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 ancientmariner View Post
    .

    Nothing . Getting back to Fleet vessels and their outfits. If the present hull profile continues we must insist that the builder provides closures for the Hawse pipes , such as Buckler Plates, and also closure system for the Spurling pipes to prevent cable locker flooding. Green water on deck is common for all ships and there must not be a potential ingress point unsecured.
    From doing a bit of google images perusing, would these not all be bog standard features? Do the appledore ships not have them? Have we in effect bought a shitty paddy spec car because the dealer makes more money out of them compared to the better spec UK models?
    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    .All weapon systems and their sensors, as installed , must utilise available capability to the maximum possible.
    That would go without saying

    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The main armament MUST be able to deal with Surface, Air , including missiles, and also shore bombardment in support.
    You mention the main armament must be able to - but isn't this a sensors related question? We could have the best main armament in the world but it's useless if blind. Fitted for but not with could be a short term saving. Its the same with heli capability - for the love of god just leave room for the addition of a helideck later on and throw on a "multimission shelter" aka hanger!
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The real Jack View Post
      From doing a bit of google images perusing, would these not all be bog standard features? Do the appledore ships not have them? Have we in effect bought a shitty paddy spec car because the dealer makes more money out of them compared to the better spec UK models?

      That would go without saying



      You mention the main armament must be able to - but isn't this a sensors related question? We could have the best main armament in the world but it's useless if blind. Fitted for but not with could be a short term saving. Its the same with heli capability - for the love of god just leave room for the addition of a helideck later on and throw on a "multimission shelter" aka hanger!
      Sometimes if you don't ask, you dont get. There was a shot of one of our ships at speed with water pressurised up through Hawse pipes and running back over the deck. Either she had no Buckler plates or the crew didn't fit them in place. As regards weapon FCS, they are designed to do the full bit and I am asking that shortsighedness shouldn't see us install a restricted system. If expediency, such as inability to maintain a complete system, is a question, then buy a technical training package for a number of artificers as we did with P31.

      Comment


      • There's a new entrant on the market, the Kership Logistic Support & Projection Vessel (LSPV) 90 from DCNS...90 metres but 3000 tons, maybe a tad slow at 16Knots though.




        Displacing 3,000 tons, the LSPV measures 89.9 meters in length with a breadth of 16.7 meters and a draft of 4.3 meters. The hull and superstructure are made of steel while the bridge is aluminum.

        The vessel may accommodate a total of 439 people onboard:
        - 39 Crew
        - 150 troops and medical staff in cabins
        - 250 additional accommodation capacity for troops in modular zones

        The vessel speed is 16 knots thanks to its two medium speed diesel engines and controllable pitch propellers.

        In terms of performance, Kership's LSPV 90 has a range of 11,000 nautical miles at 12 knots. Its endurance is 10 up to 45 days.
        More at the link

        Comment


        • Babcocks have a new vessel....Partially derived from the P60s apparently.http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...-contract.htmlClick image for larger version

Name:	OPC_USCG_Babcock.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	78.5 KB
ID:	698149
          Last edited by Galloglass; 13 April 2017, 01:56.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Rocinante View Post
            There's a new entrant on the market, the Kership Logistic Support & Projection Vessel (LSPV) 90 from DCNS...90 metres but 3000 tons, maybe a tad slow at 16Knots though.
            More at the link
            http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...l-lspv-90.html
            I wonder who the customer who's needs it was made for is?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Galloglass View Post
              Babcocks have a new vessel....Partially derived from the P60s apparently.http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...-contract.html[ATTACH]8410[/ATTACH]
              Based on Vard 7 110, which is based on https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/up...VARD-7-100.pdf

              Comment


              • Draft noted at 5metres, much better freeboard , but still with potential to be wet and bulwarks in the drawings differ on the fore decks. Access to liferafts is not clear with a group of 3 in one drawing and 2 X 2 in another drawing. Bilge keels seem to be minimalised in favour of stabilisers. Not sure until tank tested. The drawings could be variations on the same ship. Maybe!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Rocinante View Post
                  There's a new entrant on the market, the Kership Logistic Support & Projection Vessel (LSPV) 90 from DCNS...90 metres but 3000 tons, maybe a tad slow at 16Knots though.
                  More at the link
                  http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...l-lspv-90.html
                  Looking at it, can anyone tell me whether it actually has a hanger for the helicopter (either or below in the "garage area")?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                    Looking at it, can anyone tell me whether it actually has a hanger for the helicopter (either or below in the "garage area")?
                    Looks like it has from the stern view , plus with the funnel offset to the starboard side it would seem likely .
                    Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

                    Comment


                    • I have to say not from where I'm sitting. There's nothing that resembles a hangar door nor does there appear to be space longitudinally. Additionally, the picture of the below helideck space is captioned "hangar", which it certainly is not!

                      Comment


                      • I'd say while the under deck hangar could accomodate a heli, you wouldnt to be able to operate it from the ship when stored as such.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Some old interesting info on Eithne

                          Comment


                          • It is interesting to visit Eithne today, and, as one who was familiar with her original layout, to see how much she has changed internally.
                            I always thought that particular article, and another a few years later covering flight operations from the same author, were very well written, and gave the outsider an excellent impression as to how the ship would operate, in a manner that was almost free of Jargon that most often makes articles of this type unreadable to the reader.
                            As a ten year old when I first read this, the 18 year old merchant deck cadet who redrew the plans on a larger scale (and still has them) during the spare hours, and the now 45 year old that has been spewing forth all I learnt from those articles, and built on that knowledge to now find himself in a career that shares hobby with earning potential in a secure state job, I wish to thank the author.
                            I only wish he would put pen to paper again and write his memoirs.
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                              It is interesting to visit Eithne today, and, as one who was familiar with her original layout, to see how much she has changed internally.
                              I always thought that particular article, and another a few years later covering flight operations from the same author, were very well written, and gave the outsider an excellent impression as to how the ship would operate, in a manner that was almost free of Jargon that most often makes articles of this type unreadable to the reader.
                              As a ten year old when I first read this, the 18 year old merchant deck cadet who redrew the plans on a larger scale (and still has them) during the spare hours, and the now 45 year old that has been spewing forth all I learnt from those articles, and built on that knowledge to now find himself in a career that shares hobby with earning potential in a secure state job, I wish to thank the author.
                              I only wish he would put pen to paper again and write his memoirs.

                              Just had a look and can't find it :(

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                Just had a look and can't find it :(
                                Possibly in the Naval Service 40th Anniversary issue? Feb 86?
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X