Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

Arctic Combat Ship (ACS)

Presented by: LT Chris MacLean, LT Tim Emge, LT Dave Cope

3 May 2012

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringSponsors

• Dr. Norbert Doerry – Technical Director for NAVSEA 05T

• Mike Bosworth – Deputy Chief Technology Officer NAVSEA 05T

1 May 2012 ACS 2

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

Threat and Operational Environment

• Arctic ice diminished summers by 2030– Increased commercial shipping, resource development, tourism,

environmental interest, strategic focus (Oil/Gas)• 2 key drivers of uncertainty:

– Resources/trade– Governance

• UNCLOS– Regulates claims beyond the EEZ– Russian extension of continental shelf beyond 200 NM EEZ

• Planted a flag below North Pole– U.S. has not ratified

• 2 Coastal Passages– Northwest Passage – international strait vs. Canadian inland waters– Northern Sea Route – 5000 NM shorter than Suez Canal

• Chinese claim to resources– No national sovereignty over Arctic– One-fifth of world’s population, equal claim to gas/oil

1 May 2012 ACS 3

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

Threat and Operational Environment

1 May 2012 ACS 4

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringBackground

• Post WWII Operation Deep Freeze– Requirement for heavy icebreakers– Wind Class-USCG/USN/CCG/USSR– USN operated until 1966, then transferred to USCG

1 May 2012 ACS 5

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringTechnical Background

ACS 6

Norway Canada1 May 2012

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringMissions

• Major Mission Areas (Known-knowns)– Information, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)– Maritime Interdiction (MIO)– Humanitarian Assistance & Disaster Response (HADR)– Search & Rescue (SAR)

• Inherent Modularity (Reconfigurable spaces)– Research/Exploration (oceanographic & meteorological)– Command and Control– Medical– Autonomous/Manned Vehicles

• Future Allowance (Known-unknowns)– Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)– Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)– Anti-Air Warfare (AAW)

1 May 2012 ACS 7

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringDesign Philosophy

• Persistent presence in the Arctic• Design for the environment

– Supplement Navy Standards with ABS Requirements for Polar Class Vessels

• Special consideration for hull structure, propeller, and machinery

• Maintain Navy margins and survivability– Extended on-station time

• Balance capability with cost– Presence first, then as much added capability as possible

without increasing cost beyond roughly $1B FY11• Risk will be minimized to a level appropriate for an

IOC of FY20– Minimize new technologies to avoid cost increases

1 May 2012 ACS 8

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

Parameter ValueLBP 345.5 feetBeam 65.5 feetDraft 20 feet

Depth (Station 10) 50 feetPrismatic

Coefficient0.625

Lightship Displacement

5,357 Long Tons

Full Load Displacement

7,046 Long Tons

GMt /B 0.141Polar Class 4Endurance 150 Days

Range 17,560 nautical milesMaximum Speed 19.7 knotsSustained Speed 18.0 knotsLead Ship Cost $1.27 Billion (FY11)

Follow Ship Cost $977 Million (FY11)Crew 124

Accommodations 1561 May 2012 9

Final Design Characteristics

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringFinal Design Payload

– Aviation: 2 MH-60R Helos– Small Vehicles: 2 RHIBs/1 HC or

1LC– Modularity: 10 TEU– Gun: MK 110 57mm– Crane: 1 30-Ton– VLS: 24 cells

1 May 2012 ACS 10

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

Polar Class 4 Operational Limits in 2020

1 May 2012 ACS 11

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringEngineering Plant Design

• Azipods becoming preferred drive method – Increased maneuverability– Less susceptible to drive damage from ice impacts

• Diesel Electric most common plant on ice class vessels

• Conducted in-depth analysis of non-integrated electric drive vs. Integrated Power System

• Ratio SS to Propulsion Power near 1:1– Propulsion power requirement like another load

• Results showed that IPS provides – Higher efficiency, therefore less tankage– Fewer engines

1 May 2012 ACS 12

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringPropeller Design

1 May 2012 ACS 13

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringHull Design

1 May 2012 ACS 14

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

Polar Class Structural Optimization

• ABS Structural Requirements for Polar Class Vessels

• Tool optimizes for minimal ice strengthened structure weight– Outputs: plate thickness, frame,

and stringer sizes/spacing

• Verified by comparison to USCGC Polar Star structural weight

• Led to section design and hull girder strength analysis

σallowable >> σcalculated

1 May 2012 ACS 15

Slide 15

T1 Need to make the scale legibleTim, 4/18/2012

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

Arrangements Design Drivers

1 May 2012 ACS 16

• ABS and Canadian Arctic Shipping Pollution Regulations require no fuel in contact with skin of the ship, i.e. double bottom, for new builds

• Ice Class Azipod produced by ABB, G=5.0m• Large capacity crane and elevator for Mission Bay

loading/unloading

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringArrangements

1 May 2012 ACS 17

FPMSAP

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

1 May 2012 ACS 18

FPMSAP

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

1 May 2012 ACS 19

FPMSAP

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

Zonal Electrical Distribution

1 May 2012 ACS 20

Zone 5 Zone 1Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2

Zone 6

PGM

PGM PGM

PGMPDM

PDM

PDM

PDM

PCM

PCM PCM PCM

PCM

PCM

PCM

PDM

PDM

PDM

PDM

PDM

Deckhouse

FWDAFT

Loads

Loads

Loads

LoadsLoads Loads

SP

PCM

PCM

Loads

4.16 kV Bus

Key

PCM Power Conversion Module

PDM Power Distribution Module

PGM Power Generation Module

SP Shore Power

Azipod Propulsion Motor Module

PDM

Zone 7

Hull

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringConclusions

• No US Navy Precedent• Model Testing Imperative• Cost ~1 Billion Dollars• Feasible• Presence with Modularity/Margins (Reconfigurable

spaces, VDS/Aegis)• Low Risk• Possible USCG conversion

1 May 2012 ACS 22

Center for Ocean EngineeringNaval Construction & Engineering ProgramDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

1 May 2012 ACS 23

Questions

Parameter ValueLBP 345.5 feetBeam 65.5 feetDraft 20 feet

Depth (Station 10) 50 feetPrismatic Coefficient 0.625

Lightship Displacement 5,357 Long TonsFull Load Displacement 7,046 Long Tons

GMt /B 0.141Range 17,560 nautical miles

Maximum Speed 19.7 knotsSustained Speed 18.0 knotsLead Ship Cost $1.27 Billion (FY11)

Follow Ship Cost $977 Million (FY11)Crew 124

Accommodations 156