 |
 |
 |
 |
||
  |
|
|
#1
17th May 2006, 14:15
|
|||
|
|||
|
New netherland dock-landing ship "Johan de Witt" L801
Here is a picture of the new netherland dock-landing ship L801 "Johan de Witt".
This ship is much more longer than the sistership Rotterdam....smaller dock...bigger garage....  there you can see the difference of the both ships....  Rotterdam Last edited by gunner5"; 17th May 2006 at 16:43. 
|
|
#2
17th May 2006, 14:37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Interesting, notice the size of the superstructure? That would play havoc in the famous High winds of the North Sea, pitty the poor people on board
__________________
Every choice has its consequence, One could lead you to THE RUN...
|
|
#4
17th May 2006, 16:15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Having been on the Rotterdam (thats not exactly small) how much longer is the De Witt ? Very impressive craft.
I think its a shame that the UK equivalents haven't got a hanger and have a much smaller dock
|
|
#5
17th May 2006, 23:51
|
||||
|
||||
|
What I find interesting is that Johan de Wit has davids for its assault craft! This is in addition to dock. Which suggests more assault craft and 2 size of assault craft per mothership.
Compare ship data... here Rotterdam: http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/ats.htm and here de Wit http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/lpd.htm
|
|
#6
18th May 2006, 09:12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Johan de Witt is the second LPD in use by the Royal Netherlands Navy. The main mission of the Johan de Witt will be the transport and disembarkation of a fully equipped battalion marines to the objective area using organic landing assets such as helicopters and landing craft or existing port facilities. In addition the ship is provided with Combined Joint Task Force facilities (CJTF), involving 402 men. With the required capabilities the ship is also well suited for secondary missions such as military sealift or disaster relief.
Johan de Witt will have a larger vehicle transport capacity than the Rotterdam, which has demonstrated full functionality for dock and helicopter operations in all weather conditions The platform of the Johan de Witt has been designed with generous operational spaces, deck areas and mobilisation and access routes to ensure swift adaptation to various tasks. The vessel has facilities for extensive medical and surgical care. Dimensions(m) 176.35 oa x 29.20 x 5.55 Flight deck(m) 58 x 25 m2 Displacement(t) 16680 full load Main machinery Diesel Electric, 4 x diesel generators at 3.7 MW each 2 x POD’s at 5.5 MW each Bow thruster, 0.9 MW Speed(knots) 19.5 Range(nautical miles) 10.000 at 12 kt Complement 146 crew + max. 547 troops and support Guns 2 x Goalkeeper CIWS 4 x 0.50" SC guns Countermeasures 4 x SRBOC launchers Nixie Torpedo Decoy system Combat data systems SATCOM, Link 11, JMCIS Weapons control systems IRSCAN Radars 2D air surveillance radar, FMCW radar, helicopter approach radar Deck areas (m2) Dockwell Main vehicle deck Low vehicle deck Hangar Flight deck General Ammo stores 575 960 1140 600 1310 770 Helicopter 6 x medium weight (NFH-90) or 4 x heavy weight (EH101)       
|
|
#7
23rd May 2006, 01:44
|
|||
|
|||
|
An impressive boat and a big boost to the capabilities of the Dutch marines. Considering the UK and Dutch marines operate together so much in some ways you'd think a joint Anglo-Dutch LPD would have made a lot of sense, the Dutch vessels are very different to the British Albion and Bulwark, although the RFA Bay class (the UK still persists in the insane charade of claiming the RFA fleet are mercantile civilian vessels) are based on the Rotterdam platform. As for rolling, their windage is less than the ferries and Ro-Ro's that run around the North Sea so it shouldn't be a problem, these days the active and passive roll reduction systems are pretty effective.
|
|
#10
23rd May 2006, 09:01
|
|||
|
|||
|
Holland has a long and proud tradition with their navy (Historically, they have given the RN a good thrashing more than once) and as they have a large'ish merchant fleet for the size of country and are great traders they justify the navy that way. They also have significant colonies to protect thousands of miles from home.
Last edited by Super Nimrod; 23rd May 2006 at 19:09.
|
|
#12
24th May 2006, 09:42
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
24th May 2006, 10:31
|
||||
|
||||
|
I suppose the timing is quite useful, given Hugo Chavez's current nonsense about wanting to 'free' the islands to his North, some of which are Dutch. Mind you, if he tried, it would not just be a Dutch response...
|
|
#14
24th May 2006, 10:37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Turbinia, the RFA fleet is in essence really a merchant fleet. At sea those guys even sail with their AIS on and with full information on it. As far as the tankers go there's nothing really military on those either. The only doubtful cases are indeed the amphibs, but on the other hand it's just bringing a cargo to a destination, again a merchant task. (and yes that cargo contains weapons, but all in all they do not participate in real combat). You could practically use a cruiseliner to bring 4,000 soldiers to a place too, but would that make it a military vessel? Or even worse, bring 4,000 people to a destination who are all armed at that spot???)
As for the Dutch, this is a great addition to the fleet, and also a good signal for export, normally "new" export products are hardly bought when the domestic navy doesn't buy it.
|
|
#15
24th May 2006, 15:09
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#16
24th May 2006, 17:38
|
|||
|
|||
|
The status of the future RFA's may change. I read somewhere that they are likely to be more 'warlike' (nice word) and as a consequence they may require a new status.
|
|
#17
24th May 2006, 17:45
|
|||
|
|||
|
so how large is the duch fleet of merchernts and LPDs
__________________
To Be or not TO be That is The Question you all should know the writer of that quote always look on the bright side of life monty python
|
|
#18
24th May 2006, 18:11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Merchant, from the CIA factbook (which has to be taken with a pinch of salt)
total: 563 ships (1000 GRT or over) 4,925,489 GRT/5,052,931 DWT by type: bulk carrier 11, cargo 366, chemical tanker 31, container 54, liquefied gas 12, passenger 12, passenger/cargo 14, petroleum tanker 14, refrigerated cargo 30, roll on/roll off 16, specialized tanker 3 foreign-owned: 152 (Australia 1, Belgium 2, Denmark 9, Finland 9, Germany 58, Ireland 13, Netherlands Antilles 1, Norway 6, Sweden 21, UK 21, US 11) registered in other countries: 222 (Antigua and Barbuda 10, Australia 2, Austria 2, The Bahamas 25, Bermuda 1, Canada 1, Cyprus 18, Isle of Man 2, Liberia 13, Luxembourg 3, Malta 5, Marshall Islands 5, Netherlands Antilles 69, Norway 3, Panama 26, Philippines 20, Portugal 1, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 7, Singapore 1, Turkey 1, UK 2, US 4, unknown 1) (2005) LPD fleet, is just two, Rotterdam and Johan de Witt now (not that there is any logical tie between the two, Merchant fleet and LPD fleet, though).
|
|
#19
24th May 2006, 18:42
|
||||
|
||||
|
When sizing up the Dutch amphibious capability, it is important to recognise the fact that if the Dutch were to need to deploy to protect Dutch interests, it would not be alone. Due to the relationship between the Dutch and the UK, if Dutch interests were in danger (Chavez throwing a wobbly for instance), the fleet would include the Dutch warships, combined with the British RN. Thus the real deployable force would probably include Rotterdam, Johan de Witt, Ocean, Bulwark, Albion, and probably Ark Royal as well.
|
|
#20
24th May 2006, 21:02
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
See also Charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
|
|
#21
24th May 2006, 21:35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
-Bay class LPD's, these are amphibious assault vessels with a front line role. -Argus, an aviation training/support vessel and hospital ship, again very military. -The AOR's Fort George and Fort Victoria fitted for Sea Wolf (admittedly not carried) and CIWS, very military, and their role is very much front line in supporting the war fleet. -the old LSL's were amphibious landing vessels with a front line role (demonstrated in 1982). -even the two newest tankers of the knight type are not really oil tankers along commercial lines. Most RFA's are fitted for small callibre defence weapons and many can operate armed helicopters, and carry RN parties to perform non civilian type duties. Aside from the vessels, there is also the question of utilisation, the RFA is an integral part of RN operations and the RN cannot function without RFA support other than close to major bases, their logistical support role for the fleet and their direct assault role in expeditionary warfare means to describe them as civilian vessels is pretty far fetched in reality. In many navies the equivalent vessels are listed as naval vessels, particularly LPD's and landing vessels.
|
|
#22
25th May 2006, 07:41
|
||||
|
||||
|
For the landing vessels you're probably right, but on the tankers, USN tankers also have a different name with more or less civilian operation.
Russian replenishment fleet is even fully civilian, no numbers on the vessels, civilian painting etc. But all in all just fleet replenishers too... As for Argus, her role might seem military in one occasion, but hospital ship can hardly be called a military duty. Fort class, indeed they have some self defence, but all in all they just have a regular tanker role. I think their choice for merchant crews is just a choice of expertise. They would otherwise have to train yet another type of people in their schools, while people with such expertise can easily be found elsewhere. Armed helicopters, many merchant ships would actually be able to do that and I don't think that is a "proof" of the military role of the RFA, as mostly they just carry transport helicopters. Any idea what the construction of the Knight class is? Double hulled I suppose if she's built to classification rules, and do they have measures with sloshing zones too, which seems a likely problem with such ships? I do know why they have registered them in the merchant (for US, their replenishers are not really registered like that, but they are not really USN either). If you have a merchant tanker which makes a spill or just breaks apart, then there is the CLC (Civil Liability Convention) and the Fund and in some cases Supplementary Fund to pay a part of the damage, the owner (RFA, State) only has to pay a part of the damage done by the spilled oil (which one is applicable, depends on the amount of damage and claims). If a Navy tanker on the other hand has such a problem, the State will have to pay EVERYTHING, and that can be a big amount of money... For US such tricks don't count as they have signed none of the above and are generally not signing ANY convention (only making their own crappy regulations). For Russia and UK, with relatively large tanker fleets in the Navy, this makes quite a difference in cost in case of an accident. Last edited by Neptune; 25th May 2006 at 11:23.
|
|
#23
25th May 2006, 21:00
|
|||
|
|||
|
In fairness to the USA on tanker environmental safety their OPA90 act was probably the biggest single factor in tanker safety of recent times and resulted in double skin tankers and changes in liability that were genuine improvements in the industry, despite opposition from almost every quarter. For military tankers the risk of liability isn't as much of a problem as for commercial crude carriers, they're mainly carrying distillates which have a much lower pollution impact than heavy crude and residual fuels, and less of the stuff at that. The Wave vessels were built to comply with current commercial standards for tanker construction and to class rules, in that respect they are built to commercial standards, however the defensive aids, sensor and comms suites and certain military specific equipment seperates them from a straight commercial tanker. Also, unlike a commercial vessel requisitioned or chartered for military service, these vessels are built purely for military support and operating with the fleet, their role is inherently military. Althought the crews are certificated by the MCA (or equivalent) to STCW95 standards they also recieve training not given to any other merchant seamen and there are regulations covering their service in military zones. With regards helicopters, it's true many ships could operate helicopters and many have landing spots, but how many have full hangar facilities and the equipment for supporting sustained military flying ops, including facilities for handling torpedo's, ASM's etc. and practice heli ops regularly as well as routinely carrying military personnel as attached air unit crew? Originally the RFA were essentially a civilian organisation operating standard cargo ships and tankers no different in any significant way to commercial vessels and had little or no military capability beyond the ability to carry guns like any other vessel, but developments in replenishment techniques, requirements for weapons handling, the need to give the vessels some defensive capability and changes in comms have seen them diverge more and more from commercial practice.
The role of the RFA/RN primary casualty reception vessels is interesting as the description is not purely one of semantics and they are not declared as hospital ships according to ICRC requirements to evade certain stipulations on utilisation, which again undermines the civilian claims of the Argus aside from her aviation support role.
|
|
#24
25th May 2006, 21:14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Do any of the UK Civilian tankers still have a reserve back-up RFA capability ? I remember back during the Falklands war that 2 or 3 BP tankers were taken up from trade and were used as RFA refuellers (I am not sure of their exact legal status). They had been built from day one with the ability to do ship to ship refuelling in case such a situation ever arose, and as a consequence were simply converted to the role in transit to the South Atlantic. Does this still occur ?
|
|
#25
26th May 2006, 10:56
|
||||
|
||||
|
These conversions are possible, but I don't think they have any merchant tankers originally built with such equipment.
The Dutch fleet has once rebuilt a merchant tanker for refuelling too, back when they had to deploy the Karel Doorman carrier to Indonesia.
|
|
#26
26th May 2006, 16:55
|
|||
|
|||
|
I really don't know but I very much doubt it considering that oil companies tend to use chartered tonnage or flag their own vessels on offshore registers, and use offshore crews.
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
