Thanks Thanks:  40
Likes Likes:  59
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 326 to 330 of 330
  1. #326
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    While at risk of delving into CPV replacement territory..
    Where angels fear to tread..

    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    An ETV would not be suitable for MCM for the most part. ETVs are deep draft vessels, they need to be for thrust and stability. Many have propulsion arrangements that protrude well below the hullform. However they would be a consideration if Unmanned mine clearance craft were to be used, but that is a whole other, costly area that we have no recent experience in.
    So you are talking about having a crew trained to do very specialised salvage towing, as a secondary function, on one hand, and mine countermeasures as a secondary military function, on the other hand, all while maintaining their primary roles of Fishery protection and EEZ patrol.
    It is too much to expect of crews, when you are struggling to retain, that they become experts in two very different roles.
    Accepted in it's entirety.

    How about basing the MCM/UIED capability on the P50s and P60s?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    ..sufficient to meet NS operational, retention and development objectives in MCM/UIED?
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  2. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  3. #327
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    How about basing the MCM/UIED capability on the P50s and P60s?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    ..sufficient to meet NS operational, retention and development objectives in MCM/UIED?
    Have reproduced the above on >Navy & Naval Reserve >CPV Replacement for continuation of MCM/UIED discussion there.



    Appreciating that the procurement capacity at Naval Headquarters and the DoD will likely be preoccupied by Eithne's replacement, and that there may be a declining prospect of seeing steel cut for the first of the P40's successors before the next White Paper cycle begins in 2021..

    There may actually be an opportunity to lay out a comprehensive case for 2 (+2) high-speed-ERRV derived OPV/ETV hybrids in the meantime.

    Two as fleet replacements for the Peacocks, whose role (in this scenario) will be taken by the P50s, and two as new additions to the fleet.

    Four high-speed OPV/ETV hybrids would be able to operate a common/complimentary patrol pattern with the P50s and P60s while simultaneously providing comprehensive ETV cover.

    This arrangement would likely provide the most effective combined return on State expenditure available. The NS should be prepared to recieve the IRCG's next approach on this matter affirmatively, in principle, at least.




    High-Speed Emergency Response and Rescue Vessel
    Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 6th May 2019 at 00:43. Reason: Clarity
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  4. #328
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,785
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    How about basing the MCM/UIED capability on the P50s and P60s?



    Have reproduced the above on >Navy & Naval Reserve >CPV Replacement for continuation of MCM/UIED discussion there.



    Appreciating that the procurement capacity at Naval Headquarters and the DoD will likely be preoccupied by Eithne's replacement, and that there may be a declining prospect of seeing steel cut for the first of the P40's successors before the next White Paper cycle begins in 2021..

    There may actually be an opportunity to lay out a comprehensive case for 2 (+2) high-speed-ERRV derived OPV/ETV hybrids in the meantime.

    Two as fleet replacements for the Peacocks, whose role (in this scenario) will be taken by the P50s, and two as new additions to the fleet.

    Four high-speed OPV/ETV hybrids would be able to operate a common/complimentary patrol pattern with the P50s and P60s while simultaneously providing comprehensive ETV cover.

    This arrangement would likely provide the most effective combined return on State expenditure available. The NS should be prepared to recieve the IRCG's next approach on this matter affirmatively, in principle, at least.




    High-Speed Emergency Response and Rescue Vessel
    A 10 vessel fleet when they crews for 7 ?

  5. #329
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,785
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect View Post

    (Conceptual examples only)

    Ideally a fleet of OPV/ETV hybrids would operate a common/complimentary patrol pattern with the P60s while simultaneously providing ETV cover.

    Availability for expeditionary missions, including MCM, would be subject to the usual operational constraints.
    Can’t provide MCM cover if they are also ETVs

  6. #330
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,785
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect View Post

    ETV Positions N&W Europe 13th August 2012 from the IRCG Report PDF Page 15


    Either we know something that nobody else knows or we have not been paying sufficient attention to the issue.






    I don't offer any direct criticism of past priorities, just to acknowledge the need to strip the NS acquisition programme to it's least complex form, to come to terms with political realities of the time.

    That the most comprehensive fleet renewal in the history of the service was achieved, in the teeth of the worst state finances most of us can remember, is an exemplary achievement.

    Now that the last of the P60s has been commissioned, and much of the initial prepatory work for Eithne's replacement is underway, this may be the first opportunity to consider how future priorities might be aligned. Unfortunately this is well out of synch with the White Paper process. I understand the ambition to have steel cut for the first of the P40's successors before the next White Paper cycle begins in 2021. I just don't see how this can be achieved given the bandwidth that will be taken up at Naval Headquarters and the DoD by the EPV project.
    Very much doubt the P40 replacement will be even looked at till after 2021

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
  •