M-Hull, M hull, M Ship

I just opened up my lastest Nov issue of Maritime Reporter and Engineering News and found an announcement that Knight & Carver Yacht Center, and M Ship Co, both of San Diego have just secured a $6 million dollar navy contract to construct a high-speed 80 x 40 transport vessel.

"It features a unique M-Hull, given that name because its hull consist of two M-shaped hulls adjacent to each other. We're thrilled that the Navy has recognized the world-class partnership we've put together to build a revolutionary ship design that could transform the way the Navy moves on the water."

Can you believe our Navy is wasting their time and our money on such a project? It seems to me as though all they really have to do is look back at a couple of older 'run-about' designs referred to as tri-hulls or cathedral hulls (Boston Whaler as one example). Those boats would knock your teeth out in any kind of chop.

I did notice on some reference websites that their primary development arena was the enclosed basin of Venice, Italy, and the mild conditions of San Diego....maybe that explains their enthusiasm for this hull form.

http://www.mshipco.com/mship/wrapper.php?page=ships.html
http://www.mshipco.com/mship/wrapper.php?page=tech.html
http://www.knightandcarver.com/Photos/11-9-4 SD Business Journal M Ship 80.doc

Perhaps they just got a little carried away with their fancy illustrations

 

The hull shape has some merit in some seaways and are very different because of the speeds involved compared to the old catherdal hulls. Hulls like this ride on ram pressure and air lubrication and may tend to do quite well until they "snort" (which is exactly what it sounds like, a wave closes of the air gap until the hull overrunns it and pressure blows it out) then the greatly increased wetted surface causes an off plane crash and burn.

But you missed the tagline....

I believe this is called "sugar" in government contractor paralence as AMSEC is a "project management" company that just acquired Rosenblatt & Sons.

 

Pork Projects

And a past deputy sect of state involved....I assume that must be on the republican side this time around. I live here in the Wash DC area and so I see this crap from our Congress increasingly all of the time...getting out of hand, this pork situation, and particularly as related to our defense spending.

I thought the 'charter' project the defense dept did with the evaluation of the INCAT cat product was a realistic experiment, and the joint project with the Brits on the tri-hull warship also. Haven't followed the results of these two experiments, but I'd guess they have both been rejected for reasons of 'not invented here', so we must embark on some more pork projects that sometimes stand reasoning on its head. (sorry for the lack of reference sites on these projects as I am away from my own computer on holiday)

 

AS we all know Speed costs Money.

Since no one has as much as the folks that create it ,(out of thin air)
it seems reasonable that they pay for fast transport research.

While the OLD military is still fixed on nuke submarines , carriers and the like , the actual folks doing planning realize these expensive toys would be useless , in say the Philipeans , or Indonesian areas , where Muslem ideoligy is attempting to take over and rule the world.

I'm not happy about many of the things our gov does ,

(the State dept has worked AGAINST US interests my entire life)

but being able to act militarily against folks that would instantly kill infadels , (probably You & Me ) as a "Religous" act , sounds like the Gov doing its job, for a change.

Sure there is PORK in DC , just look at the latest spending bill 14 inches thick and 30,000 pages of gobldygook, no one has even read , before voting for it.

This has been going on since the illegal gov expansion " We owe it to Ourselves" of the 1930's.

FAST FRED

 

Well maybe with this reasoning we ought to revive the old 3 point hydroplane ideas as well. I think they might prove faster than this multi-pointed,surfaced M-Hull idea.

And this M-Hulled vessel isn't going to be able to carry any needed equip to a battle area. Its just another screwy speedboat idea that's not based in logic. Pretty pictures.

Here's a couple of reasonable ideas for the new generation littoral ships, and maybe scalable down to smaller combatants.
1)Joint Venture HSV-X1


2) Tri-Hull vessel Triton
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/trimaran/trimaran7.html

3)Low-wash RiverCats, etc

There are plenty of technologies already developed in the drug running/chasing boats for this smaller size...and coast guard vessls as well.

This contract to the San Deigo firm was just political pork!!

 

I don't think this is "pork", which is line item money in the budget inserted by a congressman for spending in his district or to pay off a political debt.

"Sugar" on the other hand, is money spent from allready allocated discresionary funds to "sweeten" a contractor, usually after the loss of a contract to another contractor (c.f. LCS contract award ), and to pay for development costs/reaserch of a non-selected concept in case you have to go back. It is distinct from "salt" which is money spread around to universities to fund basic research which may or may not have any practical application.

 

I'd like to say that I know Bill Burns and he has been working very hard over the last few years to get this project off the ground. I think its great to see a small company get a break, and I wish them all the success in the world. As for the whingin', with all the ridiculous projects that the government funds every year maybe its ok to have a rip at something in our industry. As for Chuck Robinson, like you guys have'nt pulled a few strings, he just has better ones than us. Get over it.

 

"There are plenty of technologies already developed in the drug running/chasing boats for this smaller size...and coast guard vessls as well."

Sure but none will carry a couple of hundred troups and their gear 500 or 1000 miles at speed. At 40 ft X 80 ft this is no Cigarette!

Big difference between running down a bootlegger and delivering a fighting group.


Best example of money well spent is the Mach 10 toy originated by DARPA , run by NASA that will pave the way into civilan space.

With the present shuttle & roman candle drive only a politico with a monky wrench can be put in space , as pay off for damage done (John Glenn).

The concept proved with Hypersoar the MACH 10 test vehicle will allow us peons to go to space or not, (pick a different flight) on many long distance trips.

NY to Euroland , 4 times a day for one flight crew , all in an 8 hour day!

DAMN , no nice crew overnights in London, Rome ........ah progress.

FAST FRED

 

It's old stuff

I agree with Mr Eidland: it's old stuff with some "improvments". I wish my best to Mr Burns but I think it's very unlikely to have a technical breakout as claimed in the internet site which is more advertising than technical explanations.

As former military naval engineer, I have many doubts on the capability of this boat for carrying armament and about its behaviour in waves.

It's useless trying to use the energy of the bow wave. It's better to not make wave bow. There will be lot of problems of the bow slamming in the waves .

The air cushion has been tried in every imaginable form since 60 years. It works on fast racers running on flat water, light enough and with a lot of surface but at price of a terrible instability. The problem with a "slower" and heavier boat is you do not get enough lift. It's has been tried dozens of times,with and without curtains, with and without blowers and even with hinged doors between the hulls. None got good results. The only remaining are the hovercrafts for some applications, and it's an english invention...

Do not hope to get air lubrication as the air is not running along the bottom of the hull (the russians know pretty well the very efficient technic of injecting air at the bottom of the hull, the have have 55 knots patrol boats using that feature). So the US Nave won't use a technic mastered by the Russian.

The technic of a catamaran with foils between the hulls would be more efficient for a coastal boat but it is a south african and patented invention...

And worst for the US Navy, the very good engineers of commercials heavy hydrofoils are russian and that would be inacceptable. (for example the Sokol is a small auto stable foiler -no electronics- 11.8 m weighting 3.8 metric tons running at 42 knots with 250 HP yes two hundred fifty HP, and retaining 38 knots with 1m waves...the average speed and the comfort are impressive. It would be a very nice patroller for third world navies).

Yes, it's sugaring for improving the retirement of a former Secretary, an old funding system in the US. Re read the Johnn K. Galbraith book about the militaro-industrial complex, you'll understand. It's valuable specially under Bush the second, intimately bonded to the oil and armament industry. Make savings in gold, diamonds and silver, and prepare food and gas reserves, hard times are maybe coming.

The trimaran RV Triton is finishing its very successful trials which gave a lot of data for future boats. US Navy doesn't want it because of a highly technical drawback: it looks weird as said an admiral (and it's an english invention...) The futur of this boat is now in the hands of the british politicians. French navy is working also on a trimaran.

Finally sometimes there is no need of complications; the fastest ferry in the world (60 knots) is a simple catamaran and makes the journey twice the day between Buenos Aires and Montevideo. But the best designers are australian...

 

The patent for using exhaust gas to augment the flow of air over the hull bottom , belongs:

to a US Admiral named John Paul Jones!! patented a few decades ago.

So there IS hope of moving US troups/equippment at hi speed to tiny conflicts,
as if WW3 is a tiny conflict.

FAST FRED

 

http://www.milparade.com/security/36/05_03x.htm for some sokol specs...

 

Our engineering journal here carried an article a while back about the Russians large ground effect military vessel/planes. About as large as a hercules transport, they get right up off the water surface and are large enough to operate in relatively rough seas. I've always thought they were the ideal fast marine military craft.

 

Ekranoplanes....Can "sealift"(??!) an infantry regiment at 300 knots in 5m seas with ocean crossing capability. Not very "stealth" though. All in all, ekranoplanes are where I'd put my R&D money for a fast transport. USCG just lost a turf war with the FAA so they are "ships" and subject to the rules of the road.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/aerospace21/ekranoplans/

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/regulations/wig/wig.htm

 

The Sokol boat I've been "talking" is a very good yacht, not a war ship. But on this basis you can have different versions as small patrol boats at low cost. I've joined a pic. The russians have built thousands of power foilers since the sixties and know very this technique, which has its advantages (simplicity) and limitations (the major being cavitation; if you want to stay simple speed is limited to about 45 knots).

The boats shown by Yipster are projects by the Russian Naval Technical Company, and one of these projects is named Sokol also. These boats are very far of the purpose of the M-hull project !!! You can recognise in the drawings a catamaran, a trimaran and two slim hulls (with very interesting bows).

There is not enough volume with the cooled exhaust gases of the engines to get an air lubrication of the hull, also I do not think that a diesel engine would apreciate a such back pressure. Also the air injected must be clean to not get a dirty and oily hull in a few days.
The shape of the hull is very peculiar and the air must be injected in the water at several points of the hull's bottom; the air bubbles must be of a precise size to get the best ratio superficial tension/volume/lubrication. The purpose is to get a laminar stable coat of "rolling" small bubbles over the entire underwater hull whatever the speed and sea conditions, and the difficulty is there. Big bubbles and air pockets are useless.
High volume low pressure compressors are driven by the engines. The Russians claim very interesting results: 5 to 10 % of the engines power is taken by the compressor(s) but the gain of speed is about 20%.
All you know that an increase of 20% of speed will need far more than an increase of 20% of the power; on some hulls it would be easily more than 50%.
The mathematical models, the design and the involved technics are very complex and that explains that the precedent trials (first idea of air lubrication was about 1885 if I remember well) failed. For the while the russians have a patrol boat able to get 55 knots with the power required to go at 45 knots and the speed gains are consistent over the major part of the speed range. I think there are maybe 3 engineering staffs (all russian) in the world mastering this technic in a pratical way; I mean able to design a fully useful boat not a "maybe working" prototype.

Wigs or Ekranoplans are very interesting but suffer of major drawbacks: it requires a lot of power for taking off and there are stability problems. You can see on the russian ekranoplans enormous tails which are a major drag penalty.
The solution is maybe the Lippish configuration. There are other problems as corrosion of the engines.

If the wigs were the easy solution all the major navies of the world would have them, but in this very moment even the Russian navy has no one in service...so it shows that big problems stop the use of wigs.

It's very funny but it exists a simple hovercraft-wig, the 18SPW Hoverwing ( http://www.hovercraft.com/menu_3_6_person.html ) which can be home built. I would like to make one just for the fun of explaining to the mexican authorities that is classified as a simple boat...

 

i stand corrected, allready wondered how those hulls would be ventilated.

i had a ride once on such a small russian patrol foilboat, an experience and quit different from those passenger ferry foilers.

in the corner of my eye on tv i hear a pershing powerboat using 500 liters of fuel hr (per engine). thats 1000 litres a hr. (at 1.30 euro the litre here that makes 10.000 fuel a day sailing) but for the people sailing such vessels its probely the least of their worries...