Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • Originally posted by DeV View Post
    They are inextricably linked

    I even have a political-compromise fall-back position, which everyone will hate equally..


    Unpalatable Prospect (Concept)

    Detailed technical specification for Damen MPV 6214
    Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 3 May 2019, 22:18. Reason: Link to tech spec added, grammar

    Comment


    • Too slow to be a CPV
      Too low bollard tow to be a useful ETV
      Draft too deep to be a CPV

      It could possibly do the job of MCM mothership due to deck space




      A traditional MCMV is too slow to be a PV and other too small to be all weather, it won’t have the bollard tow to be a useful ETV
      An ETV is too slow to be a PV
      A PV generally won’t have the bollard tow to be an ETV
      Last edited by DeV; 3 May 2019, 23:01.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
        Too slow to be a CPV
        Too low bollard tow to be a useful ETV
        Draft too deep to be a CPV

        It could possibly do the job of MCM mothership due to deck space
        Couldn't agree with you more.

        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        Except no one.. wants a ETV. In fact, Government policy is not to have one.
        A multi-purpose offshore patrol vessel, albeit with very high capital
        costs, can make savings across government by increased efficiency ..

        .. and the ability to flex an otherwise costly emergency towing
        capability at short notice ..

        Experience elsewhere in Europe suggests that the likeliest vessel
        requiring assistance is small enough to require a relatively modest
        tug with a 100–150t bollard pull.. - From conclusions (PDF Pages 63/64)


        2012 IRCG study into provision for an ETV - Full Document (PDF)


        ICGV Thor

        NoCGV Harstad

        UT512 Coastguard Vessel

        You'll note that the example vessels shown meet the quoted technical requirements and the very high capital costs refered to would be reduced substantially to marginal costs because we need two new Naval Vessels, of some description, anyway. Delve deeper into the IRCG report and, in the relatively inert language beloved of consultants everywhere, the Naval Service recieve; a furtive glance, heavy breathing, and following an awkward approach, the tang of unrequited disappointment.

        The moving of liability for the operation away from the
        State, by outsourcing some or all of the operation of the ETV carries a
        premium in terms of contractual fees. These may not be offset by
        preventing an increase in the size of the directly employed workforce, and
        may be unnecessary if greater efficiency can be leveraged from other state
        agencies such as the Irish Naval Service or Irish Lights. - PDF Page 7

        There may be the potential to reduce research, development and design costs
        by relying upon technical support from other nations already operating such ships.
        One likely partner, the Irish Naval Service, already possesses sufficiently trained and qualified
        personnel to crew and operate such a vessel which could offset some running costs. - PDF Page 34

        A telephone discussion was had with.. ..at the Department of Defence, who
        intimated that in the event that the State wished to pursue the procurement
        of an offshore multi-purpose vessel capable of emergency towing, the Flag Officer
        would be open for holding discussions with the IRCG with regard to the possibility
        of a joint service provision and funding. - PDF Page 47

        Comment


        • MOD: please keep the ETV talk to the ETV thread

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
            The flagged nations are on the bottom of every project it just means we are in the EDA.


            That’s as maybe but Government policy is now to regain some additional MCM capabilities
            .

            There is always the possibility that various levels, from acute to sustained tasks, in underwater clearance may be required. Minimally we would need two capable vessels operating modern clearance methods with sufficient range and durability to assist as required within EU waters. Personnel involved would become skilled in evolutions unique to MCM and would require ring-fencing to maintain on-board skill levels.
            ETV is a firebrigade exercise with reasonable probability of being required in these days of Cruise liners with thousands of souls on board. Weather patterns are of a more aggressive nature. In the 50's and 60's it was not unusual to have famous tugs , such as Turmoil , stationed at Cobh, for the winter period. ETV operations are as relevant as OIL RIG Standby Vessels - ERV- ERRV's who are continuously on station in one per rig.
            Naval standing forces are a resource for providing manpower for a suitable vessel with a useful bollard pull .The question is do we acquire an Ocean towing vessel OR add the capability to the MRV. Towing requires reasonable grip in the water ( Draft ) which would be more available to an MRV rather than the OPV's. The Difficulty will be that there may be only one MRV and location will be subject to chance and prior tasking.
            Last edited by ancientmariner; 4 May 2019, 09:09.

            Comment


            • Originally posted on >Navy & Naval Reserve >Emergency towing vessel (Reproduced here for relevance to topic)

              Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
              How about basing the MCM/UIED capability on the P50s and P60s?
              (Edited here for relevance and clarity)
              Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post


              Defence White Paper (2015)

              "..similar vessels with counter-mine and counter-IED capabilities."



              Would suggest that, perhaps in a purely legalistic sense, a Vard-7-80 design with a containerised MCM/UIED capacity aboard would meet the strict prescription.

              Would free up fleet-numbers for two ETVs, but would this approach be sufficient to meet NS operational, retention and development objectives in MCM/UIED?

              (Edited here for relevance and clarity)
              Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 6 May 2019, 00:21. Reason: Clarity

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
                Originally posted on >Navy & Naval Reserve >Emergency towing vessel (Reproduced here for relevance to topic)
                MCM adaptibility of steel vessels restricts use exclusively to off ship remote disposal of specific mines and maybe excludes moored mines and magnetic mines. In any event large deck areas are required for handling of deployable equipments and umbilical connections , not sure if any of the ships mentioned could do sufficient tasks to be classed as MCM compatible.

                Comment


                • It is not just the Dutch and Belgians that are replacing GFRP minehunters with steel hulled motherships. The Australian Navy has gone one step further with SEA1180 "Arafura" class which is based upon the Lürssen's OPV80 design. These vessels will replace the Armidale-class patrol boats, the Huon-class minehunters, the Leeuwin-class survey vessels, and the Paluma-class survey motor launches. So it well respected navies around the world can do it why would we be different, especially as its more than 30 years since we had a minesweeper in service and at the time they were hardly "state-of-the-art"??

                  So there is a lot of sense as U.S suggested in utilising the P60 design for some MCM missions especially as they already have 3 TEU spaces, a decent crane and if the 3rd RIB was deleted (do we need three?) there is even more space available. True the DP should be improved but this could be done on two new modified vessels. At least then there would be commonality over almost all the ships in service.

                  Comment


                  • Closer to 40, all three were broken up in 1987, and had been minding the wall of the basin for many years beforehand, having been decommissioned in 1984.
                    The Ton class whas the best of WW2 design minesweeping technology jammed into 46metres. The main purpose of her design was to try and not detonate the mines they were looking for, hook them on a wire towed between a pair of sweepers, and sink them with gunfire. Hardly hi-tech.
                    The third rib space is for a third rib. You can't hang a TEU there. You already have three TEU spots (plus electrical supply) and a heavy duty crane. Make the best of what you have.
                    SDC13824
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • A CPV with MCM/CIED capability may need a NSDS RHIB so the space could come in handy, the thing is that there could well be a need for more than 3 TEUs for MCM/CIED.

                      It also needs a work area which is limited with the TEUs.

                      Comment


                      • [QUOTE=na grohmiti;467566]Closer to 40, all three were broken up in 1987, and had been minding the wall of the basin for many years beforehand, having been decommissioned in 1984.
                        The Ton class whas the best of WW2 design minesweeping technology jammed into 46metres. The main purpose of her design was to try and not detonate the mines they were looking for, hook them on a wire towed between a pair of sweepers, and sink them with gunfire. Hardly hi-tech.
                        The third rib space is for a third rib. You can't hang a TEU there. You already have three TEU spots (plus electrical supply) and a heavy duty crane. Make the best of what you have.[ Quote

                        If you adapt current vessels using the available after deck space, geared towards housing 20ft TEU, then you may not have enough space for at least two large reels for deployment wire and transmission links, and the deployable units . Some of the modern remote controllable units are 36ft long and 10.5 ft wide . No doubt something could be fitted but it would require some redesign on the after end, including relocating deck fittings and maintaining mooring and towing arrangements.

                        Comment


                        • Absolutely, in fairness having said that, REMUS 100 (which the NSDS has and can be used for mine detection) can be launched from a RHIB.

                          But if we want something that can go deeper and/or actually do more than detect (eg Saab Double Eagle . https://youtu.be/cvjnur9ZCG0 ... then we need a work area and 3-5 TEUs and possibly a larger crane and/or a LARS (which would be advantageous for NSDS anyways)

                          The LARS for 2 divers (not sure if it would take AUV) is big... needs a TEU to ship it
                          This Diver Twin Basket Launch And Recovery System (LARS) has been designed to minimise deck space required. For more information, visit the SMP site.
                          Last edited by DeV; 6 May 2019, 23:20.

                          Comment


                          • See posts 275 and 430 for the NSDS current equipment requirements

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                              See posts 275 and 430 for the NSDS current equipment requirements
                              There are close links between the Diving Fraternity and modern mine and underwater EOD clearance. It is paramount that such a unit has an in-service facility for both training and operational tasks.Any future MCM capable unit must be worked up in a real envoirment preferably with other similar naval Units. The Belgian/German MCM have both a simulator training unit and school for training their MCM assets. In addition to stated equipment requirements it is crucial that cyber security vis a vis Ecdis, AIS , and all GMDSS are proofed against hacking or spoofing. Viking Sky off Norway may have had an erroneous navigation data incident leading to her distress incident. It goes without saying all ships including MCM must have exact knowledge of position.

                              Comment


                              • If we are to go down the USV route your talking a fair amount of space being required (really min 2 TEU before you do anything about the mine that it has detected)



                                There is the Seafox system (but that is expendable for mine disposal, so more required):
                                This fibre-optic guided, one shot mine disposal vehicle is used for disposal of naval mines and other ordnance found at sea.





                                The big advantage of something like Saab Double Eagle SAROV is that it can be used for all aspects of MCM and isn’t disposable when it comes to the final phase

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X