Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
    Love to know the wind tunnel results for that.
    Did you notice it is supposed to take an AW139...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
      If Like for Like was a consideration for the CPV replacement, maybe it is worth considering VARDs other designs?


      http://vardmarine.com/wp-content/upl...VARD-7-055.pdf

      Beat me to it

      Comment


      • On mature reflection, of everything I've looked at there is still nothing that completely fits the bill without modification to the design.

        The nearest would be either:
        Rolls-Royce 70 Skadi / Freyja
        Take off the SSMs and SAMs, replace the 57mm with a 76mm, add 2 X 20mm
        Add 2 X RHIBs on davitts
        Increase the endurance
        A crane would be required
        Would probably need to be lengthened by around 7+ metres (making it only 1m off Roisin) to accommodate TEUs and work area
        Would possibly need to be widen aft to accommodate TEUs


        Vard 7 065
        Replace the 40mm with a 76mm, add 2 X 20mm
        Not sure about endurance
        A crane would be required
        Would need to be lengthened by around 6+ metres to accomodate TEUs and work area (still less than 70 metres)
        Would need to be widen aft by around 1.5m to accommodate TEUs

        Not sure about the accommodation standards on either

        This would probably be a fairly major redesign but a redesign of any of the others I mentioned would be even more significant.

        Comment


        • You cannot describe accurately the consequences of ship lengthening. When a ship is lengthened, you have to maintain her stability and point of trim or balance. It usually means adding the extra "Bit" in the middle and widening and deepening the ship as required to meet operational draft requirements. Better to have a stab at making a new overall design or, as some one says pick a ship that meets the specification. It is apt that the German ship builders are of the opinion that Corvette type vessels, properly equipped are the answer to today's threat environments. I say Keep SSM'S and SAM'S otherwise you must keep the ship out of harms way.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
            You cannot describe accurately the consequences of ship lengthening. When a ship is lengthened, you have to maintain her stability and point of trim or balance. It usually means adding the extra "Bit" in the middle and widening and deepening the ship as required to meet operational draft requirements. Better to have a stab at making a new overall design or, as some one says pick a ship that meets the specification. It is apt that the German ship builders are of the opinion that Corvette type vessels, properly equipped are the answer to today's threat environments. I say Keep SSM'S and SAM'S otherwise you must keep the ship out of harms way.
            Absolutely but the is nothing out there that will take 3 TEUs (there are few with the space for 1), it is that or a MCMV (and they all have a max speed of less than 20 kts, displacement of around 500 tonnes and are normally about 50m long

            In the case above, the SAMs & SSMs would be replaced by RHIBs and TEUs (and it would still need lengthened.

            Comment


            • What about two of these. Built by the same yard that built the revenue cutters.




              If not they have other similar vessels.
              Last edited by CTU; 23 January 2016, 20:51.
              It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
              It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
              It was a new age...It was the end of history.
              It was the year everything changed.

              Comment


              • Look at the max speeds and drafts

                Comment


                • These are adapted Baltic tugs that are fine for jobbing at oil spills, fires on other vessels, and coastguard chores. They are not naval vessels and I would not suggest that the Army should be looking at a squadron of John Deeres instead of fighting vehicles.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                    These are adapted Baltic tugs that are fine for jobbing at oil spills, fires on other vessels, and coastguard chores. They are not naval vessels and I would not suggest that the Army should be looking at a squadron of John Deeres instead of fighting vehicles.
                    In fairness the NS does not have nor is likely to get units capable of conventional naval warfare.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by danno View Post
                      In fairness the NS does not have nor is likely to get units capable of conventional naval warfare.
                      Why not? Why rule it out?
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by danno View Post
                        In fairness the NS does not have nor is likely to get units capable of conventional naval warfare.
                        No but you may need to keep pace (never mind catch a fishing vehicle

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by danno View Post
                          In fairness the NS does not have nor is likely to get units capable of conventional naval warfare.
                          Define conventional warfare?
                          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                          Comment


                          • Time for the experts to have a conversation here! But as a start surely we are talking about some kind of anti ship missile system as a minimum?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                              Define conventional warfare?
                              More importantly is conventional warfare what you need to worry about. State on State conflict, despite all the posturing of the Russian Bear, not very likely, more likely to play out as proxy wars like Syria. State vs non-State actors is the real threat. And as the Israeli Navy found out to their cost in 2006, non-State actors can have some very conventional capabilities.
                              Throw conventional and non-conventional out the window, the key is the threat level of the environment you want to operate in. Operating in a hostile environment, you may actually be doing HADR operations but have to ward off a high level threat.

                              Comment


                              • A good point. Two things I would ask is that in the event of the international security situation declining rapidly it is too late to start acquiring capabilities you never had; we got away with it in WW2 through no efforts of our own. More immediately, will the government be seeking to have the NS take part in future operations, for one example anti-piracy missions, in areas where the threat is greater than in home waters?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X