|
Post by WettCoast on Sept 15, 2010 21:41:29 GMT -8
While passing through Ketchikan in August I was able to get a few more pictures of this unusual ferry. Here are a few of them: Both photos by JST ©Larger versions of these can be seen by clicking on the photos. These are from my Flickr site.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Sept 15, 2010 22:23:57 GMT -8
So, I guess the cars load on via that silver boxy thing, then it lifts like an elevator up into the main superstructure of the ship, then it leaves? Looks weird. I dislike the paint scheme too. Too wavy. Just an ugly ferry. Quite utilitarian.
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Sept 16, 2010 23:16:35 GMT -8
While passing through Ketchikan in August I was able to get a few more pictures of this unusual ferry. Here are a few of them: Both photos by JST ©Larger versions of these can be seen by clicking on the photos. These are from my Flickr site. I rather like this new boat, And knowing the area it is for it makes a lot of sense. I also like the paint, Glad to see they kept the coloring the same but added a wave to it, looks good.
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Sept 17, 2010 6:18:15 GMT -8
So, I guess the cars load on via that silver boxy thing, then it lifts like an elevator up into the main superstructure of the ship, then it leaves? Looks weird. I dislike the paint scheme too. Too wavy. Just an ugly ferry. Quite utilitarian. The silver colored thing is likely the ramp. As for hoisting the whole vehicle deck... That's certainly different. I know of ferries in Europe that could do that because of the tide (used to have pics of one in Germany on my old compy), but none looked like this one.
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Sept 17, 2010 9:21:13 GMT -8
So, I guess the cars load on via that silver boxy thing, then it lifts like an elevator up into the main superstructure of the ship, then it leaves? Looks weird. I dislike the paint scheme too. Too wavy. Just an ugly ferry. Quite utilitarian. The silver colored thing is likely the ramp. As for hoisting the whole vehicle deck... That's certainly different. I know of ferries in Europe that could do that because of the tide (used to have pics of one in Germany on my old compy), but none looked like this one. It's also because of tide issues in Anchorage, specifically the Cook Inlet mud-flats. Just making a spot for this to land is fun enough, it will be right at Ship Creek. There really isn't much of a dock there but what is there will work for it. Cook Inlet much of it is not useable for anything like docks and piers, as it has these massive mud flats. They aren't even beaches to go out on, as you sink and they are very unsafe. I remember news reporter a few year back they died.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 18, 2010 11:42:45 GMT -8
Looks weird. I dislike the paint scheme too. Too wavy. Just an ugly ferry. Quite utilitarian. I guess I cut a very fine line which may confuse and annoy people, but this time I can actually say with great sincerity that you are way off. This ferry is by no means ugly, and actually looks quite pleasing to the eye. She has color, a unique and interesting profile and also has some nice curves that draw the eye along instead of foiling it. Re-post you comments about ugly and utilitarian on the Island Sky thread, because this one actually has a lot more visual interest and a lot crisper more well proportioned profile. Also: of all the new ferries we've seen built recently, this one also has, hands down, one of the nicest names we have heard in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Sept 18, 2010 12:13:34 GMT -8
I guess I cut a very fine line which may confuse and annoy people, but this time I can actually say with great sincerity that you are way off. This ferry is by no means ugly, and actually looks quite pleasing to the eye. She has color, a unique and interesting profile and also has some nice curves that draw the eye along instead of foiling it. Re-post you comments about ugly and utilitarian on the Island Sky thread, because this one actually has a lot more visual interest and a lot crisper more well proportioned profile. Also: of all the new ferries we've seen built recently, this one also has, hands down, one of the nicest names we have heard in a long time. Well I obviously disagree. Hey, Mill Bay, you started this thread, so I'm wondering if it would be good to rename it by the name of the ship, now that she's been completed. I've renamed my one post to start, but it would be nice if we could have the thread name-specific.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 19, 2010 15:07:10 GMT -8
The thread title is fine the way it is, since most of it is all about the proposal and development of the ferry.
Once the Susitna actually enters service, then if we really want to, we can start a new thread for the in service discussion with the ship`s name in the thread title.
I just noticed the poster Darkfred`s pessimism regarding her sea trials. Does anyone have any more info how she is actually progressing as an operating vessel?
|
|
|
Post by darkfred on Sept 25, 2010 8:49:19 GMT -8
I'm pessimistic because I'm a vessel engineer. I'm one of those guys who gets to deal with the end result of someones pipe dream and make it work the best I can.
I have close insight on how well the sea trials are going. I'm involved.
|
|
|
Post by darkfred on Sept 25, 2010 9:01:37 GMT -8
Inclining experiment is basically a physically test of the vessels stability. This is done to make sure the calculated stability is close to what the actual vessel stability is. How it is done is by applying mass to points on the vessel while it is water borne and observing the outcome; as in how much does the draft change and how much does the trim and or heel change. A vessels stability is calculated even before it is built. It is part of the approval process to actually build a vessel. The actual stability of a vessel can only be different by 5% of the calculated value. Otherwise it fails the "inclining experiment" and the whole vessel stability needs to recalculated using the experiment data.
|
|
|
Post by plansea on Oct 22, 2010 15:22:26 GMT -8
Cook Inlet ferry service possible M/V Susitna scheduled to arrive in spring; exact routes, cost still to be determined By Lindsay Johnson Staff Writer The M/V Susitna currently is undergoing sea trials in Ketchikan. The ferry, owned by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is scheduled to come north in the spring. A route that includes a stop in Kenai has been proposed. How can a person drive for one hour and get from Kenai to Palmer in four hours in the middle of July? The Mat-Su borough, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the Municipality of Anchorage and others are trying to figure that out. One part of the riddle is solved: A ferry will be available, but the operational details are still unclear. The Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly on Oct. 12 passed resolution 2010-085 in support of public ferry service between Anchorage, Mat-Su, Tyonek/Beluga Point and Kenai. The ferry that would provide the service is the M/V Susitna, a new 195-foot, high-speed, icebreaker catamaran landing craft owned by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Lew Madden, Mat-Su's representative for the ship, said the Susitna won't come north until spring, but if things go as planned, the ferry will start providing service to Cook Inlet as soon as it arrives. He said the borough is "planning on providing service to Mat-Su borough and wherever the boat is useful." Though the boat is built and paid for, it doesn't have a place to land at its originally intended service areas in Anchorage and Point MacKenzie. Elizabeth Gray, interim manager for the Mat-Su borough, said the Susitna could operate between Kenai and Tyonek until landing facilities are secured in the Mat-Su and Anchorage. "We're definitely looking in the Kenai/Tyonek area for operating the vessel," Gray said. Jon Faulkner, owner of Land's End Resort in Homer and the president of Kenai Landing Inc. in Kenai, has proposed Kenai Landing as the Susitna's stop on the lower east side of Cook Inlet. The city of Kenai already has passed a resolution supporting the vessel. Tyonek, the only Kenai Peninsula Borough community on the west side of Cook Inlet, is in the process of renewing a memorandum of understanding with the Mat-Su borough stating its interest in ferry service. The village signed the first MOU with Mat-Su in 2008. The proposed landing site in Tyonek is Ladd's Landing, a public easement owned by the KPB. Borough Mayor Dave Carey recently met with Tyonek officials in Anchorage to discuss the site and how much money would be needed to make it functional for a ferry port. The Mat-Su has blueprints for landing facilities, but still needs funds in order to begin construction next year. Nevertheless, borough officials are optimistic about the near future of the vessel. "It's a great situation. Where most ferry systems start out owing for a boat, we already have one. Landings are just a matter of time," Gray said. Eventually, Gray said, the Susitna could operate a triangle route between Point MacKenzie, Tyonek and Kenai. At this point, it's clear that more time, money and communication are needed in order for the Susitna to start zooming around Cook Inlet. The Susitna has seats for 114 passengers and space for 20 vehicles. Other possible uses include transportation of solid waste and freight, and as an oil spill response vessel. "It was built as an icebreaker so it certainly could provide access in upper Cook Inlet 12 months a year," Carey said. Borough assembly member Mako Haggerty, who represents the southern peninsula, said that while the ferry might be a fun way to travel in the summer, he doubts it will run through the winter. "They're selling it as an icebreaker, which is fine, but they're not going to run it through the ice. It's not going to happen," he said. Haggerty said he doesn't see a need for the ferry. A Tyonek representative had a different view. "It's going to have the largest impact on quality of life of anything else that's in the mill," said John D. McClellan, an engineer with Tyonek Enterprise Development Inc., a subsidiary of Tyonek Native Corp. that is working on bringing the ferry to the village. McClellan said that in addition to greatly reducing cost of living for the 300 people on the west side of the inlet, ferry service would open up another area the size of the Kenai Peninsula. Carey thinks the development is important. "This project could be a real benefit economically and recreationally," he said. Passing the resolution of support approves the time he and his staff spend on working out the details. "Approval gives me a clear green light to go ahead," Carey said. As with any change, the speed of progress will depend on money. "A lot of it is tied to funding and funding sources," Gray said. "It totally comes down to economics," Carey said. "Twenty-some dollars one way… six hours of relative ease, will people be willing to put down that amount of money?" He thinks they will. Madden said the cost of ferry travel will depend on how fast the boat goes. If it burns more fuel to take less time, a ticket will cost more. "The economics don't look bad for service to the Kenai, especially in the summer time," said Madden. No landing locations have been discussed for Homer, though Madden said there are a number of feasible possibilities, and Carey said the more stops the ferry can make the better. Lindsay Johnson can be reached at lindsay.johnson@homernews.com. homernews.com/stories/102010/business_cif.shtml
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 30, 2010 9:50:01 GMT -8
So, I guess the cars load on via that silver boxy thing, then it lifts like an elevator up into the main superstructure of the ship, then it leaves? Sort of. The center barge comes in to add a third hull to the ship, and raise the other two hulls out of the water for shallow water operations. Once the vessel is out of the shallows, the center barge comes up, it no longer displaces water, and the ship operates on her more hydrodynamic two outer hulls. The construction of Susitna was paid for by the US Navy to investigate the possibility of high speed landing craft.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jan 11, 2011 14:04:29 GMT -8
The lack of adequate docking facilities are likely to delay this vessels service and trip north according to THE KETCHIKAN DAILY NEWS. Important decisions on landings and docks have not yet been made. The ship remains idle at the Ketchikan Shipyard.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 11, 2011 16:35:52 GMT -8
It's amazing. We can spend $50 million building a ship, but we can't figure out how to prepare a site worthy of a LANDING CRAFT. Seriously, how hard can that part of the project be? Did we not have enough time to plan for it, or what? We've know this was coming for how long?
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Jan 12, 2011 21:06:03 GMT -8
I agree that it is amazing in an unfortunate way that we have a ferry without a home, but I am not really surprised by this either. I was living in Anchorage when this ferry and the Knik Arm Bridge were being discussed.
Residents of the Mat-Su valley wanted or still want a bridge across Knik Arm to commute to Anchorage, while many Anchorage residents were not too keen on the idea. Many felt that if you wanted a shorter commute to work in Anchorage then live in Anchorage and not in the Valley.
The ferry Susitna was seen as a sort of compromise to a bridge, although there are still people pushing for a bridge. The thing is that Anchorage is still not really keen on the idea of a bridge or a ferry. The ferry is really being pushed through by the Mat-Su valley and the Matanuska Susitna Borough owns it I believe, not Anchorage.
Ultimately a large part of the problem is the route for the ferry is entirely one of convenience not necessity. If the ferry doesn't run, there is a four lane highway connecting the valley with Anchorage. Add to that the fairly common attitude found in the north, if you want to work in our community, then live in it as well.
Hmm, guess you can tell what my feelings on the Knik Arm ferry are, even though I like ferries, I lived in Anchorage for a while, still rather fond of the place I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 8, 2011 10:03:13 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jul 7, 2011 11:18:06 GMT -8
The July edition of Western Mariner magazine has an in depth article on this bizarre vessel.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Sept 1, 2011 19:24:25 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Sept 8, 2011 22:03:15 GMT -8
The story of this boat boggles my mind. I wonder how many Susitna type expenditures there are in the U.S. military; not necessarily experimental frankenferries, but just poorly vetted, extremely expensive projects in a veritable black hole of American public funds. $78 million, for a boat that seemingly has no useful purpose, and which apparently now could be sold, if a buyer could be found, for the princely sum of $5.5 million. A boat that was built with no definite route in mind, and which, because of it's multi-purpose nature, probably is deficient at any one of those uses. It doesn't work properly, is too heavy, and may never see service in Alaska, and will cost the borough a fortune to store. Amazing. (Now that this vessel has been named and launched, maybe the thread heading should reflect its identity?)
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 8, 2011 22:08:51 GMT -8
Thread renamed.
- thanks for the suggestion, Neil.
(we can move this to our forum's Frankenferry sub-board, if you wish, haha)
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 11, 2011 1:27:59 GMT -8
The story of this boat boggles my mind. I wonder how many Susitna type expenditures there are in the U.S. military; not necessarily experimental frankenferries, but just poorly vetted, extremely expensive projects in a veritable black hole of American public funds. That depends on how you look at those funds. She is an experimental proof of concept landing craft that could eventually lead the way for a new way of landing troop transports or tanks onto the beach. She was going to be built. The options were to build and test her, and then scrap her, or to build and test her, and give her to an organization that would share real world experience with the hull back to the military in a prolonged test. For a better explination of what I am saying, check out Lew Madden's responce to the follwing article (ignore the article if you wish) www.alaskadispatch.com/article/concerned-how-did-mat-su-ferry-spin-out-controlThe problem is not necessarily with the original plan, the original planners just underestimated how hard it would be to find the political will to have a landing fit for a LANDING CRAFT. IF this were a project that had a prayer of getting capital funding on it's own right, we would be much better suited buying a Lituya class vessel with an option for a second, and a dock on each side. However, any crossing of the Knik has run afoul of political pressure (people who are afraid that it would screw up Anchorage's tax basin allied with people who are afraid that a ferry would delay the building of a bridge), so waiting for the will to do it right was not a possibility. This SEEMED like a way to prove the need for the crossing. Who knew?
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Sept 11, 2011 17:30:09 GMT -8
Wasn't this same pattern followed with the Hawaiian fast ferries a few years ago? Were they built with heavy government financing? I remember they ran for a few months, but then placed in layup when the money ran out.
They were pressed into Haitian relief efforts for a while. Anyone know where they are now?
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Sept 14, 2011 9:35:50 GMT -8
Another article on the Susitna. Link: juneauempire.com/local/2011-09-14/sustina-be-used-state-ferry-systemI don't think that the Susitna should be part of the system. As the article points out it would require specialized crew training for a temporary ship, and either modifying current AMHS docks to accept the ship or finding new landing locations for the ship, which is what is currently causing its delay into service on Knik Arm. The Matsu Borough reps talk of needing to get special permits from the USCG so that it could run passenger only, if the ship went to AMHS it would still need the permits, not really solving the problem, just shifting it to someone else. Really there is no good fit for the ship within the system. The Susitna may be a fine ship, but she is just too unique. If the legislature wants to make her a temporary part of the system then they better be ready to put more money into the operating fund for AMHS. Adding a ship like this and not giving the money to operate it, which is the likely thing to happen, will have a negative impact on the system's ability to run the rest of the fleet. The Matsu Borough screwed up with this, the Borough should pay for it, not the rest of us. I know I am being cynical, but Wasilla has always wanted to be the capital of Alaska, now they are starting to get the nickname Boondoggle Capital of Alaska. I guess it's better than just being a lowly Alaskan community.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Sept 15, 2011 2:35:47 GMT -8
Not about the Susitna, but interesting and relevant due to the design similarities for the French naval vessel in question. www.marinelink.com/news/waterjets-control-double340404.aspx MJP Waterjets: Double Control for Water JetsSwedish-based MJP Waterjets has succeeded in combining steering and reversing of two jets simultaneously into a central column operating both jets in parallel by means of a single hydraulic control. This new design of the steering and reversing unit called CSUI has recently been tested on the French landing craft CNIM EDA-R.The landing craft with its hourglass shaped hull and has two very different operating conditions: Catamaran Mode and Barge Mode and thus called for specific design requirements.The vessel is equipped with four engines and four jets, which are driven by a MJP 650 mixed flow pump. As usual, the intake is adapted and designed to the constraints given by the hull and its application using CFD. The swath type hull with its pronounced hourglass shape results in a narrow waist at the waterline. The section below the waterline is made to an absolute minimum. During the design phase MJP have made use of CFD also to optimize the flow in the bucket to enhance the reversing performance. This is particularly important on a landing craft in order to ensure safe disembarkation from the beach. Sea trials have shown that the vessel is able to operate at the incredible speed of 10 knots in reverse at full load in open seas. In Catamaran Mode, the centre platform is high above the waterline and the jets are consequently very deep in the water. When the centre platform is lowered into Barge Mode, the jets are in a more common position. The design needs to fulfil the requirements for both operating conditions. Since the jets are placed very deep in the water in Catamaran Mode, inboard hydraulics is being used to avoid the use of external hydraulics several meters below the water surface. Furthermore, the increased wet surface and increased drag caused by external hydraulics is eliminated. Due to the limited space inside the hull, the traditional MJP DRB design could not be used in this case and therefore MJP had to come up with a completely new design with the inboard hydraulics placed above the jets. The new CSUI is based on an old MJP design from the mid 90’s used for a FMV prototype owned by the Swedish Defense organization. Due to the narrow waist of the hull this time two jets in each hull are controlled through centrally located mechanical equipment in between the jets. Other special features for this project include the engine rpm control, which is, at the same time, used for the platform control hydraulics, as well as the intakes, which are built of GRP in a double mounting to fit the narrow hull shape. The hydraulic system is adapted to extreme ambient temperature requirements with an electrical cooling circuit that can be used for back-up operation of the steering and reversing units. The control system has three complete control stations with a centrally located computer room. The scope of supply also includes the long intermediate carbon drive shafts including supports. Recent tests during the official sea trials showed an excellent result. At full load (270 t) a speed of 17.7 knots was reached and at light load (190 t) a speed of 29.3 knots could be demonstrated. The designer Francois Sebilo of Bureau Mauric comments as follows: “The official speed tests of CNIM EDA-R have been performed to a great satisfaction and we would like to congratulate MJP.“
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 15, 2011 13:06:24 GMT -8
It's indicative of the difficulty finding a mission for Susitna when the same article says that she is not an ocean vessel, and suggests that she could operate Homer to Kodiak. One tidbit from the Alaska Public Radio Network www.alaskapublic.org/2011/09/12/destination-of-nearly-complete-ferry-remains-unclear/ is that the Mat-Su Burrough owns 50% of the intellectual property that is the Susitna. The audio version of this story mentions that the Australian Navy may wish to purchase those properties. Somehow, that did not make it into the transcript.
|
|