Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OPV Replacement

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

  • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post


    I notice one of the Peacocks is minus its 76. Nice view of the basin there. Work continues on the east tip too.
    Why is the superstruchers ( gym) behind the main gun painted a lighter colour
    Last edited by sofa; 6 March 2018, 23:45.

    Comment


    • Aerial identification perhaps? last time i was on board sam b the gym was housed near the stern.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by sofa View Post
        Why is the superstruchers ( gym) behind the main gun painted a lighter colour
        Asthetics. It is the same colour as the rest of the ship, and itn't a deck.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • The darker gray is deck area and the lighter shade is part of the superstructure .
          Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

          Comment


          • Has there been any update on the fitting of the 76mm?

            Comment


            • According to those in Devon, it is being fitted after when the ship is delivered.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                According to those in Devon, it is being fitted after when the ship is delivered.
                Interesting, so the question remains I suppose is are we buying another unit or taking it from one of the Peacock's

                Comment


                • My money is on taking it from the Peacock. You are going to be taking a crew from it anyway, may as well disarm it too. Their days are numbered. While they are still fine for purpose they were designed for, (Coastal patrol) the design was old in comparison to the P20s, and the design did not permit much modernisation.
                  Long range Offshore patrol is the priority.
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • Ships armament

                    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                    Interesting, so the question remains I suppose is are we buying another unit or taking it from one of the Peacock's
                    There is a risible problem endemic in all our planning and specifications for naval ships, in that we seem to ignore telling the builder that the vessels will be armed requiring foundations and arcs of fire for a variety of weapons and main armament. There is an undercurrent within those providing capital to keep our ships at a suitable only for FP level with a little bit of ATCP fist fighting thrown in. The Naval side need to make developmental demands to provide an all round Naval capability,including filling the gap between the 76mm and 20mm armaments.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      There is a risible problem endemic in all our planning and specifications for naval ships, in that we seem to ignore telling the builder that the vessels will be armed requiring foundations and arcs of fire for a variety of weapons and main armament. There is an undercurrent within those providing capital to keep our ships at a suitable only for FP level with a little bit of ATCP fist fighting thrown in. The Naval side need to make developmental demands to provide an all round Naval capability,including filling the gap between the 76mm and 20mm armaments.
                      Weapons are GFE

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        There is a risible problem endemic in all our planning and specifications for naval ships, in that we seem to ignore telling the builder that the vessels will be armed requiring foundations and arcs of fire for a variety of weapons and main armament. There is an undercurrent within those providing capital to keep our ships at a suitable only for FP level with a little bit of ATCP fist fighting thrown in. The Naval side need to make developmental demands to provide an all round Naval capability,including filling the gap between the 76mm and 20mm armaments.
                        There is an undercurrent within the NS senior ranks that would prefer a "simpler" system to arm the vessels instead of the relatively complex OTO Melara. When this is what commanders are thinking, is it any wonder the DoD are reluctant to provide for anything better? We should be glad that others saw sense and forced fitting the P60 with an OTO Melara instead of a low calibre autocannon, such as the Bofors 40mm, which is not as maintenance intensive to certain branches.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                          There is an undercurrent within the NS senior ranks that would prefer a "simpler" system to arm the vessels instead of the relatively complex OTO Melara. When this is what commanders are thinking, is it any wonder the DoD are reluctant to provide for anything better? We should be glad that others saw sense and forced fitting the P60 with an OTO Melara instead of a low calibre autocannon, such as the Bofors 40mm, which is not as maintenance intensive to certain branches.
                          I do believe that DOD are reluctant, as they always have been in the" simpler camp". I do NOT believe that the command structure within the navy is as negative as you state as a fact. They were 100% behind the Eithne project and our first integrated Gun and FCS albeit Optronic with X-Band radar blind fire . So far 6 ships are replicating something similar but need a further step foward for modern threats.

                          Comment


                          • The people resisting modern armament on naval vessels were not even cadets when Eithne was being built.
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                              The people resisting modern armament on naval vessels were not even cadets when Eithne was being built.
                              Following that hypothesis "These people" would be sub 40 years of age and would not have the final say. There is a doctrinal matter to be imbued in all Naval training that there are many skills and tools required to DEFEND AND PROTECT and must remain so unless the MISSION is changed and we revert to grey yacht club status.

                              Comment


                              • We are very lucky for a change to have a FOCNS with an engineering background. He would be one of the few capable of silencing the naysayers, doing so when he held the appointment of OCNSC.
                                Worth pointing out that the FOCNS was also a cadet while L.E. Eithne was being designed and built, earning his commission in 1983.
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X