Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by Smithy View Post
    Maybe we should consider the "Thunder Child" fast interceptor, as reported on the Six One News by Paschal Sheehy on RTE yesterday. I quote it can carry "5,000 tons of diesel" and has a speed of "60 knots or more than 1,000 kilometers per hour". That is some boat!!
    I can see the Spanish customs taking a close interest in how Safehaven's venture fares out. Realistically it is only useful in dash though. Would make a nice boarding boat though....

    Last edited by na grohmiti; 4 January 2017, 18:43.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by ropebag View Post
    i fear that mine-hunting at 60kts is going to be either a spectacularly unproductive, or spectacularly, err... spectacular exercise.
    Well the Yanks are going to demonstrate it with 40 knot boats (if the LCS ever get a mine hunting package that works, or gets out of harbour without breaking down...)
    Or to put it another way, every ship can be a minehunter...once.

    Leave a comment:


  • ropebag
    replied
    i fear that mine-hunting at 60kts is going to be either a spectacularly unproductive, or spectacularly, err... spectacular exercise.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smithy
    replied
    Maybe we should consider the "Thunder Child" fast interceptor, as reported on the Six One News by Paschal Sheehy on RTE yesterday. I quote it can carry "5,000 tons of diesel" and has a speed of "60 knots or more than 1,000 kilometers per hour". That is some boat!!

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Naval Guns

    Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
    Would you believe that there were some in NHQ who wanted the latest batch of OPVs armed with the same weapons as the P20s were? That is what we are up against.
    For the reasons you give, there was a school of thought that considered the L70 Bofors 40mm a safer (less maintainance intensive) option.
    I suppose I wouldn't believe it. However the Bofors in all it's marks has at this stage been immortalised and in global military/naval use since the late 1930's. What makes a gun useful is it's range and the types of ordnance it delivers on target. To be capable a Bofors L 70 outfit would be most effective in a Dardo configuration ( Twin barrelled ) using programmable 3P ammunition, especially against missiles, in other words would be proximity and time gated fused to deal with targets in flight. It would really be CIWS to a range of 4000 metres, requiring a longer punch somewhere alse on board to provide antiship and shore strike. Additionally to stitch everything together we need good target acquistion and tracking. The original Bofors as used by us was just like throwing stones, some were better at it than others but uncontrolled and iffy in surface mode.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Would you believe that there were some in NHQ who wanted the latest batch of OPVs armed with the same weapons as the P20s were? That is what we are up against.
    For the reasons you give, there was a school of thought that considered the L70 Bofors 40mm a safer (less maintainance intensive) option.

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Naval service ships

    Originally posted by danno View Post
    To some extent the P20 was a step into the unknown, defects became apparent, remedies were administered and she "rolled on" for her intended service life.
    History of our Service. Many things happen perchance with " any bread being better than no loaf ". We need from now, to only continue as planned by Naval Officers with advisory inputs from users at every level. Equipments must be selected to produce a required Naval capability not just because it is cheap but because it makes the ship more potent in it's role. I watched a CPV shoot the other day and thought how brave, considering that a burst of 20 rounds can cause a 76mm gun mount (Compact ) to self destruct. Our next weapons should meet the standards the Italians and others have set for themselves, in faster loading mechanisms , smart ammunition, target engagement accuracy, and missile destruction. We need urgently to move beyond pre-1980 technology and move to here!!.

    Leave a comment:


  • ropebag
    replied
    It would be a straight from Airbus job - the Australian MRTT A330 has a boom, we'd just get AirTanker to buy off the shelf.

    I think the attractiveness of conversion has long since worn off, not least because the cost of the conversion and the regulatory framework surrounding it would cost more than just buying new ones.

    The AH-64D-E changeover is illustrative - its cheaper and quicker to buy new rather than **** about changing airframes, engines and systems...

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    Probably makes sense to give Voyager the additional capacity to have a boom if that is the way the RAF want to go? Are Marshalls in Cambridge still in the conversion business?

    Leave a comment:


  • ropebag
    replied
    Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
    ...so Poseidon will require major modification before it can enter service.
    just to clarify - the RAF will never again retro-fit a AAR capability to an aircraft. P-8 will not get P/D even if Boeing agreed to it - which they wouldn't. if an AAR capability for the P-8 is to come about, it will come from from RAF tankers fiitted with booms.

    boom tanking for the RAF makes sense now in a way it never did before - all our big strategic aircraft take boom fuel, and in the kind of quantities that even if they were P/D equipped, just wouldn't be feasible.

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    Maritime Patrol Aircraft are legitimaly part of that need and with nine Poesidon P8 MPA s on order and thir limited range this needs to be adress as the RN is extremely limited in ASW assets. Getting stretched to thin all round which given T45 predominantly AD role the next frigate class needs to specialise in ASW to at least balance any carrier battle group.

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    The P8 can't be refuelled by Voyager either
    Poesidon is the P8 MPA...!

    Leave a comment:


  • ropebag
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Well, a refit (no doubt expensive) with a boom system like the Australian's would solve that issue for the Voyager's, though why the RAF didn't go for that in the first place is beyond me (guessing costs)
    not quite - when the contract with AT was being written up, aircraft requiring boom tanking were a small part of the RAF's fleet - the original four leased C-17's - everything else was a P/D receiver: C-130, Nimrod, E-3D and all the fighters.

    now, and in circumstances that are entirely unforseable from when that contract was written up, boom tanking is a big part of the fleet - C-17, RIVET JOINT, P-8, whatever replaces Sentinel..

    a boom tanking capability is firmly on the 'need' list at the highest level of the MOD - indeed the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond, looked at binning the AT contract and aquiring boom tanking when he was at MOD in the last parliament. it is a known need, and its probable that in order to solve it we'll just amend the AT contract to provide boom tankers as well, but we have lots of other needs as well, and sadly even we have to prioritise spending - and at the moment the RN is at the top of the list.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    The P8 can't be refuelled by Voyager either
    Well, a refit (no doubt expensive) with a boom system like the Australian's would solve that issue for the Voyager's, though why the RAF didn't go for that in the first place is beyond me (guessing costs)
    Last edited by Sparky42; 2 August 2016, 16:40.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    The P8 can't be refuelled by Voyager either

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X