Australian built High Speed Vehicle. Is it any good??

[gf0012-aust]

Well if the incat spaer head is no good,why do the usa have an order of 60 vessels.

they don't have an order for 60 vessels. if they do please provide the link. Clifford is hoping for 60 vessels. He's indulging in an O'dwyer type marketing exercise.

this should be tempered by the knowledge that quite a few US Congressmen over the last few weeks have vocally promoted the fact that no large orders should be foreign designed and foreign built.

the reality is that Incat have a relationship with Bollinger to try and get around that congressional (and legal) requirement that new build large capital assets must be built in the US.

I've seen the incat models pough thought heavy sea of the caost of tasmania that were 4metre waves.They peirce straight throught them.I must admitt though AUSTAL has better effecency production speed than incat.

sustained high sea states? not going to happen. we know that they can't. thats why they're planned around messy bits of the ocean when they are in transit. the last thing an army wants is for their troops to arrive debilitated. Thats also why air is the preferred option for warm and verticals, and why you have flat packers, RoRo, LHA's, LPD's and ferries for bulk hardware shifting

as for seeing them punch through water - well, so can large cats. wave piercing is the same bloke with a different haircut. I've also seen both - up close. I've seen HSV and HSV2 (which was supposed to be an improvement). The bottom line is that they are worlds apart in build quality. why have a kingswood if you can get an audi for similar pricing?

But incat holds the record in the pacific for fastest cat in the world usa military hold that record.

an optimised boat transiting in timed crossings does not equal military usefulness.

But what I would like to see from both designs is a three deck version.
1-landing pad,2- aircraft hanger,3- vechicle storage hanger in companies design.At the moment they only carry 2-decks.
To do this they would have extend each ship by 20 metres,but the design might able to this.

3 decks above the waterline or all up? before DERA became QinetiC I saw some of the russian 200m aircraft carrier trimaran and catamaran concepts. the pommy ME i spoke to said that they perceived considerable structural problems of beam to length once you went beyond a certain length. adding another deck would dramatically change the centre of grav, handling and also trigger beam/length issues. they seemed to think that it was not a useful idea.

maybe it could be done now, but it sure wasn't attractive 5 years ago.

 

[Tasman]

I've seen the incat models pough thought heavy sea of the caost of tasmania that were 4metre waves.They peirce straight throught them.

One of the main reasons the use of Incat vessels on the Bass Strait run came to an end was that the ride became very uncomfortable in heavy seas. There were times when the Incat vessels were not permitted to sail but the conventional ferry did. It is true that they pierce through waves but there is a limit to re how large those waves are.

Cheers

 

[PETER671BT]

they don't have an order for 60 vessels. if they do please provide the link. Clifford is hoping for 60 vessels. He's indulging in an O'dwyer type marketing exercise.

this should be tempered by the knowledge that quite a few US Congressmen over the last few weeks have vocally promoted the fact that no large orders should be foreign designed and foreign built.

the reality is that Incat have a relationship with Bollinger to try and get around that congressional (and legal) requirement that new build large capital assets must be built in the US.



sustained high sea states? not going to happen. we know that they can't. thats why they're planned around messy bits of the ocean when they are in transit. the last thing an army wants is for their troops to arrive debilitated. Thats also why air is the preferred option for warm and verticals, and why you have flat packers, RoRo, LHA's, LPD's and ferries for bulk hardware shifting

as for seeing them punch through water - well, so can large cats. wave piercing is the same bloke with a different haircut. I've also seen both - up close. I've seen HSV and HSV2 (which was supposed to be an improvement). The bottom line is that they are worlds apart in build quality. why have a kingswood if you can get an audi for similar pricing?



an optimised boat transiting in timed crossings does not equal military usefulness.



3 decks above the waterline or all up? before DERA became QinetiC I saw some of the russian 200m aircraft carrier trimaran and catamaran concepts. the pommy ME i spoke to said that they perceived considerable structural problems of beam to length once you went beyond a certain length. adding another deck would dramatically change the centre of grav, handling and also trigger beam/length issues. they seemed to think that it was not a useful idea.

maybe it could be done now, but it sure wasn't attractive 5 years ago.

Well I have to say your right,I looked through some sites and found that incat thought they were going to get that many orders but have been reduced to five,austal a max of ten,there going to study the ships first to improve the capability of them.And your right austal ferry can carry a full ballaton to compare with incat who can only carry just under half that.
But incat is working with a usa company.look up incat usa you'll find it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But incat is working with a usa company.look up incat usa you'll find it.

You're not reading my responses before answering .

I've already stated that in my prev response. Its Bollinger.

 

[Todjaeger]

Well I have to say your right,I looked through some sites and found that incat thought they were going to get that many orders but have been reduced to five,austal a max of ten,there going to study the ships first to improve the capability of them.And your right austal ferry can carry a full ballaton to compare with incat who can only carry just under half that.
But incat is working with a usa company.look up incat usa you'll find it.

Austal is also working with US companies, and has a facility in Mobile, Alabama, US. For the LCS project Austal has partnered with the General Dynamics team.

-Cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

Heres a few questions for you..

With the comercial crew level of around 10 people plus an additional 20 crew for military related things, do you think that an Austal Ferry could be as cost efficient to run and perform the same missions as a smaller Armidale patrol boat?

With the same crew of 10, but with additional 60 crew to control palleted addons such as: SAM's, radar, Harpoon missiles, helicopter etc. Do you think that the Austal Ferry could be as cost efficient to run and perform the same missions as a Anzac frigate?

With a crew of 10 and 20 extra crew do you think the Austal ferry could carry 500+ soldiers and vehicles while being as cost efficient and performing the same missions as a LHD?

To me i answer yes to all the above. Its a fairly good all round boat. The Australian Navy could run a single fleet of Austal Ferry's and depending on the mission and how much money is available they can adjust the crew and palleted add-ons to suit on the ship to suit.

As the crew and wages is the biggest running cost of a ship it would be ideal to be able to reduce the crew easily. It would also help with our manning shortage. The size and fuel of a boat is only a small cost, so you have as well have a big boat and just reduce the crew and add-ons.

In peace time a skeleton crew can be used for patrol work or illegal fishing. But in war time helicopters can drop off extra crew and the capability of the ship improves dramatically.

 

[Todjaeger]

Heres a few questions for you..

With the comercial crew level of around 10 people plus an additional 20 crew for military related things, do you think that an Austal Ferry could be as cost efficient to run and perform the same missions as a smaller Armidale patrol boat?

With the same crew of 10, but with additional 60 crew to control palleted addons such as: SAM's, radar, Harpoon missiles, helicopter etc. Do you think that the Austal Ferry could be as cost efficient to run and perform the same missions as a Anzac frigate?

With a crew of 10 and 20 extra crew do you think the Austal ferry could carry 500+ soldiers and vehicles while being as cost efficient and performing the same missions as a LHD?

To me i answer yes to all the above. Its a fairly good all round boat. The Australian Navy could run a single fleet of Austal Ferry's and depending on the mission and how much money is available they can adjust the crew and palleted add-ons to suit on the ship to suit.

As the crew and wages is the biggest running cost of a ship it would be ideal to be able to reduce the crew easily. It would also help with our manning shortage.

In peace time a skeleton crew can be used for patrol work or illegal fishing. But in war time helicopters can drop off extra crew and the capability of the ship improves dramatically.

Just so I can make sure I'm understanding what you're advocating. Your are talking about a Ferry, right, not the LCS, but a Ferry? Like the attached link of the Westpac Express? http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=6915D259-A0CC-3C8C-D9B83F4C8EF72CF7

 

[rjmaz1]

Just so I can make sure I'm understanding what you're advocating. Your are talking about a Ferry, right, not the LCS, but a Ferry? Like the attached link of the Westpac Express? http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=6915D259-A0CC-3C8C-D9B83F4C8EF72CF7

HMAS Jarvis Bay was infact a ferry. So the same boat just with add-ons.

LCS will not be made in Australia, but i guess it could easily be made here.

For SAM's for instance you could use SLAMRAAM, mount a radar at both ends of the boat and have a missile launch mounted on each side. This would provide good air defence. With GPS guided missiles its now just a matter of putting in the co-ordinates and pressing the fire button, this could be added easily. Each capability could be added one at a time. Its cheaper and has less risk, you can then choose which get what add-ons. These ships have so much internal room that you can just keep adding stuff.

Also if the top of the ferry was made dead flat nothing would stop a Super Hornet landing on the short 100metre space as that is more than enough for a catapult and arrestor landing. Again it could be made dead flat arrestor cables and catapult could be added. The crew of 10+20 would never even use it, but in war these ferries could be converted into mini aircraft carriers which we would have a dozen of. They could launch and land a single aircraft at a time and probably carry 5 aircraft on board. With a dozen of these ships that means the entire fleet of Hornets could be based at sea.

All of this yet in peace time the operating costs with skeleton crew is less than an armidale patrol boat.

A single large and expensive aircraft carrier would be like putting all your eggs in one basket. You cant risk loosing it so you sit far away from the coast. These ferries could go within 100 miles of the coast to launch the hornets.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Heres a few questions for you..

With the comercial crew level of around 10 people plus an additional 20 crew for military related things, do you think that an Austal Ferry could be as cost efficient to run and perform the same missions as a smaller Armidale patrol boat?

Armidales aren't designed to shift a battalion and kit. Conversely, a battalion truck is not an ideal littorals/greenwater patrol vessel

With the same crew of 10, but with additional 60 crew to control palleted addons such as: SAM's, radar, Harpoon missiles, helicopter etc. Do you think that the Austal Ferry could be as cost efficient to run and perform the same missions as a Anzac frigate?

Anzacs aren't designed to shift a battalion and kit. Conversely, a battalion truck is not an ideal bluewater escort. There is limited space on the Austal TSV to start adding weapons - thats why they travel as part of a support group. TSV/HSV's are not going to be sent in cold to disgorge their warm and verticals.

With a crew of 10 and 20 extra crew do you think the Austal ferry could carry 500+ soldiers and vehicles while being as cost efficient and performing the same missions as a LHD?

No. There is no way that a TSV like Austals can fulfill the LHD role. The vessels not big enough, and structurally you would compromise the whole design - esp if you intend having the same rotor group - and if you intend to package the group internally so that the platforms are not exposed to the elements

To me i answer yes to all the above. Its a fairly good all round boat. The Australian Navy could run a single fleet of Austal Ferry's and depending on the mission and how much money is available they can adjust the crew and palleted add-ons to suit on the ship to suit.

Its not yes to the above. Different vessel for a niche capability. I've got the latest line drawings from Austal, so you must be seeing something that we can't.

As the crew and wages is the biggest running cost of a ship it would be ideal to be able to reduce the crew easily. It would also help with our manning shortage.

add weapons and sensor systems and your crewing goes up - and they'll increase again as soon as you deploy as the loggies and handlers get on board.

In peace time a skeleton crew can be used for patrol work or illegal fishing. But in war time helicopters can drop off extra crew and the capability of the ship improves dramatically.

Any vessel swimming around that locale is going to be directed by Maritime Command to undertake VBSS or OB duties if a lurker/leaker is spotted.

They're excellent vessels, but turning them into a jack of all trades is a disaster waiting to happen. Hybrid warships/vessels have a tragic history in all navies that have thought that they could economise.

You can't turn a fast sea cow and/or fast sea truck into a warfighter without compromising something along the way. As soon as you intrude upon the core design, then you start to see operational uglies begin to surface.

 

[gf0012-aust]

HMAS Jarvis Bay was infact a ferry. So the same boat just with add-ons.

and that boat was a ferking mess as a design. It had to come back and gets it stern redesigned as it was completely ineffective for the mission required. In East Timor it was quick getting there, but painfully slow unloading.

Also if the top of the ferry was made dead flat nothing would stop a Super Hornet landing on the short 100metre space as that is more than enough for a catapult and arrestor landing. Again it could be made dead flat arrestor cables and catapult could be added. The crew of 10+20 would never even use it, but in war these ferries could be converted into mini aircraft carriers which we would have a dozen of. They could launch and land a single aircraft at a time and probably carry 5 aircraft on board. With a dozen of these ships that means the entire fleet of Hornets could be based at sea.

err, no you couldn't. structurally those ships would never in a million years take the weights you envision. Engineering wise it would be a disaster waiting to happen.

Ships aren't like Lego. You just can't add bits willy nilly to make it work.

All of this yet in peace time the operating costs with skeleton crew is less than an armidale patrol boat.

Where have you go the costings from? I'd be interested in seeing them.

Include the mission parameters as well - the devil is in the detail.

 

[Tasman]

HMAS Jarvis Bay was infact a ferry. So the same boat just with add-ons.

LCS will not be made in Australia, but i guess it could easily be made here.

Also if the top of the ferry was made dead flat nothing would stop a Super Hornet landing on the short 100metre space as that is more than enough for a catapult and arrestor landing. Again it could be made dead flat arrestor cables and catapult could be added. The crew of 10+20 would never even use it, but in war these ferries could be converted into mini aircraft carriers which we would have a dozen of. They could launch and land a single aircraft at a time and probably carry 5 aircraft on board. With a dozen of these ships that means the entire fleet of Hornets could be based at sea.

All of this yet in peace time the operating costs with skeleton crew is less than an armidale patrol boat.

Not sure I would want to be in a Super Hornet landing on a 100m runway, no matter how good the arrester cables might be! :shudder

With five aircraft on board there would be little room for landings and take offs if they were kept on the flightdeck. If not the addition of a below deck hangar and lift would add weight and raise questions of stability. Also a catapult able to launch a SH would take up a lot of flight deck space and add weight.

For ships to act as warships it is IMO highly desirable that they are built to absorb battle damage. I can't see a vessel designed as a ferry having good survivability.

I am a fan of the HSV for some roles. Fitted with a light gun and a helo they could be useful additions to the patrol force. I think they could also complement the large LHDs in the amphibious force. In fact I think they should. But I don't see them as a suitable substitute for the large amphibs.

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also a catapult able to launch a SH would take up a lot of flight deck space and add weight.

The catapult and associated mechanicals would weigh as much as an Armidale. nfloorl:

The poor old HSV would also suffer from the nautical equivalent of an asthma attack trying to work up enough oomph to launch a ford escort off the deck let alone a hornet into the bright blue yonder.

Asking any pilot to launch off a 110m deck would probably make history - we'd be witness to the RAAFs first mutiny.

 

[Todjaeger]

For SAM's for instance you could use SLAMRAAM, mount a radar at both ends of the boat and have a missile launch mounted on each side. This would provide good air defence. With GPS guided missiles its now just a matter of putting in the co-ordinates and pressing the fire button, this could be added easily. Each capability could be added one at a time. Its cheaper and has less risk, you can then choose which get what add-ons. These ships have so much internal room that you can just keep adding stuff.

Also if the top of the ferry was made dead flat nothing would stop a Super Hornet landing on the short 100metre space as that is more than enough for a catapult and arrestor landing. Again it could be made dead flat arrestor cables and catapult could be added. The crew of 10+20 would never even use it, but in war these ferries could be converted into mini aircraft carriers which we would have a dozen of. They could launch and land a single aircraft at a time and probably carry 5 aircraft on board. With a dozen of these ships that means the entire fleet of Hornets could be based at sea.

As GF mentioned, this sounds to me (not an engineer) like an engineering nightmare. The sort to keep waking an engineer from a sound sleep. I see a number of weight, stability and materials issues with this.

Keeping in mind that Austal specializes in the use of maritime aluminum, would a ferry hull be able to support all the added weight of weapons systems, additional radars and a fixed wing flight deck? Also, these HSV ferrys are basically floating boxes and appear to be fairly wide for overall length (common feature of cat & tri hulls) and also have a fairly large volume above the waterline, relative to the draught of the vessel. I forsee stability issues, particularly when operating in heavy seas, since an HSV doesn't normally function well in bad weather, before the potential addition of weapons, aircraft, etc.

Then there is the consideration that needs to be given to the impact on the vessel and seaworthiness when actually engaging in combat operations. Assuming a OTO Melara 76mm/62 or BAE Systems Mk 45 Mod 2/54 (or Mod 4/62) 127mm/5in could be mounted without causing the vessel to capsize, what would happen when the gun fired? Or if the HSV was fired upon and hit? Even with Mil standard construction, I don't see that hullform being as survivable as a conventional hull for combat ops.

Lastly, operating a fixed wing like the F-18 Super Hornet from a 100m deck, I would be very interested in Big-E's thoughts on this. Particularly since the current USN carriers use 3-4 arrestor cables to stop landing aircraft in a distance of 98m. Also, the flight deck of current USN carriers appears to be approximately 300m, so I'm not sure, even with the use of steam catapults (again, there are stability issues) on the viability of this idea.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

The catapult and associated mechanicals would weigh as much as an Armidale. nfloorl:

The poor old HSV would also suffer from the nautical equivalent of an asthma attack trying to work up enough oomph to launch a ford escort off the deck let alone a hornet into the bright blue yonder.

Asking any pilot to launch off a 110m deck would probably make history - we'd be witness to the RAAFs first mutiny.

How about a trebuchet? I'm sure one could be built large enough.nfloorl:
For the Ford Escort I mean...

In keeping with the spirit of things, how does the HSV Bounty sound?

-Cheers

 

[Simon9]

I don't see what you're all complaining about. It worked for Hurricanes. Hurricane. Super Hornet. What's the difference?!

The Shornet could just ditch in the sea after flying off, too.

nfloorl:

Seriously though, if there were a need for a last-ditch carrier for Australia (which I can't imagine) I'm sure there are better hulls available - oil tankers, ore ships or perhaps large freighters.

 

[PETER671BT]

I don't think the austal currunt designs would be large enough to carry even small numbers of hornets.Taking off might not be a problem,but landing might be.To make it work alot of engineering would need to be done structure.
A harrier could land and take off.This would probably be more cost effective.

 

[Tasman]

I don't think the austal currunt designs would be large enough to carry even small numbers of hornets.Taking off might not be a problem,but landing might be.To make it work alot of engineering would need to be done structure.
A harrier could land and take off.This would probably be more cost effective.

Peter, to the best of my knowledge neither Austal nor Incat have proposed 'carrier' versions of their cats to take catapult launched aircraft of any kind. Incat have put forward proposals for a vessel capable of operating a small number of helos and VSTOL aircraft like the Harrier, but only as a design concept.

See link below from a 2003 edition of the Examiner Newspaper:

http://www.examiner.com.au/story.asp?id=188186

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Heres a few questions for you..

With the comercial crew level of around 10 people plus an additional 20 crew for military related things, do you think that an Austal Ferry could be as cost efficient to run and perform the same missions as a smaller Armidale patrol boat?

With the same crew of 10, but with additional 60 crew to control palleted addons such as: SAM's, radar, Harpoon missiles, helicopter etc. Do you think that the Austal Ferry could be as cost efficient to run and perform the same missions as a Anzac frigate?

With a crew of 10 and 20 extra crew do you think the Austal ferry could carry 500+ soldiers and vehicles while being as cost efficient and performing the same missions as a LHD?

To me i answer yes to all the above. Its a fairly good all round boat. The Australian Navy could run a single fleet of Austal Ferry's and depending on the mission and how much money is available they can adjust the crew and palleted add-ons to suit on the ship to suit.

As the crew and wages is the biggest running cost of a ship it would be ideal to be able to reduce the crew easily. It would also help with our manning shortage. The size and fuel of a boat is only a small cost, so you have as well have a big boat and just reduce the crew and add-ons.

In peace time a skeleton crew can be used for patrol work or illegal fishing. But in war time helicopters can drop off extra crew and the capability of the ship improves dramatically.

Sorry to sound like a nay sayer but this is a pipe dream. It is not practical for the simple reason these vessel can only operate in limited sea state and cannot remain at sea in rough conditions. A 4 metre wave/swell height is nothing. To have a single fleet based on a HSC design would be the most irresponsible descions DMO could make give the size of Australias EEZ and the sea conditions in those waters.

These are light weight hulls built for speed. Their fuel consumption to range is poor if you want to sustain operations as thwy all operate on either high speed deisels or gas turbines. Their uplift in mass compared to their size is significantly lower than a comparable steel hulled 15 to 20 knot merchant hull by a significant margin. In other words carry fuel or carry cargo, any increase in mass has a resultant reduction in range (so much for add ons). Hull longivity is a major issue if they are subject to regualr punishment at sea and upkeep is much higher.

Finally build cost is signficantly higher. The USN are building LCS based on a HSC design but are not using them as a single type. This is becasue they have the funds to do so and the force structure. Australia does not.

 

[alexsa]

The catapult and associated mechanicals would weigh as much as an Armidale. nfloorl:

The poor old HSV would also suffer from the nautical equivalent of an asthma attack trying to work up enough oomph to launch a ford escort off the deck let alone a hornet into the bright blue yonder.

Asking any pilot to launch off a 110m deck would probably make history - we'd be witness to the RAAFs first mutiny.

I doubt he would have to worry about getting off. The structure of these ships is such he would probably go straight through the deck when he tried to land.

 

[alexsa]

Just to note the complexities and cost involved in the LCS. This is from DIAR so I cannot provide a link.

LCS PROJECT GRINDS TO A HALT DUE TO COST OVER-RUNS: The US Navy has ordered Lockheed Martin (LM) to stop construction work on the US$197.6m third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) for a 90-day period. The company is building at Bollinger Shipyards two (of four) competing-design LCS ships – the LCS 1 and LCS 3 (GD/Austal are building ship’s #2 and #4 at Mobile), however both LM construction projects are know to be running substantially over budget. US Navy officials have stated the overruns are related to "contractor poor performance" and increased labour costs. LM officials have conceded a manufacturing error by a subcontractor on propulsion system reduction gear, coupled with new US Navy standards related to construction materials, has put the ships behind schedule and over budget. [15.01.07]