Comments on: Calling all Catamarans

By: radyo dinle

radyo dinle — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:20:34 +0000

That said the U.S. Navy will find a reason NOT to buy the HSV’s.

By: Gazeteler

Gazeteler — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:36:27 +0000

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?

By: CSM

CSM — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:58:05 +0000

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.

By: radyo dinle

radyo dinle — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:48:19 +0000

thanks.…

By: leesea

leesea — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:08:49 +0000

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!

By: Garry

Garry — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:03:25 +0000

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.

By: Antony

Antony — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:38:39 +0000

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.

By: matthew

matthew — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:23:50 +0000

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.

By: Joe Katzman

Joe Katzman — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:24:22 +0000

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).

By: Olen

Olen — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:46:44 +0000

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?