Thanks Thanks:  309
Likes Likes:  541
Dislikes Dislikes:  8

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

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

    22 34.38%
  • 1-2 x OPVs (2 defending on available funds)

    39 60.94%
  • Larger number of much less capable patrol craft)

    3 4.69%
Page 29 of 30 FirstFirst ... 1927282930 LastLast
Results 701 to 725 of 746

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #701
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,891
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Belgians and Dutch are involved in a MCM PESCO project
    https://pesco.europa.eu/project/mari...untermeasures/

    As well as some EDA projects
    https://www.eda.europa.eu/info-hub/p...oject-launched

  2. #702
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Naval Group has won the Belgium/Dutch minesweeper competition. Now we will have to see if France joins the project to replace their similar vessels.

    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...l-competition/
    The consortium includes engineering groups that promote Robotics and some of whom out-think human logic and thought processes. I dislike anything that isn't controlled or input by the operator without choice or knowledge. Typical problems occur such as spurious engine shut downs or over complication of systems that causes loss of equipment function and controllability by the operator. Any ship must be designed by the user agency based on routines and tasks for offence and defence and other typical maritime roles.

  3. #703
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like

    Belgian/Dutch MCMV Competition Winner

    Given the sheer size of the winning MCM 'Mothership' it would appear that expeditionary capacity is a priority.



    https://www.belgium-naval-and-robotics.be/

    In the region of 3,000 tonnes, this is not a contender for our upcoming CPV/Corvette/MCMV programme, as defined by the most recent Defence White Paper.



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

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

  4. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  5. #704
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    [

    However 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[/QUOTE]

    The vessel type is interesting but needs more length with a beam nearing a 6:1 ratio, at 16.7 beam I would prefer a length of 100 meters. 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 think the proposed vessel will be pitched at 125 meters overall length.

  6. Thanks The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
  7. #705
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    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
    Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 2nd May 2019 at 01:53.
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  8. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  9. #706
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,891
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  10. Likes The Usual Suspect liked this post
  11. #707
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

    Quote 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
    Quote 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; 2nd May 2019 at 08:55. Reason: Spelling correction
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  12. #708
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    809
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  13. Thanks The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  14. #709
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  15. Likes DeV liked this post
  16. #710
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,891
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  17. #711
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  18. Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  19. #712
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,891
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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
    https://pesco.europa.eu/project/mari...untermeasures/
    We aren’t a project member

    There are EDA projects:
    https://www.eda.europa.eu/what-we-do...t-minesweeping
    https://www.eda.europa.eu/what-we-do...new-generation
    We aren’t project members

    We appear to be project members on these EDA projects:
    https://www.eda.europa.eu/what-we-do...(ums)-research
    https://www.eda.europa.eu/what-we-do...ptech-maritime


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

  20. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  21. #713
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,891
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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”

  22. #714
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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
    https://pesco.europa.eu/project/mari...untermeasures/
    We aren’t a project member

    There are EDA projects:
    https://www.eda.europa.eu/what-we-do...t-minesweeping
    https://www.eda.europa.eu/what-we-do...new-generation
    We aren’t project members

    We appear to be project members on these EDA projects:
    https://www.eda.europa.eu/what-we-do...(ums)-research
    https://www.eda.europa.eu/what-we-do...ptech-maritime


    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 .

  23. #715
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    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; 3rd May 2019 at 20:07. Reason: Punctuation, Spelling, Grammar & Change of last image.
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  24. Likes Tempest liked this post
  25. #716
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,891
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  26. #717
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  27. Likes na grohmiti, Tempest liked this post
  28. #718
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,891
    Post Thanks / Like
    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).

  29. #719
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,891
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    Suggest split new Future MCM Capabilities from current CPV Replacement thread.
    They are inextricably linked
    683A1081-F427-47F8-AB8F-52BC11796452.jpg

  30. #720
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  31. #721
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    They are inextricably linked

    I even have a political-compromise fall-back position, which everyone will hate equally..


    Unpalatable Prospect (Concept)

    Detailed technical specification for Damen MPV 6214
    Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 3rd May 2019 at 21:18. Reason: Link to tech spec added, grammar
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  32. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  33. #722
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,891
    Post Thanks / Like
    Too slow to be a CPV
    Too low bollard tow to be a useful ETV
    Draft too deep to be a CPV

    It could possibly do the job of MCM mothership due to deck space




    A traditional MCMV is too slow to be a PV and other too small to be all weather, it won’t have the bollard tow to be a useful ETV
    An ETV is too slow to be a PV
    A PV generally won’t have the bollard tow to be an ETV
    Last edited by DeV; 3rd May 2019 at 22:01.

  34. #723
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Too slow to be a CPV
    Too low bollard tow to be a useful ETV
    Draft too deep to be a CPV

    It could possibly do the job of MCM mothership due to deck space
    Couldn't agree with you more.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Except no one.. wants a ETV. In fact, Government policy is not to have one.
    A multi-purpose offshore patrol vessel, albeit with very high capital
    costs, can make savings across government by increased efficiency ..

    .. and the ability to flex an otherwise costly emergency towing
    capability at short notice ..

    Experience elsewhere in Europe suggests that the likeliest vessel
    requiring assistance is small enough to require a relatively modest
    tug with a 100–150t bollard pull.. - From conclusions (PDF Pages 63/64)


    2012 IRCG study into provision for an ETV - Full Document (PDF)


    ICGV Thor

    NoCGV Harstad

    UT512 Coastguard Vessel

    You'll note that the example vessels shown meet the quoted technical requirements and the very high capital costs refered to would be reduced substantially to marginal costs because we need two new Naval Vessels, of some description, anyway. Delve deeper into the IRCG report and, in the relatively inert language beloved of consultants everywhere, the Naval Service recieve; a furtive glance, heavy breathing, and following an awkward approach, the tang of unrequited disappointment.

    The moving of liability for the operation away from the
    State, by outsourcing some or all of the operation of the ETV carries a
    premium in terms of contractual fees. These may not be offset by
    preventing an increase in the size of the directly employed workforce, and
    may be unnecessary if greater efficiency can be leveraged from other state
    agencies such as the Irish Naval Service or Irish Lights. - PDF Page 7

    There may be the potential to reduce research, development and design costs
    by relying upon technical support from other nations already operating such ships.
    One likely partner, the Irish Naval Service, already possesses sufficiently trained and qualified
    personnel to crew and operate such a vessel which could offset some running costs. - PDF Page 34

    A telephone discussion was had with.. ..at the Department of Defence, who
    intimated that in the event that the State wished to pursue the procurement
    of an offshore multi-purpose vessel capable of emergency towing, the Flag Officer
    would be open for holding discussions with the IRCG with regard to the possibility
    of a joint service provision and funding. - PDF Page 47
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  35. #724
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,891
    Post Thanks / Like
    MOD: please keep the ETV talk to the ETV thread

  36. #725
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    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
    .

    There is always the possibility that various levels, from acute to sustained tasks, in underwater clearance may be required. Minimally we would need two capable vessels operating modern clearance methods with sufficient range and durability to assist as required within EU waters. Personnel involved would become skilled in evolutions unique to MCM and would require ring-fencing to maintain on-board skill levels.
    ETV is a firebrigade exercise with reasonable probability of being required in these days of Cruise liners with thousands of souls on board. Weather patterns are of a more aggressive nature. In the 50's and 60's it was not unusual to have famous tugs , such as Turmoil , stationed at Cobh, for the winter period. ETV operations are as relevant as OIL RIG Standby Vessels - ERV- ERRV's who are continuously on station in one per rig.
    Naval standing forces are a resource for providing manpower for a suitable vessel with a useful bollard pull .The question is do we acquire an Ocean towing vessel OR add the capability to the MRV. Towing requires reasonable grip in the water ( Draft ) which would be more available to an MRV rather than the OPV's. The Difficulty will be that there may be only one MRV and location will be subject to chance and prior tasking.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 4th May 2019 at 08:09.

  37. Thanks na grohmiti, DeV, The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 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
  •