Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Ships with bulwarks forward that have complete closure from bow to bridge structure may fill that space with green water on a steep pitch in heavy weather. Sea Water weighs about 1.026 Tonnes per Cu.Metre ie. SG of SW 1026. If you take a dimension feature of 15m beam x 30 metres to bow and 1 metre high all round and divide by 2 for a triangular shape, you get 230.85 tonnes of water on the bow. You need that to drain instantly in one cycle of pitch and heave or you may become a submarine. It was the reason we raised the bows and railed the area on p21,22,23.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graylion
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

    Not unlike the Lake Class, at first glance, in terms of external layout. I'd like a bit more freeboard and less bullwark up front though.
    There's also the next bigger one https://www.fassmer.de/fileadmin/use...OPV_60_web.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by Graylion View Post
    Not unlike the Lake Class, at first glance, in terms of external layout. I'd like a bit more freeboard and less bullwark up front though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graylion
    replied
    What about this? https://www.fassmer.de/fileadmin/use...CPV_50_web.pdf or probably https://www.fassmer.de/fileadmin/use...OPV_50_web.pdf
    Last edited by Graylion; 15 September 2021, 18:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post

    Thanks for your considerations. NOT a history follower . VMT.
    Duly noted. Many Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

    Sir,
    I have sent you a private message, you might have a look and let me know your thoughts.
    Thank you.
    Thanks for your considerations. NOT a history follower . VMT.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post

    As well as MRV the EPC would bring us back to our 1949-1972 capability. We should pursue it through PESCO and other mutual forums to include funding and Training. Though NOT to exclude some add on capabilities to the P60 series.
    Sir,
    I have sent you a private message, you might have a look and let me know your thoughts.
    Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post

    The MRV

    Ireland getting involved in EPC is just a proposal on IMO
    As well as MRV the EPC would bring us back to our 1949-1972 capability. We should pursue it through PESCO and other mutual forums to include funding and Training. Though NOT to exclude some add on capabilities to the P60 series.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by Jaque'ammer View Post

    Do you remember the submission number by any chance?
    100 I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jaque'ammer
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

    MRV for now. EPC so far was a proposal put forward by a serving commander to the CoDF. It is logical, but a few years down the road yet.
    Do you remember the submission number by any chance?

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    As far as patrolling or observing areas any class of vessel with 3.5m draft or less can do it for coping with activities of Fishing vessels.. Slowing running features are agreed with Engine manufacturers and can be implemented prescriptively, such as after an agreed time slow running you do a high speed run to clear particulate. All our ships, at all times are "smoky" and are a feature of Bideford production. I would not limit or compartmentalise the capability of P50's for normal patrol duties vis a vis P40's. Is our new HADR orientated vessel to be EPC or MRV?
    MRV for now. EPC so far was a proposal put forward by a serving commander to the CoDF. It is logical, but a few years down the road yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Is our new HADR orientated vessel to be EPC or MRV?
    The MRV

    Ireland getting involved in EPC is just a proposal on IMO

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    As far as patrolling or observing areas any class of vessel with 3.5m draft or less can do it for coping with activities of Fishing vessels.. Slowing running features are agreed with Engine manufacturers and can be implemented prescriptively, such as after an agreed time slow running you do a high speed run to clear particulate. All our ships, at all times are "smoky" and are a feature of Bideford production. I would not limit or compartmentalise the capability of P50's for normal patrol duties vis a vis P40's. Is our new HADR orientated vessel to be EPC or MRV?

    Leave a comment:


  • A/TEL
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

    The P50s couldn't do the jobs the P40s currently do, not because of size but because they don't loiter well. Not sure if the Mid Life refit has fixed this but they always ran hot at slow speeds, and were at their best closer to cruising speed. The Larger P60s are actually better in confined waters at slow speed, due to their propulsion.
    P60s have PTI system which allows the main engines to be shut down, and the props to be turned at slow speeds by electrical power which is provided by the generators.

    P50s have main engines only which as you correctly say do not react well to slow speeds for long duration.

    Not possible to add in PTI afterwards really.

    P40s have electrial loiter drive (schottle drive) to allow for slow speed operation up to 5 or 6 knts.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Graylion View Post

    You misunderstand. My suggestion is to replace P41/2 with P51/2. And also this is not meant to be the EPV.
    It’s an option but there are better ones

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X