approach to capability-based system-of-systems framework ...mitre+sos0+open+type@asset... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Approach to Capability-Based System-of-Systems Framework in Support of Naval Ship Design
Cdr Jacques P Olivier
Royal Canadian Navy, Canada
Dr Santiago Balestrini-Robinson
Dr Simon Briceño
Georgia Institute of Technology, United States
Originally presented at the 8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference by Cdr Jacques Olivier on April 2nd, 2014 in Fairmont Chateau Laurier, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
System of Systems Engineering Collaborators Information Exchange (SoSECIE)September 1st, 2015
Outline
• Background and Motivation
• Benefits, Restraint and Constraint
• Definitions
• Hierarchical Decomposition
• Cross-Functional Decomposition
• Visualisation and Demonstration
• Design Paradox
• Conclusionhttp://russellclaxton.blogspot.ca/2009/08/form-and-function-3.html
2
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
This paper is an unclassified position paper containing public domain facts and opinions, which the authors aloneconsidered appropriate and correct for the subject. It does not necessarily reflect the policy or the opinion of anyagency, including the Government of Canada, the Canadian Department of National Defence, or the Georgia Instituteof Technology.
Historical Background
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
81
94
5
19
47
19
49
19
51
19
53
19
55
19
57
19
59
19
61
19
63
19
65
19
67
19
69
19
71
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07
20
09
20
11
20
13
Laid Down Launched Commissioned
9/11Berlin WallCuban Missile Crisis
ConventionalWarfare
Asymmetric Warfare
Modern history of SoSE
IT and Internet expansion
Canadian Naval Shipbuilding
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Problem Definition
4
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00510/8b485da8-
83a4-11e3-_510078b.jpg
• Complex nature of rapidly evolving and unpredictable global threat environment
http://cimsec.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/West-African-
Militants.gif
• Proliferation of missions within spectrum of modern conflicts including military operations other than war
http://shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/market-crash.jpg
• Volatile fiscal and financial environment rendering budgetary forecasting unpredictable
http://shipsstarthere.ca/cont/1.jpeg
• Prolonged period of atrophy in naval ship design and industrial ship building
Purpose
5
PostulationModern naval ship design should consider the systems of interest as components subsumed by a holistic environment encompassing assets and capabilities inorganic to naval platforms
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/td/2902/td2902.html
http://tomtunguz.com/images/gears.jpg
MotivationPropose a starting point intended to provide a more defined means of establishing and improving the early phases of the ship design process as part of a multi-layered maritime domain warfare enterprise
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Model-Based System Engineering
MethodologyFormalized application of modeling to support system requirements, design, analysis, verification and validation activities beginning in the conceptual design phase and continuing throughout development and later life cycle
Restraint and Constraint• Will not eliminate all uncertainties and
cover all options related to ship conceptual design
• Will better circumscribe uncertainties so to distill a deeper appreciation of the critical factors
6
http://www.incose.org/chesapek/images/Newsletter/2011_09_17_MBSE_Diagram.jpg
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Benefits
7
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Cohesion
• Providing a more structured and cohesive approach to identifying and assessing ship capability portfolio
• Creating a common language and conceptual framework for the way to manage and improve capability-based planning within a ship design process
Efficiency
• Identifying capability strengths and interests to be maintained, developed and exploited
• Identifying capability deficiencies (shortcomings or surpluses) to be remedied or accepted
• Ranking ship variants based on operational effectiveness, capability and affordability trade-offs across a spectrum of missions’ priorities
Visualisation
• Facilitating comparisons, identifying and allowing the sharing of best practice across major ship acquisition projects within an organisation or a community of practice
• Assessing and presenting the findings from a variety of reviews in a format that is easy to understand
Engagement
• Involving more relevant stakeholders at all levels in the capability-based ship design process
• Educating stakeholders on the fundamental elements of capability-based ship design and how they relate to their roles and responsibilities
Benefits
8
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Cohesion
• Providing a more structured and cohesive approach to identifying and assessing ship capability portfolio
• Creating a common language and conceptual framework for the way to manage and improve capability-based planning within a ship design process
Efficiency
• Identifying capability strengths and interests to be maintained, developed and exploited
• Identifying capability deficiencies (shortcomings or surpluses) to be remedied or accepted
• Ranking ship variants based on operational effectiveness, capability and affordability trade-offs across a spectrum of missions’ priorities
Visualisation
• Facilitating comparisons, identifying and allowing the sharing of best practice across major ship acquisition projects within an organisation or a community of practice
• Assessing and presenting the findings from a variety of reviews in a format that is easy to understand
Engagement
• Involving more relevant stakeholders at all levels in the capability-based ship design process
• Educating stakeholders on the fundamental elements of capability-based ship design and how they relate to their roles and responsibilities
Enterprise Architectural Framework
9
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
StrategicViewpoint
Documents the strategic picture of how military capability is evolving in order to support capability
management and equipment planning
OperationalViewpoint
Documents the operational processes, relationships and context to support operational
analyses and requirements development
AcquisitionViewpoint
Documents acquisition programme dependencies, timelines and DLOD status to inform programme
management
SystemsViewpoint
Documents system functionality and interconnectivity to support system analysis and
through-life management
TechnicalViewpoint
Documents policy, standards, guidance and constraints to specify and assure quality
expectations
AllViews
Provides summary information for the architecture that enables it to be indexed,
searched and queried
• Provide “single source of truth”
by creating a logical structure
for classifying, organising and
presenting complex information
in a uniform manner
• Improved clarity on the context
within which capabilities re
introduced and will operate
• Clearer and more
comprehensive requirements
documents
• Improved ability to resolve
interoperability issues between
systems
• Better understanding of the
mapping of system functions to
operational needs and hence
the ability to conduct improved
trade-offs
MODAF Viewpoints (2005)http://www.modaf.com/files/MODAF%20Acquisition%20Deskbook%20v1.0.pdf
Naval Platforms as SoS
10
Characteristics Description Navy
Operational Independence of
the Individual Systems
A system of systems is composed of systems that are independent and useful in their own right. If a system of systems is disassembled into the component systems, these component systems are capable of independently performing useful operations independently of one another.
Managerial Independence of
the Systems
The component systems not only can operate independently, they generally do operate independently to achieve an intended purpose. The component systems are generally individually acquired and integrated and they maintain a continuing operational existence that is independent of the system of systems.
Geographic Distribution
Geographic dispersion of component systems is often large. Often, these systems can readily exchange only information and knowledge with one another, and not substantial quantities of physical mass or energy.
Emergent Behaviour
The system of systems performs functions and carries out purposes that do not reside in any component system. These behaviours are emergent properties of the entire system of systems and not the behaviour of any component system. The principal purposes supporting engineering of these systems are fulfilled by these emergent behaviours.
Evolutionary Development
A system of systems is never fully formed or complete. Development of these systems is evolutionary over time and with structure, function and purpose added, removed, and modified as experience with the system grows and evolves over time.
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
htt
p:/
/4.b
p.b
logspot.com
/-
eJw
GT
tH9cfo
/TzLxyeB
K2_I/A
AA
AA
AA
AA
Qk/N
Gc0hO
lc
WC
4/s
1600/c
arr
ier+
battle
+gro
up.jpg
htt
p:/
/navy-
matt
ers
.beedall.
com
/im
agesbig
/netc
ent
ric.jpg
htt
p:/
/defe
nse-
update
.com
/im
ages_la
rge3/d
ap_gro
und_sta
tion.jpg
Capacity + Ability = Capability
11
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Capacity• Quantitative
• Resources
• “What”
• “Means”
Ability• Qualitative
• Methods
• “How”
• “Ways”
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/us_armada_iraq.jpg
• The “means” describe
“what” resources are
adequate to achieve these
objectives within an
acceptable level of risk
• The “ways” are the
strategic and operational
methods describing “how”
to conduct military
operations to accomplish
the specific military
objectives, the “ends”
Hierarchical Decomposition
Political Priorities
Defence Roles
Military Missions
Naval Tasks
Ship Capabilities
Decomposition Level
Geopolitical
Strategic
Operational
Tactical
Hierarchical Level of Abstraction
System
Sub-System
12
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
1. Defend nation 2. Protect continental region3. Contribute to international peace and security
1. Military2. Diplomatic3. Constabulary
1. Expeditionary and domestic2. Joint and combined
1. Float2. Move3. Fight
1. Sea control2. Sea denial 3. Sea command
Hierarchical Decomposition
Political Priorities
Defence Roles
Military Missions
Naval Tasks
Ship Capabilities
Decomposition Level
Geopolitical
Strategic
Operational
Tactical
Hierarchical Level of Abstraction
System
Sub-System
13
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Risk Assessment
Model
1. Conduct daily domestic and continental operations VH VH VL
2. Support a major international event in Canada H M VL
3. Support civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada such as a natural disaster M VL NA
4. Respond to a major terrorist attack VL VL VL
5. Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period VL L VH
6. Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periodsVL L VH
H M H VL VL VL
M M H M L M
L VH VH VH VH L
VL VL VL H M M
VH H M VH M M
L L L L M H
VL NA NA VH VH L
VL VL VL VH VL VL
VH VH VL VL VL VL
VL VL VL M VH VH
VL VL VL L VH VH
VL VL VL L VH VH
VL VL VL VL VH VH
VL VL VL VL H H
VH VH H VL L VH VH H M M M VL VL VL
M H M VL M H H VL L M M M VL VL
VH VH VH VH VH L VL L VL L L H VH VL
NA NA VH NA VH NA NA NA VL NA NA NA NA NA
VH H H VL VH VL M H VH H H VL VL H
VL VL VL VL VH VL VL VL M VL VL VL VL VL
NA NA M VL VH L M H M VH VH VH VH VH
NA NA NA NA NA M VH H VL H H H H M
NA NA VL VL L M M H L VH VH VH VH VH
NA VL VL VL M VL VL VL VL H VH H H VH
NA VL VL VL M VL VL VL H H M M M VH
Op
era
tio
nal
Defence Policy
Priorities
Domestic
Tasks
Expeditionary
Tasks
Strategic Operational
Roles
Geo-
political
13
. Pea
ce E
nfo
rcem
ent
- U
N C
hap
ter
VII
14
. Maj
or
Co
mb
at O
per
atio
ns
(MC
O)
3. C
on
trib
ute
to
Inte
rnat
ion
al P
eace
an
d S
ecu
rity
2. D
efen
d N
ort
h A
mer
ica
1. D
efen
d C
anad
a
7. N
on
-co
mb
atan
t Ev
acu
atio
n O
per
atio
ns
(NEO
)
8. C
ou
nte
r-In
surg
ency
Op
erat
ion
s (C
OIN
OP
s)
9. C
AN
US
Co
nti
nen
tal O
per
atio
ns
10
. Sta
bili
zati
on
Op
erat
ion
s
11
. NA
TO R
esp
on
se F
orc
e (N
RF)
Op
erat
ion
s
12
. Pea
ce S
up
po
rt O
per
atio
ns
(PSO
) -
UN
Ch
apte
r V
I
1. A
ir a
nd
Mar
itim
e Se
arch
an
d R
escu
e (S
AR
)
2. H
um
anit
aria
n A
ssis
tan
ce
3. A
ssis
tan
ce t
o L
aw E
nfo
rcem
ent
Age
nci
es (
ALE
A)
4. A
id t
o C
ivil
Po
wer
5. S
ove
reig
nty
Op
erat
ion
s
6. I
nte
rnat
ion
al H
um
anit
aria
n R
elie
f O
per
atio
ns
(HU
MR
O)
10. Standing NATO Response Force Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1)
11. United States Task Group (e.g., CSG, ESG, MEU)
Tact
ical
4. Fisheries Patrols
5. Sovereignty Patrols
6. Arctic Sovereignty Patrols
7. Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO)
8. Non-combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO)
9. Littoral Maritime Force Projection
Nav
al F
un
ctio
ns
6. D
eplo
y fo
rces
in r
esp
on
se t
o c
rise
s el
sew
her
e in
th
e w
orl
d f
or
sho
rter
per
iod
s
1. Air and Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR)
2. Humanitarian Assistance
3. Assistance to Law Enforcement Agency
1. C
on
du
ct d
aily
do
mes
tic
and
co
nti
nen
tal o
per
atio
ns
2. S
up
po
rt a
maj
or
inte
rnat
ion
al e
ven
t in
Can
ada
3. S
up
po
rt c
ivili
an a
uth
ori
ties
du
rin
g a
cris
is in
Can
ada
such
as
a n
atu
ral d
isas
ter
4. R
esp
on
d t
o a
maj
or
terr
ori
st a
ttac
k
5. L
ead
an
d/o
r co
nd
uct
a m
ajo
r in
tern
atio
nal
op
erat
ion
fo
r an
ext
end
ed p
erio
d
Stra
tegi
c
1. Air and Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR)
2. Humanitarian Assistance
14. Major Combat Operations (MCO)
3. Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies (ALEA)
4. Aid to Civil Power
10. Stabilization Operations
11. NATO Response Force (NRF) Operations
12. Peace Support Operations (PSO) - UN Chapter VI
13. Peace Enforcement - UN Chapter VII
Def
ence
Po
licy
Pri
ori
ties
Do
mes
tic
Task
sEx
ped
itio
nar
y Ta
sks
5. Sovereignty Operations
6. International Humanitarian Relief Operations (HUMRO)
7. Non-combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO)
8. Counter-Insurgency Operations (COINOPs)
9. CANUS Continental Operations
1. Conduct daily domestic and continental operations VH VH VL
2. Support a major international event in Canada H M VL
3. Support civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada such as a natural disaster M VL NA
4. Respond to a major terrorist attack VL VL VL
5. Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period VL L VH
6. Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periodsVL L VH
H M H VL VL VL
M M H M L M
L VH VH VH VH L
VL VL VL H M M
VH H M VH M M
L L L L M H
VL NA NA VH VH L
VL VL VL VH VL VL
VH VH VL VL VL VL
VL VL VL M VH VH
VL VL VL L VH VH
VL VL VL L VH VH
VL VL VL VL VH VH
VL VL VL VL H H
VH VH H VL L VH VH H M M M VL VL VL
M H M VL M H H VL L M M M VL VL
VH VH VH VH VH L VL L VL L L H VH VL
NA NA VH NA VH NA NA NA VL NA NA NA NA NA
VH H H VL VH VL M H VH H H VL VL H
VL VL VL VL VH VL VL VL M VL VL VL VL VL
NA NA M VL VH L M H M VH VH VH VH VH
NA NA NA NA NA M VH H VL H H H H M
NA NA VL VL L M M H L VH VH VH VH VH
NA VL VL VL M VL VL VL VL H VH H H VH
NA VL VL VL M VL VL VL H H M M M VH
Op
era
tio
nal
Defence Policy
Priorities
Domestic
Tasks
Expeditionary
Tasks
Strategic Operational
Roles
Geo-
political
13
. Pea
ce E
nfo
rcem
ent
- U
N C
hap
ter
VII
14
. Maj
or
Co
mb
at O
per
atio
ns
(MC
O)
3. C
on
trib
ute
to
Inte
rnat
ion
al P
eace
an
d S
ecu
rity
2. D
efen
d N
ort
h A
mer
ica
1. D
efen
d C
anad
a
7. N
on
-co
mb
atan
t Ev
acu
atio
n O
per
atio
ns
(NEO
)
8. C
ou
nte
r-In
surg
ency
Op
erat
ion
s (C
OIN
OP
s)
9. C
AN
US
Co
nti
nen
tal O
per
atio
ns
10
. Sta
bili
zati
on
Op
erat
ion
s
11
. NA
TO R
esp
on
se F
orc
e (N
RF)
Op
erat
ion
s
12
. Pea
ce S
up
po
rt O
per
atio
ns
(PSO
) -
UN
Ch
apte
r V
I
1. A
ir a
nd
Mar
itim
e Se
arch
an
d R
escu
e (S
AR
)
2. H
um
anit
aria
n A
ssis
tan
ce
3. A
ssis
tan
ce t
o L
aw E
nfo
rcem
ent
Age
nci
es (
ALE
A)
4. A
id t
o C
ivil
Po
wer
5. S
ove
reig
nty
Op
erat
ion
s
6. I
nte
rnat
ion
al H
um
anit
aria
n R
elie
f O
per
atio
ns
(HU
MR
O)
10. Standing NATO Response Force Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1)
11. United States Task Group (e.g., CSG, ESG, MEU)
Tact
ical
4. Fisheries Patrols
5. Sovereignty Patrols
6. Arctic Sovereignty Patrols
7. Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO)
8. Non-combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO)
9. Littoral Maritime Force Projection
Nav
al F
un
ctio
ns
6. D
eplo
y fo
rces
in r
esp
on
se t
o c
rise
s el
sew
her
e in
th
e w
orl
d f
or
sho
rter
per
iod
s
1. Air and Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR)
2. Humanitarian Assistance
3. Assistance to Law Enforcement Agency
1. C
on
du
ct d
aily
do
mes
tic
and
co
nti
nen
tal o
per
atio
ns
2. S
up
po
rt a
maj
or
inte
rnat
ion
al e
ven
t in
Can
ada
3. S
up
po
rt c
ivili
an a
uth
ori
ties
du
rin
g a
cris
is in
Can
ada
such
as
a n
atu
ral d
isas
ter
4. R
esp
on
d t
o a
maj
or
terr
ori
st a
ttac
k
5. L
ead
an
d/o
r co
nd
uct
a m
ajo
r in
tern
atio
nal
op
erat
ion
fo
r an
ext
end
ed p
erio
d
Stra
tegi
c
1. Air and Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR)
2. Humanitarian Assistance
14. Major Combat Operations (MCO)
3. Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies (ALEA)
4. Aid to Civil Power
10. Stabilization Operations
11. NATO Response Force (NRF) Operations
12. Peace Support Operations (PSO) - UN Chapter VI
13. Peace Enforcement - UN Chapter VII
Def
ence
Po
licy
Pri
ori
ties
Do
mes
tic
Task
sEx
ped
itio
nar
y Ta
sks
5. Sovereignty Operations
6. International Humanitarian Relief Operations (HUMRO)
7. Non-combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO)
8. Counter-Insurgency Operations (COINOPs)
9. CANUS Continental Operations
1. Conduct daily domestic and continental operations VH VH VL
2. Support a major international event in Canada H M VL
3. Support civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada such as a natural disaster M VL NA
4. Respond to a major terrorist attack VL VL VL
5. Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period VL L VH
6. Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periodsVL L VH
H M H VL VL VL
M M H M L M
L VH VH VH VH L
VL VL VL H M M
VH H M VH M M
L L L L M H
VL NA NA VH VH L
VL VL VL VH VL VL
VH VH VL VL VL VL
VL VL VL M VH VH
VL VL VL L VH VH
VL VL VL L VH VH
VL VL VL VL VH VH
VL VL VL VL H H
VH VH H VL L VH VH H M M M VL VL VL
M H M VL M H H VL L M M M VL VL
VH VH VH VH VH L VL L VL L L H VH VL
NA NA VH NA VH NA NA NA VL NA NA NA NA NA
VH H H VL VH VL M H VH H H VL VL H
VL VL VL VL VH VL VL VL M VL VL VL VL VL
NA NA M VL VH L M H M VH VH VH VH VH
NA NA NA NA NA M VH H VL H H H H M
NA NA VL VL L M M H L VH VH VH VH VH
NA VL VL VL M VL VL VL VL H VH H H VH
NA VL VL VL M VL VL VL H H M M M VH
Op
era
tio
nal
Defence Policy
Priorities
Domestic
Tasks
Expeditionary
Tasks
Strategic Operational
Roles
Geo-
political
13
. Pea
ce E
nfo
rcem
ent
- U
N C
hap
ter
VII
14
. Maj
or
Co
mb
at O
per
atio
ns
(MC
O)
3. C
on
trib
ute
to
Inte
rnat
ion
al P
eace
an
d S
ecu
rity
2. D
efen
d N
ort
h A
mer
ica
1. D
efen
d C
anad
a
7. N
on
-co
mb
atan
t Ev
acu
atio
n O
per
atio
ns
(NEO
)
8. C
ou
nte
r-In
surg
ency
Op
erat
ion
s (C
OIN
OP
s)
9. C
AN
US
Co
nti
nen
tal O
per
atio
ns
10
. Sta
bili
zati
on
Op
erat
ion
s
11
. NA
TO R
esp
on
se F
orc
e (N
RF)
Op
erat
ion
s
12
. Pea
ce S
up
po
rt O
per
atio
ns
(PSO
) -
UN
Ch
apte
r V
I
1. A
ir a
nd
Mar
itim
e Se
arch
an
d R
escu
e (S
AR
)
2. H
um
anit
aria
n A
ssis
tan
ce
3. A
ssis
tan
ce t
o L
aw E
nfo
rcem
ent
Age
nci
es (
ALE
A)
4. A
id t
o C
ivil
Po
wer
5. S
ove
reig
nty
Op
erat
ion
s
6. I
nte
rnat
ion
al H
um
anit
aria
n R
elie
f O
per
atio
ns
(HU
MR
O)
10. Standing NATO Response Force Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1)
11. United States Task Group (e.g., CSG, ESG, MEU)
Tact
ical
4. Fisheries Patrols
5. Sovereignty Patrols
6. Arctic Sovereignty Patrols
7. Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO)
8. Non-combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO)
9. Littoral Maritime Force Projection
Nav
al F
un
ctio
ns
6. D
eplo
y fo
rces
in r
esp
on
se t
o c
rise
s el
sew
her
e in
th
e w
orl
d f
or
sho
rter
per
iod
s
1. Air and Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR)
2. Humanitarian Assistance
3. Assistance to Law Enforcement Agency
1. C
on
du
ct d
aily
do
mes
tic
and
co
nti
nen
tal o
per
atio
ns
2. S
up
po
rt a
maj
or
inte
rnat
ion
al e
ven
t in
Can
ada
3. S
up
po
rt c
ivili
an a
uth
ori
ties
du
rin
g a
cris
is in
Can
ada
such
as
a n
atu
ral d
isas
ter
4. R
esp
on
d t
o a
maj
or
terr
ori
st a
ttac
k
5. L
ead
an
d/o
r co
nd
uct
a m
ajo
r in
tern
atio
nal
op
erat
ion
fo
r an
ext
end
ed p
erio
d
Stra
tegi
c
1. Air and Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR)
2. Humanitarian Assistance
14. Major Combat Operations (MCO)
3. Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies (ALEA)
4. Aid to Civil Power
10. Stabilization Operations
11. NATO Response Force (NRF) Operations
12. Peace Support Operations (PSO) - UN Chapter VI
13. Peace Enforcement - UN Chapter VII
Def
ence
Po
licy
Pri
ori
ties
Do
mes
tic
Task
sEx
ped
itio
nar
y Ta
sks
5. Sovereignty Operations
6. International Humanitarian Relief Operations (HUMRO)
7. Non-combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO)
8. Counter-Insurgency Operations (COINOPs)
9. CANUS Continental Operations
Impact
Cri
tica
l
Maj
or
Mo
der
ate
Min
or
Insi
gnif
ican
t
No
t A
pp
licab
le
Fre
qu
en
cy
Always VH VH H M L NA
Likely VH H M L VL NA
Possibly H M M L VL NA
Unlikely M L L L VL NA
Rarely L VL VL VL VL NA
Never NA NA NA NA NA NA
14
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Naval SoS Levels
15
Rank Typology Description
1Complete Major
Global Force Projection
Capable of carrying out all the military roles of naval forces on a global scale. It possesses the full range of carrier and amphibious capabilities, sea control forces, and nuclear attack and ballistic missile submarines, and all in sufficient numbers to undertake major operations independently.
2Partial Global Force
Projection
Possesses most if not all of the force projection capabilities of a "complete" global navy, but only in sufficient numbers to undertake one major "out of area" operation.
3Medium Global Force Projection
May not possess the full range of capabilities, but have a credible capacity in certain of them and consistently demonstrate a determination to exercise them at some distance from home waters, in cooperation with other Force Projection Navies.
4Medium Regional Force Projection
Possesses the ability to project force into the adjoining ocean basin. While may have the capacity to exercise these further afield, for whatever reason, do not do so on a regular basis.
5Adjacent Force
ProjectionPossesses some ability to project force well offshore, but not capable of carrying out high-level naval operations over oceanic distances.
6Offshore Territorial
Defence
Possesses relatively high levels of capability in defensive (and constabulary) operations up to about 200 miles from shores, having the sustainability offered by frigate or large corvette vessels and (or) a capable submarine force.
7Inshore Territorial
Defence
Primarily inshore territorial defence capabilities, capable of coastal combat rather than constabulary duties alone. This implies a force comprising missile-armed fast-attack craft, short-range aviation and a limited submarine force.
8Constabulary
DefenceNot intended to fight, but to act purely in a constabulary role.
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Visualization 1
16
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 3 3 311 ASuW 5 5 519 ASW 5 5 527 MW 1 1 134 BRD 4 4 441 NFS 1 1 147 C4I 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 2 2 261 SB 1 1 168 SPE 5 5 577 RNG 3 3 385 END 2 2 2
0 93 ICE 2 2 2## SURV 4 4 4
8##
1
8
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 7,514 LT 200 186 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 167.5 m 7,500 5,700 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 14.4 m 35.0 57.6 m
Draught (T) 7.0 6.2 m 30.0 26.5 m 2010 (90% CI)Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
1,876,700,000$
2010 (50% CI)
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
Organic AirLEVEL 2: Capability to land and house a organic air assets onboard (i.e.,
flight deck and hangar)
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,807,900,000$
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
Restricted Readiness
100% 67% 40%Standard Readiness High Readiness
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
85%
84%
84%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
73%
91%
100%
75%
66%
80%
71%
89%
78%
94%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100%
69%
52%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 3 3 311 ASuW 5 5 519 ASW 5 5 527 MW 1 1 134 BRD 4 4 441 NFS 1 1 147 C4I 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 2 2 261 SB 1 1 168 SPE 5 5 577 RNG 3 3 385 END 2 2 2
0 93 ICE 2 2 2## SURV 4 4 4
8##
1
8
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 7,514 LT 200 186 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 167.5 m 7,500 5,700 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 14.4 m 35.0 57.6 m
Draught (T) 7.0 6.2 m 30.0 26.5 m 2010 (90% CI)Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
1,876,700,000$
2010 (50% CI)
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
Organic AirLEVEL 2: Capability to land and house a organic air assets onboard (i.e.,
flight deck and hangar)
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,807,900,000$
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
Restricted Readiness
100% 67% 40%Standard Readiness High Readiness
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
85%
84%
84%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
73%
91%
100%
75%
66%
80%
71%
89%
78%
94%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100%
69%
52%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 3 3 311 ASuW 5 5 519 ASW 5 5 527 MW 1 1 134 BRD 4 4 441 NFS 1 1 147 C4I 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 2 2 261 SB 1 1 168 SPE 5 5 577 RNG 3 3 385 END 2 2 2
0 93 ICE 2 2 2## SURV 4 4 4
8##
1
8
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 7,514 LT 200 186 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 167.5 m 7,500 5,700 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 14.4 m 35.0 57.6 m
Draught (T) 7.0 6.2 m 30.0 26.5 m 2010 (90% CI)Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
1,876,700,000$
2010 (50% CI)
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
Organic AirLEVEL 2: Capability to land and house a organic air assets onboard (i.e.,
flight deck and hangar)
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,807,900,000$
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
Restricted Readiness
100% 67% 40%Standard Readiness High Readiness
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
85%
84%
84%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
73%
91%
100%
75%
66%
80%
71%
89%
78%
94%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100%
69%
52%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 3 3 311 ASuW 5 5 519 ASW 5 5 527 MW 1 1 134 BRD 4 4 441 NFS 1 1 147 C4I 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 2 2 261 SB 1 1 168 SPE 5 5 577 RNG 3 3 385 END 2 2 2
0 93 ICE 2 2 2## SURV 4 4 4
8##
1
8
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 7,514 LT 200 186 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 167.5 m 7,500 5,700 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 14.4 m 35.0 57.6 m
Draught (T) 7.0 6.2 m 30.0 26.5 m 2010 (90% CI)Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
1,876,700,000$
2010 (50% CI)
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
Organic AirLEVEL 2: Capability to land and house a organic air assets onboard (i.e.,
flight deck and hangar)
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,807,900,000$
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
Restricted Readiness
100% 67% 40%Standard Readiness High Readiness
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
85%
84%
84%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
73%
91%
100%
75%
66%
80%
71%
89%
78%
94%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100%
69%
52%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Hierarchical to Functional Decomposition
Political Priorities
Defence Roles
Military Missions
Naval Tasks
Ship Capabilities
Decomposition Level
Geopolitical
Strategic
Operational
Tactical
Hierarchical Level of Abstraction
System
Sub-System
17
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
1. Float2. Move3. Fight
Cross-Functional Decomposition
18
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Float
Move
Fight
Capability Priorities
Habitability
Sustainability
Survivability
Mobility
Manoeuvrability
Operability
Interoperability
Platform Systems
Capabilities
C4ISR
Anti-Surface Warfare
Anti-Air Warfare
Anti-Submarine Warfare
Area Air Defence
Mine Counter Measure
Maritime Interdiction
Combat Systems
Capabilities
Restricted: Subject to deficiencies in personnel, materiel and training severely limiting employment
Standard: Core naval continental and expeditionary missions that do not entail the possibility of high intensity, full spectrum combat
High: Full-spectrum of combat operations
OperationalCapability Readiness
Capability across functional areas and technology domains
Cross-Functional Decomposition
19
Platform SystemsCapabilities
• Habitability• Sustainability• Survivability• Mobility• Manoeuvrability• Operability• Interoperability
Combat SystemsCapabilities
• C4ISR • Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW)• Maritime Interdiction• Mine Counter Measures (MCM)• Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)• Anti-Air Warfare (AAW)• Area Air Defence (AAD)
Sub-System and Equipment Selection
Capability Priorities
Float Move Fight
Op
era
tio
nal
Cap
abili
ty R
ead
ines
s
Hig
hR
est
rict
ed
Stan
dar
d
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Visualization 2
20
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 4 4 411 ASuW 3 3 319 ASW 3 3 327 MW 3 3 334 BRD 2 2 241 NFS 2 2 247 C4I 3 3 354 AIR 3 3 361 SB 3 3 368 SPE 4 4 477 RNG 4 4 485 END 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 93 ICE 3 3 3## SURV 3 3 3
14##
10
14
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 10,601 LT 200 200 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 187.8 m 7,500 5,200 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m
Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)
Restricted Readiness
100% 76% 17%Standard Readiness High Readiness
1,710,900,000$
2010 (50% CI)
SurvivabilityLEVEL 3: Ship designed to Naval Rules
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,652,400,000$
Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
89%
88%
85%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
90%
100% 100%
87%83%
73%
85% 85%
70%66%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100% 100%
48%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 4 4 411 ASuW 3 3 319 ASW 3 3 327 MW 3 3 334 BRD 2 2 241 NFS 2 2 247 C4I 3 3 354 AIR 3 3 361 SB 3 3 368 SPE 4 4 477 RNG 4 4 485 END 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 93 ICE 3 3 3## SURV 3 3 3
14##
10
14
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 10,601 LT 200 200 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 187.8 m 7,500 5,200 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m
Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)
Restricted Readiness
100% 76% 17%Standard Readiness High Readiness
1,710,900,000$
2010 (50% CI)
SurvivabilityLEVEL 3: Ship designed to Naval Rules
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,652,400,000$
Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
89%
88%
85%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
90%
100% 100%
87%83%
73%
85% 85%
70%66%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100% 100%
48%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 4 4 411 ASuW 3 3 319 ASW 3 3 327 MW 3 3 334 BRD 2 2 241 NFS 2 2 247 C4I 3 3 354 AIR 3 3 361 SB 3 3 368 SPE 4 4 477 RNG 4 4 485 END 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 93 ICE 3 3 3## SURV 3 3 3
14##
10
14
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 10,601 LT 200 200 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 187.8 m 7,500 5,200 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m
Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)
Restricted Readiness
100% 76% 17%Standard Readiness High Readiness
1,710,900,000$
2010 (50% CI)
SurvivabilityLEVEL 3: Ship designed to Naval Rules
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,652,400,000$
Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
89%
88%
85%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
90%
100% 100%
87%83%
73%
85% 85%
70%66%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100% 100%
48%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 4 4 411 ASuW 3 3 319 ASW 3 3 327 MW 3 3 334 BRD 2 2 241 NFS 2 2 247 C4I 3 3 354 AIR 3 3 361 SB 3 3 368 SPE 4 4 477 RNG 4 4 485 END 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 93 ICE 3 3 3## SURV 3 3 3
14##
10
14
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 10,601 LT 200 200 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 187.8 m 7,500 5,200 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m
Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)
Restricted Readiness
100% 76% 17%Standard Readiness High Readiness
1,710,900,000$
2010 (50% CI)
SurvivabilityLEVEL 3: Ship designed to Naval Rules
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,652,400,000$
Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
89%
88%
85%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
90%
100% 100%
87%83%
73%
85% 85%
70%66%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100% 100%
48%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 4 4 411 ASuW 3 3 319 ASW 3 3 327 MW 3 3 334 BRD 2 2 241 NFS 2 2 247 C4I 3 3 354 AIR 3 3 361 SB 3 3 368 SPE 4 4 477 RNG 4 4 485 END 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 93 ICE 3 3 3## SURV 3 3 3
14##
10
14
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 10,601 LT 200 200 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 187.8 m 7,500 5,200 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m
Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)
Restricted Readiness
100% 76% 17%Standard Readiness High Readiness
1,710,900,000$
2010 (50% CI)
SurvivabilityLEVEL 3: Ship designed to Naval Rules
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,652,400,000$
Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
89%
88%
85%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
90%
100% 100%
87%83%
73%
85% 85%
70%66%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100% 100%
48%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 4 4 411 ASuW 3 3 319 ASW 3 3 327 MW 3 3 334 BRD 2 2 241 NFS 2 2 247 C4I 3 3 354 AIR 3 3 361 SB 3 3 368 SPE 4 4 477 RNG 4 4 485 END 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 93 ICE 3 3 3## SURV 3 3 3
14##
10
14
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 10,601 LT 200 200 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 187.8 m 7,500 5,200 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m
Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)
Restricted Readiness
100% 76% 17%Standard Readiness High Readiness
1,710,900,000$
2010 (50% CI)
SurvivabilityLEVEL 3: Ship designed to Naval Rules
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,652,400,000$
Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
89%
88%
85%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
90%
100% 100%
87%83%
73%
85% 85%
70%66%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100% 100%
48%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 4 4 411 ASuW 3 3 319 ASW 3 3 327 MW 3 3 334 BRD 2 2 241 NFS 2 2 247 C4I 3 3 354 AIR 3 3 361 SB 3 3 368 SPE 4 4 477 RNG 4 4 485 END 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 93 ICE 3 3 3## SURV 3 3 3
14##
10
14
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 10,601 LT 200 200 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 187.8 m 7,500 5,200 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 16.1 m 35.0 58.6 m
Draught (T) 7.0 7.0 m 30.0 30.0 m 2010 (90% CI)
Restricted Readiness
100% 76% 17%Standard Readiness High Readiness
1,710,900,000$
2010 (50% CI)
SurvivabilityLEVEL 3: Ship designed to Naval Rules
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,652,400,000$
Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
89%
88%
85%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
90%
100% 100%
87%83%
73%
85% 85%
70%66%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100% 100%
48%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 2 5 2 +211 ASuW 4 4 4 +119 ASW 1 3 1 +227 MW 1 2 1 +134 BRD 4 4 4 +141 NFS 0 0 0 -247 C4I 1 4 1 +2
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 4 4 4 -61 SB 1 3 1 -68 SPE 4 4 4 +177 RNG 2 2 2 -85 END 3 3 3 +1
0 93 ICE 1 1 1 -## SURV 2 2 2 -
13##
1
13
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 6,535 LT 200 165 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 159.9 m 7,500 3,450 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 13.7 m 35.0 35.0 m
Draught (T) 7.0 6.0 m 30.0 25.2 m 2010 (90% CI)
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
Transit in Ice ConditionsLEVEL 1: PC 7: Summer/autumn operation in thin first-year ice which
may include old ice inclusions
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,148,100,000$
Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
1,191,500,000$
2010 (50% CI)
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
Restricted Readiness
88% 69% 50%Standard Readiness High Readiness
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
86%
86%
86%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
86%90% 92% 93%
81%
75%
100%
90%
83%
75%
63%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
94%
65%
45%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 2 5 2 +211 ASuW 4 4 4 +119 ASW 1 3 1 +227 MW 1 2 1 +134 BRD 4 4 4 +141 NFS 0 0 0 -247 C4I 1 4 1 +2
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 4 4 4 -61 SB 1 3 1 -68 SPE 4 4 4 +177 RNG 2 2 2 -85 END 3 3 3 +1
0 93 ICE 1 1 1 -## SURV 2 2 2 -
13##
1
13
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 6,535 LT 200 165 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 159.9 m 7,500 3,450 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 13.7 m 35.0 35.0 m
Draught (T) 7.0 6.0 m 30.0 25.2 m 2010 (90% CI)
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
Transit in Ice ConditionsLEVEL 1: PC 7: Summer/autumn operation in thin first-year ice which
may include old ice inclusions
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,148,100,000$
Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
1,191,500,000$
2010 (50% CI)
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
Restricted Readiness
88% 69% 50%Standard Readiness High Readiness
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
86%
86%
86%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
86%90% 92% 93%
81%
75%
100%
90%
83%
75%
63%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
94%
65%
45%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 480% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 2 5 2 +211 ASuW 4 4 4 +119 ASW 1 3 1 +227 MW 1 2 1 +134 BRD 4 4 4 +141 NFS 0 0 0 -247 C4I 1 4 1 +2
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 4 4 4 -61 SB 1 3 1 -68 SPE 4 4 4 +177 RNG 2 2 2 -85 END 3 3 3 +1
0 93 ICE 1 1 1 -## SURV 2 2 2 -
13##
1
13
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 6,535 LT 200 165 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 159.9 m 7,500 3,450 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 13.7 m 35.0 35.0 m
Draught (T) 7.0 6.0 m 30.0 25.2 m 2010 (90% CI)
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
Transit in Ice ConditionsLEVEL 1: PC 7: Summer/autumn operation in thin first-year ice which
may include old ice inclusions
4Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,148,100,000$
Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
1,191,500,000$
2010 (50% CI)
Medium Regional Force Projection Capability
Restricted Readiness
88% 69% 50%Standard Readiness High Readiness
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
86%
86%
86%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
86%90% 92% 93%
81%
75%
100%
90%
83%
75%
63%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
94%
65%
45%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
80% 60% 680% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 1 1 111 ASuW 3 3 319 ASW 0 0 027 MW 2 2 234 BRD 3 3 341 NFS 1 1 147 C4I 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 3 3 361 SB 1 1 168 SPE 4 4 477 RNG 4 4 485 END 2 2 2
0 93 ICE 2 2 2## SURV 1 1 1
14##
1
14
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 7,711 LT 200 165 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 168.9 m 7,500 2,900 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 14.5 m 35.0 41.3 m
Draught (T) 7.0 6.3 m 30.0 26.8 m 2010 (90% CI)Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
1,062,100,000$
2010 (50% CI)
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
SurvivabilityLEVEL 1: Ship designed to Commercial Class Rules (e.g., LRS, GL, ABS,
etc.)
6Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,028,900,000$
Offshore Territorial Defence Capability
Restricted Readiness
88% 43% 2%Standard Readiness High Readiness
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
76%
73%
70%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
85%
100% 100%
53% 55%52%
58%55%
57% 56%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
94%
65%
21%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
Domestic Constabulary Variant
21
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Expeditionary Variant
22
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
80% 60% 580% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 4 4 411 ASuW 4 4 419 ASW 1 1 127 MW 1 1 134 BRD 4 4 441 NFS 1 1 147 C4I 3 3 3
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 3 3 361 SB 1 1 168 SPE 3 3 377 RNG 3 3 385 END 2 2 2
0 93 ICE 2 2 2## SURV 3 3 3
11##
1
11
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 6,794 LT 200 176 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 162.0 m 7,500 4,200 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 13.9 m 35.0 55.0 m
Draught (T) 7.0 6.0 m 30.0 25.6 m 2010 (90% CI)Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
1,509,800,000$
2010 (50% CI)
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
RangeLEVEL 3: Ship has a maximum range at cruise speed between 5,000 nmi
and 7,500 nmi
5Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,454,900,000$
Adjacent Force Projection Capability
Restricted Readiness
100% 57% 36%Standard Readiness High Readiness
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
83%
82%
80%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
85%
91%
100%
74%
65%
76%74%
71%69%
73%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100%
69%
40%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
Arctic Patrol Variant
23
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
80% 60% 580% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 4 4 4 -11 ASuW 3 3 3 -19 ASW 2 2 2 -27 MW 1 1 1 -34 BRD 4 4 4 -41 NFS 1 1 1 -47 C4I 2 2 2 -
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 3 3 3 -61 SB 2 2 2 -68 SPE 4 4 4 -77 RNG 4 4 4 -85 END 3 3 3 -
0 93 ICE 5 5 5 -## SURV 2 2 2 -
13##
1
13
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 9,908 LT 200 186 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 183.7 m 7,500 4,000 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 15.7 m 35.0 40.2 m
Draught (T) 7.0 6.8 m 30.0 29.3 m 2010 (90% CI)Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
1,553,000,000$
2010 (50% CI)
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
Transit in Ice ConditionsLEVEL 5: PC 3: Year-round operation in second-year ice which may
include multiyear ice inclusions
5Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,493,600,000$
Adjacent Force Projection Capability
Restricted Readiness
100% 48% 29%Standard Readiness High Readiness
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
91%
89%
84%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
100%
86%
100% 100%95%
100%
84%
76% 75%
60%64%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100% 100%
33%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
Non-Combatant Evacuation (NEO) Variant
24
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
80% 60% 680% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 3 3 3 -11 ASuW 3 3 3 -19 ASW 1 1 1 -27 MW 1 1 1 -34 BRD 3 3 3 -41 NFS 2 2 2 -47 C4I 2 2 2 -
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 4 4 4 -61 SB 3 3 3 -68 SPE 3 3 3 -77 RNG 2 2 2 -85 END 2 2 2 -
0 93 ICE 1 1 1 -## SURV 2 2 2 -
14##
1
14
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 6,730 LT 200 177 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 161.4 m 7,500 4,000 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 13.8 m 35.0 35.3 m
Draught (T) 7.0 6.0 m 30.0 25.5 m 2010 (90% CI)Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
1,187,600,000$
2010 (50% CI)
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
SurvivabilityLEVEL 2: Ship designed to Partial Naval Rules (e.g., redundant
machinery rooms and watertight bulkheads)
6Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,144,300,000$
Offshore Territorial Defence Capability
Restricted Readiness
100% 43% 2%Standard Readiness High Readiness
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
73%
72%
72%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
86%90%
82%
93%
52%54%
69%
100%
69%
37%
50%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100%
58%
29%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
(Imbalanced) Maritime Interdiction Ops Variant
25
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
80% 60% 680% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%80% 60%
3 AAW 3 3 3 +111 ASuW 3 3 3 -119 ASW 1 1 1 -27 MW 1 1 1 -34 BRD 3 3 3 -141 NFS 2 2 2 +247 C4I 2 2 2 +1
## FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE ## 54 AIR 4 4 4 -61 SB 3 3 3 +268 SPE 3 3 3 -177 RNG 2 2 2 -85 END 2 2 2 -1
0 93 ICE 1 1 1 -## SURV 2 2 2 -
8##
1
8
Confidence
Characteristics Limit Value Characteristics Limit Value8,500 6,730 LT 200 177 sailors
Length Overall (LOA) 165.0 161.4 m 7,500 4,000 m3
Beam (B) 16.0 13.8 m 35.0 35.3 m
Draught (T) 7.0 6.0 m 30.0 25.5 m 2010 (90% CI)Flightdeck Length
ComplementIn-Hull Volume
1,186,700,000$
2010 (50% CI)
Displacement (Δ)
Air Draught
Organic AirLEVEL 4: Capability to maintain and support multiple air assets onboard
(e.g., CH-148 + Firescout)
6Effective Navy Rank :
90%
1,144,200,000$
Offshore Territorial Defence Capability
Restricted Readiness
100% 43% 2%Standard Readiness High Readiness
SAR
HA
ALEAACP
SOVOPS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$500 $700 $900 $1,100 $1,300
HUMRO
NEO
COIN
CANUS
STABOPSNRFOPS
UN Ch VI
UN Ch VII
MCO
73%
72%
72%
Domestic
ContinentalRegion
International
Geopolitical Roles
Domestic
Expeditionary
Operational Capabilities: Military
Strategic Capability
Show Capability Gap for Selected Naval Functions
Ship Design: Key Parameters
-15.0
-5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Cost Estimation
Naval System-of-System Capability
Ship Design: Sideview
Save
86%90%
82%
93%
52%54%
69%
100%
69%
37%
50%
SAR HA ALEA FISHPAT SOVPAT ARCPAT MIO NEO LITFP SNMG1 US TG
Operational Capabilities: Navy
Select/De-select All
CVN
CG
DDG
LHD
LPD
LSD
SSBN
SSN
SS
Satellite
RQ-4
MQ-9
100%
58%
29%
Float Move Fight
Capability Priorities
Tactical Level: Ship Capabilities
Readiness Level
Politicians
Governmental and Defence Leaders
Military Strategists
Naval Operational Leaders
Ship Design Team
Operational Requirements Managers
Systems Engineers
Naval Architects
Naval Technical Advisors
Stak
eho
lder
s C
om
mu
nit
y
System-of-Systems
Systems
Sub-Systems
Equipment
Perf
orm
ance
Effe
ctiv
enes
s
Political
Strategic
Operational
Hie
rarc
hic
al L
evel
s o
f A
bst
ract
ion
Technical
Tactical
Naval Functions Capabilities
Political Aspirations
Defence Roles Capabilities
Defend Nation
Protect Region
Preserve International Peace
Military Missions Capabilities
Joint and Combined
Expeditionary and Domestic
Cap
abili
ties
Fu
nct
ion
al D
eco
mp
osi
tio
n a
nd
Vis
ual
isat
ion
Ship Capabilities
Combat Capabilities
Platform Capabilities
26
StrategicViewpoint
OperationalViewpoint
AcquisitionViewpoint
SystemsViewpoint
TechnicalViewpoint
AllViews
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Capability-based SoS Approach to Naval Ship Design
Politicians
Governmental and Defence Leaders
Military Strategists
Naval Operational Leaders
Ship Design Team
Operational Requirements Managers
Systems Engineers
Naval Architects
Naval Technical Advisors
Stak
eho
lder
s C
om
mu
nit
y
System-of-Systems
Systems
Sub-Systems
Equipment
Perf
orm
ance
Effe
ctiv
enes
s
Naval Functions Capabilities
Political Aspirations
Defence Roles Capabilities
Defend Nation
Protect Region
Preserve International Peace
Military Missions Capabilities
Joint and Combined
Expeditionary and Domestic
Cap
abili
ties
Fu
nct
ion
al D
eco
mp
osi
tio
n a
nd
Vis
ual
isat
ion
Ship Capabilities
Combat Capabilities
Platform Capabilities
27
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Capability-based SoS Approach to Naval Ship Design
Political
Strategic
Operational
Hie
rarc
hic
al L
evel
s o
f A
bst
ract
ion
Technical
Tactical
EngagementCohesion Visualisation Efficiency
28
Design Process Paradox
Use SoSE methodology and apply MBSE techniques to naval ship design to enable rapid, defensible and traceable capability trade-offs in the early
stages of design
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Identification Option Analysis Definition Implementation
Expended Committed Available
Design Freedom & InfluenceDesign Knowledge & Information
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
29
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Identification Option Analysis Definition Implementation
Expended Committed Available
Design Process Paradox
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Identification Option Analysis Definition Implementation
Expended Committed Available
Design Freedom & InfluenceDesign Knowledge & Information
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Use SoSE methodology and apply MBSE techniques to naval ship design to enable rapid, defensible and traceable capability trade-offs in the early
stages of design
Purpose Revisited
30
PostulationModern naval ship design should consider the systems of interest as components subsumed by a holistic environment encompassing assets and capabilities inorganic to naval platforms
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/td/2902/td2902.html
http://tomtunguz.com/images/gears.jpg
MotivationPropose a starting point intended to provide a more defined means of establishing and improving the ship design process as part of a multi-layered maritime domain warfare enterprise
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño
Questions?
Santiago Balestrini-RobinsonBEng, MSc, PhD
Jacques P. OlivierCD, BEng, MSc, MBA, PEng, PMP, IMarEST
31
This paper is an unclassified position paper containing public domain facts and opinions, which the authors aloneconsidered appropriate and correct for the subject. It does not necessarily reflect the policy or the opinion of anyagency, including the Government of Canada, the Canadian Department of National Defence, or the Georgia Instituteof Technology.
8th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference2nd April 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Olivier, Balestrini, Briceño