DDG 51 Flight III RTC (Final)

8/9/2019 DDG 51 Flight III RTC (Final)

1/33 Distribution Statement A

! Approved for Public Release.

REPORT TO CONGRESS

DDG 51 FLIGHT III SHIPS AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR

ENGINEERING CHANGE PROPOSAL

Prepared by:

Assistant Secretary of the Navy

Research, Development, and Acquisition

1000 Navy Pentagon

Washington, DC 20350"1000

FEBRUARY 2015

The estimated cost of report or study for the Departmentof Defense is approximately $15030 for the 2015 FiscalYear. This includes $30 in expenses and $15000 in DoD

labor.

Generated on 2015Jan26 RefID: 4"42B2CD8




2

Introduction

The Department of the Navy (DoN) submits this Report to Congress on the DDG 51 Flight III de-

sign status as directed by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S.Rept.112"173). The Depart-

ment is committed to the acquisition of the DDG 51 Flight III destroyers with an integrated Air and

Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) to meet the requirements for Integrated Air and Missile Defense(IAMD) capabilities. After several years of study, analysis, requirements validation, and prototype

testing, the AMDR S"Band system is poised for successful integration into the DDG 51 Class ships

as the Flight III upgrade.

This report summarizes the background of the DDG 51 Class program, explains the new AMDR

system, describes the final scope of the engineering change proposal (ECP) required to field the

ADMR on a DDG 51 hull, depicts the resulting Flight III ship configuration, and outlines the way

forward to ensure this vital capability reaches the Fleet as quickly as possible. This report will also

show that with respect to systems and equipment levels of maturity for Flight III, the AMDR is the

only new development technology. The AMDR has successfully completed Milestone B, a fullsystem Preliminary Design Review, a hardware Critical Design Review, and will deliver its first

full ship set of production equipment by early FY 2020. The remaining equipment required to pro-

vide power and cooling to the AMDR are all based on currently existing equipment and therefore

induce low technical risk to the program. Given the tremendous capability improvement AMDR

provides to defeat emerging air and ballistic missile threats over current radars, the low to moderate

technical risk associated with implementing this radar on an FY 2016 DDG 51 justifies execution

of the ECP during the FY 2013"2017 multiyear procurement contract.

The specific language in the NDAA for FY13, section 125, is as follows:

“Multiyear procurement authority for Arleigh Burke!class destroyers and associated systems (sec.

125). The committee believes that continued production of Arleigh Burke!class destroyers is criti-

cal to provide required forces for sea based ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities. The Navy

envisions that, if research and development activities yield an improved radar suite and combat

systems capability, they would like to install those systems on the destroyers in fiscal years 2016

and 2017, at which time the designation for those destroyers would be Flight III. Should the Navy

decide to move forward with the integration of an engineering change proposal (ECP) to incorpo-

rate a new BMD capable radar and associated support systems during execution of this multiyear

procurement, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit a report to the congressional defense commit-

tees, no later than with the budget request for the year of contract award of such an ECP. The re-

port will contain a description of the final scope of this ECP, as well as the level of maturity of thenew technology to be incorporated on the ships of implementation and rationale as to why the ma-

turity of the technology and the capability provided justify execution of the change in requirements

under that ECP during the execution of a multiyear procurement contract.”




3

Background & Requirements

The ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG 51) Class ship is a multi"mission surface combatant capable of

meeting 21st century warfighting requirements. It operates offensively and defensively, inde-

pendently, or as part of Carrier Strike Groups (CSG), Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESG), and Mis-

sile Defense Action Groups in multi"threat environments that include Air, Surface, and Subsurface

threats. Ships will respond to Low Intensity Conflict / Coastal and Littoral Offshore Warfare (LIC/

CALOW) Scenarios as well as Open Ocean Conflict providing and augmenting Power Projection,

Forward Presence Requirements, and Escort Operations at sea. DDG 51 Class primary missions

are to:

Conduct simultaneous Anti"Air Warfare (AAW) and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) op-

erations

Detect, track, and identify air targets, and acquire and engage hostile targets with weapons

Detect, track, and identify ballistic missile targets, and acquire and engage hostile targets

with anti"

ballistic missile weapons

Conduct Electronic Warfare

Conduct Strike Warfare against land targets

Detect, locate, classify, and track submarines and conduct Anti"Submarine Warfare (ASW)

operations and engagements

Detect, locate, classify, and track surface contacts and conduct Anti "Surface Warfare

(ASUW) operations and engagements

Gather, display, and evaluate surface, subsurface, and air intelligence

!"#$%& ( ) !*"#+, --- ./&%0,"120* 3"&4




4

The DDG 51 Class Program has awarded a total of 76 ships from 1985 to 2017 between two ship-

builders, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) and Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII). Most

recently, 10 were awarded in June 2013 under Multi"Year Procurement (MYP) authority for FY13"

17. Sixty"two ships have been delivered. Of the remaining 14, six are in various stages of con-

struction and will deliver in 2016 and beyond. The Flight III configuration will be integrated viathe Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) process onto the last three ships of the FY13"17 MYP: one

ship in FY16 and both FY17 ships. A follow"on FY18 MYP will continue the production line.

Prior to Flight III, the program has produced three flights (I, II and IIA). Flights II and IIA included

important modifications for changing mission requirements and technology updates, thus demon-

strating the substantial capacity and flexibility of the base DDG 51 hull form. Flight II introduced

enhanced capability in Combat Systems and Electronic Warfare. Flight IIA constituted a more sig-

nificant change to the ship by incorporation of an organic dual hangar/dual helicopter aviation facil-

ity, extended transom, zonal electrical power distribution (ZEDS), enhanced missile capacity, and

reconfigured primary radar arrays. The combined scope and means for integrating the changes for

Flight III is similar to the approach used in the Flight IIA upgrade. Additionally, during Flight IIA production in the middle of the FY98"01 MYP, the class was significantly upgraded with a new ra-

dar, the AN/SPY"1D(V), and an improved combat management computing plant, AEGIS Baseline

7.1. The previous ship system changes were successfully executed by ECPs introduced via the ex-

isting systems engineering processes on both Flight II and IIA in support of the ongoing construc-

tion program. This methodology takes advantage of Navy and prime contractor experience with the

proven processes while offering effective and efficient introduction of the desired configuration

changes. It also provides the more affordable and effective approach toward producing this en-

hanced ship capability in lieu of starting a new ship design to incorporate the same capabilities into

a new production line for ship construction.

DDG 51 Flight III will be the third evolution of the original DDG 51 Class and will achieve the

U.S. Navy’s critical need for an enhanced surface combatant integrated IAMD capability. Flight III

will build on the warfighting capabilities of DDG 51 Flight IIA ships, providing this capability at

the earliest feasible time. Its defining characteristics include integration of the AMDR, associated

Combat Systems elements, and related Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical (HM&E) changes into a

modified repeat Flight IIA design. AMDR will give Flight III ships the ability to conduct simulta-

neous AAW and BMD operations. Flight III will contribute to mitigating the capability gaps identi-

fied in the Maritime Air and Missile Defense of the Joint Force (MAMDJF) Initial Capabilities

Document (ICD). The integrated Flight III ship system as delivered will meet the program require-

ments as stated in the DDG 51 Class Flight III Capabilities Development Document (CDD).

DDG 51 Flight III will execute four primary missions: (1) Integrated Air and Missile Defense, (2)

Anti"Surface Warfare, (3) Anti"Submarine Warfare, and (4) Strike Warfare, and will have the abil-

ity to plan, coordinate and execute alternate warfare commander responsibilities for either anti"air

warfare or ballistic missile defense.




5

!"#$%& 5 ) 6%"70%8 !*"#+, --- 9+02#&:

The core changes between Flight IIA and Flight III and the systems technological maturity for

those changes are shown in Figure 2 and below. In addition to the incorporation of AMDR "S and

HM&E upgrades, the AMDR system will be integrated into the AEGIS Combat System. The evo-

lution of the AEGIS Combat System as it pertains to the DDG 51 Class is shown in Figure 3, a pro-

gression that will continue with the incorporation of AMDR and other technologies as shown inFigure 4.

!"#$%& ((( )*+&,-+ .,/%01"1$#/2" 32&45#&*

AMDR In Engineering & Manufacturing Development,

LRIP scheduled for FY 2017

MT"5 Gas Turbine Generator

Fielded on DDG 1000 class

4160VAC Electric Plant Fielded on LHA 6 Class

300 Ton A/C Plant In operation at vendor plant, environmental

qualification in progress

4160VAC to 1000VDC Power Conversion

Module

Fielded on DDG 1000 Class


6/33

!"#$%& ; — -? 90/0@"*","&: =A1*$,"12




7

Flight III Chronology

Flight III is an incremental upgrade to the DDG 51 Class, and includes tailored engineering modifi-

cations to this proven ship class to accommodate the larger, more powerful, and enhanced AMDR S"Band system. The shipboard changes are driven by the need for more electrical power, increased

system cooling capability, re"arrangements and added volume to make room for the AMDR system,

and structural changes to restore acceptable growth margin for the life of the ship. All major equip-

ment development is on track to support DDG 51 Class implementation of the AMDR in FY16.The current baseline design for the DDG 51 Flight III has traceability back to the DDG 113 design

and the Radar Hull Study performed in 2009 that evaluated the DDG 51 Class and resulted in selec-

tion of the preferred hull for the AMDR. The timeline below depicts the key studies, importantanalysis results, supporting design reviews, and Navy leadership decisions that led to restarting theDDG 51 production line and to the anticipated Detail Design of the Flight III ECPs over the past

five years.

!"#$%& B ) C1:, D&E&2, -? F0:&*"2&:




8

DDG 51 Selected

Radar Hull Study (June – November 2009)

Evaluated incorporating IAMD capabilities into DDG 51 and DDG 1000 hull

DDG 51 with 14 foot AMDR "S w/ SPY"3 and AEGIS Combat System selected

Additional power generation and cooling required " Recommended additional study in

power and AMDR Integration

DDG 51 Restart CNO’s Evaluation Board (CEB) (23 December 2009)

Endorsed Flight III Upgrade Study

MAMDJF Gate 2 Review/ Resources & Requirements Review Board (R3B) (2 March 2010)

Validated results and findings of MAMDJF Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)

Approved AMDR program to proceed to Gate 2

Approved DDG 51 Flight III as preferred hull to proceed to Gate 2

Cancelled CG(X) program

DDG 51 Flight III Defined

Flight Upgrade Study, Year 1 (February 2010 – January 2011)

Technology Characterization

Trade Studies (assessed technology options for cost benefit)

Ship Concept Studies

Cost Analysis Comparison of the Flight III (IAMD) Ship Concepts

R3B held 11 February 2011

Approved 4,160 VAC power architecture on Flight III option with AMDR S and XBands

Flight Upgrade Study, Year 2 (February – May 2012)

Refined DDG 51 Flight III Ship Concepts

Evaluated 450 VAC architecture without AMDR X"Band, but with SPQ"9B

Supported Flight III CDD Requirements

Cost Analysis Comparison of Flight III Concepts

R3B held 11 June and 24 July 2012

Approved to proceed to Gate 3

Approved 4,160 VAC power architecture over the legacy 450 VAC distribution

system

Approved SPQ"9B as the X"Band radar




9

DDG 51 Flight III Approved

Flight III, Gate 3 R3B (October 2012)

Approved Flight III CDD and Concept of Operations (CONOPs) for Joint Staffing

Flight III Preliminary Design (May 2012 – April 2014)

In Progress Reviews (IPRs) A, B, C, and D conducted to converge design, manage

changes, and retain Space, Weight, Power, and Cooling Service Life Allowance

(SWaP"C SLA)

Flight III Contract Design (July 2013 – October 2015)

Develop Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs)

AMDR Capability Development Document (CDD) Approved

Signed by CNO (20 April 2013)

Validated and signed by the JROC (27 June 2013)

AMDR Vendor Selected

Award Contract for AMDR S"Band and Radar Suite Controller (October 2013)

Award protested, start of work delayed

Protest withdrawn, work started (January 2014)

DDG 51 Flight III Preliminary Design Concurrence

Flight III Total Ship Design Review (TSDR) (18 March 2014)

Tailored Systems Engineering Technical Review (SETR) event to evaluate Flight III

Preliminary Design and early Contract Design deliverables

Report Stakeholder Steering Board’s concurrence and approval for the Flight III Pre-liminary Design to proceed to System Functional Review (SFR)

DDG 51 Flight III ECPs Approved

Flight III Gate 4/5 R3B (20 March 2014)

Approved core change ECPs for Flight III

Flight III Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) (06 May 2014)

Concurrence on Flight III readiness for Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) IPR


10/33




11

Systems Engineering Approach

ECP development is a fundamental systems engineering approach; an approach currently imple-mented in the DDG 51 program that has been continuously updated and improved since the pro-

gram’s inception in the early 1980s and has resulted in the successful delivery of 62 DDG 51 Class

destroyers. The last three ships of the FY13"17 MYP are designated as Flight III beginning with

one of the FY16 ship. The Flight III is a modified repeat of the existing baseline and will be cen-tered on the addition of an IAMD capability in the form of the AMDR "S, associated enhanced com-

bat systems elements and requisite supporting HM&E changes. These changes will be incorporated

via discrete ECPs with the same proven processes and rigor that produced successful Flight II andIIA upgrades to the class. The list of the specific ECPs and the full scope of the Flight III change is

shown on the following page.

G0@*& ( ) !*"#+, --- 9HH D&I$"%&7&2,: ?$770%8

!"# %"&'(&)*+," %*&*)"-"&.

/!%%.0 !"# 1#.-") 2--&345-". /!12.0

6-7"& 1#.-") 2--&345-".

/612.0

8+-"9&*-": 23& *+: ;3..3(3+- ?(&,".

@"&-3,*< A*5+,73+9 1#.-") /@A10 B",-234-1#( *&%' 67)13. 889 :5;




12

Mandatory Flight III Core IAMD Changes

Install AMDR S"Band System and Radar Suite Control (RSC)

Replace the AN/SPY"1D(V) Radar with the AMDR S"Band and Radar Suite Controller,

including related processors, cooling equipment, and power distribution equipment

Add (3) Electronic Equipment Fluid Coolers (EEFC) to support AMDR "S equipment

Install Technology Insertion 16 Upgrades (TI 16+)

Modify Common Data Link Management System (CDLMS) with Tech Refresh due to Ob-

solescence

Deckhouse structure redesign changes to support array system weight

Roll"down habitability changes to accommodate AMDR S"Band equipment

Mandatory Flight III Core IAMD Changes (continued)

Electrical Plant Upgrades

Procure and Install (3) 4,160 VAC Ship Service Gas Turbine Generators (SSGTGs)

Modify 450 VAC distribution equipment and protection scheme

Procure and Install 4,160 VAC distribution equipment and protection schemes

Procure and Install (3) 4,160 to 450 VAC Ship Service Transformers

Procure and Install (2) 4,160 VAC to 1,000 VDC Power Conversion Modules (PCM)

Modify seawater pump for 4,160 VAC SSGTGs

Install HeptaFluoroPropane (HFP) firefighting system for SSGTG modules

Redesign the Fire Control System water cooler

Replace 5x 200 rTon Air Conditioning (AC) plants with 5x 300 rTon HES/C AC plants

Install flooding cross"connects & expand hull in way of flight deck (FLODES)

Increase inner " bottom structure

Other Directed Changes

Install habitability changes to increase accommodations

Changes that will be effected to the AEGIS combat system to integrate AMDR into AEGIS will be

included in the Advanced Capability Build (ACB) represented in the AEGIS Combat Systems Evo-

lution, as shown in Figure 4.




13

AMDR System Description

The AMDR suite consists of an S"Band radar (AMDR "S), X"Band radar (SPQ"9B), and a Radar

Suite Controller (RSC). AMDR "S is a new development IAMD radar providing sensitivity for long

range detection and engagement of advanced threats. The X"Band radar is a horizon"search radar

based on existing technology. The RSC provides radar resource management and coordination for

both S and X"Band, and interface to the combat system. The SPQ"9B, radar is already slated for

installation on the FY14 Flight IIA ships, and will not be further addressed in this report. Figure 5

shows the primary components of the AMDR system.

The AMDR "S and RSC development is managed by PEO Integrated Warfare Systems (IWS) 2.0(Above Water Sensors), and is contracted to Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems. The planar ar-

ray faces employ a digital beam"forming architecture, which replaces the analog waveguide system

!"#$%& J –




14

of the legacy DDG 51 Class AN/SPY"1D(V) ar-

rays. Enhanced power and multi" beam operation

provides advanced, robust BMD detection and

discrimination. AMDR "S will be capable of de-tecting a target half the size at twice the distance

compared with its predecessor.

Physically arranging all the AMDR equipment

into the DDG 51 ship was a major portion of the

preliminary design effort. Much of the equip-

ment needs to be in close proximity to the array

faces to minimize high data rate cabling lengths.

This required placement of most of the pro-

cessing and control cabinets in the combat tower,

on the 03 Level. A key advantage of AMDR is

the elimination of radar waveguides. In previous

shipboard radars, the installation of waveguides

require significant material and manpower.

Figures 6 and 7 show the AMDR planar array and its components. Each of the four arrays is made

up of 37 building blocks called Radar Module Assemblies (RMAs). Each of these two foot RMA

cubes is a self "contained radar transmitter and receiver and are stacked together to form the re-

quired size array. The array employs an egg"crate structure to maintain flatness and hold the array

components. Liquid cooling is embedded within the system, and allows for Transmit"Receive Inte-

grated Multichannel Module (TRIMM) replacement without the need for liquid disconnects. Mod-

ular radiator/radome panels can be replaced using simple tools while at sea. Although only slightly

larger than the AN/SPY"1D(V), the

AMDR array is con-

siderably heavier and

deeper. Fitting the

new AMDR arrays

into the deckhouse

requires ship struc-

tural modifications to

accommodate the

arrays. Use of small-

er section modulus,

high strength beams

plus some local bulk

bulkead details

(notching) provide

sufficient clearance

without the need for

a major structural

redesign.

!"#$%& N )




15

Figure 8 provides a general view of

the primary structural elements of

the DDG 51 deckhouse in the area

of the array installation. To accom-

modate the size and weight of the

AMDR arrays, resizing of many of

the structural elements was neces-

sary.

Other ship impacts, including the

arrangements, electrical, and cooling

requirements of the AMDR are ad-

dressed later in this report.

AMDR development has been ongo-

ing since 2006, with critical technol-

ogy elements as well as some sub-

systems developed prior to the Engi-

neering Development Model (EDM)

development phase. Since contract

award, multi"disciplinary incremen-

tal preliminary and critical design

reviews have been conducted on all

items (e.g. component, subassembly,

or configuration item), and have

been chaired and moderated by in-

dependent reviewers. Navy and in"

house independent subject matter

experts participated in all reviews.

Within these reviews, the topic areas

map to the Navy’s Technical Review Manual (TRM) and the conduct and closure of these interim

Critical Design Reviews (iCDRs) are formally tracked and reported at monthly reviews. Table 2

lists the iCDRs performed, all of which included Navy participation.

AMDR Hardware and Systems Preliminary Design Reviews were conducted 21 May and 27 Au-

gust 2014, respectively. On 3 December 2014, a Hardware CDR was successfully completed

which demonstrated that all Technical Performance Measures are compliant with requirements and

that the hardware design is of sufficient maturity to complete detail design and proceed to produc-

tion of the Engineering Development Model array.

The AMDR program is on track to deliver a substantial performance improvement over the current-

ly fielded AN/SPY"1D(V), with 30 times greater sensitivity. In order to deliver this needed capa-

bility on time and to mitigate development risk, the AMDR acquisition approach includes Agile

software development and a robust testing strategy that includes modeling and simulation anchored

Component Status

Radar Modular Assembly Complete

Radiator Complete

Radar Control Processing Cabinet Complete

Array Interface Unit Cabinet

Complete Digital Signal Processing Cabinet Complete

Digital Beam Forming Cabinet Complete

RSC Cabinet Complete

RTSS Cabinet Complete

Ship Wiring Complete

OLBFN Complete

Inertial Navigation System Complete

Array Integration Components Complete

Non RF LRU

Complete Array Mechanical Structure Complete

Array NFR Fixture Complete

Calibration Radar Modular Assembly Complete

Digital Beamformer (DBF) Complete

Digital Receiver Exciter (DREX) Complete

Transmit@Receive Integrated Multi-channel Module

Complete

Array Cooling System Complete

Low Rate Initial Production Cabinet Complete

DREX & DBF CDR

Complete

Power Distribution System Complete

G0@*& 5 ) 917/12&2, "9HD ?,0,$:




16

with live flight tests. Raytheon has implemented

an Agile software development process for im-

proved productivity, earliest possible delivery of

tactical software, and improved testability. Ad-

ditionally, an AMDR Hardware in"the"Loop

(HWIL) facility, which includes a fully function-

ing portion of an AMDR array as well as all the

back "end processing equipment, and a Software

Integration Lab (SIL), consisting of another set

of AMDR back "end processing equipment, have

been installed and are operating at the contractor

facility in Sudbury, MA. The purpose of these

facilities, shown in Figure 9, is to support itera-

tive hardware and software testing ahead of, and

then in support of, the EDM array. AMDR is on

schedule to meet delivery dates for land basedtesting.

!"#$%& P ) H&EQ+1$:& ?,%$E,$%&

!"#$%& R )




17

Electric Plant and Cooling Upgrades

Second to the AMDR instal-

lation, the Electric Plant

(EP) upgrades yield the next

largest change and ship im-

pact, and have been an area

of focus for the Flight III

design team.

The DDG 51 Flight IIA

SSGTGs generate 450 VAC

power, while the Flight III

SSGTGs will create 4,160

VAC; providing the addi-

tional electrical power nec-essary to meet the perfor-

mance requirements of the

more powerful AMDR system. Figure 10 depicts the Flight III EP and distribution system with

4,160 VAC power that is converted to both 1,000 VDC for the AMDR System and stepped down

to 450 VAC for all other electrical ship systems. Total installed EP power for the existing Flight

IIA ships is 9.0 MW (3x 3,000 KW) while the Flight III ships will have 11.5 MW (3x 3,850 KW).

To minimize both risk and cost, the 4,160 VAC SSGTGs are derived from the Rolls Royce MT"5

developed for DDG 1000, reducing development cost and providing commonality. The new 4,160

VAC (termed “high"side”) equipment and cabling imposes additional protection and increased

standoff clearances for safety and survivability. While 4,160 VAC is new to DDG 51 Class, within

the Navy the 4,160 VAC system and equipment is used in many other ship classes and the DDG 51

program has leveraged the existing high voltage requirements, standards, and other ship program

experiences. Additionally, the EP in-

corporates the existing Flight IIA 450

VAC power distribution system

(termed “low"side”) to save substan-

tial cost in complete redesign and test-

ing. Figure 12 shows the Electrical

Plant one line diagram, with the 450

VAC system shown in black and the4,160 VAC side depicted in blue.

To integrate the 4,160 VAC into the

DDG 51 EP, modifications to the

SSGTG technical and performance

specifications were necessary to ac-

!"#$%& (S ) !*"#+, --- =*&E,%"E 6*02, 912E&/,

!"#$%& (( ) BT(NS 3G> 9


18/33

!"#$%& (5 ) !*"#+, --- =*&E,%"E 6*02, .2&)U"2& H"0#%07V WX"#+):"M& &I$"/7&2, "2 @*$&Y




19

count for differences between the DDG

1000 and DDG 51 Class electric plants.

Modification to the DDG 1000 SSGTG

(MT"5) is necessary to meet the electric

power quality performance measures of the

AMDR suite and the existing Flight IIA

capability requirements. These changes are

already under government contract, man-

aged by the Electric Ships Office (PMS

320), with CDR completed in January 2015.

The generator modifications are underway

with PDR scheduled for February 2015.

SSGTG production contract was awarded in

January 2015, with the first hardware deliv-

eries in fall 2017. Shore power for the

Flight III is provided via existing low"side connection, although provisions have been made to ena-

ble high"side shore power should 4,160 VAC pier service becomes more common in the future.

High"side power is not available when on 450 VAC shore power; in the event that AMDR arrays

need to be activated, the ship will need to bring one of the three SSGTGs online.

In concert with the development of the revised 4,160 VAC SSGTGs, two types of power conver-

sion are required for the Flight III electrical distribution system. PCMs are being introduced to sup-

ply 1,000 VDC to the AMDR system. Two, 1.4 megawatt PCMs are being procured to convert

4,160 VAC from the SSGTGs to 1,000 VDC for the AMDR arrays. These machines have been

competitively awarded under the contract management of PMS 320. Like the SSGTGs, these units

are similar to those used on DDG 1000, but have been modified to meet the power quality require-

ments for the AMDR. The

two fully redundant units will

be installed on the Flight III

ships, located fore and aft for

maximum survivability. Op-

eration of these two PCMs

will allow load sharing be-

tween the two for maximum

redundancy, or isolated opera-

tion by only one unit for max-

imum survivability and improved fuel economy. The

other power conversion in-

volves three 4,160 VAC to

450 VAC step"down trans-

formers. These units are

standard equipment on larger

!"#$%& (B )




20

ships, and the transformers specifical-

ly used for the Flight III are modified

units based on the LHD 8 design.

These units are planned to be con-

tracted as Class Standard Equipment

(CSE) using the DDG 51 Class ship-

builder’s procurement process and

will be competitively awarded. The

three transformers will be arranged to

allow any combination of SSGTGs and

transformers to provide power to the

legacy 450 VAC electric distribution

system. This flexibility allows the

operator to select the best plant con-

figuration depending on the need to balance fuel economy, redundancy, and survivability (battle

damage) while providing power to any and all portions of the ship’s combat and HM&E systems.

The AMDR system requires power to the processing cabinets at 208 VAC. Conditioning equip-

ment is provided by the AMDR vendor as a complete system, as depicted in Figure 14. First con-

verted through a single transformer, the power is filtered and conditioned by three notch filters and

three UPS cabinets to provide power conditioning and control. The UPS units also provide uninter-

rupted power via the battery cabinets, in the event of a loss of ship’s power. The conditioned pow-

er is then distributed to the various AMDR processing cabinets, and to the AMDR arrays.

Steady state analysis of the Electric Plant in various configurations has shown the architecture to be

sound, safe, and capable of providing sufficient power for all Flight III needs. Extensive analysis is

underway by the Flight III team to ensure all transient plant reactions and abnormal configurationsare accounted for, using a Dynamic Model Analysis (DMA) tool. A study guide was established by

the Navy team including PMS 400D, PMS 320, and SEA05 to define the effort. Figure 15 shows a

typical analysis output. The overall approach for each investigation concentrates on applying worst

case assumptions, identifying potential issues, then refining the modeling parameters for more ac-

curate analysis. The DMA study analyzes transients, power quality, power continuity, and surviva-

bility. The results provide guidance to refine the plant configurations and amend the CONOPS to

afford the best practices which will be the basis of ships operations and crew training.

To date the DMA has completed the studies on transient analysis, power quality analysis, and work

is underway for the continuity analysis. The continuity analysis will look at any scenario, includingload shedding, where predicted transients are outside the design parameters, to ensure that the EP

protection gear will prevent system damage. The final phase of the study, scheduled for summer

2015, is a survivability analysis that will look at battle damage and recovery.

More electrical power is nearly always associated with increased heat loads, and the addition of

AMDR to the DDG 51 Class requires upgrades to the ship’s cooling capability. The existing Flight

IIA Air Conditioning (AC) plants, or chillers, are replaced with a modified system that increases

!"#$%& (J ) G8/"E0* H8207"E C1M&*"2#




21

Combat System Integration

AMDR will be integrated into the AEGIS combat system via the software in ACB 20. The hard-

ware will remain the TI"16 suite, with added processors and consoles to meet the Flight III require-

ments.

The inclusion of AMDR into AEGIS ACB 20 was based on the extensive analysis through the PEO

IWS led Capability Phasing Plan (CPP) process. The CPP utilizes disciplined, analytical, coordi-nated processes to assess capability gaps and identify and prioritize combat system solutions for

ACB 20. CPP analytical factors include:

Threat Assessment

Fleet Warfighting Capability Gaps

Kill Chains

Schedules

Cost Estimates

External Reliance

Risks

Concept of Employment (CONEMP), Concept of Integration (COI).

The CPP working group coordinated across the Fleet, PEOs, System Commands (SYSCOMs),

Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Science and Technology (S&T) and Industry. The CPP process

mapped the results of the gap assessments with candidate warfighter capabilities, applying kill"

chain analysis and cost estimation for integration into the AEGIS combat system. The result

cooling from five 200 refriger-

ation ton (rTon) units to five

300 rTon units. Flight III will

leverage the new 300 rTon

High Efficiency Small Capaci-

ty (HES"C) system already

being developed and scheduled

for installation in the LPD

Class ships. Based on the ex-

isting 200 rTon AC plant con-

denser, the HES"C employs oil

free magnetic bearings for re-

duced friction and reduced

maintenance. The HES"C

chiller fits within the footprint of the existing unit, but Variable Speed Drive (VSD) cabinets are a

new addition to the machinery space arrangements. The VSD improves system efficiency, reducesinrush currents, and improves reliability. An economizer is added for improved efficiency when

seawater temperature is above 75 degrees F. Figure 16 shows the prototype HES"C 300 rTon AC

unit.

!"#$%& (N ) 6%1,1,8/& X=?Z9 ;SS %,12




22

!"#$%& (O ) 917@0, -2L1%70,"12 9&2,&% W9-9YT [1,"120* ?"2#*& ?+"/-




23

!"#$%& (P ) 9-9




24

ing skids, used on CG 47 Class ships, with improvements for corrosion control and user inter-

face. This reduces developmental efforts and maximizes parts commonality for the Fleet.

Electronic Equipment Fluid Coolers (EEFCs) are introduced on Flight IIA ships on DDG 119 toeliminate two large cooling skids. The EEFCs are point of service coolers for the combat system

equipment throughout the ship. The implementation of this change enabled removal of the SonarEquipment Cooling Skid and the Control and Display (C&D) Cooling Skid. The removal of thisequipment is necessary to make room for the Flight III 4,160 VAC switchgear and other equip-

ment.

Another enabling technology being incorporated prior to Flight III is Integrated Power Node

Center (IPNC). Implemented on DDG 121 and follow ships as a cost reduction initiative, the IP- NCs will replace the current DDG 51 400Hz electrical service architecture, removing the single

large converter, over 100 pieces of support equipment, and a large amount of cabling. The IP-

NCs are point of service converters (there will be eight on the Flight IIA ships), which will retain

the same functionality as displaced equipment. Space vacated by the older 400 Hz frequency

converter allows optimal location of the Flight III PCMs.

Figure 19 diagrams the significant integration testing of AMDR with the AEGIS Weapon Sys-

tem.


25/33

!"#$%& (R )




26

Ship Integration and Impacts

Flight III configuration with AMDR and necessary electric plant and cooling upgrades impose a

number of ship arrangement changes to the DDG 51 Class ship. Additional equipment requires the

representative number of machinery arrangements or relocations of displaced equipment in several

ship spaces, as well as the expansion of deckhouse volume by adding a starboard enclosure similar

to what was done on DDG 91 through DDG 96 for the Remote Minehunting System (RMS). The

added weight of these systems and structural impacts require additional efforts to retain sufficient

future growth margins for ship stability in terms of weight and KG (center of gravity). A rigorous

systems engineering effort was undertaken during preliminary design to mitigate these impacts.

Growth margins will be successfully obtained by executing the modifications described in the para-

graphs below. Figure 20 shows the arrangement of the AMDR array rooms, and the processing

cabinets in Radar Room 2. The two fan rooms outboard of Radar Room 2 will be upsized to handle

the added cooling needs of this equipment.

Two propylene glycol based Cooling Equipment Units (CEUs) are added below decks on the 2ndPlatform, as shown in Figure 21. The CEUs are based on existing DDG 1000 units. PCMs andswitchgear for 1,000 VDC are placed in the two power conversion rooms, with the forward space

shown in Figure 21. Additional equipment is located in Combat System Equipment Room (CSER)

#2 and the Power Supply Room, shown in Figure 22.

!"#$%& 5S ) S; U&A&* 6%&*"7"20%8




27

The CEU equipment dis-

places crew bunks previous-

ly in Crew Living Space 2.

The Flight III CDD requiresincreased accommodations,

which is accomplished byadding a starboard side en-closure on the 01 Level, and

by increasing most officer

staterooms to a three"rackconfiguration. The new star-

board side enclosure is

shown in Figure 23, just aft

of the now stacked RigidHull Inflatable Boat (RHIB)

configuration. The existing

boat davit retained thestacked boat height require-ment even after the RMS

was removed, so no new procurement is required for this change.

There are also arrangements changes in the machinery spaces as a result of the additional switch-

gear and EP protection gear. Preliminary design efforts have shown feasible locations for all major

equipment. General arrangements will be further refined in Detail Design.

!"#$%& 55 ) 6%&*"7"20%8 0%%02#&7&2,: 1L 9?=D]5 02M 614&% ?$//*8 D117

!"#$%& 5( ) 6%&*"7"20%8




28

Beyond arrangement there are associated effects to the ship’s weight and KG. To maintain ac-ceptable margin for future growth, the Flight III team was able to improve the ship’s reserve buoy-

ancy by increasing the flight deck beam above the waterline, combined with cross flooding ducts to

raise the ship’s limiting displacement to 10,700 tons (increased from 10,300 tons). This designchange allowed an increase in inner " bottom structural weight to lower the ship’s center of gravity

(KG), an approach that was also used for the design of the Flight IIA ships. Increased inner " bottom

structure has the added benefit of further strengthening the hull girder, thereby improving resistance

to underwater explosives.

The DDG 51 Class ships have been densely outfitted and internal space (volume) limited for sometime. Other SWaP"C allowances are within reasonable design practices and the CDD requirements.

Current ship design parameters are listed below.

Select Flight III Characteristics and Service Life Margins

Displacement: 9709 ltons Displacement SLA: 991 ltons (10.2%)

KG: 24.96 ft KG SLA: .62 ft

Electric Load: 5,458 kW Electric SLA: 1,904 kW (40%)

Cooling Load: 1,206 rtons Cooling SLA: 294 rtons (20%)

Impacts to all subsystems continues to be refined, with the DDG 51 Class Design Agent (BIW)now maintaining configuration control of the ECP packages. The design agents from both DDG

51 shipbuilders, BIW and HII, are under contract to continue development of the Flight III ECPs.

!"#$%& 5; ) S( U&A&* 0%%02#&7&2,: :+14"2# 2&4 &2E*1:$%&




29

Flight III Program Execution and Risk Management

The Flight III program is supported by appropriate design execution, Systems Engineering Tech-

nical Reviews, and stakeholder relationships consistent with meeting requirements and overall pro-

gram schedule. Major supporting component developments for AMDR "S, PCMs, and SSGTGs are

well underway by the associated Participating Resource Managers (PARMs) with schedules andmilestones that support the overall Flight III delivery targets. Detail design was started in FY14

with the Program Office delivering Government Furnished Information (GFI) to the shipyard ser-vices to support continued Flight III development. Continued development of GFI will support de-

tail design fidelity leading to successful Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review

(CDR), and Production Readiness Review(PRR) targeting 90% design completion sup-

porting start of construction. Significant Flight

III milestone dates for design and construction

are captured in Table 3. PARM schedules areintegrated with anticipated in"yard need dates

for construction and testing resulting in suc-cessful light"off and delivery targeted for

FY22. Management approach to supportingconstruction, test, and delivery will be con-

sistent with multi"year procedures already in

place.

The DDG 51 AEGIS program office employs a risk management plan based on the guidance pro-vided in applicable Defense Acquisition documents, which were then tailored specifically to the

DDG 51 Flight III program. Risk management occurs in main areas for Flight III: AMDR/RSC

development, combat system development and total ship design, including HM&E modifications

necessary to support AMDR and the combat system.

DDG 51 Flight III risk management is tracked internally by a Risk Management Board (RMB)which meets quarterly. Participants of the RMB include the AEGIS program office, shipyard rep-

resentatives, and PARM (AMDR, SSGTG, and PCM) representatives, along with combat system

and ship design team members. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss and track the status on

current risks, along with introducing any additional risks that may need to be added to the risk reg-ister. Once a risk is entered into the risk register, it is tracked through the life of the program.

Quarterly RMB reviews and numerical rescoring of the risk show trends and effectiveness of miti-

gation efforts.

Conclusion

This report has provided a description of the final scope of the ECP required to field the ADMR on

a DDG 51 hull, and has detailed the level of maturity of the new technology to be incorporated on

these ships, beginning with one of the two DDG 51s in FY 2016. With respect to Flight III systems

level of maturity, the AMDR is the only new development technology. The AMDR has successful-

ly completed Milestone B, a full system Preliminary Design Review, a hardware Critical Design

Review, and will deliver its first full ship set of production equipment by early FY 2020. The re-

Event Schedule

Begin Detail Design Q4 2014

Start Construcon Q3 2017

AEGIS Light"Of Q3 2020

Delivery Q3 2021

G0@*& ; ) !*"#+, --- ?E+&M$*&




30

maining equipment required to provide power and cooling to the AMDR are all based on currently

existing equipment and therefore induce low technical risk to the program. Given the tremendous

capability improvement AMDR provides to defeat emerging air and ballistic missile threats over

current radars, the low to moderate technical risk associated with implementing this radar on an FY

2016 DDG 51 justifies execution of the ECP during the FY 2013"2017 multiyear procurement con-

tract.

This report has assembled the latest available design and integration information based on the re-

cent design reviews, assumptions, decisions, and sources provided to address the questions posed.

In summary, the AMDR technology has matured, ship impacts are clearly understood, and design

efforts are underway for ECP development. The Navy's intention, as stated and supported by the

contents of this report, is to integrate AMDR "S into the DDG 51 ARLEIGH BURKE Class ships

beginning with the last ship of FY16. The AMDR "S integration with the proven AEGIS Combat

System into the DDG 51 Flight IIA by ECP is the shortest path to meet fleet requirements for cost

effective IAMD capability with the lowest technical and cost risk.




31

Additional Reading:

Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 05D), DDG 51 Class Flight Upgrade Tech-

nical Concept Study, Year 1, Ser 05D/054, 23 Feb 2011. (FOUO, Limited Distribution)

Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 05D), DDG 51 Class Flight Upgrade Tech-

nical Concept Study, Year 2, Ser 05D/434, 14 Dec 2012. (FOUO, Limited Distribution)

Capabilities Development Document (CDD) for the DDG 51 Flight III, JROCM 122"14, 28 Oc-

tober 2014

Future DDG (Radar/Hull) Study Final Report (U), Dated 10 November 2009 (CLASSIFIED

Document)

Maritime Air and Missile Defense of the Joint Forces (MAMJDF) Initial Capabilities Document

(ICD) Dated 01 May 2006 (CLASSIFIED Document)

Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) Top Level Radar Performance (TLRP) for AMDR S"

Band, Appendix F document, dated 10 November 2009 (CLASSIFIED Document)

Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) Capability Development Document (CDD), JROCM

123"13, 27 June 2013 (CLASSIFIED Document)

Surface Ship Theater Air and Missile Defense Assessment (SSTAMDA) Summary Study Re-

port, N86/8S177518, 09 Jul 08 (CLASSIFIED Document)


32/33


33/33

rTons Tons of Refrigeration Capability

RTSS Real"Time Simulation Subsystem

S&T Science and Technology

SETR

Systems Engineering Technical Review

SEWIP Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement

Program

SFR System Functional Review

SIL Software Integration Lab

SLA Service Life Allowance

SSGTG Ship Service Gas Turbine Generator

SWaP"C Space, Weight, Power, and Cooling

SWTRG Surface Warfare Tactical Requirements

Group

SYSCOM System Command

TI

Technology Insertion

TRIMM Transmit"Receive Integrated Multichannel

Module

TRM Technical Review Manual

TSDR Total Ship Design Review

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply

USW Undersea Warfare

VLS Vertical Launching System

VSD Variable Speed Drive

ZEDS Zonal Electrical Distribution System

DDG 51 Flight III RTC (Final)

Documents

Transcript of DDG 51 Flight III RTC (Final)