Approach to Capability-Based System-of-Systems Framework ...mitre+SOS0+open+type@asset... ·...

Approach to Capability-Based System-of-Systems Framework in Support of Naval Ship Design

Cdr Jacques P Olivier

Royal Canadian Navy, Canada

Dr Santiago Balestrini-Robinson

Dr Simon Briceño

Georgia Institute of Technology, United States

Originally presented at the 8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference by Cdr Jacques Olivier on April 2nd, 2014 in Fairmont Chateau Laurier, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

System of Systems Engineering Collaborators Information Exchange (SoSECIE)September 1st, 2015

Outline

• Background and Motivation

• Benefits, Restraint and Constraint

• Definitions

• Hierarchical Decomposition

• Cross-Functional Decomposition

• Visualisation and Demonstration

• Design Paradox

• Conclusionhttp://russellclaxton.blogspot.ca/2009/08/form-and-function-3.html

2

8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño

This paper is an unclassified position paper containing public domain facts and opinions, which the authors aloneconsidered appropriate and correct for the subject. It does not necessarily reflect the policy or the opinion of anyagency, including the Government of Canada, the Canadian Department of National Defence, or the Georgia Instituteof Technology.

Historical Background

3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

81

94

5

19

47

19

49

19

51

19

53

19

55

19

57

19

59

19

61

19

63

19

65

19

67

19

69

19

71

19

73

19

75

19

77

19

79

19

81

19

83

19

85

19

87

19

89

19

91

19

93

19

95

19

97

19

99

20

01

20

03

20

05

20

07

20

09

20

11

20

13

Laid Down Launched Commissioned

9/11Berlin WallCuban Missile Crisis

ConventionalWarfare

Asymmetric Warfare

Modern history of SoSE

IT and Internet expansion

Canadian Naval Shipbuilding



Problem Definition

4



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00510/8b485da8-

83a4-11e3-_510078b.jpg

• Complex nature of rapidly evolving and unpredictable global threat environment

http://cimsec.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/West-African-

Militants.gif

• Proliferation of missions within spectrum of modern conflicts including military operations other than war

http://shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/market-crash.jpg

• Volatile fiscal and financial environment rendering budgetary forecasting unpredictable

http://shipsstarthere.ca/cont/1.jpeg

• Prolonged period of atrophy in naval ship design and industrial ship building

Purpose

5

PostulationModern naval ship design should consider the systems of interest as components subsumed by a holistic environment encompassing assets and capabilities inorganic to naval platforms

http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/td/2902/td2902.html

http://tomtunguz.com/images/gears.jpg

MotivationPropose a starting point intended to provide a more defined means of establishing and improving the early phases of the ship design process as part of a multi-layered maritime domain warfare enterprise



Model-Based System Engineering

MethodologyFormalized application of modeling to support system requirements, design, analysis, verification and validation activities beginning in the conceptual design phase and continuing throughout development and later life cycle

Restraint and Constraint• Will not eliminate all uncertainties and

cover all options related to ship conceptual design

• Will better circumscribe uncertainties so to distill a deeper appreciation of the critical factors

6

http://www.incose.org/chesapek/images/Newsletter/2011_09_17_MBSE_Diagram.jpg



Benefits

7



Cohesion

• Providing a more structured and cohesive approach to identifying and assessing ship capability portfolio

• Creating a common language and conceptual framework for the way to manage and improve capability-based planning within a ship design process

Efficiency

• Identifying capability strengths and interests to be maintained, developed and exploited

• Identifying capability deficiencies (shortcomings or surpluses) to be remedied or accepted

• Ranking ship variants based on operational effectiveness, capability and affordability trade-offs across a spectrum of missions’ priorities

Visualisation

• Facilitating comparisons, identifying and allowing the sharing of best practice across major ship acquisition projects within an organisation or a community of practice

• Assessing and presenting the findings from a variety of reviews in a format that is easy to understand

Engagement

• Involving more relevant stakeholders at all levels in the capability-based ship design process

• Educating stakeholders on the fundamental elements of capability-based ship design and how they relate to their roles and responsibilities

Benefits

8



Cohesion

• Providing a more structured and cohesive approach to identifying and assessing ship capability portfolio

• Creating a common language and conceptual framework for the way to manage and improve capability-based planning within a ship design process

Efficiency

• Identifying capability strengths and interests to be maintained, developed and exploited

• Identifying capability deficiencies (shortcomings or surpluses) to be remedied or accepted

• Ranking ship variants based on operational effectiveness, capability and affordability trade-offs across a spectrum of missions’ priorities

Visualisation

• Facilitating comparisons, identifying and allowing the sharing of best practice across major ship acquisition projects within an organisation or a community of practice

• Assessing and presenting the findings from a variety of reviews in a format that is easy to understand

Engagement

• Involving more relevant stakeholders at all levels in the capability-based ship design process

• Educating stakeholders on the fundamental elements of capability-based ship design and how they relate to their roles and responsibilities

Enterprise Architectural Framework

9



StrategicViewpoint

Documents the strategic picture of how military capability is evolving in order to support capability

management and equipment planning

OperationalViewpoint

Documents the operational processes, relationships and context to support operational

analyses and requirements development

AcquisitionViewpoint

Documents acquisition programme dependencies, timelines and DLOD status to inform programme

management

SystemsViewpoint

Documents system functionality and interconnectivity to support system analysis and

through-life management

TechnicalViewpoint

Documents policy, standards, guidance and constraints to specify and assure quality

expectations

AllViews

Provides summary information for the architecture that enables it to be indexed,

searched and queried

• Provide “single source of truth”

by creating a logical structure

for classifying, organising and

presenting complex information

in a uniform manner

• Improved clarity on the context

within which capabilities re

introduced and will operate

• Clearer and more

comprehensive requirements

documents

• Improved ability to resolve

interoperability issues between

systems

• Better understanding of the

mapping of system functions to

operational needs and hence

the ability to conduct improved

trade-offs

MODAF Viewpoints (2005)http://www.modaf.com/files/MODAF%20Acquisition%20Deskbook%20v1.0.pdf

Naval Platforms as SoS

10

Characteristics Description Navy

Operational Independence of

the Individual Systems

A system of systems is composed of systems that are independent and useful in their own right. If a system of systems is disassembled into the component systems, these component systems are capable of independently performing useful operations independently of one another.

Managerial Independence of

the Systems

The component systems not only can operate independently, they generally do operate independently to achieve an intended purpose. The component systems are generally individually acquired and integrated and they maintain a continuing operational existence that is independent of the system of systems.

Geographic Distribution

Geographic dispersion of component systems is often large. Often, these systems can readily exchange only information and knowledge with one another, and not substantial quantities of physical mass or energy.

Emergent Behaviour

The system of systems performs functions and carries out purposes that do not reside in any component system. These behaviours are emergent properties of the entire system of systems and not the behaviour of any component system. The principal purposes supporting engineering of these systems are fulfilled by these emergent behaviours.

Evolutionary Development

A system of systems is never fully formed or complete. Development of these systems is evolutionary over time and with structure, function and purpose added, removed, and modified as experience with the system grows and evolves over time.



htt

p:/

/4.b

p.b

logspot.com

/-

eJw

GT

tH9cfo

/TzLxyeB

K2_I/A

AA

AA

AA

AA

Qk/N

Gc0hO

lc

WC

4/s

1600/c

arr

ier+

battle

+gro

up.jpg

htt

p:/

/navy-

matt

ers

.beedall.

com

/im

agesbig

/netc

ent

ric.jpg

htt

p:/

/defe

nse-

update

.com

/im

ages_la

rge3/d

ap_gro

und_sta

tion.jpg

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/imagesbig/netcentric.jpg

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/imagesbig/netcentric.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eJwGTtH9cfo/TzLxyeBK2_I/AAAAAAAAAQk/NGc0hOlcWC4/s1600/carrier+battle+group.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eJwGTtH9cfo/TzLxyeBK2_I/AAAAAAAAAQk/NGc0hOlcWC4/s1600/carrier+battle+group.jpg

Capacity + Ability = Capability

11



Capacity• Quantitative

• Resources

• “What”

• “Means”

Ability• Qualitative

• Methods

• “How”

• “Ways”

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/us_armada_iraq.jpg

• The “means” describe

“what” resources are

adequate to achieve these

objectives within an

acceptable level of risk

• The “ways” are the

strategic and operational

methods describing “how”

to conduct military

operations to accomplish

the specific military

objectives, the “ends”

Hierarchical Decomposition

Political Priorities

Defence Roles

Military Missions

Naval Tasks

Ship Capabilities

Decomposition Level

Geopolitical

Strategic

Operational

Tactical

Hierarchical Level of Abstraction

System

Sub-System

12



1. Defend nation 2. Protect continental region3. Contribute to international peace and security

1. Military2. Diplomatic3. Constabulary

1. Expeditionary and domestic2. Joint and combined

1. Float2. Move3. Fight

1. Sea control2. Sea denial 3. Sea command

Hierarchical Decomposition


Defence Roles

Military Missions

Naval Tasks

Ship Capabilities

Decomposition Level

Geopolitical

Strategic

Operational

Tactical


System

Sub-System

13



Risk Assessment

Model

1. Conduct daily domestic and continental operations VH VH VL

2. Support a major international event in Canada H M VL

3. Support civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada such as a natural disaster M VL NA

4. Respond to a major terrorist attack VL VL VL

5. Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period VL L VH

6. Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periodsVL L VH

H M H VL VL VL

M M H M L M

L VH VH VH VH L

VL VL VL H M M

VH H M VH M M

L L L L M H

VL NA NA VH VH L

VL VL VL VH VL VL

VH VH VL VL VL VL

VL VL VL M VH VH

VL VL VL L VH VH

VL VL VL L VH VH

VL VL VL VL VH VH

VL VL VL VL H H

VH VH H VL L VH VH H M M M VL VL VL

M H M VL M H H VL L M M M VL VL

VH VH VH VH VH L VL L VL L L H VH VL

NA NA VH NA VH NA NA NA VL NA NA NA NA NA

VH H H VL VH VL M H VH H H VL VL H

VL VL VL VL VH VL VL VL M VL VL VL VL VL

NA NA M VL VH L M H M VH VH VH VH VH

NA NA NA NA NA M VH H VL H H H H M

NA NA VL VL L M M H L VH VH VH VH VH

NA VL VL VL M VL VL VL VL H VH H H VH

NA VL VL VL M VL VL VL H H M M M VH

Op

era

tio

nal

Defence Policy

Priorities

Domestic

Tasks

Expeditionary

Tasks

Strategic Operational

Roles

Geo-

political

13

. Pea

ce E

nfo

rcem

ent

- U

N C

hap

ter

VII

14

. Maj

or

Co

mb

at O

per

atio

ns

(MC

O)

3. C

on

trib

ute

to

Inte

rnat

ion

al P

eace

an

d S

ecu

rity

2. D

efen

d N

ort

h A

mer

ica

1. D

efen

d C

anad

a

7. N

on

-co

mb

atan

t Ev

acu

atio

n O

per

atio

ns

(NEO

)

8. C

ou

nte

r-In

surg

ency

Op

erat

ion

s (C

OIN

OP

s)

9. C

AN

US

Co

nti

nen

tal O

per

atio

ns

10

. Sta

bili

zati

on

Op

erat

ion

s

11

. NA

TO R

esp

on

se F

orc

e (N

RF)

Op

erat

ion

s

12

. Pea

ce S

up

po

rt O

per

atio

ns

(PSO

) -

UN

Ch

apte

r V

I

1. A

ir a

nd

Mar

itim

e Se

arch

an

d R

escu

e (S

AR

)

2. H

um

anit

aria

n A

ssis

tan

ce

3. A

ssis

tan

ce t

o L

aw E

nfo

rcem

ent

Age

nci

es (

ALE

A)

4. A

id t

o C

ivil

Po

wer

5. S

ove

reig

nty

Op

erat

ion

s

6. I

nte

rnat

ion

al H

um

anit

aria

n R

elie

f O

per

atio

ns

(HU

MR

O)

10. Standing NATO Response Force Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1)

11. United States Task Group (e.g., CSG, ESG, MEU)

Tact

ical

4. Fisheries Patrols

5. Sovereignty Patrols

6. Arctic Sovereignty Patrols

7. Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO)

8. Non-combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO)

9. Littoral Maritime Force Projection

Nav

al F

un

ctio

ns

6. D

eplo

y fo

rces

in r

esp

on

se t

o c

rise

s el

sew

her

e in

th

e w

orl

d f

or

sho

rter

per

iod

s

1. Air and Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR)

2. Humanitarian Assistance

3. Assistance to Law Enforcement Agency

1. C

on

du

ct d

aily

do

mes

tic

and

co

nti

nen

tal o

per

atio

ns

2. S

up

po

rt a

maj

or

inte

rnat

ion

al e

ven

t in

Can

ada

3. S

up

po

rt c

ivili

an a

uth

ori

ties

du

rin

g a

cris

is in

Can

ada

such

as

a n

atu

ral d

isas

ter

4. R

esp

on

d t

o a

maj

or

terr

ori

st a

ttac

k

5. L

ead

an

d/o

r co

nd

uct

a m

ajo

r in

tern

atio

nal

op

erat

ion

fo

r an

ext

end

ed p

erio

d

Stra

tegi

c



14. Major Combat Operations (MCO)

3. Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies (ALEA)

4. Aid to Civil Power

10. Stabilization Operations

11. NATO Response Force (NRF) Operations

12. Peace Support Operations (PSO) - UN Chapter VI

13. Peace Enforcement - UN Chapter VII

Def

ence

Po

licy

Pri

ori

ties

Do

mes

tic

Task

sEx

ped

itio

nar

y Ta

sks

5. Sovereignty Operations

6. International Humanitarian Relief Operations (HUMRO)


8. Counter-Insurgency Operations (COINOPs)

9. CANUS Continental Operations







H M H VL VL VL

M M H M L M

L VH VH VH VH L

VL VL VL H M M

VH H M VH M M

L L L L M H

VL NA NA VH VH L

VL VL VL VH VL VL

VH VH VL VL VL VL

VL VL VL M VH VH

VL VL VL L VH VH

VL VL VL L VH VH

VL VL VL VL VH VH

VL VL VL VL H H












Op

era

tio

nal

Defence Policy

Priorities

Domestic

Tasks

Expeditionary

Tasks


Roles

Geo-

political

13

. Pea

ce E

nfo

rcem

ent

- U

N C

hap

ter

VII

14

. Maj

or

Co

mb

at O

per

atio

ns

(MC

O)

3. C

on

trib

ute

to

Inte

rnat

ion

al P

eace

an

d S

ecu

rity

2. D

efen

d N

ort

h A

mer

ica

1. D

efen

d C

anad

a

7. N

on

-co

mb

atan

t Ev

acu

atio

n O

per

atio

ns

(NEO

)

8. C

ou

nte

r-In

surg

ency

Op

erat

ion

s (C

OIN

OP

s)

9. C

AN

US

Co

nti

nen

tal O

per

atio

ns

10

. Sta

bili

zati

on

Op

erat

ion

s

11

. NA

TO R

esp

on

se F

orc

e (N

RF)

Op

erat

ion

s

12

. Pea

ce S

up

po

rt O

per

atio

ns

(PSO

) -

UN

Ch

apte

r V

I

1. A

ir a

nd

Mar

itim

e Se

arch

an

d R

escu

e (S

AR

)

2. H

um

anit

aria

n A

ssis

tan

ce

3. A

ssis

tan

ce t

o L

aw E

nfo

rcem

ent

Age

nci

es (

ALE

A)

4. A

id t

o C

ivil

Po

wer

5. S

ove

reig

nty

Op

erat

ion

s

6. I

nte

rnat

ion

al H

um

anit

aria

n R

elie

f O

per

atio

ns

(HU

MR

O)



Tact

ical







Nav

al F

un

ctio

ns

6. D

eplo

y fo

rces

in r

esp

on

se t

o c

rise

s el

sew

her

e in

th

e w

orl

d f

or

sho

rter

per

iod

s




1. C

on

du

ct d

aily

do

mes

tic

and

co

nti

nen

tal o

per

atio

ns

2. S

up

po

rt a

maj

or

inte

rnat

ion

al e

ven

t in

Can

ada

3. S

up

po

rt c

ivili

an a

uth

ori

ties

du

rin

g a

cris

is in

Can

ada

such

as

a n

atu

ral d

isas

ter

4. R

esp

on

d t

o a

maj

or

terr

ori

st a

ttac

k

5. L

ead

an

d/o

r co

nd

uct

a m

ajo

r in

tern

atio

nal

op

erat

ion

fo

r an

ext

end

ed p

erio

d

Stra

tegi

c










Def

ence

Po

licy

Pri

ori

ties

Do

mes

tic

Task

sEx

ped

itio

nar

y Ta

sks












H M H VL VL VL

M M H M L M

L VH VH VH VH L

VL VL VL H M M

VH H M VH M M

L L L L M H

VL NA NA VH VH L

VL VL VL VH VL VL

VH VH VL VL VL VL

VL VL VL M VH VH

VL VL VL L VH VH

VL VL VL L VH VH

VL VL VL VL VH VH

VL VL VL VL H H












Op

era

tio

nal

Defence Policy

Priorities

Domestic

Tasks

Expeditionary

Tasks


Roles

Geo-

political

13

. Pea

ce E

nfo

rcem

ent

- U

N C

hap

ter

VII

14

. Maj

or

Co

mb

at O

per

atio

ns

(MC

O)

3. C

on

trib

ute

to

Inte

rnat

ion

al P

eace

an

d S

ecu

rity

2. D

efen

d N

ort

h A

mer

ica

1. D

efen

d C

anad

a

7. N

on

-co

mb

atan

t Ev

acu

atio

n O

per

atio

ns

(NEO

)

8. C

ou

nte

r-In

surg

ency

Op

erat

ion

s (C

OIN

OP

s)

9. C

AN

US

Co

nti

nen

tal O

per

atio

ns

10

. Sta

bili

zati

on

Op

erat

ion

s

11

. NA

TO R

esp

on

se F

orc

e (N

RF)

Op

erat

ion

s

12

. Pea

ce S

up

po

rt O

per

atio

ns

(PSO

) -

UN

Ch

apte

r V

I

1. A

ir a

nd

Mar

itim

e Se

arch

an

d R

escu

e (S

AR

)

2. H

um

anit

aria

n A

ssis

tan

ce

3. A

ssis

tan

ce t

o L

aw E

nfo

rcem

ent

Age

nci

es (

ALE

A)

4. A

id t

o C

ivil

Po

wer

5. S

ove

reig

nty

Op

erat

ion

s

6. I

nte

rnat

ion

al H

um

anit

aria

n R

elie

f O

per

atio

ns

(HU

MR

O)



Tact

ical







Nav

al F

un

ctio

ns

6. D

eplo

y fo

rces

in r

esp

on

se t

o c

rise

s el

sew

her

e in

th

e w

orl

d f

or

sho

rter

per

iod

s




1. C

on

du

ct d

aily

do

mes

tic

and

co

nti

nen

tal o

per

atio

ns

2. S

up

po

rt a

maj

or

inte

rnat

ion

al e

ven

t in

Can

ada

3. S

up

po

rt c

ivili

an a

uth

ori

ties

du

rin

g a

cris

is in

Can

ada

such

as

a n

atu

ral d

isas

ter

4. R

esp

on

d t

o a

maj

or

terr

ori

st a

ttac

k

5. L

ead

an

d/o

r co

nd

uct

a m

ajo

r in

tern

atio

nal

op

erat

ion

fo

r an

ext

end

ed p

erio

d

Stra

tegi

c










Def

ence

Po

licy

Pri

ori

ties

Do

mes

tic

Task

sEx

ped

itio

nar

y Ta

sks






Impact

Cri

tica

l

Maj

or

Mo

der

ate

Min

or

Insi

gnif

ican

t

No

t A

pp

licab

le

Fre

qu

en

cy

Always VH VH H M L NA

Likely VH H M L VL NA

Possibly H M M L VL NA

Unlikely M L L L VL NA

Rarely L VL VL VL VL NA

Never NA NA NA NA NA NA

14



http://www.navy.dnd.ca/leadmark/pdf/ENG_LEADMARK_FULL_72DPI.PDF

http://www.navy.dnd.ca/leadmark/pdf/ENG_LEADMARK_FULL_72DPI.PDF

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/forces/D2-252-2009-eng.pdf

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/forces/D2-252-2009-eng.pdf

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/June18_0910_CFDS_english_low-res.pdf

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/June18_0910_CFDS_english_low-res.pdf

Naval SoS Levels

15

Rank Typology Description

1Complete Major

Global Force Projection

Capable of carrying out all the military roles of naval forces on a global scale. It possesses the full range of carrier and amphibious capabilities, sea control forces, and nuclear attack and ballistic missile submarines, and all in sufficient numbers to undertake major operations independently.

2Partial Global Force

Projection

Possesses most if not all of the force projection capabilities of a "complete" global navy, but only in sufficient numbers to undertake one major "out of area" operation.

3Medium Global Force Projection

May not possess the full range of capabilities, but have a credible capacity in certain of them and consistently demonstrate a determination to exercise them at some distance from home waters, in cooperation with other Force Projection Navies.

4Medium Regional Force Projection

Possesses the ability to project force into the adjoining ocean basin. While may have the capacity to exercise these further afield, for whatever reason, do not do so on a regular basis.

5Adjacent Force

ProjectionPossesses some ability to project force well offshore, but not capable of carrying out high-level naval operations over oceanic distances.

6Offshore Territorial

Defence

Possesses relatively high levels of capability in defensive (and constabulary) operations up to about 200 miles from shores, having the sustainability offered by frigate or large corvette vessels and (or) a capable submarine force.

7Inshore Territorial

Defence

Primarily inshore territorial defence capabilities, capable of coastal combat rather than constabulary duties alone. This implies a force comprising missile-armed fast-attack craft, short-range aviation and a limited submarine force.

8Constabulary

DefenceNot intended to fight, but to act purely in a constabulary role.



Visualization 1

16

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%

3 AAW 3 3 311 ASuW 5 5 519 ASW 5 5 527 MW 1 1 134 BRD 4 4 441 NFS 1 1 147 C4I 3 3 3

## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 2 2 261 SB 1 1 168 SPE 5 5 577 RNG 3 3 385 END 2 2 2

0 93 ICE 2 2 2## SURV 4 4 4

8##

1

8

Confidence

Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 7,514 LT 200 186 sailors

Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 167.5 m 7,500 5,700 m3

Beam (B) 16.0 14.4 m 35.0 57.6 m

Draught (T) 7.0 6.2 m 30.0 26.5 m 2010 (90% CI)Flightdeck Length

ComplementIn-Hull Volume

1,876,700,000$

2010 (50% CI)

Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

Organic AirLEVEL 2: Capability to land and house a organic air assets onboard (i.e.,

flight deck and hangar)

4Effective Navy Rank :

90%

1,807,900,000$

Medium Regional Force Projection Capability

Restricted Readiness

100% 67% 40%Standard Readiness High Readiness

SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

85%

84%

84%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary

Operational Capabilities: Military

Strategic Capability

Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions

Ship Design: Key Parameters

-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation

Naval System-of-System Capability

Ship Design: Sideview

Save

100%

73%

91%

100%

75%

66%

80%

71%

89%

78%

94%

SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG

Operational Capabilities: Navy

Select/De-select All

CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100%

69%

52%

Float Move Fight

Capability Priorities

Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities

Readiness Level

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



0 93 ICE 2 2 2## SURV 4 4 4

8##

1

8

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 14.4 m 35.0 57.6 m



1,876,700,000$

2010 (50% CI)

Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught




90%

1,807,900,000$




SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

85%

84%

84%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

73%

91%

100%

75%

66%

80%

71%

89%

78%

94%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100%

69%

52%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



0 93 ICE 2 2 2## SURV 4 4 4

8##

1

8

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 14.4 m 35.0 57.6 m



1,876,700,000$

2010 (50% CI)

Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught




90%

1,807,900,000$




SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

85%

84%

84%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

73%

91%

100%

75%

66%

80%

71%

89%

78%

94%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100%

69%

52%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



0 93 ICE 2 2 2## SURV 4 4 4

8##

1

8

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 14.4 m 35.0 57.6 m



1,876,700,000$

2010 (50% CI)

Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught




90%

1,807,900,000$




SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

85%

84%

84%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

73%

91%

100%

75%

66%

80%

71%

89%

78%

94%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100%

69%

52%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level



Hierarchical to Functional Decomposition


Defence Roles

Military Missions

Naval Tasks

Ship Capabilities

Decomposition Level

Geopolitical

Strategic

Operational

Tactical


System

Sub-System

17



1. Float2. Move3. Fight

Cross-Functional Decomposition

18



Float

Move

Fight


Habitability

Sustainability

Survivability

Mobility

Manoeuvrability

Operability

Interoperability

Platform Systems

Capabilities

C4ISR

Anti-Surface Warfare

Anti-Air Warfare

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Area Air Defence

Mine Counter Measure

Maritime Interdiction

Combat Systems

Capabilities

Restricted: Subject to deficiencies in personnel, materiel and training severely limiting employment

Standard: Core naval continental and expeditionary missions that do not entail the possibility of high intensity, full spectrum combat

High: Full-spectrum of combat operations

OperationalCapability Readiness

Capability across functional areas and technology domains

Cross-Functional Decomposition

19

Platform SystemsCapabilities

• Habitability• Sustainability• Survivability• Mobility• Manoeuvrability• Operability• Interoperability

Combat SystemsCapabilities

• C4ISR • Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW)• Maritime Interdiction• Mine Counter Measures (MCM)• Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)• Anti-Air Warfare (AAW)• Area Air Defence (AAD)

Sub-System and Equipment Selection


Float Move Fight

Op

era

tio

nal

Cap

abili

ty R

ead

ines

s

Hig

hR

est

rict

ed

Stan

dar

d



Visualization 2

20



80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%

3 AAW 4 4 411 ASuW 3 3 319 ASW 3 3 327 MW 3 3 334 BRD 2 2 241 NFS 2 2 247 C4I 3 3 354 AIR 3 3 361 SB 3 3 368 SPE 4 4 477 RNG 4 4 485 END 3 3 3

## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 93 ICE 3 3 3## SURV 3 3 3

14##

10

14

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m

Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)



1,710,900,000$

2010 (50% CI)

SurvivabilityLEVEL 3: Ship designed to Naval Rules



90%

1,652,400,000$

Flightdeck Length


Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

89%

88%

85%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

90%

100% 100%

87%83%

73%

85% 85%

70%66%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100% 100%

48%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



14##

10

14

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m

Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)



1,710,900,000$

2010 (50% CI)




90%

1,652,400,000$

Flightdeck Length


Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

89%

88%

85%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

90%

100% 100%

87%83%

73%

85% 85%

70%66%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100% 100%

48%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



14##

10

14

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m

Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)



1,710,900,000$

2010 (50% CI)




90%

1,652,400,000$

Flightdeck Length


Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

89%

88%

85%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

90%

100% 100%

87%83%

73%

85% 85%

70%66%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100% 100%

48%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



14##

10

14

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m

Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)



1,710,900,000$

2010 (50% CI)




90%

1,652,400,000$

Flightdeck Length


Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

89%

88%

85%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

90%

100% 100%

87%83%

73%

85% 85%

70%66%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100% 100%

48%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



14##

10

14

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m

Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)



1,710,900,000$

2010 (50% CI)




90%

1,652,400,000$

Flightdeck Length


Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

89%

88%

85%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

90%

100% 100%

87%83%

73%

85% 85%

70%66%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100% 100%

48%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



14##

10

14

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m

Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)



1,710,900,000$

2010 (50% CI)




90%

1,652,400,000$

Flightdeck Length


Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

89%

88%

85%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

90%

100% 100%

87%83%

73%

85% 85%

70%66%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100% 100%

48%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



14##

10

14

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m

Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)



1,710,900,000$

2010 (50% CI)




90%

1,652,400,000$

Flightdeck Length


Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

89%

88%

85%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

90%

100% 100%

87%83%

73%

85% 85%

70%66%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100% 100%

48%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%

3 AAW 2 5 2 +211 ASuW 4 4 4 +119 ASW 1 3 1 +227 MW 1 2 1 +134 BRD 4 4 4 +141 NFS 0 0 0 -247 C4I 1 4 1 +2

## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 4 4 4 -61 SB 1 3 1 -68 SPE 4 4 4 +177 RNG 2 2 2 -85 END 3 3 3 +1

0 93 ICE 1 1 1 -## SURV 2 2 2 -

13##

1

13

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 13.7 m 35.0 35.0 m

Draught (T) 7.0 6.0 m 30.0 25.2 m 2010 (90% CI)

Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

Transit in Ice ConditionsLEVEL 1: PC 7: Summer/autumn operation in thin first-year ice which

may include old ice inclusions


90%

1,148,100,000$

Flightdeck Length


1,191,500,000$

2010 (50% CI)




SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

86%

86%

86%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

86%90% 92% 93%

81%

75%

100%

90%

83%

75%

63%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

94%

65%

45%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



0 93 ICE 1 1 1 -## SURV 2 2 2 -

13##

1

13

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 13.7 m 35.0 35.0 m

Draught (T) 7.0 6.0 m 30.0 25.2 m 2010 (90% CI)

Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught




90%

1,148,100,000$

Flightdeck Length


1,191,500,000$

2010 (50% CI)




SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

86%

86%

86%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

86%90% 92% 93%

81%

75%

100%

90%

83%

75%

63%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

94%

65%

45%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



0 93 ICE 1 1 1 -## SURV 2 2 2 -

13##

1

13

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 13.7 m 35.0 35.0 m

Draught (T) 7.0 6.0 m 30.0 25.2 m 2010 (90% CI)

Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught




90%

1,148,100,000$

Flightdeck Length


1,191,500,000$

2010 (50% CI)




SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

86%

86%

86%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

86%90% 92% 93%

81%

75%

100%

90%

83%

75%

63%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

94%

65%

45%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

80% 60% 680% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



0 93 ICE 2 2 2## SURV 1 1 1

14##

1

14

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 14.5 m 35.0 41.3 m



1,062,100,000$

2010 (50% CI)

Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

SurvivabilityLEVEL 1: Ship designed to Commercial Class Rules (e.g., LRS, GL, ABS,

etc.)


90%

1,028,900,000$

Offshore Territorial Defence Capability



SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

76%

73%

70%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

85%

100% 100%

53% 55%52%

58%55%

57% 56%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

94%

65%

21%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

Domestic Constabulary Variant

21



Expeditionary Variant

22



80% 60% 580% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%



0 93 ICE 2 2 2## SURV 3 3 3

11##

1

11

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 13.9 m 35.0 55.0 m



1,509,800,000$

2010 (50% CI)

Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

RangeLEVEL 3: Ship has a maximum range at cruise speed between 5,000 nmi

and 7,500 nmi


90%

1,454,900,000$

Adjacent Force Projection Capability



SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

83%

82%

80%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

85%

91%

100%

74%

65%

76%74%

71%69%

73%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100%

69%

40%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

Arctic Patrol Variant

23



80% 60% 580% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%

3 AAW 4 4 4 -11 ASuW 3 3 3 -19 ASW 2 2 2 -27 MW 1 1 1 -34 BRD 4 4 4 -41 NFS 1 1 1 -47 C4I 2 2 2 -

## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 3 3 3 -61 SB 2 2 2 -68 SPE 4 4 4 -77 RNG 4 4 4 -85 END 3 3 3 -

0 93 ICE 5 5 5 -## SURV 2 2 2 -

13##

1

13

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 15.7 m 35.0 40.2 m



1,553,000,000$

2010 (50% CI)

Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

Transit in Ice ConditionsLEVEL 5: PC 3: Year-round operation in second-year ice which may

include multiyear ice inclusions


90%

1,493,600,000$

Adjacent Force Projection Capability



SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

91%

89%

84%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

100%

86%

100% 100%95%

100%

84%

76% 75%

60%64%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100% 100%

33%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

Non-Combatant Evacuation (NEO) Variant

24



80% 60% 680% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%

3 AAW 3 3 3 -11 ASuW 3 3 3 -19 ASW 1 1 1 -27 MW 1 1 1 -34 BRD 3 3 3 -41 NFS 2 2 2 -47 C4I 2 2 2 -

## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 4 4 4 -61 SB 3 3 3 -68 SPE 3 3 3 -77 RNG 2 2 2 -85 END 2 2 2 -

0 93 ICE 1 1 1 -## SURV 2 2 2 -

14##

1

14

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 13.8 m 35.0 35.3 m



1,187,600,000$

2010 (50% CI)

Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

SurvivabilityLEVEL 2: Ship designed to Partial Naval Rules (e.g., redundant

machinery rooms and watertight bulkheads)


90%

1,144,300,000$




SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

73%

72%

72%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

86%90%

82%

93%

52%54%

69%

100%

69%

37%

50%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100%

58%

29%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

(Imbalanced) Maritime Interdiction Ops Variant

25



80% 60% 680% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%

3 AAW 3 3 3 +111 ASuW 3 3 3 -119 ASW 1 1 1 -27 MW 1 1 1 -34 BRD 3 3 3 -141 NFS 2 2 2 +247 C4I 2 2 2 +1

## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 4 4 4 -61 SB 3 3 3 +268 SPE 3 3 3 -177 RNG 2 2 2 -85 END 2 2 2 -1

0 93 ICE 1 1 1 -## SURV 2 2 2 -

8##

1

8

Confidence



Beam (B) 16.0 13.8 m 35.0 35.3 m



1,186,700,000$

2010 (50% CI)

Displacement (Δ)

Air Draught

Organic AirLEVEL 4: Capability to maintain and support multiple air assets onboard

(e.g., CH-148 + Firescout)


90%

1,144,200,000$




SAR

HA

ALEAACP

SOVOPS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300

HUMRO

NEO

COIN

CANUS

STABOPSNRFOPS

UN Ch VI

UN Ch VII

MCO

73%

72%

72%

Domestic

ContinentalRegion

International

Geopolitical Roles

Domestic

Expeditionary





-15.0

-5.0

5.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Cost Estimation



Save

86%90%

82%

93%

52%54%

69%

100%

69%

37%

50%




CVN

CG

DDG

LHD

LPD

LSD

SSBN

SSN

SS

Satellite

RQ-4

MQ-9

100%

58%

29%

Float Move Fight



Readiness Level

Politicians

Governmental and Defence Leaders

Military Strategists

Naval Operational Leaders

Ship Design Team

Operational Requirements Managers

Systems Engineers

Naval Architects

Naval Technical Advisors

Stak

eho

lder

s C

om

mu

nit

y

System-of-Systems

Systems

Sub-Systems

Equipment

Perf

orm

ance

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Political

Strategic

Operational

Hie

rarc

hic

al L

evel

s o

f A

bst

ract

ion

Technical

Tactical

Naval Functions Capabilities

Political Aspirations

Defence Roles Capabilities

Defend Nation

Protect Region

Preserve International Peace

Military Missions Capabilities

Joint and Combined

Expeditionary and Domestic

Cap

abili

ties

Fu

nct

ion

al D

eco

mp

osi

tio

n a

nd

Vis

ual

isat

ion

Ship Capabilities

Combat Capabilities

Platform Capabilities

26

StrategicViewpoint

OperationalViewpoint

AcquisitionViewpoint

SystemsViewpoint

TechnicalViewpoint

AllViews



Capability-based SoS Approach to Naval Ship Design

Politicians

Governmental and Defence Leaders

Military Strategists

Naval Operational Leaders

Ship Design Team

Operational Requirements Managers

Systems Engineers

Naval Architects

Naval Technical Advisors

Stak

eho

lder

s C

om

mu

nit

y

System-of-Systems

Systems

Sub-Systems

Equipment

Perf

orm

ance

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Naval Functions Capabilities

Political Aspirations

Defence Roles Capabilities

Defend Nation

Protect Region

Preserve International Peace

Military Missions Capabilities

Joint and Combined

Expeditionary and Domestic

Cap

abili

ties

Fu

nct

ion

al D

eco

mp

osi

tio

n a

nd

Vis

ual

isat

ion

Ship Capabilities

Combat Capabilities

Platform Capabilities

27



Capability-based SoS Approach to Naval Ship Design

Political

Strategic

Operational

Hie

rarc

hic

al L

evel

s o

f A

bst

ract

ion

Technical

Tactical

EngagementCohesion Visualisation Efficiency

28

Design Process Paradox

Use SoSE methodology and apply MBSE techniques to naval ship design to enable rapid, defensible and traceable capability trade-offs in the early

stages of design

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Identification Option Analysis Definition Implementation

Expended Committed Available

Design Freedom & InfluenceDesign Knowledge & Information



29

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Design Process Paradox

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Design Freedom & InfluenceDesign Knowledge & Information



Use SoSE methodology and apply MBSE techniques to naval ship design to enable rapid, defensible and traceable capability trade-offs in the early

stages of design

Purpose Revisited

30

PostulationModern naval ship design should consider the systems of interest as components subsumed by a holistic environment encompassing assets and capabilities inorganic to naval platforms

http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/td/2902/td2902.html

http://tomtunguz.com/images/gears.jpg

MotivationPropose a starting point intended to provide a more defined means of establishing and improving the ship design process as part of a multi-layered maritime domain warfare enterprise



Questions?

Santiago Balestrini-RobinsonBEng, MSc, PhD

[email protected]

Jacques P. OlivierCD, BEng, MSc, MBA, PEng, PMP, IMarEST

[email protected]

31

This paper is an unclassified position paper containing public domain facts and opinions, which the authors aloneconsidered appropriate and correct for the subject. It does not necessarily reflect the policy or the opinion of anyagency, including the Government of Canada, the Canadian Department of National Defence, or the Georgia Instituteof Technology.



Approach to Capability-Based System-of-Systems Framework ...mitre+SOS0+open+type@asset... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Approach to Capability-Based System-of-Systems Framework ...mitre+SOS0+open+type@asset... ·...