Thanks Thanks:  774
Likes Likes:  1,635
Dislikes Dislikes:  42
Page 79 of 101 FirstFirst ... 2969777879808189 ... LastLast
Results 1,951 to 1,975 of 2523
  1. #1951
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,706
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    TYPE 31 Export.......yes I've been banging on about it for 6 months or more.... but why bother when some will argue any point just because they can and will then come back and use the idea as their own.

    Whats the fcuking point
    Time for another break I think......

  2. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  3. #1952
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,025
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    TYPE 31 Export.......yes I've been banging on about it for 6 months or more.... but why bother when some will argue any point just because they can and will then come back and use the idea as their own.

    Whats the fcuking point
    I’m just putting it up because I hadn’t come across the link before. Maybe someone else had already posted it, if they have I apologise.
    Last edited by DeV; 1st March 2018 at 00:02.

  4. Likes 25 pounder liked this post
  5. #1953
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,487
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    I’m just putting it up because I hadn’t come across the link before. Maybe someone else had already posted it, if they have I apologise.
    Interesting proposal from Babcock . It is 10 metres shorter than the proposed MRV. I would like an extra 5 metres in length and put it mostly in the F.Dk area as the rotor tip clearances to the after superstructure looks tight as drawn. It meets basic requirements but restricts extra transportable personnel to 80, somewhat less than Company size. DWT at 4000 tonnes is also lighter than envisaged but the extra 5 metres might bring that up by another few hundred tonnes.

  6. #1954
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    848
    Post Thanks / Like
    The BMT Venator and Babcock Arrowhead are multi-role frigates design to be able to be adapted to carry out a number of frigate functions. They have a mission bay system but this is rather small. Although it would be great to get such a ship for the NS, they are not going to be the MRV.

    If we start by looking at what roles the MRV will have to care out then an idea of the possible design can emerge, so it must be able to perform as an OPV while a P50/60 vessel is in re-fit or OoA operations. This should mean we would like it to have a similar weapon and sensor suite as the P60 vessels. It also means that we would want it to carry 2 or more RIBs for boarding operations. (The 76mm can be taken from the retired Peacocks)

    Refugee Rescue: recent operational experience in the Mediterranean has shown the limitations and advantages of some designs for rescuing large numbers from the sea. Looking at the current fleet it can be seen that the oldest ship in the fleet was the best suited. The LÉ Eithne was better suited due to the flexible area due to the helicopter deck and hanger. Although not ideal these features allowed the vessel to carry large amount of rescued persons. So the MRV must have a large flexible area that can be quickly converted to be able to carry a large number of people. They need to have accommodation, hygiene facilities and health care. As for the size we have plenty of experience of having nearly 200 rescued souls on-board.

    HADR: this starts with the floating hospital, being able to provide medial support like during the Ebola outbreak where the local hospital facilities cannot cope, so it should be equipped or be able to be quickly equipped with a hospital. Other than this it could be the vessel has to deliver relief support and supplies to the shore. But the vessel should be able to provide these services without having to rely on on-shore facilities. It can be that they have been destroyed through natural or man-made disasters. An ability to operate a decent sized helicopter is one or the ways to provide this and the design should be able to accommodate an 11t helicopter (NH90/MH60/H225). Even if we do not have such helicopter it can be that it is being supplied by another EU nation as part of a joint EU action. But even a helicopter has limited store transfer ability, though they are good for personnel. So the vessel should be capable of launching and recovering 1-2 LCVP. These can more easily move equipment and vehicles to the shore.

    Anti-piracy: even if we are not currently engaged in this type of operation it is one which has been identified and likely to become important in the next 30 years. Looking at the Horn of Africa it can be seen that the distances involved are large and that high speed is essential. One way to reduce the demand on the ship for speed is for it to embark high speed craft. This can be a helicopter or a high speed boat. The Dutch Holland class embark 2 FRISC and the Danish Absolon embarks SB90E for this task. These vessels are capable of over 40kts which cuts the intercept time dramatically.

    Troop Transport: it should be capable of transporting a company and its associated equipment. For this transport role it could be assumed that no helicopter is operated during the voyage. It can be we finally deploy an AW139 or two! But assuming that the vessels has a flight deck and a cargo deck they should be linked so vehicles can be transferred easily from one to another. The troop accommodation need only be design for a short term usage as unless the DF gets a Marine unit it would be better to fly troops to a port near the disembarkation point than have them sea-sick the whole way there!

    These are just a few thoughts on what the design requirements start to look like and seeing how the Danish managed to fit all this and a bit more into a 6000t vessel there is no reason to believe we cannot do it also.

    A big advantage we have over some navies is that we do not have to support a local ship building industry. This means it is possible for us to get a good sized and equipped ship for the money. How much this can effect what we get can be seen by comparing some recent high profile purchases. The Canadian Harry DeWolf-class will cost €370m each while the Norwegian Svalbard-class upon which it is based cost €80m. (both are 6400t patrol vessels). The price of the Danish Absolon class is another often held up as an example, they cost €170m each, excluding the Flex Modules which they had recycled from other retired vessels.

    So how can there be such a big advantage in cost, quite simple even if modular building techniques are used, they too require a lot of manual work. They are normally done indoors which makes it a better working environment in Europe/NA, but still a lot of hours are consumed. If you can utilise yards in low cost countries then you can reduce your build cost dramatically. OMT the Danish yard now closed, utilised yards in Estonia and Lithuania to keep the costs down.

    Another advantage that we have already used is having a design from a Design Office made in a yard not necessarily belonging to the Design Office. The P50/P60 designs are from VARD and we had them built by Babcock. The RFA picked a design from BMT for their new AOR and it was built in Korea.

    So if the NS has a good idea on what they need and they somehow manage to get it past the DoD it could be we get something really useful as an MRV.

  7. #1955
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Absalon it is then!

  8. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  9. #1956
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Worth mentioning that Harry DeWolf is an Arctic Patrol ship, designed to operate in heavy Ice(1m Thick). This would greatly contribute to both cost and final displacement. The class has a very large displacement for their LOA.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  10. Likes DeV liked this post
  11. #1957
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    848
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Worth mentioning that Harry DeWolf is an Arctic Patrol ship, designed to operate in heavy Ice(1m Thick). This would greatly contribute to both cost and final displacement. The class has a very large displacement for their LOA.
    True the Harry DeWolf is an Arctic Patrol ship but so is the Svalbard-class, it is the almost the same ship, the Svalbard is also designed to be able to operate in 1m thick ice, to be absolute correct, both are designed to operate in 1m thick new summer ice. Both have the same dimensions and almost identical displacements, the Svalbard-class at 6375t and the Harry DeWolf at 6440t.

    I could have compared the Canadian Protecteur-class JSS at €830m each compared to the Norwegian Maud-class JSS at €157m.
    Last edited by EUFighter; 1st March 2018 at 19:54.

  12. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  13. #1958
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like
    As an off the shelf purchase, the absalon is about the only one that stands out as generally fitting our spec, minus the rockety things of course.

  14. #1959
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,706
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by restless View Post
    As an off the shelf purchase, the absalon is about the only one that stands out as generally fitting our spec, minus the rockety things of course.
    Two ship class , now 13 years old.....

    Not going to happen
    Time for another break I think......

  15. #1960
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by restless View Post
    As an off the shelf purchase, the absalon is about the only one that stands out as generally fitting our spec, minus the rockety things of course.
    Her comms and sensor suite would also cost the same as an OPV.
    But as a hull design, then yes. I am a particular fan of the stern arrangement. No dock or stern rib launching ramp thingy. Instead A vehicle ramp on one side and a Second hatch from which a launching crane for either cargo or a RIB/High speed landing craft.


    I believe the Iver Huitfeldt class frigate has a similar hull form, just with different roles, sensors and weaponry. It is an excellent start point though.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  16. Thanks restless thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter, Tempest, DeV liked this post
  17. #1961
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like
    While its a 13yo design as you say, it looks like a good seakeeping hull and the speed, endurance, crew size and capacity are all what we are generally looking for.

  18. Likes EUFighter, DeV liked this post
  19. #1962
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Come to think of it, our 50 and 60 class are of the same vintage in terms of design. I just like the look of it, somehow it just looks right for us, .

  20. #1963
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,487
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by restless View Post
    Come to think of it, our 50 and 60 class are of the same vintage in terms of design. I just like the look of it, somehow it just looks right for us, .
    The ship as built would be new with all current generations of outfits installed. Being a 13 year old proven design might be a distinct advantage.

  21. Thanks na grohmiti, DeV thanked for this post
    Likes restless, sofa, DeV, Graylion liked this post
  22. #1964
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,706
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by restless View Post
    Come to think of it, our 50 and 60 class are of the same vintage in terms of design. I just like the look of it, somehow it just looks right for us, .
    .

    Any development of our current ships is the logical way to go...... layout and fit out could be relatively similar cutting down on logistics and retraining......110m OPV with helo deck..almost becomes a mini frigate

    'Iver Huitfeldt 'class frigate, seems to be an evolution of the Absalon with Canada taking a look at it, would depend on unit cost as opposed to the 110m OPV.

    I suppose the jump from 90m OPV to the next generation of ship is going to be expensive regardless of where it comes from but it has to be right first time.

    Personally I thing its going to be a UK product along the lines of what we have already with a helo deck and increased TEU capacity.
    Time for another break I think......

  23. #1965
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    848
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    .

    'Iver Huitfeldt 'class frigate, seems to be an evolution of the Absalon with Canada taking a look at it, would depend on unit cost as opposed to the 110m OPV.
    The Iver Huitfeldt use the same basic hull as the Absalon even if they are Air-defence frigates. As for the proposal for Canada, it did not make the final shrtlist as OMT withdrew from the competition.

  24. #1966
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    848
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    .

    Any development of our current ships is the logical way to go...... layout and fit out could be relatively similar cutting down on logistics and retraining......110m OPV with helo deck..almost becomes a mini frigate

    Personally I thing its going to be a UK product along the lines of what we have already with a helo deck and increased TEU capacity.
    The last UK product we took was the Peacock class, the P50/60 design is an STX now VARD design which we had built in the UK. The choice of the yard was more due to Geo-political reasons for the P50s and the P60s more due to "the devil you know". It would be unlikely that Babcock could compete on price with an open competition today, plus the P60 was about the limit of what they can handle.

    But it is true that there could be a further evolution of the P60 design and this has already been done in the form of the VARD7-100 design:
    https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/up...VARD-7-100.pdf

    This has also now been selected as the basis for the new generation of USCG OPC cutters being built by Eastern Shipbuilding:
    http://www.easternshipbuilding.com/w...e-Approved.pdf

    But it is not the only option, there is the Dutch Holland-class, which need not be fitted with an I-Mast but would be a good EPV.
    http://products.damen.com/ranges/opv...ol-vessel-3750
    And that is what such a vessel should be seen as an EPV, it would be great if we were to get 1-2 Holland's to replace the Eithne and the Peacocks. That would be a great improvement in the capability but it seems the discussion is more to a MRV.
    Last edited by EUFighter; 2nd March 2018 at 09:00.

  25. Dislikes hptmurphy disliked this post
  26. #1967
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,487
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    But it is not the only option, there is the Dutch Holland-class, which need not be fitted with an I-Mast but would be a good EPV.
    http://products.damen.com/ranges/opv...ol-vessel-3750
    And that is what such a vessel should be seen as an EPV, it would be great if we were to get 1-2 Holland's to replace the Eithne and the Peacocks. That would be a great improvement in the capability but it seems the discussion is more to a MRV.
    Adaption of smaller vessels to make stretched versions can be counterproductive. Equally adapting the larger hull of a high speed AD Frigate to suit MRV requirements could produce a Frankenstein doing 22 knots in a 30 knot hull. How a ship is designed and equipped makes her fit for role. If you leave bits out such as the MAST on Holland then you have to compensate for effects on CoG and Metacentric Height and in doing so make it difficult to refit such a system later. Stick with the MRV, equip well from Day One, and provide a good range of auto Defence/ Support outfit. Whatever replaces Peacocks will have to be adaptable to assist MCM and diving units. It will have to be happy in WNA, and sufficient range for overseas missions, or accompany our vessels on such missions.

  27. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  28. #1968
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Adaption of smaller vessels to make stretched versions can be counterproductive. Equally adapting the larger hull of a high speed AD Frigate to suit MRV requirements could produce a Frankenstein doing 22 knots in a 30 knot hull. How a ship is designed and equipped makes her fit for role. If you leave bits out such as the MAST on Holland then you have to compensate for effects on CoG and Metacentric Height and in doing so make it difficult to refit such a system later. Stick with the MRV, equip well from Day One, and provide a good range of auto Defence/ Support outfit. Whatever replaces Peacocks will have to be adaptable to assist MCM and diving units. It will have to be happy in WNA, and sufficient range for overseas missions, or accompany our vessels on such missions.
    Holland was in service without her special mast (IMAST400) for many months, and was commissioned as such. The mast was added later, and is mostly made of composites, so the CofG would not be impacted greatly.
    ShipSpotting.com

    © Wim Kosten / maritimephoto.com

    However I think it is better to leave the designing to the naval architects, and not the politicians... Equip it for purpose from the outset. Adding length to OPVs or removing missiles from frigates may not always be the best option.
    The NS have known what they want here since before the P60 were built. They have made plenty of public noise about what is required. I have no doubt that the european naval design houses have plenty of options on the drawing board already. Many who put forward designs for the NZ MRV may revisit them, given the experiences that vessel went through. I remember Blohm & Voss in particular had offerred a modified Meko 200.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  29. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  30. #1969
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,025
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://s3.zetaboards.com/Defense_Phi...opic/832292/1/

    Specs of Meko 200 MRV on the above link


    I assume the stowage of stores on deck and not within something like Absalon’s Flexdeck would make it better suited to the OPV type work?

  31. #1970
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    http://s3.zetaboards.com/Defense_Phi...opic/832292/1/

    Specs of Meko 200 MRV on the above link


    I assume the stowage of stores on deck and not within something like Absalon’s Flexdeck would make it better suited to the OPV type work?
    A lot has changed in the 12 years since that post (Blohm & Voss no longer in the shipbuilding business for starters).
    However it would be interesting to see if either Lurssen-Defence or ThyssenKrupp have anything to offer based on this design.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  32. #1971
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    A lot has changed in the 12 years since that post (Blohm & Voss no longer in the shipbuilding business for starters).
    However it would be interesting to see if either Lurssen-Defence or ThyssenKrupp have anything to offer based on this design.
    Maybe not such a good idea, especially if defense-aerospace.com is correct (reported today):

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ip-tender.html

  33. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  34. #1972
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,706
    Post Thanks / Like
    The last UK product we took was the Peacock class, the P50/60 design is an STX now VARD design which we had built in the UK. The choice of the yard was more due to Geo-political reasons for the P50s and the P60s more due to "the devil you know"
    By your reckoning the P40s weren't a UK product as they were paid for by Hong Kong and the P20s The NS used weren't Irish as the were a NEVESBU concept which was Dutch.......

    The Iver Huitfeldt use the same basic hull as the Absalon even if they are Air-defence frigates
    You can put what ever fit you want into a hull at that size to make it what you want to be.... its either the same hull or its not.
    Time for another break I think......

  35. #1973
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,706
    Post Thanks / Like
    Equally adapting the larger hull of a high speed AD Frigate to suit MRV requirements could produce a Frankenstein doing 22 knots in a 30 knot hull
    Unless we move into some combination of gas turbines along with normal type units we are always going to be in the 22 -30 kts bracket with that type of vessel and with that comes a whole new skill set that we don't have yet.
    Time for another break I think......

  36. #1974
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,487
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Unless we move into some combination of gas turbines along with normal type units we are always going to be in the 22 -30 kts bracket with that type of vessel and with that comes a whole new skill set that we don't have yet.
    For range and endurance we must stay with a low litres per nautical mile configuration. Gas turbines are probably serviced by unit replacement and reconditioned ashore. It means designing in ER accesses and removal routes during ship build. It also means refueling becomes part of every operational task.

  37. #1975
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Most GTs need vast intakes and exhaust spaces, this creates an inbuilt avenue to remove them wen required. Latest idea in the ship industry where GT are used is to place them on an upper deck, and use them to supply power to AC motors driving props or Azipods.
    Not sure it has a practical Naval application though.
    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 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 305
    Last Post: 1st May 2019, 22:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 22:54
  3. Naval Training Ship?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th February 2003, 00:19

Posting Permissions

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