Ship Systems Engineering Research Articles

Naval Wargaming as a Requirements Elucidation Tool for Warship Design Teams

This paper discusses some of the challenges of setting the requirements for a future warship program and how manual naval wargaming might be employed to make the process more efficient and structured. It goes on to describe some case studies where UCL’s wargame “A Balanced Fleet” was applied to requirement phase problems, in particular the ASW Barrier wargame conducted for the NATO Specialist Team on Naval Ship Systems Engineering. The paper concludes that wargaming is a useful tool in the requirements phase, in particular for helping to direct subsequent and more detailed operations analysis work.

함정 획득시스템 개선을 위한 제품구조 중심의 기본설계시스템

To improve the naval ship acquisition process, systems engineering, modeling and simulation, etc. have been introduced, and there has been ongoing research on acquisition systems for effective support of it. However, due to characteristics of the naval ship acquisition process, development process mainly carried out at a shipyard such as basic design, detailed design, construction and test is difficult to integrate with the acquisition systems of IPT(Integrated Project Team). In addition, research aimed to improve this is rather lacking. In this paper, the naval ship product structure concept proposed in previous research was applied to the basic design system at shipyard, and basic research for expanding the coverage of naval ship acquisition systems to the basic design phase is performed. A data structure of modeling system appropriate to the basic design phase was proposed through research findings and the prototype system based on it was implemented.

The Evolution of Machinery Control Systems Support At the Naval Ship Systems Engineering Station

Introduction Machinery Control Systems (MCS) have evolved rapidly with the development of smaller and more powerful computational and display technologies. Over the past three decades machinery controls have moved from hardware-based logic to software-based logic. The use of relays, push buttons and light-bulbs has been replaced by processors, graphical user interfaces, keyboards and track balls. Suppliers have also evolved from using basic circuit cards and military-specified processors running machine language to Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) processors running high level languages like C11 and JAVA. Networks provide communication using industry standard protocols. These changes have driven changes in acquisition philosophy, life cycle support, training, and modernization programs.

Design, Manufacturing, and Testing of an Improved Watertight Door for Surface Ships

Designed in the 1950s to be watertight during flooding and airtight under normal operating conditions, the Navy standard watertight door for surface ships is inexpensive to manufacture but expensive to properly install and maintain. Furthermore, by today's requirements, it is too heavy. The need for a lightweight, affordable, low maintenance watertight door led to a collaborative project involving the Applied Research Laboratory at Penn State University, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Ship Systems Engineering Station, and Northrop Grumman Corporation Newport News to design, fabricate, and test an improved watertight door for surface ships. The design and manufacturing of this door is entirely new and based on advances in laser cutting and welding technology. Its novel design reduces the number of dogs (latches) and linkages of the Navy standard watertight door, decreasing the weight of the complete door assembly from 290 to 213 lbs. The door is fabricated from corrosion resistant stainless steel, and its opening and closing forces are extremely low, reducing the potential for mechanical and gasket wear. Pending successful completion of certification testing and with technical warrant holder approval, the new door will offer an attractive choice for insertion by Acquisition Program Managers and Fleet Maintenance Managers.

The LPD 17 Ship Design: Leading a Sea Change Toward Collaborative Product Development

AbstractIn the summer of 2005, the lead ship of the LPD 17 Class was delivered to the US Navy. The LPD 17 is a highly capable amphibious assault warship, designed as a total ship system, which will provide significantly improved warfighting capabilities to support US Marine Corps and joint operations. Potential ship capabilities were initially explored as LX Concept Studies (1989–1990) and the final ship took form in the 1990s as Preliminary, Contract, and Detail Design progressed. Fabrication of the lead ship began in June 2000 and the LPD 17 was launched in July 2003. Currently, three ships have been delivered to the US Navy and five are under construction. The LPD 17 was the last contract design developed in‐house under the leadership of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) ship design group utilizing NAVSEA's highly experienced ship design workforce. Many new and innovative concepts and approaches were introduced into the LPD 17 design and acquisition process. The LPD 17 was the first surface ship design to experience the benefits of Total Ship Systems Engineering, Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD), Navy–Shipbuilder Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) collocated at the shipyard, and an Integrated Product Data Environment (IPDE). Such dramatic changes created many opportunities, hurdles, and even some pain. The Navy's Center for Innovation in Ship Design (CISD) championed a systems engineering case study of the LPD 17 ship design addressing all phases from requirements determination through detail design. This paper provides a retrospective of what occurred in order to document best ship design practices and lessons learned and to determine how the naval ship design process can be further improved. These lessons learned and best design practices will help transmit accumulated intellectual capital to other shipbuilding programs and future design leaders. The construction and delivery of ships is at a stage that provides a logical benchmark from which to make assessments. For example, the Secretary of the Navy recently received the US Marine Corps initial impressions of the LPD 17 Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL): “The Right Ship, The Right Size, The Right Capabilities.” Although a number of ship design process innovations contributed to a sound Contract Design technical package, it is now common knowledge that the LPD 17 lead ship was over budget and late. The authors conclude that the most significant best practice, or lesson learned in the case of LPD 17, is that there must be a tightly integrated, seamless, collaborative design‐build approach between the Navy and the Shipbuilder(s) throughout the whole design‐build process starting at the very beginning of ship design. There are new ship design projects like MPF(F) and CG(X) that could benefit from the innovations, best practices, and lessons learned of the LPD 17 Ship Design: leading a sea change toward collaborative product development.

An Arsenal Ship Design Affordable, Advanced Warfighting Capabilities

ABSTRACT The Navy's “Arsenal Ship Concept of Operations [1]” and “Ship Capabilities Document (SCD) [2]” address a need for the design of a large missile platform that can carry massive and precise firepower, accomplish long‐range strike, and perform flexible targeting and multidimensional theater defense consistent with the policies of “Forward… From the Sea [3]” and “Operational Maneuver from the Sea [4].” The ship is designed to be a large missile magazine that receives its launch orders from remote air, land or sea forces. It is fully integrated into the joint command and control structure to assist current forces in the opening days of conflict. A major design goal of the Arsenal Ship is to limit the crew size to 50 personnel through the use of system automation, redundancy and equipment reliability, while meeting an additional constraint of limiting the sailaway price to 550 million dollars.The Total Ship Systems Engineering (TSSE) design team at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) in Monterey, CA used a modified repeat of the T‐AO 201 class oiler. The selection of this hull is based on mass tonnage for survivability, carrying capacity for approximately 500 vertically launched missiles and budget constraints that militate against a new hull design. The midship section of the ship is fitted with 64 eight‐cell Concentric Canisterized Launcher (CCL) modules. The Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is incorporated in the design to provide the controlling platform the ability to remotely fire the Arsenal Ship's missiles.The design was performed at NPS under the direction of author Calvano by a group of fifteen officer students, which included authors Chase, Baumann and Null. It is believed that the at‐sea experience and thorough analysis from the officers involved has resulted in a sensible design of a creative and highly realistic solution to the Navy's call for an Arsenal Ship of the 21st Century.

Engineered Approach to Effective Maintenance Management

ABSTRACTThe Assessment of Equipment Condition (AEC) Program at the Naval Ship Systems Engineering Station has been providing shore based support to assess the condition of shipboard equipment. This paper examines some of the limitations of the existing process. The paper offers an engineered approach to provide condition assessment on board ship and the shore side support necessary to maximize the effectiveness of the total ship maintenance process. The recommended approach uses existing technology and current hardware and software applications. Included in the approach is the use of microcomputer machinery work stations with expert system software, and a central Condition Maintenance Information System with the capability to provide work packages based on condition assessment and to trend the effectiveness of maintenance decisions. The paper identifies a phased implementation with a limited pilot program prior to fleet wide involvement.

New Technology in Oil Content Monitors

ABSTRACTInternational antipollution requirements have been legislated to regulate the oil content of bilge effluent from ships. In response to these standards, the U.S. Navy is currently in the process of installing pollution abatement equipment on all vessels. The equipment will consist of an oil‐water separator in the bilge discharge line, followed by an oil content monitor which makes the final decision on whether or not the water is clean enough to be pumped overboard. The monitor is required to make a real‐time measurement of oil concentration in the range 15 ± 5 to 100 ± 20 ppm for flow rates up to 50 gal/min. and possibly in the presence of interfering contaminants, such as rust.This paper presents the results of the current effort to develop a monitor which satisfies all of these requirements and is sufficiently rugged for fleet deployment. The monitor under development employs two fiber optic systems and a small microprocessor. The first optical system measures the concentration of particles in the flow as a function of their sizes, using small angle forward scattering. The second determines what percentage of the particles in the flow are oil, using large angle scattering. The microprocessor takes the data from the two optical systems and calculates the oil concentration in the flow. Since the particle size is measured by the monitor, no sample preparation is required and the monitor may be placed directly in the discharge line where it responds to changes in oil content in less than one second. In addition, this monitor can notify the operator of impending oil‐water separator failure associated with passing large oil particles.A demonstration monitor consisting of the forward scattering unit has been successfully tested at the NavSea oil pollution abatement test facility at the Naval Ship Systems Engineering Station at Philadelphia. The monitor agrees well with chemical means of measuring oil content. Results of this comparison and laboratory test of a prototype instrument that features contaminant discrimination will be presented.

TEST AND EVALUATION OF THE REVERSIBLE CONVERTER COUPLING REVERSE REDUCTION GEAR

ABSTRACTThe Reversible Converter Coupling (RCC), designed and manufactured by Franco Tosi Industrial of Italy, underwent testing at the Naval Ship Systems Engineering Station (NAV‐SSES) Philadelphia, Pa. in March 1984. The Franco Tosi RCC concept can be simply described as a conventional hydraulic coupling (i.e., input or pump rotor driving an output or turbine rotor) with a set of stationary blades that can be inserted between the two rotors to reverse the fluid direction and hence the output rotor direction. The purpose of this testing was to test and evaluate a main propulsion reverse reduction gear concept, using the Franco Tosi RCC, for its compatibility and applicability to gas turbine propulsion machinery configurations, specifically the AOE‐6 class ship. Satisfactory development of a workable and reliable reversing system permits use of a fixed pitch propeller.The RCC models tested were the Original Type “79,” the Type “79” Prototype, the Type “79” Production, the Type “84” Production, and the Type “84A” Production. A series of tests was conducted to verify rotor integrity, determine RCC efficiency, evaluate machinery interface, and to determine the overall characteristics of the RCC design. Testing revealed that the Type “79” Production RCC was the most suitable for application on gas turbine powered main propulsion systems. The Type “79” RCC design was approximately 10 percentage points higher in astern efficiency than the Type “84” design and, although the structural integrity of the Type “84” design was superior to the Type “79” design, the Type “79” Production RCC was satisfactory for its intended use without introducing any operational restrictions.The Naval Sea Systems Command approved the Type “79” Production RCC for the AOE‐6 class ship in April 1986, based on the information acquired during testing.

RELIABILITY OF SHIPBOARD ELEVATORS — THERE IS HOPE FOR IMPROVEMENT

ABSTRACTIn 1980, at the Ship Systems Technical Symposium in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, a paper was presented entitled “Reliability of Shipboard Elevators — Is There Hope for Improvement?” It painted a bleak picture of elevators and their future. The history of Navy cargo/weapons elevator installations does reveal a wide variety of equipment sizes and con figurations developed by numerous vendors working to different performance specifications for each contract. The result has been poor reliability, a proliferation of spare parts requirements, and logistic and maintenance nightmares. To correct this, NAVSEA has initiated various efforts, including a program to develop and test improved, standardized designs. The improvements expected by that program include standard capacities and speeds, lightweight construction and easy removability for maintenance. This is being accomplished through standard drawings and detailed, as opposed to performance, specifications. But the key to the success of this effort is to design and test for reliability, maintainability and safety. This is being accomplished by following NAVSEA Quality Assurance Plan 200, which specifies failure mode, criticality, stress, worst case and sneak circuit analyses.New equipment will be tested and evaluated at the new land based engineering site (LBES) at the Naval Ship Systems Engineering Station (NAVSSES), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This site has been designed to test elevator systems and components and simulate shipboard conditions including temperature and humidity. Initially, equipment intended for the new AOE‐6 and AE‐36 classes will be tested. The site will also be able to test cargo and weapons elevator doors and hatches in an aircraft carrier configuration. The site includes a standard hydraulic power unit (HPU) to operate flush deck and in‐trunk hatches and different door types. This paper describes the philosophy and methods for the overall standard elevator RDT&E effort and how it will improve the reliability of shipboard cargo and weapons elevators.

SHIP SYSTEMS TEST PROCESS —CONCEPT AND APPLICATION

ABSTRACTSome technical managers are moving closer to a more disciplined approach when introducing ship systems into the fleet. In the past, many installed systems with inadequate testing. These systems were simply not operationally ready. The consequences of their actions show in impaired performance, system down‐time and fleet casualty reports (CASREPS).Thorough, cohesive and well‐managed testing will insure operationally ready ship systems. However, testing must not be done as an independent project to prove whether or not a system meets requirements. The technical manager must consider testing as an integral process of engineering and design. He can do this, if he uses the disciplined total systems approach to ship systems' development and introduction. Testing is an important process in this approach; is not an end unto itself; and is integral to the life cycle of a system. The test process must be adequately designed, constructed and operated. Program mangement is the most adaptable management technique to testing. In a test program, facilities, fuel and manpower are significant cost factors. The technical manager can minimize test costs and still use a facility that adequately meets his needs. He should use test sites, test facilities, land based test sites, or land based engineering facilities. He must be creative and innovative. He must introduce other techniques to reduce time and cost. These are discussed.In 1978–1979, one of the authors developed this concept and with the other implemented it at the Naval Ship Systems Engineering Station (NAVSSES), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. NAVSSES is discussed as the Navy's Ship System Development and Production Test Center. Several system based facilities are introduced.Simply hypothesizing that developmental and initial phase production testing pays off is one thing, but the proof is in actual test results. The paper looks at various tests recently conducted at NAVSSES and shows how several technical managers achieved improved system and component performance through well planned testing, viz., the LSD‐41 propulsion system, the FFG‐7 diesel generator, air compressor, the RACER, and the reverse reduction gear test processes. The phased development of the DDG‐58 LBEF is discussed.The paper concludes that substantial pay‐off resulted in those instances where the technical manager treated testing as a process integral to engineering and design. Other conclusions are also drawn.

ON GETTING OUR EM ACT TOGETHER AND PUTTING IT ON A NAVY SHIP

ABSTRACTDesign and production of a fighting ship is more complex than even we in the shipbuilding community know. Electro‐magnetic (EM) systems have become vital organs of the Navy combatant. EM communication systems provide mission guidance and coordination, EM navigational aids enable precise positioning worldwide, EM surveillance systems detect and warn of the threat, and EM tracking systems permit timely engagement.This paper addresses the major engineering disciplines competing and trading off to produce Navy ships. U.S. Navy activity in each area is discussed, with commentary on the systems engineering relationship among them, from the EM perspective. In stressing the need for whole ship systems engineering, the paper features an advanced communications system architecture and discusses its implications in ship design and performance. Assessments are made of present priorities and effectiveness and how close we are to realizing EM combat system integration.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF VARIABLE PAYLOAD SHIPS

ABSTRACTThe decoupling of combat systems from the platform makes it possible for shipyards and combat system suppliers to work in parallel without schedule or technological conflict. Great benefit is derived from building one, standard platform able to accommodate a variety of combat systems. The capability to build and test the payload modules independently, in a well equipped shore‐based facility, means higher production efficiency and improved quality control. The standardization of payload‐platform interfaces means that the detail design and construction of foundations and distributive systems need not be delayed if some of the combat system components are being upgraded at the time when the ship is in construction.Additionally, shipyards recognize the value of the variable payload ship concept for major combat systems and weapons upgrades. Analysis shows that combat system changes will not lie on the critical path from a scheduling point of view if the payload items are modularized and conform to the Ship Systems Engineering Standards.The shipyards intend to participate actively in the conservation of tenth‐scale models and full‐scale mock‐ups. These mock‐ups should prove valuable in the definition of interface requirements which must be incorporated in the Ship System Engineering Standards. The module installation procedures and clearance requirements for both weapons modules and pelletized electronics can be checked in this effective way.Variable payload ship platform construction poses no technical problems as far as new facility requirements are concerned. Shipyards interested in assembling, testing, and installing payload modules would, however, have to use appropriate buildings, equipment, and cranes. These capital requirements are significant but reasonable for those yards that are likely to be interested in building frigates, destroyers, or cruisers. Furthermore, these yards generally plan for production improvements through better facilities, many of which would support variable payload production.However, the shipyards are concerned about weapons module designs. The weapons module alignment requirements and techniques are of particular concern. The dynamic alignment procedures, which compensate for mechanical misalignments by computer software, are not yet a reality. Therefore, an alternate alignment approach and technique is proposed in the paper for further study. The shipyards are also extremely interested in the design of the destructive system connections between the ship and these weapons modules. Useful guidelines are provided in this area to aid the interface designer.

THE DESIGN OF VARIABLE PAYLOAD SHIPS

ABSTRACTThis paper presents the issues involved and the approach taken in the design of Variable Payload Ships. The objectives in Variable Payload Ship design are: first, to permit concurrent design and development of the ship and its initial combat system; and second, to simplify the testing, installation, and upgrading of the combat system over a ship's life cycle. In order to accomplish these objectives, Ship Systems Engineering Standards and Design Criteria are being developed for the VPS platform and payload. Based on the Mid‐Size Combatant design conducted so far, indications are that the abovementioned objectives can be met — giving the Navy maximum flexibility to choose the latest and most appropriate combat suite for each of its surface combatants during both initial acquisition and entire life cycle.

CATAMARANS—DREAM OR REALITY

Naval Engineers JournalVolume 82, Issue 3 p. 95-109 CATAMARANS—DREAM OR REALITY COMMANDER JOHN R. BOND, COMMANDER JOHN R. BOND USN THE AUTHOR is currently assigned as the CVAN Ship Design Manager on the staff of the Assistant for Ship Design, Ship Systems Engineering and Design Department, Naval Ship Engineering Center. He is the Project Director for the CVAN-71 Concept Formulation Program which will produce the design for the follow on ships to the NIMITZ (CVAN-68) Class. He graduated from the University of Illinois in 1955, and completed postgraduate work at Webb Institute of Naval Architecture in 1962. He holds a BSME, a BS in Marine Engineering, and an MS in Naval Architecture. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Virginia. He has had sea tours in a destroyer and an Attack Aircraft Carrier, and shore tours at the U. S. Naval Academy and the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.Search for more papers by this author COMMANDER JOHN R. BOND, COMMANDER JOHN R. BOND USN THE AUTHOR is currently assigned as the CVAN Ship Design Manager on the staff of the Assistant for Ship Design, Ship Systems Engineering and Design Department, Naval Ship Engineering Center. He is the Project Director for the CVAN-71 Concept Formulation Program which will produce the design for the follow on ships to the NIMITZ (CVAN-68) Class. He graduated from the University of Illinois in 1955, and completed postgraduate work at Webb Institute of Naval Architecture in 1962. He holds a BSME, a BS in Marine Engineering, and an MS in Naval Architecture. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Virginia. He has had sea tours in a destroyer and an Attack Aircraft Carrier, and shore tours at the U. S. Naval Academy and the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.Search for more papers by this author First published: June 1970 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-3584.1970.tb04346.xCitations: 1 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume82, Issue3June 1970Pages 95-109 RelatedInformation

THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER AND ITS AIR WING A COMBAT SYSTEM

Naval Engineers JournalVolume 80, Issue 3 p. 461-472 THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER AND ITS AIR WING A COMBAT SYSTEM COMMANDER L. F. HICKS, COMMANDER L. F. HICKS USN The author is currently assigned as the CVA/CVS Ship Design Manager on the staff of the Assistant for Ship Design, Ship Systems Engineering and Design Department, Naval Ship Engineering Center. He was project coordinator for the design of NIMITZ (CVAN 68), which will be the Navy's next attack aircraft carrier. He graduated from, the U. S. Naval Academy in 1952, and completed postgraduate work at Webb Institute of Naval Architecture in 1958. He holds an M.S. in Naval Architecture and a B.S. in Marine Engineering. He has served sea tours in a destroyer and a heavy repair ship and shore tours in the Charleston Naval Shipyard, the Bureau of Personnel, and the Bureau of Ships.Search for more papers by this author COMMANDER L. F. HICKS, COMMANDER L. F. HICKS USN The author is currently assigned as the CVA/CVS Ship Design Manager on the staff of the Assistant for Ship Design, Ship Systems Engineering and Design Department, Naval Ship Engineering Center. He was project coordinator for the design of NIMITZ (CVAN 68), which will be the Navy's next attack aircraft carrier. He graduated from, the U. S. Naval Academy in 1952, and completed postgraduate work at Webb Institute of Naval Architecture in 1958. He holds an M.S. in Naval Architecture and a B.S. in Marine Engineering. He has served sea tours in a destroyer and a heavy repair ship and shore tours in the Charleston Naval Shipyard, the Bureau of Personnel, and the Bureau of Ships.Search for more papers by this author First published: June 1968 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-3584.1968.tb04546.x AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume80, Issue3June 1968Pages 461-472 RelatedInformation