Advances in Ship Helicopter Support Systems Enhancing Mission ...

Advances in Ship Helicopter Support
Systems Enhancing Mission
Operability and Reduced Crewing
Mr. Howard Fireman
Director of Surface Ship and Ship Concepts
Naval Sea Systems Command Code 05d

Outline
• Certification Process – From the Ship
Design Manager’s Perspective
• R&D Efforts in HSI

Certification
• Approval versus certification
– NAVAIR Bulletin H1
• Specified facilities and equipment
– Approval
• NAVSEA Technical Warrant Holder for Aviation
Integration (NAVSEA PAX River)

AIR CAPABLE SHIP AVIATION
FACILITIES BULLETIN NO. 1H
1. PURPOSE: This Bulletin is promulgated
to establish standard certification
requirements and in-spection procedures
for the aviation facilities aboard Air
Capable Ships. THE STANDARDS
CONTAINED HEREIN ARE
CONSIDERED MINIMUM AND ARE NOT
INTENDED TO BE USED AS DESIGN
CRITERIA OR SPECIFICATIONS.

AIR CAPABLE SHIP AVIATION
FACILITIES BULLETIN NO. 1H
Level I: Day and night operations, Instrument Meteorologica l Conditions (IMC).
Level II: Day and night operations, Visual Meteorological C onditions (VMC).
Level III: Day only operations, VMC.
Class 1: Landing area with support (service and maintenance) facilities.
Class 2: Landing area with service facilities.
Class 2A: Landing area with limited service facilities.
Class 3: Landing area without support facilities.
Class 4: Vertical Replenishment (VERTREP)/external lift area (hover in
excess of 5 feet).
Class 5: VERTREP/external lift area (hover in excess of 15 feet).
Class 6: Helicopter In-Flight Refueling (HIFR) facility c apable of delivering
a minimum of 50 gallons of fuel per minute, at a m inimum pressure of 20
psi, to a height of 40 feet above the water.
Class 6R: HIFR facility capable of delivering only 25 to 49 gallons of fuel per
minute, at a minimum pressure of 20 psi, to a height of 40 feet above the
water.

1H: Scope of Application
1. PURPOSE
2. CANCELLATION
3. BACKGROUND
4. SCOPE
5. PRECEDENCE
6. DESIGN COORDINATION
7. INSPECTION
8. FACILITY CERTIFICATION
9. WORD USAGE
10. REVISIONS/AMENDMENTS
11. MATERIAL ALLOWANCES SUPPORTING CERTIFICATION
12. VISUAL LANDING AIDS (VLA) AND AIRCRAFT OPERATING CLEARANCES
12.1 LANDING AREA MARKING AND CLEARANCES
12.2 VERTREP/EXTERNAL LIFT AREA MARKING AND CLEARANC ES
12.3 HIFR AREA MARKING AND CLEARANCES
12.4 SPECIAL FLIGHT DECK AREA MARKING REQUIREMENTS A ND OPTIONS
12.5 LIGHTING AND VISUAL APPROACH EQUIPMENT ACCESSOR Y VISUAL AIDS VLA STOWAGE SPACE
13. DECK STRENGTH
14. AIRCRAFT SECURING
14.1 MOORING AIDS
14.2 DECK/BULKHEAD FITTINGS
15. COMMAND/CONTROL FACILITIES
15.1 HELICOPTER CONTROL STATION (HCS)
15.2 PRIMARY UHF RADIO
15.3 SOUND-POWERED TELEPHONES
15.4 SUPPLEMENTAL FACILITIES
16. WIND MEASURING AND INDICATING SYSTEM (WMIS)
17. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS

1H Scope of Application
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
SUBJECT PAGE
18. FIRE PROTECTION
18.1 DECK DRAINAGE, CONTAINMENT, AND SEALING
18.2 AQUEOUS FILM FORMING FOAM (AFFF) OR PROTEIN FOA M FACILITIES
18.3 PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS
SMOKE CONTROL
WEAPON JETTISON RAMPS
19. PERSONNEL SAFETY
19.1 DECK EDGE PROTECTION
19.2 ESCAPE ROUTES
19.3 WARNING DEVICES
19.4 MISCELLANEOUS SAFETY EQUIPMENT
19.5 HELICOPTER OPERATIONS BILL
20. EXPLOSIVE SAFETY
21. SERVICING FACILITIES
21.1 FUEL STORAGE AND REFUELING
21.2 ELECTRICAL POWER (28-VOLT DC)
21.3 ELECTRICAL POWER (400-HZ)
21.4 NITROGEN/COMPRESSED AIR SERVICE
21.5 WASHDOWN PROVISIONS
21.6 SERVICING FLUID STOWAGE
21.7 HYDRAULIC SERVICING CART STOWAGE/SUPPORT
22. MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
22.1 HANGAR
22.2 WORK AREA
22.3 OFFICE
22.4 MAJOR COMPONENT STOWAGE
22.5 SPARE PARTS STOWAGE
DEFUELING
ALKALINE BATTERY FACILITIES
23. RECOVERY ASSIST, SECURING, AND TRAVERSING (RAST) SYSTEM
23.1 RAPID SECURING DEVICE
23.2 RAST CONTROL STATION
23.3 FLIGHT/HANGAR DECK EQUIPMENT
23.4 RAST MACHINERY ROOM
23.5 DECK DRAINAGE, CONTAINMENT, AND SEALING
23.6 BULK STOWAGE
24. MISCELLANEOUS STOWAGE FOR LAMPS MK III SUPPORT
24.1 MISSION EXPENDABLES FLIGHT GEAR TECHNICAL DOCUM ENT STOWAGE

THE STANDARDS CONTAINED HEREIN
ARE CONSIDERED MINIMUM…
• LIGHTING AND VISUAL LANDING AID SUITE UTILIZING NEW
TECHNOLOGIES
– Address assurance of NAVAIR requirements for certificatio n at Level III
Class 3 for Aug 04 ship delivery
– Execution of a comprehensive VLA system test to achieve L evel II Class 2A
certification in Aug 05
– Provide a Level III, Class 3 Aviation Facility Guida nce Plan
– Provide a comprehensive POA&M for post delivery VLA
requirements/testing for migration to a Level II, Class2 A NVD Compatible
Facility
– Evaluate lighting technologies
– Design VLA Suite
– Purchase VLA equipment
– Install VLA suite
– Develop Test Plan
– Conduct dynamic interface testing
– Provide VLA Equipment Requirements List
– Update Aviation Facilities Resume
– Provide in service support

Safety Case Example

Speed-Weight
Weight-Intended Service
• Regulatory body structural design guidelines
– DNV – Open Ocean operation is restricted for high
speed craft
• Time from sheltered waters
• Minimal high loadings assumed
• Limited attention to fatigue issues
• Limited attention to extreme loads relative to spe cial material
properties – relationship between yield and ultimate
– Heat treated materials
– Materials not lending themselves to non-destructive test
inspection
– ABS – Current deterministic rules are similar to DNV
– Direct Loads Analysis Application – ABS-NSWCCD
Team

Environment
• Regulatory body guidelines :
Probability
Wave Period
of
Versus
Wave Height
Region
for
- Sea
Sea
State
State 4
– Linear behavior (small amplitude responses)
Northern Arabian Seas Summer
0.40
Gulf of Mexico
– Implicit - seaway restrictions
N. North Arabian Atlantic Winter
0.35 – Restricted water operation reflects the “peakedness” an d “bandedness” North Sea Winter of benign
environments
N. Atlantic
North Sea
0.30
Gulf Of Mexico
• 0.3500 Open ocean-greater spreading of amplitudes and perio ds
• Littoral environments wave energy concentrated close t o ship dynamics
0.3000
resonant 0.25 conditions
• Achieving reliability in structural design and ship stability:
Probability
Probabiltiy
of Occurrence SS4
0.4500
0.4000
0.20
– design process consider probability of occurrence of o vermatching events in the
specified environment
0.15
0.2500
0.2000
0.1500
0.10
0.1000
0.05
0.0500
0.00
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
4-5 ft 5-6 ft 6-7 ft 7-8 ft
Modal Wave Period (seconds)
Wave Height

Certification
• Relies on the development of a scaleable risk manag ement
approach that provides the ability to prioritize th e
consequences of safety and suitability risk events.
• Information needed to assess performance
– Modeling
• Numeric modeling
• Sub-scale testing
• Time domain simulations
– Trials
• Quantity and locations of instrumentation
• Trial Conditions evaluated
• Correlation of stochastic and deterministic data is the basis of
certification
• Ensures the safety and suitability

Risk Events Evaluated
P-Spec Defined Requirements
•Will not make speed
•Will not make hump speed
•Excessive Cavitation
•Primary Structural Failure
•Secondary and Tertiary Structural Failure
•Unable to Maintain Station
•Broaching
•Inadequate Course Keeping
•Inadequate Track Keeping
•Capsize
•Inadequate Helicopter Operational
Capability
•Endurance Requirements Not met
•Sinking
•High Speed Yaw Event
•Insufficient Service Life
•Inadequate Boat and Underwater Vehicle
Launch and Recovery Capability
•Exceeding Physiological and Cognitive
Limitations
•Inabiltiy to perform Underway Replenishment
Operations
•Grounding
•Collision
•Failure to meet NATO Maneuvering
Requirements
•Failure to meet NATO Seakeeping STANAG
Requirements
•Not able to be towed

Risk Reduction Process
Risk Event
• Risk Element 1
•Element 1 Data
•Sensor 1
•Sensor N
•Element 1 Info
• Risk Element N
•Element N Data
•Sensor 1
•Sensor N
•Element N Info
Data
Risk Element 1
Risk Element 2
•Risk Event
Risk Element N
Sensor 1
Sensor 2
Sensor N
Existing
Information

• Impact
Value of Improved Information
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Risk CDF
0.6
0.5
PDF
0.4
0.3 Envelope
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
1
0.9
CDF
0.8
0.7
PDF
CDF
0.6
0.5
PDF
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Improved Initial Information
– Reduced Extreme Value of
– Increased Operational
• Achieved By
– Improve knowledge of
consequence
– Reduce uncertainty of the
probability of occurrence
Process
Probability
Variance
Initial Improved Information
Consequence Consequence

X-Craft System
•ABS Approved Baseline
•Performance Specification
•Mission CONOPS
•Mission Evolutions
•Area of operation
Criteria
•IMO 2000 HSC Human
Factors
•NAVAIR Helicopter
Interface
•Boat Launch and Recovery
•ABS HSC NC OE
X-Craft Safety & Suitability Assessment
Physical Models
•Tests
λ=25
• Hull Form
Certified Seaway Models
Trials Region
•Full scale Geosym
•Laser measured
•Propulsors
•Stock jets
•Calibrated with bollard test
Performance Specification
•Ride Control System
•Geosym •SS 5 T-Foils – Cape Hatteras
•Trim
•SS
Tab
4
models
– Cape
for
Hatteras
interceptors
•Fixed skeg models w/active skeg
performance
•20 DTMB knots Carriage 2
• λ=15 •40 knots model
•Active
•0-40
control
knots
system Froude
scaled
•0 & 180 degrees
•Ship Control System
•P-Spec & Trials Seaway
•Manually controlled
Environment
•Performance Specification
Ship Sub-Scale Models
•Trials
•SS 6 – Cape Elizabeth
•SS 5 – Cape Elizabeth
•SS 4 – Cape Elizabeth
•SS 6 – Cape Hatteras
λ=15
• Hull DTMB Form Tridelphia Reservoir
• λ=15 •Geosymmetric model scale model
•0-60 •Laser knots measured
•Propulsors •Remote Control & Data
•Geosym. measured jets and
Telemetry
nozzles
•Calm •Calibrated water with no bollard windtest
•Ride Control System
•Geosym T-Foils
•Trim Tab models for interceptors
DTMB MASK
•Active flap fixed-skeg geosym
•Active control system Froude
scaled
• λ=25 model
•0-40 knots
•Ship •0-180 Control degrees System
•30•Scale degree
ship autopilot
increments
/ manual
•P-Spec & Trials Seaway

X-Craft Maneuvering Requirements
X-Craft
P-Spec.
Operational Context
(sea state, speed, heading, loading condition)
IMO Res.
A751(18)
NATO
ANEP 70
ITTC 22nd
Conference
IMO 2000
HSC
X-Craft Maneuvering Performance
Compliance Tree

X-Craft Maneuvering Safety & Suitability Assessment
Cont. Offered
X-Craft
Evaluate
Maneuvering
Performance
Course
Keeping
YES
Yaw
Checking
YES
Establish
Directional
Stability
YES
NO
Track
Keeping
YES
Quantify
Force-Time
Profiles
NO
Course
Keeping
Modify System
Acceleration
YES
Turning
Ability
YES
YES
Establish Safe
Operational
Envelope
X-Craft Maneuvering Safety Performance Assessment Process

Directional Stability/Maneuvering Certification
λ=25 Test Plan
Graduated Certification Process
< Minimal
Acceptable
λ=25
Data Analysis
•Performance
•Uncertainty
Performance
Compliance
> Minimal
Acceptable
λ=25 ISOE
λ=15 Test Plan
•Initial Speed based on ISOE
Modify
•Increment Vk + Turning Rate if criteria System compliance
supported by: λ=25
•Measured Maneuvering performance
•Strength
Assessment
of correlation
λ=15 Maneuvering
Data
λ=25 Maneuvering
Data
< Minimal
Acceptable
λ=15
Maneuvering
Assessment
λ=15
Data Analysis
•Performance
•Uncertainty
Correlation
Strength
Performance
Compliance
> Minimal
Acceptable
λ=15 ISOE
Modify
System
λ=1 Trials Plan
Full Scale
Maneuvering
Assessment
λ=1 (Full Scale)
Data Analysis
•Performance
•Uncertainty
< Minimal
Acceptable
Correlation
Strength
Performance
Compliance
> Minimal
Acceptable
λ=1 SOE

X-Craft Seakeeping Requirements
X-Craft
P-Spec.
Operational Context
(sea state, speed, heading, loading condition)
NAVAIR
Helo. Cert.
NATO
STANAG 4154
ITTC 22nd
Conference
IMO 2000
HSC
Testing / Trials
Procedures
X-Craft Ship Motions Performance
Compliance Tree

Ship Motions Certification
λ=25 Test Plan
λ=25
6 DOF Motions
Trials Seaway
< Minimal
Acceptable
λ=25
Data Analysis
•Performance
•Uncertainty
Performance
Compliance
> Minimal
Acceptable
λ=25 ISOE
λ=25 Maneuvering
Data
λ=15 Test Plan
Graduated Certification Process
•Initial Seaway based on ISOE
λ=25
λ=15
•Initial Speed 6 DOF based Motions on ISOE
4 DOF Motions
P-Spec Seaway
P-Spec Seaway
•Increment Vk + SS if criteria compliance supported by:
•Measured performance
•Strength of correlation
λ=15 Maneuvering
Data
λ=15
4 DOF Motions
Trials Seaway
< Minimal
Acceptable
λ=15
Data Analysis
•Performance
•Uncertainty
Correlation
Strength
Performance
Compliance
> Minimal
Acceptable
λ=15 ISOE λ=15 ISOE
λ=1 Trials Plan
Full Scale
6 DOF Motions
Trials Seaway
λ=1 (Full Scale)
Data Analysis
•Performance
•Uncertainty
< Minimal
Acceptable
Correlation
Strength
Performance
Compliance
> Minimal
Acceptable
λ=1 SOE

X-Craft Structural Requirements
Motions Induced Primary and Seaway Induced Secondary Loads
X-Craft
P-Spec.
Operational Context
(sea state, speed, heading, loading condition)
NAVAIR
Helo. Cert.
ITTC 22nd
Conference
ABS HSC NC
Testing / Trials
Procedures
X-Craft Ship Motions Performance
Compliance Tree

Ship Structural Certification
STRENGTH
LOADS
Contract Design
Detail Design
ISOE Assignment
SOE Assignment
FE Model (STRAND)
FE Model (STRAND)
FE Model
NASTRAN
FE Model
NASTRAN
+
Calibrated Hull Girder
DNV Deterministic
Geosymmetric Hull Form
Models Tests
Numerical Simulation
(LAMP)
λ=15 Model Tests
λ= 25 Model Tests
Full Scale Trials
Graduated Correlation
With ISOE Motions Data
SEA 05P
ABS
SEA 05H

Human Factors
Organic Vehicle
Criteria
LAMP
Computations
Loads & Strength Determination
λ=25 Test Plan
λ=25
6 DOF Motions
P-Spec Seaway
λ=25
6 DOF Motions
Trials Seaway
< Minimal
Acceptable
λ=25
Data Analysis
•Performance
•Uncertainty
Determine Wave Spectra
(Trials & Performance Spec.)
λ=15 Test Plan
λ=15
6 DOF Motions
P-Spec Seaway
λ=15
6 DOF Motions
Trials Seaway
λ=15
Weibull Analysis
Performance
Uncertainty
Calibrate
Full Scale Ship
Strain Gages
Full Scale
Trials Plan
λ=15 ISOE
Full Scale
6 DOF
Motions & Loads
Trials Seaway
λ=1 (Full Scale)
Data Analysis
Performance
Uncertainty
Correlation
Strength
Loads
Performance
Compliance
> Minimal
Acceptable
λ=25 ISOE
Correlation
Loads
Exercise/Evaluate
FE Model
Full Scale
(λ=1) SOE

X-Craft Control Requirements
X-Craft
P-Spec.
Operational Context
(sea state, speed, heading, loading condition)
NAVAIR
Helo. Cert.
NATO
ANEP 70
ITTC 22nd
Conference
IMO 2000
HSC
Testing / Trials
Procedures
X-Craft Ship Control Performance
Compliance Tree

Systems Engineering Technical
Authority Programmed Efforts
High Speed Ships: High Speed Ships Technical Authority Funding Line s upported hydrodynamics, dynamic loads,
directional stability/controllability and maneuvering, and ship propulsion testing. Ship dynamics and maneuvering trials data will
be compared and correlated with sub-scale test data to train numeric models. Predictions in non-train ed areas will be
correlated with test and trials data. Risk based m odeling approaches will compare human biodynamics d ata with observed
behaviors. Analysis will determine where additiona l trials data is needed. NVR guidelines and NATO S TANAG updates will be
provided as interim outputs from this task. The pr ocess, numeric models and data will permit assignme nt of human
biodynamics safe operational envelopes to be assign ed to high speed ships.
5.1 Material Testing and Evaluation - provide material to universities (coord with Paul Hess ONR)
5.2 Warfighting Loads
5.3 Rules and Guidelines (ABS/NATO)
5.3.1 Operating Profile Procedure for Natural and Warfigh ting Environments
5.4 Human Systems Engineering
5.4.1 Trials/Guidelines
5.4.2 Motions
5.4.3 Manpower Estimation Impacts
5.4.4 Ship Dynamics - Controls for HSI
5.5 Motions and Loads
5.5.1 Full Scale Trials
5.5.2 Loads Predictions
5.5.3 Hydrodynamic Loads Criteria
5.5.4 Loads Model Tests
5.5.5 Fatigue Testing
5.5.6 Structural Response
5.5.7 Structural Reliability
5.5.8 Environmental Modeling
5.6 Launch and Recovery of Organic Vehicles - Risk Bas ed Design/Certification

Human Performance
• Evaluate existing predictive models including ISO 2 631 part 1 (MSI) and Graham
Tipping Equations (MII), and develop new methods of p redicting performance
degradation (i.e. modifed-PSD). Evaluate the ability o f select motion and human
factor codes to predict human performance degradation w ith respect to existing
criteria. Results from this evaluation will be used t o provide guidance in the
application of existing human performance degradation algorithms and criteria for
high speed ships.
• Performance Degradation Assessment. Evaluate existi ng motions datasets for high
speed vessels against current standards and establishe d human performance
degradation threshold criteria. Determine with other organ izations to advance the
collection of human performance degradation data.
• Enhance planned hydrodynamic loads model test of hi gh speed ships to include
human factors. Utilize motion results to identify t rends in human performance
limitations onboard high speed ships. Supplement ex isting database to include
severe conditions not acquired in full scale trials.
• Incorporate empirical data and injury models into man power estimation models (Total
Crew Model and Early Manpower Assessment Tool) to improv e the accuracy of
manpower estimates on high speed vessels. Utilize h igh speed data as a test case
for the EMAT development. Examine policy changes/ope rational tempo/crew day
changes to account for high speed impacts on manpowe r.
Human Performance – Ship Performance – Ship Control

Reduced Aviation Crewing
Requirements

Fire Scout System Hardware
(Shipboard Developmental Installation)
• Up to 3 Air Vehicles with Modular Mission
Payloads
• 1 Ground Control Station (S-280 Shelter)
• TCDL Antenna (on Pedestal) and Cables
• UHF/VHF Antennas and Cables
• 1 UCARS-V2 Ship Launch/Recovery System
• Harpoon Grid
• Telemetry Shelter (Test Equipment)
• Mobile Maintenance Facility (Optional)

RQ-8A Fire Scout
Shipboard Approach And Recovery
GPS & UCARS Provide Automatic Approach and Landing

RQ-8A Air Vehicle
Physical Characteristics
RQ-8A Air Vehicle Characteristics
Rotor Disk Area
394.5 ft2
Empty Weight
1700 lbs
Mission Fuel
750 lbs
Payload Weight
200 lbs
Max Takeoff Weight 2650 lbs
Horizontal Tail Area
301 ft2
Vertical Tail Area
4.7 ft2
Anti-Torque Disk Area 14.2 ft2