Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

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

  • Originally posted by client View Post
    Not so. Back in 2007 they proposed a 125 metre EPV which was to be built across the diagonal of the dock
    What vessel? Could we piggy back the design?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
      Certainly go with moving an Infantry Company and ancillary tasks in keeping with spaces available, especially humanitarian and casualties. It is normal to enlist specialist trauma teams from hospitals as was done for Camp Bastion. Just make sure the ship has a designed space for processing casualties or sick eg. Xray and theater plus recovery beds etc. There must be no deviation from full self Defence otherwise tactical choice is limited in deployment and negates moving troops to a hostile area.
      As these postulated roles are basically C.S.S would not the actual build be along commercial lines for significant savings, simpler design and easier production/maintenance.

      Comment


      • We were discussing frigates further up and that was what I was responding to. If we want yet another OPV none of these ships make any sense. And define "untested". In the context of weapons procurement that is a very hazy term IMO. Spear 3 is vapourware at the moment anyway. But it looks promising. If it doesn't happen - well the silos fit CAAM

        Comment


        • Originally posted by danno View Post
          As these postulated roles are basically C.S.S would not the actual build be along commercial lines for significant savings, simpler design and easier production/maintenance.
          Then you are building a merchant ship, not a warship and it won't be fit to go into harm's way.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
            Then you are building a merchant ship, not a warship and it won't be fit to go into harm's way.
            Like how all the other merchant ships are in harms way?
            A lot of people seem to have strange notions that warships are still built with 22 inch armoured belts. The fact is the same steel is used in both, the only difference being damage control and redundancy, and in that area Irish Naval vessels have always been built to a standard much higher than that of your average commercial vessel.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
              We were discussing frigates further up and that was what I was responding to. If we want yet another OPV none of these ships make any sense. And define "untested". In the context of weapons procurement that is a very hazy term IMO. Spear 3 is vapourware at the moment anyway. But it looks promising. If it doesn't happen - well the silos fit CAAM
              Its an EPV. The thread whick is almost 10 years old now is always about EPVs, not OPVs. The EPV or MRV concept is not a new one, but is more suited to our normal tempo of operations. Read back from the start, it may make more sense to you that way.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                Then you are building a merchant ship, not a warship and it won't be fit to go into harm's way.
                You mean like the LCS classes?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                  Then you are building a merchant ship, not a warship and it won't be fit to go into harm's way.
                  What sort of "harms way " have you in mind given that the postulated roles are for transport , Humanitarian etc.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by danno View Post
                    What sort of "harms way " have you in mind given that the postulated roles are for transport , Humanitarian etc.
                    Given the example of a transport being virtually destroyed by missile, a Frigate being remote controlled bombed and a USN destroyer having to defend itself all off Yemen alone perhaps "harms way" should be considered? There's very little to stop militants in Libyia using the same type of missiles to attack ships doing refugee interception for example...

                    Comment


                    • Exactly so, the threat has moved on from conventional to "ambush" type and as such CIWS unit(s) are for consideration . I dont see any need for TTs etc.

                      Comment


                      • Over time all vessels within naval fleets and in stand alone missions have been fitted or retrofitted with a suitable CIWS and missile Defence systems. Most high value ships are fitted with a single "GUN" but are well defended by CIWS,AAM's, ASM's, ECM's, and have an anti submarine response. Putting more response on an OPV is now Naval doctrine. There are 12 new OPV's in the offing ,2020, for the Australian Navy and will be deployed to meet a larger range of responsibility. There is nothing wrong with building to Llyods standards once 24hour crew operability of systems is built in. Remember that all of the threats out there are from modern weapons with a high incidence of missile use. we must be Good to Go.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                          Over time all vessels within naval fleets and in stand alone missions have been fitted or retrofitted with a suitable CIWS and missile Defence systems. Most high value ships are fitted with a single "GUN" but are well defended by CIWS,AAM's, ASM's, ECM's, and have an anti submarine response. Putting more response on an OPV is now Naval doctrine. There are 12 new OPV's in the offing ,2020, for the Australian Navy and will be deployed to meet a larger range of responsibility. There is nothing wrong with building to Llyods standards once 24hour crew operability of systems is built in. Remember that all of the threats out there are from modern weapons with a high incidence of missile use. we must be Good to Go.
                          Which new European OPV's have such weapon fit out? The Holland class (at 150 million) doesn't, nor does the Spanish BAM or the RN Batch 2 Rivers, the US Coastguard's new NSC's don't have all those features. What you are suggesting is exactly why the RN has been so against the OPV's.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by danno View Post
                            Exactly so, the threat has moved on from conventional to "ambush" type and as such CIWS unit(s) are for consideration . I dont see any need for TTs etc.
                            I would say it might come into effect in terms of self defence systems (when/if anti-torpedo systems work), I mean for example you have one of the Israeli drone ships that are now testing torpedo systems.

                            Comment


                            • Just to set the record straight the USCG NSC have an extensive defensive system. They have a Phalanx CIWS but it is not alone, they have a 3d search radar, ESM system, radar FCS, SRBOC chaff, NULKA decoys and a command and control system. And once the South American drug traffickers go beyond there semi-submersibles of today you can bet that some form of ASW will be armed.

                              As for the Holland class, it is true they are not fitted with a Goalkeeper system and it has been one of the major complaints about what otherwise is an excellent ship. But you have to remember when they were designed it was for the North Sea and Caribbean, not for Libya or Yemen where some nut with a C801 might take a pot-shot! Also they were to keep the Dutch ship building industry in business and act as technology demonstrators. Their iMast is one of the most advances set of sensors mounted on anything other than an AEGIS destroyer/cruiser. Advanced flat panel radar, integrated ECM & ESM etc, etc. They have a limited CIWS with their OTO Melara Hitrole guns and I am sure if they wanted they could install a Rheinmetall 35mm Millennium Gun CIWS.

                              The whole point of the discussion is to put the right level of armament to meet the possible future threat, and I mean future 10-15 years from now. When designing a ship if should be capable of meeting all the possible demand it could face until it receives a SLEP upgrade after 10-15 years of service. So if it is the policy of the government to send Naval Service ships into unstable regions where militants have weapons such as C801's then those vessels must have the means to defend themselves. It does not matter to groups such as ISIS that we are neutral or even if we are flying a UN flag, if they want and can they will take a shot at us. Hopefully we have learnt the lessons of send Irish military into conflicts zones without the proper equipment just to make someone in the Dail look good!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                                Which new European OPV's have such weapon fit out? The Holland class (at 150 million) doesn't, nor does the Spanish BAM or the RN Batch 2 Rivers, the US Coastguard's new NSC's don't have all those features. What you are suggesting is exactly why the RN has been so against the OPV's.
                                Events dear boy. If an OPV is your frontline and you wish to task it to a hot Area of Operations then you must be Good to Go. The RN ship to Falklands was given extra 30mm and two mini-guns. Our Navy depend on OPV's and I want to see them with a fighting chance. We have nothing else to take the weight of combat.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X