EPV for naval service

[ancientmariner]

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.

[Graylion]

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

[Sparky42]

Why in gods name would we buy the Ben My Chee?

[na grohmiti]

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.

[Anzac]

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.

[Graylion]

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.

[Anzac]

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.

[na grohmiti]

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.

[ancientmariner]

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.?

[na grohmiti]

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.

[CTU]

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

[na grohmiti]

Indeed they have. Makes a lot more sense....

[Sparky42]

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?

[DeV]

So... the original pdf had helicopters that looked "interestingly" close to the AC's 139's

They even have the AC roundrel !

[Tempest]

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.

[Sparky42]

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?

[na grohmiti]

Eithnes 57 mount is obsolete. The gun is fine, but naval armament mounts have come a long way since the early 80s.

[EUFighter]

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.

[ancientmariner]

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.

[EUFighter]

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.

[ancientmariner]

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.

[EUFighter]

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

[Sparky42]

The Attachment doesn't work for me?

[ancientmariner]

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.

[na grohmiti]

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