Thanks Thanks:  90
Likes Likes:  226
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 336
  1. #26
    C/S Galloglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    If the "MRV" that is to replace Eithne got down graded to "just" a Frigate type, depending on the price and the upgradeability (for the CAMM etc) the Venator design might be a runner I would think particularly if we could leverage off a 5 ship production line (depending on costs of course). In terms of the Khareef does it suffer from the usually issue of the crew accommodation being less than what European Navies have moved to now? And if so could that be brought up to "acceptable" levels without impacting the design even more?
    I think the point is if the RN decides to MODIFY a Khareef or another OPV design into a Type31....What options they offer then (including accommodation} one stated intention being that they would attract sales from "smaller navies" etc
    I like the Venator myself or a Damen Crossover variant as a "step up" for the NS.... if they chose to modify a P60 rather than a River I'd be VERY interested to see their designs.

  2. Likes ODIN, The Usual Suspect liked this post
  3. #27
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    If the "MRV" that is to replace Eithne got down graded to "just" a Frigate type, depending on the price and the upgradeability (for the CAMM etc) the Venator design might be a runner I would think particularly if we could leverage off a 5 ship production line (depending on costs of course). In terms of the Khareef does it suffer from the usually issue of the crew accommodation being less than what European Navies have moved to now? And if so could that be brought up to "acceptable" levels without impacting the design even more?
    What you want your vessel to do and where it should operate dictates what it should be, not what other people have or want or are trying to get rid off.

    There is a fixation about amphibious assault vessels on the board that is hard to understand given the size and type of the forces we deploy oversaeas. If the MRV’s primary role is to transport the army overseas units overseas then you have to realise its not something we do very often.

    The battalion that was deployed to Lebanon in 2011 for example was the largest ever deployment of irish military equipment, but that type of deployment only takes place every decade, and is best done via commercial shipping and ports. That deployment was too small for HMP Ocean

    EU ISTAR company is actually the main rapid deployment force, but due to its size and role (discussed extensively in An Coasantor in 2012) it might also well be best to transport that by air if there was an emergency. Transporting it to an exercise in a host nation ( if politically possible) would also be best done by commercial shipping.

    The ranger wing, is the other main rapid deployment force, but again air assets were used to deploy them to chad and the size of force involved would be about sixty men., which hardly justifies a HMS Ocean sized vessel. However the ability to deploy a special forces unit from a ship, by RhIB would be a useful force multiplier for the MRV?EPV

    What is really needed are long range vessels that can go out into the ocean and carry out patrols in harsh conditions with a useful military capability. That’s why they tendered for an extended patrol vessel in 2006. Since then piracy off west Africa and elsewhere has totally changed the maritime security space. The threat comes not from soviet submaries or peer sized navy but from non nation states.

    From my perspective the Venator 110 would be ideal to replace Eithne around 2021. The NS have previous experience of working with the designer BMT, and it could be built in any ship yard.

    Arm it with
    a 76mm forward and 2 remote control 30mm cannons (oto melara marlins), along with 12.7 mm machine guns to provide a limited anti surface capability
    a 16 round VLS for self defence, buy the south African umkonto, after all the Finnish navy uses it.
    counter measures against SSM
    A sensor fit similar to the Dutch Holland class OPV for ISR.
    A helicopter and hanger for an AW 139 sized helicopter and a UAV
    Space for four MST RHIB for boarding and or other operations.
    Space to carry containers and or a special forces unit of about sixty.

    Build two for long range operations in the EEZ, or overseas missions, operating off the coast of west Africa, the med and Horn of Africa.

    Hence you’d have a Flotilla in 2026 with
    1 EPV Squadron/ 2 Venator 110 Class Patrol Frigates
    1 OPV Squadron/ 3 Samuel Backets
    1 LPV Squadron /2 Niamh
    1 CPV Squadron/ 2 CPV
    Last edited by paul g; 1st April 2016 at 16:57.

  4. Thanks Banner thanked for this post
  5. #28
    C/S Galloglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sounds lovely Paul......Is there any signifigance in designating them squadrons in your mind? Always thought the designation of P50s as LPVs was an acronym too far.

    Hence you’d have a Flotilla in 2026 with
    1 EPV Squadron/ 2 Venator 110 Class Patrol Frigates
    1 OPV Squadron/ 5 Vessels
    1 CPV Squadron/ 2 CPV

  6. Likes The Usual Suspect liked this post
  7. #29
    Sergeant The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglass View Post
    .... if they chose to modify a P60 rather than a River I'd be VERY interested to see their designs.
    Thought this Roisin++ design, as offered to the USCG, may be of interest to you...

    Vard 7 100 USCG.jpg

    Vard 7 100 OPV.pdf

    Disappointingly uncrunchy...

    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    There is a fixation about amphibious assault vessels on the board that is hard to understand...
    Believe it may have something to do with, the fact that, it was one of the two remaining enumerated defence restrictions Dev (the original Dev, that is) didn't manage to negotiate away by threatening not to recognise Edward VIII's abdication.

    We were not allowed to maintain an Air Force or Amphibious forces until (believe it or not) the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent repeal of the 1922 Government of Ireland Act.

    The Air Corps got blue uniforms shortly thereafter.

    The Navy's still waiting...

    Wonder how we'd be set now if Churchill and Lloyd George had forbidden us from having a space programme?
    Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 21st April 2016 at 12:30. Reason: Grammar correction

  8. Thanks Galloglass, Flamingo thanked for this post
  9. #30
    C/S Galloglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

  10. #31
    C/S tonyrdf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Where everyone's favourite colour is blue.
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    Thought this Roisin++ design, as offered to the USCG, may be of interest to you...

    Vard 7 100 USCG.jpg

    Vard 7 100 OPV.pdf

    Disappointingly uncrunchy...



    Believe it may have something to do with, the fact that, it was one of the two remaining enumerated defence restrictions Dev (the original Dev, that is) didn't manage to negotiate away by threatening not to recognise Edward VIII's abdication.

    We were not allowed to maintain an Air Force or Amphibious forces until (believe it or not) the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent repeal of the 1922 Government of Ireland Act.

    The Air Corps got blue uniforms shortly thereafter.

    The Navy's still waiting...

    Wonder how we'd be set now if Churchill and Lloyd George had forbidden us from having a space programme?
    I'm pretty sure the Air Corps got their blue uniforms in 1994?
    Im Ron Burgendy??

  11. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  12. #32
    Sergeant The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like

    Type 26 delay called ‘an absolute disgrace’ after MoD admission

    Related to RN Type 31

    The Scotsman Wednesday 20th July 2016: Type 26 delay called ‘an absolute disgrace’ after MoD admission

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/type-26...sion-1-4182385
    Semper et ubique Fidelis

  13. #33
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,640
    Post Thanks / Like
    The P31 is beginning to sound like a bigger OPV without the full capabilities of a frigate.

    Surely it would make more sense to deploy their newer fleet of OPVs as these frigate minuses and get the right amount of hulls with the right equipment!

    After all they want to be a world player, which could mean them deploying a carrier and an amphibious group carrying up to Bde strength force both of which would need defending (doubt they will ever deploy a 2nd carrier).

  14. #34
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The P31 is beginning to sound like a bigger OPV without the full capabilities of a frigate.

    Surely it would make more sense to deploy their newer fleet of OPVs as these frigate minuses and get the right amount of hulls with the right equipment!

    After all they want to be a world player, which could mean them deploying a carrier and an amphibious group carrying up to Bde strength force both of which would need defending (doubt they will ever deploy a 2nd carrier).
    p31 is not a super-OPV, its a GP Frigate - the super-OPV crap is what BAE want to provide for £350m a shot, not what the RN have any interest in buying or operating.

    The feeling within MOD - at a political level - is that BAE are going to get kicked to the kerb if they don't start producing what the customer wants rather than what they want to sell to some bribe-recipient in the Gulf. Don't fall off your chair if FREMM get the job....

  15. Thanks sofa, The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
  16. #35
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    p31 is not a super-OPV, its a GP Frigate - the super-OPV crap is what BAE want to provide for £350m a shot, not what the RN have any interest in buying or operating.

    The feeling within MOD - at a political level - is that BAE are going to get kicked to the kerb if they don't start producing what the customer wants rather than what they want to sell to some bribe-recipient in the Gulf. Don't fall off your chair if FREMM get the job....
    A GP frigate being a vessel without the full capabilities you'd see on a frigate

  17. #36
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    A GP frigate being a vessel without the full capabilities you'd see on a frigate
    No, a GP Frigate being a Frigate without the super-duper, frankly exquisite ASW capability you'd find on a T26...

  18. #37
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    910
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    No, a GP Frigate being a Frigate without the super-duper, frankly exquisite ASW capability you'd find on a T26...
    So the question being is the UK going to produce something that is exportable? I mean given the delay in ordering the 26, I wonder what the impact towards the Australian selection in 2018?

  19. Likes DeV liked this post
  20. #38
    Sergeant The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like

    Royal Navy Frigate programmes delayed indefinitely


    BAE Type 26 'Cutlass' Concept July 2016 Al Shamikh+



    BAE Type 31 'Avenger' Concept July 2016 River+

    Janes 13th July 2016: BAE unveils General Purpose Frigate concepts

    The Guardian 20th July 2016: Crucial fleet of global-combat frigates is indefinitely delayed

    Up against this implementation (at whatever timescale) of a RN Type 31, a Roisin++ design begins to look much more attractive, if somewhat conservative.


    Vard 7 100 OPV USCG Roisin++

    For a suggestion towards a range of more capable and flexible vessels for the Naval Service click here.
    Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 21st July 2016 at 19:35. Reason: Guardian link added
    Semper et ubique Fidelis

  21. #39
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,119
    Post Thanks / Like
    No, a GP Frigate being a Frigate without the super-duper, frankly exquisite ASW capability you'd find on a T26...
    Bad move, as the RN have been there before with GP frigates.. The Type 21s were GP frigates and when realised how toothless they were it was too late.

    But its OK as you have an equally toothless Type 45 Destroyer to provide assistance, while being covered by unfinished carriers carrying a totally unproven and unbuilt aircraft.

    Do you see a trend emerging?

    the only value in these enlarged OPVs and and GP frigates is for the export market to emerging nations and Navies like |Ireland who build their resources around them.

    The RN has been digging a huge grave for itself in the past 15 years...carry on.. you are doing brilliantly!!!

    Get back to building credible warships before they find themselves extinct.
    Just visiting

  22. Thanks The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití, DeV liked this post
  23. #40
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    888
    Post Thanks / Like
    The USCG vessel is designed to operate freely in an inspection mode in open waters. Note the bridge structure extends to the ship's sides Port and Starboard, protecting the aftermost parts of ship from head seas. Equally the boarding craft are also recessed from head seas. While a third craft is available, over the stern. She seems to have a CIWS, covering after arcs, and of course a flight deck.

  24. Thanks The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  25. #41
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The USCG vessel is designed to operate freely in an inspection mode in open waters. Note the bridge structure extends to the ship's sides Port and Starboard, protecting the aftermost parts of ship from head seas. Equally the boarding craft are also recessed from head seas. While a third craft is available, over the stern. She seems to have a CIWS, covering after arcs, and of course a flight deck.
    And cost north of half a billion USD

  26. #42
    Sergeant The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like

    Confused and contradictory statements on RN Type 26/31



    UK Defence Journal 21 July 2016: No, the Type 26 Frigate has not been cancelled

    Those scraping and squeaking sounds you can hear are what politicians sound like when scurrying furiously while having no idea where they are going...




    UK Defence Journal 22 July 2016: Government insist ‘no delay’ to Type 26 frigate

    'It is understood the five Type 31 frigates are unaffected by... [the non-delay]... to the Type 26 frigate programme.'


    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Don't fall off your chair if FREMM get the job....
    You'd have to think they'd be mad not to look at FREMM at this stage, albeit, politics would suggest that they would ultimately have to be built on The Clyde. That being the case, you would have to think that BMT's Venator could come back into play as a candidate for the Type 31, was it ever totally discounted?



    UK Defence Journal 16 December 2015: Could this be Britain’s future light frigate?

    'Exploring Flexibility and Design Families for Future Warships', BMT October 2013, follows up from an earlier paper 'How to Square The Circle for The Next Generation of Patrol Ship Designs' presented to RINA Conference June 2013. Interesting stuff from both the political/diplomatic and military/operational aspects.
    Semper et ubique Fidelis

  27. #43
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    910
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is truly stunning the car crash that the 26 seems to be turning out to be, I mean with the idea to sink some of the costs into the 23 upgrade path you would have thought that they would turn out reasonable, but now they don't even have the excuse of European politics like the 45 had to explain how it's gone pear shaped.

  28. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  29. #44
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...city-of-london

    First Sea Lords thoughts on where the Royal Navy are headed in the next decade.

    My reading of that is that he believes that T26 and T31 will both happen, but that he will not be pushed into signing for anything that does not deliver what the RN require and at the most efficient costings.

    So maybe we should all calm down and see what happens?

    T45 isn't toothless Murph, it is probably the leading Air Defence Destroyer in the world. Yes it has a problem with its propulsion system which is being rectified...other global warship designs have design / machinery issues which other Navies have to live with and deal with...no different here.
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  30. Thanks The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
  31. #45
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    910
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...city-of-london

    First Sea Lords thoughts on where the Royal Navy are headed in the next decade.

    My reading of that is that he believes that T26 and T31 will both happen, but that he will not be pushed into signing for anything that does not deliver what the RN require and at the most efficient costings.

    So maybe we should all calm down and see what happens?

    T45 isn't toothless Murph, it is probably the leading Air Defence Destroyer in the world. Yes it has a problem with its propulsion system which is being rectified...other global warship designs have design / machinery issues which other Navies have to live with and deal with...no different here.
    I think it's a hell of a jump to declare the 45's the leading ADD in the World, her VLS capacity alone limits her compared to the Burke or the Burke derivatives (ie the South Korean one).

  32. #46
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,288
    Post Thanks / Like
    Even the Spanish ADD is superior. Australian orders confirm this.
    Basically anything with a Phased array is superior. Why the RN insist on a rotating Air Search radar is difficult to comprehend.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  33. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  34. #47
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Bad move, as the RN have been there before with GP frigates.. The Type 21s were GP frigates and when realised how toothless they were it was too late.

    But its OK as you have an equally toothless Type 45 Destroyer to provide assistance, while being covered by unfinished carriers carrying a totally unproven and unbuilt aircraft.

    Do you see a trend emerging?

    the only value in these enlarged OPVs and and GP frigates is for the export market to emerging nations and Navies like |Ireland who build their resources around them.

    The RN has been digging a huge grave for itself in the past 15 years...carry on.. you are doing brilliantly!!!

    Get back to building credible warships before they find themselves extinct.
    Spot on, pretty nearly every defence product made in the UK or their proxies is "world class" whilst there is a sniff of export sales and continues until the last remaining surplus/cast offs have been flogged off.

  35. #48
    C/S tonyrdf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Where everyone's favourite colour is blue.
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sampson is an Aesa radar, two arrays that rotate as apposted to 4 fixed arrays.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAMPSON?wprov=sfsi1
    Im Ron Burgendy??

  36. Likes DeV liked this post
  37. #49
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,288
    Post Thanks / Like
    Still, rotating platform. always a blind spot.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  38. #50
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Even the Spanish ADD is superior. Australian orders confirm this.
    Basically anything with a Phased array is superior. Why the RN insist on a rotating Air Search radar is difficult to comprehend.
    In a word BAE. HMG privatised the UK arms industry & R&D some years ago and buy the offerings from BAE and will continue to do so in aid of UK industry and in having an indigenous arms industry. This , rightly or wrongly, is Gov policy however at times it is unclear as to which is the cart/tail and which is the dog/horse.

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
  •