PATROL COMBATANT MISSILE HYDROFOIL- DESIGN DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION- a BRIEF HISTORY by David S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PATROL COMBATANT MISSILE HYDROFOIL- DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION- A BRIEF HISTORY by David S. Oiling and Richard G. Merritt Boeing Marine Systems Published as Boeing Document 0312-80948-1, December 1980, and in the January-February issue of IIHigh-Speed Surface Craft," London ABOUT THE AUTHORS DAVID S. OLLING - Mechanical Specialist Engineer, PHM Variants Preliminary Design BS, Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, 1967 With Boeing 21 years o 17 years in Advanced Marine Systems design, preliminary design, engineering liaison and testing organizations RICHARD G. MERRITT - Manager of PHM Variants Preliminary Design BS, Civil Engineering, Yale University, 1950 MS, Civil Engineering, California Institute of Technology, 1951 Degree of Civil Engineer, California Institute of Technology, 1953 Executive Program in Business Administration, Columbia University, 1967 With Boeing 17 years o 1 year as engineer with U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station, Pasadena, before joining Boeing. o 6 years on airplane and missile system structural research. o 21 years in advanced marine system technology management, including supervision of hydrofoil technology staff, project design, and preliminary design groups. o Member of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, serving on AIAA technical committee on marine systems and technology. o Author of 12 articles in scientific and professional journals. PATROL COMBATANT MISSILE (HYDROFOIL) Design, Development and Production - A Brief History by David S. OUing and Richard G. Merritt, Boeing Marine Systems INTRODUCTION 1974. Its completion (PHM 2) was later incorporated into the production program, In 1972 three NATO navies formally agreed reference 3. to proceed with the joint development of a warship pro ject. The United States took the Major Events leadership before the "Memorandum of Understanding" was signed by the Federal Developing a new, sophisticated naval ship Republic of Germany and Italy and awarded system requires a considerable investment a letter contract to The Boeing Company of time, talent and money. The U.S. Navy for the feasibility study and the design and acquisition process, historically, results in construction of two Patrol Combatant Mis about a 7 -year development cycle for the sile (Hydrofoil) lead ships. definition, design and first unit construction of a new ship platform, references 4 and 5. Earlier in 1970, the NATO Naval Armament As the schedule of major events shows, Group (NNAG), composed of representatives figure 1, nearly six years elapsed from the of eleven NATO nations, had recommended signing of the letter contract for the design that a hydrofoil with fully-submerged foils and construction of the lead ship, USS was the answer to the operational require Pegasus, in November 1971 to her com ments for a common fast patrol boat carry missioning in July 1977. The earlier exami ing surface to surface missiles. The NNAG nation of ship alternatives and configuration had studied different concepts of vehicles, choices required over two more years. but the final choice of the group was a ship Again, referring to 'the major events chart, configuration based on the PGH 2, Tucum figure 1, over ten years will have elapsed cari, also built by Boeing, which would be from the start of the lead ship program the prototype for future fast patrol boats. before the five production ships will join The original concept had called for an oper USS Pegasus to make up the planned six-ship ational displacement of 140 tons. However, squadron. in meeting the requirements of the partici pating governments and, in particular, the Pointing out the span of time for developing U.S. Navy, it was determined that the mini PHM-class hydrofoils, a system involving mum displacement that could do the job was new technologies, new design criteria and a design of 228 metric tons, references 1 new equipment innovations, is not intended and 2. to be critical. The application of additional resources could have reduced the elapsed While the initial contract called for two time, but the extent of the reduction cannot lead ships, program cost growth forced sus be known. The point to be made is that the pension of work on the second ship in August design and development phases have been 1 EUROPEAN PGH 2 PROPOSAL DELIVERY DEPLOYMENT CARIBBEAN U 'Sl 'Sl'Sl u GROUNDING TUCUMCARI L\ &:::6 I DESIGN AND VIETNAM I PRODUCTION DEPLOYMENT MEMORANDUM OF CONTRACT I UNDERSTANDING SIGNED I U.S. ANNou~7CED ITALY DECISION EXPLORATORY DECISION TO NO PRODUCTION COOPERATIVE PHM GROUP 2 ESTABLISHED PROCEED SHIPS PROGRAM NATO . \l \l "V \7 COMPLETED PROGRAM PROJECT GROUP 6.6..6. .6. ESTABLISHED FRG·ITALY FRG DECISION ISSUED LETIERS NO PRODUCTION OF INTENT SHIPS SURFLANT I I DEPLOYMENT CARIBBEAN LETIER CONSTRUCTION DELIVERY TO EXERCISE CONTRACT CONTRACT OPEVAL SURFPAC (READIEX U.S. LEAD SHIP I I \7 V Y 'Y 'Y 'i7 1-80) PROGRAM PRELIMINARY 6 PHM ,.6. <6 <6 RIMPAC (PHM ,) DESIGN LAUNCH SOCAL EXERCISE I DEPLOYMENT START I PRODUCTION PROPOSA~ AWARD / DELIVERIES PRODUCIBILITY V \7 <;j PHM 3 \J PRODUCTION V STUDY . .6. \ PROGRAM RFP I PHM 4 )J ISSUES PHM 5 V NEGOTI ATIONS PHM 6 V COMPLETED PHM 29 I I I Figure 1. Major Events Leading to NATO PHM Program and Operational PHM Squadron Figure 2. PGH 2 Tucumcari 2 Figure 3. PGH 2 Tucumcari Foll System (Retracted) successfully achieved and the time to The PGH 2 incorporated a unique foil sys accomplish this is the same or shorter than tem, figure 3. The principal features were a for other na val ship systems. canard foil configuration; trailing edge flap control on all foils; a steerable forward Figure 1 also shows the major events for strut (rudder); and an Automatic Control PGH 2, Tucumcari. Because Tucumcari was System for roll stability, altitude control, the basis for the PHM design, a brief review ride quality control and banked, fully coor of its design features and operational his dinated turning. The canard configuration tory is in order to see where the principal where about one-third of the dynamic lift of features impacted the PHM design. the ship is supported on the single foil forward and two-thirds on the two foils aft PGH 2, Tucumcari has been conclusively demonstrated to pro vide superior roll and directional stability The PGH program to develop a hydrofoil and control at all times. This becomes gunboat was initiated in late 1965. Two extremely critical in very hea vy seas where ships were authorized, based on a perform the possibility exists for broaching the for ance specification. Grumman was awarded ward foil in large waves. a contract for PGH 1, Flagstaff, and Boeing for PGH 2, Tucumcari. The resulting While the location of the roll authority designs were significantly different. As the (forward in conventional or airplane while result of the evaluation of these two ships in aft in canard configuration) is not particu tr ials in the United States and service in larly significant for operations in calm seas Vietnam, the features of Tucumcari, figure where the foils are always submerged and 2, were chosen as requirements for the fully wetted, it becomes very critical in NATO PHM program, reference 1. rough seas. In the case of a forward foil broach, the difference in response between Tucumcari is best recognized for its water canard and conventional can be dramatic. jet propulsion system. Propulsion was pro The forward foil broach on a canard config vided by a Rolls-Royce Proteus turbine driv uration results in no rolllng moment. The ing directly a two-impeller double-suction forward foil broach of a conventional con centr ifugal pump. Boeing chose this pump figuration can result in severe rolling. The design for its extreme simplicity and mini steerable forward strut adds to the control mum number of moving parts. It had an lability of the canard arrangement foilborne aluminum housing and rotor assembly with a and provides desirable steering forces when stainless steel drive shaft. After 5 years of the ship is hullborne. Tucumcari could operation, the pump remained in essentially safely operate foilborne in rough water at the same condi tion as when installed. There least one sea state number greater than the was no evidence of corrosion, erosion, or slightly larger PGH 1, Flagstaff, with its cavi tation damage. airplane foil configuration. 3 An Automatic Control System (ACS) is pro PHM DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT vided for continuous dynamic control of the ship during takeoff, landing and all foilborne Boeing's immediate task in late 1971 - early operation. The requirement for an ACS is 1972 was to determine the feasibility of established at the outset by the fully sub designing a NATO PHM so as to meet the merged foil configuration which trades performance goals of the three participating inherent roll stability for superior riding governments, the United States, the Federal quallties in sea conditions. In addition to Republic of Germany and Italy. The objec providing ship roll stability, the ACS con tive was examined from the standpoint of trolled the ship height above the water three al terna tives for missi on suite, in par surface, caused banking in turns and reduced ticular the surface-to-surface missiles. ship motions caused by waves. Automatic (The U.S. Navy, of course, was interested in foilborne control was based on the concept installing Harpoon missiles, FRG desired of "feedback" control. Ship attitudes, rates, Exocet and Italy was interested in Teseo). and accelerations were sensed and compared The feasibility baseline design and para with desired values. The differences were metric studies were to provide the data and processed by an electronic control computer alternatives which would allow the partici and became electrical commands to pating governments to knowledgeably select hydraulic servo actuators. The actuators the major and primary performance and moved mechanical linkages to position the configuration characteristics to be incorpo control surfaces, causing the ship to respond rated into what was called the "NATO PHM so as to minimize those differences.