EPV for naval service

[na grohmití]

The rules of VAT are quite complex, but we do not charge ourselves.

[EUFighter]

As a lot of us seem to somehow fans of Damen Shipyards I have taken their SIGMA hull design for frigates and added some of the design features from their new OPV2 series of patrol vessels. The vessel would be built to the same standards as the Holland class, mix of naval and commercial with the use of commercial steel rather than the traditional high strength steel normally used for warships. This is heavier, cheaper but also has an additional benefit in that it is less brittle and thus better suited for protection against small/medium arms fire.

GENERAL
Length 105m
Beam 16m
Displacement 2900-3200tonnes
Endurance 30 days
Complement 85

PROPULSION
2 x MAN 12V28/33 diesel engines at 5.5MW
2 x ABB electric motors at 400kW
1 x ABB bow thruster rated at 550kW
2 shafts

AUXILIARY SYSTEMS
Generator sets 3 x 968 kW / 920 ekW / 60 Hz
Emergency gen. set 1 x 255 kW / 232 ekW / 60 Hz
Chilled water system 2 x units, redundant distribution
Fire fighting 5 x main pumps

SIGMA105_15_X_over_1.jpg
SIGMA105_15_X_over_2.jpg
SIGMA105_15_X_over_3.jpg
SIGMA105_15_X_over_4.jpg

Naturally I would like the full option version!

[DeV]

Damen OPV2600 looks good too (as a cheaper alternative)

[na grohmití]

Commercial steel is used for all ships, only battleships used the steel you mention. The real question is thickness. And where you use materials other than steel. The USN Littoral ships are built with aluminium. Aluminium was also a feature of the Type 42 destroyers or the RN. Minesweepers are made of aluminium or GRP.

[ropebag]

so, we're back to the original fundamental starting point: do the design/contruction standards/materials of the current and in-build ships of the NS allow them to have bolt-on systems like Phalanx/alternative installed?

the follow on to that is is Phalanx/equivilant the absolute minimum neccesary self-defence capability for NS vessels to take part in EU/UN maritime missions, and if so, does that mean that witrhout such capability, NS vessels should not take part in such missions?

heres a prediction for you. within 30 months - thats December 2018 - someone, probably an IS/AQ affiliate, is going to fire a relatively modern ATGW or larger surface-to-surface missile/rocket at an EU warship off the Libyan coast... happy to take friendly bets.

[EUFighter]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ion_damage.jpgThere was a fashion in the 60’s and 70’s to use aluminium for warship upper structure but following the USS Belknap and the RN Type 21 experience most navies run away from this material. Austral continue to promote aluminium on the LCS where already they have corrosion issues. Lockheed use steel for their LCS version (but it too had cracking in the hull). But the two most critical issues remain fire and fatigue.

Fire can be best seen with the USS Belknap which lost all of its aluminium structure after colliding with the JFK. The RN had similar experience during the Falkland war with their modern ships with aluminium structure especially the Type 21’s in San Carlos Sound.
Fatigue is the other issue as the SN curve for alu is much worse than for steel. This means that cracks are more likely. Looking at the experience of the RAN with the Austral built PV’s they have major issues with fatigue. To tackle this properly the fatigue mission/spectrum needs to be well modelled. This is almost impossible given the number of variables for an offshore patrol vessel.

Sure there are other materials which normally are used in MCMV’s such as GFRP, wood, non-magnetic steel etc. Ships are like all other things a mix of different materials.

My point with steel is that warships for weight reasons normally go for high strength steels which also tend to be more brittle. Mild steels suitable for marine applications are heavier (thicker) and more ductile. The latter means that when being hit by small arms they are less likely to splitter.

[EUFighter]

An full CIWS is the minimum we should have on a ship in such waters but I am sure the bean counters will notice other ships operating in the area have even less capa as us. I think on the NGO vessels operating there which I can only say is totally irresponsible.

As for the drugs smugglers we see they have moved to mini-subs to move their stuff into the USA, how long before they use the same for EU?

[na grohmití]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ion_damage.jpgThere was a fashion in the 60’s and 70’s to use aluminium for warship upper structure but following the USS Belknap and the RN Type 21 experience most navies run away from this material. Austral continue to promote aluminium on the LCS where already they have corrosion issues. Lockheed use steel for their LCS version (but it too had cracking in the hull). But the two most critical issues remain fire and fatigue.

Fire can be best seen with the USS Belknap which lost all of its aluminium structure after colliding with the JFK. The RN had similar experience during the Falkland war with their modern ships with aluminium structure especially the Type 21’s in San Carlos Sound.
Fatigue is the other issue as the SN curve for alu is much worse than for steel. This means that cracks are more likely. Looking at the experience of the RAN with the Austral built PV’s they have major issues with fatigue. To tackle this properly the fatigue mission/spectrum needs to be well modelled. This is almost impossible given the number of variables for an offshore patrol vessel.

Sure there are other materials which normally are used in MCMV’s such as GFRP, wood, non-magnetic steel etc. Ships are like all other things a mix of different materials.

My point with steel is that warships for weight reasons normally go for high strength steels which also tend to be more brittle. Mild steels suitable for marine applications are heavier (thicker) and more ductile. The latter means that when being hit by small arms they are less likely to splitter.

You are contradicting yourself. USS Belknap is irrelevant, her aluminium did not cause the fire, and the fire did not lead to any retrofitting in other ships of the class. The USN moved back to steel after problems with cracking on the Perry class, and not because of the Belknap experience. The type 21 was built with a combination of steel and aluminium, and the problems (of which there were many) included where there metals met. The ship was a pig, a compromise of cost over quality, and the RN paid dearly. HMS Antelope was hit by 2x 1000lb bombs. The ships remained afloat and only sank after the bombs finally exploded, set off the missile magazine, and, with no damage control parties aboard, burnt out of control. Ardent also sank a full day after being hit by Argentinian aircraft (3 waves of Skyhawks and Daggers).

Your final point makes no sense. You want to use a brittle steel over a steel that will "splitter"? Same problem surely?

[EUFighter]

Fire happen on ships all the time, the one on the Belknap was a result of hitting the JFK. Aluminium did not cause the fire but it did not help. Refitting an already built vessel would have been more expensive than a new build. Cracking became a major issue on all aluminium structure in the USN during the 80's not just on the Perry class.

The decision to move back to steel was not just down to one issue but a combination, aluminium burn and losses it strength at relatively low temp, it has corrosion issues especially if in contact with other metals, steel hulls with alu superstructure suffer from the different thermal expansion rates and then there is the issue of fatigue cracking.
It is not impossible to design a good ship with alu but not with the weight advantage some people believe.

As for the last point I do not suggest to use a brittle high strength steel but a ductile mild steel.

[EUFighter]

On a side note the remaining Type 21's are still in service with Pakistan and actively engaging their rival Indian navy. It seems that all that heavy steel reinforcement made to the hull makes them good ramming ships!

[EUFighter]

The original OPV series from Damen looked OK, nothing to shout about but the new OPV2 with their SeaAxe bows are for my taste ugly.
So far I have only seen the OPV2-1800 does anyone have views for the other OPV2 versions.

Rather than the OPV2600 I would go for the slightly smaller OPV2400 version, it still has 3 TEU positions compared to 5 on the bigger sister but it has the aft docking ramp! And do we need 5 TEU positions?

[A/TEL]

An full CIWS is the minimum we should have on a ship in such waters but I am sure the bean counters will notice other ships operating in the area have even less capa as us. I think on the NGO vessels operating there which I can only say is totally irresponsible.

As for the drugs smugglers we see they have moved to mini-subs to move their stuff into the USA, how long before they use the same for EU?

There is no way any MRV/EPV will get any of the weapon/sensor systems that are being mentioned here. There simply is or wont be that kind of money in the NS budget.

The current fit on OPVs/CPVs is going to be standard on all NS ships into the future.

The best we could hope for is remotely operated medium calibre weapon to replace the rheinmetalls. That would add a level of accuracy to those weapns at least.

[EUFighter]

I posen the question why the 3sbs were costing us now over 200m when they were priced at just over 160m incl GFE. The difference would have paid for a new Phalanx for each of them!

[pym]

There is no way any MRV/EPV will get any of the weapon/sensor systems that are being mentioned here. There simply is or wont be that kind of money in the NS budget.

The current fit on OPVs/CPVs is going to be standard on all NS ships into the future.

The best we could hope for is remotely operated medium calibre weapon to replace the rheinmetalls. That would add a level of accuracy to those weapns at least.

Sadly, I expect you're right.

[paul g]

Sadly, I expect you're right.

If you look at the weapons fit on the current ships, it’s actually ok for the threat assessment in home waters and some might argue the 76mm is overkill for fisheries protection and other coast guard type work.
In deciding NS ships specifications for every ship since Deidre it’s not what the department of defence or the naval service want that's been important. It’s actually other government department’s requirements that pushes defence procurement, and the key departments for the naval service are traditionally marine and now foreign affairs.

Back in 1968 defence wanted to replace the corvettes with one ASW capable vessel and two fisheries protectors, but ended up with fisheries protection vessels after Marine piped up. So when discussing what the EPV should look like you have to consider what does the department of foreign affairs think we’ll have to do over the next twenty or so years. In the 1960’s they wanted to play a part in the UN and defence spending on the army reflected that. From the early the 1970’ to early 2000’s it was the north that totally dominated their thinking. Now the north is settled and the border is gone, the political situation and our relationship with Europe have changed out of all recognition since the EPV specs were published in 2007.

DFA used to think that they could get away with a mechanised battalion overseas with the un which could be used in a mid-1990’s Balkan peace ops mission if necessary, hence the mowag procurement. Increasingly with a resurgent Russia, and the crisis in the Middle East they’ll not get away with minimal spending on defence if they want to remain in the EU, (which they do naturally). They used to rely on the British veto at an EU level on defence matters, but once they leave, and going by the polls they will in the next two weeks, then Ireland will be isolated, and exposed if we claim neutrality.

If foreign affairs think that EU Common Security and Defence Ppolicy is a reality and we’ll have to contribute to EU defence and Brexit will make that more likely, the fit of the EPV will reflect that. That’s the most likely scenario. Look at this month an Cosantoir, that’s the future for the naval service, (20 years ago they couldn’t send an observer to a NATO exercise in the Baltic). If not marine will get its way and it will be a large frigate sized fisheries protection vessel with a deck to carry cargo on like in the first page of this thread.

Personally I think they’ll replace Eithne with a European design around 2025 like the Italian navy PPA or The French FTI classes of light frigate if DFA push for it. Otherwise they’ll build a frigate sized opv.

[ias]

Rather than trying to redesign a Dampen OPV why not just purpose the "baby" Dampen XO 115, a bit larger than our OPVs, but only about 7 metres longer than Holland, good for humanitarian role also, should also ease training if the NS went for the XO131 (or a stretched version thereof if that's possible) as the MRV?

[pym]

I actually wondered if the reasoning behind the counter mine vessels appearing in the white paper had been based on EU input/pressure.

I'm curious to see how it all plays out

[hptmurphy]

Personally I think they’ll replace Eithne with a European design around 2025 like the Italian navy PPA or The French FTI classes of light frigate if DFA push for it. Otherwise they’ll build a frigate sized opv

Agreed.

But I think they will tend toward a large OPV with heli deck, no hanger and a weapons fit similar to what we have now. Cost multiplies hugely at the mention of the word 'frigate' where 'patrol vessel' tends to be somewhat cheaper.

[DeV]

I actually wondered if the reasoning behind the counter mine vessels appearing in the white paper had been based on EU input/pressure.

I'm curious to see how it all plays out

IEDs are also found at sea

Conventional mines are a big threat to trade

Ireland is at the forefront of C-IEDs on land in the EDA so makes sense to branch out (also could be good for IMERC).

Also possibly means smaller vessels for inshore work

[ropebag]

Agreed.

But I think they will tend toward a large OPV with heli deck, no hanger and a weapons fit similar to what we have now. Cost multiplies hugely at the mention of the word 'frigate' where 'patrol vessel' tends to be somewhat cheaper.

from what i've seen of costs bandied about, it looks like you could get a 2,500 - 3,000 ton large OPV with flight deck, radars, FCS, CIWS and 76mm with guided ammunition for €120m or so, but calling it a Frigate and sticking a hanger and a SSM system on it appears to take the price to about €300m...

personally, within either an Irish or a European context i see no point trying to chase the capabilities of the big boys - Ireland is never going to field a ship that comes within a million miles of a Horizon, F125 or T26, and if theres a real chance of serious fisticuffs, they are going to be the vessels that get sent, not some uprated coat guard cutter thats vunerable to pretty much anything and with little usable offensive capability.

that said, the uprated coast guard cutter has a great deal of use in the pretty much permanent counter-terrorism/smuggling/piracy missions that look to be on the cards - it just needs to be able to operate with other ships - radars, Link systems, and ideally a flight deck - and to be able to defend itself against likely threats.

[DeV]

Excellent post Paul but in some ways I disagree

Now the north is settled and the border is gone, the political situation and our relationship with Europe have changed out of all recognition since the EPV specs were published in 2007.

The RIRA etc are still around and we could find ourselves bordering a non-EU country in 2 years.

DFA used to think that they could get away with a mechanised battalion overseas with the un which could be used in a mid-1990’s Balkan peace ops mission if necessary, hence the mowag procurement. Increasingly with a resurgent Russia, and the crisis in the Middle East they’ll not get away with minimal spending on defence if they want to remain in the EU, (which they do naturally).

correct only it could be a NATO/EU mission now

They used to rely on the British veto at an EU level on defence matters, but once they leave, and going by the polls they will in the next two weeks, then Ireland will be isolated, and exposed if we claim neutrality.

we still have the triple lock and look at the larger opposition parties (eg Sinn Fein). We aren't the only neutral in the EU but the others have the ability to defend themselves and are much closer to Russia.

If foreign affairs think that EU Common Security and Defence Ppolicy is a reality and we’ll have to contribute to EU defence and Brexit will make that more likely, the fit of the EPV will reflect that. That’s the most likely scenario. Look at this month an Cosantoir, that’s the future for the naval service, (20 years ago they couldn’t send an observer to a NATO exercise in the Baltic). If not marine will get its way and it will be a large frigate sized fisheries protection vessel with a deck to carry cargo on like in the first page of this thread.

Personally I think they’ll replace Eithne with a European design around 2025 like the Italian navy PPA or The French FTI classes of light frigate if DFA push for it. Otherwise they’ll build a frigate sized opv.[/QUOTE]

My personal view is we can't afford a token frigate and it would only be a token, if Russia moved west we would need multiple frigates to defend Irish waters (never mind forward deploy). The reality is that the NS would find it hard to man a vessel with a crew of over 60.

The NS is multi-role agency so what roles may/will an EPV/MRV be called upon to carry out by Government apart from the traditional & conventional roles that could influence design?

EU/UN tasks could require increased armament, protection and sensors
The seas we are going to be policing bigger seas

[na grohmití]

Lets have a quick reality check here.
The original title of the thread is "EPV for naval service". Some seem to think is says "minesweeping battleship destroyer frigate submarine for naval service".

It was a suggestion, that the NS would seek an Extended Patrol Vessel. A patrol vessel that could do more than the existing vessel. Patrol further out. To do this it would be bigger than the current OPV. The extra space could be used for something else, such as carrying troops or equipment, or humanitarian relief.
No more than that.

Those suggesting we up arm, up armour and up sensor existing OPVs should keep this in mind.

HMAS Adelaide, the RANs latest LHD. Largest vessels in the RAN fleet.
Armament?
4x Typhoon 25mm remote weapon system. Same as seen on the Aussie OPV.
6x 12.7mm machine guns.

Sensors?
Sea Giraffe ABM Radar, Saab 9LV combat management system.

Decoys?
Nixie torpedo decoy, Nulka missile decoy.
Nothing else. No CIWS, no RAM, no missile defence whatsoever. And this is a vessel that will be working in harms way, alone, as did the ships it replaces.

If it is going somewhere more dangerous, it brings proper escort vessels with it. the RAN are in the process of getting Hobart class destroyers, with Phased array radar, VLS Standard and Sea Sparrow missiles, Harpoon missiles, 5 inch gun, Torpedo launchers, Phalanx CIWS, and of course 25mm Typhoon autocannons..
That's how you do it. Don't up arm a small ship. Build ships for their intended task. Frigates and destroyers do frigate and destroyer jobs. OPVs do OPV jobs. EPVs do EPV jobs. If the threat requires a destroyer, don't send an LHD or a OPV.

[pym]

Those suggesting we up arm, up armour and up sensor existing OPVs should keep this in mind.

HMAS Adelaide, the RANs latest LHD. Largest vessels in the RAN fleet.
Armament?
4x Typhoon 25mm remote weapon system. Same as seen on the Aussie OPV.
6x 12.7mm machine guns.

Sensors?
Sea Giraffe ABM Radar, Saab 9LV combat management system.

Decoys?
Nixie torpedo decoy, Nulka missile decoy.
Nothing else. No CIWS, no RAM, no missile defence whatsoever. And this is a vessel that will be working in harms way, alone, as did the ships it replaces.

Point well made, but even without CIWS or RAM, the L01 fit is in a completely different league compared to current NS vessels.

In my landlubbing opinion the existing standard NS fit is not suitable for something like an EPV, or for a military vessel which could potentially find itself in hostile waters.

I don't think any sane person is agitating to have each NS vessel capable of defending itself against exocets & shkvals or knocking PAK-FA's out of the sky and sending Akula's to the bottom of the ocean.

But if a military vessel is going to be undertaking militarily hazardous operations - air search radar, decoys, rws, rwr/esm, datalinks - this is baseline situational awareness and defence which would not cost the earth, yet offer a capability an order of magnitude beyond the current NS vessels can do.

Those systems wont turn an EPV into a Frigate, Corvette or Destroyer. It will simply be a more capable patrol vessel with a chance at survival in something other than a benign threat environment.

Leaving the shiny sensors and systems to one side though - was that L01 built to commercial or naval standards?
Would it be fundamentally flawed to stick the above equipment on something not built to naval damage control standards?

[Medsailor]

To be fair, that's because HMAS Adelaide would have an escort group consisting of a mix of AD and ASW/ASuW frigates if deployed somewhere where a potential threat had been identified. I think the point being rightly made is that the thread has moved away from the platform and is focusing on the various shiny bits that get stuck on it.
If an EPV is intended as an OPV with longer legs, then what you currently stick on them with some minor changes is fit for purpose. If the E in EPV means Enhanced rather than extended, then a modest increase in self protection (at a minimum systems that give you awareness of impending threats) is probably required.

Lets have a quick reality check here.
The original title of the thread is "EPV for naval service". Some seem to think is says "minesweeping battleship destroyer frigate submarine for naval service".

It was a suggestion, that the NS would seek an Extended Patrol Vessel. A patrol vessel that could do more than the existing vessel. Patrol further out. To do this it would be bigger than the current OPV. The extra space could be used for something else, such as carrying troops or equipment, or humanitarian relief.
No more than that.

Those suggesting we up arm, up armour and up sensor existing OPVs should keep this in mind.

HMAS Adelaide, the RANs latest LHD. Largest vessels in the RAN fleet.
Armament?
4x Typhoon 25mm remote weapon system. Same as seen on the Aussie OPV.
6x 12.7mm machine guns.

Sensors?
Sea Giraffe ABM Radar, Saab 9LV combat management system.

Decoys?
Nixie torpedo decoy, Nulka missile decoy.
Nothing else. No CIWS, no RAM, no missile defence whatsoever. And this is a vessel that will be working in harms way, alone, as did the ships it replaces.

If it is going somewhere more dangerous, it brings proper escort vessels with it. the RAN are in the process of getting Hobart class destroyers, with Phased array radar, VLS Standard and Sea Sparrow missiles, Harpoon missiles, 5 inch gun, Torpedo launchers, Phalanx CIWS, and of course 25mm Typhoon autocannons..
That's how you do it. Don't up arm a small ship. Build ships for their intended task. Frigates and destroyers do frigate and destroyer jobs. OPVs do OPV jobs. EPVs do EPV jobs. If the threat requires a destroyer, don't send an LHD or a OPV.

[DeV]

Well according to WP15 it is a MRV with a helicopter and freight carrying capability.

I agree if we are ever to deploy what is likely to be the biggest vessel the NS has ever had, the risk assessment will define where it goes.