March 15, 2005
'Biggest hovercraft yet' prepares for sea trials

By David Boey
Defence Correspondent

IT IS haze-grey, travels on a cushion of air and is Singapore's biggest hovercraft yet.

This is a sneak peek at ACV-1, being prepared for its first sea trials by shipbuilder Singapore Technologies Marine (ST Marine).

The hovercraft - 'Air Cushion Vehicle 1' - is being fitted out at ST Marine's yard at Benoi Basin in Jurong.

When ready, it will travel at high speed on land or water on a cushion of air forced under its hull by powerful fans.

ST Marine spokesman Laura Chua declined to comment on ACV-1 or its capabilities.

A check with Jane's Fighting Ships, which lists almost all naval hovercraft the world over, and makers of civilian hovercraft showed no hovercraft similar to ACV-1.

This could mean the hovercraft is of local design or a new design developed with a foreign partner.

A Straits Times photograph of ACV-1, taken in late January when the shipyard was open to the media for the launch of another vessel, gives a good indication of its size.

It is about 45m long and has a drive-through cargo deck, which vehicles can enter from either the bow or the stern using a hydraulically operated ramp.

Hovercraft can hit the beach regardless of tide and are not affected by underwater obstructions such as large rocks, which can damage conventional landing craft.

This gives hovercraft like ACV-1 the ability to land cargo on virtually any coast.

Such capabilities are likely to interest the Republic of Singapore Navy, especially after the tsunami relief operation in Meulaboh in Sumatra when army combat engineers had to toil for hours to remove debris before beaches could be used by its landing craft.

ST Marine's foray into the specialised field of hovercraft comes after an 18-year break.

In 1987, when the company was known as Singapore Shipbuilding & Engineering, it unveiled the Tiger 40, a prototype 16m-long hovercraft with an aluminium hull, jointly developed with a British company, Air Vehicles Ltd.

After a series of sea trials and a marketing drive that failed to find a launch customer, the project was dropped.

The prototype Tiger 40 was abandoned in a carpark at the Benoi Basin yard.

Any pics?

Nope, and I couldn't find anything on the web yet. I would really like to see a pic myself.

CJ?

UPDATE: There's supposed to be a pic somewhere:

Anyone seen this?

If the ST report is accurate, ACV-1 (45m) would be about 10m smaller than this Russian baby:

Project 1232.2 Zubr Pomornik class Amphibious landing craft (See the fas.org write-up for the stats).

Lol, 'baby'? More like MONSTER, haha.....

Here the pic...

i think after the melaboh, the present equipment though is useful, but we have still some short coming....having a hovercraft can reduce the amount of prep time for opening up an LZ....wonder what is the maximum load of this baby

I'm still puzzling over how I missed the pic in STInteractive...

Ok, the load for the Russian baby--I mean, the Zubr--is "3 T-80 tanks or 8 BMP-3 or 10 BTR-80 APC or 140 assault troops with 130 tons cargo"...my guesstimation is that the ACV-1 is about 70 to 80% of that, say, about 100 tons of cargo, which is not too bad at all.

is the navy really interested? or it will end up like the previous prototype that is sitting in the carpark?

What do you guys think is the capacity of that craft? 1 infantry company?

I'm dont think that it would be able to fit into the Endurance class LSTs with its size..... If so, then how would it be used? (assuming that ST is developing it due to interest from RSN....) Direct ferry of material from point A to B? Unlikely....

What about the red and white hovercraft sitting pretty beside the SAF Ferry Terminal?That baby seems like a small one. :huh:

you may be right, to fit this craft into the LST, there is a length, height and width restriction, while the width should not be a problem, not so sure about the length and height...if it cannot fit into the LST, do not think we will especially built a new class of LST to carry this hovercraft..... that means to launch an operation using this craft, it must be launched from land...which makes the RSN purchase of this equipment highly unlikely.......unless that are other prototypes sitting around ....

Mmmm, yes, exactly my point. Direct loading from land would make it pointless as a high speed load transfer vehicle, which is the way the US Marines use their LCACs. Which would then bring to mind the natural question, what is the point of ST developing the hovercraft?

to invade malaysia johor...

johor is close to singapore... as such... singapore can be seen as a super giant size LHA with the capability to launch dozens of such hovercraft.... against any undefended or unprepared landing beaches in southern malaysia...

give the 21 division afew dozen of these monsters... and the picture is clear straight away...

of course... the need to build this hovercraft could be directly linked to the possible removal of the causeway in favour of a bridge across the johor straight...

without a causeway... a swift and rapid armor assault across the johor strait would be near impossible.... without such monster hovercraft to ferry large numbers of troops,vehicles, supplies and weapons.

the aim would be to create a bridgehead... so that a more permanent bridge could be constructed to permit other forces to cross the straits...

in a war between singapore and malaysia... if singapore cannot establish a quick counter attack across the water to push malaysian forces as far from singapore as possible... singapore stands to suffer massive casualties from malaysia rockets and arty.

Mmmm, yes, possible. But a highly provocative move if this is the real motive eh? Besides, I wonder how many of these would be needed to move a couple of brigades rapidly enough to establish a beachhead? I wonder if they'd really cede to the malaysian's demand to build the bridge?

come to think of it....maybe it is mostly for export purposes. as for power projection purposes, there are currently equipment in SAF inventory to do that which means that the hovercraft is a surplus to requirements to start with. i still think that what we don't need, no need to buy

I dun think this ACV-1 is used for the civilian use, if you look at the large drive-in cargo area!!

The only thing for civilian use is that it could be used to ferry cars etc, but the question is why you need the more expensive hovercraft to do the job??

So it must be for military use, but who is paying to build this monster??

If it is technology demonstrator for future sales , then ST will then at best just build a small prototype, such a big one certainly not cheap.

So if it is a prototype, it must be paid for by somebody else, DSTA perhaps? B)

Think abt it, it maybe the first of many for RSN!! B)

Looks alot like the one I saw on a paper written by ST Marine many years ago....is it so big that it cannot fit into the LST? That paper was way before the Endurance class. Strange that they did not consider this.

Is it still powered by diesels or gas turbine?

sometimes.... you want something... you must be ready to give something... more over the malaysian already build a half past six bridge liow... you cant expect them to leave it standing there like an eyesore of malaysian govt failure right?

in a sense... they sure want this face back... so... who knows... they might even sell their ass to get singapore to build that bridge...

and frankly... while the causeway is most beneficial to SAF... its always best not to over rely on one plan....

a few dozen high speed, high load and high mobile monstrous hovercraft would proof very beneficial to the 21st div.

since the distance is short.... a few round trips of a few dozen hovercraft would probably be enough to drop half a div on the opposite shore in afew hour.... :lol:

but then... i really wonder... why you so sure this hovercraft cannot fit into the LST? i mean... length wise... the LST is 3x the length of the hovercraft... height wise... isnt the hovercraft height "changeable?"...

if we can put 2 hovercraft inside one LST... solid liow lor...

I'm not sure, simply because I do not have the dimensions for the LST dock size. But looking at the size of that thing, I would be more inclined to say that the hovercraft would not fit into the LST. As for fitting 2 of those into 1 LST? (Though it may not be a very accurate comparison, here's a measure of the sizes involved.) The WASP class LHD has a length of 253m vs the Endurances 140m. Stuff 2 of those ACVs in there means a total length of 90m. The LHD holds only 3 LCACs of 26m each, coming up to a total length of only 75m. Wah Seh. Our LST damn big stomach hor?

that's because the wasp need to carry other things... like those AAV7 mah... so obviously cannot devote all the space to LCAC...

but singapore dont have anything equal to the AAV mah... so use the space to stuff ACV1 lor.... :lol:

The dimension of of the Endurance Class LSD should be(according to hazegray.org):140 x 20 x 4.5 meters, i.e. width abt 20m.



So from the picture above, the width of the entrance of the well dock should be around 16~17m.



Here a 23m FCU leaving the Endurance , from the picture, I guess the width of the of the FCU is abt 7~8m.

Since we dun really know the width of the ACV-1 which have length of 45m, but from the ST picture, I guess is only abt 12~15 m , so it should be able to fit into the Endurance.

Maybe it dun even need to be inside a LSD, it might even be able to travel around in the "green water" of the region by it's own power.

Unlike the US marine with their LHD and LCACs which need to travel across vast ocean.

Bigger Image

Do you have more pics of the Endurance? Especially the interior? Could you post them or direct me to a site please?

How much higher can the Endurance raise itself, as from the pic the dock doesn't look like it has the requisite height clearance....

Go to Mindef website and click on the Tsunami relief effort. There is a lot of photos taken during the recent Aceh relief ops.

I remember Viper too have some photos that he took sometime ago.

http://www.dsta.gov.sg/home/DisplayPage/Co...e10.asp?id=1190

there is suppose to be a well dock at the stern of the LSD which can allow water depth of 1.7meter to permit the use of LCU and other boats.

but i dont know if the well dock is 45 meter long to accomodate the ACV1.. but i guess the well dock should be at least that long.

my guess is that the LSD might "JUST" fit the ACV1.

STM should have at least considered such a possible use of the ACV1... or at least has an alternate blueprint for a similar ACV which can fit the LSD welldock.

if all else fail... we can always hope that RSN would build a bigger LSD! :P

RSN was quoted a larger LST by ST Marine during the O&S phase if I recall.They subsequently settled for the smaller design for reasons unknown.Lower requirements then?

Here an interestung article on the Endurance, apparantly could take up to four FCU/FCEPs but it did not say what is the actual combi, maybe someone here could enlighten us.

http://www.geocities.com/echinoman/feature.htm

Just did guesstimate of the ACV-1, the height of the superstructure could be as high as 11~12m, it may not fit into the LSD, it seem to be very little clearance.

This is all guesstimation, of course, but I arrived at a different figure. From the larger pic provided, the height (not incl. cushion) is about 6.5x the length, which works out to be only 7m--assuming the 45m figure for the length is accurate. Add the cushion--say, another 1.5m (max)--it's still only 8.5m. (If this is correct, the ACV is definitely longer than tall--compared with the the LCAC (27 x 14.3 x 7.2 m) used by the USN and JSDF.

Unfortunately, the width of the ACV-1 is not obvious from the pic.

Still, guesstimations from the pics of the Endurance gives a well dock that is at best 8-9m tall--a tight fit to say the least.

I'm beginning to think that IceStorm is right--if SAF goes for one of these babies, it's hard to see what else they are meant for except to land troops on shores that are very nearby...

UPDATE: Using the larger pic (below), the estimation of the height of the Endurance well dock is 9-10m (above the water line).

Faz from WAFF just put up his scans of the Endurance brochures (what happened to them anyway? They used to be easily found on the ST website, but not anymore). Anyway, this one is revealing--look at how tight the fit is for the FCU. Don't think the ACV-1 is going to fit into the welldock after all.

Note: I've cropped the pict so that it doesn't take up so much space.



(Changed the image hosting site to www.flickr.com)

give me 2 to 3 dozen of ACV1... i can form a floating bridge across the straits of johor .. :lol: :P

anyway... i guess its too close to call...

if the ACV1 is meant for the LSD, the size of the ACV1 is probably another fine example of singapore kiasu syndrome.....

the navy probably wanna maximise the LSD capacity by having a ACV that fits as tightly as possible to avoid wastage of space carrying air and seawater.

afterall... if you can only fit one ACV width worth of ACV into the LSD welldock... it would make sense to get one that would leave as little gap as possible between the ACV and the inner hull of the LSD, so as to maximise the carrying capacity of the ACV. :P

anyway... i think the navy is rethinking its need for an ACV.. after their inability to swiftly land on indonesian coast cause them much embarassment.... :P

the americans with their LCAC... leads the way... and our navy learns from its mistake... lucky we didnt have to learn it in a war... the price in blood would see the chief of navy replaced the next day! :angry:

Well, I on the other hand think the space shouldn't be too tight.....it may be okay in calm seas, but in rough sea states, I doubt the hovercraft may be able to dock easily.

If the ACV1 is built for a foreign client, my guess would be aussie and taiwan. The rest of the region have not reached the stage of needing one yet.

So, was just fiddling with Google Earth and searching through a couple of KeyHole markers when i noticed this in FAS.Org. The length of the unknown objects are within tolerance of those as the USN's LCAC, but not the 45m length of ACV-1. Was just wondering what else could they be, any comments...???



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Similar Thread
(HyperLink to "Does Singapore Have Amphibious Capability...???", for additional references.)

For comparisons, these are USN's LCACs stationed in Panama City, Florida (screenshots taken at the same attitude).

For the moment, I think the ACV is more a proof of design example.

Taking reference from the LCAC, the range is 200-300miles, conditions up to seastate 2; thats enough range to get to a lot of interesting place, launching from a beach.