Normally in systems designations, the, in this instance, "200" means that both vessels are based on the same design.
IAS
Normally in systems designations, the, in this instance, "200" means that both vessels are based on the same design.
IAS
You would think that, But in reality,Blohm and Voss have their own ideas. Perhaps(and I am guessing here) the "200" only relates to the Hull design(the ship other than the superstructure)?
The Meko principle is that each vessel can be adapted to the customers specifications either during construction or any time after,with little difficulty. Normally this would entail drydocking the vessel and cutting large holes in the hull to remove and replace equipment,but the Meko system allows this kind of refit in the same way a container ship is loaded and unloaded.
The Australian Naval website has a great little tool to explain how this is done.
http://www.navy.gov.au/afp/default.htm
Meanwhile for comparison, The Meko 200 Frigate(above) and the Meko 200 MRV
http://www.blohmvoss.com/
Originally Posted by Goldie fish
The pro's of this class are that if a humanitarian disaster were to occur, the vessel could be used for quickly delivering supplies to the stricken zone and this type of role would be easier to justify to the tree huggers and left wingers.
GF, according to the B+V website the MRV is the same length as the SAN A-200 Corvette/Frigate and weights 3,900 tonnes, compared to 3,200 for the South African vessel and the Australian/NZ MEKO 200, the ANZAC Frigate is slightly smaller, 117 m compared to 121 m and weights 3,500 tonnes.
IAS
Last edited by ias; 4th August 2005 at 21:54.
I already know this. As I said in my earlier post,which you no doubt read, the Meko 200 Frigate and Meko 200 MRV share the same Hull. Thats why the length is the same. Even looking at the photos I posted above you would notice the obvious similarities in the HULLOriginally Posted by ias
However that is where the similarities end. Different engines,different sensor fit,completely different upper deck layout.
Its a common feature of modern ship design. For example the irish Lights vessel Grainuaile has the same hull design as Oil Rig Supply Vessels and Anchor Handling vessels. The Hull found on The Irish P50 class is also found on a coast guard vessel in Mauritius,and forms the basis for the design of the New New Zealand OPV,however neither vessel bears any resemblance to Either Niamh or Roisin.
![]()
OPV Vigilant
![]()
New Zealand OPV
Also if you visit the Blohm and Voss website you will seeThe concept of the MEKO® 200 MRV has been shaped in numerous discussions with customers looking for a bigger, more versatile OPV.The design objectives for the these vessels are:
Class and merchant marine rules and regulations
Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) equipment
Mission adaptability
Modularity
Please visit this link before drawing my attention to any further points. If you have any diffuculty understanding some of th eterms used,try here
Not that my opinion counts for anything, but the MEKO 200 MRV looks on paper, like an excellent choice if the Navy ever do go ahead with ordering a support ship. In fact the brochure couldnt be better marketed for the DoD/DoF; the white APC's, UN containers, not to mention suggesting the merits of deploying it "as a versatile exhibition or diplomatic ship."
Can we have two?![]()
I think ias might mean by "naval standards" - that these ships would have a level of armour etc. which isnt fitted to the navys current vessels, but who knows.
Last edited by pym; 5th August 2005 at 16:16.
Armour stopped being fitted to naval vessels when it was realised that Aircraft carriers,not battleships,were to be the capitol ships of the future. I don't know of any serving warship that is armoured these days. Most hulls are built of the same steel that is clad on the hull of the average APC,and any glass on a ship must be able to withstand the pressures of the sea trying to make its way in. The same surfaces because of this would probably withstand certain small arms ammunition, thats as far as it goes.
I wonder how much armour you'd need to stop an exocet missile, a torpedo or a smart bomb?Originally Posted by Goldie fish
Wasn't there a story from the invasion of the Falklands of a detachment of Royal Marines nearly sinking an Argentinian corvette with a Milan, before being surrounded and forced to surrender?
Message #18 in this Previous Thread
As I was trying to say, not going Military seems to save money, but I'm no expert, I use this board as a learning tool as well as for enjoyment, so no offence to anybody.
IAS
And we will assist you in the learning process where possible.
Saving money,is always going to be the order of the day.
Straight from a slideshow of the Flotilla and the future fleet taken today at Haulbowline.Originally Posted by Goldie fish
Remember where you heard it first! :tri: :tri: :tri:
The Blue/green vessel is expected to enter service in 2007.
Looks a lot bigger than 3,900 tonnes, and should be intresting to see it getting into the Basin , and a crew of 150 .
I bet there are a lot of writers etc looking to transfer to another branch of the forces right now .
Great bit of info Goldie , good job
Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .
Question withdrawn.
Last edited by lordinajamjar; 28th August 2005 at 01:43.
ljj
any chance you could repost this in the relevant thread? It takes ages to split/merge on such a large thread.
its almost common knowledge given that there was a drawing posted in the base today...
Time for another break I think......
A question on the photo of the slide above of the "P61" proposal. I was studying it a little closer over the weekend and comparing it to the images on the B+V site. I was surprised to note that the twin funnel arrangement on the image of the "P61" is much further "aft" than on the MEKO 200 MRV images (hope my terminology is correct, if not apologies). This appears to lead to reduced cargo space on deck, a less efficient use of space ahead of the funnels and there also appears to be differences in the "superstructure". I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice these, does anyone know why? Is the "P61" the latest/older image of the "200"? Is a Naval Service "modified" version?
Also, regarding the Absalon, I quoted earlier an incorrect price, the correct price, quoted by Jane's IDR, for the vessel is DKK970million (just for interest).
IAS
While I cannot answer your question, keep in mind that the Meko system is designed around the end users specifications, rather than an "off the shelf" design.
Earlier posts modified to make comparison easier.
Thanks for the modification above certainly makes it easier to compare.
I've one other sort of related question, if you read the data on the A-100, it says that funnels are unnecessary due to "side exhausts leading through the hull's side shell", anyone know why this has not been the case for the A-200, would leave more deck space?
IAS
Defence Forces Equipment.
03/11/2005
Minister for Defence (Mr. O’Dea):
...................................... Planning is well under way on the replacement programme for the next Naval Service ships to reach the end of their economic life...............
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate...de=H10-6#H10-6
it confirms the purchase of 15 further Mowags too
Last edited by pym; 5th November 2005 at 05:47.
Here it is.....
Originally Posted by Mr. O’Dea:
Originally Posted by Mr. O’Dea:
Last edited by lordinajamjar; 5th November 2005 at 07:08.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)