I never saw where they mentioned this craft's military use or involvement in war efforts (I am a retired disabled Vet). Second, I see many commercial uses for this as well. I would love a half-scale version of this vessel for my private use.
Not the same type boat, although it has some advantages, especially in the secondary phase of a beach landing (secured territory). Better put a gantry crane on it also..
from what i see it not meant to part of the first or maybe 2nd wave of a attack but to bring in the heaver thing so speed to the area and cost of shipping more important
It’s not a comparison video this video is a sales videos. Places like Fraser island this type of bike simply would not be allowed due to the erosion it would cause when departing beach every time
Ha...I'll agree with half of this comment, the Navy design and approval of the LCS bought us a POS ship.... AUSTAL (from a ship perspective, not a warfighter) is actually a stable design. But still, LCS is a big fat POS, a waste of resources.
They don't say if some kind of water jet system is being used. It would make sense to have a common universal water jet system with intakes and outputs 360 degrees around the ship, or at least dual stern and dual bow giving rudder axis control. This would also give a safety and redundancy to the propulsion system in an environment with a lot of for example organic debris, mud, rocks. It wouldn't protect from mines of course, that is another matter. Altogether, I'm impressed by the design, going for dispersed nodes. Yet it's slow and I'd be more impressed with a Corps that was free to pursue a fully airborne force structure, including amphibious wing-in-ground-effect vehicles perhaps. Simultaneously the US Navy would have to be free to pursue a land-based aircraft-based projection program; no more carriers, just long-range aircraft operating globally. So it's immediately a kind of bureaucratic fight, interservice rivalry; the solution I think would be to have redundancy and competition directly between the services. So yeah, you'd have two airborne systems, and two air forces really. Not necessarily a bad thing.
The conventional landing craft does just fine, congrats, your reinvented the wheel.
I never saw where they mentioned this craft's military use or involvement in war efforts (I am a retired disabled Vet). Second, I see many commercial uses for this as well. I would love a half-scale version
of this vessel for my private use.
Not the same type boat, although it has some advantages, especially in the secondary phase of a beach landing (secured territory). Better put a gantry crane on it also..
Yeah let's just run our props directly into the ground, so smart.
how fast can the vessel be spun around to make the stern landing? can stern gun mounts and box launchers be placed on the flight deck?
from what i see it not meant to part of the first or maybe 2nd wave of a attack but to bring in the heaver thing so speed to the area and cost of shipping more important
great work
It’s not a comparison video this video is a sales videos. Places like Fraser island this type of bike simply would not be allowed due to the erosion it would cause when departing beach every time
1990-2020 Why did it take 30 years to sell such a great design?(still not sold...
angle fight decks were not done for years the people who hadnthe power to make the change dont trust it and know the old one work
Cause power at be hate change. They rather suffer with what they know, rather than attempt something new.
Because the conventional landing craft works just fine.
I'm interested. However. AUSTAL sold us a POS in the LCS.
Ha...I'll agree with half of this comment, the Navy design and approval of the LCS bought us a POS ship.... AUSTAL (from a ship perspective, not a warfighter) is actually a stable design. But still, LCS is a big fat POS, a waste of resources.
Ur contact nomber?
Post a video after you build it. Other than that, save it.
They don't say if some kind of water jet system is being used. It would make sense to have a common universal water jet system with intakes and outputs 360 degrees around the ship, or at least dual stern and dual bow giving rudder axis control. This would also give a safety and redundancy to the propulsion system in an environment with a lot of for example organic debris, mud, rocks. It wouldn't protect from mines of course, that is another matter.
Altogether, I'm impressed by the design, going for dispersed nodes. Yet it's slow and I'd be more impressed with a Corps that was free to pursue a fully airborne force structure, including amphibious wing-in-ground-effect vehicles perhaps. Simultaneously the US Navy would have to be free to pursue a land-based aircraft-based projection program; no more carriers, just long-range aircraft operating globally. So it's immediately a kind of bureaucratic fight, interservice rivalry; the solution I think would be to have redundancy and competition directly between the services. So yeah, you'd have two airborne systems, and two air forces really. Not necessarily a bad thing.
Who asked you for your opinion?
Australia needs 6 ships.
NO PROPELLERS? WATERJETS?
😊🎉
Gator navy note
First rock or mine on the beach will damage the proplusion makin' this vessel a good still target.
Gee, That may have happened in WW2. We Won, They Lost.
First Mine would damage any ship........
I don't see a single offensive, or protective weapon on this thing. just how the hell does it protect itself in a hostile environment?.
It submerges itself and hides.