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 DeV View Post
    Wasn’t it 85 Max crew?
    72 plus 7/8 AC ?
    Thats was the proposed figures but at times it was in excess of this or as it nowadays well below this. The establishment was for 72 all ranks but in 86/87/88 it ran above this as a lot of the original specialists were finishing their sea time and their replacements were aboard for months at a time working into their roles. Mostly among the junior officer ranks and tech people. The bridge used to get a bit crowded and I remember 13 seamen of all ranks on the focsle for Harbour stations one morning where 4 lines men, a Leading hand and the Bosun would have been enough. The Focsle party officer also had an understudy.

    And we still had duties one in three alongside due to the requirement for sentries caused by GOD getting his minions to carry out a raid in the basin one night . (RIP GOD) ...was a member here a few years ago.
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
      Wasn’t it 85 Max crew?
      72 plus 7/8 AC ?
      I certainly know it's higher than previous ships with the addition of Elec. Officer and a few other extra's, including a Writer. It can be solved by examining a CS4 from 1984/5 to get the Established figure plus the Seagoing replacements. We took close to 100 on the trip to Bermuda, NY, and Boston. They made possible the entertainment/dinners at all key ports and well earned their passage. Your 72 may be quite close.
      In the matter of accommodating a 10 tonne helicopter landing on the MRV, it seems to me that a ship of the proposed size and tonnage should cater for most helicopters that operate over water and particularly those that operate in the offshore areas like the North Sea. It is a bit of a shock that a standard small ship helicopter such as the MERLIN at 15tonnes would be excluded. Lenght with Rotor spinning 22.8m.

      Comment


      • Exactly, if you are going to the trouble at all, may as well make it big enough for all the naval types we would expect to work with. Even a Seahawk fully loaded would be over the 10T limit. Canterbury has 2 spots, both capable of taking the Seasprite, MTOW just over 8T each.
        German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
        German 2: Private? I am a general!
        German 1: That is the bad news.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
          Exactly, if you are going to the trouble at all, may as well make it big enough for all the naval types we would expect to work with. Even a Seahawk fully loaded would be over the 10T limit. Canterbury has 2 spots, both capable of taking the Seasprite, MTOW just over 8T each.
          The CANT though can only handle a single NH-90 or Chinook at a time for deck safety reasons. This operational limitation is one of the things, like necessity of a well deck that the acquisition of the enhanced multi-role sealift vessel to complement HMNZS Canterbury will address to future proof the vessel.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Anzac View Post
            The CANT though can only handle a single NH-90 or Chinook at a time for deck safety reasons. This operational limitation is one of the things, like necessity of a well deck that the acquisition of the enhanced multi-role sealift vessel to complement HMNZS Canterbury will address to future proof the vessel.
            The imperative in getting the deck right is coupled with the heavy landing of a helicopter causing complete collapse of landing gear and NOT piercing the deck. Also all drains from the flight deck have to be fireproofed to allow aviation fuel combustion to be dispensed without torching the below deck compartments. If we were to offer respite to a chinook sized aircraft then the deck needs to handle+/- 30 tonnes. If we leave the Chinook out, we must provide for AUW of 20 tonnes to have some versatility

            Comment


            • With regard to helicopter the view must be forward to what the replacement of the current S-70/NH-90 classes will look like. Already there is the US program to replace the Blackhawks with the V-280 Valour and SB-1 Defiant in testing. Looking at these aircraft it is easy to see that the size will again increase with the next generation. The SB-1 Defiant is more that size of an AW-101 than that of a MH-60. Just this week the European helicopter manufacturers start their long slow path to the replacement of the current offerings.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                With regard to helicopter the view must be forward to what the replacement of the current S-70/NH-90 classes will look like. Already there is the US program to replace the Blackhawks with the V-280 Valour and SB-1 Defiant in testing. Looking at these aircraft it is easy to see that the size will again increase with the next generation. The SB-1 Defiant is more that size of an AW-101 than that of a MH-60. Just this week the European helicopter manufacturers start their long slow path to the replacement of the current offerings.
                Additional considerations for Logs/Transport is that a variety of Combat and work vehicles are also carried ,and these also should not be weight limited other than by cranage or on / off loading ramps. Mowag Piranha V can be 15tonne combat weight.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  Additional considerations for Logs/Transport is that a variety of Combat and work vehicles are also carried ,and these also should not be weight limited other than by cranage or on / off loading ramps. Mowag Piranha V can be 15tonne combat weight.
                  I note the design from Vard boasts a 70 tonne side and stern ramp. This would be strong enough for the majority of our heavy combat and engineering equipment. Multiple TEU expected to be carried on deck should be no more than 18 Tonnes each(normally focused on the 4 twistlock spots). If we assume the heavier equipment won't sit on the helideck, it would still have an expectation that a helideck should be able to easily manage a 20 tonne heli landing on it.
                  Other vessel options offer a removable "lid" on the helideck to permit TEU or vehicle storage below. This would of course cause weight limitations.
                  German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                  German 2: Private? I am a general!
                  German 1: That is the bad news.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                    I note the design from Vard boasts a 70 tonne side and stern ramp. This would be strong enough for the majority of our heavy combat and engineering equipment. Multiple TEU expected to be carried on deck should be no more than 18 Tonnes each(normally focused on the 4 twistlock spots). If we assume the heavier equipment won't sit on the helideck, it would still have an expectation that a helideck should be able to easily manage a 20 tonne heli landing on it.
                    Other vessel options offer a removable "lid" on the helideck to permit TEU or vehicle storage below. This would of course cause weight limitations.
                    I would avoid removable lids or even opening lids as they are operationally messy. Strength needn't necessarily be compromised as cropped transverse beams are compensated for by deep girders in the opening and usually strong pillaring from each corner. However to move cargo in or out would require everything to be dismantlable, again very messy. Especially with lifts and Cranes.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      I would avoid removable lids or even opening lids as they are operationally messy. Strength needn't necessarily be compromised as cropped transverse beams are compensated for by deep girders in the opening and usually strong pillaring from each corner. However to move cargo in or out would require everything to be dismantlable, again very messy. Especially with lifts and Cranes.
                      If they can break they will, especially when exposed to the elements and not used very often

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Anzac View Post
                        The CANT though can only handle a single NH-90 or Chinook at a time for deck safety reasons. This operational limitation is one of the things, like necessity of a well deck that the acquisition of the enhanced multi-role sealift vessel to complement HMNZS Canterbury will address to future proof the vessel.
                        Cheers for the info about the need for something more than the current design of the CANT.

                        I found this article which gives some background and details;
                        http://nighthawk.nz/index.php?option...=11&Itemid=111

                        Comment


                        • Relevant to contingency roles envisioned for a similar vessel; studied by the Swedish Navy about a decade ago.



                          Originally posted by The Usual Suspect 24/05/19 View Post
                          There was quite a detailed debate over the desirability of a dual-role vessel; one which could deliver naval infantry and/or support two corvettes on an extended overseas mission, or a more capable multi-role vessel that could provide expeditionary headquarters, medical support, repair & maintenance, fire support etc.



                          Amongst others, two Ro-Ro derived concepts were considered..


                          145 to 160 meters
                          12,000 to 15,000 tonnes (full load)
                          Ro-Ro deck of approximately 1,250 m2 (420 vehicle lane metres) or 10 CB-90s
                          Cargo space (weather deck) 900 m2 cargo on the weather deck
                          Two fast supply craft, on davits.
                          Crew of 55-60
                          Naval Infantry up to 400 troops



                          Displacement 13,430 tonnes
                          Total cargo deck area will be equal to 2,150 m2 (720 vehicle lane metres)
                          No docking facilities, but facilities for up to 12 CB-90s, which can be set afloat by means of a slip or a crane.
                          Two NH90 helicopters
                          Naval Infantry up to 170 troops

                          There's a good deal of overlap, and a good deal of divergence from what we're discussing here. Not least in the absolute size and endurance of the vessel. But transporting 12 CB-90s, and supporting them for a limited period of time, is something that the Vard design should be able to do standing on it's head.

                          Comment


                          • That small boat would be great for the NSR.

                            Comment


                            • PQ about the EPV

                              https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/...efence#g1058.q

                              Comment


                              • From last September. Much has happened since.
                                German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                                German 2: Private? I am a general!
                                German 1: That is the bad news.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X