Engineering the Total Ship: A System Perspective on Warships

Naval ENgiNEErs JourNal SUMMER 2005 ��

AbstractThis paper describes warships as manmade systems. A discussion of systems in terms of their characteristics and behavior is given and used as a foundation for a perspective of a warship as an integrated whole and an element of the naval force. The symposium series titled “Engineering the Total Ship” is used as a source of technical material to describe warships, naval operations, and the Navy organization. A system perspective is provided that defines warships as an integrated whole made up of interacting parts. The relationship of the Navy organization to the characteristics of warships is discussed.

IntroductionThe term total ship in the context of “engineer-ing the total ship” does not refer to a product. All deployed ships are by their very nature total ships. “Engineering the Total Ship” does not focus on any one feature or component of ships but refers to viewing the ship as an integrated whole that is an element of the naval force. This paper discusses the trade space of engineering the total ship and its inseparable linkage with the Navy organization.

Saxe’s fable: offers the metaphor for this under-taking; the ‘total ship’ is the elephant and we naval engineers are the blind who endeavor to “see” it.

It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant Though all of them were blind, That each by observation Might satisfy his mind

A wall! A spear! A snake! A tree! A fan! A rope!

And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong. Though each was partly in the right, They all were in the wrong! — John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

A warship—“the elephant”—is the result of mil-lions of work hours. A warship requires many products and the coordinated effort of many people under different commands, different pro-gram offices, at different sites, and with different technical disciplines. The Navy employs about 60,000 professionals with dozens of different technical disciplines, academic training and spe-cialized knowledge, working at 20 major sites, supporting six warfare areas and thousands of different products that are supplied by a myriad of program offices, and each program office has a unique language of acronyms. By what pro-cesses do these multitude of differences coalesce to a deployed warship? To answer this ques-tion ASNE and NAVSEA jointly conducted a symposium series entitled “Engineering the Total Ship”. This series of biannual meetings (Engi-neering the Total Ship, ETS 2000, ETS 2002, ETS 2004) explored how technical differences merge to form a single ship and how ships form a naval force. This paper is both descriptive and prescriptive of the above question of how differ-ences coalesce to form a whole.

Engineering the Total Ship: A System Perspective on Warships

richard holden

p r o g r a m pa p e r

�� SUMMER 2005 Naval ENgiNEErs JourNal

SyStEMS aPPRoaCH This paper uses a structured approach to define the total ship and discuss lessons learned from the first four “Engineering the Total Ship” sym-posia. The approach taken here, shown in Figure 1, describes ships and the naval force in terms of the characteristics of systems. By approaching warships as systems, the engineering trade space can be laid out in terms of the whole, the parts forming the whole, and the interaction of the parts. The concept of a warship as a system is rhetorical: Is a ship a system? Is the naval force a system? Is the Navy a system?

Referring to figure 1 the first step in answering these questions is to identify the properties and characteristics of systems in terms that can be applied to defining the trade space and partition-ing of warships. The purpose in this structured approach is to establish a technical procedure that avoids arbitrary partitioning criteria. Descrip-tions of complex systems are viewpoint depen-dent. Parameters evident from one point of view may be invisible from another. A complete view of warships as systems requires understanding multiple interrelated viewpoints. This paper uses nine different but interdependent perspectives

to describe ships and the force. The engineering trade space is discussed by reviewing technical papers from the ETS symposia. The nine perspec-tives and engineering trade space define a system perspective that includes the human organization. The trade space is heavily influenced by the hu-man organization that creates it.

Properties and Characteristics of SystemsA theoretical discussion of systems starts with defining what is meant by the word system. The American heritage dictionary gives:

Sys·tem (s˘s’tam) n. 1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or inter-dependent elements forming a complex whole.

2. A functionally related group of elements:

a. The human body regarded as functional physiological unit. b. A group of physiologically complementary organs or parts. c. A group of interacting mechanical or elec-trical components. d. A network of structures and channels, as for communications, travel, or distribution.

3. A structurally or anatomically related group of elements or parts.

4. A set of interrelated ideas or principles.

5. A social, economic, or political organizational form.

From the definition, a system is interacting parts that form a whole, and from the definition there is no restriction on what the parts are so long as they interact to form a whole. System parts may be living organisms, electrical components, roads, abstract symbols, or elements on organi-zation charts. Theoretically, the word system is very broad and applies to any whole composed of interacting parts. Many examples of systems come to mind. table 1 provides a categorical listing with a specific example of each category. The examples in Table 1 were chosen because they are simple, easily understood, and illustrate system characteristics. The table lists two broad categories—natural and manmade—that are subdivided into subcategories. The table also lists the rules by which the parts interact i.e., the basis of interaction. A system can be identified

Table 1 Systems by category

SyStEM [WHoLE] PaRtS BaSiS of iNtERaCtioN ExaMPLE

physical particles laws of physics Solar System biological organisms physiology tree leaf Ecological organisms physiology & the Earth & particles laws of physics

Mathematical Numbers abstract Rules Set of linear Equations Structures Materials Engineering highway bridge [analog] [applied laws of physics]

Machines parts Engineering warships [analog & digital] & algorithms

organizations people policy & Responsibilities Navy

Nat

URa

LM

aNM

aDE


figure 1: systems approach to Engineering Warships


or categorized by the whole and the parts, but its behavior and functionality cannot be understood without knowledge of the basis of interaction.

All systems are characterized by partitioning, that is, by the arrangement of their parts. Parti-tioning is not an arbitrary arrangement of parts, but an arrangement of parts that is consistent with their interaction and with the whole.

Partitioning, interaction, and system functional-ity [whole] are interdependent not independent. There may be different partitions of the same system. For example, there can be many differ-ent sets of linear equations that have the same solution and hence represent different partitioning of the same system. The solar system represents a unique partitioning of a unique set of parts.

The solar system is characteristically homoge-neous since all its parts are described by mass and they all interact with their mutual gravity field. In contrast, an ecological system is hetero-geneous since its animate and inanimate parts are characterized in different ways and many dif-ferent interactions are present at the same time.

Some systems have internal processes that convert input to output. An example from Table 1 is the leaf. The internal process of photosynthesis con-verts the input (sunlight, carbon dioxide, water) to output (glucose, oxygen). The input and output occur at the boundary and the process is internal to the boundary. However, identifying the system boundary can be problematic since, for example, the leaf is not completely independent of the tree.

Although brief, this discussion has illustrated the characteristics of natural systems that are listed in table �. The key points describing natural systems and their behavior are: bound-ary [whole], parts, basis of interaction, internal process, input and output, homogeneous and heterogeneous features.

The purpose of this theoretical discussion is to establish a framework for a system perspective of warships. Table 2 describes natural systems and is incomplete in describing manmade ones.

Additional characteristic are needed to describe the role of people in manmade systems. To include the effect of people a distinction between structures and machines must be made clear and the associated organization understood.

Manmade structures, e.g., a highway bridge composed of concrete and steel, is a fixed, semi-rigid analog system. Fixed structures, as systems, have no input or output and are devoid of internal process so they require no digital or other automation characteristics. Structures have a boundary that encloses interacting parts that defines the whole. To ensure integrity the parts of structures must be correctly partitioned and their behavior taken into account.

Construction of fixed structures requires an as-sociated human organization as shown idealized in figure �. Although not shown in the figure, some higher authority identifies the concept of the structure and charters the organization to create it. All aspects of the desired structure must be accounted for by the organization in terms of work assignments, schedules, coordina-tion, material supply, and so on. The associated organization maps the conceptual structure into

Table 2 Characteristics of natural systems

(1) boundary (separates the system from its environment) System Function (determined by nature) input ( @ boundary) output ( @ boundary)(2) parts (within the boundary) interaction (of the parts) internal processes (functioning of the parts) (3) partitioning (relationship of parts & functions

within the boundary) homogenous (parts and/or function) heterogeneous (parts and/or function)(4) behavior (basis of interaction of parts) obeys Natural laws Causality (temporal relationship of input/output)

figure �: associated human organization [idealized]


the real one. The associated organization may change, adapt, and evolve to overcome a host of seen and unforeseen requirements. There are many alternate choices so that any organization will evolve along one of many possible paths. Organizations are manmade structures governed entirely by human behavior.

table � lists the system characteristics of man-made machines and is the point of departure for exploring the trade space of warships. Manmade machines, unlike structures, are intended to have functionality supported by internal processes that can convert input to output. Machines have both analog structure and automated (digital) behavior. Ships are mobile, semi-rigid, struc-tures with onboard operators. And warships are machines that function with internal processes. Functions include processes that obey the laws of physics and processes governed by algorithms that reflect desired behavior. Some machine functions require human interpretation, e.g., the relationship of command and control to situ-ational awareness.

There is correlation between a manmade system and its associated organization. Boundaries of

the system and organization are related and the system parts are determined by how the people in the organization chose to partition the system and themselves. The difference in a system part and an organizational function must always be kept clear. A function such as sensor technology, system engineering , or analysis may be common to organizations that produce entirely different system parts. Here organizational partitioning refers to system parts, not engineering functions.

The choice of partitioning defines interaction of the system parts. Ensuring proper interaction of the parts is one of many requirements faced by the people in the associated organization. The quality of the system will reflect the effectiveness of the organization and the competence of the people composing it. It must be kept in mind that the associated organization is also a manmade system. The organization includes more then the system it is associated with. It has a whole, parts, and a basis of interaction in addition to that re-quired to create and sustain the associated system.

A critical factor relating a system to its associ-ated organization is the heterogeneous and ho-mogeneous features of the system. For proper functioning of the system, each part must work and the parts must work together. For example, a gun and a fire control sensor have indepen-dent heterogeneous characteristics, but if they are to be integrated into a gun weapon system they must share homogeneous features that interconnect them. To ensure each part works there must be a focus on the individual parts, i. e, a heterogeneous or vertical characteristic of the organization. To ensure that the parts work together there must be a focus on a fea-ture common to all parts, i.e., a homogeneous or horizontal characteristic of the organiza-tion. The two characteristics are functionally orthogonal and have to be balanced to ensure the system performs as an integrated whole. The homogeneous characteristic is reflected by inter- or intra- organizational collaboration. Failure to collaborate is frequently referred to as “stove piped”.


Table 3 System Characteristics of Manmade Machines

(1) boundary (separates the system from its environment and its operators)

System Function (determined by nature and people) input ( @ boundary) output ( @ boundary)(2) parts (within the boundary) interaction (of the parts) internal processes (functioning of the parts) (3) partitioning (relationship of parts

& functions within the boundary) homogenous (parts and/or function) heterogeneous (parts and/or function)(4) behavior (basis of interaction of parts) obeys Natural laws (analog parts) Causality (temporal relationship of input/output) obeys Man Made algorithms (digital parts)(5) Human Operators (part of the system environment)

Interact via Human System Interface

(6) Associated Human Organization

Italic = difference in natural and manmade system


Ships and the ForceA working definition of Navy is ships and all that goes with them. The naval force is ship cen-tric. The naval force bounds the trade space for warships. The naval force is the whole; the parts are ships and things that go with ships; the basis of interaction is communications. The human organization associated with the Navy is shown in figure �. The associated organization is divid-ed between operations on the right and research, development, and acquisition (RDA) on the left. The naval force—ships and things that go with them—includes ship crews and operational commands that are on the right side. Products provided from the acquisition programs on the left side—ships, aircraft, equipment, computer programs—become parts of the naval force. The organization associated with the navy as a whole is bilinear in that the right side is associated with the force as a whole and the left is associated with providing the inanimate parts of the force.

The higher authority not shown in the Figure is the United States Congress that represents the American people.

The previous paragraph is a very condensed description of the trade space of ships and the force. The following paragraphs explore the trade space by discussing it from different standpoints. Nine perspectives are offered that collectively represent a view of the total ship.

PERSPECtiVE 1: tHE SHiP aS MoBiLE StRUCtUREThe traditional way to partition ships is hull and machinery. Where the hull is a semi-rigid structure designed to meet habitability, mobility and hydrodynamic requirements, and machinery refers to moving parts needed for mobility and operation of the ship. In a broader view, machin-ery could include all moving parts. Machinery could be sub-divided into:

■ mechanical & electrical (M&E) systems that are integrated with the hull (H),

■ communications, and

■ Weapons — weapons are used here to mean the systems required for warfare missions of the ship, e.g., strike warfare. The term combat system is avoided because of its ambiguous use.

Warships are manmade mobile structures with three major partitions; hull, mechanical, & elec-trical (HM&E), communications, and weapons. And, as a manmade machine it also includes its human operators, i.e, the crew. This perspec-tive is primarily a physical one that emphasizes HM&E and crew accommodations. Communi-cations and weapons can be treated as payloads.

Ships in the naval force must be capable of steam-ing together. This requires attention be paid to speed, range, maneuverability, and station keep-ing as homogeneous physical characteristics of ships. In addition to these physical characteristics, the force requires functional characteristics. Ho-mogeneous functional characteristics of the force are imbedded in weapons and communications that establish the ship as a machine.

PERSPECtiVE �: tHE SHiP aS a MaCHiNEWeapons and communications include complex and invisible functions that require an abstract description referred to here as the ‘machine’ perspective. As shown in figure �, all the compo-nents of HM&E are contained entirely within the envelope of the ship’s hull and represent the ship as a physical structure. As a consequence of mobility there are disturbances in the water that

figure �: Navy organization


extend beyond the envelope of the hull. These disturbances are a direct result of HM&E and reflect the physical ship structure. In contrast to HM&E, weapons and communications are designed to have functions that extend beyond the physical structure of the ship. The physical components of weapons include non-expend-ables that are physical parts of the ship and ex-pendables that are temporary parts of the ship. Communications, in contrast to both HM&E and weapons, has components that are shared with other parts of the force.

Processes internal to weapons involve objects that are not parts of the ship, and processes internal to communications are distributed across the force. Thus weapons and communications are not wholly contained within the physical structure. Although physically connected to the ship struc-ture, weapons and communications are function-ally separated from the structure. Functional in-dependence gives rise to the concept of the ship as a machine. Viewed as a machine the ship extends well beyond its lifelines. As a machine the ship interacts with distant objects and has interfaces with other elements of the naval force.

The concept of the ship as a machine is im-portant to understanding the naval force as a system. If the parts of the force—ships—are to

work together to form a system they must have homogenous characteristics that are both physi-cal and functional. Functional characteristics of the force are contained within the machine perspective. Development of the Naval Tactical Data System (NTDS)—the first digital auto-mated radar detection and tracking system—in-cluded the creation of display symbols used for track identification, speed, and direction. NTDS no longer exists, but NTDS display symbols are a continuing Navy standard for tactical displays and the LINK 16 message structure used to share tactical data.

PERSPECtiVE �: tHE StRUCtURE-MaCHiNE tRaDE SPaCEStructure requirements and machine require-ments compete for the same physical and electrical resource (HM&E) at the same time. A balance between the two must be reached that satisfies the system level requirements of the ship. There are many examples of the structure-machine compromise, e.g.

■ Speed, endurance and/or range, and payload, i.e., the iron triangle

■ Mast mounted sensors versus ship stability

■ Sonar dome versus ship maneuverability.

The structure-machine trade space can be con-ceptualized as shown in figure � by plotting the attributes of the one against the other. In reality there are multiple parameters appearing on both axis and reaching an acceptable compromise may require many iterations. Although many parameters are involved, the structure-machine trade space can be viewed here as a two di-mensional problem since all parameters can be assigned to one axis or the other.


figure �: The ship as a machine

figure �: structure- Machine trade space


A pure abstraction of the trade space is also shown in Figure 5 as a vector equation. This equation represents a two dimensional vector that optimizes the tradeoff. If all the parameters were included the vector would be n-dimen-sional where n is the number of parameters to be traded off. This vector equation will be used in later discussions when the trade space exceeds three dimensions.

PERSPECtiVE �: SHiPS aND tHE foRCEThe naval force includes subsurface, surface, air, and space vehicles, and fixed facilities;. plus all sys-tems contained within a given vehicle or distribut-ed across vehicles and facilities; plus all people who deploy with and operate the vehicles, systems, and fixed facilities. Vehicles and fixed facilities are inte-grated via communication links, shown as lighting bolts in figure �, that connect people-to-people and also automatically exchange data among comput-erized databases. Ships, as structures, are indepen-dent parts of the force and ships, as machines, are interdependent parts of the force.

The naval force is typically deployed as a strike group consisting of an aircraft carrier, surface ships, and submarines. All vehicles within the strike group are unified by an organization headed by the strike group commander. Inter-action of the parts of the strike group depend on inter communication links. As a system, a strike group is transient. It is formed prior to deployment and disestablished after deployment. The parts of a strike group—people, ships, and aircraft—always exist, but their basis of interac-tion—organization and communications—ex-ists only temporarily. The naval force is thus a collection of parts—ships and things that go with them—that are available for integration

into temporary systems, i.e., strike groups. As an element of the force, each ship must have the latent capability to integrate with other ships and things that go with them.

PERSPECtiVE �: PaRtS of tHE SHiPAs previously discussed the ship as a structure or as machine can have its parts partitioned into human and non-human things. Tradition-ally non-human ship parts are categorized as HM&E, Weapons, and C4ISR. Thus the total ship parts trade space is:

This traditional partitioning is used here as it was in the ETS symposia. Of the four, people are clearly tangible parts of the total ship and HM&E and weapons are generally identifiable. C4ISR—command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance—is difficult to identify as a tangible part of warships. However C4ISR includes command that is clearly a basis of interaction of ships and the force. Tra-ditional partitioning is not ideal but it supported the need for the ETS symposia to align with the current Navy organization.

PERSPECtiVE �: iNtERaCtioN of tHE PaRtSThe need for coexistence of all total ship parts leads to a complex trade space that requires a balance of interference, competition, depen-dences, and interdependences. Parts interact with one another at their mutual interfaces. The

figure �: a Power Point slide Depicting the Naval Force

�0 SUMMER 2005 Naval ENgiNEErs JourNal

trade space includes both desired interactions and undesired interactions such as electromag-netic interference. The easiest and usually most successfully implemented interfaces are those that involve primarily physical and/or electri-cal interactions that are representative of the ship as a mobile structure. Interfaces that are representative of the ship as a machine—weap-ons, communications, force—are difficult to implement because they must support functional interaction. Interfaces are necessary but not suf-ficient to integrate parts to form a system. The necessary and sufficient requirement for integra-tion is that interfaced parts share homogeneous system characteristics determined by the basis of interaction of the system.

The basis of interaction for people, i.e, the crew with ship systems, is training, learned response, and intuition. The basis of interaction for the remaining parts—HM&E, weapons, C4ISR—is less straight forward then for people. Physical integration differs from functional integration. Physical interaction is well understood from the laws of physics and knowledge of materi-als although some details such as the choice of thread sizes on bolts may within limits be arbitrary. Physical interaction represents the majority of HM&E and its payload aspects of people, weapons, and C4ISR. Functional integration of weapons and C4ISR involve the design parameters governed by the laws of physics and design parameters chosen from cost tradeoffs, schedule, or technical preference. The basis of interaction for weapons and C4ISR as machines is the result of an exact process influenced by seemingly arbitrary choices. For example, the length and content of the header for inter- or intra- system digital messages is the result of logical deduction that is devoid of the laws of physics. Currently, the trade space of physical integration is more scientific than the trade space of functional integration.

PERSPECtiVE: �: SCoPE of tHE NaVaL foRCE tRaDE SPaCEThe operational Navy is organized around ships and aircraft and partitioned by warfare areas

that establish naval missions requirements. Indi-vidual warships meet mobility, survivability, and habitability requirements in addition to warfare requirements.

The capability of the naval force is distributed across its parts, i.e., ships and other vehicles. The capability of the parts of the force is, to a degree, determined in relation to the capability of the whole. Ideally the capability of individual ships should be optimized relative to the force. How-ever, this is not fully realizable since ships, as mobile structures, are independent parts of the force and are separately designed and procured.

People and the choices they make dominate the integration trade space. Strike group integra-tion is mainly done by the sailors making up the deployed organization augmented by automated exchanges of computerized databases. Speed, endurance, and station keeping are built in char-acteristics of ships that facilitate physical integra-tion with other ships. Integration of the air wing with an aircraft carrier is a ship level problem, but integration of air operations with other force operations is a force level issue as is the problem of unmanned vehicle operations. And, finally, the naval force is part of a larger joint force.

PERSPECtiVE �: aSSoCiatED oRgaNizatioNSThe overall navy shown in Figure 3 is parti-tioned into numerous organizations reporting to commands that have charters or orders defining functions they are responsible for performing. Organizations associated with engineering and operations are shown in figure �. Excluded are training commands and the acquisition program offices that manage money and contracts. Each organization shown is characterized by a culture derived from the unique experiences of the people composing it. The shore based organizations are characterized by charters that seek to define their role and scope of responsibility and the sea based, i.e., operational organizations are characterized by orders defining their scope of authority.

Each organization in Figure 7 is directly or indirectly involved with some part, function,


Naval ENgiNEErs JourNal SUMMER 2005 �1

or operational role of warships that collectively represent the total ship in an engineering sense. That is, collectively these organizations are as-sociated with the whole and individually with a part of the whole. Each organization has an in-terpretation of what the whole is and how their part is related to other parts and to the whole. Metaphorically; if each organization represents one or more pieces of a puzzle and if the puzzle pieces could all be assembled, would the ‘total ship’ emerge? The purpose of the ETS sympo-sium series was to better understand how the puzzle pieces related to each other and to the whole. This is somewhat like Saxe’s fable about the six blind men and the elephant except there is no clear image of the elephant and not all agree that it is an elephant they are “seeing”.

PERSPECtiVE �: CULtURE of tECHNiCaL DiSCiPLiNESAcronyms are well known as words formed from the letters of a name or letters from a string of words. Some acronyms are nearly universal, e.g., USN, but many, such as those listed in figure �, are associated with only a small cell of people. Acronyms in Figure 8 were taken from papers presented at ETS 1998. Each box represents acronyms from a single paper. Some acronyms are

repeated such as COTS that always means com-mercial off the shelf. Some acronyms are repeated with different meanings such as CEC that has two translations; Cooperative Engagement Capability and Common Electronics Cabinet.

Acronyms separate groups by what program or project they work on or by their specialized training. Acronyms are an indispensable short hand. Acronyms used by one group typically are not understood or used by those outside the group. What if the six blind men in Saxe’s fable spoke different languages? Metaphorically acronyms are like the biblical tower of babble; the babbling of one group cannot be completely

figure �: acronyms From Papers Presented at ETs 1998.

figure �: associated organization


understood by others and working together be-comes difficult. The total number of acronyms associated with a warship is staggering.

Engineering the Total ShipThe ETS symposium series was structured by the concept of a 5-dimensional trade space defined by: people, HM&E, weapons, C4ISR, and operations. Technical papers were solic-ited from the diverse cultures and charters of the associated organizations shown in Figure 7. Specific topics discussed at each of the four meetings were the result of a convolution of charters and cultures with the engineering trade space concept. In all 87 papers were distributed across the trade space as shown in figure �. A critique summarizing the techni-cal content of the ETS series follows with references to selected papers. The discussion presented here is limited by the restricted nature of many of the ETS papers. Only public released papers are cited here.

Navy: Overviews, Histories, & Shipsoverviews

■ Broad case studies of acquisition (Grey and McCollum 2004) can provide clear views of the big picture and when coupled with the current approach (Roden and Henke 2002) offer a refer-ence frame for interpreting policy. Narrow case studies of specific disciplines such as software (Gramoy 1998) or system engineering (Calvano

1998) provide important information about single products but fail to establish context that leads to broader understand.

■ Reports of collaboration among competitive shipyards (Firebaugh 2002) demonstrates the potential for collaboration across disciplines.

■ The concept of designing ships as machines is not unknown (Whitcomb and Szatkowski , but, the preferred approach continues to focus on ships as structures (Doerry 2002), (Reynolds 2004).

Histories

■ Studies of past successes such as Aegis and Tri-dent are instructive although extracting lessons learned from successes in difficult. Reapplica-tion of a proven approach is viewed by many as a road block to advancing technology. Specific technical failures such as the DDG51 hanger offer the greatest depth of learning, but are dif-ficult to document and are rarely shared.

■ Studies of evolutionary change (Sims 2004) can provide deep philosophical insight into the relationship of sailors and their ships.

ships

■ Past ship design, e.g., DDG51and SSN774, accepted the ‘iron triangle’—speed, endurance, payload. Contemporary ship design (Lisiewki and Whitman 2000) challenges the iron triangle


figure �: Distribution of ETs symposia papers by topic


and other constraints. With the exception of top-side design(Baron 2002) design generally does not include machine functions.

Parts: People, HM&E, Weapons, C4ISRPeople

■ The primary topics are the interaction of humans with the ship structure and the human machine interface. The former includes quality of life (Sims 2004) the latter automation (Bost et al. 1998 and Chipman 2004) And both are impacted by how manpower requirements are approached (Russell 2000, Hinkle and Glover 2004, and, Fullerton et al. 2004).

HM&E

■ The number of topics is enormous; lightning protection, signature control, aircraft integra-tion (Ryberg 2002) and automated machinery (Drew and Scheidt 2004) indicate the technical breadth. People, Weapons, and C4ISR are typi-cally viewed as payload to be accommodated physically and electrically. Accommodations for weapons and C4ISR are structural; machine characteristics are not typically included; ma-chinery control means propulsion and steering, not weapon systems or communications.

Weapons

■ Typical “combat system” papers address individual weapons and components of weapon systems such as launchers and sonar software. With the notable exception of ballistic missile defense weapon topics tend to be narrowly focused and characteristically are independent products of highly stove piped programs and organizations. Weapons are clearly tangible parts of warships but are difficult to define and describe due to conflicting charters within the associated organization.

C4isr

■ With the exception of evolutionary changes (Bailey 2000), most of the available papers on C4ISR focus on visions (White 1998) proposed processes (Bracewell 2000), and concepts (Reilly 2004)]. These discussions are too broad in scope to include technical details and implicitly include the deployed Navy organization. C4ISR does

not clearly represent a tangible part of warships. It is more representative of a charter within the associated organization.

Operations: Force & FleetForce

■ Technical papers included engineering coop-erative engagement, battle group interoperabil-ity, the distributed engineering plant (McConnell 2002), and resource management. Collectively these topics represent a machine perspective of engineering and the naval force.

operations

■ Battle group and strike group commanders accepted the ETS symposia as an opportunity to tell the shore technical community what they think we should hear. Post deployment papers (Morua 2000, Knollmann and Squitieri 2000, (Morua and Burns 2002) , provide technical details and presentations that described the op-eration of four carrier battle groups: Theodore Roosevelt, Constellation, Enterprise and Nimitz.

■ Descriptions of force level activities such as long range deployment planning, Fleet battle ex-periments, and the Fleet Response Plan provide insight into the inner workings of naval opera-tions. Knowledge of operations has an important but largely intuitive impact on the engineering trade space.

A System PerspectiveThe previous discussion of a ship as an inte-grated whole, was approached by developing a convolution as shown conceptually in figure 10. The total ship trade space is the product of the 5-dimentional engineering trade space—people, HM&E, weapons, C4ISR, operations—with the associated Navy organization shown in Figure 7. This led to a perspective that is heavily influ-enced by charters and cultures. The result is the current state represented by an entanglement of system parts and organizational charters. An alternate approach is to develop a purely techni-cal perspective based entirely on an engineering trade space. The alternative offers a vision of a future state independent of organizational charters. This system perspective is derived by a


convolution of the current state with the system characteristics of warships as manmade mobile structures and manmade machines.

The ship as a manmade mobile structure is shown in figure 11 and as a manmade machine as shown in figure 1�. In each figure, key parts are identified in terms of a high level partition-ing that is based on domain commonality of the parts. Both figures are somewhat notional and not absolute in that a different equivalent partitioning likely exists and the key parts identifiers could be varied. The purpose here is to present a partitioning using system parts not organizational charters. Both Figures 11 and 12 indicate the way in which many of the parts interact. From a system perspective, interaction identifies homogeneous characteristics of the partitioning whereas the parts, once specifically

defined, represent heterogeneous characteristics. The associated organization would need to have heterogeneous and homogeneous characteristics linked to those of the system.

Note that the machine view explicitly includes the force. Some, but not all, of the force parts are homogeneous characteristics of the machine. It should be noted that the ship appears as a part in Figure 12. The ship as a mobile structure is a part of the force and thus is entirely contained within he machine view.

Figure 11 and 12 may raise rhetorical issues. For example, the partitioning in Figure 11 of above water and underwater could be argued as not applying to submarines. Although sub-marines do surface the underwater parts are of


figure 10: Engineer-ing the Total ship Trade space

figure 11: system Perspective of War-ships as Manmade Mobile structures


relative greater magnitude but not always of greater importance.

An important issue is the linkage between the associated organization and this system perspec-tive. Although the current organization (Figure 7) has not been studied in detail, some observations were made in review of ETS technical papers presented previously. These observations are:

■ The mobile structure (HM&E) view has strong visible linkage

■ There are multiple independent linkages for Weapons

■ Linkage between the C4ISR organization and tangible parts of warships is not clearly evident

■ Linkage between the machine view and the organization is weak

Linkage of heterogeneous system characteristics is clearly evident in organizational charters. Responsibilities for radar, guns, torpedoes, and a myriad of other products are readily explicit or can be made so. The mapping between hetero-geneous parts of the associated organization and heterogeneous parts of the system is easily made visible. Heterogeneous system parts are usually evidenced by the vertical or command structure

of the associated organization. A more difficult aspect is the homogeneous system characteris-tics that are typically not identified by product charters. Homogeneous system characteristics are associated with the interaction of the system parts and examples are listed in Figures 11 and 12. Linkage between the homogeneous system characteristics and the associated organization is critically important, difficult to identify, and depend heavily on the specific system design.

Finally, system parts and their interaction establish the linkage between the system and associated organization. Functions performed by different elements of the associated organization do not represent system parts or interactions. Technical disciplines represented by generic en-gineering functions such as automation, testing, analysis, modeling, and software development should not be confused with specific system parts or with their interactions. Furthermore, system parts should not be confused with general purpose components such as computers, power supplies, fiber optic cables, and displays. The framework for organizational partitioning is the associated system, not general purpose components and technical disciplines required to produce and sustain it.

figure 1�: system Perspective of War-ships as Manmade Machines


ConclusionViewing a warship as an integrated whole and as an element of the naval force is a difficult task. A single view of the total ship is impossible since it would require multiple simultaneous perspec-tives. It is possible, as presented in this paper, to describe multiple interconnected perspectives by repeated application of the concept of the warship as a system. A complete picture of the ‘total ship’ is formed from the perspectives of a warship as a mobile structure and as a machine. When the system perspectives are combine with the charter and cultural characteristics of the as-sociated organization the ‘total ship’ emerges.

The associated organization is itself a system and not all of its characteristics have a direct connec-tion to the warship. It is neither straightforward nor easy to identify the relationship of warship characteristics with those of the associated orga-nization. Changing the associated organization to effect changes to warships is a difficult and not always successful task due to the difficulty of correctly identifying relationships. In some cases, large changes to an organization may have little effect on the system it is associated with whereas sublet organizational changes may have significant impact. Cause and effect relationships are complicated since the heterogeneous and homogenous components of the organization are orthogonal and relate differently to the associat-ed system. Relationships can only be understood by identifying the whole, the parts, and the basis of interaction of the parts of both the warship and the associated organization.

In the spirit of Saxe’s fable it may be concluded that: We Naval Engineers Argue loud and long, Each that our part At the center should belong. Thought each of us is in the right, We all are in the wrong!

AcknowledgmentThe author is indebted to all those who partici-pated in the ETS symposia and in particular to the ETS committee members. Many thanks to

Dr. Kenneth Baile of NSWCDD for an essential review in drafting this paper. ■

REfERENCESbailey, donald, “Evolution of Navy C4i” symposium Proceedings, EtS 2000.

baron, Neil t., et. al., “Naval topside design: learning from the past, Shaping the Future”, symposium Proceed-ings, EtS 2002

bost, J. Robert, et al, “human-Centered automation in to-tal Ship Engineering”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 1998

bracewell, Joseph M., et al, “21st Century C4iSR/iw technology insertion and Management”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2000

Calvano, Charles N., “Systems Engineering Education, a total approach”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 1998

Chipman, Susan F., “operator Centered design of Ship Systems”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2004

dorrey, Norbert h., CdR, USN, austin, william h., & Strasel, Erik “JCC(x) Concept Exploration”, symposium Proceed-ings, EtS 2002

drew, Kathern F.& Scheidt, david, “distributed Machine intelligence for automated Survivability” symposium Proceedings, EtS 2004

Engineering the total Ship EtS 2000 Symposium program and documentation, 21 March 2000, dtiC

Engineering the total Ship EtS 2002 Symposium program and documentation, 26 February 2002, dtiC

Engineering the total Ship EtS 2004 Symposium program and documentation, 17 March 2004, dtiC

Firebaugh, Millard S., webb, Roland h., & Swedin, david h., “National Shipbuilding Research program and Navy Further advancement through Collaboration”, sympo-sium Proceedings, EtS 2002

Fullerton, Jeff, Capt, USN, Scotchlas, Marc lCdR, USN, & Freedner, adam S., “operational impacts of the Cg-47 Class Smartship installation, “it isn’t the technology-it’s how you Use it” “, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2004

gramoy, Elizbeth, “Software Engineering for the total Ship”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 1998

grey, Robert E.& McCollum, Kenneth g., “Risk and Focus in defense Systems acquisition” , symposium Proceed-ings, EtS 1998



hinkle, James, RadM, USN (ret) & glover, terry, Capt, USN (ret), “Reduced Manning in ddg-51 Class war-ships: Challenges, opportunities and the way ahead for Reduced Manning on all United States Navy Ships”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2004

Knollmann, Michael g. Capt, USN & Squitieri, vincent a. CdR, USN, “C4i where the Rubber Meets the Road”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2000

lisiewki, Raymond & whitman, dr Edward C., “dd-21: a new direction in warship acquisition”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2000

McConnell, Jeffery h., “the Navy distributed Engineering plant – value added for the Fleet”, symposium Proceed-ings, EtS 2002

Moura, Michael l. lCdR, USN, “the Carrier battle group Force: an operator’s perspective”, symposium Proceed-ings, EtS 2000

Moura, Michael l.lCdR, USN & bruns, John E. CdR, USN, “Network Centric operations: the Enterprise battle group Experience”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2002

Reilly, Mike, et al, “Composeable FoRCEnet: Compose-able Command and Control for Superior decision Mak-ing”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2004

Reynolds, Jason a., “lha (R) designing the Next big deck amphibious assault Ship”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2004

Roden, paul J. & henke, douglas J., “the integrated deepwater System (idS) – Ensuring interoperabilioty in the acquisition of a total System of Systems”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2002

Russell, Kevin J. lCdR, USCg, “Rethinking Reduced Man-ning design and optimization Using a Modified Systems approach”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2000

Ryberg, Eric S., “the influence of Ship Configuration on the design of the Joint Strike Fighter”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2002

Sims, phil, “Ships & the Sailors inside them”, EtS 2004

whitcomb, Cliff & lt John lt, USN, “Functional and physical decomposition for Ship design”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 2000

white, Franklin E., et. al., “information dominance, C4iSR and the total Ship: a vision for the Future”, symposium Proceedings, EtS 1998

LiSt of aCRoNyMS

altFlt = atlantic Fleet [includes numbered Fleets]

aSNRda = assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research development & acquisition [includes pEos]

FFC = Fleet Forces Command

MCSC = Marine Corp System Command

NavaiR = Naval air Systems Command

NavSEa = Naval Sea Systems Command

NSwCC = Naval Surface warfare Center Crane

NSwCCd = Naval Surface warfare Center Carderock division

NSwCdd = Naval Surface warfare Center dahlgren division

NSwCpC = Naval Surface warfare Center panama City

NSwCphd = Naval Surface warfare Center port hueneme division

NUwC = Naval Undersea warfare Center [divisions Newport & Keyport]

NwC = Network warfare Command

NwdC = Naval warfare doctrine Command

oNi = office of Naval intelligence

oNR = office of Naval Research

opNav = operational Navy [CNos pentagon Staff]

pacFlt = pacific Fleet [includes numbered Fleets]

Sg Cos = Strike group Commanders [altFlt and pacFlt]

SpawaR = Space & Naval warfare Systems Command

SSCC = SpawaR Systems Center Charleston

SSCCd = SpawaR Systems Center San diego

USCg = United States Coast guard

RiCHaRD a. HoLDEN holds a master of science degree in physics from Southern Illinois University. He be-gan his career in private industry before employment by the Navy at the Dahlgren Division of the Naval Sea Systems Command. He worked for the Navy from 1972 until his recent retirement from civil service. During his career Mr. Holden participated in a broad spectrum of projects ranging from basic research to engineering large systems. He participated in the Engineering the Total Ship (ETS) Symposium series from its inception and was co-chair for ETS 1998, ETS 2000, ETS 2002, and ETS 2004.

Engineering the Total Ship: A System Perspective on Warships

Documents

Transcript of Engineering the Total Ship: A System Perspective on Warships