Thanks Thanks:  619
Likes Likes:  1,320
Dislikes Dislikes:  37
Page 85 of 86 FirstFirst ... 357583848586 LastLast
Results 2,101 to 2,125 of 2147
  1. #2101
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,128
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Ah the specs of the Arrowhead says it's beam is 19.8m with a draft of 4.8m, so it would fit on the beam, not sure what the draft of the Graving Dock would take. Why would there be issues access the bays?
    I couldn't find an actual specification but was relying on 140 meters with a tonnage near 6000 tonnes. At 19.8 m beam she would fit fine and draft would not be a problem. The large boat sized bays, unless fully closeable can fill with green sea and swamp boats. Any door fitted would technically be a door fitted to access a hazardous area requiring a pre-access scan capability.

  2. #2102
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    HMNZS Canterbury had major issues with bays of this type. It lost one RhIB in heavy seas, and almost lost another, when water entered the bay and pulled the boats from their davits. Water also entered the cargo deck from this space until the access doors were sealed closed. A major modification had to me made, relocating the RhIB bays to a position further forward and higher above the waterline. Sad thing is this flaw had been identified during tank testing of the hull model, and ignored by the builder.


    https://images.vesseltracker.com/ima...terbury-327427
    Before modification.

    https://images.vesseltracker.com/ima...erbury-1337360
    After modification
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  3. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes hptmurphy, Tempest liked this post
  4. #2103
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is an interesting development from BMT. Does the Venari fit both of the immediate future needs of the NS? EPV with mine clearing capabilities?
    http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/688987...ical-Brief.pdf
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  5. #2104
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    209
    Post Thanks / Like
    too small for epv surely, ok for cpv

  6. #2105
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by restless View Post
    too small for epv surely, ok for cpv
    I didn't find actual dimensions on the link, did you?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  7. #2106
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,313
    Post Thanks / Like
    Its in the name

    https://www.naval-technology.com/pro...ographic-ship/

    "The 85.9m-long mine warfare and hydrographic ship will be capable of carrying 500t of payload. Its hull form will be optimised to provide high ........ "

  8. #2107
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Its in the name

    https://www.naval-technology.com/pro...ographic-ship/

    "The 85.9m-long mine warfare and hydrographic ship will be capable of carrying 500t of payload. Its hull form will be optimised to provide high ........ "
    Thanks for that, I had not visited that particular link. Reading other reviews of the Venari, even those interested in Saving the RN believe its potential cost would be too high even for them. They fear that the RN would face a reduction of its current 15 hull mine countermeasures fleet, so its a dead duck there.
    500T of payload is not to be sneezed at though.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  9. #2108
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    The BMT Venari would more likely fit the Belgium/Dutch MCMV replacement project that is currently underway, other contenders are
    STX France https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/conte...d-mine-warfare
    Although the Defendseas 90 is more the EPV: http://stxfrance.fr/wp-content/uploa...Defendseas.pdf

    Also pitching for the Belgium/Ducth order are Saab
    https://saab.com/naval/submarines-an...-ships/mcmv80/

    and Damen
    http://nlnavy.damen.com/#mine-countermeasures-vessels

    All seem to be between 80m and 90m with displacements at or above those of the SB! They are a long way from the Ton minesweepers even if the crew size is about the same, that is about all..!!



    Damen

  10. Thanks DeV, na grohmití thanked for this post
  11. #2109
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    Lean manning is good.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  12. #2110
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,128
    Post Thanks / Like
    All seem to be between 80m and 90m with displacements at or above those of the SB! They are a long way from the Ton minesweepers even if the crew size is about the same, that is about all..!!



    Damen[/QUOTE]

    The BMT Venarii is presented in a number of roles associated with MC and hydrographic survey. It sounds a bit presumptive as defensively mined ports are usually put in place by own authorities and have, or can have , inbuilt self destruct. We need mine clearance capability but it can be done from suitably equipped vessels. We certainly need to develop hydrographic interests. Maybe not with an 85.9m vessel

  13. #2111
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The BMT Venarii is presented in a number of roles associated with MC and hydrographic survey. It sounds a bit presumptive as defensively mined ports are usually put in place by own authorities and have, or can have , inbuilt self destruct. We need mine clearance capability but it can be done from suitably equipped vessels. We certainly need to develop hydrographic interests. Maybe not with an 85.9m vessel
    The trend seems to be to larger mother ships with ROVs doing the hard work either on the surface or below. Due to the size of these assets plus the associated container based control systems gives a 80-90m vessel. Also rather than having a vessel dedicated to a function, the function is to a great extent loaded into a container that is then carried in a mission bay/deck.

  14. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  15. #2112
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Irish naval requirements

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The trend seems to be to larger mother ships with ROVs doing the hard work either on the surface or below. Due to the size of these assets plus the associated container based control systems gives a 80-90m vessel. Also rather than having a vessel dedicated to a function, the function is to a great extent loaded into a container that is then carried in a mission bay/deck.
    We have a current Naval aspiration to replace our Flagship with a vessel up to 130 metres and hopefully maintainable in an Irish facility. We also have a political wish for a nine ship Navy. Is there a technical /operations team in place driving the design of such new ship(s) forward and is there a conceptual plan for roles and auxiliary usages. As ever, words are said at apt junctures but little happens unless it is robustly taken forward by the users/operators. The P31 and P41. P42, are in their twilight years with only a 2/3 year window to seamlessly replace them. They need to have a dedicated commencement figure put in the Next Budget.!!

  16. Likes restless, Turkey liked this post
  17. #2113
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The P31 and P41. P42, are in their twilight years with only a 2/3 year window to seamlessly replace them. They need to have a dedicated commencement figure put in the Next Budget.!!
    The seamless window to replace them has passed; a CPV has a lead time of 2-3 years while a larger EPV/MPV this is more 4-5 years from contract to commission.
    Given that vessels typically have a 30-35 year service life with SLEP, we could expect 2 to be decommissioned late next year with the final one early the year after. All were originally commissioned within 6 months of each other.

    P42 LÉ Ciara (HMS Swallow) 17 October 1984
    P31 LÉ Eithne 7 December 1984
    P41 LÉ Orla (HMS Swift) 12 March 1985

    Therefore we face the prospect of a reduced fleet of 6 vessels from 2020 until at least 2022/23 and even then it would be a 7 vessel fleet. Unless something radical changes this will be the future, although the most likely outcome is they will continue well past the 35years service limit.

  18. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  19. #2114
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,128
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The seamless window to replace them has passed; a CPV has a lead time of 2-3 years while a larger EPV/MPV this is more 4-5 years from contract to commission.
    Given that vessels typically have a 30-35 year service life with SLEP, we could expect 2 to be decommissioned late next year with the final one early the year after. All were originally commissioned within 6 months of each other.

    P42 LÉ Ciara (HMS Swallow) 17 October 1984
    P31 LÉ Eithne 7 December 1984
    P41 LÉ Orla (HMS Swift) 12 March 1985

    Therefore we face the prospect of a reduced fleet of 6 vessels from 2020 until at least 2022/23 and even then it would be a 7 vessel fleet. Unless something radical changes this will be the future, although the most likely outcome is they will continue well past the 35years service limit.
    It is a typical scenario but my advice is to hold the ships in commission until the last viable juncture. CONS of the day in 1970's demilitarised ships and then decommissioned them one by one until we had no ships which precipitated the purchase of three very dissimilar CMS's as far as reliability goes. This was followed by an at home building period of 5 OPV's. It shook the Navy going from all Steam to an all Diesel Navy, and going from ASW
    capable to and all Wire Sweeping Service, followed by the current Gunboat service with no clear sight of how to meet the stated Mission.

  20. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  21. #2115
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is fair to say that plans to replace P31 are well in hand.
    Brexit may dictate where it is built, but Babcock will bite the hand of anyone offering them serious work between now and the decision of the Type 31E.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  22. Likes DeV liked this post
  23. #2116
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like
    Do you think then we may get an Arrowhead 140 MRV version, aka Absalon FSS, with a cheaper electronics fit e.g. Saab Giraffe AMB and 9LV CMS? I assume Babcock would have a license for it as well as the Frigate.

  24. #2117
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would not rule out a "no frills" Arrowhead. We have a good relationship with Babcock, and Absalon was identified from the outset as a benchmark for where we want to be, just on a lesser scale.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  25. Likes ias liked this post
  26. #2118
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ias View Post
    Do you think then we may get an Arrowhead 140 MRV version, aka Absalon FSS, with a cheaper electronics fit e.g. Saab Giraffe AMB and 9LV CMS? I assume Babcock would have a license for it as well as the Frigate.
    The Danish company OMT owns the rights to the design but it no longer has a shipyard to build any ship. It would be similar to the P50/60 procurement where the design was owned by STX Canada (now VARD) and we selected Appledore to build them. It would be an open competition and it is not a given that Babcock would win. The biggest problem will be the price which would be €280-300m (Saab electronics are not cheap!).

    To put this in some perspective Peru just commissioned the first of their two new Makassar class ships, (similar to the Philippians Tarlac class) which cost $60m (€52m). So for the same price as one Arrowhead 140, we could get 2 Makassar/Tarlac vessels and still have enough money to buy 4 AW101s to provide them with integral lift capability!

  27. #2119
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The Danish company OMT owns the rights to the design but it no longer has a shipyard to build any ship. It would be similar to the P50/60 procurement where the design was owned by STX Canada (now VARD) and we selected Appledore to build them. It would be an open competition and it is not a given that Babcock would win. The biggest problem will be the price which would be €280-300m (Saab electronics are not cheap!).

    To put this in some perspective Peru just commissioned the first of their two new Makassar class ships, (similar to the Philippians Tarlac class) which cost $60m (€52m). So for the same price as one Arrowhead 140, we could get 2 Makassar/Tarlac vessels and still have enough money to buy 4 AW101s to provide them with integral lift capability!
    Babcock own the rights to the Arrowhead 140, which is based on Odense Staalskibsværft's Iver Huitfeldt hull. BLRT in Estonia now own the Former Odense Staalskibsværft yard. OMT have teamed with Babcock to design the Arrowhead 140.
    http://www.odensemaritime.com/da-DK/Home/Babcock.aspx
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  28. Likes ias liked this post
  29. #2120
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like
    As NG points out the Arrowhead 140 is a Babcock proposal in cooperation with OMT. As the Type 31e is so export focused, then one would imagine that Babcock, a company that the NS has a good relationship with, would love to show that their design already has export interest (and from an EU country).

    On the cost of Saab equipment, looking through different announcements it appears that the Saab AMB plus the 9LV CMS costs about USD 13 million for a medium armed vessel (i.e. based on an Aussie support vessels fit, and a Philippine Navy Frigate).

  30. #2121
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    In terms of Arrowhead, given the original 31 tender was to be spread across multiple yards can Appledore handle it all on their own? If not we're talking about relations with 4 different yards with all the additional complications that brings.

  31. #2122
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Arrowhead 140 is a GP frigate and as such is based upon the Iver Huitfeldt frigate. Although the hulls are similar to those of the Absalon class there are some key critical differences. Primary amongst these is that the Absalon have a ro-ro flex-deck with stern loading ramp. This means that there are considerable internal layout differences between the two vessels. If the Babcock Team where to combine the Absalon hull with the improved upper superstructure of the Arrowhead 140 then a reasonable vessel could be designed.

  32. #2123
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    In terms of Arrowhead, given the original 31 tender was to be spread across multiple yards can Appledore handle it all on their own? If not we're talking about relations with 4 different yards with all the additional complications that brings.
    This is normal for large ships today, modules are produced at different yards and then a prime contractor pulls it all together. The yard at Appledore would have problems handling a ship of this size. Both the Appledore and Ferguson yards can fabricate large modules but they need a larger yard to put them together. This is where H&W and Rosyth come in, both have suitable drydocks with gantry cranes for lifting large modules. Rosyth is owned by Babcock and have floated out the HMS Prince of Wales carrier end of last year and so have available capacity. H&W we all know so no need to go into more detail.

  33. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  34. #2124
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,128
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    This is normal for large ships today, modules are produced at different yards and then a prime contractor pulls it all together. The yard at Appledore would have problems handling a ship of this size. Both the Appledore and Ferguson yards can fabricate large modules but they need a larger yard to put them together. This is where H&W and Rosyth come in, both have suitable drydocks with gantry cranes for lifting large modules. Rosyth is owned by Babcock and have floated out the HMS Prince of Wales carrier end of last year and so have available capacity. H&W we all know so no need to go into more detail.
    The ideal is to have one Yard building your ship with a Military/Naval contractor overseeing transmission, power, and GFE Naval equipments, togetherwith Operations room and Bridge Layout. All other contractors defer through him to maintain EMC/EMI requirements. A contract is written covering such things as Company failure, Strikes, major ship mishaps such as Fires etc. It also contains the basket of money required to build the ship as equipments may be in a range of currencies such as Swedish K, Norwegian K, Sterling, Yen, USD, Chinese Renminbi, and Euros. Negotiating a complex ship with a number of Yards is not pleasant. There also needs to be one Quality control office with a yard engineer, as a go to man, when problems or clarifications are needed.

  35. #2125
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The ideal is to have one Yard building your ship with a Military/Naval contractor overseeing transmission, power, and GFE Naval equipments, togetherwith Operations room and Bridge Layout. All other contractors defer through him to maintain EMC/EMI requirements. A contract is written covering such things as Company failure, Strikes, major ship mishaps such as Fires etc. It also contains the basket of money required to build the ship as equipments may be in a range of currencies such as Swedish K, Norwegian K, Sterling, Yen, USD, Chinese Renminbi, and Euros. Negotiating a complex ship with a number of Yards is not pleasant. There also needs to be one Quality control office with a yard engineer, as a go to man, when problems or clarifications are needed.
    No one has to deal with a number of yards, there is normally a prime contractor or a consortium set-up a company to manage the overall project. The UK carriers are built by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance whch includes BAe Systems, Babcock (Rosyth and Appledore), Cammell Laird, Govern Shipbuilding, A&P Tyne, Thales and the MoD.
    http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/
    The contract was done with the ACA and not each individual partner and so it is with many projects today. The French/Italian FREMM frigates, the German Type212/214 subs, the German K130 corvettes all are consortium for a particular project. And as long as the customer clearly defines what they want, when they want it and what they are willing to pay this type of arrangement works well. Where it comes undone is when the customer constantly changes the specs.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 303
    Last Post: 29th December 2015, 13:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 22:54
  3. Naval Training Ship?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th February 2003, 00:19

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •