Heavy-duty LCACs!

Are you sure this would be cost effective in terms of maintenance? I mean, wouldn’t this mean too many moving parts?

Maybe, but if the designers can come up with a rugged and reliable hinging system to reduce the width of a empty LCAC cargo deck the benefits could be worth it.

The High Speed Landing Craft Utility is probably better than a Heavy Lift Landing Craft Air Cushion in terms of affordability and efficiency but I wouldn’t want to loose the enormous flexibility you can get from hovercraft.

When the current LCACs need replacing I’d to see another hovercraft design of similar capability but much more compact so more could be carried per ship. Maybe a folding or collapsible cargo deck could be developed for better storage?

Are you sure this would be cost effective in terms of maintenance? I mean, wouldn’t this mean too many moving parts?

The High Speed Landing Craft Utility is probably better than a Heavy Lift Landing Craft Air Cushion in terms of affordability and efficiency but I wouldn’t want to loose the enormous flexibility you can get from hovercraft.

When the current LCACs need replacing I’d like to see another hovercraft design of similar capability but much more compact so more could be carried per ship. Maybe a folding or collapsible cargo deck could be developed for better storage?

Any speed and beaching advantages an upsized LCAC development might have are minimal.

Being able to fly over obsructions in the water and mines in the water and on land is a very useful feature of hovercraft.

The HLCAC might face stiff competition from this High Speed Landing Craft Utility design http://www.systems.textron.com/pdf/products/lcur_datasheet.pdf

I think hovercraft are great but in my opinion if you want a large heavy lift capability it might be better to start thinking about amphibious Ekranoplan/Wing In Ground effect aircraft that can fly faster and for greater distances and avoid bad weather ship unloading operations by operating from distant shore bases.

I’m thinking of a C-17 sized, Pelican style Ekranoplan with a air cushion landing gear. Pelican info http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/september/i_pw.html

SteveO, the design of this waterjet landing-craft seems to be the best option if the LCACs were ever to be replaced. However, I do believe the USMC enjoy the logistics offered by these vehicles. The HSLCU does look like a viable option to maybe supplement the LCACs. Could this transport be a serious design which may see the light of day or will it be another stillborn? Cheers! Irwan

The HLCAC might face stiff competition from this High Speed Landing Craft Utility design http://www.systems.textron.com/pdf/products/lcur_datasheet.pdf

A 30 knot(!) waterjet propelled LCU would require less time and money to bring to service.

Any speed and beaching advantages an upsized LCAC development might have are minimal.

I wonder if a V-22 style wing fold could be used on a LCAC sized Ekranoplan to allow for shipboard storage and operations?

The HLCAC might face stiff competition from this High Speed Landing Craft Utility design http://www.systems.textron.com/pdf/products/lcur_datasheet.pdf

I think hovercraft are great but in my opinion if you want a large heavy lift capability it might be better to start thinking about amphibious Ekranoplan/Wing In Ground effect aircraft that can fly faster and for greater distances and avoid bad weather ship unloading operations by operating from distant shore bases.

I’m thinking of a C-17 sized, Pelican style Ekranoplan with a air cushion landing gear. Pelican info http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/september/i_pw.html

Heavy Lift Landing Craft Air Cushioned (HLCAC) info and pic here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/hlcac.htm

Sea Base to Shore Surface Craft (SSSC) info and documents here http://www.onr.navy.mil/fncs/explog/explog/products/seabaseshore.asp

There was a BAA issued for the platform last month. Previously known as LCAC(X), the seabase to shore connector (SSC) has a ‘minimum’ payload of 70t (i.e. one M1), but my understanding is that the objective requirement is that the platform be capable of carrying two M1s (as already stated by Shadow1). The SSC will feature considerably larger engines than the TF40, and my understanding is that the current LCAC propulsion configuration will be retained, i.e. two lift engines and two propulsors.

The key difference between SSC and LCAC is that the new vehicle is intended to be capable of far longer missions than the LCAC, in support of the Navy’s seabasing aspirations.

ICD is due to be completed in May 2006, with a design contract due to be awarded in FY10. EIS is 2015 at the latest.

Do you mean LCAC being launched from LPDs? Because I remeber back in the 1990’s of making an “anti-Zubr” LCAC. Which means very large and kinda autonomous hovercraft, heavily equiped with machineguns (GAU-12) and AA missiles. I read that in a Greek magazine, but I found this link for the Heavy Lift LCAC

http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/p&r/concepts/2005/PDF/Ch2PDFs/CP05%20Chapter%202%20Emerging%20Capabilities%20pg%20038_Landing%20Craft%20Air%20Cushion%20(LCAC).pdf

There is also the “Tuuli”

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hovercrafts

BTW, Greece is the only NATO country operating Heavy LCACs (4 Zubrs)