Thanks Thanks:  188
Likes Likes:  376
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 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 515

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #26
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Draught?
    My opinion is the Damen vessels less than 50m, with small crews, typically 12/15, are sortie craft, and not sustainable over long periods at sea. Their scantlings would be quite light and draft shallow for a West Coast winter pounding. With small fleet numbers we need a commonalty of capability, unless we decide on creating another inshore weather dependent, Force 7 or below squadron.
    Given that Haulbowline is a base constrained by basin size and draft we are always restricted to vessel draft less than 4.5 meters. Even that draft at LWS might need an hour of making tide to get out of the mud.
    We must NOT get hung up on requiring low freeboard for ease of boarding. An Ocean vessel needs higher freeboard in the forward half-length to reduce wetness and give maximum seakeeping qualities. Water coming on board should not be free to pass aft of the bridge.

    Damen have some interesting designs but most are not really tested. Niamh and Roisin have been tested especially the former with voyages to the Far East and circumnavigation of South America. Roisin on the other hand had her Chicoutimi incident in heavy seas. An analysis of these two voyages might trigger a design concept for the ideal WNA capable vessel. Any decision on replacement vessels must always consider our need for MULTIROLE operability
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 28th April 2015 at 09:46. Reason: ommission

  2. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes hptmurphy, DeV liked this post
  3. #27
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    AC currently assist NS with salmon patrols so no reason why a OPV couldn't deploy UAVs to assess if RHIBs (and boarding teams) should be deployed into places the OPV can't go.

  4. #28
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    231
    Post Thanks / Like
    Last edited by Brian McGrath; 28th April 2015 at 12:18.

  5. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  6. #29
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    797
    Post Thanks / Like
    She and her sister Meerkatte are powerful ships designed for FP and fiscal coastwatch duties. The hull type looks good and may be adaptable to naval use also. The draft may be excessive at 5m+. The original Seefalke, now a research vessel , cost 94m$ to convert in 2009 to RV Falkor. They are pricey ships.

  7. Likes hptmurphy, na grohmití liked this post
  8. #30
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    My opinion is the Damen vessels less than 50m, with small crews, typically 12/15, are sortie craft, and not sustainable over long periods at sea. Their scantlings would be quite light and draft shallow for a West Coast winter pounding. With small fleet numbers we need a commonalty of capability, unless we decide on creating another inshore weather dependent, Force 7 or below squadron.
    Given that Haulbowline is a base constrained by basin size and draft we are always restricted to vessel draft less than 4.5 meters. Even that draft at LWS might need an hour of making tide to get out of the mud.
    We must NOT get hung up on requiring low freeboard for ease of boarding. An Ocean vessel needs higher freeboard in the forward half-length to reduce wetness and give maximum seakeeping qualities. Water coming on board should not be free to pass aft of the bridge.

    Damen have some interesting designs but most are not really tested. Niamh and Roisin have been tested especially the former with voyages to the Far East and circumnavigation of South America. Roisin on the other hand had her Chicoutimi incident in heavy seas. An analysis of these two voyages might trigger a design concept for the ideal WNA capable vessel. Any decision on replacement vessels must always consider our need for MULTIROLE operability
    I meant that the draught was too deep to act as a CPV.






    According to the below the current CPV are limted to within 80 nm of the coast, with the expanding area of responsibility IMHO it may be better to get 1/2 x OPVs to replace them:
    http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1999/11/02/00133.asp


    According to the 2007 Annual DoD/DF Report, inshore salmon patrols accounted for 8 operations for a total of 60 days in 2007. That hardly justifies 2 x CPVs does it (especially when aircraft are also tasked) ?!

  9. #31
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,054
    Post Thanks / Like
    Heres a mad crazy idea....
    Forgive me if it is too extreme for your closed mind.

    Lets say some sort of Yacht was bringing some sort of illegal items to a sheltered inlet, too confined to send in an OPV and it had not been intercepted in deeper waters. Is it acceptable for the NS to say "well nowt we can do about it now, dev decided we didn't need a CPV"

  10. Likes DeV liked this post
  11. #32
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,704
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Heres a mad crazy idea....
    Forgive me if it is too extreme for your closed mind.

    Lets say some sort of Yacht was bringing some sort of illegal items to a sheltered inlet, too confined to send in an OPV and it had not been intercepted in deeper waters. Is it acceptable for the NS to say "well nowt we can do about it now, dev decided we didn't need a CPV"
    Stand off and deploy 2 x RHIB with armed boarding party? What do other countries do? Our nearest neighbours for example don't have a Peacock equivalent. Do we need to deploy 76mm vs yachts? Arm RHIBs with GPMG if necessary as per international practice. Open to correction but surely if you replace CPV with OPV you get a much more versatile vessel? If it comes down to intercepting drug shipments in sheltered inlets has there not been a failure further offshore potentially caused by lack of OPV numbers?
    Last edited by Jetjock; 29th April 2015 at 01:10.

  12. Likes ias liked this post
  13. #33
    Chief Casey Ryback
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Heres a mad crazy idea....
    Forgive me if it is too extreme for your closed mind.

    Lets say some sort of Yacht was bringing some sort of illegal items to a sheltered inlet, too confined to send in an OPV and it had not been intercepted in deeper waters. Is it acceptable for the NS to say "well nowt we can do about it now, dev decided we didn't need a CPV"
    Well then let Customs deal with it in their Cutters , after all that's what they have them for . If not take them from them .
    Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

  14. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes ias, hptmurphy liked this post
  15. #34
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,054
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    Stand off and deploy 2 x RHIB with armed boarding party? What do other countries do? Our nearest neighbours for example don't have a Peacock equivalent. Do we need to deploy 76mm vs yachts? Arm RHIBs with GPMG if necessary as per international practice. Open to correction but surely if you replace CPV with OPV you get a much more versatile vessel? If it comes down to intercepting drug shipments in sheltered inlets has there not been a failure further offshore potentially caused by lack of OPV numbers?
    Our nearest neighbours have HM Customs with a suitable vessel. As do the French. The French Customs also have a fisheries protection remit....

  16. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  17. #35
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    797
    Post Thanks / Like
    The OPV's are fine for Yacht interception. Depending on size most large sailers have a centerline draft to keel of 3.5 to 4.5 meters. They are usually taken at sea following international tracking and information. I don't think there were any reports of loss of contact due to shallow water restrictions.

  18. #36
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well from what's in the public domain, the raison d'ete is that the target doesn't see the big grey ship and BFO gun until after the boarding team are on board the suspect vessel. I do however know that for a particular op, it may suit the NS to use inshore terrain to mask their presence. There would also be very good reason why you'd want to catch them inshore rather than offshore.

    I do also know of a case of the Peacock's had to return to Haulbowline when tasked with a SAR op because due to the winter weather they couldn't get out of Cork Harbour (I assume it was a case of the Captain not risking the ship - more power to him).

    My main point is that the NS does need CPVs, but there is nothing out there that fits the bill (mainly due to crew
    size/endurance (big enough to take a crew of xx operate independently away from base) or draught (being too deep)).

    If we go for a deeper draught that the Peacocks, then your are moving (substantionally) away from CPV. If we go for something much smaller you lose endurance, flexibility, you may have to forward deploy which will create crewing/cost/security issues. IMHO that would rule out a RCC Faire type vessel.

    However, I just had a look at the different Damen Stan Patrol vessels available!

  19. #37
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    43
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Our nearest neighbours have HM Customs with a suitable vessel. As do the French. The French Customs also have a fisheries protection remit....
    We have two custom's cutters which for the most part are tied up in Kinsale.

  20. #38
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looking at Damen's offering the only vessel that can match what (I foresee as) the endurance, draught, etc capability that the NS needs from a CPV is the Damen Stan Patrol 5509 (58 metre) "Sea Axe".

    The range could be a little too short and wonder if it could take an OTO Melara 76mm (for commonality).
    http://products.damen.com/~/media/Pr...9_Sea_Axe.ashx

    http://products.damen.com/~/media/Pr...trol_5009.ashx
    Last edited by DeV; 29th April 2015 at 13:21.

  21. #39
    Private 3* Boreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Italian P580 class are based on the Damen 5509 and are part of the current operation rescuing migrants in the Med so there may be the chance for some NS personnel to observe them at close quarters.

  22. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  23. #40
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 25 pounder View Post
    We have two custom's cutters which for the most part are tied up in Kinsale.
    http://www.tyovene.com/site/index.ph...d_file/41/117/

    Which if the NS purchased them CPVs, they would be constrained to short patrols close to Haulbowline

  24. #41
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Looking at Damen's offering the only vessel that can match what (I foresee as) the endurance, draught, etc capability that the NS needs from a CPV is the Damen Stan Patrol 5509 (58 metre) "Sea Axe".

    The range could be a little too short and wonder if it could take an OTO Melara 76mm (for commonality).
    http://products.damen.com/~/media/Pr...9_Sea_Axe.ashx
    It is a little narrow gutted. Range seems short but they claim endurance of 21 days. The B.Veritas Certification is declared for sea area 4. If that is a fishing area, it is North Sea between UK and The Continent. We need an open ocean type vessel. Stick with nothing smaller than the Fassmer 60 Patrol suitably equipped.

  25. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  26. #42
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    It is a little narrow gutted. Range seems short but they claim endurance of 21 days. The B.Veritas Certification is declared for sea area 4. If that is a fishing area, it is North Sea between UK and The Continent. We need an open ocean type vessel. Stick with nothing smaller than the Fassmer 60 Patrol suitably equipped.
    Not sure about the certification but there will not be a fast shallow draft CPV that we are going to send out to the 200 mile limit.

    The range of the 5509 is 2000 mm at max speed (which is 22.5-32 kts depending on the machinery chosen), it is 3000nm @ 10-16 kts.

    In compassion, the Fassmar 60 has a max speed of 22 kts (so slower) and range is 2000nm @ 12 kts (so even shorter range).

    The Fassmar

  27. #43
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    797
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Damen brochure indicates that the ship carries 85.5 metric tonnes of fuel. Running on Full at 10,000 hp she has an endurance of 1000nm. Running on one leg at 5000hp she probably will make 2000nm. Her fuel consumption on full is 2.052 tonnes per hour or 49.248 tonnes per day. Speed on diesels , except for an emergency sprint is costly. The Eithne in tank testing and allied calculations needed around 7000 hp to achieve an average speed of 18knots. If you wanted to achieve another 2 knots you would have to double the horsepower and build a different ship. The Eithne on long passages used around 11 to 12 tonnes and made 10 tonnes of water.
    The Damen vessel carries 11.5 tonnes of FW , cannot believe it would last 18/25 crew for 3000nm. Finally running on full the range of the Damen is less than 2 Days.

  28. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  29. #44
    The Auld Fella A/TEL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 25 pounder View Post
    We have two custom's cutters which for the most part are tied up in Kinsale.


    Never was a truer word spoken!!!.

    Its strange that the NS has to justify themselves to the Dept IRO seadays & boardings where as the Customs Cutters sit alongside Kinsale for most of the year...

    Surely if transferred along with the budget to the NS, they could utilise them in some manner (Diving support platform, inshore/salmon patrol, half decker boardings, guardship for visiting warships, training NSR, maritime surveillance during summer months with increased leisure craft on the water etc etc etc.

    I do stress however, these should be an addition to the fleet, not replacing the peacocks but giving you 4 vessels capable of inshore work.

    LT as CO would also give more command experience to your officers (See RNZN IPVs)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNZS_Pukaki_%282008%29

  30. #45
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm only going on the marketing info on the websites so am reliant on their honest.

    As you said yourself cruising / patrolling speed is likely to be around 12-15 kts. It is also standard practice for PVs to run on 1 engine.

  31. #46
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    375
    Post Thanks / Like
    Would it be worth while re issuing requests for tenders for both the EPV and CPV's? And see what the shipmakers come up with?
    There is no problem that cannot be fixed with high explosive.

  32. #47
    Rittmeister Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    772
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
    Would it be worth while re issuing requests for tenders for both the EPV and CPV's? And see what the shipmakers come up with?
    There were no tenders issued for EPV's or CPV's.

  33. #48
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
    Would it be worth while re issuing requests for tenders for both the EPV and CPV's? And see what the shipmakers come up with?
    Yes. Why not. Issue the tender with an outline specification of what you want and it's intended area of operations. Give maximum, and patrol speed, required endurance, number of Seaman and Technical officers, number of NCO's, number of ratings, number of trainees. Boat types required, boat handling equipment, any modular/ container additions with suitable handling crane. Armament intentions, Radars, communications, combat systems, loads of training etc. The builders should come back with a builders proposed spec. and various prices for various options. Then after selection continue to tease out what you really can live with. Then in the end when all is built you require an as built specification , as built drawings,and manuals for everything and NOT photocopies. The ship gets copies of everything.

  34. Likes na grohmití, DeV liked this post
  35. #49
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,003
    Post Thanks / Like
    Given that the request for proposals were issued in 2007, and for the EPV didnt get past that stage, there would be no other choice, people will have changed, companies closed down and merged.

  36. Likes DeV liked this post
  37. #50
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,054
    Post Thanks / Like
    You don't need to go RFP again.

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
  •