Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

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

  • Specs say it can take max 57mm main weapon, so no commonality there. Also, it's pig ugly

    Comment


    • There doesn't appear to be any space for crew or embarked accomodation. Unless everyone lives in bunks on the vehicle deck.
      2 helipads and offset armament may look nice to you, but it is only practical to layout a ship in this way and also expect to do EEZ patrol is if you have a crew in single digits.
      People have to live on these ships. Our crews have become accustomed to, and rightly deserve, a certain level of accomodation space and comfort. I cannot see how a ship of this size could achieve that.
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • So now we know what the design team sacrificed to get two helidecks and all those lane metres into a ship that size.

        The crew.

        Spectacular...

        Comment


        • There's a lot of freeboard there. Again, this ship is a lot bigger than the OPVs. But I do fear that crew accommodation is probably cramped. The 240 temporaries are liable to be bunk accommodation, but even permanent crew might be tight. So I get the point, this probably won't work on that count alone.

          Comment


          • The 240 isn't bunked, it's on the vehicle deck.

            I don't know if you've ever spent a week living on the vehicle deck of an LPD, but it's not much fun.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
              The 240 isn't bunked, it's on the vehicle deck.

              I don't know if you've ever spent a week living on the vehicle deck of an LPD, but it's not much fun.
              Disliked in error

              And that will be instead of the vehicles etc, not in addition

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                There's a lot of freeboard there. Again, this ship is a lot bigger than the OPVs. But I do fear that crew accommodation is probably cramped. The 240 temporaries are liable to be bunk accommodation, but even permanent crew might be tight. So I get the point, this probably won't work on that count alone.
                You keep saying that it is not the same size or it is a lot bigger than the OPVs. It isnt. 90m is 90m. 90m doesn't change if the displacement or draft changes. It's still 90m.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                  You keep saying that it is not the same size or it is a lot bigger than the OPVs. It isnt. 90m is 90m. 90m doesn't change if the displacement or draft changes. It's still 90m.
                  But the size is defined by the displacement, not the length. Length is one of 3 dimensions.

                  Comment


                  • Tell that to the big waves in an Atlantic storm. The LOA is the most important dimension when dealing with crests and troughs.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      You keep saying that it is not the same size or it is a lot bigger than the OPVs. It isnt. 90m is 90m. 90m doesn't change if the displacement or draft changes. It's still 90m.
                      I don't like the ship because it is too gimmicky. Helicopters landing forward on the Bridge eyeline is a nuisance, and is usually reserved for ships with no where else to land them , like an offshore supply vessel. There is proportionality between a ships length, beam and draft if you wish to have a sea kindly vessel. The vessel could be rejigged but it couldn't be done on 90m which would work out at 90m X 15m X 4m . The 90.9m x 17m X 4.7m is a floating joke and seems to be under powered using OPV 80 power train. The 300kw thruster probably needs upgrading also. If you want to build at 17m beam then you need to go to 102m length and 5m draft, and up the power to give the proposed speeds and ranges.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        I don't like the ship because it is too gimmicky. Helicopters landing forward on the Bridge eyeline is a nuisance, and is usually reserved for ships with no where else to land them , like an offshore supply vessel. There is proportionality between a ships length, beam and draft if you wish to have a sea kindly vessel. The vessel could be rejigged but it couldn't be done on 90m which would work out at 90m X 15m X 4m . The 90.9m x 17m X 4.7m is a floating joke and seems to be under powered using OPV 80 power train. The 300kw thruster probably needs upgrading also. If you want to build at 17m beam then you need to go to 102m length and 5m draft, and up the power to give the proposed speeds and ranges.
                        Thank you sir for explaining what I was trying to put across in the clearest possible way such that only years of experience in the field could provide.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Looking at the Fassmer design it is likely that it is aimed at an existing Fassmer OPV80 user rather than for the NS. Of the current users Chile has a LPD (the ex-Foudre) but Columbia is the only major South American Navy with an amphibious assault ship. So my money would be that it is aimed at the Columbian Navy.

                          Another outsider would be Israel, a) Given the naval ties between Israel and Germany, b) The S65 sitting on the aft flight deck and the S70 forward.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                            Looking at the Fassmer design it is likely that it is aimed at an existing Fassmer OPV80 user rather than for the NS. Of the current users Chile has a LPD (the ex-Foudre) but Columbia is the only major South American Navy with an amphibious assault ship. So my money would be that it is aimed at the Columbian Navy.

                            Another outsider would be Israel, a) Given the naval ties between Israel and Germany, b) The S65 sitting on the aft flight deck and the S70 forward.
                            Fassemer seem to produce a significant number of ship designs with Helicopters landing in the forward part of the ship and in the case of a casevac/hospital ship the hangar is facing forward under the bridge. Helicopters usually land facing the wind over the Deck. If the landing is in the forward part of the ship then the helo is forced to fly backwards to face hangar and FDO, or face the wind and fly fast enough not to be run down by the ship and lose sight of ship references and FDO. It is operationally too tricky. Hangars must face aft and helo land in the direction of ship travel except in an emergency where the ship MUST run before the wind and the helo MUST be recovered.

                            Comment


                            • I must admit that I am coming around to the Vard design, but an honest competition should be held. Enforcer 10k might also be an option for instance.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                                I must admit that I am coming around to the Vard design, but an honest competition should be held. Enforcer 10k might also be an option for instance.
                                The Vard is OK, very much modelled on the New Zealand ship. It might be time for Damen to do a Gen2 of the Enforcer as it should incorporate a flexible mission bay like we see on the Cross-over and on most large frigates. The Enforcer has the big advantage of a well dock which makes it more independent in operations putting stuff ashore. In HADR ops sometimes the port facilities are not available, they can be damaged or block by other vessels, thus the ability to bring supplies ashore from a well dock in an LCM is good.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X