Presentation to the Defense Science Board Task Force on “Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms”


Published on

I was invited to present to the Defense Science Board Task Force on Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms on September 20, 2000.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Presentation to the Defense Science Board Task Force on “Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms”

    1. 1. Presentation to the Defense Science Board Task Force on “Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms” September 20, 2000 David F. Taggart Hypercar, Inc. [email_address] +44 7974 920 441 Riding a Bike (with the emphasis on “riding”)
    2. 2. Development of Weapon Platforms: Current Status <ul><li>Our ability to design and field energy efficient weapons platforms depends directly on our ability to design energy efficient weapons platforms </li></ul><ul><li>No new fundamental technologies are required to see dramatic near term efficiency improvements. What is required is that we be creative in our application of existing technology </li></ul><ul><li>The required actions may be viewed as intangible and difficult to get our arms around, but logical, disciplined actions can be defined and implemented in the near term to significantly improve our capabilities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Must reinvent requirements definition, force structure, and product development environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must build, test, produce, and LEARN </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must nurture growth and support productivity of the individual </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must never forget: garbage in  garbage out </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Government must be prepared to do what it takes, not do what is palatable, before we see significant improvement </li></ul>
    3. 3. Development of Weapon Platforms: Considerations <ul><li>Cost: time (development, validation, fielding), competitiveness, risk and setbacks, and ultimately procurement and LCC </li></ul><ul><li>Weight: fuel efficiency, mission effectiveness, cost </li></ul><ul><li>Efficiency: energy blueprint, systems level product development vs sub-systems level, design freedom, platform AND weapons, do more with less </li></ul><ul><li># of vehicles: design freedom, experience and capabilities </li></ul><ul><li>Development environment and strategy: makes the difference to success or failure, usefulness or folly, revolution or evolution, focus on desirable end point </li></ul><ul><li>Product requirements: focused vs do-all, platform economics vs multi-role performance </li></ul><ul><li>Who integrates the advanced technologies? People, not tools! </li></ul>
    4. 4. Design as a Process <ul><li>If we are to achieve results never before accomplished, we must employ methods never before attempted. - Sir Francis Bacon, Philosopher </li></ul><ul><li>The process is as important as the people. </li></ul><ul><li> - David Taggart, Engineer </li></ul>
    5. 5. Design as a Process <ul><li>Design is a dynamic process, not a specific discipline, that begins with an intimate understanding of the product’s functional requirements, and the materials, technologies and processes used in the construction of the components comprising the product </li></ul><ul><li>The overall efficiency (cost, weight…) of a product is a first order function of the design of that product, and the technologies and resources available to manufacture that product </li></ul><ul><li>Design is the process of creation, and occurs in peoples minds </li></ul><ul><li>The environment must be conducive to invention for invention to occur </li></ul>
    6. 6. Advanced Composites: Technology Trend <ul><li>A gap exists between the potential of advanced composites and our ability to effectively utilize them (weight and cost) </li></ul>Composites Maturity Metals Maturity Effective Utilization of Composites 1940 1960 1980 2000 Production Year Effective Utilization of Metals 1940 1960 1980 2000 Production Year Utilization Gap
    7. 7. Performance Potential IM7/8552 Properties
    8. 8. Integrated Technology for Affordability (IATA) <ul><li>DARPA funded effort (1994-96) </li></ul><ul><li>The challenge: Airframes must provide ever increasing performance affordably </li></ul><ul><li>What was needed: A Breakthrough cost reduction compared to current airframe technology </li></ul><ul><li>Proposed solution: Design- create a new paradigm </li></ul><ul><li>Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Alliant Techsystems, Dow-UTC, AECL </li></ul><ul><li>Focus: JSF </li></ul>                                      
    9. 9. Backbone Concept Over/Under Concept Preferred System Concept Preliminary Intermediate Final Decision Points vs Level of Detail Integrated Airframe Design Paradigm Dwg. 0020-003 Dwg. 0020-009
    10. 10. IATA Preferred System Concept JAST / ASTOVL Config. 140: Conventional Structure <ul><li>90 Composite Parts, 21 Metallic Parts </li></ul><ul><li>95% Composites, Bonded Assembly </li></ul><ul><li>Large Integrated Components </li></ul><ul><li>Continuous, Tailored Load Paths </li></ul><ul><li>Process/Assy Tailored Component Design </li></ul><ul><li>Detoleranced, Self-Fixturing </li></ul><ul><li>Bonded Assembly </li></ul><ul><li>Functionality Attributes </li></ul>
    11. 11. PRELIMINARY DESIGN PSC Component Design Integral Spar/Bulkhead
    12. 12. Low Tolerance Bonded Assembly <ul><li>Fastenerless Assembly of Multiple Components </li></ul><ul><li>Tolerance Relief in 2 of 3 Dimensions </li></ul><ul><li>Direct Reinforcement of Classic Failure Modes </li></ul><ul><li>Co-Processed, Sandwich, or Solid Laminate </li></ul><ul><li>All interfaces to external surface are co-cured </li></ul><ul><li>Allows sub-system installation prior to closeout </li></ul><ul><li>Minimal fuel cell penetrations </li></ul>
    13. 13. PSC Component Design Upper Skin PRELIMINARY DESIGN
    14. 14. PRELIMINARY DESIGN PSC Component Design Left/Right Vertical Tail Assembly
    15. 15. PSC Assembly Flow PRELIMINARY DESIGN Design Detail for Each Component Includes: Structural Sizing: Failure Mode and Load Tooling Approach Fabrication Approach, Materials, and Process Assembly Sequence and Flow Bottoms Up Production Cost and Airframe Weight
    16. 16. PSC Assembly Flow Fore / Aft Body Mate PRELIMINARY DESIGN
    17. 17. <ul><li>Fiber Placed Upper/Lower Skins </li></ul><ul><li>E-beam Cured: Cationic Resin </li></ul><ul><li>Co-Cured Large Cell Core </li></ul><ul><li>Alliant TechSystems </li></ul><ul><li>VARTM Keelson </li></ul><ul><li>E-beam Cured: Cationic B/C </li></ul><ul><li>Skunk Works / AECL </li></ul><ul><li>RTM Spar/Bulkheads </li></ul><ul><li>Tailored Load Paths </li></ul><ul><li>PR500 Epoxy </li></ul><ul><li>DOW-UT </li></ul><ul><li>Hand Lay-up Ribs </li></ul><ul><li>Thermoset Materials </li></ul><ul><li>Alliant TechSystems </li></ul><ul><li>Bonded Assembly </li></ul><ul><li>Detoleranced </li></ul><ul><li>Self-Fixturing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Full Scale: 5 ft x 5 ft x ft section </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Envisioned Production Processes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most complex, highly loaded section </li></ul></ul>Process Demonstration Assembly
    18. 18. Critical Technology Areas <ul><ul><li>Fastenerless Assembly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Skin Stabilization Approaches </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integral Hard Points </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Battle Damage Survivability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High Temperature Structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integral, Fully Bonded Fuel Cells (and Structure) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>R, M, & S Culture / Issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>E-Beam Technology </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Detailed Component Information <ul><li>PSC Specific FE Component Loads </li></ul><ul><li>Component Sizing Summary </li></ul><ul><li>Solid Geometry Database </li></ul><ul><li>Weight Summary </li></ul><ul><li>Detailed Fabrication Drawing </li></ul><ul><li>Accompanying Assembly Drawing </li></ul><ul><li>PD4 Lessons Learned </li></ul><ul><li>PD4 Stereolith Model </li></ul>
    20. 20. Components, Weight Non-Recurring Tooling, Planning Recurring Fabrication Fabrication Summary Recurring Assembly Production Summary IATA PSC JAST/ASTOVL 140 Labor, QA, Tooling, Eng., Materials Labor, QA, Tooling, Eng., Materials Fab, Assy, Procurement Benchmark Comparison to Baseline <ul><ul><li>IATA Production Costs: Bottoms-Up NR, Recurring QA, Matls, Fab, Assy, and Weight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Baseline Production Costs: Parametric Historical Database Based on Weight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assumptions: </li></ul></ul><ul><li>4 AC/month, 100-1000 Total AC over 10 years </li></ul><ul><li>Assume Development Program Completed, Facilities Exist </li></ul><ul><li>Same Rates Applied to IATA and 140 Manhours </li></ul><ul><li>IATA Subs Estimated Fab, Skunk Works Estimated Assy </li></ul>
    21. 21. <ul><li>90 Composite Components, 21 Metallic </li></ul><ul><li>65% Reduction in T100 Rec. Production Costs ($3.68M savings) </li></ul><ul><li>48% Reduction in Non-Recurring Production Costs ($30.2M savings) </li></ul><ul><li>33% Reduction in Weight (1621 lbs savings) </li></ul><ul><li>95% Composites (vs 30% in Baseline) </li></ul><ul><li>Orders of magnitude part count reduction </li></ul><ul><li>Conservative PSC Estimates: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>6% “Intangible” Cost and Weight Added to PSC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Full Recurring Engineering Added to PSC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Full Extent of E-beam Cost Advantage Not Included </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No Credit for Material Forms to Enhance Producibility </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Commensurate Reductions in LCC Anticipated </li></ul>Benchmark Comparison to Baseline
    22. 22. Back to Riding the Bike <ul><li>You don’t really get how to do it until you get on it. The difference is the distinction “balance” </li></ul><ul><li>The difference for energy efficient platforms is the distinction “effective design development” and that requires experience: in systems level development, the intimate understanding of relevant advanced technologies, hardware build and test, lessons learned, nurturing growth… …then decisions can be made. </li></ul>                                       
    23. 24. Applicability? <ul><li>Land Vehicles </li></ul><ul><li>Survivability </li></ul><ul><li>Endurance </li></ul><ul><li>Mobility </li></ul><ul><li>Naval Vessels </li></ul><ul><li>Embedded EMS </li></ul><ul><li>Fast Attack </li></ul><ul><li>OPV’s </li></ul><ul><li>Air vehicles </li></ul><ul><li>Prototypes </li></ul><ul><li>UAV’s </li></ul>