• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

More "Fast Ferries" - Gulf Coast Operations

Kirkhill

Fair Scunnert
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,085
Points
1,160
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/nov/Navys_High.htm

The Austal Cats still seem to be impressing the USN and the Army.
 
Good article K

Very interesting...I wonder if the CF is looking in that direction too?

Slim
 
There are three former BC ferries "FAST CATS" just sitting in Vancouver harbour at the moment.
 
RL206 said:
There are three former BC ferries "FAST CATS" just sitting in Vancouver harbour at the moment.

How come the BC govt isn't using them?
 
canuck101 said:
They were sold already for a loss.

Could you please provide some more information on the subject?

thanks

Slim
 
Slim said:
How come the BC govt isn't using them?

For one thing, they were a colossal waste of money.

The time difference between trips made in the fast cats and trips made in the conventional ferries was mininimal (I think only 15 minutes).  The wake created by the fast cats when they went by the Gulf Islands caused damage to property on the waterfront, so the speed had to be cut when travelling by the islands.

As well, they have much less carrying capacity in terms of vehicles and passengers as conventional ferries.

BC Ferries would have been better off purchasing 2 super ferries rather than 3 fast cats.
 
As well the Fast Cats were never designed for open ocean transit. The Austal designs are wave pearcing where as the Fast Cats are not, infact the Fast Cats have been forced to remain at the ferry terminal due to rough seas in the Straight of Georgia....

Mike.
 
Bought three fast ferries for 454 million dollars, barely used em, sold a few years later for 4.5 million US a piece :eek:. All the wasted money in this country on both the provincial and federal levels, it boggles the mind :'(.
 
Don't the "Fast Cats" have clam shell bow doors rather than the solid wave-piercing bow of the Austal HSV designs?
 
Bit of a disadvantage for both a Swedish and an English conventional ferry as I recall (one lost in the Baltic and one in the North Sea?)
 
I still prefer the LPD angle more so as these ships are already designed with battle damage in mind. I am not a naval architect but I have my doubts that civillian ship builders ever think of measures to protect the brand new ferry they are building, from becoming a bigger death traps to the crew when soaking up an Exocet/Harpoon/Shipwreck. This is why myself and many other members of the navy (and not just the Canadian Navy but other navies) have an issue with adopting vessels like this in the CF. Of course its beyond our pay level and we go where we are told or we get out.
 
I can see upgrading design standards to make a hull more resistant to battle-damage.  I can even see adding cost to include CIWS, Radar and Chaff,  perhaps even SeaSparrow.

I don't know enough to know if there are excess capabilities grafted on to platforms but judging from the JSS project, UK, US and Australian reports it appears that that seems to be a common enough tendency.  The tendency to "add potatoes to mop up excess gravy, then add gravy to for the dry potatoes" seems to be at play in all sorts of endeavours.  This may be understandable when so few platforms are actually being delivered.  There is likely a tendency to take advantage of the opportunity to add another long desired capability to the task force by grafting it on to the newly available platform.

However, sometimes it is necessary to remember what the original intent of the exercise was and limit design to the primary purpose.  ie not AOR with command and transport grafted on, but AOR with separate command and transport facilities.  Or in the case of transport, just transport when it is justified.  Why buy 4 5-tonne MLVWs with CPs when one with a CP and 3 empty 5-tonnes are all that are required?  The other three CPs are a waste of money and space.

Cheers
 
They are high maintenance and have a high fuel consumption.
They hull's are very susceptible to irreparable damage from heavy weather due to the aluminium construction.There a few tied up around the world with irreparable hull damage from bad weather.


Re;the B.C. Ferries modified the design to lighten them to limit fuel consumption ergo the car deck's can not take semi's etc. and have smaller fuel tanks.First trip into Nanaimo they took on 30,000 Lt.'s of fuel.
The Engines are V 24 MTU high speed diesel's with Kamewa water jets.
The engines have to have a oil change every 700 hrs at something like $25.00 a Ltr. a special oil for high speed diesel engines,I forget the capacity.
Valve lash had to be checked every 200 hrs or so if I remember rightly and I could go on about the servicing of the beasties. ::)

What was fun was watching the passengers up chucking in a bad sea state  ;D Fast Pussies and their cousins don't roll and pitch like a mono hulled ship.Also the B.C. Ferry Pussies have a limited sea state they are allowed to sail in due to the hull design which they made to fit the present ferry dock's in H.Bay and Nan. and if I remember right it about a 1.8 m sea state which is not much if you have seen what the Straite of Georgia can throw at you when a good south easter realy blows.

The only thing they did right was the high pressure refueling system,30,000 Ltr.'s in 20 min.
 
Back
Top