The Evolution of Modular Open Systems in Naval Ship Design ...

The Evolution of
Modular Open
Systems in Naval
Ship Design:
1975 - 2010
Jack W. Abbott
ASNE Breakfast Seminar on Ship Design and
Acquisition – Lessons Learned, June 3, 2010

Jack W. Abbott
Systems Engineer
Year(s)
Assignments/Projects
1960-1963 Naval Officer (Engineering) on USS Braine (DD630)
1966-1970 Lead Engineer, DDH 280 Class (Canadian) installation design of Gas
Turbine Generator Sets
1970-1972 Lead Engineer, DD 963 Gas Turbine engine qualification and
installation (Allison K 17) and (GE LM 2500)
1972-1974 R&D Plan for an Advanced Submarine Control Program (ASCOP)
1974-1976 Design Manager, DD 993 Class HM&E systems
1975-1980 Technical Director, SEAMOD R&D Program
1977-1985 Director, NAVSEA Systems Engineering Division (Manning, RMA, ILS,
Systems Analysis) - Supported CG 47 and DDG 51 designs
1980 Fiber Optics Potential for Navy ships
1980-19851985 Program Manager, SSES R&D Program
1990-1992 Project Manager, Submarine Integrated Automated Damage Control
System (IADCS) for DARPA
1992-2003 ATC Program support - including Team Lead on TOSA IPT
2000-2003 DDX Modularity Design Support (Blue and Gold Teams)
Manager, LCS Mission Systems and Ship Integration Team (MSSIT)
2003-Pres.
2009-2010 CG(X) Modularity Design Support

Agenda
1. Modularity Background
• Definitions, iti Types, Levels
• Historical Review
• Observations
• Recent Efforts
2. Design Steps in developing Modular Open
Systems in Ship Design
• Modular Technical Architecture
• Functional Partitioning
• Design Factors
3. Producibility and Cost Models
• Need for a Process Based Cost Model

Agenda
4. VA Class, LCS 1&2, CVN 78 Applications
5. Lessons Learned
• Acquisition i i Structure vs. Technical Architecture
• Impacts on Traditional Design Development
• Abbott’s Corollaries
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
7. Bibliography

Definitions
●
Module: A structurally independent building block of a
larger system with well-defined interfaces.
●
Modularity: A design approach in which a system
component acts as an independently operable unit,
subject to periodic change.
●
Open System: A system that employs modular design
and uses consensus-based standards for key interfaces.
5

Characteristics of Modularity
●
Partitioned into discrete scalable and reusable modules
consisting of isolated, self-contained functional elements
●
Ad detailed dsystems engineering i process that temphasizes
a functional analysis and the identification of key
interfaces
●
Makes use of commonly used industry standards for key
interfaces to the largest extent t possible
6

Types of Modularity
●
●
●
●
●
Mission Modularity
• Systems are made up of multiple Mission Modules
• Installation of alternate Mission Systems
• Mission System Technology Insertion
Production Modularity
• Equipment procurement using standard interfaces
• Maximizing early staging for equipment assembly (modules)
• Off-ship testing of modules
• Module installation in completed zones/compartments
Component Sharing
• Common parts or systems
• Common standards d and interfaces
Software Modularity
• Open Architecture Computing Environment (OACE)
Maintenance Modularity
• Standard interfaces for subassemblies vice vendor unique
7

Levels of Modularity
●
Component Level (Physical, Digital Interfaces)
• Focused more on component interchangeability vice system
interchangeability
●
System Level (Equipment and Module Stations)
• Multiple ship systems are modularized or have open system standards
defined for their key interfaces
●
Total Ship Architecture Level (F/E Zones)
• The concepts of modularity and open systems architectures are applied
to the entire ship
• Can include the development of special innovative hulls that facilitate
the installation of modules/open systems
8

Levels of Modularity vs.
Standardization
Level Parameters Applicable to
SHIP ARCHTECTURE
(ZONES) LEVEL
SPACE AND WEIGHT
SHIP CLASS (DESTROYER)
EQUIPMENT AND
MODULE STATION LEVEL
SIZE, STRUCTURE, SERVICES
SHIP TYPE (COMBATANTS)
COMPONENT LEVEL ---
Physical Connections
(Electrical, Fluids)
CONNECTOR PINS, FLANGES
FLEET
Digital Connections API'S, MESSAGES FLEET
Communications LINKS FLEET

Historical Background
Docume
ents
Pro
ogram
Influenc
ced
Ships
LTA8fH
SEAMOD
1975-79
Blohm & Voss
MEKO
LLTL
SSES
1980-85
DOD 5000 Series
Royal Navy
Cellularity
CG-52
DDG-51
Royal Danish Navy
AN3
ATC
1992-1998
8fLADC4bOaBbtaW
LPD 17
US DOD OSJTF
TOSA
U( 1998-2003 ( ZPSHHI
CVN
fA3T
OACE
2003-Current
A)8L
AIMS
2003-Current
MSSIT
2003-Current
SHHI P ARRCTE
LCS
MEKO STANFLEX SSN 774
DDG 1000
SC 21
DD 21
CG(X)
DD(X)
SC 21 DD 21 DD(X)
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Historical Background
● SEAMOD & SSES (1975 – 1985)
• Weapons systems payloads and platform independence
• Variable Payload Ships
●
MEKO (1975 – Current)
• Multi-purpose combination ships with modular weapons and
electronics systems built for Germany and 10 other countries
●
STANFLEX (1985 – Current)
• Royal Danish Navy’s modular ships which can change ship
configuration for various mission capabilities
●
DDG 51 (1985 – Current)
• Modular Weapon Stations for VLS (SSES A and B Module Size)
11

SEAMOD Distributed Combat
System
13D
GUN CONTROL PROCESSOR
MK 45 MODULE, ZONE 6
20
HARPOON CONTROL PROC
HARPOON EQUIP RM
ZONE 6
9
LAMPS DATA LINK CONTROL PROC
10
LIINK 11 CONTROL PROC
11
LINK 14 CONTROL PROC
COMM CTR. ZONE 8
19A, 19B, 19C
CIWS SEARCH RADAR
CONTROL TRACK RADAR
CONTROL AND GUN CONTROL
CIWS RM/TOPSIDE
ZONE8
12A, 12B, 12C
ESM, ECM AND CHAFF
CONTROL PROCESSORS
EW ROOM ZONE 8
14
TRACK ILLUMINATOR CONTROL
AFT UPPER AEGIS EQUIP RM
ZONE 8
6
SPS-55 RADAR CONTROL
13B
SPO-9 TRK RADAR CONTROL
RADAR RM 1, ZONE 8
11 RADAR RM 1, ZONE 8
5
SPS-49 RADAR CONTROL
7 AIMS IFF CONTROL PROC
RADAR RM 2, ZONE 8
4A
PILOTING (SHIP CONTL) PROC
PILOT HOUSE ZONE 7
15, 16
SLAVED ILLUMINATOR CONTROL
FWD UPPER AEGIS EQUIP RM
ZONE 8
3A,3B,3C
MONITORING TRAINING AND
RECORDING CONTROL PROCESSORS
CIC/CIC EQUIP RMS ZONE 7
1A,1B
TACTICAL DISPLAY CONTROL AND
AIR ASSET CONTROL PROCESSORS
CIC/CIC EQUIP RM ZONE 7
8B, 18C, 18D
ASROC ARMAMENT CONTROL
SM 1, 2 ARMAMENT CONTROL
MK 26 LAUNCHER CONTROL
GMLS CONTROL RM 2
ZONE 5
8C
MK 46, 48 ARMAMENT CONTROL
AND MK 32 LAUNCHER
CONTROL PROCESSORS
FORT & STBD TORPEDO RMS
ZONE 4
48
NAVIGATION PROCESSOR
IC ROOM 2, ZONE 4
17
SPY-1 RADAR CONTROL
CENTRAL SIG PRCS RM
ZONE 8
2A, 2B
TRACK MANAGEMENT AND
ENGAGEMENT DIRECTION PROC
(NEW AREA, MOVED FROM DATA
PROCESSING CENTER) ZONE 4
48
NAVIGATION PROCESSOR
IC ROOM 1, ZONE 3
8B, 18A, 18B
ASROC ARMAMENT CONTROL
SM-1, 2 ARMAMENT CONTROL
MK 26 LAUNCHER CONTROL
GMLS CONTROL RM 1
ZONE 3
8A
SONAR CONTROL PROCESSOR
SONAR EQUIP RM 1
ZONE 1
13C
GUN CONTROL PROCESSOR
MK 45 MODULE, ZONE 2

SEAMOD Operational and
Support Concept

SSES Zone Designations and
Names
I(1)
VII(1)
I(4
)
VIII VIII(3)
(4)
I(3) () III(4) () VIII
(1) IV(2)
VII(2)
III(2)
III(2)
VII(2)
IV(1)
VI
IV(1) VII(1)
III(1)
II IX
V
V
VIII
(2)
VIII
(1)
III(3)
III(3)
III(3) ()
I(2)
Zone I(1) – RF Sensing Zone IV(1) – Forward IC and Gyro Zone VIII(1) – AA-size Weapons
Zone I(2) – Forward Acoustic Sensing Zone IV(2) – After IC And Gyro Zone VIII(2) – A-size Weapons
Zone I(3) – After Acoustic Sensing
Zone VIII(3) – B-size Weapons
Zone I(4) – Aviation Support Zone V – Command and Control Zone VIII(4) – A(2)-size Weapons
Zone II – Exterior Communications Zone VI – Ship Control Zone IX – Special Purpose Electronics
Zone III(1) – Forward RF Processing
Zone III(2) – After RF Processing
Zone III(3) – Forward Acoustic Processing
Zone III(4) – After Acoustic Processing
Zone VII(1) – Forward Weapons Control
Zone VII(2) – After Weapons Control

Modular Payload
DDG 51

Obstacles to Implementation
in the e80s 80’s
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Vested interest in the Status Quo
No compelling reason to change the Status Quo
Viewed as a threat to key acquisition programs
Unwillingness to believe positive impacts on time and costs
Concern over the impact on the procurement process
Unwillingness to assume responsibility for promulgation of
interface standards
ds
Failure to grasp the importance of Adaptability and Flexibility
Not organized for successful implementation

Ship Design Myths
of the 80’s
●
Computer architecture will never be distributed
● Combat Systems will not need modernization in less than 7
●
●
●
●
●
years
Increase in space and weight will always cause increase in
construction costs (a compact ship is cheapest)
Development of open interface standards are impossible
because you cannot predict the future
The DDG 51 will never need a hanger
The application of Modular Open Systems in ship design does
not require good Systems Engineering
The enemy will always be the USSR

Observations on the 80’s
●
US Navy viewed modularity benefits as only applicable to
modernization/conversion whereas foreign activities were
driven by the potential for lower construction costs
●
US Navy modularity efforts were led by the government
whereas foreign modularity efforts were led by private industry
●
Foreign shipyards achieved both cost and schedule objectives
for ship construction
●
US Requirements to use a Modular Open Systems Approach
(MOSA) in acquisition began with promulgation by the OSD’s
Open Systems Joint Task Force (OSJTF) [1994]

Recent MOSA Efforts
● ATC (1992 – 1998)
• Reduced costs by modularity, equipment standardization, and
process simplification
● TOSA (1998 – 2003)
• ATC formed TOSA to develop the necessary interface standards that
form the engineering building blocks of a Total ship Open Systems
Architecture.
• Virginia Class Submarines (1998 - Current)
●
AIMS (2003 – Current)
• Mission is to develop and transition open systems and interfaces for
cross-platform use to enable modularity.
●
LCS (2003 - Current)
● OACE Navy Open Architecture [NOA] (2003 – Current)
●
DDG 1000, CVN 78, CG(X), OASIS
19

Why Now?
●
Economics of a smaller fleet – need for more flexible ships that
can be configured to the mission vice multi-mission ships
● Faster rate of technology change – software can change every
18 months
●
Computer industry proved interfaces for plug and play can
work – even among competitors
●
Increased number of open standards d now available – ISO,
IEEE, NIST, MIMOSA, etc.

Existing Programs Developing
Modular Open Systems
●
●
●
●
Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES)
Open Architecture Computing Environment (OACE)
Open Architecture Enterprise Team (OAET)
Architectures, Interfaces and Modular Systems (AIMS)
● Electronic Modular Enclosures (EME) on DDG 1000
●
●
●
●
●
Common Display Systems (CDS)
Common Processing Systems (CPS)
Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems (SWFTS)
Turnkey (C4I)
Open Architecture Ship Interface Standards (OASIS)

Design Steps for a Modular
Technical Architecture (MTA)
●
●
●
●
●
●
Requirements analysis/acquisition plans
Technology market surveillance
Functional partitioning/ship arrangements
Zone allocation
Ship adjacency issues (blast, radiation areas, functional
connectivity, material handling, etc.)
Systems Engineering tradeoffs
(adaptability vs. cost vs. performance vs. risk)
●
●
●
Zone development (arrangements, ship services, access)
Module/Module e station development
e e Ship weight management (ballast, structural design)
22

Requirements within DoD
●
●
US Navy Open Systems Joint Task Force (OSJTF)
established the Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA)
• MOSA is a Business and Technical Strategy
DOD 5000.1/5000.2 directs US Navy to use MOSA
23

Functional Partitioning
of Ship Systems

Design Factors

The Modular Adaptable Ship
Open Systems Architecture – Standard Interfaces
Mission
Config 1
Mission
Config 2
PH
CIC
Mission
Space
OPEN FUNCTIONAL ZONES
• Modular C4I Zones
• Modular Offboard Vehicle Zones
• Modular Weapons Zones
• Modular Sensors / Topside Zones
• Modular Machinery Zones
• Modular Human Support Zones
• Other (SOF modules, ISR,
modules)
KEY PHYSICAL INTERFACES
• Data & information (OACE)
• Physical (Geometric &
Tolerances)
• Weight and CG / VCG
• Services: Electrical, Air,Cooling
• Piping connections
• Monitoring & Control Sensors
• Human Factors
• Survivability/Vulnerability:
shock, vibration, EMI, EMC, etc.

Production Issues
(Build Strategy)
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Determine assembly/construction sequence [ship
breakpoints/blocks]
k Identify modular systems/elements
Move “module assembly” upstream [see stage factors table]
Review arrangements for module access routes
Determine approach to distributive systems [zonal vs.
centralized]
Develop “interface standards” for Zones/Module Stations
Develop access routes for module installation
Assess impacts on construction time and labor hours using
process-based cost analysis
27

Production Stage Factors
(Expanded NSRP Model)
STAGE
STAGE STAGE STAGE SUPPORT
DESCRIPTION NO. FACTOR FACTOR
S1 CUT MATERIAL - MACHINE 1 1.0 1.01
S2 CUT MATERIAL - MANUAL 2 1.2 1.02
S3FABRICATION - FABSHOPW/JIGORFIXTURE OR FIXTURE 3 15 1.5 103 1.03
S4 FABRICATION - UNIQUE PIECE ASSEMBLY 4 2.0 1.06
S5 BLOCK ASSEMBLY 5 3.0 1.1
S6 BLOCK ASSEMBLY - PREOUTFIT INVERTED 6 4.0 1.15
S7 BLOCK ASSEMBLY - PREOUTFIT UPRIGHT 1 LEVEL HIGH 7 52 5.2 12 1.2
S8 PAINT 8 4.5 1.1
S9 PREOUTFITTING COLD 1 LEVEL HIGH 9 5.9 1.25
S10 PREOUTFITTING COLD 2 OR MORE LEVELS HIGH 10 7.3 1.3
S11ERECTION 11 87 8.7 135 1.35
S12 OUTFITTING ON WAYS 12 10.1 1.4
S13 WATERBORNE OUTFITTING 13 11.5 1.5
S14 TEST AND TRIALS DURING WATERBORNE OUTFITTING 14 12.0 1.35
S15 TEST AND TRIALS POST OUTFITTING 15 11.0 11 1.1
28

DDG 51 Process-Based
Acquisition Cost Analysis*
(*NAVSEA Draft Report 05D/369 – 5 Dec 2008)
29

“Ship Cost Estimating,
an Evolving Art”
“These projected figures are a figment of
our imagination. We hope you like them.”
There is a continuing need for improvement and
excellence in the art of ship cost estimating

VA Class Modularity
Mission i System
Envelope
Physical
Characteristics
Physical Characteristics
Cabinet
1
Cabinet
2
Cabinet
3
Ship Services
(HM&E systems)
Compartment
A
Ship’s
Services
Ship
Other Factors
Other Factors
Boundary
System
Design Budget

VA Class Approach
●
Everything within the Mission System Envelope (MSE) is the
responsibility of the subsystem electronics supplier
●
Shipyard supplies less cabling and is only involved with the
cabling between MSEs and from MSE to the platform
●
The MSE concept is scalable
●
The ship design team allocates volume, power and cooling
for each MSE
●
The impact of a more parallel construction process and
agreed upon HM&E boundaries between the shipyard and
suppliers s has reduced construction o costs of each submarine
by millions of dollars

Lockheed Martin
LCS Seaframe

General Dynamics
LCS Seaframe

LCS ICD – MP Modules and
Seaframe Stations
Appendix B:
Seaframe Builders
Support
Container
Module
Stations
Sea Stations
&O
Operating
Zone
Appendix C
Aviation
Module
Stations
Comms
Radios
Weapons
Module
Stations
NOTIONAL SEAFRAME
MPCE
Appendix D
2 - AVIATION
MODULES
3 WEAPON
MODULES
Appendix A:
Module Developers
SENSOR MODULE
4- SEA TYPE
MODULES
10 – SUPPORT
CONTAINER MODULES

AIMS Modular/Open Systems
Applied to CVN 78 Electronic Spaces
Open Structure Open HVAC Open Power
ISO 7166
Open Lighting
Open Data Distribution

Lessons Learned
●
The Technical Architecture should be based upon logical
functional boundaries – procurements should align with this
●
Technical Architecture development should begin with ship
functional partitioning and allocation of Functional Element
zones – development of module/module d l station ti interfaces are
then detailed to check zone sizing and shape
●
Interfaces for ship services should be done AFTER alternate
user requirements have been determined and the system design
is completed
●
Owners of modular systems must learn to accept the interface
standards as “design to” requirements
●
Ability to use interface standards cross fleet depends on the
level of modularity/standardization attempted

Acquisition Structure vs.
Technical Architecture
Platform Payload
Platform
Payload
A
A C B B
A
C
Closed Embedded System
(Platform + Payload)
Open System – Aligned
with
Organizational
Implementation
Open System - not Aligned
with
Organizational
Implementation

Impacts on “traditional”
Design Development
• Planned goals for modularity must be identified early – e.g. production,
procurement, maintenance, technology insertion, etc. Using established
goal metrics, focus should be on areas where significant cost/schedule
reduction is expected.
• Modularity concepts can have significant impacts on the overall ship
design (arrangements/zone locations, access, distributive systems, etc.)
– they must be addressed at the start of ship design development.
• A MOSA IPT must be formed to coordinate development of the proposed
Modular Technical Architecture – representatives from Combat Systems,
Machinery Systems and Habitability Systems as a minimum.
• The MOSA IPT must work with system developers and shipyards
(production) to develop candidate modular designs for evaluation.
• Using “design excursions” off the baseline design, cost/benefit tradeoffs
must be performed using process based cost analysis. Planning for
“future upgrades” should be included in some of the “design excursions.”
• As decisions are made on the “level” and “degree” of modularity they
• As decisions are made on the level and degree of modularity, they
should be incorporated into the ship design baseline. Design integration
(e.g. zone/module station location) is as important as interfaces.

Abbott’s Corollaries
●
●
●
●
●
●
You must put a total system together (integration) before
you can partition it into modules (take it apart) – Note: This
is a systems engineering approach.
Future technologies tend to combine functions that were
previously separate (partitioning can change with time)
One man’s system is another man’ s component (and vice
versa)
For a given level of performance, things tend to get smaller
and lighter over time
However, future expectations are for performance to go up
Time is money: If you save time, you will save money

Conclusions
●
Modularity has proven advantages
●
Modularity, through MOSA, is mandated by DoD
●
Each ship acquisition program needs to decide both the
level and degree of modularity
●
Early application of modularity in the ship design process
is the key to realizing cost savings in the long term
●
Modularity requires rigorous Systems Engineering for
proper implementation
Modular Open Systems Can Provide Cost-Wise Solutions
41

Recommendations
●
●
●
●
●
●
Stay the course and apply good Systems Engineering – MOSA is the
only known concept that can reduce costs without reducing
performance
Develop a process based cost model that uses inputs from production
experts to more accurately determine impacts on construction time
and costs
Establish a NAVSEA warrant holder – maintain the technical baselines
used dfor ship design
Carry out adequate configuration management of all MOSA interface
standards – withoutittherewillbechaos
there will Insist that system level developers accomplish the paradigm shift of
“designing to interfaces” up front to fully realize the potential of MOSA
Realize that not all systems should be open – it depends on the
business case

Bibliography (Papers)
[1] J. W. Abbott, “Modular Payload Ships in the U.S. Navy,”
Transactions, The Society of Naval Architects t and Marine
Engineers , November 1977
[2] G. W. Broome Jr., D. W. Nelson, and W. D. Tootle, “The
Design of Variable Payload Ships,” Naval Engineers Journal,
The American Society of Naval Engineers , April 1982
[3] D. H. Thompson Jr., and L. M. Thorell, “The Construction of
Variable Payload Ships,” Naval Engineers Journal, The
American Society of Naval Engineers , April 1982
[4] C. W. Cable and T. M. Rivers, “Affordability Through
Commonality,” ASNE DDG 51 Technical Symposium, The
American Society of Naval Engineers , September 1992
[5] M. L. Bosworth and J. J. Hough, “Improvements in Ship
Affordability,” Transactions, The Society of Naval Architects
t
and Marine Engineers, September 1993
43

Bibliography (cont’d)
[6] R. DeVries, K. T. Tompkins, and J. Vasilakos, “Total Ship
Open Systems Architecture, ” Naval Engineers Journal, The
American Society of Naval Engineers , July 2000
[7] J. W. Abbott, R. DeVries, W. Schoenster and J. Vasilakos,
“The Impact of Evolutionary Acquisition on Naval Ship
Design,” Transactions, The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers , October 2003
[8] I. Chewning, R. Hull, P. Hardin and R. Jones, “Ship Cost
Estimating, i an Evolving Art,” ASNE ‘Engineering i the Total
Ship’ Technical Symposium, The American Society of Naval
Engineers , May 2006
[9] J. W. Abbott, “Modular Payload Ships: 1975 – 2005, ” ASNE
‘Engineering the Total Ship’ Technical Symposium, The
American Society of Naval Engineers , May 2006
[10] J. W. Abbott, A. Levine e and J. Vasilakos, a “Modular Open
Systems to Support Ship Acquisition Strategies,” ASNE Day,
The American Society of Naval Engineers , June 2008
44