River Class (OPV) (RN)
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Could you have an inflatable hanger covering the heli-deck that inflates after the wildcat has landed to offer a bit of weather protection ?
Would be quite nice for the Falkland patrol, but not sure if a embarked helicopter would be needed all the time, im sure the bean counters would think its a proper frigate....
Would be quite nice for the Falkland patrol, but not sure if a embarked helicopter would be needed all the time, im sure the bean counters would think its a proper frigate....
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3959
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
I could post various concepts as to how a telescopic hanger could work but I won't as it is banned here.Ron5 wrote:Come on @Poiuytrewq, right in your wheelhouse
However, IMO the RB2's could have a hanger installed and still retain the 16t crane but they would need to be optimised for Wildcat only Ops. It's the Merlin capable requirement that compromises the design as they are in the 90m class rather than the 103m to 105m that the RB2's should have been. Too late now.
Drop the Merlin requirement and the RB2's could be relatively easily converted to enable a Wildcat to be embarked. Suitable accommodation for the air maintenance crew is no problem due to the existing spare capacity under the flight deck.
I think in all honesty their is a less than zero chance of a hanger ever being installed on the RB2's and if it was ever deemed necessary to have such a capability it would make more sense to build some 105m RB3's rather than adapt the current vessels.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Telescopic hangar, spit...ding. Useless things never to be seen on a RN warship ever again..Tempest414 wrote:Yes you could fit a telescopic hangar in place of the crane without needing to add to the ship but you would lose the waist points for carrying containers and boats for me keep the crane and design a number of containerized mods turning the B2;s in a kind of Thunderbird 2 i.e fit the container with the kit for the task you could have containaerized UAV , USV, TAS, aid stores the list goes on
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Yes, I was thinking Wildcat only. And a permanent no-telescoping hangar. So where did you place the crane? Does that require a longer hull?Poiuytrewq wrote:I could post various concepts as to how a telescopic hanger could work but I won't as it is banned here.Ron5 wrote:Come on @Poiuytrewq, right in your wheelhouse
However, IMO the RB2's could have a hanger installed and still retain the 16t crane but they would need to be optimised for Wildcat only Ops. It's the Merlin capable requirement that compromises the design as they are in the 90m class rather than the 103m to 105m that the RB2's should have been. Too late now.
Drop the Merlin requirement and the RB2's could be relatively easily converted to enable a Wildcat to be embarked. Suitable accommodation for the air maintenance crew is no problem due to the existing spare capacity under the flight deck.
I think in all honesty their is a less than zero chance of a hanger ever being installed on the RB2's and if it was ever deemed necessary to have such a capability it would make more sense to build some 105m RB3's rather than adapt the current vessels.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3959
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Straying into fantasy territory here Ron.Ron5 wrote:Yes, I was thinking Wildcat only. And a permanent no-telescoping hangar. So where did you place the crane? Does that require a longer hull?
It's all budget related, with deep enough pockets anything's possible.
What budget envelope were you thinking?
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Why was that? Those you posted were very good.Poiuytrewq wrote:I could post various concepts as to how a telescopic hanger could work but I won't as it is banned here.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3959
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Not appropriate for RN discussion apparently.Lord Jim wrote:Why was that
Strange decision considering the amount of fantasy contained in the last few SDSR's.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
They were. But some people just don't like using their imagination - and really, really don't like others doing so.Lord Jim wrote:Why was that? Those you posted were very good.
I'll probably be banned now - it was good chatting to you all.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Are you banned yet? I'd be surprised, these guys aren't so badCaribbean wrote:They were. But some people just don't like using their imagination - and really, really don't like others doing so.Lord Jim wrote:Why was that? Those you posted were very good.
I'll probably be banned now - it was good chatting to you all.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5545
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
From NavyLook out, and to "Type 26 & OPV Team Leader".
Great to see HMS Spey moving forward, departing for contractors Sea Trial.
Great to see HMS Spey moving forward, departing for contractors Sea Trial.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
I was under the impression that your drawings would be OK in "General Discussion", is that not so?Poiuytrewq wrote:Not appropriate for RN discussion apparently.Lord Jim wrote:Why was that
Strange decision considering the amount of fantasy contained in the last few SDSR's.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
I was thinking that if the forward basing of the Rivers were to be continued, they would really need a permanently deployed Wildcat which, to me, implies a fixed hangar. Telescopic hangars are crap by the way.Poiuytrewq wrote:Straying into fantasy territory here Ron.Ron5 wrote:Yes, I was thinking Wildcat only. And a permanent no-telescoping hangar. So where did you place the crane? Does that require a longer hull?
It's all budget related, with deep enough pockets anything's possible.
What budget envelope were you thinking?
I know there are some in the Navy very regretful that there wasn't enough time to design in a hangar when the Batch 2 was ordered. Soo I was wondering if that was a possibility during a major refit. So I thought I'd ask the guy on the forum that would have spent the most time thinking about such things.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3959
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Yes the old fantasy thread is buried in general discussion now but my account will no longer allow me to attach images so detailed visual analysis isn't possible anymore on this forum.Ron5 wrote:I was under the impression that your drawings would be OK in "General Discussion", is that not so?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
I've looked for them many times... with no luckPoiuytrewq wrote: so?
Yes the old fantasy thread is buried in general discussion now but my account will no
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3959
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
What are you looking for?ArmChairCivvy wrote:I've looked for them many times...
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
The 4 different flavours for the Bays in enhanced roles
- obviously we only have 3 of them
- but one or two of them becoming the interim homes for LSGs, allegedly, might focus the attention to the best suited variation
- obviously we only have 3 of them
- but one or two of them becoming the interim homes for LSGs, allegedly, might focus the attention to the best suited variation
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
My suggestion of using a Bay class as the most suitable vessel to be the home of an LSG was made over 15 months ago IIRC.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
vs. the only available?Scimitar54 wrote:as the most suitable vessel
- noteworthy that the conversion from Points (as proposed) was from a bigger hull than what the RFA currently operate... also, annoyingly, the two in the class that had bigger engines were the ones released
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
I would not be surprised if 2 x new “Bay” like vessels are what emerges, even possible that 2 of the existing bays get modified. Yet another mistake by Cameron, selling the fourth Bay to Aus. No forward vision, let alone ignoring the rear view as well!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3959
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=733&start=1050ArmChairCivvy wrote:The 4 different flavours for the Bays in enhanced roles
- obviously we only have 3 of them
- but one or two of them becoming the interim homes for LSGs, allegedly, might focus the attention to the best suited variation
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5545
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
I guess it is not only you. We may post some figure on the net, and then link the image here. Understandable, if it is the matter of the "disk size" of this web page, of course, not for free.Poiuytrewq wrote:... now but my account will no longer allow me to attach images so detailed visual analysis isn't possible anymore on this forum.
Anyway, thanks to the organizer for providing this place...
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5556
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
I have pushing this around over the last few days and it seems that a Wildcat is 3.05 meters wide and a Bae Pacific 950 is 3 meters wide looking at the pictures of a Pac 950 carried on the waist of Tamar when on the Thames a wildcat would fit but it could not be work on or be fitted with the weapons wing plus it would be so tight that when moving it the tail would have to go out over the side of the ship when turning it.Jensy wrote:The spaces each side of the crane look like they could fit a Wildcat.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
I’m not sure why your ability to post such pictures was removed Poiuytrewq they seem to add a lot in the right context. I have to say some of the configurations youve schemed aren’t a million miles from the ellida config bmt havePoiuytrewq wrote:viewtopic.php?f=41&t=733&start=1050ArmChairCivvy wrote:The 4 different flavours for the Bays in enhanced roles
- obviously we only have 3 of them
- but one or two of them becoming the interim homes for LSGs, allegedly, might focus the attention to the best suited variation