Shipbucket

Over the years while prowling the depths of Spergery I have encountered many "cracked" out designs over the years. Recently I came across what I think is a contender for the most "cracked" out concept I've ever seen. Rivaled only by that infamous pint sized 100 knot British Nuclear Hovercraft Aircraft Carrier, is the below concept from the May 1989 edition of the Naval Engineer's Journal SFS, the 55 Knot Sea Lift Ship.



SFS, short for "Surface Effect Fast Sealift Ship" was envisioned as a solution to the Army's then growing deficit in sea lift capability. Built to commercial standards and manned by the Military Sealift command, the SFS would be capable of carrying 5000 tons of cargo at 55 knots nearly anywhere in the world on short notice. The authors note that while the previous largest SES ship built was 200 tons, the would be no benefit to building any intermediary designs and the nearly 20,000 ton ship was entirely build-able with the technology of the time. The ships would, when not used for the sea lift mission, be used as commercial merchant vessels functioning as either Ro/RO and/or self loading container ships The authors calculated that five ships could in less than a week deliver" 50 M1 tanks, 380 Mk2 Personnel Carriers (I think this is the bradley but I'm not sure) and 4,000 men" over distances in excess of 8,000 miles, Ambitious design goals to say the least. This incredible sea lift capability however is just a sliver of the madness however. The ships would have bow ramps for landing on beaches, a stern ramp to deploy up to 2 LCACs,

With a top speed lightly loaded was projected as 70 knots the ships would be unable to be escorted by surface combatants and also too slow to be protected by aircraft. Without the benefit of air or surface cover the authors believed that the ships needed to be able to defend themselves. Exact weapons fit is mostly unspecified but the idea is that the ships would be fitted for but not with an extensive suite of weapons hidden behind fairings (to prevent an observer from determining if the weapons were currently fitted) The real crack in terms of weaponry though was not the Q ship-esque defensive armament but instead the fact that the ship could carry up to 8 64 cell VLS Modules in it's cargo bays, allowing it, at low speeds to operate as an "ammunition carrier" for AEGIS cruisers. I should note that this concept predates the popular arsenal ship studies so the term "Arsenal Ship" is not used, but it's very clear that the ship would be capable of serving as one. Other insanity includes a retractable bridge for riverine operations and an omnidirectional waterjet bow thruster that could be used for steering or for a 25 boost in power and a projected timeline for the first ship to be operational in 3-5 years from project star. After a 1 year operational evaluation the authors envisioned full scale production run.



Still mostly a wip, but sorta stalled out. The ship is basically a big grey brick so every one of the few details the report provides counts a lot. I know the layout makes no sense but I'm working with what I have.

Very interesting concept.

_________________
There is no "I" in TEAM but there is a ME


______________________
Current Worklist:
Redrawing my entire AU after a long absence from Shipbucket

Crazy design, and would definitely be expensive to run, back then. And just thinking about what it would cost today...
So the Author haven't heard about Oksoy and Alta Class, that was build between 1990-95 and 96. (planned well before that). Yes I know they didn't have todays internett, but you do expect an author dealing with military stuff having "interesting" access. Note. Oksoy and Alta class weight 375 tons.

I am nitpicking, aren't I

Stuff in the planning stages isn't always that widely spread and even so, "The previous largest SES ship build" indeed does not include ships on which construction was started a year after the article was written.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Well I could have wrote about soviet Bora class (Project 1239) as well, some was build in 1987 with a weight of 1000+tons.


But as you don't read:
and So your comment are pointless

And an author doing his research, before writing a book, should know that. That Norwegian class had already been known about for 10 years at that point, the design it self, 2-3 years by then. But then again, I am nitpicking again....

No you are not nitpicking you were just wrong. Ships being planned for 9 years are not included in ships build. I am really not sure what you are trying to say here.

The Bora too was commissioned about when this article was written so it is not strange the author would not count it even if he knew about it.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Beyond the report happening on the opposite side of the Iron Curtian from the Bora prior to her being commissioned, another thing to keep in mind is that the discussion is about American Shipbuilding capability. The Author's assessment about lack of intermediate sized design being needed is based on a "February 1988" report by "a major seal manufacturer" on their ability to develop seals of the size needed for the ships. The existence of an, at the time still under construction, Soviet SES has little bearing on American shipbuilding capabilities.


Interestingly the 1988 report is not listed in the references, also missing is a 1987 assessment by Lockheed/Newport/Ingalls on large SES designs.