Specs say it can take max 57mm main weapon, so no commonality there. Also, it's pig ugly
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
EPV for naval service
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
There doesn't appear to be any space for crew or embarked accomodation. Unless everyone lives in bunks on the vehicle deck.
2 helipads and offset armament may look nice to you, but it is only practical to layout a ship in this way and also expect to do EEZ patrol is if you have a crew in single digits.
People have to live on these ships. Our crews have become accustomed to, and rightly deserve, a certain level of accomodation space and comfort. I cannot see how a ship of this size could achieve that.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
There's a lot of freeboard there. Again, this ship is a lot bigger than the OPVs. But I do fear that crew accommodation is probably cramped. The 240 temporaries are liable to be bunk accommodation, but even permanent crew might be tight. So I get the point, this probably won't work on that count alone.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Graylion View PostThere's a lot of freeboard there. Again, this ship is a lot bigger than the OPVs. But I do fear that crew accommodation is probably cramped. The 240 temporaries are liable to be bunk accommodation, but even permanent crew might be tight. So I get the point, this probably won't work on that count alone.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmiti View PostYou keep saying that it is not the same size or it is a lot bigger than the OPVs. It isnt. 90m is 90m. 90m doesn't change if the displacement or draft changes. It's still 90m.
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmiti View PostYou keep saying that it is not the same size or it is a lot bigger than the OPVs. It isnt. 90m is 90m. 90m doesn't change if the displacement or draft changes. It's still 90m.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostI don't like the ship because it is too gimmicky. Helicopters landing forward on the Bridge eyeline is a nuisance, and is usually reserved for ships with no where else to land them , like an offshore supply vessel. There is proportionality between a ships length, beam and draft if you wish to have a sea kindly vessel. The vessel could be rejigged but it couldn't be done on 90m which would work out at 90m X 15m X 4m . The 90.9m x 17m X 4.7m is a floating joke and seems to be under powered using OPV 80 power train. The 300kw thruster probably needs upgrading also. If you want to build at 17m beam then you need to go to 102m length and 5m draft, and up the power to give the proposed speeds and ranges.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Looking at the Fassmer design it is likely that it is aimed at an existing Fassmer OPV80 user rather than for the NS. Of the current users Chile has a LPD (the ex-Foudre) but Columbia is the only major South American Navy with an amphibious assault ship. So my money would be that it is aimed at the Columbian Navy.
Another outsider would be Israel, a) Given the naval ties between Israel and Germany, b) The S65 sitting on the aft flight deck and the S70 forward.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostLooking at the Fassmer design it is likely that it is aimed at an existing Fassmer OPV80 user rather than for the NS. Of the current users Chile has a LPD (the ex-Foudre) but Columbia is the only major South American Navy with an amphibious assault ship. So my money would be that it is aimed at the Columbian Navy.
Another outsider would be Israel, a) Given the naval ties between Israel and Germany, b) The S65 sitting on the aft flight deck and the S70 forward.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by Graylion View PostI must admit that I am coming around to the Vard design, but an honest competition should be held. Enforcer 10k might also be an option for instance.
Comment
Comment