EPV for naval service

[DeV]

[QUOTE=ancientmariner;455326]

i very much doubt the specs in the tender will say anything along the lines of we have no idea give us whatever you want

None of us (afaik) are in NSHQ, SPO, HLIG, the high level procurement group (can't remember what it's called), contracts branch etc

After clarifying an interservice wish list of how much, how many, how far, for how long, the procurement board draws up an outline ship's specification which is sent to an agreed list of potential ship builders. Some assistance with the specification can be fortified by using a Ship building Bureau such as Nevesbu Holland. The potential builders are asked to submit a builders specification based on the outline specification and submit quotes. After selecting a successful Yard, meetings are held to sift through the specification. The first stage will be model building and tank testing to establish speed and power required. Thereafter it is all building, supervised by Naval personnel backed up by the main technical contractor, and a Quality control Officer from the Yard. On going Survey is supplied by Llyods and all guarantees are reinforced to maximise duration of those guarantees. Specialist agencies are used to install and line up all naval equipment.

Yes and as I inferred no one here knows for sure what that spec is going to be, e.g. it could say x lane metres and 4 RHIBs

[DeV]

Having said that let's look at the EPV RFP specs:

Flight Deck 1 Spot for a 10 metric tonne helicopter

Options
Proposals should be provided for the following additional options
1.Helicopter in-flight Refuelling Facility
2.Provision of Dynamic Positioning class 2 or 3
3.Because of the required size of the vessel, there may be potential to increase the utility of the vessel in other roles which would be desirable but not essential.* In this regard, the potential to provide a level of carrying capability for personnel, military vehicles and containers within the size and configuration of the vessel to which the mandatory requirements give rise, should be set out in the proposals.
In this regard, the proposal should indicate the possible arrangements/ combinations of personnel, vehicles and containers that could be accommodated and should indicate the lane metres that can be designed into the vessel.* Annex A indicates the type of items which might be carried on the vessel although not necessarily at the same time.* Proposals should include separately the option of a facility for cargo discharge where no port infrastructure exists.* The implications of including such carrying capacity and cargo discharge arrangements on the nature of the proposed vessel should be fully outlined in the proposal. As already stated above, these optional additional capabilities are desirable but are not essential requirements of the proposed patrol vessel.

The role of the EPV - "on limited occasions it may be used to carry personnel, military vehicles and equipment ".




Then DoD engaged consultants to review the submissions

[ancientmariner]

Having said that let's look at the EPV RFP specs:




The role of the EPV - "on limited occasions it may be used to carry personnel, military vehicles and equipment ".




Then DoD engaged consultants to review the submissions

In the act of putting out specifications it must be understood that using phrases like" on limited occasions" doesn't lessen the cost as the necessary spaces and strength has to be built in for those" occasions" together with compensatory ballasting when weights are not on board. Cargo discharge requires a crane 25t which should not obstruct the flight deck.Communications needed at all major work points. Also take notice that potential builders, responding to loose specifications incur costs responding to might have/will have requirements.It is as cheap to ask exactly for your visualised needs. Remember when providing for vehicles, or anything with wheels, that maneuvering space must be allowed for. Where did DOD get the advice and why did they use such loose phraseology?

[DeV]

In the act of putting out specifications it must be understood that using phrases like" on limited occasions" doesn't lessen the cost as the necessary spaces and strength has to be built in for those" occasions" together with compensatory ballasting when weights are not on board. Cargo discharge requires a crane 25t which should not obstruct the flight deck.Communications needed at all major work points. Also take notice that potential builders, responding to loose specifications incur costs responding to might have/will have requirements.It is as cheap to ask exactly for your visualised needs. Remember when providing for vehicles, or anything with wheels, that maneuvering space must be allowed for. Where did DOD get the advice and why did they use such loose phraseology?

The annex did give indications as to vehicle dimensions

I suppose it indicates that the EPV was more PV, we any used space possibly going to cargo. No definition as what was required to be carried but also not cargo capability was an option not a requirement

[expat01]

The annex did give indications as to vehicle dimensions

I suppose it indicates that the EPV was more PV, we any used space possibly going to cargo. No definition as what was required to be carried but also not cargo capability was an option not a requirement

Starting to sound like the Eithne.

[na grohmití]

Starting to sound like the Eithne.

Yes but no. Eithne demonstrated the concept. She was about to depart on a resupply mission with approval for 8 TEU and 4 armoured vehicles stored on deck. (2 cars in Hangar, 2 on helideck, TEU stacked 2 high on helideck.
Then unfortunately the mission was scrubbed. It did demonstrate what could be done, and the twistlock positions can and vehicle c/g marks can still be seen on her deck.

[hptmurphy]

Yes but no. Eithne demonstrated the concept. She was about to depart on a resupply mission with approval for 8 TEU and 4 armoured vehicles stored on deck. (2 cars in Hangar, 2 on helideck, TEU stacked 2 high on helideck.
Then unfortunately the mission was scrubbed. It did demonstrate what could be done, and the twistlock positions can and vehicle c/g marks can still be seen on her deck.

Which goes back to my argument where the MRV perceived concept could be as well supplied by two slightly bigger versions of Eithne while retaining patrolling capacity and not over extend limited resources .

And it must be two!

[WhingeNot]

Just in terms of seaworthiness, the Singapore Navy 'Endurance Class' mentioned appears to be less top-heavy/high a superstructure than the Canterbury(?) and is c.10m longer (at c.141m), though it is also a good bit narrower..

There is a photo of an Endurance class in this months 'Warships' magazine, with the RAN Canberra class helicopter landing ship in the background (looking suspiciously like an aircraft carrier with its prominent ski-jump - for its helicopter launches?!) at some recent Australian naval exercise...

In terms of naval comparisons (for seakeeping etc), whatever the French Navy uses (and they seem to use a lot) probably should not be ignored - even their former BATRAL amphibious landing ships were interesting as a capability...

If looking for a patrol first, troop/carrier second type ship, i.e. an Eithne II, the Saudi Navy version of the French Navy La Fayette class, the Al Riyadh, could be useful, with a relatively long rear helicopter deck (a 131m long ship, extended from the 125m La Fayette class), 4,700 tonnes and a range of c.13,000km. Minus its missiles, etc. of course.

[ancientmariner]

Just in terms of seaworthiness, the Singapore Navy 'Endurance Class' mentioned appears to be less top-heavy/high a superstructure than the Canterbury(?) and is c.10m longer (at c.141m), though it is also a good bit narrower..

There is a photo of an Endurance class in this months 'Warships' magazine, with the RAN Canberra class helicopter landing ship in the background (looking suspiciously like an aircraft carrier with its prominent ski-jump - for its helicopter launches?!) at some recent Australian naval exercise...

In terms of naval comparisons (for seakeeping etc), whatever the French Navy uses (and they seem to use a lot) probably should not be ignored - even their former BATRAL amphibious landing ships were interesting as a capability...

If looking for a patrol first, troop/carrier second type ship, i.e. an Eithne II, the Saudi Navy version of the French Navy La Fayette class, the Al Riyadh, could be useful, with a relatively long rear helicopter deck (a 131m long ship, extended from the 125m La Fayette class), 4,700 tonnes and a range of c.13,000km. Minus its missiles, etc. of course.

.

You cannot really compare Canterbury to any ship, other than another "short fat ship" of Ro-Ro design. The Singaporean ENDURANCE is close to shape and general design for a sea kindly vessel. It has similar engines, Ruston, as Eithne but is slower at 15kts and is probably much more consistent at 14kts. We need something similar but at 18kts and designed to a width suitable for our only drydock at 20/21 metres. The Singaporeans have 4/5 of these ships in keeping with their Defence at distance policy. They cannot defend in depth on their own 640 sq.kilo. territory, so some pre-emptive action is contemplated. They have an 80% conscript force 9 times larger than ours and have some ethnic difficulties in choosing those who can serve without crisis of conscience . The Endurance format might indeed be worth examining.