Chapter Eight - The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics

Transcription

Chapter 8
A da p t i n g S h i p O p e r at i o n s
to E n e rg y C h a l l e n g e s
239
Mr. John Benedict
I am going to provide a brief overview by focusing on each of
the six framing topics identified here (see also Figure 1):
• What are we trying to accomplish?
• How do we measure success?
Mr. John Benedict is currently a Fellow in the National Security
Studies Office within the National Security Analysis Department
(NSAD) at JHU/APL. Mr. Benedict has been focusing most recently
on total ownership cost issues for surface combatants, U.S. Navy
missions, and roles related to irregular warfare (IW), an Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD)-sponsored IW study to inform the
Quadrennial Defense Review, and an OSD-sponsored study to evaluate missions and roles for the reserve component of the military.
He has also recently investigated the national security implications
of various future trends including climate change and global energy
shortages. Previous to becoming a Fellow, Mr. Benedict served as the
Head of the Joint Warfare Analysis Branch in NSAD. Mr. Benedict has
extensive experience in Naval operations analysis, primarily in the area
of undersea warfare (USW) with special emphases on antisubmarine
warfare (ASW) and mine countermeasures. He has led numerous USW
analyses including a 2006 Way Ahead in ASW study done for the Chief
of Naval Operations (N8). He was a principal investigator in the mine
warfare (MIW) assessment that was conducted by the Naval Studies
Board in 2001. Throughout his career he has served as Study Director/
Lead Analyst for various analysis of alternatives efforts related to USW.
Mr. Benedict gives regular tutorials at the Naval Postgraduate School
on ASW, MIW, and other topics. He has had articles published in the
Naval War College Review, the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, The
Submarine Review, the U.S. Navy Journal of Underwater Acoustics,
the ASW Log, the Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, and other
journals. He has an M.S. in numerical science from The Johns Hopkins
University and a B.S. in mathematics from the University of Maryland.
240
Climate and Energy Proceedings 2011
• What technology enablers are we relying on?
• Can we transition these technology enablers into key acquisition programs?
• What operational and strategic impacts are we ultimately
going to have?
• What can go wrong with our plans?
Figure 1. Adapting Ship Operations to Energy Challenges—
Overview (See Appendix for Details)
In the paragraphs that follow, I’ll briefly address the key elements of each of these important topics. Additional supporting
details are provided in the Appendix to this presentation.
What are we trying to accomplish?
Stated strategic objectives include strengthening energy
security at Navy, joint, and national levels and achieving secure,
sufficient, reliable, sustainable energy that reflects future mission requirements, force structure, and operating tempos. Other
broad objectives are to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Stated operational objectives include enhancing
combat capability and achieving a reduced logistics tail through
the required operational and technological innovations that result
in hopefully saving time, money, and lives.
Chapter 8 Adapting Ship Operations to Energy Challenges
241
Another broad objective is to diversify energy sources for
enhanced resilience. Stated technical objectives include energy
efficient acquisition, rapid adoption of technology as an early
adopter, and improved tactics, techniques, and procedures
(TTPs) and associated testing and adaptation of viable alternative
energy sources.
How do we measure success?
Now let us turn to potential metrics for judging progress and
success in this area. At a recent Military Operations Research
Society special meeting on power and energy (P&E), it was agreed
that a consistent methodology and framework was lacking but
was definitely needed if the analysis community is to address
P&E to the same extent that we address other important system
performance measures. Modeling and simulation tools need to
be updated accordingly. The fully burdened cost of fuel (FBCF)
or energy (FBCE) needs to be understood better; it needs to be
decomposed, defined, and standardized so that we can talk on
a common playing field across the services and other DoD and
government entities. Our analytic methods will need to include
energy efficient Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) as well as the
FBCF. Bottom line: we need to provide a more balanced view of
total ownership cost, risk, and capabilities for P&E to help support
decision makers in this area.
What technology enablers are we
relying on?
Now let us look at the enabling technologies that the Navy
is currently focusing on. This is just a short list of some of the
things that are being addressed: improved prime mover efficiencies, hybrid electric drive (HED), alternative fuels, high-capacity
energy storage, improved hull forms, advanced propellers, efficient energy and power conversion, improved power generation,
high-energy and pulsed-power load development, all-electric
ship power control and distribution, and, in some cases, possibly
nuclear power and propulsion. You are going to hear a lot more
about these topics from our panelists.
242
Can we transition these technology
enablers into key acquisition
programs?
So what are some of the corresponding acquisition initiatives?
I think you may have heard about some of these. LHD-8 Makin
Island has been fitted with an electric auxiliary propulsion system.
HED will be going on the USS Truxtun (DDG-103) as a proof of
concept very soon. You have heard about increased use of biofuels, and time-phased goals have been stated. A variety of other fleet
energy efficiency and conservation initiatives have been started.
These include the energy dashboard, Smart Voyage Planning, synthetic training, incentivized energy conservation, and a variety of
other measures to reduce power propulsion demands.
One of the areas of keen interest is the integrated power system
(IPS). We have seen commercial IPSs being put on logistic ships,
and a military IPS is being incorporated onto the DDG-1000. A
number of research and development initiatives are underway, and
a roadmap has been developed for the next-generation IPS. The
goal is to provide substantial benefit to warfighting, including providing power to enable future missions with high power demand.
We will hear more about some of these from the panelists.
What operational and strategic
impacts are we ultimately going
to have?
The expected operational and strategic impacts of these various energy, power, and propulsion initiatives will be important, so
I will examine them briefly here. We are taking the 80,000-foothigh strategic impact view, realizing that the Navy is just a part of
an overall national and hopefully international effort. Obviously,
the number one desired impact is to have more reliable supplies of
energy. But when you think about recent foreign policy areas that
have caused us grief, becoming more energy diverse will reduce
the demand for petroleum and thereby engender fewer questionable alliances, fewer oil supply entanglements, less energy supply
blackmail, and fewer perturbations to our national economy
caused by oil price volatility.
243
As for the operational impacts on the Navy, we would like to see
increased ship range, endurance, and tactical reach; a less vulnerable and burdensome logistics tail for ships; a reduction in the FBCF,
which is part of our total ownership cost reduction program; and
increased power and growth flexibility for next-generation weapons
systems. Like Rear Admiral Philip Cullom, I will also cite the observation from the 2009 Global War Game summary that sea logistics
lanes and bases are potentially an “Achilles’ heel” for the Navy.
What can go wrong with our plans?
What are the principal concerns or risks associated with successfully implementing the various energy-related initiatives that I
have described? First of all, it occurs to me that without credible
tools for computing metrics like the FBCF or total ownership costs,
which admittedly have to be calculated out many years, decision makers will be very reluctant to make acquisition decisions
in favor of ship energy, power, and propulsion initiatives whose
payoff, whose return on investment (ROI), is many years away. So
we need to improve our tools so that we can properly support
decision makers in this area.
Second, there is obviously a very significant need to monitor
the technology readiness levels of many of the energy efficiency
technologies and to carefully manage risk in this whole area. Third,
I believe that the Navy, and the DoD as a whole for that matter,
would benefit significantly from diversity in its fuel and energy
sources. If one thing does not pan out as planned, something else
will be available to take its place. It is obviously hard to predict the
future, but you can bet that some of the alternative fuel sources will
have their own set of vulnerabilities and dependencies.
Appendix
I.
Energy, power, and propulsion objectives
• Strategic objectives
–– Partner with other services, government, industry, and
academia to strengthen energy security at Navy, joint, and
national levels
–– Protect access to energy sources for our nation and our
allies (i.e., secure, sufficient, reliable, sustainable energy)
244
–– Maintain a long-term perspective regarding energy security, accounting for future mission requirements, force
structure, and operational tempo
–– Conserve energy, develop alternative energy options, secure
energy distribution, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Operational objectives
–– Employ energy efficiency as a force multiplier for both
enhanced combat capability and a reduced logistics tail
–– Reduce full logistics tether through operational and technological modifications
–– Reduce operational risks for logistics while saving time,
money, and lives, enhancing both operational flexibility
and sustainability
–– Rely on diversified energy sources for enhanced military
operation efficiency/resilience
• Tactical (and technical) objectives
–– Incorporate energy requirements into all phases of system development and acquisition, i.e., energy efficient
acquisition
–– Rapid adoption of technology and improved TTPs for
energy efficiency
–– Spearhead early testing and adaptation of viable alternative energy sources, e.g., alternative fuels seamlessly interchanged with petroleum-based fuel
II. Potential metrics—ROI
From a Recent Military Operations Research Society (MORS) special meeting on P&E:
• A consistent methodology/framework (e.g., data, metrics, terminology, logic) is needed to address P&E with regard to operational effectiveness across the spectrum of required models
• Modeling and simulation tools should be updated accordingly
to keep pace with developing P&E technologies
• The elements of FBCF* or FBCE should be decomposed,
defined, and standardized to provide a common understanding (e.g., for the force protection/attrition part of FBCF)
* Definition according to the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
Acquisition and Technology is: “FBCF is the commodity price plus the total
245
• Analytic methods are required to derive energy efficiency
KPPs** and FBCF and should be employed to set capability and
cost metrics (objectives/thresholds) for acquisition programs
• Bottom line: Analytic tools and metrics are needed to provide
a balanced view of total ownership costs, risks, and capabilities for P&E in support of decision makers
III. Illustrative enabling technologies for energy/power/
propulsion
• Improved prime mover efficiencies, e.g., combined diesel and
gas turbine plants and podded propulsion for new ship designs
• HED for greater efficiency at low speeds and low electric loads
• New/alternative fuels, e.g., sustainable non-petroleum-based
fuel
• Rechargeable high-capacity energy storage, e.g., advanced
battery and capacitors to enable ultrahigh P&E densities
• New/improved hull forms and designs for greater efficiencies
at various speeds and increased range/endurance
• Advanced propeller designs/improved propulsive efficiency
• Efficient P&E conversion, e.g., high-power-density electrical
power conversion and thermal management
• Improved power generation, e.g., advanced gas turbine
engines/generators, high-efficiency/reliable/high-power-density
fuel cell systems
• High-energy and pulsed-power load development for
advanced combat systems
• All-electric ship power control and distribution, i.e., integration of ship service electrical power and propulsive power for
greater overall efficiency by using same distribution system
(e.g., for pulsed-power switching and control system in support of advanced weapon systems)
• Nuclear power/propulsion
life cycle cost of all people and assets required to move and protect fuel from
the point of sale to the end user.” Note: FBCF use in life cycle operations and
support has been codified in DoD 5000.02.
** Energy efficiency KPPs are called out in CJCS 3170.01F to be “selectively
implemented”—in other words, slowly applied to programs.
246
IV. Illustrative acquisition initiatives for energy/power/
propulsion
• USS Makin Island (LHD 8) with an electric auxiliary propulsion
system that enables efficient low-speed operations (up to 75%
of time deployed)
• Goal for HED on DDG-51 (USS Truxtun) by 2012 (as part of
a proof of concept) with potential cost savings at low speeds
• Increased use of biofuels in fleet with ambitious time-phased
goals:
–– 2012: Green Strike Group with all ships certified to run on
50/50 biofuel blend
–– 2016: Green Strike Fleet with all ships containing full load
of biofuel plus HED DDG
–– 2020: 50% of Department of the Navy energy consumption will come from alternative energy sources
• Other fleet energy efficiency and conservation initiatives, e.g.,
–– The energy dashboard to monitor power and fuel
consumption
–– Smart Voyage Planning software for all ships
–– Expanded use of synthetic training for ships to reduce fuel
consumption
–– Combustion trim loop on L-ships
–– Stern flaps, bulbous bows, hull and propeller coatings, propeller redesign, and other measures to reduce propulsion
power demands
–– Incentivized Energy Conservation (I-ENCON) program
• IPS
–– Commercial IPS on T-AKE 1
–– Military IPS incorporated into DDG-1000
–– Next-Generation IPS (NGIPS) Research, Development,
Test & Evaluation, Navy funding to enable, for example,
more efficient prime mover operations, opportunities for
propulsion efficiency, integration of fuel cell technology
for ship applications, and very-high-powered mission systems in the future
V.
247
Potential operational (and strategic) impact from
energy/power/propulsion initiatives
• Potential strategic impact (as part of an overall national effort)
of lessening dependence on foreign oil/energy with very large
implications for military/U.S. Navy deployments and utilizations in the future
–– More reliable supplies of energy, i.e., more assured energy
access in the future
–– Less contesting for petroleum energy sources between
nations
–– Fewer questionable alliances with autocratic regimes to
ensure access to their oil supplies
–– Fewer oil supply entanglements influencing our foreign
policy (e.g., today’s Middle East)
–– Less energy supply blackmail by bad actors empowered by
energy (e.g., oil, gas) wealth
–– Less adverse perturbations to our national debt and economy caused by oil price volatility
• Potential operational impact on Navy of successful energy
efficiency efforts
–– Increased ship range and endurance, i.e., expanding tactical reach through efficiency
–– Less vulnerable/burdensome logistics tail for ships—frees
up combat forces for key missions (less logistics protection
needs), i.e., increased combat flexibility/effectiveness
–– Reduction in FBCF by not over-relying on volatile oil market
–– $10 increase in barrel of oil increases the Navy fuel bill by
about $300 million
–– Reduced fuel/energy costs could mean more funds available for procurement, training, and maintenance
–– Increased power/growth flexibility for next-generation
weapon systems (e.g., very-high-powered radars, electromagnetic rail guns, free-electron laser systems)
• From a participant at a Naval War College wargame exercise:
“Sea control of logistics lanes, as well as defense of related
logistics bases, were as important or more important than
sea control of the main objective area . . . [i.e., a potential
Achilles’ Heel]”
248
VI. Concerns/issues/risks to manage related to energy/
power/propulsion initiatives
• Analysis/acquisition decision support
–– Need reliable tools to compute FBCF(E)—the current state
of the art in this area appears suspect (i.e., insufficient rigor
and discipline)
–– Without credible tools for computing FBCF(E) and total
ownership cost, decision makers will be reluctant to make
acquisition decisions in favor of ship energy, power, and
propulsion initiatives whose payoff (ROI) may be many
years away
–– It is also not clear whether energy efficiency-related KPPs
will be as strongly enforced as other KPPs (related to ship
and combat system capabilities), e.g., potentially resulting
in the cancellation of a program
• Many enabling technologies
–– Technology readiness levels (TRLs) for key enabling ship
energy, power, and propulsion technologies must be carefully monitored/managed
–– For example, the NGIPS roadmap appears to be a good
initial step in prioritizing and tracking related technology
developments
• Alternative (non-petroleum-based) fuels
–– Putting the requisite infrastructure in place in the near- to
midterm could be a significant challenge
–– Technical hurdles and economic constraints could greatly
limit how rapidly alternative fuel sources can replace (vice
augment) fossil fuel-based energy on Navy ships
–– Uncertain whether these alternative fuel sources will pose
their own set of vulnerabilities/dependencies (albeit with a
smaller carbon footprint)
249
Rear Admiral Joe Carnevale
To begin, let me make a couple of observations, one at the
microscopic level and one at the macroscopic level. I bought a
new computer on Friday, and I have spent the whole weekend
trying to get all the software up on it and transferring data from
the old computer. I had it custom built at a local shop; I told them
I wanted a fast central processing unit (CPU), Windows 7, a 64-bit
Rear Admiral Joe Carnevale represents Shipbuilders Council of
America before Congress, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, and
other federal agencies, applying over 30 years of experience to defense
acquisition issues. He actively participates in a variety of ship maintenance and construction issues including the surface ship maintenance
budget, the shipbuilding budget, multi-ship/multi-option contracting, the Naval Technical Committee, Naval Vessel Rules, ship-building issues specific to ship classes, and many other important issues
affecting the ship building and repair industrial base. Prior to joining
Shipbuilders Council of America in June 2005, Rear Admiral Carnevale
led the professional services division of one of the fastest-growing
Fortune 500 companies. He served as Director of Fleet Maintenance
for the Commander, Fleet Forces Command where he addressed the
complete range of fleet maintenance issues as well as the recovery
operation for USS Cole (DDG 67). As Program Executive Officer (DD
21) for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development,
and Acquisition), he led the development of the next-generation U.S.
Navy surface combatant. He has directly participated in the construction of six different ship classes. After graduating from the University
of Massachusetts with a B.S. in chemical engineering in 1971, Rear
Admiral Carnevale joined the Navy, participating in combat operations
in Vietnam. He attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
where he earned two postgraduate degrees (an M.S. in naval architecture and marine engineering and an ocean engineer’s degree in 1980).
He was promoted to the rank of Rear Admiral (lower half) in 1998.
250
operating system with 16 megabits of random-access memory, a
1-terabyte drive, a high-end video card with multiple CPUs, and
a cabinet with a lot of fans. I ended up with seven fans: five in
the cabinet, one on my video card, and a big fan on my CPU. Of
course, you know what fans mean? Fans mean heat. You have
to get rid of all the heat that your computer is generating, and of
course, heat is proportional to the power that you are using. So, I
had to have a high-end power supply. Five years ago, my computer
had a 500-watt power supply; the one I bought on Friday has a
700-watt power supply, a 40% increase. So, at the microscopic
level, it is all about energy. It adds up—every little bit of it.
Now, let us take a more macroscopic view. Several years ago,
I read an article in Technology Review that observed that when
India’s standard of living reaches the current level of Belgium, world
demand for energy will have doubled. So add up all those little
CPUs and fans all over the United States and all over the world—
because people are constantly upgrading and getting more and
more and more power—and it is all about energy.
I am the one and only industry speaker you are going to hear
on this panel. The bad news is I am not a fuels guy; I am a shipyard guy, so bear with me. The good news is that my briefing
slides are not going to test your reading skills. The Shipbuilder’s
Council of America represents about 43 companies with over
100 shipyards around the United States—East Coast, West Coast,
Gulf Coast, Hawaii, Alaska, and inland waterways. Those yards
deal in commercial work as well as in government work for the
Navy, the Coast Guard, the Army, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and in some other activities. We also
deal in new construction and in repair, maintenance, and modernization. We have companies that deal in all of these areas. We
have other companies that deal in only one.
So what does industry want out of all of this? To be blunt,
industry wants profitable contracts, and I must be the industry
guy because I just mentioned the P word. Industry also wants the
opportunity to perform. That is critical because that establishes
industry’s relationship and credibility with its customer; industry
lives on having a good customer base. In order to perform, industry
251
would like stability; they would like to get on a learning curve. In
acquisition, the best way to get cost down is pretty simple. The
best way to control costs is to fix your requirements before you
start the design, complete your design before you start production,
and then start construction and get into series production so you
can get on the learning curve and get down the learning curve.
I am going to talk about two parts of the industry—the shipyards, which is the part I deal with most, and then the whole host
of vendors and research and development (R&D) organizations—
the brainy people who have all kinds of good ideas. While I am
going to put everything in the context of shipyards and shipbuilding, what I present should be applicable to aviation, ground vehicles, and even major software procurements.
The absolute first thing we need to do is to set the requirement.
If you do not do that, your program is in big trouble if not dead
on arrival. The encouraging thing with regard to the requirements
associated with the Navy’s use of energy is that we have Rear
Admiral Philip Cullom, the Director of Energy and Environmental
Readiness Division, and an organization that is focused and dedicated to addressing the appropriate issues. So that is good news.
Fortunately, too, industry is making a lot of contributions.
Industry is coming up with ideas on how to improve hull forms and
appendages on the hull, how to improve both main and auxiliary
propulsion, and the use of green fuels. Industry is also looking at
ship operating procedures.
While industry has a lot of ideas, some big and some small,
the problem is there are lots of barriers (Figure 1). I am sure most
of you know about at least some of these barriers. In the case of
timing, for example, you think you have got a great idea and a great
platform, but the timing is just off. You cannot get your idea into
the program, you are too late, you missed the window, there is not
enough money, or there is no allocation for that. There are all kinds
of organizational wickets you have to go through.
When I used to teach acquisition to young engineering duty
officers, I would tell them that it has taken 40 years to make acquisition this hard and it could not have been done in a day less.
252
Figure 1. Lots of Barriers
Joe Carnevale’s third law of bureaucracies is that every time
you move the boxes around, you get more boxes. That is what we
have been doing for 40 years, so you have all these activities that
are there trying to do a good job and trying to make sure that they
weigh into the process. As a result, you get a lot of people weighing
in, and you need facilitators to move through this obstacle course
to take those great ideas and actually get them aboard steel hulls.
Fortunately, what you are going to hear about today are people
who are facilitating the process and are being successful at moving
their ideas through the process. From my perspective, if you want
to lock this process in concrete, you really have to take a systematic approach. You need Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) that
pertain to fuel cost, to manning, and to maintainability. While fuel
cost is an enormously important part of this, you cannot focus on
it exclusively. Manning and maintainability are also key focus areas
for the Navy right now.
253
My thought is that from the very beginning of a program, you
need to allocate dollars, both for development and for acquisition, and you have to allocate displacement, center of gravity, and
volume. If you want to get improved energy efficiencies, you are
going to need to make adjustments within the allowable margins
for all of these factors. If you want to improve maintainability, you
are also going to need all these things. If you to want to address
manning issues or improve the quality of life for our sailors, you are
going to need all these things.
If your requirements say that you have to have a 5-inch gun,
then you have to fit it in within allowable margins. During the development process, someone will have to make the necessary allocations: I have to have this much development, this much acquisition,
this much volume, displacement, lay down—it will all have to be
spelled out, and it will all have to be allocated. But if you want to
improve the energy efficiency of your ship, no one will allocate
any of those things right now. And if you do not allocate any of
these things, then how is the program manager going to approach
taking those great ideas and implementing them onboard his ships?
So you start by establishing clear performance parameters, and
you have to measure those performance parameters throughout
the life of the program. Then, most importantly, you have to grade
the Navy and industry program managers in terms of their success
in attaining desired performance levels. You have to determine
how well they are applying the allocations that they have been
given to improving the fuel efficiencies of their platforms, whether
that platform is a ship, an aircraft, or an armored vehicle.
You have to ask: How much displacement, how much volume,
how much acquisition cost did they invest in improving fuel efficiencies, and how much fuel efficiency did they get? They needed
the allocations to take those ideas and get them through the program, and then they needed to be graded against that to see how
well they did. And all of those things have to relate back to the KPPs.
In my mind, that is the way to build lanes through the barriers
so that everyone understands from the beginning that there are
requirements to improve fuel efficiencies, to reduce total ownership
254
cost by improving fuel efficiency, to make manning more efficient,
and to improve maintainability (Figure 2). You have the requirements, you have allocated the resources, and you will be measuring the programs against those improvements and reporting back.
Doing those things should provide lanes through this very, very
difficult process that we deal with in getting things into the fleet.
Figure 2. Build a Path Through the Barriers
255
Mr. Howard Fireman
As the Executive Secretary of the Resources and Requirements
Review Board (R3B), I am part of the process police that Rear
Admiral Joe Carnevale mentioned in this presentation. The good
news, from my perspective, is that I get to see everything—ships,
Mr. Howard Fireman assumed his current position as the Deputy
Director of the Navy Programming Division on the Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO) staff in 2009. He also serves as the Executive
Secretary for the Resources and Requirements Review Board. Previously,
Mr. Fireman was the senior civilian responsible for Surface Ship Design
and Systems Engineering at the Naval Sea Systems Command, where
he was also appointed as Chief Systems Engineer for Ships and as the
Deputy Warranting Officer. During this time he served as the NATO
Chairman for Ship Design and Mobility and was Technical Project
Officer. In 2001, Mr. Fireman served as the Special Assistant for Science
and Technology to the CNO Executive Panel until he became a member
of Senior Executive Service for the Naval Sea System Command and
worked as the Director for the In-Service Submarine Programs. He was
selected as the Science and Technology Advisor for the Commander
of Seventh Fleet and worked aboard USS Blue Ridge in Yokosuka,
Japan, from 1999 until 2001. He was Seventh Fleet’s Chief Technology
Officer. In 1994, Mr. Fireman was selected as the Acquisition Program
Manager for the San Antonio (LPD17) Program. Mr. Fireman has B.S.E.
and M.S.E. degrees in naval architecture and marine engineering from
the University of Michigan. In 1993, he earned his M.S. degree in technical management from The Johns Hopkins University. Mr. Fireman’s
awards include the University of Michigan Department of Naval
Architecture and Marine Engineering Rosenblatt-Michigan Alumni
Award (2010) and Bill Zimmie Award (2008), the American Society
of Naval Engineers Gold Medal (2006), the Meritorious Presidential
Rank Award, two Navy Superior Civilian Service Awards, the Navy
Meritorious Civilian Service Award, and the Department of the Navy
Competition and Procurement Excellence Award.
256
airplanes, unmanned systems, information technology. It is a good
place to be.
One of the things that the R3B does is serve as the gatekeeper.
The R3B reviews Key Performance Parameters. We also review Key
System Attributes, the guidance for analyses of alternatives (AoAs),
and the Initial Capabilities Documents (ICDs). We just did exactly
that in a series of 10 R3Bs looking across the whole set of Navy
programs in support of the Navy Program Objective Memorandum
(POM) being developed for FY2013.
Figure 1. Alternative Design Objectives
As Rear Admiral Carnevale mentioned, it is about getting the
requirement right. So, we have to ask first, what is our objective
(Figure 1)? Do we want to go fast? Do we want to survive? What
is it that we want? What is important to the Navy? Based on what
we want, we see different things that are potential options. Each of
these will result in different shipboard architectures and subsystem
designs and components. Then if you want to have effectiveness,
257
you have to address onboard training, use of simulations, time on
station, and ultimately the size of your fuel tank. If life cycle is
the objective, then there is another set of parameters we need to
look at.
As one of my old bosses used to say, a problem well defined is
a problem half answered. A lot of things that used to fall out the tail
end are what we do up front. So, we insist on putting the analytical
piece up front and making sure that we have the appropriate tools
to do that. I am okay with putting money in the development of the
analytical tools we need.
To reiterate, we need to start by identifying our objective.
Once we have that, we get into the process of specifications and
having the design done before we start building it. We have to
figure things out early so that we can determine precisely what
the requirements mean. We have to have good analysis done up
front using the right tools so that the decision makers can make the
right call. If we have done all that correctly, the process should get
easier, and then 20 years from now, no one will be disappointed
with what comes out the other end.
Figure 2. SECNAVINST 5000.2D [1]
258
The formal process we use in the Navy is laid out in Secretary
of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 5000.2D (Figure 2), which
was signed out by Dr. Donald Winter in 2008. [1] The process
lays out six different gates that we go through, and they are very,
very important. Where Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
(OPNAV) gets to play pretty heavily in the process is in gates 1,
2, and 3. Those gates focus primarily on capabilities and requirements; thus, they address the Capability Development Document
(CDD) and the system concept of operations (CONOPS). The R3B
sessions for gates 1, 2, and 3 are typically chaired by my boss, Vice
Admiral John Terence Blake, the N8.
Following gate 3, we get into engineering and architecture
development and what we call the System Design Specification
(SDS), which you see next to gate 4. That is where the analysis
falls out, and that is how architectures are developed. We have to
make certain that the SDS has the right systems and components
in it, because we are essentially locking in significant parts of the
design for a very long time. It is important to get it right early in the
preliminary design stage. The Honorable Sean Stackley, Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition,
chairs gates 4, 5, and 6.
One of the key elements prior to gate 1 is the capability based
assessment (CBA); I will talk a little bit more about that shortly
when I address some of the likely climate impacts on ship design.
During the CBA, we try to open the aperture and see where we are
headed. A CBA, for example, could tell us that we need to invest
in science and technology (S&T) before we start thinking about
building some key subsystem or component. We have to know that
early before we even get to what gap we have or whatever system
we want to fuel because the Office of Naval Research may need a
5-year head start.
The linkage between what we want to do and the capabilities
based assessment should be a stimulator of the S&T process as well
as to the acquisition process. If a key system or component is not at
the technology readiness level (TRL)—if it is not mature enough—
forget everything after gate 3 because it is never going to get on the
program. It is too late for whatever it is to ride that bus. So getting
259
things in line among S&T, acquisition, engineering, requirements,
and capabilities is very, very important.
Now let us get into energy (Figure 3). It is all about questions
like what is the ship supposed to do, what is its mission, what is the
CONOPS, what is the operating tempo, how much time is spent
steaming, how much time is spent in the threat environment, and
what radar resources do you need? So you have to worry about
mission profile and operating tempo. While the design process is
obviously complex, if you get it figured up front, what comes out
the other end should not be a surprise and will probably meet
expectations.
Figure 3. Energy Requirements
As I indicated, the overall ship architecture will be driven by
the specific problem we are trying to solve. That will lead to the
requirements and then to the specifications and components. We
will also need the appropriate linkages to S&T investment to ensure
that we can meet all those requirements. We will invariably want
to have the most efficient system, use the least volume, and have
the least displacement. And, we will need to remember that as the
ship gets heavier, we have to push it through the water, and the
260
faster we want to go, the more energy we need. As you can see,
we have a very complex system of systems problem.
Now let me turn briefly to the impact of climate on ship operations. As you may know, we have developed an Arctic Roadmap
to help us get our pieces up front (Figure 4). [2] One of the key elements of that roadmap is a capabilities based assessment, which I
think you will hear more about in Rear Admiral David Titley’s presentation. The CBA will describe what we are trying to do, which
will then lead into our gap analysis—our assessment of whether
our current systems meet requirements or whether we need new
widgets. Eventually the roadmap will get us down to the solutions
that we require. But, everyone has to be on board, and I guess
there are a lot of boxes, and yes, there is a lot of complexity. But
again, if we are going to invest billions of dollars, we really do need
to get the right type of analysis up front and early.
Figure 4. Arctic Roadmap
We also need to focus on identifying the knee in the curve of
cost versus capability. And to do that, we have to have the right
tools. I bet if I were to ask each of you to give me a definition of
total ownership cost, I would get 15 or 20 different definitions,
261
maybe even more. So, we have to make sure we have defined
things properly and that we are accounting for all of the appropriate costs.
REFERENCES
1. The Secretary of the Navy, SECNAV Instruction 5000.2D,
2008,  http://doni.daps.dla.mil/directives/05000 general
management security and safety services/05-00 general admin
and management support/5000.2d.pdf.
2. Department of the Navy, Navy Arctic Roadmap, 10 Nov 2009,
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/USN_artic_
roadmap.pdf.
262
Dr. John Pazik
I am really encouraged to be on this panel today because as
Rear Admiral Philip Cullom said, if we want to make changes in
Navy culture, acquisition, and operations, all the participants have
Dr. John Pazik is the Director of the Ship Systems and Engineering
Science and Technology Division at the Office of Naval Research (ONR)
and leads a group of scientists and engineers involved in the development of technologies for advanced naval power systems, platform survivability, advanced platform concepts, and sea base enablers. Dr. Pazik
is responsible for a portfolio of basic, applied, and advanced technology
development programs that range from topics in nanotechnology to aircraft carrier technologies. Dr. Pazik is currently engaged in development
of science and technology strategy for incorporation into the Navy’s
Next Generation Integrated Power Systems (NGIPS) master plan. As the
Navy’s Science and Technology Advanced Naval Power and Energy lead,
he has worked extensively with the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and the services to coordinate and plan power and energy programs.
Dr. Pazik was promoted to Senior Executive Service in December 2002.
Previously, Dr. Pazik was Director of the Physical Sciences Division at
ONR. As Director of Physical Sciences, Dr. Pazik focused resources on
power and energy transfer and environmental quality to address future
Naval needs in these areas. Prior to his selection to the Senior Executive
Service, Dr. Pazik was a program officer at ONR where he developed
and managed programs in nanotechnology, solid state chemistry, electronic materials, and thermoelectric materials and devices. As a program officer at ONR, he developed and managed joint programs with
DARPA. From 1989 to 1992, Dr. Pazik was a member of the technical staff at the Naval Research Laboratory. Dr. Pazik received a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from the State University College of New
York (SUNY) at Fredonia in May 1982. He received his doctorate degree
from the SUNY Buffalo in the area of inorganic chemistry in May 1987.
He was an American Society for Engineering Education postdoctoral
fellow at the Naval Research Laboratory in June 1987.
263
to come to the table. I think this panel brings the right participants
together. We have the warfighting customer, we have the acquisition procurement officer, and we have industry—the ultimate
source for the products we need to buy. And I represent the science and technology (S&T) enabler who puts forward the underlying concepts that we are going to want to rely on in the future.
Let me begin by briefly reviewing the history of electric power
aboard U.S. Navy ships and the approach for managing how we
use that power. Electric power is clearly one of our critical enablers.
Starting at the bottom then, the USS New Mexico was actually the
first capital ship that really had an integrated power system associated with it (Figure 1). We started our processes prior to that with
the USS Jupiter, a bulk cargo carrier. We tend to get our feet wet
by using our logistics platforms as experimentation laboratories for
many of the new technologies that we look at. The USS Trenton
was the first ship that had electric lights installed on board—238
light sockets. It was also one of the first hybrid ships. It obviously
had sails, and in the middle of the deck, you can see the exhaust
for the steam engine. That exhaust stack actually could be raised or
lowered depending on whether or not the steam engine was being
used for power.
Figure 1. History of U.S. Navy Electric Ships
264
I wanted to stop at the Trenton because it also brings together
climate change and energy in a different way, but probably not one
of the more positive ways: the USS Trenton was lost in a hurricane
off Samoa. I say that in a way that is a little bit tongue in cheek, but
part of what we are doing outside of the energy areas in terms of
climate change is looking at what the conditions are in the areas
where we are going to be operating. As we have heard, within a
few decades we will no longer have year-round ice in the Arctic.
How is that going to affect weather conditions and sea states? How
is that going to affect ice coverage and other issues associated with
our platforms?
The operational conditions that we expect to encounter affect
how we design a platform, not just from the electrical perspective, but also from the perspective of structures and mechanical
systems. Moving on to today (Figure 2), LHD-8 is a great example
of a hybrid electric drive that is achieving $2 million in fuel savings
relative to a modern steam plant. We first got our feet wet in these
areas with T-AKE 1 and now are moving on to the DDG-1000,
which is going to be an integrated power system with 78 megawatts of power.
Figure 2. Today’s U.S. Navy Electric Ships
265
Let me just quickly remind you what the Office of Naval
Research (ONR) does. When it comes to energy, the Navy, and the
DoD’s use for energy, we have an app for that. So for anything that
you want to put energy on, we have a way to do that. What we
are trying to do at ONR, and within the S&T community across the
department, is to look at programs that solve those applications,
either by providing a variety of energy sources for us to use or by
increasing the efficiency of our platforms and thereby reducing our
demand for the fuels that we have (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Naval S&T Strategic Plan [1]
So we go from supporting development of quick enabling technologies, like solid-state lighting, through fundamental work that
looks, for example, at new materials for exhaust heat recovery. We
look at fuels and other energy sources and at how we take that fuel
and generate electricity in some form or another (Figure 4). We
also look at the types of energy storage media that are available.
And, we look at the different types of radars and weapons that we
are going to have aboard ship. We know that we are going to have
some baseline load and that we are going to have to handle peak
loads as well. So the storage piece is going to be a critical component. Then we have to have the distribution and control network
because, as I will show you in a few moments, it is not just about
266
installing a generator and hooking it up to our propulsor. It is about
integrating it into the platform and getting the right power at the
right time at the right place, and electrical distribution is key to that.
Figure 4. Power and Energy Technologies
Ultimately, the S&T community has to address the loads piece.
What can we do to enable our designers to create more energy
efficient ships? Whether it is a new hull form, whether it is stern
flaps, or whether it is a new coating that reduces bio-fouling, which
causes a significant amount of drag, all these things add up.
Said another way, we look at both the near term and the far
term (Figure 5). We are planning ahead for a Navy that is going
to have more electric weapons and that is going to have highpower radars. But, we cannot just continue to add energy sources
to our ships. The rules that we have in front of us now are different.
We need to have an increasing amount of capability; we will have
greater loads due to our use of advanced radars and advanced
electric weapon systems, but we have to reduce the amount of
fuel we use. That is the challenge that has been put in front of the
S&T community, the research and development community, and
the United States as a whole: how do we use less and still increase
our capability?
267
Figure 5. S&T Energy Investments
One of the things that we are talking about is the Next
Generation Integrated Power System (Figure 6). We are looking at
this because we do not want the radar system to bring its own generator set with it, and we do not want the rail gun to bring its own
generator set with it. We do not have room. So we have to be able
to figure out the layout of the platform that meets those needs while
satisfying design constraints on ship volume and center of gravity.
Figure 6. Advanced Electric Warship Next Generation
Integrated Power System (NGIPS)
268
The Next Generation Integrated Power System is a way of
ensuring that we use a given amount of installed energy most efficiently. Regardless of whatever level of installed power we have—
say it is 78 megawatts like on a DDG-1000—that power is not
going to be directed in only one direction. We need to be able to
direct it in multiple directions. We need to be able to add different
timescales, and that means we are going to have to have energy
storage capabilities on the platform. That storage will not just be in
the fuel; it might be batteries, capacitors, and flywheels. We are
going to have to direct the energy from our generators into our
propulsion system at one point, a millisecond later we are going to
have to be able to fire an electric weapon, and at the same time
we are going to have to have broadband radar coverage with our
advanced radar systems. We are going to have to be able to move
that energy around, and the power electronics and distribution and
control systems necessary to do that are some of the S&T thrusts
that we are now working on.
What can we do to make sure we achieve our goals in
these areas? Our approach is to apply the design paradigm that
Mr. Howard Fireman described earlier. Let us take a quick look at
designing the electrical architecture for a ship, admittedly a very
difficult task. We know we are going to need power for weapons
and for radar systems. We know we would like to avoid bringing separate power sources for those capabilities, and we want
to have an integrated activity. How do we do that within the
design constraints and spaces that we have for a platform given
its requirements for speed, range, and payload? Right now we
effectively create a rough specification for the ship and then we
think in detail about the machinery, the intakes, the uptakes, and
the mission spaces and how we set those out to actually have an
effective platform.
Currently, we do not have a great tool that allows us to determine whether, if we use this architecture with these components
aboard, it is going to fit in this platform, it is going to be able to
make this speed, and it is going to be able to have this mission set
aboard (Figure 7). We need to have an iterative process so that
we can iterate the design as many times as needed and thereby
269
optimize the solution space that we have between what the warfighter needs and what our acquisition community can afford. That
design tool is going to be a crucial piece, and it is one of the things
that we are looking at from the S&T perspective. So, our job is not
just about developing the hardware and the components, it is also
about bringing the right design tools to the table so that we can
take those components and put them into a platform and then take
those platforms and put them into an overall scenario that includes
energy and power and how we operate as a Navy and as a DoD.
Figure 7. Today, We Have No Reliable Method or Tool
The Ship Smart-System Design (S3D) is one of our tools that
we are working on, primarily with the university community and
with an industrial partnership associated with that community.
We ultimately want to bring that design capability to the electrical
architecture and its interfaces with combat systems. We also want
to address manning requirements and the platform’s operational
capabilities as well as construction, testing, training, and finally
ship delivery and service life to include maintenance and future
upgrades (Figure 8).
One of the things that we have embarked upon is an electric
ship research and development consortium that includes a number
of universities partnered with an advisory board from industry
270
(Figure 9). That latter element is critical for ensuring that the academic community understands what industry wants to be able to
do but also for providing the connections so that industry knows
what is coming out of the design community.
Figure 8. Future Vision of Shipboard Electrical Design
Development Process
Figure 9. Electric Ship Research and Development Consortium
271
One of the things the consortium is doing is creating a center
for incorporating hardware-in-the-loop capabilities into our design
models and simulations. This is particularly important given the
cost associated with the actual testing all of the individual components that we have to do before we can assure that they are safe
for use aboard ship. If we can create models and verify that those
models truly represent what those systems do, then we can reduce
the cost of our testing activities.
In addition to the things that I have already discussed, ONR is
also looking at some far-out things (Figure 10), including the variable acquisition motor system for unmanned aircraft mentioned
by Rear Admiral Cullom. We are also looking at the whole spectrum of unmanned vehicles. We want to have unmanned capability undersea. We want to extend the range and the lifetime of our
unmanned vehicles. The power system and the control system are
key to making that happen.
Figure 10. Other Power and Energy Considerations
There are also a number of secondary things that we need to
look at that impact efficiency and affordability. These range from
272
hull husbandry to the type of cabling that we install aboard the
ship. All these things factor into the energy needs, the cost, and
the efficiency of the platform. It is getting down that user demand.
So in summary, I think from an S&T perspective, we are at a good
place with this power and energy portfolio right now, and I think
it is a good paradigm for where we need to go in the future. We
need to partner across our various constituencies, understand what
the needs are, and also inform them about the capabilities that we
are developing.
As Rear Admiral Cullom stated, we need strong partnerships.
At the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit a couple of weeks ago,
the Secretary of the Navy announced that the Navy was establishing a partnership activity with ARPA-E in hybrid energy storage.
It is important that we continue to establish these types of collaborations, because none of us can do it alone. It has to be a U.S.
government effort, and we have to look at what all our partner
agencies are doing. We have to take a holistic approach to efficiency 1% at a time. At the same time, we have to understand that
the key aspects are at that front end. Sixty percent is the greatest
efficiency you are going to get from a gas turbine generator on a
good day. Then, when you look at where that energy goes, you
discover that 99% is lost in drag and other activities at the end of
the cycle. So we have to attack the back end of the process as well.
The Navy’s S&T community is working well with the acquisition community to develop hybrid electric drive, to deploy the
Green Fleet, and to conduct the Green Strike Group demo. In short,
we have those essential close partnerships with our colleagues at
Naval Sea Systems Command and the Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations.
REFERENCE
1. Office of Naval Research, Naval Science & Technology Strategic
Plan,  http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/About-ONR/sciencetechnology-strategic-plan.aspx.
273
Mr. Glen Sturtevant
I am going to try to convince Rear Admiral Joe Carnevale that
this program executive office is not a barrier to getting new ideas to
the fleet. I will begin by spending a few minutes describing some of
Mr. Glen Sturtevant is the Director for Science and Technology assigned
to the United States Navy Department’s Program Executive Office for
Ships. He graduated from College du Leman in Geneva, Switzerland,
earned a B.S. degree in civil engineering from the University of Delaware,
and earned an M.S. degree in public management from Indiana
University. He has completed Program Management and Engineering
programs of study at National Defense University, Webb Institute of
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Mr. Sturtevant began his career with the
Department of the Navy in 1978 as a Project Engineer at Philadelphia
Naval Shipyard. In 1983 he was assigned to the Surface Ships Directorate
at Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters in Arlington, Virginia,
where he was a Project Manager. In 1987 he was assigned to the Aegis
Shipbuilding Program (PMS 400) where he held several managerial
positions, and from 1998 to 2004, he was Program Manager for the
Navy’s Smartship Program. His current duties include Senior Advisor for
Energy to the Program Executive Office (PEO) and Naval Sea Systems
Command Deputy Commander for Surface Warfare, Project Manager
for the DDG 51 Hybrid Electric Drive Proof of Concept Project, and
the PEO’s Small Business Innovative Research Program. He is a member of the American Society of Naval Engineers, the World Scientific
Engineering Academy and Society, the Surface Navy Association, the
American Management Association, and the Navy League of the United
States and has served on the Association of Scientists and Engineers
Professional Development Committee and as Chairman of the Science
and Education Committee. Mr. Sturtevant has received the Association
of Scientists and Engineers Professional Achievement Award, the Office
of the Secretary of Defense’s Aegis Cruiser Reduced Total Ownership
Cost Award, and the individual Aegis Excellence Award.
274
the operational testing we are doing to reduce the risk associated
with the follow-on acquisition of some important technologies.
In my view, there are three key things to think about. I believe
that the energy imperative is now driving innovation, but I submit
to you that the real innovation is in the application of that technology. Secondly, I think we all need to adapt faster. We should not
be forcing the adaptation on the back of the operators in the fleet;
the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations staff resources requirements, the Office of Naval Research, scientific research, technology development, the shipbuilders, the program executive offices,
and the systems commands need to adapt faster if we are going to
get ahead of the power curve with respect to energy. And lastly,
if you think you understand all of the consequences of your decisions today, then I submit you are wrong.
We adapted this idea from commercial shipping. We start easy.
Basically, we are going to go out and survey our ships. It is all
about collecting the data, making improvements, and then validating those improvements. It is basic stuff. We design ships—the
best ships in the world. But I will tell you, we really do not know
where the energy goes today. We know how we design our ships
and where the electricity and fuel goes for those designs, but many
of our existing ships are 10, 15, 20, or 25 years old, and we really
do not know where the energy goes. So we are going to find out.
We are going to measure it. We originally called it an audit, but the
crews did not like the word “audit,” so we are calling it an energy
survey. We are starting simple to make sure we are chasing the
sweet spot and not some red herrings and to make sure we are not
investing in the wrong areas for improvement.
I am going to talk about four technologies. As you will see, we
have adapted a lot of things from commercial shipping, from the
airline industry, and from government and industry labs. I am going
to talk about a handful of these and what we are doing today, how
we trying to get operational feedback, and how we plan to reduce
risks for the follow-on acquisition programs. So here is the list.
As you can see (Figure 1), we have categorized these technologies according to their expected availability—be it 2012, 2016, or
275
farther in the future. By 2012 we will have the Green Strike Group,
and by 2016, we will have the Great Green Fleet. I have highlighted four of these technologies; in what follows, I will describe
how we are taking these to sea and how we think we are going to
make a difference.
Figure 1. Energy Efficiency Enabling Technologies
Let us start with hybrid electric drive, which you have already
heard something about. In Figure 2, we show the drive system for
a DDG-51-class destroyer. We have three gas turbine generators
over to the left. They generate electricity and make up half the
system. The propulsion plant is on the right. We actually have four
LM-2500 gas turbine engines on USS Truxton, the proof-of-concept ship. Next January, we will be taking a subscale system out to
the ship. As shown in the center of Figure 2, it includes the basic
electric motor on the main reduction gear, along with a converter
and switchboard. Ultimately, we will be powering the electric
motor through the gas turbine generators that have been moved to
a more efficient location aboard ship, the way they were originally
designed. When you do not need all the power that the gas turbines provide, you can turn them off and run the ship through the
water at low rates of speed using electricity.
276
Figure 2. DDG-52 Hybrid Electric Drive
That is the idea. Initially, it is all about fuel efficiency. But once
you field the hybrid electric drive, you are likely to find that the
operators will say “well, geez that kind of changes everything.”
Now they will have a new quiet speed that can be used by DDG51s conducting antisubmarine warfare operations. Or, it could
prove beneficial for destroyers conducting ballistic missile defense
missions in the Mediterranean. Maybe it changes the transit speed
when the ship crosses the Atlantic. Perhaps 16 knots is not the best
speed for that evolution. So, once we make that innovative design
change, we are likely to find that it is followed by innovative application changes.
We stole the idea for the Smart Voyage Planning Decision Aid
(Figure 3) from the commercial airline industry. When you fly from
here to Los Angeles, it is all about altitude and heading. It turns out
that Maersk, the largest American commercial shipping line, has
adapted the idea to ship routing. They have come up with a pretty
sophisticated tool that directs the ship where to go in order to save
gas. By adapting that approach for the Navy, we are projecting
that perhaps as much as 8% fuel savings could result from using
the most fuel-economic route. Airplanes take advantage of the jet
stream, why can’t we take advantage of the Gulf Stream?
277
Figure 3. Smart Voyage Planning Decision Aid
For years we have done optimum track ship routing to avoid
bad weather that bangs up the ship and injures the crew. If we
can lay the toolset for the ship router, or something that has local
weather conditions, into the Voyage Planning Decision Aid, then
perhaps we can route our ships based on weather and get better
gas mileage, recognizing of course that mission comes first. So, we
are going to start doing that. We intend to roll out this system in
time to support Pacific Fleet’s participation in Exercise Rim of the
Pacific (RIMPAC) 2012 next year.
Figure 4 illustrates our test plan for surface ship alternate fuels.
Starting with the upper-left-hand corner, you see the rigid hull
inflatable boat (RHIB). We tested a 50/50 blend in a RHIB down
in Little Creek back in July 2010. In October, we tested a Riverine
Control Boat experimental craft (RCB-X). We are going to test alternate fuel on a yard patrol (YP) craft at the Naval Academy this
spring and on an LCAC down in Panama City this summer. Next
year, we are going to test use of alternate fuel on an FFG coming
out of commission or on the Navy’s self-defense test ship (SDTS)
in Port Hueneme, California. In June 2012, we will test alternate
fuels with the Green Strike Group (GSG) during RIMPAC 2012. Our
basic approach is to “build a little, test a little.” We are also doing
component testing ashore.
278
Figure 4. Alternate Fuel Test Plan
The important point is that using the alternate fuel will have
no impact whatsoever on the operator. We are designing drop-in
fuels. The operators will not know the difference. That is the model
we are following now for a lot of our technologies. We are not putting the burden on the back of the warfighters. They already have
enough to worry about.
My final example is what Rear Admiral Philip Cullom called
“the box on the bridge.” We have labeled it the “energy dashboard.” Commercial shipping uses this extensively. It is a way to
try to influence the actions of the operators. If you know exactly
where your fuel is going, where your electricity is going, then perhaps you can take actions to use that fuel or energy more efficiently. The large arrow in Figure 5 is my way of showing that you
may want to send that data off the ship, which is what commercial
shipping does. They have found that by pitting one ship against
another, they can significantly change the energy consumption
behavior of their ship masters.
279
Figure 5. Energy Dashboard
One of the real powers of this energy tool is that you can overlay the material condition of the ship onto the display. You will
know that the sea grass on the hull is increasing your drag. You will
know that you have a bad generator that you did not know about
before. You can also lay the maintenance of the material piece
into the energy dashboard. We are going to field this in one of our
destroyers—the USS Chafee—later this year. We will get it out to
other ships as we move forward.
280
Q&
A
Session with The Panelists
have heard a lot about powering, propulsion, and energy
Q: Iproduction
but not so much about efficiency, especially concerning the hotel loads on ships and submarines. Given the example of
the computer with the multiple fans, it strikes me that combat systems,
radar systems, and other electronic equipment are prime candidates
for energy efficiency. So I am asking the panel what your thoughts are
about energy efficiency so that we do not need the fuel in the first place?
Rear Admiral Joe Carnevale: Before getting to your question,
let me relate a recent report I received from a colleague. He told
me that when his auxiliary ship pulled up into port, they discovered that there were electrical meters right on the pier. Based on
the meter reading, they found out that their electrical usage went
through the roof each night after the crew had gone home. As
it turned out, the ship’s integrated HVAC system was creating a
nightly battle between heating and air conditioning. The air conditioning would cool compartments down and then the heating system would heat them back up again.
So, you are absolutely right. Paying attention to design details
can be critically important. But who addresses that? Typically that
is left up to the ship builder to design the HVAC and the other
habitability systems. How is the ship builder incentivized? Well,
right now it is to reduce costs. Make sure you meet the requirements, but keep the costs down. So wherever you can you buy
commercial off the shelf or robust commercial off the shelf, or if
it is on a complex surface combatant, you buy militarized products. But basically there is no incentive to make the HVAC system
fuel efficient.
My idea for addressing this problem would be to provide the
two program managers, Navy and industry, with margins for electrical power, cost, volume, and those sorts of things. This would
encourage them to invest in better HVAC controls; they may be
larger and more expensive, but they would be much more fuel
281
efficient. Those are trade-offs you can make in the actual process
of going through the detailed ship design. When you are out buying equipment, you often see that they all meet the requirements.
But how do you encourage the more efficient choice? How do you
get at that? Whose job is that?
Dr. John Pazik: Another example at the other end of the
spectrum is switching from fluorescent to solid-state lighting. This
change yields only a small percentage increase in energy efficiency
but imposes a capability cost. I have to take all those fluorescent
bulbs, I have to have the sailors go out and replace those fluorescent bulbs, and then I have to store them as hazardous waste
somewhere on the platform.
So, are there unintended opportunities that can occur when
you develop efficient systems? I think that is a real possibility.
We could put a meter at the pier and understand the peak
usage of when something bad happens. But trying to understand
what the specific components are that are driving that peak usage
requires a better understanding of how we use energy on the subcomponent level.
Mr. Howard Fireman: In my view, a lot of energy efficiency
improvements start with the concept of operations. What are the
specific orders for the watch? How do we take advantage of the
design and the architecture built into the ship? To further address
the question of efficiency, it is about how you want to use the
product; it all starts with the specific problem you are trying
to solve.
Mr. Glen Sturtevant: I think that air conditioning is a major
load on the ship, although we do not really know. It might be toasters or hairdryers for all we know. If you monitor energy usage, you
see it peak in the morning just like it does on the national grid. It
peaks in the morning and then goes up again at night; it is pretty
predictable. But is it the sonar, or is it the electronic warfare system, or is it the galley? We do not know. That is why we are doing
surveys. We are going to put energy meters on our ships and at
the shore power receptacles on the pier. We have never done this
282
before; it was never an issue. So we are going to collect data and
actually determine where our energy investment is going.
is a historical question. Could you compare the energy
Q: This
consumption, at, say, flank speed, of a DD of World War II
vintage, a 2200 series, to a modern gas turbine, which gets better knots
per gallon?
Rear Admiral Joe Carnevale: The resounding answer is “no, I
cannot do that.” But, let us look at the standard marine gas turbine
as used by the Navy. We design our ships to operate at best speed.
As a result, our gas turbine engines are not very efficient when the
ship is tooling around at 5 or 12 knots. They burn a lot of gas. Is
that the right way to design ships? I do not know. That is the way
we have always done it. I cannot speak to World War II vintage
ships. But I do think that there has to be a better way than the way
we have done it for max or best speed. I think there might be a different approach, a different paradigm perhaps.
a steam plant inherently less efficient or more efficient than
Q: Isother
propulsion options?
Mr. Howard Fireman: I would say for the speed ranges that
surface traditional steam could handle, and that includes the 1200pound steam plants, steam engines were probably more fuel efficient than gas turbine plants, but they could not get into the speed
ranges that are required. For every 10-knot increase in speed on
a surface ship, you typically have to double the installed power;
steam plants could not achieve those power densities. But for the
power densities that they operated in, I think they probably were
more efficient.
Steam is also very efficient for nuclear power plants, where
increasing the size is fairly straightforward. Unfortunately, steam
plants are also a lot deadlier and much more difficult to maintain
in terms of the surface ships plants that we replaced. But power
density wise, they are a lot more efficient.
283
to me that most of the energy efficiency initiatives
Q: Itthatseems
I have heard about fall into the later research and devel-
opment phases [those designated advanced development (6.3) or engineering development (6.4)]. Many of those things yield relatively small
percentage improvements. Although they all add up, and that is important, I would like to know if you see any promise for getting dramatically
improved fuel efficiency through use, perhaps, of different thermodynamic cycles?
Dr. John Pazik: From the exploratory research (6.2) perspective, I think one of the things that I am very excited about is a
hybridization of energy storage capability, because ultimately it is
about using the installed energy most efficiently. We are going to
have a given amount of energy available, but the way we use it
and how we direct it aboard the ship are the critical elements.
Having an energy storage component that can handle different
pulse loads and different discharge rates could require a variety
of different technologies such as batteries or capacitors. Bringing
them together with the right control will be critical; it is all about
the controls and the control network.
Ultimately, we need to have a safe storage module that we can
put in a platform along with controls that can release a set amount
of stored energy at the right rate for the given application. Those
things are now bubbling up. That is where I think the real opportunities are in early applied research. We need to be doing systems
engineering and resilient engineering on those systems.
We are pretty good at the individual components. We can
optimize a lot of components to do the best things in the world.
But when you bring those components together and ask them to
operate as a system, that is where I see real opportunities arising.
We are starting as a community to look at that systems approach.
284
“energy dashboard” has been mentioned several times.
Q: The
I am curious how comprehensive that dashboard is and
whether it is trying to just induce behavioral changes or whether there is
going to be some sort of control or optimization built into it?
Mr. Howard Fireman: Referring to the energy dashboard, we
have looked at those various systems out there, mostly in commercial shipping. We are taking the functionality, making it applicable
to a warship, and then actually engaging some operators to build
the appropriate graphical user interface (GUI). I was not aware that
this is as mature as you have led me to believe it is. So there might
be something else out there we have missed. But this is something
we are developing for warships from commercial shipping lines. I
do know that the GUIs are still a work in progress.
are a number of new-generation technologies associQ: There
ated with nuclear power that are being considered for commercial applications. Is there any consideration being given to using
nuclear power to provide the energy for surface ships smaller than aircraft carriers?
Mr. Howard Fireman: I would refer you to a 2006 report
(Alternative Propulsion Study) to Congress by the Secretary of the
Navy which assesses the potential use of nuclear power for surface
combatants and amphibious warfare ships. The report shows that
manning and training costs tend to drive overall costs. But, when
fuel cost is high enough, it becomes a factor. Thus, the study shows
what the cost of fuel would have to be (on a cost-per-barrel basis)
in order for nuclear power to be preferred for various ship classes.
Given the current cost of fuel, this is something that the government will have to consider in future acquisitions.

Chapter Eight - The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics

Transcription

Similar documents

1. After making contact with the village Bolbo, the `Peace` sailed on

Ships at Sea: The Original Microgrids?

Visit a Navy AutoSource Representative on-board

OLD NAVY - The Crossings at Fox Run

USS CONYNGHAM DDG-17 History Collection

ordering instructions mail order

SMARTWebMove makes PCS moves easier

AAAWA Newsletter 2015 June

Ship Builders

Christopher F. Wood USCGC CHASE ship roster.pub