Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

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

  • Of course an honest competition will be held. You realise we on Irish Military Online are not making the decision?
    Expect to see it go to tender in the European journals shortly, each submission will be assessed based on strict criteria, all of which will be made clear to those submitting proposals, as well as anyone else with an interest. The selection process itself, like all tenders is strictly confidential.
    DFPO in the past, have released names of submissions received, but very little detail beyond that.
    They are not obliged to, as the process is strutinised throughout by external auditors.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
      You realise we on Irish Military Online are not making the decision?
      What?? And with all the effort we have put in

      Comment


      • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
        Of course an honest competition will be held. You realise we on Irish Military Online are not making the decision?
        Expect to see it go to tender in the European journals shortly, each submission will be assessed based on strict criteria, all of which will be made clear to those submitting proposals, as well as anyone else with an interest. The selection process itself, like all tenders is strictly confidential.
        DFPO in the past, have released names of submissions received, but very little detail beyond that.
        They are not obliged to, as the process is strutinised throughout by external auditors.
        Yes, I do realise all that. I also realise that DFPO are perfectly capable of writing an RFP that precludes all but 1 design ...

        Comment


        • Well the Vard 7313 has IAC AW139s on the flight deck in the pics

          Comment


          • Given how long we've been talking about it, I wonder how "shortly" a timeframe we're talking about?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
              Well the Vard 7313 has IAC AW139s on the flight deck in the pics

              https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/up...VARD-7-313.pdf
              Could we please have a 76mm too?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                Given how long we've been talking about it, I wonder how "shortly" a timeframe we're talking about?
                Not long now ????
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                  Not long now ????
                  Well at least we'll have something more to debate/complain about then...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
                    There are a multitude of smaller vessel designs are out there, any of which a successful mini-JSS design could be based on.

                    A few for instances..


                    Enforcer 8000 LPD


                    Enforcer 7000 LPD


                    Crossover 131 Amphibious

                    The thing is that for a very marginal reduction in tonnage/construction cost; you start to lose lane-metre capacity very, very, quickly. In pretty short order you are looking at needing two vessels to carry the equipment for an EU ISTAR component.

                    As one of the sages used to say "Steel is cheap and air is free."
                    Just to remind us of this.

                    Comment


                    • Dtails here: https://products.damen.com/en/ranges...form-dock-7000

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                        Whoever writes the RFP must start with purpose of the vessel , areas of operation, range, duration, and nature of loads. , there must be a requirement that Length, Breadth, Depths and Cb ratios meet regulatory conditions and allow for voyaging fully discharged , and suitably ballasted in compensation. Container types must be specified to allow for loading widths and securing. Likewise for vehicles.
                        Bow deck openings as depicted in some designs are not favoured in heavy weather, in event of bow immersion. There has to be some means of landing personnel by own means. Consideration for Towage operations should be included as all ships can tow. Armament suite should be built in at yard to facilitate good arcs of fire. Parallel sides from bridge aft, with good stern immersion , and decent stabilisation will provide a good helo deck.
                        Last edited by ancientmariner; 9 August 2019, 11:16.

                        Comment


                        • amphibious capability,future commando force,future royal navy,hospital ship,humanitarian aid disaster relief,littoral strike,overseas aid


                          An interesting UK take on the concept, taken to the next level.
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                            https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-c...-ship-concept/

                            An interesting UK take on the concept, taken to the next level.
                            It is based on the FSG 4100 design but with 26m beam might be a bit too beamy unless we obtain new berthing and drydock overseas. The tonnage around 10k is OK. Concept of operations might be narrower in that the big fore deck might not be the best for HADR with little shelter on offer. For the Brits it could work alone in Low intensity but would need protection in wartime.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                              It is based on the FSG 4100 design but with 26m beam might be a bit too beamy unless we obtain new berthing and drydock overseas. The tonnage around 10k is OK. Concept of operations might be narrower in that the big fore deck might not be the best for HADR with little shelter on offer. For the Brits it could work alone in Low intensity but would need protection in wartime.
                              Well, you could put a roof on the flight deck I suppose...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                                Well, you could put a roof on the flight deck I suppose...
                                I am presuming there is humour intended. You said that turning up at a HADR disaster is almost of D-Day proportions. Certainly the Bahamas, that the Brits almost didn't notice because of other business, was worse than D-Day. Taking thousands on board, needs some degree of comfort for the distressed with space to lie down and have access to facilities , however the flight deck is essential to do that moving people and stores. Standard configurations do help with large hangars, covered alleyways, deck overhangs, and cargo spaces adaptable as casualty spaces. I wouldn't suggest putting a roof on the Barrack square.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X