Some fairly radical changes to the naval ship design process occurred during the 1970s. The decade of the 80s has also witnessed a steady stream of changes. One of the most significant was the establishment of the Ship Characteristics Improvement Board (SCIB) in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OpNav), and the resulting influence on the dialog between the military requirements decision makers and the Navy's ship designers. Other changes have occurred for which the impacts are less clear. These include establishment of the chief engineer of the Navy (ChEng) position, creation of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SpaWar) and OpNav's “Revolution at Sea” initiative. This paper will describe and discuss these and other changes, and comment on the resultant impact. The authors will attempt to present a global view of the total pattern of changes and try to discern if we are on a path of revolution, or merely normal evolution.
The authors (and the late Bob Riggins) published a paper for ASNE Day 1988 (1) entitled, “Naval Ship Design—Evolution or Revolution?” The authors predicted that a revolution in naval ship design was possible. In the intervening years has a revolution in fact occurred? Or even gotten closer? In 1990, NAVSEA's Chief Engineer initiated the Ship Design, Acquisition and Construction (DAC) Process Improvement Program. The DAC process improvements are revolutionizing warship design by making design everyone's job. This paper discusses current initiatives such as: Concurrent Engineering: Integrated product and process development teams, collocated physically or electronically, employing a new design methodology to harness the true power of multi‐functional teams. Systems Engineering: A top‐down integration of combat/weapon systems and HM&E systems into a total warship system. Transition of New Technologies: Assessing and integrating emerging technologies with new ship designs. Modeling and Simulation (M&S): Simulation based design/virtual prototypes, 3‐D digital product models, and CAD/CAM/CAE. How these concepts are being applied to the early 1990s designs of CVN 76 and LPD 17 is described in this paper. The potential for truly revolutionary changes for future ship designs just getting underway is also discussed. One guiding principle that remains unchanged is the leadership role of NAVSEA's design engineers.
The warship design process requires competition, compromise, and iteration. This is as true today as it was when David Taylor was a young officer in the Construction Corps at the turn of the century when the U. S. was struggling to develop a world class navy. The naval architects and ordnance engineers of his day wrestled over topside arrangements much as do their current counterparts. They tried to anticipate future threats, and they worried about cost because they were in an arm's race. These were total ship engineering issues, although the phrase had not yet been coined. What is different today? It is tempting to say that the short answer is technology. And, more importantly, the rate of change. Yet, an objective appraisal of David Taylor's era tells us that they too experienced an explosion in technology. Just the years 1900–1910 alone saw the introduction of dreadnought battleships, submarines, and aircraft. We are still trying to grapple with the implications of the last two warfare systems. History tells us that our predecessors got it right more often than wrong. Why? Because they recognized the need to change the way they did business in the face of new technologies and new threats.
The authors advocate the adoption of joint Navy-Industry Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) throughout the whole acquisition process for a new warship, including detail design and construction of the lead ship. This paper describes how the use of joint Navy-Industry IPTs is revolutionizing warship design during the early design stages, and identifies both the benefits and some of the critical obstacles for the use of such IPTs after contract award. The purpose of this paper is not to offer "textbook" solutions, but rather to stimulate discussion and to initiate dialog. The authors contend that the use of IPTs is essential to quality design and timely acquisition of effective, balanced, and affordable warships. The experience that U.S. shipbuilders gain from the application of Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) principles to the design and construction of world-class warships can be directly transferred to the world-class development of commercial ships for the international market.
The paper discusses, from a ship designer's perspective, some of the current topics and issues relating to the interface between naval ship design and production. The current environment within which naval ship design activity is taking place is described. Notable current views on Navy ship design and how it might be improved are summarized. Navy design topics pertinent to improving ship producibility, operability, maintainability and survivability are discussed and examples from recent ship designs are. presented. Issues which result from apparent conflicts in current design initiatives and critiques of the Navy ship design process are highlighted and discussed. Finally, some general conclusions are drawn.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.