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
    If that is the upper band of what we will spend there's no chance of getting a Frigate of any value.
    It's not going to be a frigate or anything like it, its just going to be an extra-large patrol vessel with all the stuff OPV's have in other militaries, like a helideck, an air-search radar and the ability to transport troops and equipment. Just going to be a lot longer.

    Originally posted by na grohmit� View Post
    That was when the OPV, which ended up costing just over €100m each, were supposed to cost €80m
    The OPV's cost about €71 million each with gun and VAT included.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
      It's not going to be a frigate or anything like it, its just going to be an extra-large patrol vessel with all the stuff OPV's have in other militaries, like a helideck, an air-search radar and the ability to transport troops and equipment. Just going to be a lot longer.



      The OPV's cost about €71 million each with gun and VAT included.
      My apologies. I misread articles like this one.
      Junior Defence Minister Paul Kehoe has secured Government approval to purchase another ship for the Naval Service.
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
        It's not going to be a frigate or anything like it, its just going to be an extra-large patrol vessel with all the stuff OPV's have in other militaries, like a helideck, an air-search radar and the ability to transport troops and equipment. Just going to be a lot longer.



        The OPV's cost about €71 million each with gun and VAT included.
        There the problem, can't do much longer without increasing the width, there for it gets longer and wider and deeper in the water, so in essence you need to go back to the drawing board... or buy something of the required size off the shelf. So its probably going to be one of the Off the shelf 110metre OPVs out here. Not the quantum leap expected by some.
        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
          There the problem, can't do much longer without increasing the width, there for it gets longer and wider and deeper in the water, so in essence you need to go back to the drawing board... or buy something of the required size off the shelf. So its probably going to be one of the Off the shelf 110metre OPVs out here. Not the quantum leap expected by some.
          The article and costs mentioned in the Jim Brady piece is dated from 2016 and is referring to GBS. We must do two things. The first is to accept that our current OPV's while good at eyeball and radar surveillance are punching way below their platform ( 2200tonnes ) capability. The second is to programme an increased Defence capability for at least half the fleet with improved self defence, target acquisition, intelligence and surveillance gathering. A mooted increased spending could be E25m per ship.
          The MRV must come with these aspects covered as her operational environment is potentially nearer conflict. As regards length , 120meters is doable as using our current LB ratio of 6.25 we have a workable beam of 19.355 metres

          Comment


          • The article and costs mentioned in the Jim Brady piece is dated from 2016 and is referring to GBS.
            Tom Brady is the journalist, Jim Brady was a pain in the arse!

            The first is to accept that our current OPV's while good at eyeball and radar surveillance are punching way below their platform ( 2200tonnes ) capability.
            Bigger than most corvettes but relatively lightly equipped in comparrison but the upgrades suggested should be included in any new build going forward and retrofitted after that.
            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
              Tom Brady is the journalist, Jim Brady was a pain in the arse!



              Bigger than most corvettes but relatively lightly equipped in comparrison but the upgrades suggested should be included in any new build going forward and retrofitted after that.
              Right about the name and the pain . Freudian slip. The GBS gun foundation is in place. The Farmers yard appearance of the dried out berth for a E70m ship is a nightmare. Hope all goes well.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                There the problem, can't do much longer without increasing the width, there for it gets longer and wider and deeper in the water, so in essence you need to go back to the drawing board... or buy something of the required size off the shelf. So its probably going to be one of the Off the shelf 110metre OPVs out here. Not the quantum leap expected by some.
                Just as a matter of physics ships can be made shallower by widening the ship, consequently if you lengthen the ship and maintain breadth the ship will also be shallower . This is assuming you are maintaining a fixed tonnage. Overall length has the greater effect on ship cost plus of course outfit cost.
                In our case ship size will have to be compatible with our area of operations , and harbour accessibility, together with quay lengths and services AND not least the capacity of the Builders yard.
                As regards technical outfits we need to take into consideration recent problems with cyber security and software failure. Perhaps consider an inertial navigation system to back up dependence on satellites.

                Comment


                • But surely if size length and width goes up, so will displacement and thus depth or is there a formula that shows what proportions will directly affect depth?
                  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
                    But surely if size length and width goes up, so will displacement and thus depth or is there a formula that shows what proportions will directly affect depth?
                    LxBxD X Cb= disp = 10,000

                    150X 20 x.7 = 2100

                    10,000 divide 2100 =4.76D

                    155X21 X.7 =2278.5

                    10000 divide 2278.5 = 4.38, the effect for reduced draft at the same power is an increase in speed. The shape of the "box" determines the amount of water displaced . If you decide you wish to increase displacement , then draft will increase. Within constraints of fixed displacements altering one will effect the remainder of the dimensions except the block coefficient.
                    Last edited by ancientmariner; 5 October 2018, 09:24.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      LxBxD X Cb= disp = 10,000

                      150X 20 x.7 = 2100

                      10,000 divide 2100 =4.76D

                      155X21 X.7 =2278.5

                      10000 divide 2278.5 = 4.38, the effect for reduced draft at the same power is an increase in speed. The shape of the "box" determines the amount of water displaced . If you decide you wish to increase displacement , then draft will increase. Within constraints of fixed displacements altering one will effect the remainder of the dimensions except the block coefficient.
                      If you want to calculate outcomes, stick to feet and use formula [ L X B x D X .7 (Cb)] Feet , all divide by 35 gives displacement in SW eg. 500 X 70 X 15 x .7 =367500 cu ft, then divide by 35 cu ft per tonne in SW = 10500 tonne

                      Comment


                      • Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 3 Oct 2018


                        Most recent almost answer from the almost minister.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Ah FFS, when has cutting Capital Spending for Current Spending issues ever done anything other than store up problems anyway, it shouldn't be either or, but bloody both!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                            Ah FFS, when has cutting Capital Spending for Current Spending issues ever done anything other than store up problems anyway, it shouldn't be either or, but bloody both!
                            When cute in current expenditure were being used to fund capital expenditure

                            Comment


                            • Is the phrase "increase spending" in the vocabulary at all?
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • "A flight deck capable of catering for Military STYLE helicopters." For f$ck sake what next.
                                Last edited by sofa; 7 October 2018, 22:43.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X