In this age of rising shipbuilding costs, uncertain naval strategy and shrinking procurement budgets, nobody knows for sure what the future U.S. fleet will look like. But one thing’s for sure … it’ll include a lot of pontoon boats.
Everybody knows about the much-ballyhooed Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a program for up to 75 small modular vessels optimized for coastal combat. Less glamorous but perhaps more important to future operations is the forthcoming Joint High-Speed Vessel (JHSV), which is managed by the Navy’s Program Executive Office for Ships.
The JHSV is a catamaran – basically a 100-meter pontoon boat. Catamarans and their three-pontoon cousins, trimarans, have been the subject of a lot of military experimentation of late. The Marines are using a catamaran, the WestPac Express, to transport infantry battalions to training events in the western Pacific. The Navy has two JHSV prototypes, HSVX-1 and HSV-2, that have been pressed into service in hurricane-relief efforts, while the Office of Naval Research has been testing LCS concepts with its FSF-1 catamaran. The Army has a trimaran, TSV-1X, that it uses for expeditionary logistics.
The idea behind the JHSV is to equip Military Sealift Command (or — and I’m speculating here — 
Transportation Command) with a fleet of fast, cheap vessels capable of transporting and deploying a battalion-sized Marine landing teams, an Army Stryker company, Special Forces teams or an equivalent load of cargo at austere shallow-water ports. JHSV would support two H-60 or H-6 helicopters and vertical-launch UAVs like Scan Eagle.
“The JHSV will not be a combatant vessel,” reads a Navy press release. “Its construction will be similar to high-speed commercial ferries used around the world, and the design will include a flight deck and an off-load ramp which can be lowered on a pier or quay wall — allowing vehicles to quickly drive off the ship.“
Think of the JHSV and its brothers as super–LCACs, or amphibious LCSs minus the guns. The Navy and Marines would use them as ship-to-shore connectors in their Seabasing concept. The Army might employ them at the theatre level for rapid maneuver, replacing its current trimarans. Special Forces Command wants catamarans as offshore commando bases, in the same vein as the new SSGNs, but a lot cheaper. Retired Rear Adm. George R. Worthington, in the October Proceedings, advocates arming the Special Forces catamarans with loitering missiles for coastal land-attack.
In fact, JHSV’s low price-tag, around $100 million (versus $1 billion for the new San Antonio-class amphibious transport) all but guarantees its place in the future fleet. The first production vessel is slated for FY2008.
– David Axe
|
Calling all Catamarans
« « Spooks = Bloggers | So Much for Withdrawal » »
Leave a Reply |
|
Two hulls good — three hulls better?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/triton.htm
Good Morning David.
The HSV is not bad for a water craft the begain life as a fairy boat desinged and built in Australia and about ten years ago leased by the U.S. Army.
The HSV is an example of adapting technology that didn’t come out of the uber-costly U.S. Military Industrial Complex and surprise it’s afordable and it works. That said the U.S. Navy will find a reason NOT to buy the HSV’s.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Ferry_Scandal
As a former BC resident I can say this, just don’t outsource the developement and construction to BC…
So the Navy has a new fairy boat? Isn’t that special? Too bad they didn’t build some of these instead: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/sea_shadow.htm On the other hand, I shudder to think what this 1980’s technology boat would have cost us. Maybe they’ll get around to it by the 22nd Century.
Watched a show on TV about the developement and use of these for high speed ferries. Two thoughts came to mind as I watched it and marved at the speed and stability. First, if you up scale it do the benifits remain? If so, then upscale it, use a nuclear reactor, or two and you should be able to generate a very capible aircraft carrier. With the high reported speed it could not only be more rapidly on station, but would allow higher landing speeds.
Second, why was it invented and build in Australia, we don’t have people in the US that can think this far out of the box and make it work anymore?
The US Navy is using fairy boats? Geez, whatever happened to “don’t ask, don’t tell…”?
Seriously, they’ve been leasing these for a while: Westpac Express, HSV Swift, etc. They’ve been very, very pleased with the performance. It doesn’t replace a San Antonio, because it’s not really designed to take people across the ocean, provision them while in transit, etc. It’s a fast ferry with realy shallow draft for use in-theater (Oman to Iraq, Okinawa to Guam, Singapore to Australia, etc.). That’s a very valuable role, esp. with pre-positioning of gear abroad or if you need to build up forces once you’ve secured a port/landing zone.
The companies making these are BOTH Aussie — Incat (now teamed with Bollinger in the USA) and Austal (Austal USA is teamed with General Dynamics on the trimaran Littoral Combat Ship design).
olen, the reason Australian comapanies make the catamaran is because they have had success with them, and we’re just brilliant^_^.
i highlight the case of the HMAS Jervis Bay, a catamaran which saw extensive work in the INTERFET deployment to East Timor. While Other transport ships did one journey from Darwin( Northen Bases for ADF) to ET capital Dili, the Jervis bay managed to transport 2–3 times a day, while also providing communications and strategy Base of operations.
The role performed by HMAS JB was so good, that the US Navy took it up after the RAN lease was finished and took it into future plans. The Jervis bay showed a major step forward in speedy deployment of troops and vehicles across the sea, although it is true that it would be hard to make long trips, I.e San Diego to Iraq.
Hell yea, those things are fast, I’m not talking curze missile but the old PT’s have competition and tri-hulls bite. I have seen them build and I have seen them move at top speed. They also have a shallow water advantage. Also the magnetic sea mine has a hard time sticking to Aluminum. They can take standard small to medium armements and can act as area no go boats. Just like a car for the water. Don’t knock them until you have been on one and then you will see the differance.
I served on board the HSV-X1 when it went to the Persian Gulf. My function as an ET1 was to provide broadband communications & C4I using COTS equipment. This ship was not only fast physically it was fast technologically. At 315 feet long it’s maneuverability was amazing and was possibly the only ship of hauling it’s dead weight in cargo and personell.
OK folks lets get real here. The JHSV suffers from the same problems the LCS has — over-specification, lack of focus as to its primary mission i.e. tactical sealift, a peculiar acquistion plan, and in general mixed messages.
I worked the WestPac Express over 6 years ago (it is on its 2nd 5-yr charter) and it is a true tactical sealift ship which the JHSV and other HSVs are not! Why? because the WPE can transport 900+ troops and 300 tons of cargo which the other HSVs mentioned can not.
The cargo lift rqmts of the LCS and JHSV need to be rationalized into one set of specs and a true naval truck (to quote galrahn) should be acquired in sufficient numbers for the naval sealift and seabase support missions. Neither design has enough cargo gear, cargo access, or cargo deadweight tonnage to be good as tactical transports as currently configured.
BTW the current program costs of first JHSV is over $200 mil which is a far cry from the WPE costing about $45 mil in then year numbers
P.S. IMHO the LCAC is an obsolecent design which must be retired and completely redone not updated!
thanks.…
Contrary to your assertion, JHSV is not and never will be a super LCAC. Air Cushion Vehicles are necessary to go ship to shore and over the shore (i.e forcible entry). JHSV or LCS for that matter will need a permissive environment so that can tie up and off load at a rudimentary pier. Keep in mind high speeds are only obtained becasue they rise up and reduce displacement. Once they slow to enter a harbor their draft increases rapidly. Can;t go to a beach, let alone cross one.
why was it invented and build in Australia, we don’t have people in the US that can think this far out of the box and make it work anymore?
That said the U.S. Navy will find a reason NOT to buy the HSV’s.