MOBILE OFFSHORE BASE (MOB) ONR S&T Program Overview Office of Naval Research The purpose of this briefing is to provide an overview of the ONR Science and Technology program, which has been underway since February 1997. The first grant was awarded in March and the initial contract awarded in July 97. In the subsequent 2-12/ years approximately 75 grants and contracts have been awarded towards the goal of assessing MOB feasibility and cost. The Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (Port Hueneme CA) coordinates the technical program for ONR.

* http://mob.nfesc.navy.mil ONR MOB S&T Program Follows DARPA Program (1993-1996) ONR S&T Program (1997-2000) Objective: Establish Feasibility and Cost of MOB Approach: Open, Collaborative Teaming among Industry, Academia, and Government Data and Technical Documents immediately available on the WEB * * http://mob.nfesc.navy.mil This visual presents a broad overview of the resources associated with this ONR S&T program. The objectives are very general. In fact, this generality had a major impact on the program direction. The S&T program direction was dictated by two overriding factors: (1) these general objectives, and (2) the absence of clearly-defined missions. The main block of FY96 funding, potentially available in Oct 1995, was sent to ONR 16 months late, arriving Feb 1997. The S&T program was initiated at that time. Note that $300K had been released the previous Sept to allow for review of the 120+ preproposals submitted in response to an ONR MOB BAA in May 1996. Present S&T funding will be exhausted by Summer 2000.

MOB General Mission Provide a floating, in-theater platform for U.S. and Allied Forces for operational and sustainment basing capabilities in support of: Flight Operations Ground Troops Equipment Storage Supply & Maintenance Fleet Operations This general mission was derived from the Mission Needs Statement, dated 15 September 1995 (not JROC approved). It was initiated by Admiral Owens and signed by by 4 flag officers: CINC Special Operations Command CINC U.S. Southern Command CINC U.S. Atlantic Command Commandant United States Marine Corps

A Unique Ocean Mega-Structure 40 year life Reconfigurable versus mission Support fixed wing cargo aircraft operations up to SS6 Large volume required for storage Support a full Army Brigade Ship-to-ship cargo transfer up to SS3 Exceeds Industry Practice Survivable in hurricanes and typhoons and equipment maintenance An ocean platform capable of satisfying the MOB general mission would be unique/unprecedented in terms of both size and capabilities. It would be an innovative structure both in design and function. This viewgraph shows upper quadrant: some of the “design driving” mission requirements and lower quadrant: key technological challenges.

MOB Module & Platform Size Semi- submersible 300m (DB102) VLCC 455m (Seawise Giant) CVN 320m (Nimitz) M O B Semisubmersible Modules 300-600m length 130-160m beam 13-35m draft This visual compares MOB to the marine industry state-of-practice using size as the single criterion. The top part of this visual illustrates state-of-practice as measured by the largest floating: semisubmersible, commercial vessel, and military vessel. The lower part illustrates a range of possible MOB module and platform sizes. MOB modules will be semisubmersible modules, with platforms assembled from multiple modules. For some missions one module could be sufficient (striped box above), while for others, like landing a C-17, a nominal 6000ft multi-module platform may be required. Note that even the individual modules would be slightly larger than any existing floating maritime structures. The C-17-capable 6000ft platform is clearly well beyond industry state-of-practice. Platform Configuration 300-1800m length 1 to 5 modules Rigid/Hinged/Bridged/DP Connectivity

Concept Configurations Single Module Two Modules Hinged Platform Bridged Platform A full-length, full-depth monohull would have very large, unacceptable structural stresses along the keel due to simple hog and sag deflections. Therefore, we are looking at a range of linked modules to provide structural compliance and mission versatility. Compliance reduces structural stress in the hull, but results in relative motion between the individual modules and thus a deck that may not always be straight or continuous. Acceptable system platform concepts are those that seek a balance between structural stresses and inter-module motion. Each semisubmersible module consists of a box type deck supported by multiple columns on two parallel pontoons. When on site, the module is ballasted down so that the pontoons are submerged below the surface wave zone. The columns provide a minimum exposed surface thereby minimizing wave loads. The decks, which store rolling stock and dry cargo, are all located above the wave crests. The columns provide structural support and hydrostatic stability against overturning. Liquids are stored in the pontoons and columns, eliminating most below water voids and thus minimizing greatly the danger of damage due to flooding. When transiting between operational sites, the unit is deballasted and travels with the pontoons on the surface much like a catamaran. Dyn. Pos. Platform

MOB Topics Related to JLOTS Requirements Derivation Operational Availability Modeling Cargo Transfer Constructability

Requirements Derivation Process Mission Needs Statement (MNS) CONOPS Mission Analysis Requirement Functional Synthesis & Concepts Engineering Design Criteria Requirements Functions Functional RequirementsDATABASE Broadly Stated Objectives Decomposed into Specific Engineering Design Requirements Problem: Different interpretations of the MNS led to different design goals by the concept designers, which makes the concepts difficult to compare. Solution: A systems based process was developed to derive MOB mission-based functional requirements. . Decompose MNS into discrete Missions (CONOPS) . Define specific capabilities to support each mission (SCD) Example (C4I, selective offload capability) . Analyze each system capability to derive specific physical requirements. These are all documented in the DATABASE. New missions can be built from the list of elements in the database. Example (space for troops to accommodate a particular mission) 4. PRD: One for each CONOPS: Defines MOB in terms of functional and performance requirements. Includes (doc’s, Mission rqts, Op Env., Funct. Rqts, Arrangements)

Requirements Derivation Process Documented in Database Structure Contents of Requirements Database (MNS) (CONOPS) (SCD) Example of Requirements Derivation Process, Illustrating Database Structure: MOB may have many mission, as identified in current MNS. For example, one mission may be: MOB AS LOGISTICS HUB (highlighted box). The different missions shown on this level of the tree chart would be comparable to those expressed in a document on the level of a MNS. Each mission comprises several mission elements, for example, mission elements of MOB AS LOGISTICS HUB might include Conduct arrival/assembly ops at sea, re-constitute in-theatre, reinforce amphibious task force, etc. These mission elements would be comparable to those described in a CONOPS for a given mission. Each mission element is tied t o specific capabilities needed to satisfy that mission element. Continuing the example, capabilities required to meet the mission element “Reinforce Amphibious Task Force” (highlighted box) might consist of those shown in chart above. These capabilities would be comparable to those described in a SCD for a given mission. Each Capability has specific functional requirements tied to it. Continuing example, Capability “Stow Vehicular Cargo”, in supported by the specific functional requirements shown, e.g., ventilation system, loading, clear height, etc. Dashed white line encompasses database contents: mission element, capabilities, and functional requirements.

Supply and Sustainment Notional MOB System Capabilities to Support - Operational Maneuver From The Sea (OMFTS) Supply and Sustainment Receive, store, issue, and re-supply material for MAGTF operations for 60 days, Interface with Strategic Sea-lift and Air-Lift Maintenance I-Level for all MAGTF Aircraft, Vehicles and Combatant Craft C4I Control MAGTF throughout Area of Operation (AO), Coordinate with CJTF supporting forces Health Service Support Routine and emergency medical care Other Administrative and personnel support to keep combat forces fully operational Slide illustrates notional Systems Capabilities to support one representative mission (OMFTS). EXAMPLE

Major Mission Specific Capabilities Logistics (CVBG) Daily Cargo Through-put in support per CVBG Provision/Store 24 Metric Tons DFM 580,000 Liters JP5 1 Million Liters Ordnance 150 Metric Tons SOF Up to 10,000 SOF personnel 74 Rotary/Fixed-wing aircraft, 22 combatant craft Water 6 Million Liters Fuel & Dry Cargo for SOF equipment 40.5 Million Liters 9,700 Metric Tons Cargo OMFTS Up to 20,000 MAGTF personnel 128 Rotary/Fixed-wing aircraft, 62 lighterage Strategic Sealift and Airlift (C-17 capable) Water 24 Million Liters Fuel & Dry Cargo for MAGTF equipment 67.5 Million Liters 16,200 Metric Tons Cargo Slide shows some of the more significant (in terms of MOB size and function) capabilities required for 3 of the CONOPS. [Follow-on step to previous visual.] Note: Strategic Sealift (C-17) capability is listed for OMFTS. Accomodating the C-17 needed to be included somewhere to show all MNS derived requirements and this was selected. You will see the impact of removing this capability on the next slide. EXAMPLE

2nd of 2 Executive Summary Visuals PENDING COMPLETION OF S&T Mob Size & Cost Ranges $1.5B SOF OMFTS $2-3.0B $2-3.0B LOGISTICS OPERATIONAL BASE $4-5.0B C-130 Capability 2nd of 2 Executive Summary Visuals This slide graphically displays the same information as the previous visual. It clearly shows that MOB size, cost (as well as risk) are tied directly to the four representative mission requirements via the platform estimated lengths, and vary dramatically depending on the mission. If we extract the C-17 capability (but retain a C-130 capability) from OMFTS, the size is halved from 6000 ft to 3000 ft. The “Operational Base” combines all the capabilities of SOF, OMFTS and Logistics (C130 capability is included). 3000-ft seems to be the approximate divider between confident design today, and the introduction of some uncertainty pending completion of the S&T. Costs are VERY approximate, and include the bare hull and basic machinery only. C-17 Capability $8.0B 3,000 2,000 1,000 6,000 4,000 5,000 RISK: ACCEPTABLE PENDING COMPLETION OF S&T PLATFORM LENGTH (FT)

Operational Availability Model Assess the performance of any MOB concept relative to the Mission Needs Statement Investigate the sensitivity of various performance parameters to changes in Concept Configuration and Mission Requirements Status: Preliminary model - Sept. 98 Generalized model & Report Dec. 99 Input Data files - Feb. 00

Reliability Available Time Maintainability Repair Time What is Ao? “Failed” “Repaired” “Failed” Logistics Delay Time Repair Time Available Time Time Available Time Ao = Total Time Reliability Available Time Maintainability Repair Time Supportability Logistics Delay Time

Operational Availability (Ao) Model Wind/wave/current Databases Large-scale Typhoon scale Operational Availability Model (AO). This tool statistically estimates the percentage of time the MOB can perform a given mission. The model considers the failure rate of key systems or components, the percentage of time lost to bad weather at the designated location, and other factors that affect mission performance. The model has not been used for full formal analysis of any concept. This may be the first time an operational availability model has integrated mechanical and structural reliability with actual environmental data. This Performance Assessment model incorporates input from various other product areas of the MOB Program such as: Hydrodynamic analysis of platform motions Metocean (wind/wave/current) data from 23 sites around the world Air Operations Criteria for allowable runway misalignment Cargo transfer rates for LO/LO RO/RO and Air Cargo Quantify performance versus Platform configuration, Metocean characteristics of various sites, Mission Requirements

Preliminary Ao Statistics - Site Comparison (Hours)

Ship Cargo Transfer Rate Model Create an analytically robust method to estimate cargo transfer rate between MOB and auxiliary vessels under variety of environmental conditions Status Preliminary Model and Interem Report delivered - March 99 Ship Motion analysis completed - Aug 99 Final Model and Report due March 00

Overall Modeling Strategy Vessel Response Environment Motion Calcs Transfer Simulation Rate ------------- Xfer Schedule Cargo Xfer Method Cargo Description Cargo Movement Plans

Container Movement Steps 1. Lift to travel position 2. Move to target 3. Focus on target* Insert in Cell Guide* Lower in Cell Guide* 4. Latch Lift in Cell Guide* 5. Lift to travel position 6. Move to unload 7. Drop to unload 8. Unlatch 9. Store on MOB ( *Gated operation ) 1 2 3 5 4 6 7 8 MOB Robo Crane 9

Cargo Transfer Rate Model Conclusions Simulation works as tool for determining transfer rate Preliminary results Expect about 29 containers / hr as maximum transfer rate on MOB Motion compensated crane design is likely choice for MOB, with manual backup capability Capability of crane designs to acquire target should be focus of crane-testing programs Model needs to be calibrated from field test data

Cargo Transfer to Landing Craft Focus: Assess ability to transfer cargo to small landing craft alongside MOB Issues: size of MOB allows for unique open sea cargo concepts MOB does not move -good large hull amplifies waves - bad physics of vessel to vessel interaction poorly understood unique berthing requirements Products: wave characterization around MOB wave sheltering concepts The primary mission requirement for the MOB is to store and transfer cargo as a logistics facility. Traditionally, the effectiveness of open-sea cargo transfer depends heavily on the high relative motion between the transferring vessels. A very large semisubmersible type vessel like MOB does not move much for metocean conditions where cargo transfer is desired, thus minimizing this problem. However, recent hydrodynamic studies have indicated that wave patterns around the large semisubmersible columns of a MOB could amplify the wave environment for smaller vessels attempting to load or unload alongside the MOB . Some potential solutions have been proposed, including methods of forming a protected harbor and improving the motion compensation capability of handling equipment. As shown, vertical walls can act as effective shelter for small vessels alongside MOB. Temporarily lowered like garage doors between the columns of MOB, these walls need only extend part way to the pontoons to be effective in reducing the local wave environment. Vertical wall sheltering

Typical Relative Water Surface Contour Plot Base Case – 6 Second Waves - 30 Heading Typical qualitative results Results vary dramatically with heading and frequency Visually not obvious which is best configuration, heading, loading location. Therefore went to numerical evaluation by averaging surface over specific loading locations.

Comparison of RMS Ramp Angle (Heading With Lowest Motions) Ramp angles are not only worse than walls, but are higher than the base case Hypothesized due to waves reverberating in enclosed box and interaction between vessel bottom and lagoon bottom Lagoon concept probably needs door Transmission Coeff Is Misleading - Must Calculate Vessel Motions

Constructability Concluded that U.S. industry has capacity to competitively deliver a CTOL-length MOB platform Developed a risk-based constructability model and guidelines facility capabilities transportation environmental impact safety management cost and scheduling

MOB Program Summary Pioneering marine technology advancements Products emphasize general applicability, ranging from mission planning to fabrication Advancements also applicable to other maritime structures and Navy programs Some S&T unfinished due to short 3-year project duration

For More Information Visit the MOB WEB Site: http://mob.nfesc.navy.mil E-Mail the Program Office: taylorrj@onr.navy.mil