Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Link to sea toby's earlier post.



    Another vessel mentioned in that article is the Enforcer 8000.

    It is 129.9m long, with a 24.8m beam and a 5.2m draught,


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

    Comment


    • Realistically, what are the chances that Air Corps Helis are going to operate on the new MRV, even if only for a short period on a resupply mission. And secondly, would the new AW139s be a suitable airframe for use on ship, or would this be a chance to argue for getting one or two NH90s which could be used on board as required
      What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

      Comment


      • I don't think 1 or 2 NH90's would make any sense - especially if their role was to back up peace support operations. 4 or 5 would be an absolute minimum. This is because if you send over 2 NH90's to support an operation such as in Liberia - how do the pilots back home train and keep up their hours on the type?

        I think that if the 139's were to operate from the MRV, it would be in a simple delivery role. They would be lashed to the deck, transported to Liberia, rigged up and flown off the deck to be based on land. Then when their mission is over after a 6 months or whatever, they're flown back onto the MRV and transported home.

        I'd very much doubt we'll see them on normal patrol missions with the NS.

        Apparently though, the last number of cadets for the IAC have to be willing to serve at sea. It was written on their forms. This was mentioned a while back.

        Comment


        • The days of deploying a mission specific heli with a ship seem to be gone for all but the larger navies.The trend worldwide(including the Arleigh Burke Flight 1 and 2 vessels)is for a helideck only. However what you have here is an ability to land helis. Be they coastguard or other air arms. When the ship has no need for them they can be off doing whatever else they can do.
          As pym said however, if you needed to move helis, you have the deckspace. When the deck is clear, open them up and fly them off.(while at anchor)


          Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

          Comment


          • Point taken...
            What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
              Link to sea toby's earlier post.



              Another vessel mentioned in that article is the Enforcer 8000.

              It is 129.9m long, with a 24.8m beam and a 5.2m draught,
              bit on the big side?
              Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

              Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

              Comment


              • .... and undergunned in my humble opinion.

                Comment


                • All of the press reports (and images posted here) would seem to indicate that the NS are intent on the Meko 200 MRV. If they go to tender though, which they probably will, they will have to consider a number of designs.

                  Is there any clear definition anywhere of precisely what it is they require? Starting with the counterfactual, theres no suggestion of a well deck, so we can rule that out, along with, apparently, hangars for helicopters. It is unclear from what has been made public as to whether there is a requirement for internal stowage for vehicles, apart from the fact that the NS images seem to imply deck stowage. Tender documents for this would make for very interesting reading.

                  All the more interesting when you consider that, if all of this order comes from the one manufacturer, the NS could be looking at 2 new classes of ship, a P-60 class (Meko 200 size) and a P-70 class of around the 2,000t displacement (Meko 100?). Unless a potential builder could be persuaded to build the P50 design of course. Thats three new ships in one lump. And then, in 2014, the Eithne and Orla and Ciara will start to hit 30 years old. 3 more new, if they stick to a 8 ship NS. And at least 5 years worth of waltering in the interim.

                  btw, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) own Blohm and Voss, but B and V still exist in their own right, albeit as a mere subsidiary. Still wrong though, having Thyssen and Krupp as one company. Whats next, all the 'baby Farbens' re agglomerating into IG Farben?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Aidan View Post

                    All the more interesting when you consider that, if all of this order comes from the one manufacturer, the NS could be looking at 2 new classes of ship, a P-60 class (Meko 200 size) and a P-70 class of around the 2,000t displacement (Meko 100?). Unless a potential builder could be persuaded to build the P50 design of course. Thats three new ships in one lump. And then, in 2014, the Eithne and Orla and Ciara will start to hit 30 years old. 3 more new, if they stick to a 8 ship NS. And at least 5 years worth of waltering in the interim.

                    btw, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) own Blohm and Voss, but B and V still exist in their own right, albeit as a mere subsidiary. Still wrong though, having Thyssen and Krupp as one company. Whats next, all the 'baby Farbens' re agglomerating into IG Farben?
                    The way I read the reports, the plan is for an extended version of the P50 class, 80m in length. I assume the original designer, Aker yards, would be responsible for the design of such improvisations.
                    The P50 class is in service seven years now, and no doubt the users already know exactly where the improvements can be made, in the same way as they knew where improvements would be made to Niamh from Roisins original design. I don't forsee a totally new design for a P20 replacement. The P50s are excellent, with some tweaking, they can be better.

                    On your second point, there is a trend in military industry to combine efforts. EADS as an example. Even the UK LTAV tender more or less assured that regardless of the final outcome of the tender process, Alvis would be involved in the construction.
                    How many firearms manufacturers do H&K own?
                    One parent company to make the bid, and sub contract the work out to their partners to guarantee delivery on time, and on schedule.
                    Everyone wins.


                    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                    Comment


                    • Agreed on the stretched P50s - wouldn't take much of a stretch to bring them to 80m either. €45m looks a lot though, which is what had me intrigued.

                      On the issue of ThyssenKrupp, I was just refering to the historical issue - Krupp were among the largest and most successful steel (and arms) manufacturers in history. Having them join with Thyssen just seems wrong*.

                      The vertical integration of steel makers and dockyards, and the benefits for buyers is a separate one (and one with a long history in Germany) - in general its a good thing, allows for greater economies of scale and efficiency. There comes a point in all of this merger activity though when competition gets hurt when the number of available suppliers gets small - easier for a cartel to form. In reality, given the type of project, just how many yards are out there that have the reputation (which will be an issue in any €180m contract) and ability to deliver quickly? 3 or 4 in Europe?

                      The issue around the Blue/Green ship is that clarity over requirements is critical in any project. Leaving aside the obvious benefits of buying off the shelf, the procurement process for this has to be squeeky clean. I'm sure no one wants a repeat of the medium lift helicopter contract.

                      *No prizes for guessing who got a copy of "Wages of Destruction - The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy" for Christmas.

                      Comment


                      • Are there any other classes of ships out there that could be put in for this requirement?, because it looks like it was written specifically for the Meko 200 MRV
                        Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

                        Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

                        Comment


                        • The Enforcer 8000 is the only one that comes close. It would be nice to know who else tendered for the Kiwi MRV, apart from the winning outcome.


                          Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by mutter nutter View Post
                            bit on the big side?
                            Did the Minister not say 120 metres, 129 isn't much bigger. It's probably 129 LOA, but a WL of 120 or so, how bad!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Odin_ie View Post
                              Realistically, what are the chances that Air Corps Helis are going to operate on the new MRV, even if only for a short period on a resupply mission.
                              Probably very good in a Peace Support/Enforcement Mission or training for Peace Support/Enforcement. The IAC have always been very keen to deploy units overseas, just not very keen for FP on NS ships. Take into account that the MRV will be a much bigger platform than P31, much more stable and better comfort, which was a huge factor in the IAC not wanting to operate on P31.

                              Originally posted by Odin_ie View Post
                              And secondly, would the new AW139s be a suitable airframe for use on ship, or would this be a chance to argue for getting one or two NH90s which could be used on board as required
                              Check with the 'don' heads, but the AW139 would not require huge modifications to make it suitable for deck landings. The landing gear fitted as standard is strong enough (unlike Dauphins where only two had the strengthened landing gear). Therefore it would not be a huge modification to fit a harpoon and flotation bags (so sources say).

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Dogwatch View Post
                                Did the Minister not say 120 metres, 129 isn't much bigger. It's probably 129 LOA, but a WL of 120 or so, how bad!
                                I meant the weight, 8000T might be a bit big for what they want, a patrol ship that can carry vehicles and stuff.....anyone know how much an Enforcer 8000 costs now?



                                nice PDF of the different enforcer models.
                                Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

                                Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X