Trans RINA, Vol 153, Part A1, Intl J Maritime Eng, Jan-Mar 2011
Figure 5: The SURFCON representation of the stern arrangements of the High Speed Adaptable Combatant Study [17]
need to stow and deploy, from the vessel’s stern, several modularised assets made the design configurationally demanding, as can be seen from Figure 5. Without recourse to a full graphical representation in combination with the
PARAMARINE analysis modules, it is doubted if a believable concept
naval architectural analysis, using the design could have
been readily
produced for such an advanced configuration [17]. As such this is a good demonstration of how design insights can provide time, cost and risk inputs to the requirement formulation (see the first bubble of Figure 2) as a demonstration of Requirements Elucidation.
4.2 UK MOTHERSHIP STUDIES
The UCL DRC used the PARAMARINE-SURFCON tool to produce, in conjunction with BMT Defence Services, a series of novel ship concepts [26]. These were distinctly different ship configurations to meet the same operational concept of a fast “mothership” to transport over long distances relatively small naval combatants, which could then be deployed in a littoral environment, thus avoiding the need to deploy large and costly ocean going
combatants. Each ramp and stern of the “mothership”
configurations addressed a different deployment and recovery method, namely, well dock, heavy lift, crane, stern
gantry. The study is
comprehensively described in Reference 26 and so, for the purposes of this review, what is relevant is that the outline requirement was the same for all the designs
©2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
(albeit much less well defined than the previous LCS example), so the point of this set of studies was to propose and investigate possible mothership lift and deployment configurations. It is relevant that such a set of naval architecturally balanced “motherships” design studies could not be investigated to such a level of design fidelity without using an architecturally driven design approach. This can be appreciated from the illustrations, shown in Figure 6, of the six vessel types produced and their summary design characteristics, provided in Table 3. Such a new ship concept is driven by not just the carriage and deployment of the small combatants but also, in most instances, the large water ballasting arrangements required and the considerable stowage capacity for the fuel, necessary to propel the vessel at relatively high speed (26 knots) some 10,000 nmiles. It was found that the architecturally based approach gave a higher degree of confidence in the realism of each of the distinct solution types. In particular the integrated representation of ship architecture and naval architecture mitigated against errors in the modelling, particularly in the interface
between the representations. Without such concept studies,
spatial and numerical such
errors would not be revealed until much later in any subsequent design development when they might then be shown as
unworkable. Again this is an example of early stage concept
exploration,
rendering the specific configuration which maintained
an
investigation on a broad design concept, so exemplifying the difference between Requirements Elucidation and Requirements Engineering.
A-31 open
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 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74