Chrthiel, thanks for taking the time to comment re low freeboard. Passed to designers who will take it onboard (remember Venator is like a concept car - a vehicle for testing out combinations of ideas for their utility). Personally, I feel if oil and gas field work vessels with low sterns can work in inclement weather, the issue is not necessarily a show stopper.
One thing catches my eye. The boat deck and its boat handling system.
As far as I can see, operation during any kind of adverse sea-states will be extremely dangerous, what with the low free-board causing the deck to be awash most of the time and the RHIBS swinging about madly.
Fascinating design and, at 1st glance, something that could fit will with RN's C3 requirement.
One question - why the light davits amidships for ships boats when you have the whole after third of the design given over to hangar space?!.
Seems a crazy waste of space at midships main deck level when you could have a full-width deckhouse there with a fixed hangar over the top serving the chopper pad.
Make the design a LOT more independent, in deployment, with permanent aviation capability
I dont suppose there is an idea on how much a Venator would cost to build?
I would imagine this is commercially sensitive but could you or someone give an indication about cost. There is the feeling on forums that the C3 budget will be around £100 mln per hull and many think the Venator would come in quite a bit above this.
Any word about the Hangar issue it would be intresting to know.
As you imagined, I don't think I can discuss costings in an open forum.
Regarding the GA, recall this is a concept design used to explore options, trade-offs, whole life costs etc, against sets of requirements, potential needs and concepts of use. So features such as you describe could be considered against the need for them but in the light of the effects they have on other issues - stability, displacement, cost, etc..
Thank you for taking an interest and the time to ask questions.
Thank you for taking some of your time to answer my Questions.
BMT's Venator design, even the base configuration, holds much promise of an excellent configurable platform for the Royal Navy or any other world naval force that adopts it.
I agree with you i have always thought this about the design. The space taken up by the RHIBS could also be incorporated into the mission deck that is in the centre while still keeping a walkway round the edge to allow for ship defense with small caliber weapons.
Chrthiel, thanks for taking the time to comment re low freeboard. Passed to designers who will take it onboard (remember Venator is like a concept car - a vehicle for testing out combinations of ideas for their utility). Personally, I feel if oil and gas field work vessels with low sterns can work in inclement weather, the issue is not necessarily a show stopper.
NavalDesigners 2 years ago
One thing catches my eye. The boat deck and its boat handling system.
As far as I can see, operation during any kind of adverse sea-states will be extremely dangerous, what with the low free-board causing the deck to be awash most of the time and the RHIBS swinging about madly.
chrthiel 2 years ago
Fascinating design and, at 1st glance, something that could fit will with RN's C3 requirement.
One question - why the light davits amidships for ships boats when you have the whole after third of the design given over to hangar space?!.
Seems a crazy waste of space at midships main deck level when you could have a full-width deckhouse there with a fixed hangar over the top serving the chopper pad.
Make the design a LOT more independent, in deployment, with permanent aviation capability
WEAJonesy 2 years ago
Good question and one I've put to our designers.
NavalDesigners 2 years ago
I dont suppose there is an idea on how much a Venator would cost to build?
I would imagine this is commercially sensitive but could you or someone give an indication about cost. There is the feeling on forums that the C3 budget will be around £100 mln per hull and many think the Venator would come in quite a bit above this.
Any word about the Hangar issue it would be intresting to know.
EDS01475634763 2 years ago
As you imagined, I don't think I can discuss costings in an open forum.
Regarding the GA, recall this is a concept design used to explore options, trade-offs, whole life costs etc, against sets of requirements, potential needs and concepts of use. So features such as you describe could be considered against the need for them but in the light of the effects they have on other issues - stability, displacement, cost, etc..
Thank you for taking an interest and the time to ask questions.
NavalDesigners 2 years ago
Thank you for taking some of your time to answer my Questions.
BMT's Venator design, even the base configuration, holds much promise of an excellent configurable platform for the Royal Navy or any other world naval force that adopts it.
EDS01475634763 2 years ago
It was a pleasure. You may want to check out our Vidar-36 submarine video, newly posted to Youtube... Comments most welcome.
NavalDesigners 2 years ago
Thank you, I had a feeling that there may be a Video of the Vidar 36 on the way.
EDS01475634763 2 years ago
I agree with you i have always thought this about the design. The space taken up by the RHIBS could also be incorporated into the mission deck that is in the centre while still keeping a walkway round the edge to allow for ship defense with small caliber weapons.
EDS01475634763 2 years ago