biofouling
Biofouling estimated 22% coverage across midship vertical sides. Above naval 15% threshold — performance penalty affects top-speed reserve and acoustic signature.
In-water hull survey of a frigate-class vessel by inspection-class ROV. Same CoatingPassport schema as commercial vessel-hull, with naval-domain severity calibration: biofouling threshold tightened from 15% to 15% (was IMO BR threshold), signature-coating breakdown at 5% triggers drydock scheduling. Defensive posture only — observation + audit, never autonomous action.
Biofouling estimated 22% coverage across midship vertical sides. Above naval 15% threshold — performance penalty affects top-speed reserve and acoustic signature.
Signature-reducing coating breakdown estimated 6% in aft 1/3 zone. Above naval 5% threshold; affects radar-cross-section and acoustic-signature performance.
Anode set 48% depleted. Within expected progression for 20 months since last drydock.
Supporting evidence for a primary-data fuel/intensity figure — not the ISO 14083 calculation and not a replacement for EU MRV / FuelEU monitoring. A fouled hull burns more fuel per tonne-km; this is the verified condition that defends a lower self-reported intensity.
The same JSON powers Cognite CDF Asset+Timeseries, OSDU exports, RDF knowledge graphs, and MCP-tool calls from agentic systems. PDF is a renderer of this; never the source.