Dago

BASELINE RQMTS, RQMTS ANALYSIS, and Battle Bill comparison. Legacy Vs Reduced.

------------------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------------------------------

1. Smart Ship - For the CG, Smart Ship savings were realized throughout several rates. The affected rates are summarized in Table 12. When the effects were applied to the LCS seaframe baseline RQMTS, the 4% Smart Ship savings removed the RQMTS 54 for an EM, DC and three GSs. The overall LCS manning level of 120 was thus reduced to 115 – not nearly enough of a reduction to accommodate required additional module personnel.

2. Fleet Optimal Manning Experiment (OME) - For the DDG, OME also affected every facet of theship’s organization. Most reductions were accomplished by policy and procedural changes supported with minimal technology leveraging. The overall OME savings for the DDG was 12.9%. [Refs 8 and 9] Compared to the Smart Ship effects, OME definitely had a bigger effect. Table 13 summarized the effects of OME across the different rates including officers (i.e., 1110, 6120 and 7120).




When the OME effects were compounded with the Smart Ship effects, it reduced the post-Smart Ship LCS seaframe RQMTS from 115 to 96. See Appendix R. OME produced andditional 16.5% reduction of the baseline RQMTS.

Knowing that the modules will require in excess of 30- 34 additional personnel, the seaframe RQMTS must be reduced even more. This required some “out of the box” paradigm shifts to further reduce the RQMTS. The paradigm shifts
considered were the Composite Sailor, Technology Leverage and Workload Transfer concepts.

---------------------------------------------------
C. PARADIGM SHIFTS
“[OME] accomplished [the manpower] reductions by combining watch stations underway, by creating and relying on shore detachments to handle routine preventive maintenance and administrative requirements, and by developing and taking advantage of other efficiencies such as selfservice laundry and food lines [Ref 9]”.

Changes from “business as usual” can accelerate the advances supporting the minimal manning concept. The OME manpower reduction methods can be grouped into three categories of Composite Sailor, Technology Leverage and
Workload Transfer. Composite Sailor capitalizes on the watch station combinations and extends that to rates that are similar in function and responsibility. Technology Leverage aggressively uses the Smart Ship technologies to further reduce the RQMTS. Similarly, Workload Transfer
builds upon the supporting precepts of the PAPA detachment and ERM. Workload Transfer seeks to reduce the administrative and routine workload onboard the LCS. This concept also supports the Composite Sailor to allow the ship’s commanding officer more control of the crew’s time.

---1. Composite Sailor - The seaframe’s post-reduction manning initiatives RQMTS was then analyzed for the effects of the Composite Sailor concept. The Composite Sailor RQMTS reductions are:
OPS: QM (2)
CS: GUN/ORD OFF, STG (3)
ENG: MPA, AUXO, EN (4), HT (2), MR
and GS (3)
(See Appendix R for the detail listing of RQMTS affected
by the Composite Sailor concept.)

The Composite Sailor reduced the RQMTS from 96 to 78. Part of the reduction includes the GUN/ORD, MPA and AUXILIARY officer positions. These are assumed covered by the senior FC, GM, GS and EN onboard respectively.

---2. Technology Leverage - From the Integrated Bridge System (IBS) to the selfservice food lines, technology that supports manpower reductions already exists as evidenced by USS Yorktown’s and USS Milius’ successful completion of their experiments and the subsequent deployments.

Key technologies used in this study include:
1) Smart Ship technologies
2) Multi-modal consoles (an emerging technology)
3) Automated damage control devices including the automated mechanical and electrical isolation systems as well as the installed firefighting systems such as the CO2, AFFF and HALON firefighting systems.

The remaining RQMTS were analyzed for reductions
effects from each of the technologies listed above. The
Technology Leverage reductions are:

OPS: QM, OS (5), BM (2), CTT and IT
CS: STG (3), FC (4)
ENG: DCA OFF, EN (2), DC (2), GS (2)
SUPPLY: SK (2), CS (2)

---3. Workload Transfer (Ship to Shore) - Routine workload or routine maintenance was moved ashore to the shore infrastructure co-located with the LCS module personnel. By conducting the routine items ashore, more time was recapitalized by the crew, saving time and RQMTS onboard the LCS. Some of the routine items included those conducted by the EM, EN, FC, GM, and SK rates. The seaframe crew had the ability to “reach-back” to homeport
or other technical supporting sites for assistance, thereby reducing the number of specialties RQMTS onboard the LCS. Each RQMTS, after the Technology Leverage, was then analyzed for the effects of transferring workload ashore. The Workload Transfer concept reduced the following
RQMTS:
CS: GM, FC
ENG: EM, EN
SUPPLY: SK.