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 20 of 30 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 476 to 500 of 746

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #476
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,986
    Post Thanks / Like

  2. Thanks restless thanked for this post
  3. #477
    The Auld Fella A/TEL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    458
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    No doubt someone with more info on the inservice performance of the P50s could answer that. Outta my depth on that one I'm afraid

    Too large for the role & nearly as thirsty as the P40.

    Something with shallower draught is required.

  4. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  5. #478
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like
    safehaven marine could easily build those small uuv's

  6. #479
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by restless View Post
    safehaven marine could easily build those small uuv's
    For what?
    Time for another break I think......

  7. #480
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    For what?

    The counter mine role

  8. #481
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,146
    Post Thanks / Like
    and charge us 2 arms 4 legs and suck funding away from improved capabilities in larger vessels
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  9. Likes na grohmiti, Sparky42 liked this post
  10. #482
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    and charge us 2 arms 4 legs and suck funding away from improved capabilities in larger vessels
    I thought the funding was in the white paper for counter mine craft?

  11. #483
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by restless View Post
    I thought the funding was in the white paper for counter mine craft?
    Thought it was just "replace the Peacocks with something that can do counter mine"?

  12. #484
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes but wouldnt any counter mine vessel need to be plastic or fiber?

  13. #485
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    What mines?..where.?..we have been dealing with remenants of both world wars quite nicely without having sweepers for the past 30 years..why do we need sweepers now?
    Time for another break I think......

  14. Likes ibenji, The real Jack, Tempest liked this post
  15. #486
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by restless View Post
    I thought the funding was in the white paper for counter mine craft?
    there is no funding for anything in the WP everything is subject to DPER

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Thought it was just "replace the Peacocks with something that can do counter mine"?
    Similar vessels with counter mine & IED capabilities

    Quote Originally Posted by restless View Post
    Yes but wouldnt any counter mine vessel need to be plastic or fiber?
    depends on the level of capability required

    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    What mines?..where.?..we have been dealing with remenants of both world wars quite nicely without having sweepers for the past 30 years..why do we need sweepers now?
    It would be very very easy for an unfriendly power or terror group to reduce the flow of goods in and out of Ireland all Irish ports are natural choke points

    Why does NSDS do berth clearance for potentially interesting vessels

  16. Thanks restless, EUFighter thanked for this post
  17. #487
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    It would be very very easy for an unfriendly power or terror group to reduce the flow of goods in and out of Ireland all Irish ports are natural choke points
    It would..... but why limit the options for future spending by looking at populist opinion.

    Why does NSDS do berth clearance for potentially interesting vessels
    Because they can......
    Time for another break I think......

  18. #488
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    It would..... but why limit the options for future spending by looking at populist opinion.
    It's a capability gap



    Because they can......
    not because there is a possible threat of IEDs??

  19. Likes restless liked this post
  20. #489
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    What mines?..where.?..we have been dealing with remenants of both world wars quite nicely without having sweepers for the past 30 years..why do we need sweepers now?
    Someone in dod/ns must feel we need them, how else could it end up in the white paper

  21. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  22. #490
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by restless View Post
    Someone in dod/ns must feel we need them, how else could it end up in the white paper
    The white papaer is not worth a shite....ffs they even took my submission into account!
    Time for another break I think......

  23. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  24. #491
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    They were doing it 30 years ago before the concept of IEDs existed..... because they had trained in the role in the UK
    Time for another break I think......

  25. #492
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Post Thanks / Like

    Minecountermeasures

    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    They were doing it 30 years ago before the concept of IEDs existed..... because they had trained in the role in the UK
    In modern times sowing of horny moored mines and wire sweeping channels is more post conflict than at the time of laying a field. The major requirement is dealing with influence mines. A single air dropped ground mine in a port channel will close that port until the mine is made safe by a clearance diving team from a ship designed for that purpose. Likewise harbour facilities and ships may need clearance dives frequently. A minehunter vessel can take care of locating and dealing with influence ground mines whereas an MCMV is needed to sweep and/or deal with the ground mines. Such ships will have a minimal magnetic signature.

  26. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  27. #493
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    In modern times sowing of horny moored mines and wire sweeping channels is more post conflict than at the time of laying a field. The major requirement is dealing with influence mines. A single air dropped ground mine in a port channel will close that port until the mine is made safe by a clearance diving team from a ship designed for that purpose. Likewise harbour facilities and ships may need clearance dives frequently. A minehunter vessel can take care of locating and dealing with influence ground mines whereas an MCMV is needed to sweep and/or deal with the ground mines. Such ships will have a minimal magnetic signature.
    Don't disagree what the requirements for the ship are, but we don't need to isolate scarce funding for ships that may never be used in their full capacity
    Time for another break I think......

  28. #494
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Don't disagree what the requirements for the ship are, but we don't need to isolate scarce funding for ships that may never be used in their full capacity
    In that case we should remove the 76mm's

  29. Dislikes na grohmiti disliked this post
  30. #495
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Post Thanks / Like
    On the assumption that we remain part of Europe and need to contribute manpower, to the common Defence of Europe. We need to develop fleet capability to fill niches in the Defence requirements. We have avoided responsibility so far but that will be eroded over time as we acquire a sense of obligation and duty. We don't have a cabinet level Defence Minister and Defence wasn't mentioned in the re-shuffle of Government exception to say P.Keogh as junior Minister would have responsibility for Defence and other loose political items. It's a parades only agenda that is currently used to gain PR and exposure.

  31. Likes na grohmiti, EUFighter liked this post
    Dislikes hptmurphy disliked this post
  32. #496
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    No government will ever commit to the spending programmes to meet with the ideal .We have been defence blind since the inception of the state and to believe or even offer that we should commit to massive spending programmes on defence while we have massive social issues, infrastructural issues and even basic day to day running of the state issues is such idealism to border on the realms of fantasy .

    the fact that we have even upgraded the current fleet during the ongoing fleet replacement is far beyond where even the most cynical would have thought we would be.

    Our next unit replacement will be the deciding factor in what direction our naval assets will take and given that has yet to be decided in concept we only live in hope.

    We are evolving to a niche general purpose navy. We need to revisit naval aviation and and deployable assets that can participate in real time missions in ongoing international concerns before we can divert funding into specialist roles.

    The CPVs will need to be replaced but down grading the role of a CPV to something akin to a Mine warfare vessel will be hugely counter productive.

    Replace the CPVs with a real time CPV and look at Mine warfare under a separate heading, replace Eithne with a heli capable vessel that also operates as a command and control centre as Eithne was.

    In the past we bought minesweepers because we needed ships not specific mine warfare craft, This is still the case where we need actual hulls and not bracketed into niche roles that we have almost no use for.
    Time for another break I think......

  33. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti, DeV liked this post
  34. #497
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    About 10 pages ago we decided that vessels can have a counter mine capability without being a MCMV

  35. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  36. #498
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    About 10 pages ago we decided that vessels can have a counter mine capability without being a MCMV
    Better let everyone else know as popular opinion seems to be focused on mine warfare craft from the top of this page,
    Time for another break I think......

  37. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  38. #499
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Better let everyone else know as popular opinion seems to be focused on mine warfare craft from the top of this page,
    You'll note that I agree with you on post 496 (to a point)

    For me a new CPV (with counter mine/IED capability) could be just a notification of the Peacock design with IMHO (not saying it would be possible but a basis of the idea):
    - better standard of Accomodiation
    - bit of extra Accomodiation for divers etc
    - room for min 4+ TEUs and a work area for divers
    - better standard of seakeeping
    - a crane with the necessary lift capability
    - possibly an enhanced sonar system

    One of those containers could be a system like Minefox (which could also be used for non-counter mine/IED roles eg as a large ROV for SAR and underwater works). That would be were the major outlay would be (especially if you only retained a basic hull sonar). I would therefore go for a modular multi-role system as possible.

    There could be other requirements eg DP, shallow draft etc that I've left out. But the vessel and system must itself be modular (eg the NSDS DCCC is based on/in a TEU), so we buy 2 vessels capable of the level of MCMV decided but (initially at least) only 1 system.

    Nor am I suggesting that we buy even 1 unmanned surface craft. We wouldn't have the utilisation to warrant it. If IMERC wanted to go down that road, the NS could help with some testing etc but they would be better off going to the RN, Dutch or Swedes.

    You could go all bells and whistles for a under-utilised expensive MCMV which is less than perfect as a CPV. But there is nothing in production that fits the bill to be capable of both roles.
    Last edited by DeV; 19th June 2017 at 17:25.

  39. #500
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    846
    Post Thanks / Like
    For a Peacock replacement a down spec'd Independence class Littoral Mission vessel from Singapore could fit the bill. Naturally we would not get the 3D radar or the MICA missile system!http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/pre...l#.WUf9A2nRbqA

  40. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked 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
  •