Naval combatants remain on active service for decades. This necessitates their functional enhancement in order to keep pace with the latest advances in technological developments and changes in future military threats. This paper introduces the activity of technology insertion by providing an overview of the past, current, and future upgrades of the DDG-51 class destroyer's combat system. Within technology insertion, there is the requirement for potential upgrade options to be analysed from a functional perspective. The upgrade matrix, based on the quality function deployment method, is proposed as a tool for such a task. This matrix functionally decomposes a platform's combat roles, principal systems and sensor-to-shooter loop. These functions are rated against capability gaps and user importance weightings. A set of options can then be assessed for their contribution to fulfilling the user's future needs. The result is the identification of the most appropriate upgrade options. The use of the upgrade matrix is demonstrated through an illustrative example which is conceptually based on the anti-air warfare elements of the Type 45 destroyer's combat system.
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.
WebberG.SmithJ.AndersonJ.BachkoskyJ.BrownD.FratarangeloP.HoganR.JohnsonJ.KatzD.KellyM.ListerM.RobinsonD.RodriguezJ.RumpfR.SinnettJ.SpindelR.WindsorG.‘Life cycle technology insertion.’ Report number NRAC 02–02, Naval Research Advisory Committee Report, US Navy, Washington DC, USA, 2002.
3.
KerrC. I. V.PhaalR.ProbertD. R.‘Technology insertion in the defence industry: A primer.’Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture222 (8) (2008): 1009–1023 DOI: 10.1243/09544054JEM1080.
4.
ChurchillA.‘The DSAC view on technology insertion.’Distillation – Sc. J. for Dstl Staff6 (2004): 5–8
5.
‘Defence industrial strategy.’ Report number Cm 6697, The Stationery Office, London, UK, 2005.
6.
FeinG.‘Littoral combat ship's modularity: the shape of things to come for Navy.’Def. Daily229 (36) (2006): 1
MilasM. J.VanderbokR.‘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'RourkeR.‘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'RourkeR.‘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'RourkeR.‘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.
GauseK.LeaC.WhiteneckD.ThompsonE.‘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.
BarberA. H.GilmoreD. L.‘Maritime access: do defenders hold all the cards?’Def. Horizons4 (2001): 1–8
14.
ThompsonL.‘Cruise missile defense: connecting theater capabilities to homeland needs.’ Lexington Institute, Arlington, USA, 2004.
15.
‘Assessments of selected major weapon programs.’ Report number GAO-06–391, The Government Accountability Office, Washington DC, USA, 2006.
16.
BridgerW. W.RuizM. 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.
‘Fighting force for the future.’ Def. Managmt J.27 (2004): 122
19.
EmeryV.‘Delivering naval capability through smart acquisition: the UK's Type 45 destroyer programme.’RUSI Def. Syst.8 (2) (2005): 84–88
20.
BirklerJ.SchankJ. F.ArenaM. V.SmithG. K.LeeG. 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.
CunninghamJ.‘A class of its own.’Prof. Engng20 (14) (2007): 41–42
22.
‘Joint air defence. Report number JWP 3–63.’The Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre, Ministry of Defence, Shrivenham, UK, 2003.
23.
StreiT. 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.
BoudreauM. W.NaegleB. 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.
BouchereauV.RowlandsH.‘Methods and techniques to help quality function deployment.’Benchmarking: Int. J.7 (1) (2000): 8–19
27.
AkaoY.‘New product development and quality assurance deployment system.’Standardiz. Qual. Control25 (4) (1972): 243–246
28.
AdianoC.RothA. V.‘Beyond the house of quality: Dynamic QFD.’Benchmarking for Qual. Managmt & Technol.1 (1) (1994): 25–37
29.
BirchallD.TovstigaG.Capabilities for strategic advantage: leading through technological innovation (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan) 2005.
30.
ShenX. X.TanK. C.XieM.‘Benchmarking in QFD for quality improvement.’Benchmarking: Int. J.7 (4) (2000): 282–291
31.
AkaoY.Quality function deployment: integrating customer requirements into product designCambridge, MassachusettsProductivity Press1990)
32.
CohenL.Quality function deployment: how to make QFD work for youReading, MassachusettsAddison Wesley1995)
AkiyamaK.Function analysis: systematic improvement of quality and performanceCambridge, MassachusettsProductivity Press1991)
36.
HaffaR. P.WelchJ.Command and control arrangements for the attack of time-sensitive targetsLos Angeles, USAAnalysis CenterNorthrop Grumman2005)
37.
FowlerT. C.Value analysis in designNew YorkVan Nostrand Reinhold1990)
38.
ZimmermanL. W.HartG. D.Value engineering: a practical approach for owners, designers, and contractorsNew YorkVan Nostrand Reinhold1982)
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.
TorenvlietG.JamiesonG.CournoyerL.‘Functional modelling, scenario development and options analysis to support optimized crewing for damage control: Phase 1 functional modelling.’ Report number DRDC-CR-2006–090, Defence Research and Development Canada, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Canada, 2006.
41.
‘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.
KrauseM. 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.
WijesekeraD.MichaelJ. B.NerodeA.‘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.
MahnkenT. G.‘The cruise missile challenge.’ Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington DC, USA, 2005.
45.
BrooksT. A.JenkinsH.PolmarN.PirieR.RyanT. D.SommererJ.WeldonW.WolbarshtJ.‘Science and technology for naval warfare 2015–2020.’ Report number NRAC 05–3, Naval Research Advisory Committee, Arlington, USA, 2005.
46.
‘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.
LearyM.BurvillC.‘Enhancing the quality function deployment conceptual design tool.’Trans. ASME: J. Mech. Des.129 (7) (2007): 701–708
48.
Al-DuwaishN. M.JohnP.‘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,’ National Academies Press2000)
50.
‘Defence technology strategy for the demands of the 21st century.’ Report number DTS, Ministry of Defence, London, UK, 2006.
51.
‘Ministry of Defence major projects report 2005.’ Report number HC 595-I, The Stationery Office, London, UK, 2005.
52.
LomasE.‘Technology insertion assessment framework study.’ Report number QQ/13/005, TI MPA, 2004 (Technology Insertion Major Programme Area), QinetiQ, Farnborough, UK.
53.
TaylorT.NealD.‘The delineation of defense equipment projects in the UK Ministry of Defence.’Def. Security Analysis20 (2) (2004): 165–177
54.
MacKenzieS. C.TutejaR.‘Modular capabilities for the Canadian Navy's single class surface combatant: a perspective on flexibility.’ Report number DRDC-CR-2006–004, Defence Research and Development Canada, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Canada, 2006.
55.
KerrC. I. V.PhaalR.ProbertD. 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.
DowlingT.HoodR.HirstR.BarkerD.LomasE.PhillipsE.GriffithsA.KingB.FieldD.‘Agile capability and adaptable systems.’ Report number QINETIQ/EMEA/TECS/CR0700304, TI MPA (Technology Insertion Major Programme Area), QinetiQ, Farnborough, UK, 2007.
57.
HanrattyM.LightseyR. H.LarsonA. G.‘Open systems and the systems engineering process.’Acquisition Rev. Quarterly (Winter 1999): 47–59
58.
GouréD.‘Modularity, the littoral combat ship and the future of the United States Navy.’Lexington Institute, Arlington, USA, 2006.
BalabanH. S.GreerW. 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.
