ARCHIEF
T'
HE UNPRECEDENTED technological advance thathas occurredin the 20th century has impacted upon almost every aspect of warfare, restyling the armed forces, transforming the equipment and tactics used
by land armies, and even posing the possibility of
confrontation in outer space. Nevertheless, the ship,
the tactical weapon of the surface Navy, is still a real and powerful tool of war. It will remain an important factor in future wars provided the ship designer can continue to respond to the needs of the tactician and supply vehicles that can support
the operational needs of the fleet.
The evolution bE warship systems has been
mkvd y toquiremezt* fo
treater voltrn'te and larger deck areas for each ton of displacment.So-Lab. y. Scheepsbouwkun
Technische Hogeschoo
Delfi
S
3228
JOHN R. BOND, COMMANDER, USN
CATAMARANS DREAM OR REALITY
THE AUThOR
is currently assigned as the CVAN Ship Design Man-ager on the staff of the Assistant for Ship Design, Ship
Systems Engineering and Design Department. Naval Ship Engineering Center. He is the Project Director
for the CyAN-71 Concept Formulation Program which will produce the design for the follow on ships to the
NIMITZ (CyAN-68) Class. He graduated from the University of Illinois in 1955, and completed
post-graduate work at Webb Institute of Naval Architecture
in 1962. He holds a BSME, a ES in Marine Engineering, and an MS in Naval Architecture. He is a registered.
Professional Engineer in the state of Virginia. He has
had sea tours in a destroyer and an Attack Aircraft Carrier, and shore tours at the U. S. Naval Academy
and the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.
phisticated weapons systems and detection, tracking, and fire control equipment demand large and stable
platforms to support them. Thus, the acceieraLng pace of technological advance increases the pres-sures on ship designers to solve problems for the
Navy of tomorrow.
Catamaran-configured ships have been attracting
increasing attention in recent years as possible so-lutions to many operational problems of the Navy
of the future. Interest has focused on the catamaran
primarily because of its potential for large deck area per ton of displacement, and because of the possibility of achieving higher speeds.
Th urpo o hi
s to rüvw th i4toy
of the catamaran and to discuss the possibilities and Naval En- nners Journal, June 970 95
CATAMARANS BOND
shortcomings of this type of vessel. Its basis is a study conducted recently for the Naval Ship Sys-. tems Command by the Naval Ship Engineering Center, to define the state of the art of catamaran
L chnology as applicable to naval ship design. HISTORY OF THE CATAMARAN
The history of the catamaran goes back almost to the time when man first used a tree trunk for overwater transportation. While the conventional monohull ship had its beginning in the dugout log, the catamaran's origin was the raft formed by lashing two or more logs together.
One of the more scholarly histories of early cata-maran development is the Mariners' Museum Publi-cation, "Twin Ships," by Alexander Crosby Brown.1
The review of significant catamarans presented herein is based largely on that document. Salient features of the significant catamarans are
sum-marized in Table 1.
The Polynesians are credited with constructing
the first seaworthy, ocean-going catamarans,
prob-ably, thousands of years ago. They brought this craft to such a high state of development that they were able to make almost incredible voyages of
exploration over vast expanses of the Pacific, from
Tahiti to Hawaii, Easter Island, and New Zealand. One of the earliest accounts of Polynesian
cata-maran design was provided by the British explorer,
Captain James Cook. He was so impressed by the
capabilities of these craft that in May 1774 he took the lines off a 108-foot, double-hulled Tahitian war
catamaran and described the boat in some detail
in his diary.2
Early Western. Development (1650-1 799)
A hundred years before Captain Cook, however,
word of the Polynesian catamarans had already
reached Europe and may have inspired Sir William
Petty, a noted British statistician, to begin experi-menting with twin-hulled sailboats. Between 1662
and 1684 he built four catamarans, each successive
one a little larger and a little less successful than its predecessor. His first, originally named Simon and Jude but later renamed Invention I, appears to have been reasonably successful. There is an ac-count of a dramatic race in Dublin Bay in which
she succeeded in "routing all corners." T'ne fate of
Sir Williams's second boat, Invention II, is unknown;
his third, Experiment, was lost in a storm; and his
last, Saint Michael the Archangel, was described as "unmanageable."
Edinburgh, a three-hulled ship, was built in 1786
by a Scotsman, Patrick Miller, to serve as a ferry on the Firth of Forth. She must have presented a strange appearance, as she is reported to have had five paddle wheels (to be turned by 3G men), in
addition to five masts for sail power. WhIle her fate is unknown, she was reported to have been a "good sea boat."3 Miller also designed and built two other
96 NvmL EnQn..r$ Jo.,rnìI. Ju.i. 1t70
catamarans; these boats were steam-propelled and represent one of the first uses of steam power for
navigation.
The Steam Age (1880-1889)
During the 1800's, a large number of
steam-powered catamaran steamers, ferry boats, and river
craft were built, both in America and abroad. Robert Fulton pioneered in America, buildin.: the
Cler-snont in 1807. A few years after Clermont's
suc-cessful voyage up the Hudson River, he designed and had built three wooden, twin-hulled, double-ended, steam-powered boatsJersey, York, and
Nassaufor the New York Harbor ferry trade.
Fulton described the Jersey as:". . . built as two boats, each ten feet beam,
eighty feet long, five feet deep in the hole (sic); which boats are distant from each, other ten feet, confined by strong transverse beam-knee braces, forming a deck thirty feet wide,
eighty feet long . . . By placing the propelling
water-wheel between the boats it is guarded
from injury from ice or shocks on approaching
or entering the dock. . .
Fulton was the obvious selection to design and supervise the construction of a revolutionary new ship for the U.S. Navy, Demolo gos, launched in 1814 as a floating gun battery. When Fulton died shortly afterwards, the ship was renamed Fulton The First in his honor. This si:ip was not only a catamaran but also the first steam man-of-war.4
Brown describes her as follows:
"The U.S. steam frigate Fulton, first of the name, was 156 feet long by 56 beam and 20
deep. She h-ad a single paddlewheel of 16-foot diameter, operating in the 14-foot wide 'canal,' which ran the length. of the vessel between the two hulls. A 120 h.p. engine was located amid-ships in one of the hulls and 'caidrons of copper
to prepare her steam' in the other. On her trial
trip, the floating battery was able to make five-and-a-half knots. She was viewed by the British from abroad in considerable trepidation. Aghast,
they reported her size about twice as 'much as it really was, and credited her with diaboli-cal machinery designed to brandish cutiasses over the side, as well as powerful pumps to
spray scalding water on her adversaries. Though
she was designed to carry 2- 32-pounders, the Fulton had no such frightening equipment on board. Actually, she never left New York
har-bor. Denied deep sea service, she wa-s employed
usefully for a considerably period as a re-ceiving ship in Erooklyn. Some 15 years after she was built, she was totally destroyed 0Th 4 June 1829 by the explosion of her powder
magazine."
In 1850 a double-hulled catamaran, Gemini, de-signed by Peter Borne, was built and launched by
Robinson and Russell of London.0 Propulsion was
by means of a paddle wheel located between the hulls and driven by a reversible steam engine. Al-though Gemini attracted considerable attention at the time, she was not an economic success; it is :iieved that she proved too slow for her intended
use on the Thames River.
The next large steam catamaran, Cast alia, built by the Thames Iron Works Co., Ltd., to the designs of an Englishman, Captain W. T. Dicey, was launched
in 1874. Her double-ended hulls were unusual in that they were like the two halves of a single con-ventional hull, split longitudinally and separated; the openings were closed with flat plates, and the hulls were then fastened together with structure and decking across the open space between them.
Propulsion was by two 22-foot paddle wheels, acting
in tandem between the hulls. The wheels were driven by two direct-acting steam engines, one in each hull. Cast tilia was designed for service be-tween England and France, and was capable of
transporting 1000 passengers. Special attention was
paid to luxurious passenger accommodations and to passenger comfort in general, apparently in the expectation that she would be slower than com-parable single-hulled ships.6 An article from the
London Times describes the easy motion of the ship and the resultant passenger comfort during a rough channel crossing. The advertised speed of 15 knots
was not achieved, however; an average of about
10.5v knots was the best Castalia could do. This was
undoubtedly due, at least in part, to the fact that the second paddle wheel was located behind the first paddle wheel in the space between the hulls,
and continually operated in its wash..
Calais-Douvres, designed by Captain Dicey and launched in 1877," was one of the largest cata-marans yet built. Interestingly enough, the design
reverted to fully symmetrical hulls with a single
paddle wheel between them. C1ais-Douvres proved
faster than Castauia. (it could do about 14 knots), but was still at an economic disadvantage in coni-parison with contemporary single-hulled ships in
the same trade. The catamarans were more
compli-cated and costly to build; and the increased hull
resistance was reflected in increased fuel
consump-tion and, therefore, increased operating costs. Ca-lais-D ouvres was finally scrapped in 1899 after having served for some time in an ignominious
capacity as a coal hulk on the Thames River. A number of steam catamarans were designed and built in the 1800's for use on the Mississippi River.1'6 All of these were propelled by paddle
wheelseither one between the hulls or one on
each side of the boat. Notable among these was theThomas Pickles, which was built in Jefferson, In-diana, in 1892 and was still operating as a ferry
between New Orleans and Algiers in 1938.
Early 20th Century Catamarans (1900-1960)
Between 1900 and 1960, litde attention was paid
to catamarans. However, three submarine salvage
vessels were completed: the 230-foot Vulkan, built
for the Imperial German Navy and launched in
1910; the 315-foot Koinmuna, built for the Russian Imperial Navy and launched in 1913; and a
vessel for the French Navy launched in 1914.1,8 The French and Russian ships were among the largest catamarans yet built, displacing 2300 and
3400 tons respectively. All of these salvage vessels
were designed to straddle a disabled submarine and hoist it clear of the water. A temporary dock floor was then laid under the submarine above the water line and supported by shelves on the inner sides of the two hulls; it served as a platform for making repairs. Kommuna. was refitted
in the
Netherlands in 1950-1951 and apparently is still in
commission. There is no information available on
the disposition of the French and. German vessels.
Except for a number of steam catamaran ferry boats (about 12 for use on the Mississippi River alone), the only other powered catamaran of in-terest during this era was Gar Wood's ill-fated Venturi (Figure 1). Originally designed by Gar Wood Enterprises under a U.S. Army Air Corps contract for use as a remote controlled bombing target, this craft was placed on the surplus list at the end of World War II. It was purchased by Gar Wood and outfitted as an experimental yacht. The Venturi was powered by four General Motors
pancake diesel engines arid was widely reported to have a top speed of 26 knots, although this has not
been documented. An. Operational Development
Force Report7 states:
"During the last trials, the Venturi attained about 20 knots at full power; this could prob-ably be increased by matching propellers to
the engines, not now satisfactory."
The Venturi was of flimsy plywood construction, befitting her original concept as a target vessel; but this proved her undoing as a yacht. She was lost in
the Gulf Stream, about 75 miles off the Florida Coast, in May 1954. At the time, Gar Wood was quoted as saying that Venturi was doing 22 to 23 knots when hit by a sudden storni that produced 10-foot waves. Part of the bow broke off, and the ship continued to come apart, finally sinking later that night. Al.l personnel aboard were saved.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Beginning around 1960, interest in catamarans for certain specific purposes increased greatly in
many parts of the world. The United States, Russia,
Japan, and Holland have constructed catamaran
ships which are of interest to both commercial and Naval operators.
United States
E. W. Thornton was built as an offshore oil
ex-ploration/drilling catamaran in 1962 by the Levings-Naval Enainoor Journal, June 190 97
TABLE 1. Important Ca tomar
fIflS of the World
Nar.e Year Country Designer! Owner or LOA BOA Displace-PropulsIon HP Speed Notes Built Builder Opei'ator (ft.) (ft.) ment (ton) Type (Total) (kt.)
Simon and J'L'I. (Invention 1)
1662
England
Sir William Petty
Sir William Petty
20
0
Sail
Reasonably successful in racing
Invention II
1663
England
Sir William Petty
Sir William Petty
Sail
Larger than Invention I Larger than InventIon II. Lost In
Experiment
1664
England
Sir William Petty
Sir William Petty
Sail
storm, Bay of Biscay. 1665
St. Michael the Archangel
1684
England
Sir William Petty
Sir William Petty
50
12
Sail
Handling was "unmanageable"
1736 Scotland Patrick Miller Patrick Miller 100 31 235
Sail and handturned paddle wheels
S Used as ferry Ediniuir'jk 1787 Scotland Patrick Miller Patrick Miller 60
14-Sali and handturned
Three-hulled vessel 1/2 paddle wheels Experiment 1788 Scotland Patrick Miller Patrick Miller 25
Steam (paddle wheels)
One of first steam powered boats
1789
Scotland
Patrick Miller
Patrick Miller
60
Steam (paddle wheels)
7
Used on Firth of Forth & Clyde Canal
CInnont
1807
U. S.
Robert Fulton
Robert Fulton
Steam (paddle wheels)
Used on Hudson River. First com- mercially successful steamboat.
Jersey
1812
U.S.
Robert Fulton/ Charles Brown
Robert Fulton
80
30
118
Steam (paddle wheels)
20
New York Harbor Ferry
York
1813
U. S.
Robert Fulton/ Charles Brown
Robert Fulton
80
30
118
Steam (paddle wheel)
20
New York Harbor Ferry
Nassau
1814
U. S.
Robert Fulton/ Charles Brown
N. Y. & Brooklyn Steamboat Ferry
80
30
120
Steam (paddle wheel)
120
New York Harbor Ferry
Assoc.
Damolo gos (Fulton the First)
1814 U.S. Robert Fulton U.S. Navy 156 56
Steam (paddle wheel)
120
5.5
FIrst U. S. Navy catamaran & fIrst stean man-of-war
Aetna
1817
England
Dawson & Co.
Batman &
63
28
68
Steam (paddle wheel)
22
Liverpool ferry; operated for 15 years
Union
1821
England
Brown
100
Steam (paddle wheel)
30
Ferry on Firth of Toy; carried 100 passengers.
Gemini
1850
England
Peter Bane! Robinson &
157
27
Steam (paddle wheel)
50
Too slow for successful operation as a ferry on the Thames River.
Russet
Casta lie.
1874
England
Capt. W. T. Dicey/ Thames Iron Works
English Channel
290
60
Steam (2 tandem paddle wheels)
250
10.5
Used as ferry across EnglIsh Channel. Easy ride, but too slow to be economically competitive.
Calais-flou eres
1871
England
Capt. W. T. Dicey/ Hawthorne.
302
62
192
Steam (paddle wheel)
4270
14
English Channel ferry. Fuel costs higher than monohulls.
Leslie & Co.
Thomas Pickles
1892
U. S.
Thomas Dunhan/ Howard Shipyard Algiers Public Service Co.
121
77
237
Steam (aft. paddle wheels)
474
Submarine saleago ship, 2 gantry cranes, 500-ton capacity. Submarine salvage ship, 1000-ton lifting capacity. Submarine salvage ship, 1000-ton lifting capacity.
Mississippi ferry; 500 passengers & 70 car capacity. Mississippi ferry; 500 passengers & 70 car capacity. Sank in storm In Gulf Stream, May 1954. Volga ferry; 600-person capacity. Carries passengers and ¡or cergo on Volga. Oil rig for use in Gulf of Mexico. Commercial fishing boat. Cargo ship for use on Volga. Heavy Uf t ship for ffshore onstruc- lion. Used on Japan's Inland Sea as ferry; 317 passengers & 15 car capacity. Oceanographic research ship. Commercial fishing boat. Oceanographic & underWater con- struction work. Ferry on Vigo; 276 passengers & 4 car capacity. Ferry on Japan's Inland Sea; 450 passengers & 100 car capacity. Carries & launches 2 DSRV's Oceanographic research ship (thider construction) Derrick & pipe-laying barge. Yokohama fireboat.
Vulkan 1910 Germany 230 Steam Kommuna 1913 RussIa 315 2400 10 1914 France 322 2300 Steam Algiers 1925 U.S. 150 67 500 Steam 12 New Orleans 1925 U.S. 150 67 500 Steam 12 Venturi 1949 U. S. Gar Wood Gar Wood 188 40 DIesel 4800 20 Enterprises -("1960" cLass) 1960 USSR Gorkii 236 49 1000 Diesel (2) 1080 14.5 Shipyard -("Rest" class) 1962 USSR Cork ii 146 46 282 DIesel (2) 500 11 Shipyard E. W. Thornton 1962 U. S. Friede, Golcjnien/ Reading and 278 105 6100 DIesel (2) 3000. 12
Levingston Ship-Bates Offshore building Co.
Drilling Co.
Caribbean Twin
1962
U. S.
Twin Hull Boat Co.
70 28 180 DIesel (2) 700 12 -("KV-619" dass) 1963 USSR 310 52 Kyor OpIp 1963 USSR Krasno Solmova 425 164 13200 DIesel (6) 6000 10 Shipyard Sea Palace 1964 Japan Nippon Kokan 137 42 Diesel (2) 1300 15 Ridgely Warfield 1967 U. S.
Bethlehem Steel Co Chesapeake
106 34 162 Diesel (2> 2300 18 Bay Inst. Eksperisnent 1967 USSR Svyetlovsky Ship 130 60 300 600 9 Repair Yard Duplus 1968 Holland Boele's Scheeps-Netherlands weryen en Otishore Co. 131 56 DIesel-. electric (2) 1700 8 Machine- fabrick N. U. 1968 Spain 82 35 246 Diesel (2) '720 11 1969 Japan Nippon Kokan 2200 19 FLagon (ASR-21) 1969 U. S. Alabama Dry-U.S. Navy
docking & Ship- building Co.
251 86 4200 Diesel (4) 6000 15 Hayes 1969 U. S. U.S. Navy 247 75 3100 Diesel (2) 4800 15 (T-AGOR-16) 1969 Holland Van de Giesson
Santa Fe Inter- nati. Corp.
400 106 Hiryu 1969 Japan Nippon Kokan Maritime 90 34 235 DIesel 2200 13 Safety Agency
i f_ .' S.
-. -.'L
Figure 1. Venturi.-ton Shipbuilding Company for the Reading and
Bates Offshore Drilling Company.8 Thornton
(Fig-ure 2) is the largest catamaran ship constructed in the western hemisphere to date. She is 278 feet long, with an overall beam of 105 feet and a
dis-placement of about 6100 tons. She is self-propelled and licensed to navigate in any ocean. Thornton has twin screws with 3000 horsepower installed, giving
a speed of about 12 knots. This speed, which is greater than that of the typical monohull drilling rig, contributes to reduced mobilization costs and materially increases the effective drilling time for
the operator.
Caribbean Twin is representative of catamarans
constructed for commercial fishing.8 Caribbean Twin
was built in 1962 by the Twin Hull Boat Company
of Keasbey, New Jersey. She is 70 feet long, with
a 28-foot beam and a draft of 7.5 feet fully loaded.
This craft displaces 180 tons, is powered by two 350-horsepower diesels, and can attain a speed of 12 knots. A few other catamarans for commercial fishing purposes have since been built in this
country. The advantages of a stable working
plat-form plus large volume for carrying the catch help outweigh the increased construction and fuel costs.
An experimental oceanographic research vessel,
Rid gely Warfield, was christened on July 28, 1967,
at Bethlehem Steel Company's Yard in Baltimore, Maryland. This ship was built for the Chesapeake Bay Institute of The Johns Hopkins University.
The purpose of Ricigely Warfietci is to conduct
re-search in the Bay and the Atlantic Ocean within the 100-fathom curve of the continental shelf. Dr. Donald Pritchard, professor of Oceanography at
Johns Hopkins and director of the Chesapeake Bay
Institute, described the reasons for selecting the vessel's configuration as follows: "The craft's
un-nvntiqn hull dign
rtntí high pQQ, hllW
draft, stability, and large laboratory area and fleck
space to be combined in a relatively small ship."1° 100 Naval Engine.r8 Journal. June ¡970
.
4__ -/
Figure 2. E. W. Thornton.
-. -.. - 7'
:-
--'
Figure 3. Pigeon (ASR-21).
Rid gely Wrfleld. is 106 feet in length, with a
34-foot beam. The two hulls are asymmetrical in design, with a 10-foot beam and a 7-foot draft at full load, or 5.5 when light. Displacement is 162 tons. Quarters are provided for seven crew
mein-bers and 11 scientists. The craft is powered by two
diesels of 1150 shaft horsepower each, providing
a maximum speed of 23 knots.
tJ.S.S. Pigeo'n (ASR-21), depicted in Figure 3, is the first ocean-going catamaran designed and built for the U.S. Navy since the Fulton in 1814. The ship was launched on 13 August 1969 at the Alabama Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company.1' It is designed to handle and transport two of the
Navy's Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicles (DS-.
RVs). The catamaran configuration was selected
for the following reasons:
The catamaran design pfuits handling the
DSRV durIrg launhhg and recovery at
of minimum ship motionamidships between
Figure 4. Model of the Hayes (T-AGOR-16). the hulls. Some shielding from the seas is also provided at this point.
The high metacentric height and good roll damping of a catamaran greatly reduce the heavy roll typical pf small auxiliary ships. Further, a stability problem due to the heavy DSRVS and associated deck equipment is
avoided.
Low speed maneuverability is enhanced by the
wide separation of the twin screws.
Deck area is increased by about 40 percent in
comparison to a single-hulled ship of the same
displacement. This i important in facilitating
DSRV handling as well as in providing space for other ship functions, such as a helicopter
landing area.
Successful commercial catamarans together with
model tests provided confidence that a
sea-worthy catamaran of1this size could be designed
and built.
The ASR-21 is 251 feet long with an overall beam of 86 feet and displaces about 4200 tons. Each hull
has a beam of 26 feet, and the well between the
hulls is 34 feet wide. The ship is propelled by four diesel engines producing 6000 horsepower and
driv-ing through two propeller shafts. She will have a
sustained speed of 15 knots. A sister ship, Ortolan, was launched on 10 September 1969.
An oceanographic research catamaran, USNS
Hayes (T-AGOR 16), is also being built for the U.S.
Navy.12 The design of Uie Hayes, (Figure 4) was
based on that of Pigeon, but has been modified con-siderably to permit better fulfillment of its different
funtions. The overall length of the ship is 246.5 feet; her maximum beam is 75 feet; and her draft (full load) is 18 feet. Her full load uisplacemen is
about 3100 tons and she is expected to have a
sus-tained speed of 15 knots. She is powered by two
2700 brake horsepower diesel engines and has two small (165 horsepower) auxiliary diesels, provided to allow a creep speed of 2 knots to facilitate
ocean-ographic measurements. The endurance at 13.5
knots is 6000 miles.
Accommodations on the Hayes are provided
for 11 officers, 3 chief petty officers, 30 crew, and
30 scientists. There is over 8000 square feet of scientific space in addition to 7000 square feet of
open deck area assigned to scientific work.
Soviet Union
The USSR has built a number of catamarans in recent years. One of the most interesting of these
is Kyor-Ogly, built for use in off-shore underwater construction, drilling, etc. This ship, built in 1963, is
the largest catamaran yet constructed, being 425
feet long with a 164-foot beam and a displacement of 13,200 tons. Kyor-Ogly (Figure 5) is primarily
a crane ship, designed to take large construction
modules from the building area ashore to the
erec-tion site in the open sea, and then to facilitate the offshore erection operations.13 A crane with a lift capacity of 250 tons is installed on the port hull.
An unusual feature of this ship is that the propeller-rudder complex consists of four propellers and four
rudders, one of each being located at each of the
four extremities of the hulls. This arrangement was
adopted to provide a high degree of
maneuver-ability and facilitate approaching offshore sites with either the bow or stern upwind. This was desirable
since the crane is asymmetrically located on the port hull. Two 1000-horsepower diesel generators supply power to the forward propellers, and fur
1000-horsepower diesel generators supply power to the two after propellers. A maximum speed ahead of
Figure 5. Kyor-Ogly.
Naval Ciiqinoers Journal, Jun. 970 101
CATAMARANS
lo knots is obtained, and the ship is reported to be capable of backing down at 7.6 knots and moving broadside at 4.8 knots (sic).
Also of interest is the approach taken to dry-ciocking Kijor-Ogly. The ship is designed for
in-dependent docking of the hulls.13 An auxiliary
pon-toon is used to support the bridge structure so that the hulls may be cut free for separate docking (the crane on the port hull requires partial disassembly to provide adequate stability for this hull).
Pro-vision is also made to effect repairs when necessary to the end of the hulls (propellers, shafting, rudders,
etc.) without drydocking. This is accomplished by utilizing a special pontoon to lift the extremities
clear of the water.
The Russian trawler, Eksperiment, constructed in
1967 at the Svyetlovsky ship repair yard at
Kahn-ingrad, is somewhat larger than thé American Caribbean Twin."'15 Eksperiinent has a length of about 130 feet, a beam of 60 feet, and a
displace-ment of 300 tons. She has 600 horsepower installed,
giving a maximum speed of about 9 knots. The craft is designed to be used for stern trawling or seine fishing. An important advantage claimed for her is that her wide after deck makes it possible to
use two trawis, and thus fish continuously.
Russia has constructed many catamarans for
pas-senger and cargo use on inland waters, primarily
the Volga River.'6 The first impetus in this direction was the so-called "1960 Class" (first ship launched on 27 September 1960), which is 236 feet long and
49 feet wide, and has a, full-load displacement of 1000 tons. The dead weight cargo capacity is 600
tons. The ships have a crew of 11 and are powered
by two 540-horsepower engines, giving a speed of 13.2 knots. It appears that this ship class was
de-veloped to increase the speed of craft on the Volga
but not in the classical sense. There were
dis-placement hulls in the Volga River Basin that could
develop 28-30 kilometers per hour, but could' not operate at that speed because the bow waves that would be generated would damage small craft at
their moorings. The catamarans have finer hull lines
and do not generate large waves except at much higher speeds. It is reported that the bow wave for
the "1960 Class" at design speed and under full
load was insignificant.
The next Russian class was the smaller "Rest
Class" passenger ship.17 The first of these was
com-missioned as a sightseeing ship on the Volga in
December 1962. This is 130 feet long, with a 46-foot
beam and a seating capacity for 650 persons. She
is capable of about 11 knots on two 450-horsepower
diesels.
The first of the Russian "KT-619 Class" argo
ships, also for use on the Volga River, was com-pleted in 1963. A unique feature is the absence of cargo holds. Cargo handling vehicles are driven aboard and proceed directly to the earo deck. This 8hip has a 3lO400t length and * 52-foot team.
102 Naval n;1neirs Journal. Jun. 1970
BOND
Japan
The Japanese have shown much interest in cata-maran ferries. Nippon Kokan, one of Japan's major shipbuilders, has delivered 20 of these ferries since
l960.' With two exceptiofls, all of these are iess
than 500-tons displacement. The exceptions are two
recently built 2700-ton ferries, the Rokko Maru
and the Konpira. The Rokko Maru entered service
late in 1969, between Kobe and Takamatsu, a dis-tance of about 110 miles on Japan's Inland Sea. These ships are said to have capacity for about 42 heavy trucks, 10 light trucks, and 50 cars, in
addi-tion to 580 passengers. Service speed is 18.8 knots.'9
The first Japanese sea-going catamaran passenger ship was launched at the Shimizu Shipyard of
Nip-pon Kokan in January 1964. She was designed to operate between various ports in the Inland Sea
of Japan. -This ship, the Sea Palace, has an overall
length of 137 feet, a beam of 42 feet, and a draft of 8 feet. She has a speed of 15 knots on the two
650-horsepower diesels. Her capacity is 317
passen-gers and 15 passenger cars.
A fireboat configured as a catamaran was
com-pleted in 1969 and is in service with the Yokohama
headquarters of the Japanese Maritime Safety
Agency. This ship, the 190-ton Hiryu, is Japan's
first (and the world's second) * catamaran used for
this purpose.'° The catamaran configuration of the Hiryu provides a wide (34.1-foot), stable platform for a 50-foot high fire fighting tower. This high
tower is considered important in combatting fires on
the super tankers and other large ships calling at Japanese ports. The shoal draft (6.9 feet) permits operating the fireboat in areas where conventional
fireboats of similar displacement cannot operate.
Holland
The Dutch have built a ship of unusual design for offshore work. This is the catamaran Duplus (Figure 6), designed to perform underwater
con-struction and drilling as well as oceanographic and hydrographie work.2' Du plus incorporates a totally submerged, submarine-shaped portion in each hull,
connected to' the bridge structure by relatively
narrow hull sides. As a xesult of this feature, the
waterline plane of each hull is small, and the com-plete vessel provides a highly stable platform. Two
wing-like transverse sections connecting the hulls below the waterline at the forward and after ends of the ship also help reduce heaving and pitching. Duplus was built by Boele's Scheepswerven Machinefabrick N. V., Bolnes, Holland, in 1968.
She is owned by the Netherlands Offshore Company.
The ship is 131 feet long and 56 feet wide, and has
a draft of 17 feet. A 75-ton gantry crane and a 20-ton revolving crane have been mounted to serve
the 23-foot diameter center well and the work area
-7'be first Is cainied to be 'BP Firemaster," owned by the British Petroleum Corporation. This 50-ton craft Is in operation in the United Kingdom.
-.-V'
__.-:-__
----
I _- :.,:,;U a. u i i a.'.L-'' V.? - -Figure 6. Du plus.on deck. Propulsion is provided by two variable-pitch propellers in nozzles, which are driven by
two 850-horsepower electric motors. Two
1500-horse-power diesel generators provide 1500-horse-power to the motors
as well as part of the other electrical power re-quirements of the vessels. The speed of the ship is 8 knots. Accurate station-keeping over a given
spot on the sea bottom in deep water is accomplished
by four vertical-axis propellers mounted in the two
transverse section hydrofoils. The direction of
thrust of these propellers is controlled by a com-puter which operates on signals indicating the di-rection and distance of the ship from the chosen
spot.
In 1969 another Dutch shipbuilder, Van De Gies-sen-De Nord, N. V., completed a catamaran derrick and pipe-laying barge for the Sante Fe International Corporation of Los Angeles, California.22 This
ves-sel is 400 feet long and has a 106-foot beam. A crane
capable of lifting 500-ton loads at a radius of 90 feet is installed on the after end of the ship.
The catamaran ships discussed above represent the total world experience in the construction and
operation of this type of vessel. Although some were
omitted in the interest of brevity, and catamarans built primarily for sail or pleasure were not dis-cussed, it is believed that most of the significant ships and types of ships have been included.
An examination of the uses of the catamarans
built to date reveals the following information:
Several early steamboats were catamarans.
These were choser to support the means of propulsion, a paddle wheel.
The catamaran has been used extensively for
ferry boat service. This use has been common, from 1812 when Robert Fulton built the Jersey,
until the present time. This has been the most
popular single application.
Submarine rescue vessels are a recent applica-tion. However, submarine salvage vessels were
built by Germany, Russia, and France before
World War I.
Heavy lift vessels have been built in recent years for use in offshore construction. This application has beL forced .y commLcA.
-enterprise.
Oceanographic research vessels are just
begin-fling to appear. The advantages of the cata-maran configuration for this application are similar to those obtained in submarine rescue
ships.
Commercial fishing catamarans, which first
ap-peared in the early 1960's, have proven
sue-cessful.
'' The recent successful catamarans have been
relatively small and built for special purposes. With few exceptions, the successful catamaran
ships built to date were not intended for high
speed application. Of the catamarans built since 1960, speed was listed as a consideration only
in Ridgeley Warfielcl.
Large advances in speed, power, or physical size have not been made in catamaran
con-struction since the turn of the century.
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the world experience
graphically. The largest catamaran yet constructed is Kyor-Ogly, with a displacement of 13,200 tons. The fastest significant catamarans are Riclgleij
War-field and Venturi. It is of interest to note that
Calais-Douvres, built in 1877, is still a ship of
in-terest due to its size and speed.
Through examination of the applications chosen
for the successful catamarans, a pattern of
obtain-able characteristics can be identified.
Ferry boats generally carry low density cargo or
passengers for short distances. They require large detk areas and a stable platform. Inland water
ap-plications also require shoal drafts.
G
4 5 6 7 8 9 1(1 11 12 13 1
OISP(.ACSMENT (THOUSANDS OF TONS)
Figure 7. Catamaran history: Plot of displacement versus speed.
Naval Engneer Journal June 103
24 L,DGELY WARF(ELD 22 20 MARU 18
\ \
1ß G )ASR.21) I-Q z 12 a a Q e KYO R-0G LV 10 BOND CATAMARANS0 100 2%.. 300 6(5 000 600 700 LENGTH SERTI
Figure 8. Catamaran history: Plot of length overall versus speed.
Submarine rescue, submarine salvage, offshore
construction vessels, and oceanographic research
ships have similar requirements: High stability
Large deck areas
Facility in handling large submerged objects Capability to maneuver at low speeds.
Fishing boats have an additional requirement for
widely separated work areas at the stern to allow
working nets continuously.
From this analysis it can be concluded that
cata-marans have been successful when chosen for
appli-cations where the advantages of this type of con-figuration could be fully exploited. It is further apparent that these chosen applications did not place them in direct competition with an already
successful monohull service.
CATAMARANS VERSUS MONOHULLS
In the future, as in the past, the decision to build
catamaran ships will be made after the capabilities of catamarans are matched with those of monohulls.
The successful candidate will be the one that can
perform the task in the most effective manner. It is important to the naval planner to understand the differences in characteristics between catamaran configurations and conventional monohull ships. To highlight these differences, it is convenient to
com-pare a catamaran with an "equivalent" monohull configuration. "Equivalency" should not be inter-preted as implying that all major performance
characteristics are the same, because this is seldom
true. Equality of some properties freriquently
ex-cludes the possibility of equality of other properties.
Thus, the term "equiválent ships" in the following discussion should be understood to mean that the ships nominally perform the same mission, carry the same payload, and have the same speed and endurance. Other characteristics need not be the
104 Naval Engineers Journal. June 970
same, and one ship may perform the mission better than the other.
Deck Area, Enclosed Voiwine, and Subdivision
The catamaran configuration, by virtue o bridge structure connecting the hulls, offers op-portunities for greatly increased deck area and total ship volume as compared to an equivalent
monohull ship. Designers of the ASR-21 submarine rescue class estimated that 40-percent more weather
deck area was provided by the catamaran than could be obtained in a single-hulled ship of the same length and displacement.2 In studies for as-sault landing ship concepts, General Dynamics
esti-mated an advantage of over 50 percent for the
catamaran.24
The interest in the use of catamarans for warships
is primarily directed toward designs where there
is a need for more deck space and enclosed volume.
The bridging structure of a catamaran appears
to offer more volume per ton of displacement than is obtainable in a monohull. The "usability" of this
volume will be dependent on the mission of the ship. The volume added in this manner inherently high in the ship, which is advantageous for most
operational and living purposes, and the inherently
high stability of the catamaran accommodates the high structural weights involved. However, the bridging structure may not be capable of being arranged exactly as might be desired, because of the requirement for structural strength. This is illustrated in Figure 9 for ASR-21. The shaded
bulkheads represent the main structural cross
mem-bers, which tie the hulls together. These were ar-ranged to accommodate a center vell in the ship, and obviously restrict the configuration below the
main deck. Stability
Because of the wide hull spacing of a catamaran,
the intact transverse stability is much greater than
Figure 9. Isometric plan of major bulkheads providing
transverse strength for the ASIt-21 class (details omitted for clarity). CATAMARANS BOND 70 2.6 G VENTURI 22 20 V,,ROSEO MARI) II iR , loreN IASR211 CALAISDOUVR(S 0 12 s G E. W. THONTON 10 0CASTALIA KTO 60G LV s RI e 4
for an equivalent monohull. Mandel,25 in comparing
a destroyer of 30-foot beam with a catamaran 100 feet wide, estimated. that the metacentric height would be in the order of 65 times as great as that of the monohull destroyer. He concluded that the catamaran is not likely to experience as severe rolling as a conventional ship, but that where the catamaran does encounter resonant conditions, the accelerations at the deck edge would be likely to be more severe than in a conventional ship.
The high stability inherent in the catamaran
al-lows some tradeoff between stability and some other
desired capability. For instance, reducing the size of the water plane in the vicinity of the waterline could possibly result in a reduction in resistance and a decrease in wave response in a seaway. This
technique was used in the Du plus. Studies reported
by Leopold6'2 indicate optimism concerning the
development of this type of vessel for large, high-speed ship applications. The design practice of the U. S. Navy has been to avoid longitudinal, water-tight bulkheads in warship hull design, in order to
limit the angle of ship list in case of hull penetration and flooding. The subdivision possibilities of
cata-marans are greater than those of monohull ships
because the operational spaces are located primarily
in the bridging structure. Longitudinal bulkheads can be used in a catamaran to ]imit flooding as
well as to control trim. Counterflooding would not be so important as in a monohull. Indeed', it is hard to conceive of any advantage from counterflooding a catamaran for damage control purposes, since the
angle of list should not reach an excessive value unless the hulls are unusually close together and the bridging structure is unusually high above the
water. If the flooding were extensive enough, the
bridging structure would be immersed. This would
tend to increase the stability in proportion to the increase in the moment of inertia of the new water
plane area.
The great stability of catamarans has been an important consideration in selecting this type of
ship for submarine rescue, oceanographic research, offshore drilling/construction, and commercial
fish-ing purposes. It offers advantages to any future
application requiring a very stable platform. Maneuverability
Low-speed maneuverability and high-speed di-rectional stability are usually mutually exclusive characteristics for a conventional ship. In a cata-maran, both characteristics are normally present. The long, narrow hulls of the catamaran provide
directional stability and the wide propeller
separa-tion supplies large turning moments, even at low
speed. This combination of characteristic is a
defi-nite advantage for the catamaran for applications Øch as submarine rescue or offshore óonstruction,
W* on*idered' by the ttuìana
o KyoOglj. flecausa propellers and rud4ers aro
installed on all extremities, Kyor-Ogly apparently
can maneuver in any direction, including sideways.
This would be a particularly valuable asset during
heavy lift operations. Speed/Power
Much of the debate on the advantages and dis-advantages of the catamaran has had to do with speed-power relationships. Catamaran proponents claim a potential for high-speed ships with great power advantages, while the opponents insist that more power would be required for the catamaran.
The truth of the matter is that not enough is known
about catamaran hull resistance to substantiate
either viewpoint.
It is generally agreed that, since the wetted sur-face of a catamaran would typically be about 40 percent greater than that of a conventional hull,
the frictional resistancé of the catamaran would be higher. It is also agreed that, since catamarans have
proportionately longer, narrower hulls than con-ventional ships and hence a more favorable
dis-placement-length ratio, the wavemaking (or, more
properly, residuary) resistance will be lower. This latter advantage increases rapidly with speed.
Residuary resistance, however, is altered by an interference effect between the hulls of a cata-maran. This interference represents the change in residuary resistance from the sum of the residuary
resistances of the two individual hulls if each were
operating alone. Far too little is known about this
effect to permit prediction of its relative value. Most experimental data for practical configurations have shown this effect to increase the total wavemaking
resistance over the sum of the wavemaking
resis-tances of the hulls operating independently. Theory
and limited experimental data indicate that the interference effect might be made negative at
cer-tain speed-length ratios.* This negative interference,
if achieveable, would be most important at
speed-length ratios where the wavemaking resistance has
a large effect. If a decrease in residuary resistance by as much as 50 percent could be achieved for a ship the size of an attack carrier, either of the two
following gains could be attained:
A reduction of almost 20 percent in total
re-sistance and', consequently, in required power.
A speed increase of almost 6 percent. For an
attack carrier (CVA) with a speed-length
ratio* of 1.0, corresponding to about 32 knots,
the 20-percent power increase would increase the speed by about 2 knots.
At higher speed-length ratios, where residuary resistance becomes a greater percentage of total resistance, there is naturally more beuflt to be obtained from a 50-percent decrease in residuary
drag. As a further demonstration of this, for a
CVA-size catamaran with a speed-length rató of 1.2, sTh. speed4ength rtIö J* equal to Vu/
i
where V* speed Inkrta *n4 L linNth Ii Met,
Naval Enqineers Journal, June $970 105
TAMARANS BOND
responding to a speed of about 39 knots, the aft horsepower required would be 24 percent s than that required by a conventional hull (vice
gercent :2 knots), or the alternative speed
crease for ie same power would be about 3 knots. lower speeds, where frictional resistance
be-rnes increasingly dominant, the payoff from
re-ced residuary resistance becomes less important.
The real question of how much negative
inter-rence can be achieved for catamarans is a matter
speculation. It would appear that the potential
ists for realizing significant reductions in
resid-ry resistance, although probably less than the
D-percent value used in the example above. Thus,
hile the possible gains from this resistance re-uction are worth pursuing, they cannot be
ex-ected to revolutionize the shipbuilding industry. The dilemma of speed-power relationships of cata-xarans is further confused by the lack of sufficient
.nowledge for evaluation of the propulsive coeffi-ients. The power required to drive a ship at its
Lesigned speeds depends not only on hull resistance
ut on propulsive efficiency. Single screw ships
enerally have a higher propulsive efficiency than
win screw ships, and a catamaran with one shaft
er hull could be expected to have higher efficiency
han a twin screw monohull. This advantage has
iot been confirmed by tests to date. As catamaran echnology evolves, it would seem that; with rea-;onable wake surveys, the propulsion coefficients
or catamarans will be as predictable as those for
nonohulls. truct are
The soundness of the basic structure of monohull
;hips is confirmed by history. The scantlings for Doth commercial and Naval ships can be chosen 'ith reasonable assurance that the structure will successful. Catamaran ships, however, do not aave a similarly long history of development, and :he values and locations of high stress cannot be
asi1y predicted.
The unique bridging structure of the catamaran ntroduces new unknowns into ship structural an-ilysis and design. The most significant of these
unknowns are:
The nature and magnitude of thehydrodynamic
loads transmitted to the cross structure by
differential loading of the hulls.
The means by which, and location where, these
loads are introduced into the cross structure, and the manner in which the structure
assimi-lates the loads.
The magnitude of local impact loads on the
underside of the cross structure and side shell forming the tunnel between hills, as well as on the forward end o the deck
The magnitude of crack initiation problems due
to stress concentrations inherent in the
geome-try of catamarans.
106 Naval Enqin..r Journal. June 1970
During the design of ASR-21, experiments
con-ducted at the Naval Ship Research and
Develop-ment Center demonstrated the reliability of
meth-ods used for predicting stress levels.However, these
were conducted for a vessel of specinc size, and the results are not necessarliy applicable to ships
of considerably different size and configuration. If
larger catamarans are to be built, extensive re-search efforts will have to be conducted in the
field of structural analysis.
Hydroelastic characteristics must also be
con-sidered in catamaran design. For example,
struct-ural vibrations in the vicinity of the propeller arc
characteristic of many monohulls and can be
ex-pected in catamarans also. An additional problem may be of overall structural instability. Two large hulls (or masses) connected by an elastic bridging structure can oscillate with respect to each other. This oscillation, caused by uneven loading of the
hull by wave action, could cause problems ranging
from an uncomfortable ride to structural failure.
Two possible modes of oscillation are illustrated in
Figure 10.
Structural Weight
There are apparent weight penalties associated with the catamaran bridging structure, but com-parisons with monohulls must be carefully done
or the results will be misleading. For weight-limited ships, where the two catamaran hulls must provide
the same displacement as amonohuil ship, the
cata-maran incurs a weight penalty. If, however, the comparison is by volume per ton of displacement,
the catamaran and the monohull should have
ap-OUT OF P HASE
BOND CATAMARANS
proximately equal weight for the same gross vol-unie. This is corroborated by Robert Scott in. a
study concerning catamaran structural strength and hull weight published in l962.
Other Factors for Consideration
A discussion of the desirability of catamaran ships would not be complete if items like acquisition and
annual operating costs, physical size, and mainte-nance and repair facilities were not considered.
The construction of catamaran ships in the near future will involve engineering, research, and de-velopment costs that will seem disproportionately high in comparison to monohull construction cost
distributions, because so little is known about large
catamarans. This effect will continue for several decades as the development proceeds. Actual con-struction costs can be expected to be higher than for conventional ships of the same tonnage. The
twin hulls will require some duplication of systems,
thus increasing the building costs, and will also
require additional personnel. The higher power re-quirement can be expected to increase annual costs.
This view is supported by a General Dynamics
report24 wherein catamarans and conventional ships with the same cargo carrying capability were
com-pared. This study showed that, in all cases con-sidered, the catamaran was economically inferior.
This was attributed to the following:
The catamaran was larger and required more
power. Hence, acquisition costs were higher.
The catamaran was more expensive to operate
because of higher maintenance costs, insurance premiums, port changes, and fuel bills.
The General Dynamics report reaches the con-elusion that power and structural weight require-ments for catamarans pose severe penalties that cannot be overcome in commerciFapplication where cargoes of reasonable densities must be
carried.
The physical size of the catamaran is also a factor that will influence any decision for con-structing catamaran ships. Ships of moderate size,
if designed as catamarans, become beam-limited if
transit of the Panama Canal or other narrow pass-ages is required. Studies conducted at the Naval Ship Engineering Center indicate that a catamaran aircraft carrier built to accommodate and operate
the airwing equivalent to the super carrier of today would have an overall length of about950 feet and
a beam of about 300 feet at the waterline. Such dimensions would have an obvious impact on the usefulness of the ship. Harbors normally used by aircraft carriers are not adequate t, handle ships
of.this size. Channel widths and depths are in
ques-tion. Pier facilities would have to be altered to handle ships of this type nd size. Shipyard
facili-ties, if accessible, do not have dry docks large
enough to handle them (even mooring a ship of this size in the Naval Shipyards would present a
problem). It is possible to construct the hulls
sepa-rately and marry them afloat,
thus easing theconstruction facility problem. However, the
require-ment for dry docking for maintenance would still exist. It can be postul. ed, then, that the y« al size of port and harbor facilities will be a limiting
factor on large catamaran construction for some time to come.
FUTURE OF THE CATAMARAN
Historical and recent experience with catamaran ship construction has demonstrated both advantages
and disadvantages in comparison to conventional
ships. These can be summarized as follows:
Deck area, volume: The bridging structure be-tween the hulls offers larger topside deck areas
and a potential for larger internal decks and volumes than can be obtained in an
"equiva-lent" monohull ship.
Structural weight: The added volume of the
bridging structure is associated with additional
weight.
Lifting and handling capabilities: The possibility
of lifting submerged objects through a center well in the catamaran, near amidships and the center of motion, gives the catamaran a great
advantage for some applications.
Stability: Catamarans inherently possess greater
intact transverse stability than do monohulls.
Maneuverability: Catamarans offer a
combina-tion of direccombina-tional stability and low speed
ma-neuverability not easily obtained in conventional ships.
Speed-power relationships: Present technology
indicates that large catamarans operating at
low to moderate speeds will require appreciably
greater power than monohulls. For speed-length ratios above 1.0 and for limited speed
regions, the power requirement for certain
cata-maran configurations may be less than that
for a monohull ship.
Cost: The acquisition cost of catamarans will
generally be higher than for monohulls because of:
- higher engineering costs - increased structural weight
- duplicate systems in the separate hulls.
Operating costs will be higher because of:
- increased manning requirements - increased power requirements.
Facilities: Harbor and port facilities pose ob-stacles to the maximum size catamaran that
can be constructed and operated effectively.
Although it is obvious that successful catamarans of approximately the same size, speed, and appli-cation as previously constructed catamarans can
be built, a considerable development effort will be required if large departures from the present "state
of the art" are desired. This development program
must include:
CATAMARANS BOND
Research and Development Programs. Research
and development in depth is needed in the
areas of:
- hydrodynamic theory
-
hydroelasticity- structural
mechanics.Full-Scale Trials. Presently there are no actual
trial data on catamaran ships at sea. Such data
must be obtained to establish confidence in de-sign procedures, whether these procedures are based on theoretical or experimental
A Shipbuilding Program. A program to con-struct progressively larger, faster catamarans should be developed. This program should be very deliberate. It should be programmed to accept inputs from the research and
develop-ment program and to expand the ship
experi-ence level in reasonable increments: The exact size, speed, and time frame of these increments
should be established in conjunction with the
establishment of the research and development
program.
CONCLUSIONS
Many early powered catamarans were built with
the expectation of achieving high speeds with
rela-tively low power requirements. These catamarans were inevitably failuresthey were either slower than contemporary monohull craft or more
ex-pensive to operate. It is only within the last decade
that catamarans have begun to achieve a measure
of importance in the maritime world. This has come about because of the realization that some attributes
inherent in a catamaran configuration offer signi-ficant advantages for certain specific ship
applica-tions. Applications of contemporary catamaran
configurations have been selected to exploit the
potential of such innate characteristics as high
trans-verse stability, small roll angles, large deck areas, ind good maneuverability, rather than high speed.
Paradoxically, economical, large, high speed
(speed-length ratio >1.0) catamarans are
poten-tially feasiblebut not without a
comprehensiveresearch and development program directed toward
this goal. This program must investigate and de-termine optimum hull shape to achieve minimum resistance, through utilization of such effects as negative wave interference between the hulls.
Structural and hydroelastic problems must also be
defined, analyzed, and solved.
Real goals must be established for this program. Indeed, the goal of a catmaran ship with the size,
speed, and mission capabilities of an aircraft carrier
is so far beyond the technology of today that a
definite project of its feasibility cannot be made.
However, a catamaran with the size, speed, and
mission capabilities of the destroyer of today is not
so far beyond the
d4ta base cretd by the AR
construction as to be infeasible. Achieving such a goal would establish a data base for extrapolating108 Naval Engineers Journal. Jurie 1970
into the 40-to 45-knot regime. This approach would
allow the establishment of a comprehensive
cata-maran technology without breaching the facility and
economic barriers with which we arefaced.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
- The author is indebted to Dr. Robert Johnson of the Naval Ship Engineering Center, who directed
the efforts to gather the data upon which this paper
was based. The aid andadvice of Messrs. O. Oakley
and H. Meier, Captain M. Eckhart, also of the Naval Ship Engineering Center, and Commander Richard
P. Hall, USN (Ret.), are also acknowledged.
REFB1NCES
Commander A. C. Brown, USNR (Ret.), Twin Ships, Publication No. 5, The Mariners Museum, Newport News, Virginia.
Captain James Cook, A Voyage Toward the SouthPole,
and Around the World Performed in His Majesty's
Ships THE RESOLUTiON and ADVENTURE in the
Years 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, London, Printed for W.
Strahan and T. Caddi, 1777 2 Vol.
{3] H. A. Meyers "Catamarans," Motor Boating, January
1969.
Commander A. C. Brown, USNR (Ret.), U. S. Naval
Institute Proceedtngs, May 1969, p. 110.
Willy Ley, "The Unchangeable Ship," MIT Technology Review, January 1951.
H. I. Chapelle, Fishing Boats of the World: 3, London, 1967, page 190.
Inspection Report, Commander, Operational Develop-ment Force, Visit to Gar Wood Twin I-lulled
Experi-mental Craft at Fisher Island, Miami Beach, Florida,
dated 6 March 1953.
Brochure, Reading and Bates Offshore Drilling
Com-pany.
F. R. MacLear, "Catamarans as Commercial Fishing Vessels," paper presented at the 3rd FAO Technical Meeting on Fishing Boats, held in Goteborg, Sweden,
October 1965.
"The RIDGELY WARFIELD," Maritime Reporter/En-gineering News, September 1, 1967.
"USS PIGEON.ASR-21," Maritime
Reporter/Engi-neering News, September 15, 1969.
LCDR J. C. Froid, USN, "The Research Catamaran
T-AGOR 16," tI. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, De-cember 1968.
V. Ye. Gubanov, "The Catamaran Crane Ship KYOR-OGLY," Shipbuilding, No. 8, 1968, pp. 3-11. (Transla-tion from Russian).
Multihull International, February 1968.
Foreign Broadcast Information Service Bulletin, USSR Economic Affairs, 14 March 1969.
N. S. Galashov, "A River Catamaran Cargo Motor
Ship," Shipbuilding, No. 1, January 1963, pp. 10-12. (Translation from Russian).
"Passenger Catamaran 'OTDYKH' (Rest or Vacation Time)," Shipbuilding, No. 8, 1964. (Translation troni
Russian)
Maritime Reporter/Engineering News, March 1, 1969.
The Motor Ship, January 1970, p. 479.
"Japan's First Catamaran Fireboat," Ocean Industry,
Vol. 4, No. 11, November 1969.
[*1] 'The DTPQS-A Twin-HsU Vessel," Maritime
Re-pom'ter/nç{neei'tng Neu's, My 12, 1i9.
BOND
H. A. Meier, "Preliminary Design of a Catamaran Sub-marine Rescue Ship (ASR) ," Marine Technology, Jan-uary 1968.
'Catamaran Study," prepared for the Maritime Admin_
istratio'i by General Dynamics, 30 April 1969.
P. Mandel, "A Comparative Evaluation of Naval Ship Types," SNAME Transactions, Vol. 70, 1962, pp. 128-991. R. Leopold, "A New Hull Form for High-Speed Vol-ume-Limited Displacement-Type Ships," paper
pre-M. ROSENBLATI & SON, Inc.
NAVAL ARCHITECTS MARINE ENGINEERS
NEW YORK CITY 3S0 Broadway (212) BE 3.7430
SAN FRANCISCO 45 Second St. (415) EX 7-3596
Cdr. McGnrr'h, Chairman of newly formed Pascagoula
sec-tion. Cdr, A 4. oc, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer ASNE, and Mr. Wendt, paper presenter, enjoys ASNE Day 1970.
CATAMARANS
sented at SNAME meeting, Beverly. Hills, California,
May 1969.
R. Leopold, 'A New Hull Form for High-Speed Ships," Maritime Reporter/Engineering News, September 15,
1969.
Robert Scott, "Catamaran Structure: Strength and Hull Weight," Appendix 4 to " Comparative Evaluation of
Naval Ship Types," by Philip Mandel, SNAME Trans-actions, Vol. ' 1962.
L
Capt. Frank G. Law, USN (Ret) enjoys member-relations end
of Secretary-Treasurer's job.
General scene at Thursday cocktail party.
I
