You are on page 1of 9

International Journal of Maritime Engineering

A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION INTO TWO SPEED OPERATION OF SHIPS


M Renilson, K Randle and J W Taylor, QinetiQ Sea Division, UK SUMMARY Some ship types, such as many surface warships, some motor yachts and some cruise ships are required to operate efficiently at two different speeds: low speed cruise; and high speed sprint. In the past, a single optimised hull form has been developed, with a balance between the different roles, based on the requirement set, and on the operations envisaged. In order to investigate the possibilities of reconfigurable hull and propulsor configurations for the two speed regimes, a preliminary investigation was undertaken, based on a 90 100m Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV). As a result of this work it has been shown that significant improvements in low speed powering performance, and hence range, for a monohull designed for high speed are possible by: 1. 2. 3. 4. use of a retractable single screw thruster; fitting waterjet inlet covers, and evacuating water from the inlet; fitting an adjustable transom flap; and making it possible to adjust the trim to trim by the bow.

Larger improvements could be achieved if major changes to the stern shape are possible. The use of an adjustable bulbous bow has been shown to be of only marginal benefit, and is it is not recommended that this be considered further for this application. 1. INTRODUCTION 35 40+ knots: required for occasional sprint, where top speed and the ability to operate for short periods are important

Some ship types, such as many surface warships, some motor yachts and some cruise ships are required to operate efficiently at two different speeds: low speed cruise; and high speed sprint. In the past, a single optimised hull form has been developed, with a balance between the different roles, based on the requirement set, and on the operations envisaged. In order to investigate the possibilities of reconfigurable hull and propulsor configurations for the two speed regimes, a preliminary investigation was undertaken by QinetiQ, based on a 90 100m Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV). (Renilson et al, 2005). The choice of an OPV as the example vessel makes it possible to adopt realistic metrics for both the low speed and the high speed regimes, and selecting an example vessel with relatively modest dimensions makes it easier to adopt novel technologies that may be considered. For this study it was assumed that the two speeds of operation are: 10 15 knots: where most of the time will be spent, and it is essential to be quiet and efficient (signatures and endurance); and

It was assumed that any changes in the hull form/propulsion configuration would not be required instantly, and could take anything from half an hour to half a day to complete. A key issue would be that prior to completing the change from the low speed operation to the high speed operation it would be necessary for the vessel to be able to be going at close to top speed i.e. a solution where the vessel would have to be stationary for half an hour whilst reconfiguring to the high speed mode would not be likely to be acceptable. 2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

In order to assess the effectiveness of the design, appropriate criteria need to be identified. Essentially, at this stage, these can be categorised into those for: powering and endurance; acoustic signature; and seakeeping performance. In addition, initial cost will need to be considered and balanced against any reduction in operating cost. The criteria for powering and endurance will depend on the detailed role, however they will be focussed on achieving maximum endurance at low speed, for a given tank capacity, and minimum required installed power for high speed. The endurance at low speed will be directly related to the power required to propel the

2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects

vessel at this speed, and as the design/optimisation of the prime mover is outside the scope of this study, the power required for the low speed operation can be adopted as the low speed criteria for this work. As the acoustic signature will be directly related to the power required, this can also be adopted as the criterion, unless a radically different hydrodynamic propulsor with different acoustic performance is to be utilised. The acoustic signature will only be a criterion at low speeds. Thus, the criteria for powering and endurance, and for acoustic signature can be summarised in table 1. Endurance Powering Acoustic signature Low speed Minimum power at 15 knots n/a Minimum power at 15 knots High speed n/a Minimum power at 40 knots n/a

long term habitability, and on system performance to achieve the military goal. It is proposed that although the vessel will need to meet the seakeeping performance outlined in the NATO STANAG 4154 (Military Agency for Standardisation (MAS) 1999) for the low speed regime, for the high speed regime certain operations will not be undertaken, and hence the seakeeping performance requirements may be relaxed. It is assumed that in the high speed regime the following operations will not be conducted: Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW); Naval Air Operations (NAO); Weapon Systems Reload (WRL); Replenishment At Sea (RAS); Naval Fires (NF); Amphibious Offload (AO); Sealift and Transport (SaT); and Maintenance and Repair (MAR). In addition, as the vessel will only be operating at high speed for relatively short periods of time, the habitability requirements can also be relaxed. It is suggested that those specified in European directives (Health and Safety Executive 2002) for the A(8) RMS value will be appropriate for the high speed regime. Thus, a summary of the required seakeeping performance for the two speed regimes is given in table 2.

Table 1 Criteria for powering, endurance and Signature The criteria for seakeeping performance are specified in the NATO STANAG 4154 (Military Agency For Standardisation (MAS) 1999). These are based on both

Role TAP ASW AAW NAO WRL RAS NF AO MIOPS1 SaT MAR

Low Speed Role(s)

Minimum Overall Criteria Roll : 3 Pitch: 1.5 Deck wetness /hr: 30 Slamming /hr: 20 Sonar emergence /hr: 24 Propeller emergence /hr: 90 MSI2 20% of Crew at 4 hrs MII3 /min: 0.5 Vertical acc: 0.2g Lateral acc: 0.1g Vertical vel: 0.5m/s 4

Assumptions high speed

High Speed Role(s)

Minimum Overall Criteria

No torpedoes No helicopter operations No offload of ships boats No Sonar No Array

Roll : 3.8 5 Pitch: 3.8 5 Deck wetness /hr: 30 Slamming /hr: 20 MSI2 20% of Crew at 4 hrs MII3 /min: 0.5 Vertical acc: 0.5g 6 Lateral acc: 0.1g Vertical vel: 0.5m/s 7

1 2

Maritime Interdiction Operations Motion Sickness Index 3 Motion Induced Interruption 4 Human limitation on bridge 5 Foredeck gun operation 6 Upper human limit from EU directives A(8) RMS value 7 Vertical velocity m/s RMS at the tip of the gun barrel Table 2 Seakeeping Criteria for the Two Speed regimes

2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects

3.

BASIS HULL FORMS

Two different hull forms were chosen with the same principal characteristics. One represented a hull form that would be designed to operate at 15 knots, designated A1*, and the other represented a hull form that would be designed to operate at 40 knots, designated B2. The low speed hull form (A1*) was designed to be propelled by a single screw, whereas the high speed hull form (B2) was designed to be propelled by twin waterjets. The two hull forms were selected based primarily on their resistance and powering at cruise and sprint speed. As an indicative start point the notional low speed form is based upon a Taylor series hull form (Gertler 1954) the high speed based upon a Series 64 hull form without tumblehome (Yeh 1964). The hullform parameters were kept constant for both the low and high speed hullforms, such that the Length, Breadth, Draught and Displacement are constant. Using the principal dimensions and form coefficients, a simplified hull lines spreadsheet was used to generate the body plans shown in figure 1 for the two hullforms. 4. POWERING PREDICTION

In the case of the high speed hullform, the high displacement/length ratio is outside the series range, as such a modified Series 64 algorithm was used to extrapolate for residuary resistance. In the case of the low speed OPV concept vessel, the speed/length ratio above 30 knots is outside the speed/length ratio of the Taylor series. Consequently, it was necessary to extrapolate the Taylor series up to the speed/length ratio required to evaluate the resistance and powering requirements at 40 knots. The extrapolation involved the use of model experiment data (Wiltshire & Hartley 1988) of a similar frigate form, which extended to a relatively high Froude number of 0.9. This data was scaled to the full size frigate hull to determine the variation of its resistance with speed. This variation was compared with that obtained for the frigate hull using the Series 64 and the Taylor/Gertler series. The data for the Taylor/Gertler series method correlated well with the model data over its more limited range. The percentage difference in naked hull effective power between the full scale frigate derived from model data and that from the Series 64 was quantified for the appropriate speed (40 knots). This difference was applied to the Series 64 OPV concept to estimate the naked hull effective power of the Taylor/Gertler OPV at 40 knots. Effective powers for appendages such as shafting and bracketing, bilge keels and fins are independent of the series data and were calculated in addition to the naked hull effective powers (Scrace 1992) for the two vessel speeds for each configuration and included in the final effective power for the hullforms. The resulting power required for the two speeds is given in table 3.

Two resistance algorithms were used to estimate the performance of the two hullforms, firstly the Taylor/Gertler series for the low speed hullfom (Gertler, 1954) and secondly Series 64 for the high speed hullform (Yeh, 1964). The principal dimensions and form coefficients were input and a prediction of the bare hull, fully appended and partially appended effective powers was made.
8

0 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

0 -4 0 4

-2

-2

-4

-4

-6

-6

A1* (Not to scale)

B2 (Not to scale)

Figure 1 Body Plans of the two mono-hulls

2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects

PI (kW) 15 knots A1* B2 1,500 3,900

PI (kW) 40 knots 61,000 45,900

gun barrel, and at 40 knots the limiting criterion was vertical acceleration on the bridge deck. At 15 knots the limiting significant wave height (H1/3) is approximately 10% higher for the low speed hullform. At 40 knots the limiting H1/3 is approximately 20% higher for the high speed hullfom. The different seakeeping criteria used for the high speed sprint compared to that used for the low speed operation has led to a similar limiting sea state for both speeds. In head seas the vessel designed for low speed has a higher limiting sea state at low speeds and a lower limiting sea state at high speeds than the vessel designed for high speed. A full analysis in all directions and for a wider range of sea states would be required for a more comprehensive comparison and in order to gain a clearer picture of the vessels operability. 6. CHANGES THAT CAN BE MADE TO THE HIGH SPEED HULL FORM TO IMPROVE ITS RANGE AT LOW SPEED. INTRODUCTION

Table 3 Baseline powering for 15 knots and 40 knots 5. SEAKEEPING ANALYSIS

A seakeeping analysis was carried out on both hull forms A1* and B2 at 15 and 40 knots in head seas. The work was carried out using the strip theory sea keeping code PAT 95 (Mongomery & Crossland 1995) in head seas only. Each hull form was run in sea state 2 and 4 (0.3 and 1.88 meters mean wave height respectively, and 7.5 and 8.8 s modal wave period respectively). Response Amplitude Operators and Root Mean Squared values (pitch, vertical velocity, and vertical acceleration) were obtained for locations of interest for each of the specific criterion and analysed to assess the performance of each hullform against the criteria in table 2. The results were used to obtain the limiting significant wave height for each hull form at each speed, based on the criteria given in table 2, assuming linearity between motions and wave heights in the two sea states at the same speed. The results are presented in figure 4. The vertical velocity limit of the gun barrel was exceeded at both 15 and 40 knots for the low speed hullform, A1*, and this is the limiting case for exceeding the criteria. For the high speed hullform, B2, at 15 knots the limiting case for exceeding the criteria was also exceeding the vertical velocity of the

6.1

The following adjustments to B2 to improve its range, by reducing the power requirement at 15 knots were considered: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. operating at low speed with a single retractable thruster; fitting non-watertight covers over the waterjet inlets; fitting covers, and pumping to lower the quantity of water in the waterjet ducts; fitting an adjustable bulbous bow;

Limiting significant wave heights


1.2 1 H1/3 (m) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 15 knots Spe e d knots A1* B2 40 knots

Figure 4 Results of seakeeping analysis for both hull forms

2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects

6. 7. 8. 9. 6.2

fitting an adjustable transom flap to permit change to the optimum flap angle at low speed; trimming by the bow; cumulative effect of 1 6; and adjustable stern to reduce the transom immersion at low speeds. Operating at low speed with a single retractable thruster

RR Ulstein vertically retractable thrusters have a dry weight of 44t for the 3,000kW size and would need some bespoke ship structure to accommodate the retracted thruster of similar weight to the swing-up version. The propeller diameter is the same so the internal space requirement would be similar. 6.3 Fitting non-watertight covers over the waterjet inlets

It is estimated that the power required to propel hull form B2 at 15 knots using a single retractable thruster will be approximately 3,500kW, compared to 3,900kW using twin waterjets. There is a variety of azimuthing thrusters that are available off the shelf suitable for commercial shipping. The issue of noise may need to be addressed for the warship application, but this should be solvable by incorporating naval standard propellers with a larger diameter and lower shaft speed. The current shock and survivability requirements for front line naval vessels is likely to be too demanding for this type of thruster, but it is unlikely that an OPV would be required to sustain similar levels of shock loading. A retractable thruster would be required for low speed propulsion which can be lifted out of the way to reduce the drag at higher speeds when the waterjets are used. Rolls-Royce currently offers vertically retractable and swing-up configurations of Ulstein azimuthing thruster with maximum power ratings of up to 3,000kW. Schottel have a range of retractable thrusters up to 4,000kW including the SRP 3030 which has a 2,850kW continuous rating. The largest Wartsila/Lips retractable thruster Type 225 has a maximum continuous rating of 1,500kW. The normal duty for this type of thruster is for low speed manoeuvring so they are usually retracted and deployed at typical docking speeds. The limiting ship speed is not known at this time but it may be that redesign for strength would be required to provide a thruster that could be retractable at speeds of 10 to 15 knots. RR Ulstein swing-up retractable thrusters have a dry weight very similar to the fixed version, for the thruster alone, of 40t for the 3,000kW size. The swing-up can be supplied with a hull module of 50t weight with an outer profile that allows the retracted thruster to be housed without protruding beyond the hull profile. The difference in weight relative to a fixed thruster with a standard hull profile would be less than 50t and a value of 25 tonnes was selected. The internal space required to accommodate this would be of the order of a 3.5m cube additional to the space required for a fixed thruster.

Fitting covers over the waterjets will reduce the power required at 15 knots by about 2.5% for a fixed displacement due to the reduction in drag. It is estimated that non-watertight waterjet covers, including a mechanism to operate them, etc, will weigh approximately 12 tonnes. This is about % of the displacement of the vessel, implying an increase in propulsive power of %. Thus, there will be a net advantage of approximately 2% to have non-watertight covers fitted over the waterjet inlets. This means that the power required to propel hull form B2 at 15 knots using a single thruster, and nonwatertight covers over the waterjet inlets will be approximately 3,400kW. 6.4 Fitting covers, and pumping to lower the quantity of water in the waterjet ducts Watertight covers were discounted for the waterjet inlets due to the difficulty of achieving reliability and repeatability in service, so the waterjet inlet covers will have some seawater leakage. If the difference between well-faired covers and no covers is only 2.5% drag then the detail of the covers is not important at the concept stage in terms of the difference in drag between different styles. The seawater could be evacuated by pumping. A dedicated pump would have a weight and space requirement and initial and running costs. Making use of existing fire or bilge pumps would reduce the overall weight and space requirements and initial cost, but is likely to lead to a higher running cost. At the start of low speed cruise the pumps would evacuate the waterjet duct easily, but throughout the rest of cruise the water leakage past the covers and pump rate would need to be matched to keep the pump correctly loaded for mechanical reliability. Alternatively, the seawater could be evacuated by feeding compressed air into the waterjet inlet. This would need an airtight seal above the maximum entrained water level, which would be difficult to achieve and would need to avoid any interference with the waterjet operation. The effects of air pressurisation of the duct would need to be compatible with any

2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects

requirements of the waterjet pump sealing with the waterjet switched off (Moller 1995). As noted above, in order to evacuate the waterjet inlets, additional care would need to be taken with the design of the waterjet covers, and a mechanism to pump the water flowing into the duct through the covers will be required. It is estimated that the weight of these covers, and the pumping mechanism etc will be approximately 30 tonnes. The saving in entrained mass in the inlet ducts will be a maximum of 140 tonnes, (based on the volume of water in the ducts) however there may need to be a head of water to prime the pump resulting in a lower weight saving. Hence, the maximum overall saving is estimated to be approximately 75 tonnes. This will result in a further reduction in power required of approximately 4%. There will be a small addition in power consumption to run the pump to keep the duct evacuated, however this is neglected. In addition, the effect of partially evacuating the inlet duct will lead to a trim change and likely immergence of the steering gear, waterjet buckets, and a reduction in the transom area. This may reduce parasitic drag by a further 2%. Hence, the overall reduction in power required if the waterjet inlets are partially evacuated will be approximately 6%, and so the power required to propel hull form B2 at 15 knots using the single thruster will be approximately 3,200kW. 6.5 Adjustable bulbous bow

The structure of such an adjustable bulb will be somewhat complex, and it is anticipated will weigh in the order of 40 tonnes, giving a penalty in power required at 15 knots of about 2%. The consequent overall reduction in power required at 15 knots of about 2% is not considered sufficient benefit to overcome the substantial issues associated with the design of an adjustable bulbous bow, hence such a feature is not considered further. 6.6 Fitting an adjustable transom flap

Based on work done by QinetiQ (Scrace, 2004) it is estimated that the addition of transom flaps will reduce the power required at 15 knots by about 13%. The lower hydrodynamic surface of the flap will generally follow the shape of the hull, and in simple terms will be a shallow vee shape. The flap will need to be hinged to the hull and will have some means of adjusting and holding position, such as hydraulic or screw actuators, as the flap rotates about the hinge pin. The implementation of this concept is expected to be within the realms of normal engineering practice. The difficulty will be achieving a vee-shaped surface that can be rotated, without creating gaps in the hydrodynamic surface which would increase drag and reduce the effectiveness of the flap and possibly negate the benefits of adjustment relative to a fixed flap. Using information from the earlier work by QinetiQ it is estimated that the additional weight of the flap, together with the actuator mechanism etc will be approximately 25 tonnes. Hence, the overall reduction in power required at 15 knots by fitting a flap will be approximately 12%, and the power required to propel hull form B2 at 15 knots using a single thruster will be approximately 3,100 kW. 6.7 Trimming by the bow

For the vessel being considered in this study a bulb would have a beneficial influence on the powering for the lower speed regime, however it is not clear whether it would be advantageous for the higher speed regime, or not. It is noted that the benefits of bulbous bows for full form merchant ships are somewhat different to those expected for lower block coefficient hullforms, such as those used for warships. In addition, the design of a bulbous bow for a full form vessel is quite different to that for a finer form vessel. A bulbous bow for a slender warship type hullform has been shown to provide a maximum power saving of around 6% but only at one bulb speed combination. Only the smallest bulb tested (6% of midship section area) showed improvements over the whole speed range for basic frigate form resistance and propulsion experiments with various from modifications (Dove, 1966). A bulb which is able to be fully retracted at high speed will be likely to be less effective than the optimised bulb at 15 knots. It is assumed that this bulb will reduce the power required at 15 knots by 4%

It is estimated that at 15 knots a trim by the bow of 0.7m will result in a reduction in power required of approximately 2%. To obtain this trim a trimming moment of 3,300tm will be required. This can be achieved either by a) b) c) d) taking on ballast forward; discharging ballast aft; moving dedicated mass, such as ballast; moving existing mass on board the ship, such as fuel etc.

Taking on ballast forward will result in an increased displacement, increasing the power required. Assuming the position of the added ballast is

2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects

approximately 30m forward of the LCF the advantage of the trim will be almost exactly balanced by the disadvantage of the additional displacement. Therefore this option was discarded. In order to discharge ballast aft for the low speed condition it is necessary to have this ballast on board, which would provide a significant penalty at the high speed condition, and so this option was discarded. The option of moving dedicated ballast forward is likely to require an increase in displacement, and hence this option was also discarded. Taking the opportunity to pump fuel from aft to forward will be possible unless all the tanks are full. If additional tankage is provided in the design, this will still be possible for the full fuel state. The weight penalty associated with the additional tankage is considered negligible. Achieving a trim of 0.7m by the bow will require 60t of fuel to be moved 50m forward. This would seem easily achievable on a ship of this size at all, but the very lightest, fuel states by providing additional tankage forward. Manoeuvring and seakeeping implications would need to be investigated, however it is assumed that these will be able to be taken into account in the initial design of the vessel. Hence the power required to propel hull form B2 with a trim of 0.7m by the bow at 15 knots using a single thruster will be approximately 3,400kW. 6.8 Cumulative effect

The stern shapes idealised for the OPV have a stern beam of 5m for low speed and 11.5m with an increase in draught at the stern for high speed. Given the difference in beam, it will be difficult to obtain a smooth hull form at 5m stern beam in sufficiently flexible material to enable the surface to be inflated by some means to a shape with 11.5m beam with increased draught. The flexible material would also need to be strong enough to sustain sea loads in both conditions. When reverting to the low speed shape and size, the material would need to allow the hull surface to retract to a smooth profile to achieve the required fuel efficiency. If a solution can be developed it is more likely to be in the form of hull-shaped plates, external to the watertight hull, which can be pushed out by actuators to form the high speed shape. The practical difficulty is that the plates would have the curvature of the low speed shape and when moved out to the high speed position they would consequently not have the ideal high speed shape. There would also need to be some flexible material between the plate segments to complete the high speed shape and this would need to collapse to a smooth low speed shape to achieve the long term fuel efficiency. An adjustable stern shape is likely to interfere with the waterjet inlet position and the ability to retract the thruster by placing demands on the available space. An alternative concept, which would also enable the immersed transom area to be reduced at low speeds, is to fit a hinging structure aft of the transom. This could be depressed at high speeds, resulting in effectively horizontal buttock lines aft, to increase the transom area. At low speeds this could be raised to reduce the effective transom area. A mechanism to ensure that the exhaust from the waterjets clears the structure will be necessary, however it is considered that this would be relatively easily achieved. The weight of the plates and actuators etc would be considerable and could be estimated to be equivalent to the entire hull plating and internal stiffeners of the stern region of the low speed hull form. Hence, the additional weight required to permit the stern to be modified will be approximately 200 tonnes, and it is estimated that the pumping mechanism and residual mass of water in the inlet ducts will be approximately 65 tonnes. This will require an increase in power for 15 knots of approximately 13%. Hence, the net benefit of an adjustable stern shape will be of the order of 27% at 15 knots, giving a power requirement of approximately 1,800kW.

The cumulative effects of making use of a single azimuthing thruster, fitting covers and an evacuation pump to the waterjet inlets, adding an adjustable transom flap, and modifying the trim for low speed will result in an overall reduction in power of approximately 33% at 15 knots compared to the hull form idealised for 40 knots. Hence the power required to propel hull form B2 at 15 knots with these modifications will be approximately 2,600kW. 6.9 Adjustable stern to reduce the transom immersion at low speeds

Up to a Froude number of 0.27, equating to about 16 knots for the concept OPV vessel it pays to have no transom immersion. As speed increases above that it is beneficial to have some transom immersion. It is estimated that modifying the stern to give improved performance at 15 knots could reduce the power required by up to 40%.

2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Range at 15 knots
1

Non-Dimensionalised range (A1* =1.0)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 B2 with propeller B2 with non WT covers B2 with leaking & pumping covers B2 with flap only B2 with trim by the bow B2 with everything but modifying the stern B2 with modified stern

Configuration

Figure 5 Effect on range of adjustable configurations to design B2 (high speed hull form) with A1* (low speed hull form as base case)

6.10

Summary of the effect of Adjustable Hull Form on the Low Speed Endurance

The different seakeeping criteria used for the high speed sprint compared to that used for the low speed operation has led to a similar limiting sea state for both speeds. 8. 1. 2. REFERENCES Dove HL, 1966, Basic frigate form resistance and propulsion experiments with various from modifications, MoD report. Gertler M, 1954, A Reanalysis of the Original Test Data for the Taylor Standard Series, MoD report. Health and Safety Executive, 2002, The Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive 2002/44/EC, whole body vibration. Military Agency For Standardisation (MAS), 1999, NATO STANAG 4154 (Ed. 3) 1999 Moller, K-J, 1999, MEKO OPVs A new dimension in mission and budget flexibility, Warship 1995, RINA, London. Montgomery, P and Crossland, P, 1995, User guide for the PAT-95 suite of ship motion computer programs, MoD report. Renilson, MR, Randle, K, and Taylor, JW, 2005, A preliminary investigation into two speed operation of surface warships, MoD report. Scrace, RJ 1992, The RAP91 program suite DRA Haslar's standard analysis of model and ship resistance and propulsion experiments technical specification, MoD report.

It is assumed that range is directly proportional to power required, for a given fuel consumption. Therefore, taking the range of A1* as the base case, the effects of the different adjustable configurations to design B2 on the range can be estimated. The results are given in figure 5. 7. CONCLUDING COMMENTS

A vessel designed for high speed, which is likely to be fitted with waterjets, has a significantly worse performance at low speeds than one specifically designed for low speeds. It has been demonstrated that the following modifications to the high speed vessel would improve its low speed performance significantly: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. use of a retractable single screw thruster for low speeds; fitting waterjet inlet covers, and evacuating water from the inlet for low speed operation; fitting an adjustable transom flap such that the optimum flap angle can be deployed at each speed; making it possible to adjust the trim by the bow for lower speed operation; and making the stern shape adjustable to reduce the transom area at low speeds.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

The use of an adjustable bulbous bow is not recommended for this application.

2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Scrace, RJ, 2004, Trials to measure Type 23 frigate shaft power reductions due to a fixed transom flap, MoD report. 10. Wiltshire J & Hartley KB, 1988, Batch 2 Type 22 Frigate Resistance and Propulsion Experiments, MoD report. 11. Yeh HYH, 1964, Series 64 Resistance Experiments on High-Speed Displacement Forms, SNAME Chesapeake Section, December 1964. 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

9.

This work was funded and carried out as part of the Weapon and Platform Effectors Domain of the MoD Research Programme

2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects