Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • The question is, does a smaller vessel still fit the NS requirements? Would a larger ship, off the shelf newbuild (with nothing in the way of local spec) be better value for money?
    If the RN feel the need, after just over ten years, to replace the River with a larger ship, why would we have any use for them?
    We need to increase capability, not reduce. The River class are lesser armed than any present or past OPV in service. They were better than the Island class. So was L.E Deirdre.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
      If the RN feel the need, after just over ten years, to replace the River with a larger ship, why would we have any use for them?
      I thought the replacements were to win the Scottish Referendum and to keep the Scottish ship builders happy.
      What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
        The question is, does a smaller vessel still fit the NS requirements? Would a larger ship, off the shelf newbuild (with nothing in the way of local spec) be better value for money?
        If the RN feel the need, after just over ten years, to replace the River with a larger ship, why would we have any use for them?
        We need to increase capability, not reduce. The River class are lesser armed than any present or past OPV in service. They were better than the Island class. So was L.E Deirdre.
        IMHO they should be replaced by either a 2nd EPV (if we had the money) or a OPV (2 if we had the money).

        The NS are getting larger areas of responsibility, overseas patrols, blue/green role, rougher seas etc.

        Unless the future CPVs are fast all (Irish) weather vessels they cannot be considered good VFM

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ODIN View Post
          I thought the replacements were to win the Scottish Referendum and to keep the Scottish ship builders happy.
          'Replacement' being a very loose term in this case as the RN can ill afford to offload economic ( in comparrisson to frigates) such as these.

          In recent years the queues to buy discarded RN vessels starts well beyond our shores...plus if we had wanted Rivers we could have bought them off the shelf instead of P50s and P60s.

          Replacement for P40s must at least be as capable as the P60s.
          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

          Comment


          • but three(or 2) Rivers at a knock down price is a no-brainer in my opinion
            yeah, real no brainer, the day of buying RN cast offs should be long gone, we are no longer desperate to get hulls in the water, CPVs were bought in desperation.

            NS need to hold out on new builds. no more bargain basement stuff!
            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
              To quote page 79 of WP 2015:

              "....due for replacement in the coming years"
              "...will be replaced with similar vessels with counter-mine and counter-IED capabilities"
              ".... an enhanced capability .... in meeting .... ongoing requirements and contingencies, including the protection of Ireland's vital sea lanes of communication."
              So something between a CPV capable of carrying 2 X TEU to a MICV

              Comment


              • Well hp there is nothing wrong with a bargain but if you think the CPVs " were bought in desperation"
                I was there in the time the Sweepers had gone for scrap and the PVs were hard pushed to do inshore work, two years without an inshore capabilty was less than ideal, the P400s were the only new builds on the market in the class, luckily we didn't go down that road as was proven later and by pure fluke the CPVs became available, they were an unknown quantity outside Hong Kong, but they could do inshore work, but their accomadation was as bad as the sweepers, it could be said the NS were unsure about the purchase but they were told to get on with it and welcomed them after a while.

                what is the point of newbuild "like for like" replacements
                No not like for like, keep the numbers up but buy P60s instead of smaller vessels, the RHIBs in current service are far more capable, just drop them further out and have three work inshore from a mother vessel, now you have the flexibility inshore and offshore.

                Two P60s would be much better (€150 million) but not compared 3 Rivers at "bargain basement" prices
                .

                Buy two P60s and you have commonality across the board and save your self millions in training , spares refits, weapons fits etc.

                Buy a dissimilar type and you are back into logistics nightmare, with a ten year old vessel
                Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                Comment


                • We are soon approaching a situation where the entire fleet is of the one design with engines from one manufacturer, with whom we have a long and friendly relationship.
                  Why change that?
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                    ...Buy two P60s and you have commonality across the board and save your self millions in training , spares refits, weapons fits etc.

                    Buy a dissimilar type and you are back into logistics nightmare, with a ten year old vessel
                    i don't think anyone disagrees with the logic of that position - everyone knows that the savings you get from only having one logs/maintinance/training stream are phenominal - the issue is the rather more difficult question 'what if the DOF/Cabinet says choose one of two options: one P60, or two Rivers...'

                    a seven P60 fleet, or a six P60 and two River fleet?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                      No not like for like, keep the numbers up but buy P60s instead of smaller vessels, the RHIBs in current service are far more capable, just drop them further out and have three work inshore from a mother vessel, now you have the flexibility inshore and offshore.

                      Buy two P60s and you have commonality across the board and save your self millions in training , spares refits, weapons fits etc.

                      Buy a dissimilar type and you are back into logistics nightmare, with a ten year old vessel
                      Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                      We are soon approaching a situation where the entire fleet is of the one design with engines from one manufacturer, with whom we have a long and friendly relationship.
                      Why change that?
                      Because the Government spent the guts of 5 years coming up with a document that states otherwise (ie they want 1 MPV, 5 OPVs and 2 CPVs !

                      Problem is that the NS has the experience of being involved in the design and building of 1 HPVs and 9 OPVs but none of a CPV (so that could be a risk (or course there was a risk with each of them).

                      Potentially of course you could get machinery & equipment commonality with a bespoke CPV.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                        i don't think anyone disagrees with the logic of that position - everyone knows that the savings you get from only having one logs/maintinance/training stream are phenominal - the issue is the rather more difficult question 'what if the DOF/Cabinet says choose one of two options: one P60, or two Rivers...'

                        a seven P60 fleet, or a six P60 and two River fleet?
                        Not an issue because ....... as I keep saying..... they have already decided!!

                        The fleet is going to be (until funds are available to increase the numbers (but there will still be a mix):
                        1 X MRV (with freight capacity and some kind of helo capacity)
                        5 X OPVs (the P50 & P60 classes)
                        2 X CPVs (similar to the Peacocks but with counter mine & IED capability)

                        The Rivers aren't suitable as a MRV and aren't similar to the CPVs, they are OPVs. Until Roisin needs replacement they aren't in with a shout!!!!!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                          We are soon approaching a situation where the entire fleet is of the one design with engines from one manufacturer, with whom we have a long and friendly relationship.
                          Why change that?
                          Well you and htpmurphy seem to agree with the Poll above (as do I) that 2 more P60s would be just perfect. But as Dev says thats not on offer apparently, nor is the type or manufacturer of the new CPVs.....So "commonality" isnt necessarily on offer either unless Appledore have already agreed to build our as yet unspecified ship. (has a price range been mentioned)
                          Without those advantages the Rivers are at least proven OPVs and would cost much less than two new design CPVs (for mine hunting) which might just allow us to have a serious look at an MRV with loads of "commonality" built in.
                          Glad that we all agree that P60s would be best though.
                          Last edited by Galloglass; 13 December 2015, 23:46.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Galloglass View Post
                            Well you and htpmurphy seem to agree with the Poll above (as do I) that 2 more P60s would be just perfect. But as Dev says thats not on offer apparently, nor is the type or manufacturer of the new CPVs.....So "commonality" isnt necessarily on offer either unless Appledore have already agreed to build our as yet unspecified ship. (has a price range been mentioned)
                            Without those advantages the Rivers are at least proven OPVs and would cost much less than two new design CPVs (for mine hunting) which might just allow us to have a serious look at an EPV with loads of "commonality" built in.
                            Glad that we all agree that P60s would be best though.
                            But we don't want more OPVs we want larger (possibly over double the P60 tonnage MRV) and smaller (probably half the P60 tonnage CPVs).

                            There hasn't been a tender document for CPVs so no offer could be accepted from Appledore (but that wouldn't rule them out either).

                            Comment


                            • Appledore are toast once P63 is complete. They have no further orders on the books, and no political will to get any. They were hoping for some of the Polar Research vessel work, but that seems to be heading for the Mersey. Cammel Laird got the nod for the £200m order. Appledore's inability to take larger ships also rules them out for potential offshore work. Their only hope is to build bits of the new frigates, whenever that gets going, if they are still in operation by then.
                              The difficulties experienced with P61 and P62s build there will turn off potential orders too.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                Not an issue because ....... as I keep saying..... they have already decided!!

                                The fleet is going to be (until funds are available to increase the numbers (but there will still be a mix):
                                1 X MRV (with freight capacity and some kind of helo capacity)
                                5 X OPVs (the P50 & P60 classes)
                                2 X CPVs (similar to the Peacocks but with counter mine & IED capability)

                                The Rivers aren't suitable as a MRV and aren't similar to the CPVs, they are OPVs. Until Roisin needs replacement they aren't in with a shout!!!!!
                                You realise that CPV is merely a designation, not a design. A CPV can be anything they want it to be, as long as it is tasked with CPV duties.
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X