Ship Systems Automation
Transcript of Ship Systems Automation
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 1
Ship SystemsAutomation
American Society of Naval EngineersIntelligent Ship Symposium
June 1-2, 1994Philadelphia
Joseph B. Fammetel: 703-528-3711fax: 703-243-0173
Note: This is a re-print of the original slide presentation given by theauthor, Joseph Famme, at the ASNE Intelligent Ship Symposium,
Philadelphia, 1994. Mr. Famme is now president of ITE Inc.,www.ITEinc.US, [email protected].
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 2
CAEAutomation
Percent Remote Control & Automation
0
20
40
60
80
100
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
TIMELINE
PE
RC
EN
T R
C &
A
COMBAT SYSTEMS
MACHINERYSYSTEMS
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 3
CAE
� Improve performance and survivability,� Reduce costs: acquisition, training and maintenance
Technology Leverage
Components by Ship Class
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
CG-47 DDG-51 MHC-51 SMCS
Ship Class
No
. of
Co
mp
on
ents 292
211
34 36
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 4
CAEOperating Environment
� External operating environment:� weather� sea state� ocean acoustics� water depth and bottom type� navigation hazards� shipping� enemy threats
� Internal operating environment:� readiness of vital & non-vital systems� readiness and alertness of the crew� automation doctrine in force� logistics readiness
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 5
CAEWarfighting Requirements
� Ship Operational Characteristics Study 1988� Twelve Imperative Characteristics. Five Apply to
HME & DC:� Integrated machinery systems� Survivability & the ability to fight hurt� Embedded readiness assessment, mission planning &
training� Condition-based maintenance� Collocation of ship control and CIC
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 6
CAENotional Conventional
CREW 360, MISSILES 120
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 7
CAEIncremental Approach
Manpower Reduction
0
100
200
300
400
R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
REDUCTION PHASES
CR
EW
SIZ
E
252 using INCREMENTAL approach
162 using SA'AR-5 approach
ARPA GOAL
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 8
CAEReengineering
Manpower Reduction
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
REDUCTION PHASES
CR
EW
SIZ
E
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 9
CAETwo Versions Low - Mix ?
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 10
CAE
� Most merchant ships operate with a crew of less than twenty� Can a commercial hull be modified to meet the SOCS requirements
and reduce manpower as part of a high - low mix?� High mix provides sensors & C3I� Low mix, linked to a high mix, provides firepower
Conventional Low - Mix?
VLS MISSILES18 X 60
COMMAND CENTERS
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 11
CAELow - mix Stealth?
CREW 40 - MISSILES 1080
MACHINERY
COMMAND CENTERSBRIDGE
VLS MISSILES 18 X 60
CREW
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 12
CAETactical Team ?
Crew 360 - Missiles 120
Crew 40 - Missiles 1080
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 13
CAETactical Application
Gulf of Uno
HiLo
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 14
CAE
� Current bridge designs are inefficient and expose dozens ofwatchstanders to hazardous conditions
� Automation to meet SOCS requirements could use:� Navigation with autopilot, ECPINS, GPS, Radar Overlay, IR, ESM,
threat warning, C3I about external environment� USN SES-200 has ECPINS, GPS & radar overlay
Navigation
Collocation of Ship / Machinery Control and CICinto Primary and Secondary Command Centers
Minimum Bridge
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 15
CAE
� Current systems do not provide embedded readiness, missionplanning and training
� This SOCS requirement requires the most effort to achieve due to therequirements to use 'ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE" in the decisionaiding process. Applications include:
� Route selection considering the ship mission requirements, externalenvironment and the ship's internal readiness
� What if analysis of options
Mission Planning
A
B
C
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 16
CAE
� Current ship HME & DC platform internal systems do not adaptautomatically to the external environment (threat, sea state ...)
� The HME & DC systems should adapt automatically to improve:� operating efficiency� increase ship survivability
� Example: Pop up threat, cruise missile, 75 seconds time on top:� starting from Condition III� auto-start all vital systems and split for survivability� auto-full power to maneuver to pre-selected attack angle� turn ship for max-firepower, minimum damage / loss of life
Threat Decision Aids
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 17
CAE
� SOCS requirements are being addressed in SMCS� Will Navy ships apply these technologies?
– full integration of ship control, HME & DC, and combat systems indual command centers
– full function consoles located in all vital decision stations– adaptive HME & DC reconfiguration– built-in training and mission planning– built-in test to the single LRU & built-in spares– low LRU count / maintenance requirements– reduced manning– increased combat volume: 23 % to more than 50%
Machinery Control
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 18
CAE
� The number one public concern today is loss of life in combatoperations. Did Desert Storm set an non-repeatable precedent?
� The key to minimum loss of life in combat is sending the fewestpossible people into harm's way
� New designs support aggressive damage control� automation to reduce personnel requirements� adaptive HME & DC systems� inert gasses and non-explosive space fillers
Damage Control
NO PERSONNEL IN THESE SPACES
ALL SPACES IN THIS AREA FILLED WITHNON-COMBUSTIBLE GAS OR MATERIAL,INSTANT REACTION FLOODING / HALONRELEASE
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 19
CAE
� Maintenance is the highest driver for crew size in addition to damagecontrol. Methods to reduce maintenance manning are:
– change the design of systems and components. (SMCS reduces thecomponent type count for machinery control systems by 84%)
� Affordability Through Commonality– provide built-in test (BIT) and maintain systems based on condition
rather than time� use BIT to automatically update ship readiness assessment and to
support intelligent adaptive reaction to threats– convert watchstanders to non-watchstanders
Condition Based Maintenance
0
50
100
150
200
250
FLT I SMCS
FLT I = 211 SMCS = 34
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 20
CAE
� Computer power exists to support enabling technologies� Application technologies in artificial intelligence and sensors requires
significant work� Simulation can be used to validate design and test warfighting
assumptions� Reengineering techniques are available to audit design rationale
Enabling Technologies
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 21
CAE� Crew "trained" in the employment of automated systems and "new
warfare doctrine".� A "new culture" developed, as in the space program.� Maximum firepower, mission accomplished, minimum human risk.
Confidence Building
EX-AIRCRAFT HANGER
SHIP 2010 DESIGN CENTERTRAINING CENTER
BATTLE FORCETACTICAL TRAINER(BFTT)
LINKSIMULATION
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 22
CAEChange the Paradigm
�Manpower Reduction to
�Human Risk Mitigation
PLUS
PLUS
CREW 720, MISSILES 240
CREW 400, MISSILES 1200
OR
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 23
CAEChange the Design Process !!
Don't Tinker with the Design
Reengineer!!Manpower Reduction
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
REDUCTION PHASES
CR
EW
SIZ
E
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 24
CAECultural Change
CUSTOM AND TRADITION
NAVY REGULATIONS
ROLES AND MISSIONS
PRESENCE, SHOW THE FLAG
SAFETY
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
PRIDE
Reprinted 8/18/2003 by the Author, J Famme, President ITE Inc. 25
CAEConclusions� Automation is here to stay� Computer power exists to support the enabling technologies� Application technologies in artificial intelligence and sensors requires
significant work� Conventional designs are prohibitively expensive� Simulation can be used to validate design, test warfighting
assumptions, and support cultural change� Don't tinker with design, reengineer� The paradigm has changed to human risk mitigation� Cultural barriers will remain a challenge
It is an exciting time to be in the marine engineering profession!!