EPV for naval service

[Sparky42]

Except from memory such a ship means she can't use the Cobh Dockyard, shes too wide. Something like that would be too much for EEZ operations of course, but would be manageable for us to have something worth offering up for EU/UN missions. Back to the same old issue of what we are thinking this ship is going to be doing over the next 30+ years.

[Sparky42]

Also what ship design is that based off? Is it a fantasy fleet mini JSS or is there actually a design for that?

[na grohmiti]

The entrance to the Drydock in Rushbrooke is 21.3m.

Anyone know the width of the entrance to the old drydock within Haulbowline? I'm saying max 28m. Not truly an issue though with the proximity to the world's largest graving docks in The UK , France and the Netherlands.

[Sparky42]

The entrance to the Drydock in Rushbrooke is 21.3m.

Anyone know the width of the entrance to the old drydock within Haulbowline? I'm saying max 28m. Not truly an issue though with the proximity to the world's largest graving docks in The UK , France and the Netherlands.

Agreed though that gets back to the issue discussed here before about the issues having to dock such a ship in a foreign yard would have for the crew during any work (think it came up before anyway)

[na grohmiti]

The solution, in my mind is simple. The NS lease a floating dock large enough to accomodate whatever large ship they chose to get, and park it where the old floating dock used to be in Rushbrooke. Let DSG use it, if they want to. Alternatively, tell DSG that if they wish to continue getting NS repair work, they need to install a floating dock capable of holding a ship of those dimensions. Surely they'll find other work for it.

[na grohmiti]

For scale, P62 in Cork Dockyards drydock recently.

Our co-founders served a combined 46 years in @naval_service of @defenceforces. Every second was spent #notbored operating maintaining & managing critical naval machinery alongside motivated, loyal crews. pic.twitter.com/GzOSq9JQi1

— ARQ Asset Solutions (@ARQreliability) February 1, 2019

[The Usual Suspect]

Also what ship design is that based off? Is it a fantasy fleet mini JSS or is there actually a design for that?

It's based on an Enforcer 9000 LPD. Dock and associated ballasting systems have been removed and replaced with appropriately rescaled stern features of the HNLMS Karel Doorman JSS and the boat deck from the (as yet unbuilt) Damen Crossover Amphibious Transport. (The version with the higher in-built capacity crane). Enclosed RAS system is from a Polish proposal for a 'stealthy' logistics ship for operations in the Baltic.

I've stayed away from elevators/ramps to the flight deck because of the disproportionate weight/cost/loss of usable space in a relatively small vessel. Envision adjustable vehicle decks towards the bow and, also possibly, a ramp down to a half-height vehicle deck instead.

Was a draftsman (non-naval) once upon a time.

[ancientmariner]

The solution, in my mind is simple. The NS lease a floating dock large enough to accomodate whatever large ship they chose to get, and park it where the old floating dock used to be in Rushbrooke. Let DSG use it, if they want to. Alternatively, tell DSG that if they wish to continue getting NS repair work, they need to install a floating dock capable of holding a ship of those dimensions. Surely they'll find other work for it.

I agree that DSG should provide such a facility on the proven berth at Cork Dockyard. However nothing is simple or as simple as depicted in the composite ship designs shown on this thread. The basic ship design needs to allow for a ship shape structure that will float on even keel or slightly by the stern and remain so as you bring on board equipment weight packages. Ballast tanks must be included to compensate for absence of logistics cargo.
The amphibious version of the 131 Damen has a beam of 19.6m and is of viable proportions.

[na grohmiti]

I like it.. but:
Where do you launch your RhIBs from? (please don't say stern). Is the rectangle under the helipad a door?

I like the enclosed forecastle. Thats the way of the future, in my opinion.

[The Usual Suspect]

Where do you launch your RhIBs from? (please don't say stern). Is the rectangle under the helipad a door?

It's a door to the boat deck.



Includes a 40 tonne overhead crane. Steel beach and Ro-Ro ramp astern (not shown here).

[ancientmariner]

[QUOTE=The Usual Suspect;465930]It's a door to the boat deck.

Includes a 40 tonne overhead crane. Steel beach and Ro-Ro ramp astern (not shown here).

A rigid transverse crane amidships would be plagued by rolling when stopped. The critical load factor is based on SWL-safe working load- so that a 25 tonne LCP would need a crane with a 25 tonne SWL. The Absalon drops and hoists her LCP's from a traveller crane out through after transom doors. They have an SWL of 9.41 tonnes.

[ancientmariner]

[QUOTE=ancientmariner;465948]

It's a door to the boat deck.

Includes a 40 tonne overhead crane. Steel beach and Ro-Ro ramp astern (not shown here).

A rigid transverse crane amidships would be plagued by rolling when stopped. The critical load factor is based on SWL-safe working load- so that a 25 tonne LCP would need a crane with a 25 tonne SWL. The Absalon drops and hoists her LCP's from a traveller crane out through after transom doors. They have an SWL of 9.41 tonnes.

If I could outline some modern thinking, emanating from senior US Staff Colleges , on projecting power to distant littoral objectives. It can only be done cost effectively by sea. To carry out operations the craft interface between ship and shore is critical and weather dependent. Currently it is estimated that in certain sea areas landing would not be possible up to 40% of the time, due to limitations of Landing Craft, some now 46 years old , speed 9/11 kts, operable only in Sea State 2. Ideally you would like to commence operations over the horizon, say 20 miles, but two hours is too long for viable transit to shore. The new specification proposed by US , for LCP's, LCT's etc. is surviving SS 6, landing up to SS4, and transiting at 20/30 knots in SS2. The US War College student's paper has identified the French Navy L-CAT built by CNIM as a possible answer. A smaller version of L-CAT, stern launched, might suit our MRV with drive on/ drive off bow and stern ramps. Read " Modernise or mothball; ship to shore watercraft"

[EUFighter]

[QUOTE=ancientmariner;465979]

If I could outline some modern thinking, emanating from senior US Staff Colleges , on projecting power to distant littoral objectives. It can only be done cost effectively by sea. To carry out operations the craft interface between ship and shore is critical and weather dependent. Currently it is estimated that in certain sea areas landing would not be possible up to 40% of the time, due to limitations of Landing Craft, some now 46 years old , speed 9/11 kts, operable only in Sea State 2. Ideally you would like to commence operations over the horizon, say 20 miles, but two hours is too long for viable transit to shore. The new specification proposed by US , for LCP's, LCT's etc. is surviving SS 6, landing up to SS4, and transiting at 20/30 knots in SS2. The US War College student's paper has identified the French Navy L-CAT built by CNIM as a possible answer. A smaller version of L-CAT, stern launched, might suit our MRV with drive on/ drive off bow and stern ramps. Read " Modernise or mothball; ship to shore watercraft"

The over the horizon is only as the USN expects to any landing to be opposed and thus they want to keep their high value assets away from any land launched missile.
If we do get a MRV with the capability to perform independent landings this will be in support of deploying peacekeepers or for HADR, there we do not need the high speed high cost craft. An LCM with ro-ro capability is enough for any tasking we could have. In fact if you look at the USN apart from the assault phase where they would use such a L-CAT they have the INLS (the American version of Mexeflote). This and LCU's allows them to better support HADR and transfer large amount of equipment to shore.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...-system-02251/

[DeV]

A LCM/LCU would meet our requirements but it would likely require a well dock or ramp at the stern of the MRV

[The Usual Suspect]

JSS A17 LÉ Medbh

Would argue that trade of the well dock for a steel beach (sea ramp), Ro-Ro ramp, and large consolidated boat deck is a very good one for our needs.



Unaltered Enforcer 9000 LPD

The arrangement shown above could, by freeing up space on the flight and vehicle decks, enable the vessel to transport equipment for up to a Battalion Group. Estimated at 725 lane metres + 90 TEUs.

EU ISTAR Component Estimated at 530 lane metres + 20 TEUs. Would allow space for medevac helicopters and a special forces section.

UN Coy Group Estimated at 320 lane metres + 20 TEU. Would allow space for medevac helicopters, special forces section, and equipment for an engineering company.

Peace-keeping and Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief deployment is less weather/time-critical than acting as a co-ordinated element in an opposed landing. Even so, if it's a matter of securing rather than seizing a port during a peace enforcement mission, amphibious APCs can still launch directly from the vessel's steel beach.

Looking again at the idea of a vehicle elevator up to the flight deck, rather than an aircraft elevator down to the vehicle deck, undeniably it would be extremely useful. If it were included in any future design consideration should be given to the heaviest items we might want to place on the flight deck.




The Patria XP AMOS 120mm, and it's associated sensor vehicle for counter-battery fire, are getting on for 40 tonnes each.