Thanks Thanks:  198
Likes Likes:  403
Dislikes Dislikes:  6

View Poll Results: (Realistically) What best to replace the Peacock CPVs with?

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • Like for like (a similarly capable CPV)

    19 31.15%
  • 1-2 x OPVs (2 defending on available funds)

    39 63.93%
  • Larger number of much less capable patrol craft)

    3 4.92%
Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122
Results 526 to 547 of 547

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #526
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The conceptual Mine detection is interesting and someday it may work. The US is looking at a suitable remotely controlled surface vessels of low magnetic signature. By and large tethering anything to the ship keeps it in harms way, right now we are still with Mine hunters, clearance divers, and MCMV's.
    http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/umm-qa...untermeasures/
    Scroll down to the clearance of the approaches, that was 14 years ago

  2. #527
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    936
    Post Thanks / Like
    The RN are among the world leaders on MCM and UMM Qasr has been their area of operations for many years. Conventional aspects of MCM remain paramount but certainly any system that will keep the human operator at distance from danger is to be encouraged. They use REMUS, Seafox, and Cobra as remote systems but are not impressed at the proclaimed Power Point presentations of newer systems until such systems are designed exclusively for MCM with proven software and reliability.

  3. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  4. #528
    Major General ODIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,821
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/12/...s-patrol-ship/

    Interesting concept. Might be a big initial spend, but could balance out over the lifetime of the vessel. Thoughts?
    What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

  5. #529
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ODIN View Post
    https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/12/...s-patrol-ship/

    Interesting concept. Might be a big initial spend, but could balance out over the lifetime of the vessel. Thoughts?
    Can it do a boarding? Can it measure nets, check catch, etc?

    Can it conduct a tow or take people out of the water?

    Can it do firefighting and damage control on another vessel?

  6. #530
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,519
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Can it do a boarding? Can it measure nets, check catch, etc?

    Can it conduct a tow or take people out of the water?

    Can it do firefighting and damage control on another vessel?
    I'm no expert but I'm guessing probably the answer to your question is 'No' Dev.
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  7. Likes DeV liked this post
  8. #531
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,871
    Post Thanks / Like
    In fairness, it is a good idea for monitoring and surveillance

  9. #532
    Major General ODIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,821
    Post Thanks / Like
    It could be an option to have at sea, patrolling a broader area, and then call in a manned vessel if the requirements above are needed. You could in effect double or triple the area patrolled and keep the same crew requirements.
    What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

  10. #533
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,400
    Post Thanks / Like
    Autonomous ships (let alone patrol ships) are as far off as driverless cars. I can see it being practical as daughter craft, in the same manner as a UAV, but only on a large scale.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  11. Likes DeV, Turkey liked this post
  12. #534
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Autonomy at sea

    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Autonomous ships (let alone patrol ships) are as far off as driverless cars. I can see it being practical as daughter craft, in the same manner as a UAV, but only on a large scale.
    I agree. Autonomy in any environment is for surveillance only, deployment of a weapon system, or in the case of MCM to put safe distance between human operatives and an unsweepable ordinance. In the latter case technical operatives are close by with a choice to place explosives close to an object or use an impact detonation system in it's stead.
    It is all for discussion at sea-- NO lighthouses, No Buoyage, No crews, No Bridges on ships, all lead by the Electronic Industries whose first duty is to create an ever increasing use for their possibilities. The whole electronic atmosphere can be wiped out for weeks by a mistake made by the PRK!!

  13. Thanks na grohmití, Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Turkey liked this post
  14. #535
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    92
    Post Thanks / Like
    Before they go, maybe during the less busy winter season in the Mediterranean... the opportunity could be taken to briefly send the future retirement candidates LE Ciara or LE Orla over, so that the point could also be made that as they were built to military standards, and are (presumably) better ‘armoured/sink resistant’ and fast, compared to the nature of the rest of the modern NS fleet, and so they would be most suitable (of the NS fleet) for going ‘a little’ closer to the Libyan coast and danger if needs be.

    This point and consideration could then be recalled at a later date, when discussing replacements, and when looking for the mooted additional NS larger vessel.

  15. #536
    The Auld Fella A/TEL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhingeNot View Post
    Before they go, maybe during the less busy winter season in the Mediterranean... the opportunity could be taken to briefly send the future retirement candidates LE Ciara or LE Orla over, so that the point could also be made that as they were built to military standards, and are (presumably) better ‘armoured/sink resistant’ and fast, compared to the nature of the rest of the modern NS fleet, and so they would be most suitable (of the NS fleet) for going ‘a little’ closer to the Libyan coast and danger if needs be.

    This point and consideration could then be recalled at a later date, when discussing replacements, and when looking for the mooted additional NS larger vessel.
    Too thirsty on fuel for the journey, plus operating for 2 weeks in the AO at a time.

    Not RAS capable any longer.

    Limited water carrying capability

    Too maintainance intensive

    Limited deck space for migrant embarkation.

  16. Thanks pym thanked for this post
    Likes Graylion, hptmurphy liked this post
  17. #537
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    961
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhingeNot View Post
    Before they go, maybe during the less busy winter season in the Mediterranean... the opportunity could be taken to briefly send the future retirement candidates LE Ciara or LE Orla over, so that the point could also be made that as they were built to military standards, and are (presumably) better ‘armoured/sink resistant’ and fast, compared to the nature of the rest of the modern NS fleet, and so they would be most suitable (of the NS fleet) for going ‘a little’ closer to the Libyan coast and danger if needs be.

    This point and consideration could then be recalled at a later date, when discussing replacements, and when looking for the mooted additional NS larger vessel.
    Not sure how the Peacock's would be more useful/survivable tbh, I mean if you are talking about modern weapons I'd say they are no more safe than the rest of the hulls and given their size perhaps even less so?
    IMO if we want some insight into what enhancements for the Eithne replacement, go get a few personnel attached to some of the current EU warships.

  18. Thanks Graylion thanked for this post
    Likes sofa liked this post
  19. #538
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    92
    Post Thanks / Like
    I was thinking more to illustrate the point to the public, and the non-military powers-that-be, i.e. that they are the only NS 'fighty' vessels,.. not so much that they were most suitable to the mission overall.

    Also, hasn't the emphasis changed a little bit from the pickup/drop off, to the anti-smuggler (and the small arms they may carry) mission, the possibility of getting closer to the coast, and either protecting NGO ships from the nascent Libyan coast guard group(s)/ and or working and training with the coastguards... I'm not sure what the state of play is right now?!

  20. #539
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    961
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhingeNot View Post
    I was thinking more to illustrate the point to the public, and the non-military powers-that-be, i.e. that they are the only NS 'fighty' vessels,..
    I still don't exactly get your point tbh? What's the reason to send the Peacock's?

    Also, hasn't the emphasis changed a little bit from the pickup/drop off, to the anti-smuggler (and the small arms they may carry) mission, the possibility of getting closer to the coast, and either protecting NGO ships from the nascent Libyan coast guard group(s)/ and or working and training with the coastguards... I'm not sure what the state of play is right now?!
    Don't think we've transitioned to Sophia yet.

  21. Likes DeV liked this post
  22. #540
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    92
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just that if Irish NGO's, the government or public at large, wanted the NS to take a more 'robust' part in such missions, or for argument sake, anti-piracy missions, where they may get shot at...take damage, that that is not what the Irish NS ships are really designed for... and would be in danger...

    and IF that is the type of mission of interest, that the Peacock replacements, and the forthcoming lager NS vessel, may have to be more expensive than people expect, and be bigger/heavier, and/or carry more equipment and weapons etc., to be similarly more capable of absorbing damage for example, or alternatively, that people would have to accept that they would be fairly vulnerable (like the rest of the NS vessels) if the extra money is not forthcoming (or just not get involved due to the risk?).

    Similar thoughts for considering any of the other current NS ships for more dangerous missions, arguably, the Peacocks are the last examples of 'fighting' vessels i.e. able to give out AND take abuse (not built to commercial, but military standards)? Deploying the Peacocks say closer to the Libyan coast (if that is what is required),even briefly, could give an opportunity to make this point, and get questions asked re: the direction of all NS ship capabilities, and suitable missions.

    (e.g. didn't a recent NS jaunt to London, that lasted less than a week, get lots of public airtime and have the public raise all sorts of questions)..

  23. Likes Turkey liked this post
  24. #541
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,620
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhingeNot View Post
    Just that if Irish NGO's, the government or public at large, wanted the NS to take a more 'robust' part in such missions, or for argument sake, anti-piracy missions, where they may get shot at...take damage, that that is not what the Irish NS ships are really designed for... and would be in danger...

    and IF that is the type of mission of interest, that the Peacock replacements, and the forthcoming lager NS vessel, may have to be more expensive than people expect, and be bigger/heavier, and/or carry more equipment and weapons etc., to be similarly more capable of absorbing damage for example, or alternatively, that people would have to accept that they would be fairly vulnerable (like the rest of the NS vessels) if the extra money is not forthcoming (or just not get involved due to the risk?).

    Similar thoughts for considering any of the other current NS ships for more dangerous missions, arguably, the Peacocks are the last examples of 'fighting' vessels i.e. able to give out AND take abuse (not built to commercial, but military standards)? Deploying the Peacocks say closer to the Libyan coast (if that is what is required),even briefly, could give an opportunity to make this point, and get questions asked re: the direction of all NS ship capabilities, and suitable missions.

    (e.g. didn't a recent NS jaunt to London, that lasted less than a week, get lots of public airtime and have the public raise all sorts of questions)..
    Public do not really care where our ships go. Objections come from the usual bunch of anti West lefty tards

  25. Likes Sparky42, na grohmití, Flamingo, apod liked this post
  26. #542
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    961
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sofa View Post
    Public do not really care where our ships go. Objections come from the usual bunch of anti West lefty tards
    Public also wouldn't have a clue between Naval and Commercial standards (other than to most likely complain about the cost no matter what it is).

  27. Likes sofa, Flamingo liked this post
  28. #543
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    512
    Post Thanks / Like
    The lefties want our ships to be knitted by Eritrean refugees or donated by Ghaddafi, depending on which hue of Irish lefties we are talking about. They still didn't stop the Beckett going to London. Public opposition has never, ever been a barrier to military spending. The problem starts and stops in the government and the department.

    To be fair, government management in every sector has been a case of small thinking and minimum effort occasionally punctuated by vanity projects. Then let the private sector or religious orders take up the slack.
    Sending the Samuel Beckett to an arms fair actually fits right in! I'm just waiting for the contract to run the naval service to be put out to tender...
    Last edited by expat01; 19th September 2017 at 08:28.

  29. #544
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    936
    Post Thanks / Like
    Building to Naval or Commercial Standards ( often Llyod's Rules ) is a choice between functionality underpinned by speed, profile, and equipment fitted to International naval shock Standards OR building a stronger Commercial hull to an agreed Navalised design , supervised by the Insurance Society Chosen, with initial guarantees and fitted with OTS items and Government Furnished Items, such as weapons and FCS. The commercial hull is likely to have a much longer operational life and can be tweaked to improve survivability in matters of Damage Control, and ABCN at owners cost.

  30. Thanks WhingeNot thanked for this post
  31. #545
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    356
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    [...] The commercial hull is likely to have a much longer operational life [...]
    Why? Because most naval shipbuilding is high tensile steel to save weight? The Holland class OPVs are built of thicker mild steel. And i don't think they are built to commercial specs.

  32. #546
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    92
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Holland class might be built to an ice rating? (the Irish ferries MV Ulysses is too I think, same as its sister ships all built in Finland..?).

  33. #547
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    936
    Post Thanks / Like
    Naval hulls on order often stipulate a life of 15 years, we have used 25 years as a minimum for our ships. The heavier hull steel for some classes of OPV is specified to withstand common small arms fire up to 12.7mm.

  34. Thanks DeV thanked for this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •