Thanks Thanks:  835
Likes Likes:  1,701
Dislikes Dislikes:  44
Page 104 of 106 FirstFirst ... 45494102103104105106 LastLast
Results 2,576 to 2,600 of 2627
  1. #2576
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Thanks. That is what I was thinking too. I was just a bit thrown by Dev's post. So from a mooring PoV the 200*30m ship would not be an issue and we can agree to disagree on the docking thing?
    Just one last attempt to explain Haulbowline basin and drydock. The entrance to the basin is the same width as the entrance to the Drydock at 94ft or 28.48 metres. The drydock is 600 ft long but a ship or ships longer than that were drydocked by putting the Caisson Gate in the basin entrance and pumping out the whole basin plus drydock. We had in effect an expandable drydock facility, the only constraint was the ships could not exceed say 27.5 metres to give some maneuvering room. A ship 30m beam would not fit there or in Cork Drydock up the road.

  2. Thanks sofa, na grohmiti, DeV, Graylion, Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes Tempest liked this post
  3. #2577
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    479
    Post Thanks / Like
    I heard on the grapewine that 2 vessels have been earmarked for acquisition by the NS. One possible option mentioned was the Ben My Chree https://www.steam-packet.com/ourvess...1-a2cfb48ef948

    level of confidence overall: low

  4. #2578
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,577
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why in gods name would we buy the Ben My Chee?

  5. Thanks Herald thanked for this post
    Likes Herald liked this post
  6. #2579
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    You got wires crossed. Ben my Chree is what HMNZS Canterbury is based on. The NS have visited Canturbury to confirm that a ship of this type is not the answer.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  7. Thanks Herald thanked for this post
    Likes Herald liked this post
  8. #2580
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    273
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    You got wires crossed. Ben my Chree is what HMNZS Canterbury is based on. The NS have visited Canturbury to confirm that a ship of this type is not the answer.
    Even the RNZN advised the NZ Govt that it was not the answer 15 years ago. Still did not stop the NZ Govt from buying a tarted up Roro Ferry though.

  9. Thanks DeV, na grohmiti thanked for this post
  10. #2581
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    479
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    You got wires crossed. Ben my Chree is what HMNZS Canterbury is based on. The NS have visited Canturbury to confirm that a ship of this type is not the answer.
    That's what I said in that conversation when the info was given to me.

  11. #2582
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    273
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/up...VARD-7-313.pdf

    Has this been posted here before? I know the VARD-7 510 LST has been, but this seems to get closer to the requirements than most. Being of the VARD 7 family their would be some synergies with the VARD 7-90 OPV's in service.

    The VARD 7 313 is a multi-purpose logistics vessel designed as a flexible platform to aid in force projection, maritime special operations, EEZ patrol, and humanitarian assistance. The vessel has significant capabilities for offloading heavy equipment, carrying cargo, transporting troops, launching boats, and supporting aviation.
    An internal ro-ro deck accommodates a variety of equipment including tanks, trucks, and ISO containers which can be efficiently loaded from a pier via ramps on the stern and vessel’s side. Two full-breadth cargo holds located beneath the ro-ro deck provide extra storage capacity, while protected areas forward house expansive troop accommodations providing safe and comfortable passage for embarked personnel. Large open deck areas on each side of the vessel provide secure stowage for two 15 m landing craft and two 11 m RHIBs. Aviation facilities include a flight deck capable of landing two medium lift helicopters and a hangar accommodating four. Expansive medical facilities are readily accessible from the flight and boat decks. Substantial internal area is dedicated to configurable offices and operations areas to support missions.

  12. Thanks DeV, sofa thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  13. #2583
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    From the middle of page 95 in this thread, onwards. It appears to tick all the boxes, with some tweaking here and there.
    Importantly though is for the tender process to commence now, as the ship it will replace will soon be due to retire from active service, if this has not already happened.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  14. Thanks Anzac thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  15. #2584
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    From the middle of page 95 in this thread, onwards. It appears to tick all the boxes, with some tweaking here and there.
    Importantly though is for the tender process to commence now, as the ship it will replace will soon be due to retire from active service, if this has not already happened.
    A ship designed to tick all the boxes. I would like to know speed with 2 x 4500kw engines , also armament for insertion support is just token at 25mm plus HMG's. The Schottel 1215 Steerable rudder propellers SRP's at 1750kw and two bow thrusters at 500kw each are being fed how? I presume the SRP's from ME output and the Bow thrusters from generators. With 3x 2000kw generators what is the load with operating all systems on arrival and manoeuvring at same time.?

  16. #2585
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wouldn't see the point of having anything less than a 76mm main, and if deck penetration was an issue, then modern 57mm are bolt on, with similar bang for buck.
    To my comparably inexperienced eye, the only way you could propel a ship of that profile and not waste space below deck is using azipods, which would require a sizeable powerplant (or two) if we are not going to go down the gas turbine route.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  17. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  18. #2586
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    I wouldn't see the point of having anything less than a 76mm main, and if deck penetration was an issue, then modern 57mm are bolt on, with similar bang for buck.
    To my comparably inexperienced eye, the only way you could propel a ship of that profile and not waste space below deck is using azipods, which would require a sizeable powerplant (or two) if we are not going to go down the gas turbine route.
    I see Vard have update the picture of the 7-313 with what looks like a 76mm up front

    https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/up...-7-313-MRV.png
    Well, government doesn't stop just because the country's been destroyed! I mean, annihilation's bad enough without anarchy to make things even worse!

  19. Thanks DeV, sofa thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  20. #2587
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    Indeed they have. Makes a lot more sense....
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  21. #2588
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,577
    Post Thanks / Like
    So... the original pdf had helicopters that looked "interestingly" close to the AC's 139's and now they have the image changed to the standard NS armament? Vard aren't really being subtle imo...
    Looking at it they've replaced the cover gif, but the actual brochure is still the original with only the 25mm mount on the spec?
    Last edited by Sparky42; 28th November 2019 at 15:00.

  22. Likes CTU liked this post
  23. #2589
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,200
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    So... the original pdf had helicopters that looked "interestingly" close to the AC's 139's
    They even have the AC roundrel !

  24. Likes CTU liked this post
  25. #2590
    C/S Tempest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    I wouldn't see the point of having anything less than a 76mm main, and if deck penetration was an issue, then modern 57mm are bolt on, with similar bang for buck..
    Well considering it's pretty much Eithne's replacement I'm sure the bean counters will be arguing for Eithne's 57mm to be transferred.

  26. Likes DeV liked this post
  27. #2591
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,577
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    They even have the AC roundrel !
    That they did/do, and now the 76mm... But that brings us back to drydocking it I suppose given it's Beam?

  28. Likes DeV liked this post
  29. #2592
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    Eithnes 57 mount is obsolete. The gun is fine, but naval armament mounts have come a long way since the early 80s.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  30. Likes Tempest liked this post
  31. #2593
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    879
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempest View Post
    Well considering it's pretty much Eithne's replacement I'm sure the bean counters will be arguing for Eithne's 57mm to be transferred.
    As the Peacocks will also be going out of service during the probable build time the 76mm's will be available. This would then allow the NS to standardize on one large caliber.
    The 25mm mount would only make sense if the Rhinos were also to be replace with the same mounts. Although something with a MK44 Bushmaster might be a better choice for the DF overall.

  32. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  33. #2594
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    So... the original pdf had helicopters that looked "interestingly" close to the AC's 139's and now they have the image changed to the standard NS armament? Vard aren't really being subtle imo...
    Looking at it they've replaced the cover gif, but the actual brochure is still the original with only the 25mm mount on the spec?
    Vard must read our threads!! For self defence the minimum is main armament 40/57/76mm with a radar and FCS auto. Two x 30mm bushmaster, and 4x 12.7mm. The 30mm mount should be augmented with the UK Martlet missile system , all controlled by auto FCS. Like all good FCS's we too , in planning , must be predictive in our efforts to deal with today's threats in a realistic manner.

  34. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter, sofa, DeV, Flamingo liked this post
  35. #2595
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    879
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Vard must read our threads!! For self defence the minimum is main armament 40/57/76mm with a radar and FCS auto. Two x 30mm bushmaster, and 4x 12.7mm. The 30mm mount should be augmented with the UK Martlet missile system , all controlled by auto FCS. Like all good FCS's we too , in planning , must be predictive in our efforts to deal with today's threats in a realistic manner.
    If they are; please could we have the more common LCVP-1604 rather than a 15m non-standard landing craft and replace one of the Chess Dynamics Sea Eagle EOSS with the same company's Sea Eagle FCRO to give all weather FC capability.

  36. Thanks DeV, na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes sofa, DeV, Sparky42 liked this post
  37. #2596
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    If they are; please could we have the more common LCVP-1604 rather than a 15m non-standard landing craft and replace one of the Chess Dynamics Sea Eagle EOSS with the same company's Sea Eagle FCRO to give all weather FC capability.
    While the EOSS version of FCS has use I would agree that the FCEO system with laser range finder would allow control of Naval guns against all targets including shore targets. if we add on 30mm naval weapons then the FCEO FCS is necessary.

  38. Thanks na grohmiti, EUFighter thanked for this post
  39. #2597
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    879
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    While the EOSS version of FCS has use I would agree that the FCEO system with laser range finder would allow control of Naval guns against all targets including shore targets. if we add on 30mm naval weapons then the FCEO FCS is necessary.
    As it is the weekend and I had a little free time I have put some mods on the VARD7-313.

    As discussed earlier I have swapped the 15m LC for a LCVP-1604 and moved it up a deck to reduce its exposure to waves. The stacks I have reduced slightly and made both active as in the original only the port side is working. While I had the time I swapped out the 20t crane for a 25t with a bit more reach.

    Then added the OTO-Melara 76/62mm Compact linked to a Chess Dynamics Sea Eagle FCRO, placed 2 x 30mm Marlin RWS midships and moved the 0.5in to just aft of the bridge in FN Sea Defender mounts. To up the protection levels a bit I added what could be options: a MBDA Simbad-RC SAM system and a set of Terma C-Guard decoy systems, one each side. To round it all off then a Terma Scanter 4100 radar as the mast was just calling out for something to sit atop of it!
    VARD7-313.pdf
    Last edited by EUFighter; 30th November 2019 at 17:07.

  40. Thanks Flamingo, Herald, sofa thanked for this post
    Likes Herald liked this post
  41. #2598
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,577
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Attachment doesn't work for me?

  42. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  43. #2599
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    As it is the weekend and I had a little free time I have put some mods on the VARD7-313.

    As discussed earlier I have swapped the 15m LC for a LCVP-1604 and moved it up a deck to reduce its exposure to waves. The stacks I have reduced slightly and made both active as in the original only the port side is working. While I had the time I swapped out the 20t crane for a 25t with a bit more reach.

    Then added the OTO-Melara 76/62mm Compact linked to a Chess Dynamics Sea Eagle FCRO, placed 2 x 30mm Marlin RWS midships and moved the 0.5in to just aft of the bridge in FN Sea Defender mounts. To up the protection levels a bit I added what could be options: a MBDA Simbad-RC SAM system and a set of Terma C-Guard decoy systems, one each side. To round it all off then a Terma Scanter 4100 radar as the mast was just calling out for something to sit atop of it!
    Attachment 8708
    We have not seen your rearrangement of the equipments on the VARD 7-313 due to attachment problems. In the context of stability if you shift, 2x24tonne lcvp's up a deck by 3m vertical it is likely to have consequences on range and survival. The 25t crane might be limited in handling a 24 tonne loaded LCVP. In engine operation the height of stacks is prescriptive. The enhanced armament levels are appropriate.

  44. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  45. #2600
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not sure if adding extra TEUs to the upper area between the funnels is a good idea. It would change the stability profile. I would also be concerned about the moving of the LCPV in that you have created a new airflow around the funnels, which may impact on helideck operations. Better leave them where they are, and put a door there. Better for Radar profile too.
    Good work though. Nice to see you putting spare time to good use. :D
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 305
    Last Post: 1st May 2019, 23:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 23:54
  3. Naval Training Ship?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th February 2003, 01:19

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •