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 Dogwatch View Post
    Am in agreement with your opinion. Lack of flight deck with refuelling & HIFR facility as a minimum, but in reality lack of flight deck & hangar is a design flaw (also IMHO). To be building an OPV ca 2000t & not putting such a capability on it is not going to give good VFM over the next 30 yrs. The point made about the bad experience of P31 & Dauphin is a very valid one, but if you had such a capability on a hull & that hull was to eploy to somewhere like the Gulf Of Aden, then I think the IAC would be jumping at the chance to go to sea.

    The NZ OPV is on a P51 hull, so it shows what can be done & you still have deck room aft for containers. Take away the weight issues with regard to the ice strengthening & you still have a very capable OPV (with room for a 76mm up front!)
    It is only a P51 hull in hullform. However how much deployment has there been of NZ helis aboard since the ships were eventually commissioned? It appears to me that the Kiwis may experience the same success with helicopters as Eithne had.


    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
      It is only a P51 hull in hullform. However how much deployment has there been of NZ helis aboard since the ships were eventually commissioned? It appears to me that the Kiwis may experience the same success with helicopters as Eithne had.
      Can't see much on the RNZN website. However, they only have 5 seasprites, which also have to cover the 2 frigates, so that's 5 helos for 4 hulls, not much cover.


      Would expect that the helo would not be embarked full time on the OPVs, however, the ships are equipped to support the helos, which is crucial & are navy manned (again well worthwhile).

      The debate for fitting out a ship shouldn't centre around the issue of full time deployment of air assets on a hull, that will never happen. it's about an NS ability to future proof the hulls, to be as flexible & responsive as possible. A hangar & flight deck offers a huge step up in capability.

      Previous bad experience should be the added incentive to ensure that the next venture into air ops is viable & not a disincentive to avoid the hard task of integration & interoperability.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Seanachie View Post
        The sheer cost of making Eithne heli capable would have built a PV if it had been an option.

        Why go down a track we know won't work while the helo arm of the DF haven't even got a naval suitable helo!
        The cost of making Eithne helo capable wouldn't have got another OPV. The cost overruns by a unionised, lazy, ignorant & work shy Verolme Dockyard cost the country an extra ship. The govt paid for 2 P31s & only got one.

        With regard to naval suitable helo, I refer you to trials of AW139 at sea with the Italian navy



        Comment


        • You should read the Book by Paddy Martin about the construction of the Ship, and life in the Dockyard.. He details exactly the process, while there is no question that the Verolme staff were work shy, and even plain deluded as to their monetary worth, this is not the reason why P32 was not built.


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

          Comment


          • The cost of making Eithne helo capable wouldn't have got another OPV
            Eithnes fit out for the helo was well above that expected of a similar ship in any other navy.

            Hulls in Water and there ability to operate flight ops is a nice option, the problem being the whole skill set is gone from the service. Given that Eithnes crew at the peak of flight ops was almost double that of a current OPV, the multitasking involved would be significant but not impossible, but if there is even a thought of re emergence for a future flight ops role the training would have to begin long before the vessel is taken on charge.

            Flight ops became such an elitist area that those involved became almost copperfastened to their posts and relief was poor even down to handlers who had be appropriately trained.

            If we are going down the road again the helo operators must have naval optmized machines, this hasn't been a consideration for a long time in the AC, and given the time scale before another batch of helos comes on stream why are we even concerned about the availability of flight ops when the air assets of the DF are not undertheir control, and even if they were, the version available is a navalized one.

            The oversight started with the purchase of the helos not the ships. The potential to operate UAVs would however redress the balance some what as opposed to having no flight assest at all.

            the RNZN can justify its air assets as the Seasprites are primarily an antisubmarine aircraft that can also be de deployed from their larger frigates. so they are multi role and therefore justify as self contained airwing.

            we on the other hand have even difficulty justifying a independant Aer Corps or an non integrated NS, Customs, Coast guard at times, and have the same problems everytime it comes to hull replacements, do you seriously thing a sea blind nation such as ours would stump up for a second airwing in the DF so they could look good sitting on the arse end of a naval vessel....bearing in mind the majority of the publc perception still refers to them as 'corvettes...'

            Nice idea re the future proofing but looking inward I think the DF as a whole and those looking for aircraft are on a hiding to no where, especially when the primary justification for having an airwing would be based on SAR or Patrolling which are already carried out by tow other agencies in the state
            Last edited by hptmurphy; 12 October 2011, 13:41.
            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

            Comment


            • According to the NZ Navy website,

              "....The patrol and response capabilities of the OPVs include:

              a. Maritime counter-terrorism.
              b. Surveillance and Reconnaissance.
              c. Surface contact detection, identification, interception and boarding.
              d. Helicopter operations including surveillance and reconnaissance, and surface contact detection, identification and interception, and support to boarding operations as well as general personnel and stores movement.
              e. Apprehension and escort of vessels.
              f. Pollution control.
              g. Maritime Search And Rescue (SAR), including aid to vessels in distress (including towing of vessels of same or smaller size)."

              The crew includes a core ship's company of 35 and 10 flight personnel, together with accommodation for up to 34 more personnel. Those 10 flight personnel presumably include aircrew and maintenance technicians. Would flightdeck operations be handled by these personnel, or general ship's company, or a mix of the two?

              As for training, the RN offer a range of short naval aviation courses covering all the neccessary skills for operating a helicopter on board a ship.

              My point is that the provision of the necessary trained personnel to handle shipborne helicopter operations is not an insurmountable problem.

              Comment


              • Thats nice.

                In other unrelated news, I see NZ are having issues keeping their 5 Seasprites flying. They aim to keep 1 eack on the Anzacs, another on Canterbury and a fourth for Crew Certification and training. However in October 2010, for example, just one SH-2G was flying, with 2 in deep maintenance, and another 2 awaiting work.

                I wonder what helicopters the OPVs were using during this time?


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

                Comment


                • Why did Australia and New Zealand buy elderly Seasprites? Did the Americans make them an offer they couldn't refuse? The Aussies have had to get rid of theirs, and now the Kiwis seem to be having trouble with them too.

                  Maybe the OPVs will end up using the A109LUHs; part of the LUH specs is to provide training and light utility support for the Navy. Sweden uses them on ships, as do the RAN and the Bangladeshi Navy.

                  Last edited by easyrider; 16 October 2011, 14:26.

                  Comment


                  • I think the Kiwis had them for commonality, RAN also use ANZAC frigates, so it made sense for training purposes.
                    You need deck handling equipment(why do I get a feeling of deja Vu). The OPVs do not have one suitable for the A109... yadda yadda yadda round and round and round it goes.....where it stops nobody knows...


                    THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE ****IN KIWIS!!!!!



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

                    Comment




                    • Kiwi,
                      Neither marine or flying.

                      Easyrider, every time you divert this thread with comparisons to NZ, i will post a photo of a kiwi. Why, you may ask, it has nothing to do with the irish OPV.

                      EXACTLY!


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

                      Comment


                      • Goldie,

                        I was disagreeing with Seanachie's point that the training required for heli handling on board an OPV is an enormous undertaking, using the comparable NZ OPV as a counter example and referring to the training courses run by the Royal Navy. You then brought up the state of the Seasprites and asked what helicopters the NZ OPVs might be using instead of them, to which I replied. It's not such a big deal. Nice Kiwi pic though

                        Just wondering: do you, or does anyone know, what are the dimensions of the aft deck on our new OPVs, that can be used for UAV ops or containers?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by easyrider View Post
                          Why did Australia and New Zealand buy elderly Seasprites?
                          The New Zealand Seasprites were new built aircraft and the Australians used refurbished airframes for theirs.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by easyrider View Post
                            Goldie,

                            I was disagreeing with Seanachie's point that the training required for heli handling on board an OPV is an enormous undertaking, using the comparable NZ OPV as a counter example and referring to the training courses run by the Royal Navy. You then brought up the state of the Seasprites and asked what helicopters the NZ OPVs might be using instead of them, to which I replied. It's not such a big deal. Nice Kiwi pic though

                            Just wondering: do you, or does anyone know, what are the dimensions of the aft deck on our new OPVs, that can be used for UAV ops or containers?


                            The P50s are 78.8m in length. The new OPVs are 90m so with the existing afterdeck being around 5m (with a hatch and capstan in the way) You are talking about 15m(length) deck space id say at a guess.

                            Comment


                            • I was disagreeing with Seanachie's point that the training required for heli handling on board an OPV is an enormous undertaking,
                              You think so....guess what..I was there!

                              To get one ships company up to speed took all of twelve months even with the RN input.The current flag officer even took part in training.

                              They even began the training before the helo was delivered .

                              Two years in there were only three deck qualified FDOs in the NS.

                              Problem being you have to have a helo available to remain current..we didn't or never will!

                              Nobody except the NS wants to deploy helos and they know all the reasons it won't be done this time round.

                              Waste of time even discussing it until the AC acquire helos that are marine capable, rough time scale..never !
                              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                              Comment


                              • To be honest, I don't believe that the NS will have helicopters until someone in government grows a pair and decides that the NS can aquire it's own helicopters, and recruit and train it's own air crew.......
                                In the light of mature reflection I do not think the Air Corps are able to make the leap in their culture to operate a unit for the NS, in fact the reality appears that the Air Corps needs a seperate price waterhouse review all of it's own, and soon.
                                "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
                                Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
                                Illegitimi non carborundum

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X