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 hptmurphy View Post
    Whats option 'b'?
    Option B for what? The RIB position or for the EPV?

    Comment


    • US Navy Oilers of slow non-combat replenishment capability are classified as AOR's. I'm not sure this is the type of one stop ship that is required. The minimum speed should be 18kts to support our existing ships.
      The standard naval ship takes fuel by closed gravity feed and is directed to relevant tanks by opening and closing valves. Fuel can be moved between tanks and also to service tanks above the engine manifolds, however the system is not designed to pump oil outwards or ashore without some re-engineering, and then it is at a very low tonnage rate. Two OPV's cannot transfer fuel to each other underway but individually should be equipped to take it from any Nato Replenishment ship. I have some doubts if our fuelling stations can be adapted for such operations due to design and constricted space. It should be forward of the bridge with all necessary eyebolts, strong points, and communications.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
        [...]

        Realistically, to be useful, for ops where harbour facilities are lacking you need LCUs and a well dock (otherwise your constrained by sea state trying to load a LCU via crane). [...]
        Or the steel beach of the Damen ships, like the Karel Doorman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
          I like it.
          4 tanks and 4 trucks and 500 pax? We might want to rebalance that a bit for our purposes, no? We probably also want her a bit faster I think.
          Last edited by Graylion; 9 July 2017, 12:40.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
            Whats option 'b'?
            Tarlac. Rib station is open. but at main deck level. Canterbury had it a deck below main deck.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post

              After the New Zealand experience I'd be interested in the freeboard between the RHib Stations and the waterline and should these be closed off?
              That whole sorry tale is outlined here:



              It is what happens when political and bureaucratic expediency overrules and at worst ignores professional naval advice.

              There are a couple of HHI designs on page 14 of this pdf below that may be of interest with respect to a EPV - HDL 7000 and 10000 LPD's.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                Or the steel beach of the Damen ships, like the Karel Doorman
                ?

                What you mean? Rear ramp?

                Still weather dependant

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Anzac View Post

                  There are a couple of HHI designs on page 14 of this pdf below that may be of interest with respect to a EPV - HDL 7000 and 10000 LPD's.

                  http://www.hyundaiheavy.com/img/cont...peclal_NSD.pdf
                  Any specs on those?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                    Any specs on those?
                    The HDL7000 is an LST class called the Cheon Wang Bong-class. It carries 2 LCM's on the fore deck and has a helicopter deck aft. No deckwell or hanger.

                    Comment


                    • There has been a debate about the need for having a manned helicopter and associated support facilities on-board a ship. It has been suggested that with advances in technology this is no longer necessary. I beg to differ.

                      From the beam counter corner will come that we can track every ship with AIS......well that only works when it is turned on and if you are entering an area to illegally fish you would want to be extremely stupid to do this. Without a transponder signal there is no was except with an airborne radar to detect anything at ranges greater than the line of sight from your patrol vessel. There is no magic all seeing eye out in space that can detect and track fishing vessels and all other vessels in our waters and in the adjacent NAFO waters. So an airborne system carrier is necessary, it is the reason why we have 2 CASA MPA's.

                      Then will be the argument that a UAV can do the job, and here there is some validity but more as a complement to a manned helicopter rather than a replacement. The first issue is the size and payload capability of most UAV's such as the CAMCOPTER S100. They can carry a decent sized EO unit and a datalink but that is about it. Being able to fit a search radar as well as EO, datalink etc requires a much larger aircraft more like the MQ8B Fire Scout or even its much larger sister the MQ8C. This craft have almost the same demands in terms of maintenance with the additional burden of space and personnel for their control centre. The main driver for the larger is the replacement of manned units in high threat zones rather than a real desire to replace a helicopter. But this is not to say that a small UAV cannot complement a helicopter and is becoming one of the favoured options in the wider world outside our small island. However these are small aircraft and are very much influenced by weather conditions, also most are not equipped with an deck harpoon system so the amount of time such a craft could operate in service on one of our vessel would be limited. There will be advances and as the UAV's get bigger then their flexibility will improve so that they become a valuable addition to a ship, but they will not replace helicopters in the near to medium term (next 30 yrs).

                      A helicopter today as implied above is an airborne platform that can be easily fitted with a wide range of sensors to improve the tactical awareness of its mothership. They can be fitted with 350deg AESA radar, with EO devices, searchlights, AIS receivers and much more if you want to go to a warfighting machine (ASW/ASuW). But it is not limited to just being an airborne eye it can perform other roles as well. The first is an extension of SAR coverage as an aircraft on a vessel 200nm offshore can have a distinct advantage over a shore based helicopter both in terms of range and time of response. It is one of the key roles they play aboard USCG cutters. Then there is law enforcement, a door mounted machine gun on a helicopter has proved to be very useful during anti-piracy operations off Africa being able to reach out far to defend ships under threat. Similarly a helicopter can carry a boarding party further and faster than a RIB. The for humanitarian missions and VERTREP their utility has prove time and time again to be extremely useful.

                      Naturally all of this then drives the size of a helicopter and thus the facilities aboard the ship. Here there seems for most to be a convergence on an 11t helicopter, larger than the Dauphin/Panther/Lynx that had been popular during the 80's and 90's. Aircraft in this class are the NH90 and the MH60R/S. Each has there advantages and disadvantages but the capability they can bring to a ship is immense. Not only for the EPV but also the follow-on class to the WBY class should be design with the ability not just to land but to operate such a class of helicopter.

                      Comment


                      • Not bad.. five paragraphs of waffle on why you should have a helicopter........

                        Fact is the cost exceeded the result and given the shortage of suitable helos, other means were available and legislation around landing and selling of fish were a game changer.

                        From a fishery protection point of view basing a helo on ship is a proven excessive cost both in ship build, provision of helo and operation.

                        From an SAR point of view... the helo had to be on the vessel to be effective and then was limited in the sea states it could operate in and given the size of the patrol areas ..often neither the twain would meet.

                        But then again you had to be there.....and I'm one of a very few along with two others here that were during the period when the Naval Service could operate a helo from a ship.

                        Anything into the future is pure conjecture based on what others do with their ships and helis
                        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                          Not bad.. five paragraphs of waffle on why you should have a helicopter........

                          Fact is the cost exceeded the result and given the shortage of suitable helos, other means were available and legislation around landing and selling of fish were a game changer.

                          From a fishery protection point of view basing a helo on ship is a proven excessive cost both in ship build, provision of helo and operation.

                          From an SAR point of view... the helo had to be on the vessel to be effective and then was limited in the sea states it could operate in and given the size of the patrol areas ..often neither the twain would meet.

                          But then again you had to be there.....and I'm one of a very few along with two others here that were during the period when the Naval Service could operate a helo from a ship.

                          Anything into the future is pure conjecture based on what others do with their ships and helis
                          typo liked

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                            Fact is the cost exceeded the result and given the shortage of suitable helos, other means were available and legislation around landing and selling of fish were a game changer.
                            What shortage of suitable helos? The fact we do not have any does not mean that there are not suitable helicopters available on the market.
                            Yes there has been a tightening of some legislation and it has helped but do not be fooled that this has stopped illegal fishing, the number of black boats has remained the same. There have been a number of cases of black boats transferring to a processing ship which then lands the fish. Another way they have is not to land in the EU which gets around all the checks we have in place.

                            Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                            From a fishery protection point of view basing a helo on ship is a proven excessive cost both in ship build, provision of helo and operation.
                            If the only reason is FP then yes the VFM is probably not the best which is why you have to look beyond this narrow tasking. Even if today the majority of it time at sea is FP this is not the only mission it is tasked with and would like to perform. I say like as we both know it has neither the resources, equipment or funding to do all in its mission portfolio.

                            Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                            From an SAR point of view... the helo had to be on the vessel to be effective and then was limited in the sea states it could operate in and given the size of the patrol areas ..often neither the twain would meet.
                            Yes this is a no brainer, yes the vessel has to be on the vessel. As for SS, most helos such as the MH60/NH90 ranges operate fully at SS6 with landings and take-offs from patrol vessels. As I pointed out the USCG, one of the most respected organisation world wide has operated shipborne helos for decades in this mission.

                            Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                            But then again you had to be there.....and I'm one of a very few along with two others here that were during the period when the Naval Service could operate a helo from a ship.
                            I have the greatest respect for your experience and views. We tried and failed but to dismiss the operation of a helicopter from a ship based purely upon this is a bit short sighted. We know many things combined to cause this failure, some technical, some operational, some financial and some political. There are plenty of questions which need to answered and properly debated. For example would the situation had been different is all 5 Dauphins had been transferred under NS control rather than AC made a difference? Would the additional P30 class vessels (so 3 ships operating helos) made a difference? I ask these questions with the premise that when the 3 vessels were at sea they would have had their organic helicopter on board.

                            Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                            Anything into the future is pure conjecture based on what others do with their ships and helis .
                            No-one pretends to know the future but it helps to look around and see what others are doing, it is called benchmarking! Back in the early 80's we were setting the benchmark with the Eithne class, it is something others have followed and developed. They have taken some lessons from our experience and their own experience and developed patrol ships suitable for the operation of helicopters.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                              What shortage of suitable helos? The fact we do not have any does not mean that there are not suitable helicopters available on the market.
                              its a shortage of DF helos and more importantly personnel

                              Yes there has been a tightening of some legislation and it has helped but do not be fooled that this has stopped illegal fishing, the number of black boats has remained the same. There have been a number of cases of black boats transferring to a processing ship which then lands the fish. Another way they have is not to land in the EU which gets around all the checks we have in place.
                              +1
                              And it is going to get worse with BREXIT

                              If the only reason is FP then yes the VFM is probably not the best which is why you have to look beyond this narrow tasking. Even if today the majority of it time at sea is FP this is not the only mission it is tasked with and would like to perform. I say like as we both know it has neither the resources, equipment or funding to do all in its mission portfolio.
                              +1

                              Yes this is a no brainer, yes the vessel has to be on the vessel. As for SS, most helos such as the MH60/NH90 ranges operate fully at SS6 with landings and take-offs from patrol vessels. As I pointed out the USCG, one of the most respected organisation world wide has operated shipborne helos for decades in this mission.
                              it is more to do with vessel's stability than the helo

                              There are plenty of questions which need to answered and properly debated. For example would the situation had been different is all 5 Dauphins had been transferred under NS control rather than AC made a difference? Would the additional P30 class vessels (so 3 ships operating helos) made a difference? I ask these questions with the premise that when the 3 vessels were at sea they would have had their organic helicopter on board.
                              we got 1 vessel for the price of 2 ordered, a 3rd wasn't going to happen! Also only 2 of the 5 Dauphins were navalised.

                              Again the DF is too small to justify a naval air component. If we get a vessel with a flight deck and start using it we need AC helos, AC flight and ground crew. And we need to increase the establishment (and strength). The also need to be paid SAR allowance, naval pay and PDA while at sea.

                              Back in the early 80's we were setting the benchmark with the Eithne class, it is something others have followed and developed. They have taken some lessons from our experience and their own experience and developed patrol ships suitable for the operation of helicopters.
                              we did and in the 00s got Roisin which also became a benchmark

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                its a shortage of DF helos and more importantly personnel

                                +1
                                And it is going to get worse with BREXIT

                                +1

                                it is more to do with vessel's stability than the helo

                                we got 1 vessel for the price of 2 ordered, a 3rd wasn't going to happen! Also only 2 of the 5 Dauphins were navalised.

                                Again the DF is too small to justify a naval air component. If we get a vessel with a flight deck and start using it we need AC helos, AC flight and ground crew. And we need to increase the establishment (and strength). The also need to be paid SAR allowance, naval pay and PDA while at sea.

                                we did and in the 00s got Roisin which also became a benchmark
                                Overall 80/90 metre vessels will have NO stability problems with helos in the range of 5/10 tonne. The more relevant problem is designing the ship to minimise pitch, roll, and accelerations to open the window for helicopter operations. if we ever do go down the road of helos at sea, then NO AC involvement is a good starting point. We should follow USCG Heliops profiles.
                                If an MRV is developed then her flight deck should take a couple of large helos. The Naval Service on an Island country needs to be developed to provide an all arms capability including Air and dare I say marines. On a mathematical division strength should be about 3,500 or 1/3rd establishment. Costs are always relative to times and the nature of the decision processes. Our last 6 ships are costing about 300m Euro that represents 12 P31's or two high end Corvettes that could sink the lot. It's a matter of VFM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X