Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • ancientmariner
    replied
    USUAL Comments

    Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    Thanks to both Medsailor and ancientmariner for the perspective.

    I take from all of the above that the functional replacements for Orla and Ciara are likely already in the fleet and any additional Marine EOD capacity we are likely to require is deployable in a modular form.

    I look forward to be able to post thanks and likes in the customary manner once beyond recruit probation.

    Captain Renault: We are very honored tonight, Rick. Major Strasser is one of the reasons the Third Reich enjoys the reputation it has today.
    Major Strasser: You repeat Third Reich as though you expected there to be others!
    Captain Renault: Well, personally, Major, I will take what comes.
    Everybody's comments are of value. Deciding the future of the Irish Navy requires taking in to account the ever increasing threats from non state belligerents , the need to protect home waters, and to contribute ships to sanctioned overseas missions. We are an island on the lee shores of the Atlantic ocean where weather influences are a major factor in the design, endurance, habitability, survivability, and work output of our vessels. If we were, say Denmark, our land locked home waters would be fine with 30kt 400 tonners armed with torpedoes, VLS, etc. However our sea states require much larger ship types but with a much enhanced armament suite to deal with today's in theatre weapons e.g. missiles, submarines, and fast jets. There is no sense in prolonging a short range surveillance navy. We must consider upgrading on the basis of a larger budget to include all Defence Force units.

    Leave a comment:


  • paul g
    replied
    Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    Couldn't agree with you more ancientmariner. Unfortunately history suggests that this is precisely what has not happened in the past. Matters have improved greatly regarding recent aquisitions, but we only have to go back a far as the Eithne to see how quickly substantial progress in this area can be reversed.

    I believe that if we had up to four P30s available for international engagement missions over the last 30 years, both the Naval Service's and the State's, domestic and international credibility would have been appreciably enhanced.

    The influences that retarded development of the Naval Service into a more comprehensive instrument of State policy originated beyond the shore of Haulbowline Island, and even beyond the DoD. The consequent marginal losses for the Naval Service, in terms of further development, and the State, in the diplomatic arena, are ultimately ungaugeable. Without getting Rumsfeldian about it, they may be indefinable, but they unargueably exist.

    I contend that a well informed public appreciation of the tasks, challenges, and opportunities facing the Defence Forces and the State can only be to the benefit of the Defence Forces, The State, and ultimately The Citizenry. The political and economic space that allows the Naval Service to make it's own decisions competently has to be, well, fought for. Otherwise the whole process, once it leaves the bounds of the NS itself, gets reduced to a chicken and egg argumentum ad absurdum and the absolute bare minimum option is all that will ever happen. We wouldn't even have Eithne.

    IMO is, after all, a discussion board. A particularly sane and well informed one, within it's own field, and you don't have to google far to see exactly what I mean by that. Quite simply it's the best resource available to help citizens understand the implications of policy that has been set at a political and administrative level, and whether appropriate resources have been made available to implement those policies effectively.

    Sure, I do harbour a fantastical private agenda regarding the NS, and fear some may condemn me for it. But here goes... It involves time-travel, coercion of the economic and political history of the State, and ultimately the efficient acquisition of four P30 class HPVs for the Naval Service during the 1980s. It's exactly as simple, and as complicated, as that.

    As a poor alternative, I would like to be able to make a well informed argument in favour of the most appropriate capital expenditure programme for the Navy to allow it to fulfill existing and future taskings including UN, EU, and PFP missions, while concurrently offering the maximum practicable support to the Army and Air Corps in their fulfillment of similar, or perhaps even the same, missions.

    With the potential for the acquisition of up to four modern larger vessels over the next decade, I would hate for this opportunity to be lost for another 35 years.
    THe four P-31 were proposed at a different time when in the late 1970's early 1980's there were plans to build up the Defence forces as it was believed that the state would have to partake in common European defence structures. The recession of the 1980's and Haughey's decision to put an emphasis on continuing neutrality put an end to that.

    The building of the single P31 instead of the the four planed is reflected in the fact that the DF only got a small portion of the 72 105mm field guns the army wanted at the time, the Scorpion was the limit of the proposed Armoured Regiment, and the Air corps had to wait decades for an alouette replacement.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    Thanks to both Medsailor and ancientmariner for the perspective.

    I take from all of the above that the functional replacements for Orla and Ciara are likely already in the fleet and any additional Marine EOD capacity we are likely to require is deployable in a modular form.

    I look forward to be able to post thanks and likes in the customary manner once beyond recruit probation.

    Captain Renault: We are very honored tonight, Rick. Major Strasser is one of the reasons the Third Reich enjoys the reputation it has today.
    Major Strasser: You repeat Third Reich as though you expected there to be others!
    Captain Renault: Well, personally, Major, I will take what comes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Medsailor
    replied
    I think the only way to reconcile the various views of what an eventual CPV should be capable of doing is to implement a solution similar to the STANFLEX system implemented by the Danish Navy, if not actually adopt STANFLEX itself.
    The baseline would have to be a vessel that has the various basic characteristics required to fulfill the range of missions required. And actually, you don't have to go all too far to find it with the P60 already being inherently suitable for a number of these. Auxiliary electric propulsion provides low noise characteristics for minehunting/route survey. The seakeeping and overall size provide a reasonable platform to be engaging in a wide variety of tasks, especially when you consider that the Flyvefisken-class patrol vessels, at 320 tonnes and 54 metres can already embark four modules. A quick look at the inventory of modules available (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex) already gives an excellent idea of what can potentially be done with a single platform type and, if the bean-counters are really keen on minimising costs, then the possibility of leasing or sharing modules with the Danish is an option. Even better would be to try and get a number of other EU member states on board and have the EDA oversee the purchase of a pool of modules.
    As ancientmariner pointed out, proposing solutions that only exist in glossy brochures produced for advertising purposes is a poor approach to designing capabilities. STANFLEX, on the other hand is, as far as I am aware, the only operationally-proven modular mission system for warships and its integration into a wide variety of designs, from 18-metre minehunting drones through patrol vessels and corvettes up to full-blown frigates, has been demonstrated with significant success.
    The only thing to keep in mind is that STANFLEX is a purely technical solution. Having multiple types of mission modules on he shelf is little use if the eventual end-users don't train regularly in the tactics and procedures required to make them effective. What it does do, however, is leave the door open to pursue expanded or modified capabilities as these become operationally necessary and/or politically acceptable. Using the P60 as the host platform has the added bonus of standardisation.
    This approach frees you from the requirement to rely on an alliance for niche capabilities, allows rapid ramping-up of capabilities in times of tension and avoids tying up large amounts of funds in capabilities that will rarely be used.
    Last edited by Medsailor; 8 April 2016, 20:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    Capital Budget: Let the Citizens Help, let the Navy Decide.

    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    ...complex ship requirements, again vis-a-vis CPV's and/or other vessels should be left to experienced sailors.
    Couldn't agree with you more ancientmariner. Unfortunately history suggests that this is precisely what has not happened in the past. Matters have improved greatly regarding recent aquisitions, but we only have to go back a far as the Eithne to see how quickly substantial progress in this area can be reversed.

    I believe that if we had up to four P30s available for international engagement missions over the last 30 years, both the Naval Service's and the State's, domestic and international credibility would have been appreciably enhanced.

    The influences that retarded development of the Naval Service into a more comprehensive instrument of State policy originated beyond the shore of Haulbowline Island, and even beyond the DoD. The consequent marginal losses for the Naval Service, in terms of further development, and the State, in the diplomatic arena, are ultimately ungaugeable. Without getting Rumsfeldian about it, they may be indefinable, but they unargueably exist.

    I contend that a well informed public appreciation of the tasks, challenges, and opportunities facing the Defence Forces and the State can only be to the benefit of the Defence Forces, The State, and ultimately The Citizenry. The political and economic space that allows the Naval Service to make it's own decisions competently has to be, well, fought for. Otherwise the whole process, once it leaves the bounds of the NS itself, gets reduced to a chicken and egg argumentum ad absurdum and the absolute bare minimum option is all that will ever happen. We wouldn't even have Eithne.

    IMO is, after all, a discussion board. A particularly sane and well informed one, within it's own field, and you don't have to google far to see exactly what I mean by that. Quite simply it's the best resource available to help citizens understand the implications of policy that has been set at a political and administrative level, and whether appropriate resources have been made available to implement those policies effectively.

    Sure, I do harbour a fantastical private agenda regarding the NS, and fear some may condemn me for it. But here goes... It involves time-travel, coercion of the economic and political history of the State, and ultimately the efficient acquisition of four P30 class HPVs for the Naval Service during the 1980s. It's exactly as simple, and as complicated, as that.

    As a poor alternative, I would like to be able to make a well informed argument in favour of the most appropriate capital expenditure programme for the Navy to allow it to fulfill existing and future taskings including UN, EU, and PFP missions, while concurrently offering the maximum practicable support to the Army and Air Corps in their fulfillment of similar, or perhaps even the same, missions.

    With the potential for the acquisition of up to four modern larger vessels over the next decade, I would hate for this opportunity to be lost for another 35 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Irish naval service useages < now and future

    Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    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.
    The Irish Navy would be remiss NOT to check out it's communicability and interoperability with Navies passing through it's waters . What happened is described as a PASSEX which will confirm, or otherwise, if you have the level of communications to work with other ships, say in maritime disasters and even in conflicts where speedy communications can confirm your status friend or foe or neutral .

    The resurrection of complex ship requirements, again vis-a-vis CPV's and/or other vessels should be left to experienced sailors. Brochure hunting in the ether leads to confusion and exposure of technical deserts in the maritime fields of the proposers. The role is to DEFEND, PROTECT, SUPPORT.Our duty as a Navy is to describe how to achieve that in the circumstances where we continue to be neutral. It means we must defend our selves in all defence realms AIR, SURFACE,and SUB-SURFACE. If we were part of an alliance , we could in that case be more selective, as to our possible roles. Remember in an alliance it is possible to have a single major role.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    Thanks very much for that Medsailor, I'll take a little time to try to digest that, even on a quick skim it all looks pretty gruesome.

    Do you think there are any useful observations to be drawn from P61's exercise with NATO MCG1 this week?

    Would the P60's dive support facilities, in particular, add any appreciable additional capability to the formation?

    Originally posted by Medsailor View Post
    Saw this one after my later post appeared, not sure why...
    Having been a lurker for some time, and having only started posting recently, all my posts are automatically held for review by the mods.
    I'm advised that, in time, posts will become immediately visible and I'll be able to post thanks and likes in the customary manner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Medsailor
    replied
    Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    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.

    [ATTACH]8208[/ATTACH]

    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?

    [ATTACH]8208[/ATTACH]
    Saw this one after my later post appeared, not sure why.

    Just the one answer, making a vessel capable of going into harms way in terms of mines is very, very, very (excuse the emphasis) expensive and complicated, even more so if it is a retrofit. All critical equipment (and that includes the crew, engines, diesels and even the canners/heads) needs to be shock-mounted to survive the accelerations involved, especially with influence mines (peaking at accelerations of over 8000m/s2 as per attached study). I have had the dubious honour of watching US DoD films of tests conducted post-war which included the use of corpses as crash-test dummies weren't around in those days. The slow motion pictures were horrific and mainly consisted of the bone structure exiting the soft tissue at a fair rate of knots. So, as robust and fine ships as the P50s and P60s are, you don't want to be going into mine country with them.
    So, either go whole hog and be prepared to spend at least 2-3 times what was spent on each P60 on each full-blown MCMV or stick to basic offboard systems and accept that the main role of the vessel is patrol.

    http://www.amw.gdynia.pl/library/Fil...Szturomski.pdf
    Last edited by Medsailor; 5 April 2016, 20:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Medsailor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    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/

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X