Stern Landing Vessel (SLV) vs Conventional Landing Craft - Updated

Subscribe to the SEATRANSPORT channel for more great video content.
At SEATRANSPORT we are committed to providing the most innovative ship design solutions for every application. Here we compare the Conventional Landing Craft vessel design used by many operators around the world to the Stern Landing Vessel (SLV) vessel design by Sea Transport Solutions.
The Stern Landing Vessel’s design is better equipped to handle rough seas, can beach and debeach with ease, has a higher sustainable speed and greater protection of the cargo deck and stern gear.
Benefits of SLV cargo ships / work ships’ design:
1. Good head sea capability
2. Ability to beach and debeach with ease
3. Good visibility from the wheelhouse
4. No ballast, for easier propulsion and handling, less free surface in tanks
5. Finer hull shape with a higher sustainable speed
6. Accommodation is clear of machinery space
7. Cargo deck has sea spray protection
8. Access to bottom plating when beached
9. Elimination of the suction effect when beaching/debeaching
10. Total protection of the stern landing gear
11. 300 tonne payload at 16 knots at 1.70m draft
12. 600 tonne payload at 15 knots at 2.05m draft
13. Specifications:
• Deck Area of 600m2 (6457.8 ft2)
• TEU(Gnd): 32 (64 stacked)
• Dk Dwt Cap: 300t.
Learn more about our transhipment vessels at: www.seatransport.com/tranship...
Learn more about our ship design and marine feasibility services at: www.seatransport.com
Follow us online:
Facebook: / seatransportsolutions
Google My Business: tinyurl.com/y5rfsdvz

[@joshlower1]

The conventional landing craft does just fine, congrats, your reinvented the wheel.

[@joshlower1]

Yeah let's just run our props directly into the ground, so smart.

[@DavidOlver]

great work

[@tsclly2377]

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..

[@nemcmi]

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

[@martyrobertson5970]

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?

[@jeremyfeldmann7969]

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

[@harolddiaz4555]

NO PROPELLERS? WATERJETS?

[@nosaltadded2530]

Post a video after you build it. Other than that, save it.

[@ivi7017]

1990-2020 Why did it take 30 years to sell such a great design?(still not sold...

[@jeremyfeldmann7969]

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

[@nikolaoskapodistrias9242]

Cause power at be hate change. They rather suffer with what they know, rather than attempt something new.

[@joshlower1]

Because the conventional landing craft works just fine.

[@jwyliecullick8976]

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.

[@joshlower1]

Who asked you for your opinion?

[@TheDustysix]

I'm interested. However. AUSTAL sold us a POS in the LCS.

[@nikolaoskapodistrias9242]

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.

[@manzoorahmedkhan1756]

Ur contact nomber?

[@georgedimakopoulos3581]

Australia needs 6 ships.

[@syberian_tyger]

First rock or mine on the beach will damage the proplusion makin' this vessel a good still target.

[@TheDustysix]

Gee, That may have happened in WW2. We Won, They Lost.

[@nikolaoskapodistrias9242]

First Mine would damage any ship........

[@wesleyallen1173]

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?.

[@joshlower1]

It submerges itself and hides.