New Age Trawler/Motorsailer; Kite assisted PowerYacht

MV Triton was my ex-bosses (Chris Stonehouse, for those that may know of him) pet project that started back in the late 80's, early nineties, long before QinetiQ came along. It was designed and built back when UK defence research was wholly government owned and its operation was inherited by Qinetiq as part of the government sell-off about five years ago.

It was a technology demonstrator, designed to test whether the trimaran concept worked at relatively small scale (the reduced scale was to keep the costs down and make the project affordable). A consequence of the reduced scale was an acknowledgement that not everything could be fully evaluated, including the ability to operate in all possible sea states.

The idea was to gather data and evaluate the pro's and con's of using this configuration for future warships. Like a lot of good ideas, this 20+ year old one has been overtaken by events somewhat, in that it seems highly unlikely that the UK will build any new warships for some time, as the country is virtually bankrupt (largely thanks to having to bail out the banks).

At the time that the ideas behind RV Triton were first mooted, the importance of a stable deck for ASW helo ops was paramount, as we were still very much in Cold War mode, with defence resources heavily focussed on detecting and countering the ballistic nuclear missile subs that passed through Northern waters on their way out to the open Atlantic. With the re-focussing of naval warfare to support small scale amphibious ops the ASW role diminished, so some of the features that were used to justify the project reduced in significance.

I suspect that, as air and sea warfare evolves to become unmanned vehicle/submarine/heavy transport focussed the need for a full scale ship like RV Triton may reduce even further, particularly given that it is not a particularly cheap hull form to build or maintain through life.

 

Peter,

It is not really possible to construct a ship that will survive every possible sea state; that much is certain. I suppose the final sentence of the QinetiQ statement quoted by Brian should have read:

"the trimaran was subjected to every conceivable wave pattern, seen during sea states of 7 - 8. "

It's worth reiterating the words of Bob Short, QinetiQ's RV Triton programme manager:

"Ultimately, however, one has to recognise that a fundamentally conservative industry such as shipping will take some convincing before it will commit hard cash to a new hull type"

Warships are not the safest of environments. It goes with the territory and the trimaran hull design seems to work well for the purposes for which USS Independence LCS-2 was constructed. Horses for courses!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

It's too damn bad that the UK is building two aircraft carriers, that are having to be modified at great cost, so as to launch French "Rafales".

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=407244&in_page_id=2

P

 

"Ultimately, however, one has to recognise that a fundamentally conservative industry such as shipping will take some convincing before it will commit hard cash to a new hull type"


Very true. At the time that Triton was conceived we were still feeling the aftershocks of the "short fat" vs "long thin" warship debate. A great deal of time and money had gone into showing that fatter warships performed better, carried more stores, so had greater endurance and were better sea-keepers than long thin ships. The need for high burst speed (35kts or so) that had driven the long thin designs had diminished and stability and the ability to have greater endurance before needing re-supply was of greater importance. Would the Lords of the Admiralty and shipbuilders listen? would they heck as like! The result was that the next generation of warships were pretty much as long and thin as their predecessors, despite all the additional diffculties this gave those who wanted a more stable fighting platform (those involved in helo ops, for one, hated this decision).

I am reasonably certain that when Chris made his final argument to persuade the powers that be to build Triton, part of the reason he was allowed to go ahead was the hope that it would appease the vocal supporters of the "short fat" designs, yet still look suitably long and thin...........

 

i agree Perry

 

Single Pod Drive System

This new ZF Marine 'Single Pod Unit' looks to be an applicable power transmission unit for this single-engined vessel.

"ZF Marine Group introduces a revolutionary new approach to Pod drive and joystick control technology in small pleasure craft applications, which extends its availability to a larger segment of the pleasure boat market. In conjunction with SeaVee boats, ZF Marine has developed a complete propulsion system solution around a center console sport fishing application that will offer joystick control and maneuverability while employing the pleasure craft industry’s first single Pod drive line. The heart of the propulsion package from ZF Marine incorporates 3 main components. The ZF 2800 Series Pod drive rated at 480hp. This Pod has been redesigned to offer 180 degrees of total movement, 90 degrees of rotation to both port and starboard from the cent reline. The ZF 185 AC Thruster that introduced to the market at last year’s Fort Lauderdale show. The ZF 185 Thruster is designed to offer proportional thrust, 30 minute continuous duty cycle, and smooth, quiet operation thanks to a patented thruster tube design. ZF Marine’s proven SmartCommand controls with Joystick. The joystick system is engaged when the Easidock feature is activated via a button touch on the SmartCommand control head. During normal at sea operation the 2800 Pod drive is restricted to 30 degrees of movement in either direction from center. This restriction of movement is released in Easidock mode and the POD now has full 180 degree movement. The ZF 185 AC Thruster is also brought online at this time. As the vessel operator directs the joystick in any direction or combination of directions the joystick system incorporates POD thrust and varying amounts of thrust from the bow thruster. Proportional control of the thruster means smooth engagement, and only as much thrust as needed to move the vessel in the desired direction. Proportional thrust, combined with an electronic compass tied to the main JMS control unit means there is no vessel yaw during sideways movement. ZF Marine’s patented iAnchor station keeping functionality is also included in the Single Pod System. With the press of a button, iAnchor will compensate for wind and current holding the vessel’s position to as little as a 3 foot radius."

 

I might offer an alternative view here. I would agree that the future navys may not have need of as many BIG ships as they have had in the past, and as such smaller ships such as this Triton vessel might do rather well in the comparision of the job they can do in comparsion to their single-hull counterparts that invariable grow in size from their original specs to their ultimate configuration.... Prime example the competing littorial ship design by Lockheed; this is a fuel hungry ship that only has half the speed capabilities of the tri-hull.

As far as cheap to operate, look at the fuel consumptions of these two. Just the fuel savings of the tri-hull type should more than pay for her extra maintainence. Construction cost couldn't be that much more, if you consider that very likely the cost of the hull of a major warship couldn't be more than 15% of the total cost of the ship, so even if you doubled the cost of the hull itself (not likely), you didn't increase the total price of the finished ship that much.

 

"I would agree that the future navys may not have need of as many BIG ships as they have had in the past,"

The newest low cost Hypersonic ship attack missles from China may make ANY surface ship risky.

Since war is an economic venture a dozen warheads VS the cost of a Capital ship is a no brainer.

Perhaps the new ,still in development ,Laser cannons will make 7 dozen incoming a minor problem?

 

Arsenal Ship

I always thought the 'arsenal ship', particularly the semi-submersible one, was a good idea. Station these off the coast of any country that threatens another with missiles and catch those missiles on their way up after launch...MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE at interception. Being semi-submersible they would present a very low target profile themselves.

http://newwars.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/arsenal-ships-for-ballistic-missile-defense/

As an alternative to our over-worked missile battleships in the role of ABM defense, we would suggest reviving the 1990s proposal for an Arsenal Ship. You may recall this revolutionary hull design as an attempt to replace the Iowa class dreadnoughts with a low cost “missile barge”, until canceled in favor of a more traditional and more costly Zumwalt class destroyer. The arsenal ship was a great idea which never saw the light of day, but also refused to die out completely.

The modern concept would be to use a low-cost ship hull, preferably of mercantile specifications (T-AKE?) equipped with vertical launchers (VLS) for missiles. Keeping the hull cost low would mean the SM-3 missiles would be worth more than the ship, as it should be. Other benefits would be extremely low manning, which could allow for crew swapping, keeping the ship on station for as long as possible.

 

Shorter Tri-hull Kite Vessel

I recently ran across some wonderful computer generated illustrations by Mike Kagan. I asked him if he might generate a few for the smaller versions of the tri-hull kite-assisted vessel. Here is one of those versions.

Go to this page for a few more rendenings on that vessel idea:
http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/yacht-renderings-plans/14713-mike-kajan-yacht-designs-ii-7.html

Its time for some yachtsman to start planning for a vessel like this.

 

if they only had that thing is say a 35hp unit

cheap

 

Novel kite drive unit

As I just now registered, first a short introduction of myself:
I have been following this thread since, 1 1/2 years back, I had an idea for a kite drive unit, which, I believe, might be a big step forward on the way to making kite power a reasonable alternative to conventional sails. Since that time I have been working on prototypes and a first workable one is complete, see this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVwZRZYkzzE

a second one, simpler, lighter and faster, is under construction and will be ready soon.

I can't wait for your opinions, and will be happy to answer questions about my project

Ingo


P.S. If my English is incorrect, please forgive, I'm German

 

hey thats pretty slick
nice job

B

PS
your English is fine

 

Ingo, that is a sweet system. I had something similar in mind years back, but it used T foils instead of the straight ones you have, both for vertical lift and to immerse the foil giving lateral lift, in order to reduce ventilation. It would have a surface piercing V on the stern.

Make sure you are prepared to get flooded from the rear when the kite lifts the bow.

Are you using a reel? There are a couple of kite reels in this archive, from Cristopha and me.

 

==============
Ingo, what a neat idea-congratulations! (Nice music and location, too) It appears that the foil will provide lateral resistance and also develop substantial downforce-correct? Very innovative solution you have there-good luck.

 

Sigurd,

in my first (functional) prototype, the one sailing in Goa, I had used a reel with 4x60m of Dyneema Lines, to prevent damage or the bow to be lifted it had a slipping clutch (build myself out of a scooters drum brake), I powered it by bycycle pedals. It took a few weeks time and a lot of effort, to get it reeling in all lines simultaneously enough, to ensure smooth operation of the Kite, 0,1% of 60m=6cm being the highest acceptable difference between the main lines. However, the reel not being saltwater resistant and quite big and heavy, for my second and third prototype http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruBQ1CM_VUA , I skipped the reel and using the original Kitesurfing bar instead, the lines being redirected through a ring at the tip of the push/pull rod. This makes the construction much simpler, the risk of the boat being lifted or damage to kite, lines or boat I am trying to avoid by a predetermined breaking point where the bar is fixed to the boat. I am still working on a perfect solution for this(the redirecting ring has to be released simultaneously for the system to work).
I have experienced the flooding of the boat of which you warned me already twice on baltic sea and am not very keen to repeat this experience.
Without the reel, the whole thing is simple and light enough, to be build within a few days and can be fixed to almost any boat, I even sailed a small sit-on-top-kayak with 21sqm of Kite, haven't got much proof(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JmrCF-8YBU), but anyone could imagine that this is a real high performance sailcraft, I sailed upwind at a good angle(est 45deg) at hull speed(~4knts) and easily planning on all other courses (I estimate to have sailed as fast as the wind, which was about 8 knts).
Unfortunately in Goa, where I usually live, is Monsoon now and sailing impossible due to high seas, had thus been to Germany for trying out the dinghy, which was (uncrewed) weighing less than a third of the first prototype(~500kg/~130kg) and performing obviously not as good as the kayak but still very fast(gps showed max. 8,6kts at around 12knts of wind without trying for a speed record)
As there won't be good conditions for sailing during the next 6 months here in Goa, I most probably will go back to Germany soon for further trials(being quite addicted to kitesailing for now).

Ingo

P.S. I had read through this full thread after I got the idea for my invention and thus knew that you had experimented with kiteboating as well, was (and still am) wondering, why you had stopped it.