Military recon powerboat concept

[brian eiland]

It wouldn't surprise me at all, some of the crazy stuff that gets contracts here in Washington DC.

M-Hull, M hull, M Ship
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5687

[StianM]

http://www.knmskjold.org/

This cat has skirts in the front and the rear. fans are pumping in air and lifting it like a howercraft reducing hull resistance.

the exhaust from the 4 turbines is let out betwen the hulls so the exhaust outlet can't be seen from anny angle unless you take off the skirts.

The skirts also absorb some sound I asume.

4 turbines driving 2 waterjets and speed is about 60kn.

I gues they use coolingwater from reduction gears and other mecinery to cool down the exhaust too.

I think it's this one and one thay build in sweeden that is the best projects on this so far so it should be the way to go.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by StianM

http://www.knmskjold.org/

This cat

It's not a "cat", it's sometimes called a SEC or SES standing for Surface Effect Craft or Ship. The skegs or fins on the side just keep the air in, they do not provide lift, the air pressure does that. They typically are just wide enough to get the drive systems through them.

The US Navy last time I read is supposed to purchase some of these craft in lieu of paying some American company to develop one of their own, guess they want to save some money. How unAmerican.

That is a great website Stian, one I have not seen before - thanks.

brian eiland, I've posted the "M-Hull" ship in several forums, did not know you have done the same here. I must of missed that thread, thanks for that link as well.

http://www.hoverclubofamerica.org/fo...583&#entry8583

More wacky stuff here:
http://www.hoverclubofamerica.org/fo...=460&hl=Skjold

[yipster]

i like the sketches but am negative on the concept, time to counter intelligenge first?
do like that Callan tho

[DryFoot]

Not much (almost none) boating experience here, but my back ground is military:

What purpose exactly would this boat serve? Recon can be done much cheaper with UAV and electronic method. Also, what speedboats they have are mostly SEAL delivery vehicles. Without a dimension listed and just looking at the shape, I would say this vehicle would not serve that purpose too well due to what appears to be very limited personnel carrying capacity.

Now, if this is suppose to be a gun/torpedo boat: Too small for torpedo, i would guess. Most anti-ship torpedos would be the length of this thing, not to mention it would be too heavy. As a gunboat, the hull does not seem very indusive to manned weapon mount, and any remote control weapon on this thing would be either: A, too light to do anygood against anything but personnel, or B: Too heavy to be carried by a speed boat.

Stealth technology is probably going to be wasted on a ship like this, no way an application of something like this (unless converted into a SEAL delivery vehicle of dubious functionality) warrants the use of stealth technology and the extra cost associated.

This boat does remind me of that Hulk Hogan show Thunder in Paradise though.

The US Navy last time I read is supposed to purchase some of these craft in lieu of paying some American company to develop one of their own, guess they want to save some money. How unAmerican.

Current M-16 manufacturer: Fabrique National
M-9 manufacturer: Beretta
M-249: FN
M-240: FN
M-11: SIG
SOCOM pistol: H&K
MP5: H&K
AT-4: Saab
SMAW: IMI

Hey, that's the current trend.

[kach22i]

Even the US military is required to obtain a wavier to the Jones Act. Then there is the whole political thing which includes providing high paying civilian jobs for those guys leaving the service.

It's not what you know, it's who you know.

Example;
http://www.hoverclubofamerica.org/fo...8&p=8513&st=30

[quote name='Kurt1265' post='5490' date='Feb 8 2006, 05:14 PM']
The "Loop Hole" was created by the same Congress that past the Jones Act! The short of it is that a Foriegn Designer / Builder can "license" a design and technology to an American Shipyard. Providing the design passes the USCG Design Review process and meets or exceeds safety regulations. The American shipbuilder gets "work" but the real profits go out of the country!

Some foriegn made vessels have been granted an "waiver" under the Jones Act but it is not easy to get. The US Military can also get "waivers" or "contract" for special needs. The Government always gets what they want! If you dig a little deeper you will find that Bell Aerospace actually built Military Hovercraft during the Vietnam War in the Buffalo New York facility so they were Jones Act Compliant.
[/quote]

UPDATE 12/12/06:

Right.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FZ...69/ai_111852741

The first Griffon Hovercraft to be built in the U.S. under license is now carrying people, supplies and machinery to BP Petroleum's oil production facility on North Island, six miles from Prudhoe Bay, in Alaska's Beaufort Sea.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r104...104ouI14d:e920:

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS (Senate - July 18, 1995)

HOVERCRAFT

The first bill would authorize the issuance of certificates of documentation with appropriate endorsements for employment in the coastwise trade of the United States for 14 hovercraft formerly owned by the U.S. Army.

These hovercraft were built for the U.S. Army by Bell Aerospace Co. in Buffalo, NY, between 1982 and 1986.

The vessels are 76 feet in length and capable of hauling 30 tons of cargo each.

After being declared surplus by the U.S. Army in 1994, the hovercraft were acquired by Champion Constructors, Inc., a subsidiary of Cook Inlet Region, Inc., of Anchorage, AK.

The hovercraft are intended to be used for transporting cargo and passengers between points in Alaska.

It is my understanding that most of the major components of the hovercraft were constructed and assembled in the United States, but that because some components were constructed in Canada, the hovercraft have been determined by the Coast Guard to be ineligible to operate in the coastwise trade of the United States.

The first bill I am introducing today would allow these vessels to be operated in the U.S. coastwise trade.

I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

[Quicksilver]

well, I guess we all agree, that we disagree with this design, hope this helped the designer

for the yipster heres some more callan pics

[brian eiland]

Originally Posted by DryFoot

Not much (almost none) boating experience here, but my back ground is military:

What purpose exactly would this boat serve? Recon can be done much cheaper with UAV and electronic method.

Originally Posted by Korvello

.... and have you ever consider getting a group of boats well prepared and go pirate hunting .When the word would spread around they would be scared of hitting anybody never knowing if they where going to be faced with a pirate hunter...

...Portion of a proposal letter related to a new RIB design, and the alternative use of such a vessel in an un-manned form for pirate hunting...

"I’ve attached the full text of that letter to this cover letter. I have in mind 3 different model lengths, 12’, 16’, & 25’ for this new RIB design

The 12 & 16-foot sizes might very well have a cross-over application to the SeaOWL concept of today and the future. I believe this 'new SeaOWL' hull design could have significantly greater performance capabilities in terms of speed, rough water stability, & payload factors. And this new RIB variation could operate with or without its extra-security collar. I have already suggested that this design development could be accomplished at a very favorable cost, which could be considered even more favorable were it split between military and commercial potentials.

I’m sure you have probably considered many potential missions for your SeaOWL product, but I might suggest two more that would be applicable right NOW:
1) Low profile monitoring of the Persian Gulf and the latest Iranian torpedo & missile developments, etc.
2) A concerted effort to get some control over the ‘piracy’ situation off the coast of Yemen, Somalia, and the Malacca Straits. These SeaOWLs could operate in both a defensive monitoring posture, and an offensive one. Why not equip some of these vessels with an explosive charge that could sacrifice itself along with a few pirates who became a little too inquisitive. In time I think the situations would subside substantially if the word of mouth spread about some advanced new ‘on-the-water’ surveillance force was deployed, and that these units possessed deadly force. Certainly a lot cheaper and more efficient than trying to deploy full size Navy ships to do this job."

Couple of other references:
SeaOwl www.drs-tcs.com/brochures/seaowl.pdf
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...b-no_crews.htm
http://www.usni.org/PROCEEDINGS/Arti...o07cfleets.htm
http://www.smartboat.com/
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...Autonomous.htm

[DryFoot]

Originally Posted by brian eiland

2) A concerted effort to get some control over the ‘piracy’ situation off the coast of Yemen, Somalia, and the Malacca Straits. These SeaOWLs could operate in both a defensive monitoring posture, and an offensive one. Why not equip some of these vessels with an explosive charge that could sacrifice itself along with a few pirates who became a little too inquisitive. In time I think the situations would subside substantially if the word of mouth spread about some advanced new ‘on-the-water’ surveillance force was deployed, and that these units possessed deadly force. Certainly a lot cheaper and more efficient than trying to deploy full size Navy ships to do this job."[/i]

Going kamikaze for a few pirates just seem like a waste here to me lol

The size of this thing should be big enough to support some small rocket launchers for the purpose of attacking pirates. Launchers for two hellfire size missiles should be possible on something like this, and while it may not sink a large vessle, the unit's position on the water surface should make a nice hole on any approaching vessel at a potentially lethal position (or, use IR guidance to target the heat source/engine on a vessel).

[brian eiland]

Originally Posted by DryFoot

Going kamikaze for a few pirates just seem like a waste here to me lol

The size of this thing should be big enough to support some small rocket launchers for the purpose of attacking pirates. Launchers for two hellfire size missiles should be possible on something like this, and while it may not sink a large vessle, the unit's position on the water surface should make a nice hole on any approaching vessel at a potentially lethal position (or, use IR guidance to target the heat source/engine on a vessel).

That's the same problem with many military projects, everything keeps growing a little bit bigger at each increment until your up to a fully crewed vessel and lots of money. Someone needs to employ the KISS principle.

..."kamikaze for just a few"....Do you realize how rumor can spread in the third world? It would only take a couple of escaping pirates to start some really big rumors about this 'robot' thing out there ready to, not only explode, but to pursue them with automatic fire. And what are they going to shoot back at...a bunch of robots that keep coming.

Still a lot cheaper than a manned platform....and totally expendable

[DryFoot]

Originally Posted by brian eiland

That's the same problem with many military projects, everything keeps growing a little bit bigger at each increment until your up to a fully crewed vessel and lots of money. Someone needs to employ the KISS principle.

Except the fact that missile launchers for Predator UAVs has already been developed, so the implentation here would be to apply an the standing tech to launch similarly sized naval weapons. Also, most surveiliance platform would (or rather, should) have IR capability come standard. Not much more addiition here in my book. Besides, if nothing else, the addition of weapons like that would make the platform much more versatile (not to mention economically sound) than a kamikaze attack. Why expend an entire surveilance platform to take out a ship and leave a gap in your surveilance network? The primary mission of any platform like this should be surveilance first, and any offensive capability should be added in such a way that it adds to the mission as oppose to replacing it.

..."kamikaze for just a few"....Do you realize how rumor can spread in the third world? It would only take a couple of escaping pirates to start some really big rumors about this 'robot' thing out there ready to, not only explode, but to pursue them with automatic fire. And what are they going to shoot back at...a bunch of robots that keep coming.

Still a lot cheaper than a manned platform....and totally expendable

Just because its expendable doesn't mean its destruction should be counted on for it to perform its function. Besides, the cost-benefit counting side of my mind still can't see crashing a perfectly good surveilance vehicle to take out a (most likely) lightly armored pirate ship.

[brian eiland]

Originally Posted by DryFoot

Except the fact that missile launchers for Predator UAVs has already been developed, so the implentation here would be to apply an the standing tech to launch similarly sized naval weapons. Also, most surveiliance platform would (or rather, should) have IR capability come standard. Not much more addiition here in my book. Besides, if nothing else, the addition of weapons like that would make the platform much more versatile (not to mention economically sound) than a kamikaze attack. Why expend an entire surveilance platform to take out a ship and leave a gap in your surveilance network? The primary mission of any platform like this should be surveilance first, and any offensive capability should be added in such a way that it adds to the mission as oppose to replacing it.

As I said before, if you keep the platform simple you can 'mass produce' it at a reasonable cost. Once you add all of the missiles and launchers and fire control you increase its size, weight, and cost exponentially. So the vessel itself has to be larger, its power plant larger, and the fuel supply has to be larger, etc. I've seen this spiral before. Everyone wants to add another capability. Keep it simply and have a swarm of them. Ants, bees, and pirana are pretty effect at this.

Just because its expendable doesn't mean its destruction should be counted on for it to perform its function. Besides, the cost-benefit counting side of my mind still can't see crashing a perfectly good surveilance vehicle to take out a (most likely) lightly armored pirate ship.

I guess that means you don't believe in mines as well.

While we're at it, would you tell me how effective the new F22 fighter plane is going to be against our terrorist enemy? The've gotten soooo complicated and expensive that if they do manage to fly out of their maintence hallo, the leaders will be too worried about exposing their limited numbers to enemy fire....remember the Apache helio's in Yugoslava


"In the 1999 air war over Kosovo, 24 Apache helicopters were transported to the allied base in Albania. Their arrival was anticipated by many officers and analysts as a turning point in the war. Yet, within days, two choppers crashed during training exercises. Commanders decided not to send any of them into battle; the risk of losing them to Serbian surface-to-air missiles was considered too great."

"Last year, during the Afghanistan war, seven Apaches were flown in to attack Taliban fighters as part of Operation Anaconda. They all got shot up, again by RPGs and machine-gun fire. None crashed, but five were so damaged they were declared "non-mission-capable"—in other words, unable to go back into combat without extensive repair—after the first day."

"The U.S. Army's only disastrous operation in Gulf War II (at least the only one we know about) took place on March 24, when 33 Apache helicopters were ordered to move out ahead of the 3rd Infantry Division and to attack an Iraqi Republican Guard regiment in the suburbs of Karbala. Meeting heavy fire from small arms and shoulder-mounted rocket-propelled grenades, the Apaches flew back to base, 30 of them shot up, several disablingly so. One helicopter was shot down in the encounter, and its two crewmen were taken prisoner.

After that incident, Apaches were used more cautiously—on reconnaissance missions or for firing at small groups of armored vehicles. Rarely if ever did they penetrate far beyond the front line of battle, out in front of U.S. ground troops or without the escort of fixed-wing aircraft flying far overhead."
http://www.slate.com/id/2081906/

[DryFoot]

Originally Posted by brian eiland

As I said before, if you keep the platform simple you can 'mass produce' it at a reasonable cost. Once you add all of the missiles and launchers and fire control you increase its size, weight, and cost exponentially. So the vessel itself has to be larger, its power plant larger, and the fuel supply has to be larger, etc. I've seen this spiral before. Everyone wants to add another capability. Keep it simply and have a swarm of them. Ants, bees, and pirana are pretty effect at this.

For a platform like this to be able to ID and target a vessel, all the essential function would already been fulfilled for it to be able to launch a rocket/missile. Given the smaller and unarmored nature of its intended target, you would not need anything bigger than what an infantryman would carry on his back to knock out tanks (5 lb of the complete LAW system to the 31lb of the SMAW). Add may be a lb or three to marinize it, and it's still a drop in the bucket for the carrying capacity of the SeaOwl (450lb according to the brochure) The powersupplies of these weapons are internal, and the guidance system from them can even be stripped because (I assume) any unmanned oceanic vehicles built for recon purpose would already them the electronics.

Now, these weapons are fairly useless against warships due to their short range and small warhead, but against most pirate ships? More than enough to at least maim them for less than $1500 a shot. A fraction of the sea-owl itself. I don't care how much of it you mass produced, you can't get it close to a price tage of $1500.

I guess that means you don't believe in mines as well.

On the contrary, I love them! However, if you tell me that you are going to put four wheels, engine, and enough computers to make it "smart", to use against a raccoon invasion, I'd be opposed to it in a heartbeat.

While we're at it, would you tell me how effective the new F22 fighter plane is going to be against our terrorist enemy? The've gotten soooo complicated and expensive that if they do manage to fly out of their maintence hallo, the leaders will be too worried about exposing their limited numbers to enemy fire....remember the Apache helio's in Yugoslava

Being an air superiority fighter, the F22 would probably be useless against terrorist enemies. Same way an attack submarines and most other naval vessles would be useless against a terrorist with a stinger on his shoulder in the mountains of Afghanistan.

On the Apaches:

Well, that was an misuse of the apaches. Choppers should be use in direct support of ground troops, to think you can use it by itself against a large number of ground enemies and expect great results is just a bit crazy (that, or overly ambitious). These babies are built for recon, tank hunting, and close support (and they do that VERY well).

[Pericles]

Flights or swarms of Predators, flown off tankers as they transit the Malacca Straits would be the eyes and ears against piracy. Used to investigate any suspicious vessel and capable of destroying it if required. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predator_UAV

Combined with satellite surveillance, the ability to challenge multiple vessels at long range is sensible. It is a technique taught here. http://www.kravmagauk.co.uk/instructors.html

These are the basics. You are walking alone at night on darkened streets. One, two or more persons detatch themselves from the shadows and appear to be headed in your direction. The situation is beginning to look troublesome and it would not be the best move to allow them too close. Attack, being the best form of defence, you move to engage them as you have been trained and the would be assailants are seriously incapacitated. Unfortunately, your suspicions were wrong and now you face serious charges.

To avoid such a senario, you are taught to take control of the situation and establish the true intentions of the other persons. Stop walking any further into danger, start backing away a short distance keeping them in view. Point at each person in turn ander order then to keep their distance and demand to know what they want with you. Do not warn them of your training, order them to disperse and not to come closer. Give them the opportunity to obey your orders. If they still come on, you can be confident they mean you harm so strike at once and then leave the scene.

Applying the same mindset, the Predator is capable of close range investigation with its various sensors and sound emitters, http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sc...00/2134383.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4418748.stm
plus engaging the enemy with missiles before they come within range with their RPGs etc.

Why build manned stealth boats that only operate on an X & Y axis, when unmanned aerial vehicles are faster, cheaper and available in lethal numbers.

Still, you pays yer money, you takes yer choice.

Pericles

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Pericles

Why build manned stealth boats that only operate on an X & Y axis, when unmanned aerial vehicles are faster, cheaper and available in lethal numbers.

I've been asking myself this because the same reasoning applies to a UAV/UMV hovercraft. All I can come up with is a lower perspective is provided, true stealth from airborn radar, it "occupies ground", and may cost less if used as a buoyancy marker or underwater ROV. Combine all this with being able to operate in all nine sea states and you may have a small advantage. One thing to keep in mind is there are also UAV helicopters, ask yourslf why.