Originally posted by EUFighter
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
OPV Replacement
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Originally posted by DeV View Post
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herald View Post
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparky42 View PostNot something you usually see on such a site:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...t-program.html
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostVARD are in attendance at IMEX at Singapore. They are pushing the VARD 713 and VARD 510 and are also showing an on stand video of the Irish Naval Service and it's latest OPV's. The video is available on Facebook . If we were to consider Vard 713 then we must consider adjusting the Basin size, including reopening the drydock 182m X 28.65.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparky42 View PostNot something you usually see on such a site:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...t-program.htmlCovid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
Comment
-
Originally posted by hptmurphy View PostPity that photo caption is wrong... thats not Waterford.. and its not pissing rain..so its not the comissioning of the latest vessel
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bravo20 View PostThat was the Samuel Beckett in Dublin. I was at that.
There was a visiting Excursion cruise liner "Ocean Endeavour" (137m loa)arriving this morning, swinging at Horgans Quay and i Could see the crew of L.E Niamh paying close attention to the manouver, given their proximity to the swinging basin.
The proposed redevelopment "should" provide more appropriate berthage for visiting vessels, (3 average size cargo vessels would have berthed there in the past, the longest being 150m however most developers are sea blind, and consider a quayside something to look out your apartment block at, rather than someplace secure for ships to berth safely.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bravo20 View PostThat was the Samuel Beckett in Dublin. I was at that.
The MCM area is difficult in that the expert navies , Belgium and Netherlands, are in transition building a new system based on a mother ship (2000t +) and drones both for finding and Mine destruction. The RN now have 4 Minehunters based in Bharain and would be a great source of practical knowledge for a detachment of our personnel. Our choices are to follow a known system from either RN, Belgium/Netherlands, Swedish Navy, or US. It shouldn't be an accident of acquisition as was the case with the "Ton" class CMS's.
Comment
-
In terms of future planning/purchasing, should the NS start looking at trying to join the European Patrol Corvette program? I mean there's now 4 EU nations signed on with interest from two more and one of the options is an OPV variant. France is talking about it's first being built in 2030 so it would fit in with the replacement of the P50 class at that stage?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparky42 View PostIn terms of future planning/purchasing, should the NS start looking at trying to join the European Patrol Corvette program? I mean there's now 4 EU nations signed on with interest from two more and one of the options is an OPV variant. France is talking about it's first being built in 2030 so it would fit in with the replacement of the P50 class at that stage?
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...stomize-ships/
Secondly having each nation customize their vessel is repeating the massive mistakes made with the A400M and NH90 projects. There needs to be one common set of requirements, which can be modular but the vessels need to be as common as possible. Going back to the good old day, the RN reckoned it took 3-4 vessels in a class before a yard was able to efficient produce them. With multiple yards producing multiple variants all compromise by a notion but lack of commonality it will just be an expensive project to stroke some national pride. Being able to spread the design costs over a larger number of common vessels is key to getting costs under control.
And it is not as if there is not already a design very similar to the vessel already, take the new Finnish corvettes being built. Problem is they are not being built in Italy or France and do not have a lot of systems from either of those countries. Better would be that countries express their needs to a common agency (OCCAR) and that agency then selects the winner that best meets those needs. Otherwise we will continue to have a split inefficient defence industry in the EU.Last edited by EUFighter; 17 May 2020, 14:21.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostJust because it is called "European" does not mean it is a trans-EU project. The project is to keep the Italian/French naval grouping together. Before even fixing the requirements they have selected the main contractor; NAVIRIS. This is exactly what the EU needs to get away from when it comes to defence.
Secondly having each nation customize their vessel is repeating the massive mistakes made with the A400M and NH90 projects. There needs to be one common set of requirements, which can be modular but the vessels need to be as common as possible. Going back to the good old day, the RN reckoned it took 3-4 vessels in a class before a yard was able to efficient produce them. With multiple yards producing multiple variants all compromise by a notion but lack of commonality it will just be an expensive project to stroke some national pride. Being able to spread the design costs over a larger number of common vessels is key to getting costs under control.
And it is not as if there is not already a design very similar to the vessel already, take the new Finnish corvettes being built. Problem is they are not being built in Italy or France and do not have a lot of systems from either of those countries. Better would be that countries express their needs to a common agency (OCCAR) and that agency then selects the winner that best meets those needs. Otherwise we will continue to have a split inefficient defence industry in the EU.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostThe grouping of ship building projects in Europe is as you say, a means to control costs , and share developments necessary for technical fit-out. All of our OPV classes are now finished and a 2030 replacement program for P50 class is too far away and would take from the necessary replacement programme for the three 1980's vessels that need consideration at this time. In general a class of ship will have the same hull and general arrangement if they are all built in a short time frame, however longer projects run into generational changes in electronics for radar, communications, and FCS. A radar generation may be as short as 5 years, and ideally you want a common fit for operations and training. Again we shouldn't try to build without using a contracted outside ship design office, to meet installation standards for sensitive electronic equipments. It may be within the aegis of Pesco that we can obtain all the assistance we need for future replacement build, especially MCM and ship air defence.
An OPV can also be fitted to meet contingencies remembering that if she is to be tasked beyond the capability of a single gun she needs to be up-armed to deal wiith swarm attacks. The critical ingredient is to build in the survival defences either when building or during refits piecemeal. The key would be the gun and a Combat management System to cope with additional armament and tasking and deal with multi-targets.
Eithne's replacement will have a flight deck, it may be that a helicopter has to stay longer than touch and go, so it might be wise to consider a grid, in-flight refuelling, hot-refuelling, and possibly a starting unit to multi-national standards (NATO). Weaponry for such a ship could include Bofors Mk.4 40mm plus 2 x 30/25mm cannon, decoy rocket system, and an ASM and AAM systems.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment