Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

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

  • While I doubt it would be picked for the EPV, I don't remember seeing this design from Babcock before, the Defender?:
    Babcock International, the highly-skilled engineering service company, is showcasing its design of modern multi-role Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) with an emphasis on hull forms at the OPV 2018 conference and exhibition, in London.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
      All those things should be done to at least two P60's, as Leaders, AND conform as close as possible to SOLAS V. Regulation 22 for ships over 55m as regards visibility from the Bridge, for watchkeepers and Conning positions including Helm.
      Although wishful, the regulations do not apply to "warships, naval auxiliaries and other ships owned or operated by a Contracting Government and used only on government non-commercial service".

      Comment


      • That is new. Vrery little aout it, apart from its name, on Babcock's website. Possibly a bid for the Aussie OPV competition.
        Last edited by na grohmiti; 20 October 2018, 13:09.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by na grohmit� View Post
          That is new. Very little about it, apart from its name, on Babcock's website. Possibly a bid for the Aussie OPV competition.
          Damen, Fassmer and Lürssen were shortlisted for SEA 1180 and Lürssen was selected last November. Will be good to find more detail, hopefully it will be forthcoming.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
            Although wishful, the regulations do not apply to "warships, naval auxiliaries and other ships owned or operated by a Contracting Government and used only on government non-commercial service".
            The requirement for non-standard ships including Naval vessels is to comply as closely as possible to SOLAS V Reg 22- remembering that Rules of the Road and Lookouts apply to ALL ships plying the Oceans. A pilot bringing such a ship in or out of port, if not satisfied with the Bridge Conning may report the ship and impose conditions for future Port entry. We interact with civilian ships putting an onus on Bridge and Conning views being as good as required by Law.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
              While I doubt it would be picked for the EPV, I don't remember seeing this design from Babcock before, the Defender?:
              https://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...y-babcock.html
              The irony of having a Dauphin on the flight deck!
              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
                The irony of having a Dauphin on the flight deck!
                Basic P31 design with split Engine exhausting . Flight deck could extend further aft. What else can it do.?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmit� View Post
                  That is new. Vrery little aout it, apart from its name, on Babcock's website. Possibly a bid for the Aussie OPV competition.
                  It was their bid for the Maltese OPV competition which an Italian yard won.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                    Basic P31 design with split Engine exhausting . Flight deck could extend further aft. What else can it do.?
                    The bow also has a nice bathtub to gather water, just like Deirdre had.
                    Not sure about the aerodynamics of two squat square funnels ahead of the flight deck.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
                      We can't let ourselves be limited by such cop outs. In reality there are ships half the size with twice the sensor and weapons capability with simple scabbed on non through deck fit outs. There is plenty of physical scope in the P60 class. The money and political will are the lacking components.
                      Not a cop out, just a statement of facts about how capabilities that were included at the start, were removed by particular depts, to the detriment of op capability.

                      Comment


                      • Fassmer just launched this design at Euronaval.(about 4 minutes in) No other details yet.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Any hint about when we might see any more movement on the EPV?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                            Any hint about when we might see any more movement on the EPV?
                            Soon. You will hear it here first. (unless you see it elsewhere before we do)
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                              Soon. You will hear it here first. (unless you see it elsewhere before we do)
                              With the loss recently of the Norwegian Frigate HELGE INGSTAD after a collision with a 65,000tonne tanker, their is a need to carry out a remedial survey on our ships stuffing boxes where shafting passes through compartment bulkheads. The same survey should include through bulkhead glands for cabling and bulkhead fittings for piercing pipework. There are some rumours that stuffing box failure led to critical levels of flooding, overcoming her ability to float.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                                With the loss recently of the Norwegian Frigate HELGE INGSTAD after a collision with a 65,000tonne tanker, their is a need to carry out a remedial survey on our ships stuffing boxes where shafting passes through compartment bulkheads. The same survey should include through bulkhead glands for cabling and bulkhead fittings for piercing pipework. There are some rumours that stuffing box failure led to critical levels of flooding, overcoming her ability to float.
                                It's no rumour, it is discussed in the interim accident report. Indeed there is a suggestion that all vessels based on this design may have this design fault.


                                The AIBN has found safety critical issues relating to the vessel's watertight compartments. This must be assumed to also apply to the other four Nansen-class frigates. It cannot be excluded that the same applies to vessels of a similar design delivered by Navantia, or that the design concept continues to be used for similar vessel models. The AIBN assumes that its findings are not in conformity with the required damage stability standard for the Nansen-class frigates.
                                Next, the crew found that water from the aft generator room was running into the gear room via the hollow propeller shafts and that the gear room was filling up fast. From the gear room, the water then ran into and was flooding the aft and fore engine rooms via the stuffing boxes in the bulkheads. This meant that the flooding became substantially more extensive than indicated by the original damage. Based on the flooding of the gear room, it was decided to prepare for evacuation.
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X