Thanks Thanks:  613
Likes Likes:  1,299
Dislikes Dislikes:  37
Page 85 of 85 FirstFirst ... 3575838485
Results 2,101 to 2,111 of 2111
  1. #2101
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,088
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Ah the specs of the Arrowhead says it's beam is 19.8m with a draft of 4.8m, so it would fit on the beam, not sure what the draft of the Graving Dock would take. Why would there be issues access the bays?
    I couldn't find an actual specification but was relying on 140 meters with a tonnage near 6000 tonnes. At 19.8 m beam she would fit fine and draft would not be a problem. The large boat sized bays, unless fully closeable can fill with green sea and swamp boats. Any door fitted would technically be a door fitted to access a hazardous area requiring a pre-access scan capability.

  2. #2102
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,822
    Post Thanks / Like
    HMNZS Canterbury had major issues with bays of this type. It lost one RhIB in heavy seas, and almost lost another, when water entered the bay and pulled the boats from their davits. Water also entered the cargo deck from this space until the access doors were sealed closed. A major modification had to me made, relocating the RhIB bays to a position further forward and higher above the waterline. Sad thing is this flaw had been identified during tank testing of the hull model, and ignored by the builder.


    https://images.vesseltracker.com/ima...terbury-327427
    Before modification.

    https://images.vesseltracker.com/ima...erbury-1337360
    After modification
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  3. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes hptmurphy, Tempest liked this post
  4. #2103
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,822
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is an interesting development from BMT. Does the Venari fit both of the immediate future needs of the NS? EPV with mine clearing capabilities?
    http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/688987...ical-Brief.pdf
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  5. #2104
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    203
    Post Thanks / Like
    too small for epv surely, ok for cpv

  6. #2105
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,822
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by restless View Post
    too small for epv surely, ok for cpv
    I didn't find actual dimensions on the link, did you?
    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. #2106
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Its in the name

    https://www.naval-technology.com/pro...ographic-ship/

    "The 85.9m-long mine warfare and hydrographic ship will be capable of carrying 500t of payload. Its hull form will be optimised to provide high ........ "

  8. #2107
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,822
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Its in the name

    https://www.naval-technology.com/pro...ographic-ship/

    "The 85.9m-long mine warfare and hydrographic ship will be capable of carrying 500t of payload. Its hull form will be optimised to provide high ........ "
    Thanks for that, I had not visited that particular link. Reading other reviews of the Venari, even those interested in Saving the RN believe its potential cost would be too high even for them. They fear that the RN would face a reduction of its current 15 hull mine countermeasures fleet, so its a dead duck there.
    500T of payload is not to be sneezed at though.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  9. #2108
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    452
    Post Thanks / Like
    The BMT Venari would more likely fit the Belgium/Dutch MCMV replacement project that is currently underway, other contenders are
    STX France https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/conte...d-mine-warfare
    Although the Defendseas 90 is more the EPV: http://stxfrance.fr/wp-content/uploa...Defendseas.pdf

    Also pitching for the Belgium/Ducth order are Saab
    https://saab.com/naval/submarines-an...-ships/mcmv80/

    and Damen
    http://nlnavy.damen.com/#mine-countermeasures-vessels

    All seem to be between 80m and 90m with displacements at or above those of the SB! They are a long way from the Ton minesweepers even if the crew size is about the same, that is about all..!!



    Damen

  10. Thanks DeV, na grohmití thanked for this post
  11. #2109
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,822
    Post Thanks / Like
    Lean manning is good.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  12. #2110
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,088
    Post Thanks / Like
    All seem to be between 80m and 90m with displacements at or above those of the SB! They are a long way from the Ton minesweepers even if the crew size is about the same, that is about all..!!



    Damen[/QUOTE]

    The BMT Venarii is presented in a number of roles associated with MC and hydrographic survey. It sounds a bit presumptive as defensively mined ports are usually put in place by own authorities and have, or can have , inbuilt self destruct. We need mine clearance capability but it can be done from suitably equipped vessels. We certainly need to develop hydrographic interests. Maybe not with an 85.9m vessel

  13. #2111
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    452
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The BMT Venarii is presented in a number of roles associated with MC and hydrographic survey. It sounds a bit presumptive as defensively mined ports are usually put in place by own authorities and have, or can have , inbuilt self destruct. We need mine clearance capability but it can be done from suitably equipped vessels. We certainly need to develop hydrographic interests. Maybe not with an 85.9m vessel
    The trend seems to be to larger mother ships with ROVs doing the hard work either on the surface or below. Due to the size of these assets plus the associated container based control systems gives a 80-90m vessel. Also rather than having a vessel dedicated to a function, the function is to a great extent loaded into a container that is then carried in a mission bay/deck.

  14. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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
  •