Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

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

  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    If we are charging ourselves VAT I hope the DoD can claim it back.
    yes we do charge ourselves VAT and no they can't claim it back

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Galloglass View Post
      Wouldn't the cheaper sensor fit free up space internally?
      Only if it reduced the number of operator stations - and since it would have: air search, surface search, RWS, CIWS, FCS/76MM, ESM stations - I don't see how it could lead to roomier ops room. COTS equipment would just be a hell of a lot cheaper to purchase than a bespoke integrated AESA mast system.

      .........As it's a more "fighty" HPV like Eithne perhaps it should be designated P32?
      eh?

      Comment


      • The internal space would not increase as the equipment is located inside the mast. The ship is very similar to the P31 original spec except for the bolt-on CIWS although l like the comparison. Would be great if we could get four of them as was the original plan for the P31's.

        The iMast along with the whole Holland project was more as an Industrial Demonstrator for the Dutch marine industry rather than something which the Dutch navy needed! Replacing M-class frigates with the Hollands does not seems like a logical choice. The plan did not go 100% as the Dutch government planned as Damen built the ships in Romania rather than the Netherlands. Only the iMast was fitted in the Netherlands.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by client View Post
          yes we do charge ourselves VAT and no they can't claim it back
          You are joking!
          'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
          'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
          Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
          He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
          http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

          Comment


          • Next we will charge ourselves VRT (Vessel Registration Tax)!!!!

            Right hand Pocket, left hand Pocket: sound like typical buro...... bul.....t..

            Comment


            • The rules of VAT are quite complex, but we do not charge ourselves.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • Mini-Crossover

                As a lot of us seem to somehow fans of Damen Shipyards I have taken their SIGMA hull design for frigates and added some of the design features from their new OPV2 series of patrol vessels. The vessel would be built to the same standards as the Holland class, mix of naval and commercial with the use of commercial steel rather than the traditional high strength steel normally used for warships. This is heavier, cheaper but also has an additional benefit in that it is less brittle and thus better suited for protection against small/medium arms fire.

                GENERAL
                Length 105m
                Beam 16m
                Displacement 2900-3200tonnes
                Endurance 30 days
                Complement 85

                PROPULSION
                2 x MAN 12V28/33 diesel engines at 5.5MW
                2 x ABB electric motors at 400kW
                1 x ABB bow thruster rated at 550kW
                2 shafts

                AUXILIARY SYSTEMS
                Generator sets 3 x 968 kW / 920 ekW / 60 Hz
                Emergency gen. set 1 x 255 kW / 232 ekW / 60 Hz
                Chilled water system 2 x units, redundant distribution
                Fire fighting 5 x main pumps

                Click image for larger version

Name:	SIGMA105_15_X_over_1.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	481.5 KB
ID:	698082
                Click image for larger version

Name:	SIGMA105_15_X_over_2.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	494.0 KB
ID:	698083
                Click image for larger version

Name:	SIGMA105_15_X_over_3.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	468.0 KB
ID:	698084
                Click image for larger version

Name:	SIGMA105_15_X_over_4.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	406.7 KB
ID:	698085

                Naturally I would like the full option version!

                Comment


                • Damen OPV2600 looks good too (as a cheaper alternative)

                  Comment


                  • Commercial steel is used for all ships, only battleships used the steel you mention. The real question is thickness. And where you use materials other than steel. The USN Littoral ships are built with aluminium. Aluminium was also a feature of the Type 42 destroyers or the RN. Minesweepers are made of aluminium or GRP.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • so, we're back to the original fundamental starting point: do the design/contruction standards/materials of the current and in-build ships of the NS allow them to have bolt-on systems like Phalanx/alternative installed?

                      the follow on to that is is Phalanx/equivilant the absolute minimum neccesary self-defence capability for NS vessels to take part in EU/UN maritime missions, and if so, does that mean that witrhout such capability, NS vessels should not take part in such missions?

                      heres a prediction for you. within 30 months - thats December 2018 - someone, probably an IS/AQ affiliate, is going to fire a relatively modern ATGW or larger surface-to-surface missile/rocket at an EU warship off the Libyan coast... happy to take friendly bets.

                      Comment


                      • https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ion_damage.jpgThere was a fashion in the 60’s and 70’s to use aluminium for warship upper structure but following the USS Belknap and the RN Type 21 experience most navies run away from this material. Austral continue to promote aluminium on the LCS where already they have corrosion issues. Lockheed use steel for their LCS version (but it too had cracking in the hull). But the two most critical issues remain fire and fatigue.

                        Fire can be best seen with the USS Belknap which lost all of its aluminium structure after colliding with the JFK. The RN had similar experience during the Falkland war with their modern ships with aluminium structure especially the Type 21’s in San Carlos Sound.
                        Fatigue is the other issue as the SN curve for alu is much worse than for steel. This means that cracks are more likely. Looking at the experience of the RAN with the Austral built PV’s they have major issues with fatigue. To tackle this properly the fatigue mission/spectrum needs to be well modelled. This is almost impossible given the number of variables for an offshore patrol vessel.

                        Sure there are other materials which normally are used in MCMV’s such as GFRP, wood, non-magnetic steel etc. Ships are like all other things a mix of different materials.

                        My point with steel is that warships for weight reasons normally go for high strength steels which also tend to be more brittle. Mild steels suitable for marine applications are heavier (thicker) and more ductile. The latter means that when being hit by small arms they are less likely to splitter.

                        Comment


                        • An full CIWS is the minimum we should have on a ship in such waters but I am sure the bean counters will notice other ships operating in the area have even less capa as us. I think on the NGO vessels operating there which I can only say is totally irresponsible.

                          As for the drugs smugglers we see they have moved to mini-subs to move their stuff into the USA, how long before they use the same for EU?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ion_damage.jpgThere was a fashion in the 60’s and 70’s to use aluminium for warship upper structure but following the USS Belknap and the RN Type 21 experience most navies run away from this material. Austral continue to promote aluminium on the LCS where already they have corrosion issues. Lockheed use steel for their LCS version (but it too had cracking in the hull). But the two most critical issues remain fire and fatigue.

                            Fire can be best seen with the USS Belknap which lost all of its aluminium structure after colliding with the JFK. The RN had similar experience during the Falkland war with their modern ships with aluminium structure especially the Type 21’s in San Carlos Sound.
                            Fatigue is the other issue as the SN curve for alu is much worse than for steel. This means that cracks are more likely. Looking at the experience of the RAN with the Austral built PV’s they have major issues with fatigue. To tackle this properly the fatigue mission/spectrum needs to be well modelled. This is almost impossible given the number of variables for an offshore patrol vessel.

                            Sure there are other materials which normally are used in MCMV’s such as GFRP, wood, non-magnetic steel etc. Ships are like all other things a mix of different materials.

                            My point with steel is that warships for weight reasons normally go for high strength steels which also tend to be more brittle. Mild steels suitable for marine applications are heavier (thicker) and more ductile. The latter means that when being hit by small arms they are less likely to splitter.
                            You are contradicting yourself. USS Belknap is irrelevant, her aluminium did not cause the fire, and the fire did not lead to any retrofitting in other ships of the class. The USN moved back to steel after problems with cracking on the Perry class, and not because of the Belknap experience. The type 21 was built with a combination of steel and aluminium, and the problems (of which there were many) included where there metals met. The ship was a pig, a compromise of cost over quality, and the RN paid dearly. HMS Antelope was hit by 2x 1000lb bombs. The ships remained afloat and only sank after the bombs finally exploded, set off the missile magazine, and, with no damage control parties aboard, burnt out of control. Ardent also sank a full day after being hit by Argentinian aircraft (3 waves of Skyhawks and Daggers).

                            Your final point makes no sense. You want to use a brittle steel over a steel that will "splitter"? Same problem surely?
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • Fire happen on ships all the time, the one on the Belknap was a result of hitting the JFK. Aluminium did not cause the fire but it did not help. Refitting an already built vessel would have been more expensive than a new build. Cracking became a major issue on all aluminium structure in the USN during the 80's not just on the Perry class.

                              The decision to move back to steel was not just down to one issue but a combination, aluminium burn and losses it strength at relatively low temp, it has corrosion issues especially if in contact with other metals, steel hulls with alu superstructure suffer from the different thermal expansion rates and then there is the issue of fatigue cracking.
                              It is not impossible to design a good ship with alu but not with the weight advantage some people believe.

                              As for the last point I do not suggest to use a brittle high strength steel but a ductile mild steel.

                              Comment


                              • On a side note the remaining Type 21's are still in service with Pakistan and actively engaging their rival Indian navy. It seems that all that heavy steel reinforcement made to the hull makes them good ramming ships!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X