Files
Abstract
Warship acquisition projects are technically complex, high value, subject to intense public scrutiny, and typically take a long time to bring to fruition. The technical complexity and inevitable clash of priorities between hull form, platform systems and combat systems design may necessitate compromises between key platform characteristics. Due to both the interconnected aspects and the need to carefully balance platform and combat system requirements and performance, it is not practical to separate them completely.
When designing a warship to keep pace with the perceived threat environment, the long gestation period between project initiation and the First of Class vessel entering service can generate several problems for the delivery agency and the recipient Navy. These are caused by requirements creep due to evolving threat scenarios, technological advancement, obsolescence, and the impact of legislative changes. In addition, the delivered ship will often experience design trade-offs (i.e. combat systems equipment versus speed, range and weight growth) that have been required during the design, build and introduction-into-service phases.
The development and implementation stages for weapon, sensor and communication systems life cycles are often far shorter (system update cycles are planned on approximately 5-year periods) than the service life for a warship platform, which are typically >25 years but often end up being extended. This sets a difficult challenge for warship design and requires provision to be made in design for systems that are at a low Technology Readiness Level (for example, Directed Energy Weapons, or even conceptual systems, considering the increasing use of autonomous and off board systems). Thus, their interface requirements will be immature. Associated estimates for Space, Weight, Power and Cooling will inevitably need to be larger to cater for the increased uncertainty, making it more challenging to assess Margin requirements for future capability upgrades.
To deal with the problems identified above, metrics and key performance indicators are incredibly helpful in assessing a warship’s potential to fulfil its design criteria through to end of life. These aid in determining whether the platform can meet its designated Mission System Requirements and if it is flexible enough to receive weapon and sensor upgrades through life to ensure it can deal with contemporary threat environments and deal with obsolescence. Using appropriate Margins ensures sufficient contingency is provided in the design and, their consumption or usage is monitored and controlled through the platform’s life cycle, are excellent metrics and key performance indicators to assess the platform’s fundamental capabilities.
Margin policies (traditionally stipulated for Space, Weight, Power and Cooling) have proved their worth many times during previous warship design and build projects. The specification and management of Margins that are intended to be consumed during design, build and in-service is therefore tantamount to ensuring a warship can maintain viability in a constantly changing threat environment. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the impacts Margins have on a vessel’s capability and identify strategies to manage these proactively to ensure that the warship can meet its Mission System Requirements through to end of life.