LCS Alternatives-High Speed Vessels
Already tested in combat, inexpensive, and available NOW are the USN and Army’s High Speed Vessel fleet:
Four High Speed Vessels, (HSV-X1 JOINT VENTURE, HSV-2 SWIFT, TSV-1X SPEARHEAD, and WESTPAC EXPRESS) have been employed for experimentation and demonstration of high speed vessel technologies as well as for logistics support. JOINT VENTURE and SWIFT have already been used to support operations in the Global War on Terrorism and during Operation Iraqi Freedom. They have been deployed to the Horn of Africa, Persian Gulf and Southeast Asia. Additionally, HSV-2 SWIFT supported relief operations in Indonesia and in the Gulf Coast region following hurricane Katrina. In both cases, SWIFT’s high speed and shallow draft combined to make it an ideal platform for the delivery of relief supplies and support of other platforms operating in the area. During operations following Katrina, SWIFT was able to access ports inaccessible to other ships in the logistics force, and therefore played a critical role in the early delivery of supplies. WESTPAC EXPRESS has been used extensively for support to the Third Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF) in the western Pacific.
New versions of these fast catamarans, the Joint High Speed Vessel program are coming in at less than $200 million each. A little pricey compared to early examples, but against the untested 1/2 billion dollar USS Freedom LCS, certainly a bargain. A little extra care and increased numbers might bring these handy little fleet “pickup trucks” further down in price.
High Speed Vessels “The Future Today”
These unique craft were my original pick for a littoral combat ship. Here was an off-the-shelf warship which could handle most of the requirements of the LCS, while supporting small attack craft and unmanned systems in the mothership role. The USN apparently wanted a traditional frigate-type vessel, armed to the teeth, and amazingly expected such a large ship to venture into shallow seas with guns a’blazing. This traditional way of ship design has given us a smaller fleet filled with a few high-tech and costly warships, too big to risk in such a low-tech, high risk environment.
New Wars 
Hello I would like to discuss our high speed vessels. My cell phone No. 8055512144
Bring them on leesea! Very good stuff.
that is what was done with the Swift’s weapons and comm systems. It simply a matter of having the USN decide how many “alterations” needs to be written into the charter whether it be time or bareboat. Think of it as an epanded GFE clause.
pls PM me I have some other HSV insights.
Leesea, maybe the USN could do the alterations themselves?
Springboard, density is not a factor in HSV load planning, weight is always the key parameter in any HSV. Most HSV used by US carry mixed loads of troops and cargo.
Army does not have any TSVs right now and it has not yet been announced what they will call the first JHSV. If they JHAV was to be used as a tanker aka mobile support ship, some specs would need to be changed as well as construction rules.
Mike under terms of a bareboat charter, returning an HSV to Mobile is possible. Though I doubt that any US chartered HSV would go back to Oz. Charters and US regs require repair and modififcation in US shipyards to keep US flag status. Once again goto the alterations clause for details.
Deck slamming has been a problem with cats since they were first built and a problem which can be addressed in good design.
Thanks for the info Bill!
Pullling a couple of the vessels from Incat’s ‘speculation vessel’ inventory for HSV duty a few years back probably saved Clifford’s bacon financially. But the idea of leasing any such vessels and ever returning them back to ferry service won’t fly in todays fast ferry environment. The ‘heyday’ of such vessels was back in the 90s..and seems unlikely to return. In simple terms, if they were built now, they would not be wanted ‘back’.
Instead of a brand new design, lets buy these HSV ferries “as is” from the builder. If extras are needed, send them back to the shipyard after some wartime duty in the Gulf.
“LCS is also a combatant vessel which is the main reason that it had to be redesigned from civilian spec to mil spec.”
This is a true statement and where the USN has a wrong and dated concept. Like many in the military, they are fixated on platforms which are ever more costly due to increased expense of defensive systems, stealth,increased engine power, ect. This is why I’ve have written on the need for more “dumb platforms” which can carry advanced weapons that are the real revolution. For instance, in the mothership role the HSV would be like the carrier, its unmanned systems or attack craft should do the fighting while the parent ship acts as a base of operations, keeping out of danger as much as possible.
In wartime you may see the need to add more defensive systems on the HSV, the lessons of war. But I still think it would be a better launch platform for unmanned systems than the LCS, as it is already a support type vessel.
Welcome Springboard. Read your blog everyday!
The conventional wisdom out there is that a catamaran can’t carry a whole lot of fuel–that it’s a better platform for carrying less dense cargo. That said, perhaps the Army’s TSVs could be modified to serve in the HSV fuel/resupply role.
Nice post!
Leesea said:
“Two other thougths. The JHSV at $185 mil for first ship is very expensive when compared to other Austal cats of the same design. Is there sufficient value added to the Navy spec’d ship? Goes to your argument for more hulls of simpler type is bettter than gold plated NAVSEA ones.”
Exactly. In fact as you know, if the $185 mil price is kept, that would be TWICE the price of comparably designed ferry cats.
Mike said:
“Concerning price, the JHSV still comes in at less the original cost of the LCS. I am thinking this is due to mismanagement at the shipyards…”
The LCS designs are much larger ships with more engine power. LCS is also a combatant vessel which is the main reason that it had to be redesigned from civilian spec to mil spec. That redesign was what more than doubled the cost to close to $500 mil. The JHSV is a non-combatant vessel and therefore does not have to be redesigned to full mil spec. Which is why it’s cost of production should be less than $100 mil even though the first one has been budgeted for $185 mil.
One more point, JHSV-1’s original civilian design is an aluminium hull that at it’s thickest is 1/2 an inch thick of aluminium. At high speed it cannot take contact with barely anything other than water. Furthermore, JHSV-1’s original design with a high cross hull between the cat hulls, rather than a wave-piercing M underhull, is proving to have deck-slamming seakeeping problems with seastates that it is expected to be able to operate within.
Aloha, Brad
LCS suffered from post-facto (afer award) construction rules changes which corporate managers misunderstood. JHSV will suffer from too many rules and regs. When I reviewed the p-spec it had a list 9 pages long of rules and spec. So I expect some more confusion leading to cost growth.
IF one were to use a HSV as an tactical sealift ship, it could and should be built to merchant standards (under USCG & ABS). That was done with WPE succesfully. My WAG is JHSV should cost under $100 mil (total program costs in FY09).
I goes back againg to selecting the ship type needed – warship, auxiliary or sealift ship.
BTW those extra cost features could be put on chartered HSVs as “alterations” reducing SCN bucks up front.
Thanks for the extra info leesea! I also like the air capability of the HSVs and wonder that they can’t have an aerial strike capability, howbeit small, with UCAVs?
Concerning price, the JHSV still comes in at less the original cost of the LCS. I am thinking this is due to mismanagement at the shipyards and perhaps with some extra attention could be rectified. Electric Boat and Grumman seemed to go the extra mile to reduce price on the Virginia subs, and a little TLC with the catamarans might perform wonders in the cost.
Miike I would say that WestPac Express is not considered an experiment since it has been doing its job hauling Marines and cargo for more than SEVEN years. (Marines leased her for 6 months as a proof of concept test, MSC has had her under charter ever since.)
JHSV design is based on Austal’s WPE design, but with some added features. Swift is an INCAT go fast configured for the mixed missions which LCS might do (if continued).
In fact that may be a more worthy role for a modified LCS, fast support ship to LCS? As I have noted before, the LCS has NO means of offloading its modules at sea. With a crane the JHSV could do that. Maybe the JHSV fuel tankage is large enought to help too?
I think JHSV could be modified to do some of the LCS missions. Certainly it could lift the LCS’ mission modules. But the bottom line is several of the LCS missions do not require high speed. And neither LCS nor JHSV needs the trans-oceanic transit capability.
Two other thougths. The JHSV at $185 mil for first ship is very expensive when compared to other Austal cats of the same design. Is there sufficient value added to the Navy spec’d ship? Goes to your argument for more hulls of simpler type is bettter than gold plated NAVSEA ones. (aka “Better is the enemy of good enough”). There are only 10 JHSVs in the SCN plan.
I got to say that I only see an HSV as a frontline mothership, IF it is built more along warship lines. If the mothership is an auxiliary then high speed may not be needed (the LCS support ship idea maybe the exception to that idea?)
We obviously are still trying to get a handle on this mothership concept.