Ranking maritime platform upgrade options

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment

Volumn 224, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 47-59

  Kerr, C I V ^a   Phaal, R ^a   Probert, D R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Navy; Obsolescence; Technology insertion; Technology management; Upgrade

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE SERVICE; ANTI-AIR WARFARE; COMBAT SYSTEMS; FUNCTIONAL ENHANCEMENTS; ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES; MARITIME PLATFORMS; MATRIX; MILITARY THREATS; NAVAL COMBATANT; SENSOR-TO-SHOOTER; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY INSERTION; TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENTS; TYPE 45 DESTROYER; NAVY; UPGRADE;

INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT; QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

OBSOLESCENCE;

EID: 76149087821     PISSN: 14750902     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1243/14750902JEME173     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. CAIG - Cost Analysis Improvement Group Operating and support cost-estimating guide. Cost Analysis Improvement Group, Office of the Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington DC, USA, 1992.
2. Webber, G., Smith, J., Anderson, J., Bachkosky, J., Brown, D., Fratarangelo, P., Hogan, R., Johnson, J., Katz, D., Kelly, M., Lister, M., Robinson, D., Rodriguez, J., Rumpf, R., Sinnett, J., Spindel, R., and Windsor, G. Life cycle technology insertion. Report number NRAC 02-02, Naval Research Advisory Committee Report, US Navy, Washington DC, USA, 2002.
3. Kerr, C. I. V., Phaal, R., and Probert, D. R. Technology insertion in the defence industry: A primer. Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture, 2008, 222(8), 1009-1023. DOI: 10.1243/ 09544054JEM1080.
4. Churchill, A. The DSAC view on technology insertion. Distillation - Sc. J. for Dstl Staff, 2004, 6, 5-8.
5. MoD - Ministry of Defence Defence industrial strategy. Report number Cm 6697, The Stationery Office, London, UK, 2005.
6. Fein, G. Littoral combat ship's modularity: the shape of things to come for Navy. Def. Daily, 2006, 229(36), 1.
7. Bennett, L., Kinloch, A., McDermid, J., Muttram, R., Price, P., Stein, P., Stewart, W., Churchill, A., Jordan, G., Graeme-Morrison, B., Oxenham, D., Raby, N., and Smith, H. Key issues for effective technology insertion. J. Def. Sci., 2004, 9(3), 103-107.
8. Milas, M. J. and Vanderbok, R. Beyond proactive DMSMS, what's next: coordinated technology management. Ninth Joint FAA/DoD/NASA Conference on Aging Aircraft, Atlanta, USA, 6-9 March 2006.
9. O'Rourke, R. Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 destroyer programs: background, oversight issues and options for congress. Report number RL32109, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington DC, USA, 2008.
10. O'Rourke, R. Navy Aegis cruiser and destroyer modernization: background and issues for congress. Report number RS22595, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington DC, USA, 2008.
11. O'Rourke, R. Sea-based ballistic missile defense: Background and issues for congress. Report number RL33745, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington DC, USA, 2008.
12. Gause, K., Lea, C., Whiteneck, D., and Thompson, E. US Navy interoperability with its high-end allies. The Fifth International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS 2000), Canberra, Australia, 24-26 October 2000.
13. Barber, A. H. and Gilmore, D. L. Maritime access: do defenders hold all the cards? Def. Horizons, 2001, 4, 1-8.
14. Thompson, L. Cruise missile defense: connecting theater capabilities to homeland needs. Lexington Institute, Arlington, USA, 2004.
15. GAO - Government Accountability Office. Assessments of selected major weapon programs. Report number GAO-06-391, The Government Accountability Office, Washington DC, USA, 2006.
16. Bridger, W. W. and Ruiz, M. D. Total ownership cost reduction case study: Aegis radar phase shifters. Report number NPS-AM-06-050, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, USA, 2006.
17. NAO - National Audit Office Ministry of Defence major projects report 2006: Project summary sheets. Report number HC 23-II, The Stationery Office, London, UK, 2006.
18. DMJ - Defence Management Journal Fighting force for the future. Def. Managmt J., 2004, 27, 122.
19. Emery, V. Delivering naval capability through smart acquisition: the UK's Type 45 destroyer programme. RUSI Def. Syst., 2005, 8(2), 84-88.
20. Birkler, J., Schank, J. F., Arena, M. V., Smith, G. K., and Lee, G. T. The Royal Navy's new-generation Type 45 destroyer: acquisition options and implications. Report number MR-1486-MOD, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, USA, 2002.
21. Cunningham, J. A class of its own. Prof. Engng, 2007, 20(14), 41-42.
22. MoD - Ministry of Defence Joint air defence. Report number JWP 3-63. The Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre, Ministry of Defence, Shrivenham, UK, 2003.
23. Strei, T. J. Open architecture in naval combat system computing of the 21st Century. The Eighth International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS 2003), Washington DC, USA, 17-19 October 2003.
24. Boudreau, M. W. and Naegle, B. R. Reduction of total ownership cost. Report number NPS-GSBPP- 03-004, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, USA, 2003.
25. GAO - Government Accountability Office Ballistic missile defense: actions needed to improve process for identifying and addressing combatant command priorities. Report number GAO-08-740, The Government Accountability Office, Washington DC, USA, 2008.
26. Bouchereau, V. and Rowlands, H. Methods and techniques to help quality function deployment. Benchmarking: Int. J., 2000, 7(1), 8-19.
27. Akao, Y. New product development and quality assurance deployment system. Standardiz. Qual. Control, 1972, 25(4), 243-246.
28. Adiano, C. and Roth, A. V. Beyond the house of quality: Dynamic QFD. Benchmarking for Qual. Managmt & Technol., 1994, 1(1), 25-37.
29. Birchall, D. and Tovstiga, G. Capabilities for strategic advantage: leading through technological innovation, 2005 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
30. Shen, X. X., Tan, K. C., and Xie, M. Benchmarking in QFD for quality improvement. Benchmarking: Int. J., 2000, 7(4), 282-291.
31. Akao, Y. Quality function deployment: integrating customer requirements into product design, 1990 (Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts).
32. Cohen, L. Quality function deployment: how to make QFD work for you, 1995 (Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts).
33. Terninko, J. Step-by-step QFD: customer-driven product design, 1997 (St Lucie Press, Boca Raton).
34. Bicheno, J. The lean toolbox, 2000 (Picsie Books, Buckingham, UK).
35. Akiyama, K. Function analysis: systematic improvement of quality and performance, 1991 (Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts).
36. Haffa, R. P. and Welch, J. Command and control arrangements for the attack of time-sensitive targets, 2005 (Analysis Center, Northrop Grumman, Los Angeles, USA).
37. Fowler, T. C. Value analysis in design, 1990 (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York).
38. Zimmerman, L. W. and Hart, G. D. Value engineering: a practical approach for owners, designers, and contractors, 1982 (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York).
39. DPA - Defence Procurement Agency. Systems engineering guide for naval combat systems: Part 1. Interim Defence Standard 21-59 Issue 1, Ministry of Defence, Glasgow, UK, 2005.
40. Torenvliet, G., Jamieson, G., and Cournoyer, L. Functional modelling, scenario development and options analysis to support optimized crewing for damage control: Phase 1 functional modelling. Report number DRDC-CR-2006-2090, Defence Research and Development Canada, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Canada, 2006.
41. RAN - Royal Australian Navy The Navy contribution to Australian maritime operations. Report Number: RAN Doctrine 2, Sea Power Centre, Royal Australian Navy, Department of Defence, Canberra, Australia, 2005.
42. Krause, M. E. Attack operations for missile defense. Report Number: 28, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, USA, 2002.
43. Wijesekera, D., Michael, J. B., and Nerode, A. BMD agents: an agent-based framework to model ballistic missile defense strategies. The 10th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS 2005), McLean, USA, 13-16 June 2005.
44. Mahnken, T. G. The cruise missile challenge. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington DC, USA, 2005.
45. Brooks, T. A., Jenkins, H., Polmar, N., Pirie, R., Ryan, T. D., Sommerer, J., Weldon, W., and Wolbarsht, J. Science and technology for naval warfare 2015-2020. Report number NRAC 05-13, Naval Research Advisory Committee, Arlington, USA, 2005.
46. JSA-TTCP - Joint Systems and Analysis group of The Technical Cooperation Program Guide to capability-based planning. Military Operations Research Society 'Capabilities-based planning: The road ahead' Workshop, Alexandria, USA, 19-21 October 2004. Report number TR-JSA-TP3-2-2004.
47. Leary, M. and Burvill, C. Enhancing the quality function deployment conceptual design tool. Trans. ASME: J. Mech. Des., 2007, 129(7), 701-708.
48. Al-Duwaish, N. M. and John, P. Using assessment methods and tools to understand joint battlespace digitization. The 10th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS 2005), McLean, USA, 13-16 June 2005.
49. NSB - Naval Studies Board Network-centric naval forces: a transition strategy for enhancing operational capabilities, 2000 (National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
50. MoD - Ministry of Defence Defence technology strategy for the demands of the 21st century. Report number DTS, Ministry of Defence, London, UK, 2006.
51. NAO - National Audit Office Ministry of Defence major projects report 2005. Report number HC 595-I, The Stationery Office, London, UK, 2005.
52. Lomas, E. Technology insertion assessment framework study. Report number QQ/13/005, TI MPA, 2004 (Technology InsertionMajor Programme Area), QinetiQ, Farnborough, UK.
53. Taylor, T. and Neal, D. The delineation of defense equipment projects in the UK Ministry of Defence. Def. Security Analysis, 2004, 20(2), 165-177.
54. MacKenzie, S. C. and Tuteja, R. Modular capabilities for the Canadian Navy's single class surface combatant: a perspective on flexibility. Report number DRDC-CR-2006-3004, Defence Research and Development Canada, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Canada, 2006.
55. Kerr, C. I. V., Phaal, R., and Probert, D. R. Aligning R&D with changing product requirements in an evolutionary acquisition environment. In Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference 2008, Ottawa, Canada, 18-20 June 2008.
56. Dowling, T., Hood, R., Hirst, R., Barker, D., Lomas, E., Phillips, E., Griffiths, A., King, B., and Field, D. Agile capability and adaptable systems. Report number QINETIQ/EMEA/TECS/CR0700304, TI MPA (Technology Insertion Major Programme Area), QinetiQ, Farnborough, UK, 2007.
57. Hanratty, M., Lightsey, R. H., and Larson, A. G. Open systems and the systems engineering process. Acquisition Rev. Quarterly, Winter 1999, pp. 47- 59.
58. Gouré, D. Modularity, the littoral combat ship and the future of the United States Navy. Lexington Institute, Arlington, USA, 2006.
59. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., and Probert, D. Customizing roadmapping. Res. Technol. Managmt, 2004, 47(2), 26-37.
60. Balaban, H. S. and Greer, W. L. Model for evaluating the cost consequences of deferring new system acquisition through upgrades. Report number P-3424, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, USA, 1999.