Thanks Thanks:  437
Likes Likes:  952
Dislikes Dislikes:  29
Page 5 of 65 FirstFirst ... 345671555 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 1607
  1. #101
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Normally in systems designations, the, in this instance, "200" means that both vessels are based on the same design.

    IAS

  2. #102
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    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/

  3. #103
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    846
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish
    If you mean the Kiwi MRV,No. Its size is excessive for a vessel which would spend the majority of its time engaged in duties it was not designed for,ie routine Patrol.
    Its fine for the Kiwis,as they have a large section of the pacific to look after,and have a requirement for a ship to bring their own military vehicles between the islands in their own nation,so a ferry type makes sense. The convenience of Stern and Side loading ramps on the hull is outweighed by the extra maintenance these occasionally used features will require.

    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.

  4. #104
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Meko vessel could do the exact same job.

  5. #105
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  6. #106
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ias
    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
    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 HULL
    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 see
    The 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

  7. #107
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  8. #108
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  9. #109
    Lt General Barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Rancho Relaxo
    Posts
    4,701
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish
    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?

    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?

  10. #110
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    No tangents please barry.

  11. #111
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  12. #112
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    And we will assist you in the learning process where possible.
    Saving money,is always going to be the order of the day.

  13. #113
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish
    OK,the rumour persists.

    About 4000 tonnes,Blue/green role.
    Word is the finer details are being ironed out. As always budget is the only maybe,but in the past,there has never been a problem,ask,and you shall recieve.

    I found this on the Blohm and Voss website....

    Meko 200 MRV


    Main characteristics ship platform:
    Length, overall 121.00 m
    Length, DWL 109.00 m
    Beam 17.00 m
    Draught 4.40 m
    Displacement 3,900 t
    Range 8,000 nm
    Endurance 30 days

    Propulsion:
    2 high-speed diesel engines 5,200 kW each
    2 shafts fitted with controllable pitch propellers
    Max. speed > 22 kn

    Crew:
    Total 150 + 10

    Helicopter:
    optional


    http://212.72.173.53/en/page.php?page_id=PG-215
    Straight from a slideshow of the Flotilla and the future fleet taken today at Haulbowline.




    Remember where you heard it first! :tri: :tri: :tri:

    The Blue/green vessel is expected to enter service in 2007.

  14. Likes DeV liked this post
  15. #114
    Chief Casey Ryback
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    941
    Post Thanks / Like
    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 .

  16. #115
    Aha: Death=Preconception Lordinajamjar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,705
    Post Thanks / Like
    Question withdrawn.
    Last edited by lordinajamjar; 28th August 2005 at 01:43.

  17. #116
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    ljj

    any chance you could repost this in the relevant thread? It takes ages to split/merge on such a large thread.

  18. #117
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,073
    Post Thanks / Like
    its almost common knowledge given that there was a drawing posted in the base today...
    Just visiting

  19. #118
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is NOW

  20. #119
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  21. #120
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  22. #121
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  23. #122
    C/S sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    793
    Post Thanks / Like

    Post

    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...............

  24. #123
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Have you a source for that quote sledger?

  25. #124
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  26. #125
    Aha: Death=Preconception Lordinajamjar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,705
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here it is.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. O’Dea:
    Information Zoom I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 27 together. The gross allocation for the Defence and Army Pensions Votes was €566 million in 1995, €789 million in 2000 and €934 million in 2005. The level of expenditure on defence in any particular country is influenced by a variety of factors, including that country’s political and security environment, its history, demography and economy. While defence spending in this country has fallen as a percentage of GNP in recent years, this is not due to any reduction in the level of defence expenditure, but rather because of the massive increase in GNP.

    There has been an unprecedented level of expenditure on infrastructure and equipment for the Defence Forces in recent years. This was made possible by the Government’s decision that pay savings arising from the reorganisation of the Defence Forces set out in the White Paper 2000, along with proceeds from the sale of surplus properties, would be fully reallocated for investment in modern facilities and equipment. More than €192 million was spent on the capital investment programme for the upgrade of barracks, accommodation and other facilities between 1997 and the end of 2004. This year’s Defence Estimate includes a further €19 million for such capital works.

    Substantial progress has also been made in recent years with the acquisition of modern equipment for the Army, Air Corps and the Naval Service. During the past six years, more than €200 million has been expended on the purchase of 65 armoured personnel carriers and the Javelin missile system for the Army, new patrol vessels for the Naval Service and new trainer aircraft for the Air Corps. Last January, I signed contracts for six new helicopters for the Air Corps costing more than €60 million. Planning is well underway on the replacement programme for the next Naval Service ships to reach the end of their economic life and a further 15 armoured personnel carriers, APC, will be added to our fleet. It is expected that the contract for the additional 15 APCs will be signed by the end of the year. Further details of the re-equipment programme are contained in a reply to a later question on the Order Paper.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. O’Dea:
    Minister for Defence (Mr. O’Dea): Information Zoom I would take issue with the views expressed by PDFORRA on the subject of defence spending, with particular regard to expenditure on modern equipment. The position is that there has been an unprecedented level of expenditure on infrastructure and equipment for the Defence Forces in recent years. I have seen proof positive of this investment in my visits to military barracks around the country and my experience is that the morale of soldiers is generally very high from the equipment and infrastructural perspective.

    The increased level of expenditure on equipment for the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service was made possible by the Government’s decision that pay savings arising from the reorganisation of the Defence Forces set out in the White Paper of 2000, along with proceeds from the sale of surplus properties, would be reallocated for investment in modern facilities and equipment.

    Investment in new equipment for the Defence Forces is provided for under various subheads of the Defence Vote relating to defensive equipment, mechanical transport, aircraft, ships and naval stores, engineering, communications and information technology equipment etc. All elements of the Defence Forces, the Army, Air Corps, Naval Service and the Reserve have benefited from the investment in new equipment.

    Over the past six years, over €200 million has been expended on the purchase of 65 armoured personnel carriers for the Army, new patrol vessels for the Naval Service and new trainer aircraft for the Air Corps.

    The programme of investment is continuing apace. Last January, I signed contracts for six new helicopters for the Air Corps costing over €60 million. Planning is well under way on the replacement programme for the next Naval Service ships to reach the end of their economic life and a further 15 armoured personnel carriers will be added to our current fleet. It is expected that the contract for the additional 15 APCs will be signed by the end of the year.

    There are also ongoing acquisitions of modern equipment for use by soldiers on operational duties. The individual soldier is now required to carry an array of equipment whilst engaged on such duties. In that regard, one of the essential ongoing equipment acquisition projects relates to the provision of a modern integrated protection and load carrying system for members of the Defence Forces. This involves, inter alia, the personal protective equipment consisting of body armour and helmet. The aim is to have a new, lighter protective system, consisting of body armour and helmet, which is compatible with all current and future systems required for each soldier.

    A tender competition is currently in train for the provision of body armour for the individual soldier. It is expected that an order will be placed shortly for 6,000 units. In addition, a separate tender competition for helmets is also currently in train for the acquisition of 12,000 units. It is expected that an order will be placed in the near future. A tender competition for the replacement of the existing FN 9mm Browning automatic pistol within the Defence Forces is also in train. It is expected that an order will be placed in the first quarter of 2006.

    The equipment issued to the Defence Forces is in keeping with the most modern requirements and the highest international standards. The ongoing investment in the Defence Forces will ensure that this remains to be the case and that the Defence Forces are suitably well equipped to carry out their roles both at home or overseas.

    Question No. 26 answered with Question No. 18.

    Question No. 27 answered with Question No. 11.
    Last edited by lordinajamjar; 5th November 2005 at 07:08.

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, 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
  •