1 / 117

JOINT ACCESS

This article discusses the design and requirements of a High Speed Assault Connector (HSAC) to enhance the flow of Joint Expeditionary Logistics from the Sea Base to shore. The HSAC is a multi-mission capable platform capable of accommodating troops, cargo, and gear, with defensive and offensive combat capabilities.

jbankston
Télécharger la présentation

JOINT ACCESS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. JOINT ACCESS CHIMERA CLASS Joint ACCESS High Speed Assault Connector TSSE Design Team Naval Postgraduate School December 2, 2004

  2. Amphibious Combat Cargo Expeditionary Support Ship JOINT ACCESS CHIMERA CLASS

  3. TSSE Staff Prof. Fotis Papoulias Prof. Bob Harney 2004 Design Team LT Timothy King, USNR, ECE LT Steven Peace, USN, SEA LCDR Paco Perez-Villalonga, ESP, OR LT Derek Peterson, USNR, MAE LT Rolando Reuse, CHL, MAE LT Scott Roberts, USN, MAE TSSE Team LTjg Kivanc Anil, TUR, MAE LTjg Mehmet Avcu, TUR, MAE LT Jon Brisar, USN, PHY LTjg Adnen Chaabane, TUN, IW LTjg Sotirios Dimas, GRC, MAE LT Matt Harding, USN, MAE 12 Students 6 Countries 6 Departments

  4. Today’s Agenda Introduction Mission Flexibility Summary Manning/ Habitability Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control Hull Propulsion Electrical

  5. The Request • A conceptual design for a High Speed Assault Connector (HSAC) to enhance Joint Expeditionary Logistics (JELo) flow from the Sea Base to shore • Augment or replace existing connector platforms • Employment requirement • Cargo: ~8000LT of vehicles, troops, and gear • Distance: 200nm from the Sea Base to shore • Time: 10 hours • Sea state: 4 • Interface: accept cargo and troops at the Sea Base and deliver to shore

  6. The Design Solution • A system of 12 HSACs that fill all the previous connector requirements • Each HSAC is multi-mission capable, self-sustaining, and: • Can accommodate embarked troops, cargo, and gear from FLS and or/CONUS to the Sea Base • Can transit 2000nm @20kts (fully loaded) w/40% fuel remaining • Has defensive and offensive combat capabilities

  7. Introduction Mission Flexibility Summary Manning/ Habitability Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control Hull Propulsion Electrical

  8. Initial Requirements • SEA-6 • Transport JEB from the Sea Base to shore • Time limited to a 10 hour period • Interface with Sea Base, developed ports, and austere beaches • TSSE Faculty • Support amphibious operations ashore in addition to delivering payload • Conduct secondary missions • Capable of independent operations

  9. Assumptions • HSAC will move entire surface component of JEB • 2 Battalion Landing Teams (BLT) • HSAC fully loaded prior to employment phase • HSAC transit protected by the Sea Shield provided by Sea Base forces • Landing operations will be conducted in reduced threat environments • Boat lanes will be mine free

  10. Beachable/Non-Beachable • Considered two delivery methods • Beachable • Non-Beachable (LCAC ferry) • Conducted feasibility study on both

  11. Non-Beachable Feasibility • Pros • Information readily available • Few tactical changes required • Improves effective LCAC range • Proven, beachable, high-speed connector • Cons • Large number of LCACs required • LCACs approaching end of service life • Inadequate availability/reliability • Additional interface in the loop

  12. Beachable Feasibility • Analysis of Newport class LST • 3000LT payload • 16 ft draft • Bow ramp and stern gate • Pros • Performed similar mission • Large craft can be made beachable • Newer technologies will greatly enhance the capabilities of previously proven designs • Provides a single connector solution • Cons • Structural issues for bow ramp/beaching • Possibly hull form limiting • Beachable design selected

  13. Analysis of Alternatives • Developed 3 Measures of Performance (MOP) • Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to set the weights • Transport factor – 43% • Survivability – 43% • Number of ships – 50% • Overall ship length – 30% • Speed – 20% • Mission flexibility – 14% • Payload – 30% • Draft – 30% • Number of ships – 20% • Speed – 20% • Overall MOP weighted sum of the individual MOPs

  14. Design of Experiments • 7 x 9 x 5 Design matrix • 7 different hull types • 9 different payloads • 5 different speeds • Total of 315 possible designs • Initial ship characteristics calculated using software from Maritime Applied Physics Corporation at MIT

  15. AoA: Score Criteria • 315 designs were evaluated using TSSE generated MOPs • 292 designs were eliminated based on these MOP score criteria • Average MOP < 0.4 (REJECT) • (MOPmax – MOPmin) > 0.05 (REJECT) • Average > 0.45 or passes tests 1 and 2 (ACCEPT) • 23 remaining designs were plotted vs. cost to determine the optimum design

  16. AoA: MOP vs Hull Type

  17. Trimaran Catamaran HYSWAS AoA: MOP vs Cost Better

  18. Sensitivity Analysis • Same 3 Measures of Performance (MOP) • Transport factor – 33% • Survivability – 33% • Mission flexibility – 33% Trimaran Better

  19. Beachable Trimaran • Beachable design • Smallest average draft (17ft) • Greatest number of retained alternatives • Highest overall MOP among hull types • For each speed • For each payload • Highest overall MOP for one of the lowest costs • Only cheaper alternatives were HYSWAS and a point solution monohull, both with deep drafts

  20. Introduction Mission Flexibility Summary Manning/ Habitability Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control Hull Propulsion Electrical

  21. 204 Humvee 98 EFV 21 M1A2 4 AVB 2 AVLB 8 M9ACE 2 M88A2 16 ITV 10 Avengers 38 MTVR 12 LW155 16 M105 6 MK155 34 M101 2 M149 2 M116 2 AN/TPQ 8 4K Forklifts 4 Contact trucks Cargo Requirements • Transport surface components of 2 Battalion Landing Teams • A total of 546 vehicles delivered in first 10 hours

  22. Cargo Distribution • One BLT can be transported on 6 ships • Provides for mission scalability • Provided greater load-out flexibility • Vessel load-outs • Load-outs fell below maximum payload • Maximum design payload = 800 LT • Heaviest load-out = 693 LT • Average load-out = 663LT

  23. Cargo Distribution • Distribution of (1) BLT aboard (6) HSAC

  24. Cargo Interfaces • Stern gate/ramp • Cargo decks • Flight deck & elevator • Bow ramp

  25. Stern gate • Allows interface with Sea Base and pier via Mediterranean mooring • Hydraulically operated • 120 degree range of motion from vertical to partial submersion • Supports deployment/recovery of EFV • Can be accomplished with current RO-RO technology

  26. Stern Gate Loading

  27. Stern Gate EFV Deployment

  28. Cargo Layout • Upper and lower cargo deck • Heaviest equipment stored on lower deck and centerline of upper deck • M1A2, EFV, ABV, M88ACE, AVLB • Lower deck access from stern gate and bow ramp • Upper deck access from forward and aft fixed ramps • Ventilation system on both decks will handle removing vehicle exhaust from the ship

  29. Cargo Layout

  30. Flight Deck & Elevator • Flight deck supports CH-53X, MV-22, and SH-60R • Hangar for 1 SH-60R • Elevator provides access to flight deck from cargo decks • Allows vertical replenishment of oversized and palletized supplies • Allows vertical delivery of vehicles/equipment from cargo decks to shore • Supports use of upper cargo deck as hangar for multiple SH-60R (BLT not embarked)

  31. Cargo Layout

  32. Bow Doors • 5m x 6.2m opening in bow • Facilitates ramp deployment and vehicle offload • Doors constructed from composite materials • High strength, low weight • Hydraulically actuated • Eliminates hinges • Reduces the amount travel required for opening • Watertight door aft of bow doors ensures watertight integrity • Armored to provide protection during landing ops

  33. Bow Doors

  34. Bow Ramp • Sectional floating causeways • Maximum deployed length = 35m • (8) 5m x 5m x 1.6m sections • Allows variable deployment length • Supports maximum load of (2) M1A2 Tanks • Stored below lower cargo deck • Mechanical deployment and recovery • Deployment/recovery rate = .2 m/s • Maximum length deployment ~ 3min

  35. Bow Ramp

  36. Bow Ramp

  37. Introduction Mission Flexibility Summary Manning/ Habitability Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control Hull Propulsion Electrical

  38. Hull Form: Trimaran • Pros • Low resistance • Large deck area in upper decks • Enhanced stability • Cons • Little information available = higher risk • Less space in lower decks • Limited bow ramp width

  39. Trimaran Feasibility • Existing or projected trimarans • Length/beam ratio ~ 13 - 15 • Froude number ~ 0.4 – 0.5 • Payload ~ 30 - 40% displacement • Overall length ~ 140 - 160m http://www.gomeralive.de/fred-olsen.4021.0.html

  40. Alternative Center Hull Forms • Hull form A • Lowest wave resistance • Deepest draft • Hull form B • Minimal wetted surface • Intermediate draft • Intermediate beam • Hull form C • Greatest wave resistance • Lowest draft

  41. Selected Hull Form • Wetted surface = 4300m2 • Length = 149m • Beam = 13m • L/B = 11.5 • Froude number = .51 • Draft = 4.5m

  42. Draft Constraint • Slope 1:30 • Parabolic keel line • Reduced forward draft

  43. Calculations • Hydrostatics • Cross curves • Tankage • Stability • Damaged stability

  44. Structure

  45. Operating Envelope Reality Check

  46. Introduction Mission Flexibility Summary Manning/ Habitability Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control Hull Propulsion Electrical

  47. Electric Drive • Pros • Increased flexibility over mechanical drive • Long drive train not required • Prime movers’ location not restricted • Power available for other uses • Increased fuel efficiency • Cons • Not proven • Electric drive selected

  48. Resistance Calculations

  49. Power Requirements • Combat systems and other electric loads: 2 MW • Propulsion: Total power for 43 knots: 60 MW

More Related