Like for like (a similarly capable CPV)
1-2 x OPVs (2 defending on available funds)
Larger number of much less capable patrol craft)
Could be an option
But would that limited the deployment of the EPVs to relevatively close inshore
Last edited by DeV; 2nd May 2015 at 15:29.
Not at all.
Patrol is planned so that daughter craft can r/v with EPV once its finished. As it stands, Naval ribs are already boarding vessels over the horizon from mother ship. This just adds to the duration. It all depends on the reason for the inshore patrol. Is it something you can leave the daughter craft to do? Is it something you need to keep in range for? i.e enforcement of fisheries compared to surveillance of possible drugs smuggling?
As a hypothetical option, and I claim no expertise whatsoever on what goes on during inshore fisheries patrols, save that of knowing the SFPA do it in RhIBS, and salmon season is usually June to August. EPV has 2 Daughter craft (in addition to the normal Sea Riders for usual boarding. Ship leaves Haulbowline, heading for Zone VIIj. Drops daughter craft at 7 heads. Daughter craft that time of year can easily make it to Bantry bay, boardings based on intel provided by Naval HQ and Air Corps CASA, onto Kenmare bay, same thing, finish up in Dingle bay, in time to RV with EPV as it heads to zone VIIk.
When not required, daughter craft can remain at Naval base or used in port for security at Foreign Naval visits, or Tall Ships event. Perish the thought, the NSR could even use them to replace their grey angling boats.
If you are going the EPV route why not boost their capability by including sufficient BHP to act as an ETV's as well with 100 tonne Bollard pull. Their is still the looming responsibility to render emergency assistance to our growing Cruise Liner Trade. The Law of Averages imply that a liner with 4000+ on board will require emergency assistance. The duty is to hold her in a safe position while her owners arrange a commercial tow to a safe haven.
My 2 cents, but out a RFP for 2 CPVs and see what is available.
I suppose a lot depends on what Finance is prepared to provide (we could end up with all OPVs or 1/2 EPVs or OPVs & CPVs or all 3.
They could also bring the NS down to 7 vessels with 2 CPVs being replaced by a single OPV or EPV.
Touche! Will get our PI gurus onto it. As for the second part, not completely clear yet but in a world where I made the final decisions I would actually want to go for something like this:
Perhaps a little faster and with a stern launch.
The sea axe bow of the Damen 5509 does go a long way to decreasing slamming and evening out the vertical accelerations. The only problem with it is that it does so by using a very large travel in the bow. This heave/pitch is very bad news for helo operations and RHIB launch from a stern ramp.
The current wisdom on operating DC's from a mothership is 4 hours duration from launch to recovery with a range level of 10nm. There is a study by HSE (UK) RR307 which examines the expanding use of a range of DC's with extended duration and range. The fit of the craft and the ability of the coxswain and crew has to be upgraded in communications, medical, and navigational skills. Weather restrictions apply and also effect duration of deployment due to wear and tear on crew. They are very useful especially at the 9m size.
So to be replaced with 2 similar vessels with counter-mine & C-IED capabilities (I assume that means MCMVs)
But practically all MCMV designs are about 2/3rd the size (length and displacement) and have a max speed of 60% of the Peacocks. While also have less than 50% of the firepower.
Last edited by DeV; 26th August 2015 at 22:03.
poland is bringing two 58 metre MCMV into service, a design modified for our conditins could be a runner.
Stick it on the back of a modified Offshore Support vessel design or vessel of similar profile. Purpose built MCMVs are very expensive for their size. Given that mine warfare will only ever be a secondary task, it is not good economy. But you can still get a DP equipped ship, with a bit of bollard pull, and shallow enough to work in the confined waters where the peacocks once went.
Interesting concept though. It makes absolute sense given the main sea lanes pass to the north and south of us, and have often been identified as a potential target for international terrorism.
The leaders in this field are still the Tripartites. Belgium France and Netherlands are still regularly disposing of WW1 and WW2 sea mines. Still lethal, still capable of closing a port for an expensively long time. They are the ones with the most up to date experience of live mine warfare. As an aside, this type of vessel also offers an ideal platform for hydrographic survey, as was seen in Iraq after the ousting of Saddam. The RN took some minesweepers in and cleared the port of Umm Qasr of sunken warships.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)