Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • Whatever we get in comparison to the CPVs must have all weather capabilities and a standard of accommodation to the level of the rest of the fleet

    Comment


    • If we can separate out the mine counter-measures function by itself, for a moment, I believe it's worth taking a look at the implications of the recent Belgian/Dutch decision and the choices that are now in prospect for Irish defence policy. MCM was chosen as a joint defence/international engagement policy because, firstly it's a critical national defence capacity for any maritime nation to have, and secondly it would allow us to accrue top-table diplomatic capital preparing for, and participating in, post-conflict peace-reinforcing actions in a manner acceptable to our general public. We might also say, thirdly, that we had hoped to be able to achieve all of this at a marginal financial cost because we needed two new corvettes/CPVs anyway.

      Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai




      A radical new concept of operations (in Dutch, translated by Google)


      The operational concept chosen by the Belgan/Dutch programme carries obvious potential risks; financial, technical, and operational. Potential benefits, from an Irish perspective, may be no less imposing. We have the prospect of a great leap forward to a niche, but top-tier, expeditionary capacity that is on occasion in high demand.

      I would suggest that, given the radical departure represented by the successful Belgian/Dutch bid, the assumption that our MCM vessels should be of a CPV/MCM/Corvette type, rather than a OPV/MCM/ETV type, should be thoroughly and comprehensively re-examined.

      Assume, for a moment, that we can say in answer to the question in the post above; the Saab/Kokums vessel is not the most suitable replacement for the Peacocks in their CPV role. Neither is it going to be suitable as an ETV or an OPV. What it will be is the conservative choice. A mid-tech-cycle non-expeditionary MCMV and middling CPV with the potential to become a spikey but slow corvette if invested in heavily during it's mid-life upgrade. It had better be a bargain!

      I'm open to correction on this and bear in mind I'm assuming, for the sake of arguementative hindsight, that everything goes smoothly with the Belgian-Dutch project and am's operational concerns are asuaged.

      As for our ETV requirement; anyone familiar with the Emergency Towing Vessel thread will be sick to the back teeth of reading about the potential for relatively low probability/extremely high consequence environmental events. Personally I believe it should be a higher National Defence priority than the MCMVs. It would be a tragedy for the public to finally understand the need for a naval ETV, and the environmental protection it affords, only an hour after it's services were required.

      Any practical contender for our ETV requirement was always going to be a ETV/OPV hybrid.

      Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post



      http://www.kership.com/en/vessels/lspv-90

      .. a vessel derived from this, and associated designs, could produce a very capable OPV/ETV/Expeditionary MCMV.



      http://www.kership.com/en/vessels/multi-purpose-vessels
      Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
      ..If we are talking about moving troops and equipment, and provided some in fleet logistics, we need to manage a decent payload, a 3000 tonner might not have enough payload..
      I'd argue for the design of this particular vessel to be as tightly focused as it possibly can be, there's quite a bit going on already, from the technical standpoint and operationally it has one expeditionary role already. To fulfill it's tasking as an ETV then at least one of two vessels would need to be operationally available in, or near, home waters at all times. It'll spend, at a rough guess, 80% of it's time doing OPV work anyway.

      Logistical support for peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations would, I believe, be best accomplished by a separate Mini-JSS type vessel. Particular thought should be given to how it would relate to similar, but disparately scaled, Dutch and Danish vessels. If it's designed carefully in close conjunction with current and prospective partners in the UN and EU it should have every prospect of being in very high demand and consequentially a valuable state asset.


      So, returning to the question in the post above.

      If the Saab/Kokums MCMV is not the most suitable replacement, of the three shown, for the Peacocks in their CPV role; and whatever it is that replaces the Peacocks will be spending up to 80% of it's time in that role anyway.

      .. and the Belgian/Dutch MCM Mothership concept can be reliably assessed as a relatively low-risk proposition.

      .. and the engineering and financials can come together in such a manner that the acquisition of a top-tier expeditionary MCM capability including two large hybrid OPV/MCMV/ETVs can become an extremely attractive proposition..

      Then we would have to conclude that our MCMV strategy, as outlined in the most recent Defence White Paper, has been overtaken by events.


      As for what should replace the CPVs..



      Saab/Kokums MCMV
      Róisín class OPV
      (Róisín minus) CPV

      How do I start a poll?
      Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 2 May 2019, 09:55. Reason: Spelling correction

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
        I'm going to suprise myself here am and argue, in this case, for the possability of a smaller vessel.



        Saab/Kokums MCMV 52 & 80

        The corvettes need replacing, and in short order, on the heels of Eithne.

        It's been argued that Orla & Ciara's modest draught are of great advantage when carrying out their fisheries protection duties. I don't doubt it.

        I do though, find it difficult to gauge the value of that last marginal metre's clearance between say, the Peacocks and a Róisín class vessel. Because in terms of utility, endurance, and crew accomadation the consequence of that metre is a world of difference.

        The Saab/Kokums MCMV 52 has a published draught of 2.4m, less than the Peacocks, and I can only assume that this increases progressively as the vessel's final design displacement grows. There appears to be potential for this vessel to evolve into quite a spiky little corvette, as evidenced in the following presentation, highlights at timestamp 1:05 - 5:10.

        Saab MCMV 80 Presentation UDT 2017

        The principal operational question I'd have regarding this type of vessel is it's suitability for fisheries protection duties. I'm well aware that the prospect of stern-ramp RHIB operation does not meet universal acclaim in the Naval Service. In short, for the fisheries protection and general enforcement duties currently carried out by the Peacocks, which would be most suitable?



        Saab/Kokums MCMV
        Róisín class OPV
        (Róisín minus) CPV
        I have always been a fan of the Saab MCMV80 and its sister class the Singapore Independence class as a CPV replacement. They are 80m vessels with a displacement of 1250t which puts them at the length of a P50 and displacement more than of a P20 class and close to being double that of the Peacocks.
        The modular layout of the MCMV80 means that it can be easily tailored both in terms of armament and roles. The aft ramp system is design to take 11m boats, this is becoming the standard for MCM USV but could easily be a fast rib.
        The sister class in Singapore service has a core crew of just 23! But this can be expanded as needed. A 3000t+ vessels is not a CPV replacement, it could be a contender for EPV but even there might be too small.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
          I have always been a fan of the Saab MCMV80 and its sister class the Singapore Independence class as a CPV replacement. They are 80m vessels with a displacement of 1250t which puts them at the length of a P50 and displacement more than of a P20 class and close to being double that of the Peacocks.
          The modular layout of the MCMV80 means that it can be easily tailored both in terms of armament and roles. The aft ramp system is design to take 11m boats, this is becoming the standard for MCM USV but could easily be a fast rib.
          The sister class in Singapore service has a core crew of just 23! But this can be expanded as needed. A 3000t+ vessels is not a CPV replacement, it could be a contender for EPV but even there might be too small.
          MCM type vessels have a very specific role limiting their usual AOP to an area requiring mine clearance ie shallow approach areas to coasts and harbours. The generic types are usually GRP constructed with an outfit minimising magnetic signature. They have low draft and have limitations to their operational envelope-typically SS6 for transit and 4 for operational tasks.
          You can build MCM capable vessels with a multirole possibility if you include off ship MCM tasking with ROV's and clearance divers. However on such tasking the vessel must stay close by and must have a beefed up Defence system while monitoring and tending to the clearance task. If used as a patrol vessel, a minor combat vessel, or a minor logistics vessel, then at those times it is off it's main role. Training and maintenance of skills would be a continuing task. Look at Norwegian and Danish vessels with WNA duties to gauge vessels with some all weather capability.

          Comment


          • A dedicated modern MCMV is too small to be all weather, too slow to be a PV (at around 15kts), will not have the bollard tow of an ETV

            An ETV will have too deep a draft to be CPV, be too slow to be a PV and will be unsuitable as a MRV (which is most definitely a green/blue ship) plus an ETV needs to stay in home waters to be an ETV

            All the West is going towards “motherships” for MCMV. Generally the tether of underwater vehicles is approx 1km long which probably doesn’t completely but it out of harms way with regard to shock etc. Something like the Saab Double Eagle SAROV has a 15km range on batteries.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
              A dedicated modern MCMV is too small to be all weather, too slow to be a PV (at around 15kts), will not have the bollard tow of an ETV
              All the West is going towards “motherships” for MCMV. Generally the tether of underwater vehicles is approx 1km long which probably doesn’t completely but it out of harms way with regard to shock etc. Something like the Saab Double Eagle SAROV has a 15km range on batteries.
              MCM and planned programs from Belgium and Holland are very ambitious, costly, and technically advanced requiring constant training and close connections with a largely industry led proposal. Such ships would need to be frequently attached to an EU Unit of similar ships to avail of front line training and work up of specialists and crews. The proposed vessels at 91 meters, 3000 tonnes, diesel-electric , 15 kts , and sophisticated loading/ deployment routes would need designed berthing / loading facilities as proposed at MCM Valley.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                MCM and planned programs from Belgium and Holland are very ambitious, costly, and technically advanced requiring constant training and close connections with a largely industry led proposal. Such ships would need to be frequently attached to an EU Unit of similar ships to avail of front line training and work up of specialists and crews. The proposed vessels at 91 meters, 3000 tonnes, diesel-electric , 15 kts , and sophisticated loading/ deployment routes would need designed berthing / loading facilities as proposed at MCM Valley.
                Disliked in error

                And the Belgians and Dutch are considered among the world leaders in the MCMV environment

                It is in WP15 that we want to replace our 2 CPVs with “similar” vessels which have a “counter-mine and counter-IED capability”..... there is:

                PESCO project

                We aren’t a project member

                There are EDA projects:


                We aren’t project members

                We appear to be project members on these EDA projects:




                I agree these wouldn’t meet our CPV needs, but arguably neither would a traditional MCMV

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  AFIK DP1 is a system without redundancy, whereas DP2 and DP3 have the same type of modules as DP1 but more of them to provide redundancy to level 2. With DP3 the system is similar to DP2 but an operational computer and its modules are housed in a separate compartment to allow for adverse situations such as fire.
                  Operating diving teams and ROV's a DP2 configuration would be standard for safety.
                  P60s have DP1 which was described to me as “basic”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                    Disliked in error

                    And the Belgians and Dutch are considered among the world leaders in the MCMV environment

                    It is in WP15 that we want to replace our 2 CPVs with “similar” vessels which have a “counter-mine and counter-IED capability”..... there is:

                    PESCO project

                    We aren’t a project member

                    There are EDA projects:


                    We aren’t project members

                    We appear to be project members on these EDA projects:




                    I agree these wouldn’t meet our CPV needs, but arguably neither would a traditional MCMV
                    It seems we are Flagged as participating members of the last 4 EDA projects but contributors to none. We need to take on board that the Peacock class was an inter-governmental deal and was out of kilter with original naval plans. We are strong on OPV's but weak on logistics and MCM .

                    Comment


                    • Thanks to am, Dev, and EUFighter for a really illuminating discussion on MCM.


                      For clarity on the narrower CPV replacement issue itself.



                      P40 Class (LÉ Órla)

                      P50 Class (LÉ Róisín)

                      I'm suggesting that if the best possible replacements for Órla & Ciara in their primary roles are, actually, Róisín & Niamh. And if we can separate out the mine counter-measures function by itself, for a moment, then the best possible replacements-in-turn for Róisín & Niamh would be OPV/ETV hybrid vessels along the lines of ICGV Thor & NoCGV Harstad.



                      ICGV Thor

                      NoCGV Harstad

                      Both vessels are derived from Rolls-Royce's UT512 Coastguard Vessel design and are tasked with the primary duties of our Samuel Beckett class. Aditionally they act as Emergency Towing Vessels, Pollution Control Craft, and Submariner Rescue Platforms. The importance of a national ETV capability has been to the fore in Naval Service thinking for at least the last two decades, however given the small size of the NS, some form of OPV/ETV hybrid was always going to be our only practicable option. We hope we can trust that some form of capability can be put in place before, either a supertanker incident in the Celtic Sea or, a reactor fire on the Porcupine Bank.



                      UT512 Coastguard Vessel


                      On the direct topic of the NS's imminent MCMV programme. The 'Mothership' element of the recently announced winning bid in the Belgian/Dutch MCMV programme, is in no way suitable for our upcoming CPV/Corvette/MCMV project, as defined in the most recent Defence White Paper.

                      However it could form the basis of a very capable OPV/ETV/Expeditionary MCMV.



                      Belgian/Dutch MCMV Competition Winner (Link leads to post on Emergency Towing Vessel Thread)


                      So, if the best possible replacements for Órla & Ciara in their primary roles are, actually Róisín & Niamh.

                      Then it's possible, if not probable, that the best way to satisy both National Defence and international engagement objectives, without increasing the Naval Service ship-count, is to shift from a CPV/Corvette/Costal MCMV programme to an OPV/ETV/Expeditionary MCMV programme.

                      This could very well involve reviewing the Defence White Paper, and affiliating in some fashion with the Belgian/Dutch procurement and related PESCO projects.



                      A radical new concept of operations (in Dutch, translated by Google)

                      The highly modular nature of the proposed Belgian/Dutch systems should support great operational flexability allowing deployment, in part or in full, via our existing P60 Class, the upcoming EPV, or even by road.
                      Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 3 May 2019, 21:07. Reason: Punctuation, Spelling, Grammar & Change of last image.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        It seems we are Flagged as participating members of the last 4 EDA projects but contributors to none. We need to take on board that the Peacock class was an inter-governmental deal and was out of kilter with original naval plans. We are strong on OPV's but weak on logistics and MCM .
                        The flagged nations are on the bottom of every project it just means we are in the EDA.


                        That’s as maybe but Government policy is now to regain some additional MCM capabilities

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                          ..Government policy is now to regain some additional MCM capabilities
                          Suggest split new Future MCM Capabilities from current CPV Replacement thread.

                          Comment


                          • Except no one:
                            Government
                            DoD
                            Department of Marine
                            DF
                            NS
                            IRCG

                            wants a ETV. In fact, Government policy is not to have one.



                            I absolutely take your point that the West is going towards the MCM mothership concept (in the 1500+ tonne range). There is nothing out currently there than meets the demands of being a CPV and MCMV/MCM mothership.

                            Realistically, I think the most likely solution is a bespoken (possibly based on an existing) design (like the P20, P30, P50 and P60 classes). Smaller than the P50s, with plenty of space aft (min 4 TEUs and/or possibly a hanger (not necessarily for airborne drones (could be seaborne ones or some of the kit that would be in the TEUs), a good crane and various modular deployable sensors.

                            A Irish mothership.... is not world beating but suits our needs and has excellent equipment (when it is deployed).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
                              Suggest split new Future MCM Capabilities from current CPV Replacement thread.
                              They are inextricably linked
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	683A1081-F427-47F8-AB8F-52BC11796452.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	90.2 KB
ID:	698240

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                Except no one.. wants a ETV. In fact, Government policy is not to have one.
                                I'm arguing the policy.

                                Understand why ETV procurement was put on the long finger, to politically lubricate the P60 programme, but that was then.. and this is now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X