Naval Postgraduate School
December 2006
LT Jesse Black, USN
LT Scott Bailey, USN
LT Daniel Kidd, USN
LT Todd Greene, USN
LT Randy Slaff, USN
LCDR Orlando Cornejo, CHL
LT Rami Ramdat, USN
LCDR Jason Stracqualursi, USN
LT Brian Rosemark, USN
LTjg Alexandros Dendis, GRE
LT Martin Holguin, USN
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems Engineering Overview
Power Plant
Electrical Plant
Hull and Mechanical
EP
Thermal Management
Combat Systems
H&M
Manning
Cost
T
Risk Management
Building Bridges
Final Brief 06
SE
PP
BB
R
$
CS
M
Unclassified 2
Sensor Architecture
•
•
•
•
Multi-layered Ballistic Missile
Defense Sensor Systems
Wide-range of multi-spectrum
sensors to detect and track threat
missiles through all phases of their
trajectory
Space and Satellites Tracking
Surveillance Systems
Land-and sea-based early warning
and forward deployable radar
systems.
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 3
Stand-alone Configuration
•
Considerations for stand-alone configuration
using onboard ship-borne sensor systems:
– Conformable aperstructure, skin of the
ship (SOTS) radar, exploits the entire
ship’s structure as a radar aperture
– Multifunction phased array radar (MFPAR),
with dedicated Search, Track and Fire
Control functions
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 4
What is a Railgun?
•
Conventional launching method
uses mechanical and chemical
energy.
•
Railgun launching utilizes
electromagnetic force for
propelling projectile.
– Higher muzzle velocity.
– Higher kinetic energy delivered
to the target.
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 5
Railgun Theory
•
•
•
Electromagnetic force - Lorentz
force
The current flowing through the
rails sets up a magnetic field.
Results in a mutual repulsion of the
rails and the acceleration of the
projectile.
Adapted: Exploring the possibilities of a Naval Electromagnetic Railgun (38th Annual Gun and Ammunition Symposium
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 6
Railgun Advantages
• High Impact Energy
• Size / Weight / Space
• No explosives
• Extremely High Speed / Range
• Interaction of KE penetrator with
the missile / High shock
Transmission
• Adiabatic heating and ignition
causing explosion and deflagration
2.2MJ
• Scale up / down
• Less Recoil
Final Brief 06
1
2
KE  mv
2
Current Capabilities
•
Sandia National Research Laboratories
– Launcher: 6 mm
– Mass of object: 0.1 gram
– Speed: 16000 m/s / 57600 km/h / Mach 48
– Energy: 12.8KJ
•
Maxwell Laboratories
–
–
–
•
Electromagnetic Launcher - Kirkcudbright, Scotland
–
–
–
•
Speed: 2500 m/s / 9000 km/h / Mach 7.5
Range: Beyond 200 nautical miles / 370 km
Power requirement: 15 ~ 30 MJ
University of Texas – Institute of Advanced Technology
–
–
–
–
Final Brief 06
Mass of projectile: 1.6 kg
Speed: 3300 m/s / 11880 km/h / Mach 10
Energy: 9 MJ
Flight mass: 15kg
Muzzle Velocity: 2500 m/s
Range: Beyond 270 nautical miles / 500 km
Impact Velocity: 1600 m/s
Unclassified 8
Projected Capabilities
• Flight Mass : 3.5 kg
• Launch Velocity: 6 km/sec
• Guided
• Range: beyond 4400 km
12
• Firing Rate: 16 to 20 RPM
• Cost: ~ $60k per round
Adapted: Exploring the possibilities of a Naval Electromagnetic Railgun (38th Annual Gun and Ammunition Symposium)
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 9
Contract Between TSSE and SEA09
• Formalize the shareholder system expectations
• Define the preferred system architecture, including
threshold and optimal levels of performance
• Handoff between SEA-9 and TSSE-BMD
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 10
Spiral Model of the
Defense System
Life Cycle
From Kossiakoff & Sweet
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 12
Questionnaire
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 13
AoA Traceability
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 14
AoA Traceability
Example (Hullform)
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 15
Systems Engineering
(Essentials of Project & Systems Engineering Management [Eisner 97])
Customer
& User
Req’ts
Project
Plan
Functional Design
of Alternatives
Analysis
of Alternatives
Preferred System
Architecture
N
Architecture
Design
Satisfies
Req’ts?
Evaluation Criteria
Y
Subsystem design/
Subsystem System Integration
Design
Analysis
of Alternatives
Trade-off
Studies
Preferred
Sub-system designs
N
Satisfies
Req’ts?
System
Construction
Y
Subsystem
build
Final Brief 06
Sub-system
Test
Sub-system
Integration
System Test
& Evaluation
Cost effective
physical system
Unclassified 16
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems Engineering Overview
Power Plant
Electrical Plant
Hull and Mechanical
EP
Thermal Management
Combat Systems
H&M
Manning
Cost
T
Risk Management
Building Bridges
Final Brief 06
SE
PP
BB
R
$
CS
M
Unclassified 17
Power Plant AOA Recap
• Initial propulsion AOA last quarter
• Resulting winners: Molten Salt
(Liquid Fluoride) & Gas Turbine
• Main reasons: Low Manning, Low
Weight
• Other nuclear options considered
were HPW and Lead Cooled
• Required a ‘second round’
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 18
Excel Cost Analysis of Propulsion “Finalists”
• Cost of fuel increase above inflation (inflation frozen model)
• Compares projected costs of Gas Turbine and Liquid Fluoride Reactor
• All initial conditions user-adjustable via scrollbars.
• Resulted in final choice of Reactor over Gas-Turbine
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 19
What is a Liquid Fluoride (Molten Salt) Reactor?
• Liquid-core vice solid core (7LiF-BeF2-233UF4)
• Utilizes Thorium fission cycle
• High Negative Temperature coefficient
• Passively safe
• Currently being considered under GEN-IV Initiative
Final Brief 06
Thorium Fuel Cycle
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 21
Advantages
•
•
•
•
High Thermal Efficiency (700ºC-Closed Loop Gas Turbine)
Allows Online Reprocessing/Thorium Fuel Cycle
Available research from ORNL
No NOFORN Restrictions
Disadvantages
•
•
•
•
Material science research required for Naval application
Potential Tridium leakage into He
Reprocessing required for Thorium
Current Funding for GEN-IV Initiative low
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 22
NASA Assistance
•Kirk Sorensen assisted with “Sigma-1” Reactor design 14-15 Aug 06
• Member of In-Space Propulsion Technology Projects Office, NASA Marshall Space
Flight Center
• Collated data from many NASA and outside sources regarding this particular reactor
design, including:
→ Dr. Albert J. Juhasz, Brayton Systems Analysis, NASA Glenn Research
Center, Electromechanical Systems Branch
→ Dr. Per F. Peterson, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of
California Berkeley
→ Oak Ridge National Labs data regarding the Molten Salt Reactor
Experiment (MSRE)
• Author of “Energy from Thorium” weblog, http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
• Currently a Masters Student in Nuclear Engineering, University of Tennessee
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 23
2
Reactor Coupling to
Brayton-Cycle Turbine
1
3
F
Salt/Helium Heat Exchanger
D
4
6
5
7
B
Helium/SW Heat Exchanger
E
1
2
HP Heat
Exchanger
HP Turbine
3
MP Heat
Exchanger
4
MP Turbine
C
5
A
LP Heat
Exchanger
6
LP Turbine
F Regenerator 7
HP
Compressor
Final Brief 06
E
HP Heat
Exchanger
D
MP
Compressor
C
MP Heat
Exchanger
B
A LP Heat
LP
Exchanger
Compressor
Unclassified 24
Collaborations
• NASA and Ohio State to Work
on Complete Nuclear Plant
Design
• Cleveland State To Work on
Complete Secondary Plant
Design
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 25
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems Engineering Overview
Power Plant
Electrical Plant
Hull and Mechanical
EP
Thermal Management
Combat Systems
H&M
Manning
Cost
T
Risk Management
Building Bridges
Final Brief 06
SE
PP
BB
R
$
CS
M
Unclassified 26
Electric Plant
Combat Load
PULSED ALTERNATORS
FW
50MW
SHORE PWR
50MW
RG
HPM
50MW
HPM
50MW
50MW
FW
SS Load
RG
SHORE PWR
50MW
SS Load
Combat Load
2500 VDC
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 27
Outline of an Integrated
DC Power Distribution System
DC-AC
Inverter
800 vdc – 450 vac
DC-DC
Buck Converter
1500-800 vdc
2000-800
2500
Ship Service
Propulsion
TURBINE
Final Brief 06
RECTIFIED
ALTERNATOR
1500 vdc
2000
2500VDC
0-600 vdc
Buck Converter
DC - DC
Superconducting
DC
Homopolar
Motor
Unclassified 28
Range of Use
Product Range
DURESCA® and TIRESCA® for outdoor and indoor application
Nominal voltage in “kV”
245
170
50MW/2500V=20000A
20000A/5000A=4
145
123
DURESCA®
Solid- and fully insulated
busbars
72.5
52
4 cables in parallel
36
24
TIRESCA®
Solid- and
partially insulated
busbars
17.5
12
1
0
0 630
1000
800
1600
1250
2500
2000
3800
3150
5400
4600
8500
7500
Nominal current in “A”
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 29
High Power Busbars
Protection tube
DURESCA® busbars
TIRESCA® busbars
Protection tube
Protection tube - corrugated polyamide tube (UV-stable) or
aluminum or corrugated stainless steel tube for high strength
Insulation
Insulation
Vacuum dried Epoxy Resin Impregnated paper
Void free
Conductor
tube or rod
Partial discharge free (1.5 x rated voltage) down to 2pC
Ground shield
aluminum foil with copper braid (> 8 kA)
Conductor
Conductor - high conductive aluminum (or copper) rod or tube
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 30
Building Bridges
• CEM - Electric Plant Scenario
• NASA Power Systems - Fly
Wheel Design
• Northrop Grumman - Electrical
Distribution
• American Superconductor New Generator Sets
• General Atomics – Homopolar
Podded Propulsor
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 31
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems Engineering Overview
Power Plant
Electrical Plant
Hull and Mechanical
EP
Thermal Management
Combat Systems
H&M
Manning
Cost
T
Risk Management
Building Bridges
Final Brief 06
SE
PP
BB
R
$
CS
M
Unclassified 32
The HM&E Design Spiral
CAPACITIES
TRIM &
INTACT
STABILITY
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 33
Preliminary Estimates
• Based on requirements & parametric studies
Parametric
Analysis
Stakeholder
Requirements
Given Ship Specifics:
Displacement
Sustained Speed
Density (salt water)
Acceleration of gravity
15,000.0
30.0
50.0
35.0
32.2
LT
knots
ft/s
cuft/LT
ft/s^2
525,000
650
55
1.18
0.35
1.91
650
0.60
0.72
3.0
0.43
25.0
74.9
8.7
cuft
ft
Starting-point
hull particulars
Estimated Ship Characteristics:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Solutions:
Volume Displaced
Length (LWL) (initial estimate)
Displacement to Length
Speed-to-Length ratio (Taylor Quotient)
Froude Number
Volumetric Coef. (Fatness Ratio)
Length (revised estimate)
Prismatic Coefficient
Midship Section Coefficient
Beam-to-Draft Ratio
Block Coefficient
Draft
Beam
Length-to-Beam Ratio
Final Brief 06
Typical values:
40 to 100
0.4 to 2.0
0.12 to 0.60
1.0 to 7.0
ft
(from chart)
0.60 to 0.99
2.8 to 3.8
ft
ft
7.5 to 10
Unclassified 34
Lines & Body Plan
• Based on parametric values
– Displacement, draft, beam, Cb, Cp, Cx
• Constructed in Rhino
– Hydrostatics calculated with RhinoMarine
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 35
• Focused on underwater hull form matching
parametric values
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 36
First Iteration Particulars
Final Brief 06
LOA
645 ft
LWL
632 ft
Beam
79 ft
Draft
24.2 ft
Displacement
15260 tons
Cb
.437
Cx
.721
Cp
.606
Unclassified 37
Powering
• How much power is needed for propulsion?
– Speed requirement based on operations
– Resistance estimates
• How to best transmit the power into the water
– Propulsion AoA
– Propeller design
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 38
Power Requirements
50000
V
(knots)
EHP
(hp)
3.00
70.10
6.00
512.33
9.00
1300.20
12.00
2936.67
15.00
5556.96
18.00
9489.15
21.00
15173.66
24.00
23049.52
10000
27.00
32487.00
5000
30.00
45921.53
45000
Total required power
(with and without estimated appendages)
40000
-----Autopower -----PPP -----Navcad -----Average
35000
EHP= 45,900 @ 30 knots
EHP(hp)
30000
25000
20000
Good correlation
between methods
15000
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
V(knots)
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 39
Speed-Power Trends
Power Requirement Validation
Data
compiled from
Janes
Speed-Power
Trends
20.00
18.00
16.00
SHP/TON
14.00
SABR
12.00
Carriers
Cruisers
10.00
Frigates
8.00
Auxilaries
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
Froude Number
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 40
Propulsion AoA
item
weight
MHD
Water Jet
Pod
Technical
Feasibility
0.15
1
0.15
4
0.6
4
0.6
0
3
0.45
4
0.6
Podded Propulsion:
– Mature and proven
technology
– Compact
– Well suited to all electric
ship
Weight &
Volume
0.15
Efficiency
Specific
0.15
1Propulsor
0.15
3 Selected:
0.45
3
0.45
Reliability
1
0.15
3
0.45
3
0.45
Motor0.15based
on
General
Atomics
Coverage
superconducting
Area low temperature
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
36 MW homopolar design.
Life Cycle
Cost
0.15
Manning
0.1
Total
Final Brief 06
0
0
0
0
•Scaleable
power
output
0
0
0
0
0
0
•½1 the weight
of a1.95
permanent
0.45
2.1
magnet motor
Unclassified 41
EHP to SHP
Velocity
Resistance
Delivered
Power (Pd) per
shaft
KNs
Lbs
HP
HP
HP
5
13708
157
162
10
49587
1093
15
105135
3395
20
Shaft
Power per
Shaft
Shaft Power
TOTAL
Open Water
Efficiency
RPM
324
0.716
19.2
1127
2254
0.743
37.3
3500
7000
0.761
54.9
Total of 55 MW = 30 knots
186249
8007
8254
16508
0.762
73.2
25
299834
16313
16818
33636
0.753
92.3
30
443046
29227
30131
60262
0.745
111.6
Kd-5-100 ln 33 Nozzle
Propeller Matching
Final Brief 06
–
–
–
–
–
Blades: 5
Diameter: 16.79 ft
P/D: 1.8
Area Ratio: 1.0
Open Water Efficiency: 0.747
Unclassified 42
Weights and Centers
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 43
Weight Estimation
• Parent Ship Method
– Uses ratios between design characteristics and the known
characteristics and component weights of a “parent” ship in
order to generate a refined design weight estimation.
– Parent Ship: LSD-49
• Similar design characteristics (B, T, LBP, Displacement, etc.)
• Fundamentals of Naval Surface Ship Weight
Estimating
– Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983
– Author: Straubinger, Erwin K.
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 44
Step 1:
Initial Design Characteristics
Excel file
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 45
Step 2: Major Components
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 46
Step 3: Group Calculations
Design Estimated Weights
Ratio Calculations
Parent Ship Weights
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 47
Step 4:
Putting it All Together
Total Estimated Design Weight
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 48
Machinery Arrangements
• Variables:
– Total design estimated weight
– Individual component weight
– Location relative to center of buoyancy
• Outputs:
– VCG (above keel)
– TCG (from centerline)
– LCG (from LCB)
**If minor component was not specifically placed within the design, its
location was designated as the center of buoyancy
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 49
Centers Calculations
Summation of component moments = Group COG
Component Moment = (Component Weight/Total Ship Weight) x Position
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 50
Centers Results
Excel file
Group Summation
Center of Gravity
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 51
Hydrostatics & Intact Stability
• Design meets stability criteria
Curves of Form (with appendages)
Coefficient
0.5
0.0
1.0
30.0
Pri smati c(Cp)
Block(Cb)
Mi dship(Cms)
Water Plane(Cwp)
Vol. ft^3
WS Area ft^2
Vert. Pri smatic (Cvp)
Wet Surface (Cws)
25.0
d
r
a
f
t
f
t
20.0
15.0
Righting Arms vs. Hee l
10.0
0.0s
Vol. ft^3 x 100000
WS Area ft^2 x 10000
Wet Surf ac e (Cws ) x 10
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
5.0
4.0
0.5
6.0
5.0
Righti
ng Arm
7.0
8.0
Equi li brium
6.0
1.0
GMt
10.0p
Heel angle (Degrees)
20.0p
30.0p
40.0p
50.0p
60.0p
5.0
20.0
A
r
m
s
i
n
15.0
f
t
10.0
5.0
0.0
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 52
600
Damaged Stability
•
Floodable Length
–
–
0.15 LBP, IAW
DDS-079
3-compartment
standard
Floodable Length (ft)
500
400
Permeability: 0.95
Permeability: 0.85
300
200
3 center compartments flooded
100
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
3 forward compartments flooded
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 53
Structural Outline
Structure
Primary
Secondary
Structural Element
long'l girders,
keelsons,
transverse frames
Design Material
Advantage
steel (HSLA80)
stiffness (reduce deflection, whipping),
ease of construction, low cost
deckhouse,
bulkheads,
machinery
foundations
carbon composite
35-50% weight savings, low thermal
conductivity, lower life-cycle costs,
optimize complex geometries
decks
laser-welded
corrugated core
(LASCOR)
20-50% weight savings, increased
stiffness, reduced assembly and fit-up
costs, thermal and vibration insulation
deckhouse plating
carbon composite
35-50% weight savings, low thermal
conductivity, lower life-cycle costs,
integrated antennae structures
hull plating
Steel (HSLA80)
stiffness (reduce deflection, whipping),
ease of construction, low cost
Tertiary
Final Brief 06
Carderock composite-steel interface work
Unclassified 54
Structure - Composite
Applications
Final Brief 06
Source: Carderock Division - Naval Surface Warfare Center
NSWCCD-20-TR-2002/06 May 2002
HIGH-SPEED SEALIFT TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Unclassified 55
SOTS Array Placement
Seakeeping and free surface flow predictions
were combined to conduct array placement
and statistically minimize wetness events.
wav
1.27
1.13
0.99
0.85
0.71
0.57
0.43
0.29
0.15
0.01
-0.13
-0.26
-0.40
-0.54
-0.68
-200
Final Brief 06
-100
0
x
100
Z
Y
Unclassified 56
Wetness Events
• Use 5 points and calculate the OI for each.
– Choose the vertical clearance for each point such that:
• Their individual Operability Indices' are about the same.
• The Overall Operability Index is maximized.
120
100
Normalized OOI
80
1m
2m
60
3m
4m
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
Point
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 57
Operating Envelope - SABR
Sea State 4
Sea State 7
Final Brief 06
Sea State 5
Sea State 6
Unclassified 58
Where We Stand
•
•
First iteration nearly complete
Second iteration complete in some areas
CAPACITIES
TRIM &
INTACT
STABILITY
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 59
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems Engineering Overview
Power Plant
Electrical Plant
Hull and Mechanical
EP
Thermal Management
Combat Systems
H&M
Manning
Cost
T
Risk Management
Building Bridges
Final Brief 06
SE
PP
BB
R
$
CS
M
Unclassified 60
Thermal Management
The Loads
• Cooling Loads
– Auxiliary systems (A/C, Reefers, etc.)
– Radar (SPY and SOTS)
– High Temperature Superconducting (HTS)
Generators
– Homo-Polar motor (Pod Propulsors)
– Rail Gun
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 61
Thermal Management
The Plan
• Auxiliaries
– (2) York Marine Pak Reefer Units for refrigeration
• Cooling Radars and interior compartments
– (8) 200 Ton A/C Plants for Chill water
• Three more plants than a CG47 to combat
– Larger ship size
– Increased ambient temperature as result of the SOTS
• High Temp Cryogenics plants for the HTS
generator
• Low Temp Cryogenics plants for the Pod
Propulsors
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 62
Railgun Thermal Management
• Cooling Loads and Solutions
– Three pronged approach
– Pre-cooling the rails with a lower Tinitial allows more
time before Tcritical
– Using a massive cold storage to cool down the chill
water during the firing cycle.
– Brute Force cooling: Using conventional chill water
heat exchanger to cool the massive cold storage
Brute Force
Cooling
Chill water Plant
Final Brief 06
Massive
Cold
Source
Rail
Gun
Pre-Cooling
rails
Unclassified 63
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems Engineering Overview
Power Plant
Electrical Plant
Hull and Mechanical
EP
Thermal Management
Combat Systems
H&M
Manning
Cost
T
Risk Management
Bridge Building
Final Brief 06
SE
PP
BB
R
$
CS
M
Unclassified 64
Combat Systems
• Sensor Fusion
– Shipboard system data
– S band and VHF/UHF radar data
– Situational Awareness (real time and near real time)
• Human Computer Interface
– Data to information geospatially organized for quick
reaction
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 65
Combat Systems
Air/Surface/Sub/Land Target Data
Organic Sensor
Organic
Measurements
Track Data
Partially
Fused
Data
Remote
Sensor/Track
Off Board
Track Data
Data
Fully Fused Tactical Scene
Displayed in a
format that is
best for the
human
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 66
Bridge and Amphitheater CIC Layout
CIC: forward, console, and rear view
Situational Awareness
Pre-Process & Refine
Measurement Data Fusion
Correlate Tactical Data
Correlate Operational Data
Generate Integrated Tact. Picture
Common Track Services
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 67
Skin Of the Ship Radar
• Notional Hull: 3,411 per ship side calculated to be
0.694m spacing
• Data for DDG-1000:
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 68
RCS Calculations
• SABR RCS
X-Band Emitter
Max: abeam
SHIP
Tonnage
(kT)
Ave RCS
(dBm)
CG-47
9.6
46.9
DDG-51
8.3
45.9
SABR
15
54.8
Min: aft quarter
• EA Capability
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 69
Self Defense Systems
• SABR is a standoff system and will have
escorts in high risk environments
• Hard Kill weapons
– 2 Dual Quad mount NATO Sea Sparrow
launchers
• One Forward and One Aft
• Can maintain Pk greater than 90% for up to 8
incoming missiles
• Soft Kill and Countermeasures
– Flares
– Chaff
– SLQ-32 V3
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 70
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems Engineering Overview
Power Plant
Electrical Plant
Hull and Mechanical
EP
Thermal Management
Combat Systems
H&M
Manning
Cost
T
Risk Management
Bridge Building
Final Brief 06
SE
PP
BB
R
$
CS
M
Unclassified 71
Manning
• Each crewmember belongs to a home network
Daily
Routine
Watch Sections 1, 2, & 3
Day Schedules
• Evolutions use the WQ&SB and the trump matrix to
select crew members
Scripted
Evolution
Schedule
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 72
Total Crew Model Output Examples:
Fatigue & Total Hours Breakdown
Blue Gold Rotation
20
• Micro sleep begins ~ 9
• Micro sleep increases in
duration & frequency as
fatigue climbs
18
16
14
Exhausted
Fatigue Level
12
10
OS1
OS2
OS3
OS4
8
6
4
2
Normal
0
-2
-4
0
2
4
6
8
10
Day
Personal Needs
Final Brief 06
Work
Sleep
Unclassified 73
Manning Results
• Total Crew Size : Set to 130 based on DDG-1000
manning predictions.
• The process for DDG-51 revealed that combination
of micro and macro models can predict manning
levels for small teams and subsequent total ship
manning.
• IMPRINT and Total Crew Model were micro and
macro models implemented respectively
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 74
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems Engineering Overview
Power Plant
Electrical Plant
Hull and Mechanical
EP
Thermal Management
Combat Systems
H&M
Manning
Cost
T
Risk Management
Building Bridges
Final Brief 06
SE
PP
BB
R
$
CS
M
Unclassified 75
Cost
Top Down
•
Tools
–
–
–
–
CRS Report for Congress
CBO (Transforming the Navy’s
Surface Combatant Force)
VAMOSC Data Base
SEA-09 Report
Final $
•
•
•
Cost prediction is difficult on a project
projected this far into the future with this
many new advances.
Due to the low confidence interval, a high
degree of error needs to be accounted
for.
As time moves on and DDG 1000 is built
and CG(X) progressed, the confidence
level will increase.
Final Brief 06
Confidence
Level
Bottom Up
•
Tools
–
–
–
–
–
Program level Request
Component level Request
Detailed weight-based CERs,
Labor Costs,
Specialized Equipment costs
Unclassified 76
Top/Down Cost Estimate for
BMD(X) Production
CG(X)
Estimated Cost
($Billion, 2006)
BMD(X)
Estimated Cost
($Billion, 2006)
Detail Design
0.5
0.5
DD(X) estimate
Basic Construction
0.8
0.8
Adjusted DD(X)
estimate
Phase
Electronics
0.6
0.6
CHANGE
Primary Basis
Adjusted DD(X)
estimate + skin of the
ship radar
Hull, Mechanical, and
electrical systems
0.1
0.9
Ordnance
0.6
0.8
Adjusted DD(X)
estimate + rail gun
Other
0.2
0.2
DD(X) estimate
Subtotal
2.3
3.3
Change orders
0.4
0.5
Total Production Cost
2.7
3.8
TOTAL COST
3.2
4.3
Final Brief 06
DD(X) estimate +
nuclear propulsion
Percentage of
Production Cost
Unclassified 77
Characteristic/Follow-Ship
Procurement/O&S Comparison
Ship Class
Type
BMD(X)
Ballistic
Defense Ship
Displacement
(tons)
15,000
Crew
Size
O&S
(FY06
$M)
Armament
Missions
130
Next generation
radar system, 4
railguns,
Long range
missile
defense and
land attack
4,300
38.0
Long-range air
and missile
defense, land
attack
3,200
48.0
Land attack,
ASW
*2,700
40.5
1,800
31.2
2,000
38.9
CG(X)
GuidedMissile
cruiser
16,000 or more
N.A
Next-generation
air and missile
defense combat
system, 200VLS
cells, two
helicopters,
possible other
systems
DD(X)
GeneralPurpose
Destroyer
16,000
130
2 Helo, 2 155-mm
AGS, 128 VLS
DDG-51 (II)
GuidedMissile
Destroyer
9,200
340
AEGIS, 2 Helo, 1
5-inch, 96 VLS
CG-52
GuidedMissile
Cruiser
9,500
410
AEGIS, 2 Helo, 2
5-inch, 122 VLS
Final Brief 06
Follow ship
procurement
cost
(FY06 $M)
Long-range air
and missile
defense, land
attack, openocean ASW
Long-range air
and missile
defense, land
attack, openocean ASW
Unclassified 78
Cost
$5.2Billion
$4.3B
Confidence
Level
$3.4Billion
The high and low is based on +/- 20% on $4.3Billion
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 79
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems Engineering Overview
Power Plant
Electrical Plant
Hull and Mechanical
EP
Thermal Management
Combat Systems
H&M
Manning
Cost
T
Risk Management
Building Bridges
Final Brief 06
SE
PP
BB
R
$
CS
M
Unclassified 80
Five Element Risk Management
Process
Analyze &
Prioritize
Risks
Identify
Risks
Plan & Implement
Risk Handling
Approach
Report &
Control Risks
Monitor
Risks
Risk management is an ongoing, iterative process
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 81
Risk Relationships
Technical Risk
Compressed Schedules
Limited Funds
Threat Change
Programmatic Risk
Imposed Budgets
Demand Schedules
Schedule Risk
Cost Risk
Schedule Slips
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 82
Risk Results
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 83
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems Engineering Overview
Power Plant
Electrical Plant
Hull and Mechanical
EP
Thermal Management
Combat Systems
H&M
Manning
Cost
T
Risk Management
Building Bridges
Final Brief 06
SE
PP
BB
R
$
CS
M
Unclassified 84
Building Bridges
ARL
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 85
Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems Engineering Overview
Power Plant
Electrical Plant
Hull and Mechanical
EP
Thermal Management
Combat Systems
H&M
Manning
Cost
T
Risk Management
Building Bridges
Final Brief 06
SE
PP
BB
R
$
CS
M
Unclassified 86
Questions?
Final Brief 06
Unclassified 87