# Carbon fiber USV



## a_majoor (11 Apr 2012)

This company claims great efficiencies in terms of fuel economy and payload by building the boat out of their "enhanced" carbon fiber material. This is actually a "twofer"; small and medium sized boats and ships can be built out of this material with enhanced payload and fuel economy, and the company also claims their ships can be used as Unmanned Surface Vessels, essentially seagoing drones.

While I have no idea how this material would work in ice or the Arctic, I could imagine replacements for ships up to the Kingston Class being made from this stuff for really enhanced performance (however you want to define it; the material would give straight up performance enhancement in a 1:1 sort of replacement scenario, a ship designed with the qualities of the material in mind could be designed to greatly exceed conventional ships in a particular area such as speed, range or payload). Larger ships such as Frigates or AOR's would probably be prohibatively expensive to make out of carbon fiber materials, but selected parts made out of this material could reduce wieght.

The USV option is a bit murkier; very few experiments or demonstrations have been completed unlike the air force having a huge fleet of operational UAV and UCAV's. This may be because operating in a marine environment is much more difficult, or simply navies in general havn't examined this area very closely. It would be interesting to see how USV's fit in as part of the fleet mix for various jobs:

http://www.zyvexmarine.com/news/2012/4/10/reprint-unmanned-nanomaterial-piranha-threatens-to-redefine.html



> [*REPRINT] Unmanned nanomaterial Piranha threatens to redefine naval warfare *
> 
> Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at 8:38AM Source: Gizmag by James Holloway
> http://www.gizmag.com/zyvex-piranha-usv/22078/
> ...


----------



## Stoker (11 Apr 2012)

Very intriguing to be sure, I think a ship using this material to save weight is the way to go to decrease its overall tonnage and increase fuel range.  The Norwegians have a minesweeper made out of fiberglass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_class_minesweeper and it strength is less than carbon fiber so why not?
The only thing with carbon fiber is it is really hazardous when burnt or damaged from its fibers.


----------



## mad dog 2020 (11 Apr 2012)

There are great ideas with good intent. I imagine that this would work in some applications.
From my infantry days and we studied the plus and minuses of lessons learned from the Falklands.
Something along the lines of when the Galahad was hit by Exocet missiles and there was a fire inside the stairwells were alloy or aluminum to save weight over steel melted in the heat and soldiers were trapped below deck with no means to escape.  
So maybe a consideration.
Coming from a ex-grunt.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Apr 2012)

First of all, Chief Stoker, all European, American, Japanese, Australian, and many other nation's mine hunters (even the large Brecon of the Brits and the US Avenger class) are moulded fibreglass or variant plastic - and also have aluminium engine blocs - but its not for fuel efficiency: It's for magnetic signature elimination. They are also the most expensive ships to build on a per ton basis, at twice the cost per ton compared to frigates and destroyers.

I am with mad dog on this one: I would not want to sail, for the sake of fuel efficiency, on a ship that can burn from under my feet in seconds and kill me with toxic fumes while I await my doom. Moreover, I would also like to see, before I would agree to such technology, how you can carry out damage control should the hull get ripped/shredded/holed.

This said, I would think that if the technology can be adapted to make a vessel affording the same protection to its passengers, but lighter, shallower in draft and faster as a result, the first and perhaps best application would be in landing crafts. The faster you can make the dangerous transit from ship to shore and get the soldiers off the beach, the better it is for their chances of survival.


----------



## Stoker (12 Apr 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> First of all, Chief Stoker, all European, American, Japanese, Australian, and many other nation's mine hunters (even the large Brecon of the Brits and the US Avenger class) are moulded fibreglass or variant plastic - and also have aluminium engine blocs - but its not for fuel efficiency: It's for magnetic signature elimination. They are also the most expensive ships to build on a per ton basis, at twice the cost per ton compared to frigates and destroyers.
> 
> I am with mad dog on this one: I would not want to sail, for the sake of fuel efficiency, on a ship that can burn from under my feet in seconds and kill me with toxic fumes while I await my doom. Moreover, I would also like to see, before I would agree to such technology, how you can carry out damage control should the hull get ripped/shredded/holed.
> 
> This said, I would think that if the technology can be adapted to make a vessel affording the same protection to its passengers, but lighter, shallower in draft and faster as a result, the first and perhaps best application would be in landing crafts. The faster you can make the dangerous transit from ship to shore and get the soldiers off the beach, the better it is for their chances of survival.



Yes i'm keenly aware of what mine hunters are made out of as I have spent most of my career working with some of those navies you mentioned. I was just giving an example. Several of the Norwegian mine hunters have burnt from fire already and god knows how a ship made from carbon fiber will react under actual battle conditions, especially from the shock wave of a mine detonation.
I think however it could be used on large ships in some small degree to keep weight down where weight is a concern, as long as the fire hazard is mitigated somewhat. Some of these new nano carbon fibers are being treated to prevent it from burning.
What I would like to see is different materials such as titanium used to some degree as the US is starting to use to keep down on weight and corrosion issues.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2012)

The flamability of carbon fiber materials is probably a function of how it is made and what sort of binding agent is being used. Don't forget the Space Shuttle had heat protective tiles made out of a carbon material capable of withstanding reentry temperatures (the black nosecap and leading edges on the wings).

Carbon fiber is far stronger than aluminum or fiberglass, which provides the primary advantage being marketed by this company, light weight and high fuel economy. Secondary advantages like lack of magnetic signature are important as well, but this is a function of the material and only secondary to what the cpmpany is offering. For larger ships, carbon fiber materials could certainly make a big difference with the weight budget, although the overall cost will have to be considered as well.

There is another material known as M5 which has a tensile strength a bit below carbon fiber but which is totally non flamable and resistent to UV radiation as well, but it isn't as common and insanely expensive, otherwise it would be an ideal solution to the concerns about fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M5_fiber


----------



## MightyIndustry (19 Apr 2012)

I forgot that its still WWII and mines are floating around out there that still function based on magnetic field differentials. I hope the day never comes when ships are electronically differentiated by their acoustic signature and targeted based on the greatest strategic value. But that's just Buck Rogers, Dick Tracey, comic book stuff right? And after all, aircraft carriers and Military Sea Lift transports are perfectly silent. And really, how would you find and take care of a threat like that? Sidescan Sonar would just bring all kinds of nastieness down upon you. Fortunately we don't have to worry about anything but our magnetic fields, and thank heavens for our plastic boats. 

And I live in a gumdrop house on lollipop laaane!!!


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Apr 2012)

...that's a way to contribute positively to the conversation...  :


----------



## MightyIndustry (20 Apr 2012)

Yeah. That was really dumb..


----------



## Snakedoc (5 Jun 2012)

Neat stuff!  All robots on deck?

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120604/Unmanned-patrol-ships-on-Canadian-navys-radar-120604/

Unmanned patrol ships on Canadian navy's radar: MacKay

The Canadian Press
Date: Monday Jun. 4, 2012 5:13 PM ET
No hands on deck required.

The Royal Canadian Navy is exploring options for unmanned ships, something Defence Minister Peter MacKay says could appear in the not-too-distant future.

The unmanned surface vehicles, or USVs, are the naval equivalent of unmanned aerial vehicles, the remote-control drones that are fast becoming the weapon choice for the Obama administration in the growing number of recent targeted killings of al-Qaida terrorists.

The technology for USVs is in its infancy compared with the aerial drones, but MacKay told The Canadian Press they could have a role to play in "near future" of the Canadian navy.

"We're surrounded by water," MacKay said. "Unmanned vessels, like unmanned aerial vehicles, give us reach and capability without the same risk. It allows you to keep harm at a distance. So there's a lot of interest. . . . But it's new technology."

As part of a broader research and development initiative by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, MacKay recently announced a $3-million grant to Rolls Royce to help support research into USVs in his home province of Nova Scotia.

"In short, the project will develop technology for automatically conducting refuelling and launch-recovery missions at sea for unmanned surface vehicles," said a May 23 ACOA statement announcing the initiative.

The commander of the navy says integrating USVs into the future fleet plan is already under consideration, particularly when it comes time to replace the current frigates late in the next decade.

"Any technologies, as they emerge, I'm keen to see how we can exploit them to make us better," Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press.

How the introduction of roboships would affect plans to replace the manned fleet, as laid out under the Conservative government's much-hyped shipbuilding strategy, is unclear.

The navy is already testing remote technology, with small, unmanned aerial vehicles called Scan Eagles flying from navy frigates on a trial basis.

Over the last couple of years, navy coastal patrol ships have used underwater robots to hunt mines in conjunction with the American naval and coast guard exercises.

The devices plunge to the bottom of the ocean and scour for explosives.

"We certainly see it as a useful tool," said Maddison.

But Maddison is excited that unmanned technology has a potential for growth "not only undersea but on the surface as well."

The use of underwater robots tethered to a mother ship has been common for a couple of decades. But the expansion of pilotless aerial technology has allowed military planners to consider adapting it to surface ships.

The Israeli Navy currently leads the way in the use of naval drones.

But earlier this spring, U.S. defence contractor Textron Systems demonstrated a remotely operated patrol craft that could, in the company's words, "keep the dull, dirty and dangerous jobs away from our personnel."

Operated through a satellite link, the ships look like an armoured pleasure boat on steroids. They carry a suite of sensors and like their aerial cousins have the potential of providing real-time video feeds.

The U.S. Navy is considering how to adopt the technology, but has underlined that unmanned surface ships would not be armed, at least at first. Other navies, notably Singapore, have chosen to arm their small fleets in order to protect larger, manned vessels in closed-in waters such as the Persian Gulf.

Preservation of life is one aspect for all-volunteer fleets, such as Canada's, which have recruiting troubles.

The navy has struggled to keep its ships crewed. Between 2006 and 2010, the fleet was at times short as many as 276 qualified sailors.

The ongoing struggle to fill billets is one of the reasons naval planners are considering the idea of crewing new Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships with reservists, just as they do with the existing coastal defence and minesweeping vessels.


----------



## CougarKing (5 Nov 2014)

Now we have mine-hunting USVs (unmanned surface vessel) attached to each USN Littoral Combat Ship?  

Military.com



> *Navy Expects LCS Mine Killing Drone Prototype by 2016*
> by KRIS OSBORN on NOVEMBER 4, 2014
> 
> The Navy is building a 40-foot-long unmanned surface vehicle designed to launch from a Littoral Combat Ship and detonate and destroy underwater mines while keeping ships and sailors at a safe distance, service officials said.
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Nov 2014)

Keep in mind as well, ice is hard, really hard depending on it's age, we had an icebreaker ripped open by a growler, lucky the crew had materials for building beacons to make an internal patch to limp home with.


----------

