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 ancientmariner View Post
    Not totally as you say. Political interference yes. Bad leadership yes. Bad decisions yes. However the last British Aircraft to form part of an CV's flight were the Sea Harriers with a variety of Westland's providing rotary requirements. There is no emerging British Aircraft Industry for combat aircraft except bits and pieces which will succumb to Britex. There is no market for what the Brit's are doing except the disposal market. Our acquisition of Corvettes in 1949 and CMS's in 1970's was relevant for their day. There was no starting gun fired on replacements until the Naval Service had a fleet of None. The DOD wanted ships only for Fishery Protection, to be largely financed by the EU, and fitted with GFE from disposed ships.
    Above 3rd Line please read Brexit for Britex which might be cleaner!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
      Many years ago I took the drawings from that issue and redrew them on double scale. It makes for a great wall decoration.
      Oddly while the compartments may have slightly different uses now (in particular on 02 deck) structurally and layout wise, little has changed.
      A model of her anchor handling arrangement remains in use as a training aid at NMCI. It was unique at the time, and the design has served the ship well.
      It always interests me though that in each drawing, the heli on deck is a Lynx, not a Dauphin.
      P31 has in my opinion (and many who served on her) been a fine design of ship. A second in class could only have been an improvement, had it happened. Her retirement is inevitable. My only hope is that her sturdy design finds a new use to a future owner. I believe she is well suited to being converted for use as a survey or research ship, should use as a coastguard vessel not be appropriate or available.
      I reckon that any future user would re equip her with a helo. While would be as technically efficient as Eithne was back in her helo days, it could carry a low tech fit out.

      I remember a 3 page folding pull out in Cara,
      I remember the day they did the photo shoot for that

      the lease for 242 was not renewed
      Because it was about to fall apart and only after a major rebuild did it become safer...its still in service!

      Joe public sees the words stylish and thinks luxury motor yacht to ferry ministers about.
      Wasnt too far from the truth at one point..baby sitting Charlie at Inisvickilaune..and bring Paddy Hillery around the coast playing golf!!!!
      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

      Comment


      • Britex also works..
        The Bits and pieces the British aircraft industry build for the F35 is all they have left to pin their hopes on. The Sea Harrier FA2 was a far superior aircraft, which could have benefited from further upgrades, as the land based GR9 version did. Indeed after the premature retirement of the FA2 (likened to the conquistadors scuttling their ships when they reached the Aztecs so the crew could not mutiny) the GR9 served adequately aboard ship.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
          Britex also works..
          The Bits and pieces the British aircraft industry build for the F35 is all they have left to pin their hopes on. The Sea Harrier FA2 was a far superior aircraft, which could have benefited from further upgrades, as the land based GR9 version did. Indeed after the premature retirement of the FA2 (likened to the conquistadors scuttling their ships when they reached the Aztecs so the crew could not mutiny) the GR9 served adequately aboard ship.
          Well since it's the only NATO 5th gen in development it puts them in some position, the proposed European next gen won't even start for another decade at best. As to the FA2 given the other reductions the RN made to build the Carriers it's not surprising along with the usual RN/RAF pissing match.

          Comment


          • 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.
            you just calculated the volume of a block. For a ship you'll need the block coefficient, for simplicity's sake assume .5 so we are talking ~6.3 Gg displacement

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
              you just calculated the volume of a block. For a ship you'll need the block coefficient, for simplicity's sake assume .5 so we are talking ~6.3 Gg displacement
              .

              Block Coefficient Cb is likely, I hope, closer to .75, especially if the stern is near full width and immersed at operational drafts. the tonnage may be approaching 9000 tonnes. I should have included Cb. The volume given was not of the block but of the amount of water displaced by the ship immersed to 5 meters.It's the volume of water adjusted by the SG of water in which it floats to give displacement.
              Last edited by ancientmariner; 10 January 2018, 09:56.

              Comment


              • Endurance Class: 141 * 21 * 5m, 7.6 Gg. This gives a Cb of .513, So I'd say .5 is a decent approximation.

                Last edited by Graylion; 10 January 2018, 14:48. Reason: source added

                Comment


                • The vessels has a standard displacement of 6,500 tonnes at a lesser draft than that at loaded displacement which is stated to be 8,500 tonnes. Allowing for salt water I would put her Cb at .58.

                  Comment


                  • anyway. my point is that this is not a 12 Gg ship, but a 6.5 Gg ship ... Can we stop buying toys please? KTHXBAI

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                      anyway. my point is that this is not a 12 Gg ship, but a 6.5 Gg ship ... Can we stop buying toys please? KTHXBAI
                      I concede your principal point. The ship in loaded terms would be close to 8000 tonnes. However the requests for expressions of interest will be around a ship 130 X 20 X 5 meters approx. If the ship has a chance of Home maintenance then it must be no bigger than 140 X 21 X 5.5 as the drydock locally is constrained in beam width of ship. A ship with uplift of 2000 tonnes, properly outfitted for role, and with topline defensive equipments should be more than a toy.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        I concede your principal point. The ship in loaded terms would be close to 8000 tonnes. However the requests for expressions of interest will be around a ship 130 X 20 X 5 meters approx. If the ship has a chance of Home maintenance then it must be no bigger than 140 X 21 X 5.5 as the drydock locally is constrained in beam width of ship. A ship with uplift of 2000 tonnes, properly outfitted for role, and with topline defensive equipments should be more than a toy.
                        There is always H&W

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                          There is always H&W
                          Not in the shipbuilding business any more. Just repairs and conversions.
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                            Not in the shipbuilding business any more. Just repairs and conversions.
                            I thought we were talking about repairs just now? ie the ability to drydock NS vessels?

                            Comment


                            • Inconceivable sending a ship overseas to a foreign country for regular refits. Particularly when there is a functioning dockyard less than a km from the Naval base.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                                Inconceivable sending a ship overseas to a foreign country for regular refits. Particularly when there is a functioning dockyard less than a km from the Naval base.
                                Well the ships are built abroad , so what's the difference .
                                Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X