Originally posted by EUFighter
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
EPV for naval service
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostWhile 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 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.pdfLast edited by EUFighter; 30 November 2019, 16:07.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostAs 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!
[ATTACH]8708[/ATTACH]
- Likes 1
Comment
-
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. :DFor now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmiti View PostNot 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
Comment
-
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.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmiti View PostThat'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.
Comment
-
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!!!!
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostUnless 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!!!!
Comment
Comment