LUNCHEON ADDRESS DELAUER

continues to increase. With the very rapid growth in the capabilities of minicomputers and multi- processors, together with our increasingly sophis- ticated software base, I think we are now poised on the threshold of a new era in automation and simulation. By taking advantage of this new tech-

nology, we will be able to plan smarter, train harder, and perform better, and thereby increase the productivity and effectiveness of our available military forces so that they will continue to be adequate to deter the Soviet Union from initiating a major conflict in the world.

THE HONORABLE H. TYLER MARCY

BANQUET ADDRESS:

A N APPROACH TO FUTURE SHIP DESIGN

“BUILT-IN” COMBAT READINESS-

The Honorable H. Tyler Mucy Aseiet.nt Seereby of the Navy

[Reeeuch and Development]

The Honorable H. Tvler V‘Tv”) Marcv was born in 1918 in Rochester, New-York, but move; to Baltimore, Maryland at an early age where he attended public schools. He is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technologyfrom which he received both his BS and M S degrees in Electrical Engineering. Subsequent to receiving the latter degree in 1941. he designed and

developed gun control systems in the M I T Servomech- anism Laboratory until 1946 when he became Associate Director, Special Projects Department, M. W. Kellogg Company and worked on rocket engine development. missile controls, and analog air defense systems.

In 1951. Mr. Marcy left Kellogg Company to join the IBM Corporation where he remained until 1972 and was employed in various engineering and managerial positions. A t IBM his first assignment concerned the bomb/navigational system for the 8-52 aircrafi. He then moved into commercial development of data processing machines and peripheral devices, subse- quently being placed in a series of technical manage- ment positions which included Assistant Manager of Product Development, Corporate Headquarters, New York (1 956); Manager, Poughkeepsie, N. Y. Laboratory ( I 957); Vice-president, General Products Division ( I 962); Vice-president. Systems Development Division (1965); and Director of Technology, Corporate Head- quarters, Armonk, N. Y. (1968). His last position was held until 1972 when he left IBM to do private con- sulting work in engineering management, technology, and program review. In October 1974 he was appointed by the President to his present ofice as Assistant Secre- tary of the Navy for Research and Development.

Mr. Marcy has been a member of the Instrument Society ofAmerica since 1963, serving as its President .fi-om 1971 until 1974. In 1967 he became a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) for his leadership in feedback control and for his signijicant contribution to the management of tech- nical enterprise. In addition to these professional organizations, he is also a member of the honora ry fra- ternities Tau Beta Pi and Sigma Xi. Also active in civic aflairs. he served on the Board of Trustees for Dutchess Community College, Poughkeepsie. N. Y.. from 1958 until 1962 and on the Engineering Advisory Board of Manhattan College in New York City from 1968 until 1972.

40 Naval Engineers Journal, June 1976

MARCY BANQUET ADDRESS

IT IS A PLEASURE FOR ME to address the American Society of Naval Engineers tonight. As naval engineers and architects, you are probably aware of the broad use of the term architecture in relation to new military technology. I am not sure that when Webster defined an architect as the “Master Builder” he had in mind such things as the grand design of the Fleet C3 architecture as in the World- Wide Military Command and Control System (WWMCCS), or computer systems archi- tecture. It is true, however, that today there are new uses of the term architect. New shipbuilding will combine the traditional art of naval archi- tecture with technology resulting from the space age. Small, relatively inexpensive yet powerful computers will be used in large numbers as the only viable way to drive weapons systems in ships to provide the required reaction capability to modern threats. Strike power and speed are essential to survival and success in modern warfare. The research and development commun- ity is striving to provide the technological tools necessary to achieve your difficult objective: in- corporating strike power and speed in reliable, cost-effective ships. This new technology has to be “architected” into the ship and the whole NAVY system.

In the past few days, your Society has received many interesting presentations based on the theme “Design for Victory”. Some of these presentations have discussed representative examples of the kinds of tools the research and development com- munity can provide. One of our major problems is the practical incorporation of our technical base developments into actual ship design and produc- tion. Far too often, scientists will develop tech- nology that goes unused. To avoid this pitfall. those scientists and engineers who are developing new systems and technology, whether it be Engineering Development, Advanced Develop- ment, or even Exploratory Development, must involve early the ship designers for the ultimate integration of such developments into ships.

You are all aware of the tremendous acceleration in electronic technology development in the past ten years. Most visible has been the development of computers to provide highly accurate weapons, more precise navigation, and the management of weapons systems, power plants, aircraft control, communications, and almost every other aspect of naval warfare. We are now experiencing the problem of managing these expansive develop- ments, which range all the way from the national command structure through the task force and ship to the actual subsystems in the ship. This

broad military command and control regime is re- quiring that considerable attention be paid to two problem areas.

These problem areas reflect two well-known “ILLITIES” in the Pentagon: “Compatibility” and “Interoperability.” The requirements for com- patibility and interoperability are by some meas- ures having more impact on the design and ulti- mate capability of our warships than any other factor. We are making every effort to develop com- patible weapons and, believe me, compatibility reaches to such fundamentals as: missiles that are compatible with the magazines, missiles that are compatible with guidance frequencies, and battle controls to coordinate weapons employment in a way to prevent our missiles from being destroyed by our anti-missile defenses. We cannot develop systems in the somewhat isolated manner that was more likely during World War I1 or Korea. Today and in the future, the weapons integration will be fundamental to the ship preliminary design. We hope to enjoy more flexibility in our new approach through modularity. It is difficult to update a system that has components whose removal causes redesign of hardware, software, and/or supporting mechanical systems. However, current studies indicate that from a physical and functional inte- gration standpoint, a complete modular payload suite can be installed, aligned, and calibrated in less than three months for a destroyer rather than in excess of twelve months as currently required for an equivalent modernization. To implement such a concept will require our latest technology in de- centralized microprocessing and signal transmis- sion - to say nothing of the need for a Top Level Policy which will establish standard interfaces between payload and platform.

Interoperability may be far more difficult to achieve and manage than any other facet of con- temporary warfare. Interoperability is the ability of the operators of independently developed weapons systems and of the ships, submarines, and aircraft which carry them to work together. In order to achieve interoperability, the developer of each weapon system or platform must be continuously aware of the interfaces between his system and all others. This is a most difficult problem requiring discipline and top management attention.

The variety of enemy threats, high speed of war- fare, and the costly weapons employed today require a highly sophisticated weapons manage- ment system at both the ship and Fleet level. A good example of a new system design specifically around the weapons systems management concept is AEGIS. The AEGIS Combat System is to be

Naval Engineers Journal. June 1976 41

BANQUET ADDRESS MARCY

used on the new strike cruisers and DDG 47 destroyers. It is a complex integration of the sensors and weapons to combat all threats; air, surface, and subsurface. The AEGIS Combat System will accept data from a variety of sensors: radar, sonar, and passive surveillance. In seconds the system can select and fire a weapon or weapons appropriate to the threat. This system provides both sensors and weapons management through an integrated approach. In the AEGIS Combat System, all sensors and weapons are tied together through high speed digital computers such that any detected threat will be immediately countered. The types of threats which can be countered range from submarines to incoming anti-ship missiles.

The AEGIS Combat System presents an in- teresting challenge to the naval engineers respon- sible for integrating the system and a ship platform. The AEGIS Combat System must not only integrate its own weapons, but it must also be integrated with the ship platform and the other ships in the Force. In developing an AEGIS ship, some of the problems to be solved are:

Providing a low cost means of integrating the ship platform and the weapons system so that they can accept modifications necessitated by weapons technology developments in future years. We must “design-in” the capability of accepting new sub- systems as the old become obsolete.

Providing a better casualty resistance for our systems. A reduction in the time and cost to repair damage and improvements in the combat harden- ing of ships incorporating these new weapons systems are musts.

Providing better means of training the operators of these very complex systems. The increased complexity of the ship’s weapons systems coupled with the reduction of ship peacetime steaming hours are presenting a significant chal- lenge. It will do no good to develop an “Ultimate Weapon System” that the average sailor cannot be trained to operate.

Recent technological developments have, I believe, pointed the way to solutions to many of these problems. Most likely you have heard dis- cussions of some of these developments during the last two days of your meeting. However, as I mentioned earlier, it is not enough to develop technology. We must bridge the gap between our technological developments and our shipbuilding programs. Because of the block obsolescence of our World War I1 ships, we of the NAVY are embarking on a major shipbuilding program. It is our desire to transfer as many of our recent tech- nological developments into these new ships as

42 Naval Engineers Journal, June 1976

possible. The AEGIS Combat System will be the heart of the weapons on our new surface warships. The AEGIS Program will be required to make the new systems compatible and interoperable. For this reason, the AEGIS Project Office will play a key role in the application of advanced technology to our newest shipbuilding program. The three major areas which the AEGIS Program is addressing are:

First, improved computer system develop- ments to take advantage of current computer tech- nology with improved speed, memory, and re- liability at a lower cost.

Second, improved data transmission and multiplexing to provide interconnection of system elements without the old-fashioned bulk cables massively bundled and exposed to damage. Multi- plexing technology as now used in military aircraft will:

1) 2)

3)

In

Provide lower cost installation. Provide higher resistance to damage and a lower cost and shorter time to repair. Provide greater flexibility in the introduc- tion of new weapons systems or sub- systems.

the third and last area AEGIS will provide an organic operational training capabilit;. This new system will provide the AEGIS combat teams an important capability for:

1) Individual operator training. 2) Sub-team training for individual weapons

3) Full AEGIS team training. 4) Force level training for operations with

other forces in company.

subsystems.

By using our improved technology, we hope to take a major step forward in the future ship designs with very little risk. The technology I spoke of has matured to the point where we can proceed with a high confidence of success. I am looking forward to the day when we can update a ship’s weapon suite by “plug-in” of a new modular weapon system as envisioned under the “SEAMOD” concept which the Naval Sea Systems Command is aggressively pursuing. This lower cost method of integration will mean that we can keep our ships equipped with the latest weapons to counter current threats rather than the periodic update at scheduled overhauls - which also are becoming more costly and less frequent.

MARCY BANQUET ADDRESS

The currency of a ship and its weapon system in the future will be maintained by using a combat system integration site. At these shore-based sites, new weapons subsystems may be developed, inter- faced with, and integrated into the overall weapons system as well as tested and prepared for delivery. This would include the development of a training package to acquaint the operators with the use of the new system in a combat-like environment.

While our theme here is “Design for Victory”, we are striving to provide ships with combat readi- ness built into the design - ships with the latest weapons systems, and crews trained and ready; hardened ships that can survive combat damage and continue to fight in the wars of the future.

Nothing less than this total approach to future ship design will provide the technical superiority we must have in our U.S. NAVY.

GIBBS & COX E Naual Architats W Marine E n g i m s

40 Rector Street New York, N.Y: 10006

(212) 487-2800

6525 Belcrest Road Hyattsville, Md. 20782

(301) 277-1919

This Publication

is Available in MICROFORM I

iv 300 North Zeeb Road. I Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106

(313) 761-4700

PLEASE WRITE FOR COMPLETE INFORMATION

THE STANWICK CORPORATION

INTER NATIONAL I NC. STAGWICK

Marine engineering services worldwide

. . . .Shipboard Maintenance Programs

. . . .Shipyard Development and Operations

. . . .Ship Repair Services.

OFFICES: Norfolk, Va. Madrid Charleston, S.C. London Los Angeles, Ca. Tehran Brussels Bandar Abbas

HEADQUARTERS 1401 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22209, Phone: (703) 524-6126 Telex 89449

An Equal Opporrunrry Employer.

Naval Engineers Journal, June 1976 43

TECHNICAL SESSION PARTICIPANTS

Session No. 1 [I. to r.] Capt. Tho- L. Albee, Jr., USN m d LCdr. Peter C. h i n e y , USN - Authors; RAdm. Willis C. Barnes, USN - Moderator; and Cdr. Peter T. Tarpgaard, USN - Author.

Session No. 2 [I. to r.1 Prof. Robert F. Latham - Author; Capt.,Frederk A. Hooper, USN IRet.1 - M o d e m ; Mr. Daniel H. Conway p d Dr. Paul J. M u t o - Authors.

Session No. 3. [I. to r.] Dr. H.H. Vanderveldt, Mr. A.J. Session No. 4. [I. to r.] LCdr. B b P. Sack, USN and Dr. Verderese, Dr. R.J. Hmsen, and Dr. J.A. Corrdo - Bruce H. R.nlrin - Authors; Capt. Vincent M. S k r h k , Authors; Mr. Willi.m D. O'Neil, III - Moderator; Mr. [CEC], USN - Moderator; Mr. John M. Femro, Mr. James U. Kordenbrock and Mr. H.A. Johnson - Authors. William B. Huckenpoehler, and Mr. Wayne L. A h s o n - [Absent] Mr. Charles W. H u r y and Mr. T.W. Crooker - Authors. [Absent] Dr. Steven M. Frub, Mr. Arthd R. Authors. Curabrant, Mr. Paul M. Ndeau, and Mr. Richard V.

Thomm - Authors.

Session No. 1 opened to a Full Houee.

44 Naval Engineers Journal, June 1976

Moderators invited questboa from the floor.