Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OPV Replacement

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sort of. Cant' had a door at the rear of its bay, which let water onto the tank deck, or welled up inside, unable to escape. Also its bay was below the main deck level, where watertight integrity is vital. The Ship above has it above the main deck.

    There were many other issues on Canterbury which contributed to its difficulties. The Location of the RIB bay was just one of them. Have a look for the official report. I know its online somewhere(if not here somewhere).


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

    Comment


    • Tenix is working on a watertight door to fit over the Canterbury's RHIBs alcoves. This should more or less fix this design flaw.

      Tenix and many in the maritime industry feel the ship wasn't properly trimmed for the storm in question causing the propeller emergence problems. The storm blew up suddenly, with the ship not properly trimmed for the storm, causing the inability of the stabillization system to work properly. Thus the New Zealand navy is instituting commercial sea keeping and trimming lessons, especially for the Canterbury. As I have noted before, and its mention in the inquiry report, the navy is used to operating ships with minimal load differences compared to civilian vessels. Adding a fin stabization system has been discarded, as the ship in many situations wouldn't be going fast enough for those systems to work, its much better to properly trimmed the ship in the first place.

      During recent amphibious exercises the Canterbury has worked wonderfully with the Australians, French, and New Zealand based exercises. Not only have the Huey helicopters been used, she has also worked with Blackhawks, Seahawks, Squirrels, Chinooks, Pumas, Allouettes, and Augusta Bell 109s, not to mention her SeaSprites.

      She has been loaded with M-1 tanks, LAVs, M-113s, Unimogs, Land Rovers, Pingauzers, Humvees, Jeeps, pickups, etc. So far an Australian, French, and two New Zealand enlarged companies have operated off of her. All army commanders have been impressed with her communications suite, along with the troop accomodations.

      Frankly, she has been a wonderful SUCCESS, not a failure. Another question was answered, Why did the government choose her over the ADI Damen Schelde design? The answer was she has a crew of 53, or 63 with her air group, not near 150. She is therefore much more affordable to operate.
      Last edited by Sea Toby; 16 July 2008, 05:19.

      Comment


      • More images of the Trinidad and Tobago Patrol Vessels being Built by VT.



        And for Oman.



        Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

        Comment


        • Turkish Coastguard OPV

          Coast Guard Search & Rescue Vessel Turkey
          RMK NAVAL
          In cooperation with FINCANTIERI (Italy)
          4 vessels
          LOA: 88 meter
          Displacement (full): 1900 ton
          Speed: 22 Knot
          2x5000 Kw engines
          Sophisticated electronic/ warfare systems








          Bit ugly! But another example of what's out there.

          Comment


          • Proportions the same as Eithne but a bit faster.would this be the minimum size of ship required.

            How about building Eithne again.. the hull form is fairly sound. layout internally and accom is fine, good range, good sea keeping, just change some of the layout and weapons fit.. cheap option perhaps?
            Last edited by hptmurphy; 5 September 2008, 21:57.
            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

            Comment


            • Latest update from Minister:
              We are currently in the middle of a major vessel replacement programme for the Naval Service. This process is proceeding and the tender for new Offshore Patrol Vessels will issue shortly. While the final decision to procure new ships is subject to further Government approval, I am optimistic that with prudent financial management we will be able to continue the process of modernisation and reinvestment in the Defence Forces into the future, in particular, in the Naval service Ships Programme which is the current focus of our efforts in this regard.


              Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                Consultants to review the tenders for the OPV should have been appointed by now.
                Awarded to an british company on 23-06-2008

                Comment


                • We are a maritime-orientated high-end design house and technical consulting firm. We design. We guide. We protect. We sustain. We train. We transform.

                  We are a maritime-orientated high-end design house and technical consulting firm. We design. We guide. We protect. We sustain. We train. We transform.


                  I see they list the NZDF as a customer. Hopefully thet didn't approve the Canterbury and Otago
                  Last edited by Goldie fish; 26 September 2008, 09:52.


                  Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                  Comment


                  • Naval Service Vessels.
                    Minister for Defence (Deputy Willie O’Dea):

                    The Naval Service provides the maritime element of the Defence Forces and has a general responsibility to meet contingent and actual maritime defence requirements. In the 2000 White Paper on Defence, the Government decided that the Naval Service would be based on an 8-ship flotilla and committed to a modernisation and replacement strategy to maximise the operational capacity of those 8 vessels consistent with the roles assigned to the Naval Service. The White Paper specifically provides that “New vessels will be brought on stream to replace older ones as these fall due for replacement”. Naval Service Vessels are replaced when they have come to the end of their useful life, which is normally around 30 years. Three ships will fall due for replacement over the next 3 to 5 years - LE Emer, commissioned in 1978, LE Aoife, commissioned in 1979 and LE Aisling, commissioned in 1980.

                    Following a detailed examination of the needs of the Naval Service within my Department, a vessel replacement strategy for the Naval Service was put in place to cover the period up to 2012. The strategy combined with a continuous process of refurbishment will ensure that the operational capability of the Naval Service is maintained at a satisfactory level.

                    Following Government approval in July 2007, notice of a tender competition for the purchase of replacement vessels for the Naval Service was sent to the Official Journal of the European Union on 24 August 2007. The competition is for the purchase of two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) with an option of a third and one Extended Patrol Vessel (EPV) with an option on a second. The options provide an effective value for money opportunity, at locked in prices, to provide replacements for Naval Service vessels which will reach the end of their service life in the years immediately following the current replacement programme.

                    The closing date for stage 1 was 26 October 2007. Stage 2 of the competition for the OPVs, which included a very detailed ship specification, commenced recently with the issue (on 12 September last) of an Invitation to Tender to the shipbuilders who had been short-listed following Stage 1. Detailed tender responses are due back in the Department from the shipbuilders on or before 11 November next. Tender evaluation will commence immediately afterwards and, subject to Government approval on funding, it is intended to award a contract for the OPVs to the preferred bidder in the first half of 2009. Subject to Government approval on funding, it is expected that the new vessels will be delivered for acceptance by the Naval Service on a phased basis between 2011 and 2013.

                    In relation to the larger EPV, the Department intends to undertake further analysis of the proposals received, following Stage 1, before the second stage is initiated. As with the OPVs, any decision to award a contract for the purchase of an EPV must be approved by the Government.

                    In the current difficult economic environment, it will be important that we look to the efficiencies which all parts of the public sector can make so as to continue to deliver high quality public services within a more constrained financial resource envelope. However, it is also important that we continue to invest in public services so as we can maintain service levels into the future. We need to continue the process of modernisation and reinvestment in the Defence Forces into the future and in particular, in the Naval Service Ships Programme.

                    The acquisition of these modern new vessels will ensure that the Naval Service will be fully equipped to carry out its day to day roles in enforcing the states sovereign rights over our waters and our fisheries and meeting Ireland’s obligations in the area of maritime safety and security and fisheries protection.

                    Comment


                    • Very Positive vibes there from the Minister. He seems to be saying "If we have to make cuts to in other areas to get these ships, then so be it".
                      Longford barracks take note. The army won't be impressed that they have to lose out to the Navys gain.


                      Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                        Very Positive vibes there from the Minister. He seems to be saying "If we have to make cuts to in other areas to get these ships, then so be it".
                        Longford barracks take note. The army won't be impressed that they have to lose out to the Navys gain.

                        Not so sure about the army loosing, according to the departments strategy statements, the EPV will work closely with the army, and the recession isn't going to last forever.

                        Comment


                        • Sadly, the army aren't so far sighted.


                          Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                            Sadly, the army aren't so far sighted.
                            Large institutions rarely are.

                            Would be intresting to see the detailed specification for the OPV.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by sledger View Post
                              Naval Service Vessels are replaced when they have come to the end of their useful life, which is normally around 30 years. Three ships will fall due for replacement over the next 3 to 5 years - LE Emer, commissioned in 1978, LE Aoife, commissioned in 1979 and LE Aisling, commissioned in 1980.
                              So Emer should be replaced this year not in 2/3 years time (if work is started in the next few months)!




                              Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                              Very Positive vibes there from the Minister.
                              Subject to Government approval on funding, it is expected that the new vessels will be delivered for acceptance by the Naval Service on a phased basis between 2011 and 2013.
                              It all depends on what the finances are like & what the other Ministers want!

                              Comment


                              • DeV;
                                It all depends on what the finances are like & what the other Ministers want!


                                They could request an offset package for both the OPV and EPV, neither would be illegal as other states ask for them when they make large purchases, as long as its done properly. My understanding of the Sikorsky case although im not a lawyer, is that Eurcopter objected that they had not been able to put forward their own offset package.
                                Last edited by Joshua; 24 October 2008, 15:19.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X