Thanks Thanks:  761
Likes Likes:  1,585
Dislikes Dislikes:  40
Page 98 of 100 FirstFirst ... 488896979899100 LastLast
Results 2,426 to 2,450 of 2483
  1. #2426
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The depicted VARD double hangar door may not be western ocean compatible and is as tight as a garage in a 3 bed semi. If the hangar is not divided then make the door as big as possible.
    Why? If the scale shown above is right then other navies have operated hulls with such sized doors in the Atlantic before?

  2. #2427
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    I've been on the HNLMS Karel Doorman 50 miles off the Western Isles in winter. She was operating her own embarked helicopters as well as visiting Chinooks and Merlins.

    She did not, I promise you, sink.

  3. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Sparky42, EUFighter liked this post
  4. #2428
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Why? If the scale shown above is right then other navies have operated hulls with such sized doors in the Atlantic before?
    In the 5 wire system for moving helos from deck to hangar, the upper port and starboard wires are used to prevent the helo from toppling when on the move. The door openings as shown may be too narrow to get the required wire leads on those particular wires.The designers just have to show that the side by side doors are operable at sea by demonstration . They should also say why a fuller width door is not proposed.

  5. #2429
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is the configuration two seperate hangers - possibly for reasons of damage control, or one hanger with two doors?

    Apart from keeping the weather of half the hanger, I'm not sure why you'd want that..

    Perhaps it's not the doors that are significant, but the structure between them - perhaps it's part of the load bearing structure of the, err... superstructure...

  6. #2430
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    In the 5 wire system for moving helos from deck to hangar, the upper port and starboard wires are used to prevent the helo from toppling when on the move. The door openings as shown may be too narrow to get the required wire leads on those particular wires.The designers just have to show that the side by side doors are operable at sea by demonstration . They should also say why a fuller width door is not proposed.
    So how did the Perry class frigates for example handle two Seahawks (for the later flight) with two separate hangers mange with a much smaller beam than what is proposed in this design?

  7. Likes ropebag liked this post
  8. #2431
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like


    From the illustrations under discussion, at least, the flight deck appears to be proportioned and marked in a manner familiar to any civilian SAR/offshore contract pilot.

    Between this, and a preceding discussion, I believe we're talking about maritime rather than naval flight operations. The difference being the limiting of operations to less severe sea states and the use of brute force, and perhaps a small tractor, to move aircraft on deck.
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  9. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  10. #2432
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like


    A lot of thought appears to have gone into the positioning of the full breadth boat-deck.

    Forward and higher than other options previously discussed it is likely much better positioned for winter operations in the North Atlantic.

    If I might suggest; the enclosure of the landing craft davit area, followed by rationalising trade of internal space with the aircraft hangar, and the installation of an appropriate overhead crane (capable of small-craft launching and retrieval) would allow for even more utility to be generated from this space.

    In addition to the operation of RHIBs, CB90s, and even full size LCVPs, the space could be used to secure bulky and heavy, yet delicate equipment for use in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Recovery (HADR) missions.
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  11. Likes ropebag, EUFighter, DeV liked this post
  12. #2433
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    809
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    So how did the Perry class frigates for example handle two Seahawks (for the later flight) with two separate hangers mange with a much smaller beam than what is proposed in this design?
    The Perry's used the RAST System to recover and transfer the helicopters. This was an improved version of the Beartrap system developed by the Canadians.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XvdXwgYN_s

    However most vessels of this type (LPD/LSD/LSS) do not have any dedicated recovery system as they are not expected to operate helicopters in all weather situations.

  13. #2434
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    809
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect View Post


    A lot of thought appears to have gone into the positioning of the full breadth boat-deck.

    Forward and higher than other options previously discussed it is likely much better positioned for winter operations in the North Atlantic.

    If I might suggest; the enclosure of the landing craft davit area, followed by rationalising trade of internal space with the aircraft hangar, and the installation of an appropriate overhead crane (capable of small-craft launching and retrieval) would allow for even more utility to be generated from this space.

    In addition to the operation of RHIBs, CB90s, and even full size LCVPs, the space could be used to secure bulky and heavy, yet delicate equipment for use in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Recovery (HADR) missions.
    Good idea; for the sake of a meter or two, it would be preferable to have a full-size LCVP (16m) rather than the odd 15m LC. This could be the Damen 1604 design used by the RN and Dutch Navy and would also allow for a CB90 as they can be launched from the same davit system.
    Also if the area was enclosed with a roof mounted traversing crane this would make the vessel more flexible allowing a mix n' match of helicopters, LC, containers etc.

  14. Likes The Usual Suspect liked this post
  15. #2435
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Good idea; for the sake of a meter or two, it would be preferable to have a full-size LCVP (16m) rather than the odd 15m LC. This could be the Damen 1604 design used by the RN and Dutch Navy and would also allow for a CB90 as they can be launched from the same davit system.
    Also if the area was enclosed with a roof mounted traversing crane this would make the vessel more flexible allowing a mix n' match of helicopters, LC, containers etc.
    Not so sure of internalising boat launching sites within mainly watertight boundaries, or carry LCVP's with an optional reload of Combat Boats of similar dimensions. Maybe stick with the current design and carry either LCVP's or 2 CB90 craft, the latter requires manning to include weapon positions. In any event large spaces would greatly benefit from having an XY overhead crane system. Have a look at the new Logs ship on the block Norwegian navy LSV MAUD.

  16. #2436
    Rittmeister Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    857
    Post Thanks / Like
    Vard have been showcasing the 7313 at IMDEX Asia, alongside a 100m LST,


    https://vardmarine.com/vard-marine-e...-in-singapore/

    https://www.navalnews.com/event-news...support-ships/

  17. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  18. #2437
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Herald View Post
    Vard have been showcasing the 7313 at IMDEX Asia, alongside a 100m LST,

    https://vardmarine.com/vard-marine-e...-in-singapore/

    https://www.navalnews.com/event-news...support-ships/
    Interesting that they mention that they have a customer for the LST but no mention on any interest in the other design?

  19. #2438
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like
    I see Damen had a Crossover design for the Singapore requirements as well at IMDEX
    https://www.navalnews.com/event-news...ssover-design/

  20. Likes The Usual Suspect liked this post
  21. #2439
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    From the Original Statement of Requirement (EPV) Appendix B Con/195/2006

    "Proposals should include separately the option of a facility for cargo discharge where no port infrastructure exists."

    [I'll ask regular threaders to bear with me while I conduct a primer for those new to the topic.]

    When operating in a Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Recovery environment where port facilities have been, essentially, destroyed; the use of LCVPs will be necessary to land relief supplies, vehicles, and personnel.

    The transfer of matériel to small craft at sea can be, to put it mildly, a tricky business under even the most benign conditions. Navies have developed a number of technologies and techniques to make the process safer, faster, and more reliable in difficult and often stressful environments.



    The Well Dock (in model cutaway)

    The well dock is designed so that the rear of the ship can be semi-submerged, by means of ballast tanks, to provide the most protected environment possible for loading and unloading of landing craft. It can help assure the ability to operate in even quite difficult sea conditions but; because it is expensive to build and operate, and takes up a large portion of a ship's interior space; it is generally only used for the most time critical applications.



    Direct Loading by Ship's Crane

    This is the most dangerous, difficult, and slowest method to move vehicles and cargo ashore via landing craft. Extreme vulnerability to weather conditions make it relatively unreliable.



    Steel Beach (Pontoon)

    A Steel Beach (Pontoon) is designed to be a safer, easier and faster method than direct loading by crane. Essentially it's the use of a relatively simple pontoon with; a vehicle ramp from the mother-ship and, an inclined face to facilitate the safer docking of landing craft. HMS Ocean's Steel Beach is pictured here. After use it is lifted from the sea by ship's crane, drained, brought onto the flight deck, cleaned, folded, and finally bolted to the ship's stern for transit. Unloading, particularly of vehicles, is still relatively slow and vulnerable to weather conditions and weight restrictions.



    Steel Beach (Integrated)

    Integrating the Steel Beach directly into the mother-ship greatly improves the safety and speed of unloading while eliminating the weight restrictions that come with pontoon operations. It also makes the process more reliable by reducing operational vulnerability to the majority of weather conditions. This functionality requires a modest increase in the vessel's length so as not to reduce it's overall carrying capacity. In the case of the proposed vessel under discussion this would be something in the region of 10 metres. For the HNLMS Karel Doorman, a much larger vessel illustrated above, it is more.
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  22. Likes ropebag, Sluggie liked this post
  23. #2440
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    So what you’d like to see in a new RFP then



    .. a stern that looks, effectively, something like this...

    • ISO Containerised Mission Equipment Access through to vehicle deck
    • Integrated Steel Beach sufficient to dock a single LCU or (ideally) two LCVP
    • A Stern Quarter Ramp canted 45° to starboard for heavy vehicle loading

    (Exact Dimensions and Placement Variable)
    Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 18th May 2019 at 01:34.
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  24. #2441
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect;

    .. a stern that looks, effectively, something like this...

    [LIST
    [*]ISO Containerised Mission Equipment Access through to vehicle deck[*]Integrated Steel Beach sufficient to dock a single LCU or (ideally) two LCVP[*]A Stern Quarter Ramp canted 45° to starboard for heavy vehicle loading[/LIST]
    (Exact Dimensions and Placement Variable)
    We must be practical and look at the traditional way of moving personnel, vehicles, and cargo including containers from ship to shore.
    Containers are normally dropped into or on to a space including on top of another container. They come out by direct hoist to shore.
    Vehicles are normally driven on to the ship and disembark the same way. Personnel walk on to allotted spaces and are disembarked by LCVP's or similar.
    Quarter ramp is a consideration, continue with davit launched LCVP's, load containers to J-bolted assigned positions on deck.
    Forget steel beaches unless we build a much longer ship. Don't load containers through stern apertures, moving to and from assigned positions would be technically complex. The ship would have to operate to a port or with LCT assistance elsewhere, with own LCVP's.

  25. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  26. #2442
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like
    It would be beneficial if an extended visit, or ship/ crew exchange could be made to Ireland, with an existing ‘MRV’ vessel most similar to likely requirements...

    To give the whole country, including politicians and the public, a taste of what is being contemplated -
    visiting various ports, helicopter landings with Air Corp and Coast Guard helicopters (?), and maybe doing a few Naval Service at-sea, and army/ NS shore exercises, and patrols.

    I’m suggesting again a Singapore RSS Endurance Class ship, or less so, the New Zealand Navy ‘Canterbury’ (though the Canterbury has been inspected already? and is a bit overweight and height?).

    Unless , there is a commercial specifications and small crew Damen Crossover ship also available for the same purpose visit?

    Note: Endurance Class ships in the Singapore Navy are planned to be replaced in the short term, from around 2020 (at circa 25 years age), and include 2x25t deck cranes, and a deck for two 10t helicopters (e.g. Super Puma), etc..

    https://www.naval-technology.com/pro...ship-tank-lst/

  27. Likes DeV liked this post
  28. #2443
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhingeNot View Post
    It would be beneficial if an extended visit, or ship/ crew exchange could be made to Ireland, with an existing ‘MRV’ vessel most similar to likely requirements...

    To give the whole country, including politicians and the public, a taste of what is being contemplated -
    visiting various ports, helicopter landings with Air Corp and Coast Guard helicopters (?), and maybe doing a few Naval Service at-sea, and army/ NS shore exercises, and patrols.

    I’m suggesting again a Singapore RSS Endurance Class ship, or less so, the New Zealand Navy ‘Canterbury’ (though the Canterbury has been inspected already? and is a bit overweight and height?).

    Unless , there is a commercial specifications and small crew Damen Crossover ship also available for the same purpose visit?

    Note: Endurance Class ships in the Singapore Navy are planned to be replaced in the short term, from around 2020 (at circa 25 years age), and include 2x25t deck cranes, and a deck for two 10t helicopters (e.g. Super Puma), etc..

    https://www.naval-technology.com/pro...ship-tank-lst/
    I am confident that a ship to meet our requirements can be acquired in the short term. Training / demonstration trips could easily be acquired with any European Navy . Basic to do list-- Support our ships with fuel and if needed water-- conduct international HADR missions-- carry out peacetime naval Missions including electronic surveillance-- Transport/Ferry troops and vehicles-- conduct necessary boat work--provide a tactical helicopter deck to include fuelling-- resupply units on overseas missions-- provide National "show the Flag" missions world wide--be fitted with handling facilities to carry out all missions--be fitted with ballasting facilities to maintain at least half voyage displacement. etc...
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 18th May 2019 at 14:02.

  29. #2444
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the AC/NS and Army accepted the bi-annual invitations to Joint Warrior you'd see, and look around, and operate with and on, every possible iteration of PV, Logistics ship, and Assault ship going - that would then allow you sit down with a blank sheet and pencil in the features/capabilities you want.

    There's even a 'politician handling cell' at Faslane to look after visitors - and if you ask them nicely, they'll make sure your visiting politician/hack/beancounter sees the things you want them to see, and be persuaded of the things you want them to think...

    International cooperation is ace, you should try it...

  30. Likes DeV, na grohmiti, Flamingo, sofa, ias, spider, hptmurphy liked this post
  31. #2445
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    If the AC/NS and Army accepted the bi-annual invitations to Joint Warrior you'd see, and look around, and operate with and on, every possible iteration of PV, Logistics ship, and Assault ship going - that would then allow you sit down with a blank sheet and pencil in the features/capabilities you want.

    There's even a 'politician handling cell' at Faslane to look after visitors - and if you ask them nicely, they'll make sure your visiting politician/hack/beancounter sees the things you want them to see, and be persuaded of the things you want them to think...

    International cooperation is ace, you should try it...
    To be fair think it's more the TDs and DOD that are the issue there rather than the services themselves.

  32. Likes Flamingo, sofa liked this post
  33. #2446
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,895
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    If the DoD accepted the bi-annual invitations to Joint Warrior you'd see, and look around, and operate with and on, every possible iteration of PV, Logistics ship, and Assault ship going - that would then allow you sit down with a blank sheet and pencil in the features/capabilities you want.

    There's even a 'politician handling cell' at Faslane to look after visitors - and if you ask them nicely, they'll make sure your visiting politician/hack/beancounter sees the things you want them to see, and be persuaded of the things you want them to think...

    International cooperation is ace, you should try it...
    Fixed that for you

    The 2 main players in this country are those who “advise” on Defence policy (DoD) and those who resource it (DPER)

  34. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes apod liked this post
  35. #2447
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,818
    Post Thanks / Like
    Neither of whom know, or care what the job entails.
    DoD should be working for DF, not the other way around.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  36. Likes sofa, ias, DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  37. #2448
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Neither of whom know, or care what the job entails.
    DoD should be working for DF, not the other way around.
    Good God! That's crazy thinking that is, the DOD actually working to make the DF more effective and capable?

  38. Likes na grohmiti, ias, DeV, apod liked this post
  39. #2449
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Good God! That's crazy thinking that is, the DOD actually working to make the DF more effective and capable?
    Can you lot show me how the system works?

    I see investment in the DF - the four P60's, the RBS70 upgrade, the chat about an air search radar - now we can all debate the wisdom of this or that purchase, the missed opportunities of this or that decision, the glaring hole in this or that procurement policy in support of this or that doctrine, but there is money going into the DF, so who is it that gets to decide that there's a requirement, who gets to decide what the parameters of that requirement are, who gets to decide what the priorities are and what gets 'backburnered', who decides that the budget for this or that purchase is €115m and not €118m (for example), and who do those decision makers get advised by and who are they accountable to?

    Are there different policy objectives within 'Defence' - does the Minister of State have a different policy and objective to the Minister, does the civilian structure within the DOD reflect either of them - and who wins - where in the decision making process does the military advice start to lose weight or carry the day?

  40. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Flamingo liked this post
  41. #2450
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,236
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are a number of points in response to this.

    Firstly, there will not be a difference in policy between the minister with responsibility for defence and the minister for defence. The Minister (Taoiseach) has devolved defence matters to the Junior minister. Effectively stating that defence is not a priority in government.

    Secondly, the accounting officer for the defence vote (all defence spending) is the Sec Gen of the DOD. In the past they devolved some of that expenditure authority to the military but they have clawed a lot of that back a lot of that. The perception is that the first response from DOD to any request for expenditure is no. The MA have to bend over backwards to prove the need, usually have to use politicians to exert influence and even then have to demonstrate it can be paid out of existing funds (the ships were paid partly by delaying recruitment). Unlike other departments, the DOD has consistently under spent its budget over the past 2 decades. You would be waiting a long time for the DOD to fight for a bigger budget.

  42. Thanks DeV, ropebag thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, na grohmiti, CTU, Flamingo, sofa liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 305
    Last Post: 1st May 2019, 22:01
  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
  •