Thanks Thanks:  192
Likes Likes:  382
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 9 of 22 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 527

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #201
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Galloglass;435633]
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV;
    So I'll pose a question, what does the P50 (never mind P60) class have in common with the Peacock class that would allow them to be classed as "similar" vessels?

    "A rose by any other name...." Nice picture of a Japanese Destroyer here. [ATTACH
    8124[/ATTACH]
    Isn't there a treaty to say they can't have carriers and why they are called a Self Defence Force?

  2. Likes Galloglass liked this post
  3. #202
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    829
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeV;435636]
    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglass View Post

    Isn't there a treaty to say they can't have carriers and why they are called a Self Defence Force?
    Yeah their constitution still bans them from having Carriers from memory,though the PM has managed to loosen the restrictions on what they can deploy, and how they can use military force.

  4. #203
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    The RN had 'through deck cruisers' ..aka Carriers to get around the attempt to get rid of the a carrier mentality.

    It could be as simple as building two P60s and relegating the two P50s to 'inshore work'

    A newer CPV will have to be at least as capable as a a P21 class there will have to be similar to a P61.

    But the white paper has spoken, but then paper never refused ink and these things can change. As the nature of our missions change and the inclusion of the Med,type ops become more frquent and the futility of CPV sized vessels becomes more apparent , buying into the concept of more P60s might being easier.

    Does it really matter WHERE P60s are built anyway?
    Theoretically no, but builders like to do their own thing even with laid down designs...bit like Opel Vs Vauxhall.......

    The Rivers are on a par size wise with the P50s, so technically they ain't CPVs...speaking of which the three new build rivers are being built with imported Swedish Steel, even though UK steel is quite good..so how long before they outsource the building of this type of vessel altogther?

    Any way.....New builds only , no more second hand stuff please.

    As was pointed out the Japanese moratorium on building ACC was self imposed in their constitution.
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 14th December 2015 at 14:16.
    Just visiting

  5. Likes Turkey liked this post
  6. #204
    C/S Galloglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    "As was pointed out the Japanese moratorium on building ACC was self imposed in their constitution".......Which was imposed on them by the Yanks I think.

  7. #205
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglass View Post
    "As was pointed out the Japanese moratorium on building ACC was self imposed in their constitution".......Which was imposed on them by the Yanks I think.
    Interesting

    Renunciation of war (Article 9)[edit]
    Main article: Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
    Under Article 9, the "Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes". To this end the article provides that "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained." The necessity and practical extent of Article 9 has been debated in Japan since its enactment, particularly following the establishment of the Japan Self-Defense Forces, a de facto military force, in 1954. Various political groups have called for either revising or abolishing the restrictions of Article 9 in order to permit collective defense efforts and strengthen Japan's military capabilities.
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 14th December 2015 at 19:45.
    Just visiting

  8. Likes Galloglass liked this post
  9. #206
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    moving rapidly away.......
    Posts
    2,533
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is all very interesting, as well as way off topic.

    Having said that, as far as I can remember, it was Mc Arthur, who came up with the compromise called the Self Defence Force, when the Provisional Japanese government originally proposed no armed forces at all.
    "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
    Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  10. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  11. #207
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglass View Post
    "We are soon approaching a situation where the entire fleet is of the one design with engines from one manufacturer, with whom we have a long and friendly relationship.Why change that?"

    Does it really matter WHERE P60s are built anyway?
    Not at all. As long as they are built on budget and on time.

  12. Likes Galloglass, Turkey liked this post
  13. #208
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    827
    Post Thanks / Like

    CPV Replacements

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    And obviously so is OPV

    So I'll pose a question, what does the P50 (never mind P60) class have in common with the Peacock class that would allow them to be classed as "similar" vessels?

    P50 class:
    Length 78.84m
    Beam 14m
    Draught 3.8m
    Speed 23 kts
    Range 6000 nm @ 15 Kts
    Main Armament 76mm

    Peacock class:
    Length 62.6m (20% shorter)
    Beam 10m (nearly 30% narrower)
    Draught 2.7m (nearly 30% shallower)
    Speed 25+ kts (over 8% faster)
    Range 2500 nm @ 17 Kts
    Main Armament 76mm (same)

    Based on this the new CPVs are likely to be 20-30% smaller (in all aspects) than the P60 class.
    We must not paint ourselves into a corner by seeking to replicate ships of limited operability. A larger vessel can do Coastal Patrol duties but can also go offshore and on long range International voyages. The current CPV's were transferred to us by HM Government to bolster our dealing with the enemy within. Their origin was associated with Hong Kong patrol duties in the Far East in mostly calm waters. Our current needs require vessels to operate in WNA sea states. Remember CMS's were limited to Force 6 nominally and OPV's start ship minding after Force 9. The latter is acceptable but Force 6 is restrictive for West Coast patrols.

  14. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag, DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  15. #209
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    We must not paint ourselves into a corner by seeking to replicate ships of limited operability. A larger vessel can do Coastal Patrol duties but can also go offshore and on long range International voyages. The current CPV's were transferred to us by HM Government to bolster our dealing with the enemy within. Their origin was associated with Hong Kong patrol duties in the Far East in mostly calm waters. Our current needs require vessels to operate in WNA sea states. Remember CMS's were limited to Force 6 nominally and OPV's start ship minding after Force 9. The latter is acceptable but Force 6 is restrictive for West Coast patrols.
    I agree but it isn't what the WP says

  16. #210
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    i'd be interested to know, in practice, where a CPV can go that an OPV with its sensors and weapons, including UAV and RIB's, can't.

    i imagine that the list is rather short, and very easily surpassed by the list of things than an OPV can do - and that the has NS needed vessels to do this year - that a CPV can't...

  17. Likes na grohmití, hptmurphy liked this post
  18. #211
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    I agree but it isn't what the WP says
    The WP isn't gospel. It isn't written in stone, it is merely a baseline.

  19. #212
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like
    The two existing Coastal Patrol Vessels, the LÉ Ciara and LÉ Orla, are due for replacement in the coming years. These ships will be replaced with similar vessels with countermine and counter-IED capabilities. This will provide an enhanced capability for the Naval Service in meeting a broad range of ongoing requirements and contingencies, including the protection of Ireland’s vital sea lanes of communication.
    OK, an observation from someone with practically no knowledge of nautical matters -

    This appears to be an aspirational, with the DF gaining a new/new level of capability against mines. Which is excellent.

    But bear with me *dons dunces hat*

    Vessels tasked with mine clearance/hunting seem to be smaller - the German Frankenthals, RN Sandowns are all circa 55M in length.

    I understand the need for larger vessels, but are we going against conventional wisdom by tasking a 80-90M vessel with counter-mine capability?

    If the oft repeated "steel is cheap" argument is correct, why do other nations persist with compact counter-mine vessels, when they could stretch them and double their usefulness on the cheap?

    Not playing devils advocate or anything, just genuinely curious about this and hope to learn more. Thanks!

  20. #213
    Legate
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    103
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    OK, an observation from someone with practically no knowledge of nautical matters -

    This appears to be an aspirational, with the DF gaining a new/new level of capability against mines. Which is excellent.

    But bear with me *dons dunces hat*

    Vessels tasked with mine clearance/hunting seem to be smaller - the German Frankenthals, RN Sandowns are all circa 55M in length.

    I understand the need for larger vessels, but are we going against conventional wisdom by tasking a 80-90M vessel with counter-mine capability?

    If the oft repeated "steel is cheap" argument is correct, why do other nations persist with compact counter-mine vessels, when they could stretch them and double their usefulness on the cheap?

    Not playing devils advocate or anything, just genuinely curious about this and hope to learn more. Thanks!
    *points at dunces cap*...they don't usually build counter-mine vessels out of steel.

  21. Likes pym, na grohmití liked this post
  22. #214
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    OK, an observation from someone with practically no knowledge of nautical matters -

    This appears to be an aspirational, with the DF gaining a new/new level of capability against mines. Which is excellent.

    But bear with me *dons dunces hat*

    Vessels tasked with mine clearance/hunting seem to be smaller - the German Frankenthals, RN Sandowns are all circa 55M in length.

    I understand the need for larger vessels, but are we going against conventional wisdom by tasking a 80-90M vessel with counter-mine capability?

    If the oft repeated "steel is cheap" argument is correct, why do other nations persist with compact counter-mine vessels, when they could stretch them and double their usefulness on the cheap?

    Not playing devils advocate or anything, just genuinely curious about this and hope to learn more. Thanks!
    I think the USN had larger ones, the one that ran aground in the Pacific was 1000 tons and just under 70m same for the Japanese hulls, and if the replacements are to be aboutthe same size as the CPV's then that's about it.

  23. Thanks pym thanked for this post
  24. #215
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Marius View Post
    *points at dunces cap*...they don't usually build counter-mine vessels out of steel.
    Well the LCS's are meant to be Counter-Mine ships using unmanned and helicopter based systems, think the new Japanese ships are steel as well. Think all the future ones are going with the idea of using stand off systems to do the clearance.

  25. Thanks pym thanked for this post
  26. #216
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    The WP isn't gospel. It isn't written in stone, it is merely a baseline.
    The WP is the medium term (10 year) policy framework, it underpins engagement with international organisations, ensures roles relate to requirements, "guide and underpin decisions relating to" the DF and underpin development of capabilities.

    It will guide every DF plans that will be issued in the next 10 years. This one will have a review of the implementation (and any required revisions) every 3 years.

    That may not be the way you see it but it is seen by the DF basically as an order!

  27. #217
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    i'd be interested to know, in practice, where a CPV can go that an OPV with its sensors and weapons, including UAV and RIB's, can't.

    i imagine that the list is rather short, and very easily surpassed by the list of things than an OPV can do - and that the has NS needed vessels to do this year - that a CPV can't...
    This is it, The NS will be best served by units which have greatest utility. Same might also apply to IAC .

  28. Thanks Spark23 thanked for this post
    Likes Spark23 liked this post
  29. #218
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Well the LCS's are meant to be Counter-Mine ships using unmanned and helicopter based systems, think the new Japanese ships are steel as well. Think all the future ones are going with the idea of using stand off systems to do the clearance.
    The aforementioned Frankenthals are steel too - with antimagnetic treatment like subs get.

    But I take the point, if you can use stand off systems I guess the structure/size of the vessel will be far less important.

  30. Likes Galloglass liked this post
  31. #219
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    827
    Post Thanks / Like

    CPV Replacements

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    I agree but it isn't what the WP says
    Looking at the various posts since 15th December. I would comment as follows. The WP is a creature of Government and is subject to a drip and dole financial regime. They are very often used to cap development and reduce expansion of spending by inbuilt restrictions such as Two Brigades and 8 ships.

    The reason CM ships were built as they were from non-magnetic materials post WW11, was too allow them sweep magnetic mines with some degree of safety. As mines developed into unmoored influenced types, often air droppable, a change was made in mine countermeasures with the introduction of a Clearance Diving approach involving a stand off mothership with detection equipment, a rubber boat with clearance divers on board who were directed to the object. The diver would place a charge near the suspect mine, return to his boat, and detonate the charge remotely. The Sandown type vessels are no longer meeting the perceived needs for quickly dealing with mined areas. The preference now is shifting to unmanned , remotely controlled, unmanned underwater vessels eg UUV types. Such equipments can be launched from most platforms including those built of approved metals designed for Mine Countermeasures. It seems in any event the Sandown type vessel will be replaced by remote technology and should not be on our list. We are in a way too small to diversify into stand alone units, and must stay with a multirole capability. The exception proving the rule is the Diving unit, essential to any Navy but costly to run (Ninth Ship) but could provide a MCM capability from our vessels fitted with the necessary bits and bobs.

  32. #220
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Looking at the various posts since 15th December. I would comment as follows. The WP is a creature of Government and is subject to a drip and dole financial regime. They are very often used to cap development and reduce expansion of spending by inbuilt restrictions such as Two Brigades and 8 ships.
    A lot of those comments are by people who have no idea of level a Defence WP directly impact all DF plans.

    This WP (IMHO) is trying to be all things to all people which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

    It also commits to increase defence spending and a minimum of 2 brigades and 8 ships

    The reason CM ships were built as they were from non-magnetic materials post WW11, was too allow them sweep magnetic mines with some degree of safety. As mines developed into unmoored influenced types, often air droppable, a change was made in mine countermeasures with the introduction of a Clearance Diving approach involving a stand off mothership with detection equipment, a rubber boat with clearance divers on board who were directed to the object. The diver would place a charge near the suspect mine, return to his boat, and detonate the charge remotely. The Sandown type vessels are no longer meeting the perceived needs for quickly dealing with mined areas. The preference now is shifting to unmanned , remotely controlled, unmanned underwater vessels eg UUV types. Such equipments can be launched from most platforms including those built of approved metals designed for Mine Countermeasures. It seems in any event the Sandown type vessel will be replaced by remote technology and should not be on our list. We are in a way too small to diversify into stand alone units, and must stay with a multirole capability. The exception proving the rule is the Diving unit, essential to any Navy but costly to run (Ninth Ship) but could provide a MCM capability from our vessels fitted with the necessary bits and bobs.
    The NS is to get 2 replacement CPVs with a counter-mine/IED capability. I would agree that the last thing the NS should want is something like a 2nd hand MCMV (eg Sandown class). While they are excellent MCMVs (with the CD and unmanned underwater vehicles as you mention), they are too small to be able to complete the CPV role.

    So IMHO seeing that the NS is getting direct replacements for the current CPVs (with an additional capability), what they should be looking at is:
    700-1000 tonne displacement (bigger with improved sea keeping capability)
    Draught <3 metres
    Capability to carry 2-3 TEUs (for the additional capability plus a crane for handling ROVs, wet room, additional accommodation etc)
    Min 2 RHIB on davits
    Accommodation to a similar standard of the rest of the fleet (which will make it bigger and/or require a smaller crew)
    Armament 76mm, 20mm's, HMGs, GPMGs
    14-21 day endurance
    Max Speed approx 23 kts

    Options:
    Constructed with low magnetic signature
    A larger RHIB for supporting diving ops
    Specialist counter mine hull mounted/towed sonar
    Max speed of 25-30 kts


    Potentially it is a CPV/dive tender or a CPV/MCMV.

    Realistically most existing designs of MCMVs/CPVs are 600 tonnes or less and would be less capable sea keeping wise than the Peacocks. So the only option may be a bespoken design.
    Last edited by DeV; 29th December 2015 at 20:46.

  33. #221
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    The solution is already out there, just paint it grey.
    It's called, surprisingly, a Dive Support ship.
    http://www.vroon.nl/Files/VesselPart...1210033459.pdf

    The offshore industry is offloading them by the hundred at present, with the slump in the price of oil. In the short term, you could charter one, see if it works. You have a hull in the water, with equipment long sought but never before available to the NS. If it doesn't work at the end of the charter you hand it back, and go back to the drawing board. but in the meantime you have had that hull in the water.

  34. Likes hptmurphy, ODIN, danno liked this post
  35. #222
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    The solution is already out there, just paint it grey.
    It's called, surprisingly, a Dive Support ship.
    http://www.vroon.nl/Files/VesselPart...1210033459.pdf

    The offshore industry is offloading them by the hundred at present, with the slump in the price of oil. In the short term, you could charter one, see if it works. You have a hull in the water, with equipment long sought but never before available to the NS. If it doesn't work at the end of the charter you hand it back, and go back to the drawing board. but in the meantime you have had that hull in the water.
    As a CPV replacement?

    As I said (repeatedly) the WP says the CPVs will be replaced by "similar" vessels with "counter-mine / C-IED" capability. That capability could be in 1 of 2 forms (a) a MCMV (b) a CPV with space for a few TEUs etc

    This could be a 9th vessel but:
    It has the displacement of an OPV
    A deeper draught than any vessel in the fleet
    Cruising speed of 12kts (so potentionally the slowest vessel in the fleet
    Would have the weakest armament in the fleet


    But why would the NS charter/purchase a dive tender/OPV when (assuming the counter mine capability on the new CPVs comes in the form of NSDS equipment) - and the redundancy will be there as there will be 2 of them?

  36. #223
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    But why would the NS charter/purchase a dive tender/OPV
    Given how suitable the NS diving unit found the ILV Grainualie for diving ops, something of that configuration would be ideal.

    This baby, HMS Sentinel worked quite well for the UKRN and had been leased in, she worked as Falklands guard ship at one point, I've seen here at sea back in 1987 and looked very capable
    Just visiting

  37. Thanks Turkey, Sarsfield thanked for this post
    Likes Turkey, na grohmití liked this post
  38. #224
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    On a utility basis ex oil industry units would be unbeatable.

  39. #225
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    Again it depends what the DoD mean by "counter-mine & c-IED" for the new CPVs

    If it is CD type ops that means 2-3 TEUs with all the NSDS equipment (including DCCC, ROV, SSS, etc). If it was, then these would be bespoken NS design. These would be CPVs with capability to act a dive tenders designed in. The P61 class already has this capability. So that would be 5 out of the 8 vessels. Not good VFM to buy a bespoken dive tender as well (an ETV maybe).

    If it is a MCMV, then possibly could be a good idea.
    Last edited by DeV; 29th December 2015 at 20:45.

  40. Likes Sarsfield 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
  •