Feature 4
under joint operations with varying “Trials data have only been analysed accurately described and programmed
helicopter types being able to be hosted. at a basic level to establish the conditions into a federation. The implications for
Further versatility in mission capability in which features of the real world Ship both the manned and unmanned aviation
can be achieved for the frigate should Helicopter Operational Limit (SHOL) test and evaluation community may prove
UAVs be incorporated into the aviation for an auto recovery UAV have been to be considerable,” the authors of the joint
capability. Take heed of the corporate produced,” the authors of the paper paper concluded.
lessons and build in excess capability from explained, noting that their paper
the earliest design stage for the service had described the development of a Flight deck design
life of the ship thereby future proofing simulation that functions through a High In a paper entitled: Flight deck and aviation
frigate aviation.” Level Architecture (HLA) Federation, facility designs for future frigates and
creating a reasonable representation of destroyers, Anthony Crow, Nigel Osborne
Auto recovery real-world operations. “This all within a and Andrew McCrimmon of BVT Surface
In a paper entitled: Feasibility studies for controlled environment permitting greater Fleet, UK, reviewed the design aspects of
VTOL AUV autonomous operations with the opportunity to evaluate a candidate system aviation facilities on frigates and destroyers
possibility of shipboard auto recovery using well before the system is brought to sea.” that maximize aircraft availability and
quiescent period prediction, Dr Bernard “Initial at-sea testing shows a tendency capability whilst minimising the impact
Ferrier from Hoffman Engineering Corp to favourably reflect very similar on the other design aims of the ship. Some
in the US, Paul Crossland from QinetiQ computations in the simulator. Whilst typical arrangements were presented
Ltd in the UK, Dr John Duncan from there remains some improvements to be that illustrate these aspects as well an
the UK Ministry of Defence, and David J made, the demonstration was successful,” under-deck hangar to assist exploring
Ludwig from the Office of Naval Research they noted. “In the laboratory, statistical other concepts that could be adopted,
in the US, described work they had analyses are being conducted on focusing mainly on monohull solutions,
jointly been undertaking to demonstrate representative simulated scenarios. Very but with reference to trimaran types too.
the ability to recover a UAV on-board a early preliminary results indicate that both “Often the aviation facility on frigate- or
moving vessel within reasonable safety the test methodology and the automatic destroyer-sized vessels is seen as a capability
margins, regardless of the seaway. landings may be anticipated, fairly that is added to the aft end of the ship.
“The Energy Index, the operative
component of the Landing Period
a scan eagle UaV
Designator, identifies quiescent periods to
is recovered onto
initiate aircraft descent based on aircraft
the flight deck of
deck limit definitions,” they explained,
the amphibious
noting that “dynamic interface simulation
vessel Saipan using
provides the physical information
a ‘Sky Hook’.
from which initial deck limits might be
derived”.
Energy Index quiescent indications
for UAV recovery opportunities were
presented that are outside of current
operating limits. A brief synopsis of the
theory and calculation of the ship motion
simulation and Energy Index program
was discussed, along with the use of
flight simulators to forecast physical deck
motion and deck motion limits.
The authors of the paper went on
to describe UAV flight test programs
using simulation. “Using a realtime
ship motion-based helicopter recovery
monitoring system, operators perform
flight-testing evolutions just as they
would at sea,” they noted. Undercarriage
deflection to encountered deck forces
and aircraft stability was described, as
were the impacts on the proposed deck
limits and improvement of operational
availability.
Warship Technology March 2010 27
WT_Mar-2010_p26-27-28.indd 27 23/02/2010 16:00:40
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44