3 Dec 2013 Protecting military platforms CDE themed competition presentations

1,305 views
1,048 views

Published on

Centre for Defence Enterprise (CDE) Innovation Network. Themed competition launch - Protecting military platforms

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,305
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
39
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

3 Dec 2013 Protecting military platforms CDE themed competition presentations

  1. 1. A&P STC CDE Competition Protecting Military Platforms 3 December 2013 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  2. 2. Agenda • Introductions • Future Force 2020 • Protecting military platforms challenges 1 & 2 • Protecting military platforms challenge 3 • Administration
  3. 3. Future Force 2020: Adaptable, Modular and Cost Effective 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl
  4. 4. The Future ...the land force must maintain a credible, and demonstrable, persistent capacity to defeat adaptive, hybrid adversaries…[who] can cause devastating damage through the innovative use of low-cost weapons, effectively neutralising the benefits of advanced weaponry…force protection will continue to be about the identification, analysis and management of risk in order to enable, rather than constrain, freedom of action. 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl
  5. 5. Cost • Cost first, as it drives everything else… • Modify existing platforms • Use on various vehicles, not a single one 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl
  6. 6. Future conflicts • COIN • MCO • Something else? • We think more urban… • We are only sure that we don’t know… 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl
  7. 7. Threats • Threat profiles can change very quickly… • What we know now… • Similar, but somewhere else… • Conventional forces… • …or all at the same time in some form or another • Defeated conventional forces tend to turn insurgent 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl
  8. 8. Deployment profile • Start off needing light vehicles • Situation develops such that heavy protection is needed • But…it is appreciated that vehicles cannot be protected that much if the start point is too low… • …but what can be achieved? 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl
  9. 9. Environments • Where will we be? • More urban population – easy to move (top attack risk) • But…not all cities are developed…insurgents will run to the country if we secure the cities… 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl
  10. 10. Logistics • Movement on and off the vehicle – we do not want a huge logistic load, mounted or otherwise • Size is an issue as much as weight – fly heavy/ fly light options • Logistic Lift: • Need to be able to shift armour packs from A to B – how makes all the difference 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl
  11. 11. Practicalities • Needs to be adaptable – threat, environment – applique! • Scalable protection to meet appropriate level of risk • Operated under situations of considerable stress • Needs to be simple 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl
  12. 12. Agenda • Introductions • Future Force 2020 • Protecting military platforms challenges 1 & 2 • Protecting military platforms challenge 3 • Administration
  13. 13. Armour & Protection Science & Technology Centre CDE Themed Competition Dec 2013 Protecting Military Platforms Challenges 1 & 2 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  14. 14. CDE themed competition • Some background – The areas we cover • The need for research and development • Topics for future development • The CDE themed competition © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  15. 15. The areas we cover • Exhaustive list: – Dismounted Close Combat – Mounted Close Combat – Logistic Platforms – Military Bases – Battlefield Aircraft – Littoral Platforms – Maritime……….. (Challenge 3) 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  16. 16. The need for R&D • Changes within UK Armed Forces – Maj. Chris Cameron • Uncertainty regarding the nature of future conflict • Smaller, lighter, cheaper (and lower power consumption) • All the –ities !! – Adaptability – Modularity – Reliability – Commonality – Upgradeability 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  17. 17. Background • Armour & Protection is only one contributor to Integrated Survivability • All the “onion layers” of survivability contribute Don’t be there Don’t be seen Don’t be targeted Don’t be hit Don’t be penetrated Mitigate damage Photo: Copyright B J James 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  18. 18. Other contributors to survivability • The best armour in the world will not protect you if you do not have it !!! • Armour needs to be (all the –ables!): – Affordable – Purchasable – Reliable – Maintainable – Replaceable – Transportable – Recyclable 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  19. 19. So what do we need to do? • Enable deployment of armour & protection that is – Easier – Cheaper – Faster – More effective – More agile – More re-usable – Cheaper to dispose of – Cheaper to transport – Cheaper to own • Better across all the Defence Lines of Development UNCLASSIFIED
  20. 20. Defence Lines of Development • DLODs – Training A major driver across all DLODs is – Equipment – Personnel – Information COST – Doctrine & Concepts – Organisation – Infrastructure – Logistics (ie Sustainability) TEPID OIL UNCLASSIFIED
  21. 21. COST – What is it? • Manufacturing cost • Purchase price • Cost of security • Cost of use • Cost of maintenance, repair, inspection (to ensure integrity) • Cost of replacement (damaged armour) – Not necessarily equivalent to original purchase price • Cost of disposal • What is the performance benefit vs. cost burden? UNCLASSIFIED
  22. 22. Generic Armour Mounting Systems • Allows adaptability – We do not know what we will need in the future – Train light - fight heavy • Allows modularity – – – – Different protection for different areas Additive protection Mix of protection technologies Transfer of modules across platform / platforms • Intramodularity, Intermodularity • Enables commercial competition • Enhances survivability • Reduces cost of ownership UNCLASSIFIED
  23. 23. CVR(T) Designed 1967 In Service 1970 Enhanced 2011 UNCLASSIFIED
  24. 24. Generic Armour Mounting System • Existing appliqué armour – Slow response time to a rapidly changing threat – Bespoke to each platform – Time consuming to fit and maintenance access restricted • Requirements – An ability to rapidly upgrade protection on a range of platforms in the field – Modularity (ie layering of protection) – Minimal impact on maintenance access • Solution: simple, standardised fixings which enable rapid fitting and removal of appliqué armour UNCLASSIFIED
  25. 25. Observations from current platforms • The problems……… – – – – – – – Lack of mounting points results in complex solutions Modification of the platform takes time Complexity and time taken to fit appliqué is an issue Routine maintenance and repairs take longer Lack of commonality between platforms Bar armour fits require a varied range of brackets etc. Different variants of the same vehicle and tolerances • Progress has been made – Commonality between Titan and Trojan – Bulldog solution is indicative of the way forward – Commonality between CRARRV, Warrior and Bulldog UNCLASSIFIED
  26. 26. Titan & Trojan Mounting Commonality TROJAN TITAN TITAN UNCLASSIFIED
  27. 27. WARRIOR Bulldog, Warrior & CRARRV BULLDOG CRARRV True Commonality UNCLASSIFIED
  28. 28. Bulldog Addition of mounting bosses to the hull and the use of an adaptor plate provide ‘upgradeability’ UNCLASSIFIED
  29. 29. CDE themed competition • Challenge 1: Modular armour – Design and analysis of the performance of mounting systems for armour and protection modules, optimised for rapid reconfiguration • Challenge 2: Armour technology – – – – Active or dynamic technologies Sacrificial systems Modelling and simulation techniques and methods Electro-magnetic fields and high density electrical charge storage • Challenge 3: Maritime armour – Low cost, lightweight ballistic & spall protection for maritime platforms 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  30. 30. CDE themed competition • Particular aspects of challenge 1: – Generic Mounting Systems will need to be compatible with the Generic Vehicle Architecture and its specific conditions – Exploitation pathway • CDE projects for phase 1 – standard CDE T&Cs apply • Potential for phase 2 projects with DE&S (TDP), terms negotiated as appropriate with DE&S Integrated Project Team 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  31. 31. Agenda • Introductions • Future Force 2020 • Protecting military platforms challenges 1 & 2 • Protecting military platforms challenge 3 • Administration UNCLASSIFIED
  32. 32. Armour and Protection Science and Technology Centre Protecting Military Platforms Challenge 3 – Maritime 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  33. 33. Maritime domain • Warships require ballistic protection – Counter terrorism, counter piracy, etc • Maritime-specific requirements – Unlikely to need modular fits • Installed at build to meet threat specification – Must have low flammability and toxicity – Marinised (eg corrosion-resistance) – Different mass efficiency requirements, based on managing the ship stability margins 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  34. 34. Maritime domain • Maritime-specific requirements (contd) – Ideally provide multi-functional requirement • eg ballistic protection and passive fire insulation or protection – Much larger areas than in land platforms Type 45 – 153m long – Particularly interested in low-cost options – Will only protect High Value Compartments (HVC), not the entire platform – Will be internal to the ship’s structure • Potential for increasing efficiencies using the ship’s structure, spacing and stand-off 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED Warrior– 6.5 long
  35. 35. Vessel structure 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  36. 36. Challenge 3 – Maritime • Demonstrate proof of principle • Protection against ballistic threats – Armour-piercing rounds and fragments • Can use the ship’s structure as part of the protection scheme • Low cost options – Armour manufacture and materials – Integration onto the platform • Complex surfaces, stiffeners, service runs, cabling, etc • Evolution of current technologies from the land domain – Still innovative and relevant to maritime requirements 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  37. 37. Summary • Protection against armour piercing rounds and fragments • Innovative low-cost and weight-efficient protection ideas sought – Low-cost materials – Low-cost installation • Can be evolution of land-based solution if meet maritime needs • Structure can be used – Defeat threat at internal bulkhead as opposed to shell plate – Solutions still welcome at shell plate for certain applications • Modularity not high priority – Integrated into ship at build • Promising solutions will be assessed further as part of core research 04 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl UNCLASSIFIED
  38. 38. Agenda • Introductions • Future Force 2020 • Protecting military platforms challenges 1 & 2 • Protecting military platforms challenge 3 • Administration UNCLASSIFIED
  39. 39. Administration (1) • Technical enquiries to: aandpstcenquiries@dstl.gov.uk • General enquiries to: cde@dstl.gov.uk • Proposals for funding must be submitted by 17:00 hrs on 23 January 2014 using the Centre for Defence Enterprise Portal • Mark all proposals for this themed competition with “Protecting Military Platforms + challenge 1, 2 or 3” as a prefix in the title
  40. 40. Administration (2) • Webinar – 12 December 2013 • Competition close - 23 January 2014 17:00 hrs • Contract placement initiated and feedback provided March 2014 • All CDE projects to be completed by March 31 2015
  41. 41. Administration (3) • There is no cap on the value of proposals, but it is more likely that at this stage a larger number of lower value proposals (eg £30k—£80k) will be funded • £810k is available for challenges 1 & 2 • £360k is available for challenge 3 • Proposals meeting the criteria set out in challenges 1-3 from consortia or groups of contractors are welcome

×