Thanks Thanks:  774
Likes Likes:  1,634
Dislikes Dislikes:  42
Page 101 of 101 FirstFirst ... 519199100101
Results 2,501 to 2,516 of 2516
  1. #2501
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,877
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    I 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.
    Thank you sir for explaining what I was trying to put across in the clearest possible way such that only years of experience in the field could provide.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  2. Likes Graylion liked this post
  3. #2502
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    846
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  4. #2503
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    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.
    Fassemer seem to produce a significant number of ship designs with Helicopters landing in the forward part of the ship and in the case of a casevac/hospital ship the hangar is facing forward under the bridge. Helicopters usually land facing the wind over the Deck. If the landing is in the forward part of the ship then the helo is forced to fly backwards to face hangar and FDO, or face the wind and fly fast enough not to be run down by the ship and lose sight of ship references and FDO. It is operationally too tricky. Hangars must face aft and helo land in the direction of ship travel except in an emergency where the ship MUST run before the wind and the helo MUST be recovered.

  5. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter, Graylion liked this post
    Dislikes Flamingo disliked this post
  6. #2504
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    423
    Post Thanks / Like
    I 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.

  7. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  8. #2505
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    846
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    I 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.
    The Vard is OK, very much modelled on the New Zealand ship. It might be time for Damen to do a Gen2 of the Enforcer as it should incorporate a flexible mission bay like we see on the Cross-over and on most large frigates. The Enforcer has the big advantage of a well dock which makes it more independent in operations putting stuff ashore. In HADR ops sometimes the port facilities are not available, they can be damaged or block by other vessels, thus the ability to bring supplies ashore from a well dock in an LCM is good.

  9. #2506
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,877
    Post Thanks / Like
    Of course an honest competition will be held. You realise we on Irish Military Online are not making the decision?
    Expect to see it go to tender in the European journals shortly, each submission will be assessed based on strict criteria, all of which will be made clear to those submitting proposals, as well as anyone else with an interest. The selection process itself, like all tenders is strictly confidential.
    DFPO in the past, have released names of submissions received, but very little detail beyond that.
    They are not obliged to, as the process is strutinised throughout by external auditors.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  10. Likes DeV, Herald, hptmurphy, Sparky42 liked this post
  11. #2507
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,249
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    You realise we on Irish Military Online are not making the decision?
    What?? And with all the effort we have put in

  12. Thanks CTU, DeV thanked for this post
  13. #2508
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Of course an honest competition will be held. You realise we on Irish Military Online are not making the decision?
    Expect to see it go to tender in the European journals shortly, each submission will be assessed based on strict criteria, all of which will be made clear to those submitting proposals, as well as anyone else with an interest. The selection process itself, like all tenders is strictly confidential.
    DFPO in the past, have released names of submissions received, but very little detail beyond that.
    They are not obliged to, as the process is strutinised throughout by external auditors.
    Yes, I do realise all that. I also realise that DFPO are perfectly capable of writing an RFP that precludes all but 1 design ...

  14. Likes ropebag, Sparky42, EUFighter liked this post
  15. #2509
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well the Vard 7313 has IAC AW139s on the flight deck in the pics

    https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/up...VARD-7-313.pdf

  16. Likes Graylion liked this post
  17. #2510
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Given how long we've been talking about it, I wonder how "shortly" a timeframe we're talking about?

  18. #2511
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Well the Vard 7313 has IAC AW139s on the flight deck in the pics

    https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/up...VARD-7-313.pdf
    Could we please have a 76mm too?

  19. Likes DeV liked this post
  20. #2512
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,877
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Given how long we've been talking about it, I wonder how "shortly" a timeframe we're talking about?
    Not long now ????
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  21. #2513
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Not long now ????
    Well at least we'll have something more to debate/complain about then...

  22. #2514
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    There are a multitude of smaller vessel designs are out there, any of which a successful mini-JSS design could be based on.

    A few for instances..


    Enforcer 8000 LPD


    Enforcer 7000 LPD


    Crossover 131 Amphibious

    The thing is that for a very marginal reduction in tonnage/construction cost; you start to lose lane-metre capacity very, very, quickly. In pretty short order you are looking at needing two vessels to carry the equipment for an EU ISTAR component.

    As one of the sages used to say "Steel is cheap and air is free."
    Just to remind us of this.

  23. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  24. #2515
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    423
    Post Thanks / Like

  25. #2516
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Whoever writes the RFP must start with purpose of the vessel , areas of operation, range, duration, and nature of loads. , there must be a requirement that Length, Breadth, Depths and Cb ratios meet regulatory conditions and allow for voyaging fully discharged , and suitably ballasted in compensation. Container types must be specified to allow for loading widths and securing. Likewise for vehicles.
    Bow deck openings as depicted in some designs are not favoured in heavy weather, in event of bow immersion. There has to be some means of landing personnel by own means. Consideration for Towage operations should be included as all ships can tow. Armament suite should be built in at yard to facilitate good arcs of fire. Parallel sides from bridge aft, with good stern immersion , and decent stabilisation will provide a good helo deck.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 9th August 2019 at 10:16.

  26. Thanks na grohmiti, Graylion, Turkey thanked for this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 305
    Last Post: 1st May 2019, 22:01
  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
  •