Joint ACCESS JOINT ACCESS CHIMERA CLASS High Speed Assault Connector

Joint ACCESS JOINT ACCESS CHIMERA CLASS High Speed Assault Connector
Good morning, I am LT Tim King and I will be briefing the first portion of the High Speed Assault Connector conceptual design called “Joint ACCESS.” TSSE Design Team Naval Postgraduate School December 2, 2004 9/16/2018

Amphibious Combat Cargo Expeditionary Support Ship JOINT ACCESS
CHIMERA CLASS Amphibious Combat Cargo Expeditionary Support Ship The name “Joint ACCESS” embodies exactly what the ship is designed to do – Transport joint force’s Amphibious Combat Cargo while providing Expeditionary Support 9/16/2018

TSSE Team TSSE Staff 2004 Design Team 12 Students 6 Countries
Prof. Fotis Papoulias Prof. Bob Harney 2004 Design 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 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 The TSSE design team comprised of 12 students, from 6 countries, and 6 departments. 12 Students 6 Countries 6 Departments 9/16/2018

Today’s Agenda Introduction Mission Flexibility Summary Manning/
Habitability Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo This is the general breakdown of our design that we will be briefing today. Damage Control Hull Propulsion Electrical 9/16/2018

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 SEA-6 asked the TSSE program to develop a conceptual design for a logistics transport to act as a connector between the Sea Base and shore to augment or replace existing connector platforms. From an employment standpoint for the first wave of forces, this meant transporting 2 battalion landing teams ~8000LT of vehicles, troops, and gear a distance of no more than 200nm within a 10 hour period all in sea state 4 or less The connector must also be able to conduct the transfer of cargo/troops at the Sea Base and deliver them ashore, whether that be a port facility or austere beach. 9/16/2018

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 (fully loaded) w/40% fuel remaining Has defensive and offensive combat capabilities TSSE design met the assault connector requirements from SEA-6. In addition, we developed a robust multi-mission capable self-sustaining vessel that: Can augment the MPF(F) by accommodating the embarked troops and cargo from the FLS and/or CONUS to the Sea Base Transit fully loaded And has defensive and offensive combat capabilities 9/16/2018

Introduction Mission Flexibility Summary Manning/ Habitability
Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control To achieve our final design, we first started with requirement generation and alternative selection. Hull Propulsion Electrical 9/16/2018

Initial Requirements SEA-6 TSSE Faculty
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 The first three requirements were from SEA-6’s initial request. In turn the TSSE Faculty developed additional requirements that were deemed necessary for our design. The three key ones were Supporting operations ashore aside from delivering payload Able to conduct secondary missions Be self-sustaining The team then derived several operational and functional requirements from these initial requirements. 9/16/2018

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 We made the following assumptions to make the problem manageable, especially in our limited timeframe. Though we could augment existing and future connectors, we decided to move the entire surface component of the JEB with our design so that we could define the payload requirement. Then we assumed that the HSAC would be fully loaded prior to employment to provide us with a well defined speed requirement. Finally, the last three assumptions were created to scope the combat system demands to a more manageable and realistic level. The ultimate goal was to design an effective combat cargo vessel and not a blue water combatant. 9/16/2018

Beachable/Non-Beachable
Considered two delivery methods Beachable Non-Beachable (LCAC ferry) Conducted feasibility study on both Our initial look at the big picture design produced two significantly different approaches in how the cargo was going to be delivered to shore. One was a beachable craft that would bring the cargo directly from the Sea Base to the shore. The other was a non-beachable platform which we viewed as a LCAC “ferry.” This concept was similar to the one in NRAC’s connector analysis, that would transport loaded LCACs at high speed from the Sea Base to within 25nm and then let the LCACs carry the cargo onto the beach. To choose the best approach, we conducted a brief feasibility study on both. 9/16/2018

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 Initially we thought that designing a high speed vessel to extend the range and capabilities of proven connector technology like LCACs would be the most direct and efficient design to implement; Since, All required information on LCACs is available Few changes in tactics required Increases effective range for LCAC employment from the Sea Base But most importantly, LCAC is a proven beachable, high-speed connector However, to facilitate a single wave delivery, 114 LCACs would be required exceeding the US inventory. Though multiple trips could be implemented, the reload time could potentially exceed the 10 hour time frame. It relies on a platform approaching end of its service life (LCACs) and one that has potential inadequate reliability. Adds an additional interface which reduces amount of time for transit/offload While technically feasible, operational and cost feasibility are in question. 9/16/2018

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 Next, analyzing the beachable concept, we examined the Newport class LST with these characteristics. The LST was designed for this same type of mission, only on a smaller scale. It proved large vessels could be made beachable It is a proven design that very likely could be improved with newer technology. Allowed for a single connector solution, which allows for the maximization of the 10 hour time frame Making a craft beachable creates structural issues for bow ramp design and requires additional structural reinforecment to facilitate beaching. The additional structure required along with the draft constraint could limit hull form options when trying to achieve high speeds with larger payloads. Believing that the cons of the beachable design were less of an issue than those for the LCAC ferry we decided to eliminate the LCAC ferry and move forward with a beachable design. 9/16/2018

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% Overall MOP weighted sum of the individual MOPs To facilitative selecting the best alternative, we derived 3 primary MOPs (Transport Factor, Survivability, and Mission Flexibility) and weighted each by importance using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. This weighting was determined by mission relevance and by applying the operational and technical knowledge in our class. Survivability and Mission Flexibility also have secondary weighted measures that are similarly weighted to determine the primary score. Finally, the overall MOP for a design was determined by an overall weighted sum of the original MOPs 9/16/2018

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 We examined several hull, payload, and speed combinations. With 7 different hull types (from mono to tri), 9 different payloads (from 400 to 8000 tons), and 5 different speeds (30-50 kts), we had 315 possible alternative designs to consider. We then used software from MIT to estimate the ship characteristics that would allow for MOP calculations. 9/16/2018

9/16/2018

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 The 315 designs were then evaluated using the MOPs shown earlier. 292 alternatives were eliminated using the criteria you see here. If the average MOP was less than 0.4 it was rejected If the MOP range over the five speeds was greater than .05, it was rejected If the average MOP was greater than 0.45 or the design passed tests 1 and 2 it was retained This resulted in 23 remaining design alternatives whose MOPs were then plotted against hull type, speed, payload, and finally cost 9/16/2018

AoA: MOP vs Hull Type This is one of 9 plots of the overall MOP plotted against hull type for a given payload. The five lines represent the hull and payload combination for the five different speeds considered. All 9 showed a significant increase in overall MOP for the trimaran hull form at all speeds. 9/16/2018

AoA: MOP vs Cost Better Trimaran Catamaran HYSWAS
Next we developed a cost model so that we could plot the overall MOP vs. system cost. What we looked for here was not a point solution, but groupings of the same hull types. As you can see, there are three significant groupings: the Tri, Cat, and HYSWAS. HYSWAS was ignored due to deep draft required. Of the Tri and Cat, the Tri has significantly higher MOP scores for the same cost Better 9/16/2018

Sensitivity Analysis Same 3 Measures of Performance (MOP)
Transport factor – 33% Survivability – 33% Mission flexibility – 33% Trimaran To check to see if any hull form’s overall MOP was affected due to our MOP weights, we weighted everything equally and plotted the data again. As you can see, the trimaran still broke out from the rest. Better 9/16/2018

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 Looking at all of our results, we chose to move forward with a medium size Trimaran design with a payload capacity of 800LT. 10 of these ships would then be able to transport the 2 battalion landing teams. This slide summarizes the reasoning that the past few slides have shown 9/16/2018

Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control Hull Propulsion Electrical 9/16/2018

Cargo Requirements Transport surface components of 2 Battalion Landing Teams 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 Here is the vehicle breakdown for the 2 Battalion Landing Teams The key figure is that we need to transport 546 vehicles in the first 10 hours. A total of 546 vehicles delivered in first 10 hours 9/16/2018

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 From our analysis of alternatives we attempted to place the two battalions worth of vehicles across 10 ships with a design payload of 800LT using 3-D vehicle models provided by Northrop Grumman. However, there was not enough cargo area for the all the vehicles and the average payload was 840LT. Moving to 12 ships for two battalions remedied this issue. It also reduced the maximum loadout to less than 700LT while providing mission scalability and flexibility. 9/16/2018

Cargo Distribution Distribution of (1) BLT aboard (6) HSAC
This is how we placed the cargo across the 6 ships. Note average payload. 9/16/2018

Cargo Interfaces Stern gate/ramp Cargo decks Flight deck & elevator
Bow ramp We then determined that our design was going to have 4 main cargo interfaces that needed to be designed. Stern Gate/Ramp Cargo Decks Flight Deck and Elevator Bow Ramp 9/16/2018

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 The stern gate is the primary interface for initial cargo loading and unloading Seabase In port Range of motion allows for launching and recovery of amphibious vehicles Uses current RO-RO technology 9/16/2018

Stern Gate Loading The stern gate is 10m wide, allowing for dual vehicle loading and unloading. 9/16/2018

Stern Gate EFV Deployment
Here we see an example of EFVs exiting the stern while non-amphibious vehicles hit the beach via the bow ramp. 9/16/2018

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 The ship has two cargo decks, upper and lower. The intent was to have the heavier vehicles on the lower deck and the lighter more numerous vehicles stored on the upper deck. The ship’s ventilation system will be robust enough to remove the exhaust gases from the vehicles on both cargo decks. 9/16/2018

Cargo Layout Lower cargo deck is the first deck above the waterline. The vehicle lane is just left of the centerline and comes back to centerline roughly halfway up the length of the ship. It provides clear access from stern gate to bow ramp and is ideally designed for heaviest equipment. Upper cargo deck is the first the deck that spans the side hulls, directly above the lower cargo deck. It is accessed via fixed ramps both for and aft. Though primarily for lighter loads, heavier loads can be stored along the centerline. 9/16/2018

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) The flight deck is design to launch and recover CH-53X, MV-22, and SH-60R. The hangar is designed to handle one SH-60R. The elevator was installed to provide access from the flight deck to the upper cargo deck. This allows vertical replenishment of palletized supplies and allows for vertical delivery of vehicles and equipment. When the battalion landing team is not embarked, the elevator supports the use of the upper cargo deck as an additional hangar for SH-60Rs. 9/16/2018

Cargo Layout The elevator (shown in red) is located directly above aft ramp. This allows elevator functionality without occupying additional cargo space. 9/16/2018

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 To facilitate cargo offloading and ramp deployment, we designed bow doors into our hull. Constructed of composites, they are hydraulically actuated and move directly outboard of the ship as the next slide illustrates. A watertight door is directly aft of the bow doors to ensure watertight integrity. 9/16/2018

Bow Doors As you see here, the bow doors push directly out with no hinges, reducing the overall range of motion required. Opening is large enough to allow vehicle passage and ramp deployment Because the ship is vulnerable during door opening and ramp deployment watertight door will be armored to protect the crew and cargo. 9/16/2018

Bow Ramp Sectional floating causeways Stored below lower cargo deck
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 Using the existing causeway designs and the work being conducted by NAVFAC on the improved lighterage system, we designed a 35m floating bow ramp. It has a variable deployment length and can support a maximum load of 2 M1A2 Tanks. Being stored directly below the cargo deck, the ramp can be launched and recovered in under 3 minutes. 9/16/2018

Bow Ramp For storage and retrieval, the ramp sits on a series of rollers attached to rails mounted in the ship below the lower cargo deck. Rollers fit inside grooves on the sides of each causeway, guiding it and supporting it during launch and recovery. 9/16/2018

Bow Ramp This is how we envision the vehicles exiting the ship and hitting the beach. 9/16/2018

Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control Good morning, I’m LT Matthew Harding, and I will begin my portion of the brief by discussing the hull form of the Joint ACCESS. Hull Propulsion Electrical 9/16/2018

Hull Form: Trimaran Pros Cons 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 As LT King already discussed, after an extensive AOA, a trimaran hull form was selected. You can basically think of the Joint ACCESS as a slender monohull, stabilized by two side hulls. One of the advantages of a trihull ship is that it has low resistance due to the slender main hull which equates to higher speeds; Large deck area in the upper decks which is very desirable due to the fact that the primary mission of the ship is to transport cargo. The disadvantages of trihull ships include limited information available to learn from since there are few trihulls in existence; little space in the lower decks therefore it is difficult to place ER components; and since the main hull is slender, the width of the bow ramp was a concern, but we feel that we have overcome these disadvantages. 9/16/2018

Trimaran Feasibility Existing or projected trimarans
Length/beam ratio ~ Froude number ~ 0.4 – 0.5 Payload ~ % displacement Overall length ~ m To determine feasibility of our trimaran hull, we looked at existing trihull ships. Our trimaran hull was consistent w/existing trihull ships with regard to L/B ratio, Froude number which is a non-dimensional speed variable, payload percentage, and overall length, therefore a trimaran hull design was deemed feasible. 9/16/2018

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 Of the three main hull forms, hull form B was chosen. Hull form B provided the minimal wetted surface and has an intermediate draft and beam which was determined to be acceptable. 9/16/2018

Selected Hull Form Wetted surface = 4300m2 Length = 149m Beam = 13m
L/B = 11.5 Froude number = .51 Draft = 4.5m Our selected hull form yields an overall length of 149 meters, a waterline beam of the main hull of 13 meters which yields a L/B ratio of 11.5, a Froude # of .51, and a draft of 4.5 meters. All of which are comparable to existing trihull ships. 9/16/2018

Draft Constraint Slope 1:30 Parabolic keel line Reduced forward draft
The draft of the Joint ACCESS is constrained because we needed to have a beachable craft. The parabolic keel line allows for a shallower draft of approximately 4 meters. The ship will also be able to ballast down which will reduce the forward draft further. 9/16/2018

Calculations Hydrostatics Cross curves Tankage Stability
Damaged stability Many calculations were done which were crucial to the overall design of the ship. Among those were hydrostatics, stability, and damaged stability which will be discussed further in the damage control portion of the brief. 9/16/2018

Structure Use Pointer. As shown on this picture, the engineering deck starts approximately 2 meters above the keel. The lower cargo deck is 5 meters above the keel. The main cargo deck 4.5 meters above the lower cargo deck, and the weather deck is a total of 14 meters above the keel. 9/16/2018

Reality Check Operating Envelope
Finally, we did a reality check. From this plot of transport factor vs speed, it is evident that our operating envelope is below the Carderock theoretical maximum which is the red line. On the graph are many other points which correspond to other ships, and we are well above most of those. This is expected due to the fact that our ship’s main objective is to carry a large quantity of cargo at high speeds, and technological advances should allow us to approach closer to the theoretical maximum. Therefore, our ship passed the reality check. 9/16/2018

Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control Now I will discuss the propulsion plant of the Joint ACCESS. Hull Propulsion Electrical 9/16/2018

Electric Drive Pros Cons Electric drive selected
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 The first decision to make was to use electric or mechanical drive. After an AOA, electric drive was chosen, primarily because it greatly increases the flexibility of placing ER components since a long drive train is not required, and the prime movers may be placed anywhere in the ship. Flexibility of prime mover placement was extremely desirable due to the slender main hull form of the Joint ACCESS. Electric drive allows the ship to divert power from propulsion to future weapons when required. Also, electric drive increases fuel efficiency since the main engines may be operated at optimal speed. 9/16/2018

Resistance Calculations
A resistance vs. speed plot was calculated based on an extrapolation of previous ship designs with similar dimensions and ratios. This plot is the basis for determining the required power to propel the ship through the water. 9/16/2018

Total power for 43 knots: 60 MW
Power Requirements Combat systems and other electric loads: 2 MW Propulsion: Speed (kts) Power (MW) 10.95 0.88 16.43 3.29 21.91 10.37 27.39 16.31 32.86 26.35 38.34 40.35 43.82 58.25 Combat systems and other hotel loads were estimated at 2 MW. To obtain a speed of 43 knots, 58MW was required for propulsion, with a total ship power at max speed and load of 60 MW. Total power for 43 knots: 60 MW 9/16/2018

Propulsion: AoA Propulsion plant alternatives: Gas turbines selected
Conventional steam Nuclear steam Fuel cells Diesels Gas turbines Gas turbines selected Power/weight SFC Efficiency Reliable, proven technology After an extensive AOA, gas turbines were selected as the power plant of choice based on having a high power/weight ratio, low specific fuel consumption, and high efficiency at the high power requirements of the Joint ACCESS. Also, the gas turbine plant is a proven and reliable plant which is currently on many Naval combatants. 9/16/2018

Prime Mover: AoA Prime mover alternatives (2) LM2500+ selected
ICR WR21 LM1600 LM2500 LM2500+ MT30 Trent (2) LM2500+ selected High power/weight Low volume High power Low SFC Another AOA was conducted to select which gas turbines would power the Joint ACCESS. Ultimately, two LM2500+ gas turbines were selected. Each LM2500+ can produce 30.5 MW for a total of 61 MW which exceeds our max power requirement of 60 MW. Based on the power requirements, only the LM2500+ and the MT30 Trent were feasible engines, and a comparison was conducted between them. 9/16/2018

MT30 vs. LM2500+ This slide shows a comparison of the LM2500+ and the MT30 based on 4 normalized criteria: volume, weight, SFC, and power/weight ratio. Based on this comparison, the LM2500+ was selected as the ship’s prime mover. 9/16/2018

Propulsor: AoA Propeller alternatives AWJ21 selected Propeller
Conventional waterjet Bird-Johnson AWJ21 AWJ21 selected High efficiency at high speeds Efficient at low speeds also Reduced cavitation Reduced size and weight Station-keeping A propulsor AOA was conducted and the Rolls Royce Bird-Johnson Advanced Water Jet 21 was selected. The AWJ-21 was selected primarily due to high efficiency at high and low speeds, low cavitation, and reduced size and weight over conventional waterjets. Perhaps the most attractive feature of the AWJ21 is its station-keeping ability. GO TO NEXT SLIDE 9/16/2018

Propulsor: AWJ21 Bird-Johnson AWJ21
The AWJ21 is a steerable, reversible water jet that is ideal for maintaining the ship stationary next to the beach while delivering our payload. In the past, beachable craft have had to “ram” themselves up on the shore. GO TO NEXT SLIDE. Source: 9/16/2018

Propulsor: AWJ21 The AWJ21 allows for the Joint ACCESS to be a beachable craft but without having to force the ship onto the shore. This allows the bow of the ship to be lighter and have more flexibility with regards to the bow ramp. Source: 9/16/2018

Propulsion Motor: AoA Propulsion motor alternatives
Conventional motors HTS AC synchronous motors DC super conducting homo-polar motors HTS AC synchronous motor selected Smaller size Lighter weight Acceptable technological risk An AOA was done to select the propulsion motors for the electric drive. This movie clip shows the size advantage of American Superconductor’s High Temperature Superconducting AC Synchronous Motor over conventional motors. The HTS was primarily chosen for it’s size and weight advantage over conventional motors for the same power delivered. Source: with Matthew O’Conner, Sales Manager, American Superconductor Corporation, November 18, 2004 9/16/2018

Engine Room Layouts Use Pointer. As shown on the ER layout, two LM2500+ gas turbines power 4 HTS AC synchronous motors which propel 4 AWJ21 propulsors. 9/16/2018

Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control Now I will discuss the electrical distribution system of the Joint ACCESS. Hull Propulsion Electrical 9/16/2018

Electric Power System 2 LM2500+ 1 Allison AG9140
Produce required underway power 58MW for propulsion 2MW for C/S and hotel loads 1 Allison AG9140 Produces in port power Available for backup power As previously discussed, 2 LM2500+ gas turbines provide all the power needed for the Joint ACCESS during normal underway steaming. An Allison gas turbine is also installed onboard primarily for in port power and it can also be used as a backup source if one of the LM2500+ engines go down. 9/16/2018

Electric Distribution
Port & starboard AC buses 13.8kV Drive the HTS AC synchronous motors Power port & starboard DC buses DC Zonal distribution Port & starboard DC busses 1100V DC 6 Zones The LM2500+ engines feed into port and starboard AC buses which power the HTS AC synchronous motors for propulsion and the port and starboard DC buses of our DC zonal system. The DC buses then power 6 DC zones. 9/16/2018

Electric Distribution
Prime Mover SM AC to AC Converter HTS Waterjet Prime Mover SM AC to AC Converter HTS Waterjet DC Zone #1 SSCM Motor Controller for Bow Ramp PS PS SSCM Allison AG9140 This is a mock-up of the electrical distribution system showing one DC zone. Both the AC and DC buses are cross-connected and may be isolated if faults occur anywhere in the system. 9/16/2018

DC Zonal Simplified fault isolation
Generator frequency decoupled from distribution equipment Survivability A DC zonal distribution was chosen primarily because of the ease at which faults can be isolated with minimal effect on overall system performance, and the increased survivability gained by operating a zonal system. 9/16/2018

DC Zones Zone 6:Superstructure Zone 4:ER #2 Zone 2:CSER #1
Here is a view of the ship and the 6 DC zones: 1 through 5 fore to aft, and the 6th zone is the superstructure. Zone 4:ER #2 Zone 2:CSER #1 Zone 5: Aft ER Zone 3:ER #1 Zone 1:Bow Ramp 9/16/2018

Requirements & Design Combat System Cargo Damage Control Now I will move in to Damage Control onboard the Joint ACCESS Hull Propulsion Electrical 9/16/2018

Installed Damage Control Systems
Systems installed FM200 CO2 Water mist AFFF Spaces of high importance Flight deck Cargo decks Machinery spaces Onboard the ship are several systems to protect the ship during casualties. Those systems include the FM200 fire suppression system, which is a safer alternative to current halon systems, CO2, water mist and AFFF. The flight deck will be protected by AFFF, and the machinery spaces and cargo decks will be protected by both AFFF and water mist. 9/16/2018

HSAC Fire Main This view shows the fire main running throughout the ship. The fire main is a composite system with one bypass main crossconnected with two service mains. 9/16/2018

Damaged Stability Damage extension 3 Forward double bottom ½ Side hull
Damaged stability calculations were performed for a variety of scenarios. One of those scenarios is flooding 3 forward compartments in the main hull and half of one of the side hulls. Stability was determined to be acceptable. 9/16/2018

Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control Good morning, I am LTJG Adnen CHAABANE and I’ll continue the brief with the an overview of the Combat System elements of Joint Access Hull Propulsion Electrical 9/16/2018

Threat Engagement Zones
Open ocean to 25 miles from off-load zone 25 miles to 1 mile from off-load zone Less than 1 mile from off-load zone Loading Zone Transit Zone Unloading Zone Sea Base Small Boats Aircraft Missiles Small Arms Beach Missiles Aircraft Small Boats Submarines Hostile Missiles Small Arms Aircraft After a thorough analysis of the possible threats, we concluded that three engagement zones should be specially considered. The first zone extends from the Sea Base to 25 nm from the shore Where the ship faces the same threats as open ocean combatants. Those include missile, aircrafts, small boats and subs. The second zone extends from 25 miles to about 1 mile from the shore where the ship faces similar threats but is now inside enemy’s radar horizon range and will have different ways of mitigating its threats In addition, small surface combatants ranging from small cutter vessels to patrol craft as well as deceptively hidden surface platforms will be used to deter transit within close proximity to the ship. The last zone is the unloading zone where the ship is susceptible to small boat attack, beach defenses, and enemy fire from the shore that will range from machine gun and rocket propelled grenades to potential mortar or artillery fire. 200 – 25 nm 25 – 1 nm ~1nm 9/16/2018

Defense Perimeters Inner Layer Defense Middle Layer 5 mi 25 100 Outer Layer Based on the threats that the Joint Access has to mitigate and the previously mentioned engagement zones, we opted to use a layered defense system with three perimeters (Outer, Middle and Inner). Next, we will discuss each of these layers and their associated weapons systems 9/16/2018

Outer Layer Highly reliable on effective Sea Shield protection
Advantage of distributed multiple platforms for a combined blanket of protection for increased survivability Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) Multi-Function Radar (MFR) The outer layer defenses will heavily depend on effective sea shield protection and the use of distributed platforms for increased survivability. The two main combat elements of this layer are the CEC system and the MFR. 9/16/2018

Cooperative Engagement Capability
System of hardware and software that allows the sharing of radar data on targets among ships. Each ship uses identical data processing algorithms resident in its cooperative engagement processor (CEP), resulting in each ship having essentially the same display of track information on aircraft and missiles. The CEC is a set of hardware and software that allows the sharing of radar data on targets among ships via a Data Distribution System.. By using this system, the Joint Access will be able to engage threats within its engagement envelope, based on track data relayed to it by other ships. 9/16/2018

MFR Multi-Function Radar
Essentially the SPY-3 radar currently in development 3D system capable of both air and surface detection and tracking Fire control radar and missile control through mid-course guidance and terminal homing Optimized for the littoral environment Superior clutter rejection Based on future developments that the U.S. Navy is pursuing, we decided that the SPY-3 MFR is the best fit for the requirements of the Joint Access. 1- This Radar combines the functions provided by more than five separate radars currently on board Navy combatant ships. 2- It will conduct such functions as horizon search, limited above the horizon search, and fire control track and illumination. 3- The most significant feature of this radar is its ability to provide automatic detection, tracking, and illumination of low altitude threat missiles in adverse conditions found in coastal waters. 4- The following is a picture of the Radar and its different elements 9/16/2018

MFR Based on future developments that the U.S. Navy is pursuing, we decided that the SPY-3 MFR is the best fit for the requirements of the outer layer. 1- This Radar combines the functions provided by more than five separate radars currently on board Navy combatant ships 2- It will conduct such functions as horizon search, limited above the horizon search, and fire control track and illumination. 3- The most significant feature of the radar is its ability to provide automatic detection, tracking, and illumination of low altitude threat missiles in adverse conditions found in coastal waters Source: TSSE 2003 Final Report 9/16/2018

Middle Layer Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)
Electronic Warfare (EW) suite Electro-Optical (EO) System The Middle layer defenses will use the ESSM, the different elements of the EW suite, and the ship’s EO system to effectively detect and counter any threats that enter the 25 miles perimeter of the ship. 9/16/2018

Missiles Primary Mission: Self Defense
Secondary Mission: Cargo Transfer Protection An AOA was conducted for a selection of short range missiles that can engage: Large spectrum of anti-ship cruise missiles Surface threats Aircraft (to include low slow flyer) Based on effective range requirements for the middle layer, we needed a medium range missile that is capable of engaging a large spectrum of ASCMs, surface threats and aircrafts. Source: 9/16/2018

Missiles: AOA Overall MOP 10 8 Maneuverability 15% Cost 10% 6
Joint vision concept 10% 8 Maneuverability 15% Overall MOP Cost 10% 6 Quantity 20% 4 Size 5% Three missile types (ESSM, RAM and SM-2) were considered during the AOA phase. The ESSM was chosen based on the shown measures of performance. Range Min 20% 2 Range Max 20% ESSM RAM SM-2 9/16/2018

Missiles: ESSM Very capable against low observable highly maneuverable missiles Adequate range for middle layer defense Max range 30 nm Min range 1400m Flight corrections via radar and midcourse uplinks MK 48 Mod0 VLS launcher was a perfect fit for placement within trimaran side hulls Number deployed 32 (16 port / 16 stbd) 1- As a matter of fact, the ESSM is a very capable missile against low observable, highly maneuverable missiles, and has the perfect range for the middle layer defenses 2- This missile will be launched from MK48 Mod 0 VLS installed on the side hulls of the trimaran. 9/16/2018

EW Suite (AN/SLY-2(V)) Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System
Navy’s next generation shipboard E.W. system that supports the Joint Vision 2010 concept of full-dimensional protection Designed for layered and coordinated countermeasures in the littoral environment Provide final layer of self-protection against air threat leakers and ASCMs for individual ships Electronic Support (ES) Increased tactical awareness Early threat detection Advanced on board RF and IR countermeasures As far as EW elements go, the ship will be equipped with the Navy’s next generation shipboard EW system – the Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System-- that supports the Joint Vision 2010 of full dimensional protection. This system fits well our ship because it is specially designed for layered defense and coordinated countermeasures in a littoral environment. When installed, the AN/SLY-2 will have an advanced ES system that will allow for increased tactical awareness and early detection of threats and will be able to deliver both RF and IR countermeasures to counter current and future ASCM threats. 9/16/2018

EO System Thermal Imaging Sensor System II
High-resolution Thermal Imaging Sensor (TIS) Two Charged Coupled Devices (CCDs) daylight imaging Television Sensors (TVS) Eye-Safe Laser Range Finder (ESLRF) Automatic Video Tracker (AVT) that is capable of tracking up to two targets within the TISS field of view The ship’s Thermal Imaging Sensor System (TISS system II) will provide it with a day and night, high-resolution, infrared, visual imaging, and laser range-finding capability that will augment the already existing electronic, and radar sensors. This system will also support surveillance, detection, identification, and tracking of low-observable surface and air targets, including floating mines, close-in surface boats and and cruise missiles. Source: 9/16/2018

Inner Layer 57mm Bofors Gun (4)Twin M240 Machine Gun Mounts
(2) High Power Microwave Active Denial System (HPMADS) The inner layer defenses will include the the 57mm Bofors gun, a set of two HPMADSs, and 4 twin M240 machine gun mounts. 9/16/2018

Main Gun Primary Mission: Anti-surface defense
Secondary Mission: Beach landing fire support An AoA was conducted comparing gun firing rate, weight, and range Gun Trade Off Analysis 7 6 Overall MOP 5 The ship’s main gun was chosen to be primarily an anti-surface gun that can support landing troops ashore. Three types were considered: 5 in, 57mm and the 76 mm… Based on an educated weighting of the gun’s firing rate, weight and range, the 57 mm gun showed to best fit the mission. With a (next slide) Firing Rate 40% 4 Weight 30% 3 Range 30% 2 1 5in 57mm 76mm 9/16/2018

Main Gun: Bofors 57mm 120 magazine capacity
(3) 40 round cassettes 8 second automated change out between cassettes 220 rounds per minute firing rate 5nm effective range Based on an educated weighing of the gun’s firing rate, weight and range, the 57 mm showed to best fit the mission because it has a high firing rate (220rpm) and an effective range of 5nm. Source: Source: 9/16/2018

Crew Served: Twin M240s (2) M240Cs per mount
750/950 rpm (operator selectable) 7.62 ammunition capability 3725m maximum range Common weapon to U.S. Army and Marine Corps The M240C machine gun is a common weapon to the U.S. marines and the U.S. Army which will enable the ship to use some of the troops on board if need be to defend itself, the cargo and/or the troops ashore when very high rate of fire is desired to cover short distances. Source: 9/16/2018

HPMADS High Power Microwave Active Denial System
ADS is a non-lethal, counter-personnel directed energy weapon Effective against both small boats and enemy personnel ashore Similar range to small arms fire Project in development Air Force C-130 Marine/Army Humvee 1- The HPM system that will be installed onboard the ship will be an Active Denial System that projects a focused, speed-of-light millimeter-wave energy beam to induce an unbearable heating sensation on an adversary’s skin and cause that individual to be repelled without injury. 2- This system can be used for protection of defense resources, during peacekeeping and humanitarian missions and/or simply when the use of lethal force is undesirable. 9/16/2018

Passive Detection Soft Kill
Threat Matrix Aircraft UAV SAM ASCM Shore Fire Small Boats Mines MFR EO System EW Suite HPMDS ESSM 57mm Gun Twin M240 This is a graphical summary of how all the Joint Access threats will be mitigated. Detection Passive Detection Soft Kill Hard Kill 9/16/2018

System Summary Countermeasures Directed Infrared Countermeasures
RF Jammer (SLQ-32) Nulka Decoy System Radar Warning Receiver MAWS IFF System Other fleet assets Multifunctional Radar TISS II Navigation Radar Other fleet sensors Sensor Suite EW Attack EW Protection Shipboard Weapons 57 mm ESSM HPMDS Twin M240C Small arms Crew served weapons EW Suite System Controller Displays & Controls Countermeasures Ship Bus This slide shows a complete system overview where we see how the different sensors fuse their target information into a System Control which, based on an updated threat library assigns appropriate countermeasures based on a specific threat’s type and priority. 9/16/2018

RCS Calculation Empirical method POFACETS software XPATCH software
The ship’s RCS calculation was conducted using three methods: The first is an Empirical method found in the literature, while the other two are softwares POFACETS software XPATCH software 9/16/2018

Empirical RCS Calculation
Based on Skolnik Empirical Method for low grazing angles D displacement (kilotons) F frequency in GHz To account for aspect angle, actual RCS approximation will vary between - 32dBsm (minima) - 53dBsm (for broadside) The empirical method results were based on Skolnik Empirical method for low grazing angles and led to a Median RCS of 40dBsm BUT, to account for aspect angle variation, the actual RCS will vary between 32dBsm for minima and 53dBsm for broadside 9/16/2018

POFACETS RCS Calculation
The second method was based on the POFACETS version 3.0 software that is developed at NPS by Professor David Jenn. The results were comparable to the empirical method. The broadside RCS (shown at the 90 and 270 degrees) was around 53dBsm while the minima was much lower that the empirical method (around the 18dBsm). 9/16/2018

XPATCH RCS CALCULATION
Provide DOD baseline measurements Due to distribution limitations, program is being run by Dr. David Jenn (ECE) Once available, results will be compared to previous two methods The third method is the only method that is DOD certified. Due to distribution limitations, the program is being run by Dr. David Jenn (ECE) against our model. Once available, the results of XPATCH will be compared to the previous two methods 9/16/2018

Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control The next section of this brief will cover the Manning and Habitability requirements of the Joint Access. Hull Propulsion Electrical 9/16/2018

Ship’s manning Based on reduced manning requirements, the manning list by department is as follows: Department Officers CPO Enlisted Total Command 2 Combat System 1 9 12 Engineering 3 17 Operations 4 16 22 Medical Supply/Admin 11 7 10 49 66 1- Based on reduced manning requirements, the manning list by department is as shown on the slide. The ship’s total compliment is 66, 7 of which are officers, 10 are CPOs, while the rest are enlisted. 2- In addition, the ship will provide enough berthing for the 260 Marines that will embark it during its operation. 9/16/2018

Officer Berthing USN Berthing USMC Berthing (1) CO cabin
(1) XO stateroom (4) 2 person staterooms Private and shared heads USMC Berthing (5) 6 person bunkrooms Shared heads The officer berthing arrangement is as follows… the ship will have one CO cabin, one XO stateroom and 4 (2) person stateroom for officers The Marines officers will have 5 (6) person bunkrooms.. 9/16/2018

CO Cabin This is a rhino drawing of the CO cabin. 9/16/2018

USN Officer Stateroom And here’s another drawing of a typical officer stateroom. 9/16/2018

CPO/NCO Berthing CPO Berthing USMC SNCO Berthing
(2) 6 person bunkrooms Semi-private heads USMC SNCO Berthing Assigned one of four USMC berthing compartments CPOs will be berthed on 2 (6) person bunkrooms while the Marines will be assigned one of four USMC berthing compartments 9/16/2018

CPO Berthing This is an example of the CPO berthings 9/16/2018

Enlisted Berthing Ship’s Crew Berthing Embarked Marine Berthing
(1) 36 person compartment (1) 24 person compartment (1) 12 person compartment (Women-at-Sea determined compartment size) Three tiers per berth (Sit-up Berth) (4) shared heads (one assigned to females) Embarked Marine Berthing (3) 69 person compartments (3) shared heads Enlisted men will be accommodated in either 36, 24 or 12 person compartments While marines will be embarked in 3 (69) person compartments 9/16/2018

Berth Selection U.S. Navy’s Sit-Up Berth Improves quality of life
Allows the occupant to sit upright when not sleeping Ample space to read, write, or relax This is a real picture of a Navy Sit-Up Berth. Because this berth improves quality of life and has ample space to read, write, and relax, we adopted the same DESIGN for our ship. Source: 9/16/2018

12 Person Berthing Compartment
Enlisted Berthing This is a Rhino drawing of a 12-man enlisted berthing compartment. 12 Person Berthing Compartment 9/16/2018

This is a quick run over the different Habitability compartments of the ship.
9/16/2018

Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control In addition to the capabilities inherent in HSAC, it integrates well with supporting forces. Hull Propulsion Electrical 9/16/2018

Secondary Missions Special Operations
Non-combatant Evacuation Operations Humanitarian Assistance UV Basing and Operations Multiple support missions can be conducted. These include but are not limited to: Special Operations, Non-combatant Evacuation Operations Humanitarian Assistance, and UV Basing and Operations 9/16/2018

Special Operations Deployment of wide spectrum equipment
RHIBs − HMMWV SDV − ITV All Helos − Multiple UVs Cargo deck supports multiple mission modules C2 SCIF Medical The ship will provide mobility and sustainment of SOF in support of the Global War on Terrorism and other traditional missions. While operating in low-threat environments, the ship will embark SOF elements and their equipment, along with mobility assets and unmanned vehicles to interdict terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and other high-value targets. 9/16/2018

Special Operations This slide shows the ship’s ability to carry Conex boxes and RHIBs to be used by SOF. 9/16/2018

Humanitarian Assistance and Evacuation Operations
High speed Capability to operate in austere, degraded and minor port environments Interface with the beach Ability to carry multi-mission CONEX boxes Because of its High Speed, Capability to operate in austere, degraded and minor port environments, Interface with the beach, and its Ability to carry multi-mission Conex boxes (hospitals, supplies, all that Conex boxes can carry), This ship is Ideally suited for supporting HA/EO missions. 9/16/2018

UV Support Capability to support multiple UVs
UAV (Flight Deck) USV (Stern Gate) UUV (Stern Gate) Cargo deck provides space for storage, maintenance, and mission modules UV Handling Overhead Telescoping Beam Cargo deck tractor with trailer The ship will also be capable to support all types of unmanned vehicles, that is surface, air and subsurface. The ship’s design lends itself to the following potential handling gear 9/16/2018

UV Handling This slide shows a RHIB on top of a Variable Cradle that adjusts to different vehicle geometries The vehicle/or container once inside the ship can then be moved around using an Overhead monorail. Source: NSWCCD- INCEN- TR- 2003/001 9/16/2018

Requirements & Design Combat Systems Cargo Damage Control The next couple of slides will show a quick summary of the ship’s weight, cost and performance Hull Propulsion Electrical 9/16/2018

Weight estimation Group Name Weight (LT) 100 Hull Structure 1943 200
Propulsion Plant 91 300 Electric Plant 118 400 Command and Surv. 112 500 Auxiliary Systems 302 600 Outfit and Furnishings 159 700 Armament 164 Liquids & Storage 1022 6% Margin 235 Payload 820 Total 4966 The ship will have a total full load displacement of 5000 Ltons 9/16/2018

Cost estimation Assuming 12 ship construction and a learning curve exponent of 0.95 Concept Cost (Mill $) Ship Construction 156 Propulsion and Electric Distribution 230 Cargo Interfaces 10 Combat System 80 Total (For 1 Ship) 476 And a total acquisition cost of about $M476 9/16/2018

Ship Characteristics Overall length: 149m Overall beam: 30m
Maximum draft: 4.5m Full load displacement: 4966LT Light ship displacement: 3124LT GM: 7m Maximum speed: 43kts SHP: 78,000hp Cruise range: 34kts 1 Dedicated SH-60R hangar Crew compliment: 66 The ship’s length is 149 meters, it’s max draft is 4.5 meters. It has a MAX speed of 43kts and a cruise range of 2600nmiles at 34kts. 9/16/2018

Mission Capability Maximum payload: 800LT
260 Troops and gear 2040m2 of cargo area 47 vehicles in a typical BLT loadout ~ 72 Humvees Onload time (ideal conditions): ~4 hours Offload time (ideal conditions): ~2 hours Also, this ship is capable of carrying up to 800LT of payload with an approximate ONLOAD time of 4 hours and an OFFLOAD time of 2 hours. 9/16/2018

Conclusion TSSE acknowledges that we were unable to perform a thorough analysis on all technical issues that exist with every ship design TSSE believes that to achieve the HSAC mission displacement craft such as the Joint ACCESS need to be researched We understand that there are technical issues with this design. Due to our time constraints we were unable to perform a thorough analysis on all of them. However, we believe that to achieve the high speed assault connector mission, displacement craft similar to the Joint ACCESS need to be perused. 9/16/2018

The next movie will summarize the way we envision the ship to operate.
This concludes the TSSE portion of the brief. Thanks for your attention. Now, we will take a 5 minute break and then SEA-6 will continue with the next part of their brief. 9/16/2018

Joint ACCESS JOINT ACCESS CHIMERA CLASS High Speed Assault Connector

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Joint ACCESS JOINT ACCESS CHIMERA CLASS High Speed Assault Connector"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Joint ACCESS JOINT ACCESS CHIMERA CLASS High Speed Assault Connector

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Joint ACCESS JOINT ACCESS CHIMERA CLASS High Speed Assault Connector"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback