Methods for Naval Ship Concept and Propulsion Technology Exploration in a CGX Case Study

In response to the Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act, the US Navy conducted an alternative propulsion study (APS) for surface combatants and amphibious warfare ships. The study looked at current and future propulsion technology and propulsion alternatives for three sizes of warships. In their analyses they developed 23 ship concepts, seven of which were considered medium surface combatants (MSCs). The report to Congress was based on cost analyses and operational effectiveness analyses of these variants. Their conclusions did not consider a true representative sample of feasible, non‐dominated designs in the design space. This paper revisits the APS for a fossil‐fueled MSC. It applies automated design methods with a variety of design tools, including the Advanced Ship and Submarine Evaluation Tool (ASSET), a simplified ship synthesis model (SSSM), and Model Center (MC) to improve the APS approach. It examines a range of power and propulsion alternatives using operational profiles and requirements similar to the APS in a notional MSC (CGXBMD). The automated process and tools presented in this paper provide a rational and thorough method to search a design space for non‐dominated concepts. These non‐dominated concepts represent the best basis for assessing technologies over a range of possibilities considering effectiveness, cost and risk. This automated approach and new tools are evaluated in the context of a CGXBMD case study. A number of conclusions relative to APS propulsion technologies are made. Most support the APS results.