LT Nathan Maxwell USN LT Matthew Valcourt USN

LT Nathan Maxwell, USN LT Matthew Valcourt, USN LT Kelli Waterman, USN Marine-to. Minelaying Conversion Project

Introductions LT Nathan Maxwell Background: Surface Warfare Officer, Nuclear Engineering Officer, Engineering Duty (Nuclear) Transfer; USS ANCHORAGE (LPD 23), USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73) LT Matthew Valcourt Background: Submarine Warfare Officer, Nuclear Engineering Officer, Engineering Duty Officer Option; USS MAINE (SSBN 741) LT Kelli Waterman Background: Surface Warfare Officer, Engineering Duty Transfer; USS THE SULLIVANS (DDG 68), USS MAHAN (DDG 72)

Background/Motivation • Growing challenges to U. S. Naval Supremacy by nearpeer competitors • Asymmetric Threat • Address Strategic Gap • Enhance U. S. warfighting capability

Requirements Customer Requirements: Derived Requirements: • Lay one minefield per sortie • Sufficient range, endurance stores and speed • Low-cost conversion • Minefield density sufficient to deter transit • Provide organic storage, transfer and launching mechanisms • Ensure adequate stability in loaded and unloaded conditions • Capable of independent operations (no refueling needed to complete sortie) • Capable of operating discretely

Design Parameters Threshold Objective Maximum Speed 12 kts 15 kts Endurance Speed 6 kts 9 kts Range 3, 000 nm 5, 000 nm Accommodations 8 12 Endurance 21 Days 35 Days Payload Capacity 8 Quickstrike Mk 65 OR 20 Quickstrike Mk 62 20 Quickstrike Mk 65 OR 50 Quickstrike Mk 62 Cost $2 M N/A Minefield Density 1000 yards 100 yards

Assumptions • American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) design standards • Single Mission Platform • CONOPS limited to sortie runs from friendly port to operating area and back • Minimally Manned • Operational profile will be scalable to conflict at hand • Operational conversion service life limited to conflict length • Working vessels designed to support an on-station crew have requisite accommodations, sanitation, and messing facilities • Cost estimates based on available and operational parent hull

"Simplicity Sells, Complexity Kills" -Andrew Fuller, PMS 495 Design Philosophy • Affordability: Each vessel will total less than $2 million in conversion costs with a goal of minimizing total cost of the conversion. • Rapid Scalability: The conversion can rapidly be applied to many existing vessels to meet sudden and unexpected operational requirements. • Modularity: The conversion should be designed for compatibility with a variety of commercial working vessels with minimal modifications to the conversion concept design.

Parent Hull Selection HULL TYPE PSV Ferry River Boat Vessel Endurance + - - Open Deck Space + + - - - S S S - - 2 -2 -2 Existing Accommodations Commercial Availability Designed Deck Strength Trawler DATUM Criteria Open Ocean Seakeeping Ability Total 0

System Design Exploration Deck Mounted Rails (DMR): Fixed Network of roller rails along the length of the deck Integrated Container System (ICS): Networked ISO shipping containers with conveyor belt transport Storage-Transfer-Launch (STL): Container Storage, roller table transfer and gravity fed roller rail launch

Final Concept Design • Modular, "bolt-on" system consisting of ISO Shipping Containers • Cheap, quick conversion • Integrated subsystems that can be customized based on parent hull and mission profile

Storage and Transfer Systems

Launch Containers & Ramps

Final Weight & Loading Verification • Hull girder strength and stability unaffected by conversion • Negligible impact to draft and trim upon launching all mines • Deck loading from ramp supports and container loading below ABS minimum strength • Container lashing loads verified below design limits Mk 62 Weight Profile (MT) Mk 65 Weight Profile (MT) Storage System 30. 07 25. 87 Transfer & Handling 4. 67 Launch Containers 163. 99 227. 90 Ramp System 1. 73 Weight Removed 1. 02 Total 199. 45 259. 19

Mine Launching SS 2 Mine Transfer and Handling SS 2 MSI Limits SS 4 & 5 Seakeeping & Operating Envelopes

Powering, Speed, Range Cruise Speed 12 knots Range at Cruise Speed 10, 472 nm Fuel Endurance 36 days Maximum Speed 17 knots

Modularity Launching System Storage System Container Payload Launch Capacity Cost Rate Mk 62 10 7. 5 sec $34, 511. 40 108 $9, 159. 26 40’ Mk 65 6 11 sec $34, 511. 40 18 $8, 133. 18 Mk 62 4 7. 5 sec $17, 309. 69 48 $4, 970. 76 20’ Mk 65 2 11 sec $17, 309. 69 N/A Minimum Requirement to Meet Threshold Payload Capacity: Two 40' Launch Containers ~25' x 45' deck capable of storing 30 tons of cargo <$100 K estimated cost.

Final Performance Values Threshold Objective Final Value Maximum Speed 12 kts 15 kts 17 kts Endurance Speed 6 kts 9 kts 12 kts Range 3, 000 nm 5, 000 nm 10, 472 nm Accommodations 8 12 20 Endurance 21 Days 35 Days 36. 3 Days Payload Capacity 8 QS Mk 65 OR 20 QS Mk 62 20 QS Mk 65 OR 50 QS Mk 62 108 QS Mk 65 OR 258 QS Mk 62 Cost $2 M N/A $622, 125 Minefield Density 1000 yards 100 yards

• Feasible and Inexpensive Design: Delivered 5 x required capability at less than a third of cost threshold Conclusions & Insights • Modular: Widely adaptable to variety of parent hulls • Covert: ISO container design enables more clandestine operations • Risk Worthy Platform: Low cost and rapid conversion timeline make prototyping and testing a viable risk mitigation strategy