2005-05

NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED


NATO NAVAL GROUP 6 SPECIALIST TEAM ON SMALL SHIP DESIGN

NATO/PfP WORKING PAPER ON SMALL SHIP DESIGN

May 2004



Executive Summary

Introduction NATO Naval Armaments Group gave approval in June of 2001 to charter a Specialist Team on Small Ship Design (ST-SSD) to produce a Naval Group 6 Working Paper on acceptable criteria, standards and specifications for the design and construction of small littoral combatant (SLC) ships and offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) with displacements of approximately 600 tons to approximately 2000 tons. The propose of chartering this team, beyond development of the working paper, was to stimulate new thinking in small ship acquisition, evaluate standardized formats for NATO -PfP ship specifications, and to acquire and spread new information on technology and materials suitable for small ships. The work of the Specialist Team on Small Ship Design was carried out by the following NATO and Partner for Peace Nations: Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Greece, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the United States. Specific tasks for the Specialist Team on Small Ship Design (STSSD) are outlined in the Terms of Reference and included the following:

(a) Develop a common understanding between all ST participants on design guidance and standards for small ships.

(b) Conduct a survey and compilation of national commercial and naval ship design and performance criteria, standards and specifications. Review new classification society rules for naval ships to find out their suitability to small naval ship design and construction.

(c) Make recommendations on insertions and/or modifications to relevant STANAGS and ANEPS to incorporate small ship design standards.

(d) Survey national design and acquisition processes for small ships. (e) Develop a standardized template (annotated outline format) for small ship specifications. This

template shall cover platform and combat systems (including communications). (f) Develop a compilation of technologies and materials typical to small ship designs including but

not limited to: - Modular construction - Alternative and Advanced Hull Forms - Power Systems and Propulsion Alternatives - Standardized MEP and RAS Equipment - Composite and Other Alternative Materials - Signature Management - Ship Vulnerability Reduction Measures - Sea and Air Vehicle Launch and Recovery - Manning / Human Factors / Automation / Maintenance Philosophy - Life Cycle Cost

Common Understanding of OPVs and SLCs The nations participating in this work had widely varying definitions of OPVs and SLCs. Therefore, one of the first tasks was to develop a common understanding of what is an OPV and what is an SLC. Based on a comprehensive review of existing ships, it was decided that these definitions could best be developed by first methodically defining a hierarchy of missions, operations, tasks functions and capabilities. It was agreed that naval operations could be categorized according to four operational clusters: Military Aid, Military Patrol, Military Control and Military Power. Military Aid refers to all benign operations like humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations. Military Patrol refers to law enforcement or constabulary operations. Military Control refers to all naval sea control operations. Military Power refers to all Power Projection operations.



Both Military Control and Military Power clusters are related to operations often conducted in a medium- or high-threat environment. They are, therefore, operations typically conducted by a SLC. OPVs are specialized in conducting Military Patrol operations. Often OPVs also have inherent capabilities to conduct humanitarian and disaster relief operations. As an alternative, SLCs can also be used to conduct Military Aid and Military Patrol. These operations, however, are often defined as their secondary mission. A similar cluster, often used when defining these secondary missions related to surface combatants, is Peace Operations or Operations other than war this is the NATO-equivalent of Non-Article 5 Crisis Response Operations (NA5CRO) and not only refers to Military Aid and Military Patrol operations but also includes Military Control (or Sea Control) insofar as these are limited to Peace Support Operations as defined by the UN and implemented by NATO. Figure 1, illustrates the how these four operational clusters define the OPV and SLCs. This figure also illustrates the overlap between OPV and SLC operations.

Figure 1: Operations Template versus OPVs and SLCs Having established a basic understanding of the hierarchy of operations for the SLCs and OPVs, platform characteristics, performance associated with the execution of assigned tasks, and the equipment required to conduct the tasks were than agreed to. This information was then used to develop four notional designs and a limited number of trade studies that formed the basis of the teams understanding of OPVs and SLCs. The following common understanding was developed of what a SLC is and what an OPV is. Small littoral combatants and OPVs often are about the same size and operate in similar environments, but they are otherwise very different. SLCs are ships designed for operation in a dense, high threat, combat environment within the reach of ground based attack aircraft and shore based anti-ship missiles, currently meaning ships normally operating up to about 250 nautical miles offshore. Small littoral combatants conduct warfighting tasks, whereas OPVs enforce maritime law and perform search and rescue and humanitarian tasks. SLCs are far more comprehensively equipped with sensors, C4ISR systems and weapons. SLCs can vary from limited single task to larger multi-task ships that can conduct offensive or defensive missions for all types of naval warfare. Because of their limited sustainability SLCs generally operate from fixed shore bases or forward based depot ships. They generally depart, conduct an operation, and return without replenishment. As compared to OPVs, SLCs generally have much higher speed, follow naval design practices, have improved survivability and have much lower signatures

Military Power(Power Projection)

Military Control(Sea Control)

Military Aid(Benign)

Military Patrol(Constabulary)

War Operations

Peace Operations

Peace SupportOther Operations and Tasks

Small Surface Combatant (Corvette)

Offshore Patrol Vessel

Primary Operations Secondary Operations

Naval Operations Template



Because they generally are slower, OPV hulls tend to be fuller than those of SLCs, with a higher displacement-to-length ratio. Slower OPVs also have relatively less installed propulsive power. Because of the differences in task-related equipment and lack of dedicated damage control teams, OPVs can have smaller crews, particularly because they are often comprised of professional mariners in lieu of high turnover, less experienced, military personnel. High-speed SLCs have hull, mechanical and electrical equipment that is designed to meet lightweight naval standards. They have high payload-area and payload-weight fractions, austere habitability, and extensive redundancy and separation for high availability and combat survivability. The hulls of SLCs are also designed to meet demanding naval intact and damaged stability standards. Conversely, OPV propulsion plants often have specialized propulsion systems for low speed loiter operations. Most significant is the obvious difference in the ratio of payload-to-total program cost. In SLCs the proportionate allocation of program cost to the payload should be very high because of the relatively high ratio of combat system payload weight -to-light ship weight, whereas in OPVs this ratio should be expected to be much lower. Similarly, the overall cost-per-ton of SLCs is expected to be considerably higher than that for OPVs. Common Understanding of Rules and Standards One of the major objectives of the Specialist Team on Small Ship Design was to examine and reach a common understanding of the rules and standards that are applicable to small ship design. The team addressed this by examining the relevance of existing NATO publications to small ships, examining the rules and standards currently in use by the navies and coast guards of the nations participating in this study, and by examining the recently published Naval Vessel Rules of several Ship Classification Societies. The team reviewed thirty-nine NATO documents for applicability to SLCs and OPVs. Of the documents reviewed, seven were Allied Maritime Environmental Protection Publications (AMEPP), 15 were Allied Naval Engineering Publications (ANEP) and 17 were Standardization agreements. In general it was found that many of these documents are applicable or partially applicable to small ship design, however many of these documents are out dated and generally in need of revision to reflect current developments and trends in naval vessel design and operation. The study of the rules and standards employed in small ship design considered seven small combatants and six OPVs. The study included consideration of Classification Society Rules used in the design and construction of the ships, environmental regulations, requirements for personnel safety, seakeeping requirements, standards for specifying speed and powering requirements, maneuverability, accessibility requirements, survivability requirements, signature management, intact and damage stability, structural design loads and response criteria and electric system requirements. Also habitability requirements were considered. In general it was found that many nations make use of Classification Society Rules for guidance in the design and construction of the ships, however most nations did not class the ships with the Classification Society. Many nations also made use of the International Maritime Organizations High Speed Craft Code. All of the ships considered comply with the International Maritime Organizations MARPOL regulations. Most ships were designed to national safety regulations, however some ships were designed to either NATO ANEP 24, 25 and 26 or SOLAS requirements. Many nations employed STANAG 4154 for the specification of seakeeping requirements. Most nations utilized national standards for speed/power, maneuverability, vulnerability, signature management and stability requirements. National Acquisition and Design Processes NATO member and Partner for Peace nations employ a variety of ship acquisition strategies. Generally all nations utilize the same ship design process which consists of four phases: Pre-feasibility; Feasibility, Conceptual and Preliminary Design; Contract Design; and Detailed Design. The biggest differences in the nations design processes are which phases of design are accomplished within the government and which are contracted out to the ship builder, this directly influences the type of specification utilized for the ship acquisition. For design efforts that are contracted to the ship builder early in the design process high-level guidance is usually provided from the government in the form of a performance specification,



while design efforts that are developed to a high degree of fidelity under government control, usually result in the government issuing a design specification. A specification template was developed that is broad enough in scope to account for the varying acquisition processes in use. This ship specification template provides a guide from which either a unique performance specification or a design specification or both can be developed. It is anticipated that if a rigours system-engineering process is employed both a performance specification and a design specification will need to be developed before detailed design and construction of the ship can begin. Mission Modularity Smaller ships with limited capabilities automatically reduce the flexibility of the platform. Since the specific capabilities related to humanitarian assistance and peace support operations are difficult to accommodate on the same platform, other solutions are needed. A possible solution could be the development of the fleet concept based on dedicated ships optimized for specific tasks. This could lead to a need for a large diversity of ships. However, both the development and in-service costs strongly favor the limitation in the number of ship types or platforms within the fleet. This is where mission modularity can be an outcome. Mission modularity refers to the reconfigurability of the ship: task-related equipment modules; manned or unmanned off-board vehicles; task-related manning detachments; or a combination of all these elements could be used to adapt the ship to the demands of a specific missions. Mission modularity is considered from the aspect of operational flexibility during the mission, including time and the logistics required to reconfigure the ship have to be taken into account and the consequences for mission employment. It also investigating the need for accurate configuration management. Alternative and Advanced Hull Forms ANEP 52 on Advanced Naval Vehicles was published in the mid 1990s to summarize the work of NATO group SWG/6. The vessel types covered in the ANEP were:

- Air Cushion Vehicles (ACV) - Surface Effect Ships (SES) - Small Waterplane Are Twin Hull (SWATH) - Catamaran - Trimaran - Hydrofoil

Developments of these hull form types since ANEP 52 was reviewed and developments in advanced hull forms through 2003 are discussed. In ANEP 52 the monohull was used as a basis of comparison for all of the alternatives considered. However the team found that there had been a number of developments related to monohull design for special applications that warranted coverage in this working paper. The team found a number of ships had been built since ANEP 52 was published utilizing the alternative hull forms and the state of technology had advanced somewhat, however the majority of ANEP 52 is still valid today. Power Generation and Propulsion System Alternatives Power generation systems and propulsion alternatives were also considered. It was found that the most common prime movers used for OPV and SLC were high or medium speed diesel engines, gas turbines or a combination of gas turbines and diesel engines. The most common types of propulsors in use on these types of ships were found to be fixed and controllable pitch propellers, waterjets or a combination of waterjets and propellers. The actual configuration of prime movers and propulsors is heavily dependent upon the mission profile and the life cycle cost goals of the ship and these factors need to be considered before determining the configuration of prime movers and propulsors.



Marine Environmental Protection The issue of Marine Environmental Protection (MEP) is a very significant issue for OPVs and SLCs because of their likely operation in coastal waters. The standardization of MEP equipment for OPVs and SLCs benefits from the fact that technical solutions are not specific to military shipping. Hence, and taking into consideration specific military requirements (like shock resistance), it is frequently acceptable to incorporate COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) solutions for ships of the fishing, transportation and recreation industries of relatively similar size ships and crew. Taking into consideration current practices in modern navies, the following baseline proposal for a small ship should provide complete compliance with MARPOL regulations, and probably with most NATO countries national legislation:

a) Oily water. A dry bilge system is preferable because it is much cleaner than the wet bilge system, and because it brings along advantages in respect to fire fighting.

b) Sewage. There are wide ranging sewage systems are available as COTS that are MARPOL compliant, ranging from simple toilets with individual holding tanks to complex biological and chemical treatment systems.

c) Grey water. Most COTS solutions contemplate only gravity collection to a holding tank system with a pump that is activated by a level sensor, discharging overboard.

d) Food. There are simple COTS galley sink pulpers, discharging to a holding tank or to the ships sewage treatment plant, or separate pulpers/shredders. Generally, food waste is submitted to grinding and/or pulping with seawater or fresh water and discharged overboard. coastal waters operations, however, deserve further investigation into this issue.

e) Other solid waste. The complex separation and separate processing currently considered to be adequate to large ships is too demanding on small ships weight and space resources. In order to ensure compliance with MARPOL regulations, the vessel should be equipped at least with separation bins for plastics, metal and glass, hazardous waste and medical waste.

Replenishment At Sea

From the strategic viewpoint, one of the most important capabilities of a naval force is the ability to sustain operations at sea. However, the extent of time on station depends on the rate of consumption of a variety of consumables, which include provisions, fresh water, fuel, medical stores, spare parts and ammunition. It is noted that while a ship can be continuously replenished, the limiting factor for small ships will be the crews endurance to physical and mental fatigue.

Small ship Replenishment at Sea (RAS) requirements are extremely variable. It is of no operational gain to fit a small ship with RAS arrangements to permit it to operate for an unlimited period of time at sea if crew fatigue becomes critical after a given period at sea.

As a baseline proposal for small ship RAS arrangements, probably the most sensible concept would simply be some form of fuel and solids receiving, associated with VERTREP as a second line of emergency procedures (for example, evacuation of sick personnel). Materials Materials appropriate for the construction of OPVs and SLCs were also addressed. It was noted that steel is still the most common material used to construct OPVs and SLCs, however aluminium and composites are increasingly being used because they can result in lighter weight and thus increase speed and decreased draft. Composites also can be beneficial in reducing some signatures of small ships.



Over the last 20 years new metallurgical processes have resulted in the development of new micro structures, new chemical compositions and thermal treatments for steels which have combined to double of the elastic limit of steel from 230N/mm2 to over 500N/mm2. In addition current steels have resulted in greater toughness, and the weldability of some steels has been significantly improved, for example by reducing the need for pre-heating. There have not been any significant recent advances in the aluminium alloys used in the construction of small naval ships. However, because of its low weight, the use of aluminium remains a popular choice despite problems associated with softening of the heat affected zone due to welding, low resistance to high temperatures and the susceptibility to certain types of corrosion. There has been significant interest in the use of composites to construct high-speed military ships over the last ten years because of the advantages of high strength and lower weight, reduced signatures (radar and magnetic), and low preventative maintenance costs. Carbon fiber is much stiffer than glass fiber and hence allows composite materials to be feasible for larger ships, but carbon fiber remains very expensive. The primary reasons that composites have not gained greater acceptance for use in military ships is that design methods and testing supporting the development of design criteria are not well documented. There are still concerns with fire resistance and toxicity of burning resins and material properties of structure are still highly dependent on the skill of the work force and can vary considerably from yard to yard and work crew to work crew. Additionally uniform quality assurance and test procedures have not been established. Signature Management Given the missions many OPVs and SLCs are required to perform, the management of ship signatures, is necessary for many of these missions to be successfully executed. Today ship signatures above the water surface consist of Optical, Radar, Emitted signals, Infrared and other signatures while the underwater signatures consist of Electric, Pressure, Acoustic, Magnetic, and Wake. Managing or controlling ship signatures adds significantly to the construction and life cycle cost of the ship and for this reason signature management and the associated costs should be included in the discussions of the missions of the ship and the perceived threats to the ship. Ship signatures are generated by either pressure waves or electro magnetic waves. Pressure waves can be further segregated into noise (high frequency) or pressure (low frequency) and electromagnetic waves can be segregated into radio and radar waves, heat radiation, visible light and eletromagnetic field disturbances. Different signatures are detected with different types of sensors. To be able to avoid detection in most operating areas all threat sensors must be taken into account. Signature management must lead to a balanced approach to prevent any type of sensor to break through. This, once again, is connected to the type of mission and the threat of the ship. This may sometimes result in a conflict since it can be hard to simultaneously manage radar, infrared and optical signatures. Design and choice of hull superstructure materials that are suitable for radar cross section reduction may often also be suitable for other signature aspects. Vulnerability Reduction Vulnerability reduction is a primary objective in the design of all military ships. However its a particular challenge for small OPVs and SLCs. Given the inherent constraints applicable to SLCs, the vulnerability reduction considerations for SLCs cannot follow frigate practice. Moreover SLCs are often more likely to be engaged by small craft, terrorists or shore defenses and therefore have to consider ballistic protection against very different threats than larger combatants. Defeating small caliber (7.62 to 23 mm) projectiles and/or terrorist rocket propelled grenades can be relatively more demanding than providing enhanced fragment protection, or even constraining the damage caused by larger warheads. Conversely SLC design might still address less catastrophic threats. These include:



Ballistic protection against small caliber weapons and/or terrorist threats, Shock protection against mines and near miss weapons, NBC attack

The prioritization and resources allocated to these threats will depend on mission requirements. Sea and Air Vehicle Launch and Recovery A survey of recently launched OPVs and SLCs revealed that the most common means of launching and recovering small boats are either by a ramp built into the stern of the ship or by a single point davit, either a slewing arm or pivoting arm type. Many of the designers of the most recently commissioned ships selected a stern ramp as a means to launch and recover the small boat because this method required fewer personnel to recover the boat, the costs to maintain the system were less, while the boats could be launched and recovered in similar environmental conditions the boats recovered using davits. A survey of research facilities also indicated that many ships currently being designed where also investigating through model testing the effectiveness of boat launch and recovery via stern ramps. Many of the tasks of OPVs and SLCs today also necessitate that medium and heavy weight helicopters be integrated with these small ships to perform in advanced sea conditions. In addition, there is growing interest in being able to launch and recover unmanned aerial vehicles from these types of ships. The problem with small ships is that as ship displacement decreases, ship motions increase, which elevates the need for operational guidance and places greater demand on the securing and handling equipment. Additionally because the size of the crews of the ships being studied is limited, manual securing and traversing of the helicopter places a great burden on the crew. Another significant challenge for recovering aircraft on small ships is providing the pilot with accurate and current guidance on when it is safe to land on the deck of the ship during periods of reduced visibility, high seas and at night and securing and handling the aircraft once it is on the deck. Securing systems and combination securing and traversing systems are available from a number of manufacturers that are suitable for use on small ships. Today work is ongoing to optimize a number of systems to extend the range of helicopter operations and make them safer. These systems include approach and landing guidance systems, securing systems and combination securing and traversing systems. The approach and landing guidance systems and securing systems offer great promise in improving helicopter launch and recovery capabilities of small ships. Manning Management Manning has become a major issue in the design of all military ships. While different countries have different philosophies on manning, driven primarily by political considerations, all nations realize that the way the ship will be manned has significant influence on the acquisition and life cycle cost of the ship. Manning is just one part of the management concept of how the ship will be operated and maintained. It is recognized that the development of management concepts and optimizing crew size is independent of the size of the ship; the same analysis principles should be followed for a frigate as for a SLC. This paper outlines a method for developing a management concept for small military ships and provides an example application of this method for the four notional designs discussed earlier. Life Cycle Cost Life cycle costs for OPVs and SLCs are investigated, with focus on the major elements contributing to the life cycle cost of these ships. The life cycle costs of the four notional designs are derived and compared with the life cycle cost of a representative frigate to understand the cost implications of operating small military ships. It is shown that both acquisition cost and annual operating cost per ton decreases as displacement increases. Also it is shown that the cost to build and operate an OPV is much lower then



the cost to build and operate a SLC and that SLCs are expensive relative to frigates or other larger surface combatants. Recommendations The Terms of Reference for NATO Naval Group 6, Specialist Team on Small Ship Design established a board set of tasks to be accomplished in a relatively short period of time. All of these tasks have been accomplished; some in greater detail than others, however there are a number of recommendations that have developed as a result of this work:

(a) Establish a Specialist Team on Mission Modularity to address mission analysis and systems engineering processes to support decision and design aspects of incorporating modularity into naval ships.

(b) Establish a Specialist Team to address launch/recovery of Unmanned and Manned Vehicles. (c) Establish a Specialist Team to address survivability and Vulnerability of Small Ships to

Asymmetrical Threats. This team should be open to Partners for Peace (PfP) Nations. (d) Establish a Specialist Team on Composite Materials to address application and design of

composite materials in naval vessels. (e) Establish a Specialist Team to update ANEP 52 on Advanced/Alternative Hull Forms to

address developments with multihulls and monohulls since ANEP 52 was published.



NATO/PfP Working Paper Small Ship Design

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Aim of the Specialist Team on Small Ship Design............................................... 2 1.4 General Work Process...................................................................................... 2 2.0 Terminology and Definitions .......................................................................................... 4 2.1 Technical Terms and Definitions ........................................................................ 4 2.2 Acronyms......................................................................................................... 4 3.0 Offshore Patrol Vessels and Small Littoral Combatants................................................... 7 3.1 Definition of Ship Types .................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 7 3.1.2 General Missions Requirement ................................................................ 7 3.1.3 Tasks ..................................................................................................... 12 3.1.4 Task-Related Characteristics ................................................................... 14 3.1.5 Task-Related Equipment ......................................................................... 15 3.1.6 Ship Characteristics ................................................................................ 17 3.1.7 Summary ................................................................................................ 17 3.2 Small Littoral Combatants and Offshore Patrol Vessels....................................... 18 3.2.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 18 3.2.2 600-Tonne Offshore Patrol Vessel............................................................ 23 3.2.3 2000-Tonne Offshore Patrol Vessel .......................................................... 25 3.2.4 600-Tonne Small Littoral Combatant......................................................... 27 3.2.5 2000-Tonne Small Littoral Combatant ....................................................... 31 3.2.6 Comparison of Offshore Patrol Vessels and Small Littoral Combatants....... 35 3.3 Acquisition Costs.............................................................................................. 37 3.4 Sensitivity Studies ............................................................................................ 41 3.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 41 3.4.2 600-Tonne Offshore Patrol Vessel Studies ................................................ 46 3.4.3 2000-Tonne Offshore Patrol Vessel Studies .............................................. 47 3.4.4 600-Tonne Small Littoral Combatant Studies ............................................ 48 3.4.5 2000-Tonne Small Littoral Combatant Studies ........................................... 51 4.0 Rules and Standards Applied in Small Ship Design ........................................................ 61 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 61 4.2 Review of NATO ANEPS and STANAGS ........................................................... 61 4.3 Rules and Standards Applied in Small Ship Design Top Level Comparison ....... 63 4.4 Review of Classification Society Rules for Naval Ships ....................................... 65 5.0 Small Ship Design, Acquisition and Specification ............................................................ 67 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 67 5.2 National Design and Acquisition Processes ........................................................ 67 5.2.1 Netherlands ............................................................................................ 67 5.2.2 United States Navy/Coast Guard.............................................................. 68 5.2.3 Turkish Navy ........................................................................................... 68 5.2.4 Portugese Navy ...................................................................................... 69 5.2.5 Italian Navy ............................................................................................. 70




TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

PAGE 5.2.6 Norwegian Skjold Class FPB Acquisition Process ..................................... 71 5.2.7 Finnish Navy ........................................................................................... 71 5.2.8 Ukraine................................................................................................... 72 5.2.9 Polish Navy ............................................................................................ 73 5.2.10 Swedish Navy ....................................................................................... 74 5.3 Standardized Specification ................................................................................ 74 5.3.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 74 5.3.2 Scope..................................................................................................... 75 5.3.3 Organization ........................................................................................... 76 6.0 Small Ship Technology ................................................................................................. 77 6.1 Mission Modularity............................................................................................ 77 6.1.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 77 6.1.2 What is Mission Modularity?..................................................................... 77 6.1.3 Applications ............................................................................................ 78 6.1.4 Design Characteristics............................................................................. 80 6.1.5 Advantages and Disadvantages ............................................................... 81 6.1.6 When is Mission Modularity an Option? .................................................... 82 6.1.7 Seaframe versus Candidates for Modularization........................................ 86 6.1.8 Cascaded Modularity............................................................................... 87 6.1.9 Mission Modularity: Old Solution With New Perspectives ........................... 87 6.2 Alternative and Advanced Hull Forms ................................................................ 88 6.2.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 88 6.2.2 Monohull................................................................................................. 90 6.2.3 Air Cushion Vehicles ............................................................................... 91 6.2.4 Catamaran.............................................................................................. 95 6.2.5 Surface Effect Ships ................................................................................ 98 6.2.6 Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull ............................................................. 102 6.2.7 Trimaran ................................................................................................. 102 6.2.8 Hydrofoil. 106 6.3 Power Systems and Propulsion Alternatives ....................................................... 107 6.3.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 107 6.3.2 Types of Power Generation...................................................................... 108 6.3.3 Diesel Engines ........................................................................................ 110 6.3.4 Gas Turbines .......................................................................................... 111 6.4 Standardized Marine Environmental Protection Equipment.................................. 112 6.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 112 6.4.2 Problem Definition Evaluation of Waste Stream Produced by Small Ships 113 6.4.3 Shipboard Waste Abatement Policies ....................................................... 113 6.4.4 MEP Requirements in Small Ship Design ................................................. 114 6.4.5 Proposal for a Baseline MEP Equipment Plant for Small Ships ................... 115 6.5 Standardized Replenishment at Sea (RAS) Equipment ....................................... 116 6.5.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 116 6.5.2 Problem Definition Evaluation of Replenishment Requirements Applicable to Small Ships......................................................................................... 116 6.5.3 RAS Requirements in Small Ship Design .................................................. 117 6.5.4 Proposal for a Baseline RAS Arrangement for Small Ships ........................ 117




TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

PAGE 6.6 Composite Materials and Comparison with Other Materials Commonly Used for Naval Shipbuilding ............................................................................................ 117 6.6.1 Steel....................................................................................................... 118 6.6.2 Aluminum Alloy ....................................................................................... 120 6.6.3 Composite Materials................................................................................ 120 6.6.4 Fibers ..................................................................................................... 122 6.6.5 Resins .................................................................................................... 123 6.6.6 Single Skin and Sandwich Configuration ................................................... 123 6.6.7 Advantages of Composites ...................................................................... 124 6.6.8 Disadvantages of Composites .................................................................. 125 6.6.9 Significant Experiences with FRP Solutions .............................................. 125 6.7 Signature Management ..................................................................................... 131 6.7.1 Radar Cross-Section Signatures (RCS) .................................................... 132 6.7.2 Infrared Signature (IR)............................................................................. 134 6.7.3 Acoustic Signature .................................................................................. 135 6.7.4 Electromagnetic Signature....................................................................... 135 6.7.5 Optical Signature..................................................................................... 136 6.7.6 Wake Signature ...................................................................................... 136 6.7.7 Electromagnetic Emissions/Electromagnetic Compatibility ......................... 137 6.7.8 Pressure Signature.................................................................................. 137 6.8 Small Surface Combatant Ship Vulnerability Reduction Measures ....................... 138 6.8.1 Vulnerability Reduction Objectives ........................................................... 138 6.9 Sea and Air Vehicle Launch and Recovery ......................................................... 143 6.9.1 Size of Ship ............................................................................................ 143 6.9.2 Type and Size of Small Boat .................................................................... 144 6.9.3 Types of Systems.................................................................................... 144 6.9.4 Ramp Design Considerations ................................................................... 144 6.9.5 Equipment .............................................................................................. 145 6.9.6 Launch and Recovery Operations ............................................................ 146 6.9.7 Design and Operational Sea States .......................................................... 147 6.9.8 Manning Requirements............................................................................ 148 6.9.9 Stern Wake Influence on Recovery........................................................... 149 6.9.10 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 149 6.9.11 Other Boat Launch and Recovery Systems............................................. 149 6.9.12 Aircraft Launch and Recovery Systems................................................... 150 6.10 Manning/Human Factors/Automation/Maintenance Philosophy ............................ 151 6.10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 151 6.10.2 Manning Concepts ................................................................................ 152 6.10.3 Application of Manning Theory ............................................................... 158 6.10.4 Manning Trends and Future Research.................................................... 171 6.11 Life-Cycle Cost................................................................................................. 175 6.12 Corrosion and Antifouling.................................................................................. 182 6.12.1 Influencing Variables ............................................................................. 182 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................. 184 7.1 Conclusions.. 184 7.2 Recommendations.. 185 8.0 References .................................................................................................................. 186




APPENDICES

9.1 600-Tonne OPV Synthesis Model Output 9.2 2000-Tonne OPV Synthesis Model Output 9.3 600-Tonne SLC Synthesis Model Output 9.4 2000-Tonne SLC Synthesis Model Output 9.5 Ship Rules and Standards Comparison Table 9.6 Characteristics of Ships Considered in Rules and Standards Comparison 9.7 Specification Template 9.8 Hull Form 9.9 Waste Stream Categories 9.10 Worked Example of OPV & FPB Waste Steams 9.11 Worked Example of OPV & FPB RAS Requirements 9.12 Example of the Royal Australian Navys RAS Arrangements Onboard Small Ships 9.13 Signature Management 9.14 Protection Against A Nuclear Electro Magnetic Field (NEMP) 9.15 Damage Radii and Fragment Density Reduction 9.16 Proposal for the Strengthening of Deck Stringers




LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE 3.1-1 Hierarchy of Missions, Operations, Tasks, Functions and Capabilities .............................. 7 3.1-2a Military Employment versus Functional Spectrum ........................................................... 8 3.1-2b Military Employment versus Sustainability Spectrum ....................................................... 8 3.1-3 Small Ship Design Operations Template versus OPVs and SLCs .................................... 9 3.1-4 Small Ship Design Operations Template ........................................................................ 10 3.1-5 SLC Capability versus Size ........................................................................................ 14 3.2-1 600-Tonne OPV Inboard Profile & Summary of Ship Characteristics................................ 23 3.2-2 2000-Tonne OPV Inboard Profile & Summary of Ship Characteristics .............................. 25 3.2-3 600-Tonne SLC Inboard Profile & Summary of Ship Characteristics................................. 28 3.2-4 2000-Tonne SLC Inboard Profile & Summary of Ship Characteristics............................... 31 3.2-5 Comparison of Arrangeable Deck Area .......................................................................... 36 3.2-6 Comparison of Light Ship Displacement ......................................................................... 37 3.3-1 Relative Lead Ship Costs.............................................................................................. 39 3.3-2 OPV vs. SLC Distribution of Lead Ship Costs ................................................................. 39 3.3-3 OPV vs. SLC Platform Cost/Light Ship Tonne ................................................................ 40 3.3-4 OPVs vs. SLCs Total Cost per Tonne ............................................................................ 40 3.4-1 Impact of Added Hull or Superstructure Volume.. 59 5.3-1 Needs versus System Requirements ............................................................................. 75 5.3-2 Total-System Approach................................................................................................. 75 6.1-1 Blohm + Voss MEKO(R) Concept .................................................................................... 77 6.1-2a Standard Inferface FLEX Container ............................................................................... 78 6.1-2b FLEX Container Placed Onboard................................................................................... 78 6.1-2c Module for 76mm Gun .................................................................................................. 78 6.1-3 STANFLEX Concept ..................................................................................................... 79 6.1-4 Role Flexibility of STANDARD FLE X 300 ....................................................................... 80 6.1-5 Tasks of Both a Multi-Mission Frigate and an OPV Executed by a Corvette Using Mission Modularity........................................................................................................ 81 6.1-6 Mission Requirements Breakdown Structure .................................................................. 82 6.1-7 Relationship between Generic Function versus Tasks..................................................... 83 6.1-8 Ship Functions vers us Applicable Mission Modularity...................................................... 84 6.1-9 Capabilities Matrix Tasks versus Functions ................................................................. 85 6.1-10 Generic Tasks Related to the Four Clusters of SSD Operations....................................... 85 6.1-11 Capabiities Matrices ..................................................................................................... 86 6.1-12 ASW FLEX-Container Onboard Danish STANFLEX........................................................ 86 6.2-1 Section Through Side Seal Assembly ............................................................................ 95 6.2-2 Low-Profile Bow Thruster Nozzle................................................................................... 96 6.2-3 Catamaran Hull Configuration ....................................................................................... 97 6.6-1 Typical Single-Skin Construction ................................................................................... 124 6.6-2 The FRP-Sandwich Principle: Two Stiff Faces Separated by a Light Core Material .......... 124 6.6-3 Italian Light Combatant Vessel ...................................................................................... 125 6.6-4 FRP Superstructure for Fourth Vessel............................................................................ 126 6.6-5 Composite Assembly Sequence .................................................................................... 127 6.6-6 Single Skin Reinforced with Stiffeners ............................................................................ 127 6.6-7 Sandwich Construction Reinforced with Stiffeners .......................................................... 128 6.6-8 Visby Corvette.............................................................................................................. 128 6.7-1 Signatures ................................................................................................................... 131 6.7-2 Reflection Angle ........................................................................................................... 132 6.7-3 Example of Magnetic Signature ..................................................................................... 136 6.10-1 Personnel in Ship Control Center (SCC), Controlling and Monitoring Platform Systems..... 151 6.10-2 Waterfall Principle......................................................................................................... 152




LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

PAGE 6.10-3 Peak Load and Workload.............................................................................................. 153 6.10-4 Action State Generates a High Workload and Peak Load................................................ 153 6.10-5 Mechanization of Seamanship Could Reduce the Total Amount of Crew.......................... 154 6.10-6 Difference in the Division of Quick Reaction and Support Personnel in Present Situation and With a Reduced Crew ............................................................................................ 155 6.10-7 Example of a 8+4 Working Schedule ............................................................................. 156 6.10-8 An Example of a Modular Team: A Boarding Team Inspects a Vessel............................. 157 6.10-9 Central Messing ........................................................................................................... 160 6.10-10 Remote Knowledge ...................................................................................................... 161 6.10-11 Chilled Water System ................................................................................................... 162 6.10-12 SCC Console on the Bridge of HNLMS Rotterdam.......................................................... 168 6.10-13 Basic Crew................................................................................................................... 169 6.10-14 Example of Final Crew List............................................................................................ 170 6.10-15 Central Messing ........................................................................................................... 171 6.10-16 Knowledge-at-a-distance .............................................................................................. 172 6.10-17 Chilled Water System ................................................................................................... 173 6.10-18 SCC Console on the Bridge of HNLMS Rotterdam.......................................................... 174 6.11-1 Cash Flow Diagram for Life-Cycle Costs ........................................................................ 176 6.11-2 Cash Flow Diagram for Life-Cycle Costs, with Effects of Inflation ..................................... 177 6.11-3 Ship Total Ownership/Life-Cycle Cost Composition ........................................................ 180 6.11-4 Distribution of Annual Costs .......................................................................................... 181 6.11-5 Annual Life-Cycle and Acquisition Cost versus Displacement .......................................... 181




LIST OF TABLES

PAGE 3.1-1 OPVs vs. SLCs Tasks................................................................................................ 13 3.1-2 OPVs vs. SLCs Task-Related Characteristics.............................................................. 15 3.1-3 OPVs vs. SLCs Task-Related Equipment .................................................................... 16 3.1-4 OPVs vs. SLCs Ship Characteristics........................................................................... 17 3.2-1 Design Study Performance Specification........................................................................ 18 3.2-2 Design Study Margins ................................................................................................... 22 3.2-3 600-Tonne OPV, Required Deck Area ........................................................................... 24 3.2-4 2000-Tonne OPV, Required Deck Area.......................................................................... 26 3.2-5 600-Tonne SLC, Payload Characteristics....................................................................... 29 3.2-6 600-Tonne SLC, Required Deck Area............................................................................ 30 3.2-7 2000-Tonne SLC, Electronics Payload ........................................................................... 32 3.2-8 2000-Tonne SLC, Weapons and Aviation Payload .......................................................... 32 3.2-9 2000-Tonne SLC, Ammunition....................................................................................... 33 3.2-10 2000-Tonne SLC, Payload-Related Area ....................................................................... 33 3.2-11 2000-Tonne SLC, Required Deck Area .......................................................................... 34 3.2-12 Comparison of OPV and SLC Characteristics................................................................. 35 3.3-1 Netherlands and U.S. Coast Guard Cost Estimating Factors ........................................... 38 3.4-1 600-Tonne OPV Studies ............................................................................................... 42 3.4-2 2000-Tonne OPV Studies ............................................................................................. 43 3.4-3 600-Tonne SLC Studies ................................................................................................ 44 3.4-4 Summary of Ship Characteristics, 2000-Tonne SLC Studies............................................ 45 3.4-5 Summary of Results, Volume and Weight Studies .......................................................... 56 4.3-1 NATO Small Ships Considered in Standards/Rules Comparison...................................... 64 4.4-1 Principal Characteristics of Vessel Used for Comparative Calculations............................. 65 4.4-2 Design Global Moments in MN*m, Specified by the Rules ............................................... 66 6.2-1 List of ACVs Built Since 1995........................................................................................ 93 6.4-1 Waste Management Strategies (AMEPP-4, Summary of Table 5A).................................. 113 6.6-1 Material Composition and Mechanical Properties ............................................................ 119 6.6-2 Fiber Characteristics..................................................................................................... 122 6.6-3 Typical Values of Modulus and Strength of Unidirectional Laminates, Considering [email protected] (volume fraction of fiber) ............................................................................................... 123 6.6-4 Comparison of Main Materials for Use in Naval Vessels.................................................. 130 6.7-1 Geometries Contribution to Radar Cross-Section (RCS) ................................................. 133 6.8-1 Vulnerability Reduction Measures versus Ship Size and Threat ....................................... 141 6.9-1 Ship and Ramp Characteristics ..................................................................................... 144 6.9-2 Ship and Boat Characteristics ....................................................................................... 146 6.9-3 Launch Characteristics ................................................................................................. 146 6.9-4 Recovery Characteristics .............................................................................................. 147 6.9-5 Ship and Boat Operating Characteristics........................................................................ 148 6.11-1 Traditional Vessel Life-Cycle Cost Breakdown Structure ................................................. 178 6.11-2 Summary of Annual Costs............................................................................................. 180



1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background NATO has developed and published numerous Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) and Allied Naval Engineering Publications (ANEPs) to define criteria for naval ship design and equipment. These criteria are normally intended for frigate-sized and larger ships and may not be suitable for smaller ship types. Trends toward littoral warfare and higher speeds mean that some nations may develop smaller, lighter, highly optimized and even unconventional ship types. For these ship types, it is not always possible to use equipment or ship systems which are planned and constructed for frigates or larger ship types.

There are a limited number of NATO standards for ship types like fast patrol boats (FPB) and mine counter measures (MCM) vessels. However, these are not necessarily comprehensive, up to date or well known to all NATO and partner nations. Currently, in many NATO countries, there are new ship programs that are still in the early design phase which are within the ship size envelope proposed by this document. Whether they are fast attack craft (FAC), multipurpose corvettes, Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) or MCMs, these projects may offer new information to this study. Likewise, this study can provide useful guidance to these projects and their successors. At the same time, when new ship designs are needed, there is always significant pressure to reduce costs as well as the development times needed for these projects. All navies have found that cost reductions can be achieved by optimizining crews. However, this requires more automation and new ways of using the crew more efficiently. This also means that onboard maintenance must be minimized, and more rational and standardized construction methods must be found. Additionally, instead of using strict military standards, more common commercial standards are now being considered and, at least to some degree, already accepted. The intent of this study is to combine the experience and knowledge of the NATO countries ship design community with the know-how of Partner for Peace (PfP)-countries, which have focused more on the small ship area. This know-how can, in some cases, be more evolutionary, flexible and economical because it was developed with fewer resources and in some cases in conjunction with civilian shipyards or design offices. In many areas, these civilian shipyards and design offices are now at the leading edge of design and construction development. Ship types designed for littoral warfare using commercial standards and smaller crews are typical examples. Consequently, NG/6 proposed that a specialist team (ST) on this demanding ship technical area be established under the approval of NNAG. 1.2 Scope The NATO Naval Armament Group (NNAG) gave approval in June 2001 to convene a Specialist Team to study the area of Small Ship Design. Specific tasks for the Specialist Team on Small Ship Design (ST-SSD) are outlined in the Terms of Reference and include the following:

(g) Develop a Program of Work Schedule to achieve the aim within the time constraints (two years from start of work).

(h) Develop a common understanding between all ST participants on design guidance and standards for small ships.

(i) Conduct a survey and compilation of national commercial and naval ship design practices, performance criteria, standards and specifications. Review new classification society rules for naval ships to determine their suitability for small naval ship design and construction.

(j) Make recommendations on insertions and/or modifications to relevant STANAGS and ANEPS to incorporate small ship design standards.



2

(k) Survey national design and acquisition processes for small ships.

(l) Develop a standardized template (annotated outline format) for small ship specifications. This template shall cover platform and combat systems (including communications). Using this template, develop two example specification models.

- One for a small, light littoral combatant of approximately 600 tonnes. - The second, a paramilitary/commercial standards offshore patrol vessel of approximately

1500 tonnes.

(m) Develop a compilation of technologies and materials typical to small ship designs including, but not limited to:

- Modular Construction - Alternative and Advanced Hull Forms - Power Systems and Propulsion Alternatives - Standardized MEP and RAS Equipment - Composite and Other Alternative Materials - Controlled EMI/EMC - Ship Survivability - Sea and Air Vehicle Launch and Recovery - Manning / Human Factors / Automation / Maintenance Philosophy - Life-Cycle Cost Aspects

(n) Meet periodically as required. Produce and distribute records of meetings and report progress to NG/6 at its regular meetings.

(o) Produce a final report to NG/6 in the form of an NG/6 Working Paper which proposes acceptable criteria, standards, and template specifications for the design and construction of small littoral combatant ships and offshore patrol vessels with displacements of approximately 600 tonnes and 1500 tonnes.

1.3 Aim of the Specialist Team on Small Ship Design The aim of the Specialist Team on Small Ship Design (ST-SSD) is to produce a Naval Group 6 Working Paper on acceptable criteria, standards and specification templates for small ship design and construction. These criteria, standards and specification templates would be for the design and construction of small littoral combatant ships (SLCs) and offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) of approximately 600 tonnes and 2000 tonnes 1. In addition to producing the working paper, the main goals of this study are to stimulate new thinking in small ship acquisition, evaluate standardized formats for NATO-PfP ship specifications, and to acquire and spread new information on technology and materials suitable for small ships. The work of the ST-SSD was carried out by the following NATO and Partner for Peace Nations: Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Greece, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States. 1.4 General Work Process The ST-SSD agreed that the starting point for this work would be a survey of specifications, standards and criteria from existing national small ship projects. This data would be collected and documented so that each nation was aware of the standards and criteria being used to design and build SLCs and 1 The desire of NG/6, before the work of the team began, was to limit the displacement of the ships being studied to 1500 tons or less. However early work by the team suggested that 2000 tons was a more reasonable limit for the types of ships being considered, and the team unanimously agreed to increase the range of ships being studied to 2000 tons.



3

OPVs. No attempt is made to find the single best set of standards or criteria. Typical formats and contents of specifications were considered and the most suitable parts unified to form a model for the small ship specification.

It was agreed by the team that, in developing the specification template, there was no need to establish a common ship type or size requirement because these are normally included in a ship specification. The intent is to develop a model specification that can be tailored to suit either a small generic littoral combatant with all military requirements, or a more paramilitary style ship typically employed by coast guards and based as much as possible on commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) principles. Three work breakdown structures were considered for the specification:

a) The U.S. Navy Ship Work Breakdown Structure, b) The NATO Ship Work Breakdown Structure, and c) The Swedish Navys Naval Installations and Material Specification.

ST-SSD members volunteered to take the lead in researching the small ship technology areas identified in the Terms of Reference. Each team member was free to seek guidance from other applicable NATO groups or rely on their own expertise to conduct this research. The technology areas were assigned as follows:

Ship Survivability Germany Controlled EMI/EMC or Controlled Signatures Sweden Alternative Materials and Composites Italy MEP and RAS Portugal Power Systems and Propulsion Alternatives Spain Life-Cycle Cost Considerations Greece Terrorist Threats U.S. Navy Alternate and Advanced Hull Forms Finland and United Kingdom Modular Construction - Spain Mission Modularity Netherlands Sea and Air Vehicle Launch and Recovery U.S. Coast Guard Manning/Human Factors/Automation/Maintenance - Netherlands

The volunteering nation agreed to act as liasions with other NG/6 chatered work groups on the following areas:

ST-NSM Ship Maneuverability Germany or Sweden SG-61 Virtual Ship Sweden or Germany ST-SC Ship Costing Spain SG-7 Ship Combat Survivability Italy SWG-12 Maritime Environmental Protection Portugal SG/4 Power Generation, Control and Distribution United Kingdom NSG on NBC Defense Netherlands SWG/6 Advanced Naval Vehicles U.S. Navy SWG/10 Naval EEE group



4

2.0 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS This section defines technical terms used in this working paper addressing small ship design. Most of the terms appearing in this working paper are internationally known and accepted as standard expressions. This section is divided into two parts, the first being technical terms and their definitions. The second part addresses acronyms used throughout the working paper. 2.1 Technical Terms and Definitions Anti-Air Warfare (AAW): The naval mission of detecting, identifying and tracking aircraft and missiles, neutralizing hostile aircraft and neutralizing or diverting incoming missiles. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): The naval mission of detecting, identifying and tracking submarines and underwater weapons, neutralizing hostile submarines and neutralizing or diverting incoming underwater weapons. Anti-Surface Ship Warfare (ASuW): The naval mission of detecting, identifying and tracking surface ships and water craft and of neutralizing hostile ships and water craft. Capability: A type of system(s) or an individual that is required to accomplish a particular Function. Function: A specific unit action that delineates how a particular aspect of a task is to be performed. Mine Warfare (MIW): The naval mission associated with mines with the following four submissions:

1. Mine Avoidance: Detecting mines and maneuvering the ship away from the mines. 2. Mine Hunting: Detecting, identifying and neutralizing mines. 3. Mine Sweeping: Clearing mined areas by towing mechanical mine sweeping gear. 4. Mine Laying: Depositing mines in order to build up a mine barrier.

Mission: An assignment with a purpose that clearly indicates the military actions to be taken and the reasons therefore and consists of operations to be carried out simultaneously or in succession. Operation: A military action based on doctrines that supports a Mission and consists of discrete Tasks. Power Projection: the ability to project force from a maritime force into the territory of another state. Sea Control: to attain and maintain a desired degree of freedom of action within an area of the sea (surface, sub-surface, air above and coastal areas) for ones own purposes for a period of time and, if necessary, deny its use to an opponent. Task: A discrete event/action that enables a Mission to be accomplished by individuals or organizations. 2.2 Acronyms ABS American Bureau of Shipping ACV Air Cushion Vehicle ADF Air Defense Frigate AMEPP Allied Maritime Environmental Protection ANEP Allied Naval Engineering Publication AP Armor Piercing B Beam C&M Control and Monitoring



5

C4ISRCommand, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance CB Block Coefficient CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic CIC Combat Information Center CODAG Combined Diesel and Gas Turbine COTS Commercial-off-the-Shelf CP Prismatic Coefficient CPP Controllable Pitch Propeller CRM Corrosion Related Magnetic CSAR Combat Search and Rescue CX Maximum Section Area Coefficient D&C Design and Construction DC Damage Control DNV Det Norske Veritas E/O Electro Optical ECR Engineering Control Room EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EHP Effective Horsepower ELFE Extremely Low Frequency Electric ELINT Electronic Intelligence EMC Electro Magnetic Compatibility EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility EMI Electromagnetic Interference EMP Electro Magnetic Pulse ESSMS Evolved Sea Sparrow Missle System EW Electronic Warfare F/V Future Value FAS Fueling at Sea FC Fire Control FRC Fast Response Craft GFE Government Furnished Equipment GM Metacentric Height GRP Glass Reinforced Plastic HAM Humid Air Motor HM&E Hull, Mechanical and Electrical HSM High Speed Machinery HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning HYSUCAT Hydrofoil-Assisted Catamaran ICCP Impressed Current Corrosion Protection IMO International Maritime Organization IR Infrared ISR Intelligence gathering, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance ITTC International Towing Tank Conference JP-5 Jet Propulsion Fuel JTF -- Joint Task Force KG Vertical Center of Gravi ty LBP Length Between Perpendiculars LCAC Landing Craft Air Cushion LCC Life Cycle Cost LR Lloyds Register of Shipping LCS Littoral Combat Ship MCM Mine Counter Measures MCMV Mine Counter Measure Vessel MEP Marine Environmental Protection NASCRO Non-Article 5 Crisis Response Operations NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization



6

NBC Nuclear, Biological, Chemical NBCD Nuclear, Biological Chemical and Damage Control NEMP Nuclear Electro Magnetic Field NEO Non-Combat Evacuation Operations NSFS Naval Surface Fire Support OPV Offshore Patrol Vessel P/W Present Worth PAPS Phased Armament Programming System PfP Partners for Peace RAM Radar Absorbing Material RAM Rolling Air Frame Missle RAS Replenishment at Sea RCS Radar Cross Section REA Rapid Environmental Assessment RFI Request for Information RFP Request for Proposal RFQ Request for Quotation RHIB Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat RPM Revolutions Per Minute RS Ready Service SAR Search and Rescue SCC Ship Control Center SES Surface Effect Ship SIGINT Signature Intelligence SLC Small Littoral Combatant SLOC Sea Lines of Communication SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea SSA Single Significant Amplitude SSD Small Ship Design SSDG Ship Service Diesel Generator STANAGS Standardization Agreements SWATH Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull TOC Total Ownership Cost UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UEP Underwater Electric Potential UN United Nations USV Unmanned Surface Vehicle UUV Unmanned Undersea Vehicle VERTREP Vertical Replenishment VLS Vertical Launch System VR Vulnerability Reduction VUAV Vertical Take-off-and-Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle



7

3.0 OFFSHORE PATROL VESSELS AND SMALL LITTORAL COMBATANTS 3.1 Definition of Ship Types 3.1.1 Introduction International navies and coast guards have widely varying definitions for offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) and small littoral combatants (SLCs). Based on a comprehensive review of existing ships, it was decided that these definitions could be best developed by methodically analyzing each type of ship. This analysis defined the missions that existing ships perform, the associated platform characteristics and the performance associated with the missions, the equipment required to conduct the missions, and the resulting ship characteristics and performance. 3.1.2 General Missions Requirement A mission analysis is a very important part of the design process for new OPVs and SLCs, particularly where a requirement-based (also referred to as requirement-driven) design process is being used. The success of any requirement-based mission analysis depends on the accurate definition of mission requirements that are determined by its operations, tasks and capabilities. Missions and operations are closely related, and often interrelated, when defining the same set of tasks to be carried out. Whereas a mission defines high-level goals determined by actual threats or undesirable situations, an operation is defined by a specific supporting, pre-defined goal. Operations, therefore, are the toolbox of armed forces or coast guards. This toolbox is to plan and organize the execution of a mission by dividing the job to be done into pre-defined and well-trained parts (Figure 3.1-1).

TASK

OPERATION

TASK

FUNCTION

CAPABILITY

FUNCTION

CAPABILITY

CAPABILITY

MISSION

OPERATION

MISSION MISSION

Figure 3.1-1. Hierarchy of Missions, Operations, Tasks, Functions and Capabilities

3.1.2.1 Small Ships: Displacement vs. Capabilities This Working Paper has been developed for both OPVs and SLCs. Both naval ship types, compared to frigates, are defined as small ships varying from 600 tonnes to 2000 tonnes. However, it is the limitation of a ships capability rather than its displacement that provides a more adequate



8

discriminator. Therefore, a small displacement could be the result of limited capabilities but not necessarily vice versa. The frigate, varying in displacement from 3000 tonnes to 5000 tonnes, remains an important point of reference among navies because it represents the smallest combatant that can conduct extended blue-water missions in a high-threat environment. It is, as a result of these capabilities, also a relatively sophisticated and expensive platform. The missions of OPVs and SLCs, like Corvettes and Fast Attack Craft, mostly involve regional operations, as these ships have limited endurance, range and seakeeping qualities. Additionally, their combat suite has a limited fighting capacity with respect to certain threats. Nonetheless, these platforms can prove extremely useful when supporting or conducting Power Projection missions, especially with respect to littoral operations. The OPV is specifically designed for patrolling the waters of an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and, therefore, specializes in conducting constabulary operations, which is its primary mission. Often, humanitarian and disaster relief operations are tasks also performed by these types of vessels. As these operations are executed in a low-threat environment, these vessels are generally lightly armed (a medium-sized gun). Boarding capabilities are essential to their operations, and these vessels are often equipped with one or two small fast boats. The difference between a Frigate, OPV and Corvette, as defined by the spectrum of their military employment, is presented in the graph in Figure 3.1-2a. A similar relationship can be derived by comparing the military employment and the sustainability of these different types of ships (see Figure 3.1-2b).

Functional spectrum

Incr

easi

ng

vio

len

ce


CorvetteFrigate

Military Power

Military Control

Military Patrol

Military Aid

Figure 3.1-2a. Military Employment versus Functional Spectrum

Sustainability spectrum

OPV

Corvette Frigate

Military

Power

Military Control

Military Patrol

Military Aid

Incr

easi

ng v

iole

nce

Figure 3.1-2b. Military Employment versus Sustainability Spectrum


NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED 9

3.1.2.2 Naval Operations Template for SSD Naval operations can be categorized according to four operational clusters: Military Aid, Military Patrol, Military Control and Military Power. Military Aid refers to all benign operations such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations. Military Patrol refers to all law enforcement or constabulary operations. Military Control refers to all naval Sea Control operations. Military Power refers to all Power Projection operations. Both Military Control and Military Power clusters are related to operations often conducted in a medium or high-threat environment. They are, therefore, operations typically conducted by SLCs. The OPV is specifically designed for conducting Military Patrol operations, which is its primary role. Often, OPVs have built-in capabilities to conduct humanitarian and disaster relief operations. As an alternative, SLCs can also be used to conduct Military Aid and Military Patrol. These operations, however, are often defined as secondary missions. A similar cluster, often used when defining secondary missions related to littoral combatants, is Peace Operations or Operations other than war. This cluster is the NATO equivalent of Non-Article 5 Crisis Response Operations (NA5CRO) and not only refers to Military Aid and Military Patrol operations, but also includes Military Control (or Sea Control) insofar as these are limited to Peace Support Operations as defined by the UN and implemented by NATO. As cost-effectiveness becomes more and more an issue in naval ship design, there is a tendency to design multi-mission SLCs. To prevent the costs of SLCs from rising, modularization is used as an alternative. New OPVs are often equipped with a helicopter deck and hangar to enhance their patrol capabilities. Some nations include space and weight margins for future weapons upgrades with a view to using these ships for expeditionary Peace Support operations, or the equivalent of low threat Sea Control operations. From these developments, as visualized in Figure 3.1-3, it can be concluded that the overlap between OPVs and SLCs becomes more and more profound as far as operations are concerned.





War Operations

Peace Operations

Peace SupportOther Operations and Tasks

Small Surface Combatant (Corvette)


Primary Operations Secondary Operations

Naval Operations Template

Figure 3.1-3. Small Ship Design Operations Template versus OPVs and SLCs

This trend supports the possible use of a general template for Small Ship Design (SSD), defining missions to be carried out by both SLCs and OPVs. Based on the same four operational clusters, a template has been defined which summarizes all naval operations to be conducted by both types of ships. This template is shown in Figure 3.1-4 and can be used as a toolbox for mission analysis purposes.



Protect High Value Units

Gathering Information

Embargoes& Sanctions

Protect Sea Lines of Communications

Amphibious ops

Neutralise Naval Forces

Air Campaign

Land Campaign


Disaster Relief

Non CombatantEvacuation Ops

Humanitarian Operations

Search & Rescue (SAR)




Maritime Security

Safety ofNavigation at Sea

Border Control

EnvironmentalProtection

Support Operations

Naval Logistic Support

Sea Lift

Figure 3.1-4. Small Ship Design Operations Template Generic naval operations, as shown in this template, cover a cluster of operations based on mission similarity. To complete this naval operations template, a separate cluster, normally not conducted by littoral combatants, is added for conducting mission Support Operations . Within the context of this template, these operations concern Naval Logistic Support and Sealift. Naval Logistic Support, in general, extends the function of naval operations to providing spares, maintenance, re-supply of consumables and manpower at sea. Sealift operations are considered to be transport operations conducted to deploy, reinforce and re-supply expeditionary land forces. Both operations mainly concern the support of Military Control and Military Power clusters. 3.1.2.3 Small Ship Design Operations Template To have a better understanding of the naval operations mentioned in the template, each cluster of operations is now defined in more detail.

a. Military Aid (Benign Operations) Disaster Relief Supports efforts to relieve or minimize the results of natural or manmade disasters that might present a serious threat to life or can result in great damage to, or loss of, nature or property. Humanitarian Relief Supplements or complements the efforts of the responsible authorities to relieve or reduce the results of natural or manmade disasters or other endemic conditions that might present a serious threat to human life or result in great damage to, or loss of, property. Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO) Supports the safe and quick removal of civilian non-combatants from an area where they are being, or may be, threatened. Search and Rescue (SAR)



The search for and rescue of personnel in distress, on land or at sea, by means of aircraft, surface craft and submarines, specialized rescue teams and equipment.

b. Military Patrol (Constabulary Operations)

Maritime Security Combating Terrorism:

- Antiterrorism: the protection of individuals and properties at sea to reduce vulnerability for terrorist acts.

- Counter terrorism: offensive measures taken to prevent, deter and respond to terrorism. Anti-Piracy: the protection of individuals and properties at sea to reduce their vulnerability to

acts of piracy. Aid/Support to Civil Authorities: provides legally authorized military assistance to civil

communities or authorities to counter civil disturbance (riots, group acts etc.) and quarantine operations.

Safety of Navigation at Sea Support of vessel safety inspections. Support of maritime traffic control.

Border Control Enforce drug interdiction. Enforce smuggling interdiction. Prevention of illegal immigration.

Environmental Control Marine Pollution Enforcement and Response: responds to hazardous material releases,

restoring contaminated land and water and conserving national natural and cultural resources.

Enforce adherence to legislation on protection of living marine resources (fishing policing).

c. Military Control (Sea Control Operations)

Information Gathering Support of Intelligence Gathering: proactive collection of information to produce useful

predictive intelligence to be disseminated to those who need to know. Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition: systematic observation of areas,

places, persons, objects and targets in order to monitor change or movement of military significance, i.e. to support military operations relevant to strategic, operational and tactical information related to the following areas: - Indications and warning - Planning and employment - Assessment

Protect Sea Lines of Communications (SLOC) Ensure control and dominance of sea routes that connect an operating military force, including their supplies and reinforcements, with their bases of operations by conducting: Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW) Anti Air Warfare (AAW) Mine Warfare (MW):

- Mine Laying: to establish and maintain control of essential sea areas through the use of naval mines to inflict damage on enemy shipping, submarines, and/or to hinder, disrupt and prevent enemy sea operations.



- Mine Counter Measures (MCM): offensive and defensive operations for countering a mine threat, including the prevention of enemy mine-laying.

Protection of High Value Units Protection of naval logistic support to forward-deployed battle forces. Force Protection: conserving the fighting potential of the deployed force by countering the

threat (ASW, ASuW, and AAW). Protection of Extraction Force.

Embargoes & Sanctions Blockades: to isolate a place, especially a port, harbor or part of a coast to prevent enemy

forces from entry or exit. MIO: the enforcement of sanctions that employ coercive measures to interdict the movement

of certain types of designated items into or out of a nation or specified area. (Military objective is to establish a selective barrier).

UN economic sanction enforcement. Peace Support Operations:

- Peacekeeping: monitor and facilitate implementation of an agreement (cease-fire, truce, etc.).

- Peace Enforcement: application of military force, or threat of its use, to compel compliance with resolutions or sanctions designed to maintain or restore peace and order (intervention, forcible separations of belligerents, establishment and supervision of exclusion zones).

d. Military Power (Power Projection Operations)

Amphibious Operations To establish an area of operations for power projection ashore and support of amphibious operations: Establish & protect Sea Lines of Communications. Provide Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) such as gunfire. Conduct beach survey, Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA).

Neutralize Naval Forces Specific targeting of enemy naval forces to ensure:

- protection of own force. - open and protected sea lines of communications to and from the (joint) operation area by

conducting AAW, ASuW and ASW. Destruction of enemy bases/inf

2005-05

Documents