In reactivating the battleship New Jersey , the Navy faced three major problems. The baseline data on the ship was not readily available or reliable, a new generation cruise missile armament was proposed, and the ship...
In reactivating the battleship New Jersey , the Navy faced three major problems. The baseline data on the ship was not readily available or reliable, a new generation cruise missile armament was proposed, and the ship delivery schedule was very tight. After doing a feasibility study, system design engineers were taken onboard the mothballed ship to resolve the design problems. Being on the ship allowed an intensive effort and immediate reference to the actual ship configuration. The tools used to control this effort were a ship check plan, a ship check form and the master arrangement drawing. Simultaneously with the design effort, a repair scoping effort was conducted. The design evolution and solutions to the major problems are described. The results of the New Jersey effort are shown with sample documentation, the ship characteristics and the downstream design effort. The Iowa was the next ship to be modernized. The top level requirements were the same as New Jersey's but new problems were encountered. More options were investigated which diverted attention from the basic effort. A fundamental difference was the Iowa had not had a 1968 reactivation as the New Jersey had, so items that were repair and reactivation on the New Jersey in 1968 had to be part of the Iowa modernization. A major influence on the Iowa design process was that a complete set of specifications for a private yard bid had to be developed. The next effort was to install the same New Jersey modernization payload on a Des Moines class heavy cruiser. Heavy cruisers are large ships but significantly smaller than battleships and much closer to their naval architectural limits of weight and center of gravity. They have much less topside area than the battleships, and the new payload was very topside space consuming. The cruisers are also much more restricted in internal volume. Two feasibility studies were conducted. One resolved volume problems but approached the weight and center of gravity limits.
A ship design methodology is presented for developing hull forms that attain improved performance in both seakeeping and resistance. Contrary to traditional practice, the methodology starts with developing a seakeepin...
A ship design methodology is presented for developing hull forms that attain improved performance in both seakeeping and resistance. Contrary to traditional practice, the methodology starts with developing a seakeeping-optimized hull form without making concessions to other performance considerations, such as resistance. The seakeeping-optimized hull is then modified to improve other performance characteristics without degrading the seakeeping. Presented is a point-design example produced by this methodology. Merits of the methodology and the point design are assessed on the basis of theoretical calculations and model experiments. This methodology is an integral part of the Hull Form Design system (HFDS) being developed for computer-supported naval ship design. The modularized character of HFDS and its application to hull form development are discussed.
This paper provides a context within which the role of human factors engineering (HFE) for Naval ship design may be understood. HFE is defined and its history as part of engineering design teams is traced. The role of...
This paper provides a context within which the role of human factors engineering (HFE) for Naval ship design may be understood. HFE is defined and its history as part of engineering design teams is traced. The role of HFE in ship systems design is defined, and the HFE Technology for Ships Program, managed by SEA 061R, is described. The rationale for inclusion of HFE in the design process is presented, the methodology whereby it is incorporated into the design process is detailed, methodology to assess the application of HFE is outlined, and the benefits that will accrue as a result of inclusion of HFE considerations in the design process are documented. The counterpoint to inclusion is illustrated through instances of design-induced human errors. A specific application of HFE in the acquisition process is illustrated through use of the Landing Craft, Air Cushion HFE program plan. The difficulties which may be encountered as the size of the target system expands are described. Potential roadblocks to the required incorporation of HFE are examined for their source and possible ameliorative steps.
暂无评论