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 expat01 View Post
    A good point. Two things I would ask is that in the event of the international security situation declining rapidly it is too late to start acquiring capabilities you never had; we got away with it in WW2 through no efforts of our own. More immediately, will the government be seeking to have the NS take part in future operations, for one example anti-piracy missions, in areas where the threat is greater than in home waters?
    The wording of the WP would indicate that primarily the EPV will be the one completing overseas taskings, however the CPVs do have to be flexible.

    Comment


    • Going to war

      Originally posted by DeV View Post
      The wording of the WP would indicate that primarily the EPV will be the one completing overseas taskings, however the CPVs do have to be flexible.
      Some interesting stuff about conventional war by the pundits. I remember a week when the Naval service was told to prepare for war. We loaded to the gills with ammo for our 4 Inch gun, our 2 Pounder, our 4 X 20mm, our Hedgehog ATW, and a full suite of HE Depth charges. We brought to scale all personal safety equipment and waited.
      It was the week of the brinkmanship between the US and Russia over the CUBAN missile crisis. I'm not sure what was in the minds of those upstairs but we thought it was real.
      Whatever ships we have or get, then they MUST be defendable, and carry out ANY task in their area of operations.

      Comment


      • Ancientmariner, was the submarine detection equipment (ASDIC?) kept serviceable on the Corvettes and did anti sub training take place?

        I do feel that given the choice, any government would prefer to ignore subs as the expense and use of the detection capability would probably lead to some very awkward questions.

        Comment


        • Whatever ships we have or get, then they MUST be defendable, and carry out ANY task in their area of operations.
          As history has proven defending a ship is only possible when you have identified the threat. You do not send ships into an AO where they cannot meet defined threats.

          Again we are dealing with Fishery Protection vessels with some minor warfare capability.

          Modern day frigates are a quantum leap from where the NS will be for the next 15 years at least. Every Navy in the world deploying singular units deploys them in tandem with other navies who can support them or indeed the vessels are self supporting.

          We could go down the road of buying off the shelf products armed to the teeth both offensively and defensively but thy are not suitable for deployment in our waters.

          Buy Absalon by all means, but don't expect to get another hull replacement for twenty years.

          Buy plenty of OPVs and deploy them alongside people capable of offering the support we require in certain threat areas, but don't put all the eggs in one basket and come crying when the arse falls out of the basket.
          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pym View Post
            Ancientmariner, was the submarine detection equipment (ASDIC?) kept serviceable on the Corvettes and did anti sub training take place?

            I do feel that given the choice, any government would prefer to ignore subs as the expense and use of the detection capability would probably lead to some very awkward questions.
            I fear that the budget for an ASW capability would more than equal the entire defence budget, including pensions...

            That's not say that the state should not have at least an idea of what goes on in its waters, and the capability to impose its will in those waters, but having seen the bill for a T26 ASW frigate I'm afraid I take the view that whoever decided to mention an ASW capability in the defence
            white paper doesn't understand the costs involved...

            Comment


            • I fear that the budget for an ASW capability would more than equal the entire defence budget, including pensions
              Thank you !

              but having seen the bill for a T26 ASW frigate I'm afraid I take the view that whoever decided to mention an ASW capability in the defence
              white paper doesn't understand the costs involved...
              Again thank you

              the voice of reason
              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

              Comment


              • Just out of curiosity why are we discussing ASW for the CPV replacement?
                The only reason I suggested the "adapted Baltic Tugs" was because If I am not mistaken there was a report by the Deptartment for Transport identifying a need for a ETV, now maybe they are not ideal for the navy, but is building a new ship based on the specification of a ship that was originally designed to patrol Hong Kong really ideal either?
                It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
                It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
                It was a new age...It was the end of history.
                It was the year everything changed.

                Comment


                • ASW Training Naval Service

                  Originally posted by pym View Post
                  Ancientmariner, was the submarine detection equipment (ASDIC?) kept serviceable on the Corvettes and did anti sub training take place?

                  I do feel that given the choice, any government would prefer to ignore subs as the expense and use of the detection capability would probably lead to some very awkward questions.
                  Yes. When I joined in 1961 our ASW equipment and weapons were fully operational. We still had a remaining cohort either from the RN and officers and ratings trained in the UK on ASW. The Dome was kept on deck and had its own davit and coupling system. There was also a training simulator, ashore, which gave operators the audio inputs from a tracked target to the point of "Instant echoes" and DC launch. We never did live training with a designated submarine but on occasion entertained the odd whale off the West Coast. Both officers and ratings could be trained in their various roles.
                  In the last few years of their lives the Corvettes were demilitarised partially in response to an incident on Cliona, and to signify the need for new vessels.
                  I firmly believe what we need now in Naval Tonnage, must be left in the hands of the Navy and the wisdom of the Government WP.
                  In the post war period we were up to speed with the then technologies but got left behind when we started building ships to approved specifications which by and large frowned on firepower.

                  Comment


                  • The counter-mine/-IED part of the replacement programme have probably covered what's in the link below, but if not, here's something to enjoy over your coffee break

                    * http://www.naval-technology.com/feat...eeded-4809232/

                    In a nutshell, the head of the Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group thinks a robust, flexible, deployable MCM capability will be required into the future. Now he would say that, wouldn't he...

                    Comment


                    • Originally from > Foreign Naval Visits

                      Can those with better knowledge and experience than mine comment on the suitability of a HNoMS Otra type vessel for inshore fisheries protection?

                      We know that Otra and her Alta class sisters are competent mine warfare vessels, particularly since their Minesniper III upgrade.

                      Could this design be the basis for a Peacock class CPV replacement? Speed, stability and shallow draught would appear to be very attractive features.

                      Undoubtedly there would need to be redesign to facilitate dual Rhib operation and associated facilities, modern accommodation for 21 day endurance.

                      Basic Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta-class_minesweeper

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Medsailor View Post
                        This will tell you something about seakeeping limitations.
                        [ATTACH]8205[/ATTACH]
                        In general, given that the capabilities expected from your CPVs are roughly analogous to what many expect from OPVs, especially in terms of seakeeping, then an SES solution appears overly complicated and has a definite upper limit for sea conditions that occurs when the seaway is high enough to impact the centre body of the vessel. What makes them so good for MCMVs is their (relatively) high transit speed compared to displacement hulls, low noise and pressure signature, low susceptibility to shock and the relatively large deck area for a given size/tonnage.
                        Thanks to Medsailor for the above. I guess we're looking at something more like the new Polish Kormoran 2 class minehunters.

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	bef9f4b92ef826e3594fc10eac998847.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	82.6 KB
ID:	698064

                        http://www.janes.com/article/54671/p...warfare-vessel

                        Comment


                        • Not at all. That type of ship would be of no use where we would intend using it.
                          This idea is closer to our thinking I would be willing to suggest.

                          http://www.naval-technology.com/feat...asure-vessels/

                          Comment


                          • I really like the sound of that, na grohmití, particularly as the RN's C3 project currently looks like this Venator 110. That's a proper scrappy little frigate!

                            Far be it from me to enter into theological disputes found elsewhere regarding the true meaning of the recent Defence White Paper, but the gist I take from it, and the recent missive on the possibility of a 9 ship Navy is that we're looking at 1 Eithne replacement, 2 Peacock replacements, and perhaps 1 (for-the-time-being undefined) other.

                            My belief is, and please forgive me if I'm stumbling in the dark here, that the 2 Peacock replacement Coastal Patrol Vessels/Mine Counter-Measures Vessels will be spending 75% or more of their time doing inshore fisheries protection. I understand that draught in the 3m range is a big plus when you're doing that kind of work, so my eye has been drawn to this unlovely, but functional, beast.

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	Kormoran 2 Model.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	66.2 KB
ID:	698065

                            I'm no naval architect but I believe a modest stretch could produce two very high standard direct replacements for LÉ Orla & Ciara. They could be enabled for dual Rhib operation with all modern facilities, accommodation for 21 day endurance, and lest we forget; should we actually ever need it, a top-end mine countermeasures capability.

                            All that said, I'm a huge fan of the Venator for the NS, but if and when it will ever happen is, as I understand it, all up in the air. Undoubtedly there would be the prospect of getting two of them at a relatively competitive price tacked onto the end of a RN order for six or eight. But there are just so many unknowns and variables at work here, my understanding of recent decisions in the UK MoD is that if the Venator/Type 31 Patrol Frigate does see the light of day, it will not be until the 2030s. That could put them in the running to replace the P50s and even, invoking Murphy's special law of warship production scheduling, the P60s.

                            Irish/Dutch/British exercise 2050
                            Something for our friends in the Silent Service. SSK Submarine Corvette, Patrol Frigates, and Environmental Protection Vessel are ours!

                            If we're looking for 2019-ish replacements for Eithne and the Peacocks featuring enhanced sea-keeping abilities, functionality, endurance and modern accommodation for the North Atlantic winter, we could always go for exactly that. Róisín++ HPV. It's what we know, it's the safe bet, and in any kind of sensible world, assumptions just given, we'd get four of them for our 9 ship Navy without much resistance at all.

                            The remaining issue then would be, are the P50s suitable for inshore fisheries protection and MCM work? I'm inclined to think that the P60s would be better suited to the latter. It's all about the deck-space[?]. But apart from the addition of the necessary mine hunting equipment; would major work be needed to mitigate the effects of things that are prone, on occasion, to go boom?

                            I'm particularly keen to hear opinions on to the mine countermeasures issue specifically. Now that it's been enshrined in a white paper following extensive consultation with our gallant friends in Europe; do we now actually have to get [more] suitable Mine Counter-Measures/Coastal Patrol Vessels, or is the Samuel Beckett destined to become the most glamorous minesweeper ever to see the light of God's creation?

                            How the man himself would get a kick out of that!

                            Bottom line, are the P50s/P60s suitable for this type of work? From a technical/engineering/safety standpoint? Or must we embrace the horror?

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	Kormoran 2 Model.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	66.2 KB
ID:	698065

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                              Not at all. That type of ship would be of no use where we would intend using it.
                              This idea is closer to our thinking I would be willing to suggest.

                              http://www.naval-technology.com/feat...asure-vessels/
                              It is impossible to achieve the same level of MCM capability with a bolt-on system as that which can be achieved with a dedicated MCM hull. However, once it has been decided that a limited (small-scale route survey, identification and neutralisation of ordnance in harbour approaches, location and examination of objects in relatively shallow depths, say 100-150 metres) capability is what is required, then achieving it is relatively host-platform agnostic. There have been notable fails in this approach, the LCS for instance, but leveraging commercial ROV technology (both surface and sub-surface), single-use disposal vehicles, COTS electronics and containerised diver support modules can achieve a reasonable level of capability. Sustained MCM operations in a high risk environment require a more robust approach with dedicated MCMVs and a host of other assets to support and protect both them and the operational gains they achieve.

                              So when all is said and done, I would say focus on building a CPV that is fit for and focused on the CPV roles envisaged and incorporate sufficient flexibility to allow the elements required for limited MCM activities to be plugged in as and when necessary. Otherwise risk ending up with a solution that is neither fish nor fowl.

                              Most importantly, manage expectations. Don't let anyone think for a moment that a bolt-on system can provide the full spectrum of capabilities.

                              Comment


                              • LÉ James Joyce in exercise with NATO MCMVs

                                Origin > Foreign Naval Visits

                                LÉ James Joyce exercised yesterday with the Standing Nato Mine Counter Measures Group off the East Coast.

                                Irish Naval Service Photos

                                NATO MCG1 Photos

                                Any deductions to be drawn from this do you think?

                                Has just occurred to me that the P60s enjoy the best organic diving support facilities in the NS, and surely also in the flotilla on exercise yesterday.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X