Commercial Off the Shelf Shipsfor

Naval Applications

ByPeter Lucey

Director Planning, Major Surface Combatants

Disclaimer

The information contained in this presentation is the opinion of the Author and in no way represents the view of the Department of Defence, Australia.

Outline• Background

– The need to reduce costs

• Acquisition Issues– Cost vs capability

• Platform Considerations– The Tanker War

• Payload Considerations• Integration Issues• Conclusion

Background

• COTS ships for Naval applications is not a new concept. What is new is:– The cost of naval vessels is increasing

significantly – Commercial ships can be built to Naval

standards using Naval Vessel Rules (NVR) without significant costs increase.

– Advances in technology from the commercial market can provide significant capability (ie logistics software, PC software)

– Capability can be defined in time to market.

Background (cont.)

• Commercial ships have been used for years for Naval applications.– HMAS Jervis Bay used by the RAN– The Royal Navy developed the use of container

ships as aircraft carriers, which had proven successful in the Falklands..

– Commercial ships in the support Navy– Auxiliaries, Oceanographic, hydro-graphic ships

• Significant funds supporting fast cargo ship designs

Acquisition Issues

• For Small Navies– Constrained budgets while sustaining:

• a shipbuilding program– Need to produce a new ship every two years to

remain viable and maintain a fleet of 15.– Need to maintain expertise

• Technology development very expensive• “COST vs CAPABILITY or is it really all about

cost” • Acquisition reform means better, cheaper, faster

– Capability can be time to market

Where the “New Ship” Dollars GoMajor Surface Combatants

• PAYLOAD 55%– AAW System 23%– ASUW System 42%– EW System– Electronics– ASW – Communications

• PLATFORM 45%– Electric Plant 9%– Auxiliary systems outfitting

& Furnishing 22%– Integration eng 12%– Assembly Support 16%– Hull and Structure 10%– Armament 2%– Command and Surveillance

8%– Propulsion 21%

Data Source: Association of Scientists and Engineers 28th Annual Technical Symposium, 11 April 1991

Approximately 30% of payload and 30% of platform costs cover integration and engineering services.

R&D and support is not included.

Shipbuilding - Upgrade or Replace

• Upgrade vs New ship construction– Cost of upgrade vs cost of replacement equates at

about 15 years. Costs driven by• Production line advantages usually not available for upgrade• Rework is significant, Paints, vents, lighting, cooling water,

flooring, pipes and cables, • access difficult• Obsolesce issues. • Margins limited to about 10%

– Payload as a percentage historically increases over time as the systems are upgraded

– The cost of the payload aboard surface combatants platforms comprises the majority of the ships end cost

Platform - Considerations

• Survivability– Goal

• Hard to Find, Hard to Hit, Hard to Kill

– Requirements• To ensure the ship can stand and fight in a combat environment

– Design• redundancy • separation and • protection

– Prepare for the “cheap shot” USN Cole

The Tanker War 1984-1987

• In 1984 Iraq expanded the so called tanker war by using French combat aircraft armed with Exocet missiles

• Seventy-one merchant ships were attacked in 1984 alone. The total attacked by Iranian forces during the war was 190.

• 22 ships lost beyond economical repair.

Containerised Systems

• Why Containerise– flexibility for mid life upgrades– reduce integration costs– ease in construction– In particular as found the US Arapaho System: pre-

manufactured, modular equipment designed to enable merchant vessels to support military helicopters.

• ANZAC ship has adopted a containerised methodology for parts of the combat system– Provides ease at construction– Difficult for upgrading

• Sea Sheds suitable for modularisation

Product line of ships• The Airline Industry has adopted standard cockpits and

standardised airline components to reduce training and infrastructure cost for the commercial airlines

• Multi-Mission Cargo Liner Kvaerner Masa Marine - The design series have common bows, engine room/sterns, and deckhouses. Configuring the parallel mid-body with 5, 6, or 7 cargo hold modules enables a range of cargo capacities to be met. This systems based design approach using mid-body hold modules and provides shipowners and shipyards with a flexible design with minimal design cost.

Payload - Considerations

• Architecture– Defense Information Infrastructure

Common Operating Environment (DII COE)

– Plug and play but not yet

• GOTS Government off the Shelf Systems– Aegis Combat system – fully integrated– SaabTech Vectronics 9LV 453 Mk 3 combat

management system

Elements Suitable for Containerisation:

• SM-2 (MK-41 VLS)• ESSM (VLS Mk 41)• Harpoon

• Mk 45 Gun• Mk 15 Block 1A CIWS

• Active Missile Decoy (AMD)• Decoys (Mk 137 Launcher)Ø SRBOC/SeaGnat RF DecoyØ LeScut Acoustic DecoyØ IR Decoy

• AN/SPS 49A(V)1 Air Surveillance RadarAN/SPS 55 (MOD) Surface Surveillance Radar

Main Data:

Length overall 170.00 m

Breadth moulded 25.50 mTonnage approx. 9,950 GT

Accommodation:16 persons

Main Engine:2 x 16,800 kW engines

Auxiliary Engines:1 Shaft generator 1,100 kVA2 Diesel generators each 568 kVA

Speed:Service speed approx. 27.0 knat design draught (90% MCR)at about 138 tons per day

Other Outfit:1 Bow thruster 685 kW1 Stern thruster 735 kW

Main Data

Length Overall 135m (453 Feet)

Breadth 14.0m (47 Feet)

Tonnage 4,100 Tons

Accommodation

Crew 206 Officers plus enlisted

Main Engines

Two General Electric LM2500, Gas Turbines (30,000kW) One Controllable Pitch Propeller Auxiliary Engine:

Two262kW Electric Drive Auxiliary Propulsion UnitsFour 1000 Kilowatt Ship's Service Diesel Generators

Speed:

Service Speed 30+ Knots

Fast Container Vessel FFG-7 Class Ship

A Comparison Naval vs COTS Ships

Commercial Logistics SupportAvailable on Commercial Ships

• Status of surveys for classed ships• digital documentation of drawings• hull maintain systems• Maintenance management records• Financial reporting• Purchasing• Inventory control• Infrastructure management - appropriate

certificates and training

/

ESSM

SM-1

HARP

LEGEND

)

MK 32SVTT

-2

-2

NULKA

Command and Control

Effectors

Integration Issues

• Buy the Ship from the cheapest supplier.• Built to Classification Society Standards.• Utilize Naval vessel rules generated by

classification societies.• By GOTS fully integrated combat systems

– Effectors– Sensors– Command and control

• Utilize modular systems where ever possible

• Integration is not simple and includes elements such as:– Maintenance optimisation– Stores handling– Habitability– Layout and ships size– Survivability and Damage Control– Navigation and – Integrated computing – Containerised systems

Integration Issues (Cont)

COTS vs Built to Requirement

Implementation

Design &Architecture

Requirements

Requirements

Design &Architecture

MarketTrade-off

Traditional Model

Structured Approach

COTS Model

Object Oriented

Hull Drawing

Elect DWG

Main Event

Hull

Combat System

Machinery

Contract Cut Steel Light off and Checkout

Keel Lay Delivery

Hull working and Fab DWGCut Steel

Block Assembly, General OutfittingArrangement DWG

Manufacturing DWG

PropulsionInstallation

System Test

Sea Trials Harbour Trials

Typical Ship Build Schedule

1 32 4 5 17161514131211109876 2221201918 26252423

Months

Test and acceptance

Delivery

Combat System Manufacturing, and delivery

Contract

Integration Activity

Conclusion

• The amount of money for new ship construction is declining.

• Average unit costs are on the rise as we try to build more capable ships

• Increased emphasis on affordability– Look to areas where ROI is most significant– Faster and Cheaper

• Delivery in 2-3 years• Commercial Hulls costs 10% of the Navy Hulls• Commercial hulls for Naval application may be the

way ahead to achieve significant savings.