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 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.

    Comment


    • 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.



      Before modification.


      After modification
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • 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?
        We are a maritime-orientated high-end design house and technical consulting firm. We design. We guide. We protect. We sustain. We train. We transform.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • too small for epv surely, ok for cpv

          Comment


          • 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?
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • Its in the name

              The VENARI-85 mine warfare and hydrographic ship is being developed by BMT Defence Services to meet current and future mine warfare needs.


              "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 ........ "

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Orion View Post
                Its in the name

                The VENARI-85 mine warfare and hydrographic ship is being developed by BMT Defence Services to meet current and future mine warfare needs.


                "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.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • 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

                  Comment


                  • Lean manning is good.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • 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

                      Comment


                      • 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.

                        Comment


                        • Irish naval requirements

                          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.!!

                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            Comment


                            • 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.

                              Comment


                              • 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.
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X