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 Laners View Post
    Or it could be a new way to launch RHIB's , flood the mid section and float the RHIB out .
    To my uneducated eye, it looks like the problem would be stopping them floating out regardless...
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

    Comment


    • The design is more interesting the more one looks at it.

      Looking at the ship's complete side view there is a jump in the stiffness at the cargo area but this is no more than what is seen on almost every Offshore Support Vessel of a similar size. I agree it would be better to protect the cargo bay more but structurally it should be sufficient.
      Move from the bow towards the aft we have the standard OTO Melara 76mm Super Rapid, just behind is the RAS folder boom.
      The mast is an integrated mast which is much smaller than the iMast fitted to several Dutch vessels. It seems to be less than half the volume. This is linked to the locally produced Orion CMS. Abeam the bridge are two 50 cals and either two 25mm or 30mm cannon in RWS.

      Then come a open cargo area with 12 TEU's and a 1506 LCVP ( a standard size landing craft). Naturally with a large crane for lifting operations. This is most likely to be able to support operations in the Galápagos Islands which are part of Ecuador. Either side of the crane are two small RIBs.

      Then a large helicopter pad for the 11tons class: NH90, MH70, AS 532, the latter of which is operated by the Ecuadorian Army. Also to be seen in the landing pad are the cutouts to allow TEU's to be lowered into the mission bay below. The mission bay also is equipped with two fast interceptor boats that are stern launched.

      The mast is really interesting it is a co-development of the shipyard and the Italian company Virtualabs which supplies the major electronic systems such as the SEADAR radar and DRIAC ESM system. It would be interesting to know just how much the integrated mast and the CMS costs to see if that would be something that could be part of MLU for the P60 class.
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
        The design is more interesting the more one looks at it.

        Looking at the ship's complete side view there is a jump in the stiffness at the cargo area but this is no more than what is seen on almost every Offshore Support Vessel of a similar size. I agree it would be better to protect the cargo bay more but structurally it should be sufficient.
        Move from the bow towards the aft we have the standard OTO Melara 76mm Super Rapid, just behind is the RAS folder boom.
        The mast is an integrated mast which is much smaller than the iMast fitted to several Dutch vessels. It seems to be less than half the volume. This is linked to the locally produced Orion CMS. Abeam the bridge are two 50 cals and either two 25mm or 30mm cannon in RWS.

        Then come a open cargo area with 12 TEU's and a 1506 LCVP ( a standard size landing craft). Naturally with a large crane for lifting operations. This is most likely to be able to support operations in the Galápagos Islands which are part of Ecuador. Either side of the crane are two small RIBs.

        Then a large helicopter pad for the 11tons class: NH90, MH70, AS 532, the latter of which is operated by the Ecuadorian Army. Also to be seen in the landing pad are the cutouts to allow TEU's to be lowered into the mission bay below. The mission bay also is equipped with two fast interceptor boats that are stern launched.

        The mast is really interesting it is a co-development of the shipyard and the Italian company Virtualabs which supplies the major electronic systems such as the SEADAR radar and DRIAC ESM system. It would be interesting to know just how much the integrated mast and the CMS costs to see if that would be something that could be part of MLU for the P60 class.
        This is a ship tailored to a purpose. It will operate in a mostlly benign AOP on the Equator. It looks congested amidships, and has the stability problem to counter balance the launch of a large LC (VP?). The launching and size of RHIB's raises questions for rigging and boarding, and if FRC type craft are available to stern launch, why the smaller craft at all. I'm all for good radar and Combat systems both now and in future upgrades.

        Comment


        • Images (4) of an early design model of the future RNZN Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel produced by Defence Models and Graphics PTY Ltd from their Facebook page based on the 4500 tonne VARD 7-110 USCG Heritage Class with further design and capability elements taken from the VARD 7-100 ICE AOPS. The SOPV project requires a long range polar code compliant and embarked NH-90 capable patrol vessel that can also as a complementary role conduct resupply/logistics support missions (with a 12m Landing Craft Vehicle and deck crane), conduct ISR and also be able to support scientific activities. Image 2 shows the flight deck access doors to the main cargo deck for stowage of containers, vehicles and Landing Craft.

          Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.


          Here is a pdf copy of the Capability Definition Presentation made by the RNZN and Defence Technology Agency team to the Pacific Maritime Expo in Australia late last year.



          The design model above was displayed at the Pacific Expo conference. An earlier CGI image of the VARD 7-110 in RNZN markings can be found on VARD's gallery. https://vardmarine.com/gallery/vard-7-110/
          Last edited by Anzac; 5 April 2020, 13:55.

          Comment


          • The Dutch have finally ordered their new CSS
            https://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...375m-deal.html

            Comment


            • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
              The Dutch have finally ordered their new CSS
              https://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...375m-deal.html
              Most maritime countries are aware of the necessity for a scaled Naval Defence and the need for Logistical support to sustain Naval effort at sea, or to assist military need to put boots on the ground. It is interesting to read back on studies of the Irish Civil war and realise that the major catalyst to Victory were five major landings with artillery and armoured cars which took irregulars by surprise. Some landings had as many as 400 troops with an 18 pounder gun and Whippet car. In those key areas where RN vessels were free to operate they aided the Free State side to tip success for a particular operation by use of searchlights or illuminating rounds. Whatever vessel we select those matters of one hundred years ago are still relevant so we should be able to replicate required landings and support them while they are ongoing. For information port landings were undertaken from coastal packet ferries and most would have been British flagged.
              Last edited by ancientmariner; 26 April 2020, 21:14.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                Most maritime countries are aware of the necessity for a scaled Naval Defence and the need for Logistical support to sustain Naval effort at sea, or to assist military need to put boots on the ground. It is interesting to read back on studies of the Irish Civil war and realise that the major catalyst to Victory were five major landings with artillery and armoured cars which took irregulars by surprise. Some landings had as many as 400 troops with an 18 pounder gun and Whippet car. In those key areas where RN vessels were free to operate they aided the Free State side to tip success for a particular operation by use of searchlights or illuminating rounds. Whatever vessel we select those matters of one hundred years ago are still relevant so we should be able to replicate required landings and support them while they are ongoing. For information port landings were undertaken from coastal packet ferries and most would have been British flagged.
                Most nations take defence seriously not us!
                Even if they were seen somewhat as a joke the old Flowers corvettes when new had capabilities we have never replaced. The LE Eithne was the closest we came yet to having a serious naval vessel rather than a "coast guard". As for amphibious capability after the Civil war we lost and forgot about it. Almost every maritime nation have some form of marines, we hell no. Let's hope that when a government is formed we finally get the much vaunted defence consultation review, that we finally take our heads out of ……...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                  Most nations take defence seriously not us!
                  Even if they were seen somewhat as a joke the old Flowers corvettes when new had capabilities we have never replaced. The LE Eithne was the closest we came yet to having a serious naval vessel rather than a "coast guard". As for amphibious capability after the Civil war we lost and forgot about it. Almost every maritime nation have some form of marines, we hell no. Let's hope that when a government is formed we finally get the much vaunted defence consultation review, that we finally take our heads out of ……...
                  Not a chance in hell when you consider the trade offs that FF/FG and Greens are going to demand off each other.

                  Comment


                  • [QUOTE=ancientmariner;474967]Most maritime countries are aware of the necessity for a scaled Naval Defence and the need for Logistical support to sustain Naval effort at sea, or to assist military need to put boots on the ground. QUOTE]

                    This is just for AM to answer first!
                    There are many type of vessels & capabilities missing in order to have what could be considered a “balance fleet”.

                    So the following is a hypothetical situation were the EU as part of the post Covid-19 stimulus package decides that naval ship building should be supported both to give employment and to fill the gap to the infamous 2% target. As this would utilise EU budget they have decided to offer some of these new build to us. And as "Head of Naval Procurement" you get the choice of 2 from 3 types, which 2 would you choose and why? (Based only on the capability the type would bring)

                    (a) LSV: vessel like the HMnoS Maud
                    (b) LPD: vessel like the Enforcer class
                    (c) MRV: vessel like HMNZS Canterbury or the Vard 7-313

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                      Not a chance in hell when you consider the trade offs that FF/FG and Greens are going to demand off each other.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuStsFW4EmQ

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        Most maritime countries are aware of the necessity for a scaled Naval Defence and the need for Logistical support to sustain Naval effort at sea, or to assist military need to put boots on the ground. It is interesting to read back on studies of the Irish Civil war and realise that the major catalyst to Victory were five major landings with artillery and armoured cars which took irregulars by surprise. Some landings had as many as 400 troops with an 18 pounder gun and Whippet car. In those key areas where RN vessels were free to operate they aided the Free State side to tip success for a particular operation by use of searchlights or illuminating rounds. Whatever vessel we select those matters of one hundred years ago are still relevant so we should be able to replicate required landings and support them while they are ongoing. For information port landings were undertaken from coastal packet ferries and most would have been British flagged.
                        Are you suggesting seriously that we develop the capability to invade Kerry?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by paul g View Post
                          Are you suggesting seriously that we develop the capability to invade Kerry?
                          I think the point is that the National army were doing Amphib asaults before anyone else was doing it successfully. If we could do it in 1923, why did we lose it? Why don't we recognise it's importance? Even from a Humanitarian aid point of view, the ability to land people and tools anywhere on the island during an emergency when normal supply lines might not be available is surely a worthwhile asset?
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=EUFighter;474977]
                            Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                            Most maritime countries are aware of the necessity for a scaled Naval Defence and the need for Logistical support to sustain Naval effort at sea, or to assist military need to put boots on the ground. QUOTE]

                            This is just for AM to answer first!
                            There are many type of vessels & capabilities missing in order to have what could be considered a “balance fleet”.

                            So the following is a hypothetical situation were the EU as part of the post Covid-19 stimulus package decides that naval ship building should be supported both to give employment and to fill the gap to the infamous 2% target. As this would utilise EU budget they have decided to offer some of these new build to us. And as "Head of Naval Procurement" you get the choice of 2 from 3 types, which 2 would you choose and why? (Based only on the capability the type would bring)

                            (a) LSV: vessel like the HMnoS Maud
                            (b) LPD: vessel like the Enforcer class
                            (c) MRV: vessel like HMNZS Canterbury or the Vard 7-313
                            This kind of exercise is interesting. It presupposes the selection for choice is the only pick list available . It also encourages choices from a higher echelon's production.
                            My own view is that the original genesis of the Naval Service which was anti-submarine and anti-AA based, followed by accidental excursion into MW (affordability era ), while at the same time carrying out normal Naval duties of SFP, was the best Defensive route to maintain. The ship change during own build phase gleaned our shore establishment schools of ASW, AA Dome, Torpedoes, Depth Charges etc. My own choice would be to add as many elements required by an Atlantic based island as possible to our four bigger ships covering AA , A/fast boat. ASW. Acquire smaller sortie craft as a training Squadron for younger officers and reserve training. Also acquire an MRV to do all those things already hypothesised with ability to act as Mother to all vessels including Training Squadron and major diving Tasks. At this time we can do elements of Police and HADR with some acquired surveillance by drones , MPA, and AIS Civilian. Our biggest challenge is to think Navy and maintain avenues to achieve that goal. It is crucial that the Techs support goals and not bin things that are difficult or discomforting to the norm.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                              I think the point is that the National army were doing Amphib asaults before anyone else was doing it successfully. If we could do it in 1923, why did we lose it? Why don't we recognise it's importance? Even from a Humanitarian aid point of view, the ability to land people and tools anywhere on the island during an emergency when normal supply lines might not be available is surely a worthwhile asset?
                              We lost it because a) the Army has always dominated the defence forces, b) because our politicians had any number of issues to deal with post IW/CW and the RN still having control gave them a way to avoid that, and c) because the Free State had such massive issues in the 20's that defence spending was always going to fall away.

                              Comment


                              • Loved that movie, sadly however I feel I'm being rational rather than negative.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X