CPV Replacement

[Bravo20]

The thread is about what will replace the Peacocks/CPVs so that leaves it pretty much open to any suggestion.

[Galloglass]

There's too many if's, should's and could's in your posts galloglass, the rivers have already been discussed to ****ing death in this thread.

Just expressing my opinion Jack....I think I've made it perfectly clear. Do you have a particular view yourself that you'd like to share?
(with or without ifs or buts)

[Medsailor]

Any chance we can bring this topic back on track? Aircraft carriers? Royal navy selling opvs to support local industry...

So I finally got down to reading the relevant para from the WP (excuse me for reproducing it but it is useful to guide the rest of this post).

The two existing Coastal Patrol Vessels, the LÉ Ciara and LÉ Orla, are due for replacement
in the coming years. These ships will be replaced with similar vessels with countermine
and counter-IED capabilities. This will provide an enhanced capability for the Naval
Service in meeting a broad range of ongoing requirements and contingencies, including
the protection of Ireland’s vital sea lanes of communication.

Counter-mine and Counter IED capabilities imply to this sailor that the eventual CPV will have the ability to counter (i.e. dispose of/disrupt) such devices. It doesn't seem to indicate an ability to search for and detect these devices, which is a totally different ball game (although you could argue that this is implied). After all the concept of searching for maritime IEDs using traditional methods (sonar) doesn't seem to make that much sense.

Countering these threats is best done by divers or single-use disposal vehicles like the Sea Fox (https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/wha...hicles/seafox/). Neither of these tasks requires any particular optimisation of the host vessel beyond (a) the ability to hold station relatively well, (b) the ability to deploy/recover small boats and (c) the possibility of embarking a number of mission modules housed in TEUs, all of which are useful qualities in any CPV for the core tasks. In addition, if these are the tasks actually envisaged, then the issue of draft is no longer very relevant as both are offboard systems that can be deployed from a vessel standing off in deeper waters.

The main arguments on this site seem to be twofold, namely whether the River Batch 1 vessels are relevant to the CPV requirement and whether the WP wording rules in or out the procurement of two further P60s (or something of that size) to replace the Peacocks. I think the first issue is directly relevant to the second as the River class are far more substantial than the Peacocks. So the second question needs to be addressed first. If someone uses the words 'enhanced', then I take that to a certain degree as carte blanche to implement a solution that may be more substantial in terms of size than the vessels being replaced. I would think that there would be more concern regarding the recurrent costs (crew, fuel, maintenance, etc) than the initial cost. Furthermore, I question whether the 'coastal' designation makes any sense given that your operating environment is basically oceanic from the moment you clear harbour.

So as I see it, it's more or less a straight choice between build more P60s or buy something available as surplus like the River B1s. Considering issues such as standardisation, common spares holdings and interchangeable personnel, I know which one I would go for.

[DeV]

Good discussion...a couple of quick points.

@Dev...I don't agree that they got ripped off...their paying over the odds for three OPV's but its about more than the price of those ships as I've already said.

@danno...completely different situation. Maintaining domestic warship building is a key facet of UK defence policy (that's why Devs persistent argument that these ships are a rip-off is just a bit too simplistic).

@Gallowglass...who suggested that these OPV's would be patrolling the North Atlantic with Merlins lashed to their decks? Certainly not me.

@na grohmiti...rodger that...I started the thread...and I'm still a Damon Stan fan.

If they want to shore up private industry (IMHO this is State aid!), they should nationalise it

I think we discussed the Damen Stan's before on this thread but:
4207 - only 1 RIB, short legs for what is required
6011 - bigger draft than the OPVs
5509 - draft is only 30cm less than the OPVs
5009 - draft is only 30cm less than the OPVs
3007 - only 1 RIB and too short legs
2205 & 1605 - too small

They would appear to be OK accommodation & endurance wise and have the speed

Main armament would probably be limited to 20mm

Not sure about damage control and sea keeping (off the West coast in winter)

None would appear to be able to take any TEUs (so they can't complete the new roles)

[DeV]

there are any number of downsides to buying River B1's - logistics, maintainance and training standardisation, the use of a third of their lifespan, the thing where i've written 50 times that the NS should never buy another vessel that doesn't have a flight deck... however, the judgement is not this vessel vs that vessel - we all know which is the better vessel (SB batch 2 with flight deck), the judgement is going to be would you prefer 1 SB batch 2, or 3 Rivers. we all know that the through life costs are going to be very different, but 3 vessels (that can do the job, not as well, and without much in the way of room for future cababilities..) for the same price as one Super SB is going to look very attractive to politicians.

the question is, if the question genuinely comes down to one or two EPV's (flight deck etc...) or 3 River B1's with all their limitations, which should it be...

Well this thread is about the CPVs being replaced not the HPV being replaced by a MRV

Government, DoD, DF & NS policy is now that Eithne will be replaced by a MRV with a freight capacity.

[ropebag]

Well this thread is about the CPVs being replaced not the HPV being replaced by a MRV

Government, DoD, DF & NS policy is now that Eithne will be replaced by a MRV with a freight capacity.

do you think that the CPV's should be replaced like-for-like, or should they be replaced hull-for-hull, with the new hulls at OPV size/capability? what do you think the NS is telling the Minster? what do you think Cabinet will think when presented with the cost of the much-less-capable CPV's vs the much-more- capable OPV's?

do you genuinely believe that Policy isn't reviewed and, if neccesary, changed whenever government likes?

[X-RayOne]

So I finally got down to reading the relevant para from the WP (excuse me for reproducing it but it is useful to guide the rest of this post).

The two existing Coastal Patrol Vessels, the LÉ Ciara and LÉ Orla, are due for replacement
in the coming years. These ships will be replaced with similar vessels with countermine
and counter-IED capabilities. This will provide an enhanced capability for the Naval
Service in meeting a broad range of ongoing requirements and contingencies, including
the protection of Ireland’s vital sea lanes of communication.

Counter-mine and Counter IED capabilities imply to this sailor that the eventual CPV will have the ability to counter (i.e. dispose of/disrupt) such devices. It doesn't seem to indicate an ability to search for and detect these devices, which is a totally different ball game (although you could argue that this is implied). After all the concept of searching for maritime IEDs using traditional methods (sonar) doesn't seem to make that much sense.

Countering these threats is best done by divers or single-use disposal vehicles like the Sea Fox (https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/wha...hicles/seafox/). Neither of these tasks requires any particular optimisation of the host vessel beyond (a) the ability to hold station relatively well, (b) the ability to deploy/recover small boats and (c) the possibility of embarking a number of mission modules housed in TEUs, all of which are useful qualities in any CPV for the core tasks. In addition, if these are the tasks actually envisaged, then the issue of draft is no longer very relevant as both are offboard systems that can be deployed from a vessel standing off in deeper waters.

The main arguments on this site seem to be twofold, namely whether the River Batch 1 vessels are relevant to the CPV requirement and whether the WP wording rules in or out the procurement of two further P60s (or something of that size) to replace the Peacocks. I think the first issue is directly relevant to the second as the River class are far more substantial than the Peacocks. So the second question needs to be addressed first. If someone uses the words 'enhanced', then I take that to a certain degree as carte blanche to implement a solution that may be more substantial in terms of size than the vessels being replaced. I would think that there would be more concern regarding the recurrent costs (crew, fuel, maintenance, etc) than the initial cost. Furthermore, I question whether the 'coastal' designation makes any sense given that your operating environment is basically oceanic from the moment you clear harbour.

So as I see it, it's more or less a straight choice between build more P60s or buy something available as surplus like the River B1s. Considering issues such as standardisation, common spares holdings and interchangeable personnel, I know which one I would go for.

the most sensible post in this entire thread so far!

[DeV]

do you think that the CPV's should be replaced like-for-like, or should they be replaced hull-for-hull, with the new hulls at OPV size/capability? what do you think the NS is telling the Minster? what do you think Cabinet will think when presented with the cost of the much-less-capable CPV's vs the much-more- capable OPV's?

do you genuinely believe that Policy isn't reviewed and, if neccesary, changed whenever government likes?

It will be reviewed every 3 years or something like that (by which time the CPV replacement contract should have been signed.

Also I think they put a bit of taught into it (it took about 10 years and a Green Paper to come up with)!!

[DeV]

The RNZN Protector class IPVs could be a baseline to model the new CPVs on (potentionally), and I think Tenix where involved in Roisin.

They are small but can survive in SS8. The issues would be:
- limited endurance (~7 days)
- lack of TEU capacity
- poor armament (probably limited to 20mm)

But they didn't have the issues of MRV or OPVs (only issues I can find are noise in the area of the RHIBs and ladder up to the davits.

[na grohmiti]

The RNZN Protector class IPVs could be a baseline to model the new CPVs on (potentionally), and I think Tenix where involved in Roisin.

They are small but can survive in SS8. The issues would be:
- limited endurance (~7 days)
- lack of TEU capacity
- poor armament (probably limited to 20mm)

But they didn't have the issues of MRV or OPVs (only issues I can find are noise in the area of the RHIBs and ladder up to the davits.

Holy fock.

These ships would be perfect except for these three things which make them completely unsuitable.

Surviving in SS8 is not patrolling in SS8.
No TEU spot=Useless for dive support. That's regressive from the peacocks.
Poor Armament: They can't even take a 20mm, they are limited to deck mounted HMGs.

Tenix had no involvement in Roisin. It was however involved in the building of HMNZS Otago, which was based on the Roisin design. And they made a pigs ear of it.


Do you read what you write here? Proof read even? There is no logic!

[DeV]

Holy fock.

These ships would be perfect except for these three things which make them completely unsuitable.

Surviving in SS8 is not patrolling in SS8.
No TEU spot=Useless for dive support. That's regressive from the peacocks.
Poor Armament: They can't even take a 20mm, they are limited to deck mounted HMGs.

Tenix had no involvement in Roisin. It was however involved in the building of HMNZS Otago, which was based on the Roisin design. And they made a pigs ear of it.


Do you read what you write here? Proof read even? There is no logic!

The P61 tender docs said:
Unrestricted ops in SS5, with reduced performance in SS6 and survive SS9 (so the IPVs deploying RHIBs in SS4, patrolling in SS5 and surviving SS8 isn't bad - but I don't know what the NS requirements for an CPV are but they are likely to be less than the OPVs).

I specifically said that they couldn't take any TEUs!

Also I said it could be used as a baseline (potentionally) to model the new CPVs on!

I know they are currently only armed with HMGs.

I confused Tenix and STX sorry (STX was involved in Roisin, but not in the IPVs)

[ancientmariner]

Replacement of naval ships.

The P61 tender docs said:
Unrestricted ops in SS5, with reduced performance in SS6 and survive SS9 (so the IPVs deploying RHIBs in SS4, patrolling in SS5 and surviving SS8 isn't bad - but I don't know what the NS requirements for an CPV are but they are likely to be less than the OPVs).

I specifically said that they couldn't take any TEUs!

Also I said it could be used as a baseline (potentionally) to model the new CPVs on!

I know they are currently only armed with HMGs.

I confused Tenix and STX sorry (STX was involved in Roisin, but not in the IPVs)

We must NOT think solely of replacing CPV's. As I said before, they were a fortuitous acquisition by the NS. Our replacements must be able to project power and aid, to wherever, unsupported to the standard of the current vessels. We need to consider giving them a better armament , surveillance, and overall defence/offence package also, so that we can partake in EU/UN Military Missions.

[DeV]

We must NOT think solely of replacing CPV's. As I said before, they were a fortuitous acquisition by the NS. Our replacements must be able to project power and aid, to wherever, unsupported to the standard of the current vessels. We need to consider giving them a better armament , surveillance, and overall defence/offence package also, so that we can partake in EU/UN Military Missions.

I'm not but that is what the thread is about!!

There is another thread on the EPV (called MRV in the WP), it "will not carry a helicopter" but will be "enabled for helicopter operations and will also have a freight carrying capability", it is intended to "provide a flexible and adaptive capability for a wide range of maritime tasks, both a home and overseas".

The MRV needs to come into service around 2018 (when Eithne will be 35 years old).

The new CPVs will be required to come into service around 2019 & 2020 (when Ciara & Orla will turn 35 years old).

To paraphrase the WP, the current replacement programme for the OPVs will finish when WBY is delivered. "In the event of additional funding becoming available, beyond that required to maintain existing capabilities".... (ie 8 vessel fleet of MRV, 5 X OPV and 2 X CPV).... "the acquisition of additional ships is a priority for the NS".

I agree that the new CPVs should have more capabilities than the current (but they have decided that they are getting CPVs to replace the Peacocks (not OPVs).

[Bravo20]

Dev, the thread is about what will replace the Peacocks/CPV. That does not stop us from forming an opinion that what should replace it is something other than a CPV. The white paper may have stated that they will be replaced with "similar" vessels. Use of the word similar allows for a relatively broad spectrum of options, even then that is just the DF's view. People here can express different views and this is the thread to do so. Hiving off comments that do not match your narrow view of this topic is distorting the thread.

[Medsailor]

I'm not but that is what the thread is about!!

There is another thread on the EPV (called MRV in the WP), it "will not carry a helicopter" but will be "enabled for helicopter operations and will also have a freight carrying capability", it is intended to "provide a flexible and adaptive capability for a wide range of maritime tasks, both a home and overseas".

The MRV needs to come into service around 2018 (when Eithne will be 35 years old).

The new CPVs will be required to come into service around 2019 & 2020 (when Ciara & Orla will turn 35 years old).

To paraphrase the WP, the current replacement programme for the OPVs will finish when WBY is delivered. "In the event of additional funding becoming available, beyond that required to maintain existing capabilities".... (ie 8 vessel fleet of MRV, 5 X OPV and 2 X CPV).... "the acquisition of additional ships is a priority for the NS".

I agree that the new CPVs should have more capabilities than the current (but they have decided that they are getting CPVs to replace the Peacocks (not OPVs).

To be absolutely fair, the WP never mentions 'new CPVs', it just states that the current CPVs will be replaced with 'similar' vessels. That opens up the whole discussion as to where the similarity should lie. Size? Manning? Operating Costs? Capabilities? So without wishing to poke my southern nose where it doesn't belong, I think that there is a fair range of options that could be covered by what has been put down in black and white.