Originally posted by Sparky42
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
EPV for naval service
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
-
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.
Before modification.
After modificationFor now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
Comment
-
Its in the name
The VENARI-85 mine warfare and hydrographic ship is being developed by BMT Defence Services to meet current and future mine warfare needs.
"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 ........ "
Comment
-
Originally posted by Orion View PostIts in the name
The VENARI-85 mine warfare and hydrographic ship is being developed by BMT Defence Services to meet current and future mine warfare needs.
"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 ........ "
500T of payload is not to be sneezed at though.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
Comment
-
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
- Likes 2
Comment
-
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostThe 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
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Irish naval requirements
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostThe 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.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostThe P31 and P41. P42, are in their twilight years with only a 2/3 year window to seamlessly replace them. They need to have a dedicated commencement figure put in the Next Budget.!!
Given that vessels typically have a 30-35 year service life with SLEP, we could expect 2 to be decommissioned late next year with the final one early the year after. All were originally commissioned within 6 months of each other.
P42 LÉ Ciara (HMS Swallow) 17 October 1984
P31 LÉ Eithne 7 December 1984
P41 LÉ Orla (HMS Swift) 12 March 1985
Therefore we face the prospect of a reduced fleet of 6 vessels from 2020 until at least 2022/23 and even then it would be a 7 vessel fleet. Unless something radical changes this will be the future, although the most likely outcome is they will continue well past the 35years service limit.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostThe seamless window to replace them has passed; a CPV has a lead time of 2-3 years while a larger EPV/MPV this is more 4-5 years from contract to commission.
Given that vessels typically have a 30-35 year service life with SLEP, we could expect 2 to be decommissioned late next year with the final one early the year after. All were originally commissioned within 6 months of each other.
P42 LÉ Ciara (HMS Swallow) 17 October 1984
P31 LÉ Eithne 7 December 1984
P41 LÉ Orla (HMS Swift) 12 March 1985
Therefore we face the prospect of a reduced fleet of 6 vessels from 2020 until at least 2022/23 and even then it would be a 7 vessel fleet. Unless something radical changes this will be the future, although the most likely outcome is they will continue well past the 35years service limit.
capable to and all Wire Sweeping Service, followed by the current Gunboat service with no clear sight of how to meet the stated Mission.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment