Thanks Thanks:  834
Likes Likes:  1,698
Dislikes Dislikes:  44
Page 105 of 105 FirstFirst ... 55595103104105
Results 2,601 to 2,625 of 2625
  1. #2601
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    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
    Overall an interesting untried ship. The criticals will always be launching and recovery of LCVP's and diminishing SWL of cranes on extension of radius of reach. Recovery of anything weighing 24t is eye watering. In any event ships of 130m x 24m x5.4m may be more than we can or should accommodate.

  2. #2602
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    878
    Post Thanks / Like
    VARD7-313-1.pdf

    So here is an update; I have added a recessed cargo/mission bay between the 2 LCVP. At the moment I have shown it been used to transport a Standard Mexeflote. This is useful as with HADR the landing craft can only transport light vehicles as it has a payload limit of 6t. The Mexeflote has a capacity of 60t allowing heavy equipment to be transported, while its modular nature allows it to be adapted. The bay is recessed so that if it is not needed for transport it can be covered and used for other functions.

    The modules for the Mexeflotes are commercially available from Jenkins while the power unit are also available from Thrustmasters, so easy to get!

    On checking the crane specs it is the same as on the Canterbury so 60t SWL@18.5m and 5t SWL@25m.
    The position of the LCVP’s is the same as on the Canterbury also being one deck above the flight deck.

  3. Likes pym, Sparky42 liked this post
  4. #2603
    Chief Casey Ryback
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    Only thing missing is a few cooks to make it all work .
    Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

  5. #2604
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's a good idea. In the disaster relief role, mexeflotes can act as makeshift jetties ashore and if conditions permit, can even be used to ferry cargo and vehicles.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  6. #2605
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    That's a good idea. In the disaster relief role, mexeflotes can act as makeshift jetties ashore and if conditions permit, can even be used to ferry cargo and vehicles.
    The MRV should stay within the proposed outline specification and meet the requirements of the concept of operations. carrying mexeflote units for non-invasion scenarios imposes unwanted restrictions, maintenance, and manning on such a modest logs ship. It would assume quiet waters and an established shore beach head to work to . The ship would have to be built to suit as carriage, launch and recovery is from an external housing.

  7. #2606
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think mexeflote are already in the inventory of the Engineer Corps.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  8. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  9. #2607
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    878
    Post Thanks / Like
    Unless something has changed the two many sets of out-of-area missions the MRV will have to undertake are HADR and Peacekeeping/Re-supply. Neither require an amphibious assault and assume that the landing will not be opposed.

    An LCVP has a limit of 6t, the RNZN have 2 LCM2306 landing craft on the Canterbury which can transport nearly several times that. If no docking facilities are available out MRV would not be able to put more than a Land Cruiser ashore when what would be need is more like a 10t truck or JCB. That is why I proposed to modify the design with a hold for the components of the system. These could be hoisted out and assembled on the flight deck before being lifted into the water. Hence why the 60T crane is essential. Such a system would allow vehicles to be embarked via the stern ramp for transfer ashore. This is essential as none of our current fleet has an amphibious capability.

    The limitations of a pontoon system are well known but currently the RN, RAN and USN have such systems so it must be of some use especially given their combined knowledge of amphibious operations.

    But again it is just a suggestion if anyone is listening. Remember if we ever do get such a vessel if is likely to serve to 2060 or later!!!!

  10. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti, DeV liked this post
  11. #2608
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Unless something has changed the two many sets of out-of-area missions the MRV will have to undertake are HADR and Peacekeeping/Re-supply. Neither require an amphibious assault and assume that the landing will not be opposed.

    An LCVP has a limit of 6t, the RNZN have 2 LCM2306 landing craft on the Canterbury which can transport nearly several times that. If no docking facilities are available out MRV would not be able to put more than a Land Cruiser ashore when what would be need is more like a 10t truck or JCB. That is why I proposed to modify the design with a hold for the components of the system. These could be hoisted out and assembled on the flight deck before being lifted into the water. Hence why the 60T crane is essential. Such a system would allow vehicles to be embarked via the stern ramp for transfer ashore. This is essential as none of our current fleet has an amphibious capability.

    The limitations of a pontoon system are well known but currently the RN, RAN and USN have such systems so it must be of some use especially given their combined knowledge of amphibious operations.

    But again it is just a suggestion if anyone is listening. Remember if we ever do get such a vessel if is likely to serve to 2060 or later!!!!
    I'm not saying there isn't relevance in your proposal, however it seems to me from Defence sites an assembled unit to take two standard POL trucks, side by side, and two medium tracked units, also side by side, needs a bow and articulated unit plus about 10 or so mexeflotes plus a stern unit with engines giving an overall dimension of around 40mx12.4mx1.54m. Preassembled units have been mounted externally on ships, one each side , even if we went for the smallest size of 22m x 7.5m it would need a high level of handling equipment especially for recovery , tipping, and securing to ships side. In any event their use would have to be included in outline proposal specifications for the ship.

  12. #2609
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    I think mexeflote are already in the inventory of the Engineer Corps.
    They definitely have floating pontoons but think they are plastic floating ones like what you may see at a yacht club

  13. #2610
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    They definitely have floating pontoons but think they are plastic floating ones like what you may see at a yacht club
    Aqua dock?
    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. #2611
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    878
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    I'm not saying there isn't relevance in your proposal, however it seems to me from Defence sites an assembled unit to take two standard POL trucks, side by side, and two medium tracked units, also side by side, needs a bow and articulated unit plus about 10 or so mexeflotes plus a stern unit with engines giving an overall dimension of around 40mx12.4mx1.54m. Preassembled units have been mounted externally on ships, one each side , even if we went for the smallest size of 22m x 7.5m it would need a high level of handling equipment especially for recovery , tipping, and securing to ships side. In any event their use would have to be included in outline proposal specifications for the ship.
    The smallest Mexeflote (22x7.5m) is made of 15 segments, 3 for aft, 6 for bow and 6 for the centre. Then comes the 2 drive units and cab normally mounted to the aft units. In this configuration it has a 60t capacity and a weight of around 50t.

  15. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  16. #2612
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Aqua dock?
    Definitely seen something that looks like it in pics

  17. #2613
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Definitely seen something that looks like it in pics
    If you look at " A Mexeflote from Mounts Bay in the Caribbean " it gives a full impression of its loading ability and the degree of assembly needed, unless it was pre-attached to the after flank of the ship. The float as depicted is 3 units wide and about 10 units long. The tracked vehicle on the starboard side has tracks about 2m wide, seems to be designed for boggy ground . There are 6 crew ( hard hats ) and a driver for each tractor all wearing lifejackets--AND it is calm. MEXE comes from Mechanical Engineers Experimental unit.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 3rd December 2019 at 10:46.

  18. #2614
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    If you look at " A Mexeflote from Mounts Bay in the Caribbean " it gives a full impression of its loading ability and the degree of assembly needed, unless it was pre-attached to the after flank of the ship. The float as depicted is 3 units wide and about 10 units long. The tracked vehicle on the starboard side has tracks about 2m wide, seems to be designed for boggy ground . There are 6 crew ( hard hats ) and a driver for each tractor all wearing lifejackets--AND it is calm. MEXE comes from Mechanical Engineers Experimental unit.
    Yes and completely different from what the DF has

  19. #2615
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    It appears the term has crept into colloquial use, in the same way as "hoover", "jeep" or "searider". Clearly now, we see that mexeflote is a much more substantial and bulky structure than other modular rafts used for this purpose.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  20. Likes CTU liked this post
  21. #2616
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    477
    Post Thanks / Like
    I concur on the doubts regarding stability and stack height. As regards armamamnet, rather than Marlin, can we have the 40mm CTA Rapid SeaGuardian please? https://www.edrmagazine.eu/navdex-20...val-gun-system

  22. #2617
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    I concur on the doubts regarding stability and stack height. As regards armamamnet, rather than Marlin, can we have the 40mm CTA Rapid SeaGuardian please? https://www.edrmagazine.eu/navdex-20...val-gun-system
    The overall need for ship defence is an ability to detect early and deal with it as far from own ship as possible. The more difficult targets are incoming sea skimmers which require more than a single gun. The main gun is needed for conventional targets afloat and ashore , however missiles must be dealt with before 2000m and need a ciws weapon type either a multi-barrelled gun or a multi , fire and forget, missile system . Most navies have Phalanx or Goalkeeper and some are trialling a launcher with 21 mach 3 missiles. In our case 25/30mm guns with a co-mounted missile system would deal with low intensity threats and as a back up to main armament.

  23. Likes Flamingo liked this post
  24. #2618
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    477
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The overall need for ship defence is an ability to detect early and deal with it as far from own ship as possible. The more difficult targets are incoming sea skimmers which require more than a single gun. The main gun is needed for conventional targets afloat and ashore , however missiles must be dealt with before 2000m and need a ciws weapon type either a multi-barrelled gun or a multi , fire and forget, missile system . Most navies have Phalanx or Goalkeeper and some are trialling a launcher with 21 mach 3 missiles. In our case 25/30mm guns with a co-mounted missile system would deal with low intensity threats and as a back up to main armament.
    The first problem here is a decent radar, without it CIWS and missiles are useless. I can't see the NS buying either any time soon. It would be nice if the EPV had good SIGINT and COMINT capability. Can't see that happening either :(

  25. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  26. #2619
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    The first problem here is a decent radar, without it CIWS and missiles are useless. I can't see the NS buying either any time soon. It would be nice if the EPV had good SIGINT and COMINT capability. Can't see that happening either :(
    Of course. You need a cohort of officers and NCO's with a predictive mindset, researching and identifying outfits to meet requirements both nationally and in the adjacent European theatre. The shopping list MUST come from the professional service man. The initiative has to be sustained or we remain a force requiring peace time tasks only. We are PESCO signatories.

  27. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  28. #2620
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    477
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Of course. You need a cohort of officers and NCO's with a predictive mindset, researching and identifying outfits to meet requirements both nationally and in the adjacent European theatre. The shopping list MUST come from the professional service man. The initiative has to be sustained or we remain a force requiring peace time tasks only. We are PESCO signatories.
    And a DoD that actually wants armed forces

  29. Likes na grohmiti, EUFighter, CTU, DeV liked this post
  30. #2621
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    And a DoD that actually wants armed forces
    Keep hitting them with the approved White Paper.

  31. #2622
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,570
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Keep hitting them with the approved White Paper.
    They need more shredding?

  32. #2623
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,030
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would say the conversation would go something like this:

    DoD SG: “I’ll just say, ‘The Minister has asked me to thank you for your letter’ and something like ‘The matter is under consideration’, or even ‘under active consideration’.”

    Junior Minister: “What’s the difference?”

    DoD SG: “Well, ‘under consideration’ means we’ve lost the file, ‘under active consideration’ means we’re trying to find it.”
    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!

  33. Likes Flamingo, Sparky42, Turkey, na grohmiti, Shaqra liked this post
    Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  34. #2624
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    878
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Keep hitting them with the approved White Paper.
    Do you have a hardback version?

  35. #2625
    Chief Casey Ryback
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    Iv'e heard that the new printer comes with a built in shredder .
    Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

  36. Likes CTU, na grohmiti, Flamingo liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 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
  •