 4 (was 6)
9000 ft3 (was 4500 ft3)
Driving requirements for concept refinement.
Not a comprehensive requirements list!
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
20
Phase 3
Concepts Refinement
l Shape
1 and 4A
– Freeze at “50% Solution”
– Evaluate feasibility of “Multi-modal” operation
(Shape 4A only)
l Shape
2B
– Develop to “75% Solution”
– Basis for CONOPS
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
21
Phase 3
Concepts Refinement
l The
“75% Solution”
– External arrangements
– Internal arrangements
– Maneuvering scheme to meet goals
– Balanced design that meets margin goals
– Equilibrium polygon
– CFD validation of resistance estimates
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
22
KAPPA 2C Characteristics
l
l
l
l
l
l
Submerged Displacement: 1850 LT
Length: 136 ft
Beam: 46 ft
Breadth: 81 ft
Depth: 23 ft
Draft: 17.5 ft (fwd)
19.7 ft (aft)
Burst speed: >25 kts
Cruise speed: >10 kts
180
160
l
VARIABLE BALLAST (LT)
l
L1-M O D
140
120
AftTrim
L1 - MOD2
100
L1 -MOD3
80
60
HF1-64.3
HA- 64.3
40
COND-M
FWD Trim
HF1- 63.1
20
HA- 63.1
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
-2,500
-2,000
-1,500
-1,000
MOMENT (FT -LTON)
-500
0
1,000
12 / 11 / 2003
500
H1 -63.1
0
24
KAPPA 2C Characteristics
l
Payload volume
– Ext. modular: 8960 ft 3
– Ext. organic: 1000 ft3
l
Payload Fraction: >15% ∆
l
Endurance: >12 days
l
Maximum operating depth: 300 ft
l
Power plant:
l
Propulsion: Two 5000 Hp rim-driven pods
12 / 11 / 2003
807 kW PEM fuel cell
12.7 MWh lithium batteries
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
25
KAPPA 2C Size
KAPPA 2C
1850 tons
ASDS
SCORPENE
55 tons
1590 tons
0
1000
NR-1
400 tons
Type 212
1830 tons
12 / 11 / 2003
2000
Kilo
STURGEON
VIRGINIA
3360 tons
4800 tons
7800 tons
3000
4000
5000
Improved
TUPI
SSGN
2425 tons
18750 tons
COLLINS
LOS ANGELES
3350 tons
6900 tons
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
26
Shape 2C
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
28
Shape 2C
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
30
Shape 2C – NPH Construction
Steel collar supports are welded onto the two pressure hulls.
The CFRP NPH structure is then attached directly to the steel collar supports.
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
32
Shape 2C – Mission Payload
Aft PIM
Forward PIM
Flexible ocean interface
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
33
Shape 2C – Organic Payload
Echo Sounder
ESM/Visual Masts
Virtual Periscope
Flank Array
Underwater Comms
Distress Beacon
External Torpedo Tubes (4)
Integrated Bow Array
Passive Ranging Sonar
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
34
Shape 2C – Organic Payload
Cavitation and Self-Noise Monitoring
AIM-9X (6)
External Torpedo Tubes (4)
Countermeasures (8)
Bottom View
12 / 11 / 2003
Side Scan Sonar
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
35
Shape 2C – PH Arrangement
Command & Control Space
Forward Port
Machinery Space
LPT
LOT
Aft Starboard
Machinery Space
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
Forward Starboard
Machinery Space
38
Shape 2C – Maneuvering
X-Stern
Vertical Thrusters
Podded Propulsor
(Rotate 360°)
Horizontal Thruster
Aileron
Horizontal Thruster
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
Vertical Thrusters
40
Shape 2C: Internal Arrangements
Command & Control Space
CO
SCBA
Multi-Function Displays
Electronics Cabinets
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
43
CONOPS
l
Operations
– CONUS ⇒ THEATER
– THEATER ⇒ Operating Area
– Operations
l
Logistics & Maintenance
– Maintenance and Operation Cycle
– Voyage Repairs
l
Training & Readiness & Manning
– KAPPA Crew Personnel
– KAPPA Crew Training & Readiness
l
Payload: Specialists, Maintenance, Training
Joint Task Force Commander
options for different stages of operational cycle!
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
48
CONUS ⇒ THEATER
l
l
Assumptions
Criteria
– 2012 IOC
– Technical Feasibility
– Stealth is not highest
– Technology Readiness
priority
– Cost (Qualitative)
– Operational Acceptability
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
49
CONUS ⇒ THEATER Options
Timing
Remarks
lNumber
of craft remain
forward stationed
1 Pre-positioned
lNumber
of craft forward
deploy on regular schedule
2 Forward deployed
lCraft
3 Surge KAPPAs
deploy in response to
crisis
Transport
lBest
1 Commercial Heavy Lift Ship
match with prepositioned.
lNo development or
acquisition costs
lBest
2 Submerged Self-deployed with support
12 / 11 / 2003
match with forward
deployed, surge
lOptions for support include
surface combatant, surface
auxiliary, SSGN, SSN
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
50
THEATER ⇒ Operating Area
l
l
Assumptions
Criteria
– 2012 IOC
– Technical Feasibility
– Increased stealth
– Technology Readiness
posture
– Cost (qualitative)
– Operational Acceptability
l
l
12 / 11 / 2003
Stealth
Must arrive ready for
operation
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
52
Submerged Self-deployed With
Support Options
# Option
Pros
Cons
SSN/SSGN
1 power tether
l Stealth
l EM
l Low
impact weight/volume
l Use no Diesel/LOX in transit
Signatures
l Mother-ship EFPH impact
l Mother-ship operational impact
Surface ship tow or
tether
l Existing
infrastructure
l Use no Diesel/LOX in transit
l Mother-ship
External energy source
3 or consumables source
l Maintain
internal stores of
consumables for operations
l Requires no support during transit
l Stealth
l Stealth
l Mother-ship
2
SSN/SSGN tow
4
12 / 11 / 2003
l Low
impact weight/volume
l Use no Diesel/LOX in transit
operational impact
l Mother-ship fuel consumption
l Mother-ship power generation capability
l Stealth
l Logistics
EFPH impact
l Mother-ship operational impact
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
53
Operation Stages
Initial load-out:
i.
ii.
iii.
Oxidizer: 2 missions + 40% reserve
Fuel: 1 mission + 40% reserve
Food: 1 mission + 50% reserve
Payload: 2 missions
Transit from mother-ship
Execute mission
Transit to mother-ship
Execute mission
Transit to/from mother-ship
Time
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
55
Replenishment
#
Option
Fuel
Food
1
SSGN
√
√
2
Surface ship
√
√
3
Port
4
Air-drop
5
Sea-Base
6
Ocean floor
convenience
store
12 / 11 / 2003
√
√
Oxidizer
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Payload
Pros
Cons
lVisual stealth
lLow impact
weight/volume
lSSGN operational impact
lExisting infrastructure
lTechnology development
lStealth
lExisting infrastructure
lNot covert
lForce protection
lTransit distance
√
lExisting infrastructure
lFast
lStealth
√
lDoD, Navy priority
lTechnology development
lCost
lStealthy
lDoes not require other
assets
lTechnology development
– Locating
– Attitude
– Defense
lKAPPA unique infrastructure
√
√
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
56
PIM Loading Tugs
Payload Module
Thrusters provide all 6 degrees
of motion control, including
lateral translation
Thrusters
Control/Battery Box
Nose shaped to self
align on loading
Forward PIM Tug
Aft PIM Tug
12 / 11 / 2003
Bouyancy control
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
59
PIM Loading Tugs
Approach
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
60
Notional Ocean Floor
Convenience Store
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
64
Maintenance & Operation Cycle
l Ten
year maintenance and operation cycle.
Transit to
Preposition Site
Operation and Voyage
Maintenance Period
2 mo
50 mo
2 mo 6 mo
Transit to
CONUS
Depot Maintenance
Period
12 mo
12 / 11 / 2003
Selected Restricted
Availability
2 mo
44 mo
2 mo
Transit to
CONUS
Operation and Voyage
Maintenance Period
Transit to
Preposition Site
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
65
Maintenance & Operation Cycle
l
Notional cycle of operations and subsequent
voyage repair:
Perform
Mission
l
Voyage Repair/
Crew Refresh
Perform
Mission
10 days
8 days ½ day 8 days
10 days
THEATER
⇒ OPAREA
Replenish
OPAREA
⇒ THEATER
7 days
The actual number of operations would vary with
the specific missions and operating areas
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
66
Watchstanding
l
l
Commanding Officer
Pilot:
– 3 section rotation
8 hour watches
– Demanding watch-station in congested littorals
l
Organic Payload Operator:
– 3 section rotation
8 hour watches
– Demanding watch-station in congested littorals
l
Mechanical & Electrical Engineers:
– 2 section rotation
8 hour watches
– Monitor plant status (No immediate access to plant)
– Assist Organic Payload Operator
Developed with a zero-based manning approach!
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
68
Watchstander Qualifications
l
Commanding Officer:
– Submariner (1120 Designator, Post-Department Head) Paygrade: O-4
l
Pilot:
– Source Ratings: Any Submariner
– Qualified VIRGINIA Pilot or Copilot
l
Organic Payload Operator:
– Source Rating: STS, ET or FT
l
Paygrade: E6-E8
Paygrade: E5-E6
Mechanical Engineer:
– Source Rating: MM
– Submarine Nuclear Propulsion Plant
Paygrade: E5-E6
Operator - Mechanical (NEC 3355)
l
Electrical Engineer:
– Source Rating: EM
– Submarine Nuclear Propulsion Plant
Paygrade: E5-E6
Operator – Electrical (NEC 3354)
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
69
Payload: Specialists,
Maintenance, and Training
l
Payload specialists
– Accommodations, food and work-stations for 4
– Not part of KAPPA crew
– Embark for specific missions, then debark
l
Payload module maintenance philosophy
–
–
–
–
l
Pre-positioned in theater or surged for specific tasking
“All-up rounds”
No maintenance done in theater
Shipped to CONUS for overhaul at “expiration date”
Payload training: Payload module includes
embedded onboard training device
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
74
KAPPA
Technological Feasibility
l Summary
of feasibility in technology areas
l Two take-aways:
– It is feasible
BUT
– There are technology gaps to be filled
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
75
EM Signatures
l
Design Goals
Threshold: VIRGINIA Accelerated 2 Level
(Near Field & Far Field)
Objective: VIRGINIA ORD Objective Level
(Near Field & Far Field)
Air Detection Sensors
DC Magnetic Field
(Ferromagnetic Material Source)
AC Electric & Magnetic
Fields (Power Systems &
Machinery Source)
Submarine
Signatures
12 / 11 / 2003
Uses state-of-the-art design
technologies
– Devotes sufficient design
resources to control EM
signatures
–
l
Technology Gaps:
EM fields produced by an
electric motor immersed in sea
water, its controller, and power
feeds as well as limited
mitigation design space
– Unknown weight, volume,
energy budget for control
systems
–
Environmental
Noise
Mine and Detection
Sensors
KAPPA craft can likely meet
design goals if the design:
DC/AC Electric & Magnetic Fields
(Corrosion Current Source)
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
76
Acoustic Signatures
Design Goals
Meet broadband acoustic signatures
goals, and narrowband and
transient signature requirements
at 5, 15 and 25 knots
Technology Gaps
• Meeting the noise goal will be
challenging due to rim driven
pod motor noise
• Needs R&D investments
- rim driven pod motor
- clean power quality
- low RPM
- propeller blade design
12 / 11 / 2003
Required Silencing Technologies
Apply Virginia Class noise control
process and silencing technologies
on sources and transmission paths
• auxiliary machinery noise & vibration
• flow noise
• structural-borne & fluid-borne paths
• special hull treatments
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
77
Composite Non-Pressure
Hull Structure
Feasibility
l
Precedent:
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic
(CFRP) primary hull
structures/topsides proposed for
DDX, Littoral Combat Ship, and
Composite High Speed Vessel
– All CFRP Visby class corvette
–
l
–
Technology Gaps
l
l
l
Shock performance of composite
structures
Galvanic coupling of CFRP and
metallic structures
Fabrication of doubly curved
stiffened structures
12 / 11 / 2003
Fabrication Cost:
l
High quality CFRP structures can
now be fabricated using low cost
processes (e.g., room temperature
VARTM)
Knowledge base:
–
Composite Advance Sail, DYCOS
and other programs are developing an
understanding of composite joint
failure processes
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
78
Vulnerability Assessment
Major Threats:
SSKs
Mines
Undersea Sensor System
Fixed
Mobile
Littoral Traffic
Pros:
Cons:
Multi-compartmented (4 total)
Airborne ASW defense
Low Oxygen Content Engine Room
Maneuverability
Lock Out Trunk
– 3 cycles for crew egress
Cutting Edge Technology
Multiple Pressure Hull
Smaller Diameter Pressure Hull
Engine Mounts
LOX Tanks
External Weapons
Cutting Edge Technology
Follow on study needed to get a more accurate picture of
KAPPA’s Vulnerability, Susceptibility & Recoverability
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
79
Human Systems Integration
Design goals:
l
Optimized operator efficiency and reliability
–
–
l
l
Challenging work environment for accelerated
and rewarding sailor development
Comfortable accommodations
–
–
l
l
l
l
l
Habitability spaces designed according
to Shipboard Habitability Design
Criteria Manual
Fixtures, control spaces and ergonomics
to meet or exceed applicable ASTMs &
MILSPECs
New control display technologies which
improve situational awareness,
ergonomics and allow more efficient use
of space.
Optimally manned crew through
multitasking and cross-training
12 / 11 / 2003
No hot-racking
Meets or exceeds surface-ship standards
Meet or exceed human engineering standards
–
–
KAPPA can meet design goals
Early stage incorporation of human engineering
Selective use of advanced technology
Follows HSI Program Manager’s Guide
Compliance with HSI criteria and specifications.
Enabling Technologies
l
l
Efficient GUI
Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) displays
Technology Gaps
l
l
l
25% reduction in processing footprint
Militarization of OLED technology
Alignment with future training capabilities
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
80
Organic Sensors & Weapons
Design Goals
l Effective performance in congested
littorals
l AAW Secondary War fighting Mission
Area
l Improved survivability through
improved situational awareness and
self-defense capability
Technology Gaps
l Integrated conformal array technology
development
l External weapon development
l Integration of AAW weapon
l Processor improvement sufficient for
25% reduction in cabinet
volume/weight
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA can meet design goals
l Assumed processor improvement
sufficient to allow 25% reduction in
volume/weight
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
81
Power and Propulsion
Power and propulsion goals are feasible
assuming
l
l
l
ONR /Navy shipboard fuel cell power
and energy density goals are achieved
Use of high density oxidizers onboard
manned submersibles is approved
Advanced battery development
Technology Gaps
Design goals
l
l
l
l
l
l
Enclosed atmosphere fuel cell fluids
management
Lithium battery cell health management
Automation and control for unmanned
spaces
Podded propulsor motor and power
electronics
Logistics of fuel cell oxidizer supply
12 / 11 / 2003
l
l
Capable of two 25 knot bursts of one
hour duration each
Indiscretion ratio = 0
Meet speed, range, and mission
duration requirements
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
82
Ship Integration Concerns
l
Top Concerns:
–
–
–
–
–
l
Integration of Liquid Oxygen (LOX)
Steep learning curve for fuel cell power plant
Extensive use of composite materials
Validation of CONOPS with Mother-ship
Implications of crew size & corresponding enabling automation
Concept Areas to Refine:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Adjust design to balance the concept (including polygon)
Define all systems beyond the “75% Solution” level
Refine electrical loads through entire mission profile
Add anchor system
Size and layout X-stern actuation
Validate mid-ships double hull stand-off
Shipbuilder perspective
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
83
KAPPA Life Cycle Cost Insights
Note: Comments indicate KAPPA variances
Reduced lifespan
30 yrs VA
vs. 20 KAPPA
Unknown effects
of maturing
technology
RDT&E
Procurement
O&S
44%
51%
2%
Hull
5%
Prop. Elec. C & C
11%
Larger
structural
contribution
with more
expensive
materials
12 / 11 / 2003
1%
8%
Aux.
6%
Out.
6%
Reduced
due to
mission
focus
Podded propulsors,
control system
& fuel cell system
Arm.
6%
ROH & SRA
18%
Armament
smaller but
undeveloped &
w/out logistics
Man.
17%
No
nuclear
disposal
Disposal
DOE
?%
3%
Other
16%
Oxidizer consumption
Unlike diesels
Fuel consumption
better than diesel
(small cost contributor)
Reduced Crew
146 VA vs. 11 KAPPA
No ROH & less OHs
Unknown effects of unique
maintenance plan
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
86
The Way Ahead
l
Technology development efforts to address gaps
–
–
–
–
External weapons/payload development
Enclosed atmosphere fuel cell fluids management
Liquid Oxygen (LOX) integration
Quantify maneuvering characteristics
l
–
Pod design
l
–
–
–
–
–
12 / 11 / 2003
Near-surface & in seaway
EM & acoustic signatures, power density, mounting
Composite structures shock performance
Integrated conformal array development
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
87
Conclusions
l
KAPPA Charter: Develop design concepts for a
submersible craft functioning as part of a “cascading
payloads” chain for improved littoral warfare
operations.
l
KAPPA is a “littoral gap” filler
–
–
–
–
–
–
Flexible payload volume with flexible ocean interface
More maneuverable
Stealthy
Higher risk tolerance = Can afford occasional exposure
Increase stand-off for mother ship
Frees mother ship for other missions
KAPPA and its payloads can be a significant contributor
to the submarine force for improved littoral warfare
12 / 11 / 2003
KAPPA – NSWCCD Innovation Center
89
Questions?
17