DD-21 Land Attack Destroyer

SURFACE COMBATANT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

MILESTONE I COEA GUIDANCE

January 18, 1995 This document provides guidance for the Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) required for the Milestone I review of the Surface Combatant for the 21st Century (SC-21). In accordance with DoDI 5000.2, COEAs serve to evaluate the costs and benefits associated with alternative ways to address recognized defense needs. Milestone I COEAs typically are developed to facilitate program definition and, therefore, assess a broad range of alternative concepts. The SC-21 Milestone I COEA has three main purposes: (1) to examine the costs and benefits of reasonable alternatives that provide relevant warfighting capabilities satisfying identified mission requirements, (2) to provide the analytic basis for deriving the key system parameters that will be developed and tested during the demonstration and validation phase, and (3) to aid decision making among alternatives.

CONDUCT OF THE COEA

Scope of Analyses The COEA should provide information sufficient to understand the SC-21 characteristics that will be recommended for development at the MS 1 DAB. The analysis will quantify the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives considered, and will specify the scenario factors, assumptions, and system characteristics that drive the results. Consistent with the JROC forwarding memorandum with the Mission Need Statement (MNS), analyses should be performed in two separate parts, with a review by the Conventional Systems Committee (CSC) after each part is completed. Part I of this effort should be a baseline analysis establishing the capability of the planned 2012 (FYDP extended) U.S. combat forces to accomplish each primary combat mission to which Navy surface .forces are expected to contribute in the context of the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) against the DIA validated threat. This baseline analysis should be used to identify, and quantify to the extent feasible, overall mission deficiencies to which SC-21 could contribute. it should then estimate what naval surface forces requirements in the 21st Century will be and estimate the force level and mix of surface combatants within overall surface forces to address these deficiencies. Part II of the study should estimate the potential contributions of the SC-21 alternatives to overcome these combat mission deficiencies through suitable force-on-force analysis. The relative effectiveness of each alternative in joint scenarios must be assessed. For example, the COEA should evaluate the level of capability needed for naval expeditionary forces to provide TBMD and AAW area defense in a joint littoral environment (Part 1) and then how well each alternative meets these requirements (Part II). The analysis should derive preliminary procurement profiles for SC-21. These dates and acquisition profiles should be based on engineering assessments for service life, planned retirement profiles, and warfighting capabilities of DD-963s, DDG-993, and FFGs as well as surface combatant force level requirements. Analysis Plan The Navy will develop an analysis plan consistent with this COEA guidance that describes the proposed analytic approach, models, measures of effectiveness, threat, scenarios, joint service participation, and schedule for completing this COEA. This analysis plan should be presented to the COEA Oversight Board for review within four months following the Milestone 0 DAB. The Study Director should brief the COEA Analysis Plan to OSD immediately after the plan has been approved by ASN (RDA). Early and continuous OSD and Joint Staff involvement in this initial stage is essential to streamlining the acquisition process. SC-21 Alternatives The COEA should consider a broad range of surface combatant alternatives. it should avoid arbitrary restrictions in design characteristics and incorporate emerging technology where appropriate. As a minimum, the analysis should include examination of the alternatives listed below. A mix of these alternatives, or the development of additional concepts may evolve from the analysis to satisfy the mission deficiencies established in part I of the COEA. (1) Modernization and Service Life extension of Existing Forces. Integrate and upgrade the combat systems of the most capable existing ships to provide capabilities to meet specific force mission deficiencies. This alternative should be reviewed with each mod-repeat and new ship concept as a possible economic path to achieve equivalent force capability, or as a means of extending the development cycle of advanced systems to take advantage of new technologies. (2) Mod-repeat designs.

• FY99 DDG-51 Flight IIA. Assume continued production of this destroyer at a rate that maintains surface combatant force levels. This alternative will serve as the cost and analysis baseline.
• DDG-51 Variant. Assume a modified DDG-51 Flight IIA variant incorporating technological advances in ship platform and combat systems design and integration. Select those changes that satisfy identified mission deficiencies, improve overall capabilities, or improve affordability over the DDG-51 Flight IIA.
• LPD-17 or LHD Variant. Integrate and upgrade the LPD-17 or LHD class combat systems to provide assured self-defense in all mission areas and to fill any mission deficiencies as determined in part I of the study. The impact of this option on the Navy's amphibious capability should be addressed.

(3) New Ship Concepts. Examine a range of alternative hull, engineering, and combat system designs in a new class ship. This may be a single ship or a combination of several ships. One example of a multiple ship alternative is a family of modular combatants. These options should include:

• The most advanced multi-mission system-integrated ship capable of being designed and delivered by about 2010.
• A multi-mission ship that incorporates advanced technologies to meet mission requirements and is more affordable than the DDG-51 Flight IIA.
• A combatant with reduced mission capabilities ( e.g. without TBMD, area AAW defense) able to provide robust AAW self-defense, power projection ashore, anti-submarine warfare, and anti-surface warfare in littoral areas, in conjunction with available Aegis ships and forces, and in independent operations.
• A family of combatant ships with a single hull design and common HM&E which is configured for adaptability to alternative mission or combat system capabilities.

With these alternatives, the option to delay delivery to achieve more advanced capabilities in the SC-21 and continue the DDG-51 Flight IIA as a gap filler may be explored. However, the risk, cost, and long-term force structure implications of a delayed introduction option must be compared with proceeding with an earlier operational capability. Solicitation of information from defense-wide commercial sources for developing technologies or use of COTS, and from shipyard prime contractors for design and production considerations is encouraged. Scenarios The SC-21 missions examined in the COEA will be consistent with the scenarios in the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG). The details of the scenarios will be coordinated with USD(P), the Joint Staff, PA&E, and DIA. Effectiveness The study must analyze the proposed alternatives in the context of the approved MNS Requirement. Threats in the DIA approved projected joint "Littoral Warfare Threat Environment", the operational scenarios, and joint force employment must be consistent with the assumptions set forth in the DPG scenarios and ongoing JCS joint warfare mission area assessments. Effectiveness contributions should be analyzed in the context of both joint task force and independent operations. The measures of effectiveness (MOEs) will be defined to measure operational capabilities and suitability (eg. reliability, maintainability, availability) of the alternatives across the warfare areas identified in the Mission Need Statement. The COEA MOEs should be developed so that they adequately show how the alternatives compare in meeting the functional objectives from the MNS and the mission deficiencies identified in part 1 of the COEA. The MOEs should be chosen taking into consideration the need to derive measurable parameters, and criteria that can be evaluated consistently throughout program development and testing to ensure that what is provided will offer sufficient military benefit to be worth the cost. A vulnerability assessment should be conducted to determine the total number of ships required to meet a specified level of operational effectiveness. This assessment should be consistent with the projected operational threat environments and threats and should include as minimum:

• Warfighting analysis to examine the ability of the alternative to kill or avoid threat weapons through hard kill and soft-kill defensive systems including full-ship signature reduction.
• Passive vulnerability analysis to examine the effects of hits on the ship at the level that is possible in this stage of the conceptual design phase.
• Assess ship and crew survivability analyses to examine the design features incorporated to reduce ship equipment and crew casualties.

Costs A variety of cost measures should be provided, including the present value (discounted) estimates of the life cycle costs, research and development costs, and procurement profiles over time. Estimates of R&D, acquisition, and thirty five-year operating and support costs for each alternative should be included in the COEA and coordinated with the Cost Analysis Improvement Group-(CAIG). This will require separate estimates of R&D, procurement, construction, manpower, and O&M costs, including decommissioning costs and disposal costs as well as any incremental costs associated with reconstituting and/or maintaining the shipbuilding industrial base if necessary. Comparing Cost and Effectiveness Cost and effectiveness comparisons are rarely useful when reduced to single measures or simple ratios, unless accompanied by supporting data. There is no single formula for combining cost and effectiveness measures to identify a preferred alternative. The COEA should assist in evaluating alternatives by providing a solid framework for evaluating alternatives and by highlighting the implications of alternative choices. In that regard, it is essential to:

• Compare equal-cost or equal effectiveness alternatives.
• Show the absolute values of measures where applicable. Display the measure of cost and effectiveness for each alternative.
• Any weighting schemes must be clearly explained in the analysis
• Use ratios only where appropriate. Ensure that the absolute values of the components are shown in conjunction with any ratio used.
• Point out dominance relationships or drivers. identify the characteristics of each alternative that drive mission effectiveness, performance characteristics and cost.
• Identify factors that may help in ranking alternatives remaining in Part II. Consider sensitivity to key variables, preservation of flexibility for future options, and contribution to longer term, goals.
• Reexamine the base case alternative in light of insights obtained from the analysis.
• The conclusions should identify the major costs and measures of effectiveness associated with each alternative. Likewise, the criteria on which decisions are to be made should be clearly identified and explained. Study Guidance The Navy will provide periodic status reports and opportunities for consultation at least quarterly to OUSD(A&T), OUSD(P), OSD(PA&E), CAIG, ODOT&E and the Joint Staff. These periodic consultations with OSD and the Joint Staff will serve as the primary vehicle for ensuring that the COEA progresses consistent with the intent of the Milestone 0 Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) and this guidance. These status reports will also provide a vehicle for eliminating alternatives that, from ongoing analysis, do not appear worthy of further study. Any plan to eliminate alternatives should be accompanied by justifying analysis demonstrating excessive costs, nonfeasibility, or the performance shortfalls relative to requirements for each alternative to be discarded. The status reports will allow OSD/Joint Staff advice on eliminating alternatives. All discarded alternatives will be addressed in the final COEA with the reasons for their elimination clearly outlined. The Director, Naval Forces Division, OD(PA&E), will serve as a principal OSD advisor for this COEA. The Navy should use the COEA analysis in developing the exit criteria needed for a Milestone 1 DAB. The result of the COEA should be a recommendation for the values for critical system characteristics, including speed, range, payload, sensor Performance, and weapons range and lethality, and costs (Acquisition and O&S) for each scenario. These analytically derived critical system characteristics should be reflected in the draft Operational Requirements Document and Acquisition Program Baseline that would be prepared to support any recommended acquisition program. The MOEs used in this study should be traceable through the development of the ORD, Acquisition Program Baseline (APB), and the Test and Evaluations Master Plan (TEMP).

  ---

  11/8/95