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 Graylion View Post
    I was thinking of the late use of the RN Sir class. They served as LSLs even though they originally were LSTs.
    That isn't what we are looking for.
    Patrol first. Ass and Trash second.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
      I remember being on both of those in 92 (one out, the other back), and they carried out entire Field Ambulance (very vehicle-heavy, 60+ from memory) with lots of room to spare. The way back they also had lots of 432's being repatriated from Germany.
      These LSL's had quite a reputation for bad seakeeping qualities. They were constructed for beaching and had, a shallow draft of about 3.5 meters, and were flat bottomed to lift their planned deadweight. Beaching ships generally are designed to go from embarcation Point to Landing point and do their business. If they are generally tasked for Fleet use then continuous rolling is an additional hazard to their operations as a logistics and manpower transporter.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
        These LSL's had quite a reputation for bad seakeeping qualities. They were constructed for beaching and had, a shallow draft of about 3.5 meters, and were flat bottomed to lift their planned deadweight. Beaching ships generally are designed to go from embarcation Point to Landing point and do their business. If they are generally tasked for Fleet use then continuous rolling is an additional hazard to their operations as a logistics and manpower transporter.
        I can vouch for them being bloody rough! On our return journey, we set off from Emnden into a rough sea (memory is force 6). After a very uncomfortable night, we awoke to find we were still hove to about six miles off Emnden!
        '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


        • Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
          I can vouch for them being bloody rough! On our return journey, we set off from Emnden into a rough sea (memory is force 6). After a very uncomfortable night, we awoke to find we were still hove to about six miles off Emnden!
          I can well understand a bad night with no respite next day. We have been preoccupied for years to have ships that can function normally for boarding up to force 5/6, and other duties up Force 8/9, and going into a survivable mode in force 9 and above by heaving to , or running down wind in a decreasing 9 for shelter harbour. The CMS's were a particular problem and needed to be minded to maintain hull sacrificial planking. We must make sure that our future MRV can operate in WNA weather with some ease.

          Comment


          • a bit more info on the Ellida:

            amphibious capability,bmt,dsei 2019,fleet solid support ships,littoral strike,multi role support ship,naval supply chain,royal fleet auxiliary

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
              It impresses as a vessel with a robust seakeeping configuration but would have to be a more all rounder, with some emphasis on HADR as well as fleet support and logistics, to meet our MRV aspirations.

              Comment


              • Until the rest of the fleet is capable of taking stores via NATO RAS cranes, much of its functionality is redundant.
                A fine solid looking ship though. I am a big fan of enclosed fore deck spaces.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                  Until the rest of the fleet is capable of taking stores via NATO RAS cranes, much of its functionality is redundant.
                  Cost and VFM wise I tend to agree but it doesn’t necessarily have to resupplying (Irish) NS vessels

                  But we know what would happen in Newbridge plus the Dail (and now MEP) lefties

                  Comment


                  • Exactly, we could theoretically operate with a multi national force as a support ship, but outside of those operations, you need to practice this very complicated RAS operation regularly and for real, with suitably equipped receiver vessels. Hoping for a transit through Irish waters with a suitably equipped foreign naval vessel would not be a good use of asset.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      Exactly, we could theoretically operate with a multi national force as a support ship, but outside of those operations, you need to practice this very complicated RAS operation regularly and for real, with suitably equipped receiver vessels. Hoping for a transit through Irish waters with a suitably equipped foreign naval vessel would not be a good use of asset.
                      There is no technical reason why all of our ships could not be adapted to RAS to a standard that could keep them on scene in a prolonged operation. We need to be able to transfer and receive stores , equipment, and liquids. The means can be complicated, but the operation is an everyday task for all Blue water Naval Forces.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        There is no technical reason why all of our ships could not be adapted to RAS to a standard that could keep them on scene in a prolonged operation. We need to be able to transfer and receive stores , equipment, and liquids. The means can be complicated, but the operation is an everyday task for all Blue water Naval Forces.
                        The location of the refueling area on the P60 class is actually ideal, just under the Port Sea Rider with only minor modifications to the funnel ducting area to permit RAS. Is a sliding padeye possible I wonder?
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                          It impresses as a vessel with a robust seakeeping configuration but would have to be a more all rounder, with some emphasis on HADR as well as fleet support and logistics, to meet our MRV aspirations.
                          I think this ship would be ideal for HADR. Containers with emergency supplies. Electric drive that one can reconfigure as on shore power supply. Accommodation for aid vehicles, helpers, evacuees. Build in a small hospital that can be extendied via containers on the vehicle deck. Had we had such a ship we could have sent it to Haiti after the hurricane for instance.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                            I think this ship would be ideal for HADR. Containers with emergency supplies. Electric drive that one can reconfigure as on shore power supply. Accommodation for aid vehicles, helpers, evacuees. Build in a small hospital that can be extendied via containers on the vehicle deck. Had we had such a ship we could have sent it to Haiti after the hurricane for instance.
                            I would concur with your view, except we would be trying to squeeze our requirements into 125m X 21.3 m at around 10,000 tons DWT. The Cork Dockyard is limited to a width of 21.3 m.

                            Comment


                            • I don't think we should limit ships size based on the dimensions of a graving dock who's owners have no interest in maintaining it or the associated facilities.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                                I would concur with your view, except we would be trying to squeeze our requirements into 125m X 21.3 m at around 10,000 tons DWT. The Cork Dockyard is limited to a width of 21.3 m.
                                Yes, the vessel would have limitations based on size. I still think that of everything we have kicked around here over the last several years it offers the best option. Or we bite the bullet and accept that drydocking happens abroad.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X