Thanks Thanks:  638
Likes Likes:  1,348
Dislikes Dislikes:  37
Page 73 of 89 FirstFirst ... 2363717273747583 ... LastLast
Results 1,801 to 1,825 of 2215
  1. #1801
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=ancientmariner;455326]
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    i very much doubt the specs in the tender will say anything along the lines of we have no idea give us whatever you want

    None of us (afaik) are in NSHQ, SPO, HLIG, the high level procurement group (can't remember what it's called), contracts branch etc

    After clarifying an interservice wish list of how much, how many, how far, for how long, the procurement board draws up an outline ship's specification which is sent to an agreed list of potential ship builders. Some assistance with the specification can be fortified by using a Ship building Bureau such as Nevesbu Holland. The potential builders are asked to submit a builders specification based on the outline specification and submit quotes. After selecting a successful Yard, meetings are held to sift through the specification. The first stage will be model building and tank testing to establish speed and power required. Thereafter it is all building, supervised by Naval personnel backed up by the main technical contractor, and a Quality control Officer from the Yard. On going Survey is supplied by Llyods and all guarantees are reinforced to maximise duration of those guarantees. Specialist agencies are used to install and line up all naval equipment.
    Yes and as I inferred no one here knows for sure what that spec is going to be, e.g. it could say x lane metres and 4 RHIBs

  2. #1802
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Having said that let's look at the EPV RFP specs:

    Flight Deck 1 Spot for a 10 metric tonne helicopter

    Options
    Proposals should be provided for the following additional options
    1.Helicopter in-flight Refuelling Facility
    2.Provision of Dynamic Positioning class 2 or 3
    3.Because of the required size of the vessel, there may be potential to increase the utility of the vessel in other roles which would be desirable but not essential.* In this regard, the potential to provide a level of carrying capability for personnel, military vehicles and containers within the size and configuration of the vessel to which the mandatory requirements give rise, should be set out in the proposals.
    In this regard, the proposal should indicate the possible arrangements/ combinations of personnel, vehicles and containers that could be accommodated and should indicate the lane metres that can be designed into the vessel.* Annex A indicates the type of items which might be carried on the vessel although not necessarily at the same time.* Proposals should include separately the option of a facility for cargo discharge where no port infrastructure exists.* The implications of including such carrying capacity and cargo discharge arrangements on the nature of the proposed vessel should be fully outlined in the proposal. As already stated above, these optional additional capabilities are desirable but are not essential requirements of the proposed patrol vessel.

    The role of the EPV - "on limited occasions it may be used to carry personnel, military vehicles and equipment ".




    Then DoD engaged consultants to review the submissions
    Last edited by DeV; 26th October 2017 at 00:00.

  3. #1803
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,185
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Having said that let's look at the EPV RFP specs:




    The role of the EPV - "on limited occasions it may be used to carry personnel, military vehicles and equipment ".




    Then DoD engaged consultants to review the submissions
    In the act of putting out specifications it must be understood that using phrases like" on limited occasions" doesn't lessen the cost as the necessary spaces and strength has to be built in for those" occasions" together with compensatory ballasting when weights are not on board. Cargo discharge requires a crane 25t which should not obstruct the flight deck.Communications needed at all major work points. Also take notice that potential builders, responding to loose specifications incur costs responding to might have/will have requirements.It is as cheap to ask exactly for your visualised needs. Remember when providing for vehicles, or anything with wheels, that maneuvering space must be allowed for. Where did DOD get the advice and why did they use such loose phraseology?

  4. #1804
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    In the act of putting out specifications it must be understood that using phrases like" on limited occasions" doesn't lessen the cost as the necessary spaces and strength has to be built in for those" occasions" together with compensatory ballasting when weights are not on board. Cargo discharge requires a crane 25t which should not obstruct the flight deck.Communications needed at all major work points. Also take notice that potential builders, responding to loose specifications incur costs responding to might have/will have requirements.It is as cheap to ask exactly for your visualised needs. Remember when providing for vehicles, or anything with wheels, that maneuvering space must be allowed for. Where did DOD get the advice and why did they use such loose phraseology?
    The annex did give indications as to vehicle dimensions

    I suppose it indicates that the EPV was more PV, we any used space possibly going to cargo. No definition as what was required to be carried but also not cargo capability was an option not a requirement

  5. #1805
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The annex did give indications as to vehicle dimensions

    I suppose it indicates that the EPV was more PV, we any used space possibly going to cargo. No definition as what was required to be carried but also not cargo capability was an option not a requirement
    Starting to sound like the Eithne.

  6. #1806
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    Starting to sound like the Eithne.
    Yes but no. Eithne demonstrated the concept. She was about to depart on a resupply mission with approval for 8 TEU and 4 armoured vehicles stored on deck. (2 cars in Hangar, 2 on helideck, TEU stacked 2 high on helideck.
    Then unfortunately the mission was scrubbed. It did demonstrate what could be done, and the twistlock positions can and vehicle c/g marks can still be seen on her 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.

  7. Likes expat01, hptmurphy liked this post
  8. #1807
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,538
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit� View Post
    Yes but no. Eithne demonstrated the concept. She was about to depart on a resupply mission with approval for 8 TEU and 4 armoured vehicles stored on deck. (2 cars in Hangar, 2 on helideck, TEU stacked 2 high on helideck.
    Then unfortunately the mission was scrubbed. It did demonstrate what could be done, and the twistlock positions can and vehicle c/g marks can still be seen on her deck.
    Which goes back to my argument where the MRV perceived concept could be as well supplied by two slightly bigger versions of Eithne while retaining patrolling capacity and not over extend limited resources .

    And it must be two!
    Time for another break I think......

  9. Likes na grohmití, pym, sofa, Turkey liked this post
  10. #1808
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just in terms of seaworthiness, the Singapore Navy 'Endurance Class' mentioned appears to be less top-heavy/high a superstructure than the Canterbury(?) and is c.10m longer (at c.141m), though it is also a good bit narrower..

    There is a photo of an Endurance class in this months 'Warships' magazine, with the RAN Canberra class helicopter landing ship in the background (looking suspiciously like an aircraft carrier with its prominent ski-jump - for its helicopter launches?!) at some recent Australian naval exercise...

    In terms of naval comparisons (for seakeeping etc), whatever the French Navy uses (and they seem to use a lot) probably should not be ignored - even their former BATRAL amphibious landing ships were interesting as a capability...

    If looking for a patrol first, troop/carrier second type ship, i.e. an Eithne II, the Saudi Navy version of the French Navy La Fayette class, the Al Riyadh, could be useful, with a relatively long rear helicopter deck (a 131m long ship, extended from the 125m La Fayette class), 4,700 tonnes and a range of c.13,000km. Minus its missiles, etc. of course.

  11. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  12. #1809
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,185
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhingeNot View Post
    Just in terms of seaworthiness, the Singapore Navy 'Endurance Class' mentioned appears to be less top-heavy/high a superstructure than the Canterbury(?) and is c.10m longer (at c.141m), though it is also a good bit narrower..

    There is a photo of an Endurance class in this months 'Warships' magazine, with the RAN Canberra class helicopter landing ship in the background (looking suspiciously like an aircraft carrier with its prominent ski-jump - for its helicopter launches?!) at some recent Australian naval exercise...

    In terms of naval comparisons (for seakeeping etc), whatever the French Navy uses (and they seem to use a lot) probably should not be ignored - even their former BATRAL amphibious landing ships were interesting as a capability...

    If looking for a patrol first, troop/carrier second type ship, i.e. an Eithne II, the Saudi Navy version of the French Navy La Fayette class, the Al Riyadh, could be useful, with a relatively long rear helicopter deck (a 131m long ship, extended from the 125m La Fayette class), 4,700 tonnes and a range of c.13,000km. Minus its missiles, etc. of course.
    .

    You cannot really compare Canterbury to any ship, other than another "short fat ship" of Ro-Ro design. The Singaporean ENDURANCE is close to shape and general design for a sea kindly vessel. It has similar engines, Ruston, as Eithne but is slower at 15kts and is probably much more consistent at 14kts. We need something similar but at 18kts and designed to a width suitable for our only drydock at 20/21 metres. The Singaporeans have 4/5 of these ships in keeping with their Defence at distance policy. They cannot defend in depth on their own 640 sq.kilo. territory, so some pre-emptive action is contemplated. They have an 80% conscript force 9 times larger than ours and have some ethnic difficulties in choosing those who can serve without crisis of conscience . The Endurance format might indeed be worth examining.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 28th October 2017 at 10:08.

  13. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
  14. #1810
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,185
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Which goes back to my argument where the MRV perceived concept could be as well supplied by two slightly bigger versions of Eithne while retaining patrolling capacity and not over extend limited resources .

    And it must be two!
    Maybe! However the team to produce the data to implement the building of our MRV has been formed. It has already been to NZ to look at Canterbury project as it evolved. My hope is that they follow convention on the relationship between LENGTH of Ship and it's BREADTH and similarly the relationship between BREADTH and DRAFT.

  15. Likes na grohmití, hptmurphy liked this post
  16. #1811
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,185
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Maybe! However the team to produce the data to implement the building of our MRV has been formed. It has already been to NZ to look at Canterbury project as it evolved. My hope is that they follow convention on the relationship between LENGTH of Ship and it's BREADTH and similarly the relationship between BREADTH and DRAFT.
    .

    If I could add the need to arm this ship, and the remainder of the modern fleet, to a credible defensive level. The more usable a ship in multirole, the more likely she will have to approach hot spots and her escort if she has one. Some pundits next door are looking at the embarrassment of all Type 45's being tied up over Christmas after being joined by HMS Diamond who had to pull out of Gulf deployment in the last week.It is now said that lower tech but well armed ships could fill many of the roles undertaken by the DD's or Fg's. The only RN presence now in the Middle East are HMS ECHO and HMS Ocean which goes to show if you are Grey you are expected to man the Bearna Baoil- excuse the Gaeilge.

  17. Likes na grohmití, Banner liked this post
  18. #1812
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    577
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Maybe! However the team to produce the data to implement the building of our MRV has been formed. It has already been to NZ to look at Canterbury project as it evolved. My hope is that they follow convention on the relationship between LENGTH of Ship and it's BREADTH and similarly the relationship between BREADTH and DRAFT.
    I hope they were there to find out what not to do in a major naval project as the Canterbury has not been the best example of a MRV, problems with its RHIBs, its landing craft, its inability to take the NH90s only the SH2s and best of all its lack of seakeeping abilities. Then again it is based upon a ferry design for the Irish Sea so........ While there they should also have looked at the Protector Project, another fine example of good intentions but which fell well short of what was envisioned.

    I also hope that on their way back they stopped off in the Philippians to look at their Tarlac SSV and then to Singapore to see the Endurance class LPDs. Both of which are a much more capable and flexible designs for a MPV.
    Last edited by EUFighter; 2nd December 2017 at 11:40.

  19. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  20. #1813
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,185
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes. The TARLAC and ENDURANCE are interesting hulls and don't have the short fat design of a Ro-Ro. The hull is a simple job if you follow convention . The critical dependency tasks are reliable propulsion, power factors, and all the navigation and Defence aspects.

  21. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  22. #1814
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Or the bigger brother of the Endurance: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...e-170-lhd.html

  23. Likes ibenji liked this post
    Dislikes na grohmití, hptmurphy disliked this post
  24. #1815
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,185
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Or the bigger brother of the Endurance: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...e-170-lhd.html
    The outgoing Flag Officer indicated, in today's Irish Examiner , that planning was underway for the design of an MRV type vessel for the Naval Service. The vessel is to be 130 Meters with a range of capabilities both military and humanitarian. It seems to me that the vessel will be close to 12000 tonnes if we follow convention , with about 19 meter beam and a draft of about 4.8/5.0 meters.

  25. Likes sofa liked this post
  26. #1816
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,205
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The outgoing Flag Officer indicated, in today's Irish Examiner , that planning was underway for the design of an MRV type vessel for the Naval Service. The vessel is to be 130 Meters with a range of capabilities both military and humanitarian. It seems to me that the vessel will be close to 12000 tonnes if we follow convention , with about 19 meter beam and a draft of about 4.8/5.0 meters.
    Do you have a link to that article, can't find anything online?

  27. Thanks EUFighter, apod thanked for this post
  28. #1817
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The outgoing Flag Officer indicated, in today's Irish Examiner , that planning was underway for the design of an MRV type vessel for the Naval Service. The vessel is to be 130 Meters with a range of capabilities both military and humanitarian. It seems to me that the vessel will be close to 12000 tonnes if we follow convention , with about 19 meter beam and a draft of about 4.8/5.0 meters.

    So like the EPV specs then

  29. #1818
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,205
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    So like the EPV specs then
    Was the EPV spec along the lines of 12K tons?

  30. #1819
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Was the EPV spec along the lines of 12K tons?
    it didn’t specify

    The dimensions are

  31. #1820
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,185
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    it didn’t specify

    The dimensions are
    The article referring to 130 meter vessel was in Irish Examiner 11/12/2017. The length is the clue to potential tonnage and can give you displacement tonnage eg 130 m x 19 m x 5 m = 12350 then multiply by 1025 over 1000 to give 12650t in salt water.

  32. #1821
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    EPV specs
    130-140m long
    16-30m bean
    4-5m draft

  33. Likes ibenji liked this post
  34. #1822
    Commander in Chief apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    5,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The outgoing Flag Officer indicated, in today's Irish Examiner , that planning was underway for the design of an MRV type vessel for the Naval Service. The vessel is to be 130 Meters with a range of capabilities both military and humanitarian. It seems to me that the vessel will be close to 12000 tonnes if we follow convention , with about 19 meter beam and a draft of about 4.8/5.0 meters.
    Link???No sign online
    Infantry Corps - An Lámh Comhrac


    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  35. #1823
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    577
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The article referring to 130 meter vessel was in Irish Examiner 11/12/2017. The length is the clue to potential tonnage and can give you displacement tonnage eg 130 m x 19 m x 5 m = 12350 then multiply by 1025 over 1000 to give 12650t in salt water.
    I would add a form factor as the hull of a ship is not a cuboid, 12650 x 0.8 = 10120 to take account of the hull form.

  36. #1824
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,185
    Post Thanks / Like

    Block Coefficient

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    I would add a form factor as the hull of a ship is not a cuboid, 12650 x 0.8 = 10120 to take account of the hull form.
    Your correct, of course, for the final design of ship. It may be that the final coefficient may be in the region of 0.7 to 0.8. Well observed!

  37. #1825
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Article on Eithne (may have posted this before) - obviously details will have changed over the years

    http://www.dfmagazine.ie/site-assets...l_1982-low.pdf

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. B Inman

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
  •