DOCSLIB.ORG

Landing Craft Stability Standard

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Landing Craft Stability Standard 1 Proceedings of the 11th International Ship Stability Workshop Landing Craft Stability Standard Jeremy Atkins BMT Defence Services Ltd Steve Marshall Sea Systems Group, UK Ministry of Defence Nick Noel-Johnson BMT Defence Services Ltd ABSTRACT The same stability criteria are applied to large and small naval ships and have served them well for many years. Landing craft are very different to warships (around which the standard was designed) putting into question the applicability of naval stability criteria and the assumptions regarding the risk of craft loss. A research programme to derive a new stability standard for UK landing craft is described. Detail is provided regarding the method for establishing operational doctrine, the associated landing craft specific stability hazards and the derivation of new stability criteria that will form a key element of the future standard. KEYWORDS Craft; Doctrine; Dynamic; FREDYN; Freeboard; Landing; Stability; Standard. INTRODUCTION achieving the max GZ >30 degrees), the levels of risk and robustness of the individual criteria Landing craft are complex marine vehicles. and criteria set are not known. They are required to operate in a range of sea environments both independently and from The design of landing craft is often motherships and beaches. Whilst doing this challenging as the craft when operated from they must carry a wide variety of payloads motherships (e.g. Landing Platform Docks including passengers. As a consequence of (LPD)) have a constrained size envelope. Some these factors the craft operate under limitations of the other factors influencing the design are: on deadweight and environment. Draught constrained by depth of water over Accordingly, the safety standards for mothership dock sill; landing craft have to adequately address all Weight constrained by davit launch; these roles and activities. Stability criteria Beam constrained by mothership dock applied to Royal Marine landing craft have dimensions; traditionally been a derivative of Def Stan Range & speed requirements; 02:109. These in themselves are derived on Cargo weight & load and offload longstanding criteria developed by Sarchin & arrangements; Goldberg based on WWII frigate hullforms. Crew access. Whilst their applicability to landing craft may not be inappropriate, although challenging (e.g. 2 Proceedings of the 11th International Ship Stability Workshop This paper describes the considerations, Key conclusions specific to landing craft methodology and process for the development operation and design drawn from the exercise of a bespoke stability standard for landing craft. are as follows: The scope of the standard will address all the performance requirements of the Naval Ship There was a consistent approach to landing Code (2009). The key lines of development craft operation across each group of described in this paper are focussed on the operators; unique aspects of landing craft and thus the The coxswains’ recollections of landing aspects requiring special consideration. In craft handling, seakeeping and cues to doing so the foundation of the development has adjust heading and speed are the same; been the doctrine for operation of landing craft. The actions taken by the coxswains following these cues were broadly similar; DOCTRINE The LCU Mk10 does not suffer from regular green seas whilst operating within To inform the development of the standard the prescribed operational envelope; and ensure that it adequately addresses the Green sea events are used as a primary primary stability hazards it was necessary to indicator to the coxswain to change verify the current understanding of landing course/speed. craft operational doctrine. This was done through engagement with Landing Craft Utility Potential stability safety hazards associated (LCU) and Landing Craft Vehicle and with the operational doctrine were identified Personnel (LCVP) coxswains in a series of during the exercise. These hazards are being stability related doctrine capture workshops. used to inform the development of the new stability standard. Some examples of these hazards are illustrated in Table 1, below. Fig. 1: Vignette used in operator doctrine capture workshops. Each of the workshops adopted a common format and question set to ensure a consistent approach and thereby allow comparison to be drawn across the three groups of operators visited. A key element of the workshops was use of a common vignette against which the questions were pitched (Figure 1). These questions were designed to determine the doctrine employed during normal and wartime operation and their experience of landing craft operation. From their responses it was possible to establish a common picture of the evolutions that could be expected to occur. 3 Proceedings of the 11th International Ship Stability Workshop Table 1: Stability hazards identified during doctrine attention due to the design and operation of capture workshops. landing craft. Key Event Hazard(s) The standard will address the need for Interpretation of The provenance of surf height protection of the forward part of the ship from Sea Conditions limits for landing craft is not both collision with floating objects (e.g. whilst known. entering an LPD) and from grounding (e.g. on unsurveyed rocks). Inaccurate sea state assessment. The open nature of the typical craft with Damage / Loss of The internal geometry / high bulwarks requires the drainage of the Watertight constrained compartments of Integrity landing craft prevents effective cargo deck to be efficient as trapped water on damage control. deck leads to a reduction in stability. The study has focussed on researching the sizing of Raking damage that affects two freeing ports stipulated by different compartments (including main Administrations for a variety of craft. A direct engine room). approach to sizing freeing ports relating the Beach Approach Insufficient power or propulsor height of bulwarks, deck area and possible and Departure emergence and subsequent loss reduction in stability has proved unsuccessful. of control in surf zone. No direct relationship to the sizing required by Load Line and stability parameters could be Capsize in surf zone on approach to beach due to wave derived. action. Green water is one of the key cues to Capsize in surf zone during 180 handling of the craft and heading and speed degree turn due to wave action. would be altered to remove the frequency of Green Seas / Effect of green seas and the such events. Current arrangements on UK LCU Water in Well ability to remove entrained Mk10’s are designed to Load Lines rules and it Deck water. was reported during the doctrine workshops that when water enters the deck it drains away Loss of Power / Loss of propulsive power during quickly and efficiently. Steerage operation (transit/open water and surf zone). The design constraints for landing craft results in some challenges for the protection of Payload Embarking unknown vehicle Unloading, weight/VCG (e.g. due to vents. Bespoke arrangements are normal Loading, payload of vehicle). practice and designs must consider the Positioning & operational environment and additional Securing Retraction through surf zone influences such as accidental damage from with unknown trim / list / payload handling, operation in cold weather draught. and damage from debris. STABILITY STANDARD STRUCTURE Reserve of Buoyancy Watertight Integrity A range of areas are being developed to The programme will develop standards for support the requirements for reserve of each of the performance requirements for buoyancy, such as the construct of loading watertight integrity. Whilst most of these are conditions and the subdivision of landing craft. relatively straight forward some require special The programme will also review the damage 4 Proceedings of the 11th International Ship Stability Workshop extents currently applied to landing craft and threaten the stability and buoyancy of the develop requirements that better reflect the vessel; hazards from operation e.g. damage from Remain afloat following the loss of hull grounding. The outcome will also define a integrity resulting from foreseeable damage distinction between safety (damage from and following shipping of green seas. grounding & collision) and capability (damage from hostile action). The second area of development concerned the consistent definition of freeboard. Whilst at A further key line of development face value, this may appear a simple task it is surrounds the performance requirements for much complicated by the variable nature of freeboard. A ship’s freeboard provides a safety landing craft designs. margin for buoyancy and stability above that required for static equilibrium in calm seas to Both the Naval Ship Code and the allow the ship to operate in a seaway. Merchant Shipping (Load Line) Regulations Freeboard has a direct effect on the relative both use a similar definition for freeboard that height of the gunwale and wave crests; it can refers to freeboard as the distance measured therefore influence the incidence and quantity vertically downwards at amidships from the of green seas. Altering freeboard also allows upper edge of the deck-line to the load line. the designer to influence intact stability, damaged condition reserve of buoyancy and In the case of landing craft, the freeboard damaged stability. definition can become a significant design driver. The lowest deck exposed to the external Construction of the requirements for environment is invariably the vehicle deck freeboard
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE FEASIBLITY of the OVER-THE-HORIZON AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT for U.S. NAVY and MARINE CORPS FORCES a Thesis Presented To
    THE FEASIBLITY OF THE OVER-THE-HORIZON AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT FOR U.S. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS FORCES A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Colege in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE STEPHEN L. GOERTZEN, LCDR, USN B.S., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, 1982 Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 1993 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Name of Candidate: LCDR Stephen L. Goertzen, USN Thesis Title: The Feasibility of the Over-the-Horizon Amphibious Assault for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Forces Approved by: u , Thesis Committee Chaiman LTCOL W. A. Sp , Member Accepted this 4th day of June 1993 by: , Director, Graduate Degree Philip J. Brookes, Ph.D. Programs The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to this study should include the foregoing statement.) ABSTRACT THE FEASIBILITY OF THE OVER-THE-HORIZON AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT FOR U.S. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS FORCES: An analysis of the doctrine, equipment, and technology contributing to the feasibility of the over-the-horizon amphibious assault. By Lieutenant Commander Stephen L. Goertzen, USN, 128 pages. This study is an analysis of the tactics,techniques, procedures, doctrine, equipment, and technology utilized in over-the-horizon amphibious assaults. The study examines the issues surrounding current feasibility of the assault, as well as future feasibility of the assault.
    [Show full text]
  • Combat Support and Combat Service Support
    COMBAT SUPPORT AND COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT Under the Program Executive Office for Combat Support & Combat Service Support (PEO CS&CSS), project man- agers, together with their reporting prod- uct managers and product directors, are responsible for Army systems and some joint service programs across all phases of their life cycle. Program phases fall into the areas of: pre-systems acquisition (concept refine- ment or technology development), gener- ally consisting of research and develop- 350 ARMY I October 2010 ment programs and prior to a Milestone B; systems acquisition (between Milestone B and full materiel release); systems after full materiel release (in production and fielding phases); and two types of sustain- ment (operations and support): systems Logistics support that have completed fielding, are no longer vessel (LSV) in production and are managed directly by the project manager and systems that have completed fielding, are no longer in pro- duction and are managed by an Army Ma- teriel Command commodity command, but for which the PM is the life-cycle man- ager. PEO CS&CSS Project Managers include: Project Manager Force Projection, Project Manager Joint Combat Support Systems, Project Manager Tactical Vehicles and Pro- ject Manager Mine Resistant Ambush Pro- tected Vehicles. A representative sampling Army,” the Product Director for Army combat vehicles and sustainment cargo. of their programs follows. Watercraft Systems (PD AWS) is working The 313-foot LSV class vessel, designed to to provide “a flexible and responsive fleet, carry more than 2,000 tons of deck cargo, Project Manager Force Projection projecting and sustaining America’s forces has a beam of 60 feet and a molded depth The Project Manager Force Projection through the 21st century.” PD AWS is re- of 19 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Landing Together: Pacific Amphibious Development and Implications for the U.S. Fleet
    June 2016 Landing Together Pacific Amphibious Development and Implications for the U.S. Fleet PROJECT DIRECTOR Kathleen H. Hicks AUTHORS Kathleen H. Hicks Mark F. Cancian Andrew Metrick John Schaus A Report of the CSIS International Security Program About CSIS For over 50 years, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has worked to develop solutions to the world’s greatest policy challenges. Today, CSIS scholars are providing strategic insights and bipartisan policy solutions to help decisionmakers chart a course toward a better world. CSIS is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, DC. The Center’s 220 full-time staff and large network of affiliated scholars conduct research and analysis and develop policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded at the height of the Cold War by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke, CSIS was dedicated to finding ways to sustain American prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world. Since 1962, CSIS has become one of the world’s preeminent international institutions focused on defense and security; regional stability; and transnational challenges ranging from energy and climate to global health and economic integration. Thomas J. Pritzker was named chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in November 2015. Former U.S. deputy secretary of defense John J. Hamre has served as the Center’s president and chief executive officer since 2000. CSIS does not take specific policy positions; accordingly, all views expressed herein should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). © 2016 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 Amphibious Ships and Craft
    Appendix 1 Amphibious Ships and Craft Ships ADCS Air Defence Control Ship AKA Attack Cargo Ship APA Attack Transport ATD Amphibious Transport Dock CVHA Assault Helicopter Carrier (later LPH) LPD Amphibious Transport Dock LPH Assault Helicopter Carrier LSC Landing Ship, Carrier LSD Landing Ship, Dock LSE(LC) Landing Ship, Emergency Repair (Landing Craft) LSE(LS) Landing Ship, Emergency Repair (Landing Ship) LSF Landing Ship, Fighter Direction LSG Landing Ship, Gantry LSH Landing Ship, Headquarters LSH(C) Landing Ship, Headquarters (Command) LSI Landing Ship, Infantry LSL Landing Ship, Logistic LSM Landing Ship, Medium LSM(R) Landing Ship, Medium (Rocket) LSP Landing Ship, Personnel LSS Landing Ship, Stern Chute LSS(R) Landing Ship, Support (Rocket) LST Landing Ship, Tank LST(A) Landing Ship, Tank (Assault) LST(C) Landing Ship, Tank (Carrier) LST(D) Landing Ship, Tank (Dock) LST(Q) administrative support ship LSU Landing Ship, Utility LSV Landing Ship, Vehicle MS (LC) Maintenance Ship (Landing Craft) MS (LS) Maintenance Ship (Landing Ship) M/T Ship Motor Transport Ship W/T Ship Wireless Tender 212 Appendix 1 213 Barges, craft and amphibians DD Duplex Drive (amphibious tank) DUKW amphibious truck LBE Landing Barge, Emergency repair LBK Landing Barge, Kitchen LBO Landing Barge, Oiler LBV Landing Barge, Vehicle LBW Landing Barge, Water LCA Landing Craft, Assault LCA(HR) Landing Craft, Assault (Hedgerow) LCA(OC) Landing Craft, Assault (Obstacle Clearance) LCC Landing Craft, Control LCE Landing Craft, Emergency Repair LCF Landing Craft, Flak
    [Show full text]
  • TRADOC Capability Manager-Transportation Army Watercraft Systems
    United States Army Combined Arms Support Command Sustainment Center of Excellence TRADOC Capability Manager-Transportation Army Watercraft Systems Support Starts Here! 1 Transportation Corps What We Are For: Provide our Army and the Joint Force trained and ready Transporters / Logisticians and synchronize deployment and distribution to enable Unified Land Operations. Strategic Deployment/ Terminal Operations Motor Transport Movement Control Watercraft Transport Rail Transport Distribution Operations at Air/Seaports Operations Operations Operations Operations Mission: Train, educate, and deliver professional transporters and sustainers; develop doctrine, concepts, capabilities and force structure to deploy expeditionary forces and distribute materiel to Army and Joint organizations conducting Unified Land Operations in a JIIM environment. TC Vision: Our Army’s deployment and distribution experts, effectively supporting expeditionary forces; The Spearhead of Logistics! Support Starts Here! 2 Fleet Overview 1988 – First Fielding 21 1994 – First Fielding 21 Years Years 14 12 Years Years Logistic Support Vessel (LSV) Large Tug (LT) AAO (8): 5 AC/3 RC/0 APS AAO (8)*: 1 AC/2 RC/3 APS Roll-On/Roll-Off Discharge Facility (RRDF) Modular Warping Tug (MWT) 1990 – First Fielding 24 1998 – First Fielding 14 Years Years AAO (6): 2 AC/0 RC/4 APS AAO (18)*: 5 AC/0 RC/11 APS 20 18 Years Years Landing Craft Utility (LCU) 2000 Small Tug (ST) AAO (34): 7 AC/7 RC/20 APS AAO (16): 2 AC/6 RC/8 APS Causeway Ferry (CF) Floating Causeway (FC) AAO (3): 1 AC/0 RC/2 APS AAO (3): 1 AC/0 RC/2 APS 1967 – First Fielding 43 1999 – First Fielding 15 Years Years Modular Causeway System (MCS) 1996 – First Fielding • Small density fleet • No single OEM or Depot (To be displaced by the MSV(L)) • Many different configurations Landing Craft Mechanized (LCM-8) Barge Derrick (BD) • Several platforms at or past EUL AAO (36): 9 AC/9 RC/18 APS AAO (6)*: 0 AC/2 RC/2 APS • 46% in APS (4 and 5) * Currently short of the AAO.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Study of a Fast Landing Craft Unit
    Conceptual Study of a Fast Landing Craft Unit Part 1 - Design KTH Centre for Naval Architecture MIKAEL RAZOLA [email protected] 070-7104074 TORVALD HVISTENDAHL [email protected] 070-4856392 Master Thesis KTH Centre for Naval Architecture Stockholm, Sweden, February 2010 2 ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis is to develop an initial design of a new Landing Craft Unit (LCU). A LCU is a specialized craft that is used to transport heavy vehicles such as battle tanks from a capital platform at sea to the shore. The capital platforms, within NATO called Landing Platform Docks (LPD), embark and disembark the LCUs over a well deck at the stern. A majority of the LCUs in use today have insufficient performance, which highly limits the tactics of an amphibious operation. This study presents the initial design of a completely new Fast Landing Craft Utility (FLCU). The craft is a catamaran with two lightweight demihulls connected by a transversally and vertically movable cross structure carrying a cargo platform. The movable cross structure makes it possible for the craft to reduce its draught and adjust its beam. These are two key advantages since the craft can disembark in shallow water and fit into a variety LPDs. The FLCU measures 20 m over all and is designed to carry one battle tank with a weight of 62 tonnes. Fully loaded, the craft can maintain 20 knots in sea state 3 and in unloaded condition up to 30 knots. It is designed for autonomous control. One of the key aims of this thesis is to provide a material that shows the feasibility of the proposed craft.
    [Show full text]
  • Unclassified Unclassified
    UNCLASSIFIED Exhibit P-40, Budget Line Item Justification: FY 2018 Army Date: May 2017 Appropriation / Budget Activity / Budget Sub Activity: P-1 Line Item Number / Title: 2035A: Other Procurement, Army / BA 03: Other Support Equipment / BSA 55: Rail M11101 / Army Watercraft Esp Float Containerization Equipment ID Code (A=Service Ready, B=Not Service Ready): Program Elements for Code B Items: N/A Other Related Program Elements: N/A Line Item MDAP/MAIS Code: N/A Prior FY 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 To Resource Summary Years FY 2016 FY 2017 Base OCO Total FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Complete Total Procurement Quantity (Units in Each) - 2 2 2 - 2 4 4 6 4 Continuing Continuing Gross/Weapon System Cost ($ in Millions) 3.509 39.772 21.860 20.110 - 20.110 41.465 42.237 63.130 43.630 Continuing Continuing Less PY Advance Procurement ($ in Millions) - - - - - - - - - - - - Net Procurement (P-1) ($ in Millions) 3.509 39.772 21.860 20.110 - 20.110 41.465 42.237 63.130 43.630 Continuing Continuing Plus CY Advance Procurement ($ in Millions) - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Obligation Authority ($ in Millions) 3.509 39.772 21.860 20.110 - 20.110 41.465 42.237 63.130 43.630 Continuing Continuing (The following Resource Summary rows are for informational purposes only. The corresponding budget requests are documented elsewhere.) Initial Spares ($ in Millions) - - - - - - - - - - - - Flyaway Unit Cost ($ in Thousands) - - - - - - - - - - - - Gross/Weapon System Unit Cost ($ in Thousands) - 19,886.000 10,930.000 10,055.000 - 10,055.000 10,366.250 10,559.250 10,521.667 10,907.500 Continuing Continuing Description: The Army Watercraft Extended Service Program (ESP) budget line funds the Service Life Extension Programs (SLEP) across the Army Watercraft Systems portfolio.
    [Show full text]
  • Furberwatercraft.Pdf
    NDIA TWV Conference 16 May 2017 COL Daniel L. Furber Project Manager (586) 282-5569 [email protected] DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for Public Release (1) Roles and Responsibilities Requirements HQDA ASA(ALT) AMC TRADOC The Materiel Enterprise enhances communication, coordination, and collaboration between the ASA(ALT) and AMC communities. Modernization Sustainment Army PEO TACOM LCMC CS&CSS Contracting Command PD AWS ILSC TACOM TARDEC Contracting Center Product Director Army Watercraft Systems (PD AWS) executes Life Cycle Management (LCM) of the watercraft portfolio through a unique matrix of organizations PEO CS&CSS (2) Army Watercraft – A Force Multiplier A flexible capability which covers diverse mission sets across mission command, sustainment, and movement and maneuver warfighting functions. • Supports movement and maneuver: strategic, operational and tactical maritime connector capability for expeditionary Joint Combined Arms force operations. • A2/AD: exploit waterborne maneuver corridors to provide commanders options IOT launch and sustain joint and Army forces along coastal littorals and through inland waterways. • Operational maneuver: provide the JFC with operational adaptability and assured mobility through the waterborne delivery of combat-configured task organized forces and sustainment. • Maneuver Support Vessel - Light: future variants bridge strategic to expeditionary maneuver; transition in theater to operational maneuver in support of ULO. Rebalance to Asia Pacific – Potential for long term employment of Army Watercraft as a regionally aligned mobility enabler; enables joint security cooperation and security engagement. (3) Army Watercraft MTOE Overview Principal Fighting Functions 1. Mission Command: Harbormaster, Logistics Over the Shore (LOTS) and Battle Command on the Move 2. Movement & Maneuver: Assured Access, Simultaneous/ Distributed Operations, Controlled Operational Tempo 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Tm 55-500 Technical Manual Watercraft
    *TM 55-500 TECHNICAL MANUAL WATERCRAFT EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS AND DATA DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. *This manual supersedes TM 55-500, dated 18 May 1992, including all changes. HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 30 AUGUST 1996 *TM 55-500 TECHNICAL MANUAL HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NO. 55-500 WASHINGTON, D.C., 30 August 1996 WATERCRAFT EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS AND DATA REPORTING ERRORS AND RECOMMENDING IMPROVEMENTS You can help improve this manual. If you find any mistakes, or if you know of a way to improve these procedures, please let us know. Mail your letter or DA Form 2028 (Recommended Changes to Publications and Blank Forms), or DA Form 2028-2 located in the back of this manual directly to: Commander, US Army Aviation and Troop Command, ATTN: AMSAT-MP, 4300Goodfellow Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63120-1798. You may so submit your recommended changes by E-mil directly to <mpmr%[email protected]>. A reply will be furnished directly to you. Instructions for sending an electron 2028 may be found at the back of this manual immediately receding the hard copy 2028. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER 1 GENERAL Purpose and Scope................................................................................. 1-1 Classification of Army Watercraft Equipment ......................................... 1-1 Limitations .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Flagship of the Royal Navy and the Nation, HMS Bulwark Flexes Her Amphibious Muscle to Respond Quickly to Crises and World Events
    INSIDE HMS BULWARK The Flagship of the Royal Navy and the nation, HMS Bulwark flexes her amphibious muscle to respond quickly to crises and world events. She can deliver the punch of the Royal Marines ashore by air and by sea, with boats from the landing dock in the belly of the ship and by assault helicopter from the two-spot flight deck. 1. Towed sonar platform 37. Aft auxiliary machinery room 64. Forward end of vehicle deck 80. Sea boat towing boom 2. Jackstaff 38. Starboard electric propulsion motor 65. Air treatment unit and ducting 81. Forward vehicle deck entry hatch 3. Docking control office 39. Aft engine room, main diesel engine and 66. Bridge wing extension 82. Ramp hydraulic actuators 4. Folding guard rail and safety net generator to port 67. Seagnat decoy launchers, port and 83. Forward vehicle loading ramp 5. Starboard side walk 40. Auxiliary machinery room intakes starboard 84. Bow thruster 6. Stern ramp, lowered 41. Bilge keel 68. Signal deck 85. Forepeak hydrodynamic fairing 7. Ramp actuating links, hydraulically 42. Centre auxiliary machinery room 69. Forward mast 86. Twin anchors operated 43. Pallet loading door with integral hoist, 70. V/UHF antennae 87. Fairlead 8. Starboard rudder open 71. Weather radar 88. Anchor winches 9. Starboard propeller 44. Pacific 22 sea boat, port and starboard 72. 20mm cannon 89. Forward mooring bollards 10. Propeller shaft and bearing supports 45. Officers’ cabins 73. Weapons direction platform 90. Forward Goalkeeper radar-controlled gun 11. Aft mooring bollard 46. Main mast 74. Bridge 12. Life rafts 47.
    [Show full text]
  • Vessel Catalog
    VESSEL CATALOG Trust, Excellence, Innovation Since 1942 Swiftships is recognized internationally as a leading shipbuilder and maritime systems integrator. Our main activities include design, engineering, shipbuilding, co-production programs, repair, maintenance and refit services. Our strength lies in our capability to provide clients with integrated solutions that combine quality, the most advanced technologies, and dedicated customer services focused on excellence. Driven by a mission to deliver solutions for every challenge our clients face, the Swiftships team constantly pushes to improve the capabilities of our clients and partners so they can, in turn, accomplish their missions more efficiently and safely. TABLE OF CONTENTS About Swiftships..........................................6 Military Vessels.............................................10 Swift Corvette..................................12 Landing Craft Utility.........................14 Fast Patrol Vessels...........................18 Patrol Boats.....................................24 Other Military Vessels.......................32 Special Operations Riverine..............36 Commercial Vessels......................................40 Offshore Vessels.............................. 41 Fast Supply Vessels..........................42 Crew Boats.......................................47 Maintenance Vessels........................53 Push/Workboats..............................54 Pilot Boats....................................... 55 Services Overview........................................56
    [Show full text]
  • Renewal of Navy's Riverine Capability: a Preliminary Examination of Past
    CRM D0013241.A5/2Rev March 2006 Renewal of Navy’s Riverine Capability: A Preliminary Examination of Past, Current and Future Capabilities Robert Benbow • Fred Ensminger • Peter Swartz Scott Savitz • Major Dan Stimpson With contributions from: Jonathan Geithner • Ian MacLeod 4825 Mark Center Drive • Alexandria, Virginia 22311-1850 Approved for distribution: March 2006 -, -.s- MarkB. Geis ~ Director, Navar Operations and Support Team Operations EvaruationGroup This document representsthe best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. It does not necessarilyrepresent the opinion of the Department of the Navy. APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED. Copies of this document can be obtained from the Defense Technical Information Center at www.dtic.mif or contact CNA Document Control and Distribution at 703-824-2123. Copyright @ 2006 The CNA Corporation Contents Summary . 1 Introduction . 5 Background. 5 The evolving threat . 6 GWOT Working Group. 6 Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) . 7 Outline of this paper . 9 Insights from history . 11 The Navy legacy . 11 A shared history . 12 An episodic history . 13 The Vietnam episode . 13 The post-Vietnam lull. 18 Key takeaways . 20 Marine Corps legacy . 22 Theater engagement in South America . 23 Escort operations in Panama . 24 Operations in Iraq . 24 Key takeaways . 26 Where we are today . 29 Service capabilities . 29 Navy . 29 Marine Corps . 33 U.S. Coast Guard . 34 Army capabilities . 36 Key takeaways. 37 Defining the “maritime domain” . 39 Strategic objectives of maritime security . 40 Maritime security goal and enabling tasks . 41 i Where the “bad” guys are . 41 Things to consider in the maritime domain . 44 Access to operating areas is not guaranteed.
    [Show full text]