Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • #46
    Would it be worth while re issuing requests for tenders for both the EPV and CPV's? And see what the shipmakers come up with?
    There is no problem that cannot be fixed with high explosive.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Stinger View Post
      Would it be worth while re issuing requests for tenders for both the EPV and CPV's? And see what the shipmakers come up with?
      There were no tenders issued for EPV's or CPV's.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Stinger View Post
        Would it be worth while re issuing requests for tenders for both the EPV and CPV's? And see what the shipmakers come up with?
        Yes. Why not. Issue the tender with an outline specification of what you want and it's intended area of operations. Give maximum, and patrol speed, required endurance, number of Seaman and Technical officers, number of NCO's, number of ratings, number of trainees. Boat types required, boat handling equipment, any modular/ container additions with suitable handling crane. Armament intentions, Radars, communications, combat systems, loads of training etc. The builders should come back with a builders proposed spec. and various prices for various options. Then after selection continue to tease out what you really can live with. Then in the end when all is built you require an as built specification , as built drawings,and manuals for everything and NOT photocopies. The ship gets copies of everything.

        Comment


        • #49
          Given that the request for proposals were issued in 2007, and for the EPV didnt get past that stage, there would be no other choice, people will have changed, companies closed down and merged.

          Comment


          • #50
            You don't need to go RFP again.
            German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
            German 2: Private? I am a general!
            German 1: That is the bad news.

            Comment


            • #51
              Interesting debate Gents.

              Quick question - the issue of range from Haulbowline and West coast operations.

              Would it be beyond the realms of possibility to move fuel and stores by road as required to a suitable Western port - Galway - Killybegs etc?

              And I again raise the question - would trading off the CPV replacement for slightly smaller and cheaper vessels (I'm still a Damon 4207 fan) be worthwhile if it freed up funding for the larger ninth vessel...in whatever configuration that may arrive?
              'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Stinger View Post
                Would it be worth while re issuing requests for tenders for both the EPV and CPV's? And see what the shipmakers come up with?
                Originally posted by Herald View Post
                There were no tenders issued for EPV's or CPV's.
                Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                Yes. Why not. Issue the tender with an outline specification of what you want and it's intended area of operations. Give maximum, and patrol speed, required endurance, number of Seaman and Technical officers, number of NCO's, number of ratings, number of trainees. Boat types required, boat handling equipment, any modular/ container additions with suitable handling crane. Armament intentions, Radars, communications, combat systems, loads of training etc. The builders should come back with a builders proposed spec. and various prices for various options. Then after selection continue to tease out what you really can live with. Then in the end when all is built you require an as built specification , as built drawings,and manuals for everything and NOT photocopies. The ship gets copies of everything.
                The first stage of the OPV (and EPV) tender was a Request For Proposals. The NS set out a board outline of what they were looking for (not as specific as you suggest
                ancientmariner) - http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com...Specifications.

                A max of 7 companies (1 design per company) were then Invited to Tender from those who submitted proposals.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by spider View Post
                  Interesting debate Gents.

                  Quick question - the issue of range from Haulbowline and West coast operations.

                  Would it be beyond the realms of possibility to move fuel and stores by road as required to a suitable Western port - Galway - Killybegs etc?

                  And I again raise the question - would trading off the CPV replacement for slightly smaller and cheaper vessels (I'm still a Damon 4207 fan) be worthwhile if it freed up funding for the larger ninth vessel...in whatever configuration that may arrive?
                  Where are the crew going to be based (you could possibly detach some NS personnel to Galway but then you have to worry about vessel security, rotating personnel etc etc (all the while, the NS is greatly under establishment))?

                  One of the major issues with the Peacocks is that you have something like 12 people living in 1 tiny compartment.

                  I'd agree about the 4207, plenty in service worldwide so it is proven with shallow drive and good speed but only 14 days endurance and only classified to sea area 3 (range is 2000nm @ patrol speed)
                  Last edited by DeV; 29 April 2015, 20:57.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                    You don't need to go RFP again.
                    After the best part of a decade it would be best practice to go to Rfp again.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      It is a little narrow gutted. Range seems short but they claim endurance of 21 days. The B.Veritas Certification is declared for sea area 4. If that is a fishing area, it is North Sea between UK and The Continent.
                      Am I correct in saying that "sea area 4" means a wave height of at least 4 metres 10% of the year?

                      That would equate to at least sea state 5 (4 metres). The OPVs needed unrestricted ops to Sea State 5 (reduced performance at SS6 and survive SS9).

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by paul g View Post
                        After the best part of a decade it would be best practice to go to Rfp again.
                        And its not that taxing from the Navy's point of view, as the effort is seen by both sides as a fishing excercise, its generally intentionally vague.

                        As an example, I do a lot of business with the ESB, we supply them with various types of equipment and software, with varying unit costs from a few grand to €10M /€20M a pop, we would get between 30/40 RFI's a year and 15/20 RFP's.

                        Generally, the documents they issue are pretty vague, and our responses are slightly less so, as a supplier its par for the course, and while boring enough, is part of the effort of doing business with them.

                        In this case, the last RFP would have gone out 8 years after Roisin was commisioned, and we're now 8 years on again.
                        If the Peacocks are to be replaced by more Beckett type ships, then the necessity for the exercise may be lessened somewhat. If , on the other hand, we're looking at Like for like replacement, then it would definitely make sense to price up the Fassmer 80 or what ever, and similar builds.

                        In any case, I'd imagine these are relatively moot points until the white paper is out. If that recommends an increase in hull numbers and the Government accept that, then anything is possible. If on the other hand its to stay at 8, then I'd imagine the Navy will push for repelacing the Peacocks and Eithne with the largest ships they can get, so three more Beckett types or a combination of Becketts and EPV.
                        Last edited by Herald; 29 April 2015, 21:39.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by DeV View Post
                          Where are the crew going to be based (you could possibly detach some NS personnel to Galway but then you have to worry about vessel security, rotating personnel etc etc (all the while, the NS is greatly under establishment))?

                          One of the major issues with the Peacocks is that you have something like 12 people living in 1 tiny compartment.

                          I'd agree about the 4207, plenty in service worldwide so it is proven with shallow drive and good speed but only 14 days endurance and only classified to sea area 3 (range is 2000nm @ patrol speed)
                          I'm not sure how long a patrol is Dev...and maybe that's opsec.

                          I was thinking along the lines of 10 days out...couple of days alongside to refuel / store / PT etc...ten days out...then RTB.

                          The recent drugs interception in the North Sea saw a 4207 operating 100 miles offshore...though granted not in heavy seas.

                          Bizarrely the US Coastguard version only has 5 days endurance...but a larger crew...not sure if the larger crew / weapons fit / sensors fit etc in the same size hull has impacted on fuel / stores carried? They use them for inshore FP amongst other roles.
                          'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                Am I correct in saying that "sea area 4" means a wave height of at least 4 metres 10% of the year?

                                That would equate to at least sea state 5 (4 metres). The OPVs needed unrestricted ops to Sea State 5 (reduced performance at SS6 and survive SS9).
                                Did some research.The Bureau Veritas rules for ships less than 500Gross Tonnage classify areas of of operation as,Area 1 for enclosed waters, sea height less than 0.5 meters. Area 2 Sea height less than 2.5meters. Area 3 sea height less than 4 meters. Area 4 unrestricted sea height. The 5509 is classified by BV for Area 4. I wonder are there any in service.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X