Thanks Thanks:  705
Likes Likes:  1,429
Dislikes Dislikes:  39
Page 89 of 93 FirstFirst ... 39798788899091 ... LastLast
Results 2,201 to 2,225 of 2325
  1. #2201
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    779
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Idle curiosity...

    What if, instead of building another ship - who's function and form no one can agree on - the €200m were spent on upgrades for the P60 class?

    Obviously it's too late to do anything about a flight deck, but what upgrades could be done to the existing fleet?

    Is the P60 a platform that could be upgraded to great effect with what is a relatively little sum, or is a platform that is limited as much by its design as by its fitting out budget?
    Because there is no room on the p60 class for such modifications. Although it is excellent to get four new opv hulls, be very clear that they bring very little increase in capability compared to the p50 class.... no ASR, no Ops Room, no flight deck, DP that is not sufficient (DP0 fitted instead of DP1 as a cost saving measure....) no MBES..... the list goes on. Nice engines and PTIs.........
    We would have been better served to get 3 hulls with such capability rather than 4 without......

  2. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  3. #2202
    The Auld Fella A/TEL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    445
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is scope for some modifications to the P60s.

    They were constructed with this in mind.

    The mast is one example, can be upgraded fairly easily to take Air Search Radar.

    Bridge and Comms systems are software based so can be upgraded to take any software based upgrades.

    Afterdeck was lengthened for the use of UAVs, lauching and recovery systems for these are usually mobile.

    There is scope there to improve them but obviously they will never be up-gradable beyond OPV/corvette status.

    The big word here is money!!

  4. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  5. #2203
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,746
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  6. Likes Turkey, na grohmití liked this post
  7. #2204
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    725
    Post Thanks / Like
    An upgrade of the P60 would be good but one area of concern is space, especially on the bridge as there is no provision for a Ops Room in the design.
    P60_Bridge.jpg
    Looking at the size it should be possible to re-model the bridge along "modern" lines and be able to fit up to 6 MFC's to handle the sensor and weapon systems of a possible upgrade. This is not a small mod and together with sensor and other system upgrades would take 6 months at least to perform. Key would be the installation of a CMS, either Saab's 9LV or Thales Tacticos in there OPV/corvette versions. This is also the single high cost item the beam counters are least likely to understand, as it is about the fusion of the sensor data and weapons control.

  8. #2205
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    An upgrade of the P60 would be good but one area of concern is space, especially on the bridge as there is no provision for a Ops Room in the design.
    P60_Bridge.jpg
    Looking at the size it should be possible to re-model the bridge along "modern" lines and be able to fit up to 6 MFC's to handle the sensor and weapon systems of a possible upgrade. This is not a small mod and together with sensor and other system upgrades would take 6 months at least to perform. Key would be the installation of a CMS, either Saab's 9LV or Thales Tacticos in there OPV/corvette versions. This is also the single high cost item the beam counters are least likely to understand, as it is about the fusion of the sensor data and weapons control.
    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.

  9. Likes EUFighter, Turkey liked this post
  10. #2206
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  11. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  12. #2207
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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".

  13. #2208
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,585
    Post Thanks / Like
    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 grohmití; 20th October 2018 at 13:09.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  14. #2209
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    184
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  15. #2210
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  16. #2211
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,578
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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!
    Time for another break I think......

  17. Likes na grohmití, EUFighter liked this post
  18. #2212
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.?

  19. #2213
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    779
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  20. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití liked this post
  21. #2214
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,585
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  22. #2215
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    779
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  23. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  24. #2216
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,585
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fassmer just launched this design at Euronaval.(about 4 minutes in) No other details yet.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  25. Likes morpheus, hptmurphy liked this post
  26. #2217
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    Any hint about when we might see any more movement on the EPV?

  27. #2218
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,585
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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)
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  28. #2219
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmitÃ* 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.

  29. #2220
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,585
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.
    https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968
    https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investiga...-File&attach=1
    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.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  30. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  31. #2221
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmitÃ* View Post
    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.
    https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968
    https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investiga...-File&attach=1
    In a normal CPP shafting/control system the blades are controlled either from a push/pull rod system from servo motors at the gear box OR a hydraulic system where the servo motor is in the hub. However in both cases as lines enter the gearbox area they are fitted with non-return devices. I cannot understand flooding internally in the ship, through hollow shafting, unless there was free flooding in an aft compartment AND the shafts were broken to allow water to ingress. Question arises is there a non return system on hollow shafting or does it free flow once broken. This conundrum effects thousands of ships fitted with CPP and is it ONE of the reasons some ships are fitted with Azipods?

  32. #2222
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    725
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Norwegian Navy have released underwater video of the damage which they took while they were removing all live ordnance from the ship.
    Damage seems to be very extensive, it is amazing they managed to get her beached even if now she has slipped into the deep.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAvmkq7gW78

  33. Thanks DeV, Flamingo, na grohmití, Shaqra, Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes ibenji liked this post
  34. #2223
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The Norwegian Navy have released underwater video of the damage which they took while they were removing all live ordnance from the ship.
    Damage seems to be very extensive, it is amazing they managed to get her beached even if now she has slipped into the deep.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAvmkq7gW78
    Any new vessels for the Naval Service must take account of all those construction processes that may cause or contribute to immediate ingress of seawater and its spread beyond planned watertight boundaries. There have been two examples of rapid flooding in ships lately e.g. Helge Ingstad above and the EMMA Maersk.
    The HI incident was caused by collision and a consequent failure of watertight integrity in shafting and boundaries causing flooding to spread.
    In the EM incident, while entering the approaches of the Suez canal, she had a failure in the aft end thruster tunnel which caused seawater to rapidly flood the long shaft tunnel and, despite closing a watertight door, the amount of water pressure caused the watertight integrity of a bulkhead to fail, with the ship losing all power to the flood water. Luckily 5 tugs were at hand and by using them and manually controlled anchors and chain they got her alongside a container berth. It cost about E40m to repair.
    A high proportion of weaknesses in ship construction must be a failure of oversight both within yards, designers , and organisations ordering ships. Ships have to have propulsion, Stabilisers , and thrusters, and they must be designed in with watertight integrity in mind.

  35. Likes Auldsod, na grohmití liked this post
  36. #2224
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    725
    Post Thanks / Like
    The standard to which the Helge Ingstad was built and what we build out vessels too are different; one is to full MilStd while the other is commercial with a bit of mil added on. But even the high mil specs need to be looked at. A modern naval vessel is highly automated, keeps running costs down etc. But it also means that for damage control many fewer bodies are available and here I see a problem. A vessel the size of the Helge Ingstad in the 1950's/60's would have had a crew of around 360, three times more that today. This meant that there were a lot of people to do damage control. These are now missing so it might be time to update standard to take the new reality into account.

  37. #2225
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well it depends of course, the USN runs a much larger crew per ship than Euro designs, however to be honest given the scale of damage that the HI took I don't think any level of damage control would have saved her, I mean she had multiple compartments breached from top to bottom, with reported shaft failures as well, and I'm not sure she even had watertight set. Given the damage some of the Burkes have taken have come close to critical I don't know if one of them could have shrugged off this scale of damage either.

  38. Thanks DeV, EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, na grohmití liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 303
    Last Post: 29th December 2015, 14:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 23:54
  3. Naval Training Ship?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th February 2003, 01:19

Posting Permissions

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