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 ancientmariner View Post
    The idea is viable provided the shore infrastructure is adapted to implement role change between the different options. In this case all containerised units are railed in through stern apertures requiring shore loading facilities/cranes. There would also need to be a range of crew skills provided for to adjust crew to the required roles.
    The aft containers are load through the stern apertures, while the forward 2 are through flight deck apertures. Clearly it would be best to have a home port capable of doing this, but at a pinch 2 suitable mobile cranes could be a fall back solution. The crewing could be a catalyst to change some practices to become more multi-skilled, but as the training for a individual would be longer I would expect an appropriate increase in remuneration.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
      In regard to OP SOPHIA and enforcement mandates I would imagine the Italian Command are watching individual ship capabilities and tasking them accordingly.
      Seeing that there are currently only 4 vessels involved in Op Sophia I would expect each ship is being used to the fullest of its capability.

      The Italians are interesting as soon they will introduce their PPA, Pattugliatori Polivalenti d'Altura (Multi Purpose Patrol Vessel), a 5000-5500t, €455m (2018 €s), replacing some of their frigates and most of their OPVs. They will have 2 flexible area for different missions, one like the Damen design aft and a second midships for containers. In all very similar to the Crossover design if a bit uglier!

      https://www.fincantieri.com/globalas...lvessels_f.pdf

      Some pics of the PPA and its two flexible mission areas:
      Click image for larger version

Name:	PPA.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	28.6 KB
ID:	698214Click image for larger version

Name:	PPA1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	61.4 KB
ID:	698215Click image for larger version

Name:	PPA2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	69.6 KB
ID:	698216Click image for larger version

Name:	PPA3.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	65.9 KB
ID:	698217Click image for larger version

Name:	PPA4.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	79.3 KB
ID:	698218
      Last edited by EUFighter; 4 August 2018, 10:26.

      Comment


      • More PPA

        Comment


        • And finally...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
            Seeing that there are currently only 4 vessels involved in Op Sophia I would expect each ship is being used to the fullest of its capability.

            The Italians are interesting as soon they will introduce their PPA, Pattugliatori Polivalenti d'Altura (Multi Purpose Patrol Vessel), a 5000-5500t, €455m (2018 €s), replacing some of their frigates and most of their OPVs. They will have 2 flexible area for different missions, one like the Damen design aft and a second midships for containers. In all very similar to the Crossover design if a bit uglier!

            https://www.fincantieri.com/globalas...lvessels_f.pdf

            Some pics of the PPA and its two flexible mission areas:
            [ATTACH]8560[/ATTACH][ATTACH]8561[/ATTACH][ATTACH]8562[/ATTACH][ATTACH]8563[/ATTACH][ATTACH]8564[/ATTACH]
            Our own published specs are for a ship 130m in length. The above at 143m at up to 32knots on CODAG is a Star Wars piece of kit complete with all dimension responses. We should lie somewhere on the overall scale of combined AA, ASW, AS, and asymmetrical responses. We are caught for ship space at Base.

            Comment


            • Turns out the Italians have decided that the PPA's are too large and are reducing the later hulls to smaller 3000 ton ships:
              https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-ship-designs/

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                Turns out the Italians have decided that the PPA's are too large and are reducing the later hulls to smaller 3000 ton ships:
                https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-ship-designs/
                Interesting but some poor reporting, for example it states the PPA were ordered as part of a €5.4 billion package without mentioning that this allocation also included the LHA Trieste, the LSS Vulcano and two smaller patrol vessels. Also the planned 7 PPA vessels are to be in three versions with the last three being ATBM capable. There is also an option for three follow-on and these could well be changed to something smaller given the shear numbers the Italians are replacing (must make the RN weep).

                But cutting a 6000t ship down to a 3000t ship is not as easy as just using "MS Paint"; it would be a totally new ship. If they want something smaller then Fincantieri already have a design in the form of the Doha Corvette that they have sold to Qatar. At 3250t these would be a good fit between the PPA and the COV vessels at 1300-1400t. The latter is the replacement for the current fleet of minehunters which will be replaced 1for1 with multi-purpose vessels which can operate out of smaller harbours!

                http://navyrecognition.com/index.php...te-design.html
                Last edited by EUFighter; 5 August 2018, 08:14.

                Comment


                • But cutting a 6000t ship down to a 3000t ship is not as easy as just using "MS Paint"; it would be a totally new ship. If they want something smaller then Fincantieri already have a design in the form of the Doha Corvette that they have sold to Qatar. At 3250t these would be a good fit between the PPA and the COV vessels at 1300-1400t. The latter is the replacement for the current fleet of minehunters which will be replaced 1for1 with multi-purpose vessels which can operate out of smaller harbours!

                  http://navyrecognition.com/index.php...te-design.html[/QUOTE]

                  The modern Designers glossy brochures of untested ships leads to ships of unknown costs and capabilities. I despair of unusual ship design that doesn't allow for frequent interaction between ships especially during peace time, such as rescue, firefighting, towing, and boarding. The ultimate is USS Zumwalt with so many stealthy features, that, other than the flight deck, the crew are confined within the hull. Surface design of ships is leading to a weapon response platform similar to a surfaced submarine. Such ships are one trick ponies depending on weapon systems to be relevant , good engines, and long range standoff to stay safe. It is interesting that the replacement for the Burkes will be more conventional although weapons maybe more electronic requiring huge amounts of generation capacity.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                    The modern Designers glossy brochures of untested ships leads to ships of unknown costs and capabilities. I despair of unusual ship design that doesn't allow for frequent interaction between ships especially during peace time, such as rescue, firefighting, towing, and boarding. The ultimate is USS Zumwalt with so many stealthy features, that, other than the flight deck, the crew are confined within the hull. Surface design of ships is leading to a weapon response platform similar to a surfaced submarine. Such ships are one trick ponies depending on weapon systems to be relevant , good engines, and long range standoff to stay safe. It is interesting that the replacement for the Burkes will be more conventional although weapons maybe more electronic requiring huge amounts of generation capacity.
                    The Zumwalt class was the extreme designed around the period when the USN didn't really know what type of enemy force they would be facing, and the Marines were calling for NGS, it's "Max Stealth" design was decided on for those reasons and at the time everyone loved "Stealth", the "peacetime" operations you list weren't a priority (afterall the USN would have Frigates to do that scut work). The new build Burkes are designed for an entirely different situation, ABM with a peer competitor in China. Though in reality that design is being pushed to beyond it's max, and there's nothing coming to replace the Tico hulls and the taskforce capabilities they have, and at the same time you've the debacle of the LCS that keeps on giving. It will be interesting to see what the FFG(X) selects for the actual frigate replacement.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                      The Zumwalt class was the extreme designed around the period when the USN didn't really know what type of enemy force they would be facing, and the Marines were calling for NGS, it's "Max Stealth" design was decided on for those reasons and at the time everyone loved "Stealth", the "peacetime" operations you list weren't a priority (afterall the USN would have Frigates to do that scut work). The new build Burkes are designed for an entirely different situation, ABM with a peer competitor in China. Though in reality that design is being pushed to beyond it's max, and there's nothing coming to replace the Tico hulls and the taskforce capabilities they have, and at the same time you've the debacle of the LCS that keeps on giving. It will be interesting to see what the FFG(X) selects for the actual frigate replacement.
                      I agree but we must not let techies run away with producing ships of evolutionary concepts geared towards meeting all dimension attacks but failing due to poor reliability . We must stick to defining our needs and build reliable ships to meet those needs.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        I agree but we must not let techies run away with producing ships of evolutionary concepts geared towards meeting all dimension attacks but failing due to poor reliability . We must stick to defining our needs and build reliable ships to meet those needs.
                        I take it you meant "revolutionary" as an evolution is a safe way to advance ship design, take the Burke's, Flight I, II, IIa and next Flight III.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                          I take it you meant "revolutionary" as an evolution is a safe way to advance ship design, take the Burke's, Flight I, II, IIa and next Flight III.
                          Absolutely NOT. The modern Defence Industries have taken control of the basic forms of Naval Technology and are producing for customers, depending on what they will buy a range of ships from single use to a stretched version that can do almost everything. Ships need to be designed by the end users and not by the sellers of wares. Most of what is being produced falls short on promise and is in some cases unmanageable as a front line ship. Improving a ship type through it's life is a sensible thing, the rest has the potential to build crock Navies.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                            Absolutely NOT. The modern Defence Industries have taken control of the basic forms of Naval Technology and are producing for customers, depending on what they will buy a range of ships from single use to a stretched version that can do almost everything. Ships need to be designed by the end users and not by the sellers of wares. Most of what is being produced falls short on promise and is in some cases unmanageable as a front line ship. Improving a ship type through it's life is a sensible thing, the rest has the potential to build crock Navies.
                            There's a lot wrong with modern defence procurement, however taking it "in house" won't solve the issues either I feel, first because that knowledge is long gone for most nations, second if we are to take the US for example even when it was "in house" they had plenty of issues in and of themselves. Today's issues stem from everything from political interference, political mandated polices, changing plans during design/build and funding. There's no single perfect answer.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                              Absolutely NOT. The modern Defence Industries have taken control of the basic forms of Naval Technology and are producing for customers, depending on what they will buy a range of ships from single use to a stretched version that can do almost everything. Ships need to be designed by the end users and not by the sellers of wares. Most of what is being produced falls short on promise and is in some cases unmanageable as a front line ship. Improving a ship type through it's life is a sensible thing, the rest has the potential to build crock Navies.
                              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? What end users need to do is properly define what they want, when they want it and then see what they can afford from the available solutions. Yes, they need to understand what is possible and what not, not to be blinded by glossy presentations or trade shows. Above all the negotiation skills of the buyers have to be vastly improve.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                                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? What end users need to do is properly define what they want, when they want it and then see what they can afford from the available solutions. Yes, they need to understand what is possible and what not, not to be blinded by glossy presentations or trade shows. Above all the negotiation skills of the buyers have to be vastly improve.
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X