Thanks Thanks:  636
Likes Likes:  1,346
Dislikes Dislikes:  37
Page 84 of 89 FirstFirst ... 34748283848586 ... LastLast
Results 2,076 to 2,100 of 2210
  1. #2076
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,536
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Our Fuel was designated JP5 to ASTM, D1655. DEF STAN 91-91. Flash point 38C and freezing -60C. Treated FS 11. Petrol stowage was in small volume containers, rigged for auto release in case it needed to be jettisoned. JP5 and ships' diesel were similarly stable. However in the right circumstances both will burn which is why ships have fire suppression systems.
    Mil spec fuel, does the same job as the JET A1 normally used in turbine aircraft.Interestingly enough the Allouettes could run on a stuff called Jet B, which is concoction that includes a drop of 100LL for good measure, the only other aircraftI saw rated for this was Shorts 330 and 360s.

    https://www.shell.com/business-custo...el-grades.html

    The down side of devoting tank space to long term storage aboard ship would be the testing and sampling regime that needs to be carried out daily, the pressure testing and cycling of pumps for a fuel that may or may not be used if an aircraft is not deployed.

    It would be unlikely that any future vessel would return to Eithnes standard of flight ops there fore the concept of a deployable TEU an associated systems is IMHO a far better option.

    The more modular capabilities and future ship has ensures that it will be far more flexible and therefore better VFM.
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 5th April 2018 at 21:13.
    Time for another break I think......

  2. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití liked this post
  3. #2077
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Going on functionality and "Ready to GO" the flexible ship with requisitionable equipment, and the correct personnel for the job , will eventually fail big time with no mentors or on-the -job trainers available or in the right place at the right time. VFM concept is another form of Procrastination much favoured by our Pols. Don't spend now, delay and waffle, so that today is a day for doing nothing AND tomorrow will be another day for doing nothing.

  4. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  5. #2078
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Going on functionality and "Ready to GO" the flexible ship with requisitionable equipment, and the correct personnel for the job , will eventually fail big time with no mentors or on-the -job trainers available or in the right place at the right time. VFM concept is another form of Procrastination much favoured by our Pols. Don't spend now, delay and waffle, so that today is a day for doing nothing AND tomorrow will be another day for doing nothing.
    Lets engage the service of a consultant to make the decision for us so we can detach ourselves from all responsibility if the decision becomes unpopular.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  6. Likes Tempest liked this post
  7. #2079
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Meanwhile here is a useful means to move containers around a deck. All you need is enough people to push it.. or alternatively a fork lift sized towing vehicle.
    https://youtu.be/abElD-ZOmd8
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  8. Likes DeV liked this post
  9. #2080
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Going on functionality and "Ready to GO" the flexible ship with requisitionable equipment, and the correct personnel for the job , will eventually fail big time with no mentors or on-the -job trainers available or in the right place at the right time. VFM concept is another form of Procrastination much favoured by our Pols. Don't spend now, delay and waffle, so that today is a day for doing nothing AND tomorrow will be another day for doing nothing.
    Can we look at outfitting the NEW P64 with a 32 year old in service 76mm gun. If everything is removed and installed in the NEW vessel then the system is to be pitched at up to 65/70 years, operational life. If we do that without refurbishment and updating the gun FCS and ammunition then we will have problems of seamless integration or breakdown of control systems. Does power architecture and voltage on P41 match that of P64. 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.

  10. #2081
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,094
    Post Thanks / Like
    VFM isn’t all bad. So long as it is used correctly

  11. #2082
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    You should remember that the Bofors 40mm fitted to L.E. Emer when she was launched in 1977, were built in 1954-56. Better off in my opinion that all guns fitted are of the same vintage, that way like we did with the L60, we can upgrade the entire fleet at the same time, when it becomes necessary.
    Commonality is far more important than modernity with weaponry, when it comes to Logistics and Training.
    The OTO Melara 76/62 Compact has been in service, mostly unchanged, with no reliability issues, since 1963. The only variable, with older guns is how many rounds have gone down the barrel. It is a Modular system that is pretty self contained, requiring 440V 3 Phase for the main supply and 110V 1 Phase for the hydro and servo system. This is easily achieved on any ocean going vessel.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  12. Thanks EUFighter, DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  13. #2083
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    You should remember that the Bofors 40mm fitted to L.E. Emer when she was launched in 1977, were built in 1954-56. Better off in my opinion that all guns fitted are of the same vintage, that way like we did with the L60, we can upgrade the entire fleet at the same time, when it becomes necessary.
    Commonality is far more important than modernity with weaponry, when it comes to Logistics and Training.
    The OTO Melara 76/62 Compact has been in service, mostly unchanged, with no reliability issues, since 1963. The only variable, with older guns is how many rounds have gone down the barrel. It is a Modular system that is pretty self contained, requiring 440V 3 Phase for the main supply and 110V 1 Phase for the hydro and servo system. This is easily achieved on any ocean going vessel.
    There's a story told of the training manual of the original 12 pounder that listed a crew requirement, that appeared to be excessive in practice, by at least one, it turned out his duty was to control the horses when the gun was being fired. Saying a gun fitted, meets the role, requires it to be laid for range and bearing and be accurate and stable when firing. The Bofors L40 was never fit for purpose or used on towed aerial targets, as was the case with the Bofors 57mm. Commonality, Logistics, Training and scales of importance are matters which will fight the ship but it must do so in today's environment on ocean going ships with the required EM designs. If we are going to stick with old technology then we will revert to an organisation untrained to meet modern threats.

  14. #2084
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    In any event I do not now believe P64 will be fitted with a 32 year old gun. Main armament is in place on Both Peacocks currently tied up in the Basin.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  15. Thanks EUFighter, ias thanked for this post
    Likes hptmurphy, ias liked this post
  16. #2085
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    576
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  17. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  18. #2086
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  19. #2087
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  20. #2088
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,205
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  21. #2089
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  22. #2090
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  23. Likes EUFighter, Herald liked this post
  24. #2091
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  25. Thanks na grohmití, DeV, Turkey, ias, hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes Rhodes, DeV, Turkey liked this post
  26. #2092
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  27. #2093
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Ship@s defence

    Quote 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.

  28. #2094
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  29. #2095
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  30. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, na grohmití liked this post
  31. #2096
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,205
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  32. #2097
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    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?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  33. #2098
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,205
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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?

  34. #2099
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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.

  35. #2100
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,205
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 303
    Last Post: 29th December 2015, 13:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 22:54
  3. Naval Training Ship?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th February 2003, 00:19

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •