Warship 2007 - The Affordable Warship

476 Pages·2007·19.72 MB·English

RINA
WARSHIP 2007: THE AFFORDABLE WARSHIP
20 - 21 June 2007
© 2007:The Royal Institution of NavalArchitects
The Institution is not, as a body, responsible for the
opinions expressed by the individual authors or
speakers
THE ROYAL INSTITUTION OF NAVAL
ARCHITECTS
10 Upper Belgrave Street
London SW1X 8BQ
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ISBNNo:978-1-905040-37-7
Warship 2007: The Affordable Warship, Bath, UK.
CONTENTS
Affordable Warships – Understanding The Possible.
M. Courts and B. Durant, VT Shipbuilding, UK.
M. Tiernan, VT Naval Support, UK.
Warship Design Complexity – Measurement and Valuation.
N. Noel-Johnson, BMT Defence Services Ltd, UK.
R. Kattan, Safinah Ltd, UK.
Type 45: Design For Supportability.
D. S. Downs, BAE Systems Surface Fleet Solutions, UK.
The Affordable Warship – A Design To Cost Approach Based in the Concept
Phase.
R. F. Lamerton, Thales Naval Ltd, UK.
Affordable Yet Capable Warship? Science and Technology Squares The Circle.
A. D. Bailey and J. T. Wickenden, QinetiQ Ltd, UK.
Cost Effective Safety Management for Future Warship Procurement.
J. Turner, BMT Isis Ltd, UK.
Survivability and the Affordable Warship.
A. A. Martin, Sea Systems Division, QinetiQ, UK.
Making Warship Survivability Affordable.
J. S. Thornton, Dstl, UK.
M. D. Courts, VT Shipbuilding, UK.
M. Robb, BAE Systems, UK.
Less Bang For Your Buck.
D. Giles, MoD TES SSG NAEXP, UK.
J. Harris, Frazer-Nash Consultancy, UK.
Concept Studies for a Joint Support Ship.
D. Andrews and R. Pawling, University College London, UK.
Optimal Naval Warship Design for Fabrication and Maintenance.
G. W. Sloan, ASC Pty Ltd, Australia.
Cost and Creativity – Submarine Design in a Changing World.
M. Wear and J. Salisbury, BAE Systems Submarine Solutions, UK.
First Ever Classification of a Naval Submarine.
L. Grünitz and L. Petersen, Germanischer Lloyd AG, Germany
SMX-23: Affordable Deterrent According to DCNS.
J. Gauthier, DCNS, France.
© 2007: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Warship 2007: The Affordable Warship, Bath, UK.
Capturing the Commercial Cost Base in Delivering Naval Auxiliaries.
D. J. Bricknell, Rolls-Royce Marine, UK.
P – E. Vedlog, Rolls-Royce AS, Norway
Cost Effective Support Solutions for Naval Auxiliary Ships.
A. Linegar, BMT Defence Services Ltd, UK.
Surface Ship Hull and Propeller Fouling Management.
M. Walker, UK Ministry of Defence, UK.
I. Atkins, Royal Navy, UK.
Authors’ Contact Details
© 2007: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Warship 2007: The Affordable Warship, Bath, UK.
AFFORDABLE WARSHIPS - UNDERSTANDING THE POSSIBLE
M. Courts and B. Durant, VT Shipbuilding, UK
M. Tiernan, VT Naval Support, UK.
SUMMARY
The paper considers what is meant by the term “Affordable Warships” and considers the question “How is value for
money to be understood and ensured within a limited budget”. This requires an understanding of both what is needed
and what can be achieved together with a process that allows this to be done as efficiently as possible. There are thus
three major elements to consider for any organisation that wishes to address this question when procuring a warship, the
process, the organisation and the tools used by the organisation to implement the process.
The paper reviews what is meant by cost effectiveness and how it can be defined and thus identifies the parameters that
must be determined as soon as possible in any decision making process.
Two alternative process philosophies addressing the problem of matching aspirations and budgets are then identified.
One essentially top down, the other bottom up. The issues that affect both approaches are then discussed and some
conclusions drawn on the essential principles to be followed.
Different procurement organisation and supply chain responsibilities are discussed and the constraints that ultimately
decide which is adopted are identified.
The major toolset elements required are identified and the tools developed by VT to address ship role capability,
platform concept design and cost, build programme determination and through life costing are introduced and described.
The paper then gives some examples of their application and demonstrates their utility in addressing the problem of
procuring warships that are both affordable and cost effective.
NOMENCLATURE
CLS Contractor Logistic Support gained. In other words the term affordable merely refers
COTS Commercial Off The Shelf to the upper limit on the cost side of the cost/value
FOC First Of Class balance as seen by a specific customer. What is
FSC Future Surface Combatant affordable to one may not therefore be affordable to
ILS Integrated Logistic Support another. The paper will therefore concern itself with the
ITT Invitation To Tender general question of ensuring value for money when
LLC Life Cycle Cost procuring a warship rather than simply address the issue
LWL Length waterline of ship affordability.
MOE Measure Of Effectiveness
MOP Measure Of Performance 1.2 SCOPE
MOTS Military Off The Shelf
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer In order for a Navy to be able to assure both itself and its
RFI Request For Information political masters that it is obtaining value for money it
STW Setting To Work must be able to assess both its costs and the benefits that
TLC Through Life Cost it will obtain. In general terms this is defined by the term
TNA Training Needs Analysis cost effectiveness. The elements of this will be
UPC Unit Production Cost considered in section 2.
UXV Unmanned Airborne/Surface Vehicle
VCG Vertical Centre of Gravity In order for an organisation to be able to demonstrate
VT VT Shipbuilding cost effectiveness three major elements must be
considered
1. INTRODUCTION
(cid:131) Process
1.1 DEFINITION How cost effectiveness is to be determined
(cid:131) Organisation
The term affordable encompasses the ability to bear the
Who implements the process
cost of something without serious inconvenience. Since
Navies do not generally wish to be seen to be wasting (cid:131) Tools
money, any consideration of affordability has to be taken What they use to perform the process
in the context of what incurring the expenditure has
© 2007: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Warship 2007: The Affordable Warship, Bath, UK.
These are discussed in turn in sections 3, 4 and 5. The can not be controlled directly. At best these influences
remainder of the paper will then present some of the can be described stochastically but in practice sample
tools developed within VT to assist in ensuring that sizes are usually too small to allow accurate
decisions on warship affordability can be made quickly determination. It is therefore often impractical to attempt
and with sufficient accuracy to enable subsequent to measure MOEs directly. As a result, it is more usual to
management of the risks involved. These will be use computer models to describe the relationships
illustrated by some examples from recent projects. between measurable MOPs and the desired MOEs.
Finally some general principles will be reiterated and
conclusions drawn. It must also be stressed at this point that a key element in
assessing value is consideration of when that value can
be realised.
2. COST EFFECTIVENESS
2.1 COST 3. PROCESS
The major cost elements are of course well known and in The processes used to specify, design and procure a
simple terms can be classified under the headings of warship will depend to a large degree on the aspirations
of the customer. These will reflect preferences, or
(cid:131) First Of Class (FOC) constraints, with regard to
Design, drawing, jigs, tools etc.
(cid:131) Performance levels
(cid:131) Unit Production Cost (UPC)
Is the ship expected to push the boundaries of
Materials, labour, trials etc.
possible performance or will it use Commercial or
(cid:131) Through Life Cost (TLC) Military Off The Shelf (COTS, MOTS)
Also known as Life Cycle Cost (LCC) comprising equipments?
crew, training, fuel, spares, docking, refits etc.
(cid:131) Budget
With the escalating cost of technology in all
TLC of course encompasses the other two but when
systems, budget constraints will inevitably have to
acquisition is being considered it is convenient to
be applied.
separate them out. Of the three TLC is the largest, but the
high acquisition phase peak caused by the FOC and (cid:131) Timescales
multiple UPC elements tend to dominate decision Ships may be required primarily either to fill a
making. However the through life costs can also show ‘capability gap’ or to replace obsolete equipment.
peaks if substantial upgrades and refits are to be
(cid:131) Risk
considered. It is of course desirable that both are
Although logically, understanding of risk will
considered in the context of a long-term budgeting
depend on level of awareness and visibility of the
strategy because of the trade offs that can be made.
factors involved, response to perceived risk can
Regrettably this is not always the case and is often a
vary independently of actual awareness. Lack of
result of the combination of the organisational structure
awareness can in fact result in authorities being
and responsibilities of the procuring and owning
extremely risk averse to a degree that severely
authorities coupled with the contracting approaches
constrains their choices. On the other hand
adopted with industrial suppliers.
preparedness to accept risk, even with rigorous risk
management, often results in delayed programmes
2.2 EFFECTIVENESS
with inevitable adverse consequences. Risk by its
nature means unknowns! Acceptability of risk
The value of a military system must be considered in
comes down to the level of resource that can be
terms that measure how well the objectives of the
called upon to provide contingencies.
mission being undertaken are fulfilled. This is commonly
defined as a Measure Of Effectiveness (MOE). As such it
In simple terms there are two approaches to procuring
can be considered as a system level measure. It is of
warships and these are described below.
course influenced by the performance of each individual
component sub-system. These in turn have their own
3.1 REQUIREMENT LED (TOP DOWN)
measures, generally referred to as Measures Of
Performance. Typically MOPs can be measured
Figure 1 shows a simplified requirements driven process.
relatively easily under controlled conditions and
Since costs can only be determined once a physical
therefore are usually subject to contractual terms in any
solution is defined a solution must first be generated that
procurement. In contrast MOEs cannot be measured
attempts to meet the specified requirements. This often
easily as, in general, they reflect, not only complex
involves pushing the boundaries of what is possible and
interactions between constituent sub-systems, but more
results in the development of new sub systems or
significantly, interactions with external influences that
equipments with all the attendant problems of trying to
© 2007: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Warship 2007: The Affordable Warship, Bath, UK.
manage parallel development streams. In order to items, and their associated operational benefits, cannot be
balance requirements and cost of meeting them within a readily accommodated. Also it is one of a packaged
given budget, iteration is required by modifying the combination of capabilities on offer that is ultimately
requirements. In practice of course there may be a degree chosen rather than an evolved pick and mix selection.
of iteration required to set the budget in the first place.
The difficulty inherent in this process is that it is very
difficult to assign a cost to individual requirements
Contract solution
because of the many and varied interrelationships
inherent in the design of a complex system such as a
warship. The inevitable result is a series of iterations
costing both time and money during which an acceptable Select affordable solution
mix of capabilities, at an affordable cost, is sought as a
solution to an evolving requirement set.
Obtain costs and capabilities
Identify need (capability gap)
Define high-level requirements
Estimate budget
Obtain budget
Define detailed requirements
Review market
Generate solution
Identify need (capability gap)
Obtain costs and capabilities
Figure 2: Idealised Bottom Up Process
3.3 ENGINEERING DEPENDENCIES
Balance requirements and budget
In reality of course aspirations and engineering
practicalities will force any given process to incorporate
Contract solution elements of both approaches.
The key engineering dependencies that will affect the
Figure 1: Simplified Top Down Process selection of a procurement approach are as follows
3.2 SOLUTION LED (BOTTOM UP) (cid:131) Equipment life and development timescales
If the desire is to obtain a performance advantage
Figure 2 shows a simplified solution driven process. In over the current state of the art then development
this case the essential characteristic is that product will be required. Inevitably this will introduce
availability in the market place is the dominant driver. additional time, cost and unfortunately risk into the
Requirements are set based primarily on, and programme. It is therefore highly desirable to
understanding of, what is possible through the use of off separate engineering development from specific
the shelf components, both COTS and MOTS. This is ship procurements. This leads to the concepts of
achieved through consultation with industry by means of through life upgrade and adaptability, both of which
Requests For Information (RFI), followed by one or provide a means of separating key equipment
more Invitations To Tender (ITT) together with their developments from ship procurements thereby
associated assessment. In this way the expertise of a wide dramatically reducing ship design and build
range of industrial concerns is harnessed in support of the timescales and costs. Since ships can be in service
procurement process. Companies are willing to do this much faster the net effect can be to increase the
because they of course seek to win the resulting contract overall capability available to the operator. There
but also importantly, the time scales involved in the are of course update implications for all the
tender process are relatively short and therefore the equipments built into a ship, as at some point they
associated costs and commercial risks are not excessive. will simply become obsolete. If new ship designs
The whole process can be much faster than the top-down are few and far between, opportunities for
alternative but with the limitation that developmental implementation and exploitation of new equipment
© 2007: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Warship 2007: The Affordable Warship, Bath, UK.
technology will be rare unless ships are completely modularity and standardisation. The net effect of
refitted, generally at very high cost. Keeping ships design and build timescales on choice of
in service too long is therefore not a cheap option. procurement approach is the time constraint that it
Potential solutions to both these issues include imposes on availability of capability and pressure
for early decision making.
o Modularity of key equipments to allow easier
upgrade to maintain high level capabilities. 3.4 PROS AND CONS
o Batching and design refresh to allow gradual
The advantages and disadvantages of top-down and
update of all equipments.
bottom up approaches are summarised in Table 1. The
o Disposal of ships before too much of their major differences are that the top down encourages
built in equipment is obsolete and they still development and so takes longer while the bottom up
have a reasonable second hand market value. uses COTS /MOTS equipment and is much faster.
These approaches are complementary as the use of Process
some forms of payload, and platform equipment,
Top – Down Bottom – Up
modules can become an enabler for faster and
Pros (cid:131) Identifies (cid:131) Clear visibility of
cheaper ship procurements.
operational costs early in
objectives and process
(cid:131) Design integration timescales
Design integration must be considered differently controls (cid:131) Enables early
capability to cost/capability
from equipment development. Integration is
achieve it trade off decisions
essentially the joining together of existing sub-
systems to form a new complete system. The (cid:131) Use of (cid:131) Short timescales
development
argument can be applied at different levels but from (cid:131) Average capability
items allows
the viewpoint of warship procurement, integration to user at any one
window of
is part and parcel of the design process. A perceived time probably
advantage
approach to risk reduction is to seek ships based on increased
a proven design. This assumes that integration risk Cons (cid:131) Understanding of (cid:131) Cannot tolerate
would then be minimised. However this is generally cost-capability development
unrealistic as slight differences in requirements and relationship too (cid:131) Capability limited
sub-system or equipment selections brought about late in process to what is currently
by reasons of performance, budget or obsolescence
(cid:131) Long timescales available
of equipment in the parent design can have far
and costly
reaching implications on any given derivative,
(cid:131) Encourages
particularly when changes accumulate. In fact
adoption of
constraining a design to an existing arrangement
unready
often causes more problems than it solves and can
development
thus hinder adoption of technologies already proven
items leading to
elsewhere.
reduced overall
capability
(cid:131) Build process
The prime purpose of the design process is to
Table 1: Pros & Cons of Procurement Approaches
generate the information required to assemble a
warship that meets its performance requirements.
3.5 PROCUREMENT IMPERATIVES
The generation of this data takes time and ideally
would be complete before build commences. This
A realistic process will need to incorporate elements of
would then enable the most efficient production and
both the above philosophies, therefore the issue becomes
assembly sequences to be adopted. In practice this
a consideration of what are the basic principles to be
takes a long time and a compromise is often
followed? The most important objectives should be to
implemented in which there is a degree of overlap
understand what is possible and to ensure that budgets
between design and build. Inevitably this will
and aspirations are compatible as early as possible. In
impose constraints and compromises but if
implemented sensibly will produce a reduction in order to achieve this it is essential to balance delivered
capabilities with aspirations and costs within available
overall timescale and hence costs. The judgement
budgets, figure 3. The key to linking capabilities and
required between time scale reduction and
costs is the generation and or understanding of solutions.
acceptable levels of inevitable rework is a fine one.
As can be appreciated the top down and bottom up
There are of course ways of ameliorating the
philosophies both map on to the above in different ways.
problems and this is the focus of most production
engineering innovation coupled with concepts of
© 2007: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Warship 2007: The Affordable Warship, Bath, UK.
These functions are effectively common to both the top-
down and bottom-up process philosophies and must be
provided somewhere within the procurement
organisation. Broadly speaking there are two major
organisational and responsibility models followed in
implementing these functions.
Aspirations Capabilities
4.1 INTERNAL
This is the model that developed within the MOD in the
UK and in many other developed countries. In this model
Requirements Solutions
the customer both specifies the requirements, develops
the solutions, may perhaps run the dockyard where they
are built and is responsible for supporting and
maintaining them in service. In recent times the UK
MOD has lost many of the capabilities to do this,
primarily because the total in house approach is very
Budgets Costs expensive to maintain without adequate throughput. Even
when the MOD controlled most of the tasks it was
generally complemented by industry building ships,
usually to customer designs. In more recent times the
advent of Contractor Logistic Support (CLS) has now
Figure 3: The Procurement Balancing Process transferred many of the support functions to industry. In
addition contractorisation of many aspects of training has
occurred on a wide scale.
4. ORGANISATION
4.2 EXTERNAL
How an organisation is set up to implement a
procurement process will depend very largely on the At the other extreme is the model used by Navies with
degree of expertise available and the relative costs of few in house resources. In this case all design and build
maintaining it. Stated simply the functions required to activities are performed by industry and indeed industry
support ship procurement and the requisite knowledge may also supply support requirements setting and
base are as shown in Table 2. analysis through customer friend or classification
services. CLS is also often used to reduce costs. There
Function Knowledge Required have been several drivers for more industry involvement
Capability Naval objectives, operation,
(cid:131) Cost of maintaining expertise in house
requirements scenarios, environments and threats.
(cid:131) Desire for competition to drive down costs
setting
(cid:131) Desire to transfer risk to supplier
Standards setting Technical understanding of safety,
equipment, operating environment The latter is probably misguided as the customer
and system performance inevitably faces the risk of finding alternatives if the
parameters. supplier fails to deliver. It is therefore in his interest to
minimise total risk rather than attempting to pass it
Equipment Design and engineering of weapon,
elsewhere.
design sensor and marine platform
equipments.
The two extreme organisational breakdowns in terms of
Ship design, Design and engineering of platform task responsibility are shown in Figure 4 together with
integration and and combat systems and their the Mixed model used by the UK today in which industry
production realisation in build. is largely responsible for design and costing with in
Costing Understanding of equipment costs, house specialists dealing with operational matters.
ship system build and integration Technical advice is supplied by a combination of in-
processes and all through life costs house specialists, and external suppliers.
including support etc.
A division of responsibilities has major implications
Operational Mathematical representation of
when early decisions are taken. For example the planned
analysis military operation and engineering
use of CLS will mean that any design and cost trade off
systems.
decisions should involve the potential CLS supplier if
reduced support cost benefits are to be properly realised.
Table 2: Procurement Functions and Knowledge Base
© 2007: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Warship 2007: The Affordable Warship, Bath, UK.
philosophies, preferred equipments and organisational
structures, makes the retention of a national skill base
Internal External Mixed
highly desirable. In order to do this it must be exercised
and so the idea of relatively small batch sizes becomes
Req’t
much more attractive, particularly as it also eases the
setting
obsolescence problem through phased transition, and at
the same time provides more opportunities for
Standard
technology insertion.
setting
Eqp’t
5. PROCUREMENT SUPPORT TOOLS
design
In order to support the processes outlined a variety of
Ship
toolsets are needed. These include
design
(cid:131) Equipment/unit/fleet performance modelling
build
(cid:131) Cost-capability modelling
Costing (cid:131) Platform concept design & costing
(cid:131) Programme planning
(cid:131) Through life costing
Op.
analysis
6. PERFORMANCE MODELLING
Key
A general principle in all modelling is that the minimum
Navy necessary to answer the questions posed should be
Equipment suppliers performed. Determining what this should be in practice is
Shipbuilders however not so straightforward. Various techniques can
Class societies be used to identify the key parameters and relationships
Consultants that must be dealt with, but the most valuable, is to use
the knowledge of experienced users.
Figure 4: Procurement Organisational Models Broadly speaking there are three levels of mathematical
modelling that can be used in simulations
4.3 ORGANISATION TRENDS
(cid:131) Deterministic equations
The reduction in size of most navies has caused Equations are derived which describe the behaviour
rationalisation in the supplier industry base and the of elements in the system. These may be expressed
opportunities for competition within a nation’s own in terms of probabilities. Such models are ideally
borders have consequently diminished. If there is a suited to spreadsheets as there is a direct invariant
political desire to maintain capabilities nationally then relationship between input and output.
the relationship between navies and industry has to
(cid:131) Time domain
change from confrontation borne out of competition to
Where the behaviour of systems is too complex to
co-operation and trust through shared interest and
be described by simple high level equations, time
understanding. This represents a major cultural shift and
domain simulations, which calculate the state at one
must inevitably be coupled with changes in process,
time and then using rates of change etc. compute
perhaps incorporating more of the bottom-up based
the state at a future time interval, are needed. For
approach together with smaller batch sizes and
rapidly changing systems, including those in which
consequent opportunities for new technologies to be
real equipments may be inserted (via virtual
inserted into new ship procurements when they are ready
interfaces etc.) constant time steps are generally
as well as being fitted to ships in service as upgrades.
used. The time steps may be real time or
accelerated. The effect of influences or decision
There is of course still the issue of throughput necessary
steps that can be described by probabilistic
to support the national skill base. Globally this has lead
behaviour are averaged out by running simulations
to both intense competition for export and consideration
many times. Specialist software shells can simplify
of international co-operation and rationalisation.
generation of simulations.
Although this has also happened in both the car and
aircraft industries the desirability of tailored ship design (cid:131) Event driven
to order in order to cope with the individual For systems that vary more slowly over time event
characteristics of each navy, both in terms of their driven models provide an intermediate approach. In
disparate operating environments, operational this case the time of a future event is predicted
© 2007: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Warship 2007: The Affordable Warship, Bath, UK.
based on conditions at a given time. At this future they offer as a complete system as early as possible in the
time the conditions are recomputed and the next procurement process. VT has adopted a simple high level
event predicted and so on. As with constant time approach to identifying key cost capability drivers early
step simulations repeated runs are necessary to based on a functional analysis approach. The approach is
average out the effects of probabilistic events. illustrated graphically in Figure 5.
Again tools are available to assist in model
building.
Scenarios
Although various generic commercial products are Roles
available to simplify the production of models many are etc.
geared to very specific applications. Combat system
performance is generally a critical area of interest and
dedicated tailorable software packages are available. The
main difficulty for detailed time domain simulation
approaches, particularly where the influence of a
Functions
command system is significant, is that at the early stages
of procurement, interfaces and other such issues have not
been developed and the volume and definition of data Equipments
required as input to complex simulations is simply not Features
available until some way down the design and integration Facilities
path.
etc.
In more recent years simulation tools developed to model
personnel movements and evacuations etc. have also
become available. Similar methods implemented in
appropriate toolsets are also used for shipyard simulation Figure 5: Functional Analysis Structure
and production management and as such play an
important role in production engineering and process The basis of the method is that the performance of roles
improvement. Although useful in making ships more requires a variety of discrete functions to be undertaken.
cheaply such approaches are outside the scope of this Each individual function may itself be common to
paper. several roles. In their turn the functions are implemented
by equipments and facilities provided on the ship.
The use of all such tools must always come with a health Equipments may be multi function, in that they can be
warning. As with nearly all forms of computer modelling used for several purposes, or they may be dedicated. The
they are generally pretty good at relatives but often rather various links between roles, functions and equipments
poor at absolutes. This must be borne in mind when they are conveniently visualised as matrices.
are used to derive expected MOEs for complex systems
that cannot be measured directly. If it is attempted to An early spreadsheet based application of this approach
procure military equipments using requirements and is described in reference (1) and was essentially
contracts containing high level capabilities characterised qualitative in nature, being used as an aid to the designer.
by MOEs, there will be risks involved. If a model can be The method has now been extended in scope and
set up that is agreed by both parties prior to contract then implemented in software (VTFASIP, VT Functional
this can provide a solution. If however setting up the Analysis of System Implementation Parameters). As such
model can only be achieved after contract, perhaps it can now properly allow for properties to be assigned to
because it relies on data that cannot be determined until equipments. These properties may include
the design is well developed, then there is a risk involved
that must be taken somewhere. If the risk is related to (cid:131) Cost
contractual specifications then this inevitably results in (cid:131) Effectiveness
increases in cost, which will ultimately pass to the (cid:131) Availability
customer. (cid:131) Etc.
Obviously the assignment of effectiveness values can
7. COST-CAPABILITY TRADE OFFS only be approximate, lacking the detailed representation
of a proper simulation. However judgements, based on
Many of the capabilities required of a warship are appropriate MOPs, made with awareness of the likely
heavily dependent on the equipments, which the vessel relationships between MOPs and MOEs can provide
carries, particularly the combat system elements. They useful first order indications of benefit or value.
also account for a large percentage of the capital cost. It
is therefore highly desirable to identify relationships The properties can then be propagated through defined
between these elements, their costs and the capabilities relationships all the way up through the functions and
© 2007: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects