Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
    .

    Any development of our current ships is the logical way to go...... layout and fit out could be relatively similar cutting down on logistics and retraining......110m OPV with helo deck..almost becomes a mini frigate

    Personally I thing its going to be a UK product along the lines of what we have already with a helo deck and increased TEU capacity.
    The last UK product we took was the Peacock class, the P50/60 design is an STX now VARD design which we had built in the UK. The choice of the yard was more due to Geo-political reasons for the P50s and the P60s more due to "the devil you know". It would be unlikely that Babcock could compete on price with an open competition today, plus the P60 was about the limit of what they can handle.

    But it is true that there could be a further evolution of the P60 design and this has already been done in the form of the VARD7-100 design:
    https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/up...VARD-7-100.pdf

    This has also now been selected as the basis for the new generation of USCG OPC cutters being built by Eastern Shipbuilding:
    http://www.easternshipbuilding.com/w...e-Approved.pdf

    But it is not the only option, there is the Dutch Holland-class, which need not be fitted with an I-Mast but would be a good EPV.
    http://products.damen.com/ranges/opv...ol-vessel-3750
    And that is what such a vessel should be seen as an EPV, it would be great if we were to get 1-2 Holland's to replace the Eithne and the Peacocks. That would be a great improvement in the capability but it seems the discussion is more to a MRV.
    Last edited by EUFighter; 2 March 2018, 10:00.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
      But it is not the only option, there is the Dutch Holland-class, which need not be fitted with an I-Mast but would be a good EPV.
      http://products.damen.com/ranges/opv...ol-vessel-3750
      And that is what such a vessel should be seen as an EPV, it would be great if we were to get 1-2 Holland's to replace the Eithne and the Peacocks. That would be a great improvement in the capability but it seems the discussion is more to a MRV.
      Adaption of smaller vessels to make stretched versions can be counterproductive. Equally adapting the larger hull of a high speed AD Frigate to suit MRV requirements could produce a Frankenstein doing 22 knots in a 30 knot hull. How a ship is designed and equipped makes her fit for role. If you leave bits out such as the MAST on Holland then you have to compensate for effects on CoG and Metacentric Height and in doing so make it difficult to refit such a system later. Stick with the MRV, equip well from Day One, and provide a good range of auto Defence/ Support outfit. Whatever replaces Peacocks will have to be adaptable to assist MCM and diving units. It will have to be happy in WNA, and sufficient range for overseas missions, or accompany our vessels on such missions.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
        Adaption of smaller vessels to make stretched versions can be counterproductive. Equally adapting the larger hull of a high speed AD Frigate to suit MRV requirements could produce a Frankenstein doing 22 knots in a 30 knot hull. How a ship is designed and equipped makes her fit for role. If you leave bits out such as the MAST on Holland then you have to compensate for effects on CoG and Metacentric Height and in doing so make it difficult to refit such a system later. Stick with the MRV, equip well from Day One, and provide a good range of auto Defence/ Support outfit. Whatever replaces Peacocks will have to be adaptable to assist MCM and diving units. It will have to be happy in WNA, and sufficient range for overseas missions, or accompany our vessels on such missions.
        Holland was in service without her special mast (IMAST400) for many months, and was commissioned as such. The mast was added later, and is mostly made of composites, so the CofG would not be impacted greatly.
        ShipSpotting.com

        © Wim Kosten / maritimephoto.com

        However I think it is better to leave the designing to the naval architects, and not the politicians... Equip it for purpose from the outset. Adding length to OPVs or removing missiles from frigates may not always be the best option.
        The NS have known what they want here since before the P60 were built. They have made plenty of public noise about what is required. I have no doubt that the european naval design houses have plenty of options on the drawing board already. Many who put forward designs for the NZ MRV may revisit them, given the experiences that vessel went through. I remember Blohm & Voss in particular had offerred a modified Meko 200.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment




        • Specs of Meko 200 MRV on the above link


          I assume the stowage of stores on deck and not within something like Absalon’s Flexdeck would make it better suited to the OPV type work?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
            http://s3.zetaboards.com/Defense_Phi...opic/832292/1/

            Specs of Meko 200 MRV on the above link


            I assume the stowage of stores on deck and not within something like Absalon’s Flexdeck would make it better suited to the OPV type work?
            A lot has changed in the 12 years since that post (Blohm & Voss no longer in the shipbuilding business for starters).
            However it would be interesting to see if either Lurssen-Defence or ThyssenKrupp have anything to offer based on this design.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by na grohmitĂ­ View Post
              A lot has changed in the 12 years since that post (Blohm & Voss no longer in the shipbuilding business for starters).
              However it would be interesting to see if either Lurssen-Defence or ThyssenKrupp have anything to offer based on this design.
              Maybe not such a good idea, especially if defense-aerospace.com is correct (reported today):

              Comment


              • The last UK product we took was the Peacock class, the P50/60 design is an STX now VARD design which we had built in the UK. The choice of the yard was more due to Geo-political reasons for the P50s and the P60s more due to "the devil you know"
                By your reckoning the P40s weren't a UK product as they were paid for by Hong Kong and the P20s The NS used weren't Irish as the were a NEVESBU concept which was Dutch.......

                The Iver Huitfeldt use the same basic hull as the Absalon even if they are Air-defence frigates
                You can put what ever fit you want into a hull at that size to make it what you want to be.... its either the same hull or its not.
                Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                Comment


                • Equally adapting the larger hull of a high speed AD Frigate to suit MRV requirements could produce a Frankenstein doing 22 knots in a 30 knot hull
                  Unless we move into some combination of gas turbines along with normal type units we are always going to be in the 22 -30 kts bracket with that type of vessel and with that comes a whole new skill set that we don't have yet.
                  Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                    Unless we move into some combination of gas turbines along with normal type units we are always going to be in the 22 -30 kts bracket with that type of vessel and with that comes a whole new skill set that we don't have yet.
                    For range and endurance we must stay with a low litres per nautical mile configuration. Gas turbines are probably serviced by unit replacement and reconditioned ashore. It means designing in ER accesses and removal routes during ship build. It also means refueling becomes part of every operational task.

                    Comment


                    • Most GTs need vast intakes and exhaust spaces, this creates an inbuilt avenue to remove them wen required. Latest idea in the ship industry where GT are used is to place them on an upper deck, and use them to supply power to AC motors driving props or Azipods.
                      Not sure it has a practical Naval application though.
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment


                      • Presumably gas turbines are for high speed (and are associated high fuel consumption)?

                        There is a reason why the NS is doing things like single engine running, getting PTO/PTI on the newer vessels, the kite project etc


                        Have a look at the last few pages

                        the MRV IMHO should look at integrating the kite project (or at least have space for it). It isn’t just to do with cost efficiency and the environment but also sensors.

                        But any NS vessel really needs a 20kts min speed
                        Last edited by DeV; 3 March 2018, 11:39.

                        Comment


                        • I thought that kite idea had been shelved?

                          Comment


                          • The kite project is a private venture, the NS were acting only as a testbed. We are a long way from it being a practical operational solution.
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • Absolutely but space for it - even for sensor use

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                Absolutely but space for it - even for sensor use
                                There is already space for it. It is still in prototype stage.
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X