by SumGui » Tue May 21, 2013 12:26 pm
Some answers to the questions above:
Sonar retracts through the hull, therefore cannot be used at any significant speed, really. Aperture in the hull is circular, and is located in the forward engine room.
The similarity to the USCG Island class cutters is a no brainer - the Cyclones are the same design stretched to include an additional engine room and some compartments aft - like 'SEAL prep' and the swim platform (removed when they were refit with the ramp). It can also be said the Islands are a modification of the same Vosper design - any way you slice it, they are related by their origin. They also inherited short hull life due to the Vosper specifications for brittle steel in the hull (see below).
The PC-9 picture shows one idea of how to improve the RHIB handling, that pic predates her refit with the ramp. It was one option that was not the winner. What I heard third hand about the picture application is that it could handle multiple CRRCs (side by side) but not a larger RHIB.
'Significant Structural Damage' should not be surprising - they were not designed and constructed to last the 20 years they have. The steel used was UK spec (this is a Vosper design, thus Vosper specs for the design, including weight, thickness, and type of material for the hull), and was more brittle than what would normally be used by the USN. Zephyr seemed to fight hull cracks from the very beginning.
I was aboard USS Squall (PC-7) with the commissioning crew. We usually worked with USS Zephyr (PC-8) and MST-III (Maintenance and Support Team). I was aboard before the refit to the RHIB ramp. Edit to add - I also served aboard USS Whirlwind (PC-11).
Their acquisition process was really convoluted, the concept/need was a replacement for PB IIIs with better support for SEALS and increased endurance. A massively bureaucratic process led to failures of design to the actual need (in fact, some commissioning crew had orders to a '90ft PB'), and eventually an 'off the shelf' design was chosen and modified. This resulted in a vessel well over 100ft in length, which mean the USN would treat it as a ship, not a boat, thus requirements were heaped upon her (Fire Fighting gear, systems redundancy, vessel must be manned at all times (in port watch), watch standing and navigation requirements, etc). This really broke the idea that it was to be a PB to get in close, and made sure it was over priced (both in acquisition and operations) for what was intended. It really wasn't until the USN decided they needed patrol/security assets after 9/11 that they finally found a 'home'. The original concept would be filled by the Mk V.
Some answers to the questions above:
Sonar retracts through the hull, therefore cannot be used at any significant speed, really. Aperture in the hull is circular, and is located in the forward engine room.
The similarity to the USCG Island class cutters is a no brainer - the Cyclones are the same design stretched to include an additional engine room and some compartments aft - like 'SEAL prep' and the swim platform (removed when they were refit with the ramp). It can also be said the Islands are a modification of the same Vosper design - any way you slice it, they are related by their origin. They also inherited short hull life due to the Vosper specifications for brittle steel in the hull (see below).
The PC-9 picture shows one idea of how to improve the RHIB handling, that pic predates her refit with the ramp. It was one option that was not the winner. What I heard third hand about the picture application is that it could handle multiple CRRCs (side by side) but not a larger RHIB.
'Significant Structural Damage' should not be surprising - they were not designed and constructed to last the 20 years they have. The steel used was UK spec (this is a Vosper design, thus Vosper specs for the design, including weight, thickness, and type of material for the hull), and was more brittle than what would normally be used by the USN. Zephyr seemed to fight hull cracks from the very beginning.
I was aboard USS Squall (PC-7) with the commissioning crew. We usually worked with USS Zephyr (PC-8) and MST-III (Maintenance and Support Team). I was aboard before the refit to the RHIB ramp. Edit to add - I also served aboard USS Whirlwind (PC-11).
Their acquisition process was really convoluted, the concept/need was a replacement for PB IIIs with better support for SEALS and increased endurance. A massively bureaucratic process led to failures of design to the actual need (in fact, some commissioning crew had orders to a '90ft PB'), and eventually an 'off the shelf' design was chosen and modified. This resulted in a vessel well over 100ft in length, which mean the USN would treat it as a ship, not a boat, thus requirements were heaped upon her (Fire Fighting gear, systems redundancy, vessel must be manned at all times (in port watch), watch standing and navigation requirements, etc). This really broke the idea that it was to be a PB to get in close, and made sure it was over priced (both in acquisition and operations) for what was intended. It really wasn't until the USN decided they needed patrol/security assets after 9/11 that they finally found a 'home'. The original concept would be filled by the Mk V.