Progress Review September 2002

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Progress Review September 2002"

Esmond Henderson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Progress eview eptember

2 Purpose: To minimize acquisition costs and maximize technology leverage for new Navy oceanographic ships by examining the feasibility of a common (or similar) hull platform for future AG and T-AG ships 2

3 Four New Classes of Navy ceanographic hips Considered In The tudy: 1) CEAN Class AG 2) T-AG 66 (tretched T-AG 63 with AUV Moon Pool) 3) T-AG(X) - Battlespace Characterization hip 4) EGINAL Class AG tudy Tasks: 1) Compile Desired Capabilities for Each Class 2) Perform M studies for each class for various hull forms 3) Identify areas of commonality and attempt to find common or similar hull forms 4) Develop Construction and perating Cost Estimates napshot of Current tatus: 1) IPTs have completed draft desired capabilities for each ship class 2) M designs have been completed for each class, including monohull, WATH, LICE, trimaran, catamaran, and HV variants 3) Work in Progress: Construction Cost Estimate, efinement of M Designs, Development of ecommendations, Final eport N To eport to Congress By 01 Feb 2003 on UNL fleet replacement recommendations. 3

4 CMMN HULL TUDY APPACH ecent uccessful hips Used As Baselines Monohull - AG 23/24 Class WATH/Twin Hulls - AG 26 Developed M Platform izes to Meet CEAN Class Desired Capabilities tretched CEAN Class Platform to izes Necessary To Meet Capabilities of T-AG 66 and T-AG(X) Also Looked T-AG 60/63 Class as Baseline and tretching to Meet T- AG 66 and T-AG(X) Capabilities 4

5 Comparison of Desired Capabilities By hip Class Max peed in Knots Lab Area (sq.ft./100) Deck Area (ft.sq./100) eakeeping - Wave Ht Transit eakeeping - Wave Ht Handling Accommodations Mission torage - cu.ft./1000 Payload - LT/10 Moonpool Length - ft Towing Load at 2.5 kts - lbs/1000 CEAN Class T-AG 66 T-AG(X) 5

6 ceanographic hip Desired Capabilities by Class T-AG(X) T-AG 66 CEAN Class EGINAL Class Accommodations Crew (39 to 44 total) 20+crew (25 to 30 total) eakeeping perations - 6 All Headings, Flight Deck & Moonpool 5 Transit, 18 kts, all headings w/ 8.2 feet wave. 10 kts, best heading 12.2 feet waves 5, 6 9 kts in 4, 80% operability on station. 7 kts w/ 50% operability on station. 4 kts w/ 25% ops on station. urvive 7. Draft feet peed/power/endurance: peed, sustained in 4 10 to 12 (10 kts sutained thru 4) peed, maximum to 14 peed, survey 15 in 4 15 Towing 10000@5kts, 10000@6kts, 10000@6kts, 2.5 kts 25,000@2.5kts 20,000@4kts 20,000@6-10kts Endurance kts w/ 10% reserve, days on station plus 29 days at 3 knots 20 days, 10,800 at least 12 kts 30 days, 8100 NM 6

7 ceanographic hip Capabilities by Class T-AG(X) T-AG 66 CEAN Class EGINAL Class Certifications: AB Yes Yes Yes Yes UCG ubchap U ubchap U ubchap U? Ice Class Unk C D0 pace and Payload: Total Lab pace, sq ft 4,000 4,000 2, Number of Labs Multiple 5 Working Deck pace, sq ft 2,500 3,500 1,500 1,300 Mission storage, cu ft 20,000 15, Mission payload, long tons Van Capacity Helicopter Capability Landing Day hover No No AUV/UUV Handling Full capability Moonpool UAV Handling Full capability None Articulating Cranes Yes 7

8 ceanographic hip Capabilities by Class T-AG(X) T-AG 66 CEAN Class EGINAL Class Mission Electronics ystems: Dynamic Positioning Yes Yes Yes Yes Deep multibeam Yes (1x1 deg) Yes (1x1 deg) Yes (1x1 deg) hallow multibeam Yes Yes Yes Yes ingle beam echosounder Yes Yes Yes Yes ubbottom profiler Yes Yes Yes Yes ADCP Yes Yes Yes Yes eismic Yes Yes Yes Magnetometer Yes Yes Yes Yes Acoustic positioning Yes Yes Yes Yes Phased array weather radar Yes No No No Handling ystems: Moon Pool/Centerwell Yes (48 ft x 24 ft) Yes (18 ft x 18 ft) No tern U frame 1 Yes Yes ide U frame 1 Yes Towing crane 1 Yes Yes Boom cranes 1 Yes (1) Yes Traction winch 1 Yes Inside hip Hydrographic winch 2 Yes (2) Inside hip Hydro survey launches 2 Yes (2) ' workboat 8

9 M Platform Principal Particulars T-AG(X) T-AG 66 CEAN CLA Monohull Monohull WATH Catamaran Trimaran Monohull WATH Catamaran Trimaran Monohull (52.5' Beam) WATH Catamaran Trimaran DIMENIN LWL, ft B, overall, ft B, demihull, ft NA NA NA NA Draft, T, ft Displacement, LT 5,637 5,575 5,812 5,745 4,129 3,741 3,703 3,629 2,230 2,566 2,550 2,415 2,639 PEED/PWE Endurance Fuel, LT 1,281 1,541 1,498 1, HP 18,845 19,626 23,959 17,475 5,056 6,057 7,991 6,721 3,608 4,090 4,450 6,903 5,019 Top peed, knots Endur. peed, knots PACE/VLUME Lab pace, sq. ft. 4,300 4,100 4,100 4,000 4,000 4,100 4,100 4,000 2, ,000 2,000 2,000 Working Deck Area, sq. ft. 2,550 2,500 2,500 2,800 3,650 3,500 3,500 3,670 1, ,020 2,020 1,550 Mission torage, cu. ft. 20,700 21,300 21,300 24,400 15,400 17,600 17,600 15,000 5, ,500 5,500 7,900 CT Yearly perating Fuel Cost, $K 1,362 1,701 1,574 1, , Yearly perating Manning, $K 3,346 3,346 3,346 3,346 2,788 2,788 2,788 2,788 2,119 2,119 2,119 2,119 2,119 Yearly Maintenance Cost, $K 1,213 1,203 1,244 1, Yearly Misc Cost, $K 2,386 2,367 2,446 2,438 1,655 1,552 1,570 1, ,158 1,084 1,030 1,116 Yearly perating Total Cost, $K 8,307 8,617 8,610 8,644 6,015 6,082 6,242 6,088 3,955 4,293 4,247 4,170 4,330 9

10 MNHULL VAIANT CEAN Class AG L=207 B=43 T=17 DIPL=2,230 LT T-AG 66 L=300 B=52.5 T=17 DIPL=4,200 LT T-AG(X) L=316.7 B=54 T=18 DIPL=5640 LT 10

11 M Arrangement For A Monohull CEAN Class: 11

12 WATH VAIANT CEAN Class AG L=156 B=88 T=25 DIPL=2550 LT T-AG 66 L=220 B=88 T=27 DIPL=3741 LT T-AG(X) L=276 B=88 T=29.2 DIPL=5575 LT 12

13 AG 26 educe Length educe # Berths (48 to 42) CEAN Class: educe Lab Area (3,000 to 2,000) educe Working Deck Area (2,200 to 1500) educe Mission torage (15K to 5K) Increase Endurance peed (11kts to 12kts) Increase Hull Breadth to Carry More Fuel Increase Payload (100 to 200 tons) 13

14 peed vs. Power for cean Class Hulls HP Monohull Monohull ft Beam WATH Catamaran peed, knots Trimaran 14

15 peed vs. Power for cean Class Hulls WATH & Monohull Monohull HP Monohull ft Beam WATH peed, knots 15

16 Fuel equirement of the cean Class WATH & Monohull 1600 Endurance Fuel, Long Ton Monohull tons Monohull tons WATH peed, knots 16

17 Predicted eakeeping Performance for ecent ceanographic hips - n tation Condition Limiting Wave Ht (ft) MTIN CITEIA: oll 5 Degrees Pitch 3 Degrees Wetness 30/hr lams 20/hr Lat Acc 0.2g Vert Acc 0.4g LIMITING CITEIA: WATHs are pitch limited at all headings. Monohulls are pitch limited in head seas and roll limited in beam seas Best Hdg All Hdgs WATH AG 26 WATH AG 23 Pt Design MNHULL T-AG 60 MNHULL T-AG 60 Pt Design MNHULL AG 23/24 MNHULL AG 23 Pt Design MNHULL AG 14 (IG) MNHULL AG 3 Displacement 2,500 2,170 5,000 4,140 3,315 2,470 2,214 1,425 Monohulls Adequate For Mid 5 - WATH equired For 6 17

18 CEAN T-AG 66 T-AG(X) Mono eakeeping Tri eakeeping peed peed Endurance Endurance Draft Draft Payload Payload ne Degree Multibeam ne Degree Multibeam Moon Pool Handling Moon Pool Handling verside Handling verside Handling CEAN T-AG 66 T-AG(X) WATH eakeeping LICE eakeeping peed peed Endurance Endurance Draft Draft Payload Payload ne Degree Multibeam ne Degree Multibeam Moon Pool Handling Moon Pool Handling verside Handling verside Handling Cat eakeeping HV eakeeping peed peed Endurance Endurance Draft Draft Payload Payload ne Degree Multibeam ne Degree Multibeam Moon Pool Handling Moon Pool Handling verside Handling verside Handling GEEN Can Meet Full equirement With Little Difficulty YELLW Meeting Full equirement May Be Challenging ED Meeting Full equirement Will Be Very Difficult 18

19 Bubble weepdown: WATH AG 26 Has No Apparent Bubble Problems Because of Hull hape and Deep Draft ecent Monohulls (T-AG 60/63, AG 24) Have Bubble Interference With onar Performance New Design AG and T-AG Monohulls Will equire Careful Hull Design and/or onar Wing or Bubble Diverting Fence To Maximize onar Performance Machinery onar elf Noise Desire For Improvement in CEAN Class ver AG 23/24 Class May equire More Extensive/Better esilient Mounting, Greater onar-machinery eparation, Quieter Machinery, Damping Tile Propeller elf Noise Acoustic Performance Considerations Need Well-Designed, Quiet Propellers to Maximize onar Performance WATH Especially ensitive to Propeller Noise Because of Cross Hull Path 19

20 bservations and Conclusions Minor Commonality of Desired Capabilities Exists Among AGs and T-AG Handling ystems and Hull Mounted ensors ignificant Differences In Capabilities Exist: peed - Max, ustained, and urvey Number of Accommodations Working Deck/Lab Areas (T-AG is 2:1 over CEAN) Habitability equirements (T-AG equires MC) Moon Pool Helicopter Landing Capability Mission Electronics and Communications ystems T-AG(X) Platform Is 50% Longer and 2.5x Displacement f CEAN Platform If Based n Common Hull, esulting Platforms Would Not Be Well ptimized For Their Particular perating Profiles Common Hull Platform For CEAN Class and T-AG 66, T-AG(X) Not Feasible 20

21 Primary Design Drivers (Not in Particular rder) EAKEEPING peed Number f Accommodations Labs/Working Deck Endurance cience Payload ne Degree Multibeam Mission torage Volume 21

22 Monohull and WATH Appear To Be Most Promising Choices for CEAN Class» Monohull Generally Lower Cost and isk More Economical Cruising; Higher Endurance peed eakeeping Performance Limited to Low to Mid ea tate 5 CEAN Class Desires peration Through ea tate 5 and into ea tate 6 Wide Bottom For Locating 1x1 Degree Deep Multibeam Array usceptible to Bubble weepdown» WATH Cost and isk May Be Higher Than Monohull Powering and Endurance Fuel Higher Than Monohull May Have to Accept lower Cruising peed and/or Less ange eakeeping Performance Best - Mid ea tate 6 for CEAN ize CEAN Class Desires ea tate 5 to 6; T-AG(X) Desires 6 Draft of 23 to 25 feet ubstantially Exceeds Desired Limit of 17 feet Possibly Consider Variable Draft Design, But equires ignificant Compromises Narrow Hulls Make It Difficult To Mount 8 Meter Wide 1 Degree Multibeam Array, But No Bubbles May equire A Large Appendage Look At Multibeams That Might Allow Halves of x Array To Be eparated hip Weight ensitivity Makes Ice Classing More Difficult 22

23 ther Hull Forms Don t ffer Benefits At CEAN Class peed LICE Powering Performance No Better Than WATH Forward Engines and Propellers May Degrade onar Performance Prototype Is mall (180T); High isk To cale Concept To ~2300T Catamaran eakeeping Not As Good As WATH Powering Not As Favorable As Monohull r WATH Trimaran Narrow Working Deck Aft peed/power Benefits Come In At Higher peeds HV Catamaran Variant Designed For High peeds Fine Hulls Are Problem For Mounting onars Low Payload Capacity 23

Preliminary Design Presentation

ALASKA REGION RESEARCH VESSEL (ARRV) Preliminary Design Presentation June 2002 Project Team Design Oversight Committee Broader Advisory Committee The Glosten Associates AKAC Inc. Terry Brockett VTT/MARC