Supporting Flexible Combat Systems
•Download as PPS, PDF•
1 like•738 views
The document discusses supporting flexibility in combat systems for warships. It notes that warships need to be able to rapidly change roles and capabilities. This requires flexibility in areas like the combat system, manpower, and training. The document outlines several challenges in designing for flexibility through a ship's life, including upgrading affordably over time. It provides examples from Type 23 frigates and submarines changing roles. The document argues that human factors should be built into system lifecycles to support flexibility in areas like workspaces, training, and manpower.
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (10)
Similar to Supporting Flexible Combat Systems
Similar to Supporting Flexible Combat Systems (20)
Supporting Flexible Combat Systems
- 1. CS&S Naval 115841019/00Y/2204/ Issue 1/220905 Supporting Flexible Combat Systems: Building HFI into the lifecycles of flexible warships David Carr Monica Sen Gupta John McFarlane Human Factors Group
- 2. CS&S Naval 21st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Theme What wider Human Factors support issues do we need to address to support a flexible combat capability, through life?
- 3. CS&S Naval 31st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 The Need for Flexibility The Versatile Maritime Force must be: - Optimised for Joint Power Projection - Have global reach, sustainability and endurance - Able to contribute at different scales of effort - Interoperable with Future Army, Future Airforce and other international and civil partners - Able to change efficiently and effectively between different levels of readiness These capabilities to be provided within the (current) limits of 32 warships, 15 submarines, 97 frontline aircraft, one Royal Marine Commando brigade and 36,000 staff
- 4. CS&S Naval 41st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 The Enabling Concept: “Swing” “Swing is defined as the ability to configure a force, formation or unit to allow it to operate successfully, and cost-effectively, across a range of mission types and roles. “ Future Navy
- 5. CS&S Naval 51st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Challenges For Supporting Flexibility Through Life Capability Model: - Designing to provide an affordable capability through life - Designing to swing rapidly and cost-effectively between capabilities - Designing to maintain a high level of readiness: affordable upkeep - Designing to manage and accommodate changing capabiliities over time: affordable upgrade The Combat System is supported by a much wider infrastructure - People - Team - Organisation - Platform - Compartments - Services (for people and equipment) - Logistics Footprint - Upkeep - Training
- 6. CS&S Naval 61st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 HFI Enablers for affordable TLCM - Maintainability and maintenance access for upkeep and upgrade - Optimising allocation of functions - At sea / alongside support balance - Organic / Remote operational capability - Providing a variable human component - Flexible complementing. Flexible team design. - Minimising skills fade. Rapid training in new skill. Rapid training development - Supporting a variable human component - Flexibility in operational equipment and facilities - Flexible accommodation and hotel - Sustainable personnel model
- 7. CS&S Naval 71st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 The Scope of Flexibility - Flexible missions - Varying intensities of warfare - Varying military effects - Including capability for Operations Other Than War - Flexible roles - Varying emphasis on weapons systems - Autonomous vs Force - Flexible manpower - Varying requirements for skill - Varying manpower requirements - Flexible platform - Incremental Acquisition / Room for Growth - Ability to effectively integrate systems (new, legacy, etc.) - Flexible support - Autonomous vs Specialist maintenance - Rapid upkeep/ upgrade - Maximised state of readiness - Affordable TLCM
- 8. CS&S Naval 81st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Type 23 Example • Conceived as an Anti-Submarine Warfare platform, with towed-array sonar. It was initially proposed that they would not carry AAW missiles. • Post Falklands, design scope increased to include: – Seawolf – Medium Calibre Gun for NGS – Harpoon. • Generally used as a ‘general purpose’ frigate – Force AAW cover – Stop-and-Search – Disaster relief – Etc. • Strain on manpower and accommodation.
- 9. CS&S Naval 91st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Submarine Roles Cold War • Nuclear Deterrent • ASW / ASuW Current • As above, plus: – Land attack Tomahawk – Littoral intelligence gathering – Support for SF Ops Maritime Underwater Future Capability • Multi-role, possibly including SSBN.
- 10. CS&S Naval 101st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Future Manpower Requirements Warfare - Higher skill levels (supervisory/management level), with automation of lower-level tasks - But: for flexibility and local control, lower skill levels need to be retained. - Weapons suite management (as compared with single-weapon specialisms) - Highly variable team/organisational structures Note that CS requires support from non-warfare disciplines: Engineering - More requirements for artificers-level, less for lower skills - New ‘System Manager’ roles - Increasing number of equipments requiring highly specialised maintenance - Increasing CLS support – but noting the sensitivities of much CS equipment Whole Ship/ Other - Continuing need for whole-ship roles - Continuing need for ‘general manpower’ – with additional demands in some ship roles - Some scope for workload reduction – but many tasks fundamentally manual
- 11. CS&S Naval 111st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Flexible Manpower Considerations - Increased organisational flexibility at the operational level - ‘Skills Swing’ can be provided by training - Equipment training vs Operational training - Individual vs Team vs Force training - Career paths must allow for skills to become widened/generalised - There will still be a need for multi-skilling, especially given ever smaller complements - Potential for sharing some skills across a force/ across the RN through Network Enabled Capability - Complement augmentation as a possible solution for specific operations?, E.g. - Specialist maintenance teams that fly from ship to ship - Specialist combat teams dependent on mission - Harmony challenges (potentially met by ‘Squading’ systems).
- 12. CS&S Naval 121st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 ShoreShore Flexible Manpower Potential approaches: - Core complement + warfighting augment - Roulement amongst partly shore-based ‘squads’. - Network Enabled Capability to share functionality ship- ship and ship-shore - Specialist maintenance by troubleshooting teams
- 13. CS&S Naval 131st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Changing missions and roles require platform flexibility Role Combat/ Mission Systems Warfighting Team Skills/ Numbers of personnel Mission Force Structure Facilities and compartments Accommodation and Hotel
- 14. CS&S Naval 141st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Flexibility in Command and Control Information Systems Enablers for flexibility – Interoperable components – Open Systems – Multi-function workstations – Multi-channel display technologies (eg 3d audio) – Network Enabled Capability: Ownship – Network Enabled Capability: Functionality enhanced inter-asset. HMI Enablers – Policies for information management – Common Look and Feel – Task-centred configurability – e.g. ‘wikis’ – Role-based access Ownship LAN WAN Common workstations Common HMI Common HMI
- 15. CS&S Naval 151st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Impact at Operator Level – Workload & Situation Awareness (SA) - Number of operators going down yet the number and capability of sensors going up. - Equipment complexity and number of choices to be made under stress run the risk of operator overload – more training required to alleviate. Example: Single Integrated Air Picture (SIAP) - Key Aspiration for Air Warfare - Linking up numerous pictures can reduce SIAP quality. - While picture quality may be down the SA will be up -- at Operator’s expense however! (increased workload to filter unnecessary info) - Tools for associating objects, decision aids, better sensors to improve picture quality will help mitigate workload while increasing SA
- 16. CS&S Naval 161st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Flexible Working Spaces Benefits: • Team composition and teamworking arrangements are role-dependent • Equipment arrangement governed by team needs • Modern “flexible office” concept Enablers: • Raft mounting across compartments • Modular equipment • Services modularity • Flexible comms – especially wire- free • Virtual teams supported by NEC ‘telepresence’
- 17. CS&S Naval 171st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Flexible Hotel and Accommodation Issues: • Varying complement size and composition • Augmentation • Growth • Civilian passengers • Meeting Def Stan 02-107 Design Requirements • Modularity • Segregation – By rank – Male/ Female – Complement/ Non-complement – Occupied/ Empty spaces • Design for max/min hotel load: – HVAC – Fresh water, waste and sewage – Galley – O2 and CO2 (Submarines)
- 18. CS&S Naval 181st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Flexible Training Training issues - Changes in personnel policies mean increasing need for training both the individuals and teams to OPS whilst the platform is deployed - Decreasing the response times as platforms are re- rolled for developing events/conflicts around the world - Mitigating skill fade – both at sea and while re-roleing - Short cycles for progressive upkeep Training solutions - Rapid development of training materials - Equipment, individual and team training. - WIN WIN WIN (What I Need, When I Need it, Where I Need it) - Integrated federated & confederated training capability, with reach back to specialists ashore Maritime Composite Training System: an example of a flexible approach to training provision.
- 19. CS&S Naval 191st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 HFI in CADMID Lifecycle System Viewpoint s Establish System Reqts Design/ Define System Develop System Assess System Concept Demonstration ManufactureIn-ServiceDisposal Assessment After DTC HFI Handbook Develop HFI Strategy Identify HFI Issues Develop HFIP HFI Reqts and Acceptance HFI Aspects of Acceptance HFI Assurance Mission Analysis Target Audience Description Functional Analysis Allocation of Function Safety Analysis/ HRA Automation Job Design User Interfaces/ Workspace Design Usability Assessment
- 20. CS&S Naval 201st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Lifecycle Implications for Flexible Platforms Concept Assessment Demonstration Manufacture In Service Disposal Conventional focus for HFI System Viewpoint s Establish System Reqts Design/ Define System Develop System Assess System HFI Management Task Analysis HFI Issues Management Manpower Analyses Training Analyses Human Engineering Progressive Upkeep Continued Systems Engineering Emerging Operational Requirements
- 21. CS&S Naval 211st Maritime Combat Systems Conference. 7th June 2006 Through Life Support Issues for Flexible Combat Systems - HFI issues need to be addressed beyond the strict scope of the Combat System - Continuity of analysis/ design effort throughout the CADMID cycle with greater emphasis on through life support. - Effective HFI design and management to result in acceptable workload and increased SA. - Fewer detailed task requirements known up front: design for flexibility/swing. - Shorter, more frequent updates requiring rapid assessment of HFI issues. - Providing cost-effective means of addressing HFI within an affordable TLCM. - Continued maintenance of HFI Issues Log beyond the prime contractor’s involvement. - HFI needs to take a TLCM approach to address the need for flexibility in operations and support.
- 22. CS&S Naval 2215841019/00Y/2204/ Issue 1/220905 Contact David Carr e-: d.carr@baesystems.com : +44 (0)141 957 2173 Monica Sen Gupta e-: monica.sengupta@baesystems.com : +44 (0)1252 384498 John McFarlane e-: john.mcfarlane@baesystems.com : +44 (0)141 957 4526 Human Factors Group
Editor's Notes
- The VSF will fulfil a multiplicity of roles – this will change over time – some roles are not even fully known yet. Obviously in our size of fleet, we won’t be able to have specialist platforms for each role. They will need to be flexible.
- The Future Navy report has highlighted “Swing” as an enabling concept for flexibility. Note the inclusion of ‘cost effectively’. We need to look at ways of designing flexibility into ships to achieve flexibility efficiently and inexpensively.
- We need to be conscious of what ‘flexibility’ implies. Platforms will be engaged over time upon missions of different types and length, within which they will fulfil different roles. Different roles will require different personnel skills and numbers The platform need to have the flexibility to support the varying crews, with adequate growth margins To integrate a varying equipment fit Different mission types and different systems will require a flexible approach to support but within an affordable Total Lifecycle Cost Model – ie we need to design for affordable swing.
- Let’s take an example of the issues that are raised when a platform is used flexibly, without having been designed that way.
- A similar picture can be expected to emerge for submarines which have also changed roles considerably over time. In the future (ie the putative Maritime Underwater Future Capability) it would be wise to build in the flexibility from the start.
- As well as looking at the platforms, we should look at the way demands on RN personnel is heading. Flexibility has these implications (above) for manpower requirements (Last bullet under ‘warfare’ – flexibility implies a need for more ad-hoc ways of working within teams) (In Engineering there will be an issue of how to train to maintain upgraded equipment – and also to manage Systems, rather than equipment) (But there’ll still be a residual need for baseline manpower)
- Given varying manpower demands over time, we need to look at where the different types of crew can be delivered Thinking is moving away from long-term, platform-based complementing towards approaches that can deliver flexibility, while maintaining a coherent personnel structure across the RN.
- It may be useful to think in terms of complementing in units greater than a single platform How to build up skill resources and allocate them throughout the fleet as demand changes.
- Getting back to platforms…flexible the need for equipment and flexible complements impacts on the way platforms need to be designed. If we consider a ship swinging between roles The ship will be fitted with a combat system, according to its role. The facilities such as operational compartments must match the team structures optimised to carry out that role with that equipment And the ship must support the people in those teams – which might be of varying sizes and composition. The central point to be made is that we can’t simply talk of the CS as the fighting parts of the ship: there are knock-on effects upon other areas of design.
- If we taka a more detailed look at CS… changing technology offers potential for flexibility The flexibility brings with it various HMI challenges With NEC, the CS may be wider than the platform. What are the issues for Common Look and Feel? Similarly…as equipment changes over time Optimising UI for different role-dependent tasks: We may need to build in greater flexibility at the end-user level. The technologies are becoming more common…eg Linux GUI options; ‘My Google’; Wiki web pages. If we’re re-designing teams, someone (a System Manager) will have to be able to control who is able to access what functionality.
- If we look at the impact of the flexible CS on operators… Although automation has great benefits, operator workload and maintaining SA will still be issues. If we reconfigure the system, we want to be sure that we are not willy nilly placing a new demand upon a role. Some of the answer may be in having greater flexibility in the dynamic allocation of functions.
- We need to look at how the CS (and other systems) and their teams are integrated into platforms. Workspaces should be designed for effective intercommunication within teams. If the teams are flexible, so should compartment layouts be. cf modern office concepts – nobody has a fixed desk any more various design measures will have to be built in to the platform and equipment
- Traditionally the design of the accommodation spaces is as far away from the CS as you can get. But it is essential for supporting certain critical CS components. Ships will have to be built to flex according to crew size. They will also have to flex for different crew/ augmentee The issue goes far beyond accommodation. Variable hotel load is a significant challenge. For example – bioactive sewage treatment plants can handle a certain maximum load…but also require a minimum to keep them ticking over.
- Flexibility implies various issues for training (first and third bullet means more training onboard) (2nd and 4th– less time to develop training) Solutions CBT authoring systems. Links with electronic documentation, etc. 2nd bullet Equipment training – ideally embedded in the equipment itself. Individual training need to be build up a basic skillset that can be adapted to / built upon specific equipments Team training – federated across the platform. Confederated, via NEC across the fleet WIN WIN WIN (A quote from someone – check with Kevin Leech – emphasises rapid delivery, at point of need onboard – whether it’s a pre-trained individual, or training delivered to an existing crewmember) NEC a key enabler. It allows specialist tariners to support onboard training from shore
- We’ve outlined a lot of HFI issues. There are a lot of different emphases compared to the present. Arguably we need to take a fresh look at how HFI integrates into the CADMID lifecycle. Here it is, as expressed in the MoD Acquisition handbook – HFI is heavily involved right through development, up to the in-service date. HOWEVER Flexibility implies incremental acquisition, progressive upkeep…and more fundamentally a change in the vary human tasks we are designing for.
- We need to loo at HFI stretching to cover the development activity will be ongoing as operational requirements change over time. But it can’t be done piecemeal, equipment by equipment. As with other systems engineering, we need to look at how changes to the parts affect the platform/systems as a whole.
- So HFI has the following challenges (TLCM bullet – this implies such things as Designing a platform that will accept easy reconfiguration Providing a personnel/ training infrastructure that has the flexibility to match changing equipment/ manpower demands. PEOPLE ARE MOST EXPENSIVE COMPONENT