Copyright © 2004 The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.

Presented at the New England

Section student paper competition, Boston MA, February 2004.

Feasibility Study for a Littoral Corvette Ship

LCDR Omri Pedatzur, Israeli Navy

Naval Construction and Engineering Program (XIII-A), Department of Ocean Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Abstract
The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the feasibility of a littoral corvette ship with respect to
geometry, arrangement, performance, seakeeping, structural adequacy, stability and survivability.
The final design was highly influenced by the current and future trends in naval ship design as
reducing ship signatures, driving the ship using an Integrated Propulsion System (IPS), using
advanced materials for construction and putting a lot of emphasis on comfort and efficiency.

Introduction Mission Need Statement

This feasibility study was carried out as part
of a course on naval ship design that took
place in fall term 2003-2004 at MIT.
The purpose of this feasibility study was to
develop the insight and thought processes
needed for designing naval surface ships.
In order to meet this goal, each student in the
class was assigned with a different
combination of speed, endurance, payload
and propulsion system for his own design
variant.
The maximum sustained speed ranged from
35 to 40 knots, the endurance ranged from
1,500 to 2,500 miles and the propulsion
system was one of the following options:
• Mechanical drive with shafts
• Integrated Propulsion System (IPS)
with shafts
• IPS with pods
The payload was either a basic military one
or an advanced military one. The difference
between the two was AUV, UAV, Penguin
launchers and one additional 25mm. gun in
the advanced military payload.
The predetermined requirements for the
design variant presented in this paper are the
following:
• Maximum sustained speed: 40 knots
• Endurance: 1,500 nm.
• Propulsion: IPS with shafts
• Enhanced military payload as listed
in Table 1.
According to the Mission Need Statement
(MNS), the ship should be a networked, agile,
stealthy surface combatant, capable of
defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats
in the littorals.
In order to conduct successful missions in an
adverse littoral environment, the ship must use
innovative weapons, sensors, data fusion,
C4ISR, hull form and propulsion as well as
optimal manning concepts, smart control
systems and self-defense systems.
The ship will complement the Aegis Fleet,
DD(X), and CG(X) by operating in
environments where it is less desirable to
employ larger and more valuable multi-
mission ships.
The primary missions of the ship are:
• Prosecution of small boats
• Mine counter measures
• Littoral Anti Submarine Warfare
(ASW) with embarked or networked
air assets
The secondary missions are:
• Intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance
• Homeland defense and maritime
intercept
• Special Operation Forces (SOF)
support
• Logistic support for movement of
personnel and supplies
The military payload, listed in Table 1, was
selected to answers those needs.

1
 Copyright © 2004 The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Presented at the New England
Section student paper competition, Boston MA, February 2004.
Table 1: Enhanced Military Payload
* 76mm gun (300 rounds in magazine)
* Two 20mm guns (8000 rounds in
magazine)
* Rolling airframe AAW Missiles
* Phased array radar system
* IFF.
* Towed torpedo alertment array/torpedo
countermeasure systems
* Electro-optic sensor
* Advanced digital C4I system
* CEC Interconnectivity
* Integrated electronic warfare system
* Decoy launching system (100 rounds in
magazine)
* Penguin surface to surface missiles
* Mine hunting UUV/AUV system
* Flight deck and embarked helicopter
detachment capability
Hull mounted sonar was not included in the
desired payload because this kind of sonar
increases the draft of the ship and limits the
maneuverability of the littoral combatant in
shallow water.
Design Philosophy
In my baseline design and ship arrangement,
I tried to balance between the following
aspects:
Low signatures, survivability, redundancy,
wide arcs of fire, functionality, comfort and
efficiency, good sensor coverage with
minimum blockage, safety, electromagnetic
interference (EMI) considerations, stability,
reduced operating cost and producibility.
My design philosophy was highly influenced
by the current and future trends in modern
naval ship design. The low-profile stealthy
look is just one of the common features in the
new naval surface ships, but I also paid a lot
of attention to other trends such as reducing
crew size, driving the ship using electric
propulsion, installing one phased array radar
as the only radar on board, using lightweight
materials for the superstructure and the mast,
etc.
2
Design Synthesis Using ASSET®
Ship design is a recursive and iterative
process. There are no independent parameters
and we must reach a balanced design in order
to satisfy the various requirements.
Global ship design procedures such as the ship
design spiral (Figure 1) further illustrate the
recursive and iterative nature of this process.
Figure 1: Ship Design Spiral
I used ASSET® (Advanced Surface Ship
Evaluation Tool) to conduct this synthesis and
I went though this spiral several times. After
couple of iterations, I reached the ship
geometry, propulsion and performance
presented in Figures 2-3 and Table 2.
The current ASSET® version we used in class
(5.0.0) is based on previous US Navy designs
like the DDG-51, the CG-49 and the FFG-7.
Because ASSET® uses parent hulls and
parametric relationships, the product ship will
tend to be very similar to these older ships,
unless the user directly intervenes to
implement newer design trends into the
design.
The final result varies a lot from the older
ships since I was inspired by some of the
modern naval ship designs like the Swedish
Navy Visby Class corvette, the US Navy
DD(X) destroyer, the US Navy LPD 17, the
German Navy Meko Class corvette and some
of the Israeli Navy current ships and future
designs.
 Copyright © 2004 The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Presented at the New England
Section student paper competition, Boston MA, February 2004.

Replenishment RIB/AUV Torpedo 25mm 25mm. Turbine Turbine 76mm

at sea station door door Guns Ammo. mix air intake gun
locker louvers

.
..
13A

Rotating Penguin Satellite Turbine Rotating RAM Access

flare/chuff missiles communication exhaust flare/chuff missiles hatches
AP launcher launcher launcher launcher FP

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Figure 2: Plan View

Phased Communication Electro optical

array radar mast night vision

SH-60 Countermeasures Penguin Satellite 25mm.

.. Countermeasures RAM 76mm.
helicopter launcher missiles communication gun launcher missiles gun

13A

RIB/AUV Torpedo Fwd diesel engine Fwd diesel engine Masker air
door door exhaust (above DWL) exhaust (below DWL) emission holes
AP FP

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Figure 3: Outboard Profile

Table 2: Ship Geometry, Propulsion and Performance

Geometry: Propulsion:
LBP – 416' Integrated Propulsion System (IPS) with two propulsion shafts and fixed
LOA – 436.9' pitch propellers
D@STA10 – 30.4' Generators:
B – 41.6' Two diesel engines MTU 20V1163 (5,500 hp each) + Two GE LM6000
T – 14.5' gas turbines (50,000 hp each)
Trim – 0’ Performance:
∆Min Operating – 3,275 LT. Maximum speed with diesels: 20 knots
∆Full Load – 3,425 LT. Maximum speed: 43 knots
CP – 0.6 Maximum Sustained speed: 40 knots
CX – 0.76 Endurance: 1,500 nm

3
 Copyright © 2004 The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Presented at the New England
Section student paper competition, Boston MA, February 2004.

Propulsion Minimizing Ship Signatures

The selected propulsion system for the
corvette was IPS with two diesel engines
(MTU 20V1163, 5,500HP each), two gas
turbines (GE LM6000, 50,000HP each), two
electric motors and two fixed pitch
propellers.
Figure 4: MTU 20V 1163 Diesel Engine
Minimizing ship signatures is definitely the
most important trend in modern naval ship
design. Naval ship today have much lower
Radar Cross Section (RCS) than a decade ago,
but other signatures (Figure 6) were also
reduced, like noise, heat and magnetic
signatures.
In this design, I tried to meet these strict
limitations regarding radar cross section by
reducing the superstructure to the minimum
possible, wrapping most of the electronic
sensors in an enclosed mast, hiding the boats
and torpedoes inside the hangar and covering
the 25mm guns deck with RCS covers.
The infrared signature was minimized by
mixing the gas turbines exhaust gases with
fresh air and locating the diesel exhaust below
the waterline (the upper exhaust port in only
for very low speed).
The noise signature was minimized by
installing IPS, using prairie/masker air
emission system and mounting the diesel
engines in enclosures.

. IR Sign. Em
gn itt
r Si ed
da Si
Ra gn
al
s
Figure 5: GE LM6000 Gas Turbine
Optical Sign.

O th
er S
ig

The ship can reach 20 knots with the two

n.
Sig etic
Ot n.

diesel engines and up to 40 knots with the gas

n.
Sig

gn
he

Ma
r

turbines. This combination of diesel engines El

e
Si ctri
Si ake

gn c
.
gn
W

and gas turbines provides low specific fuel

. Acou
stic sure
Sign. Pres .
Sign
consumption at cruise speed, at which the
ship spends most of the time, while
minimizing the weight and the volume of the
prime movers needed to reach top speed. Figure 6: The Ship Signatures Spectrum
These benefits can be found in every
CODAG or CODOG propulsion systems, but
these systems usually require very heavy and
complicated reduction gears.
By using IPS with both diesel engines and
gas turbines as prime movers, I managed to
get the same benefits but without the weight
and complexity associated with traditional
CODOG or CODAG mechanical propulsion
arrangements.

4
 Copyright © 2004 The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Presented at the New England
Section student paper competition, Boston MA, February 2004.

Functionality, comfort and Survivability

efficiency
A high level of survivability was achieved by
Trying to allocate the different compartments locating the command and control
in the ship and manage the area requirements compartments in areas that are less probable
was a very interesting and unique experience. to be hit with a missile.
The most challenging task was not to squeeze Figure 7 present the antiship missile hit
everything into the tight space, but rather to probabilities on a generic naval ship and the
implement the design philosophy and manage location of my vital command and control
to balance the various tradeoffs. compartments are highlighted. As presented
Here are some examples of obtaining higher below, the pilot house, CIC, radio room and
level of functionality, comfort and efficiency Machinery Control Room (MCR) are shifted
just by proper arrangement of the from the center of the ship, locating them in
compartments inside the ship: less vulnerable zones.
The CO compartment is just below the
pilothouse and just above the CIC, enabling
the CO to move quickly from the pilothouse
to the CIC and vice versa. The officers’
living compartments are close to the CIC,
radio and MCR to allow fast response when
needed. Most of the crew living Zone 1 2 3 4 5
compartments are located toward the stern, Probability 36% 25% 18% 13% 8%
where the pitch movements are smaller and Figure 7: Antiship Missile Hit Probabilities
the crew is more comfortable.
The JP5 tanks are close to the landing pad Higher level of survivability was also
and above the JP5 pumps (to supply net achieved by splitting the major propulsion
positive head suction to the pumps). components into multiple compartments,
Two waste water tanks are placed below the adding Collective Protect System (CPS)
living compartments: the fwd tank serves the against biological and chemical weapons and
showers in the officers living compartments installing various countermeasure launchers
and the sinks in the forward part of the ship. including two rotating launchers (fwd and aft)
The aft tank serves the showers and the sinks and two stationary launchers.
in the crew/CPO/air living compartments.

..

Pilot House

CO
76mm
Steering Shops CPO Air Crew Mess Crew Mess Food/Galley Storage CIC#2 CIC#1 Ammo Chain
MMR3 MMR2 Locker
Steering Stowage Crew#2 Crew#1 Maintenance MMR1 Radio Officers#2 Officers#1
JP5 Pump Mech Stowage
MCR Repair Parts Stores Boatswain

AP FP

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

- JP-5 - Fuel storage - Lube oil - Waste water

- Potable water - Fuel service - Ballast - CPS zone
Figure 8: Inboard Profile

5
 Copyright © 2004 The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Presented at the New England
Section student paper competition, Boston MA, February 2004.

Hatch SH-60 RAS RIB Crane Hydraulics Torpedo Stationary Air filtration Decontamination Anchor chain
helicopter station tubes countermeasures system area RCS cover
launchers

1
13A

2 3

Landing pad Hangar Guns deck Gas turbines CO Deck

intake/uptake living
Figure 9: Main Deck

Towed array Light CPO/air crew Air A/V equipment Refrigerator Deep Dry food Thermal/Acoustic CIC
system bulkheads sanitary lock for briefing freezer storage Insulation consoles

Towed Ship CPO Air crew Officers Crew Galley & food General CIC #2 CIC #1 76mm. Chain
array & admin. living living &CPO mess storage stowage ammo. locker
steering rooms rooms mess room room

Figure 10: First Platform

Steering Longitudinal Laundry Diesel Oil Fuel GE LM6000

actuators bulkhead & Fitness engine Tank service gas turbines
exhaust tanks

Steering Stowage Crew Crew Mechanical MMR #3 MMR #2 MMR #1 Radio Officers Officers
Room #2 #1 maintenance #2 #1

- Potable water - Lube oil - Fuel service - CPS zone

Figure 11: Second Platform

JP5 Storage JP5 Service Stern Electric MTU 20V1163 GE LM6000 Ship Monitoring and
tanks tanks tubes motors diesel engines gas turbines Control System (SMCS) consoles
in enclosures

Steering JP5 JP5 Stowage MMR #3 MMR #2 MMR #1 Machinery Repair Personal Boatswain
room tanks pumps Control parts stores
bilge room Room
(MCR)
Figure 12: Third Platform

6
 Copyright © 2004 The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Presented at the New England
Section student paper competition, Boston MA, February 2004.

Loading Conditions Damaged Stability

The US Navy DDS 079-1 standard was used The damaged stability was analyzed according
to define two conditions (full load and to the US Navy DDS 079-1 standard for two
minimum operating conditions) and the ship loading conditions (full load condition and
was modeled in POSSE® (Figure 13), minimum operating condition) and nine
enabling me to conduct trim, stability and damaged cases in each loading condition, each
structural analyses. The following table lists one representing damage of 15% of LBP.
the drafts and trims in those two extreme
conditions: Table 4: Seawater Entry Due to Flooding
(permeability = 0.95)
Table 3: Displacement and Trim
Draft Draft Extend of Seawater Entry Due to
Condition ∆ Trim
at FP at AP Flooding Flooding [LT]
Case Minimum
Full Load 3,425 Fwd Aft Full
14.9' 14.9' 0' Operating
Condition LT BHD BHD Load
Condition
Min Operating 3,275 0.1' #1 FP 4 430 448
14.5' 14.6'
Condition LT fwd #2 1 5 979 1,013
#3 2 6 2,204 2,270
#4 4 7 1,885 1,949
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 #5 5 8 2,138 2,215
#6 6 9 1,574 1,637
#7 7 11 1,708 1,796
#8 8 12 1,185 1,275
Figure 13: Ship Model in POSSE® #9 9 AP 766 845

Intact Stability The most dangerous symmetric damage case

is damage case #3 (Figure 14) that includes
The intact stability was analyzed according to the biggest machinery room plus three
the US Navy DDS 079-1 standard, for two additional compartments in front of MMR#1:
cases: full load condition and minimum
operating condition. This standard contains
six different criteria for intact stability:
• Beam wind and rolling.
Figure 14: Damage Case #3
• High speed turning
• Personnel crowding to one side
• Tow line pull criterion The most dangerous asymmetric damage case
is damage case #9 (Figure 15) that includes
• Lifting with heavy weights
the asymmetric flooding in the aft part of the
• Topside icing
ship:
Out of these six criteria, I analyzed the design
with respect to the two most demanding ones:
beam wind and rolling and high-speed
turning. Figure 15: Damage Case #9
The equilibrium angles for the high speed
turn criterion are 10.8° and 9.5° for minimum The static angles of heel for this damaged case
operating condition and full load condition, are 2.8° and 2.7° for minimum operating
respectively (maximum allowable: 15°) condition and full load, respectively. By
All the other requirements regarding the dividing the ship with 12 transverse watertight
righting arm and the ratio between the bulkheads, I managed to meet the US Navy
righting and capsizing areas were met in full. DDS 079-1 standard in full.

7
 Copyright © 2004 The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Presented at the New England
Section student paper competition, Boston MA, February 2004.

The floodable length of the ship, according to Midsection Structural Adequacy

the US Navy standard, is 62.4'. Figure 16
presents the floodable length diagram.
The ship midsection was created by ASSET®
including all the stiffeners and the structural
members. The same midsection was modeled
in POSSE® (Figure 17) in order to verify the
structural adequacy of the midsection.
The midsection geometry was found to be
inadequate: the full load primary stresses at
the weather deck in both hogging and sagging
cases (9.75 LT/in2 and -8.8 LT/in2,
respectively) were slightly above the design
stress of 7.5LT/in2.

Figure 16: Floodable Length Diagram

Fuel Consumption and Ballast

Compensation
The prime movers consume fuel only from
the fuel service tanks and the storage fuel
tanks store most of the fuel onboard.
In order to keep an even keel at all time, here
is the recommended fuel tanks consumption Figure 17: Original Midship Cross Section
and ballast compensation:
Therefore, three girders were added to the
Table 5: Fuel Tanks Consumption and main deck (highlighted in Figure 18), one in
Ballast Compensation the symmetry line and two in the sides of the
JP-5 and Fuel
Ballast Trim weather deck, and we also increased the size
Stage lube oil Capacity of the weather deck stiffeners.
tank [ft]
Capacity [LT]
Full Empty
95% 284.3 0.24F
Load (5%)
Fuel tank Empty
85% 271.8 0.05F
#1 empty (5%)
Fuel tank
75% 253.4 80% 0
#2 empty
Fuel tank Full
65% 202.6 0.3A
#3 empty (95%)
Fuel tank Full
55% 147.9 0.38A
#4 empty (95%)
Fuel tank Full
45% 99.6 0.25A
#5 empty (95%)
Fuel tank Full
35% 82.1 0.11A
#6 empty (95%)
Figure 18: Modified Midship Cross Section
As presented above, the ballast tank and the
location of the JP-5 tanks help to keep an After modifying the midsection, both the
even keel from full load to minimum load sagging and hogging stresses (-5 LT/in2 and
and the trim values are always within limits. 5.5 LT/in2, respectively) were within the
allowable stress limit.

8
 Copyright © 2004 The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Presented at the New England
Section student paper competition, Boston MA, February 2004.

Seakeeping The final results are presented in Table 6:

The analysis of the ship motions was carried Table 6: Seakeeping Analysis Results
out by the time domain, three-dimensional, Significant 1/3 Highest Amplitude
Flight Deck
panel method, SWAN® software. The hull Speed Pitch Roll
Vertical
form of the vessel (Figure 19) was [knots] Motions Motions
Velocity
transformed from ASSET® configuration to [°] [°]
[ft/sec]
SWAN® configuration and the number of 5 1.68 3.04 5.86
nodes per station, as well as the number of 10 1.61 3.24 5.58
stations was reduced to meet SWAN® 15 1.70 3.35 5.70
20 1.79 3.15 6.08
requirements.
25 1.51 2.74 5.73
30 1.47 2.63 5.94
34 1.54 2.67 6.50
35 1.53 2.70 6.60
40 2.47 1.31 10.0

As presented above, the ship motions are

within limit except for vertical velocity at high
speed (>34 knots).

Summary

Figure 19: Ship Hull Form
The landing pad motions are part of the
operational profile of the ship and its naval
capabilities. It is important to keep these
motions within range even at severe sea
states; hence, a seakeeping analysis is
required. The results of this analysis would
be the base line for the landing pad
operational capabilities.
The constraints applied upon the design were:
1. Significant 1/3 highest amplitude of pitch
motions smaller then 3°.
2. Significant 1/3 highest amplitude of roll
motions smaller then 5°.
3. Significant 1/3 highest amplitude of the
vertical velocity of the flight deck location is
lower then 6.5 ft/sec (1.98 m/sec). The flight
deck location should be chosen to be the
farthest point of the flight deck from the
center of rotation.
The ship motions were analyzed using
SWAN® with speed increments of 5 knots.
Later on, we added one more simulation
(speed = 34 knots) to examine the maximum
speed that can be reached without exceeding
the limit for flight deck vertical velocity.
In this paper, I summarized a term long effort
and proved the design to be functional,
effective, stable, strong and seaworthy.
Within one semester, I went from a given set
of mission requirements to developing a
feasible and reasonably balanced preliminary
design.
The insight and thought processes needed for
designing naval surface ships was developed
and a lot of the concepts that fit the current
and future trends in naval ship design were
implemented.
About the author:
LCDR. Omri Pedatzur earned his B.Sc. degree
in Mechanical Engineering from the Tel Aviv
University and joined the Israeli Navy in
1995.
After service on board INS Hanit, a SA'AR 5
missile corvette, Omri joined the Naval
Architecture & Marine Engineering
Department in the Israeli Navy Headquarters
and served there as marine engineer.
Currently, he is a graduate student at the
Naval Construction and Engineering Program
(XIII-A) at MIT towards SM in Naval
Architecture & Marine Engineering and SM
in Mechanical Engineering.