This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT
MARITIME ACQUISITION PUBLICATION No 01-020
WARSHIP ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT GUIDE
Issue 01 December 2007
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007 Sponsored by:
DE&S SE Sea - Surface Ship Division,
Defence Equipment & Support,
MoD Abbey Wood, Bristol, BS34 8JH
Telephone 0117 91 35761
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
Key Concepts ........................................................................................................................................2
Future Updates to the WEMG ...............................................................................................................5
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9
WARSHIPS IN MOD ACQUISITION ..................................................................................... 6
Lines of Development............................................................................................................................6
Requirement Management ..................................................................................................................10
Cost and Time .....................................................................................................................................16
Through Life Management ..................................................................................................................17
Organisational Structure & Responsibilities ........................................................................................18
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
WARSHIP ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT ....................................................................... 22
Management of Transversals ..............................................................................................................40
Warship Project Activities ....................................................................................................................54
THE PROGRESSION OF A WARSHIP PROJECT ............................................................. 67
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 Aim.......................................................................................................................................................67
The Design Review .............................................................................................................................68
Candidate Selection ............................................................................................................................69
Option Identification .............................................................................................................................72
Design Survey .....................................................................................................................................75
Outline Capability Design Assessment ...............................................................................................85
Production Design ...............................................................................................................................90
Assessing warship project maturity ...................................................................................................102
ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY ........................................................................................ 129
REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................... 133
WEMG Issue 01
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Introduction
AIM The Warship Engineering Management Guide (WEMG) gives guidance on the warship engineering process from concept to in-service, including requirements setting, design, manufacture and acceptance by MoD from industry. The WEMG complements other naval technical publications including those that are sponsored by the MoD. The WEMG promotes the coherent development of warship characteristics, which are the highlevel capability-based requirements and acceptance criteria that describe warship capability. It gives guidance on design activities, covering the various stages of acquisition and describes the roles and responsibilities of industry and MoD specialists in warship engineering (see Chapter 4). Furthermore, the WEMG is written to guide in the assessment of the level of engineering progress of a warship project. The WEMG allows for flexibility in the contractual boundary between MoD and industry by referring to generic roles. These roles, and their relationships, are shown in Figure 1.2. This approach allows a description, within the WEMG, of the activities involved in warship acquisition without assuming a particular commercial model, be this a ‘contract a capability’ or a classic ‘design and build’ arrangement. As a variation, the MoD is beginning to create ‘alliances’ between the MoD and industry that provide for greater risk share. The suitability of each arrangement is beyond the scope of the WEMG. SCOPE The WEMG does not intend to be the expert reference on warship engineering. It is intended to provide broad guidance and, where appropriate, highlight other expert areas where additional guidance can be found. The WEMG addresses engineering management - the art and science of planning, organizing, allocating resources, directing and controlling activities relevant to warship engineering. Elements of programme (or project) management (e.g. cost, schedule) will be addressed, but only with respect to how these elements constrain the engineering process. The WEMG is applicable to all surface “warships” and this term is used to include not only those with a clear military capability (frigates, destroyers, carriers) but also auxiliaries and support ships. Additionally, detailed guidance on combat systems engineering management is not covered; the subject will be limited to those aspects, including the combat system, that impact on the whole warship design process. The use of software tools to aid warship engineering management is large and quickly changing. It is beyond the scope of the WEMG to make recommendations about specific tools, although the use of generic tools (e.g. spreadsheets, simple numeric synthesis and analysis programmes, spatial synthesis programmes) is covered where appropriate. Finally, the WEMG discusses the business processes of the MoD in general terms rather than the specific. For example, the Combined Operational Effectiveness and Investment Appraisal (COEIA) will not be discussed in detail as this is covered in other guidance publications, but how to achieve cost effective solutions to meet customer needs will be discussed. DOCUMENT STRUCTURE It is the intention of the WEMG that it should be accessible by all personnel involved in warship engineering, and not just by engineering technical specialists. It is not expected that non technical personnel read the entire document. Instead, the WEMG should be read to a point where explanation of the guidance is needed.
WEMG Issue 01
Page 1 of 135
risk and learning from experience. There are a number of activities that are generic and applicable to all MoD equipment acquired for use by the armed forces. Chapter 4 Progression of a Warship Project Concept… …Design… …Production… …In-service Chapter 3 Warship Engineering Management Warship Characteristics Transversals Standards Management Activities Figure 1. The process continues through integration. identifying its objectives.2 uses the ‘V’ diagram to represent how.4. termed “stakeholders”. These include the various boundaries that affect or are affected by the equipment (lines of development). which are used in warship engineering (within the constraints listed in Chapter 2). • • • 3 The relationship between Chapters 3 and 4 is shown in Figure 1. as a document. knowledge management. acceptance. trials and testing until finally capability can be demonstrated.4 1. Chapter 2 sets the acquisition of a warship in the context of wider MoD acquisition policies and processes.Warship Engineering Management Guide (WEMG) Structure 1. with time.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Introduction 2 There are four chapters: • Chapter 1 Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the WEMG. Chapter 4 relates the processes described in Chapter 3 of the Engineering Management Lifecycle. Furthermore. the engineering processes are broken down into lower levels of design detail until a point is reached where manufacture and assembly can begin. scope and background.1. requirements management.1 . the organisations within the MoD that have an interest in the equipment. are also described. Chapter 3 describes the activities. WEMG Issue 01 Page 2 of 135 December 2007 .1 1 KEY CONCEPTS The V-Diagram Figure 1.
exist.2 1 2 1 The WEMG does not assign a role to a MoD Integrated Project Team (IPT) or an Industry Prime Contract Organisation (PCO) because the contractual boundaries between these two organisations may change to suit circumstances.2 identifies the agencies involved in procurement . requirements.2 .MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Introduction Chapter 1 TIME AGENCIES User (eg Cust 1) Define capability URD Assured capability Accept into service Management of acceptance Final trials Procurement Authority (eg DPA) Define performance and architecture SRD Accept off contract Test and Acceptance Plan lan Test forms fo SATS System Designer (eg PCO) Design system against performance Production Design for production Module construction Assembly sembly Inspection and HATS Sub-systems Sub-system design Installation Setting to work and test Equipment supplier Equipment manufacture under quality oversight Figure 1. there are many external influences (or constraints) that directly influence the warship engineering activities that should not be ignored. 1 1. internal or external. Constraints Warship engineering does not exist in isolation.3 and Table 1. Instead the WEMG will discuss the roles of these agencies. each contractual boundary must have a clear statement of need.The Warship V-Diagram – Agencies and Boundaries 2 3 The left-hand side of Figure 1. What is important in the application of the V diagram is to recognise that contractual boundaries. WEMG Issue 01 Page 3 of 135 December 2007 .4. Depictions of these constraints and how they are perceived to influence the warship engineering process are given in Figure 1. expected deliverable(s) and how the compliance of the deliverable(s) will be demonstrated. To ensure that the user gets what he expects. Constraints need to be recognised and understood so that the appropriate trade offs can be conducted.1. Chapter 2 puts these in context by relating them to some of these wider constraints.
PAYLOAD. personalities of the design team • • • • • • • Constraints Originating from The Design Environment Physical and natural environment Political climate The exact manner in which money is funded The need to comply with new laws (eg health and safety during build) The political necessity to support ailing shipyards The strategic and political necessity to spread work around shipyards The decision to reduce direct government research Collaboration with NATO allies on equipment • • • • • • Note: The above examples are not comprehensive. rivalries. STANDARDS) BEAM DEPTH DRAUGHT EMPERICAL FORMULAE SELECT COST POSSIBLY INCLUDING LIFE STRUCTURE CYCLE COST LONGITUDINAL BALANCE CONSTRAINTS DIRECTLY ON THE DESIGN FORM SELECT LIKELY MACHINERY SEAKEEPING INITIAL MANOEUVRING CHECKS CONSTRAINTS ON THE DESIGN PROCESS POWER SELECT BROAD COEFFICIENTS CALCULATIONS ENDURANCE UPPER DECK MAJOR SPACES AREA / WT BALANCE CONSTRAINTS ORIGINATING FROM THE DESIGN ENVIRONMENT BASED ON TYPE OF SHIP AREAS BASED ON TYPE OF SHIP GENERAL LAYOUT TO NEXT PHASE DESIGN AFTER APPROVAL PROCEDURE WEIGHT DISPLACEMENT OVERALL PICTURE THE DESIGN SPIRALS DOWN THE SURAFCE OF MODEL SECTION THROUGH MODEL SHOWING TYPICAL STEPS IN SPIRAL Figure 1.3 .1 Constraints in Ship Design – some typical examples WEMG Issue 01 Page 4 of 135 December 2007 . Table 1.Warship Engineering process showing influence of Constraints Design Constraints on the Design • Minimise building time • Consider foreign sales potential • Reduce manpower on the ship • Reduce specialised manpower on the ship • Minimise the maintenance load required at the ship • Simplify production process in the shipyard • Fit up-to-date equipment which is being concurrently developed with the ship • Minimise time in refit • Minimise time in port • Comply with international rules existing or likely to come into force • Minimise training load to operate ship • • • • • • • Constraints on the Design Process Structure of the design organisation Relationship of designer with customer Attitude of design organisation to the latest design techniques Past design type ship data available Countries of origin of designer or design methods The need or ability to buy-in talent to the design team Specialisation and training of the design team State of the art in various fields Computer facilities directly on tap and their limitations Quality of general engineering data directly available Research facilities directly under designers’ control The idiosyncrasies. prejudices.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Introduction INITIAL REQUIREMENTS OR PREVIOUS DESIGN STAGE Chapter 1 LENGTH REQUIREMENTS (eg SPEED. They serve to illustrate the difference in the three categories of “constraints”.
• • 3 However. For example. even if those particular words were rarely used.Surface Ship division will maintain this document. Encouraging careful planning of the testing and integration process.5 1 FUTURE UPDATES TO THE WEMG It is the role of the Naval Technical Publications Policy Committee (NTP PC) to be a joint forum to guide the development and use of Naval Technical Publications in support of warships from concept to disposal. As such. engineers who are involved in the “engineering of systems” need to understand the background to “systems engineering” and only incorporate appropriate practice into their own specialisation. the Sea Systems Group . A disciplined approach towards software/computer systems as marine products become more influenced by such systems. Under the authority of the NTP PC. Whilst the concept of applying systems engineering methods and techniques to different product areas is valuable.uk. Encouraging “joined-up” engineering. • • 1.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Introduction 1. products and technologies. 2 WEMG Issue 01 Page 5 of 135 December 2007 . the over elaboration of requirements in computer databases. a few words of caution are offered in the following areas: • The traditional language of systems engineering is heavily software based. collating feedback from readers and updating it when appropriate. although this also needs to be followed-up by the development of a greater variety of practical tools suitable for real situations. comments on the WEMG should be sent to DESSESea-Ship-AD@mod. under the banner of “requirements engineering”. including the need to trace requirements through the design process to acceptance. The NTP PC is a DPA/DLO Joint Committee responsible to the DPA XB and the DLO MLPB for ensuring that Naval Technical Publications support the aims of Smart Acquisition. without progressive design modelling to establish feasibility in terms of cost and inservice date.3 1 Warship Acquisition and Systems Engineering Chapter 1 Systems engineering is a generalised model and framework for managing an engineering process.4. Thus. The positive aspects of systems engineering with respect to warship acquisition are considered to be: • • 2 Placing the focus on engineering as the creative heart of the management of projects. It is also true that much of naval architecture and marine engineering concerned with design management is undoubtedly an example of systems engineering. systems engineering cannot be taught or applied in isolation from domain knowledge or experience. Therefore. it is self-evident that marine products have always been designed and produced using a form of “systems engineering”. Systems engineering is no magic panacea.
Knowing the LoDs. 2 Chapters 3 and 4 then go into the more specific detail relating to warships. such as In-Service Date (ISD). knowledge management. LINES OF DEVELOPMENT Introduction Smart Acquisition is the principle framework within which warship engineering is conducted. and how each contributes to the overall capability need. acceptance. risk and learning from experience.2 2.1 1 WARSHIPS IN MOD ACQUISITION AIM This Chapter sets the acquisition of a warship in the context of wider MoD acquisition policies 2 and processes . are also described. is key to supporting an integrated cost effective military capability.1 1 2 Interoperability Organisation Concept & Doctrine Logistics Military Capability Information Training Personnel Equipment Infastructure Interoperability Figure 2. and may be planned to be a staged or incremental process (see Section 2.4). WEMG Issue 01 Page 6 of 135 December 2007 . These include the various boundaries that affect or are affected by the equipment (Lines of Development).1. requirements management.The Lines of Development (LoDs) necessary to deliver Military Capability 3 4 It is important for warship engineering management is that there is consistency as to what constitutes each LoD. The warship is only one part of the system which is required to provide a military capability.1 . It should also be noted that full capability may not be achieved at a single event.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition Chapter 2 2 2. There are 8 Lines of Development (LoDs) that together deliver capability. the organisations within the MoD that have an interest in the equipment. and who is responsible for their delivery. There are a number of activities that are generic and applicable to all MoD equipment. Furthermore. termed “stakeholders”. these are sometimes referred to as the Eight Pillars of Military Capability or Other Elements of Military Capability (OEMC) and these are shown in Figure 2.2. 2.
the practical application of a common military doctrine to deliver a military capability. Maintaining these relationships is a key activity in the acquisition of a warship. specific CONUSE unlikely.e. Carrier Strike). This LoD covers all aspects of training conducted both ashore and afloat. The Concepts and Doctrine LoD illustrates the user’s intention of how the capability will be employed once in-service. Concept of Employment (CONEMP) . duplication to the requirement.how Equipment & Technology is operated (i. this LoD will be derived through an iteration process. expendable and non-expendable (including updates to legacy systems). all LoDs need to be considered. However. relating to URD boundary).2. there needs to be a distinction made between: • Concept of Use (CONUSE) . It is reiterated that equipment alone does not deliver military capability. These shortcomings will be addressed before at Acceptance into Service. both in the MoD and industry. Decisions on equipment design and selection should take into account training requirements (on board and ashore). 2 3 2. • • 2 The distinction is important because there is a need to place requirements in ‘context’ in order to aid their understanding and to support the scrutiny process. To deliver the capability required by the URD. but requires judgement in application. For the MoD. the extent of which is defined by the SRD boundary. Page 7 of 135 December 2007 WEMG Issue 01 . warship acquisition can be seen to require a wider vision and appreciation beyond just the warship itself.how the Capability is deployed (i.e. it is the ‘Warship’. within constraints. units.2. Concepts of Operations & Doctrine A Concept is an expression of the capabilities that are likely to be used to accomplish an activity in the future. 2. The CONEMP will evolve into a CONUSE.2. The training needs of the warship should be assessed throughout the design process in order to maintain a focus on minimising through-life costs. Doctrine is an expression of the principles by which military forces guide their actions and is a codification of how activity is conducted today. to function as a cohesive entity and so enhance Operational Capability. This ‘context’ complements the detailed requirement and should not provide unnecessary. Concept of Operations (CONOPS) . systems and weapons.4 1 This is the most familiar LoD in warship engineering. relating to SRD boundary). which is defined as ‘…training which is aimed at improving the ability of teams. and potentially contradictory.2 1 Concepts and Doctrine is normally loosely referred to in warship engineering as ‘CONOPS’. Training The provision of the means to practise. each stage increasing the definition. so making the production of a single. a warship is inherently adaptable.g.3 1 For a warship it may be better to consider the Training LoD as ‘Collective Training’. develop and validate. needed to outfit/equip an individual.how a force is deployed (e. It is authoritative.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition 5 Chapter 2 Therefore. Techniques and Procedures (TTP). Adjustments will be made as to how the warship is operated using adaptability in order to increase operational effectiveness. In the following paragraphs each of the LoDs is developed under the official MoD definition. Equipment The provision of military platforms. the CONUSE will usually identify limitations in Doctrine and Tactics. group or organisation. or formations. however. 3 4 2. This necessitates identification and interaction with a wide range of project stakeholders.' (Director General Training and Education’s Glossary of Defence Training Terminology). As a warship approaches its Acceptance into Service.
Knowledge is Information applied to a particular situation. Stores.2. Implicit is the need for strict management and access to the data and its configuration over its lifespan of more than 50 years. without inherent meaning. the Personnel LoD is a major through-life cost driver. 1 2 This includes all the facilities required to support the warship through all its life phases. Data is defined as raw facts. 1 2 3 The preferred method of storage of information and data is tending towards digital means and it is important that it can be easily accessed.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition 2. Graving docks. capable and motivated personnel to deliver Defence outputs.2.e. This will enable other specialists to develop and maintain the facilities. the software and operating systems. necessitates new forms of infrastructure. Electronic supplies. This involves the configuration of: • • • The storage system i. • Verification and validation of the translated data. development.2. used by humans and systems. 3 4 5 2.. floating docks.5 Infrastructure Chapter 2 The acquisition. The data and information including: • The translation of data and information for its working format to storage format. land. This LoD includes the provision of manpower. DVD etc. Information The provision of a coherent development of data.7 Personnel The timely provision of sufficient. CD. • The documentation of the stored data. both now and in the future. etc. utilities and facility management services (both Hard & Soft facility management (FM)) in support of Defence capabilities. Material suppliers.. the supply of the individual training solution and acceptability of the personnel solution. The infrastructure elements required for the support of the warship should be identified early. 1 Along with the Equipment LoD.6 Most of these are beyond the influence of the designs and often serve as constraints unless there is a (political) will to redress the situation. permanent buildings and structures. Information is defined as data placed in context. 2. Post facilities and craneage. information and knowledge requirements for capabilities and all processes designed to gather and handle data. ship lifts. ship building industry and facilities. management and disposal of all fixed. The file types used. Page 8 of 135 December 2007 WEMG Issue 01 . Weapons supplies. It includes estate development and structures that support military and civilian personnel. information and knowledge. computer networks. Note that the adoption of digital systems. without which it would be quickly become ineffective. Examples are: • • • • • • • Ship repair facilities.
An example of this would be the level of automation of a stores system. Identify and develop support requirements. It may be that pallet handlers are preferable since they can also be used in other warship operations. Training includes both First Of Class (FOC) and in-service training needs. construction.9 Organisation Relates to the operational and non-operational organisational relationships of people. in order to develop Training/Operational Performance Statements. WEMG Issue 01 Page 9 of 135 December 2007 . the acquisition. operation. evacuation and disposition of materiel.2. Equipment design and selection decisions influence the complement required for both operation and maintenance. less qualified maintainers but more handlers. MOD civilian organisational structures and Defence contractors providing support. storage. 3 The majority of the life cycle costs. and it works with training to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the team as a whole. maintain and support the warship during both the entry into service and in-service phases. and hierarchy. encompassing the provision of training systems and course delivery. Acquire support resources. Both solutions offer similar performance but different non-technical merits. A manual system would require fewer. it relates to the aspects of military operations which deal with. This is in the form of command structure. Note that disposal is becoming a more importable issue. maintenance.8 1 2 The facilities must be available to provide the appropriate material whenever and wherever it is needed. A fully automated system that required no manual loading would require maintainers with a higher level of training and few handlers to load pallets (for example). 1 2 3 This relates to how the various groups of specialists are organised such that the appropriate expertise is available in a timely manner.2. and disposition of facilities. transport. the acquisition or furnishing of services. The performance of a warship is dependent not only upon its physical characteristics. Logistics The science of planning and carrying out the operational movement and maintenance of forces. maintenance. It should be noted that a warship is a ‘system of systems’ and that automatic systems tend to be inflexible. the support structure and personnel but also on how they are organised. In its most comprehensive sense. medical and health service support. distribution. whilst not incurred are committed during the early stages of the design development. Provide in-service support. the transport of personnel. acquisition. the design and development. It typically includes military force structures. This applies both to military and civilian establishments. The aim is to optimise the whole life cost by careful management of the support systems through encouraging designs for supportability and the determination of support requirements.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition 2 Chapter 2 Manpower includes all MoD personnel (military and non-military) as well as the embarked contractors required to operate. The goals are: • • • • To influence the design with regard to whole life cost. 3 4 2. 2. The automatic system would have a higher initial cost with a lower operating cost (as well as lower complement numbers to be accommodated).
by MoD organisations. Assurance of compliance was provided through ship approval. REQUIREMENT MANAGEMENT Introduction A guiding principle in procurement is the development and specification of smart requirements. with reduced resources the MoD struggled to maintain even those standards which addressed essential features and practices unique to the MoD. The subject matter of the NESs was wide ranging. 2 Each of the discrete LODs is an optimised system. UK Defence capabilities. however. From the year 2000 onwards NESs have been replaced (renamed in the majority of cases) by Defence Standards (DefStans) these too have been maintained in the most part. forces of partner and other nations to train. These NESs were applied to the ship design and equipment selection. exercise and operate effectively together in the execution of assigned missions and tasks.3 2.1 1 2 2. The approach in the future is to maintain a number of key DefStans (in doing so.2. Similarly interoperability extends this system of systems to cover interaction between the discrete LODs of the other services and establishments. underpinned by operating experience and additional research and development work. including compatibility with Civil Regulations. it is important that the system of systems which integrates them is also optimised. approximately 700. Other Government Departments and the civil aspects of interoperability.3. when appropriate. Standards and Assurance (see figure). changing their thrust from a solution to a functional base document) and to retain the remainder DefStans as reference documents only.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition 2. however as for NESs the validity of many DefStans has come into questions as technology/RN good practice moves forward and resource within the MoD to update the standards remain scarce. These were then called up in ship specifications which were typically developed as an evolution from a previous and appropriate ship specification.10 1 Interoperability Chapter 2 In addition to the DLODs. 2.3. Interoperability is included as an overarching theme that must be considered when any DLOD is being addressed: The ability of UK Forces and. It aims to put the responsibility for specifying requirements with the organisation best placed for the task. a Naval Ship Code (for safety) and Naval Classification (in lieu of Merchant Classification).2 1 2 3 WEMG Issue 01 Page 10 of 135 December 2007 . However. Interoperability also covers interaction between Services. which is a structured approach to setting goal-based requirements and acceptance criteria. which comprises the General Naval Specification (that is a template for requirements that draws on Maritime Platform Characteristics owned by DEC) linked to key Naval Standards (capturing MoD corporate knowledge and adapted to fit into this framework). In the context of DLODs. Traditional Approach Historically the MoD has managed requirements by sponsoring a large portfolio of Naval Engineering Standards (NESs). all linking as a coherent set. The setting of requirements is achieved by the application of the framework for Naval Ship Specifications. inspection activities etc. Interoperability is used in the literal sense and is not a compromise lying somewhere between integration and deconfliction.
Naval Ship Code.3 1 Current/Future Approach Chapter 2 As previously discussed the approach to future surface ship requirements setting will be centred on the tailoring of the General Naval Specification. sponsored by TES-SSG. A greater use of national and international standards combined with tailored key Naval Standards (DefStans etc.) provides industry the flexibility to deliver a timely cost effective solution. this being divided in to seven main headings: • • • • • • • • • • Role. WEMG Issue 01 Page 11 of 135 December 2007 . with an exported EXCEL version available).2 shows the relationship between the elements of the Naval Ship Specification framework.). Supportability. populate and modify as necessary to allow their requirements to be clearly. It should be reiterated at this point that future ship procurement will be undertaken using Classification Rules (either Merchant Ship or Naval) for all vessel sizes. This will then be passed to the ship IPT who will continue tailor and populate the further detail below DEC’s requirements. populated in the Part 1 at a high level. Classification Rules.3. Survivability. The tailoring process starts with the GNS Part 1 template (Doors® Based. In additional the Naval Ship Code (naval SOLAS equivalent) provides. Safety & Environmental Protection. the backbone of the safety element. JSP 430 and key Naval Standards (Key DefStans. Part 1 being a representative of a combined URD and SRD requirements set. Moving forward in the design process the GNS comes in to play again in the form of GNS Part 2 Specifications. JSPs etc. in conjunction the principles of JSP430. Adaptability. 2 Initially DEC will take the GNS template. Operability. Again a set of GNS specifications (Part 2) are used in the development of the ship specific specifications. Habitability. Command & Control Systems (400 series) Auxiliary (500 Series) Figure 2. Interoperability.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition 2. Mobility. Constraints. at a higher level the specifications are grouped as follows: • • • • • • • Ship Design and Layout (000 series) Platform (100 series) Propulsion (200 series) Electrical (300 series) Combat. Part 2 is broken-down in to a number of discrete technical subjects areas defined by the Product Breakdown Structure (PBS). and in a standard format. these interface with the tailored Part 1.
common standards for interoperability. However. Naval Ship Code 5 The Merchant Class exists within the framework of international legislation overseen by IMO. PfP and NSCA). Fight. This void is filled by the “Naval Ship Code”.Provides some useful hints and tips.e. Move). Safety of Life at Sea vs Float. and reach a common understanding and a world body of knowledge to protect and sustain naval capability. funded jointly by Navies.Guide to the Tailoring Process .Power Distribution Equipment. Capability .Demonstrable evidence that naval ships have been bench-marked against statute.A framework for Navies and Classification Societies to share ideas and experiences.Ship Specification Generation 3 A number of useful documents have been developed which assist the authors in the development of a tailored GNS. which delivers the following: • 6 Safety assurance . • • • WEMG Issue 01 Page 12 of 135 December 2007 .Protection of military capability. • Naval Ship Rules 4 The Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Naval Ships are rules developed by an independent organisation for the assessment of the essential features of naval ships. Forum .MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition Chapter 2 Figure 2. the ship is eligible for classification. and enabling responsible competition between Classification Societies under the umbrella of an intergovernmental naval body (NATO). Disengaging naval ships from conventions such as IMO SOLAS in order to create Naval Class leaves Naval Class in a void which can leave Naval Authorities. When that assessment is undertaken by Lloyd’s Register and a ship is found to comply with them. for example. Statutory Authorities and Classification Societies confused and result in misinterpretation. these are: • General Naval Specification . 301 . a key part being SOLAS. IMO SOLAS is unattractive for many naval ships because the military role demands design and operating solutions that are not all compatible with some provisions of SOLAS (i.this document relates to the ship specification breakdown.2 . GNS Product Breakdown Structure General Naval specification . failure to achieve acceptable levels of safety. or at worst. a sound foundation for a robust safety framework and a legitimacy based on the large number of participants (NATO. In summary the Naval Ship Code provides a framework for a naval surface ship safety management system based on and benchmarked against IMO conventions and resolutions.
Trials . Mature & Verifiable URD Other Lines of Development (LODs) Integrated. Verification provides the information required to correct shortcomings in the equipment/system. it requires an indicative design to articulate the acceptance process. formally agreed). ITEA is broadly synonymous with the systems engineering term "Verification and Validation” and includes all the different Lines of Development (LoDs). Inspections URD. Evaluation and Acceptance Plan (ITEAP) Acceptance in to Service Outline SRD Mature & Verifiable SRD Modification controlled by Configuration Management List of Contract Acceptance Events Acceptance Off Contract Tests.3).MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition Key Naval Standards 7 2. Hence it provides evidence that enables Acceptance into Service.e.4 1 2 Chapter 2 There remains a number of very naval standards required for the warship role.Typical Acceptance Process 3 4 MoD guidance on acceptance management is comprehensive. Verification and Validation are defined as follows: • 5 Verification (did we build the system right?) is the process of confirming that the characteristics and behaviour of equipment/system comply with the requirements specified in the SRD. • WEMG Issue 01 Page 13 of 135 December 2007 .3 where a list of contract acceptance events is tightly linked to a mature and verifiable SRD within the contract boundary between System Designer and Procurement Authority (i. and is focused specifically on ensuring that the MoD actually gets the military capability that it sets out to acquire (see ITEAP in Figure 2.3 . Validation (did we build the right system?) is the process of generating objective evidence that the MC enabled by the equipment/system satisfies the needs defined in the URD. This is shown in Figure 2. SRD. Therefore. ITEA (Integrated Test Evaluation and Acceptance) is used for the totality of the activity. These include subject such as ACCEPTANCE MANAGEMENT Acceptance is a process to confirm that a user’s need for military capability (MC) has been met by the system supplied. and a summary of the important concepts for warship engineering is presented in this Section. acceptance management is as important as requirement management in the early stages of a project when the SRD is being created. It cannot be over-emphasised that acceptance is not something to think about ‘later’. Hence it provides the evidence that enables authorisation of Acceptance Off Contract. Test. Design ‘Trade-Off Triangle’ Reference Design Solution Mature Design Warship Equipment & Technology LOD Contract Boundary Figure 2.
9. and then having staged deliveries (tranches) that would build up the number of warships to be able to eventually deliver the required capability.g. and to give the MoD confidence in the achievement of performance expectations. having a strategy for their operation. Progressive Acceptance 7 Progressive Acceptance describes the practice of performing interim activities at key stages throughout the engineering. The Sea Acceptance Trials (SATs) are a progression from the HATs. Incremental Acceptance 8 9 Incremental Acceptance is formal pre-planned acquisition of capability (URD) or performance (SRD) by stages. Initially Factory Acceptance Tests (FATs) would be performed on the radar to determine that it functions in a benign environment with readily available test facilities. contracts and test plans. it is essential that roles and responsibilities are clearly understood. as defined in the following paragraphs. or Duty Holder. Acceptance may be complicated by an uncertain Design Authority. installation. 10 2. in that the ship is being operated at sea whilst the radar is being tested. recruitment of the necessary personnel. as well as the shore based personnel and facilities. e. simulators). It is normal that some equipment is provided to the shipyard for installation on the warship by outside agencies arranged by the MoD project. Its purpose is to minimise the impact of any required remedial action. This approach may either be progressive up to acceptance of the warship. while allowing those with authority and need. the supplies needed. All these do not need to be in place from day one and can be built up progressively to eventually deliver the required capability. designs (and not just drawings and CAD models). To test the radar in a way not done before would have the risk of having to remove the radar and return it to the manufacturer’s test facilities for further FATs. An example of this might be the main engines. development. It is vital that the project has adequate control of its main baselines. their training (e. commissioning and integration of the equipment/system. Acceptance Off Contract can take place.g. Ideally the HATs would repeat a sub set of the FATs. or incremental following acceptance of the warship as a platform.2). Should there be complications. The acquisition of this Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) is outside the control of the contractor as the Design Authority who is tasked to provide only ‘Installation Provision made in Design’ (IPMD). where the Duty Holder would direct the Design Authority to incorporate the specified equipment in the design and then direct a supplier to provide the equipment (responsibilities are defined in Section 2. In order to get the Acceptance In To Service the warship would need to be operated with all the other Lines of Development. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT The following is derived from MoD guidance and identifies a number of fundamental concepts in information management applicable to warship engineering design management: Configuration management: this defines and controls the configuration items which are defined in terms of requirements documents. On completion of the SATs. design. This incremental acceptance would also include the other Lines of Development. manufacture. Once the manufacturer was satisfied it worked in this environment it would be integrated on to the warship (or a major element of it) and Harbour Acceptance Trials (HATs) would take place.5 1 WEMG Issue 01 Page 14 of 135 December 2007 .MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition 6 Chapter 2 Many well-managed projects address Verification and Validation in carefully controlled steps. For example Incremental Acceptance of a mine-hunting capability could be made by initially accepting first of class. the means to access and modify the information base in a systematic and controlled manner. This progressive acceptance can be illustrated with an example of a warship’s radar.
Insignificant uncertainties.‘write once. they must be accounted for in a project’s baseline Planning & Schedule Management activities. entail re-planning of the project since items on the critical path have inherent risks. use many times’ is a useful concept. The linkage is used to ensure the requirement is ‘broken down’ to configuration item level as well as to ensure progressive acceptance can take place. Information ownership: although free and open access to information is needed. these occurrences can be further sub-divided as being significant or 3 insignificant .MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition Chapter 2 Traceability: the information base may be highly intricate and inter-related. In doing so. The warship engineer can use his technical knowledge to determine the probability of occurrences. For example. For insignificant certainties it is likely that the only action necessary is to add an entry in an assumptions register to log the fact that it has been taken in to account. neither may make unilateral changes without the agreement of the project as a whole. customers must own the user requirements even if the IPT is responsible for developing them and prime contractors must have control over the detailed structure of the deliverables. However. the consequences of changes (or deviations from the intended outcome) in one attribute can be checked for their potential impact on others. it will identify. which although not warranting specific action. as such. once agreed and linked to other information types. should be addressed within a project’s baseline Planning & Schedule Management activities. management action may be necessary in order to avoid. information management is an aid to other engineering functions. it is important that discipline is exercised in terms of authority to change. which serves to link requirement sets (at different levels) and other elements of data.6 1 2 3 4 5 3 However. There needs to be a record of design history and design decisions (or Ship’s Cover) for through life support of the project/programme. The overall aim is the efficient use of information by all parties . these decisions must be regularly revisited in order to assure that they remain relevant. analyse and develop mitigation strategies for all issues. This will. similarly. This will allow assumptions to be revisited at a later time and the validity of decisions to be reviewed. RISK MANAGEMENT Risk management serves to reduce the consequences of uncertainty and issues which may jeopardise the project. Certain occurrences are events that WILL happen and. However. In all the above cases. Uncertain occurrences are events that may or may not occur. (Examples may be the traceability between user requirements and elements of the design. 3 2. links between requirements and tests and those between the management plan or development schedule and the product configuration structure). Irrespective of whether the occurrence is considered significant or insignificant it must be addressed. With traceability in place. An example of an insignificant uncertainty could be the risk of a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) pump not being available from a particular supplier. WEMG Issue 01 Page 15 of 135 December 2007 . providing support to the review. for example of a certain occurrence would be a list of the current legislation that is applicable to the warship. This can be dealt with by identifying other suppliers and the date at which the decision needs to be made for the purchase of the pump. applicability of key constraints to certain requirements. for significant certainties. The type of management action necessary to deal with them depends on their significance. minimise or absorb the effects. 2 An important system engineering information management effort is the Requirements and Acceptance Database (RADB). change-management and decision-making processes. no doubt.
2 1 2 3 4 Table 2.3) is termed Cost Capability Trade Offs (CCTO).7. warship engineering should clearly identify the impact to the warship design and the actions that are necessary to mitigate or utilise them. and the hull would be built so it does not preclude its use. An example of an opportunity would be a hull coating material (that is in the development stage) that would increase the life of the hull beyond the performance of the baseline solution. • Employment e.1 . The industrial resources to design and manufacture a complex warship may be far more of a consideration than in the past. However. risks and opportunities associated with other Lines of Development should be considered with a framework to collect these together in a unified manner. This will avoid repeated bidding rounds with different scopes of supply. Resource availability and coordination constraints involve the factors shown in Table 2. The number of warship design options to be considered should be as many as you need to determine the design drivers. Thus. the same process may be used to manage both risk (more correctly termed threat) and opportunity. It is already apparent that if the national policy is to retain warship production nationally then a coherent approach across projects will be required. With fewer new classes being procured there has been a substantial reduction in the available resources. it will be necessary to pay close attention to cost and time aspects from setting the original budgets through to final acceptance in-service and beyond.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition 6 Chapter 2 The term ‘Risk’ is generally used to embrace the possibility of both negative and/or positive consequences. if skills are not exercised they will leave the industry and are unlikely to return.1 1 2. it is certainly advisable that available budget limits are made clear to all parties up front.Resource availability and coordination WEMG Issue 01 Page 16 of 135 December 2007 . certain budget constraints may start to become apparent quite early. costs may not be the biggest constraint early on as timescales may be adjusted or other projects displaced to compensate. In order to get an idea of how much capability is delivered by various solutions and at what cost. It should be noted that each warship requirement has these design drivers. and if it can be employed it will be. The Risk and Opportunity Management Plan would monitor the availability of the new material. These cover primarily the areas of finance and resources. then the use of the material would be a risk rather than an opportunity. possibly at no extra cost. and there were no other alternatives that met the requirement. For these risks. They may not be unique. indicative designs need to be developed to understand the design drivers and the costs estimated for each warship design option. staff experienced in frigates cannot easily transfer to submarines and vice versa. Finally.7 2.1 .g. Finance and Resources Although the early stages of a project will be concerned with identifying the budget requirements to bring the project to fruition. but it is dangerous to assume that the design drivers are the same from warship to warship. These CCTOs are used to establish the necessary budget. once these stages are passed and budget targets set. COST AND TIME Introduction In order to successfully acquire a warship. Design capability • MoD oversight and review • Industry design teams Manufacture • Facilities • Labour skills Coordination across suppliers • Commercial/contractual issues Continuity of Resources • Relevant experience e. Paradoxically. If international procurements are undertaken the same issues will apply but on a larger and even more politically complex scale. These risks/opportunities exist outside the control of warship engineering and possibly beyond the control of the warship project.g. The process with which the URD and any indicative design are balanced (see Section 2.. 7 2.7. If the new material was the baseline.
Technology maturity levels provide an indication of the state of a technology. They do not necessarily imply the time or cost needed to mature that technology to a state at which the risk of inclusion is acceptable. THROUGH LIFE MANAGEMENT Through Life Management serves to maintain the current capability as well as to manage improvements. Deterioration may impact on safety and capability and. tools. Page 17 of 135 December 2007 7 WEMG Issue 01 .MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition 2. It is initiated. existing capability life and technology development needs. Deterioration 3 Deterioration affects the hull. may be expensive and cannot be ignored. place operational availability at risk. unless managed and controlled. which is either obsolete or no longer cost effective to maintain in-service. timescales to bring to production. It is inevitable. Technology management can support Margin Policy and Management by forecasting the performance and demands of future technological developments on the warship as well as estimating the impact of these technologies on overall capability. IPR availability and cost and risks. which will take in to account obsolescence issues. from the initial delivery of a specified minimum acceptable performance to eventual achievement of target performance. particularly in old ships. Technology Insertion 5 Technology Insertion may occur after In-Service Date (ISD) and should address system obsolescence. developed and maintained by the project team and provides visibility to all stakeholders of the through life management planning process. The warship engineering management should allow for Incremental Acquisition in the context of the IA plan. and/or to counter technology obsolescence. support products.8 1 2 Obsolescence affects all equipment. this is subject to an announced future end of production date by the manufacturer.3 1 Timescale Constraints Chapter 2 Timescale constraints can be considered in two areas. Capability Upgrade 6 Capability Upgrade may occur after ISD and is the modification of the system of interest during the operational stages in order to introduce new or enhanced functionality or capability. the programme for a project is driven by the desired In-Service Date (ISD). This in turn will be dependent on either the need to provide a particular capability that does not already exist or to replace an existing solution. the project timescale will determine the time available to develop equipment or manufacturing processes to be used in the warship. space.7. systems and equipment. If a technology is considered desirable and would enhance the warship under consideration then inquiries must be made in order to ascertain factors such as required research and development. Incremental Acquisition (IA) 4 Incremental Acquisition (IA) provides for equipment capability to be upgraded in a planned way. The TLMP covers the following topics: Obsolescence 2 2. With regard to existing capability life. and/or to improve system reliability. software. processes. It impacts upon all stages of the life of equipment. It will also be funded at Main Gate and managed through the Whole Life Support Plan. For technology development needs. Software is subject to an announced future end of support date. For Technology Insertion and Capability Upgrades there should be sufficient margin (wild heat. The Through Life Management Plan (TLMP) encompasses the entire acquisition cycle. but its impact and cost can be minimised by forethought and careful planning. etc) within the warship to allow equipment not originally foreseen in the design to be accommodated. For hardware. The scope for all these approaches is largely due to the ‘systems of systems’ nature of a warship. standards and specifications.
System and equipment DAs can also be in MoD or industry. approval to operate. This role necessitates specifying the material to be provided by the supply chain. In reaching decisions the DH will seek appropriate advice from the DA and takes full responsibility for the consequences of departing from that advice. where it is delegated to industry. Manage the integration with relevant Lines of Development.9. In essence. This involves establishing and maintaining the design intent as being the complete configured definition of the design down to component level. uses it. Regardless of the DH’s decisions. he is always ultimately responsible for all the implications of its existence. Ensure a DA organisation is established and monitored such that the configured design envelope is maintained throughout the life of the ship. the DH is to: • 6 Take ownership of ship design. Define the correct apportionment of responsibility/liability/incentive in the Terms of Reference of all suppliers including the DA. or part of it to industry. In discharging his duties. the DA remains responsible for the accuracy of the advice it gives. design responsibility for any given item will only reside in one organisation. • • • • • WEMG Issue 01 Page 18 of 135 December 2007 .9 2. In all cases. some guidance is also provided on equipment sponsors and system and equipment design authorities. specification of design codes and practice and ultimately. MoD would retain technical responsibilities. Satisfy regulators and legislative bodies that the ship is operated within the design envelope set by the DA or that there is appropriate justification where departures from the design envelope are necessary. which may well be based upon the current arrangements under Smart Acquisition. In maintaining control over the design the DA takes holistic responsibility for the design and all consequent decisions.2 1 2 3 4 5 The DH is responsible for managing the balance between capability and cost. where it is a part of MoD.9. Generic Roles and Responsibilities The Owner (or Duty Holder) defines the need for the ship. Duty Holder Responsibilities 2. In general. but the allocation of responsibilities must always be clear. The DA can be within MoD or in industry.1 1 ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE & RESPONSIBILITIES Introduction Chapter 2 Organisational structure and the associated responsibilities can be described in generic terms which relate to the current MoD policy and structure. In addition. including performance requirements and maintaining the Systems Requirement Document and specification and provision of GFE. Take ownership of ship safety case including maintenance of certification and classification. These decisions are driven by the debate of operational and technical imperatives between the DH and the customer. documented and visible to other DAs and the owners. covering manufacturers and suppliers of equipment. which are more appropriate for government. and disposes of it and. to be understood. or the contract. As such.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition 2. This includes the correct specification and maintenance of organisational interfaces and constraints. This Section explains the roles and responsibilities of Owner and the DA sufficiently to enable the implications of holding the DA role within MoD or delegating all. the Owner must ensure that a Design Authority (DA) is established and is competent to control the ship design. as such. it is essential that the generic roles and responsibilities are captured within the specific arrangements for a project. including the prescription of operating and maintenance requirements in order to provide agreed levels of material readiness. procures it.
Identify and task Technical Authorities to support the DA for specific systems and equipment. which ensures continued support to the Operating Authority. and agreeing the recovery action and commercial consequences with the DA when it has not.2). specifies the design in sufficient detail for it to be built and maintained. and for ensuring that the design meets the design intent defined by the DH and provides an adequate level of safety to the personnel on board. including any DA and taking corrective action when necessary. Communicate operating and maintenance procedures that maintain design intent to the operator.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition • Chapter 2 Ensure the contractual arrangements used to employ any Design Authority include an exit strategy. Monitor the material state. • • • Design Authority Responsibilities 7 The DA is responsible for developing and maintaining the ship design that satisfies the DH’s requirement. Monitor the performance of suppliers. Accept the obligation to supply sufficient information to enable safety regulators to fully assess the features of the design and for the DH to take ownership of overall ship safety. ensuring the ship is adequately maintained and maintaining operating and maintenance records from which the DA can confirm the ship has been operated within the prescribed envelope. These activities are carried out in a coherent way so that the DA can provide assurance that the ship will meet the DH’s requirements providing it is operated in accordance with the instructions provided. each TA is to: WEMG Issue 01 Page 19 of 135 December 2007 . third parties and the environment. • • • • • • Technical Authorities Responsibilities 9 Each TA is responsible for developing and maintaining the design of his system and/or equipment within the overall design of the ship. Prepare reliable information relating to the operation and maintenance of the ships and provide this via the DH to the operating and maintenance authorities. complete necessary analysis and implement design changes as required and to report shortfalls in resource and/or competence to the Duty Holder. There should be no impact on the Operating Authority if DA is moved between organisations. Provide configuration management of the design including the identification and maintenance of an audit trail for ship design standards. Ensure that it has sufficient resources and competence to maintain and update the design. should the operation of the DA fail. As such. records the material state and provides instructions for the operation of the ship. Take ownership of risk that the ship meets the performance requirements and is safe if operated and maintained within defined operating constraints. considers the implications of departures from the specification. As such. the DA is to: • 8 Develop and maintain the overall design of the ship including ownership of system and equipment performance requirements and overall integration of the design. codes and regulations (see Table 2.
Approve modifications and changes to operating envelopes. xii. Ranging reports . WBS.Level 1.Key Information to be maintained by the Design Authority 2. Ships boats safety case. WEMG Issue 01 Page 20 of 135 December 2007 . Aviation Interface Safety Case. Stability Information Book and/or Loading Manual. xvii. x. Book of Calculations. Define and maintain system and/or equipment operation.9. Develop and maintain the system and/or equipment design. maintenance and support documentation that when applied will maintain the design intent. ix. iii. Ensure that it has sufficient resources and competence to maintain and update the design. 3D CAD model.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition • • Chapter 2 Own the system and/or equipment design.Lifting equipment safety case. statutory and classification Emergency Preparedness Salvage pack and associated procedures Maintenance Management System Defines maintenance requirements Support Solution Architecture and contracts for support Design Information relating to the design is to include. Safety Management Plan. ii. Stability Model Validation Report. xiv. vii. Master Equipment List. Stability Model.IR/Radar/Noise. Requirements Staff 2 Requirements Staff have responsibility for identifying the capability required to meet the UK’s Defence objectives. xvi. • • • • • • • Document Description System Requirements Document Captures the ship performance requirements Defect Register Captures safety and performance shortfalls Safety Case Portfolio of evidence to justify safety Certification Current MoD. There are a number of organisations involved over the lifetime of the project as detailed in the following paragraphs. Budgets for weight. vi. Ships Drawings . Identify and maintain an audit trail for system and/or equipment design. iv. System and equipment specifications.3 1 Organisations in Acquisition Acquisition is built on the integration of relationships between customers and suppliers. Table 2.2 . xi. for translating those requirements into an approved programme and for ensuring effective delivery of that new capability into service. 2 and 3. but not limited to: i. viii. Tank Calibration Book. Take ownership of the risk that the system and/or equipment is fit for purpose and safe if operated and maintained within defined limits. xiii. Own the system and/or equipment safety case and production of information for use by the DA in support of the ship safety case. Characteristics of an acquisition approach are clearly identified customers and the formation of Integrated Project Teams (IPT’s) to supply the requirement. v. PBS. port. Maintain reference and support documentation and specify production standards. seeking sufficient information from the DA as necessary to support integration into the ship and meet DA requirements. margins. complete necessary analysis and implement design changes as required and to report shortfalls in resource and/or competence to the DA. xv.
Similarly. construction and operation should be addressed. the IPT will depend on industry to support the Duty Holder role to an extent that is appropriate to the project. As the Duty Holder. SMEs are encouraged to provide pragmatic advice taking into account the constraints placed upon the IPT. WEMG Issue 01 Page 21 of 135 December 2007 . IPTs are encouraged to take into account the advice of SMEs wherever possible in order to ensure that the equipment is acquired and managed in a cost-effective manner that is consistent with other related MoD projects and equipment. In doing so.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warships in MoD Acquisition Operating Authority 3 Chapter 2 Operating Authorities have the responsibility for operating the capability as a defence capability that incorporates all Lines of Development. Naval Authorities 5 Naval Authorities regulate hazard areas to provide independent safety assurance (reporting to the Ship Safety Board) that. the IPT is responsible for ensuring that the equipment and technology delivered provides an adequate level of safety. The Naval Authorities require assurance that the ship material state is consistent with the design and agreed standards and acceptance criteria. when applied effectively by both the Naval Authority and the Duty Holder will reduce project risk and improve safety and capability. Investment Appraisal Board 8 The Investment Appraisal Board (IAB) is responsible for reviewing submissions from the IPT for gate approval and approving the subsequent phase of the project. the Naval Authority may either attend a ship or by represented by a Recognised Organisation who is formally authorised by the Naval Authority to act on their behalf (representation is arranged by the Integrated Project Team). Subject Matter Experts 7 Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) within the MoD provide advice on how certain specialist aspects of warship design. The IPT will co-ordinate other MOD stakeholders industry to ensure availability. Recognised Organisations 6 Organisations formally authorised to act on behalf of a Naval Authority to provide assurance that the ship material state is consistent with the design and the agreed standards and acceptance criteria in order to support Naval Authority certification. the IPT is charged with ensuring that the ship is capable and available during its scheduled operation. The IPT will engage industry to provide the equipment and technology. To achieve this. Integrated Project Team 4 The Integrated Project Team (IPT) is charged with acquiring the equipment and technology required to deliver the capability defined by the Requirements Staff within the allocated resources and taking into account the wider requirements of other stakeholders. Operating Authorities manage the equipment inservice and provides relevant advice and expertise to support the Requirements Staff in optimising future capability. Once a ship is in-service.
Safety. Finally. WARSHIP CHARACTERISTICS Introduction To facilitate the development of the User and System Requirements and Acceptance Criteria for warship projects. To set the scene. various “warship characteristics” are described that reflect the nature and role of a warship. Warship characteristics are high-level. combat systems) and warship specific (e. it is important to understand those performance requirements that have the most significant effect on the design solution. a set of generic warship requirements has been developed.g. aircraft carriers) requirements to produce the User Requirements Document (URD) and System Requirement Document (SRD). unachievable. They may be enhanced to reflect specific roles and warship types. landing platform docks. Supportability. Deployability. requirements and acceptance criteria that ensure coherency and affordability across the fleet. Interoperability. 4 However. WEMG Issue 01 Page 22 of 135 December 2007 . it should be recognised that some requirements are whole ship characteristics that cannot readily be cascaded down to totally define the systems comprising the warship. These generic requirements are used along with role specific (e. it is appropriate to outline the variety of standards that are required to support the successful acquisition of a warship. A selection of transversal issues are described that cut across the design activities (see Section 3. Habitability.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Chapter 3 3 3.3) followed by an overview of the management activities required to monitor and control the acquisition of a warship.1 1 2 3 Adaptability. Producibility. The specification of inappropriate or excessive performance requirements can have a significant impact on the design solution. Mobility.1 1 WARSHIP ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT AIM The aim of this chapter is to outline the issues and aspects that need to be taken into account throughout the acquisition process from concept to disposal. capability-based. making it unaffordable and.2. The generic warship requirements have been developed by learning from the experiences of previous projects and through applying best practice identified by these projects. Operability. Maintainability.2 3. The warship characteristics either drive or place constraints on the design and are listed below under the following broad headings (in alphabetical order): • • • • • • • • • • • • 3. Survivability. These generic warship requirements are known as Warship Characteristics and are summarised below. Therefore. Upgradability. 4 When developing and setting the warship characteristics and the User Requirements it is important to understand how they drive the design and hence cost. in the extreme.g. They encourage high-level requirements 4 to be cascaded to detailed system and sub-system requirements and acceptance criteria. how requirements interact and allow a balanced design solution to be achieved.
Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 5 Chapter 3 Performance drivers will have a fundamental impact upon the design of the ship (e. However.4 1 Habitability This group of Warship Characteristics covers accommodation. Deployability The environment in which the vessel is expected to operate is one of the most onerous design drivers. this flexibility will invariably lead to design compromises and the vessel may ultimately become ineffective in any of the required roles should these design compromises not be managed effectively. If they prove to be a major design driver. victualling and waste management. WEMG Issue 01 Page 23 of 135 December 2007 . the ballast tank capacities and ballasting system requirements for the vessel. Examples of when constraints were allowed to jeopardise the solution include: • 6 On LPD(R) the requirement for a Ro-Ro LCU led to wider LCUs. the more robust and generally larger the design must be and the greater the propulsion power and electrical power consumption required to operate in those environmental conditions.2. For example. installation. These can then be monitored and managed through regular meetings such as Design Reviews or safety reviews. Many design decisions may have been pre-empted by earlier decisions on weapon and equipment options. 2 3. recreation. it needed a shallow draught for entry into port. • 3. systems. it is not unusual for machinery options to be prescribed before the start of the ship design.g. Environmental performance drivers include: maximum and minimum values of temperature. humidity. salinity. placing limits on performance and constraining the design. sea ice and icing. The more extreme the environment in which the ship is expected to operate. the location and size of the flight deck and hangar). An understanding of the generic and role specific design 5 drivers will enable them to be addressed early and given sufficient priority throughout the design process. 5 6 Developed during early Option Identification and Design Survey activities. equipment. An example of environmental conditions driving aspects of the design is: • The sea state operating requirements for HMS Scott required a deep operating draught to minimise ship motions during surveying. they take many forms and must be made clear as early as possible. waves. The environmental requirements may also need to be specially considered for differing parts of the vessel and its systems. current. however. In turn. Environmental conditions should be defined to take account of the ship’s role and described in terms that drive the design of the ship. water depth and visibility. Constraints are limitations on what can be produced. This role specific requirement then drove the well dock dimensions. for example. then the extent of their validity must be investigated and included in the trade-off studies. Thus the different roles of the vessel must be prioritised such that the designer has a clear understanding of the end user intentions. it is important that the end user is also made aware of any operating limitations imposed by the warship design style that may limit 6 adaptability . During the 2nd World War the RAF’s first 4 engine heavy bomber was the Short Stirling. This in turn drove the size of the ship.2 1 Adaptability It is often beneficial to have a design that is adaptable to new roles in-service. swell.2.3 1 2 3. which had much longer wings and new hangars. using the ship in a sea area and in weather conditions for which it was not designed. manufacture. These requirements then drove the maximum and minimum draught. It was not very successful because of this and was completely eclipsed by the later Halifax and Lancaster.2. Its wingspan was constrained to allow it to fit in to existing hangars. wind. tests and trials of individual items of equipment. domestic services. The generic requirement for damage stability drove the width of the hull in way of the dock.
Principal drivers for accommodation space location are environment/ship motions. frigate dimensions tended to be volume constrained. grouping by rank/privacy/gender and vulnerability (especially zoning). galley and commissariat). Facilities for allowing for ‘social grouping’ of accommodation areas. Recently. If the latter.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 2 Chapter 3 Accommodation.2. onboard storage handling and offloading of waste and equipment removal routes.5 1 2 3 WEMG Issue 01 Page 24 of 135 December 2007 . vessels. waste and garbage disposal. however. Accommodation standards ensure that personnel have adequate facilities for sleeping. • • • • 5 ‘Hotel’ services (catering. Interfaces may take many forms such as physical interfaces or envelopes.g. then it is vital that a means of managing the evolving interface is established early in order that unnecessary burdens are not placed on one project or the other. require rigorous definition but can be managed. involving communications. provided all parties to the interface are involved. hygiene. involving frequencies. recreation and victualling requirements are currently design drivers. or sub-system or equipment compatibility (e. messing and washing/toilet. fuel. Where there are links with other operational systems or equipment then all interfaces must be clearly established. recreation. and modern micro electronics have tended to reduce weapon system space requirements. any volume saving achieved may be offset by the future requirements for accommodation standards. equipment and organisations need to be identified and managed. Provision of suitably high-standard accommodation to aid rest and relaxation and to promote personnel retention. largely due to the increased space devoted to accommodation and to support weapons systems. fresh water. permanent versus temporary embarkees). Non physical interfaces. These systems or equipment may exist or may themselves be the subject of a procurement programme. the designer has scope in locating accommodation spaces. Whereas accommodation (spatial and other) is clearly defined in various standards. etc. Facilities for hierarchical separation requirements. 3. etc. software. locations of victualling stores. In developing the quantity and standard of accommodation due consideration should be given to: • • 3 4 Warship’s operating profile. access to related spaces. In post World War II years. Interoperability Interfaces with other operational systems.g.e. command and control. stores handling systems. Variable loads on accommodation (i. weapon systems/ammunition).) appropriate to the number and type of embarked personnel must be provided. Facilities for mixed-sex crews. safety/escape. there have been attempts to reduce warship complements. with adequate access and within a controlled environment. functional grouping of compartments (e. However.
Positioning and height of the flight deck to minimise impact of ship motions and water on operations. The hangar should be large enough to undertake the necessary level of onboard maintenance including usually rotor head removal driving hangar deck height. etc. the following characteristics are considered key to successful 7 aviation arrangements for a modern frigate or destroyer : • • Adequate operating clearance between hangar and forward spot. Thus the requirement to launch and recover RIBs or sea boats rapidly (for “Man Overboard”) will be a major design driver for smaller warships. RAS is a whole ship evolution and requires the designer to consider reception areas. handling. For example. which must be positioned as close to midships as possible to minimise the effects of ship motions. The storage. requirements for back RASing of waste. The positioning of the boat launching equipment is also likely to conflict with the optimum Replenishment at Sea facilities. breakdown areas and strike down routes. Space must be provided adjacent to the RAS reception point to break down stores into smaller packages which can then be transferred to storerooms. but also rig type. which should also be located close to midships on either side of the vessel. WEMG Issue 01 Page 25 of 135 December 2007 . Consideration also needs to be given to the arrangements of potential supplying vessels – not only in terms of physical arrangement. • • • • • 5 Given that aviation plays a key role in a modern warship it is important that the aviation requirements are given the appropriate level of priority and considered from the outset. The position of the flight deck should minimise the impact of ship motions on aviation by bringing the spot forward as far as possible. The boats and their handling equipment also take up a large amount of upper deck space. In particular.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Ship to Air 4 Chapter 3 The requirements for aviation facilities have a major impact on the design of a warship. The flight deck should be long enough to avoid the tail hanging over the end of the ship. Consideration should also be given to potential hydrodynamic and dynamic interaction between the warship and the supplying ship. nozzles. RAS reception points should be located as near to midships as possible on both sides of the vessel to reduce the effect of ship motions. vessel motions and manoeuvring characteristics may come under greater scrutiny. To facilitate RAS operations. launch and recovery of these boats requires special handling equipment. Given that trends are to increase the speed of transfer of bulkier and heavier loads. it is likely that Replenishment at Sea will place more onerous design requirements for future warship designs. Requirement to operate both manned and un-manned aircraft (UAVs). Ship to Ship 7 8 This includes all requirements for operating with other ships. These sea boats can be 6-8 metres in length and up to 3 metres beam with a weight of several tonnes. storage areas should be as close as practicable to the reception point. Ship to Boat 6 The ability to launch and recover Rigid Inflatable Boats (RIBs) or other sea boats in adverse weather conditions is a common requirement. but maximising the separation between spot and superstructure. The type and number of aircraft and unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) that will be operated from the warship drive the size and location of the flight deck. 9 10 7 These requirements will be in conflict with other requirements and a compromise will be necessary. as well as the hangar and other support arrangements. the principal driver being Replenishment at Sea (RAS). The location and configuration of the hangar to ease aircraft handling and minimise air turbulence over the flight deck (normally the hangar is located immediately forward of the flight deck to negate the requirement for a complex aircraft lift).
These factors in turn may drive the aft end structural design and equipment handling arrangements in way of the quarterdeck. Maintainability Maintainability is the adaptation of the design such that maintenance during the in-service phase of the CADMID cycle is facilitated. Sufficient beam is required for good stability.6 1 2 3 3. Thus moonpools should only be considered where deployment of underwater equipment at low speed is a primary requirement of the ships role. surge chamber. over the transom or over the side of the vessel. Mobility The Mobility Warship Characteristics cover endurance. This. The location of the facilities may also impose an air draught limit (for passing under bridges). access and security. Specifying a high value for maximum speed for a large displacement warship drives the designer toward a long slender design. recovery and storage arrangements. the Unit Production Cost (UPC) and through life costs of the vessel. A difficulty which could be met is that the beneficiary of this design work ‘resides’ in the future. particularly high in the vessel and at the deck edge. It includes the requirements for fuel storage and handling.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Ship to Shore 11 Chapter 3 This includes requirements for berthing and docking. It can involve the provisions of maintenance envelopes and access. by their very nature will be located close to midships to reduce ship motions and water surge. which can be hazardous due to the exposed location. The maximum speed and operating profile of the vessel has a very significant impact on the design of the warship. increasing the displacement and dimensions of the vessel will improve the seakeeping and motion characteristics of the vessel. spares and maintenance. However. These underwater vehicles may be deployed via a moonpool. Berthing may place similar limitations on the vessel and drive the design of the propulsion and manoeuvring machinery. along with the mission profile.2. In addition. and may encourage alternative hull forms such as catamaran or trimarans. but also services.7 1 2 WEMG Issue 01 Page 26 of 135 December 2007 .2. large changes are required for relatively small changes in seakeeping characteristics. seaworthiness and speed. lifting facilities and test facilities etc. but too much will cause rapid rolling and high accelerations. provision of jigs. For a warship it is more normal to deploy such equipment over the transom. seakeeping. Ship to Underwater 12 13 This involves the requirements for autonomous & towed underwater vehicle launching. as may the availability of dry-docks and repair facilities. there will be an increase in relative bow and stern motions. manoeuvring. as it allows equipment to be deployed in a more controlled manner. handling space and equipment take up a large amount of space near midships and their effectiveness reduces with forward speed. The moonpool. 14 15 3. For some vessels a moonpool may be considered. removal routes. however. Should significant investment be required the budget could prove difficult to acquire. navigation. An important factor especially when comparing to producibility (which supports the build) is that most work will be carried out on board in an environment resembling that of traditional outfit afloat with consequential inefficiencies. Any obvious size constraints should be clearly established. greater vessel motions and wave action. Increasing the length of the vessel will reduce pitch and heave motions in head seas and thus increase operational capability in bad weather. sufficient space and equipment must be allowed on the fore deck and the quarterdeck to safely moor the vessel and conduct seamanship evolutions (see Admiralty Manual of Seamanship). which may restrict the maximum dimensions of the vessel. In general. The requirements for seakeeping and seaworthiness also drive the design. will then drive the propulsion machinery configuration. Moonpools.
Requirements for medical facilities. etc. workshops and ship security. Deck wetness is governed by the freeboard and bow flare. Distributing the command function through the ship confers significant benefits in terms of improved survivability. using whatever tools are appropriate. offices. 4 5 WEMG Issue 01 Page 27 of 135 December 2007 . Operations Spaces 3 Current practice is to locate the operations spaces in a single complex. As the warship definition increases then more sophisticated analysis tools may be brought to bear. For example. C4I. Seamanship. However. Operability Warship Operability Characteristics cover the following topics: • • • • • • • • • • • 3. Adequate draught is also required to minimise the risk of slamming. It should be fully addressed at the outset of the design process with particular reference to vulnerability. possibly over two deck levels.8 1 Aesthetics. location and spacing of sensors and complement are usually critical design drivers for a surface combatant. whilst ships of some other nations have used this style of command system architecture (albeit at low levels of technology) for decades. concentration. Arrangement. and it is necessary to ensure adequate freeboard both at the forward end of the vessel and also in way of the flight deck. redundancy. air drawing and cavitation in way of the sonar and to prevent cavitation and over-revving of the propulsion motors. Store handling. at the early stages simple ‘Rules of Thumb’ – separation. 2 C4I requirements for operational spaces. Functionality. There is no one ideal position for a single operations complex and the designer must consider the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each location. Ceremonial. Complement. Operator Interaction. The decision as to where to locate the operations complex is important and has a significant influence on the configuration and layout of the vessel. and work closely with the User and Procurement Authority to ensure that the design solution reflects current operating policy. too much freeboard will make it difficult to launch and recover boats and underwater vehicles and also increases the windage of the vessel driving up the beam. Whilst current practice may call for collocation of command functions in a common operations room this is by no means certain for future platforms. Sensors.2. The difficulty in finding an ideal location may reinforce the conclusion that local operational control is the sensible way ahead.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 3 Chapter 3 Increasing the draught can also improve the motion characteristics. may be all that is possible. Several NATO and allied navies have vessels in build or in-service that use distributed command systems.
there is a case for locating the operations room in the same fore and aft part of the ship as the bridge. even this arrangement will still give a higher probability of losing both. At mid-level (No. etc. be above the damage waterline and will be in a readily accessible and spacious part of the ship. Alternatively. 1 or 2 Deck) . a vulnerable location and has relatively more lateral motion than a lower location and provides little protection from radiation in a nuclear fall-out situation. Deep in the hull . A separate command shelter station is. • • 7 In the context of current operating policies whereby it is necessary for the command to have ready access to both bridge and operations room. however. such as fishery protection duties. unless the zone boundary is contiguous with both of them. and may be severely constrained in length by the position of watertight bulkheads required for subdivision. access and escape may be less than ideal and there will be little growth potential unless it is designed in from the outset and can also give rise to complex cable routing. such as the requirements for personnel to have clear visibility of bulkhead-mounted displays. This will conflict with a requirement to locate them in separate zones.) and ergonomic (human factors) requirements. etc. a deep location forward of a conventionally located machinery block may have limited deck space due to the hull lines. On the other hand. however.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 6 Possible options for vertical location are: • Chapter 3 Immediately adjacent to the bridge . At such a low level there will be no fore-and-aft access through watertight (WT) bulkheads. It should. 8 WEMG Issue 01 Page 28 of 135 December 2007 .g. decks and inner longitudinal bulkheads) and suitable access trunks and service provision are included that allow operations to continue whilst the surrounding spaces are flooded. above-water action damage and fall-out. not necessary. and for adaptability. but it must be accepted that it is at the most vulnerable level to sea-skimming missile strikes. Although having more protection from above-water damage. one each being immediately forward and immediately aft of the zone boundary. It is also a prime area for considering the adoption of space margins. only the command/Threat Evaluation and Weapons Assignment (TEWA) element may be combined with the bridge. The designer should be aware that the operations complex is likely to require additional deck height to allow for false floors (to accommodate cabling.A deep location for the operations complex provides some protection against missile strikes. therefore.An intermediate position appears to combine most of the advantages of the two extreme locations described. it will be correspondingly more vulnerable to underwater damage unless watertight boundaries internal to the hull (e. shock mounting rafts. easy upkeep by exchange.Locating the operations complex adjacent to the bridge has significant advantages in small-scale operations. However. It is.
The designer must have a clear understanding of. husbandry and off ship tasking (humanitarian. needs to be particularly careful not to inadvertently introduce features that may increase the complement. judicious design margins should be developed. The designer. as stated above. Demands on support services. but the implications on all aspects of the design must be carefully addressed from the outset. etc). removal routes. Requirements for magazines. Other special requirements. This can result in expensive ships. Electronic separation for EMC. including location.9 1 8 These are all examples of the need for allocated margins. watchkeeping. therefore. maintenance envelopes and removal routes. Physical clearances and location for RADHAZ. weapons preparation areas and supporting stores and workshops. Manning requirements. stores routes. The reason for a new warship is often a new weapon or sensor so these risks cannot always be avoided. quality and quantity of waste heat. maintenance envelopes. Complement 11 12 A significant driver of Through Life Cost (TLC) is complement. It may be possible to minimise the complement by introducing labour-saving devices and equipment. Even then. etc. policing. weapon system is invariably unable to provide firm data and. Space requirements. Effectors and other Mission System Interaction 9 Chapter 3 The optimum positioning of the sensors. the wise designer will allow for the growth of items that are not in full production by incorporating judicious design margins. e. Delivery time/state of development – this impacts on the design margins that need to be applied. Indeed the contractor for a major new. accommodation. damage control arrangements. including power. and poor attention to husbandry. effectors and other mission system components and their integration is essential to successfully meet the operational role. especially for equipment which is not mature. Producibility . It is important to realise that many of the crew are multi-role so eliminating one task may not reduce the crew size. voltage. at least. It is also often said that ships should only be designed to accommodate tested and tried weapons. 13 3. Impact on Combat Management System.Design for Production The traditional approach is to design for function on the assumption that anything can be built. WEMG Issue 01 Page 29 of 135 December 2007 . The key ‘complement driver’ tasks include damage control. but this seems a certain route to pre-natal obsolescence. Typical examples are inefficient RAS arrangements. length of wave guides. exist in prototype. frequency.2.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Sensors. and detailed information8. maintenance.g. Chilled water supply. • • • • • 10 It greatly increases the risk to the programme to design a ship to carry a major system that does not. Links to Capability and Interoperability Warship Characteristics. concurrently developing. on the following for each prospective weapon and sensor: • • • • • • • Weight of all components as this drives the structural design and stability. data highway needs. tolerances.
Maintainability and Testability (ARM&T) requirements should be integrated with the overall performance aspects and accorded comparable importance with cost. It should be borne in mind. Environmental impact is highlighted separately to encourage recognition of the growing importance being placed on environmental management. One immediate factor is that limits may be placed on the choice of equipments to be fitted in order to maintain commonality with existing plant in-service with the fleet. Availability. when new building budgets are constrained. Early inputs include the build strategy with supporting documentation covering outfit. time and programme requirements.212. there is also an obligation to manage the greater safety risks associated with military operations. This affects not only the workshops. Limitations may be expressed at the level of particular equipments or particular suppliers. a situation which is likely to persist throughout the life of the platform. Similarly the adoption of a building block approach could well entail arrangement tradeoffs to facilitate the joining of outfitted blocks. The shorter the time spent out of service the fewer ships required to fulfil a given requirement. Ship availability is a major cost driver and the means of maximising availability should be considered from the outset and throughout each stage of the design process. property and the environment. Reliability. however. the costs of introducing more variety in to the supply chain and the desire to avoid the problems and costs of block obsolescence. however. There may well be trade-offs between the ability to exploit new technology. self maintenance.11 1 2 3 4 WEMG Issue 01 Page 30 of 135 December 2007 . Through life costs greatly exceed initial acquisition costs and careful consideration must be paid to factors influencing them. All too often supportability requirements have been compromised in an effort to reduce the Unit Production Cost (UPC). Safety In law all employers owe a duty of care to their employees. Advice from procurement and equipment specialists should be sought. repair or equipment failure. lubricants. that design for production issues must be carefully balanced against operational aspects. the general public and the wider environment.2. results in reduced costs of ownership and is an essential ingredient for achieving military objectives and business efficiency. good safety performance will lead to confidence in the ship or equipment. a warship would be permanently available to fulfil its role. Failure to do so will produce a cheaper ship. Thus an effective safety culture is key to sustaining morale. The value of producibility is increased when it is included early in the design process. For the Ministry of Defence (MoD). spares holding and hence stores space but also the composition of the crew and the facilities required for them. material supply. The management of safety as a transversal is expanded in Section 3.3. In reality. In an ideal world.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 2 Chapter 3 An alternative is to include production issues as another trade-off topic. property and the environment is not intolerable and is As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). shore side support and preservation. test and trials etc. there will be times when it is not fully operational due to refit.2. Added to this is the huge cost incurred by later changes. It should ensure that the hazard to people.10 1 2 3 3. 3 4 5 3. Specific details which could influence early design arrangements include plate sizes which could influence bulkhead spacing and modular equipment which could influence the frame and longitudinal spacing (via mounting requirements). Another logistic factor that will impact on the overall design is the levels of repair to be undertaken on board. but a ship in which the primary functions of the vessel and transverse aspects such as survivability are severely compromised. Supportability Supportability covers availability and requirements for fuel. In addition to the legislative responsibilities. The principle reason being that the majority of project costs are committed early. The Safety Management System should cover the protection of people.
double bottom. identification as target. acquisition by weapon and weapon hit. etc. the latter are probably dominant in avoiding attack while active means are significant in defeating an attack. Provision of suitable maintenance envelopes and removal routes. cooling. depends on three factors: • Susceptibility .Defined as the ability of the ship to withstand a weapon hit or other damage measured with respect to its operational ability to fight.g.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 5 Effective support can be achieved by: • • • • • • • • Chapter 3 Maintenance-free design.Defined as the ability of the ship to restore its capability after receiving damage to fight. Incorporation of ‘testability’ as design objective.12 1 Survivability The survivability of a ship in battle. The effects on the design include: • • • 7 Trade-offs of cost (e. Increased Fitted For But Not With (FFBNW) space (weight. cofferdams. • WEMG Issue 01 Page 31 of 135 December 2007 . etc. Whilst all may be achieved by a combination of active and passive means. Selection of reliable components.Defined as the likelihood of the ship being damaged in the first place and depends upon the success during the various stages of an engagement: detection. 6 The designer should be aware of the proposed maintenance philosophy and design-in any necessary facilities. Selection of high reliability equipment or redundancy.integrated policy. voids. however.selection of equipment. A particular area needing design attention from the outset is the requirement for easy and safe access to all internal spaces. or any other form of damage.) allowed in design (the Board Margin). for survey. The simulation of other ship signatures may enable the warship to blend in amongst legitimate traffic during covert operations. and removal/repair routes . Other factors. move and float.2. sonar spaces. • • • 3. Recoverability . tanks. • • Susceptibility 2 Reduction of signatures will have major benefits by reducing the range at which hostile sensors can detect the ship.. It will also make it easier for jammers and decoys to operate by reducing the size of effect needed to create to confuse a sensor. Vulnerability . more cheaper ships or fewer very reliable). Reliability . Stores and supply. Intrinsic redundancy in the equipment. should also be considered including: • During peacetime it may be beneficial to be able to artificially alter a ship’s signature so as to prevent potentially hostile forces from collecting target data. space round equipment. Maintainability – access to all parts of hull structure. power. move and float. The same approach may be beneficial in managing the countermeasures against an identified threat. The first two are concerned with avoiding attack and the second two with defeating an attack. Standardising and minimising the number of different fuels and lubrication oils carried. Improved maintainability by modularity access (maintain by replacement). Balance to be achieved between levels of onboard spares and complement size.
9 WEMG Issue 01 Page 32 of 135 December 2007 . of the vessel. it may be pointless to demand more from other systems and so costs may be saved. It is important that all sub-system designers are aware of the targets and the potential contributions that their systems could make. structural stiffness etc.). Initially best practice and guidance measures are established. serve to assist in the trade offs. with refinement. Susceptibility . Signature management plans have proved to be effective and they should be based on initial modelling and. is to control the directions in which radar energy is reflected by shaping the ship’s surfaces with flat faces so that energy is returned in a different direction to that at which it arrived (unless the direction is exactly perpendicular to the face). Overall ship signature parameters of relevance are discussed in more detail below. and in most cases manufacturing costs. ensures that the requirement is integrated into the design process. now almost universal for ships. facilities to rearm quickly and safely. either reflection or absorption: • Radar reflection: Controlling the directions in which radar energy is reflected back is the easiest. best limited to palliative measures aimed at controlling mutual interference between the ship’s own systems if such problems cannot be eliminated by careful initial location. provision of suitable services. It is very important to strive for the correct balance of signatures and to recognise that the law of diminishing returns generally applies. Therefore. Susceptibility – Active Countermeasures 4 5 6 7 8 9 In this case the main concerns of the ship designer. detail can be added to analysis models . As soon as general configurations become available preliminary modelling and analysis can be performed to check budget values. Conversely.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 3 Chapter 3 The imposition of signature targets will impact on all aspects of the design. 9 As the design progresses. Analysis tools exist for most signatures but their accuracy depend on levels of detail that is unavailable early on. up to build. expensive measures taken in the design of the sub-systems may be negated by one particular sub-system element. therefore. power etc. Processes for capturing and communicating data must be established so that problems can be identified early and solutions found. How far this process is worth taking is a matter of judgement. if the limit on what is achievable is set by the characteristics of one particular system. when the design is still fluid. Expert advice should be sought to determine the optimum balance for a given project. Their use is.Radar 10 11 Radar Cross Section (RCS) is a measurement of the amount of incoming radar energy reflected back to the detecting sensor. therefore. as with all combat system elements. • 12 The best way to control reflection. and convenient installation/removal (alignment. cheapest and most effective way of reducing a ship’s signature. Regular review of the implementation plan. it is important to establish a relationship between designers and signature experts so that a graduated process can be adopted. Unless this is done. This can be reduced in one of two ways. Radar absorption: Materials can be made which absorb radar energy. as a law of diminishing returns applies on the cost and level of accuracy obtainable.). are related to location to provide suitable fields of view/arcs of fire. Unfortunately their absorption characteristics are likely to be frequency dependent and they are often heavy. It is. avoidance of interference with other systems (EMI/EMC etc. In many cases final acceptance of signatures against requirements is achieved by direct measurement on suitable ranges. essential that the number of different face angles is minimised and that faces are as far as possible parallel to each other. One of the major difficulties with signature management lies with the prediction accuracy of the signatures sufficiently early for them to be used to influence the design.
Diesels may be exhausted through the side or even below water. These are materials designed to allow transmission of energy at selected frequencies but to reflect others. Exhaust cooling can be considered but requires weight and complex systems perhaps high up in the ship. particularly for gas turbines. Aerial systems . The ship surface itself may be cooled by the use of water sprays. the entire surface of the ship will be conducting internally generated heat and it is very difficult to insulate sufficiently to prevent this. equipment inside a vessel will act as uncontrolled reflectors and scatterers. therefore. while for the shorter wavelength the finer the level of detail that must be addressed. cooler than ambient areas will also be significant.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 13 Chapter 3 It is important to avoid internal right-angled corners.Since these are designed to be efficient emitters themselves the only way to screen them is to place them behind frequency selective reflectors. Radar transparent structural materials . IR Cooling . This includes: • 14 Deck and superstructure fittings . and it is important to properly treat all transmission paths if a prescribed signature level is to be achieved. The inclusion of lightweight conducting material layers can turn the material into a reflector and so the composite structure can be treated exactly like a metal structure in terms of shaping. • • Susceptibility . 10 The effect of the sea. flare and tumblehome can be used to avoid reflection back to an approaching 10 missile seeker . Machinery air intakes can create a very significant cool spot. • • Susceptibility . All radars will be affected by efficient shaping.Abovewater Radiated Noise 16 The main source of above water noise is the main machinery. Even the sunlight on the outside will warm the surface so that it contrasts with the sea surface. depend heavily on reducing the temperature differences. different radars will be affected by different features of a ship’s geometry. etc.The obvious major heat sources in a ship are the main and auxiliary machinery exhausts. however. Provision of longer transmission paths and changes of materials to provide extra damping together with insulation materials may all be used to provide a given effect. WEMG Issue 01 Page 33 of 135 December 2007 .Infra Red 15 Infra red sensors detect differences in temperature between potential targets and the background ambient temperature. which act in the same way as radar reflectors returning energy to the direction from which it came.When gun engagements were controlled by visual targeting. must not be forgotten. The signature seen by short wave missile seeker radars will be greatly affected by the small detail fittings on a ship. As contrast is the key. A ship’s wash down system will have an effect. the emergence of imaging seekers in missiles means that such measures may again be necessary. which stands out prominently in the IR band. Exhaust silencing and isolation of engines from the exterior structure are the main mechanisms to control noise. acting as a reflector. The advent of radar negated such measures: however. long-range radars use long wavelengths and vice versa. However. Therefore. camouflage and smoke screening were essential features of a warship. therefore.Most composite materials are transparent to radar energy. Radars operate at different wavelengths. Visual . • IR Sources . Since a serious threat comes from sea skimming missiles.Reduction of signature will. The measures will depend on the frequencies of concern. Anything that causes such a difference should be reviewed if IR signature is to be reduced.These can be shielded by flat screens or made from non radar reflective materials such as composites. back pressure and acoustic signature concerns must be considered.
has an impact on ship VCG. Long range at low frequencies and vice versa. with depth leading to multiple reflection paths and the phenomenon of ducting.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Susceptibility . which effectively lock onto the propeller wake and follow it up to attack the ship. Propeller cavitation is the prime source.Magnetic 19 Magnetic signatures are essentially short range effects and are significant with regard to the mine threat. noise will be transmitted through the air and into the structure. but any interconnecting systems must also be addressed. • Susceptibility . If vessels are intended to go into mine fields to prosecute mines then active degaussing measures are insufficient and so extensive measures must be taken to reduce the magnetic material in the ship. Any loop or large area of conducting material will induce eddy currents to flow within it as it passes through the earth’s magnetic field. The latter have a significant effect on electrical system weight and are certainly a complicating factor in build.Underwater Radiated Noise 17 Chapter 3 Like radar. • Susceptibility . This. Above water . All paths must be considered and appropriate measures taken to achieve particular targets.In addition to the risk of detection there is a threat from underwater homing weapons. Elimination of eddy current loops.Extremely Low Frequency Electric Fields 22 Extremely Low Frequency Electric Fields (ELFEF) are similar to UEP but their source is different. Water is also a very effective transmission medium. therefore. such as active fin stabilisers. Wake is affected by hull shape. The propulsors are the prime source. This involves two main factors having a major bearing on material and construction costs: • 20 Reduction in the ferromagnetic content of the vessel covering structure and all equipment and fittings. If the ship has quiet modes of operation then essential equipment may be placed higher up to ease isolation measures and elimination of transmission paths. acoustic detection ranges depend on frequency. In addition. In this case a field created by the electrical system frequencies generated within the ship can be transmitted to the water if the hull does not act as a screening conductor. WEMG Issue 01 Page 34 of 135 December 2007 .Wake 18 Wake signatures are of concern for two reasons: • Underwater . Countermeasures involve the break up of such loops with insulators. but overall wash wave heights are really dominated by speed and displacement length ratio. the major factors and their configuration must be considered if UEP mine sensors are a threat. but other sources of cavitation. • Susceptibility . can be significant and must not be overlooked. consequent duplication and separation of earthing systems. Not only must the machinery itself be noise reduced and isolated from the hull. Underwater Noise – Hydrodynamic.Synthetic aperture radars are capable of detecting ship wakes from long ranges. These currents themselves create a field effect and hence a signature. The propulsion and cathodic protection systems are. Steel warships may be depermed or fitted with degaussing systems to reduce their signature. The two sources of noise that must be addressed are: • Underwater Noise – Machinery.Underwater Electric Potential 21 Underwater Electric Potential (UEP) is the result of dissimilar metals under the waterline creating current flows through the water. of course. although ranges will be strongly affected by variations in water temperature. Susceptibility .
• 28 The hull structure will be subjected to local pressure loads and overall whipping. Layout is one of the key factors to be considered in making the ship less vulnerable. If deflection is not acceptable then there may be a weight penalty. but may confer significant levels of protection at little penalty in terms of weight and cost. The effect on structure of increasing shock standards is minimal on scantlings but is predominantly seen in the areas of seatings and structural detailing. to be performed. then inter component clearances become important. function of the equipment and location of the equipment within the warship.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Vulnerability 23 Chapter 3 If a ship is hit then the effect upon its capability will depend not only on passive protection. Structure designed for good fatigue life generally performs well under shock. against particular types and levels of damage. magazines etc. damage resistance (the ability to minimise the actual damage sustained) and damage containment (the ability to prevent the spread of damage). Finally. but upon the available operational systems after damage. effects on equipment. Shock grade curves .Shock requirement for equipment dependent upon the severity of the threat. The main causes of damage and the measures needed to counteract them are described below. consequential damage and recoverability. Move away from bottom. Well-designed connections have a good intrinsic shock performance. Locating key spaces such as command centres. 29 Seating Equipment Systems Table 3. Minor effect on space and clearances. within the seat component.1 Effect of increased shock standard on design parameters WEMG Issue 01 Page 35 of 135 December 2007 . If deflection is acceptable. Parameter Primary structure Joint detailing etc. analysis is the only method available to assure the design against any set threat apart from expensive tests on limited representative test sections. Two aspects need to be considered. Requirement to ensure retention of equipment leads to increased number of mountings and hence some increase in installation costs. The same comments with regard to possible levels of fidelity and cost effectiveness made with regard to signatures also apply to vulnerability. although changes to the level of protection do not significantly alter the cost once the decision to shock mount has been made. Most survivability design features affect both aspects to varying degrees. Tools are available that allow ship (hull structure and sub-systems) vulnerability analyses. personnel. This could be a driver in determining structural arrangement and scantlings and indeed may place a limit on major hull geometric proportions. These tools cover resistance to damage. Some cost impact arising from the need to mount equipment.A measure dependent on size and distance away of a specified charge of TNT. in positions that are inherently protected may conflict with both efficient operation and build requirements. Effect of increased shock standard Very little effect on overall weight. bulkheads and sides to increase transmission path. related to shock factor. Vulnerability – Shock and Whipping 24 25 26 27 The degree of shock resistance that must be achieved by equipments is represented by two factors: • Shock factor . explosive safety. For vulnerability. Discontinuities such as breaks of focsle should be avoided where possible. At the early stages there is probably considerable benefit to be gained by relatively simple FMEA with failures determined from ship location/damage area. crew survival in the event of a hit may mean that accommodation areas are divided throughout the ship. system.
position of damage control deck and additional factors such as zoning configuration. Vulnerability . These affect not only the layout of compartments below the damage control deck but above it as well because of the need to maintain structural continuity through the ship. For the rest there is a cost trade-off between higher standard of equipment.Blast 33 34 35 36 Internal blast. will need to be sited within the ship. with particular attention to their connection to the rest of the structure. If portable pumping systems are carried. • • 37 Specification of precise blast levels will depend on threat assessments. move and fight functions of the vessel. then sufficient clearances for access. or more elaborate mounting of lower standard equipment. is likely to have a significant effect on the float. and should have ready access to the upper deck to allow crews to gain periodic relief from what may be unpleasant conditions below. Increasing the length of transmission path by mounting high up in the ship or away from the sides will reduce the level of shock experienced. limits for penetrations. must be provided. systems are not permitted to penetrate certain watertight bulkheads and so require vertical routes. Much naval equipment is intrinsically ruggerdised. These factors are covered in the stability standards which deal with such issues as residual stability requirements and the acceptability or otherwise of active systems such as ballasting or fluid transfer to control the effects of flooding. in general. requiring only suitable mounting. Vulnerability – Flooding 31 32 The selected standard will drive the specified damage length and/or number of compartments in which flooding can be tolerated and hence number of watertight bulkheads required. However. The layout of the ship will be driven by the positions of watertight bulkheads. Vertical access may be very difficult considering the size of some such units. Barriers and discontinuities such as “dog-legs” in undesirable blast routes such as passageways. Furthermore. at which repair stores are available. Measures that could be taken to reduce the effect include: • Specially designed bulkheads.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 30 Chapter 3 Equipments themselves will have an inherent level of shock resistance but may require mounting on shock mounts to reduce the accelerations experienced. Intentional blast routes and blow out sections. Other systems require watertight glands and/or isolation valves to be fitted on both sides of watertight boundaries. It should be noted however that vulnerability requirements are. not the drivers for resistance to flooding and that established standards specified by the Naval Authority lead to the need to consider equivalent or more stressing levels of flooding. WEMG Issue 01 Page 36 of 135 December 2007 . it should be noted that commercially available mounts are available that can provide acceptable shock environments for most items of COTS equipment. Preferably these are towards the ends of the ship. Ballast systems to remove floodwater are also covered. Damage control centres. shell or air dropped bomb. to where they may be needed. arising form a hit by an anti ship missile. These should be minimised as much as possible since the incorporation of remote operation for valves is expensive. External fore and aft access is also highly desirable so that damage control parties can move along the length of the ship even if there is a fire blocking internal access. and downflooding points.
Factors to be considered when determining a blast management strategy include the threat levels. blast release mechanisms. Munitions and Explosives (OME) and OME protection and the effect of material choice on overall ship size and cost.Siting spaces below the waterline gives the best protection but may not be desirable in some cases for other reasons such as system routing and ready access.Ballistic (Projectiles and Fragments) 39 40 Fragments may not only be from the weapon but also from damage to the structure and equipment of the ship itself. In addition to the primary structure. there are issues raised when materials other than steel are considered. Armour Piercing) as well as calibre when specifying armour. blast blockers. the blast resistance of traditional steel structures can be significantly enhanced.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 38 Chapter 3 With relatively minor modifications. Protection of critical spaces or systems can be achieved by two main methods: • 41 Armour . although the degree of performance drop-off shown by moving from a steel structure to.Provision of armour is aimed at defeating small calibre weapons (typically small arms up to 30mm HE rounds) and fragments. Blast hardened doors are available that offer significantly better performance over conventional watertight doors. The characteristics of the structural material are a factor in the creation of fragments. with little or no increase in cost or weight. blast routes. These may penetrate bulkheads and cause damage at a considerable distance from the initial hit. joints. consideration must also be given to selection of materials for secondary structures and linings in order to eliminate the potential creation of fragments. Ball round. • WEMG Issue 01 Page 37 of 135 December 2007 . Location . Critical systems should be duplicated and arranged so as to minimise their vulnerability. In addition. say. When considering small arms threats it is important to specify weapon stand off range and projectile type (e. system protection. Ordnance. Above water critical areas may be shielded by less critical spaces such as access passageways or storage spaces thus providing at least another layer of protection of structural material. composites being somewhat better than most metal structures in this regard. a composite structure is not necessarily as great as might be imagined. There may be additional considerations required in terms of siting equipment on or close to blast-hardened bulkheads. and in many cases the increase in vulnerability arising from a move to alternative materials can often be recovered through careful system layout and local hardening. defeating larger weapons or missile warheads is impractical because of the considerable weight involved.g. Vulnerability .
WEMG Issue 01 Page 38 of 135 December 2007 . The need to maintain structural integrity long enough to extinguish the fire or evacuate the area will require insulation on all structural materials. In addition to the direct fighting of the fire indirect measures such as smoke clearance systems. for boundary cooling. etc. Radiological and Nuclear protection (CBRN) entails ensuring that potential contaminants. are all factors. If machinery spaces are included within a citadel this effect is very significant and intake air must come from outside the ship. control systems etc. i. Zone boundaries will. the positions of air filtration units in each zone and associated cooling and distribution systems and whether machinery space to be included or not. All such systems need protection and redundancy in order to increase the chance of their being available after damage. 45 46 11 12 Standards provide ample options for specifying and controlling the selection of suitable materials throughout the ship. maintaining structural integrity and prevention of fire spread. an HVAC function. This will be an extension of the sea water system and may well act as the design driver for the system capacity. have different roles for different structural materials. Vulnerability . further sub-divided in larger vessels. A passive approach covers low combustibility 11 12 materials . fire zones and insulation . Factors to be considered when laying out a ship include the number of zones. Required not only to prevent combustion of the structural material itself but also to prevent the transmission of heat and subsequent spread of the fire. ideally. the retention of heat in insulation systems potentially causing re-ignition of the fire and an effect on flood control measures.There are two drivers to consider for passive systems. It must be remembered that an initial weapon explosion may affect the insulation itself. therefore. Active systems . be made blast resistant in order to maximise the ability to retain zone boundary integrity after damage. much more effective and lighter than more traditional systems and should be considered. smoke emission and toxicity will have an effect on material choices. may be needed. In all cases system design will depend on the locations of the major fire/smoke/damage control zones. spread of flame. This particularly affects insulation and linings and is also a driver in the use of composites. Modern insulation systems are. including steel. is intended to ensure that even in the event of accidental opening. foam.Various systems can be specified for fighting fires in different locations and for providing cooling where necessary. External wash down facilities will be needed to remove contaminants from the surface of the ship. gaseous.e. cabling. or otherwise. The provision of a pressurised citadel. radiation. The extent of these citadels. patch repairs. damage control and NBCD zones. Important considerations in the use of insulation include the need.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Vulnerability – Fire 42 Chapter 3 Explosive weapons invariably initiate fires fuelled both by materials in the ship and by unused fuel from the missile itself. radioactive materials or disease agents do not enter the ship. The main barriers to the spread of fire will be the insulated fire bulkheads dividing the ship into fire fighting. however. Fire countermeasures take two main forms: • Passive . Such systems include water. This entails weight and is a factor to consider when using lightweight materials. Regulations on ignition. Insulation may. Biological. Damage control is a key driver in setting manning levels. This last consideration is a major driver on the system capacity. the conditions and times for which they must be maintained within them. Controlled access points provided with air locks and wash down facilities at the re-entry points will be needed. and may be either automatic or require manual intervention. • 43 The balance between active and passive fire fighting systems and the manpower on board required for fire fighting will require careful consideration. Provision of engine air.CBRN 44 Chemical. needs careful consideration as they place a considerable load on air filtration systems. integrity is maintained. Clean exterior design and the avoidance of water traps become very important. water mist.
Features which should be considered will include: • • Removal of flood water. This implies that the margins must be allocated down to the equipment. or as a life extension or refit. modularity etc. Dependency and concentration . will maximise post-hit capability. is inherently manpower intensive and can be a major driver on crew size. which must be routed in separate regions of the ship. For example. the pressures on manning may be reduced through increased levels of automation and other applications of developing technology.key elements of vital ships systems should be duplicated where practicable. A common problem is the tendency to fit more electronics.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Vulnerability – System Design 47 Chapter 3 The post hit capability of a vessel is dependent not only on the ability of the ship’s structure to withstand and restrict damage. combat system and platform management systems highways should feature at least two. The use of an effective layout policy in concert with good structural design. over the life of the warship. smoke and contaminants. would lead to system loss should be minimised. This ability to deal with damage after it has occurred. often at low cost and impact on the design. The above points apply equally to interconnecting elements such as pipes and power cables. however. through As+As. However. if damaged. but also by the design and layout of ships systems.the number of elements that. WEMG Issue 01 Page 39 of 135 December 2007 . poor system layout can effectively eliminate many of the benefits that are achieved through the use of other vulnerability reduction features. • • • • Recoverability 49 A key characteristic of warships is that they are intended to be able to recover from damage and continue operating as far as possible.2. That way. Separation . damage control. the area of damage that will render the complete system inoperative is kept to a minimum. Conversely. Reduction in critical elements . Repair where possible of structure and equipment. damage control can be eased by good design.13 1 2 3 Upgradability As a consequence of the long platform life. As far as possible such sites should be in areas of low probability of damage or perhaps protected in some way. Reconfiguration of systems and supplies either by switching/re-routing for most systems or provision of temporarily laid cables for power systems. the capability will probably require upgrading. Thus includes provision of through life margins. System design can be enhanced by following some simple rules: • 48 Redundancy . and preferably three “legs”. Simplistically the upgrade should be considered as a project transiting the CADMID cycle in its 13 own right . This could be carried out progressively. without taking account of the additional heat load. 13 With the warship being a given component. blast protection and ballistic protection. It is difficult to quantify the manpower required as a function of particular design features. • 3.If elements of a system are dependent on each other it is better to locate those elements as near as possible to each other. rather than maintained at the ship level.If elements of a system are duplicated then the duplicate elements should be separated as far as possible in order to minimise the chances of one hit rendering both elements inoperable.
Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 3.3 3.3.1 1 MANAGEMENT OF TRANSVERSALS Introduction
Transversals are the characteristics or properties of the ship that impact on all aspects of the design. They are specialised subjects, with their own domain experts and sources of expertise. These features mean that their consideration and management requires communication between many agents and equally, configuration management of any data passed between them. Central project control is essential to integrate the transversals and the design concept. Transversals that require management across the various warship acquisition activities include Human Factors, Safety and Support. These are described below. Human Factors Integration Human Factors (HF) is the systematic application of relevant information about human capabilities, limitations, characteristics, behaviour and motivation to the design of products and systems, the procedures people use and the environment in which they use them. The term covers all biomedical and psychosocial considerations. This information serves as the basis for making design recommendations and for predicting the probable effects of various design alternatives. In addition, HF involves the evaluation of things that have been designed to ensure that they satisfy their intended objectives. They are divided into seven key domains: Manpower
2 3.3.2 1
After payload/cargo requirements, complement/manning levels and associated accommodation standards are the biggest space drivers and, will have a major bearing on the size and layout of the ship. Manning is the largest element in the through life cost of the ship and so must be considered early in the design process. Detailed manning models are available but at the early stages of ship design they tend to be inappropriate as they require more information on ship equipment etc. than is available. Analysis of previous vessels and careful factoring is a safe approach but does not allow for fundamental changes in philosophy.
WEMG Issue 01
Page 40 of 135
Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 3
A high level analysis of tasks to be performed in the various operating states will lead to the definition of a watch and quarter bill or scheme of complement. Various factors must be considered:
Organisation structure - This will determine the available skill levels and their distribution between ranks and department specialisations; Operating philosophy - The organisational structure will reflect the operational philosophies, however, if novel concepts and equipments are being considered more detailed task analyses may be required; Automation levels - Automation is often quoted as the panacea for reducing crewing levels but there are implications, notably the required skill levels for operators and maintainers; Maintenance philosophy - The level of maintenance and appropriate spares holdings will affect both maintainer numbers and skill levels required; Endurance - Traditional RAS procedures and associated stores handling can place a large demand on manpower and could be relevant should numbers be reduced through automation of other activities; Damage control - This is a major driver for keeping up crew numbers since damage control, repair and fire fighting can absorb large numbers of personnel in action scenarios; Husbandry - General ship cleaning operations absorb considerable numbers of personnel. The effort should not be underestimated, particularly for ships spending long periods at sea; Training margins - Extra accommodation for both trainees and trainers is generally required. Provision of training berths may be combined with the ability to cater for short duration additional roles for the vessel; Embarked forces - Although not part of the ship’s complement they require accommodation areas and place demands on the hotel functions and store areas within the ship; Flexibility - Since warship tasking is becoming more varied and difficult to plan. Extra crew is always useful; Adaptability - As future warship tasks become more uncertain and varied the ability to change roles may lead to increased margins being called for; Technology Insertion - If capabilities/equipments are to be added during the life of the ship then the crew requirements will need to be considered at the outset; Accommodation standards - Minimum levels of areas to be provided are defined in appropriate standards but consideration must be given to future trends.
Personnel 4 The Personnel domain covers human characteristics, attributes, skills etc. and their relationships to performance. These vary slowly over time as living standards and society’s structures, behaviours and aspirations change. The range of crew physical characteristics is relevant when addressing internal layout, escape routes and accommodation, workspace design and equipment control. The successful design of deck-head height, step size, access and egress routes and operator and maintenance positions will be determined by the actual physical size of personnel. The reach envelope of users must be modelled when assessing the usability of equipment. Accommodation must be designed to cater for privacy and other requirements for mixed gender crews. Skills and rank requirements are determined by the mission profile for the vessel, its equipment fit and operational demands. It is important that the impact of the platform and the equipment on skill requirements is clearly understood. Training needs and the Human Factors Engineering of equipment are both heavily influenced by the skills and knowledge required for operation and maintenance. Page 41 of 135 December 2007
WEMG Issue 01
Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 7
Organisational and social factors will also need to be taken into account to encourage retention and prevent skills loss. The quality and design of living accommodation and operational spaces may influence attitudes to serving on board and hence retention. The design of equipment and the workload associated with its operation may also influence job satisfaction. Training
A Training Needs Analysis (TNA) will be needed for each project and its development should start early, particularly if there are novel technologies to be incorporated. It will affect, and be affected by, the development of the scheme of complement. Factors to consider will include:
• • • • • • •
Career structures; Training scheduling within career development; Equipment specific training; Training establishments and facilities; Simulators; Documentation and handbooks; On-the-job training.
Human Factors Engineering (HFE) 9 HFE is concerned with improving task efficiency. Ergonomic considerations drive ship layout and equipment selection at two levels: macro (whole ship level) and micro (equipment and working space level). At the macro level the following factors are important:
Compartment interrelationships and access routes - There are many functional/operational links between compartments that must be considered when laying out the ship. The aim, from an ergonomics point of view, is to ensure easy and quick access for personnel, preferably through co-location or otherwise by means of straight access routes, either vertical or horizontal. These could include: • Galley, mess spaces and stores; • RAS, stores embarkation locations and storerooms; • Casualty embarkation and sick bay; • Magazine and weapon stations; • Specialist personnel accommodation and work areas, particularly on larger ships; • Damage control centres and command positions.
WEMG Issue 01
Page 42 of 135
Consideration must also be given to how the ship will function if a zone is lost. Combat Information Centre and Machinery Control Rooms. Zone boundary integrity should be maximised through the use of blast resistant structure. linked to anthropomorphological data.While many issues of equipment operation are the province of the equipment supplier rather than the ship designer/system integrator. Damage and fire escape . fragmentation protection and fire boundaries.Sufficient space and perhaps lifting/transporting equipment is needed to allow convenient and safe means of removing and replacing items for off board repair. WEMG Issue 01 Page 43 of 135 December 2007 . the design and normal operation of any system must be governed by the principle that all risks are tolerable and As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). Maintenance envelopes . Detailed layout of compartments and working areas . operational and functional considerations may require more thorough analysis. There is also a case for splitting crew accommodation between zones for the same reason: • HVAC – The provision of suitable air conditioning and treatment facilities is important to crew comfort. comfortable clearances for equipment removal/replacement. and their relative impact on the crew under different operating and damage scenarios must be considered. Care must be taken to ensure that zones are truly autonomous and that damage caused in one zone does not impact on capability in adjacent zones.Provision of alternative means of escape from areas of a ship in the event of fire or other hazard should be considered at the beginning. Such considerations may also apply to more routine operations. analysis of personnel movement may be appropriate using dedicated passenger evacuation models developed in the commercial world. Unusual operations . Removal routes . On larger vessels with high numbers of personnel.The requirement to split the ship in to zones for damage/smoke/fire control purposes will have a major impact on how compartments are laid out in relation to each other. such as troop embarkation. There are Safety Management System (SMS) procedures that must be put in place to deal with hazard identification and logging. The lack of access through watertight boundaries will severely restrict interlinking of related compartments if they are low in the ship. There are choices between alternative systems. can deal with simple dimensioning and positioning factors. While military operations are inherently hazardous. provision of lifting and transportation systems for heavy items. consistency and compatibility in operator functions and human interfaces across equipments is important. distributed/local cooling etc. The provision of emergency operational and support spaces in separate zones may be required.The design and layout of equipments for ship specific operations may be linked with particular operating procedures and practices. Key compartments would be the Bridge. likelihood assessment and mitigations. consequence analysis. • • • System Safety 12 Safety is an extremely important consideration in all ship and system design.While standards.Factors include access for personnel safely. • • 11 At the micro level the following should be considered: • Equipment design and selection .Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management • Chapter 3 Zoning .
It is. but does provide the approved baseline standard for anyone assessing compliance with Part 1. It is split into three parts: • Part 1 sets out the principles of safety and environmental management and is expressed in goal-setting terms. Structures. Section 3. Part 2 provides more detail and guidance to Duty Holders and Commanding Officers on the implementation of the Policy.4 provides a discussion on the standards for safety. both current and anticipated. 16 WEMG Issue 01 Page 44 of 135 December 2007 . Part 2 does not prescribe methodology or techniques.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 13 Chapter 3 The policy and guidance on MoD safety and environmental management systems applied to shipping activities is defined through JSP430 – MoD Ship Safety Management. a requirement that all MoD civilian. Propulsion & Manoeuvring Systems. Munitions. The policy laid out in Part 1 must be complied with. Further specialist advice on the management of safety should be sought from the MoD specialist ship safety management organisations. military personnel and defence contractors comply with this document when they are involved in MoD shipping activities. Escape and Evacuation. It is the intention to meet a zero emissions policy. and compliant with appropriate legislation. • 14 Part 3 are Naval Authority Regulations which prescribe the methods to be used in the Certification of Safety for the Key Hazards for all MoD warships (surface ships and submarines) and covers: • • • • • • Stability. there is a requirement to ensure the ship is environmentally friendly. Fire. so far as is reasonably practicable. aspiring to zero emission fuel clean up and integrated waste management. 15 In addition. therefore.
human support requirements. Alternative organisational configurations. • Social and Organisational 18 This domain is the newest addition. Noise specialists should be consulted since remedial noise control measures can be expensive in terms of both weight and cost. but includes issues such as: • • • • • • Shared situational awareness. ventilation and air conditioning and avoidance of hazardous substances are usual but. Similarly locations high up may cause problems due to roll induced lateral accelerations. Also the risk of fire on a warship is high and materials that emit toxic gases etc. As with many specialist analyses appropriate levels of analysis should be used at each stage. As such. it is still evolving. in addition. and the planning and management that occurs both before and during production. Toxicity .3. 3.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Health Hazards 17 Chapter 3 Apart from the imperative of avoiding any risk to health.Hazardous materials must of course be avoided and COSHH regulations apply. operational efficiency is enhanced through provision of suitable working conditions. based upon 14 experimental tests. Accommodation or permanently manned spaces should not be placed adjacent to these sources. Secondly. A longer period roll is more acceptable than a lower amplitude high frequency condition with high accelerations. Two considerations apply: • Firstly. WEMG Issue 01 Page 45 of 135 December 2007 . 14 What is unacceptable on a short mission time ship may be quite reasonable for a long range. These issues have always been an issue on platforms but NEC operations have increased their importance for effective operations. . Cultural issues. This is a particular problem for hull forms with very high inherent stability such as catamarans. 15 This is accounted for in the calculation of some seakeeping indices such as Motion Sickness Incidence (MSI).Propulsors. high endurance vessel where the crew become acclimatised.3 1 Support Supportability is defined as those technical and administrative requirements that contribute to effective material readiness. but generally do not take into account the effects of habituation .Standards prescribe limits on what is acceptable. • • Noise/vibration etc. in response to the organisational complexity that is a key feature of providing Networked Enabled Capability (NEC). should be avoided. Trust and information sharing. main and auxiliary machinery are the main sources of noise and vibration on a ship. placing personnel in the ends of the ship is to be avoided. Maintenance of a favourable environment through adequate heating. as vertical motions are far more severe. 'Soft' interoperability. The preferred location for manned areas is towards the middle of the ship. the percentage of individuals likely to vomit when subject to a given motion for a given amount of time. factors particular to ships must be considered: • Ship motion effects . and throughout the operational life cycle of the ship. at all levels. Channels of communication. frequencies as well as amplitudes of motions are significant to humans15.
support and test equipment. packaging. maintenance concept. which in turn drives maintenance downtime. the following objectives apply: • • • • • • • Maintenance-free design. time and programme requirements. The aim should be to minimise complexity of maintenance by designing for: • • • • 6 Compatibility among system equipment and facilities. if necessary from acceptance to disposal. the objective should be to maximise this. Incorporation of ‘testability’ as design objective. hatches and manholes. logistics documentation and technical data. Standardisation of doors. Selection of high reliability equipment or redundancy. the time for which a component or system is non-functional. storage and transportation. • • • • 7 Availability.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 2 Chapter 3 It is based on a Logistic Support Analysis (LSA) and comprises the following interrelated elements: Availability. i. Standardising and minimising the number of different fuel and lubrication oil carried. handling. Through Life Cost (TLC) and obsolescence. Claims from equipment manufacturers should be substantiated with historical operating data from the existing fleet. configuration management.e. Design for Support 3 4 5 Design for support requirements are defined as those that influence the whole ship design and hence must be inherent characteristics of the design. These requirements are discussed below under “design for support” and “design of the support”. Selection of reliable components. computer resources (non-tactical/operational). Improved maintainability by modularity access. software support facilities for updating and proving programmes. 10 Care should be taken when relying on reliability data from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). Optimising the use of common equipment between ships. components. • 9 To achieve an acceptable Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF). WEMG Issue 01 Page 46 of 135 December 2007 . supply support requirements. Interchangability of similar components. Reliability & Maintainability (AR&M). Reliability. excessive maintenance and onboard manpower are major cost drivers and have an impact on the availability of the capability. which is a measure of reliability of a component or system. Operational Availability is indicated by: • 8 ‘Mean Time Between Failure’ (MTBF). Maintainability and Testability (ARM&T) requirements should be integrated with the overall performance requirements and accorded equal importance with cost. Optimising the type and number of maintenance tools. Ensuring that each system and equipment can be supported through life. The overall objective is to strike the optimum balance between UPC and TLC in order to reduce the ‘cost of ownership’. human factors. Intrinsic redundancy in the equipment. Maximum use of new technology where cost effective to do so. accessories and support equipment. Unreliability. fuels and lubricants. the objective should be to minimise this. materials and spares. Standardisation of design. ‘Mean Time To Repair’ (MTTR). facilities.
Ideally. Vertical alignment of hatches to facilitate the removal of equipment through more than one deck. Built In Test Equipment (BITE). BITE should be capable of both continuous monitoring of sub-system status and operator initiated testing. The designer should be aware of the proposed maintenance philosophy. equipment should be designed so that removal routes are via standard doors and hatches. • • • • • • • 13 MTTR may be reduced by introducing equipment repair by Upkeep by Exchange (UXE). adjustment. For all larger equipment subject to UXE. and design-in any necessary facilities. Maximising the use of automation. The advent of underwater engineering techniques may permit significant reduction in the need for this. Soft patches for equipment which is not frequently removed and is of large size. Easy handling. Accessibility to all hull parts. WEMG Issue 01 Page 47 of 135 December 2007 . Simple and effective operating and maintenance procedures and instructions. A capability for displaying BITE results should be provided. Maximum use of commercial practices. there still remains the problem of the hull itself. Isolation of affected system/equipment. Special rigging for equipment handling built in to the ship unless this is not practical or cost effective. Such displays should provide an unambiguous indication of sub-system status (i. inoperable or degraded) and identification of specific units within the sub-system that have failed. Sub system BITE should be capable of isolating faults to the lowest level of repairable item.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 11 Chapter 3 Although much can be done to reduce down-time for equipment repair. a dedicated removal route will be entailed.. operable. Minimum numbers of personnel and maintenance specialities. Calibration. transportability and storability. servicing and testing. Periodic dry-docking is necessary to survey and maintain the underwater part of the outer shell. Sloped and removable ladders providing access to storerooms. Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) can be minimised by designing for rapid and positive: • 12 Prediction of degradation by condition based maintenance. mobility. Identification of parts. • • • 14 Testability may be implemented by the use of Built-In Test Equipment (BITE). Human factors issues affecting ARM can be satisfied if the number. Identification down to a replaceable or repairable module or part. Further MTTR reduction measures include: • • Provision of maintenance envelopes. Change of components and equipment by minimising the necessity for special tools and facilities. test points and connections. Verification of correction and serviceability. level and skill of trained on board personnel are the minimum required to achieve operational effectiveness by designing for: • • • • • • 15 Logical function and task allocation. etc.e.
means of minimising mean logistic downtime by an optimised spares policy. Use and costs of spares. Logistic Documentation and Technical Data (LDTD). more cheaper ships or fewer very reliable). Built-in-test equipment. special storage conditions. processes. software. etc.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 16 Chapter 3 Maintenance engineering costs may be minimised by designing the maintenance system by adopting ‘Reliability Centred Maintenance’ techniques together with failure mode. Also. However. Storage and Transportation.) allowed in design (or growth margin). Increased Fitted For But Not With (FFBNW) space (weight. potentially expensive and cannot be ignored. Repair by replacement. both documentation and NonOperational Computer (NOC) resources in suitable locations throughout the ship. which requires investment to find part problems early. power. Handling. the cost in maintaining combat capability is higher and there will be delays in any repair process due to both funding and engineering constraints.again not a GA decision but affects it. Reliability . It is inevitable. security marshalling and climatising. Stores and supply . The consequences of this approach are that the opportunity to employ inexpensive solutions is lost. This approach allows planning for situations that are likely to occur and the subsequent resolution to provide a cost-effective and time-efficient customer-oriented product. The following should be optimised: • • • • On-board maintenance. effects and criticality analysis and the application of conditioned base maintenance. and removal/repair routes . Problem parts in the configuration can be identified and engineering and logistics solutions implemented. Balance to be achieved between level of onboard spares and complement size – not decided by GA. • WEMG Issue 01 Page 48 of 135 December 2007 . cooling.selection of equipment (not much influence on GA). tools. The design should ensure that packaged items can be transported on-board and ashore taking in to consideration safety. ‘Design of the Support’ 17 The principle aspects of ‘design of the support’ which affect the design and layout are: • Supply support . • • • 18 The effects on the design include: • • • Trade-offs of cost (e. space round equipment. Maintainability – access to all parts of hull structure. standards and specifications. • • • 19 Obsolescence affects all equipment. it does not mean 'do nothing'. support products.g. but its impact and cost can be minimised by careful planning. A Proactive approach is recommended for new projects/programmes. Support and Test Equipment (STE). Packaging. but will be reflected in it. There are two principal obsolescence strategies that can be adopted: • A Reactive approach implies that obsolescence problems will be addressed as and when they occur.integrated policy.
4. particularly military standards that have grown up over many years. As these Naval Rules evolve from their commercial origins they are extending their coverage from general safety and operation to encompass military features such as weapon damage tolerance. Generic guidance on the selection of standards for MoD use can be obtained from the Defence Standardisation organisation. It is. Ensure operational or logistic compatibility with other systems. Broadly speaking civilian standards are concerned with safety. is the degree of cross-referencing that occurs. The act of specifying just a few standards may unwittingly result in calling up a large number of others resulting in a huge increase in costs. the amount of effort required for a full Safety Case approach should not be underestimated. in recent years they have introduced an alternative approach to ensuring safety that relies on risk assessment and the production of a Safety Case for each project. Equally if standards are selected from different sources or parts of standards used it is essential that all the standards elements specified are consistent with each other.4 3. logistic compatibility and through life issues. One of the problems of over reliance on traditional standards. 3 4 5 3. Classification Society Rules have been very prescriptive in their application. therefore. either of personnel or the environment.2 1 2 WEMG Issue 01 Page 49 of 135 December 2007 . There remains a need for the MoD to retain knowledge in order to ensure that such standards are not applied incorrectly. however. Selection of Standards The selection of appropriate standards as part of the process of capturing requirements and acceptance criteria is critical to the overall success of the acquisition of a warship.1 1 STANDARDS Introduction Chapter 3 In simple terms standards are constraints on warship design and are intended to serve three main purposes: • • • Pass on good design practice that has been proven operationally. Sources of standards for warship engineering extend from legislation and policies set by government through general international and national standards to military and warship specific standards. which the purely rule based approach tended to stifle. the first consideration being the implications of specifying a standard.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 3. important to identify the relevant parts of standards. 2 Standards are not a panacea for ensuring a suitable product. They must be applied to a project sensibly with a full understanding of all that is involved. Detailed guidance on specific standards and their application should be obtained from the sponsor of the relevant standard. However. More recently the development and adoption by many navies of Classification Societies’ Naval Rules has introduced a new choice for the customer. This allows more freedom for innovative solutions. Military standards also consider military operational. Historically. Ensure safety.4.
preferred. needs to address: • • • 7 Assurance that the design complies with the agreed standards. International Standards Organisation standards. Technical and safety assurance. it is necessary for the MoD to ensure that there is a clear link between the User Requirements Document and the System Requirement Document (see Section 2. Assurance that the warship is properly constructed and set to work. a requirement to maintain aircraft operations assumes that personnel involved are suitability accommodated to ensure that they are fully rested and alert when they are needed. if the MoD wish to acquire a support ship and the potential shipyards have a strong background in merchant shipping. Books of Reference. Classification Society Rules and Regulations. Moreover. in selecting the best source of standards. Assurance 5 6 In the selection of standards for warships. This will require a full understanding of user requirements expressed in capability terms and the relevant technical aspects of a warship that are required to meet the user requirements. Assurance of compliance covers not only safety aspects but all technical aspects that contribute to the capability as defined in the User Requirements. it is necessary to consider the environment in which they are to be used. British Standards. but also how they are to be used and how the MoD can gain assurance of compliance. 4 When specifying standards early on it will inevitably not be possible to conduct a full cost effectiveness evaluation of the implications of each one and so it may be useful to classify them in the same way as for other requirements with such classes as key. To then specify purely military standards may result in a high cost premium to cover the risk that the shipyard may misinterpret the standard. 8 This assurance is generally provided by a combination of internal MoD organisations and Subject Matter Experts.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Sources of Standards 3 For warships. Assurance that the materials and equipment used are acceptable. mandatory. target and so on. For example. therefore. Linking Standards to Requirements 9 In selecting standards. NATO Standard Agreements. MoD projects must also bear in mind that the defined User Requirements may make assumptions that a certain degree of performance is provided by the warship platform.3). sources of standards may include: • • • • • • • • • Chapter 3 Defence Standards (or Naval Defence Standards). Furthermore. or external organisations (such as Classification Societies). For example. they are unlikely to be familiar in the use and application of purely military standards. Maritime Acquisition Publications. 10 WEMG Issue 01 Page 50 of 135 December 2007 . Statutory Legislation. minimum. Joint Service Publications. it is very important to consider not only the standards themselves.
It is. Appropriate standards for safe operation must.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Pan-Fleet Coherency 11 Chapter 3 Although MoD projects are empowered to identify the most appropriate standards that meet the needs of their specific projects. notably for environmental protection. it is necessary to manage risk in a controlled and timely manner. prudent to agree standards that lend themselves to progressive acceptance. These are discussed in turn. for certain aspects they are to comply with relevant legislation. the use of a single type of engine across the Fleet may well reduce the overall support costs. WEMG Issue 01 Page 51 of 135 December 2007 . Risk Reduction 13 In order to maximise capability from a defined capital resource.4. Even then trade off studies must be performed and the ALARP principle applied to any operational hazard. Civil Standards MoD safety policy is that warships are to provide a level of safety that is at least as good as statute. there may be certain standards that are required to ensure panfleet coherency in the solutions adopted. Indeed. therefore. unless there is a conflict with an overriding military need. Industry is forced to include a premium in the programme cost if risk is carried late in the programme when the cost of rectification is high. Safety 3.3 1 2 The effects of legislation and a generally far more litigious society mean that navies must achieve at least the same levels of safety during normal operation as would be expected in the civilian world. For example. therefore. either based on acceptable principles or a thorough safety assessment. be observed. Safety 12 It should be noted that standards that support safety certification must be agreed with the regulator prior to a warship acquisition contract being placed.
Many commercial standards are stringent and are based on ensuring sufficient time for the safe evacuation of untrained civilians in the absence of trained fire fighting crews and systems. As recognised standards. there are cases where the converse is true. education.Ship structure is regulated by Classification Societies whose rules for verifying structures have been developed over very many years for the commercial world. met by many non-traditional naval suppliers. thus the standards are likely to be more comprehensive than those for the military. which will cause emissions to the air and the sea. 5 16 As well as the use of energy and natural resources during all phases of operations at sea. ship boats and motions and vibration.Stability is regulated by the Flag Administration. It is important to understand the assumptions inherent in the use of Classification Society rules. personnel and associated stores and fuels. Warship rules are continually evolving and dialogue with the chosen Classification Society serves to ensure that sensible application of standards is achieved. but also in to construction.Many vessels are expected to meet commercial standards on accommodation etc. Structure . Certainly for a vessel not expected to operate in the front line civilian standards may be appropriate. the warship will be engaged in both international shipping and specialised naval operations that involve the movement of large quantities of weapons. With respect to navigation. equipment. These standards require far more space than has generally been provided for naval crews. London Underground and the aerospace industry. Habitability . in general. the room three corner test for resistance to fire may not be met even by typical warship steel structures as the paint systems generally can cause flash over quite early in the test! • • • • Environmental Protection 4 Compliance to national and international environmental legislation. e. The use of high speed craft is more prevalent in the fast ferry sector. legislation on exposure to motions and vibrations is becoming more stringent and wide ranging and could potentially affect many maritime operations. Royal Fleet Auxiliaries (RFAs). Increasingly compliance with these may require particular equipments to be installed. Appropriate standards should be selected but the underlying reasons behind them should be understood.Civil legislation covers some aspects of operation namely navigation. Suitable sources of standards for consideration include the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). Factors that appear in MCA standards include the provision of daylight. WEMG Issue 01 Page 52 of 135 December 2007 .g. when the local site representative wields considerable discretion in how rules are interpreted and applied. many areas of the world are covered by local regulation and vessel monitoring systems. Finally. For example. regulations and other requirements require that warship engineering needs to work actively to reduce the 16 environmental impact . There are limits to this in respect of purely military functions involving munitions and conditions in which the vessel has suffered weapon damage. Operational Safety . Generally military stability standards will be more demanding than those for the commercial world. they can provide a useful criterion for the selection of suitable materials and equipments for warship use. environmental requirements and audits as well as review of suppliers. It should be noted that there are considerable implications resulting from the application of civilian standards. This extends not only during design. motion compensated single man operation systems are very effective but are heavy and take up a lot of space.Fire is one of the biggest threats to life at sea and is covered by a range of regulations covering materials. systems and equipments. All stakeholders are to be aware of the commitment to environmental protection at all phases of development and deployment. However. Fire . Limiting emissions involves the continued development and implementation of modern technology. Boat operations have been traditionally inherently hazardous and are coming under increasing regulation. For the launch and recovery of boats.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 3 Chapter 3 It is worth discussing a few aspects in greater detail as these impact upon the warship design: • Stability . However.
4. and others. they require continuous review which can cause problems. naval vessels will increasingly be expected to lead in the adoption of good practice. avoiding the ends of the ship for critical areas. All have been developed over many years and encapsulate much experience. is of course the major factor in controlling motions although good layout. WEMG Issue 01 Page 53 of 135 December 2007 . and it is essential that they are seen to be good neighbours adhering to local regulations and expectations.4 1 2 A warship cannot always choose when and where it has to operate and so human performance under adverse sea conditions is of critical importance. overboard discharges are restricted and sewage treatment plants and even grey water control will be required. As agents of the government. as naval vessels may wish to operate in many countries’ waters. Transfer to a military vessel may not be straightforward if shock requirements etc. however. primarily length. Restrictions on waste disposal require separation. incineration. For example the Baltic is covered by very strict exhaust emission requirements. The use of active motion control systems can help but they are costly in terms of weight and space for passive systems and signatures for active ones. of course. Such regulation requires the use of inherently clean engines with advanced control systems and may also require exhaust scrubbers. It is essential that only appropriate standards. Ship size.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 6 Chapter 3 With the advent of the Kyoto protocol. either water based or with the addition of chemical systems. and or parts of standards. The latter requiring considerable weight and space high up. are imposed. particularly the cruise and passenger industry. are specified to ensure that costs do not spiral out of control. The same demands are. Operability 7 8 9 3. Warship Standards There is a wide range of military system standards available. Military standards are intended to cover areas not covered by civilian standards particularly those concerned with operability. This will have a major effect on machinery and auxiliary system design requiring space for additional equipment and storage space for waste. there is now a general acceptance that environmental concerns are real and that action must be taken. There are sound reasons for doing this. interoperability and survivability. felt in the commercial world. Guidance on the implications of particular motion levels can be found in STANAG 4154 and should be considered when specifying motion and sea state limits. In addition. and here the pace of technological development is high with new systems being developed. compaction and storage methods and machinery to be considered. can make a big difference.
WEMG Issue 01 Page 54 of 135 December 2007 .Obsolescence issues are becoming an increasing concern and it is essential that ILS analysis is performed in parallel with design development. 3. These problems are of particular concern in computer and software based systems where the pace of technology change is extremely high and is far shorter than the operational life of a military system. boats and embarked military equipment. maintained and disposed of in a way that is satisfactory the customer. • • 17 It should be recognised that the quality of the design is reflected by the quality of the review(s).1 1 2 3 The objectives of Design Reviews are to ensure that: • • • • All reasonable design options have been explored.5 3. between appropriate systems is essential. Suitable interface standards should be selected at all levels in all types of systems so that commonality.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Interoperability 3 Chapter 3 Warships are required to operate with other units and there are a number of aspects to be considered that go beyond the requirements of the specific warship.Ships operate together both nationally and internationally and so compatibility. which covers status. tested. taking in to account time and cost constraints. therefore.12. • • • Survivability 4 Survivability is a key characteristic that distinguishes warships from their civil counterparts. These include: • Ship Issues . which hold forces together and are becoming even more paramount with the closer integration of combat system command and control across units. Should the latter be deficient then the design and its programme cannot be assured. installed. There are no “standards” as such. aircraft.2. operated. but that might introduce more spares in to the support organisation.Warships have to operate in any area of the world and the greater the variety of different systems and equipments that have to be supported the greater the difficulty in providing support. difficult trade offs to be made between selecting equipments that would optimise the design or cost of a particular system. Such systems include communication systems. Survivability covers susceptibility. There is adequate supporting documentation to define the design and how it is to be used and maintained. not only physically but also electronically. The design can be produced. documented and systematic critical review of the design. so that these issues can be addressed. The design is coherent. It differs from a Progress Meeting. The Design Review is the mechanism by which the Design Manager provides assurance to senior/programme management and the customer that the development of the design is acceptable. Network systems . There are. Logistics . Electro-Magnetic Interference and Compatibility (EMI/EMC). WARSHIP PROJECT ACTIVITIES Design Review A Design Review is a formal. All contributory factors have been considered. weapon designation and fire control. The design meets the requirements and obligations. RAS and stores handling. or using existing standard items that are already in use. 17 Design Reviews should be undertaken at predefined stages in the warship design lifecycle . vulnerability and recoverability. interchange and obsolescence issues are addressed. timescales and cost.5. although guidance is available on how to determine signature targets and MOD is developing policy on minimum performance levels and design features that are to be achieved in future platforms. The effects on ship design are considered in Section 3.These are the ‘glue’. inspected. Obsolescence .
The chair shall seek to achieve a consensus. In preparing for the meeting the design team will present the design and any proposals or views on the subjects covered. Plan the resources to attend the design reviews. subordinate review activities and the acceptance process. Review strategy. milestones and the reviews required. all risks should have been foreseen and a solution proposed by the design team prior to the formal review meeting. Safety Case and Hazard Log. Responsibilities. WEMG Issue 01 Page 55 of 135 December 2007 . The costs should be outweighed by the benefits. how the design is configured/developed and integrated. The steps involved in planning and undertaking the Design Reviews are as follows: • 7 8 Define the product breakdown structure for the design: i. It will be expected that the participants will brief themselves thoroughly and probe for weak spots in the design. Test Evaluation and Acceptance plan and any test and acceptance records. Produce a Project Design Review Plan. Design Disclosure/Justification of the baseline. 6 Formal Design Reviews add to the cost of the project and take time. but must be kept to a minimum. Risk Register and mitigation plans to assure success. or dependence upon.e. • • • • • • • Design Review Plan 9 The Design Review Plan must detail how risks are to be addressed in a logical and effective way to gather sufficient information on the maturity and efficacy of the design at major project design decision points in the programme. Address actions/feedback resulting from the review. Undertake the reviews at predefined stages. Define and explain the expected level of product maturity for each design review.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 4 5 Chapter 3 Design Reviews support a contractual review of the project so that agreed customer/business requirements/objectives will be met. Design Review hierarchy/programme showing schedule of Design Reviews and their relationship to. Summary of the design work to be performed to complete. Agree the areas of risk with key stakeholders. but at the same time to maintain objectivity. Ideally. identify where design reviews can help to ensure that risk is mitigated and explain how the risks have been mitigated to date. The plan should contain (or reference) the following: • • • • Product and work breakdown structure. The principal inputs to the Design Review process are: • • • • • • • Work and product breakdown structures. This should give confidence to enable an informed decision to be made on the release of the design to the next development phase. Establish design timelines. Design baseline information appropriate to the stage of the project.
Initially. and whenever changes become necessary. the plans will encompass key requirements and those issues resulting from early risk identification and analysis activities. Build instruction. The key requirements. both internal and external. including success criteria & targets for each review. 15 16 Thus the PBS should be expected to change dependent upon the view and phase. At the outset of a ship or submarine project.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 10 For each Design Review the following should be reviewed: • • • • Chapter 3 Expected product/system maturity definitions. key functions and critical design features. The PBS is a hierarchical description in terms of the product configuration items. to be consulted and the requirements for support during the Design Review and acceptance process. The planning and resourcing or each technical or professional assistance (particularly non-project intramural effort) in the form of appropriate tasking agreements. Review Team composition. The product description changes in form through the life phases of the product: • • • • • 12 13 14 Concept. An understanding of the project engineering lifecycle and product/system’s design composition should be established. • • 11 Design Review planning. and so the Design Review Plan should be expected to change. Disposal. Key Integration Parameters (KIPs). The sources of technical or professional assistance. the project Product Breakdown Structure (PBS) and the way each part of the design within that structure is developed and integrated provides the basis for the Design Review hierarchy. Safety Case and Hazard Log. Build. The records which will be made to show that proper steps have been taken to ensure that the vessel being procured will be both safe and fit for purpose. Integration Risks and their mitigation. Because it is the integrity of the integrated design we wish to review. especially the initial review. The critical design features will evolve as the development progresses. is concerned with the identification of critical issues and how their maturity is to be verified. Operation. the designer should consult with appropriate specialist sections and other centres of expertise when determining the following: • The planned Design Reviews and safety certification activity and the part these will play in the project's risk management strategy. • • • WEMG Issue 01 Page 56 of 135 December 2007 .
Stability. supported by Engineering and Risk Management knowledge and previous Design Reviews will agree review “themes” with the Design Manager before the Review Team is selected. key functions and critical design feature targets. along with the Design Manager. Clearance to proceed to the next stage of the design. Shipborne Munitions. Examination of high risk elements of the design. Update Design Review Plan 21 It is probable that over the design lifecycle that the review requirements will change. Best practice in terms of product/system/service design and process. Magazine Construction. including Fire and Motion Safety. Explosive Safety. Marine Engineering. He will typically seek independent corroboration that will normally be provided by Specialist Sections and Centres of Expertise covering the following topics: • • • • • • • 19 Structural Strength. 18 In practice. Examination of integration issues. will draw up strategies for the most efficient way of running the review taking in to account the following: • • • • • • • Overviews of the design following the Product(or system/service) Breakdown Structure. Outputs 22 The outputs from the Design Review process are: • • • A record of the Design Review with actions. It is important that he has an in-depth understanding and experience. As far as a warship design record is concerned the following principles apply. the Chairman. Progress against KIPs. including industry and other external specialist organisations.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management The Design Review 17 Chapter 3 The selection of a suitable Design Review Chairman is critical to success. Actions to address shortfalls in the design or design documentation. The task is then to match reviewers to themes and direct the team to verify the project’s assertions of maturity and to challenge the design approach in areas of perceived risk. Confirmation of the status of subordinate review activities. This is usually as a consequence of new risk considerations being identified or occasionally when reviews have to be repeated. When changes occur they must be incorporated in to an up-issue of the Plan and the updated plan agreed with stakeholders and then re-issued to the design team. key requirements. Escape and Rescue.5.2 1 Design Records Adequate documentation and record keeping are good engineering practice in all disciplines. Plans for product/system/service qualification and acceptance. 20 The review Chairman should be free to seek appropriate help from elsewhere. WEMG Issue 01 Page 57 of 135 December 2007 . 3. The Review Chairman.
Audience and Scope 3 The design records should be available for use by a wide audience including the project team. but careful consideration should be given to electronic formats. As such they must flow down from the requirements. It should be remembered that the Design Records must be configured and stored for a minimum of the lifetime of the vessel i. If there are no separate reports then the record itself should provide sufficient information to explain the reason for the decision. Electronic document management systems may provide a solution and if so should be tied in to whatever is used for the whole project documentation system. Compatibility with arrangements for through life support is obviously a key concern with all document formats and media.e. in excess of 50 years. All design decisions.2. various documents describing the approaches. Design Specification documents. described in Section 3. As such it should be a collection of live documents for the project itself and a valuable source of reference for the future.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Objective 2 Chapter 3 The design records must demonstrate how the design was achieved. Initial drafts of these documents will be very simple and high level but others will develop as the design and requirements mature. Traditionally it may have been stand alone documents. what will not be addressed. They should clearly state what will be achieved. 4 The latter two items are the key element of the records. are intended to be addressed. Design Philosophies. guidelines and philosophies should be developed.3 1 WEMG Issue 01 Page 58 of 135 December 2007 . other projects and independent auditors and should contain or reference: • • • • • • URD. Medium 5 An important consideration is the medium by which the design records are stored. Design Policies and Strategies As the design progresses. It should contain sufficient information to stand up to scrutiny of the way the project evolved and the decisions taken. SRD. the support team. 6 3. strategies for doing so and. These documents should describe how the Warship Characteristics. Any reports or studies used to inform or justify decisions made should be referenced. equally important.5. Assumptions made at each stage. One thing to bear in mind is the likely future availability of referenced reports.
Resistance at cruise speed.The hydrodynamic characteristics and approach is influenced by the capability requirements e. • • • Survivability . Self noise. Fragmentation protection. the main concern in early stage design is considered to be manpower. Survivability. Blast management. • Build . Block break positions and relationships with major compartments/system routes. there is a greater opportunity that the required features and capabilities can be incorporated with minimal impact on the design and cost of the ship. Page 59 of 135 December 2007 WEMG Issue 01 . training. human factors engineering. but the implications of this on the overall design (e. Structural Design . As such it embraces issues wider than the project under consideration and may not be under the control of the Procurement Authority when wider Governmental considerations are addressed.g. personnel. However. health hazards and organisational/social.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 2 Documents or statements should include the following: • Chapter 3 Human Factors .The structural style to be adopted will be governed by both performance and producibility factors.The use of items under development will transfer risks to the timescale of the project. for LPD).g. a much heavier structure) need to be traded off and formally agreed. On the other hand Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) or Military Off The Shelf (MOTS) may not supply the performance/capability required by the User. Most production facilities tend to be optimised for particular methods of manufacture. the ship may be optimised for one of the following: • • • • • • • • • • • Seakeeping.Human Factors cover a wide range of disciplines including manpower. Manpower has the potential to dramatically impact and drive the ship size and it is important to have well defined policies regarding manpower to ensure manning is managed and maintained at appropriate levels. If these policies are understood early in the design cycle.Survivability policies often drive design features that have a direct influence on the initial sizing and layout out of the ship. Open sky outfitting. It may be more cost effective to limit design choice to easily produced configurations. Hydrodynamics . Post hit capability.g.Build philosophy is a key element of the Acquisition Strategy adopted for the project. COTS/Development . Maximum speed. Endurance. Ballast capabilities (e. Lockouts of compartments containing delicate equipment that cannot be installed late. cranes. Erection sequences and consequent effects on access for equipment installation. system safety. Helicopter operations. and changing may have cost implications. Block sizes determined by build and outfit areas. lifts etc. Coverage should include: • • • • Above and Underwater Threats. It will be closely allied to outfitting philosophy issues such as: • • • • Facilities assumed available.
consideration must be given to the practices being used. the information available on specific ship systems sizes. it is necessary to break the margin allocation and responsibility down into smaller sections. WEMG Issue 01 Page 60 of 135 December 2007 . These changes may arise from uncertainties in the design methods or data used in the earlier 18 stages.2. electrical power and other systems. When setting margins. However. It can also lead to the imposition of operational limitations through measures such as liquid loading restrictions leading to reduced endurance. Systems . or not exist at all. upgrade or refit. space. availability. their accuracy and the experience of the users of these tools. CBRN policy. It has become apparent that past Royal Navy (RN) projects have suffered due to the ineffective management of margins. Margins or contingency allowances on weight. repair.Margin policies are fundamental to managing the design and must be initiated at the earliest stage of design development. See Section 3. Equally important is how any design effort. build and in-service.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management • • • Chapter 3 Shock and Whipping policy. will be funded. reliability and availability. is not necessarily correct. During the early stages of design. the quality of design information available increases.Policy statements will be needed to cover the intentions with regard to: upkeep. Through Life . in support of these policies. signature level targets. • • • 3. including survivability aspects. the simple answer of increasing the margin allowance in the design. NBCD arrangements and protection schemes for magazines and vital operational spaces. Inaccuracies or omissions will always occur. as a new ship design progresses from conception through to delivery. To do so on a complex design would be impossible due to the amount of information required to control the weight. It is commonly recognised that. Failure to provide sufficient margins can also lead to the vessel being unable to accommodate future change. it is having the capability to absorb these that is the issue. modularisation. Some of these policies and features that should be defined early in the design cycle include shock levels. base maintenance.Brief philosophy statements for the major electrical and engineering systems covering architecture types. Hence the setting and management of margins forms a crucial part of both the design cycle and the Through Life Management Plan (TLMP).12. weights and positions within the vessel can be vague. the correct. space and position of all equipment and structure across the entire design. separation and redundancy arrangements. Therefore.5. consistent management of margins is key to obtaining and maintaining the required operational performance of the platform. it must be noted that in order to rectify this problem. Failure to allow a sufficient margin can lead to major design problems at a later date. For example.4 1 Margins A margin is the designer’s attempt to quantify the uncertainty and "risk" associated with the design. compatibility and system routing. be that pre or post delivery of the vessel. Margins . From URD (User Requirement Document) to delivery and in-service. It is not possible to control the margins that have been set at a single top level. onboard maintenance. reliability centred maintenance will require R&D to develop the test and monitoring equipment and processes necessary for future savings. It is crucial to strike a balance between providing too much margin in the design and providing no margin at all. from agreed additions or alterations or from growth in-service . This has resulted in reduced performance of the vessel due to limitations on weight. These can then be allocated in relation to the equipment and systems to which they relate. space and other design features are included in the ship design to reduce the impact of changes during design. Margins are a necessary element of every design and are used to account for uncertainties during the design and construction process. 2 3 4 5 6 7 18 Including those from the User Requirement Document (URD) or System Requirement Document (SRD).
Design & Build Margin (DBM) . 9 10 11 3.4 refers.5. This can occur due to painting of the vessel. WEMG Issue 01 Page 61 of 135 December 2007 . as they control the capability requirement of all platforms within the MoD fleet.The CMM provides an allowance for the IPT Leader to make changes to the contract. the CUM is monitored and calculated by the MoD Project Team who. These estimates have possible inaccuracies associated with them that cannot be eradicated until construction drawings are produced and the ship built. The IGM should be reassessed after a major refit in relation to the new state of the vessel. changes to requirements or specification of the vessel or its equipment.The IGM accounts for unattributable growth to the vessel throughout service.5. The CUM is owned by Requirements Staff.5 1 19 These characteristics must be supported by the allocated margins. In-service Growth Margin (IGM) . However.The DBM allows for a lack of detail at the different stages of the design and build process that result in the need for estimates to be made. would calculate the feasibility of the upgrade in relation to the remaining CUM. from the SRD as well as changes to predefined equipment specifications. mechanisms must be put in place to control the interfaces between them. Paragraph 3. The CMM can be used to correct errors or omissions. The data that describes these must be identified and subject to rigorous control. accumulation of dirt. Authority to change and issue the data must be clearly defined and equally important all issues/changes should be communicated to those that use the data. undocumented minor repairs. Such changes could arise from revision of applied standards.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Definitions 8 Chapter 3 The Capability Upgrade Margin (CUM) [Previously the Board Margin] is allocated to allow changes to be made to the operational capability of the platform from that specified in the User Requirement Document (URD) or System Requirement Document (SRD). An example of 19 some of the characteristics to be controlled in such a manner is shown in the table below. Interface Configuration Management In order to control the many interacting design tasks. on a request to upgrade or change the capability of a platform. which are outside of the contractor’s control. The size of the margin used depends on the confidence of the information that has been used to produce the initial documentation. unofficial modifications and the addition of equipment or tools deemed useful by the crew. Contract Modification Margin (CMM) .
which describe the military capability of the system.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management Data Mass properties Factors Weight Vertical centre of gravity Longitudinal centre of gravity Transverse centre of gravity Voltage Frequency Usage factor Physical interfaces Pipe sizes Flow rates Capacities Temperature Pressure Physical interfaces Frequencies Power levels Directionality etc. WEMG Issue 01 Page 62 of 135 December 2007 . Before any effectiveness analyses are performed the approach to be used should be described in a Concept of Analysis document. • 2 The metrics used are Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs). the sources of data and very importantly the assumptions and limitations of the analysis. It must be agreed with the customer operators to ensure its suitability. Screening Data Protocols Compatibility Input/output signals Processing speed Physical interfaces Fitting Removal Repair & maintenance Shipping Storage Preservation Lifting Installation Setting to work Estimated Calculated Supplier certified Measured Chapter 3 Electrical Distributed fluid systems EMC Control systems Space envelopes Production and manufacture Status of data Table 3. To allow the benefit of the system to be accounted for in higher level fleet or force level analyses. Where the CONOPS apparently precludes the use and appropriate assessment of particular options this must be raised with the customer. and must be closely tied to the Concept Of Operation (CONOPS) appropriate to the system.2 Interface Characteristics for Configuration Management 3.5. This should describe the methods to be used.6 Effectiveness Assessment Objectives 1 The objectives of effectiveness assessment are: • To quantify the benefit of a military system at a level which allows comparison between alternative methods of achieving that benefit.
Generally MOEs are system level measures. on which the assessment will be based. Target MOPs required to achieve a specified MOE. itself only a sub system of the whole. Analysts in the Admiralty looking at the costs of these weapons questioned ships in the Mediterranean convoys and asked how many enemy aircraft the weapons had destroyed. It should perhaps have been related to how many ships got through. Other units with which the system interacts. Inputs 4 In either case the data. Roles to be fulfilled by the system. Rather than just being used to quantify the benefit of a defined system. At all times the simplest model possible.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 3 Chapter 3 The choice of MOE needs very careful consideration. probabilistic. scenarios. When questioned further they reported that once enemy aircraft saw the volume of fire and tracer coming from the Pom-Pom equipped ships they chose not to attack them and went after others instead! The MOE in the Admiralty analysis was. Outputs 7 8 The outputs are: • • • MOEs of the system in different environments. If there is any dependency on the option then the wrong MOE has been selected. that takes into account the factors of interest. Scenarios to be considered. Although correlation with real trial data is the best means of validating a model. 20 Methods 5 MOEs may be estimated using expert judgement but are more likely to be calculated using a suitable algorithmic representation of a military operation. roles etc. Suitable calculation tools include spreadsheets or computer programmes implementing some sort of simulation using one of the following approaches: • • • Analytic. Time step. including threats faced by the system. 6 In each case sufficient runs will be needed to obtain a statistically valid answer. They therefore ordered the weapons to be removed. This multi barrelled weapon was very inaccurate and expended vast amounts of ammunition. sensitivity analyses can be used to help verification and gain confidence among real system operators that the model is a realistic representation. Relationship between MOPs and MOE. therefore. MOPs sub-system measures. An example of selecting the correct MOE is: • During the Second World War many British warships were fitted with the Pom-Poms short range anti aircraft weapon. 20 Described by means of MOPs. not a measure of the Pom-Pom. It must be applicable to all possible options being considered. wrong. This caused uproar among the fleet. WEMG Issue 01 Page 63 of 135 December 2007 . The answer came back virtually none. Performance of the system itself . will include: • • • • • Environment in which the system operates. This does not preclude different means of analysis for completely different option configurations. should be used. From such relationships target MOPs for the system and sub systems can be derived. Event based. effectiveness models can also be used in reverse in that they can be used early on in the process to quantify the effect on benefit of changing a performance parameter.
Thus. Obviously the accuracy of any estimate is directly proportional to the degree of definition. Ship construction costs are generally estimated based on the weight. must be included. In ‘Traditional’ shipbuilding the work BS was closely related to the Cost Account structure of the yard. adjusted for different type and construction phase. training. The acquisition costs include: • • • • • 4 Project costs. support and ultimate disposal of the system. consumables etc. suitable commercial arrangements may have to be established before appropriate sources of data can be accessed. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)21 .5. For warships this could be argued as being a somewhat gross simplification. fuel and consumables.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 3. • 3 Non-product material costs. WEMG Issue 01 Page 64 of 135 December 2007 . financial and non-financial. • • Inputs 2 There will be many sources of data but a pre-requisite for any estimation is an adequate definition of the system under consideration. 21 Note that Warship Project Management tends to confuse and combine the PBS and WBS or re-define the weight. operation. Since most companies are very protective of their cost data. in any estimate most of the cost is determined by only a few key factors and so long as effort is focussed on these. Generally.Cost 7 Most estimating methods are based on Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs) derived from experience of similar projects. Unit Production Costs (UPC). The major cost areas to be considered are the acquisition costs and the Through Life Costs (TLC). Design and First of Class (FOC) costs. Methods . involved in the procurement. maintenance. To identify the risks to the validity of the above estimates. This is given by two frameworks: • Product Breakdown Structure (PBS) .Manning.Will structure the work elements involved in operating the product. To determine the timescales required to complete the project. personnel.7 Cost & Schedule Estimation Objectives 1 The objectives are: • Chapter 3 To determine all the costs. jigs. whilst it evolved for that particular yard. 5 The Through Life Costs (TLC) covers: • • • Operation .Will define the configuration items which make up the product.Facilities. such as facilities. as work. reasonable degrees of confidence can be obtained. Research & Development Costs if appropriate. Support . Disposal – Scrapping or residual value. in weight breakdown structure. it was very different to that of another yard. 6 Estimates of cost and timescales must be derived from relevant data and experience. spares. Trials costs if not borne by supplier as part of FOC/UPC.
for warships. Means must be found for accounting for facilities shared across many equipments or systems. and an appreciation of the issues affecting costs. blocks. Key factors in achieving timescales may well be information and material availability from other projects and so close liaison between project teams will be entailed. unless past data is available. but this is generally unachievable for several reasons: • Pressure to shorten overall timescale means design in totality is not complete before build commences. Methods – Schedule 9 10 11 Schedule estimates will depend very much on build philosophies and other projects running concurrently. Such approaches include: • • • • • 12 Standardised elements. be investigated as the critical path will invariably be affected. It is ill-advised to make assumptions in isolation of how the data was derived. The effects of uncertainties must. Outfitted units. WEMG Issue 01 Page 65 of 135 December 2007 . Facility usage is often a key parameter and so discussions with potential suppliers will be needed. it is vitally important to recognise how the new project differs and to attempt to make allowances. Therefore. The cheapest and quickest build methods are those which allow work to be performed in the most efficient manner possible and with many parallel activities. As a general rule the cost estimate will follow the Pareto Principle where 80% of the cost is determined by 20% of the content. re-examined and analysed there may be no alternative to using a global estimate. • • Outputs 14 The outputs are cost estimates. Completion of all hotwork before outfit. Similarly. For a ship build. there is a very important link between individual design.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 8 Chapter 3 However. Since the design and build schedules invariably overlap. Pre outfitting of panels before erection. all information should be available before build commences. uncertainties (and factors causing them) and risks to mitigate. all financial costs will need to be adjusted for the life of the project using appropriate methods such as Net Present Value (NPV). Ideally. cost estimation can be improved by obtaining quotations from sub contractors. Modularised units. As designs progress. the equipment and its installation and set to work. their management and the overall production schedule of the First of Class (FOC) vessel. Design changes. 13 Conventional planning methods will determine the critical paths and overall timescales. mega blocks etc. how it is built is significant although. is often more relevant. Pre-outfitting requires detailed information which is produced late in the design programme. drawing and build elements. schedules. however. Treasury accounting rules will dictate the rules to be followed in many cases.
at least initially. WEMG Issue 01 Page 66 of 135 December 2007 . Although there are no formal procedures there are certain elements. financial and non financial if currency figures cannot be obtained. Audit trail. • • Inputs 2 The inputs are: • Costs . which must be included.8 Cost Effectiveness and Trade offs Objective 1 The objectives of the cost effectiveness task are: • Chapter 3 To provide a means of trading off cost and benefit in order to allow a selection to be made on the basis of best value for money between competing systems and sub systems.Estimates of risk consequences and contingencies should be included. Sensitivity analyses and exploration of disagreements. Outputs 5 The outputs are: • • Decision accepted by all parties. In the early stages of a project options can generally be eliminated on the basis of simple passfail criteria so long as the decisions are clear-cut. To make a decision that is accepted by all stakeholders. If they are closely comparable then options should pass through to the next stage. Whichever method is chosen. and for the process to be auditable and be easily understood by all stakeholders so that they can accept the results (this requirement counts against black box methods that rely on extensive and complex algebra). In addition. such as: • • • • 4 Discussion and re-examination of issues. and if this issue is not addressed then unsuitable decisions may be forced through. • • • Methods 3 Many methods exist ranging from business decision-making criteria such as Maximin.All cost factors should be considered.5. Derivation and cross checking of preferences. Maximax. it is necessary to be able to account for multiple factors expressed in different units. all with their advantages and disadvantages. Some estimate of the likely range of values is useful to know so that it can be determined whether or not it may affect the ultimate decision.All data will have a degree of uncertainty. To provide an audit trail of the decision made.Expressed in terms of military effectiveness. it is desirable that the methods selected satisfy the technical criteria of consistency and coherency.Map 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Warship Engineering Management 3. Figures may be required across a range of different environments. both UPC and TLC. A wide variety of methods. Validation of assumptions and bounds of problem. exist. Assumptions . Benefits . in the running of decision conferences as group psychology can be just as important in reaching a decision as raw data. Risks . Least Regret etc. then multi criteria decision-making methods should be adopted. to complex black box computer methods. scenarios and roles. It is advisable to seek the help of experienced facilitators. Experience has shown that Multi Attribute Value or Utility theory combined with decision conferences satisfy all the above criteria and have proved themselves at all levels of the MoD. As more data becomes available and more factors have to be taken in to consideration.
Maintain the effectiveness of the delivered product through life against the original and emerging requirements. This strategy focuses on the optimisation and distribution of resources in the design and development process to ensure effective and efficient product development. C. production design and manufacture of the selected solution. G. Ensure the satisfactory disposal of the final solution at the end of its operational life. criteria to measure the maturity of a project at discrete milestones are provided in Section 4. Concurrent engineering . Verify the feasibility to design a warship in compliance with agreed requirements and standards. Figure 4. This will inevitably involve numerous trade offs to deal with conflicting requirements both explicit and implicit. Furthermore. E. consistent whole. These may be used to verify that a project is on course to successfully complete.1 1 THE PROGRESSION OF A WARSHIP PROJECT AIM This chapter outlines the activities that need to be undertaken during each phase of the acquisition of a warship. Optimisation to minimise the number of dependencies above the diagonal results in just three iterative loops required if the tasks are performed in the order F. OVERVIEW The objectives of the design activities within the context of a warship life cycle are to: • 4. A. This is presented as a matrix of the design activities against the relative importance of the interactions between corresponding elements. whilst emphasising the interdependencies. Design Structure Matrix . H.The essential characteristic here is that a series of design tasks are performed. The matrix can then be used to rearrange the activities such that they are in the best sequential order. • • • • • • • 2 A characteristic of warship design development is that it is essentially an iterative process aimed at integrating interdependent sub-systems into a coherent. generating additional information for a following task and proving the data on which tasks were based. Establish a satisfactory basis for contracting design. Verify evolving designs against the agreed requirements.2 1 Assist in the refinement of requirements to assure the viability and affordability (Cost Capability Trade-Offs). B. Such an approach becomes valuable when resources are constrained and complete parallel working cannot be achieved.This considers the relative importance and consequences of the dependencies between design activities. using data generated by a previous task and. D.14. There have been many analogies used to describe the process. each dependent on initial assumptions. Validate the performance of the manufactured solution against agreed contract requirements.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Chapter 4 4 4. is rather simplistic and ignores the relative significance of the dependencies. The whole cycle can then be repeated based on better initial data and eventually converging on a balanced solution.Is a strategy which replaces the traditional sequential product development process with one in which tasks are encouraged to be completed in parallel. These include: • Design spirals . This analogy. I.1 shows the result of using this approach on a set of design activities A-I that cannot sensibly be performed in parallel. in turn. • • ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 67 of 135 December 2007 . Identify the best potential solution to an emerging requirement set.
1 Representation of Design Structure Matrix 3 In general the implementation and practice of design iterations is used to increase the level of maturity of the design and to correct design deficiencies that may exist in specific engineering disciplines. interdependencies must be reassessed to determine if the 22 corrective action or modification resulted in an adverse impact to any other discipline. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 68 of 135 December 2007 . As such. It is at these meetings that technical issues are discussed and critical decisions made regarding the focus of subsequent design iterations. Once corrected. Design Reviews are a mechanism by which the Design Manager is provided with the current status of the key design areas. For example.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Chapter 4 Design Structure Matrix Entries reflect magnitude of dependency of Activity 1 on Activity 2 Tasks ordered to minimise strength of dependencies above leading diagonal Activities in sequential order Design Activity 2 C E B G H � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � F F C E B G H A D I Design Activity 1 � A � � D I Activity order � � In this case three iterative loops cannot be eliminated and so must be controlled in some way Figure 4. Design standards.3 1 2 Non-compliance with customer requirements. it is important that design development be carefully balanced against the quantity and quality of relevant design elements. 3 In areas where non-compliance is identified. THE DESIGN REVIEW A key element to managing the design iteration process is the effective implementation of Design Reviews. However. Design iterations progress until an appropriate design maturity is achieved for the design phase of the programme. 22 It can be generalised that a change in any one technical discipline will have a direct influence or impact on one or more areas of the design. it would not be an effective use of engineering resources to perform a detailed layout of a machinery space if preliminary stability analysis has not validated the ship’s beam or sub-division spacing. Cost limits. There are numerous mechanisms that may exist which would drive the need to perform additional design iterations. These mechanisms can be generalised into three basic categories: • • • 4. It is at this point that the design is considered to be “converged” and is ready to move into the next phase. additional iterations are required to correct the discrepancy. the design iteration process must be carefully managed at the total ship level to ensure that redesign efforts are minimised and changes are implemented in a well coordinated manner such that schedule is not impacted.
e. Effectiveness assessment.5: • • • • • Design Reviewing.2. Detail design to physically integrate the sub-systems.System performance and characteristics. Acceptance. Throughout the performance of these design tasks parallel activities are undertaken to support. the emphasis shifts back from location through sub systems to completed system. weight. stability. Contract design. Complete product definition essentially comprises three stages: • • • 3 System and sub system design to provide the performance. Each upgrade or refit through life will involve repeats of this cycle. Design development & assessment. Project Timescales . support and operation. System design. Production Design. These activities are listed below and described in Section 3. Cost effectiveness trade-offs. Cost and schedule estimation. KG.Covering development. Generation of manufacturing information. assembled. i. preferred options can be chosen. This corresponds to the progression of activity from design to drawing office. This process requires an appropriate degree of system definition to be performed in order to generate estimates of: • Capability and satisfaction of other requirements . As the product components are manufactured.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4. Through Life Costs . As options are eliminated the focus shifts to the management of technical risk and facilitate the accurate estimation of costs and timescales. The tasks to be performed are discussed in the following sections and can be defined as follows: • • • • • • • • • 5 Option identification. Design survey. 6 The relationship of these tasks to the classic V diagram is illustrated in Figure 4. In-service support. Set To Work (STW) and trialled.4 1 CANDIDATE SELECTION Chapter 4 In the early stages of design a priority is to ensure that all possible alternatives and design solutions have been addressed with the alternatives determined to be feasible and cost effective to a level of detail to support a Combined Operational Effectiveness and Investment Appraisal (COEIA) process. design. Risk estimation. Design recording. 4 The detailed work gradually shifts from a system perspective to sub-system and then to a spatial/location view of the physical product. production and trials.Manufacturing costs together with support costs obtained through ILS analyses. • • • 2 Once the information has been generated. but will continue to maintain design balance within budgets. Page 69 of 135 December 2007 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 . monitor and control the work. and the general arrangement (GA) to maintain design intent and balance. Production. The solution must be accurately defined to allow efficient manufacture.
The Ship Specification is developed from the SRD which is a system solution to the customer requirements in the URD. therefore. therefore. Contract Acceptance (CA) is performed against the Ship Specification and. The relationships between these documents and design phases in which they are developed is shown in Figure 4. The most relevant document in the overall design process is the Ship Specification. Therefore.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 7 8 Chapter 4 The activities and organisations that actually perform these design tasks and how they are managed can vary greatly based on the procurement strategy selected for the particular project. by implication the SRD. This is generally demonstrated by a combination of operational trials (Part IV Trials) and analysis. it is imperative that the Ship Specification and SRD are consistent and align in all areas. and what he can afford to pay for the product. During early stages of design. This ADD is often known as an Indicative Design. if it can be achieved.2. In-service acceptance known as Fleet Weapon Acceptance (FWA) is performed against the URD and is determined by Measures Of Effectiveness (MOEs). In doing so it is necessary to make sure that the URD and SRD align so that a technical solution is both practicable and affordable. These stages will. which provides a description of the product to be supplied and the Measures Of Performance (MOPs) that it will be measured against under the contract. tasks are primarily concerned with determining what the user wants. These interdependencies illustrate the importance of maintaining consistency and tight configuration control over the development and management of these documents. require iteration as costs cannot be aligned directly with capability but must be estimated for an Architecture Design Description (ADD) generated to demonstrate how the performance could be achieved to provide the required effectiveness. 9 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 70 of 135 December 2007 .
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Option ID Design Survey Design Synthesis Chapter 4 Engineering Tasks Design Assessment System Design Contract Design Production Design Production Acceptance In Service Support Monitor. Support. Control Maritime System Maturity Design Reviewing Design Recording Effectiveness Assessment Cost an and d Schedule Assessment Cost Effectiveness Trade Offs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CONCEPT Procurement Phase ASSESSMENT DEMONSTRATION MANUFACTURE IN SERVICE Agency User Define capability URD Procurement Authority Define performance and architecture architecture SRD System Designer Design system against performance performance ITEAP off f Accept of contract contract SATS SATS Accept into service service Final trials trials Assured capability Production Design for production Construction assembly Inspection an and d HATS Sub-systems Sub-system Installation Setting Setting design and test to work work Equipment manufacture under quality oversight Equipment supplier Figure 4.2 V diagram for Warship Design Tasks ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 71 of 135 December 2007 .
The Navy could not adjust their policies to allow the craft to be used in the way for which it was designed and so it was deemed a failure and sold very quickly. 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 72 of 135 December 2007 . Consideration of alternative hull forms could be part of the option generation stage. Methods In order to generate suggestions for possible solutions the following techniques can be used: • 4. This means that the more specialised a ship’s role and the more narrow its operating envelope.At this stage the aim should be to bring in novel approaches and technologies perhaps from other engineering fields. In many areas the commercial world is well ahead in terms of technology and can often provide the basis for military systems at comparatively low cost and risk.To eliminate those options that are impractical because of performance. Its design characteristics were. These are routinely used for seabed surveys. The latter in particular will need to be understood as they are inevitably based upon some gross assumptions.1 1 OPTION IDENTIFICATION Objectives Chapter 4 The overall aim of the first design task in any new project. 2 Included among the option list should always be the “Do Nothing” or “Status Quo” option or. These technologies may be COTS or be emerging with the potential to deliver a solution within the project timescale. the “Do Minimum” option.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4.Requests for information to potential suppliers will generally provide useful information on existing products and plenty of assurances of capability to provide solutions! Brainstorming . if this is not practicable.5. then the more likely that an alternative form may offer advantages. tailored to a sprint mode of operation and so were well suited to joint operation with other surveillance assets such as aircraft. The objectives of option identification are. The latter may be to continue with existing equipment with some minimal adaptation. • • Use of commercial systems. Filter out those that are impractical . The oceanographic survey industry developed autonomous underwater vehicles carrying sophisticated sonar survey equipment. • 4.5. It was attached to the Fishery Protection Squadron and used in the same way as a conventional patrol vessel. Industry surveys .Initially to identify all potential technologies.3 1 Literature surveys . however. therefore. cost or timescale and to identify the particular reasons why. methods of operation etc. design solutions. military requirements for mine location can be met with COTS technologies. that could potentially provide the capability called for in the requirements. again developed for commercial survey work.5. the Web and patent databases.2 1 Inputs The major inputs are the capability requirement statements provided by the customer and his Operational Analysis (OA) studies. to: • Identify all potential options . It also required the Navy to man it in a different way to other ships with most of the maintenance being provided by a shore-based crew. is to identify all possible ways of meeting the requirement no matter how ‘off the wall’. Coupled with sophisticated navigation techniques. Most forms are optimised for particular characteristics and are very poor in other areas.Information sources include technical publications. and then to eliminate those that are simply never going to be practical. They have now been tested and proved as highly effective tools for mine hunting.5 4. Match performance of operational role and craft characteristics HMS Speedy was a hydrofoil purchased by the RN for evaluation. It is important that preconceptions about how operations are conducted are questioned in order to allow proper consideration of different approaches.
A complication with most warships is that they are intended to be able to operate at a wide range of speeds making it potentially expensive in terms of fuel (or ‘payload’) if excessive optimisation for one speed is performed. Simple Operational Analysis (OA) assessments with estimated Measures Of Performance (MOP) may be required. Conventional propellers give way to partially cavitating and fully cavitating propellers as speeds exceed 30 kts. if alternative hull forms are to be addressed.Estimated Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costs. The displacement monohull (or trimaran/pentamaran variants) is thus the most adaptable form if a range of tasks and operating profiles are required. 4. Timescale . Fn=0. but the Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) should be the same (Section 3. Waterjets can compete on efficiency from 20 kts or so upwards while air propulsion only becomes worth considering at very high speeds. adaptability and helicopter operations. scores reasonably well in all areas. A more expansive treatment may be found in the 23 references . which relate speed. development timescales and risk. the reasons for rejection must be sound so that later scrutiny and questioning will not cause options to be revisited thus risking delay to the project. however. Project design and build timescales cannot be properly estimated until there is an outline arrangement and high level equipment list together with likely delivery or lead time information. In addition to overall weight and payload fractions. with the possible exception of the trimaran/pentamaran which are better for stability.6).MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4 Chapter 4 It is. In comparing alternative forms parameters such as transport efficiency. All the other forms have some disadvantages as the price for excellence in one area. In all cases the aim is to identify potential ‘show stoppers’ that cannot be overcome without undue risk. higher speeds. This should not just be limited to the UPC.5.1. The OA models may be different for different operational concepts.48) then hull forms will need to have high length displacement ratio or generate lift to reduce the weight carried by buoyancy. If intended to operate near to or above the hump speed (approximate Froude no. carrying capacity and power can be useful but do not cover factors such as seakeeping. Only the displacement monohull. However. It should be noted that in all cases high speed requires lightweight construction. The table shows the major classification and more common hybrid forms but others are possible using a combination of support and resistance reduction methods. Section 6. Cost .1.5. For example. it may also include the costs of developing skills in the project team or of employing more study effort early on. important to eliminate impractical solutions as early as possible so that available effort can be focussed on more promising solutions. another critical parameter to be considered is power density and the practicalities of getting the required power into the water or air.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 23 Listed in the Bibliography under Ship Design. At this stage only the really poor options should be discarded. or layout limitations that are important to a warship. Alternative Naval Vehicles The broad classifications of Alternative Naval Vehicles (ANVs) together with their main attributes are shown in Table 4. air cushions or airfoils.Expert opinion on key technology availability.Assessment against key requirements. Criteria to be used include: • Performance . Lift may be generated by planning hull forms or by other means such as foils.2 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 73 of 135 December 2007 . • • 5 Where many potential solutions exist with ill-defined parameters a decision conferencing approach involving relevant stakeholders and domain experts can quickly establish approximate cost benefit assessments that will enable the most promising solutions to be identified.
Amphibious if air screw driven. Inherently stable. Weight critical. Large deck area. Froude number Fn< 0. Reduced waterplane multihull to reduce motions. Catamaran form with bow and stern seals. Reduce hull size and uses high Fn and wave interference to improve performance.0).0). Sensitive to weight variation.5 1 Outputs There are two important outputs: • • Chapter 4 Realistic potential system descriptions.48 to1.0 Froude number Fn> 1.5-1.48 Froude number Fn 0. Lightly built with high M Significant dynamic lift from hard chine form (Fn>1. stability from side hulls. Same as trimaran but reduces drag and manages stability by raising two hulls in normal trim. Operate above hump speed but below planning (Fn=0. Fine hull for low wavemaking.0 MediumGood Medium Very high LowMedium Low High Poor High Poor LowMedium LowMedium LowMedium Trimaran Medium Good Pentamaran Medium Good SWATH Twin hull LowMedium MediumHigh High High Very Good LowMedium Low More than 2 Hulls Foil supported Surface piercing Fully submerged Air supported Surface Effect Ship (SES) Air Cushion Vehicle (ACV) Wing In Groundeffect (WIG) Speed definitions Low Medium High Very Good Medium Very Good Low Low MediumVery High High-Very High Extremely High Poor Low Poor Very Low Good Very Low Table 4. partly buoyancy. sensitive to load variation. Considerable structure in cross deck but high deck area. limited to low sea states.5.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4. High speed requires light weight. Major Characteristics Potential speed relative to size LowMedium Medium Seakeeping for size Load Capacity for size Type Monohull Displacement Semi displacement Planning Multihulls Catamaran Generally round bilge form. Extremely weight critical. Fine hulls for low wave making. Airfoil operates in ground effect (within one chord length of surface. Very lightly built with low L/B ratio. Fully air supported with all round seals. Operate below main hump (Fn=0. Therefore. High power needed for take off. Tolerant of sea states but active control required. Justifications for rejection of unpromising systems.48) unless fitted with large amounts of power (corvettes). Potentially amphibious. partly air pressure supported.1 Broad classifications of Alternative Naval Vehicles (ANVs) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 74 of 135 December 2007 . Weight critical. Large overall beam for stability.
• • • • • 4. on system design parameters. 4. Arrangement Studies. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 75 of 135 December 2007 . Assess effects of differing levels of specified performance. some other parameter may dominate. Standards. However.5.3 1 Methods In any given design there are generally certain key design parameters that dominate the design and become the overriding concern. For many warships upper deck length is at a premium and may dictate a minimum workable length arrangement. should be identified very early on in concept work in order to bind any investigations.6. Cost Effectiveness Determinations. It must be recognised that the tools and methods may differ for each option.1 1 DESIGN SURVEY Objectives Chapter 4 The overall aim of this task is to understand and define the boundaries of the solution space for each major option. The analysis models will need to be run repeatedly to establish curves of MOE as a function of different MOPs. In ship design generally these are usually either weight or volume. Select target design point in terms of performance. but the underlying objectives are the same: • • Determine relationships between MOPs and MOEs. Operational Analysis (OA) tools will be required (Section 3. Define boundaries of solution space.6). often those heavily optimised for a specific task. for unusual vessels. Obtain ROM costing as function of major design parameters. Constraints on design parameters.6 4.6. Define interrelationships of major design parameters. constraints etc. Ship Concept Design Issues.2 1 Inputs Typical inputs to the Design Survey task are: • • • • Required capability. Such key design drivers. Determine major parameters of ship to give target performance. Margin policy. Five main methodologies are needed: • • • • • 2 Effectiveness Assessment (Operational Analysis).MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4.6. Effectiveness Assessment (Operational Analysis) 3 In order to determine the effect of differing performance parameters or MOPs on effectiveness. which will vary from design to design. Cost Estimation.
Separate short investigations can quickly identify a range of possible available powers and associated arrangements to be considered. restrictions on machinery block size and location within the ship should really be accounted for. Machinery Blocks . may all place certain minimum length requirements on parts of the ship. and any assumptions inherent in them.Helicopter landing. Factors to consider will include engine gearbox relationships.A major driver on upper deck length is the weapon and sensor requirement for clear arcs and the need to ensure adequate separation of the multitude of aerials found on modern warships in order to avoid EMC/EMI problems. shaft lines (pods). towing. Weight/VCG. landing craft. In either case. magazine relationships obviously become greater for aircraft carrier (CV) and helicopter carrier (LPH) type ships.Military cargo. or mathematical models.Although there can be a certain degree of latitude in arranging engines. etc. It is important to define their position in terms of length of ship occupied rather than a required volume: • Payloads . factors such as launch/recovery.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Ship Concept Design Issues 4 Chapter 4 In order to perform this task thoroughly either existing data curves. The Air Weapons Magazine’s relationship with any ship launched torpedo weapon system must also be considered. hanger. At the very early stages of concept design ‘elastic propulsion systems’ could be assumed. derived from existing ships. sea boat and RAS operations all take up a certain amount of deck space and may need to be allowed for by specifying minimum available deck lengths and where those spaces are.Deck/Ship Length Elements 6 There are certain key elements that must be included along the length of the ship. it is generally found that a limited selection of arrangements are practical for particular applications. Upper deck requirements will create a minimum acceptable overall length while elements such as machinery and hangar will take up particular parts of the internal volume. operator visibility. Ship Concept Design Issues . Resistance and propulsion. gearboxes. based on known data relationships. uptakes/ downtakes perhaps placing further demands on available upper deck length. Flight Deck .Berthing. generator locations and the need or otherwise for Auxiliary Machinery Rooms (AMRs) within the main machinery block. clearance from hazards etc. Topsides Integration Factors . the key factor to consider and critically review before use is the base data and logic used to generate the algorithms used. Operability . must all be considered. For sea boats. Seamanship Needs . aircraft etc. • • • • • ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 76 of 135 December 2007 . An additional factor is the location of the Air Weapon Magazine and its proximity to the hangar. It is best to create or modify any algorithms for a specific project so that they are tailored to the type of vessel under consideration. Mathematical tools are likely to be either spreadsheets or integrated computer programmes. Stability. Parameters that the algorithms will need to account for include: • • • • • 5 Deck/ship length elements. heights. The importance of the flight deck. These can be considered either as inputs to the mathematical model or constraints applied as a filter on generated results. Some may share the same section of ship length but others cannot. maintenance clearance and hangar size requirements are clearly defined for all aircraft. relative motions. then conduct sensitivity studies in order to gain confidence in their behaviour. will be needed.Additional restrictions may be imposed concerning the location of manned spaces away from ends of ship (because of ship motions) and upper deck access either side of superstructure to allow for stores handling and fore and aft movement for damage control etc. but even in this case. Space.
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 7
As far as concept models are concerned, these requirements will tend to relate to superstructure position and size. It must not be forgotten that in some cases many of the above factors could also apply to a minimum beam constraint at some point in the ship. Ship Concept Design Issues - Weight/VCG
Weight estimation algorithms must be thorough and their derivation and ranges of applicability clearly understood. Standard weight breakdown structures should be used to ensure consistency. However, it must be remembered that warship design practices are continually evolving and any algorithms based on past data will need to be modified to reflect these. VCG estimation can be very dangerous without an understanding of the likely layout. If similar ships are available than it is relatively straightforward. If not, simple arrangement studies will be required in order to determine usable relationships that can safely be used. Ship Concept Design Issues - Space
Space within a ship is generally described either as volumes (usually reserved for fluids) or as deck areas (best used for compartments). Since deck heights are such a key parameter, affecting size of ship and production considerations, there is a strong argument for using algorithms that deal with deck areas explicitly in the model of hull space. This avoids the problem of generating hull depths incompatible with a whole number of decks with discrete deck heights and sensible double bottom heights. Any calculation of space requirements must be checked with simple block level arrangement studies to ensure that it can be made available where it is required and can be used efficiently. Ship Concept Design Issues - Areas
Although area breakdowns exist they are not currently maintained and so a consistent approach, to data gathering and algorithm generation, will need to be readopted. Any breakdown should, as a minimum, at least identify:
Operational spaces - On large ships where the military equipment becomes the reason for the ship’s existence, the ‘payload’ spaces will become the design driver and will generally need to be explicitly defined in the concept tool algorithms; Magazines - Including ready to use magazines, weapon lifts, etc; Accommodation - The grade or standard of living spaces to be provided must be considered. In some platforms this may become a cost driver; for example when carrying embarked air groups or military forces. Also, if modules are to be used, then allowances will need to be made for proper access both in use and during build; Store and hotel functions; Services - To include such items as auxiliary machinery e.g. air conditioning and treatment plants not included in the main machinery block; Access, passageways - Some means of revealing the effects of altering these, which have major operational and production implications is desirable. Horizontal and vertical access routes and their links to system routes should be considered. Access routes are fundamental to layout on all warships and their impact on the ship must be determined as early as possible. Access/system route choices such as side/central passageways, vertical stairwells etc. will determine how space is made available and used for all compartments; Unallocated spaces and voids - Future flexibility will require spare space. At this stage this could be accounted for through the use of additional margins.
Some caution should be taken to ensure that any multifunction spaces are counted once only.
WEMG Issue 01
Page 77 of 135
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Ship Concept Design Issues - Volumes 14
It is probably better to use explicit calculation methods based on powers, numbers of crew, ranges, endurance etc. to obtain fluid volumes rather than equations fitted to ship geometry parameters. The equations should, of course, be related to fluid weight calculations with standard allowances for structure and unpumpable volumes included. Ship Concept Design Issues - Stability
The most convenient criterion for intact stability will be a required GM. However, GM is the relatively small difference of two large numbers and is prone to error if the VCG is not accurately assessed, or the hull form not accurately modelled. Stability calculations will thus require a reasonably accurate hull form to be assumed and a critical dependence on the VCG estimation. For damage, the same criterion of a required intact GM can also be applied. Experience of calculations for similar vessels will provide a guide to the sort of value of intact GM that will then result in the ability to pass damage standards, assuming an appropriate level of subdivision is provided. Excessive GM should be avoided as a large beam is not only detrimental to the powering (for most monohull displacement vessels) but roll motions can be very uncomfortable, with a short roll period and high accelerations. Ship Concept Design Issues - Resistance and Propulsion
Resistance prediction is best performed either by algorithms based on appropriate comprehensive standard series or on regression equations. Ranges of applicability need to be recognised. Propulsion analyses can be fairly simplistic relying on overall propulsion coefficients derived from representative ships. Full and cruise speeds are generally of interest as they are used to size the propulsion plant and calculate ranges or fuel load required. The interaction between increased fuel load driving weight, weight driving resistance, resistance driving propulsion and this again increasing the fuel load is an example of a key iteration that will be considered in the concept design. Ship Concept Design Issues - General
The function carried out by a spreadsheet or programme is to systematically vary selected key input parameters and, for each combination of inputs, generate ship forms that balance weight, VCG, and space with the required stability. The balancing tool will depend on its model of the configuration of the ship. This must be tailorable to allow for the particular style of the ship under consideration. Style includes number of hull decks (including partial decks), superstructure configurations, etc. This will allow a set of parameters to be generated defining the ship envelope that will later allow for suitable treatment of:
• • • • • •
Structural arrangements; Subdivision; Embarked equipment or ‘payload’ arrangements; Superstructure arrangement including hangar if required, bridge and boats; Fore and aft deck arrangements; Combat system configurations.
WEMG Issue 01
Page 78 of 135
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 19
Suitable constraints on overall parameter ratios, either in-built to the balancing process or applied as a filter on the output, will also be needed. Generally the following relationships will hold:
Draught adjusted to balance weight; Average double bottom height driven by tankage and associated cofferdams, voids, access and any system routes. Deep tanks may need to be allowed for in some way; Depth governed by deck heights/number of decks and the minimum sensible double bottom height; Beam driven by stability; Length varied to obtain deck area/length.
In generating the equations to calculate weight, space and VCG used in the balancing algorithms certain factors must be borne in mind. Obviously the basis ships must be closely related to the new concept being investigated. However, changes may need to be made relative to algorithms derived from type ship data to allow for:
Classification - The effect of applying classification society rules to warship structure to provide robustness and longevity has invariably been to increase structural weight over the more traditional lightweight arrangements; Standards - Increased habitability standards (including separation of genders) will generally lead to increased area requirements for accommodation; Producibility considerations (for example, modularity) - Deck height is a key producibility factor since system routes are generally placed on the deck head. The inclusion of cabin modules may also require an increase in deck height. Modularity generally will impose slight increases in area requirements to allow for module supporting structure etc.
Arrangement Studies 21 These are essentially early stage ship synthesis exercises concentrating on major general arrangement issues. There are three reasons for performing them as early as possible:
• • •
Identify major arrangement drivers for inclusion in concept models; Ensure space is available where it is required and can be usefully exploited; Provide fixed points for partial validation of trends produced by concept models.
For this reason they must be considered as an integral part of the process of using balance algorithm based concept tools. There are arrangement tools available, which help in performing these studies. In fact there should be strong links between both types of toolset as the algorithms for weight estimation etc. should be common to both. The arrangement studies and associated analysis should encourage an understanding of the drivers for the ship type under consideration, together with any unusual features being considered. Cost Estimation
Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costs are derived as functions of the major ship parameters using the methods of Section 3.5.7. Care must be taken that simple concept tool definitions of potential ships are not used as the basis of cost estimates without appreciation of what the parameters represent. Simple arrangement studies and identification of major equipment fits should be used as the basis for costing and the trend data then used to help in limited delta estimation. Cost Effectiveness Determination
Suitable methods for selection of a cost effective solution are described in Section 3.5.8.
WEMG Issue 01
Page 79 of 135
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4.6.4 1 Outputs
The key output is definition of the major ship parameters required to give a target set of performance measures. In addition, a plotted output, illustrating the sensitivity to varying input parameters, should show the key design drivers:
• • • •
Target performance parameters and resulting effectiveness; Major design parameters, dimensions and installed powers; Representative general arrangement; ROM costs and indication of their variation with major design parameters.
Design Development Design development is the process by which the user requirements are translated in to a design solution. It is used to raise confidence in the high level Design Survey and to obtain data for more detailed costing and de-risking. The principal activities performed during design development are broadly similar to those undertaken as part of the Design Survey, but to a greater level of detail. Whilst at the Design Survey stage the designer may still be considering a number of options, by the design development stage the designer should have down selected to a maximum of two solutions, possibly with a few variants that will be further developed during this stage, in order to de-risk the programme. These variants will address various candidate equipment options. For example, main propulsion machinery options or combat system equipment options. By this stage the designer will be trying to place constraints on the solutions space in order to ensure that the design solution is realistic and achievable and can be procured within the required timescales and budgets. Objectives The objectives of the design development activities are to:
Confirm the principal dimensions and main characteristics of the warship (e.g. length, beam, depth, draught and hull form parameters and overall ship configuration); Further define the interrelationships of major design parameters in more detail (e.g. the requirements for main machinery exhausts and uptakes may conflict with flight deck operations or mast and aerial locations); Determine major system parameters, for example the propulsion power of the main propulsion system and electrical generation capacity; Determine performance of the solutions, in terms of equipment configurations required to meet the required performance. This may also require further development of the relationships between MOPs and MOEs to a greater level of detail; Define major equipment to be fitted; Generate a more detailed general arrangement of the proposed solution showing the major compartments, access and system routes in outline and the interrelationships between these compartments; Obtain data for order of magnitude costing based on the design configuration produced; Develop outline acquisition programme; De-risk design solution.
• • •
WEMG Issue 01
Page 80 of 135
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4.6.7 1 Inputs
The inputs for the design development task are basically the same as those required for the higher level Design Survey, but at a more detailed level, and include the high level warship requirements derived from the Design Survey. The inputs include:
• • • • • •
Major system parameters, including overall dimensions, displacement, powers, etc; Guidance on the constraints, limits, ranges and tolerances of major parameters; Performance ranges and effectiveness; Identified key performance drivers and constraints; Identified key integration risks; Spatial interrelationships, including, location and overall size of machinery space blocks, accommodation and operational spaces and equipment; Available sub-systems/major components; Details of equipment likely to be fitted including combat system elements; Refined capability requirement; Standards to be adopted; Margin Policy.
• • • • •
Drivers The Design Drivers are similar to those identified during the Design Survey, but specific to a given design and at a more detailed level and adding:
• • • • • • • •
Sub-system dependencies and interrelationships; Spatial relationships of equipment; Dependency/Redundancy; Co-location/separation; Spatial relationship of compartments; System Runs; Human Factors; Links to survivability.
Methods A number of approaches are used to synthesise the design and include:
• • • • • • • •
Empirical rules; Basis ship type; Historical data and experience; Standards and regulations; Bottom up design from first principles – deterministic rather than empirical; Computer modelling; Reference to manufacturers standard product information; Costing and programme related to similar projects.
Design development is an evolutionary process that draws heavily on the collective design and operating experience of the MoD, Prime Contractor, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), design consultants and other domain experts. The starting point for the design development is usually a basis ship, parametric or empirical analysis of a range of ships with a similar set of characteristics to those required to meet the operational requirement for the new vessel. Page 81 of 135 December 2007
WEMG Issue 01
Accommodation and commissariat. Topside layout. range. The key studies to be undertaken are: • • • • • • • • • 4 5 4. It is likely that much of this information and the empirical relationships will have previously been developed during the Design Survey phase. the standard of accommodation and the level of segregation between ranks and sexes. The manufacturers data provided must be treated with caution and appropriate margins allocated. Accommodation Studies 5 Accommodation studies will take account of the number and ‘mix’ of the crew and officers. for example. tankage. Arrangement Studies During the Design Survey phase a number of preliminary arrangement studies may have been carried out to identify major arrangement drivers for inclusion in concept models and provide fixed points for partial validation of trends produced by concept models. As identified earlier the key drivers for a monohull warship are machinery configuration. or between stores. spatial and volumetric requirements for the propulsion machinery and auxiliary equipment and include system diagrams. The designer should be aware that this data is generic and may not accurately reflect the equipment that will actually be fitted to the vessel. Zoning studies & vulnerability. Changes are then made to the basis design to meet the new operational requirement.10 1 Machinery options studies. Tank layout.6. Aviation. endurance and vulnerability performance requirements whilst minimising the through life cost of fuel. Standards and regulations form an integral part of the design development process. stores and zoning. Operational spaces. Classification Society Rules. galley and servery areas. Machinery Option Studies 2 The Machinery Option studies identify the most suitable machinery configuration to meet the speed. The Option Studies also define the high-level equipment requirements. upper deck area. Lloyd’s Register Naval Ship Rules not only provide details of standards to be adopted but also provide empirical relationships for assessing equipment and structural requirements for warships. lubricating oil. etc. Legislation) are used for assessing the design. between the sleeping and dining areas used by different groups within the ship’s company. Stores layout & handling arrangements. Standards (Defence Standards. Page 82 of 135 December 2007 3 4 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 . aviation. However. The Machinery Option studies will also develop budgets for the electrical and fluid requirements for the combat system. representative arrangement and equipment lists and uptake and downtake requirements. The relationship between compartments must also be considered. the data and logic used to generate the embedded algorithms and their inherent assumptions must again be critically reviewed in light of the emerging more detailed requirements. ship length. companionways and escape routes. These relationships will then impact upon the design of access passageways. During this phase of the design further more detailed arrangement studies will be undertaken.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 3 Chapter 4 The configuration is then reviewed by experienced engineers and operators to identify any characteristics of the design that are unlikely to meet the current operational requirement. Structural arrangement. The Machinery Option studies rely heavily on the use of manufacturers supplied standard product data.
The position of AVCAT storage tanks and the associated pipework for fuelling or defuelling. Again suitable margins must be allowed to account for these uncertainties. their access and removal routes and handling systems. maintenance regime and equipment availability targets. Again a number of assumptions.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 6 Chapter 4 In undertaking the Accommodation Option studies the requirements for zoning. The positions of aerials and antennas and other combat system elements identified from the Topside Layout studies and the impact that these will have on the aircraft and its systems (or the effect that the aircraft will have on the aerials. tween deck heights and inter-relationship with other spaces will not be clearly defined. Operational Spaces 10 Again the requirements for operational spaces in terms of location. with respect to category of ordnance and the size and location of the magazines will have to be made based on the designer’s best understanding of the likely combat system fit. are likely to be based on the requirements for previous vessels. and the associated system routes. Thus the requirements.2. firefighting and damage control should be taken in to account. need to make a judgement as to the most suitable location for the operational spaces. The designer will. Structural design requirements. as these will impact on the space required for HVAC. based on previous experience and taking account of known changes to operating philosophy and equipment fit. electrical power generation and domestic services. These will not be formalised and quantified until later in the design process. and appropriate margins allocated for weight and space. therefore. The requirements for stores tend to be driven by crew complement and endurance (for victualling stores). Firefighting requirements. Escape and evacuations routes. deck area. The locations of the Air Weapons Magazines and associated stowage and arming routes and facilities. 9 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 83 of 135 December 2007 . In addition to the characteristics defined in Section 3. • • • • • • Stores & Magazines 8 At this stage of the design the requirements for the stores may not be clearly defined. Aviation Studies 7 Aviation Studies should consider the types of aircraft that will be operated from the warship as this will drive the size and location of the flight deck as well as the hangar and other support arrangements. in terms of required volumes and deck areas for stores. It is also likely that the requirements for magazines are not clearly defined in terms of what ordnance and ammunition will be required and in what quantities.5 the following should also be taken in to consideration: • Location of machinery uptake and downtakes identified in the Machinery Options studies. antennae and other combat system elements).
The Topside Layout studies will address the following: • • • • • • • • • • Space requirements. • 14 4. propeller design. spreadsheets are widely used. maintenance envelopes and removal routes.11 1 Note the clear tween deck heights should be checked to ensure that the depth of girders and transverse beams have not eroded clear deck heights. Weapon and sensor requirement for clear arcs. design consultants and other domain experts to provide the necessary information. Electronic separation for EMC.6. It is a key design tool as it allows a holistic view of the design. Chilled water supply. Impact on Combat Management System. etc. Physical clearances and location for RADHAZ. In addition. quality and quantity of waste heat. 2 4. At this stage the structural design definition may be limited to: • A midships section drawing (and possibly some additional sections in the fore and aft part of the vessel and in way of the flight deck and machinery spaces). Most classification societies now have standards for Naval Ship construction in addition to their rules for commercial ships.. Such programmes include 2D and 3D CAD drafting/modelling packages and specialist warship layout tools. General Arrangement The results of these layout studies are then used to produce the general arrangement of the vessel. In the early stage of the design. Development Tools There is a wide range of tools available to assist with the design development. resistance and powering prediction. Demands on support services.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Topside Layout 11 Chapter 4 A detailed understanding of the physical interrelationships between the various combat system elements and the warship is paramount. sea boats and RAS operations.6. including location. Impact on machinery selection and arrangement (including location and impact of uptakes and downtakes). Structural Design 13 The structural design of a warship will invariably adopt the requirements of classification societies. To assist with the synthesis of the machinery configuration there are a number of specialist programmes available e. identifies conflicts and is one of the key outputs from the design development activity. The general arrangement is the key configuration document by means of which all the above design studies are co-ordinated and managed. towing.12 1 2 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 84 of 135 December 2007 . Weight and location of all components as this drives the structural design and stability. voltage. it also addresses requirements such as berthing. including power. Impact on aviation arrangements. 12 Again much of this information may not be readily available to the designer at this stage in the design and he must rely on Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs).g. frequency. A profile and decks drawings. Electrical Load Schedules. tolerances. there are specialist tools available to assist the designer with the spatial interrelationships. In addition.
List of design assumptions. Range. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 85 of 135 December 2007 . The SRD. margins and caveats. Ship motions. Dimensions.7. which includes the following: • • • • • • Chapter 4 General arrangement.11 Acceptance).MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4.13 1 Outputs The key output is an Indicative Design. Outline performance specification used to inform the System Requirements document. Applicable Standards. Installed powers. Preliminary topside arrangement.7 4.7. 4. 4. Regulations and Legislation. Objectives While design development is the process by which the design is developed.7.3 1 Design performance developed from the design development. Performance requirements extracted from: • • • • The URD including the Warship Characteristics.4 1 Methods There are many methods of assessing the performance of the design against the requirements. Major equipment lists. including: • • • • • • • • • Speeds. Key Integration Parameters. Design Risks. High level system diagrams.7. Machinery arrangement. Operability. The method adopted will be determined by the criticality of the requirement. the maturity of the design and the procurement strategy (see 4. Endurance. The design assessment process is the ongoing and continuous review of the performance against the given standards or requirements. the design assessment tasks are the means by which the design performance is compared against the required performance.6. the stage in the design process. The design assessment activities are undertaken concurrently with design development and are intimately linked with the design development.1 1 OUTLINE CAPABILITY DESIGN ASSESSMENT Design Assessment Process The design assessment process is the mechanism by which the output of the design development is monitored and assessed. Inputs & Drivers The inputs to the design assessment process are the: • • 4.2 1 4.
formal assessment reports and formal Design Reviews using either an internal or external Review Chairman (See Section 3. then the new design is also likely to be acceptable. DefStans or Statutory Instruments) then the design can be assessed by comparing it against the given standard. however. Vulnerability. again there is scope in the assessment for subjective interpretation of the requirements if the arrangements depart significantly from those that are familiar to the assessor. Qualitative Assessment Against a Given Standard 4 5 6 Where the requirement is more prescriptive and defined against a given standard (e. However.1). Qualitative Assessment Against Existing Configuration 3 In its simplest form the design can be assessed against the arrangement of an existing vessel. only be used where the arrangement is similar to the existing arrangement. Signatures. This is the method used by classification societies and regulatory authorities to assess construction details and arrangements (e. Hydrodynamics. Mechanical equipment. Where there is significant difference between them then there is scope for disagreement and conflict and alternative methods must be adopted. the vulnerability of the main propulsion machinery configuration of a new design can readily be compared with that of an existing design and conclusions drawn on the performance of the new design based on the existing design. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 86 of 135 December 2007 . where a connection or insulation detail is type tested by an approved authority). The performance of most shipboard systems and equipment can be assessed quantitatively. For example.g. It can. Quantitative assessments can be undertaken for: • • • • • • • • Structural design. Electrical systems. Ship stability. If a given arrangement of equipment has proven reliable in-service and the new design has a similar arrangement. Quantitative Assessment Against a Given Standard 7 8 This is the method of design assessment preferred by most engineers as it gives an unambiguous result. Further demonstration and justification (and perhaps also negotiation) will then be required. 9 Quantitative assessments can be undertaken using calculation. peer reviews. It is also used early in the design process when quantitative information on the design or requirements is not readily available.g.5. Sub-systems. model testing or physical measurement.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 2 Chapter 4 The performance can be assessed by self-checking by the engineer. This method of assessment is widely used where the acceptance criteria cannot readily be quantified numerically and accurately measured.
Develop the product breakdown structure. Identify risks to achieving anticipated performance.e. 4. SYSTEM DESIGN Objectives The overall aim is to show that a fully working system (warship) can be produced that will meet the capability requirements within the allocated budget without excessive risk: • • • • • • • • • • Inform the development of the SRD. cost and timescale. Vulnerability assessment reports. compares the performance of the design against the user requirements and highlights design risks. However excessive reliance on past data can be dangerous when a novel element is introduced in to the design. Determine the physical elements i. System and sub-system assessment reports.8. The methods discussed in Section 3.5 1 Outputs Chapter 4 The outputs from the design assessment process.3 1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 87 of 135 December 2007 . Stability assessment reports. margins and caveats. Methods All the normal design processes for each discipline will be employed. of each sub system. Define the system and its component sub systems and demonstrate functionality. Estimate the timescales to produce the system.5. Estimate the resources required to produce the system. Very often the start point will be a previous design.8 can be used to improve the estimates of costs and effectiveness of the completed system.7and 3.2 1 Inputs The inputs are performance targets for each system from the URD. Ensure the functional and physical compatibility of all sub-systems. In many sub systems operation off design point or in transient conditions may become the major driver and will need investigation particularly when something different is added to an otherwise conventional design. the definition of a selected design point from the Design Survey and major system and sub-system parameters from the design development. Model test reports.8 4. 2 4.5. materials and equipments.1 1 The results of the design assessment process feed directly in to the progressive acceptance process.7.8. More comprehensive analysis and simulation tools should then be employed. design assessment outputs are likely to include: • • • • • • • Approved scantling drawings.8. assumptions. What at first sight may seem a straightforward modification is not always the case. 4. Classification Society guidance will dictate configurations for many systems. It is unusual for sub-system design to start from a clean sheet. In extreme cases experimental installations or demonstrators may be needed. Estimate the costs of the entire system.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4. Hydrodynamic assessment report. Generate an Indicative Design. Signature assessment reports.
perhaps with non domain experts also involved. therefore. If the supplier does not deliver the promised performance. both parties. the customer will still have the problem of maintaining his obsolete kit and finding another solution. By this stage the situation within facilities with regard to other projects will be much clearer and detailed facility production scheduling can be considered. Major equipment lists. In response a compliancy matrix against the current URD/SRD will be required.2 1 4. Fixed cost. Product breakdown structure. See Section 4. diagrams. to determine the ability of the supplier’s proposed design to meet the contractual performance. The Indicative Design may well be provided as part of the tender package. It must be recognised that greater level of definition in physical description does not necessarily mean greater confidence in promised performance.9. Estimated cost and outline build programme. 4. alternative perspectives obtained from peer review by domain experts from outside the project should be used to moderate all assessments. In contrast to previous stages there will be much more work done on planning to ensure that delivery timescales can be met. System parameters. • 4. The methods used will be similar to those used during the system design stage but taken to a greater level of detail in order to obtain the most accurate estimate possible of cost and timescale. The customer may.8.4 1 System Requirements Document (SRD).MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 2 Chapter 4 Risk assessment is often quite subjective and while brainstorming sessions. whilst he may be liable for the value of the contract. If system design is being performed as part of a tender exercise then a compliance matrix against the current URD/SRD issue will be required. Extensive analysis may be required to demonstrate that the system and sub-system definitions can provide the quoted level of performance. wish to conduct his own analyses etc. in response to detailed technical specifications. from sub-system and equipment supplier quotes. It is the parties’ perception of risk that will determine the level of design definition in the contract. Proof of concept may be required in terms of prototype systems or demonstrators. Costs will be built up. A key element of the contract will be specification of the means and criteria by which acceptance will be achieved.9 4. 2 3 4 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 88 of 135 December 2007 . Outputs The outputs are based around an Indicative Design and cover: • • • • • • 4. can be extremely useful in generating potential problems.9. and entails an acceptable degree of risk to.12.3 1 Inputs The input required is the System design definition. Methods Generally an Invitation To Tender (ITT) will be developed based on the SRD and informed by any Indicative Design work already performed.1 1 CONTRACT DESIGN Objectives The two objectives are: • To generate an adequate design specification that can be signed up to contractually by. specification and capability statements. Risk cannot necessarily be transferred simply by means of a statement in a contract. General arrangement.9.
they will happen! Contracting Implications The impact of the contracting strategy on the warship design and construction is often overlooked and can significantly increase project risk if not properly managed. It is incumbent on the Design Manager to ensure that purchase orders for equipment are placed in a timely manner in order to ensure the delivery of design and interface information to meet the design programme. Sub system specifications. These requirements should include a delivery schedule and limits on the accuracy and fidelity of the design information to be delivered. loses direct control of the risk and has to rely more heavily on the OEM. The design and construction tasks are usually split between the partners. Equipment specifications. Outputs The outputs are: • • • • • • • • • • 4. an important element of the contract will be the arrangements for dealing with how subsequent design changes are to be managed and paid for. Either the customer or the supplier will initiate changes but one thing is absolutely certain. System specification.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 5 Chapter 4 It must be accepted that no design is perfect and can always be improved as more is understood. based on an agreed work share defined in the contract. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 89 of 135 December 2007 . It is now common for the prime contractor to be either a joint venture company or industrial alliance. Build Programme. The Design Manager is also responsible for co-ordinating all the design information from the sub contractors and for the design integration of the equipment into the ship. There is also a trend towards sub-contracting larger packages of work to OEMs. the design and manufacture of the whole propulsion and generation train may be sub-contracted to a single supplier.4 1 2 3 4 4. Delivery date. however. All requirements for the delivery of design and integration information should be included in the Purchase Order and contractual penalties imposed on sub-contractors for failure to deliver the required information to meet the programme needs. The warship designer must be confident in the OEM’s ability to design and fully integrate the systems for which they are responsible before a contract is placed. Therefore. Standards. Costs. Material specifications. Acceptance criteria and methods.5 1 Performance specification. and must be involved in all contract technical negotiations with OEMs. The prime contractor. The philosophy behind this approach is to reduce the number of contractual interfaces and hence reduce the integration risk and pass this risk to the OEM. Care must be taken to ensure that tasks are allocated to the companies best qualified to undertake the work. The warship designer must also ensure that design information is passed back to the project in a timely manner and ensure the accuracy and fidelity of the information. For example. In undertaking this activity the Design Manager should consider the installation sequencing and other integration activities.9.9.
Detailing of system and sub-system arrangement of all ship systems and components. The latter will then be used by the production department to build and commission the ship. The principal focus of the production design will be on producing detailed manufacturing information and providing design disclosure and justification documentation. Structural design and preparation of arrangements and details of units. Preparation of information.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4. blocks and modules. model testing. empirical calculations. Production of detailed technical specifications for materials & equipment ordering.10. Preparation of detailed construction drawings.1 1 PRODUCTION DESIGN Objective & Drivers Chapter 4 The objective is to generate the design definition necessary for the efficient and effective manufacture of the warship to meet the contract requirements (URD. Test Evaluation and Acceptance Plan(s).3 1 Detailed development. etc. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 90 of 135 December 2007 . interconnection diagrams and • • • • • • • • • • • • • Design of seating and mounting arrangements for all equipment. optimisation and assessment of hullform. computer aided design and physical model testing.10. Detailed production design uses a combination of engineering experience and judgement.10. hydrodynamics and powering.2 1 4. statistical analysis.10 4. detailed interface specifications. the System Requirements Document and the Test Evaluation and Acceptance Plan(s). the Indicative Design. thus further de-risking the design. 4. Production design tasks include: • 4. Preparation of supporting design documentation. the Integrated Product Data Management (IPDM) system and Integrated Product Data Environment (IPDE).4 1 Tools The principal tools used to manage the production design are the Computer Aided Design (CAD) system. Production of lofting information and computer aided manufacture (CAM) data. including safety justification and substantiation. SRD and Shipbuilding Specification).10. Methods & Tasks The methods used will be similar to those used during the contract design stage but taken to a level of detail necessary to develop the production guidance information. Detailing maintenance and operating information. Inputs The input for the Production Design is the Contractual Design Definition. Liasing with sub-contractors and OEMs and co-ordination of design inputs. schedule and cost constraints. Demonstration of performance through calculations. which includes the Shipbuilding Specification. Design configuration and control. Design change management.
Most UK shipyard facilities have limitations on their production facilities and this in turn places limitations on the size and capability of vessel that can be built. Production engineering specialists should be involved throughout the production design to ensure that the production design meets the needs to the production department. Seating and mounting arrangements for all equipment. System and sub-system arrangements of all ship systems and components. Where the proposed warship is likely to exceed the existing shipyard capacity (e. including safety justification and substantiation. Detailed acceptance criteria and methods. Detailed technical specifications for materials. Structural arrangements and details of units. have a good understanding of where and how the ship will be manufactured.5 1 Outputs The outputs from the Production Design are as follows: • • • • • • • • • • • Chapter 4 Optimised hullform. Interface specifications. Maintenance and operating information. 4. hydrodynamics and powering and associated assessment reports. blocks and modules.10. Each design decision and the associated assumptions will impact on the construction of the ship. In developing the design due regard should be taken of the tolerances inherent in the production process. In most cases.10. systems and equipment ordering. Design documentation. therefore. He must engage with ship production engineers as early as possible in the design process to ensure that the design proposed takes full account of any constraints placed on the design by the available construction facilities. The warship designer must. launched and outfitted. a large conventional aircraft carrier) then the construction philosophy must be specially considered. The warship design philosophy must support the construction philosophy.6 1 Construction Implications The construction method adopted for a warship is driven by the construction facilities and industrial infrastructure available to the project. Early involvement of the production engineering specialists is necessary to ensure that the warship design can be manufactured in a cost-effective manner. interconnection diagrams and information.g. CAM and lofting information for production.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4. the warship production process will be driven by shipyard facilities. 2 3 4 5 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 91 of 135 December 2007 . Detailed construction drawings. This will reduce the risk of costly changes to the design during the production phase as a result of production limitations that were not addressed during the appropriate design phase.
This significantly increases material and labour production costs due to increased preparation and welding costs. then double curvature plates are formed on jigs using manual heat bending methods that are very labour intensive.10. Care must be taken to ensure that construction only commences once the design in way of the area of construction has been finalised.10. with less welding and hence less weld distortion. it is not without its risks. In undertaking this integration the Design Manager also needs to consider the sequencing of the installation and integration activities. therefore. The structural configuration is influenced by: • The maximum size of frames will be constrained by the frame bending equipment at the yard. 3 4 4. The maximum dimensions and thickness of double curvature plates is limited by the capacity of presses.8 1 2 3 24 Where the warship design is based on information received from the suppliers. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 92 of 135 December 2007 . Use of Equipment Manufacturers’ Design Information A concurrent engineering approach is often adopted to allow production to commence before the production design work is fully complete. The maximum and minimum plate thicknesses are determined by the available weld procedures and whether automatic or manual welding is adopted. It is. Double curvature plating should be minimised. This facilitates the use of automatic welding processes. the use of lightweight plate and closely spaced stiffeners will result in weld distortion and subsequently results in a greater amount of rework. The structural style to be adopted will be governed by both performance and “producibility” factors. Where beam sizes exceed the capability of the frame bender then sections will need to be cut and built up from flat bar. A typical lightweight grillage structure leads to a complexity with a large amount of welding and slotting. with thin plating and closely spaced stiffeners. Access for double-sided welding. Most production facilities are optimised for particular methods of manufacture and conflicts will have considerable cost implications. Traditional commercial vessels tend to adopt longitudinal framing supported on large transverses or transverse framing supported on longitudinal girders.7 1 Structural Design Chapter 4 In producing the structural design philosophy due regard should be taken of the cost implications. incumbent on the Design Manager to ensure that all design information is available in a timely manner and at the appropriate quality. possible. A ‘rule of thumb’ suggests that the steel work production effort (man hours per tonne) is inversely proportional to the square of the weight i. However. the design and installation tolerances and interface specifications of the equipment should be carefully scrutinised and understood such that the impact of these tolerances can be incorporated in to the production design and the construction programme. The Design Manager is responsible for co-ordinating all of the design information from the sub-contractors and its integration into the ship. The plating thickness for commercial ships will also be thicker. typical of older warships is a factor affecting the fabrication costs. In addition.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4. Concurrent engineering should reduce the overall build programme and allow the shipyard to maintain high utilisation in both the design and production departments. Single-sided welding should be avoided where • • • 2 A lightweight orthogonal grillage.e. which in turn leads to higher costs. Where this is exceeded. full details of the equipment to be fitted has been received and the accuracy of the information has been 24 verified and endorsed by the project. It may be more cost effective to limit design choice to easily produced configurations. if the weight is halved the man hours per tonne is quadrupled.
10. in particular: • • The maximum size of plate panels is constrained by the panel line. cabling and other outfit installed to form a module. top. • • • ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 93 of 135 December 2007 . The structural fabrication sequence can be simplistically defined as follows: • Flat plates are first cut and welded together into panels. Erection sequences and consequent effects on access for equipment installation. transportation. The maximum size of modules and the level of outfit is driven by site and berth access constraints. stiffeners are then welded to these panels. units and modules. blocks and modules will be determined by the production facilities available. The philosophy behind this approach is to reduce the number of contractual interfaces and hence reduce the integration risk and pass this risk to the OEM. pipework. general arrangement and detailed system arrangements it will be passed to the production engineering specialists who will commence work on defining the construction process sequence and programme. ends or sides).10. These panels are welded together to form ‘units’ or ‘blocks’ within the fabrication shed (a block may be one or more units welded together). • • • 4 The maximum size and weight of these panels. units. based on an agreed work share defined in the contract. Planning 2 4.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4. however. It is now common for the prime contractor to be either a joint venture company or industrial alliance. cabling and other services interconnected. blocks and modules and define the construction sequence of these panels.e. The production engineers will also assist with preparing material and production labour estimates. • 5 The size of the units and modules. The overall layout of structure.9 1 Contracting Implications Chapter 4 The impact of the contracting strategy can significantly increase project risk if not properly managed. and the positions of the connections. units. bottom. loses direct control of the risk and is dependent upon the OEM. These modules are then transferred to the building berth where they are connected together and all system piping. Production Engineering Once the warship designer has produced the outline structural design. The design and construction tasks are often split between the partners. spaces and equipment. A number of units or blocks will then be welded together and equipment. There is also a trend towards sub-contracting larger packages of work to OEMs. Access restrictions to within the unit or module (i. Care must be taken to ensure that tasks are allocated to the companies best qualified to undertake the work. The maximum size of units or blocks is driven by craneage for lifting and turning within fabrication halls.10 1 2 3 The first stage of the production planning process is to break the ship structure into panels. The prime contractor. are also governed by: • The positions of equipment and relationships with major compartments/system routes relative to the breaks. lifting and craneage on the building berth/dock.
That departures from design do not impact on performance. so that their impact can be assessed and the design updated to take account of these changes. Any production problems or changes are fed back to the designer. The role of MoD Naval Authorities and Classification Societies (as Recognised Organisations) is described in 2.11 4. Acceptance of production against design can be achieved and any concessions identified. The development of the production design continues throughout the production phase and the designer must interact closely with the production departments to ensure that the vessel is built in accordance with the design. Access and installation requirements for equipment.9. regulations or the contract.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 6 Chapter 4 The sequence in which the units or modules are fabricated and installed is principally driven by: • • • • The availability and reliability of design information. Usually construction commences in double bottom tanks under stores or accommodation spaces in the midships region and then progresses to machinery spaces as the information on the machinery arrangement and equipment is developed. 4.4. and by application of the shipbuilder’s quality systems. assessed and agreed. The level of pre-outfitting of modules before erection.1 1 PRODUCTION Construction Construction usually commences on areas which are least influenced by long lead time equipment. The designer must ensure that: • • • 2 The vessel is produced in accordance with the design documentation. The following paragraphs describe a typical shipbuilder’s quality system (the actual system adopted may be slightly different).11. by overseers from Classification Societies. • 4. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 94 of 135 December 2007 .3 and the standards that are applicable are discussed in 3. statutory bodies or the MoD to confirm compliance with standards. Delivery schedules for equipment with long lead times.11. There are two principal means by which production progress is monitored. it is important to measure progress.2 1 Monitoring Production During production.
the acceptance process will typically include the following steps: • • • • • • • • • Develop Acceptance Strategy. To achieve this successfully. equipment installation. setting to work. Production and Engineering . the acceptance process shall also provide assurance that the operation of the vessel can be accomplished safely and successfully. Combat System .12 1 ACCEPTANCE The purpose of the acceptance process is to provide evidence that the capability requirement defined in the User Requirement Document (URD) and System Requirements Document (SRD) has been delivered. line checking of electrical test paths and incrementally setting to work systems. trials and acceptance activities in accordance with the plans. it is appropriate to define and monitor a number of metrics: • Test Forms. 2 The overall acceptance process for a warship is illustrated in Figure 2. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 95 of 135 December 2007 . Each of these elements may be measured by quantifying and detailing the number of production.3 and a typical outline acceptance route map in Figure 4. The acceptance process is also to provide assurance of the acceptability of those aspects of the design that cannot be clearly demonstrated through trials and tests (such as safety. Metrics for the number of Compartment Layouts to be accepted by shipbuilder and the MoD IPT should have been monitored through the ship design and the remaining outstanding ones managed closely. vent spools. with handover to ship staff after all defects have been cleared. commissioning. Initial Compartment Inspections and Final Inspections. therefore.Metrics for whole ship acceptance can be produced for achieving contracted performance against the atomised contract specification. Whole Ship Acceptance .Metrics for manufacture cover the production of pipes and vent spools. Installation Inspection. • • • • 4. covered in the following Section 4. Metrics for system commissioning cover pressure and endurance testing of pipe and vent test paths. and inspection events. Set To Work. Final Inspections are the final element of production acceptance and are. Test Forms capture system setting to work and commissioning. To facilitate this. Collate and evaluate trials and acceptance evidence for the warship.12. Compartment Layouts.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 2 Chapter 4 The shipbuilder’s quality system is based on the development and application of Test Forms. Equipment HAT. length of main run cable reeved and terminations completed.Metrics for combat system compartments and equipments need to follow the well practised route of compartment gradings. Undertake Fleet Date Inspection (FDI) prior to In-Service Date (ISD). Offer to the user for System Acceptance. and installation of pipes. Similarly metrics for the number of systems integrated into the design should have been monitored and the remaining outstanding ones managed closely. Their writing should be well underway during the design of the systems and complete and captured in the ship build programme prior to production commencing (although this an ideal and the programme will likely evolve as production progresses). Collate and evaluate evidence for overall System Acceptance (SA). Group Trials and finally Naval Weapon Harbour Trial followed by Sea Trials. Inspections of outfitted compartments should be undertaken only once compartments have been complete and Final Inspection following final clean and paint should be after all systems have been set to work. supportability and survivability). Offer the warship to Procurement Authority for Acceptance off Contract (AoC). operability. For a warship. Undertake further operational trials. Develop Test Evaluation and Acceptance Plans (this is a staged and iterative process).3. Undertake tests.
The Procurement Authority is also responsible for developing the Test Evaluation and Acceptance Plans. The contractor is then responsible for collating all of the contractual acceptance evidence and presenting it to the Procurement Authority.2 1 Roles and Responsibilities The overall Acceptance Authority for the systems. Although the strategy should be stable it should be periodically reviewed and refined to reflect the progressive down-selection to a single solution. manufacturing the warship and demonstrating that the warship meets the requirements of the SRD. Training as identified and agreed through a Training Needs Analysis.12. Where incremental acquisition is adopted then both the capability increments and timing of those increments must also be considered. Air. The weapon systems and provision for fitting self protection weapons. or operational use. up until the point that the development/manufacture contract negotiations are finalised. The strategy should thereafter be kept under review throughout the operational life of the equipment/system. The user has final responsibility for ensuring that the warship. 2 3 4. surface and underwater surveillance. He is also responsible for ensuring that facilities are in place for the effective maintenance and support of the warship inservice. The main components identified in these documents can be considered to include the following: • • • • • • • The vessel. Indicative Design and the Shipbuilding Specification. Acceptance Strategy The acceptance strategy should be developed as early as practicable in the product lifecycle. The communications outfit (including cryptographic equipment). including the warship and other LoDs is the user. as defined in the procurement contract. Indicative Design and the Shipbuilding Specification. The required availability through the support infrastructure and service. 4. The acceptance strategy should include a concise.12. is fit for purpose and that the vessel is properly manned with trained crew. which will allow the user to confirm that his requirements have been met. Aviation systems. trials and acceptance events under the supervision of the Procurement Authority’s nominated representative. as defined in the procurement contract. the System Requirement Document (SRD). explicit definition of what the system acceptance event is (or are) to be in terms of what equipment capability and when it is required to be available for the start of validation.3 1 2 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 96 of 135 December 2007 . The acceptance strategy is then used to assist in the development of an Integrated Test.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 3 Chapter 4 The acceptance process will be applied to the requirements laid out in the User Requirement Document (URD). the Shipbuilding Specification and Indicative Design. in parallel with the User Requirement Document. along with its systems. The contractor will undertake the tests. He will then offer up the warship to the user for System Acceptance. The Procurement Authority is responsible for ensuring that the warship meets the requirements of the SRD. Evaluation and Acceptance (ITEA) Plan. The contractor is responsible for developing the design.
and ITEA Plan. and how these issues will impact ITEA arrangements and the related allocation of responsibilities between the Procurement Authority and the user.g.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4 Chapter 4 The strategy should also address any issues that need to influence the URD. The roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders.). such as: • The relative significance and importance of each of the LoDs. integration. Integrated.the scope for resorting to Limited System Acceptance and Provisos in mitigation of risks. Interdependencies with other capabilities and/or acquisitions. How any associated ‘systems-of-systems’ testing and acceptance will be managed. and associated testing.12. including interoperability. SRD. and how those interdependencies will be managed. use of MoD ranges. The organisation of the stakeholders within formal groups. To what extent each of the non-equipment LoD will need to be individually verified as a precursor to collective validation. simulation etc. Significant technical issues such as a need for design certification. Planning should commence during the development of the System Requirements Document. How risk management will be applied as an aid to engineering the ITEA Plan. as ITEA activity is a significant contribution to project lead time and cost. as soon as the task of defining Validation and Verification (V&V) criteria has started within the requirement engineering process. The need for underpinning and enabling information management strategies.4 1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 97 of 135 December 2007 . or the accepting of COTS items. How MoD test & evaluation policy will apply (e. test & research facilities. Who the champion for each LoD is. Who will be responsible for post-manufacture installation. The ITEA should then be updated and refined on an ongoing basis throughout the procurement process to reflect the increasing maturity of the design solution. The extent to which the contractor is expected/required/can be responsible for the generation of acceptance evidence. • • • • • • • • • 5 The Strategy should also address significant management issues such as: • • • • • Who the Acceptance Authority is (see above). 6 The Strategy (and the ITEA Plan) should draw from and contribute to the Master Data & Assumptions List wherever possible and necessary. 4. or where independent agencies or the MoD must be involved in the generation and/or scrutiny of evidence. Evaluation and Acceptance Planning ITEA planning is a through-life activity requiring a through-life perspective at every stage in the product lifecycle. Test. how interdependent or independent they are. Capability/cost/time priorities and risks .
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 2 The ITEA Plan should: • • • • • • • • Chapter 4 Identify all the major stakeholders. 4 4. • • • • 3 By the time the URD and SRD are baselined prior to contractor selection. To facilitate the Key Hazard area certification process for warships. need to be continually updated to reflect the design development. Be consistent with the proposed procurement strategy. Otherwise. Define Test & Evaluation activity to be performed at each stage of the project. Any changes to the Indicative Design arising through the detailed design phase will be addressed and agreed between the prime contractor and procurement authority as appropriate.5 1 2 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 98 of 135 December 2007 . acceptance of the commercial standards will be on the basis of certification against the specified Classification Society notation (or equivalent). and the contract is signed and other tasking arrangements are invoked. and acceptance of the Safety Case. Identify any other extant sources of relevant evidence such as the on-going research programme. Embrace all of the options being presented.12. Notably Key Hazard area certification involves the ongoing and independent review of the emerging design by domain experts within the Naval Authorities. a plan needs to be drawn up by the project and key certification activities and milestones agreed with the relevant stakeholders. The key certification activities are closely linked to the Maritime System Maturity Level Reviews and formal Design Reviews and the Certification Plan may form part of the ITEA Plan. The way in which these will be addressed will be defined in the contract. Identify sources of existing evidence that can be re-used. Identify interoperability testing issues. This Certification Plan needs to be updated on a regular basis throughout the life of the project to reflect any changes to the programme or changes to legislation. demonstrating that the hazards to all personnel operating or embarked in the vessel are As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). cost and schedule drivers. therefore. Certification Planning The acceptance process involves a number of stakeholders and organisations within the MoD. the scope of the ITEA Plan should be complete and tailored to the selected options and technologies. Once the contract is placed with the contractor. Be adequate to support the whole life costing and schedule estimates. Be tailored to the ship type and range of technologies selected. The content should be as fully defined as is possible. the contractor will be responsible for developing and maturing the design and building the vessel in accordance with the design. across all Lines of Development. Identify major risks. the contract is liable to suffer from “requirements creep”. Identify major demands on test resources. with its subsequent impact on cost and programme. Define Verification and Validation criteria with links to the SRD and Shipbuilding Specification. It should be noted that it is imperative that the ITEA Plan is base-lined and agreed with all key stakeholders before negotiations with the selected contractor are concluded. Where commercial standards are adopted. The ITEA Plan will.
The satisfaction of each and every individual candidate user requirement must be able to be validated. Candidate solution concept classes are identified. Each criterion should only be descriptive of a class of test method. linked one-to-one with each atomised requirement. By implication it indicates the 'severity' of the test to be applied to the solution. to confirm that the required equipment design features and performance have been provided and that the sustainability infrastructure/processes/procedures are both in place and demonstrably effective. Defining V&V requirements is an integral part of requirements engineering. Early identification of verification requirements is necessary to enable timely identification of requirements for test articles and test facilities. and thereby the level of confidence that the user needs in the test result. each and every user and system requirement must be expressed explicitly as a 'testable' characteristic.12. it is notoriously difficult to accelerate a programme that is progressing better than planned. This incremental acceptance process is to be supported through Tests. they may delay acceptance if they are not needed because. Initial population with user requirements is completed. 4 5 Early identification of validation requirements is necessary to inform long term planning of military exercises and range utilisation. Verification criteria address equipment capability and measures of performance. the possibility of test failure is more often than not the biggest collective risk faced by the project as it matures from theory to reality. The testing and acceptance traditionally occur late in the procurement process. and to inform whole life costing and scheduling. For a warship project. tests and trials are then developed to demonstrate that the warship. The validation criteria definition task is best started as soon as: • • • 3 The structure of the URD is established. and contract negotiation. 4. though it is easy for a programme to slip. Progressive testing and acceptance is the most common mitigation method used for warship projects. It is also of benefit to the procurement organisation to obtain buy-in from the stakeholders used on the design development. Inspection Tests and Trials for Progressive Acceptance To enable the above. Inspections. Acceptance will be the result of progressive disclosure and audit of the design and support procedures as they are developed. It defines the means by which achievement of the requirement will be demonstrated. The satisfaction of each and every individual candidate system requirement must be verifiable. so as to allow scope for optimisation of test arrangements later whilst engineering the ITEA Plan. Trials and Inspections (TTI) wherever appropriate. Retaining adequate budget and schedule contingencies to absorb remedial action during trials and acceptance have merit. To re-iterate: • • Validation criteria address measures of effectiveness.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4. its systems and equipment meet the requirements.7 1 2 3 4 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 99 of 135 December 2007 . when most of the budget and programme contingencies have been used/ absorbed. 2 The means by which the system or equipment is validated is expressed in the URD as a 'Validation Criterion' and/or in the SRD as a 'Verification Criterion'.6 1 Verification and Validation Criteria Chapter 4 Verification and validation is against the itemised user or system requirements. It is the reference point against which the solution will be tested to give the user confidence that the requirement is satisfied.12. However.
Acceptance of the combat systems elements will also include demonstration of the integration at a shore-side Integration Facility. Basin Trials (e. Safety Case and Key Hazard certification.g. review of operating and training manuals). Harbour Acceptance Trials (HATs). warships and platforms.3 Typical Outline Acceptance Route map – Standard RN Training Requirements Prior To ISD ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 100 of 135 December 2007 . Plan approval (e. • • • • • • • • • • 6 Acceptance off Contract will be achieved through collation and evaluation of the results from the above activities and presentation of these results to the procurement authority or his specialist representatives for acceptance. basic propulsion and steering). review against specified performance requirements and using reviewer’s previous experience of similar equipment).MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 5 Chapter 4 For a warship project the progressive acceptance process will comprise of the following main elements: • Model testing performance). trials may include First of Class aviation trials. support infrastructure modelling to demonstrate the support solution). propulsion and seakeeping tests to verify hullform • • Simulation (e. Trials undertaken during this period normally include interfacing and operations with other assets. where these have not been included in the shipbuilding contract or where they have been provided to the contractor as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE).g. Compartment and Lineout Inspections (possibly using CAD walk-through techniques). replenishment at sea trials and weapons testing and trials.g. Equipment selection (e. Sea Acceptance Trials (SATs).g. Document approval (e. Factory Acceptance Tests (of key equipment). review of proposed arrangements and details to ensure user’s operational experience and aspirations are incorporated). Setting to Work (of systems and equipment).g. resistance.g. which will occur prior to installation of equipment and systems on board the ship. During this period the procurement authority will be responsible for operating and maintaining the vessel and demonstrating to the user that the overall system meets the user’s requirement. Final Acceptance Inspections (to ensure that all defects from previous inspections and trials have been corrected). For example. (e. After Acceptance off Contract it will be the Procurement Authority’s responsibility to manage the remainder of the acceptance activities up until System Acceptance. SA ISD/IOC FDI STW HAT s BTs CST 7 8 Design and Build AoC SARC 2 Fast Cruise Recovery Period SARC 3 5 BOST 6 2-4 weeks SARC Staff Check SARC 4 5 Sea SARC Final Inspection 6 SARC 1 SARC 2 SSMOB Assume duties for care and protection Preliminary Sea Training Fleet Programme PROJECT PROGRAMMING AUTHORITY SUPPLIER LEAD RESPONSIBILITY FLEET PROGRAMMING AUTHORITY Figure 4.
2 Maintaining the current capability includes: • • • • • • Maintenance of availability.4 1 The input for any capability upgrade is the identified requirements that define the capability gap to be filled. Proposing and implementing solutions to meet the original design intent. 2 4. This transfer may not occur on acceptance of the first vessel. maturity of the design.13. operating instructions and maintenance schedules.13. Managing safety and fitness for purpose. Ensuring that the vessels are operated in accordance with the design intent. including: • • • Details of all design and build standards. etc. The Design Manager will have ongoing responsibility for addressing design defects throughout the guarantee period.3 1 Inputs To ensure that the vessel is operated and maintained in accordance with the design intent. As equipment becomes obsolete then the In-Service Design Authority will manage the replacement or produce revised performance envelopes. Tasks The In-Service Design Authority will review any reductions in capability that occur in-service through degradation of equipment performance. operating instructions and maintenance schedules. Detailed ship specific operating instructions (standard ship operating procedures are the responsibility of the operating authority).MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4. operational defects and deficiencies (OPDEFs).13. Detailed maintenance instructions. The responsibility for undertaking the maintenance rests with the Maintenance Authority. non-compliances and concessions. If the design intent has been compromised then the In-Service Design Authority will be responsible for either: • Producing revised performance envelopes. The timing of this transfer will be dependent on the number of factors including the number of ships in the batch. any limitations of existing legacy equipment and applicable standards and legislation. Objectives & Drivers The In-Service Design Authority responsibilities cover two main areas: • • 4. The responsibility for managing the design through life then progressively passes from the procurement authority to the In-Service Design Authority. Minimisation of running costs. specifying and overall management of all maintenance activities. Managing any capability upgrades. Ensuring that the vessels are maintained in accordance with the design intent. 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 101 of 135 December 2007 . 4.13 1 IN-SERVICE Chapter 4 The management of the design does not stop after the ship enters service. the number of ongoing enhancements to follow on ships in the batch and the readiness of the In-Service Design Authority to take on the responsibility.2 1 Maintaining the current capability. the In-Service Design Authority requires a full disclosure of the final as-built design.. to establish whether design intent has been compromised. breakage. Managing obsolescence. • 2 The In-Service Design Authority will also ensure that the maintenance schedules are complied with and will be responsible for organising.
it is recommended that a systematic framework of key integration parameters is established which covers performance. acceptance and testing phases. Maintenance management documentation.5 1 Outputs The outputs from the In-Service Design Authority tasks are the provision of a defined capability with an agreed availability to the end user in a safe and costs effective manner. Production drawings. it is then possible to determine the level of maturity of that project using a scale of maritime system maturity.1 1 ASSESSING WARSHIP PROJECT MATURITY Overview In order to assess the maturity of a warship project from concept to acceptance and then in to service. Each upgrade project has a product lifecycle and includes design. Supervision. In providing the service the following documentation will be included: • • • • • • • • Safety certification. statutory instruments and specific customer requirements). installation. Operational guidance. The In-Service Design Authority will be responsible for the warship aspects of: • • • • • Management. including associated personnel and environmental issues associated with the operation of the warship. • 6 Specific safety tasks include: • • • • Monitoring weight growth. Survey and inspection of safety related equipment. Contractor logistic support guidance. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 102 of 135 December 2007 . procurement. 4. manufacture. Managing warship safety assurance. Managing the design configuration of the vessels. Structural monitoring and surveys.13. Checking stability by regular inclining experiments. Safety Case reports. Once the key issues have been exposed. 4. 5 The In-Service Design Authority’s principle role is to ensure that the vessels are operated and maintained in accordance with the design intent in order to assure the safety of the ship and its crew. Carrying out necessary design work. safety. including: • Assigning warship safety levels (including mandating use of specific relevant legislation. Contractual sub-system procurement specifications. management and commercial issues.14. it will be possible to highlight aspects requiring attention and to provide robust assurance to management on the state of the project. Updated ship configuration baselines.14 4. Approval/authorisation. By using such a framework.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4 Chapter 4 Through the life of the ship there will be an ongoing requirement to upgrade and enhance the capability of the warship.
Verification. Level 2 Concept Definition/Feasibility Design. Level 5 Detailed Design Integration. Verification. the following are recommended as a sound basis that reflects the stages of acquisition: • • • • • • • • • 2 Level 1 Needs Analysis/Concept Exploration/Key Requirements Identified. These may range from refining high level requirements through to detailed design of equipment and build.2 Maritime System Maturity Levels Project at Level 4 User User Requirements Chapter 4 Service Acceptance Procurement Agency System Requirements / Contract Contract Acceptance Warship Contractor Platform/System Design & Sub-System Requirements Integration. i. The nature of ship projects is such that the various phases overlap so that at any one time. Testing 4.4 Assessing Maritime System Maturity 1 The environment in which Maritime System Maturity Levels (MSML) are defined and are to be used can be explained in traditional system engineering terms. in to acceptance events and finally in to service.4. Level 9 Acceptance Sea Trials. Tests and Trials. Component Requirements.14. Figure 4.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4. the level of design maturity increases from concept design through detailed design.14. Component Design Integration. Level 7 Ship Assembly/ Outfit/Test. However.e. as shown conceptually in the “V diagram”. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 103 of 135 December 2007 . Level 3 Overall Ship Design. Level 4 Ship Systems Design. Level 6 Ship Test and Acceptance Detailed Planning. concurrent engineering.3 Maritime System System Maturity Maturity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 4. Level 8 Post Launch Outfit. The maritime system maturity levels may be developed for each project. the project will be undertaking a number of activities in parallel. Testing System and Component Suppliers Sub-System Design. As a project progresses from left to right.
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 3 Chapter 4 To capture the overall level of maturity for the whole ship. At this stage. and the linkage with system engineering activities is shown in Figure 4. maturing the warship design and conducting detailed design at the sub-system level. refining the System Requirements Document and contract.5. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 104 of 135 December 2007 . therefore. requires the assessment of maturity of all these parallel activities for each Key Integration Parameter. A more detailed figure showing the definition of the maritime system maturity levels. The example in the figure shows a project with an overall maritime maturity level of 4. the project may be refining the User Requirement Document.
Whole Ship Issues. Development. People. Design. Construction. Validation) Sub-System Requirements Sub-System Testing Sub-System Design Equipment (Requirements. R&M.5 Defining Maritime System Maturity Levels WEMG Issue 01 Page 105 of 135 December 2007 .MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Chapter 4 Systems Engineering Stage System Engineering Maturity Level when work complete Activities & Outputs at each System Level Requirements Formulation – Concept Development 1 2 Needs Concept Analysis / Definition/ Concept Feasibility Exploration / Design Key Reqts Identified Engineering Development (Design & Construction/Trials Planning) 3 4 5 Overall Ship Ship Systems Detailed Design Design Design Integration (Engineering (Engineering (Engineering Design 1) Design 2) Design 3) Construction & Trials 6 Ship/SM Test & Acceptance Detailed Planning 7 Ship/SM Assembly/ Outfit/Test 8 Post Launch Outfit. Marine Engineering. Tests and Trials 9 Acceptance Sea Trials URD System (Requirement. Procurement) Equipment Requirement / Specifications FATs Installation Tests Development Item Equipment Initial Gate Long Lead Orders Equipment Procurement Main Gate Key: Low activity High activity For each SML. Safety. Design. Information Management. Validation) Acceptance SRD System Trials System Design Sub-System (Requirement. ILS Figure 4. Maritime Interoperability. Combat System Engineering. define progress required against Key Integration Parameters: Naval Architecture.
access. survey and operator guidance. Combat System Engineering: Combat System Engineering concerns the physical aspects of combat systems . Stability: This covers the analysis of stability against an agreed standard. namely weight. and operator guidance. Habitability: This includes all aspects of the warship associated with accommodation.14. Key Integration Parameters To facilitate reviews of project maturity. maritime system maturity may be assessed individually for various subjects or Key Integration Parameters (KIP). distribution and processing of data onboard. equipment. This is an important aspect that ensures that the necessary preparations for acceptance are in place. sensors and C4I. intelligence and information sources. sensors. stowage and use of OME. as the project progresses down the left-hand side of the “V-diagram”. and husbandry covering both design of spaces and outfit. Page 106 of 135 December 2007 • ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 . Hydrodynamics: This covers the analysis. This covers the arrangement of spaces and access This covers the estimation and management of ship • • Margins: These include all margins associated with naval architecture. • • • • • • • Marine Engineering: Marine Engineering comprises propulsion and manoeuvring systems. Weights Estimation: weight. the subsequent build and survey.Naval Architecture is sub-divided in to the following for convenience: • Warship Arrangement: routes. marine equipment selection and the Platform Management System.4 1 Naval Architecture . Munitions and Explosives Integration (OME): This covers the carriage. survey and operator guidance. ship systems. Electro-Magnetic Environment and Integrated Topside Design: This includes design. Notably Fire is exposed as a topic subject to Naval Authority regulation. sea keeping and manoeuvring. atmosphere.Whole Ship Issues are sub-divided into the following: • • • • • Survivability: This includes susceptibility.e.the set of men and machine resources that comprise the fighting capabilities of a warship. Essential subsystems include weapons/effectors. propulsion. This does not include domestic systems that are covered under Marine Engineering. Escape and Evacuation: This covers the arrangement. vulnerability and recoverability. This is subject to Naval Authority regulation. This is subject to Naval Authority regulation. model experiments and trials associated with resistance. This is subject to Naval Authority regulation. and the combat management system. Structure: This covers the derivation of loads and the design against an agreed standard. Mission Systems: Mission Systems comprises the collation. Seamanship: This includes the upper deck arrangements and equipment required for all seamanship evolutions.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project 4 Chapter 4 It is important to note that maritime system maturity level definitions also capture the setting of acceptance criteria at an early stage i. tests and trials. This is subject to Naval Authority regulation. management. These subjects and their scope are shown below: • 4. Ordnance. space and centre of gravity assigned by the MoD and by the contractor. stores. In particular. analysis. Whole Ship Issues . including communications. integration with the Platform Management System.
• • • • • Data Exchange: This covers the transmission of data between ships and other assets. analysis. helicopters. December 2006). tests and trials. Ship to ship (RAS). People: People covers both Human Factors Integration and training of operational staff. Ship to shore (docks. tests and trials. ship and environmental safety. tests and trials. while at sea and when alongside. This includes design. Ship to underwater (UUV) This includes design. equipment selection. Ship to ship (boats): This includes design. analysis. i.SSG/103/1. tests and trials. • Safety: Safety covers both the safety management system and integration of regulation and certification for personnel. equipment selection. This includes design.e. • • • 2 The following tables outline the tasks that need to be completed at each stage of a project.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project • Chapter 4 Maritime Interoperability . Structure. The tables have been taken from the Maritime System Maturity Model (Reference .Maritime Interoperability issues are sub-divided into: • Ship to air (aircraft. R&M: Reliability and maintainability covers design and testing of equipment to demonstrate acceptable reliability and arrangements for maintenance. equipment selection. analysis. equipment selection. Version 5. UAV): Including design. equipment selection. ILS: Integrated Logistic Support covers the arrangements for spares and support. Escape & Evacuation. tests and trials. ports): analysis. Regulation of product safety is covered through the aforementioned technical subjects. Stability. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WEMG Issue 01 Page 107 of 135 December 2007 . OME and Fire. analysis. These may be used as guidance to a project and also provide a framework for assessing the maturity of a project during the various phases of acquisition from concept through to in-service.
System scope. Costed Assessment Phase Programme. Key Requirements Identified…. List of Standards. key elements and interacting systems identified. Requirements. Note 5 . Design. Key design drivers. … with sufficient underpinning SRD and supporting analysis done to define the URD. Marine Engineering Whole Ship Issues • • • • Platform Arrangement. Sufficient Concept studies completed to validate URD affordability. Unavailable equipment and immature technologies identified. requirements and acceptance criteria identified and agreed with Naval Fire Authority. Platform implications. Electro-Magnetic Environment (EME) / Integrated Topside Design (ITD). Key Requirements Identified General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Naval Architecture Detailed Requirements • • • • • • • • • • • Mission Systems • Combat System • Engineering • • • Note 2 Chapter 4 Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) 1 Needs Analysis/Concept Exploration. TRL 3 of underlying technology achieved. Output Documentation Mature and Verifiable URD. Initial contact made with all Stakeholder IPTs. standards and requirements identified and agreed with Naval Stability Authority. Key design drivers. Escape and Evacuation Note 5. Capability determined. standards and requirements identified and agreed with Naval Structure Authority. Basic design data and methodology identified. TDs considered and adopted as necessary. Major risks identified Sub-System Level Key technologies. standards and requirements identified and agreed with the Naval Authority. OA confirms maritime solution to capability need. Key design drivers and requirements identified. All communicating entities and information sources identified. Margins. Outline concepts created. Habitability. System Level Capability gap analysis. Note 5 . Candidate generic equipment with suitable capabilities identified. Outline requirement for carriage. Key design drivers.g. Ordnance. basic design and verification methodology determined. Key design drivers and technical standards identified. Margins policy defined. Architecture. Initial contact made with all Stakeholder IPTs. Margins policy defined. Outline demands identified e. Key design drivers. General. equipment locations and permanence of fit. Hydrodynamics. Seamanship. Outline SRD. Note 5 . Munitions and Explosives Integration (OME) stowage and use of OME defined. Platform explosives safety certification plan drafted. Weights Estimation. and design drivers identified for major sub-systems. to determine generic Ship/ Submarine type and to refine scope of assessment studies in Assessment Phase. CONOPS/CONEMP outlined. Note 5 . Underpinning Operational Analysis (OA) studies conducted to support high level Survivability requirements. WEMG Issue 01 Page 108 of 135 December 2007 . Capability concept understood and key performance boundaries defined. Required capability and suitable concept(s) understood. Development and Procurement. standards and requirements identified. Survivability. Key design drivers. Modelling/Design Candidate System Concepts identified in terms of a Baseline and options.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project � SML 1 Needs Analysis/Concept Exploration. generic ship/submarine type determined. Equipment Level Preliminary discussions with Suppliers have shown required design and production capability is available. technology opportunities and industrial and cost constraints identified. Development Items and their risk identified.
WEMG Issue 01 Page 109 of 135 December 2007 . type and number determined. Initial contact made with all Stakeholder IPTs and Integration Authority (IA). Data Exchange. type and number determined. expected usage and estimated equipment numbers. ports). Identify environment. Initial estimate of complement. Some equipment will need to be ordered early (long lead items) in advance of ship construction contract (where applicable). Regulators (including Naval Authorities) engaged. including definition of mission and what constitutes failure or success. Capability. Advice taken from R&M Panel. Outline ILS requirements. Detailed Requirements in bold are assessed as part of Naval Authority assessment of progress towards certification. Identify relevant legislative requirements. Coalition and Mission Rehearsal requirements. Ship to ship (boats). Start Training Needs Analysis and Training System procurement strategy covering Individual. maturity is to be assessed based on evidence of defined requirements and acceptance criteria/process. Capability. Capability concept understood in terms of purpose of data exchange. HFI strategy produced. HFI stakeholders identified and baseline assumptions documented. R&M Risks identified. User groups identified (initial Target Audience Description (TAD) Operability scenario descriptions produced. Ship to ship (RAS). All parties exchanging data identified. helicopters. Capability. Joint. HFI manager appointed in IPT with appropriate competencies. Capability. Identify overall availability requirements. Ship to shore (docks. Extracted from “System Readiness Levels (SRLs) – A Taxonomy to Assess and Communicate System Maturity version 2 dated 08/07/04. type and number determined. Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 For each Key Integration Parameter sub-topic and for each System Maturity Level.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Maritime Interoperability Detailed Requirements • • • • • • Note 2 Chapter 4 Safety Note 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • People Note 4 R&M Note 4 • • • • • • Note 4 ILS Ship to air (aircraft. type and number determined. High level function analysis & initial allocation of function complete. UAV). Capability. In many cases development will need to start in advance of ship life cycle. Sub-System Development Items will be subject to separate system engineering life-cycle and system maturity evaluation. Safety and environmental requirements encapsulated in a high level statement and reflected in the URD. Term covers various forms of putting vessel afloat. Key safety and environmental risks identified. Early Human Factors Analysis (EHFA) study initiated. Key requirements relating to human issues identified & initial human roles defined. Support these requirements with an R&M Case Report (including a sensible strategy and plan). type and number determined. Safety Management Offices engaged. Collective. Team. Ship to underwater (UUV).
Some Assessment Phase Studies. Estimate of complement size provided and escape analysis scenarios Escape and Evacuation agreed. Outline GA. Trade-off requirements where appropriate and devise comprehensive and consistent set of Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs). Identify fleet-wide equipment issues. Applicable standards and guidance documents agreed. System Requirements Identified General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Naval Architecture Detailed Requirements • • • • • • • • • Marine • Engineering • • • • • Mission Systems • • • Combat System • Engineering • • Note 2 Chapter 4 Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) 2 Concept Definition/ Feasibility Design. System Level Trade-off studies undertaken around Baseline design. Outline machinery selection completed. Integration. Stability Note 5 . Margins selected and agreed. Development and Procurement. Fire strategy identified. CAD model created and capability assessed. Devise policy concerning equipment commonality. Consider degree of CS/platform system integration. compartments and external appearance. Devise first cut subsystem specifications using functional model. Consider architecture topologies. Initial Navigation Light solution determined. Principal standards selected. Weights Estimation. Identify FTR. Seamanship. modularisation etc. Likely equipment characteristics determined. Modelling/Design Defined System Concept. • • • Platform Arrangement. WEMG Issue 01 Page 110 of 135 December 2007 . Evolutions and indicative solutions identified. Complement sized and operational scenarios identified. System integration and associated facilities considered. Fire Higher level standards and guidance documents identified and agreed. Design. Preliminary Calculations. Machinery Class / standards Policy defined. Based on scaled data and known data including key equipment. Platform implications. Requirements. Preliminary power estimates completed. Hydrodynamics. Key Sub-System Specs defined. Data and information to be exchanged is defined and agreed. Navigation. Determine update/upgrade strategy. Identify safety-/security-critical areas. Preliminary Accommodation design and Outfit technical specification. Margins. Design and Production assurance requirements defined and agreed with the Naval Authorities. Architecture. Preliminary CAD Model. Structure Note 5. Sub-System Level Major parameters defined. compatibility etc. Equipment Level Functions defined. System Requirements Identified…. Preliminary navigation system selected. use of layering. Selected System concept defined. timeliness identified.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project � SML 2 Concept Definition/ Feasibility Design. Formal interfaces with other stakeholder IPTs established. … with sufficient underpinning architectural design and analysis done to define the SRD. Associated parameters e.g. performance model and other analyses. Preliminary hull form defined. Refine URD as appropriate. FFBNW and IPMD provision. Output Documentation Mature and Verifiable SRD. Technical Risk Reduction Plan defined. Note 5 . Preliminary assessment of hydrodynamic performance. Note 5 . Outline general arrangement showing access. Affordability and ISD refined. Habitability. Risks shown to be manageable. Preliminary Class notations and primary scantlings selected. Monitor TD programmes filling capability gaps and ensure at least TRL 4 of underlying technology. Consider Incremental Acquisition (IA) for immature/unaffordable/initially unnecessary equipment.
Strategy for demonstrating safety and environmental requirements defined. number. notably for Design Authority and safety delegations in place. handling and control requirements. Initial vulnerability assessments conducted. More detailed OA studies to support setting of individual signature goals. Ship to ship (boats). Data Exchange. Formalised interface arrangements achieved with all stakeholder IPTs. Ship to air (aircraft. soft kill. Regulators and other stakeholders identified and fully engaged. maximum all up weight. Preliminary calculations completed and antennae sited. helicopters. standards and acceptance criteria defined and agreed with regulators. organic support requirements. UAV). Significant risks assessed and quantified. base/routine ports identified with constraints. environmental limits. Detailed requirements for carriage. Interoperability strategy devised. Organic capability defined.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Whole Ship Issues Detailed Requirements • Note 2 Chapter 4 • • Maritime Interoperability • • • • • • Safety Note 4 • • • • • • • • • • Survivability. Type and capacity (quantities and time). OME OME protection and mitigation strategy developed and interfaced to survivability requirements. Ship to shore (docks. signatures. fuel capacity defined. SRD comprehensively defines through life system operating environment. including abnormal conditions Legislative requirements confirmed. Ship to ship (RAS). Explosives safety certification plan finalised and outline ship explosive Safety Case prepared. fuel capacity defined. Resources for safety identified and adequate provisions made. Note 5 . handling and control requirements. vulnerability and recoverability requirements supported by residual threat assessments. Ship to underwater (UUV). environmental limits. organic support requirements. fuel capacity defined. handling and control requirements. and incorporated into SRD. ports). WEMG Issue 01 Page 111 of 135 December 2007 . EME / ITD. environmental limits. URD decomposed into separate hard kill. number. Required data exchange between equipment identified at least in logical terms. Type. safety and environmental factors influence SRD. environmental limits defined. number. stowage and use of explosives identified. Type. organic support requirements. Preliminary Safety Management and Through Life Certification Plans published. Type. Preliminary Safety Case drafted and assessed. Criteria for assessing staff competence defined. Safety targets.
End users engaged in exploratory Human-In-The-Loop tests where necessary. HFI Plan produced. Confirm the definition of the mission relevant to system solutions. TLMP). Durability and Availability requirements for the solution. HF trade-off activities complete. Term covers various forms of putting vessel afloat. Maintainability. R&M Risks reviewed in light of proposed solutions. Define Reliability. Develop the Support Strategy.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) People Note 4 Chapter 4 Detailed Requirements • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Note 2 R&M Note 4 Note 4 ILS Detailed operability scenarios endorsed. Extracted from “System Readiness Levels (SRLs) – A Taxonomy to Assess and Communicate System Maturity version 2 dated 08/07/04. Support these requirements with an R&M Case Report (including a strategy and plan). Detailed Target Audience Descriptions available. Sub-System Development Items will be subject to separate system engineering life-cycle and system maturity evaluation. Develop the ILS Strategy and plans. Style guide for Human Machine Interface defined. WEMG Issue 01 Page 112 of 135 December 2007 . Training Needs Analysis matured and SRD informed. Identify candidate Support Options for consideration and assess against the Support Solutions Envelope. In many cases development will need to start in advance of ship life cycle. Develop input into other project documentation (e.g. Initial estimates of human performance & costs. Complete Allocation Of Function & human task analysis. Detailed Requirements in bold are assessed as part of Naval Authority assessment of progress towards certification. maturity is to be assessed based on evidence of defined requirements and acceptance criteria/process. Complement refined and broken down by specialty. Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 For each Key Integration Parameter sub-topic and for each System Maturity Level. Identify future initiatives that will affect logistic support. Produce detailed definitions of what constitutes mission failure or success. Testability. Some equipment will need to be ordered early (long lead items) in advance of ship construction contract (where applicable).
Major System Parameters defined. Through Life Fire Certification Plan agreed. Equipment agreed and located on Escape and evacuation Note 2 general arrangement. Data Exchange strategy defined. Type and Power Output of Prime Movers defined. Certification Plan agreed (including Material State Verification method). • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Marine Engineering Mission Systems • • • Platform Arrangement. Very Long Lead items ordered. Outline Safety Case. Documentation TRLs of Development Ship Design Items shown to be Specification mature. CAD model refined. Through Life Certification Plan agreed. loads estimated and capability assessed using FEA where Structure appropriate. Design Validated Ship Design. Final Navigation Light solution agreed. design developed and equipment selected Seamanship. Preliminary model tests completed and performance assessed. Outline solutions established. Preliminary Layouts of the Main and Auxiliary Machinery Spaces defined and agreed. Note 5 . Note 5 . with sufficient supporting key sub-system design. All Sub-System Output Specifications defined. Mature and stable architectural design. Navigation. Development. damage cases identified. Sub-System Level Key Sub-System schematics completed. test and acceptance strategies defined. Preliminary estimates of major system budgets and margins completed. Weights Estimation. Equipment Level Key equipment illustrative but very Long Lead items defined and where necessary ordered. Note 5 . Outline arrangements defined with justification. Number. Outline Safety Case produced. Design solutions refined and peer reviewed. Arrangement established. Habitability. Key Sub-System Schematics.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project � SML 3 Overall Ship Design (Engineering Design Phase 1) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Naval Architecture Detailed Requirements • • • • Note 2 Chapter 4 Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) 3 Overall Ship Design (Engineering Design Phase 1)…. Margins. Propulsion System defined. System Schematics for main systems completed and agreed. comprehensive calculations completed and Stability reviewed by Naval Authority. WEMG Issue 01 Page 113 of 135 December 2007 . Management arrangements and procedures established. Key technologies requiring development identified and technology acquisition programmes put in place. Refined CAD Model. System Level Selected System concept validated. Test Strategy. Preliminary Electrical Load Chart completed and agreed. Outline Safety Case produced. First iteration of escape analysis complete. Note 5 . …complete. suitable management arrangements are put in place. List of Long Lead Items. general arrangement refined to show individual compartment layouts. Where constraints on standards exist. Hydrodynamics. Affordability and programme further refined. Key structural drawings completed & approved by Naval Authority/Class. Note 2 . Based on scaled data and limited direct calculation and equipment weights. Defined Integration and compatible with programme. Navigation system architecture agreed.
mooring and anchoring requirements defined. Integration policy/process devised. Overall magazine arrangements. safety targets apportioned to sub systems. Ship to air (aircraft. Very long lead orders placed. Strategy defined and agreed by all Stakeholders. Vulnerability assessment studies refined and design measures to meet requirements identified. location on ship and access routes. helicopters. Requirements stable and linked to test.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Combat System • Engineering • • • • Whole Ship Issues • • Detailed Requirements Note 2 Chapter 4 • • Maritime Interoperability • • • • • • Safety Note 4 • • • • • • • • Requirements. Note 5 . Data Exchange. EME / ITD. Ship to shore (docks. ports). Integration. WEMG Issue 01 Page 114 of 135 December 2007 . Preliminary hazard assessments complete and reviewed. Testing and Acceptance.g. Platform implications. Development Items achieving at least TRL 5. Test and acceptance strategies defined. Full software simulation of chosen topside configuration completed. stowage. rig and sub-system arrangements defined. Ship to underwater (UUV). Architecture. IA strategy in place where appropriate. dynamic safety arrangements defined. harbour manoeuvring capability requirements. Test programs identified for novel features (e. Test OME programs identified (e. Development and Procurement. suitable management arrangements are put in place. Legislative requirements satisfactorily addressed. Outline arrangement. Key Hazard Area Certification Plan defined and agreed with appropriate regulators. docking arrangements. evaluation and acceptance processes. Outline arrangement. Principal connections defined. handling. Safety Case independently assessed by safety regulators and authorities. Through Life Certification Plan agreed. Ship to ship (RAS). deck size and hangar space. Architecture is stable and migration path defined. Explosives Safety Case developed and reviewed by Naval Authority. Strategies identified to eliminate/ mitigate significant hazards. Design for Integration undertaken for system. blast hardening) and shock qualification for new equipment. Outline arrangement.g. sub-system requirements defined. Independent Safety Adviser engaged. Safety Management Plan updated and system audited. UAV). handling. Equipment fit implications (including space and weight) understood.. ammunitioning routes. stowage. Outline arrangement. Where constraints on standards exist. support and sub-system arrangements defined. Outline design solutions identified to meet individual signature goals and initial performance assessed by modelling. Suppliers identified. Development/integration facility usage finalised. support and sub-system arrangements defined. Competence of Sub-System Design Authorities assessed. Design. Environmental issues identified. armour scheme qualification). Survivability. Ship to ship (boats). Comprehensive subsystem specifications devised supported by modelling analysis.
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) People Note 4 Chapter 4 Detailed Requirements • • • • • • • • • • • • • Note 2 R&M Note 4 Note 4 ILS Refine the HFI technical documentation. Detailed complement breakdown. Term covers various forms of putting vessel afloat. In many cases development will need to start in advance of ship life cycle. Some equipment will need to be ordered early (long lead items) in advance of ship construction contract (where applicable). WEMG Issue 01 Page 115 of 135 December 2007 . Continued development of the R&M Case – confirm sub-system design achieves characteristics. Review Contractor’s support concepts ensuring SSE compliance and achieve stakeholder agreement. Develop a supportability work breakdown structure. Risks flowed down and accepted by appropriate authority. Revise TLMP in light of detailed manning estimates. Detailed Requirements in bold are assessed as part of Naval Authority assessment of progress towards certification. Record results in a logistics database. Sub-system R&M Case developed. Initial design of HMI defined. Extracted from “System Readiness Levels (SRLs) – A Taxonomy to Assess and Communicate System Maturity version 2 dated 08/07/04. R&M assurance methodology agreed. maturity is to be assessed based on evidence of defined requirements and acceptance criteria/process. Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 For each Key Integration Parameter sub-topic and for each System Maturity Level. Sub-System Development Items will be subject to separate system engineering life-cycle and system maturity evaluation. R&M requirements apportioned to sub-system level. Trade off analysis – assess range of possible sub-systems proposed within the architecture to achieve a costeffective support solution.
Note 5 . Arrangements refined as required. Through life-certification plan agreed including material state Escape and Evacuation verification. alternative Conning Position. Appropriate plan approvals obtained from Class. Sub-System Level Design complete with sufficient calculations. integration and acceptance activities and facilities identified and costed. Bridge Wing. All Assessment Phase Platform Arrangement.] Selected Supplier shown to have proven capability to carry out system integration and to have adequate resources to carry out production programme including Testing and Trials. Navigation. Software testing procedures defined. Fire Protocols defined.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project � SML 4 Ship Sub-System Design (Engineering Design Phase 2) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Naval Architecture Detailed Requirements • • • • • • • • • Marine • Engineering • • • • • • • • • Mission Systems • • • • Note 2 Chapter 4 Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) 4 Ship Sub-System Design (Engineering Design Phase 2) … …complete with sufficient underpinning sub-system analysis / modelling to verify the detailed design approach. Note 5 . Machinery Seatings defined.). Full system Diagrammatics completed. . Based substantially on direct calculations. Note 5 . All required test. Load charts developed for all major systems. Seamanship. Safety Case developed further. Shelter Command Position. Final model tests completed and performance predicted. Bridge. Design of machinery seats complete.g. All Sub-System schematics completed. Analysis refined from better Weight estimates confirming that required standards are Stability met. Managed and controlled. List of Key Equipment Refined. 3D layouts available using Supplier data. System Level [All Assessment Phase studies complete. WEMG Issue 01 Page 116 of 135 December 2007 . Safety Case developed further. ECP. Margins defined and growth predicted. mature calculations. Structure Note 5. Full Naval Authority/Class approval including use of FEA where appropriate. Affordability and programme confirmed. Navigation-related space use defined (e. Hydrodynamics. Naval Authority initial audit of calculations. Layouts of Main and Auxiliary Machinery Spaces fixed. Bridge Roof. All major marine engineering equipment defined. Gyro Room. Arrangements refined as necessary from escape analysis. Long Lead items ordered. Preliminary plan approval. Equipment Level Key equipment selected and sourced – both NonDevelopment and Development items. Suitable demonstrators/testbeds used prior to availability of CS development/integration facilities. Arrangements refined and initial audit of design. etc.Defined Testing and Acceptance Strategy Design Validated sub-system designs and documentation All Sub-System schematics. equipment data and limited weighed weights Margins. NO’s Cabin. Weights Estimation. Habitability. Other Long Lead Items ordered Output Documentation Mature Sub-System Specifications. MoD Stakeholders and Naval Authorities. modelling and simulation undertaken to verify chosen design. General arrangement refined as required. analysis.
. ports). Ship to underwater (UUV). Arrangement. Arrangement. GA refined as required. General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Combat System • Engineering • • Detailed Requirements Note 2 Chapter 4 • • • Whole Ship Issues • • • Maritime Interoperability • • • • • • Safety Note 4 • • • • • • • • • People Note 4 Requirements. UAV). Continue the HFI management as design matures. Long lead orders placed. Vulnerability assessment refined further based on test results and developing systems designs. Through life safety management and certification plans revalidated. handling. Review and update safety case. Architecture. Design and Configuration. Verification of results with requirements and standards completed. docking arrangements. Integration of intrinsic OME into platform design resulting in detailed magazine OME arrangements. Arrangement. COTS component usage and adoption of open architectural standards understood. support and sub-system design refined. Internal space use outlined. ideally. helicopters. Operability trials conducted with end users. deck size and hangar space refined. mooring and anchoring design defined and key equipment selected. Ship to ship (boats). Ship to air (aircraft. Mitigation and armour schemes developed. Development/Integration facilities being procured. key equipment selected. Ship to ship (RAS). support and sub-system design refined. Subsystem specifications maturing. . Evaluation and Acceptance Plan (ITEAP) devised. Equipment interfaces to platform services defined. Note 5 . key equipment selected. Integration. where required to support system development and initial integration. Testing and Acceptance. Training systems URD informed by TNA. Safety and environmental assessments complete and reviewed and endorsed by safety regulators and authorities. Survivability. low speed manoeuvring equipment selected. Detailed design of HMI defined. Workstation / compartment layouts defined. sub-system design defined. embedded training system. Signature performance assessments refined further by modelling. stowage. Platform implications. All required test. Ship to shore (docks. 7.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) Studies completed. Arrangement. Subsystems/major equipment being developed. Principal connections defined. rig and sub-system design defined and key equipment chosen. Upper deck layout defined. key equipment selected. Weight/space trade-offs completed. integration and acceptance activities and facilities identified and costed. Development and Procurement. handling. stowage. EME / ITD. WEMG Issue 01 Page 117 of 135 December 2007 . Demonstrators/testbeds suitable for proving interoperability devised. Significant risks reviewed. Environmental issues defined. location on ship and access routes refined. Data Exchange. Integrated Test. ammunitioning routes and dynamic safety arrangements being developed. Requirements mature and controlled. DIs achieving TRL 6 or. Managed and controlled.
Extracted from “System Readiness Levels (SRLs) – A Taxonomy to Assess and Communicate System Maturity version 2 dated 08/07/04. WLC etc. R&M requirements apportioned to components.g. Ensure that through life issues have been identified. Ensure integration of supportability stakeholders’ activities.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) R&M Note 4 Chapter 4 Detailed Requirements • • • • • • Note 2 Note 4 ILS Continued development of the R&M Case – Confirm detailed design achieves R&M characteristics. Term covers various forms of putting vessel afloat. WEMG Issue 01 Page 118 of 135 December 2007 . Virtual Maintainability assessment undertaken (if appropriate). Sub-System Development Items will be subject to separate system engineering life-cycle and system maturity evaluation. Configuration Management. maturity is to be assessed based on evidence of defined requirements and acceptance criteria/process. Obsolescence. In many cases development will need to start in advance of ship life cycle.). Detailed Requirements in bold are assessed as part of Naval Authority assessment of progress towards certification. (e. Non-economic Level of Repair Analysis (LORA) completed. Some equipment will need to be ordered early (long lead items) in advance of ship construction contract (where applicable). Disposal. Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 For each Key Integration Parameter sub-topic and for each System Maturity Level.
g. Margins. System design details for production available and completed. Initial system/technology updates and upgrades considered. Reports. System design frozen and controlled. Submission received from IPT.. wide area or development rig-based) underway. Structure Note 5. Test and acceptance procedures defined and test forms produced. CS Equipment selected and ordered. Final details converted into Production information. Testing and acceptance requirements defined. System Level Final Design Review and System design then ‘frozen’. Weights Estimation. All other information. Platform Arrangement. Key subsystem integration underway. equipment selected and Final Design Review ordered. Pipe and cable layouts defined. Processes for all stages of integration defined. Analysis further refined from Weight estimates. equipment data and limited weighed weights. describing the construction and assembly process. barges. Output Documentation Mature Integration. Seamanship. Software reliability. prototypes) identified and procured. …CAD Spatial Integration complete. Other development/integration facilities (including test rigs. Habitability. Testing and Acceptance Plan. Production Engineering information complete. completed. Fire Data Exchange Specifications (DESs) detailed and agreed by all Stakeholders. Final Equipment List completed. Manufacture and Procurement. Based entirely on direct calculations. Requirements. System designs shown to be ALARP by Safety Case work. Further plan approvals obtained as necessary. Production drawings prepared. Initial updates and upgrades considered. Arrangements at final Design Review stage and complement sized. security and safety validation/verification completed. Architecture. Detailed Test Form production initiated. Factory Acceptance Tests (FATs) of major equipment commenced. FATs of certain equipment commenced. etc. Equipment Level Qualification testing of Design Development items Production Engineering complete. Navigation. Note 5 . Hydrodynamics. All major marine engineering equipment ordered. Production Engineering information complete. Final Calculations completed. Design and Configuration. Required integration methods accepted and agreed by all communicating authorities. Detailed 3D CAD model completed suitable for production. Mature ITEAP. Note 5 . Production drawings developed and approved. Arrangements detailed for Production. Testing and Acceptance Plan complete. Stability Escape and Evacuation Note 5. Acceptance Authority set up and agreed. Maintenance Plan completed. Marine Engineering Detailed Requirements specific to fire safety.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project � SML 5 Detailed Design Integration (Engineering Design Phase 3) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Naval Architecture Detailed Requirements • • • • • • • • • Marine • Engineering • • • • • • • • • Mission Systems • • • • • Combat System • Engineering • • • • Note 2 Chapter 4 Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) 5 Detailed Design Integration (Engineering Design Phase 3)…. Details of brackets. Managed and controlled. Integration. Development. Integration and Acceptance Plan agreed. All equipment selected and detailed design finalised. Sub-System Level CAD Spatial Integration complete. WEMG Issue 01 Page 119 of 135 December 2007 . Through-life issues considered. Initial integration (e. General arrangement at final Design Review stage and design ‘frozen’. System demands and margins defined. Pre-production equipment built and DIs achieving at least TRL 7. Testing and Acceptance.
Some equipment will need to be ordered early (long lead items) in advance of ship construction contract (where applicable). Detailed design of all aspects of magazine. Integration and Acceptance Plan agreed. Safety and environmental assessments refined and reviewed by safety regulators and authorities. Equipment installation considered. All equipment selected and detailed design finalised. Demonstrators/testbeds suitable for proving interoperability in use. Ship to ship (boats). Review & update Safety Case. UAV). Acceptance Authority set up and agreed. All equipment selected and detailed design finalised. Ship to underwater (UUV). Risk Assessment for Sub system verification in the representative environment. Ship to ship (RAS). Extracted from “System Readiness Levels (SRLs) – A Taxonomy to Assess and Communicate System Maturity version 2 dated 08/07/04. Environmental testing to prove reliability where prior data does not exist. Comparison of operator performance with previous HF predictions. WEMG Issue 01 Page 120 of 135 December 2007 . Equipment test programmes (e. ammunitioning and protection arrangements OME finalised. Continuing refinement of vulnerability and signature assessments to inform final system designs. shock qualification) commenced. helicopters. Check Training Needs Analysis remains valid. EME / ITD. Sub-System Development Items will be subject to separate system engineering life-cycle and system maturity evaluation. Evidence from early testing provided for reliability case to feed logistic models.g. ports). Verify material state of sub-systems. internal and upper deck layout agreed. Data Exchange Specifications (DESs) detailed and agreed by all Stakeholders. Required integration methods accepted and agreed by all communicating/participating authorities.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) • Whole Ship Issues • • • Maritime Interoperability • • • • • • Detailed Requirements Note 2 Chapter 4 Safety Note 4 People Note 4 R&M Note 4 Note 4 ILS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Platform implications. Ship to shore (docks. All equipment selected and detailed design finalised. Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 For each Key Integration Parameter sub-topic and for each System Maturity Level. Antennae and topside design reviewed and ‘frozen’. Continuing operability trials conducted with end users. Through-life issues considered. Ship to air (aircraft. Subsystem layout. Detailed Requirements in bold are assessed as part of Naval Authority assessment of progress towards certification. Review all safety planning activities. Term covers various forms of putting vessel afloat. Survivability. Review and endorsement of Certificate of Safety NA submission by NA Exp. Note 5 . Data Exchange. All equipment selected and detailed design finalised. Verification that sub-system integration does not degrade reliability. maturity is to be assessed based on evidence of defined requirements and acceptance criteria/process. Hazard mitigation plan complete. In many cases development will need to start in advance of ship life cycle. Continue HFI management activities as design matures. Continued development of the R&M Case. All equipment selected and detailed design finalised.
or in course of construction. Blocks in course of construction System Level Construction commenced and major equipment installed. Detailed integration procedures devised. as appropriate. Principal equipment installed in ship • Whole Ship Issues • • • Platform Arrangement. Assessment refined as required and watertight integrity inspected. Inactive maintenance commenced. System margins managed and controlled. Major equipment installed before block closure and access routes for other equipment confirmed. Assessment refined if required. Launch arrangements and Structure calculations reviewed. Equipment test programmes continuing. Equipment installation started. Writing of Test Forms completed and Forms agreed. Note 5 . Plan approval complete. Requirements. Note 5 . Arrangements (including Navigation lights) inspected and subject to initial testing. Managed and controlled. OME WEMG Issue 01 Page 121 of 135 December 2007 . Fire Final testing of key software completed. Manufacture and Procurement. Note 5 . Platform implications. Hydrodynamics. Factory Acceptance Tests (FATs) of major equipment Production All modules completed completed prior to installation. integration facility equipment and equipment for installation onboard ship. Production of support documentation commenced. Marine Engineering Detailed Requirements specific to fire safety. Development. Operator / Maintainer training courses underway. Materials and construction of ship / submarine inspected. Delivery of equipment for installation. Installation inspections commenced. Inspections commence and subject to initial testing. Development of Stability operator information commenced. Survivability. Escape and Evacuation Note 5. finalised Testing/Acceptance Equipment Level Plan and Test Forms. assets and targets procured. Arrangements inspected and subject to initial testing. Installation of major equipment commenced. COTS refresh if appropriate. Configuration controlled. Integration activities with key subsystems completed. EME / ITD. Refined with weighed data if appropriate. Navigation. Testing and Acceptance. Safety Case developed to include Operator instructions / limitations.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project � SML 6 Ship / Submarine Test and Acceptance Detailed Planning General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Naval Architecture Detailed Requirements • • • • • • • • • Marine • Engineering • • • • • • • • • Mission Systems • • • Combat System • Engineering • • • Note 2 Chapter 4 Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) 6 Ship / Submarine Test and Acceptance Detailed Planning … …complete. FATs of major equipment completed. Seamanship. Test Forms and Testing and Documentation Formal agreement with Acceptance Plan agreed formally with all Stakeholders of the Stakeholders. FATs of major equipment completed. Design and Configuration. Margins. General arrangement and 3D CAD model refined if required. Sub-System Level Sufficient sub-system outfit and testing prior to Output assembly closure of blocks. Arrangements inspected and subject to initial testing. Later stages of CS integration underway using combination of reference sets. Habitability. Integration and Installation. Ranges. Arrangements inspected and subject to initial testing. Note 5 . Weights Estimation.
Continuing operability trials conducted with end users to refine design. Continue the HFI management activities as the design matures.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Maritime Interoperability Detailed Requirements • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Note 2 Chapter 4 Safety Note 4 People Note 4 R&M Note 4 Note 4 ILS Ship to air (aircraft. Sub-System Development Items will be subject to separate system engineering life-cycle and system maturity evaluation. Extracted from “System Readiness Levels (SRLs) – A Taxonomy to Assess and Communicate System Maturity version 2 dated 08/07/04. Ship to underwater (UUV). In many cases development will need to start in advance of ship life cycle. UAV). Collect and analyse material state data to verify safety criteria. Ship to shore (docks. Term covers various forms of putting vessel afloat. Detailed Requirements in bold are assessed as part of Naval Authority assessment of progress towards certification. Continued development of the R&M Case. Specify in-service requirements for data capture to maintain design intent and maintain safety targets. Arrangements inspected and subject to initial testing. Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 For each Key Integration Parameter sub-topic and for each System Maturity Level. Operator instructions and guidance drafted. Ship to ship (RAS). helicopters. Review all safety planning activities. Some equipment will need to be ordered early (long lead items) in advance of ship construction contract (where applicable). Arrangements inspected and subject to initial testing. Additional verification not covered by 5 above. Verify Operational and Training Performance and Statements (OPS & TPS). Review and update Safety Case. ports). Demonstration of interoperability using demonstration/testbed facilities. maturity is to be assessed based on evidence of defined requirements and acceptance criteria/process. Arrangements inspected and subject to initial testing. Verify material state of sub-systems. Data Exchange. Arrangements inspected and subject to initial testing. Refine logistics models. Arrangements inspected and subject to initial testing. Safety and environmental assessments refined and reviewed by safety regulators and authorities. Ship to ship (boats). WEMG Issue 01 Page 122 of 135 December 2007 .
General arrangement and 3D CAD model refined if required. equipment data and/or weighed weights only. Equipment testing completed and initial system installation trials and testing started (e. Design and Configuration. OME Note 5. Equipment installation and setting to work underway. Arrangement inspected and tested. Assessment refined as required. …. Testing programme well in hand in accordance with formal Test Form procedures. Navigation. testing and verification. enabling setting to work to be completed with progressive inspections. Margins. Standard Installation Inspections (IIs) and Harbour Acceptance Trials (HATs) commenced . Output Equipment Level Documentation All FATs completed. Managed and controlled. Survivability. Certificate of Safety NA submission refined and supported by other Marine Engineering Fire Detailed Requirements. Platform implications. pre-launch Outfit and Testing) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Naval Architecture Detailed Requirements • • • • • • Note 2 Chapter 4 Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) 7 Ship / Submarine Assembly (incl. • Production Combat System • Ship/Submarine Engineering assembled. Arrangements inspected and tested to verify accordance with design and Safety Case. Arrangements inspected and testing completed. EENA survey undertaken and material state of the vessel confirmed. Sub-System Level Commissioning and Setting to-Work completed. Arrangements inspected and tested. Support documentation and arrangements being developed. Requirements. pre launch Outfit and Testing) …. Habitability. Testing programme well in hand in accordance with formal Test Form procedures. Operator Stability information further refined. Note 5 . Integration and Installation.complete. Training completed. Equipment installed as appropriate. Full certification issued possibly with CoCs or memo items outstanding. Manufacture and Procurement. WEMG Issue 01 Page 123 of 135 December 2007 . Procurement of ranges. Escape and evacuation Escape and Evacuation Demonstration completed (NSC compliant vessels). Standard IIs and HATs commenced. Seamanship. degaussing system). Testing programme well in hand with formal test procedures. Arrangements inspected and tested. Note 5 . Weights Estimation. Testing programme underway in accordance with formal Test Form procedures. Progressive integration of onboard equipment. assets and targets underway. Production equipment either already installed or available for installation.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project � SML 7 Ship / Submarine Assembly (incl. System commissioning and setting to work completed. Note 5 . Arrangements inspected to validate accuracy of vulnerability and signature assessment models. Testing and Acceptance.Hydrodynamics. Structure Note 5 . Assessment refined as required and watertight integrity inspected. Development. Inspections and testing continued. Launch • • • Whole Ship Issues • • Marine Engineering • • • • • • • • • Platform Arrangement. EME / ITD.g. Spares Progressive Survey ordered and support and Inspection Reports arrangements in place. Note 3 achieved. System Level Main construction completed and Ship/Submarine Launch achieved. and signed-off Test Mission Systems • Forms as construction • is completed. Based on direct calculations.HATs conducted using Integration facility and/or shipboard equipment as appropriate.
Data Exchange. Ship to shore (docks. Continue HFI management activities as the system matures. Verification that final system integration has not degraded reliability requirements. Ship to ship (RAS). Evaluation of operator performance embedded within the integrated system. Collect and analyse data to verify material state safety. In many cases development will need to start in advance of ship life cycle. maturity is to be assessed based on evidence of defined requirements and acceptance criteria/process. Review all safety planning activities.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Maritime Interoperability Detailed Requirements • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Note 2 Chapter 4 Safety Note 4 People Note 4 R&M Note 4 Note 4 ILS Ship to air (aircraft. Some equipment will need to be ordered early (long lead items) in advance of ship construction contract (where applicable). Operator instructions and guidance refined and reviewed by safety regulators and authorities. Include consideration of simulators and associated in-service support equipment in the Safety Case. Verify Operational and Training Performance and Statements (OPS & TPS). Economic LORA completed. WEMG Issue 01 Page 124 of 135 December 2007 . Ship to ship (boats). Arrangements inspected and tested. Detailed Requirements in bold are assessed as part of Naval Authority assessment of progress towards certification. Comparison of predicted versus actual operator performance in the integrated system. Procedural mitigation arrangements proved. Sub-System Development Items will be subject to separate system engineering life-cycle and system maturity evaluation. Assessment of operator workload and other factors such as situational awareness. Arrangements inspected and tested. ports). UAV). Extracted from “System Readiness Levels (SRLs) – A Taxonomy to Assess and Communicate System Maturity version 2 dated 08/07/04. Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 For each Key Integration Parameter sub-topic and for each System Maturity Level. Verify material state of sub-systems. helicopters. Arrangements inspected and tested where practicable. Arrangements inspected and tested. Continued development of the R&M Case. Ship to underwater (UUV). Demonstration in order to influence final design. Arrangements inspected and tested. Confirmation that all R&M risks have been mitigated. Review Safety Case and direct the Safety Plan. Operability trials to support V&V against HF related requirements. Safety and environmental assessments reviewed by safety regulators and authorities. Testing programme in hand in accordance with formal Test Form procedures. Term covers various forms of putting vessel afloat. Obtain certification from regulatory authorities to enable demonstration activity to proceed.
Actual performance assessed on Stage 1 trials. Tests and Trials General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Naval Architecture Detailed Requirements • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Note 2 Chapter 4 Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) 8 Post Launch Outfit. assets and targets underway. Inclining experiment conducted. Escape and evacuation Hydrodynamics. Fire Testing programme alongside completed. Note 5 . Testing and Acceptance. Final signed off Test Forms.i. Basin Trials conducted successfully. Structure Note 5. Testing programme alongside completed. Sub-System Level HATs and some SATs completed. EME / ITD. Development. Arrangements inspected and tested to verify accordance with design and Safety Case. design problems and Equipment Level omissions for rectification from Basin Full Maintenance Plan in Trials and Stage 1 trials operation. Survivability. System Level Inclining Experiment conducted. SIB finalised for Approval. Output Documentation Reports of defects. Actual margins calculated and agreed. Tank capacities measured and tanks calibrated for input to SIB. Pre. Complete Stage 1 Trials. Production/Testing Complete outfit afloat Complete Basin Trials and HATs. completed. Testing during Basin and Stage 1 Trials. Full integration of onboard equipment achieved.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project � SML 8 Post Launch Outfit.Stage 1 trials Safety Case and Safety Case Report completed and approved. Basin Trials and Stage 1 trials covering platform’s own functionality (previously called Contractor’s Sea Trials (CSTs)) completed.. General arrangement and 3D CAD model refined if required. basin and Stage 1 trials completed . Note 5 . Testing programme alongside. Assessment refined to reflect actual displacement and CofG. Manufacture and Procurement. …completed demonstrating system operation in a controlled harbour and sea environment. Arrangements tried at Basin Trials and Stage 1 trials where practicable. Preliminary Naval Authority/Class certification. Note 5 Full certification issued and outstanding CoCs addressed. Final machinery and systems commissioning and setting to work completed underway at sea prior to full Stage 1 trials evolutions commencing. Weight Estimation. Final equipment installed. Navigation. Compass Swing completed. remaining HATs and those SATs which are practicable to conduct as part of Stage 1 trials. Arrangement and coatings inspected and tested during Stage 1 trials. Margins. OME Final draft of Certificate of Safety NA submission completed and submitted for Naval Authority certification. Habitability. covering platform’s own functionality (previously called Contractor’s Sea Trials (CSTs)) once completed. Stability Naval Authority certification issued. WEMG Issue 01 Page 125 of 135 December 2007 . Inspected and tested during Basin Trials and Stage 1 trials. Arrangements tested at Basin Trials and Stage 1 trials. Tests and Trials…. Note 5 . Full Machinery Trials including emergency evolutions conducted during Stage 1 trials and completed. System installation tried at Basin Trials and Stage 1 trials where practicable. Seamanship. Integration and Installation. where practicable. Naval Authority/Class certification issued.e. Marine Engineering Detailed Requirements specific to fire safety. Marine Engineering • • Mission Systems • • • Combat System • Engineering • • Whole Ship Issues • • • • Platform Arrangement. Final assessment of budgets and operating limits completed. All equipment installed and set to work. Any remaining Test Forms completed. Operator information drafted. Platform implications. Requirements. Procurement of ranges.
Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 For each Key Integration Parameter sub-topic and for each System Maturity Level. Predicted Reliability. Interim support in place for trials and pre IOC/ISD equipment issues. Obtain certification from regulatory authorities. Procedural mitigation arrangements proved. Testing where practicable alongside completed including exchanges with representative units and overseen by IA if appropriate. Review Safety Case and review all safety planning activities. Component Costs. UAV). Contractual acceptance of HF related requirements & conformation of HF aspects of ITT via ITEAP. Some equipment will need to be ordered early (long lead items) in advance of ship construction contract (where applicable). Arrangements tried at Basin Trials and Stage 1 Trials where practicable. verified using appropriate HFI experts. Extracted from “System Readiness Levels (SRLs) – A Taxonomy to Assess and Communicate System Maturity version 2 dated 08/07/04. Arrangements tried at Basin Trials and Stage 1 Trials where practicable. Sub-System Development Items will be subject to separate system engineering life-cycle and system maturity evaluation. Logistic Demonstration complete. ports). Validation that all Logistic Support is ready to be produced and fielded including tools. Ship to underwater (UUV). Ship to shore (docks. Verify material state of system. Arrangements tried at Basin Trials and Stage 1 Trials where practicable. Through life aspects of Certification Plan reviewed by regulators. spares etc for peacetime usage. publications. Ship to ship (boats). Complete safety and environmental assessments audited by safety regulators and authorities. Arrangements tried at Basin Trials and Stage 1 Trials where practicable. Term covers various forms of putting vessel afloat. Ship to ship (RAS). Demonstrate any interoperability requirements with other training systems/forces. Data Exchange. test equipment. WEMG Issue 01 Page 126 of 135 December 2007 . Operator and user instructions verified and approved by safety regulators and authorities.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Maritime Interoperability Detailed Requirements • • • • • • Safety Note 4 Note 2 Chapter 4 People Note 4 • • • • • • • • • • • R&M Note 4 Note 4 ILS • • • • • • • • • Ship to air (aircraft. helicopters. Continue the HFI management activities as the system matures. baseline of assumptions used in logistic modelling. Baseline data ready for in-service ILS (EBS. Review and accept Contractor’s support solutions ensuring it continues to be compliant with the SSE and/or achieve stakeholder agreement. training aids. Detailed Requirements in bold are assessed as part of Naval Authority assessment of progress towards certification. Continued development of the R&M Case. Operability trials to support V&V and acceptance against HF requirements. Arrangements tried at Basin Trials and Stage 1 Trials where practicable. Introduction into service requirements satisfied. Validation of sustainability estimates against predicted usage and Defence Planning Assumptions. including interoperability with in-service equipment & current operating procedures. maturity is to be assessed based on evidence of defined requirements and acceptance criteria/process. Final verification of outstanding issues. In many cases development will need to start in advance of ship life cycle.
Test Forms • MoD Stakeholders and and Acceptance Trials • Naval Authorities. tested and accepted. complete. Note 5 . and documentation Mission Systems • In-Service Date Signal. Manufacture and Procurement. General arrangement and 3D CAD model refined if required. • Combat System • Trials Engineering Stage 2 (Combat • System and capability • with other assets) complete. Stage 2 trials (Combat System and capability with other assets) complete. EME / ITD. Full certification provided where necessary. Margins. Operator information finalised. Inspections and tests completed. Final certification completed. • Full Trials Reports. Acceptance-off-Contract achieved and In-Service Date declared. All Inspections. Remaining SATs and operational trials completed. Fire Full operational trials completed. Design and Configuration. Loading conditions monitored. MoD Stakeholders and Naval Authorities. Platform Arrangement. Full certification provided where necessary. Arrangements subject to continuous inspection. Survivability. All documentation accepted. Managed and controlled. All operating procedures. Trials of novel structural arrangement. Full certification achieved to the requirements of Class. Definitive Safety Case issued. Navigation. Full certification issued.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project � SML 9 Sea Acceptance Trials General Activities Key Integration Parameters (KIPs) Note 1 Naval Architecture Chapter 4 Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) 9 Sea Acceptance Trials…. Signatures measured on sea ranges and compared with acceptance criteria. Testing and Acceptance. Whole Ship • Issues • • System Level Full certification achieved to the requirements of Class. Maintenance Plan in full operation. Certification achieved prior to embarkation of explosives OME on board. All operating procedures • Definitive Safety Case. • Confirmation of Asset • transfer to Customer 2. Full Naval Authority certification provided. Reversionary. Weight Estimation. Support documentation completed. Full operational trials conducted. Stability Note 5 . Further trials as necessary to determine actual ship performance. Full Naval Authority/Class certification provided. Habitability. …completed demonstrating system capability meets URD / SRD and interoperability requirements in a representative environment. Full operational trials completed. completed. • requirements of Class. Full Naval Authority certification provided. Data collated and peer reviewed. WEMG Issue 01 Page 127 of 135 December 2007 . MoD Stakeholders and Naval Authorities. Note 5 . Hydrodynamics. Development. handbooks and other documentation delivered. Operating procedures in place and practiced Escape and evacuation on board. All operating procedures and documentation delivered. Structure Note 5. Reversionary modes demonstrated. Any outstanding machinery and system trials completed. Final statement of material condition produced. Seamanship. First-of-Class shock trials and demonstration of reversionary modes completed. fallback and alternative modes demonstrated. Final certification completed. Detailed Requirements • • • • • • • Note 2 • • Marine • Output Sub-System Level Engineering • Documentation Remaining SATs and • Full certification to operational trials completed. Propulsion and ship system limits defined. Requirements. tested and accepted. Full set of Operating Equipment Level • Procedures. Note 5 . Anchor trial completed.
In-service support policy agreed by DLO Domain / ESBU and issued. Logistic acceptance criteria met in accordance with TLMP. Term covers various forms of putting vessel afloat. Sub-System Development Items will be subject to separate system engineering life-cycle and system maturity evaluation. Emergency and contingency arrangements verified. helicopters. Review of support system against actual usage – in-service monitoring. Safety Case reviewed independently and endorsed. Full operational trials conducted. Ship to underwater (UUV). Documentation of human & organisational lessons learnt to inform future capability upgrades and new systems. Independent assessment of the competence of key in-service safety staff. Outstanding safety issues resolved and approved by safety regulators and authorities. Full operational trials undertaken demonstrating interoperability with a range of other platforms. ISRD). UAV). Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 For each Key Integration Parameter sub-topic and for each System Maturity Level.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide The Progression of a Warship Project Maritime System Maturity Level (MSML) General Activities Key Integration Parameters Note 1 (KIPs) Maritime Interoperability Detailed Requirements • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Note 2 Chapter 4 Safety Note 4 People Note 4 R&M Note 4 Note 4 ILS Ship to air (aircraft. Full operational trials conducted. Ship to ship (boats). Operator instructions and guidance verified and published. maturity is to be assessed based on evidence of defined requirements and acceptance criteria/process. Some equipment will need to be ordered early (long lead items) in advance of ship construction contract (where applicable). Verify material state of system. Logistic Support Date achieved. Support for capability upgrades in-service. Ship to ship (RAS). Data Exchange. Extracted from “System Readiness Levels (SRLs) – A Taxonomy to Assess and Communicate System Maturity version 2 dated 08/07/04. Detailed Requirements in bold are assessed as part of Naval Authority assessment of progress towards certification. Independent assessment of the adequacy of the in-service safety management arrangements. Review of sustainability against actual usage and Defence Planning Assumptions. Full operational trials conducted.g. Ensure Training Needs Analysis identifies course/lesson content and plans. Arrangements for in-service safety management in place. Ship to shore (docks. Introduction into service requirements satisfied. Adequate in-service R&M data collection & analysis over representative lifetime demonstrates R&M has been achieved (e. Full operational trials conducted. ports). WEMG Issue 01 Page 128 of 135 December 2007 . In many cases development will need to start in advance of ship life cycle. Safety Case demonstrates safety and environmental requirements met and risks tolerable and ALARP. Full operational trials conducted. Certification completed. Record in-service data in the logistics database. Completion of the R&M Case. Finalise and validate the Training Needs Analysis.
Control. NATO F-44 or US JP-5) Built In Test Equipment Basic Operational Sea Training Book of Reference British Standards Command. Communications. Reliability.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Acronyms and Glossary Chapter 5 5 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY Acronym/Term A&A ACV ADD ALARP AMR AMS ANV AoC AR&M ARM&T AVCAT BITE BOST 0BR BS C4I CA CAD CADMID CAE CAM CC CCTOs CE CERs CGT CMM COC COEIA C of G. CG ConEmp ConOps ConUse COSHH COTS CUM CS CSTs CV CWGs DA DBM DC DEC DefStans DESs DH DI DLO DLOD DMS DPA EBAs/IBAs EBS ECC Explanation Alteration and Addition Air Cushion Vehicle Architecture Design Description As Low As Reasonably Practicable Auxiliary Machinery Rooms Acquisition Management System Alternative Naval Vehicles Acceptance of Contract Availability. Maintainability and Testability AViation CATegory Fuel (also known as FSII. Computers and Intelligence Contract Acceptance Computer Aided Design Concept Assessment Development Manufacturing In service Disposal Computer Aided Engineering Computer Aided Manufacture Configuration Control Cost Capability Trade Offs Concurrent Engineering Cost Estimating Relationships Compensated Gross Tonne Contract Modification Margin Condition of Certification Combined Operational Effectiveness and Investment Appraisal Centre of Gravity Concept of Employment Concept of Operations Concept of Use Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Commercial Off The Shelf Capability Upgrade Margin Combat Systems Contractor’s Sea Trials Aircraft carrier Capability Working Groups Design Authority Design & Build Margin Damage Control Director of Equipment Capability Defence Standards Data Exchange Specifications Duty Holder Defence Instruction Defence Logistics Organisation Defence Line of Development Document Management System Defence Procurement Agency External/Internal Business Arrangements Environmental Baseline Study Engineering Change Control Page 129 of 135 December 2007 WEMG Issue 01 . Reliability & Maintainability Availability.
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Acronyms and Glossary Chapter 5 Acronym/Term ECP EDM EENA EHFA ELFEF EMC EME EMI ERM ESBU FATs FBNW FDI FFBNW FM FMEA FOC FTR FWA GA GFE GM GNS HATs HF HFE HFI HMI HVAC IA IAB IGM IIs ILS IMO IOC IPDE IPDM IPMD IPM IPR IPT IR ISD ISO ISRD ITD ITEA ITEAP ITT KIPs LCG LCU LDTD LFE LoDs LORA LPD(R) WEMG Issue 01 Explanation Engineering Change Proposal Electronic Data Management Escape and Evacuation Naval Authority Early Human Factors Analysis Extremely Low Frequency Electric Fields Electro-Magnetic Compatibility Electro-Magnetic Environment Electro Magnetic Interference Enterprise Resource Planning Equipment Support Business Unit Factory Acceptance Tests For But Not With Fleet Date Inspection Fitted For But Not With Facility Management Failure Modes and Effects Analysis First Of Class Fit To Receive Fleet Weapon Acceptance General Arrangement Government Furnished Equipment Metacentric height General Naval Specification Harbour Acceptance Trials Human Factors Human Factors Engineering Human Factors Interface Human Machine Interface Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Incremental Acquisition Investment Appraisal Board In service Growth Margin Installation Inspections Integrated Logistics Support International Marine Organisation Initial Operating Capability Integrated Product Data Environment Integrated Product Data Management Installation Provision made in Design Integrated Product Model Intellectual Property Rights Integrated Project Team Infra-Red In Service Date International Organisation for Standardisation In Service Reliability Data Integrated Topside Design Integrated Test Evaluation and Acceptance Integrated Test Evaluation and Acceptance Plan Invitation To Tender Key Integration Parameters Longitudinal Centre of Gravity Landing Craft Utility Logistic Documentation and Technical Data Learning from Experience Lines of Development Level of Repair Analysis Replacement Landing Platform Dock Page 130 of 135 December 2007 .
NATO NBC NBCD NEC NES NFRs NOC NPV NSC NSCA NTP PC OA OEMC OEMs OME OPDEFs OPS & TPS PBS PCO PCO PDM PfP PIM R&D RAF R&M RADB RADHAZ RAS RATTAM RCS RFA RIBs RN ROM ROMP Ro-Ro SA WEMG Issue 01 Explanation Landing Platform Helicopter Logistic Support Analysis The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships Maritime Afloat Replenishment Ship Military Capability Maritime and Coastguard Agency Mine Countermeasures Vessel Military Specifications Maritime Logistics Programme Board Ministry of Defence Measures Of Effectiveness Measures Of Performance Military Off The Shelf Manufacturing Resource Planning Motion Sickness Incidence Maritime System Maturity Maritime System Maturity Level Mean Time Between Failure Mean Time To Repair Naval Authority Explosives North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Nuclear Biological Chemical Nuclear biological and chemical defence Networked Enabled Capability Naval Engineering Standard Non-Functional Requirements Non-Operational Computer Net Present Value Naval Ship Code National Society for Clean Air Naval Technical Publications Policy Committee Operational Analysis Other Elements of Military Capability Original Equipment Manufacturers Ordnance. Munitions and Explosives Operational Defects and Deficiencies Operational and Training Performance and Statements Product Breakdown Structure Prime Contract office Prime Contract Organisation Product Data Model Partner for Peace Product Information Model Research and Development Royal Air Force Reliability and Maintainability Requirements and Acceptance Database Radiation Hazard Replenishment at Sea Response to ATTack on Ammunition Radar Cross Section Royal Fleet Auxiliary Rigid Inflatable Boats Royal Navy Rough Order of Magnitude Risk and Opportunity Management Plan Roll On Roll Off System Acceptance Page 131 of 135 December 2007 .MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Acronyms and Glossary Chapter 5 Acronym/Term LPH LSA MARPOL MARS MC MCA MCMV MilSpecs MLPB MoD MOE MOP MOTS MRP MSI MSM MSML MTBF MTTR NA Exp.
MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide Acronyms and Glossary Chapter 5 Acronym/Term SARC SATs SDC SES SIB SME SMS SOLAS SRD SSE SSMOB STANAGs STE STG STW TA TAD TCG TDs TEWA TLC TLMP TNA TNT TRL TTI TTP UAV UEP UPC URD USN UUV UXE V&V VCG WBS WEMG WIG WLC WT XB Explanation Safety And Readiness Check Sea Acceptance Trials Shop floor Data Capture Surface Effect Ship Stability Information Booklet Subject Matter Expert Safety Management System Safety of Life at Sea System Requirement Document Submerged Signal Ejector Ship Staff Move On Board NATO Standardization Agreement Support and Test Equipment Sea Technology Group Set To Work Technical Authority Target Audience Description Transversal Centre of Gravity Technical Documents Threat Evaluation and Weapons Assignment Through Life Cost Through Life Management Plan Training Needs Analysis TriNitroToluene Technology Readiness Level Tests. Techniques and Procedures Unmanned Air Vehicle Underwater Electric Potential Unit Production Cost User Requirement Document United States Navy Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Upkeep by Exchange Verification and Validation Vertical Centre of Gravity Work Breakdown Structure Warship Engineering Management Guide Wing In Ground effect Whole Life Cost Watertight Executive Board WEMG Issue 01 Page 132 of 135 December 2007 . Trials and Inspections Tactics.
P. ‘The Management and Regulation of MoD Ship Safety’. 2005. Chalmers. Name Maritime System Maturity Andrews. p. March 1986 Brown. ‘What is Good Design?’. RINA 1994 Andrews.2. van Griethuysen.4 Safety Brown. Series A(1998) 454. RINA International Journal of Maritime Engineering.2 6. 6.ac.. A. Naval Engineers Journal. STG/181/4/1/1/1.2 Survivability Martin A. D: ‘Procuring for Survivability’. 6.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide References & Bibliography Chapter 6 6 6.6 Ship Design Andrews.. UCL www. RINA Conference on Human Factors in Ship Design. DD963 Methods and Selected Features’.187-211. Andrews D J & Bayliss J A: . D. October 2000 6.FDL. R. ‘Marine Design. Feb 2005.2. J. ‘Human Factors in Naval Ship Design’. ‘The Place of Survivability in the Design of Future Surface Warships’. ‘Habitability in Surface Warships’. Trans SNAME 1971. W. J. Jan 1998. G. Issue 2. Royal Academy of Engineering: Three Reports on Managing Engineering Risk Jan 2003 (Title of each is relevant) Leopold. Proceedings of the Royal Society. Requirement Elucidation Rather than Requirement Engineering’. D. ‘Defining a Warship’. K. R and Reuter. ‘Preliminary Design of Warships’. LHA.2.'Design for Production using the Design Building Block Approach'. E. London.2. SNAME 1983 Ware. June 2001. K.syseng.1 REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY REFERENCES The references used in the WEMG are shown in Table 6-1.'Computer Aided Topside Integration for Concept Design' RINA Warship June 1998. Dec 2004 Brown. D.J. K. D. Feago. P et al :’Advanced Evacuation Simulation Software and its Use in Warships’.. ‘The Management of Safety in the RN’.3 HF General Castle. Issue & Date STG/103/1. J. RINA Warship 98 Surface Warships The Next Generation Manley. RINA 1986 6. D. Safety & Operation. Burger D and Zhang J-W: .Can Systems Engineering Cope? UCL MSc Systems Engineering Course Systems Engineering and Smart Procurement Reference. July 2004 Trans. D. W: ‘Three Winning Designs . London.2. J. I. D. Naval Review WEMG Issue 01 Page 133 of 135 December 2007 . Boxall. H.uk DERA/LS(SED)/3/1 (13 Jan 1999)      Table 6-1 References used in WEMG 6. Journal of Naval Engineering. Plato. RINA Warship 2001 Conference. STANAG 4154 6. D.ucl.2. RINA 1981 W. Transactions RINA 1989 Rudgley.5 Ship Motion ‘Common Procedures for Seakeeping in the Ship Design Process’. “Creative Ship Design” Marine Design .1 BIBLIOGRAPHY General Andrews D J.
Zhang. House of Representatives. W. ‘Requirements Elucidation’. 1/86 Gates. IMDC 03 and JNE 2004 Garzke. Committee on Armed Services. ‘Considerations in the Design of a Trimaran’. C. RINA Fast Vessels Symposium. 1987 WEMG Issue 01 Page 134 of 135 December 2007 . Naval Engineers Journal.2. J. ‘The Type 23 Duke Class Frigate’. RINA 1984 Chapter 6 Heather. an Advanced Weapon Electronics Integration Technique’.9 Concept Design Andrews.11 Integration issues Burt.12 Naval Architecture Brown. 1980 Lehman. ‘The Effects of Small Changes in Principal Dimensions on Ship Structural Weight’. J.G. J. J. van. F. R. 1982 Rains. H. W J. 1994 Scott. B. J. May 1998 6. S. A. E. US Naval Engineers Journal ASNE May 1995 6.7 Design Structure Matrix Method Eppinger. R. v6.10 Alternative hull forms Andrews. ‘The Architecture of Frigates’. Transactions RINA 1990 Thomas. J. SNAME 1985 Griethuysen. ‘The Procurement of a Warship’.. TRINA 1981 Leopold.. R. J. J. Andrews. D. D. R.2. Nov 1995 Kennel. H. RINA 1985 6. K. T. P. ‘Surface Combatant Technology Directions for the US Navy’. Graham. ‘A Model Based Method for Organising Tasks in Product Development’. Newcastle EDC. D.2. A Case Study Based on a Warship’s Pre-Contract Design Definition’. Easton. ‘Cellularity. J. ‘On the Choice Of Monohull Warships Geometry’ RINA 1994 Heller.. TRINA 1992 Tibbets. April 1972 Howell. RINA Warship 90 Honnor. C. ANEP 52 6. T. ‘Innovation Adoption in Naval Ship Design’.8 ANVs ‘ANEP on the Application of Costing and Operational Effectiveness Methodologies for the Selection of Hull Types’. 13th Symposium of Engineers and Scientists in US Air and Sea Systems Commands. Kelly. ‘Preliminary Warship Design’. D. ‘Making Design Everybody’s Job’.2. RINA ASW Symposium.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide References & Bibliography Bryson. Washington 1976 Kern. ‘Combat System Integration in the US Navy’. L.. P. ‘HMS Invincible First of a New Generation of Aircraft Carrying Ships’. D. ‘Marginal Weight Factors for Surface Combatant Ships’. 42nd Conference of the Society of Allied Weight Engineers. Research in Engineering Design. Kerr. J-W. H.. ‘SWATH Ships’. K. R. US Naval Engineers Journal. Technical and Research Bulletin No. S. G. ‘Preliminary Design Considerations for Fast Warships’. ‘Investigation of Ticonderoga’. Naval Engineers Journal. Anaheim Cal. ‘Major Factors in Frigate Design’. D. SNAME 1981 Garzke.2. Keane. International Defence Review..2. R. ‘US Navy Weight and KG Margins Revisited’.. D. M. J.. G. March 1984 6. ‘A New Warship Design Strategy – a Perspective’. A. W. ‘A Modelling Strategy for the Scheduling of Design Development Activities. 7-5 SNAME 1992 6. TRINA 1994 Andrews. Kerr. Dec 1977 Rawson. G. ‘Ethics and Fashion in Design’.
‘Acquisition of Albion and Bulwark. P. Journal Naval Engineering 1993 SSCP 59. A. Brower. Runnerstrom. K. W. A. ‘Methods for Ship Military Effectiveness Analysis’ Naval Engineers Journal.. ‘An Assessment of Judgemental Methods for Evaluating Warship Effectiveness’. M. S. TRINA 1994 Palermo.17 Ship Costing Carreyette. NEJ. J. Sea Technology Group 6. in Smith.. ‘A Comparative Study of US and UK Frigate Design’. S. S. C.. Naval Engineers Journal. ‘Design of Ship Structures’. J. and Clarke. D. 1993 6.2. A. Issue 2.. ‘Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) in Naval Ship Design’ SNAME (Chesapeake). Fairgrieve. Brower. K.16 Combat Systems Baker. Stortz.. Machinery and Structural Design Practices’.. ‘Combat System design Developments’. HMSO. 1997 Hockberger. 1993 6. March 1986 6.2. P. April 1976 Hope. A. Journal of Naval Engineering. ‘Combat System Design Strategy Guide’. H.. 1990 Britton-Jones G. E. V. Dec 2004 6.13 Structures Chalmers. L. A.2. WEMG Issue 01 Page 135 of 135 December 2007 . Dec 1996 6. Curlewis.2. 1986 Plato. J. March 1994 6. J.2. J. ‘Comparative Naval Architecture Analysis of NATO and Soviet Frigates’. ‘Preliminary Ship Cost Estimation’. J. Naval Engineers Journal. L. ‘Advances in Marine Structures’. W. Meier.MAP 01-020 Warship Engineering Management Guide References & Bibliography Chapter 6 Kehoe. 1988 6. ASNE Symposium 1982 Hydrodynamics Design Guide. E. Runnerstrom..20 Multi Criteria Decision Making Phillips. 1980 Ferreiro. K. ‘Components of Marginal Impact per Man on a Destroyer’. W. A.. L. An Overview of US Naval Ship Design’. ‘Warships and Cost Constraints’. Stonehouse. W. M. Dunfermline Elsevier Applied Science. IEG 6/SG 8. D. J. E. D. D. J. C.2. H.18 Warship Effectiveness Rains. TRINA. ‘US and Foreign Hull Form.15 Engineering Newell. Meier.2. 1977 Drewry J.19 Cost & Operational Effectiveness ANEP 52 ‘The Application of Costing and Operational Effectiveness Methods for the Selection of Hull Types’.14 Hydrodynamics Kehoe. Journal Naval engineering. ‘Combat System Design Strategy’.2. Lessons Learnt’. ‘Cost Estimating – A Crucial Function of the Ship Acquisition Process’.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.