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 objective of this paper is to examine the NAVSEA ship design process and propose changes to achieve more effective use of organic engineers. The paper summarizes the changes which have taken place in the ship design process and the ship acquisition environment over the last 15 years, and the incompatibilities which result. Findings of the “NAVSEA Engineering Resources Alternatives” (ERA) task are cited as bases for the need to modify the design process. Causes of the changes are traced to three kinds of factors: changes in the content of design products, reduction in NAVSEA engineering manpower available for ship design, and new emphasis in ship acquisition management. These trends have resulted in an overlay of added procedures on the existing process. The result is a patchwork approach to design which does not make effective use of NAVSEA organic engineers. Thus, the evolution has reached a point which demands a basic restructuring of the design process. ERA conclusions, DOD acquisition policy, and NAVSEA priorities are examined as primary considerations in restructuring the ship design process. This examination leads to development of a set of criteria for the new process. The final part of the paper develops a proposal for the revised NAVSEA ship design process based on the stated criteria. Recognizing that major changes to NAVSEA design activities should not be attempted instantaneously, there is some discussion of means to transition to the new process.
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.