Systems Engineering Analysis
Littoral Undersea Warfare in 2025
1
SEA-8 Tasking
2
Bottom Line Up Front
 Systems engineering principles
 Insights and conclusions:





1) No perfect system
2) Reaction time
3) Persistent systems
4) Kill-Chain Timeline (KCT) tradeoffs
5) Undersea Joint Engagement Zones (UJEZ)
 Results qualified and quantified during brief
3
Systems Engineering
Design Process
Design &
Analysis
Alternatives
Generation
Modeling &
Analysis
Problem
Definition
Decision
Making
Needs
Analysis
Alternative
Scoring
Objectives
Analysis
Decision
Implementation
Planning for
Action
Execution
Assessment &
Control
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
4
Conclusions
SEA-8 Problem Statement
 SEA-8
.. design a system that denies enemy
undersea forces (submarine and UUV)
effective employment against friendly
forces within the littorals during the
2025 timeframe.
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
5
Conclusions
Problem Definition Phase
 Needs Analysis
 Primitive Need
 Stakeholder
Acknowledgements
 System Decomposition
 Input-Output Modeling
 Functional Analysis
 Requirements Generation
 Effective Need
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Problem
Definition
Needs
Analysis
Objectives
Analysis
Modeling
Analysis
6
Conclusions
Stakeholder
Acknowledgements
NUWC
UW, APL
BOEING
NPS
R&A
LLNL
NAVSEA
FASWC
NSCT NSWG
SPAWAR
COMSUBDEVRON 12
WHOI
GENERAL DYNAMICS
NUWC
FOSTER MILLER
NORTHRUP
STRATCOM
GRUMMAN
ONR
PEO SHIPS
BOEING
COMSUBLANT
PEO IWS
SWDG
PEO LMW
N77
SPAWAR
NSWC
PACFLT
COMSUBPAC
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
7
Conclusions
Littoral Defined
Littorals:
Defined as waters within 100nm of
any oceanic shoreline.
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
8
Conclusions
ASW Timeline 3/10/30
72hrs
10 Days
30 Days
Seize the
Initiative
Denial
sustained for
follow-on
actions
Begin ASW
Operations
1
2
3
4
Needs Analysis
5
6
7
8
9
Obj Analysis
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
9
Conclusions
Littoral ASW Points
 Littoral ASW Threat





Needs Analysis
Air Independent Propulsion Submarines
Fuel Cell Technology Submarines
Nuclear Powered Submarines
Diesel Powered Submarines
Unmanned Undersea Vehicles
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
10
Conclusions
Objectives Analysis Phase
 Objectives Analysis




Functional Objectives
Measures of Effectiveness
Measures of Performance
Performance Goals
Problem
Definition
Needs
Analysis
Objectives
Analysis
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
11
Conclusions
Scenario Building
Coastal
Choke Point Passage
Defense of Island Nation
TRANSIT
MAIN LAND
MAIN LAND
MAIN LAND
TRANSIT
TRANSIT
MAIN LAND
TRANSIT
Needs Analysis
ISLAND
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
12
Conclusions
Scenario: Theater Logistics
Diego
Garcia
Guam
Pearl
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
13
Conclusions
Specific Geographic
Littoral ASW Scenario
 Used for
geographical
scenario
planning and
simulation
 Bass Strait water space
between
Australia and
Tasmania
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
14
Conclusions
Littoral ASW Scenario:
Area of Responsibility (AOR)
 Defense of island
nation
 Air and maritime
superiority not
established
 3 enemy port
facilities
 2 enemy AIP
submarines in each
 2 enemy AIP
submarines
unlocated
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
15
Conclusions
Systems Engineering Analysis
Littoral Undersea Warfare in 2025
16
SEA-8 Defined Alternatives
 Littoral Action Group (LAG)
 DD(X), LCS, SSN, MH-60
 Total Ship Systems Engineering (TSSE) –
Sea TENTACLE
 Host ship, UUV, USV, UAV, Stationary Bottom Sensors
 Tripwire
 UUV, Rapidly Deployable Stationary Bottom Sensors
 War of Machines
 UUV, Recharging Stations
 Floating Sensors
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
17
Conclusions
Littoral Action Group
Assets and Timeline




2 SSNs
1 DD(X)
3 LCS’s
5 MH-60Rs
 2 on DD(X)
 1 per LCS
5th Day
SSNs
6th Day
DD(X)
LCS’s
MH-60Rs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
18
Conclusions
TSSE Sea TENTACLE
Assets and Timeline
 3 TSSE Sea TENTACLE
Ships




144 Large UUVs
144 UUV Sleds
864 Light Weight UUVs
2304 Man-Portable
Deployed Bottom Sensors
6th Day
3 TSSE Ships
10th Day
Sea
TENTACLE
Deployment
Complete
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
19
Conclusions
Tripwire
Assets and Timeline
 Stationary Bottom Netted Sensors
 50 deployed outside each of the 3 harbors
 Sustainable through 30-day scenario
 UUV
 5 deployed outside each of the 3 harbors
 80 hr battery duration
24th Hour
36th Hour
150 Bottom
Sensors
15 UUV’s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
20
Conclusions
War of Machines
Assets and Timeline
 80 Heavy Weight Vehicles (HWV) UUVs
 71 HWV UUVs air-deployed
 3 HWV UUVs outside each Red Harbors
 12 Recharging stations
8 – 26 Hours
6th Day
80 UUV’s
Recharging
Stations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
21
Conclusions
Floating Sensors
Operational View 1 (OV-1)
Assets
(100x200 NM box)
17,000 Floating
Sensors, reseeded
daily for 30 days
were required
Deployment
1,800 B-52 sorties
or
3,000 B-2 sorties
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
22
Conclusions
High-level Model
Development
Reliability
discrete event
simulation models
Logistics
analytical
Monthly Mean Sound Speed Profiles fomodels
r 40 00S 146 06E
0
Summer
nteres for 40 00S 146 06E
-10 Monthly Mean Sound Speed WiProfil
0
-40
-50
-50
-60
C4ISR
analytical
models
Obj Analysis
-60
-70
-70
0.8
Probability
0.7
Probability
1
0.6
Tripwire
Probability of Detection
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.6
0
0
100
200
300
0.5
400
500
600
700
Db
Time Steps (Hrs)
0.4
0.3
OUTPUT
DATA
0.2
80
0.1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Time Steps (Hrs)
100
150(46)-
120
140
Monthly Mean Sound Speed Profiles for 40 00S 146 06E
200(61)-
0
Sensors
physics based
models5
10 12 14
10
250(76)-80
6 8
1500 1502 1504 1506 1508 1510 1512 1514 1516 1518
SoundSound
Speed
(m/s + 1500)
Speed (m/s)
-80
1500 1502 1504 1506 1508 1510 1512 1514 1516 1518
Sound SpeedModeling
(m/s)
Alt Generation
Summer
nteres for 40 00S 146 06E
-10 Monthly Mean Sound Speed WiProfil
0
0(0)-
Summer
Winter
-10
-20
50(15)-
-20
-30
Depth
(m) (m)
Depth
War of
Machines
-40
1
0.9
Db
-30
-40
-40
-50
-50
-60
-60
Depth in ft (m)
TSSE
Alternative
Depth in ft (m)
Tripwire
Alternative
Tripwire
Probability of Detection
OVERALL SYSTEM
50(15)PERFORMANCE
-20
-30
High-level
-30
100(30)Entity
Based Model
Depth
(m) (m)
Depth
Alternative
Needs Analysis
Summer
Winter
-10
-20
Alternative
LAG
0(0)-
80
100(30)-
100
150(46)-
120
140
200(61)-
-70
-70
250(76)-80
6 8 10 12 14
5
1500 1502 1504 1506 1508 1510 1512 1514 1516 1518
SoundSound
Speed
(m/s + 1500)
Speed (m/s)
-80
15
1500 1502 1504 1506 1508 1510 1512 1514 1516 1518
Sound Speed (m/s)
10
15
Range in kYds
20
20
25
30
25
30
Range in kYds
Analysis
23
Conclusions
Alternatives’
Strengths/Weaknesses
Average
Probability ofDetect
Detection of any
Red
Submarine
Time to
INITIAL
of
Red
Submarines
by Blue Assets per Time Step
1.01
0.9
LAG
Tripwire
and and
Sea TENTACLE
WOM
do
achieve
not achieve
80% 80%
Pd byPd until
more
130 hours
than 230 hours
0.7
0.60.6
Probability
Probability
0.80.8
0.5
War of Machines
0.40.4
Tripwire
Warning-time sensitive
performance
0.3
0.20.2
Littoral Action Group
Sea TENTACLE
0.1
00
00
50
100
100
150
200
200
250
300
300
350
400
400
450
500
500
550
600
600
650
700
700
Time Steps (Hrs)
War of Machines Alternative
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Time (hours)
LAG Alternative
Tripwire Alternative
Alt Generation
Modeling
TSSE Alternative
Analysis
24
Conclusions
Alternatives’
Strengths/Weaknesses
Probability
of Detection
of All Red Submarines
by Blue
Assets
Time
to Detect
EACH
of
8
Red
Submarines
per Time Step
Quick rise once
1.01
Blue starts
detecting Red
0.9
Never reaches
100%
0.7
0.60.6
Probability
Probability
0.80.8
0.5
0.40.4
War of Machines
0.3
Tripwire
0.20.2
Littoral Action Group
0.1
00
00
Sea TENTACLE
50
100
100
150
200
200
250
300
300
350
400
400
450
500
500
550
600
600
650
700
700
Time Steps (Hrs)
War of Machines Alternative
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Time (hours)
LAG Alternative
Tripwire Alternative
Alt Generation
Modeling
TSSE Alternative
Analysis
25
Conclusions
Tracking Ability
Snapshot
Probability
of Blue
Blue
Assets
Ability
Snapshotof
ofthe
the
Probability of
Assets
Ability
to to Track
Sensitivity
to
Required
Continuous
Track
any
one
by 10
10Days
DaysininTime
TimeSteps
Steps
Track
any
oneRed
RedSubmarine
Submarine by
Time
within
First
10
Days
1.0Probability Ability to Track
Probability of Alternative's
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
Probability
0.80.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.60.60
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.40.40
0.40
War of Machines
0.30
0.30
0.20.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0-
Tripwire is also
insensitive, but
lacks recharge
capability
War of Machines is
insensitive to required
track time due to
invasive mobile
platforms
Sea
TENTACLE is
Tripwire
sensitive to required track
Littoral Action Group
time due to its immobile
Sea TENTACLE
sensors
0.00
0.00
66
Needs Analysis
LAG shows a high
probability of lost
track
due
to the
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
54
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
54
standoff ranges of
Tracking
Time
Required
6 Minute
Intervals
Required 1:Continuous
Track
Time4: LAG
(minutes)
manned platforms
Tripwire
2: TSSE 4: LAG
3: War of Machines
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
26
Conclusions
Systems Engineering Analysis
Littoral Undersea Warfare in 2025
27
ASW Results, Insights and
Recommendations




NO PERFECT SYSTEM
Scenario variables were the key factors
Each alternative studied had weaknesses
Differences between alternatives were
significant
“Best” solution might be a tailored mix
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
28
Conclusions
ASW Results, Insights and
Recommendations
REACTION TIME
 Enemy submarines are vulnerable in restricted
waterways
 Enemy timelines are unpredictable
 Quick reaction systems hedge uncertainty
 Strategic air least sensitive to enemy initiative
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
29
Conclusions
ASW Results, Insights and
Recommendations
PRESENCE
 Pervasive persistence is the goal
 Traditional methods
 Non-traditional methods
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
30
Conclusions
ASW Results, Insights and
Recommendations
KILL-CHAIN TIMELINE (KCT)
TRADEOFFS
 Traditional methods require short KCTs
 Non-traditional methods afford longer KCTs
 Standoff weapons systems more easily used if
longer KCT are allowed
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
31
Conclusions
ASW Results, Insights and
Recommendations
UNDERSEA JOINT ENGAGEMENT ZONE
(UJEZ)
 Cooperative mix of assets unlocks future ASW
force capabilities
 Future ASW forces may require the
establishment of the UJEZ
 Low false positive and low fratricide rates are
required
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
32
Conclusions
ASW Results, Insights and
Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
 Research
 Follow on study
 Development




Needs Analysis
UUVs
Rapidly deployable sensing grids
Common undersea picture
Autonomous recharge/replenishment systems
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
33
Conclusions
ASW Results, Insights and
Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
 Tactics
 Strategic air
 JSOW like systems to deliver ASW assets
 Doctrine
 Evolution from waterspace management and
PMI to UJEZ
Needs Analysis
Obj Analysis
Alt Generation
Modeling
Analysis
34
Conclusions
Systems Engineering Analysis
Littoral Undersea Warfare in 2025
35