Maybe Carlton should actually contact the builders. If he bothered to speak to both INCAT and AUSTAL they would have crunched the numbers for him on various tonnages and various speeds. I had to deal with both companies last year, both ran numbers for me for various vessel configs and they were not as bad as he contends. He's also forgetting that monohull military vessels can refuel at sea, and that fast hulls are usually designed for specific theatres and likeley AoO's. Fast sealift is also mapped around the most approp transit routes to take advantage of their hull specialities - they aren't always going to be sent "as the crow flies". IMV, he makes some bad generalisations here - but, considering the fact that he takes the same type of approach in his M1113/Stryker debates, I'm not surprised at his boo-boos here.

M1113/Stryker = M113/Stryker

as an example. "Meanwhile, military men should brush off fast sealift salesmen by asking why the experts in the private sector are not interested." doh! because the commercial entity needs to ensure that they fill hulls at both ends of the journey. ie, A-B and B-A. The success KPI's are different for a commercial as opposed to a military requirement. The military needs to get packages on station as fast as possible - cost benefit does not always drive a tactical and strategic objective. The commercial entity needs to generate revenue at all stages of the journey - thats why they fail. As a classic example, it's why fast sealift to singapore doesn't work. Singapore is a a transit hib for a lot of carriers, so getting a full hull to singapore does not necessarily mean that fast transit can be obtained (in commercial volume at vessels per day, per week, per month). eg there is a demand for high speed perishables going to Oz from Singapore, but there is none coming back - that means a dead commercial hull for 50% of the journey. OTOH, if there was a need to get light vehicles and troops to singapore, it's cheaper and faster by wave piercer than by a short brace of antonov 124's. (apart from the fact that: 1) there may not be runway facilities in close proximity that can handle heavy jets 2) that heavy sealift usually = heavy draught. It's a whole lot easier getting fast WP's into an area where they can dump onto an LST (if necessary) than it is for a heavy sealifter that can't find suitable port facilities where the stuff needs to go again, if he had spoken to the sealift companies he would have had basic economic facts of life explained to him.

having read meyer's opinions on a fairly regular basis i have to say my impression of him is that he's a bitter isolationist who may have a screw loose.

I'm not a fan of him either. I like some of his ideas on US base closings and force restructing though. For the most part he's too much along Mike Sparks' ilk for my comfort though.

I looked at Carlton's brief article and he unfortunately is missing the point. Yes the Fast Sealift Ships (FSS) which MSC had thrust upon it was not a very good deal, and yes they burn a lot of fuel, BUT they have proven over and over again that they can haul high value cargo at high rates of speed WHEN NEEDED!. We don't need a fleet of them, just enough for the first phase. The LMSRs which NAVSEA mis-designed proved that speeds over 24 kts are not the determining value in a ship's value, its versatility or flexibility in carrying various cargo loads. The FSS carry a mostly Ro/Ro loads which is good for tactical vehicle lifts. The LMSRs don't carry many containers TEU 20ft equivalent units and are therefore deficient in carrying modern military cargo consists which include more and more TEU. The Marine figured that out and the MPF-E carry 720 TEU max. It cost many millions to convert the LMSR Soderman to MPF-E Stockham rqmts which also included a full NAVAIR cert flight deck. Something that both the FSS and LMSR lack. As to HSVS they are a different category and purpose all together. Tactical, intra-theater lifts of batttalion sized units and mainly for troop transport with some vehicle/helo cargo. To carry more vehicles, you have to go to a much larger HSV which is fringing on the versatility of the FSS type displacement hull ships. Costs vs. speed may factor a super large HSV out of the equation. BTW, FSS is NOT quite the same as FastShip which is another vessel type all together. Maybe a replacement for FSS if the huge construction bucks can by found by the politicians, but not in current military plans.