Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Been coming across a lot of stuff on line about the new Philippines acquisition, the BRP Tarlac.

    Whats interesting about this one is the price, seems to be about $44m excluding weapons or much of a Radar/sensor suite, but it still looks amazing value.

    It's based on the Indonesian Makasser class LPD, and if the NS were looking for something more MRV than EPV, it would seem like a good fit, can embark 500 troops and loads of Veh's, and has space on deck for 2+1 Helicopters. In addition I think it can also be fitted out as a Hospital ship in double quick time, which might make it more saleable to Joe Taxpayer.

    On the down side, I'm not sure if it'd be suitable for North Atlantic conditions, and speedwise, it's a bit underpowered/slow compared to the rest of the fleet.
    Also the crew size is about 120, so twice that of the new builds, but for a ship that size, its hardly surprising.





    Comment


    • This month's Connect has an interview with Maj Gen Brennan DCOS (Ops) and he says, when asked about large equipment purchases in the near future, that "a fourth vessel will be purchased which will be similar to the LE Samuel Beckett", no mention of an EPV/MRV...

      Comment


      • Naval fleet

        Originally posted by ias View Post
        This month's Connect has an interview with Maj Gen Brennan DCOS (Ops) and he says, when asked about large equipment purchases in the near future, that "a fourth vessel will be purchased which will be similar to the LE Samuel Beckett", no mention of an EPV/MRV...
        Similar if you wish BUT it must be more capable in a three dimensional environment. Followed by a refit for the other P 60's. All Naval ships are designed to respond to, and control, the exigencies in it's area of operations. Messing around in boats is not the immediate way forward and could be embarrassing.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ias View Post
          This month's Connect has an interview with Maj Gen Brennan DCOS (Ops) and he says, when asked about large equipment purchases in the near future, that "a fourth vessel will be purchased which will be similar to the LE Samuel Beckett", no mention of an EPV/MRV...
          Perhaps he's been reading IMO....The concensus here seems "More OPVs like P60s".
          Last edited by Galloglass; 8 June 2016, 16:03.

          Comment


          • Which vessel is LE WBY replacing?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
              Which vessel is LE WBY replacing?


              LE AISLING (Currently on her last MSDO patrol)

              P64 prob to replace a Peacock id imagine

              Comment


              • The comment is pretty confusing, if there's a fourth Beckett coming on stream, then, if its to replace a P40, one can assume a fifth will also be in the offing(after a tender process for probably one ship with an option on a second). If its to replace P31, then thats pretty disappointing. If its for the 9th ship, then its to be welcomed.
                Last edited by Herald; 9 June 2016, 00:36.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herald View Post
                  The comment is pretty confusing, if there's a fourth Beckett coming on stream, then, if its to replace a P40, one can assume a fifth will also be in the offing(after a tender process for probably one ship with an option on a second). If its to replace P31, then thats pretty disappointing. If its for the 9th ship, then its to be welcomed.
                  Maybe it's the old syndrome of always buying the same family car! It could also avoid the complexities of ordering a NEW ship type. I think the NEXT ship will determine what we are, and where we are going, for the next thirty years!
                  If the Eithne can be made sound for another 10 years, I would consider a makeover, including replacing machinery, and re-establishing her flight deck for at least land-ons, togetherwith radars and additional CIWS weapons.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herald View Post
                    The comment is pretty confusing, if there's a fourth Beckett coming on stream, then, if its to replace a P40, one can assume a fifth will also be in the offing(after a tender process for probably one ship with an option on a second). If its to replace P31, then thats pretty disappointing. If its for the 9th ship, then its to be welcomed.
                    Is perhaps the problem - reflected here on IMO - that no one can decide or agree what an MRV/EPV should do, or look like, or be for?

                    Is it possible that while that argument is going throughout government and the NS and seemingly without a quick answer, the decision on another P60 class has been made in order to avoid a 'use it or lose it's situation developing with the funding.

                    It appears reasonably clear that the intention is to have 3 classes of vessel in the NS - a new CPV class of two, the bulk of the fleet as P60(ish...) and one or two vessels designed for overseas deployments in the much fought over MRV-EPV class. This may well be more about timing that it is about direction. If course, it may not..

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                      Is perhaps the problem - reflected here on IMO - that no one can decide or agree what an MRV/EPV should do, or look like, or be for?

                      Is it possible that while that argument is going throughout government and the NS and seemingly without a quick answer, the decision on another P60 class has been made in order to avoid a 'use it or lose it's situation developing with the funding.

                      It appears reasonably clear that the intention is to have 3 classes of vessel in the NS - a new CPV class of two, the bulk of the fleet as P60(ish...) and one or two vessels designed for overseas deployments in the much fought over MRV-EPV class. This may well be more about timing that it is about direction. If course, it may not..
                      Thats probably a fair summation. No matter what way you look at it, it's very difficult to marry the MRV with the EPV and come up with one vessel.

                      Building a Canterbury/Makasser type ship is fine if you can use it for resupply and/or MED type missions on an almost permanent basis, however using the same ship to slot back in to the patrolling role role when not, is a less appealing prospect. Although the argument that steel is cheap and air is free is often made, the extra energy and the cost thereof, of pushing a 40 gallon drum drum around versus a coke can, are fairly obvious.

                      The run up to the publication of the white paper led to much mention of a "Frigate sized" vessel, although what capabilities were required from this ship were absent, apart from possible participation in Humanitarian type missions, and being frigate sized, its difficult to discern the actual requirement.

                      With the VAdm athe the helm though, one would expect there to be more of a blue input to the process than normal.

                      As for the P60, the last tender was for 2, with an option on the third. That Tender is done and dusted now, so one way or another there will need to be a seperate tender process to bring a 4th P60 on board, and theres no guarantee that that ship will be a carbon copy of the others as theres no gaurantee Babcock will be involved again.
                      Last edited by Herald; 9 June 2016, 16:06.

                      Comment


                      • Is the government legally required to hold a full tender process - particularly given that it's a defence contract - or this just self-imposed stuff to kick stuff into the long grass and make it cheap?

                        I ask this because the EU rules don't apply to defence contracts, and certainly the UK buys stuff from single source providers without tenders all the time - RC-135, P-8A, C-17 etc...

                        I rather suspect that if a government with a working majority wanted to just buy another P-60 from Babcock it could probably do so....

                        Comment


                        • The rules are not too complex but sometimes agencies get caught out like when the Scottish tried to purchase a patrol vessel from a local shipyard.
                          This rules are explained on the EU website:
                          http://europa.eu/youreurope/business...s/index_en.htm

                          There is one way that allows a direct purchase without a tender and that is stated on the website:
                          "Only in specific cases public authorities may award contracts without publishing a call for tenders:
                          emergencies due to unforeseeable events
                          contracts that - for technical reasons or because of exclusive rights - can be carried out by one particular company only
                          contracts that by law are excluded from public procurement (acquisition/rental of existing buildings, employment contracts, programme material for broadcasting, etc.)."

                          Clearly by using the options available you can claim that you do not need to do a tender, "we have an urgent need", "making the spec so tight so that one company could supply it" etc
                          For the P60's it might boil down to who has the design rights: Badcock/VARD or us?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                            Is the government legally required to hold a full tender process - particularly given that it's a defence contract - or this just self-imposed stuff to kick stuff into the long grass and make it cheap?

                            I ask this because the EU rules don't apply to defence contracts, and certainly the UK buys stuff from single source providers without tenders all the time - RC-135, P-8A, C-17 etc...


                            I rather suspect that if a government with a working majority wanted to just buy another P-60 from Babcock it could probably do so....

                            They can derogate from Open tender under Article 346 TFEU which refers to measures which a Member State “considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security” or to “information the disclosure of which it considers contrary” to those interests. The definition of their essential security interests is the sole responsibility of Member States. However they have to give detailed reasons for this and I'm not sure a "non/limited warry" PV would qualify.
                            “The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.”
                            ― Thucydides

                            Comment


                            • For me we could make a comparison with the US Coast Guard which if we are honest is more like the Naval Service than any other organisation. In peacetime it may be Under the control of the Dept. of Homeland Security but in war it reverts back to the Dept. of Defence. The USCG has the "medium endurance cutter" which match the role and capability of the P50/60's so LPV's. Then they have the "high endurance cutter" which would be more along the lines of the EPV. The MRV roles is much better done by something like the BRP Tarlac, at least one with more SHP and automation and use it only for resupply/humanitarian missions

                              Our patrol area has doubled in the past years due to the extension of our territorial waters Under the provisons of the extended continental shelf. As the old saying goes "nothing is for free" this extension also came with obilgations, and one is to police this area effectively. And we are stuck with it now as there is no way to give back this new won area to the UN! So the EPV will have to spend longer at sea, further from land. The latter point brings the added mission of having to be the provider of SAR in the area outside the reach of the S92's! So the need for a number of EPV's is still there even if we order more P61's. There should be a program to raise the number of vessels in the NS at least to 12 by 2022, along with all the implications that go with it. Longer term a fleet of 16+ should be the goal especially if operations out of area like the one in the Med become a regular feature (and I fear they will).

                              Another 3 P61's (Flight II upgraded) would be a good addition allowing the replacement of the Peacock, naturally the existing P51's and P61's to be also upgraded. These can take care of the patrols out to 200nm, and missions such as MCM, pollution patrol etc.
                              Then 4 EPV's to take the area out to the limits of our expanded territorial waters, only when these come online should the LE Eithne move to Dock 1 as a museum ship.

                              Comment


                              • I did a few tenders for the DOD/AC/NS etc in the past, mainly for Comms gear etc, Generally they follow Public Procurement norms except for some low cost/runrate stuff.

                                Whatever about derogations, I'd be fairly confident that Tenders would be par for the course, there's no way they'd allow themselves be hauled up before the PAC or some such for a €50m+ expenditure, and we're not at war, so I can't see what reasons could be used.

                                Having said that, Babcock should be in the cat bird seat in this, however whether Babcock Marine, Devon will still be in situ at the end of that process is the issue.

                                The ownership of the design shouldn't be a problem, either the NS own it out right, or its co owned with Vard, either way whatever yard builds it , Vard pick up their agreed licence based on the deal done with them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X