Catamaran Vessels for the RAN?

[bmu]

Hi guys,

Was just wondering what the Aussie techies (or indeed anyone on here) felt about the views being pushed forward that the RAN should be investigating catamaran-design assault vessels?

Hugh White, Carlo Kopp and Adam Cobb seem quite keen on them. Is it just me or is it not a bit risky to have a catamaran about 100M in length and made of aluminium as an assault ship (HSV-X1 style design is touted)? Surely the larger 27,000 tonne vessels that the RAN are keener on make more sense? I'd be a bit worried about the survivability of a Cat and if one of them was to get hit by a modern anti-shipping missile you'd lose a battalion of men (at least)?

Any comments much apreciated.

 

[aaaditya]

Hi guys,

Was just wondering what the Aussie techies (or indeed anyone on here) felt about the views being pushed forward that the RAN should be investigating catamaran-design assault vessels?

Hugh White, Carlo Kopp and Adam Cobb seem quite keen on them. Is it just me or is it not a bit risky to have a catamaran about 100M in length and made of aluminium as an assault ship (HSV-X1 style design is touted)? Surely the larger 27,000 tonne vessels that the RAN are keener on make more sense? I'd be a bit worried about the survivability of a Cat and if one of them was to get hit by a modern anti-shipping missile you'd lose a battalion of men (at least)?

Any comments much apreciated.

catamarans have excellent strength,manouverability,balance , survivability and speed,hence iam sure it will be able to take quite a bit of damage.no vessel wether a catamaran or not not can survive a direct hit from a powerfull anti ship missile.:coffee

 

[Aussie Digger]

Here are my thoughts on those 3. Carlo Kobb is insane (IMHO) and is apparently never satisfied with ANY level of ADF capability, given his published writings. The reason for this is his publicly stated position that the RAAF's (AND ADF as a whole) force structure is totally inadequate to even provide a credible DOA capability against "emerging" regional threats, that apparently he alone has some special knowledge of.

His force structure seems to revolve around a dual combat fleet of about 50 F-22's and 50 upgraded F-111's, 60-70 A2A refuellers, about 20 Wedgetail AWACS and the entire transport fleet replaced by around 24 A400M's and 12-18 C-17III Globemasters.

Given sway over force structure decisions, his beloved F-111's would be converted to supercruising (thanks to retro-fitted F-22 engines) AESA radar equipped (thanks to retro-fitted F-22 LPI radars) AMRAAM firing intercepters, and Australia would buy another 30 odd F-111's from AMARC to "ensure" our capability against non existant (except in his view) Asian SU-27/30 fleets which are apparently supported by with massive AWACS and A2A refuelling fleets, according to recent articles he's published...

Dr KOPP also thinks that our A2A fleet is inadequate (probably correct) but has then gone on to come up with some sort of ridiculous mathematical formulae "showing" that to maintain a "credible" defence of Australia (again, against this mythical Asian air fleet) that we would need somewhere in the vicinity of 60-70 A2A refuellers.

Of course he's not happy with the A330 A2A refueller either... What he would like is for the RAAF to operate a fleet of second hand 747-200 Cargo conversions, modified as A2A refuellers!!! Apparently with hundreds of these aircraft in the second hand airliner market, we could snap them up for a bargain. Modifying them would prove no major technical challenges, nor would it cost much.

Pilots too would apparently be no problem, though of course he offers no solutions to increase pilot numbers and decrease the expense of such a large force of pilots...

KOPP goes on like this about numerous areas of defence. I think everyone gets the picture though. If anyone wants more info: you can get it here:

http://www.ausairpower.net/index.html

Hugh White is a bit more reasonable, but he is a staunch defence of Australia proponent. I don't think he's particularly interested in acquiring ANY type of capability for deploying OS.

Never heard of Adam COBB, so I can't say.

AS to Catarmarans, I think they would be great for the RAN. The RAN however had an opportunity to start down this path with the Armidale Class patrol boats, but chose to go with the conventional design.

I think it'll be a while before we see any in RAN Colours...

 

[bmu]

Guys many thanks for your responses (Info has been needed for an MSc. Dissertation so you're a great help!).

Just one thing - didn't USS Stark survive two direct hits from exocets (not that I'm pretending it is the best anti-ship missile going, but it is a powerful unit?)in '87? I'm just thinking that vessels with larger displacement, stronger hull and a bit more length would stand more of a chance of staying up in the case of something going wrong? A aluminium catamaran can't offer this surely? If it got hit it'd go down I would of thought? Typical military tradeoff (Payload-Speed-Armour) what it gains in speed and a larger payload it sacrifices in survivability?

Sorry about all the questions! Cheers.

 

[machina]

It may have been a good idea to have just one LHD built overseas and one or more catamarans built here. I'd hazard an uneducated guess that it's more likely that there would be operations that would benefit from high speed transport than operations that benefit from the second LHD. We also probably have a better capacity to build the catamarans locally at a competitive price, thus more ships for the money spent.

 

[aaaditya]

catamrans because of their shallow draft can be used in shallow waters and are more fuel efficient that comparable ships and capable of higher speeds ,they would definitely be highly suited for australian navy(i beleive they have a very large reef area ).:coffee

 

[cherry]

I do think the RAN will eventually introduce the catamaran capability into service but under phase 4C for the amphib project JP2048, in form of the new sealift capability. There is currently $150m-$200m budgeted for this stage for the new sealift capability, which will see the heavy lift ship HMAS Tobruk replaced. But I think instead of building one single purpose sealift ship, the RAN will opt for 2-3 high speed multi-purpose vessels similar to what the US are trialling at the moment (these are Australian built vessels). One good thing is the US are doing all of the research and trialling and building upon the experience we gained with HMAS Jervis Bay, saving us a lot of time and money. The budget will increase, it is pencilled in for 2016 and we will probably see a change or two in governments between now and then, butI suspect this new technology will eventually win out. The two main contenders to design and build these ships (Incat and Austal) have and are doing a lot of research and, have been lobbying members of parliament to push for these ships to be introduced into RAN. In particular, Incat seem to have been the most pro-active and have several designs for different needs already on the drawing board, they have even tried to engage RAN to build a "mini aircraft carrier" based on a HSV and able to carry a small number of STOVL JSF and helos.

AUSTAL - 1 http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=144&stc=1

 

[alexsa]

catamrans because of their shallow draft can be used in shallow waters and are more fuel efficient that comparable ships and capable of higher speeds ,they would definitely be highly suited for australian navy(i beleive they have a very large reef area ).:coffee

I would not be so certain about fuel efficieny with these vessels as they burn gas oil and lots of it to achieve the speeds. Large ships with slow speed engines burn heavy oil which is currently one sixth the price of gas oil and wouiel burn less for the same uplift capacity but at a slower speed.

The big advantage to these vessel is speed and capacity on the tonnage. To achive this they are more lightly built than contemporary conventional vessels which has implications in repsect of sea keeping (above force 4 is not good, force 5, forget it) and the strength of the vessel. In wide multi hulls (with the exception of the new Austal trimaran which has a long slender fore body) tunnel slam is a big issue in steep swells. These are not vessels that can provide persisant support in most conditions hence the reason the USN employ them in the high speed transport role.

The LCS is a different prospect but also a different cost.

 

[cherry]

I guess there are advantages and disadvantages in all of the types of platforms available for this role. One thing for sure is that these vessels we are talking about can be more of a multi-role vessel that can be used primarily for sealift of around 700-900 tonnes of equipment (around 20 ASLAV), they can act as mini helicopter carriers, assault support, floating hospitals, humanitarian, launching platforms for UAV, unmanned surface vessels, and unmanned subs, and mission modules (similar to that of the LCS) can provide mine warfare and anti-submarine capabilities. These vessels could also be used simply as patrol boats. As more time passes, I would suspect that more and more roles will be thought of for these vessels. I don't think though, that we will be hearing much about the new sealift capabilities from within ADF for many years to come yet, they have far too much to think about already. Here are some pics of some the concepts Incat have.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=147

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=148&stc=1

 

[cherry]

Here is a few more pics and links. Some of the pics were too big for uploading onto this website so i have just put the link.



http://www.incat.com.au/news/media.cgi?task=SHOWCATEGORY&category=63425

Here is an interesting article about the mini aircraft carriers
http://www.examiner.com.au/story.asp?id=188186

 

[alexsa]

Here is an interesting article about the mini aircraft carriers
http://www.examiner.com.au/story.asp?id=188186

I would love to see a realistic proposal from INCAT that details the number of aircraft such a small vessel could actually carry and support (noting the internal space is not great depsit the length of the vessel given it basically an elevated platform supported on twin hulls). It would not be many. It should be noted the bigger 127m LCS trimaran concept only has a payload capacity for mission packages of 400tonnes after its normal defensive armament and ship systesms are fitted.

Another issue is the operating radius when carrying a full load of aircraft, munitions, crew and fule for both the vessel and aircraft noting the increased strucutral requirments that VSTOL operations would palce on the flight deck.

In reality it would be a small vulnerable vessel (one hit and your out) with limited sea keeping ability carrying 4 to 6 expensive aircraft over limited distances.

It is a great high speed transport concept, particualry in litorial waters but as an assualt carrier the LPH is a better bet as it can get many more aircrft to sea (as well as 1200 troops and ther equipment), stay there and defend itself. Looking as the US concept the LCS and HSV transports are not intended for deep sea operationa nd will be supported by assests such as the current surface combatants and the future DD(X), and CVN21 and LPH(R) in a networked system. They are not intended as the primary assault asset.