Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

how big/small should the NS be?

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
    I suppose a couple of things, there's a newer vessels that are larger (some larger than the Peacock's), though certainly slower and the point about armament. I still have no idea exactly how it's suggested that a CPV can be an MCMV, however surely having some personnel assigned to current units would be beneficial in either trying to figure it out, or to understand that they won't mix?
    Because we will be replacing the Peacocks with CPVs with C-Mine/CIED capability.

    Why will we be buying CPVs? Because we need CPVs

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by DeV View Post
      Because we will be replacing the Peacocks with CPVs with C-Mine/CIED capability.

      Why will we be buying CPVs? Because we need CPVs
      I'm not arguing that we need or will get CPV's, I'm wondering how when you look at the specs of MCMV's (which don't lend themselves to the CPV role) the idea has come about that we can fit something like the CPV's with the capability. Though the other question I guess I have is are there any current/near future designs on the market that meet the CPV spec (speed, tonnage, 76mm)?

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        Because we will be replacing the Peacocks with CPVs with C-Mine/CIED capability.

        Why will we be buying CPVs? Because we need CPVs
        Do we need CPVs? Has much of the work traditionally done by CPVs now done by other agencies? Can the remaining CPV Naval work be done by OPVs with longer range RhIBs?
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
          I'm not arguing that we need or will get CPV's, I'm wondering how when you look at the specs of MCMV's (which don't lend themselves to the CPV role) the idea has come about that we can fit something like the CPV's with the capability. Though the other question I guess I have is are there any current/near future designs on the market that meet the CPV spec (speed, tonnage, 76mm)?
          you suggested that a CPV can be a MCMV

          I disagree

          Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
          Do we need CPVs? Has much of the work traditionally done by CPVs now done by other agencies? Can the remaining CPV Naval work be done by OPVs with longer range RhIBs?
          I agree (but this agree to use other agencies, the NS provides VFM

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
            I wasn't talking about us using them, I was talking about us stopping anyone using them (for whatever reason), that being said, I have no idea why you would want to waste budgets on manned coastal sub's? There's zero call for them, and I have no idea what being able to operate in the Med (out of Allied bases in permissive environments) has to do with the question.
            We are a nation on an Island in the Eastern Atlantic with a limited surveillance capability in most dimensions but particularly Air and sub-sea. Over the years we have developed a surface fleet mostly by chance or whatever was available, such as left over craft post 1920's, then MTB's, then 3 Corvettes, then a hired in trawler,then 3 Coastal Minesweepers, then our own 5 build fleet from Verholme, then accidentally 2 Peacocks , and now 6 OPV's of two classes. Our plans going forward have not being constant, we are continually dismantling capability , but are left with skilled willing seamen waiting for a balanced Navy. Why not ASW, MCM,AAW, and SUBs. Combat and Naval Firepower is the forever mandate of all Navies, the rest, such as fishery protection, ATCP, etc. is the training ground to hone seagoing skills while doing necessary policing of our Sea Areas.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
              We are a nation on an Island in the Eastern Atlantic with a limited surveillance capability in most dimensions but particularly Air and sub-sea. Over the years we have developed a surface fleet mostly by chance or whatever was available, such as left over craft post 1920's, then MTB's, then 3 Corvettes, then a hired in trawler,then 3 Coastal Minesweepers, then our own 5 build fleet from Verholme, then accidentally 2 Peacocks , and now 6 OPV's of two classes. Our plans going forward have not being constant, we are continually dismantling capability , but are left with skilled willing seamen waiting for a balanced Navy. Why not ASW, MCM,AAW, and SUBs. Combat and Naval Firepower is the forever mandate of all Navies, the rest, such as fishery protection, ATCP, etc. is the training ground to hone seagoing skills while doing necessary policing of our Sea Areas.
              I absolutely agree about plans and it is across the public service.

              However, the threat is low, the costs are high and defence is not a priority for either Government or the taxpayer.

              We do need at least the ability to monitor the passage of submarines (as a minimum) but you do not need submarines to do that

              Comment


              • #97
                Will we get some CVNs to cover the SSNs launching from the secret base in Foynes?? Read over post #78 again!
                Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                Comment


                • #98
                  The ultimate control of sea lanes and Surveillance, reconnaissance , Interdiction within it, is the bailiwick of submarines such as the Swedish Gotland class with AIP. They have only 5 boats which has the US Navy agog after losing a Nuclear Carrier on paper more than once. we do need a sub hunt capability with an edge.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    We don't even have heli's on our ships, crawl before you walk.
                    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                      As a minimum 2 MRV such as the Crossover 131 Combatant or Absalon Class with associated helicopter either MH60 or NH90. Two is the absolute minimum to have one available at all time, better would 3-4. These would cover the combatant part of the NS mission, provide a better platform for humanitarian support and be able to lift and support the army (better a marine battalion/company).
                      Don't limit the choices of helicopter. The NH90 is a turkey that the RNlN doesn't even allow to fly over saltwater. The MH90 is OK, but I'd go Cougar for instance. Or move the AW139s to the NS and get the Army some decent choppers.

                      Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                      The current P50/P60's cover most of the home water missions although a sensor suite upgrade along with a modern C3 system would be necessary. 2 more hulls to add to the current fleet would balance up the offshore contingent well. The provision to be able to mount a CIWS would be necessary if they are to be also used in "semi-hot deployment". This means that they do not need to carry a CIWS all the time but could rotate when necessary. Also we should see the purchase of different container mounted mission systems such as MCM. There is the provision on the P60's for this but we do need to get the mission modules.
                      CIWS can be handled by converting the 76mm to STRALES. MCM is a role that needs an amagentic hull - I am not sure the P60s could find more than one mine each. Decent radar would be needed. TRS-4D R or Saab Sea Giraffe 4a spring to mind.


                      Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                      One area that is often overlooked is the inshore mission with the standard excuse of the weather and that we need o big boats! This is true for offshore but the inshore and especially the area between us and the UK does not always require a 2000t ship. When the UK leaves the EU this will be come a major mission area and as the vessels that are of interest will be less than 500t (fishing boats, pleasure craft, smugglers) we should also consider having some smaller vessels 500t-700t to patrol these waters. Two could be based in Dublin and 2 in Rosslare.
                      I like this idea
                      Last edited by Graylion; 13 April 2017, 15:02.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        The ultimate control of sea lanes and Surveillance, reconnaissance , Interdiction within it, is the bailiwick of submarines such as the Swedish Gotland class with AIP. They have only 5 boats which has the US Navy agog after losing a Nuclear Carrier on paper more than once. we do need a sub hunt capability with an edge.
                        Every Allied SSK nation has claimed to kill a CVN at some point during exercises, of course there's no way to know in reality just how accurate that is, for the simple reason that SSK's even with AIP are really "mobile Minefields" that require the enemy to cooperate in positioning. It's beyond "Hovertank" nonsense to suggest them.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                          Don't limit the choices of helicopter. The NH90 is a turkey that the RNlN doesn't even allow to fly over saltwater. The MH90 is OK, but I'd go Cougar for instance. Or move the AW139s to the NS and get the Army some decent choppers.
                          Do the 139's have any of the maritime systems needed? Salt corrosion protection, safety features, landing modifications? More over they carry none of the Martime control features (Sonar/Weapon fits) of the true Maritime Helicopters so other than just flying around with a door gunner what value would they add? The NH90 has issues (pretty much ever system does) but as far as I know it is being worked through for fixes.
                          CIWS can be handled by converting the 76mm to STRALES. MCM is a role that needs an amagentic hull - I am not sure the P60s could find more than one mine each. Decent radar would be needed. TRS-4D R or Saab Sea Giraffe 4a spring to mind.
                          Do consider that for MCM many of the current/future systems are "drone" based rather than the conventional systems of the past, that's not to say that the 60's would be ideal but could have investment in that area if we wanted.

                          I like this idea
                          In terms of Brexit, I think it's too early to tell what exactly we'll need, I mean there's a good chance the NI/ROI water board is going to need patrolling as well for example, wonder what those custom boats are doing?

                          Comment


                          • Not accurate in concept or in the use of submarines. Read a few manuals . We leave armour , Hover or otherwise, to the ground forces.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                              Not accurate in concept or in the use of submarines. Read a few manuals . We leave armour , Hover or otherwise, to the ground forces.
                              Which that SSK's have limited ranges/capabilities compared to SSN's, that USN CVN battlegroups in a true combat situation might not be as obliging as to sail into an area with known SSK units without the area already being swept? Like I said I've read of everyone from the Canadians to the Australian's getting Mission Kills on CVN's with SSK's, but there is no real meteric to determine if that's how things would play out. SSK's are ideal for "chokepoint areas" where forces have to come to them, we aren't one of those positions, nor are we going to be doing the "sneaky shite" that SSK's do.

                              Moreover yes it is stupid to be suggesting we need/move towards Sub forces. There are plenty of major NATO and otherwise nations that struggle massively with sustaining SSK forces, suggesting we should have them is Walter Mitty nonsense.

                              Comment


                              • If we do dare to go down the Naval Heli route then surely anything we get should be a tried and tested, widely used type. When the Kiwis got their OPVs, they stuck with the Seasprites, whith whom they had familiarity on the ANZAC frigates, even though their neighbours were binning their Seasprites and going for S70s instead.
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X