ACEGCE IPT MCCDC SEABASING CONF Robert M' Borka USMC ACEGCE IPT Lead Mine, Amphibious, Auxiliary and

1
ACE/GCE IPT MCCDC SEABASING CONF Robert M.
BorkaUSMC ACE/GCE IPT LeadMine, Amphibious,
Auxiliary and Command Shipsrobert.borka_at_navy.mil
202-781-1982
2
Agenda

• Background
• Phase I
• Phase II
• Phase III
• Way Ahead
• Summary

3
Background
68 of Amphibious Fleet in restricted stability
status have future weight growth issues

• Status 1 - No Weight or KG Problems
• Status 2 - Cannot Accept either Weight and/or KG
  Growth
• Status 3 - Cannot Accept KG Growth
• Status 4 - Cannot Accept Weight Growth

Adding ballast does not improve ships stability
and consumes ship displacement marginAnd may
impact ability to deploy full load Further
impacting ships riding characteristics.
4
USMC Aircraft and Vehicle Growth
DESIGN LOADOUT
NEAR TERM (2007-12)
NOTIONAL FUTURE (2012 )
M151/trlr 3000 lb
M998/armr 7653 lb
JLTV 20000 lb
(120)
(120)
(120)
MEU Ground Vehicles and Equipment
M35 2.5T 12580 lb
MTVR w/MAS 49242 lb
MTVR w/MAS 49242 lb
(40)
(40)
(40)
M48 MBT 104000 lb
M1A1 135200 lb
M1A1 140000 lb
(4)
(4)
(4)
AAV 52000 lb
AAV7A1 51000 lb
EFV 72500 lb
(15)
(15)
(15)
Ground Vehicles and Equipment up to 3x heavier
CH 46A 13000 lb
MV 22 46990 lb
MV 22 46990 lb
(12)
(12)
(12)
MV-22 weighs almost 3x CH-46A
Air Combat Element (ACE)
AV 8B 24512 lb
AV 8B 24512 lb
JSF 46217 lb
(6)
(6)
(6)
F-35B JSF weighs almost 2x AV-8B Harrier
CH53A 22900 lb
CH53E 48710 lb
CH53K 55000 lb
(4)
(4)
(4)
Notional Aggregate (from above list) embarked
MEU
3553 tons
2549 tons
1227 tons
Increased Weights/Density Impact Deck Strength,
Ships Stability...
MCCDC CDI SID , POE 50, NAVAIR 1.2 concurs
with vehicle weights ALL VEHICLE COUNTS
NOTIONAL (Based on historical data)
5
Phase I

• ACE Logistics Footprint Study
• Determined square/cube impact of 2015 Future ACE
• Results dictated requirement for stability impact
  study
• LHA/LHD Class Stability Impacts Study
• LHA 1 Class will accommodate future ACE (MV-22
  only) and Ground vehicles (April 2006 NSWC
  estimate).
• Loadout within 250 Ltons of displacement limit
• LHA 1 Class already has Fuel Oil Comp
• LHD 1-6 must have Fuel Oil Compensation (FOC)
  System to accommodate future ACE and current
  Ground vehicles
• LHD 5 FOC install in progress
• LHD 7 and 8 will accommodate future ACE and
  current Ground vehicles
• LHD 7 and 8 received FOC in new construction
• Further analysis is required on all amphibs with
  analysis that centers on Vehicle/Equipment
  loadout
• Vehicle and Flight Deck strength
• Ships stability

6
Phase II

• Conduct shipboard compatibility of MTVR with
  Armor System (MAS) on LSD 41/49 Class
• Ramps, turntables, clearances, tiedowns
• Conduct Structural analysis of vehicle decks as a
  result of new Marine Corps vehicles/equipment
• Develop generic vehicle load envelopes
• Structural analysis and integrity assessment of
  LSD 41/49 Class flight deck and 01 level vehicle
  deck
• Conduct stability analysis based on 2015 ACE and
  GCE loadouts
• Update the current ACE, GCE, and logistics loads
  currently utilized in stability baselines
• Stability analysis based on worst case vehicle
  loading as determined during structural analysis

LPD 17 Class Stability Study Final Remaining Study
7
Phase II Timeline
2009
2010
FY
2008
2007
2008
CY
2007
2009
1 2 3 4
S O N D J
Program Milestones
POM 12 Submit (PMS 470)
Phase I
Phase I Finished
ACE/GCE issue Briefed to GOFO
Phase II
OPNAV N85 Directed PMS470 to Fund Part 1,2 of
Phase II
SOWs refined and finalized
PMS 470 Funded Engineering Activities
NSWC-CD Development of Generic Deck Loading Tool
Official Phase II Study Kickoff Meeting
USMC Provide Technical Data and Loadouts
NAVSSES Conduct MTVR MAS Compatibility Analysis
Structural Assessment by NSWC-CD
Stability Assessment by NSWC-CD
LPD 17
LHD 1
LSD41/49
GO/FO Phase II Out brief
Development of Ship Alteration Options
Software and ShipAlt Development
Refinement of Software (ICODES/FCCS) Statements
of Work and Costs
Development of Ship Alteration Options ROM Costs
Development of POM12 Issue Sheets
POM12 Submission Due
8
Phase II MAS Compatibility on LSD Class

• Final Report Complete
• Between Deck Ramps and Decks
• The MAS can be stowed in all vehicle decks on
  LSD-41 and LSD-49 Class ships
• Some height restrictions on different MAS
  configurations
• Cranes
• - Heaviest vehicle AMK 36 Wrecker supportable
• Turntable and Drive
• The turntable assembly (LSD-41 Class ships only)
  supports transit/turning of the MAS
• Tie-Down Fittings
• A total of 8 x 70,000-lb MBS shipboard lashing
  assemblies are required to securely stow the MAS
  during storm sea conditions (Sea State 7-
  Beaufort/NATO Scale).

9
Phase II Generic Vehicle Load Envelopes

• Planning Tool Simplified Structural Assessment
  Procedure enables analyst to quickly assess
  ships deck structural adequacy of a specific
  deck when subjected to vehicle loads.
• Developed a NAVSEA Process Instruction.
• Plan to incorporate into Ships Loading
  Characteristics Pamphlet (SLCP) COMNASURFORINST
  4621.1
• Goal Reduce 8 hour manual calculation process
  into a 5 minute task.

Final Report and NAVSEA Instructions in
Progressplan to incorporate into SLCP
10
Phase II LSD 41/49 Detailed Structural Assessment

• Structural analysis and integrity assessment of
  LSD 41/49 Class flight deck and 01 level vehicle
  deck.
• Final report in process
• Evaluation of MEU Vehicles parked on ship
• The LSD-49, 01 Level vehicle parking deck aft of
  FR 72 is at the lowest acceptable factor of
  safety (FS 1.0 for stiffener bending) when
  subjected to the MTVR-AMk25 vehicle load.

Vehicle Library Provided by USMC
11
Phase II Stability studies In Progress

• Conduct stability analysis based on 2008, 2015,
  and 2024 MEU (ACE (2015 only) and GCE) loadout
• LSD 41 Class
• Prior to study, 50 of Class exceed Naval Arch
  limits (42, 43, 44 46)
• 2008 2015 MEU load out improves stability of 42
  44
• 2024 MEU load out pushes 42 44 back over
  Allowable KG curve.
• Remaining ships of the class approaching
  Allowable KG curve consume most of their KG
  margin w/2024 MEU
• LSD 49 Class
• Class appears to have enough displacement KG
  margin to accommodate the 2008, 2012 2024 MEU
  load outs
• PMS470/NSWC-CD Developing POM12 Stability
  Improvement way ahead

LSD 41/49 Final Report Released
12
Phase II Stability studies In Progress

• Conduct stability analysis based on 2008, 2015,
  and 2024 MEU (ACE (2015 only) and GCE) loadout
• LHD 1 Class
• Five out of seven (LHD 1, 2, 5, 6 7) appear to
  have enough displacement KG margin to
  accommodate the 2009, 2015, and 2024 MEU load
  outs, MV-22 JSF aircraft.
• LHD 3 and 4 are just above the LHD 1-4 F/O Comp
  Sys estimated curve.
• LPD 17 Class in progress
• Timeline delayed to support LSD POM12 Stability
  Improvement development

LHD 1 Class Final Report in Development
13
LHD 1-4 Stability Curve
14
LHD 5-7 Stability Curve
15
Phase III

• Funded
• Update the 2015 Future ACE Logistics Footprint
  Study
• Unfunded
• Software Development (FY10 Developemt)
• Develop capacity within ICODES to perform
  specific vehicle deck structural analysis
• Develop ability to export vehicle specific data
  (location and weights) from ICODES to FCCS
  (Flooding Casualty Control System) software for
  use by ships DCA
• Combat Cargo Survey
• Perform survey on a WASP Class Ship returning
  from deployment to update GCE for class stability
  baselines

Future ACE Study funded by HQMC APP June 09
16
Phase III Aviation Logistics Footprint

• Tasks
• Review and update logistics support requirements
• Develop weight, volume, and location data
• Air Vehicles, Support Equipment including AWSE,
  AVCAL, and Mission Removable Equipment
• Conduct spotting analysis of flight deck and
  hangar bay
• Including analysis of the space required to
  perform major maintenance actions

• Purpose To update aviation logistics footprint
  of 2015 MEU ACE aboard LHA-1, LHD, LHA-6 and LPD
  17 class Amphibious Assault Ships
• ACE F-35B, AV-8B, MV-22, H-53, AH-1Z, UH-1Y, and
  Navy MH-60S
• ACE Validation required
• Cost NAVAIR 6.7.1.5 225k
• NAVAIR 4.8.1.5 105k
• Conference Support 20k
• TOTAL 350k

Sponsor Robert Borka, PMS-470 NAVAIR Lead Capt
Randy Gabriel, AIR 6.7.1.5, Aviation/Ship
Integration NAEC Lakehurst Lead William Mehl,
AIR 4.8.1.5, Lakehurst Spotting Room Other Major
Participants Include PEO(Ships), PMS-377, HQMC
(APP), MCCDC, SURFLANT/PAC, F-35 JPO, NAVAIR
PMAS, NSWCCD

• Deliverables
• Due 12 months after receipt of funding
• AAS Aviation Logistics Footprint Assessment (AIR
  6.7.1.5)
• Physical deck layout documentation including
  AutoCAD recreations (AIR 4.8.1.5)

17
Phase III Aviation Logistics Footprint

• Recent schedule slip of 2 months due to delay in
  receipt of JSF F-35B OPLOG footprint data.
• JSF F-35B data due to NAVAIR by 15 Nov 09
• Spotting Conference to be held 25-29 Jan 10
• Initial LHD 1 Class results by 5 Mar 10
• Draft report Jun 10
• Final report Aug 10

Example of Finished Spotting Conference Product
Hanger Deck
18
Path Ahead

• Complete Phase II Stability Efforts
• Continue with Phase III Effort
• L Class ACE Logistics Footprint Assessment
• Development of remaining Phase III Efforts
• Data pull from ICODES to FCCS
• Structure load analysis software in ICODES
• Combat Cargo Survey

Continuing Progress to Support our Fleet Sailors
and Marines
19
Summary

• Phase II final studies in progress
• Stability Studies complete by Dec 2009
• Phase III development in work
• ACE Logistics Footprint (HQMC APP funded)
• Software development (ICODES/ FCCS)
• Combat Cargo Survey
• Continue to have open dialogue between USMC and
  USN on requirements

Open Communication is Key to Success
20
Points of Contacts
CAPT Mike Graham Program Manager (PMS
470) Mine, Amphibious, Auxiliary and Command
Ships michael.r.graham_at_navy.mil
202-781-1860
Sam Samimi Deputy Program Manager (PMS
470B) Mine, Amphibious, Auxiliary and Command
Ships sam.samimi_at_navy.mil 202-781-0830
Clay Shepherd Senior MAAC Ship Class Manager (PMS
470RC) Mine, Amphibious, Auxiliary and Command
Ships clayton.shepherd_at_navy.mil 202-781-0853
Robert Borka LHA/LHD/Aviation Ship Manager (PMS
470RH4) Mine, Amphibious, Auxiliary and Command
Ships robert.borka_at_navy.mil 202-781-1982
21
BACKUP
22
Phase III Aviation Logistics Footprint

• Reasons For Update
• MV-22 Logistic Footprint Changes from 2006 Report
• MRE 10,000 lbs 2,000 ft3
• AVCAL 11,000 lbs 1,800 ft3
• SE -10,000 lbs -2,000 ft3
• Addition of MH-60 Armed Helo Footprint
• 2,500 lbs 200 ft3
• Loss of LHD Upper/Lower V Storage and additional
  MARSOC Equipment to Hangar Deck
• 25 Quadcons 38 Palcons
• Changes in Weight and Cube Locations

• Current Study Timeline
• Months 1-3
• Determine ACE for each ship class
• Develop and obtain endorsement of Ground Rules
  and Assumptions
• Collect and analyze SE, MRE, IMRL requirements
  for all Aircraft
• NAVICP AVCAL Runs for ACE Aircraft
• Compile Data to support Spotting Room Analyses
• Months 3-6
• Conduct Spotting Room Conference
• Develop Analyses/Drawings for each ship class
• Months 7-8
• Release Physical Deck Layouts
• Develop 4 Ship Class Report
• Months 9-11
• Release Draft 4 Ship Class Report

• Acceleration Option
• Separate into 2 Reports
• LHD Ship Class (7 months)
• LHA, LHD, LHA 6, and LPD 17 (12 months)
• Separate Conferences will increase costs
• LHD Report would contain physical deck layout
  AutoCad documentation