Thanks Thanks:  198
Likes Likes:  403
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 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 547

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #51
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Post Thanks / Like
    Interesting debate Gents.

    Quick question - the issue of range from Haulbowline and West coast operations.

    Would it be beyond the realms of possibility to move fuel and stores by road as required to a suitable Western port - Galway - Killybegs etc?

    And I again raise the question - would trading off the CPV replacement for slightly smaller and cheaper vessels (I'm still a Damon 4207 fan) be worthwhile if it freed up funding for the larger ninth vessel...in whatever configuration that may arrive?
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  2. #52
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,775
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Herald View Post
    There were no tenders issued for EPV's or CPV's.
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    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.
    The first stage of the OPV (and EPV) tender was a Request For Proposals. The NS set out a board outline of what they were looking for (not as specific as you suggest
    ancientmariner) - http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com...Specifications.

    A max of 7 companies (1 design per company) were then Invited to Tender from those who submitted proposals.

  3. #53
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,775
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    Interesting debate Gents.

    Quick question - the issue of range from Haulbowline and West coast operations.

    Would it be beyond the realms of possibility to move fuel and stores by road as required to a suitable Western port - Galway - Killybegs etc?

    And I again raise the question - would trading off the CPV replacement for slightly smaller and cheaper vessels (I'm still a Damon 4207 fan) be worthwhile if it freed up funding for the larger ninth vessel...in whatever configuration that may arrive?
    Where are the crew going to be based (you could possibly detach some NS personnel to Galway but then you have to worry about vessel security, rotating personnel etc etc (all the while, the NS is greatly under establishment))?

    One of the major issues with the Peacocks is that you have something like 12 people living in 1 tiny compartment.

    I'd agree about the 4207, plenty in service worldwide so it is proven with shallow drive and good speed but only 14 days endurance and only classified to sea area 3 (range is 2000nm @ patrol speed)
    Last edited by DeV; 29th April 2015 at 21:57.

  4. #54
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    You don't need to go RFP again.
    After the best part of a decade it would be best practice to go to Rfp again.

  5. #55
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,775
    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.
    Am I correct in saying that "sea area 4" means a wave height of at least 4 metres 10% of the year?

    That would equate to at least sea state 5 (4 metres). The OPVs needed unrestricted ops to Sea State 5 (reduced performance at SS6 and survive SS9).

  6. #56
    Rittmeister Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    786
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    After the best part of a decade it would be best practice to go to Rfp again.
    And its not that taxing from the Navy's point of view, as the effort is seen by both sides as a fishing excercise, its generally intentionally vague.

    As an example, I do a lot of business with the ESB, we supply them with various types of equipment and software, with varying unit costs from a few grand to €10M /€20M a pop, we would get between 30/40 RFI's a year and 15/20 RFP's.

    Generally, the documents they issue are pretty vague, and our responses are slightly less so, as a supplier its par for the course, and while boring enough, is part of the effort of doing business with them.

    In this case, the last RFP would have gone out 8 years after Roisin was commisioned, and we're now 8 years on again.
    If the Peacocks are to be replaced by more Beckett type ships, then the necessity for the exercise may be lessened somewhat. If , on the other hand, we're looking at Like for like replacement, then it would definitely make sense to price up the Fassmer 80 or what ever, and similar builds.

    In any case, I'd imagine these are relatively moot points until the white paper is out. If that recommends an increase in hull numbers and the Government accept that, then anything is possible. If on the other hand its to stay at 8, then I'd imagine the Navy will push for repelacing the Peacocks and Eithne with the largest ships they can get, so three more Beckett types or a combination of Becketts and EPV.
    Last edited by Herald; 29th April 2015 at 22:39.

  7. #57
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Where are the crew going to be based (you could possibly detach some NS personnel to Galway but then you have to worry about vessel security, rotating personnel etc etc (all the while, the NS is greatly under establishment))?

    One of the major issues with the Peacocks is that you have something like 12 people living in 1 tiny compartment.

    I'd agree about the 4207, plenty in service worldwide so it is proven with shallow drive and good speed but only 14 days endurance and only classified to sea area 3 (range is 2000nm @ patrol speed)
    I'm not sure how long a patrol is Dev...and maybe that's opsec.

    I was thinking along the lines of 10 days out...couple of days alongside to refuel / store / PT etc...ten days out...then RTB.

    The recent drugs interception in the North Sea saw a 4207 operating 100 miles offshore...though granted not in heavy seas.

    Bizarrely the US Coastguard version only has 5 days endurance...but a larger crew...not sure if the larger crew / weapons fit / sensors fit etc in the same size hull has impacted on fuel / stores carried? They use them for inshore FP amongst other roles.
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  8. #58
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just visiting

  9. #59
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just visiting

  10. #60
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Am I correct in saying that "sea area 4" means a wave height of at least 4 metres 10% of the year?

    That would equate to at least sea state 5 (4 metres). The OPVs needed unrestricted ops to Sea State 5 (reduced performance at SS6 and survive SS9).
    Did some research.The Bureau Veritas rules for ships less than 500Gross Tonnage classify areas of of operation as,Area 1 for enclosed waters, sea height less than 0.5 meters. Area 2 Sea height less than 2.5meters. Area 3 sea height less than 4 meters. Area 4 unrestricted sea height. The 5509 is classified by BV for Area 4. I wonder are there any in service.

  11. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  12. #61
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,775
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    I'm not sure how long a patrol is Dev...and maybe that's opsec.

    I was thinking along the lines of 10 days out...couple of days alongside to refuel / store / PT etc...ten days out...then RTB.
    what's in the public domain is standard endurance of all NS vessels is 21 days and a standard patrol is 3 weeks.


    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    I wonder are there any in service.
    At least 1 in service and at least 2 building.

    It's a development of the 4207, which has 23 in service and 14 building (excluding the USCG Sentinel class which will be another 58 vessels).


    Are you trolling???

  13. #62
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quick question - the issue of range from Haulbowline and West coast operations.

    Would it be beyond the realms of possibility to move fuel and stores by road as required to a suitable Western port - Galway - Killybegs etc?
    There are a lot of people here eager to have a 2nd base for the NS somewhere on the west coast. There is no Logic to this. The fuel argument is a red herring because you can get fuel at whatever port you pull into. As it stands the NS already refuels its ships in Donegal.
    When the rest of the defence force is reducing the number of operating locations and split units to shorten the logs tail why should the NS do the opposite?

    So lets draw a line under the second base notion once and for all? It is not needed. The only ones who think it is are those who want to see navy ships but don't want to go to Cork. Galway does not have the facilities its expansion plans are just that, plans. Nothing has even been approved yet. A ship going to Galway at present is stuck there till the next tide. There is no suitable port on the west coast.

  14. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Shaqra, ias, hptmurphy, Turkey liked this post
  15. #63
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,775
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    There are a lot of people here eager to have a 2nd base for the NS somewhere on the west coast. There is no Logic to this. The fuel argument is a red herring because you can get fuel at whatever port you pull into. As it stands the NS already refuels its ships in Donegal.
    When the rest of the defence force is reducing the number of operating locations and split units to shorten the logs tail why should the NS do the opposite?

    So lets draw a line under the second base notion once and for all? It is not needed. The only ones who think it is are those who want to see navy ships but don't want to go to Cork. Galway does not have the facilities its expansion plans are just that, plans. Nothing has even been approved yet. A ship going to Galway at present is stuck there till the next tide. There is no suitable port on the west coast.
    +1

    It would be a backward step and we would probably talking about a max of a patrol of 7 days (due to accommodation on board) in some cases (due to go accommodation) it would be limited to <24 hours.

    The Peacocks go out to max 50-80 nm off the coast, such smaller vessels couldn't do that.

  16. #64
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    2,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    how many ports do other island nations of similiar coastline size and population and sea territory require and what size fleets do they have?
    Surely we rather need to invest in what we currently have, increase capability, as mentioned changes are most likely required to the basin itself, possibly enlarging the entrance to it and increasing the capacity if the whitepaper sees us needing to expand the fleet / use 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."

  17. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  18. #65
    Major General ODIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Put it to you like this gents, we have a fleet of eight ships, one base is more than enough in all fairness, especially if the NS can refuel elsewhere. There is little point in splitting resources over more than one location.
    What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

  19. Likes DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  20. #66
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,775
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just had a look at the draft of the ports (including some fishing one) - if replacing like with like it needs to be <3 metres (Peacocks are 2.72).

  21. #67
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Just had a look at the draft of the ports (including some fishing one) - if replacing like with like it needs to be <3 metres (Peacocks are 2.72).
    Most navies historically develop ports for the unique use and repair of their own ships. We inherited Haulbowline with it's own Basin, repair shops and Drydock and pumphouses. Over time backs were turned on the drydock and Hammond Lane got the gates. However we still have a mini naval port, easily controlled and secured.
    To find a similar exclusive facility would require building one or getting a lease on the inside and outside of the North Wall at the old Point Depot area in Dublin with secure gates and a pound area for portacabins etc. Most would be against splitting resources, unless it became a matter of an enlarged Navy. There is no similar port available on the West Coast which is our area of strategic interest. We must use vessels of unrestricted use otherwise you come up against the choice of not being Good to Go. Any replacement should be sea kindly, robust, and decent patrol endurance. Don't buy ships which if dispatched at speed to a rescue 200/300m offshore, and a day or two on scene, doesn't have enough fuel to stay with a casualty or get home.

  22. Likes na grohmití, ODIN liked this post
  23. #68
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,775
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Most navies historically develop ports for the unique use and repair of their own ships. We inherited Haulbowline with it's own Basin, repair shops and Drydock and pumphouses. Over time backs were turned on the drydock and Hammond Lane got the gates. However we still have a mini naval port, easily controlled and secured.
    To find a similar exclusive facility would require building one or getting a lease on the inside and outside of the North Wall at the old Point Depot area in Dublin with secure gates and a pound area for portacabins etc. Most would be against splitting resources, unless it became a matter of an enlarged Navy. There is no similar port available on the West Coast which is our area of strategic interest. We must use vessels of unrestricted use otherwise you come up against the choice of not being Good to Go. Any replacement should be sea kindly, robust, and decent patrol endurance. Don't buy ships which if dispatched at speed to a rescue 200/300m offshore, and a day or two on scene, doesn't have enough fuel to stay with a casualty or get home.

    I'm finding it increasingly difficult to figure out if you want new CPVs to replace the Peacocks or to replace them with OPVs !?
    You don't send a CPV 200nm into the Atlantic

  24. #69
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    2,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    i personally think we should order more OPVs and be done with it
    "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."

  25. Likes Galloglass liked this post
  26. #70
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,775
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by whirlywind View Post
    Foynes is on the west coast, an hour and a half steaming from open water. A two hour road trip from HQ in Haulbowline. It is accessible 24 hours a day for vessels of the NS size. It has ample Fresh Water and Fuel available in port as well as victualing supplies. A secure area in harbour could be available for leasing as a secure pound if required. Logistically, at times, it would make sense for west coast ship replenishment rather than added steaming to Cork Harbour.
    The NS doesn't have enough personnel as is.
    This would involve posting personnel on shore rotation to an outpost (not good for retention).

    The only possible valid reason for another NS base or detachments, would be the NS getting a fleet of short range patrol craft. If that was the case, we'd need a fleet of at least 6 such craft or so and bases at Haulbowline, Dublin, Limerick/Galway and Killybegs.

  27. #71
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    There are a lot of people here eager to have a 2nd base for the NS somewhere on the west coast. There is no Logic to this. The fuel argument is a red herring because you can get fuel at whatever port you pull into. As it stands the NS already refuels its ships in Donegal.
    When the rest of the defence force is reducing the number of operating locations and split units to shorten the logs tail why should the NS do the opposite?

    So lets draw a line under the second base notion once and for all? It is not needed. The only ones who think it is are those who want to see navy ships but don't want to go to Cork. Galway does not have the facilities its expansion plans are just that, plans. Nothing has even been approved yet. A ship going to Galway at present is stuck there till the next tide. There is no suitable port on the west coast.
    I'm not suggesting a second base...never was. The suggestion was made that some of the CPV types being looked at didn't have enough range. I simply suggested that perhaps fuel and supplies could be taken to them on the West coast.

    Now if that's already happening ie the Navy is happy to source fuel locally...then why is range such an issue for this type of ship?
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  28. #72
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    238
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    I'm finding it increasingly difficult to figure out if you want new CPVs to replace the Peacocks or to replace them with OPVs !?
    You don't send a CPV 200nm into the Atlantic
    I think the decision to be made here is really about getting rid of the CPV 's. They have not really moved much in the last year due to various reasons. With one decommissioned ship out of 8 in total, no sign of the new arriving any time soon and the cpv's parked up, it would make you wonder why we need 8 in the first place. Can't see why is is acceptable to have such a small number of ships at sea at any one time

  29. #73
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,775
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    I'm not suggesting a second base...never was. The suggestion was made that some of the CPV types being looked at didn't have enough range. I simply suggested that perhaps fuel and supplies could be taken to them on the West coast.

    Now if that's already happening ie the Navy is happy to source fuel locally...then why is range such an issue for this type of ship?
    It would depend on the type of patrol craft selected.

    If something like the Customs cutters was selected, it has beds, cookers, fridge (no freezer), TV etc etc. Not sure how spacious or comfortable it is (for a 2-3 week patrol) but you may have to victual every 3 days (possibly more often depending on available storage).

    If you go for something smaller then you need to go back to a base within max 24 hours to rest (and you need somewhere to rest).

    If it is something along the lines of the Peacocks then you operate from Haulbowline.

  30. #74
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,775
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ibenji View Post
    I think the decision to be made here is really about getting rid of the CPV 's. They have not really moved much in the last year due to various reasons. With one decommissioned ship out of 8 in total, no sign of the new arriving any time soon and the cpv's parked up, it would make you wonder why we need 8 in the first place. Can't see why is is acceptable to have such a small number of ships at sea at any one time

    The reduced sea time is due to the reasons:
    1 - budget cuts
    2 - the environmental issues

    The NS requires the fleet to be at 8 hours readiness or less 90% of the year. Each vessel does around 200 days at sea annually (54% of the year), it will be in refit/maintenance around 6% of the year and the rest of the time it is available (assuming a crew is available).

  31. #75
    Private 3* Boreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the Peacocks were replaced with something smaller than the Becketts would there be an advantage in buying a related design? http://www.stxmarine.net/pdf/PV62-br-web.pdf

  32. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, spider 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
  •