A Study on Securing Ship Survivability focused on a Cost and Effectiveness Analysis for Air Defense Performance

대공방어성능에 대한 비용효과분석을 중심으로 한 함정생존성 확보방안 연구

  • Received : 2014.01.07
  • Accepted : 2014.05.08
  • Published : 2014.05.31


It is crucial to set up early the required performance of surface ship for preventing the risk factors such as an excess of performance, cost and period in development stage. In this study, MOP and MOE are proposed to establish the method for deriving alternatives, MOP represents the defensive effect for anti ship missiles and MOE is the ratio of cost and performance. The 16 engagement scenarios which selectively install RF decoy, RF jammer, CIWS and anti air missile are suggested. The simulation results by using NORAM tool operated by ROK Navy show that the ship survivability is 0.605~0.975 and MOP is 0.301~0.887. The analyzed results represent the operating scenario with RF decoy, RF jammer and short range anti air missile is the best cost and effectiveness measure.


Air Defense Performance;Cost and Effectiveness Analysis;NORAM;Ship Survivability;System Engineering


  1. Corey Kerns, Alan Brown and David Woodward, "Application of a DoDAF Total-Ship System Architecture in Building a Design Reference Mission for Assessing Naval Ship Operation Effectiveness", ASNE Global Deterrence and Defense Symposium Sep. 2011
  2. Calvano, C. N., Berner J. M., Bradley J. K., Torsiello K. A., Hooker D. T., Merrill C. F., "Large Capacity Missile Carrier(CMX)", Naval Postgrauate School 1993.
  3. Roy M. Smith, "Using Kill-Chain Analysis to Develop Surface Ship CONOPS to Defend against Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles", Naval Postgrauate School 2010
  4. Dean, A. Rains, "A System Engineering Approach to Surface Combatant Design Issues", Naval Engineers Jouranal, pp. 228-239, May 1990
  5. Hockberger William A., "Total Ship Design in a Supersystem Framework", Naval Engineers Journal May 1996 DOI:
  6. John C. Hootman and Cliff Whitcomb, "A Military Effectiveness Analysis and Decision Making Framework for Naval Ship Design and Acquisition", Naval Engineers Journal Summer 2005 DOI:
  7. ISO/IEC, System Engineering System Life Cycle Processes", ISO/IEC15288, 2002
  8. Buede, Dennis,"A Primer for Model-Based System Engineering", Vitech Corporation, Feb. 2011
  9. Ball R. E. and Calvino C. N., "Establishing the Fundamentals of a Surface Ship Survivability Design Displine", Naval Engineers Journal, pp. 71-74, January 1994 DOI:
  10. Steven Loke Yew Kok, "Naval Survivability and Susceptibility Reduction Study", Naval Postgrauate School 2012
  11. "Survivability Policy and Standards for Surface Ships and Craft of US Navy", OPNAVINST 9070.1A Sep. 2012
  12. Ronald S. Bush and Arthur E. Cimiluca, "Tradeoff Analysis Model for Arsenal Ship Survivability and Sustainability", Naval Postgrauate School 1996
  13. Capt. Wayne P. Hughes Jr. USN(Ret.), "Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat", 2nd edition USN Institute 2000
  14. The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons System 1997-1998
  15. FMS: Autralia Requests 2009 AEGIS Combat System Components
  16. Modern Day Military Pricing List-Nation Creation Wiki
  17. Robin Brouwer,"A Framework for System Engineering in Ship Design from a NATO Specialist Team Perspective", 2008
  18. Department of Defense, "System Engineering Fundamentals", Dec. 2000
  19. Brown, A. J. and Juan Salsedo, "Multiple-Objective Optimization in Naval Ship Design", ASNE 2002
  20. Justin Stepanchick and Brown, A. J., "Revisiting DDGX/DDG-51 Concept Exploration", Naval Engineering Journal, Vol. 119, No. 3, pp. 67-88, 2007 DOI:
  21. Brown, A. J., "Multiple-Objective Optimization in Naval Ship Concept Design", Marine Systems and Technology 2010 Conference, Nov. 2010
  22. Schulte J. C., "An Analysis of the Historical Effectiveness of Antiship Cruise missiles in Littoral Warfare", Naval Postgrauate School 1994
  23. Ball R. E., "The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis and Design", AIAA education series], 2003