Naval ship design can be understood to be a networked System-ofSystems (SoS) multidisciplinary process whereby a decision on one aspect of the design may have simultaneous, multiple order effects on other aspects of the design. Modern naval ship design should therefore consider the systems of interest as components subsumed by a holistic environment encompassing assets and capabilities inorganic to a naval platform. This position paper propose a starting point approach 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. Fundamental is the tenet that capability levels transcend several hierarchical echelons and exist across many functional domains. The proposed methodology provides a structured and cohesive approach for identifying and assessing ship capability portfolio with traceable and better known impacts on mission effectiveness, affordability and risk, in the early stages of ship design within the scope of a naval system-of-systems.
2
• • • •
The proposed method is 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. To achieve this, the design approach is dependent upon high levels of confidence in the fidelity of the analyses, and is based on shared understanding and a common language.
Alike best practice in portfolio, programme and project management [
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. Educating stakeholders on the fundamental elements of capability-based ship design and how they relate to their roles and responsibilities. • Involving more relevant stakeholders at all levels in the capability-based ship design process.
Ranking ship variants based on operational effectiveness, capability and affordability trade-offs across a spectrum of missions’ priorities. • • • • • •
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.
The aspiration is to show how these benefits can be realised through a
combination of techniques including the adroit use of model-based systems engineering
(MBSE): the formalized application of modelling to support system requirements,
design, analysis, verification and validation activities beginning in the conceptual
design phase and continuing throughout development and later life cycle phases [
Recognizing that MBSE has as its foundation the use of models, the approach
is limited to construct an abstraction of selected aspects of the behaviour, operation,
or other characteristics of a real-world SoS [
Applications of systems engineering (SE) and SoS principles abound in
Defence. Indeed, a growing proportion of the acquisition, sustainment, and
management of materiel and non-materiel of military capabilities is sought through a
SoS approach [
Improved clarity on the context within which a new capability 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.
The proposed approach aims to utilize an architectural framework similar to MODAF to embody the SoS elements, unify their capabilities at the appropriate hierarchical levels, and define their interdependencies to provide a common picture of the SoS measure of effectiveness (MoE).
Basic sets of architecting principles were proposed by Maier as discriminating
factors to assist in the design of SoS [
Recognizing that a single platform is a contributing element of a naval SoS, it
follows that we should attempt to define the measures of effectiveness (MoE) of that
SoS. In naval terms, models of hierarchical complexity could be translated into naval
ranks and typology such as those described in Fig. 1 [
3 4 5 6 7
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.
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.
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.
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.
Possesses some ability to project force well offshore, but not capable of carrying out high-level naval operations over oceanic distances.
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.
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.
Not intended to fight, but to act purely in a constabulary role.
Military concepts generally use a lexicon of frequently interchangeable terms
with sometimes only subtle differences in meaning and often dependent entirely upon
context. For instance, words such as mission, role, function, task, activity, and
capability may have both a descriptive sense (“what”) and a process sense (“how”). The
descriptive sense defines the purpose or basic functions of an organisation and
identifies the precise nature of an operation to be conducted in pursuit of an assigned
mission or objective. The operational sense denotes the precise activities to be undertaken
or achieved which in combination contribute to mission success [
It is recognized nevertheless that there are those essential capabilities which are common to any naval force at any time, as required to exercise any of the missions, roles, functions or tasks that might be assigned to it. The degree to which these core competencies are required and met is predicated upon the needs of the local and temporal situation. Ergo, they will be considered as capability priorities summarised by the basic naval concepts of float, move and fight for the purpose of this study.
Of note, the United States Department of Defense (US DoD) defines a
capability as the ability to achieve a desired effect under specified standards and conditions
through combinations of “ways” and “means” to perform a set of tasks [
Lastly, the level of operational capability and the potential response time
constitute the basis for the concept of readiness which is a measure of the ability to
undertake an approved task, at a given time. Four readiness levels are considered in this
study [
Extended Readiness (ER): Not operational.
Restricted Readiness (RR): Transitioning between readiness levels or subject to deficiencies in personnel, materiel and training severely limiting employment. • Standard Readiness (SR): Capable of conducting core naval continental and expeditionary missions that do not entail the possibility of high intensity, full spectrum combat. •
High Readiness (HR): Capable of conducting the full-spectrum of combat operations.
As will be seen in the next section, these definitions may be used to create a common language and conceptual framework that may facilitate identifying capability strengths and interests to be maintained, developed and exploited; but also identifying capability deficiencies (shortcomings or surpluses) to be remedied or accepted. 4.2
This position paper espouses the tenet that capability levels transcend several
hierarchical echelons and exist across many functional domains. For instance, from a
marine platform systems viewpoint, a hierarchy of equipment-based capabilities
prescribe the minimum materiel standard necessary to support the intent of materiel
safety [
Concepts of capability-based planning (CBP) in enterprise architecture can be
invoked to explain that capabilities can be horizontal, going against the grain of
business processes (platform and combat capabilities), or be vertical, being handled in the
context of the business organizational structure (task group, flotilla or squadron) [
CBP is a systematic approach for identifying the levels of capabilities needed
to meet government priorities. Using scenarios, CBP explicitly connects capability
goals to strategic requirement to develop force options more responsive to
uncertainties, economic constraints and risk [
Inspired from hierarchical functional decomposition (HFD) principles, the proposed approach suggests to decompose, prioritize and recompose capability requirements through the strategic, operational, tactical and technical levels of abstractions enabling both the descending “top-down” approach from political aspirations and the ascending “bottom-up” approach from equipment-level capabilities. The hierarchy can span any set of functional levels, but it should always include as its lowest level a tangible set of requirements that can be mapped to physical systems and performance constraints. The process generates upward, lateral and downward connections to produce a collectively created and shared picture of the SoS being designed.
These ship-level platform and combat systems capabilities, which correlate to system-level key users requirements, could be mapped to tactical-level capabilities usually pertaining to effectively conduct a combination of naval functions under prescribed conditions, with other SoS elements. The overall achievement of naval functions would subsequently propagate up the hierarchy to analyze the effect that a given set of ship systems capabilities have on higher level operational and strategic capabilities.
As shown in Fig. 4, the process involves eliciting capabilities by mapping and prioritizing strategic-level defence roles with operational-level domestic and expeditionary missions which are in turn linked to tactical-level naval functions. These naval functions are the bridge to ship-level capabilities where the SoS is decomposed into its elements by systems, sub-systems and equipment.
This approach creates a dynamic SoS architecture decomposing and linking high-level organizational goals to key performance parameters. By integrating all design analyses, including cost models, into a single environment, probabilistic methods and surrogate models can be used to facilitate parametric trade studies and capture the propagated uncertainties impacts.
As summarized in Fig. 5, the interactive and dynamic trade-off studies will results in design variants at the ship-level capabilities which better define the performance of the ship independently of mission scenarios, or as an element of a SoS, in the early stages of ship design. It follows then that when taken as an element of a SoS, much consideration is applied to create a solution with a higher MoE. The equipment and systems-level study will generate better key user requirements selected on merit because they are critical to the achievement of operational needs and the appeasement of political pressures.
The intent of the capability analysis is to capture the knowledge and experience of the subject matter experts (SMEs), so as to allow a decision maker to assess a large number of potential ship capability combinations without the need to query the SMEs each time.
One of the objectives is to unify the stakeholders’ community such that a naval architect can readily understand the impact of a design configuration or equipment selection on the effectiveness to achieve a specific mission at the SoS level. Conversely, a strategist may better understand the technological implications of privileging a given political defence priority. By involving more relevant stakeholders at all levels, greater awareness and education may be reached on the fundamental elements of capability-based ship design and how these canons relate to the stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities.
Communicating the potentially complex fused common operating picture
encompassing the interdependencies between domains and disciplines to the stakeholder
community is essential to sharing a collective understanding of the issues. The use of
dashboards is an obvious first choice as they are visual displays that can often
communicate with greater efficiency (can be more intuitive) and have richer meaning than
text alone. Moreover, as exhibited in Fig. 6, a well-designed and customized
dashboard would summarize the information most needed to achieve specific objectives in
a single screen using clear and concise displays mechanisms that are easy to
comprehend [
Strategic C apability
Geopolitical Roles Domestic Continental Region International 73% 72% 72% Operational C apabilities: M ilitary
Domestic
SAR SOV OPS
HA ACP
ALEA Expeditionary
HUMRO
MCO UN Ch VI UN Ch VI
NRFOPS
NEO
COIN
CANUS STABOPS 6
Capability P riorities 100% 58%
29%
Float Move Fight Ta#112434656789c#38197147841753tISSSECBRAAAANMSSiCcPBUNeh4RNISSAFERWalIEouDWSRDeGWlwWcVtL Ce eadvp Naeablvi:laiStly FhuGinpacptC i fooanrps abOirlgitaineics Ai31133224332212r Save 31133224332212 31133224332212 ++++#----------‐‐‐‐1111#1212‐‐‐‐‐‐1 LEVEL 4: Capability to maintain and support multiple air assets onboard
(e.g., CH-‐148 + Firescout) Cost E stimation Confidence 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0$$% $ 5 0 0 $ 7 0 0 11,, $119480460,,270000,,000000 $22100,1110000 ((5900%% CCII)) $1,300 90% 8
These visualization methods may assist assessing and presenting the findings from a variety of reviews in a format that is easy to understand. Ultimately, the visualization of these outcomes provides the catalyst for decision-makers to more confidently consider options they would otherwise ignore and move forward based on wellfounded assumptions.
It is acknowledged that verification and validation of the characteristics and behaviours of the SoS comply with the design intent is usually performed while the systems are being integrated and upon completion of sea trials and ship acceptance. But as earlier stated, correctly applying MBSE methods within an architectural framework may improve the ability to resolve interoperability issues between systems, and improve clarity on the context within which capabilities will operate. 6
This position paper proposed an initial approach 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. The proposed methodology provides a structured and cohesive initial way forward for identifying and assessing ship capability portfolio with traceable and better known impacts on mission effectiveness, affordability and risk, in the early stages of ship design. The epistemic nature of the proposed process allows the collective generation and evaluation of scenarios which challenges prevailing mind-sets and presumed correlations between uncertainties, while reducing subjective interpretations. Again, the purpose is not to eliminate all uncertainties and cover all options related to ship conceptual design but to circumscribe them so as to instil a deeper appreciation of the critical factors. 7
This paper is an unclassified position paper containing public domain facts and opinions, which the authors alone considered appropriate and correct for the subject. It does not necessarily reflect the policy or the opinion of any agency, including the Government of Canada, the Canadian Department of National Defence, or the Georgia Institute of Technology.