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 EUFighter View Post
    Came across this Polish design from MMC, their 116m Stealth Logistics Support Ship.
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...l-project.html
    http://www.mmc-shipdesign.com.pl/p/navy

    Looking at it, there seems to be many elements from the Damen Crossover concept such as the iMast and the Millennium gun. It could be an interesting contender, it has a crew of 60, displacement of 6100t and the ability to take 8 Piranhas, and 11 TEUs. In its current design configuration it has 2 UNREP masts per side (I would definitely loose the forward one) which would be a useful ability to have in the NS.
    The functionality of the ship is about right. However those doors look difficult for operation and continued watertightness. The amount of power installed seems low. Pity it's only an artist's view.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
      The functionality of the ship is about right. However those doors look difficult for operation and continued watertightness. The amount of power installed seems low. Pity it's only an artist's view.
      I agree especially the forward UNREP door which needs to open while at sea although I could think that there would be a bulkhead behind it. But the size seems a good one and the 2 35mm Millennium guns are good for self-defence against missile and small craft.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
        I agree especially the forward UNREP door which needs to open while at sea although I could think that there would be a bulkhead behind it. But the size seems a good one and the 2 35mm Millennium guns are good for self-defence against missile and small craft.
        Given the difficult process the Polish Navy went through getting their OPV built, I'd be reluctant to go with them to be honest.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
          Given the difficult process the Polish Navy went through getting their OPV built, I'd be reluctant to go with them to be honest.
          To be fair to the yard a hell of a lot of the delay was due to the missing funding and changing demands. Now they get an OPV when originally 7 corvettes were planned.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
            Given the difficult process the Polish Navy went through getting their OPV built, I'd be reluctant to go with them to be honest.
            To be fair the Polish Navy is not MMC Design or a local commercial shipyard. The Gawron class Corvette issues had little to do with the shipyards competency or a problem with the baseline MEKO A-100 design. The problem was budgetary problems post GFC and procrastination over the selection of weapon systems flowing from that made it an omnishambles.

            The reluctance on this design concept would be that the lane metres are somewhat lacking if the goal was the capacity to sealift a company group sized combined arms maneuver taskforce. (One of the shortcomings of the Canterbury is that it sealifts only 95% of what a company group sized light all armed maneuver taskforce requires in a material sense if it were to be self sufficient for 40 days)

            It is a pretty interesting design nevertheless - a mini Absalon that will likely come at a cheaper price point than the Damen Cross-over's. With Thales i-Mast 400 all it would need would be a couple of LM 3 Cell ExLS banks with Sea Ceptor quad packed, a couple of Sea Protector 12.5mm RWS and Terma soft decoys then it could be a very useful and self sufficient addition in a coalition environment.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
              Why not give the task to OTO MELARA to refurbish and install the 76mm in order to have some period of guarantee and factory attendance in at least the first two years.
              Equipments controlling acquisition, bearings, ranges, recoil shock, safety angles, need to be as new with future life of 36 years minimum.
              OTO have been given the task, it's in all respects a new gun, same as on the other P60s. OTO & the FCS OEM are tasked with supply, fitting and commissioning. The NS have conducted the commissioning shoots, however the OEMs are all there for such evolutions.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dogwatch View Post
                OTO have been given the task, it's in all respects a new gun, same as on the other P60s. OTO & the FCS OEM are tasked with supply, fitting and commissioning. The NS have conducted the commissioning shoots, however the OEMs are all there for such evolutions.
                If it is so then one has to be content that OTO will do a good job.

                Comment


                • Ship@s defence

                  Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  If it is so then one has to be content that OTO will do a good job.
                  I note that the standard, mostly extra Defence, fit for ships is 30mm cannons auto controlled. In 2005 the BMOD approved a £16m package to fit all the type 23 frigates. The US favours twin 30mm mounts. The p60's , p50's would benefit from such an addition given current difficulties on the edges of Europe.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                    I note that the standard, mostly extra Defence, fit for ships is 30mm cannons auto controlled. In 2005 the BMOD approved a £16m package to fit all the type 23 frigates. The US favours twin 30mm mounts. The p60's , p50's would benefit from such an addition given current difficulties on the edges of Europe.
                    Independent of the size there is also a move toward have all guns remotely controlled and stabilised, even 0.50cal have gone this way. Having a stabilised mount can have a big increase on the effectiveness of the weapon and extend no only the effective engagement range but that they normally include LLTV/IR cameras the night engagement abilities are massively increased.

                    As for what we should fit the MLG27 would be my preferred option, being a revolver cannon as opposed to a chain gun it has a much higher rate of fire which is extremely useful when dealing with small swarming craft attacking. The alternative would be the Oto Melara 30mm Marlin which has the advantage that it uses the same 30mm bushmaster II cannon used by the Mowag MRV.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                      Independent of the size there is also a move toward have all guns remotely controlled and stabilised, even 0.50cal have gone this way. Having a stabilised mount can have a big increase on the effectiveness of the weapon and extend no only the effective engagement range but that they normally include LLTV/IR cameras the night engagement abilities are massively increased.

                      As for what we should fit the MLG27 would be my preferred option, being a revolver cannon as opposed to a chain gun it has a much higher rate of fire which is extremely useful when dealing with small swarming craft attacking. The alternative would be the Oto Melara 30mm Marlin which has the advantage that it uses the same 30mm bushmaster II cannon used by the Mowag MRV.
                      I would support consideration of your choices.

                      Comment


                      • In terms of potential designs, given the relationship with Babcock, could the Arrowhead 140 as a bare bones fit (so no SAM, ASM) basic radar fit be anywhere close to affordable for the EPV selection.

                        Comment


                        • If it fits the dimensions of the specs I don't see why not. As it stands it has capacity for 8 TEU. Without a complex missile and sensor suite there would be other available space.
                          But we still don't know what this tender will specify. Maybe we will have a clearer picture by year end?
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                            If it fits the dimensions of the specs I don't see why not. As it stands it has capacity for 8 TEU. Without a complex missile and sensor suite there would be other available space.
                            But we still don't know what this tender will specify. Maybe we will have a clearer picture by year end?
                            I'm just wondering if the timeframe added up could it be tacked on to the RN build (if they won of course) which might help both keep the price down. I mean to me looking at the stuff they've put out the design seems fairly good, but as you say we still have to wait for the tender, is that still likely this year or has it slipped with the CASA's in play?

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=Sparky42;460343]I'm just wondering if the timeframe added up could it be tacked on to the RN build (if they won of course) which might help both keep the price down. I mean to me looking at the stuff they've put out the design seems fairly good, but as you say we still have to wait for the tender, is that still likely this year or has it slipped with the CASA's in play?[/QUOTE

                              The UK design is for a ship with a longer length than proposed in the first Outline announced by our side ie 140metres v 135metres. The vessel at 140 metres is described as a wide -bodied ship which means that her draft is likely to be in the region of 3.5metres on a probable beam of 23metres. Such dimensions would rule out drydocking in this state. They are a bargain at £250m . The large bays on the side would need careful consideration and also safe access to them from within the ship. A lone ship redesigned for HADR and our other stated needs might not be attractive to the F31E Builders.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                                The UK design is for a ship with a longer length than proposed in the first Outline announced by our side ie 140metres v 135metres. The vessel at 140 metres is described as a wide -bodied ship which means that her draft is likely to be in the region of 3.5metres on a probable beam of 23metres. Such dimensions would rule out drydocking in this state. They are a bargain at £250m . The large bays on the side would need careful consideration and also safe access to them from within the ship. A lone ship redesigned for HADR and our other stated needs might not be attractive to the F31E Builders.
                                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?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X