Trans RINA, Vol 153, Part A1, Intl J Maritime Eng, Jan-Mar 2011
Figure 6: The set of Mothership ship options [26] Table 3: Comparison of particulars for the set of Mothership options [26] Study Dock Ship
Heavy Lift Ship Crane Ship
Fast Crane Ship Gantry Ship
Deep Draught Ship SSK Dock Ship
4.3
Length, wl
m
Command Variant 250 Support Variant 255
Beam, wl
m
Draught, Deep
m
250 31 7.2 31 31
250 35 8.1 220 29 7.3 270 30.8
220 29 7.3 250 31.6
94 190 26 6.8 INNOVATIVE OPV STUDIES
This set of studies was another quick investigation as part of a more extensive concept phase and is described in detail in Reference 27. Again the broad ship concept requirement was spelt
out for the study and could
therefore be seen as part of an exploration of different hull configurations to show which of them might bring distinct advantages. The key feature of the operational concept was a modular payload stowage and deployment of a range of Unmanned Vehicles (UXVs) and how hull configurations, markedly different from the usual naval Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV), might facilitate this. Three hull
types were considered: a relatively
Displ, Deep Ballast Speed Range
te 32000 te 25100 8.8
49300 4000 6900 1650
knots 18/25
18/25 18/25 40
nm 10000/18
18800 35500
18/25 18/25 18/25
10000/18 10000/18 10000/40 10000/18 10000/18 10000/18
368
7.2 32200 25100 18/25 10000/18 368 7.15 34000 27000 18/25 10000/18 412 38000 25500 46200 25500 45700 20650
368 257 257 247 247 172
conventional monohull but 1
1.04 1.07 1.13 0.91 1.72 0.9
0.97 0.74
based on a commercial
offshore support vessel; a novel broad transom design; and a medium speed trimaran ship. This set of studies could also be looked on as a discrete investigation to identify whether less conventional ship configurations might provide advantages in meeting a new operational concept.
Figure 7 shows the three configurations,
focusing on the key features of the modular stowage and the means of deploying the assets. Again the use of the DBB approach to explore a physical arrangement as a key driver of a balanced concept design, shows how the architectural element contributes significantly, alongside the technical
balance, in enabling the Requirements Elucidation process.
Accom. Relative UPC
A-32
©2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
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