Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3 A. W. SCHMIDT
Qj ~G. D; KERR
A.F. JOHNSON
FOX? _T,-"Aj, 2( FV
,T; AND
Ha~c~cp'J Microffiohe
'04j INGIS&St
PISIIBUTIOr OF TillS DOCU.10T ISUL1tI:,411
)
by
BUSHIPS A. S. E.
25 MARCH 1966
ABBREVIATIONS
2
ABSTRACT
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 4
IV. SUMMARY 22
FIGURES
)3
I. INTRODUCTION
24
recognized by the demand for accomplishment of prerequisites (Pre-PDP).
-e-- - - - -
Concept Formulation
5
a. Primarily engineering rather than experimental effort is required,
and the technology needed is sufficiently in hand.
b. The mission and performance envelopes are defined.
c. The best technical approaches have been selected.
d. A thorough trade-off analysis has been made.
e. The cost effectiveness of the proposed item has been determined
to be favorable in relationship to the cost effectiveness of
competing items on a DOD-wide basis.
f. C t. and schedule estimates are credible and acceptable.
The objective of Concept Formulation is to provide the technical
economic and military basis for a conditional decision to enter Engineer-
ing Development of a system.
6
$I
4- - Coneept Formulation Phase
00
Forces Is
I'0a
HeOPmn
Cfmon:, Dvl~
(Six Requisite,)
-
0
~~Conditional Appro'> a|
.Crate oSplte reste )
Cc'
l~roposals
ICost Coo,
MD.epgemrnt Propoe Management
SpecificationLio n Speifcations
rarisfu.
7unl.t
Select
No t
Raitifid liet itown R.tifted
The dialogue whichhEas been recognized for systems other than ships,
is presented in Figure (2) in order to identify events in the R&D
Sequence corresponding to events in the Ship Development Sequence which
occur prior to Contract Design.
This atmosphere has not prevailed for ship development and so the
application of concept fcrmulation demands major reorganization of pro-
cedures as well as contributor recognition.
8
u
.,4 U) 4u 4-
to -4 U
rH
4-) H U
o -4
p. 4 Cl)
41
U)
Cd 0)4) ) E-4
0 P., u ~U2 a u
0 X. p
0
0 P 0
__ _ _ p.q
_ _ _ _
0 .
HP P.1 H4
r-4
0
A U)
0 0
U) )
0
9
I
The choices available can vary from new ship designs, through major
modifications, to satisfaction with existing types. The responsiveness
to the original need should be checked and the decision to foster a
particular system made.
* 10
Ui)
ri0
______
____
- - - -z
4-j 0z
E 0%D t- 4 4
0U U)
00
- ~~~~'u=
U) ;-4
.1M
* -4 I
4
~pU 0
d0 a-u,
The responsiveness can be evaluated in terms of the recognized constraints
in the current ship development system and in terms of the attributes
intended in the current R&D Sequence.
12
IL
9
In the final phase, the SCDD will have sufficient in-house capability
to efficiently perform Concept Formulation. This does not mean total
self-sufficiency in any sense. The problem is one of avoiding unproduc-
tive bureaucratic delay. In its mature form, SCDD will provide analysis
of ships to OPNAV throug h CNM much as the Office of systems analysis
works for DOD.
13
I4
Problems
4-)
1--4
.0 0
U) U)U)
7 4-1
*4-)
tq ( 0
U) Pq
0 0-) U4
'~ ~4*~4('3
1- ~
p.
-'-4
N. U)
4-) 4-)
co.
p~zU.,~ N, ~.40
N0
-~ NOa)15
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE EFFORT
16
Deficiencies found to exist in the system options considered
and the light in which the weaknesses appear provide strong support for
the aspirations of the entrepreneur of that particular technological
advancement. This resource of guidance should not be wasted. It is
difficult enough under ordinary circumstances to choose significant
directions for progress to warrant special attention when assistance
appears.
This will be the major function of the SCDD. Wherea possible need
for a ship system is identified, an analysis is initiated with a view
toward examining the requisites of Concept Formulation. An analysis,
as intended here, can be discussed in terms of four major components:
a. The objective
b. The alternative ways of achieving the objective
c. The models used to describe the alternative
d. The criterion used to select from the alternatives
17
- - ~ ~~~NO
--- - -- ~-
---
! w I
entire analysis rests on the validity of these models we must use the
best ones available.
The last part of the analysis and the whole point of the analysis,
is choosing one of the alternatives. o make a choice there must be
criteria. We must decide how to use what the model tells us about the
system to decide if it is the way to achieve the objective. Models are
tools by which we abstract reality not to cbtain "the' answer in an
uncertain world, but for analyzing more clearly and more completely
the necessarily complex problems of that uncertain world.
Figure (5) illustrates the way which these systems are related to
the mission requirements and to the proportions and displacement of
the ship. The contributions these systemsmake to construction costs varies
with the type of ship, e.g. a modern combatant has very expensive weapon
and electronic systems. The range is approximately 15 to 30 percent
of ship construction cost. The machinery systems require fuel, lube oil,
fresh water to operate, replacement parts, periodic maintenance, repair
and overhaul and these contribute to the cost of the ship ownership.
18
-- -
_______________ -
U) 4J 0
Q~_ ) _ _ __ _ 4.
CJ O
U) > o
g. -4 Iq
4 U)
-~ 0
,a U
(n 0
P-4 U)
0 - u 0 U)C
0 (d-u
C)
4 4)U
U)U)1-
Uo U U
o CO
Cd 00 d-4
0 )
C)
0) o
P4 0
M 0 z ;
19
I
At present, the naval architect does not proceed very far before he
turns to the machinery systems engineer for assistance. The information
and advice provided by the naval engineer results from a comparison
of the requirements and constraints with his experience and his knowledge
of machinery characteristics. ?rom this he will acrive at his conclusions
about the weight and space needed for the machinery systems. However,
this dialogue becomes impractical during Concept Formulation. Concept
Formulation will involve the comparative (economic) analysis of a large
number of alternative ship system configurations not differing by large
degrees. These ship configurations may not be like anything the Navy
has built before. The integrity of this analysis requires that these
alternatives be evaluated consistently and objectively and therefore
the same data, criteria and analytic procedures be employed. This will
re.quire explicit and quantified expressions describing the characteristics
of the subsystems comprising the ship system. While the complexity
of the system, the large number of alternative configurations and the
existence of these explicit expressions will lead to the use of digital
computers, it should be emphasized that their employment does not generate
the need for explicit expression although it will influtice their form.
Filling the support function has by no means obviated the need for
advice and assistance during the execution of this new approach. If
anything, the Prior Support Function creates a need for concurrent
support0 As we will discuss more fully later, the irony of the explicit
expressions is that while generalizations, they represent specific sys-
tem configurations. Astute judgement, not just experienced judgement
is required in the selection of which explicit expressions are appropriate
to use at any time and in the evaluation of the results they produce.
20
specialist contributes to the identification of what elemenbs are of
relevance and significance by supplying the system Enalyst with the means
of asseament. This partnership is important for another reason, and it
is worth repeating to emphasize this point. The general criteria, policy,
and state of the art which these expressions reflect must be what will
be expected to be applied at successive stages of the ship design. It
is imperative that those whn will bring the design to fruition are involved
in its formative stages.
Problems
21
problem at hand will include some new systems. Of course all systems
must meet the first requisite by the time C.F. is completed but this
still leaves room for imminent systems. In this case, it is hard to
obtain the meaningful quantitative relationships so essential to parame-
tric analysis. To handle these systems, analysts must work with experts
in the new system to study expectations and effects. Considerable
judgement is required and it must be applied with discretion.
IV. SUMMARY
22
throughout the Navy will contribute to a viable program.
The ASDP must take into account all the foregoing problems
and requirements and ensure an effective responsive force for attain-
ing the objectives of C.F. The achievement of this goal depends upon
the initiative, creativity, and resoluteness of each of as whose field
of endeavor is affected and who are personally accountable for the
success of this venture.
J
23