Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • Very, very few end users of anything can design the item they use, do car owners design their cars?, do airlines design their planes? do cruise lines design their ships?
    I Work in IT. I don't expect the customer to design the systems architectures but I do expect functional requirements ; it is usually up to bidders to offer proposals that hopefully match or exceed said requirements. Writing requirements is an art in itself . You would be shocked in IT how much is back of cigarette packet.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
      There are a myriad of courses available for ship design to at least have in house an ability to define requirements of size, stability, range, speed, power levels of propulsion, generation capacity , operational use of ship, range of antennae in/out of ship,likely fits etc. You need to know your needs in accommodation and general level of crew comfort coupled with ambient and DB levels. We have tended to tailor our Navy to the ships we found eg MTB's, Corvettes, CMS's, OPV's. We now need to design our Navy.
      That we have the ability in house to define requirement I agree with. But even before that we need a Naval Staff that can define the strategy and mission for the NS. Then we need a competent staff that can translate these into requirement for ships types and numbers. Then a strong negotiation team to get the best deal for the NS. And lastly a good "marketing" team to sell it to the DoD and the politicians.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
        There are a myriad of courses available for ship design to at least have in house an ability to define requirements of size, stability, range, speed, power levels of propulsion, generation capacity , operational use of ship, range of antennae in/out of ship,likely fits etc. You need to know your needs in accommodation and general level of crew comfort coupled with ambient and DB levels. We have tended to tailor our Navy to the ships we found eg MTB's, Corvettes, CMS's, OPV's. We now need to design our Navy.
        How do you figure? In modern terms (say the P50's onwards, so near 20 years now) we tailor our buys to what politically is supportable/allowed the P60's had a lot of work done "in house", but that doesn't change the fact that we go out to see what the naval industry can do.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
          How do you figure? In modern terms (say the P50's onwards, so near 20 years now) we tailor our buys to what politically is supportable/allowed the P60's had a lot of work done "in house", but that doesn't change the fact that we go out to see what the naval industry can do.
          The nature of the Navy is in it's common mission - Defend, Protect etc. It doesn't say in one or two dimensions only. It is up to us to pursue and persuade Budget allocations to meet the stated mission. Most yards will accept spread payments. We need yards that build grey hulls of our choice and fit out to be verified by Setting to work and Trials technicians before leaving the Yard choice. Eithne had Nevesbue, French Navy, and Royal Armourers Corps. The problem continues to be politicians that think in single figures, but in any event we must persevere. The original OPV's were built without armament and
          initially with no survivability in the case of P20 and she had a non sea-going condition in her stability book. We must not allow operational skimping , rather we buy reconditioned from the Defence Market.
          Last edited by ancientmariner; 6 August 2018, 16:00.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
            The nature of the Navy is in it's common mission - Defend, Protect etc. It doesn't say in one or two dimensions only. It is up to us to pursue and persuade Budget allocations to meet the stated mission.
            I concure and although I have posted this before here again is the official mission satement for the NS:
            Defence roles include defending territorial seas, deterring intrusive or aggressive acts, conducting maritime surveillance, maintaining an armed naval presence, ensuring right of passage, protecting marine assets and contributing to a blockade if required. The Naval Service must also be capable of supporting Army operations by sea lift and close naval support.

            And as you said there is no mention that the role only includes FP or that it is limited to surface vessels.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
              I concure and although I have posted this before here again is the official mission satement for the NS:
              Defence roles include defending territorial seas, deterring intrusive or aggressive acts, conducting maritime surveillance, maintaining an armed naval presence, ensuring right of passage, protecting marine assets and contributing to a blockade if required. The Naval Service must also be capable of supporting Army operations by sea lift and close naval support.

              And as you said there is no mention that the role only includes FP or that it is limited to surface vessels.
              It's not just the NS that suffer from the same issue though, and sadly it's not going to change short of some major international incident.

              Comment


              • It is vital that alongside expensive amphibious assault ships a navy invests in mine warfare equipment and training, otherwise, the procurement of an amphibious capability will have been in vain. Naval mines are not going anywhere soon...nor will amphibious operations if they lack the ability to dea


                Interesting link which explains the importance of mine countermeasures in a modern environment.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • I very much doubt the CPV replacements will go to tender for at least a few years

                  Comment


                  • No-one doubts the importance of mine warfare what the article does miss is the need to be able to co-deploy MCMV alongside Amphibious vessels. The former have limted range and a speed between 12-16kts while the Amphibious vessels are long range at relatively high speed of 20kts. It was one of the reasons why the USN went for the LCS concept.

                    Comment


                    • Have the USN deployed an LCS outside home waters yet?
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment


                      • They've done "showing the flag" work out of Singapore, though I think only one of the two classes has actually had any hulls do so, none with the Mine systems, honestly I wouldn't use the LCS as anything other than "more money than sense".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                          They've done "showing the flag" work out of Singapore, though I think only one of the two classes has actually had any hulls do so, none with the Mine systems, honestly I wouldn't use the LCS as anything other than "more money than sense".
                          Both hull types have now done a long tern deployment to Singapore.
                          The main problem with the LCS is not the concept but the solution. The USN was to have picked one design which it would have then developed and built, instead because of politics (the bain of many a program) they ordered both. Two little time, too few resources to ensure that both designs were mature before entering service. Had they gone the original plan they would most likely have a relatively good vessel at the moment. As well as the structures being different the sensor suites are also different, this all raises the level of development risk.
                          Already in the current batches of vessels there can be seen many upgrades being built into the vessels. And as for the follow-n FFG(X) program, my money would be on the Freedom class variant. And we must not forget that these are 44kts+ craft with a shallow draught of 4m but still with a 4000nm range. And when compared to the NSC of the Coast Guard the price is a snip $360m for the LCS and $735m for the NSC, different mission but similar weapons and sensor suite.
                          Last edited by EUFighter; 13 August 2018, 08:32.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                            No-one doubts the importance of mine warfare what the article does miss is the need to be able to co-deploy MCMV alongside Amphibious vessels. The former have limted range and a speed between 12-16kts while the Amphibious vessels are long range at relatively high speed of 20kts. It was one of the reasons why the USN went for the LCS concept.
                            In mine warfare there are a number of phases. Initially minelaying by any means such as surface layer, submarine, and airdropped. The latter two would
                            be for high capability mines while the former might be field mines or barrier mines. The minelayers were often high speed like HMS Manxman capable of 30/40 knots. Mineclearance by sweeping , or swimmers aided by UUV's systems , is a slow persistent operation not requiring other than passage speed typically 14/16 knots, and that was restricted by weather. There is still a NATO standing Force dealing with some of the 200,000 mines etc deployed around the Baltic region.
                            Amphibious warefare has an immediacy about it in that it takes place on an unannounced day and cannot be telegraphed by days of noticeable preparations. The solution is to choose cleaner sites selected by covert teams.

                            Comment


                            • HMS Manxman was retired in 1972, the USN retired their minelayers long before that and currently South Korea with the Nampol & Woosan classes, Poland with the Lubin class and Finland with the Hameemaa class are the only navies with dedicated minelayers. Until recently the German Navy did also have the capability to lay mine with their Gepard FAC which are now retired.

                              For the Baltic Sea estimates vary from 40,000 to 200,000 mines, but this is tiny compared to the total amount of UXO in the same area. As I said before in the North Channel between NI and Scotland there was 2,000,000t of UOX. Some has already exploded but no-one knows how much remains.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                                HMS Manxman was retired in 1972, the USN retired their minelayers long before that and currently South Korea with the Nampol & Woosan classes, Poland with the Lubin class and Finland with the Hameemaa class are the only navies with dedicated minelayers. Until recently the German Navy did also have the capability to lay mine with their Gepard FAC which are now retired.

                                For the Baltic Sea estimates vary from 40,000 to 200,000 mines, but this is tiny compared to the total amount of UXO in the same area. As I said before in the North Channel between NI and Scotland there was 2,000,000t of UOX. Some has already exploded but no-one knows how much remains.
                                The favoured dumping spot was the NNW/SSE Beaufort Dyke in the North Channel where more than a million tonnes of ordnance has been dumped by the Uk with a supplemental amount by our Services. AFAIK this has now stopped however there has been up to at least 40 explosive issues ranging from 6 big Bangs , classed as Cat.1 to those classified down to Cat 0.1. There are amounts of old chemical ordnance there principally Phosgene shells, also old bombs and unfused DC's, including ours. Big Storms have caused some shore detonations off the RYNNS of Galloway. I suppose all Off together would yield a poor man's Megatonne.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X