Thanks Thanks:  167
Likes Likes:  338
Dislikes Dislikes:  4

View Poll Results: (Realistically) What best to replace the Peacock CPVs with?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • Like for like (a similarly capable CPV)

    18 30.00%
  • 1-2 x OPVs (2 defending on available funds)

    39 65.00%
  • Larger number of much less capable patrol craft)

    3 5.00%
Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 452

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #101
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,897
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    I see someone has been thinking about how to incorporate Safehaven's stealth boat into the NS
    While Safehaven make fine pilot boats, I was thinking more in the line of a an enclosed RhIB. Like this.


  2. Likes pym, Dogwatch liked this post
  3. #102
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  4. #103
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,897
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

    http://www.sfpa.ie/Portals/0/Corpora...ES%20Areas.pdf

    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.

  5. Likes DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  6. #104
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    758
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    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.

    http://www.sfpa.ie/Portals/0/Corpora...ES%20Areas.pdf

    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.
    The daughter crafts should be integral to the ship as replacement for/ instead of open ribs. In the North sea the Multi Role rescue vessel has two daughter craft that act independently with a crew of three or four. It is equipped with Radar, AIS, Gps, Radio, modest domestics, one bunk settee, and strap-in for all hands. They augment ship's crew by 3 seamen when operating more than one daughter craft at a time. We would need to include an Electronic Chart System for obvious reasons. The quality of DC operator would have to cover navigation skills to find his /her objectives and find mother for rejoining.
    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.

  7. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  8. #105
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The daughter crafts should be integral to the ship as replacement for/ instead of open ribs. In the North sea the Multi Role rescue vessel has two daughter craft that act independently with a crew of three or four. It is equipped with Radar, AIS, Gps, Radio, modest domestics, one bunk settee, and strap-in for all hands. They augment ship's crew by 3 seamen when operating more than one daughter craft at a time. We would need to include an Electronic Chart System for obvious reasons. The quality of DC operator would have to cover navigation skills to find his /her objectives and find mother for rejoining.
    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.
    The point is we are talking about replacing CPVs, not RHIBs on OPVs.

    I assume that the EPV would be tasked to the edge of 200 mile limit (and beyond)

  9. #106
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  10. #107
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Cent Med
    Posts
    141
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
    I think the incorrect draught figure comes from a misunderstanding of the dimensions given on http://www.afm.gov.mt/p61 which then made its way to the Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diciot..._patrol_vessel. You might want to update the Wikipedia article or, if you have a source I can cite, I'll do it.

    Off topic I suppose but do you know if the AFM have any idea what they might want as the new patrol vessel they are hoping to buy with EU funds? Maybe Ireland and Malta could buy 3 CPV types (2+1) and get a discount? The Damen 5509/P580 class might serve both countries needs.

    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:

    http://www.freireshipyard.com/All-Ve...ol-vessel.html

    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.

  11. #108
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    758
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The point is we are talking about replacing CPVs, not RHIBs on OPVs.

    I assume that the EPV would be tasked to the edge of 200 mile limit (and beyond)
    The CPV's were a unique class built for the Far East. We need to replace them but not with CPV's but rather with vessels that can operate and survive in WNA out to 200/300 miles and more. The question raised was would it be possible from one platform to patrol both offshore and inshore, including harbours. The answer is yes if you use a semi-independent daughter craft returning to mother a number of hours later. We are too small to diversify ship types rather have ships mutually capable and vary their roles by add ons.

  12. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
  13. #109
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    While Safehaven make fine pilot boats, I was thinking more in the line of a an enclosed RhIB. Like this.



    Spanish Customs have been using larger RHIBs for a number of years, it's the next logical step to enhance safety and improve endurance.

    Last edited by Dogwatch; 5th May 2015 at 09:26.

  14. Thanks pym thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití liked this post
  15. #110
    Private 3* Boreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Medsailor View Post
    ...in a world where I made the final decisions I would actually want to go for something like this:

    http://www.freireshipyard.com/All-Ve...ol-vessel.html

    Perhaps a little faster and with a stern launch.
    Maybe a modified http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/...ol-vessel-1000 ?

  16. Likes Galloglass liked this post
  17. #111
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    758
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  18. Likes DeV liked this post
  19. #112
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Boreas View Post

    In both cases you'd need to take nearly 2 metres off the draft

  20. #113
    Rittmeister Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    757
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    In both cases you'd need to take nearly 2 metres off the draft
    He's proposing it for the AFM.

  21. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
  22. #114
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,897
    Post Thanks / Like
    AFM?

  23. #115
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Armed Forces of Malta

  24. #116
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    758
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    In both cases you'd need to take nearly 2 metres off the draft
    Don't get that. The Damen 1000 has a summer draft of 3.25 meters. The moulded Depth at 4.5meters is the height of the first OPEN deck surface measured vertically to the Keel. It is telling you that freeboard aft is 1.25meters ie 4.50m minus 3.25m. The draft is fine but wouldn't be minus two meters even for the AFMalta.

  25. #117
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Don't get that. The Damen 1000 has a summer draft of 3.25 meters. The moulded Depth at 4.5meters is the height of the first OPEN deck surface measured vertically to the Keel. It is telling you that freeboard aft is 1.25meters ie 4.50m minus 3.25m. The draft is fine but wouldn't be minus two meters even for the AFMalta.
    Sorry looked up incorrect figure, 0.55 metres for that vessel

    For NS requirements
    Last edited by DeV; 5th May 2015 at 13:06.

  26. #118
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  27. #119
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    681
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    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 and have a max speed of 60% of the Peacocks. While also have less than 50% of the firepower.
    Has the RN released the details for their new MHC platform? Just a quick look on wiki, that after the 2010 REview it was going to be in the 2000 ton range, though with the Batch 2 Rivers maybe that's dropped in size.

    Either that or could we end up getting second hand ships?

  28. #120
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    2,990
    Post Thanks / Like
    poland is bringing two 58 metre MCMV into service, a design modified for our conditins could be a runner.

  29. #121
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    681
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    poland is bringing two 58 metre MCMV into service, a design modified for our conditins could be a runner.
    Interesting though could the design be modified for a good enough price, I suppose also the question should be, should it be optomised directly for our conditions, I mean if we are going to the trouble of getting proper Minesweepers, shouldn't they be optomised for Med/Gulf/Africa conditions as those would be the most likely areas we'd be using such Counter Mine/IED issues?

  30. #122
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,897
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    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 and have a max speed of 60% of the Peacocks. While also have less than 50% of the firepower.
    You heard hoofs and neighs and immediately assumed zebras. These days counter mine and counter IED capability can be something that fits in the back of one or more TEUs, and lash it to the deck aft, with just a good onboard crane to haul it in and out.
    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.

  31. Likes DeV, hptmurphy, danno liked this post
  32. #123
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    2,990
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Interesting though could the design be modified for a good enough price, I suppose also the question should be, should it be optomised directly for our conditions, I mean if we are going to the trouble of getting proper Minesweepers, shouldn't they be optomised for Med/Gulf/Africa conditions as those would be the most likely areas we'd be using such Counter Mine/IED issues?
    if you look at it realistically, unless your're a rabid provo, the only real conventional maratime threat comes from submarines laying mines in irish water.

    And the russians have a long history of using mines in the baltic, it allows us to contribute.

  33. #124
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    You heard hoofs and neighs and immediately assumed zebras. These days counter mine and counter IED capability can be something that fits in the back of one or more TEUs, and lash it to the deck aft, with just a good onboard crane to haul it in and out.
    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.
    Absolutely, forgot to mention that

    But the WP say "similar vessels" ie probably <1000 tonnes displacement

  34. #125
    Private 2*
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Too bad

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Absolutely, forgot to mention that

    But the WP say "similar vessels" ie probably <1000 tonnes displacement

    I'd like to see the Naval Service procure two of the new River class OPV's to replace the Peacocks.

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
  •